WORLD INVASION: BATTLE LOS ANGELES (released 2011/directed by Jonathan Liebesman)
Teaser Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kavT6W84q5E NOW GONE! Will look for replacement soon.
International Teaser Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT_YL1085cY
ray_afraid said:
Tobar said:
I like what we've seen of Needa's new shuttle for Revisited.
Are there any stills of that? I don't think I've seen anything.
ray_afraid, I'm guessing you never saw number 61 listed in my signature 'roundup'. If not, click on the link sometime for a few other things you may have missed.
*slightly off-topic, people*- but in case you miss it, check out the bottom-half of my post here concerning something that could give 'EMPIRE:Revisited' a whole new slant eventually. I want one NOW! :) - http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/AVATAR-and-3d-in-general/post/454732/#TopicPost454732 http://originaltrilogy.com/forum
Okay, here's a couple of thoughts I wanted to post here, while I've got a little time...
A few days ago, I picked up the 3-disc standard dvd release of the AVATAR 'Extended Collector's Edition' which was finally released last week, and watched it over the weekend. (I even managed to pick it up for far less than the bare-bones, 'Theatrical'-only version...so I'm glad I held off for this. Bargain.)
Anyway, this was the first time I'd re-watched it again, since seeing the original 'Theatrical' version twice on the big-screen in 3D at the end of last year.
So I duly put on the even-longer 'Extended Collector's Edition' cut to see how things now looked in 2D...
Firstly, as someone who was very keen to see the originally-omitted 'Future Earth' scenes incorporated into the start of the movie, I'm delighted with how this new opening looks now. It's just a short sequence overall, and although we only get a very small glimpse of the crowded, grimy world that Jake's character lives in...it's more than enough to give a really interesting contrast to the wonders of Pandora that come afterwards. I reckon it fleshes out our initial introduction to Jake much, much better now, and these new scenes make for a far stronger beginning. Considering there was talk of this sequence just ending up in the dvd's 'deleted scenes' at one point, I'm relieved that it finally got integrated into this cut. I just wish it had been there to begin with, when AVATAR was first released.
On top of that, there's a handful of other small but very worthy additional scenes along the way now too, which definately makes this even-longer cut the definitive version for me from now on, without a doubt. No matter what's in amongst the 'unfinished' deleted scenes, I'm very satisfied with the movie as it stands now.
Apart from the new visuals on offer, watching AVATAR in 2D this time around seemed a very different experience compared to when I'd originally seen it. Things still looked great overall, but the lack of 'dimensionalization' was pretty jarring at times, especially in certain moments where I remembered being especially 'wowed' by the 3D 'immersion' at the time. I really wish I'd gone to see it in it's 'Theatrical' 2D showing too, at one point...as my 'memory' of how the movie *should* look is now firmly fixed as being 3D in my mind, if you see what I mean. Even if I was to re-watch it in 2D a couple of times over the next few months, I reckon it won't ever seem *correct* to me, except in it's 3D Blu-ray incarnation eventually, lol. (just an aside, but the standard dvd's 'Theatrical'/'Special Edition'/'Extended Collected Edition' cuts are split mid-way across disc 1 and disc 2, effectively turning it into a 'flipper' disc like the 'Lord of the Rings:Extended Edition's dvds were... However, the cuts are thankfully all on disc 1 only, on the Blu-ray release)
Another reason why I wish I'd gone to see it's 2D cinema showing now, is because I'd have liked to have seen how it came across in a 'cinemascope' aspect ratio, compared to the 16:9 ratio that the 3D version was presented. Thing is, Cameron has previously stated that while he prefers a 16:9 ratio for 3D presentations, he still thinks that the wider 'cinemascope' ratio suits 2D movies better...except the 2D dvd releases have not been formatted in 'cinemascope' after all, it turns out, which contradicts what he'd previously said in the past on that point. Personally, I think I'd have preferred the 2D releases to have been in 'cinemascope', and now regret not going to check out how it looked in that 'Theatrical' format. Just out of curiosity, did anyone here happen to see both 2D and 3D versions of AVATAR on the big screen?
Onto the little matter of something else now...
I had an interesting experience yesterday, because I got my first ever look at some genuine 'psuedo'-3D 'converted' footage of STAR WARS...
No, not the upcoming 3D 'conversion' of GL's 'Special Editions' that may be years away from release yet, after his Prequels...but something else...
You see, I'd recently been reading about how some of the latest 3D-enabled tvs are supposedly capable of 'converting' a 2D source into a 3D picture of sorts, without the need for 3D Blu-rays or 3D programming...but because proper info. seemed a little vague to come by, I decided to investigate a little. So I popped into my local 'Panasonic' dealership to see what I could find out. Well, it seems that some manufacturers have indeed managed to incorporate this particular feature into some of their latest models, including 'Panasonic' now...even though they had originally opted out of including this feature, as they didn't think it was viable technology at the time, and would distract from the forthcoming actual 3D content... However, they had ended up changing their minds, probably because they didn't want others stealing a march on them in this area.
Anyway, the manager was a friendly guy who had just happened to have set-up a particular 42" demonstration model earlier, that incorporated this feature...but although he knew it worked with the standard, non-3D Blu-rays he had in-store, he didn't know if it worked with standard dvds or not, but was interested to try it. So just as well I'd happened to take one along with me to find out... I put it in the Blu-ray player as he turned the surround-sound up a tad, and dimmed the nearby lights, as we both put our demo glasses on...and lo and behold...there was adywan's 'STAR WARS:Revisited' looking as I'd never seen it before! :)
The in-built '2D to 3D' mode had given the movie a kind of 'seeing into a window' look which gave things a 'layered'-3D look to everything, and managed a subtle, 'immersive' depth that I liked.
Now, I only had time to flick through a couple of quick sample scenes - the scroll and opening sequence up to when Vader appears/the Death Star escape TIE Battle/and a good part of the End Battle...but it certainly had a decent amount of 'dimensionalized' impact to it that I wasn't expecting, and I was quite gutted that I couldn't stand and watch the whole movie that way, there and then, lol!
The manager (Mike, a guy in his 30's) thought adywan's edit looked amazing of course, and was as engrossed as I was with the effect of it in the 'conversion' mode, so I said I'd organise a spare copy for him.
Considering I wasn't sure this 'psuedo'-3D effect would even work with the dvd in the first place, it was a blast. As a 'stop-gap' to fill the lack of 3D material at the moment, this is feature that plenty of people will be keen to play about with in the meantime, till more 3D programming appears. I guess it comes down to how much you personally like the novelty value of this 3D-'style' effect when you see it, as it won't be for everyone. But I found it fascinating, and I'd certainly re-watch most of my dvds using this setting, to get a whole new fresh perspective out of them...albeit one that I wouldn't expect to match the quality of an actual 3D Blu-ray.
But there's more to consider if any of you are wanting to, and in the position to get one of these currently expensive sets sometime - after my good experience with the 'Panasonic' set, I decided to quickly pop into my local 'Sony' dealership to compare one of their's too... Well, it turned out that the one I was shown gave a far less impressive 'depth' effect than the 'Panasonic' model. But of course, it could just have been that the dealership's settings weren't tweaked effectively when I tried it. Or it might mean that some manufacturer's really do have much less effective '2D to 3D' trickery built-into their products than others...
Bottom line, is that it's possible to watch 'a kind of' 3D STAR WARS (or anything else) right now...and I would love to get my hands on the 42" 'Panasonic' I demo'd, just for this feature alone...even though it's smaller than my current 50" screen. But judging by this small sampling alone, I'll certainly be taking my time to rigorously compare the quality of this feature between various manufacturer's sets, whenever I'm in the position to upgrade again in the future.
And lastly...'Mike the manager' had a copy of 'Panasonic's exclusive 3D Blu-ray of AVATAR playing on another demonstration model yesterday, but I didn't have enough time to check it out. I take it that it's only the 'Theatrical' cut, but I'm intending to go back and see how good the effect is, as it will be the first actual 3D Blu-ray that I will have watched properly. And I'm going to pop my standard dvd of AVATAR into the tv set I tested yesterday, so that I can get a rough idea of just how different the quality is between the 'proper'-3D effect, and the 'psuedo'-3D effect, between the two.
I'll mention my thoughts about that, at some point in the future.
AuggieBenDoggie said:
@ImperialFighter
To be honest, the continuity errors during that whole end sequence have never bothered me. They are not at the point where they stand out like the Walkers in the hoth battle do ( all over the place ).
I think the movie still works fine with or without them....the continuity errors during that end sequence I mean.
Sure, the overall movie has always been awesome, and will always work fine, no matter how many little continuity errors there are that may niggle me or anyone else. But since there's the opportunity to bring every single one of them up to someone who is capable of improving many of them, no matter how big or small, then I'm pleased when any are highlighted. There's certainly been a heap of things mentioned here by various people that I'd never noticed before, and that have never bothered me before...but it's sure nice to know that adywan has managed to fix so many of them so far.
Not everything that's brought up can be sorted, and there's some compromises that have to be allowed for along the way with certain other things, but I can certainly confirm that I'm extremely impressed and delighted with how everything about the section of the 'end sequence' that I brought up has been enhanced now, and I'm sure you will be too.
adywan said:
The continuity errors have been fixed, including the transparency issues with the falcon, the strange flight path and other things
They certainly have been! :)
Monroville said:
adywan said:
Monroville said:
Even so, it would make more sense (to me) to show the Falcon moving away from us, since that is what it was doing in the previous shot as it was leaving the underbelly of the frigate, as opposed to just veering off to the left. That's all I'm sayin'.I tried it with the falcon just flying straight towards it, but in the final shot there was nothing to see. The falcon works best if it veers off to the left and in the final shot we can see it in the distance flying off screen
Understandable; I never thought that the Falcon would already be pretty small in the picture and having it fly directly away from us could get it lost in the galaxy image.
I guess maybe actually show the Falcon heading directly away and veer to the left/lower left (or even more to the center left of the screen)? That way you still have a good profile of the Falcon, and altering the left turn towards the lower end of the screen as opposed to the higher end would keep it in the same general plane of space it was when it left from underneath the frigate.
Overall, I'm just a composition guy. It's not a big deal, but the Falcon always looked weird just flying off to the upper left corner the way it does.
Okay adywan, I've been meaning to bring up a few things to do with the whole 'galaxy' sequence ever since Monroville first brought it up on page 146 in 2008. (but I knew it would need a long post to describe properly, so kept putting it off, lol) Better late than never, I guess! :)
Since then, you've confirmed that you think of the 'celestial object' as being a distant 'star' that's forming, as opposed to being the distant 'galaxy' where Han is being kept prisoner. And your interpretation certainly works for me, as it makes sense of Lando's eventual 'wayward' flightpath upwards to the left, and away from the 'celestial object', if this is the case...
(Alternatively, for anyone that still wants to look on the original effect as a 'galaxy' as described in the screenplay...well, it's not necessarily the one where Tatooine and Han are located...and could just be a *random* 'Star Wars galaxy' seen in the far distance...which would equally account for why the Falcon currently flies away in a different direction from it, instead of heading towards it)
Either way, I see you've also now confirmed that you're planning on keeping a similar Falcon flightpath in the overall sequence, as seen originally. However, there are a couple of things I'd like to bring up about the Falcon's current trajectory between the various shots, so I've organised these screenshots of the sequence to help me explain my thoughts better to everyone, as I go along (but you really need to study the actual footage to see the proper movements, of course) -
Shot 1. At the start of this shot below, the Falcon is 'hovering' and turning around a little, just slightly below and along from the position where the window with Luke, Leia, R2 and C3PO is situated 'offscreen' on the left of the frame. As it does this, the 'Medical Frigate' continues to move along to the left...so that by the time the Falcon finally blasts away near the end of the shot, the 'offscreen' window is a good bit away to the left of it at this point...
Shot 2. ...we then cut to this next shot below (I didn't have time to grab the exact start and finish of this, so you'd need to study the footage) which shows the Falcon now appearing from a point underneath the middle of the window, as it heads towards the right-hand side of the 'celestial body' in the distance, and ends up roughly in line with, and just slightly to the right of the 'small white dot', before the shot ends...
...but the Falcon's appearance from underneath the middle of the 'Medical Frigate's window here has always seemed wrong to me, due to the fact that the window had moved quite a bit away from the position from where the 'hovering' Falcon blasted away in Shot 1 just beforehand.
However, judging by the angle of the Falcon in adywan's recent new screenshot below, it looks like this problem is 'fixed' now, and will tie-in far better with the previous shot...
So far so good, and this new shot looks great.
Shot 3. ...but we then cut to this next shot of Leia and Luke looking out at the Falcon...
...and this is where my own particular problems with the sequence start...because as the shot progresses (and again, I didn't have time to grab a shot from the very end of this, so you'd need to study the footage), not only do their eyes 'follow' the flight of the Falcon upwards, but they also slowly look over to (their) right...especially Leia, who is looking quite a bit over to her right by the very end of the shot. And bear in mind that the 'Medical Frigate' is still continuing to travel to Leia's right during this shot too...so this makes the Falcon's existing position that we previously saw at the very end of Shot 2 seem as if it didn't go far enough over to the right of that shot, before it eventually starts to 'veer around' offscreen during this one...
So I reckon that Leia's 'eye-line' here indicates that the Falcon should have been seen to pass 'across' her viewpoint a bit more to the right in Shot 2, compared to what it currently shows...and I'm hoping that adywan's new Falcon trajectory in Shot 2 is going to show that.
Shot 4. ...we then cut to this 'closer' shot of the Falcon, which happens to be my own biggest bugbear with the overall sequence...because although it certainly follows the look of the original 'storyboard' closely, I've always disliked this particular effects shot...mainly because it always looks to me as if the Falcon is just flying closely over the top of a very tiny 'celestial body' here!...
...and there's something else that I find jarring about this shot too, although it's a bit tricky to get across - as I say, I don't think the Falcon ended up far enough over to the right by the end of Shot 2, judging by how far over to the right that Leia is looking by the end of Shot 3...but I also don't think the starting position of the Falcon in this 'closer' shot of the 'celestial body' ties-in very well with where the Falcon ended up at the very end of Shot 2 either (and once again you need to watch the footage as I didn't have time to grab the very beginning of this shot)...because previously in Shot 2, the 'celestial body' was centrally located in the shot compared to where Luke and Leia were looking out, and it was moving slowly to their left in the shot due to the travel of the 'Medical Frigate' they were aboard...and that was before Leia then carried on looking to her right to watch the Falcon's (offscreen) trajectory.
My point is this - to make sense of the Falcon's direction at the start of this 'closer' shot of the 'celestial body' compared to where we last saw it at the end of Shot 2, I ideally imagine the Falcon has just ended 'veering around' (offscreen) at the moment that Leia is most looking up to her right at the very end of Shot 3...but it always seems that the Falcon should be further to the right of the frame here at the very start of this shot, than it currently is...or should even be actually entering the far right of the frame, to better match where Leia's 'eye-line' had been looking previously...
However, at the moment I don't know where adywan's new trajectory in Shot 2 is going to end up in the frame when the shot finishes...so I'm interested to see if it ends up further over to the right of the shot than in the existing version, so that it takes Leia's continued 'look to her right' in Shot 3 into consideration.
But whether the Falcon finishes up in roughly the same position by the end of Shot 2 as is currently shown, or not...there's still a couple of possible variations that I reckon might be worth considering for this later, 'closer' shot of the 'celestial body'. I think it's because the Falcon element in Shot 4 doesn't seem to 'recede into the distance' very much, that always makes me think the 'celestial body' looks tiny as the Falcon heads towards it/passes closely over it...so I'd personally prefer to see the existing Falcon removed and replaced with a more obviously 'receding' Falcon element from another shot instead (if that's possible)...which would perhaps give a 'bigger scale' to the 'celestial object' in relation to it...
Here's a few screenshots/descriptions that will hopefully give an indication of the kind of thing I mean, since I've not got mock-ups organised. Okay, this first Falcon replacement example is from 'A New Hope', and shows a more obviously 'receding' Falcon than the current one seen in Shot 4. I reckon that if this element could be added to start further to the right of Shot 4 than the current Falcon does, close to the edge of the frame...that this would tie-in better with where Leia was previously looking, and improve the 'scale' of the 'celestial object' -
...alternatively...since it's a 'seperate camera-angle' shot that's sandwiched between the reaction shots of Leia/Luke and R2/C3PO either side of it, I also reckon that a totally different-looking Falcon approach towards the general direction of the 'celestial object' could be used for Shot 4 altogether, that would give a more dramatic and 'close-up' visual of Lando and Chewie leaving to look for Han at the end of the movie... You'd need to watch the footage to see the full effect, but this particular 'receding' Falcon example below is from 'A New Hope' (soon after the end of the Death Star escape/TIE dogfight), and starts it's trajectory by 'entering' the bottom of the frame, close to our viewpoint -
...and here's another possible version. Again, you'd need to watch the footage to see the full effect, but this particular 'receding' Falcon example below is from 'Return of the Jedi' (where the Falcon veers underneath the 'Medical Frigate' during the space battle), and starts it's trajectory by 'entering' the right of the frame, close to our viewpoint. This particular element veers to the left a little then moves upwards towards the end of the shot -
If either of these bottom 2 examples were to be used, then the prominent 'small white dot' seen near the top of the 'celestial body' could be moved nearer towards the central 'orb' in Shot 4 to help give the impression that we are seeing the Falcon approach the 'celestial body' from an angle more to the right of it...that ties-in somewhat with the position that Leia was last looking towards at the end of Shot 3. (Unlike the example at the top though, I guess the 'engine roar' would need to be boosted up a little for either of these 2 examples, since they start off 'closer' to our viewpoint)
Shot 5. ...we then cut to this next shot below of R2 and C3PO looking out...
Shot 6. ...we then cut to this next shot below (which shows the very start of it), which shows the Falcon's existing final flightpath as it moves upwards to the left of the frame and away from the 'celestial' body...then disappears from our view altogether, before the shot ends a couple of seconds later...
Final thought - adywan, I know you're also planning to keep the tiny Falcon's current trajectory going upwards to the left in this final shot, but perhaps you'd consider making it eventually 'recede' into 'nothingness' as it travels away from the 'celestial body'? Thing is, the existing tiny Falcon element stays at roughly the same size during this shot, which kind of makes the 'celestial body' seen here seem very small in comparison too...so making it more obviously 'recede' into the distance here would help to give the 'celestial body' a bigger 'scale' in this shot...and would also help to tie-in with the Falcon's previous 'momentum' if you do decide to replace the existing Falcon element in Shot 4 with a more 'receding' one...
At the end of the day, I'm looking forward to whatever you end up doing in this sequence, as I know your blue engine glows are gonna look great throughout. :)
Very pleased to hear the good news about the car.
And nice poster amendment! :)
DarkGryphon2048, you should pray that you are never in DAYV's present situation, rather than being a total arse about something as trivial as his trademark caps. Unbelievable, and I'd certainly give you the ban-hammer for that if it was up to me.
DAYV, as others have said, I reckon the majority of us here are kinda stunned about your situation. But please know that we're all rooting for you, and I hope you can pick yourself up for the sake of your nearest and dearest. Just know that there's lots of people here who actually DO give a shit about situations like this. Take care in the meantime.
COWBOYS & ALIENS (released 2011/directed by Jon Favreau)
Teaser Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd2eyd9HkeQ NOW GONE! Will look for replacement soon.
corellian77 said:
ImpFighter, you do know that you can hit the "Play" button on your remote to watch a movie as opposed to repeatedly pressing the "Pause" button, right? ;)
I guess my big screen made them more noticeable, but they got annoying on the umpteenth watch, lol.
Okay, this is a little thing I mentioned in the passing many moons ago adywan, but which probably got lost amidst everything else. Anyway, I didn't show screenshots at the time, which would have pinpointed things better, as they are not too obvious at first.
It concerns a little print damage to the SE in a couple of places. If nothing else, the print itself is pretty 'artifact'-free, and these 2 small instances are the only ones that have ever caught my eye. Maybe you can study these 2 shots and patch them a little, though? -
Although the slow-motion shots of the Dagobah 'cave' duel are pretty well cleaned-up in the SE print, there's still a couple of annoying, momentary white 'flecks'/artifacts near Vader's neck area during the single 'front-on' close-up of him swinging his sabre. They are not part of his costume, nor 'light reflections' as he moves...
The second example is at the point where Luke has gone over to Leia near the end, just at the point before he looks at her and she looks back at him. There are some momentary slight white scratches and a 'fleck'/artifact to the left of Leia's head at this point...
And one of the things I've been intending to show since weeks, is my own tuppence worth concerning the ending's 'galaxy'/'star formation'/'Falcon's trajectory' thing. :) I'll organise the screenshots tomorrow sometime.
adywan said:
The first shot has the light partially submerged which is lighting up the muddy water creating the orange/brown glow. Then the ship moves and you can see that this wing raises up slightly and the light is no longer submerged, so we have the white light and is more illuminating. In fact the very first time we see the xwing set should have the orange glow added as the ship doesn't move before this.
Just to clarify my post from the previous page a little - although I reckon the X-wing stays in a generally static position in the swamp throughout this sequence, only being rocked side-to-side a little as R2 falls off, I shouldn't really have referred to the X-wing in the middle shot below as giving off an 'orange' glow. As you say, the X-wing is still giving off a 'white' glow here (just like it does throughout the sequence), but is merely highlighting the murky colour of the water in the set at this point.
What I was trying to get across, is that there's a jarring continuity difference due to the sudden lack of 'low-level mist' being highlighted in 'white' light in this particular 'wide' shot of the X-wing and Dagobah set, compared to the other 'wide' shots that we see before and after it.
Now I happen to really like the look of the middle 'wide' shot here, as it gives a real sense of the 'swampy' conditions, due to the look of the 'scummy' water movement in it. It's not really it's sudden difference in 'low-level mist' compared to the top 'wide' shot here that bothers me, because it's filmed from a different angle, which gives it a bit of leeway. But it's the sudden 're-appearance' of 'low-level mist' in the bottom 'wide' shot that comes a mere 10 seconds after the middle one, that makes the inconsistency stand out...because it happens to be filmed from a very similar angle to the middle shot beforehand.
So while I thought that by 'whitening' the murky light reflection on the water in the middle shot would make for a less obvious difference, I guess adding a little 'low-level mist' to that portion near the wing would allow for a 'white' glow even better -
Although it always distracts me, I guess it's no biggie, as Dagobah's 'mist' might just flow and ebb and flow again very quickly! ;)
Due to unforeseen reasons, I haven't been around this thread since well over 2 and a half months, and am still wading through the last 50 pages (!) since then, to catch up. However, I was very sorry to read about the developments with your dad adywan, and wish you both well.
I also see we've gained a few new faces along the way, so "Hi" to those...and seem to have "lost' some too, as I see Jay and Moth3r are rightly on the case, lol.
I'm hoping to comment on a couple of other recent things brought up soon, but here's a little detail for now. It's not a significant thing, but it's one of those little inconsistencies that catches my eye every time...
To put it in context, here's a sequence of shots that are seen in approx. 1 and a half mins. of each other in screentime -
To begin with, the X-wing's lights give off a 'white' glow to things...
...but when we then cut to the shot below, the 'X-wing's light now gives off a distractingly 'orange' glow, compared to the previous shots and the following shots that come after it... Now I realise that the 'orange' glow shot below actually shows the water more and has a lot less 'mist' than the next shot which comes just a few seconds after it, but I reckon things would tie-in a lot better if the 'orange' glow could at least be 'whitened'-up. See what you think...
TRON: LEGACY (released 2010/directed by Joseph Kosinski)
Theatrical Trailer 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4RiUy23e9s
(I'll add this final trailer to it's others on page 1, eventually)
As there’s too many <span style=“text-decoration: underline;”>wrongly</span>-titled trailers uploaded these days, I’ll have to work out if these are in the correct order when I have more time. (I’ll also add the trailers/posters for the previous HP movies here too, at a later date)
Note - this instalment is <span style=“text-decoration: underline;”>not</span> in 3D for it’s ‘Theatrical’ release anymore, as they couldn’t ‘convert’ it in time, and have held off. The 2nd half (and final instalment) <span style=“text-decoration: underline;”>is</span> going to be ‘converted’ for it’s ‘Theatrical’ release next year though…
HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: Part One (released 2010/directed by David Yates)
Trailer 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=195QFr3EXGI
Trailer 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4APiZSf75Hs
Trailer 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCUv5h4CncU NOW GONE! Will look for replacement soon.
Trailer 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Aso-uQxk0s NOW GONE! Will look for replacement soon.
**Coming Soon… ** David Yate’s HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: Part Two is due for release in 2011…
*** NOTE TO MYSELF - DOUBLE-CHECK THE LIKES OF MY VARIOUS ‘INDY 4’ EDIT IDEAS TO SEE THAT THE MUSIC/AUDIO ENDS OR FADES WELL ENOUGH IN EACH EXAMPLE TO WORK PROPERLY ***
POST SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THIS ON THE PREQUEL DISCUSSION THREAD SOMETIME -
Where do I start? - Speaking for myself, each of the Prequels have some dreadfully cringe-worthy moments throughout them, especially some of the dialogue. But as far as I’m concerned, the absolute worst thing for me is NOT the overly-goofy ‘Jar Jar’ character…but rather the far-too-young, ‘cute kid’ casting of ‘Anakin’ to kick off that particular trilogy of storylines. For me, placing the burden of such a long-anticipated new ‘Star Wars’ movie on such young shoulders was George’s BIGGEST blunder among many as far as ever re-watching these particular movies in their current form.
After enduring the ridiculous early lines involving the Neimodians and the Emperor at the start of ‘The Phantom Menace’, the casting of such a young boy gave the rest of the movie an overall ‘childish’ vibe instead of a ‘childlike’ one. Ideally, Watto’s ‘slave boy’ should have been played by an older young actor that was much nearer Natalie Portman’s character’s age, as her initial ‘You’re a funny little boy’ dialogue comes off a ridiculous considering we’re meant to buy into them eventually having an intimate relationship together. It wasn’t young Jake Lloyd’s fault that he came across as unconvincing and unsatisfying in the role for me, it was George’s poor judgement, and those around him who didn’t have the balls to point this out, pure and simple!
Also go on to say that even missing out ‘TPM’ and just starting the Prequels with ‘Attack Of The Clones’ is almost as bad due to George’s dreadful dialogue between ‘Anakin’ and ‘Padme’ throughout the build-up of their ‘romantic’ relationship. On top of that, ‘Anakin’ comes across as so whiny, it’s hard to care.
Also say that although various ‘re-editing’ ideas could improve things somewhat over the Prequels for me, the hurdle of the way ‘Anakin’ is portrayed over the initial 2 movies effectively rules them out for an enjoyable re-watch for me these days. even a ‘nostalgic’ one unfortunately.
Say more about how the first movie’s ‘childish’ set-up of ‘Anakin’, and whiny follow-up, then makes me couldn’t care less by the time the 3rd movie’s adult ‘Anakin’ burned alive in deadly seriousness! Talk about the uneven tone of the Sequels, this easily matches it, lol!
WOULD THIS WORK? - perhaps my solution for a possible ‘Prequel’ re-watch would involve some sort of initial ‘prologue’ of certain moments from ‘TPM’ (and ‘AOTC’ too??) which would NOT show any of the interaction of ‘Padme’ with ‘little Ani’ whatsoever, and just be some scenes that I like such as part of the ‘pod race’?? - something along the lines of the ‘prologue catch-up’ scenes at the start of the OBI WAN KENOBI tv show? - Then go DIRECTLY onto a heavily re-edited version of 'Revenge Of The Sith, as the only bit of backstory to the OT trilogy that I might be able to stomach?? - UPDATE - BECAUSE I ONLY REALLY NEED ROTS TO SHOW THAT LUKE AND LEIA WERE SEPERATED AS BABIES, AND MY CUT-DOWN ‘OBI-WAN KENOBI’ TV SHOW FOOTAGE IS A FOLLOW-UP SHOWING HOW HE LOOKED OVER LUKE ON TATTOOINE AFTERWARDS.
ALSO MIGHT SHOW SOME RE-EDITED ‘SCREENSHOT’ IDEAS IN A ‘HIDDEN’ PORTION SO THAT IT DOESN’T CLUTTER UP MY POST ON THIS?
Sorry to see Google Ads has finally infiltrated this beloved site...
Sure I understand, but it's a shame Jay's homepage redesign has been tainted now.
Thread is now about Google Ads on OT.com (but I'm keen on zombies too, although I've never dated one)
ChainsawAsh said:
ImperialFighter said:
So I take it you've compared both the pre-'Quadrilogy' DVD version and 'Quadrilogy' DVD version against your Blu-ray version on the same equipment/settings to make this judgement then?
If that's the only way to really tell, I just don't get why the slight difference in color timing is that huge of an issue.
To me, color timing only becomes an issue when it's at Blade Runner Final Cut or 2004 Star Wars levels of change. This set is nowhere near that.
Well that's the thing I guess. You personally reckon there's only a 'slight' difference, whereas I happen to think there's more than just a 'slight' difference between the pre-'Quadrilogy' ALIEN dvd colour and the 'Quadrilogy' ALIEN dvd colour to begin with...
Pre-'Quadrilogy' (PAL) dvd in top shots, with 'Quadrilogy' (PAL) dvd shots underneath -
I wish I could prefer the 'Quadrilogy' dvd's altered colouring, but I really don't...and that's why I was concerned that the blu-ray would be just as off-putting to me too.
But after Chewtobacca's comments about the blu-ray having a more of a 'mid-way' look compared to the previous contrasting dvd releases, I may be less disappointed once I get a chance to compare them all myself.
Chewtobacca said:
I have now seen the Blu-ray of Alien, and I agree that it looks somewhere between the two previous DVD transfers, which seems like a good place for it to be. ImperialFighter, I would recommend that you at least rent the Alien BD. You might be pleasantly surprised.
If that's right Chewtobacca, then I'm certainly pleased that the colouration of the Blu-ray isn't as much of a departure from the early DVD colour as the 'Quadrilogy' release colour was.
So I take it you've compared both the pre-'Quadrilogy' DVD version and 'Quadrilogy' DVD version against your Blu-ray version on the same equipment/settings to make this judgement then?
As I thought the 'Anthology' Blu-ray looked suspiciously very close to the 'Quadrilogy'-tampering due to the few screenshot comparisons I've seen...I guess I should now try to do the same actual comparison at some point (with a borrowed/rented 'Anthology' BD for now), as I'm certainly interested to see which version I then reckon it's closer to.
dark_jedi said:
But the key word in that line is "DVD", who friggin cares about DVD now when we have BLU!
High-definition be damned, if it doesn't look as 'aesthetically' pleasing overall compared to the DVD version.
But that's just an individual preference and matter of opinion at the end of the day, so you takes your choice. Damn you Ridley Scott! :)
ChainsawAsh said:
Thanks for the screencaps, DJ - looks like this is much more faithful to the theatrical version of Alien than the 2003 DVD!
I'm a little unsure what you meant here CA, so bear with me - do you mean you reckon dark_jedi's 'Anthology' Blu-ray shots look 'more faithful' to the 'Theatrical' version (early DVD 'Theatrical' release I take it, as opposed to 'Theatrical' cinema release) than the 2003 DVD release because of the colouration or the starfield thing?
I'm not using my own monitor at the moment, and the one I'm currently using may be set overly-dark, but do you mean it looks like there's no starfield added this time to the Blu-ray 'Theatrical' version? I agree that this seems to be the case, going by the current monitor I'm using.
However, if you mean the colouring, then I'd have to say that these particular Blu-ray screenshots just indicate the same very different bluish (teal?) hue that the previous 'Quadrilogy'/ 'Director's Cut' DVD showed, compared to the earlier DVD which showed a grey 'Nostromo'.
Although there'll be more of a stark contrast when the whole movie is compared on a tv, I've re-posted these screenshots at the same size for easier comparison (hopefully, I've described them correctly) -
msycamore's NTSC pre-'Quadrilogy' 'Theatrical' DVD (same as how my PAL version looks) screenshots are at the top of both examples, while dark_jedi's 'Anthology' 'Theatrical' Blu-ray screenshots are underneath -
and
TV's Frink said:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/aliens-teal-orange/
Thoughts?
Yup, that about sums up how I feel, and why I'll just have to stick to my earlier dvd versions for now.
msycamore said:
Here you go, from ALIEN 20th anniversary DVD NTSC.
Thanks for that mysycamore. Allowing for my comments about how screenshots can look depending on various pc monitior colour settings...your NTSC shots certainly seem to pretty much match the look of my PAL versions of those same examples. (And are equally nicer-looking than how the new colour-timing which came afterwards looks, in my opinion)
THE MONSTER SQUAD (released 1987/directed by Fred Dekker)
Theatrical Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyezSq-EA2Q
DVD Release Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIn4HQwsUfU
WRITE OUT ALL MY THOUGHTS ABOUT HOW REY’S ABILITY TO ‘FORCE-HEAL’ KYLO FROM DYING OF HIS LIGHTSABER STABBING COULD IMPLY THAT SHE IS ACTUALLY ‘THE CHOSEN ONE’ IN MY ‘MEGA-CUT’ OF ‘THE LAST JEDI’/‘RISE OF SKYWALKER’, DUE TO THIS ‘SUPER-POWER’ AND HOW GOOD SHE NATURALLY IS WITH THE FORCE…RATHER THAN ANAKIN AS BELIEVED BY QUI-GON AND OTHERS - HE’S ‘THE CHOSEN ONE’ FOR THOSE THAT PURELY WANT TO BELIEVE THE ‘GEORGE LUCAS SAGA’ AS TOLD BY THE PREQUELS STORYLINE, BUT WILL NOT BE FOR MY OWN EDITS WHERE I INCLUDE THE SEQUELS STORYLINE - FOR INSTANCE, I WON’T BE INCLUDING THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN SHMI AND QUI-GON WHERE THEY DISCUSS ANAKIN BEING AN ‘IMMACULATE CONCEPTION’/‘VIRGIN BIRTH’! - OUTLINE ALL THAT TO SHOW HOW I’D BE INCORPORATING HOW I’D PREFER TO LOOK ON THE FORCE AS THROWING UP REY AS THE ACTUAL ‘CHOSEN ONE’ TO EXPLAIN AWAY HER EXCESSIVE ABILITIES AS SHOWN BY THE SEQUEL TRILOGY, RATHER THAN ANAKIN - AND I WON’T BE INCLUDING HER SAYING THAT SHE’S “REY SKYWALKER” AT THE END OF ‘RISE OF SKYWALKER’ (MY ‘MEGA-EDIT’ WOULD ONLY BE USING ‘THE LAST JEDI’ TITLE AND SCROLL AT THE BEGINNING)
ANOTHER LATEST IDEA - do a shortened re-edit of Rey and Kylo’s fight amongst the waves, where Rey doesn’t end up looking so slow and exhausted as she ends up on the ground…and perhaps also there’s a better point where we see Leia calling “Ben” instead of after he’s raised his lightsaber to strike down Rey?
Since it’s fast creeping up on us, I’d like to wish everyone a happy Halloween with a few golden oldies…
DRACULA (released 1931/directed by Tod Browning)
Theatrical Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEM8TiXczYM NOW GONE! Will look for replacement soon.
FRANKENSTEIN (released 1931/directed by James Whale)
Theatrical Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGVNDpEEMDI
THE MUMMY (released 1932/directed by Karl Freund)
Theatrical Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2645yn0Wmqk
THE WOLF MAN (released 1941/directed by George Waggner)
Theatrical Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTNQEd8D4pg
CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON (released 1954/directed by Jack Arnold)
Teaser Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8U92zxQ1VY NOW GONE! Will look for replacement soon.
Theatrical Trailer - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjITaWNvvn0
(I’ll eventually add posters and sequel trailers for these too, at some point)
‘E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL’ IS ACTUALLY SET AROUND ‘HALLOWEEN’ RATHER THAN SUMMER, AND I’D LIKE TO INCLUDE A SHORTENED VERSION THE ‘HALLOWEEN CHAOS’ SCENE FROM THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY RELEASE FOR A SLIGHTLY MORE ‘HALLOWEEN’-CENTRIC VERSION FOR MYSELF -
ALTHOUGH I’D FAR PREFER TO STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL, MORE REALISTIC-LOOKING MECHANICAL E.T. FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE MOVIE, I’D LIKE TO KEEP THE LIKES OF THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY’S CGI JUMPING E.T. MOMENTS AS WELL AS THE CGI VERSION OF HIM FROM BEHIND, AS HE WATCHES THE SPACECRAFT LEAVING, AMONG OTHER WORTHWHILE ENHANCEMENTS TOO - Here’s a good comparison video of the original vs the 20th Anniversary release to study - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8ptI8Ba1h4
Also, the ‘movie-censorship’ site’s comparison screenshots are useful to look at too - https://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=5229907 (NOTE - I don’t think I can ‘hotlink’ images from there unfortunately - but I think I may be able to download them to my laptop, and then re-upload them however)
HERE’S HOW I’D INCLUDE A SHORTENED VERSION OF THE ‘HALLOWEEN CHAOS’ SCENE, WHICH WOULD END WITH THE MUM ASKING HER 2 KIDS WHERE ELLIOT IS, AS GERTIE KEEPS SILENT -
…Elliot and E.T. are in the forest trying to make contact using a make-shift ‘radio’ contraption -
…as we see a close-up of the ‘spellcheck’ toy -
…and we continue on as normal, as Elliot’s mum leaves her house dressed in a halloween ‘cat’ costume, then gets into her car -
…and we continue on as normal, as Elliot’s mum drives away and several men get out of 2 parked cars with suitcases, and walk towards her house -
(PUT THIS INFO. IN A BLUE BOX - At this point in the movie, I’d like to include a little extra ‘Halloween’ flavour to it, by adding a SHORTENED portion of the ‘Halloween chaos’ scene shown in the ‘20th Anniversary’ CGI’d release)
…then CUT to close-up of pumpkin going up in flames, as we see Gertie and her eldest brother walking through halloween chaos in the suburbs, as their mum pulls up in her car beside them and asks “WHERE’S ELLIOT?”
(PUT THIS INFO. IN BLUE BOX - As seen in this ‘deleted scenes’ video between the 2 mins. 40 secs. mark and 3 mins. 11 secs. mark - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dsOl5rOnho )
…then CUT to the forest at night, as we see Elliot with E.T. both rubbing their chins -
msycamore said:
ImperialFighter, I own the 20th anniversary NTSC DVD, tell me exactly which scenes you want me to take captures of besides that shot with "Brett-doorway-opening" and I'll post them for you.
Thanks msycamore, but I've now decided not to judge things by those DVDBeaver comparisons whatsoever, as I don't know if their old NTSC and PAL shots (and newer ones) were grabbed using the same identical equipment and settings or not. Perhaps, but perhaps not.
I'd be interested if anyone happens to have both the old NTSC and PAL releases at hand that they can grab using the same equipment, though. However, even if you just have the NTSC release msycamore, I'd also be interested to get an idea of how the same shots I posted here look in that format, especially the one of the Nostromo, and the close-up of Dallas's face, if you can. Thanks. - http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Alien-Appendix-7-The-ALIEN-SAGA-Archive/post/425702/#TopicPost425702
If I do end up sourcing an NTSC copy, I'll be interested to see how it compares against my PAL copy on my tv/dvd player...as Chewtobacca has been in touch to say that he reckons there are indeed slight colour differences between regions for the same releases. Not something I'd known about before. (I'm guessing that the NTSC version would certainly suffer from a lot of 'pull-down' stuttering on my region-free player though, given the amount of 'slow panning' moves in the movie!)
Then there's the fact that everyone's pc monitors have very different colour settings anyway, which can vary greatly as I've found in the past.
Screengrabs are fine for a rough idea of differences, but can be very unrepresentative of how the colours of the dvd footage actually looks on your tv/dvd player. All I know is that on my own home theatre set-up, the old 'Theatrical' ALIEN PAL release is very easy on the eyes, and the colours 'pop-out' in a vibrant, 'naturalistic' way, and reminds me of how I remember it looking on the big screen...whereas the new 'Theatrical' PAL colour-timing doesn't.
But what's done is done, and luckily for me, the original transfer quality itself still looks great on my big screen, enough for me not to miss the improved transfer that the 'Quadrilogy' and 'Anthology' undoubtedly have. And so I won't be watching the new colour-timing again until the day the inevitable 3D blu-ray 'conversion' comes around...which I'll check out with interest!
Anyway, that DVNR issue, eh?
TV's Frink said:
;-) <-----winky
Oo-er missus!
Glad to see you back in all your yellow glory, and love your new 'user title'. :)