logo Sign In

Jay

User Group
Administrators
Join date
22-Feb-2003
Last activity
26-Jun-2025
Posts
2,437

Post History

Post
#58145
Topic
a Star Trek thread...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/58145/action/topic#58145
Time
Exactly. Most Trek stuff is for Trek fans only. Chances are you won't like most Trek shows and movies if you don't like the Trek universe in the first place.

Khan is not just a good Trek movie; it's a good movie period. I don't see how anyone who claims to be a fan of scifi-drama can not like Khan.

And Ricardo Montalbahn is a GREAT villain.

Shit, I have to watch it after work. I'm all fired up now.
Post
#58098
Topic
a Star Trek thread...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/58098/action/topic#58098
Time
I'm a huge Trek fan, probably moreso than Star Wars. Sacrilege, I know, especially considering I run this site

Khan is easily the best Trek film ever. I watch it repeatedly. They brought in a real director, Nick Meyer, who actually went back to the original series and found a great nemesis for Kirk. Then he followed up by actually directing the cast and not letting them coast through the movie like it was a Trek episode. Khan proves that with good direction, the original cast--Shatner included--can actually act. Shatner gets a lot of flack for his acting in the original series, but he was great in Khan.

I was disappointed by Nemesis for the same reasons I've become somewhat disappointed with Star Trek in general: too much summer blockbuster garbage and not enough substance. That and the fact they lifted the plotline from Khan (the Captain must fight his arch nemesis to the death and a major cast member sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise).

Trek needs a long, long vacation. Look how long the concept was shelved between the original series and the first movie. They could bring back the Next Gen crew in 10 years; they'll still be young enough to make a movie. Certainly no older than the original crew was in Undiscovered Country.
Post
#56117
Topic
OT.com appearing in GQ Magazine in September
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/56117/action/topic#56117
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
That is incredibly cool, Jay. They cold contact you?


Yeah. Dude e-mailed me. I should've asked him where he heard about the site.

Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
That's great! But since I'll probably not be able to get a copy of that magazine here, when it's released, could you post the interview here, or maybe even create a new page on originaltrilogy showing it?


If it's not on their web site (how cool would that be?), I'll try to get permission to repost the text of it here.
Post
#52925
Topic
HD-DVD
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/52925/action/topic#52925
Time
DVDs are natively encoded as 480i, and special flags are used to tell your DVD player how to reconstruct the original progressive film frames. It's not always done properly though, and then your DVD player has to incorporate sophisticated cadence detection to perform the deinterlacing. I'd like to avoid the same mess with HD-DVD, which means 1080p native.

Again, Sony recently announced they are considering other codecs. They are no longer taking the hardline stance that MPEG2 is the only way they're going. This is an important step toward Blu-Ray winning the war, but it's still up in the air until Sony gets their act together.
Post
#52919
Topic
HD-DVD
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/52919/action/topic#52919
Time
The latest word from Sony is that they are now considering the use of other codecs. While Blu-Ray is technically a superior technology and a better codec would certainly put it in front of HD-DVD in terms of performance, all indications at this point show 1080i as the standard for Blu-Ray, while the HD-DVD camp is pushing 1080p.

Emerging display devices utilizing LCD, LCOS, DLP, and plasma technologies now support a native 1920x1080 resolution. The HD broadcast standard supports 1080p. It doesn't make any sense to build the disc-based HD market--which will likely be the home video standard for decades--on 1080i. You can already get a 20" LCD TV for less than $700; in five years, it will be half that amount, putting LCDs in the same price plateau as current analog displays. They take up less space, they use much less power, and they look cooler. CRT's days are numbered.

Within 10 years, the analog display market will be dead, and interlaced video has no place in a digital world.

It's been suggested they could implement the same deinterlacing technology used for current DVDs (which are 480i) to convert 1080i to 1080p on the fly. Bad idea if you ask me since we'll inherit all the problems DVD has today (bad film edits, poorly encoded progressive flags, etc.). Much better to encode 1080p natively and let the device scale down to lower resolutions for older displays. Studios also perform vertical filtering on 1080i material to reduce artifacts on 1080i displays, drastically reducing detail. If they perform the same processing on 1080i destined for Blu-Ray, upconversion to 1080p inside the player wouldn't provide image quality equal to that of native 1080p.

While I think Sony has the superior technology and they might win the battle based on brute force marketing and sheer numbers (Toshiba and NEC building and selling a couple HD-DVD decks vs. just about every other manufacturer on Earth selling at least one, maybe two or three, Blu-Ray decks), the HD-DVD standard is more forward-thinking and a better deal for consumers. Better codecs, better audio (vs. Blu-Ray's DD/DTS crap), and native 1080p. The lack of storage space is unfortunate, but multi-disc DVD sets don't bother me now, so they won't bother me on the next format either.

If the Blu-Ray Group gets smart and adopts MPEG-4, multi-channel MLP audio, and native 1080p support, then the choice is clear. Until that happens, I'm pushing for HD-DVD.
Post
#49972
Topic
most of these suggestions are underhanded
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/49972/action/topic#49972
Time
Releasing both cuts in the same package (both as a trilogy box set and individual releases later on) is not a new idea. It's been suggested countless times. I still get e-mails from people saying, "Hey, I have a great idea! Why don't they release the original cuts and the SEs on the same disc! I can't believe no one has thought of this!"

Anyone who has any concept of the capabilities of the DVD format has considered this idea.

The one person who hasn't considered this idea, and maybe never will, is Lucas himself.

Convincing Fox won't help us at all. I highly doubt they haven't already leaned on Lucas to release both cuts. Their interests lie with maximum profits, after all.

Since Lucas owns all rights to the films, he has the final say. Fox's opinion doesn't enter into it.
Post
#49053
Topic
Old threads archived due to lack of database space
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/49053/action/topic#49053
Time
Some of you may have noticed that it was impossible to post new messages this past weekend. We ran out of space on the database server and the forum started spitting out error messages. In order to free up some space, I removed about 350 threads containing over 20,000 messages dating prior to 11/30/2003. Current posts shouldn't be affected. It's possible there were some running threads that were started during that time period and are now inaccessible, so I apologize if any discussions were interrupted. It couldn't be helped.

These old posts haven't been permanently deleted; I have them backed up on my development server at home.

Thanks to forum member motti for alerting me to the issue.
Post
#44380
Topic
Banning Jimbo??
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/44380/action/topic#44380
Time
Let's be clear on why I gave jimbo a time-out. Anyone who thinks this has something to do with his opinions on the SEs must be impaired in some way.

Alternative opinions are ALWAYS welcome here. Jimbo was advised to present his opinions with intelligence and class on multiple occasions, yet he insists on getting personal and using foul language to rebuff posters with whom he disagrees.

I'm not opposed to foul language. I personally have a mouth like a trucker. Consider that this is also an off topic forum. The very nature of the forum means you're going to encounter foul language on occasion.

Bottom line: jimbo was banned because I'm sick of receiving complaints. They've become a headache to me, and the easiest way to get rid of my headache is to remove the cause, that being jimbo.

Jimbo and his inflammatory opinions will be welcomed back with open arms as long as he promises to temper his posts and show some respect to other members.

Thread closed.
Post
#41492
Topic
Star Wars Pan Scan
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/41492/action/topic#41492
Time
Wasn't Kubrick a noted fan of Academy Ratio though? I'd heard that he was very distraught over what happened to the composition of 2001 when it was cropped for TV, and that certainly would be one reason for him to go with 1.37:1, but I also think I read that he preferred Academy Ratio in the first place.

Kubrick definitely composed his shots with both 1.85:1 and 1.37:1 (roughly equivalent to 4:3) in mind, but I think he focused on 1.37:1 more. I remember thinking how cropped the image looked when I went to see Eyes Wide Shut in the theater. The DVD presentation is much better (side note: grab the uncensored UK version if your DVD player is multi-region capable).
Post
#40906
Topic
Star Wars Pan Scan
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/40906/action/topic#40906
Time
I was referring to aspect ratio only.

However, I also support a director's right to modify his own work, including George Lucas. I don't protest the existence of the Special Editions. I've always been clear on that. I think Lucas has every right to make the changes he's made.

I do protest the refusal to release original versions, both for the sake of history and the fans. I find his desire to erase the original cuts from our collective memory abhorrent.
Post
#40888
Topic
Star Wars Pan Scan
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/40888/action/topic#40888
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: jimbo
I disagree. Many widescreen fans say this but I think that whichever version shows more of the shot picture. For example in Terminator 3 only the fullscreen version has any nudity. Kristanna Loken breast are not shown in widescreen. Why on earth would the directer not want you to see this. Hell even some effects shots look better in fullscreen. In the making of it showed how they animated the water below the Hunter Killer and talked for 5 minutes on how they did this. When it shows the final shot in 2.35 widescreen the water below the hunter killer is not visible.


Sounds like poor cinematography and bad matte choices to me. Perhaps after filming, the director decided that going further out to reveal the water ruined the focal points of the shot.

The director and cinematographer ultimately decide what belongs in a given frame and what should be thrown out. Just because an open matte transfer shows more of the film negative, it doesn't mean it's better. Good camera work results in tight, well-thought-out composition. Look at any Kubrick film for flawless cinematography; he was a nut for lines, angles, and symmetry. His Academy Ratio composition is genius, and completely destroyed when matted for 1.85:1 presentation. I'm glad Warner released his work in the intended aspect ratio rather than the theatrical aspect ratio. The Shining in anamorphic widescreen would've been awful. It would've been nice to have both versions though for comparison.

If the filmmaker composes a shot for 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 using Super35, removing the mattes for home video destroys the composition. You may see more, but it's not something you were ever meant to see anyway. It also wreaks havoc with special effects, which are usually done in the theatrical aspect ratio only (or close to it). When the film is transferred open matte for home video, special effects shots are typically cropped to 1.33:1 while the rest of the film is opened up.

Anybody here have The Goonies on DVD? I had never seen it in its original 2.35:1 presentation until the DVD's release, and it's a completely different experience. I thought it was awesome when I heard that Warner originally planned to release it as P&S only until Donner got wind of it and insisted it be presented in widescreen.

The director's vision should come first. The wants and needs of an ignorant moviegoing public should be irrelevant. The mighty dollar has the final say in most cases, unfortunately.
Post
#38537
Topic
DON'T GET TECHNICAL WITH ME
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/38537/action/topic#38537
Time
I'd have to check my cable bill, but I think I'm paying $40 a month for the service and maybe a few extra dollars for modem rental. I can't remember if the modem is included in the $40 or not.

I think that rate applies because I also get my cable TV from the same company. If I were to get just the internet service, I think the price goes up to $50.

You have a Mac, right? It should have built-in ethernet for connection to the cable modem. I use an ethernet router connected to the cable modem so I can split the connection across multiple machines, then I connect that to the network card in the PCs. I also have a wireless hub connected to the router for my fiance's laptop and the PC I use in my home theater on the other side of my apartment.

At some point I'll probably ditch the ethernet router, get a wireless one, and put wireless adapters in all my PCs. Wireless has finally reached respectable speeds (108mbps for the high-end stuff), and the equipment isn't terribly expensive.
Post
#38435
Topic
Widescreen Advocate Supports Original Trilogy.com
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/38435/action/topic#38435
Time
"The penitent man is humble before God."

I wouldn't go so far as to equate myself to a god, but who am I to argue with the members here?



Really guys, all the hard work was done in the first month or so. I've been coasting for the last 11 months. Perhaps I'll find the time to implement the 1000 or so suggestions I've received since the site launched.
Post
#38430
Topic
DON'T GET TECHNICAL WITH ME
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/38430/action/topic#38430
Time
DSL is a weird technology and its limits are well documented. It can only be carried over copper, which is why it's not available everywhere. Newer networks based on fiber can't use it. It's also true that you must be within a certain distance from the telco office in order for it to work. One benefit is that latency over DSL is rather low, so it's great for online gaming.

I went with cable because the speeds in my area are higher for less money than DSL. I get throughput of roughly 350 to 400kbps. I also use a Netgear router and wireless hub so other machines in the house can share the same connection. Unfortunately they started capping upload speeds a few years back so running a server is out of the question. I used to run a kickass Quake 3 server before the cap because the upload speeds were sick.
Post
#36780
Topic
THX-1138
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/36780/action/topic#36780
Time
I heard via HTF that the version being released is the same extended cut that was released to home video previously. My understanding is that the theatrical cut was a studio-enforced cut that was never approved by Coppola or Lucas, and the previous home video release reincorporated the cut scenes, which contain nudity I believe. I'm pretty certain the addition of new effects is only a rumor. If Lucas didn't have time to rework the SEs, I doubt he'd find the time for this.
Post
#35875
Topic
DVDs of 2004?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/35875/action/topic#35875
Time
Quote
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
DVD X COPY HAS A FEW FLAWS, BUT IT DOES WORK. I HAVE A FRIEND WHO HAS IT.


I recommend DVDShrink for ripping DVDs. Even if it weren't freeware, it would be worth paying for. Very easy to use. I've reauthored and ripped a few DVDs to my hard drive and it works great. The only thing it can't do on its own is burn a backup; you need to have Nero installed so it can link up with it and burn a disc.

I'm planning on building a media server at some point so I can rip and store all my DVDs on the server, then play them back over a network using PCs set up at each TV in the house. The only thing keeping me from doing it right now is the cost of storage (probably $2K US just for the hard drives alone).