Harmy

Maybe some flaw in the transferring process then? Because I will not believe for a second that the original color timing could have been this pink.

It's funny how he mentions Peter Jackson here: So when people like Peter Jackson (Fellowship), or in this case Mr. Scott, are given the chance to dial in the picture exactly how they’ve always wanted it (and didn’t have the tools to do previously), they usually take it.

FOTR was a DI and the color grading process was completely digital even on the theatrical release, so there's no excuse for changing the colors apart from "I've changed my mind and decided to make the film look like a steaming pile of..." I'm sorry - FOTR is my favorite LOTR film and it seriously pisses me off that there isn't any way to buy it looking good - the theatrical version on BD is a crappy old master with DNR added on top and the extended version is a beautiful new master but with totally fucked up colors. The ideal release would be if they went back to the original DI and simply encoded that to fit on a BD with no other changes and did both versions through seamless branching.

Isn't that clip under the article form Revisited?

EDIT: Tobar beat me to it :-)

I'm afraid that as it became so easy to do these little tweaks (anyone with a home computer and pretty cheap software can do stuff like this in a few minutes) and therefore cheap, we're unfortunately going to see more and more of them in various movies.

Plus the word was never uttered in the movie itself.

Interesting, but the print shows clear signs of fading to pink.

I agree with what Puggo said and IMO if the SE was identical to Revisited and the original was still suppressed, we would have just as much to complain about as we do now.

Yeah, I can't use torrents :-(

Yeah, like I said, the 3D version is inherently altered by the conversion, and that is fine, since it is also inherently an alternate version. But the 2D version should just have benefited from the new scan and cleanup they did as the first step for the 3D version and not get changed beyond that. What is rutracker? Is it a torrent site?

You_Too said:

skyjedi2005 said:

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

And that comes from the man who did this, just two years later: http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=935850

Omg, that's terrible! I was gonna buy the Titanic BD but now I'm thinking I'll stick with the HDTV rip that uses the DVD master - I just wish there was a higher bitrate version of it - 14GB is not very good for a 3hrs20mins long feature at 1080p. Also, did you notice that the teal shift seems to be more pronounced in the 2D version? I would be fine with them making all these changes (except for the color) to the 3D version, because that is already altered by just being 3D but they should have left the 2D version well alone. I'm seriously a little pissed off right now :-/

I'm 1988 too :-) I grew up with a copy of a copy of an early 90s VHS of SW (the very one that was the source of this clip actually).

I haven't seen the SE in the theaters either and I do regret that as well, because even altered, it would have been great to have seen the OT in a theater. Plus for me, it would have been the only opportunity for a long time to come to have seen it in widescreen and in English.

Yeah, the Skynet version is the one I have and it sucks balls.

djchaseb said:

Another version of Terminator 2 on Blu Ray? This will be the 3rd US release right?

Yes, and it's sorely needed - so far the best HD version of Terminator 2 is HDDVD - the first BD version is the same master as the HD DVD but suffers from some sort of artifacts that the HDDVD doesn't and the 2nd BD release (the one I was unfortunate enough to buy as it is the only one that came out in my country) has really horrible DVNR. And I mean like old school DVNR, motion smearing and everything - I downloaded a 12GB HDDVD rip of the movie and it beats the hell out of the BD I own :-/

It's been discussed before and I think we found that there wasn't anything useable for some reason (don't remember why, maybe the shots were incomplete or something).

See, I'm 24, which is just about older by enough to have been exposed to the original version first and that seems to have made quite a difference to my perception of things.

valinkrai said:

I don't understand how I would in anyway be unqualified just because I don't care about ILM history when watching Star Wars for fun...

...so I'm just using the crawl. The rest is completely non Star Wars, since save for the use of go-motion, I didn't really think they did anything worth talking about...

See, you've basically answered this question for yourself - it's not about your preferred version, it's the lack of knowledge about the VFX in the original breakthrough version - the crawl is probably the least impressive VFX achievement there is in SW, since that kind of thing was being done since like the 1920s and the technology used to do it was pretty much the same. The real breakthrough achievement in VFX technology was the use of motion control cameras with detailed models and improving the blue screen optical compositing and all that on a very tight schedule, under a very low budget and on an unprecedented number of shots, most of which are either completely replaced by CGI in the SE versions or at least digitally tweaked in some way. And go-motion wasn't used in the original Star Wars film at all btw.

But it seems like your presentation wasn't really about the history of ILM, as much as history of CGI, because the thing is that while ILM definitely is connected with the rise of CGI, it also has a long rich history of optical visual effects before that - and those are not just some obscure beginnings either - those are solid 15 years of amazing work.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not taking a shot at you or anything, I'm really just expressing my sadness over the fact that Lucas' attempt at erasing history seems to be working. May I ask how old you are?

Where did you guys get the idea I was ever gonna do anything else? But you do realize that it will be clear from the extras, right?

@chyron: Well, it was in reaction to this and some previous color-related post by someone else. And I just really don't want to tweak the colors any more, that's it really. And the question was out of serious interest, because I checked it and it looks miles better on the AVCHD.

I'm sorry, if it felt like I was telling you off.

And the extras are coming along quite nicely - I've got the video side of the extras pretty much ready, now I'm taking care of the audio.

@CatBus: Thanks, dude :-)

I quite agree (and have said so many times) that the SE's existence wouldn't be a problem at all if the original was available in comparable quality. I do enjoy alternate cuts of other films and it's a matter of personal taste. That is not the point though, the point is that the SE is irrelevant (and highly deceptive to the uniformed viewer) when talking about the history of ILM. Sure, they would have wanted to use digital compositing instead of optical or even CGI if it was available at the time but the point is it wasn't and they achieved something wonderful with what was available. It's like it's quite possible that Picasso would have loved to use Photoshop for some of his paintings if it was available back then, but if you take a picture from Picasso and recreate it in Photoshop, it's not going to be the same picture and it can hardly be used to demonstrate Picasso's brush techniques.

AntcuFaalb said:

When did Harmy yell at you? Which post #?

I'd quite like to know this as well. I'm trying to be nice most of the time. Sometimes I just type an answer quickly and it might come of as snarly or something but it's usually not meant that way.

valinkrai said:

Hey, I'm normally not one to be interested in the original cuts of Star Wars, being perfectly okay with the Blu-rays myself (Minus that awful new Krayyt call), but your despecialized opening crawl will be nice for my speech on the history of ILM. Just wanted to say thanks for giving me the chance to use a historical version of the opening crawl in HD.

You're welcome :-) Though I must say I don't understand how someone who's interested in the history of ILM can be happy with the BD version of Star Wars, which replaces like 90% of ILMs historically first ever work (academy award winning work, I might add) with CGI, which now has practically no historical value whatsoever.

Great :-)

It is an anagram of the word shit.

TV's Frink said:

Sorry for the derail, Harmy.

If it's gonna get the annoying troll banned, derail away, please!

I was gonna retort further but it's probably better to let the troll starve.

TV's Frink said:

Please make it stop. :-/

^This!!!