JediFlyer06

User Group: Members
Join date: 24-May-2006
Last activity: 8-Jun-2007
Posts: 89

Post History

Post: #253434
Topic: redeeming lucas
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253434/action/topic#253434
Time: 25-Oct-2006 9:46 PM

Lucas is beyond redemption as a film maker. Like the hero of the one true trilogy, Lucas and his movies are more machine than human emotion and relationships. Success and greed have twisted his ambitions from those of wanting to weave a classic tale to wanting to make it just good enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator enough for him to make a MOUNTAIN RANGE more cash. No redemption for him. He sold out to his core.

Post: #253421
Topic: Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253421/action/topic#253421
Time: 25-Oct-2006 9:08 PM

The Bose players aren't all that great. They're okay, but whatever processing they use tends to soften the picture overall and actually tint it slightly. Last I heard, the drives were actually made by Toshiba.

Post: #253290
Topic: Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253290/action/topic#253290
Time: 25-Oct-2006 1:09 AM

Hmm. I'm surprised. A buddy of mine has a WEGA LCD, I think it actually is the 32", and the thing looks gorgeous. And, I'm a plasma guy over LCD any day of the week. But that set looks almost as nice as I would want an LCD to look. Anything on dvd or HD TV looks incredible. As you would expect, broadcast tv is pretty touch and go. I'll be thankful when everything is digital and HD. Standard channels don't help convert anyone to a flat panel believer.

You also have to be careful when comparing sets in store like that . Rarely are sets calibrated equally. I've seen sets that I know are gorgeous because I've worked with them myself, and yet, on the wall at these stores...they look like shit...cloudy, no contrast, etc. Sometimes they will deliberately make one set look bad in order to sell another one by making it look better in comparison. Those places and most of those guys are full of shit. Never take anything they tell you as truth. I've had these guys use words to explain these tvs to me that don't exist, and flat out make things up as they went along. You really have to be careful.

Post: #253144
Topic: Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253144/action/topic#253144
Time: 24-Oct-2006 12:20 PM

That's the core of the issue. Digital video connections (DVI or HDMI) will render more apparent any substantial flaws in the source material. LFL. knew this and simply choose to thumb their noses at us. They made these discs so that they would look passable, not even very good, but simply passable on an "old" television. But playing these discs on an HDTV is kind of like looking at shit under a microscope.

Post: #253092
Topic: Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253092/action/topic#253092
Time: 24-Oct-2006 1:44 AM

What kind of LCD do you have? I'm curious. The most recent LCD that I've come across that looks like absolute shitte out of the box is the Toshiba REGA line. I dealt with 32", 42" and a 47" REGZA panels and they all look like crap out of the box. Darker than all hell. Even once properly adjusted they're visibly darker than other sets in the same category. It took some extensive noodling with the contrast, brightness, backlight, Dynamic Contrast, DNR, Digital Noise Reduction Modes, and their advanced color menu to get the sets to look decent. Up close there is still lots of noise and compression artifacting visible. At a distance of five feet or more they look okay, and better in a dark room, but they still suck for the money. And FYI for anyone considering one of these....they're advertised as 1080p displays, but there's a kick. While the panel itself does have a the native 1080p resolution, the sets CANNOT accept a 1080p signal through their HDMI or component inputs. That's straight from Toshiba's tech support. The sets will scale an incoming signal to 1080p (they say), but will not accept a 1080p feed. Go figure.

Post: #252776
Topic: Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252776/action/topic#252776
Time: 22-Oct-2006 12:10 AM

As stated, one of the biggest problems with flat panels is that most folks really don't know how to use them in order to get the most out of them. You don't even need an ISF calibration to get one looking pretty damn fine. You just need to learn how to adjust the picture controls properly, and for god sake, if you've bothered to buy a plasma or an LCD, don't connect your dvd player to it with a composite video cable. LOTS of people make those little mistakes that add up to BIG differences in picture quality and then write the sets off as "lousy". More often than not, it ain't the set, it's the user. I've gotten flat panels that I hate the picture quality of to look pretty damn fantastic. You just need to know what you're adjusting and why. The manuals are your friends. People have to realize that these aren't our parents televisions. We have LOTS of fine tuning ability when it comes to modern televisions. It's really amazing how drastic a difference a good setup can make. But it takes time, patience, and experimentation with room lighting, brightness, contrast, etc. The AVIA setup disc should almost be sold with every HDTV purchase.

And I know that lots of people like to use the "zoom" functions on these sets, but honestly, if you want the picture to look its absolute best, I beg you, DON'T. Aside from switching between 4:3 and normal widescreen mode, any other setting will do little more than fuck up your image quality and magnify any flaws in the source material while distorting the picture's geometry. A few of my friends are in love with these "zoom" modes, and I honestly can't stand looking at their televisions. They think it looks great, and that it's better to have the whole scree filled in. Why? Why? Buying a tv like that and setting it up that way is like going to a four star gourmet restaurant and ordering a Big Mac. With displays like this quality should be favored over quantity.

Post: #252209
Topic: Emmet Otter's Jugband Christmas (Complete) - (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252209/action/topic#252209
Time: 19-Oct-2006 1:16 AM

Never saw the Muppet christmas special, so I wouldn't recognize th edits. When I watch Emmet Otter now, it just feels incomplete to me, like it has these gaping holes where I know something should be. It pisses me off every time the "fall of the dock" scene doesn't appear on-screen. It also screws up the introduction of Will Possum. Grrr.

Post: #252201
Topic: Emmet Otter's Jugband Christmas (Complete) - (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252201/action/topic#252201
Time: 19-Oct-2006 12:32 AM

Oh, I would love a copy of this! When I bough the dvd I was so pissed off by all the cuts that I can't even tell you. The bonus materials are great, real gems for fans of this classic. But those ridiculous and unnecessary cuts rank just beneath the SE for me in terms of destroying a classic work by removing original elements.

Awesome idea!

Post: #252166
Topic: Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252166/action/topic#252166
Time: 18-Oct-2006 9:53 PM

Originally posted by: eros

Originally posted by: Darth_Evil

Originally posted by: eros
The thing your forgetting is that most dvd's will look crap on big HDtv's because of the resolution of these sets. regardless of wether the dvd is anamorphic or not they will all have to be upscaled from their native resolution to fill a plasma/lcd HDtv.

You are extremely ignorant on this topic. The DVD is the lead format right now and will be for the next ten years, at least. Why? Because DVD's are made to last. Most, if not all, anamorphic transfers are compatible with hi-def. Anamorphic means they are made for both kinds of TV, and usually work very well in hi-def. You need a DVD player that up converts them to look hi-def on your plasma screen, but that's not hard to come by, (I think the XBOX 360 does this) but hell, even without it DVD's will be fine on hi-def TV's. That's why new formats like HD-DVD and Blu-Ray won't become the next big home format, just a niche product. DVD's will last for a very, very long time, far into the hi-def age, and upgrading your movies to hi-def video formats is pointless unless you really want higher quality. So please, inform yourself before posting.

fuck off twat

That;s the funniest damn thing I've seen all day! Well, Darth...guess that shoots down your entirely fact-based and truthful argument once and for all.

Post: #251996
Topic: Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251996/action/topic#251996
Time: 18-Oct-2006 1:37 PM

Sorry to correct you, but you couldn't be more wrong on this point. The tech explanations have all been given before, so I won't bother with another one. A number of variables determine the end result picture quality on any tv, source quality being one of the most important, player quality, cable quality, and display quality and calibration. In general, most dvds look downright awesome on large HDTVs, and most all dvds are anamorphic.

Post: #251676
Topic: Star Wars: The Stupidest Quotes!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251676/action/topic#251676
Time: 17-Oct-2006 12:04 AM

I don't agree that Luke and Leia's birth's needed to be shown, or how they got to their new homes, or the building of the Death Star, and the three seconds of Tarkin which most people don't even pick up on). It was too much like a Star Wars theme ride crammed into two minutes on-screen...a waste. All that stuff doesn't really matter in the scheme of the story and could have been dealt with much less clumsily and much more craftily had some care been taken.

Most of the crap in the PT was pointless and need not be seen. And until the day I die, I stand by my belief that three cardinal sins were committed by Lucas in the OT:

1. Showing Vader, even mentioning his name, and linking him so concretely with Anakin. In a I thru VI mentality, terrible way to write the story and rob the ensuing chapters of ALL drama.

2. Yoda...another gimmick that NEVER should have been shown. He should have referred to only in name and left the surprise that he should genuinely be in ESB.

3. The Emperor, again a horribly executed gimmick. Never should have been shown fighting. Again, robs ROTJ of the shock value (no pun intended) of seeing the Emperor do his thing with Luke. Much as should have been done with Vader, his true indentity as the Sith Master should have been dealt with much more delicately, and I say left for full revelation in the OT.

Post: #251661
Topic: Star Wars: The Stupidest Quotes!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251661/action/topic#251661
Time: 16-Oct-2006 10:14 PM

Oh, that would have been worse. No such scene should ever have been shown. I still maintain that Vader never should have been revealed in the PT at all. A good writer could have told the story while leaving it appear as though Anakin has died. Vader should only ever be seen or referred to for the first time in ANH. It makes for a much more well-crafted story, and preserved the drama and surprises of the OT when viewed in order. Vader never should have been seen. It was just a cheap gimmick, and a poorly executed one, to hang a marketing campaign on.

Post: #251506
Topic: Star Wars: The Stupidest Quotes!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251506/action/topic#251506
Time: 15-Oct-2006 11:30 PM

"I should have KNOWN the Jedi were plotting to take over!"

Sorry, I HAVE to list two...my apologies.

And..."You underestimate my POWER!"

Post: #251098
Topic: Lucas on Colbert
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251098/action/topic#251098
Time: 12-Oct-2006 11:20 PM

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
There really aren't that many people who hate Jar-Jar.

I'm not revising anything.

You may have noticed the round of applause Jar-Jar got from Colbert's audience.

Ummm...yeah there are THAT many people who hate him. Do you know how many college film courses he has been worked into as an example of modern racist caricature? I was in a graduate film studies course at the time of TPM and that was when I first realized how nearly universally reviled the character was. I hated him because he just flat out sucked in any capacity in the "film" known as TPM. But, the first time I truly realized how hated he was was in that lecture hall.

The blind Lucas sheep who follow behind their portly shepherd hoping to catch his dangling, flacid sac in their gaping mouths...his army of brainwashed apologists constantly yammering on about the wonder of the PT like a bunch of converts preaching the tenets of scientology...their the ones who like the character, and Jake Lloyd as Anakin, and the "emotionally heart breaking love scenes" of the PT. Crack kills, man.

Post: #250340
Topic: Favorite Star Wars Movie
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250340/action/topic#250340
Time: 9-Oct-2006 12:44 AM

That's exactly the point. By virtue of the way in which he chose to "tell the story" of the PT, he COMPLETELY ruined the fun, drama, suspense, and surprises of the OT. With a thoughtfully written, carefully orchestrated and directed story, he still could have told the story of the PT while completely preserving the surprises of the OT. It really wouldn't have been that hard to do. Just a little imagination and creativity is all that it would have taken...oh, that and actually giving a shit.

And I totally agree with the Jabba the Hutt ROTJ comments. That characters was a BIG reveal for us back in 1983. There was a ton of mystery and anticipation surrounding this often mentioned but never seen bad guy. It was awesome when we finally got to see him. And, it was a HUGE "wow" when we finally did.

Post: #250124
Topic: Favorite Star Wars Movie
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/250124/action/topic#250124
Time: 7-Oct-2006 12:27 AM

I'd have to say that my favorite Star Wars movies are the prequels that were never made. I know that sounds strange, but as far as I am concerned, the prequels never were made. I don't know what episodes I through III are, but they aren't Star Wars. For me the prequels still exist in my mind as an abstract concept, roughly defined but still unseen. A trilogy of movies with the depth of story, character, emotion, fun and subtext that made the original series timeless, but with a level of care, detail, and respect that the backstory so richly deserves. The possibilities for fun, exciting storytelling and true Star Wars style swashbuckling are almost overwhelming when you stop and think about it...what could have been.

Post: #249400
Topic: your buying the PT all over again in Blue ray !!!!!!!!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249400/action/topic#249400
Time: 4-Oct-2006 1:01 AM

Originally posted by: Zion
Risky? Hardly. First of all, the only new format it can be released on is Blu-Ray because both Lucas and Fox have pledged their support of that format. Second, something as mega-popular as Star Wars could only HELP a format like Blu-ray become more popular. People aren't going to buy one machine over the other because they like a certain player better than the other. They're going to buy whicever one has more attractive media or simply more titles in general.

Now, if they release the box set ONLY on Blu-ray and not DVD, that would seriously impact the amount of sales and most likely wouldn't be worth it. Not to metion the fact that single-disc releases on Blu-ray hover around $30. A box set would probably be close to $150. From a marketing standpoint, it would be wise for them to release it on both Blu-ray and DVD to maximize sales while at the same time helping the success of Blu-ray and catering to videophiles.

Take it from someone who works in the upper-middle end of the custom HT business...either format is up in the air at the moment and precious few people are going to shell out close to a grand just to be able watch SW in HD when for many of them dvd quality is already good enough. Do you know how many of my clients think the standard dvd format is already HD? PLENTY.

Then there are those who are aware of HD formats, but are confused by the whole HD vs. Bluray nonsense. These folks ALL refer to the technology generically as "HD DVD". They make no distinction between the two an coudn't tell the difference between them, and neither could anyone else. The techno babble of one versus the other doesn't mean a damn thing to them. All they care about is..."does it look good?"

And then you have the more techie folks who are almost all taking the "wait and see" position, as am I. People are getting tired of being ripped off. What we already have available in good quality standard dvd players with good cables and displays is good enough to satisfy most folks out there. They're more savvy consumers. They don't want to invest in something with a 50% chance of being obsolete in a year or two.

If the players are selling for $200.00 when this alleged box set is released, then it might move some players as well. But if prices are still hovering in the $1000.00 range, don't expect to see the players start fyling off the shelves.

It is a risk to back any new technology. Hell, a year from now Bluray could be on it last legs. You can't predict what technology is going to do a year from now. Unless every title is released in both formats, one will kill the other. Nobody wants to spend money on technology that they can't watch ALL of their favorite movies on. That's just plain stupid.

Like I said, though...wait and see.

Post: #249360
Topic: your buying the PT all over again in Blue ray !!!!!!!!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249360/action/topic#249360
Time: 3-Oct-2006 11:25 PM

To release anything on Blu-ray in the next year would be a risky move as the future of the technology is uncertain at best at the moment. I want to see the OOT in an HD format, though I could care less about bells and whistles. Lowry fucked up the last release and I'm not too keen on buying anything Star Wars that has his name attached to it. All of this at this point is conjecture. Only time will tell.

Post: #249028
Topic: my memory isn't that bad, is it? (in SW '77 - Luke misses with the grappling hook?)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249028/action/topic#249028
Time: 2-Oct-2006 2:40 AM

I thought I remembered that scene as well from back in 1977. When I saw it again in re-release, I remember saying to my friend that that part had changed, and that I remembered Luke making one attempt, failing, and then getting it on the second try. Who knows, but I really believe that I remember seeing that on screen in 1977, as well. You're not alone.

Post: #249019
Topic: For Those who bought the Sept. 12th Release, Thoughts so far?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249019/action/topic#249019
Time: 2-Oct-2006 1:23 AM

I haven't purchased this release, but one of my best friends did. He brought them over because he was curious, after all the debate between us, to see how they looked. Granted, I don't have a tv. I have a projector with a 100" screen. For anyone with a setup like this, I say steer far clear. If you have a 4:3 set, you can probably live with it and not be too bothered. But on any HT setup of decent quality, what I saw falls far short. The audio I don't care much about. Even though I have a damn fine audio system, surround mixes are truly done to death and usually in poor taste...ala the SEs. So, the old mix was actually refreshing to my ears. I prefer it to the SE mix, hands down.

The release falls short as a collector piece and most definitely as a preservation piece. It looks exactly as LFL has treated it all these years...as an afterthought. It was what I expected.

Post: #244537
Topic: And on the 8th day, God created socks that wont stay up, mosquitos, Taco Bell, and Letterboxed DVD's. It was not good.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/244537/action/topic#244537
Time: 15-Sep-2006 12:20 AM

Anyone who thinks that Clinton is less to blame for the events of the past five years than Bush is, is smoking some seriously badass new breed of crack. Take the partisan politics out of it, the job of the President of the United States is to lead and protect America. Almost from the day Clinton took office, we came under attack by terrorists beginning with the WTC bombings in 1993. The attacks continued through Clinton's two terms in office, each one becoming more daring than the last and building up to what we saw on 9/11. In eight years, for all intents and purposes, Clinton did nothing to ensure the security of this nation. He was too busy chasing that chubby intern around the Oral Office to be worried about little things like national security. Maybe if he had paid as much attention to the terrorists abroad, AND HERE learning to fly but not land jumbo jets, as he did to Monica Lewinsky...just maybe the history of the last five years would be very different.

For eight years Bin Laden and his buddies were taking pot shots at us because the could get away with it virtually uncontested. Wow. Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles into the mountains in response to repeated and deadly attacks against our country and its interests. Boy, that sure showed them didn't it?

Clinton did the only thing Americans care about... spoiled, selfish, ignorant pricks that most of us are...he made them money. And, hell, as long as the money keeps coming in, who the hell cares. The man lacked the balls as a supposed leader to make what may have been politically unpopular decisions that were in the absolute best interests of this country. His attitude was basically, leave it for the next guy to deal with. And that's Clinton's legacy, a spineless buck passer who not only allowed the greatest threat of our time to gather itself against us virtually unchecked throughout his watch...but he also de-fanged the largest and mightiest military power on earth, down-sizing and base-closing into oblivion because the U.S. no longer had a need for a military as large as it had, despite the growing terrorist threat of which he was well aware... so that we find ourselves stuck in the predicament we now find ourselves. Too many battles to fight and not enough men to fight them. Thanks Bill! Hell of a job!

Post: #243950
Topic: SW.com: "First and ONLY TIme"
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/243950/action/topic#243950
Time: 14-Sep-2006 12:49 AM

When is everyone going to realize that virtually everything that comes out of LFL and their spokespeople, like that lap dog Sansweet, is a pile of steaming shite? Their entire purpose is to lie to you in order to get you to shell out more of your money to them. They know, however, that so much of their audience is practically brain dead, that they don't even bother to try and lie well or convincingly. The one thing you can count on to be true from LFL is that whatever they say is a lie. That much is true. All else is bullshit. As long as they can make a buck they will keep on churning out endless versions of the SE AND the OT...marketed with a different title for the box set, or on HD DVD instead of regular DVD, or whatever the hell...anything to call it "a new release". Lies. All lies. Once I get a respectable and professionally produced version of the OT treated with the respect and preservation that it deserves out of LFL...after that the Earth can open up and swallow George Lucas and his company and I wouldn't care less.

Post: #242575
Topic: My store just got the new DVDs
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242575/action/topic#242575
Time: 10-Sep-2006 12:17 AM

It's amazing the shit that Lucas worries about...fuckin' shadows , and bullshit background details so minute that nobody noticed them to begin with. That shit he loses sleep over, yet having an entire prequel trilogy without anything resembling a story, a script, drama, or human emotion is what he passes off as his artistic vision. Vision my ass!

Post: #242574
Topic: The SW Novel - Alan Dean Foster
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/242574/action/topic#242574
Time: 10-Sep-2006 12:13 AM

In the book, Han also shoots preemptively! The book tells the tale of what was originally intended.

Post: #240825
Topic: The Blob!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/240825/action/topic#240825
Time: 3-Sep-2006 2:48 AM

Ditto that! The coloring of the SE discs is HORRENDOUS. They look like comic books with the colors so over saturated. Why, why, why, why why couldn't they at least left the films at least looking the way they did originally? Why screw with the color in every scene and even have different cuts in the same scene with totally different casts to them? UGHHH!