logo Sign In

Mielr

User Group
Members
Join date
15-Jun-2006
Last activity
27-Dec-2024
Posts
2,805

Post History

Post
#630019
Topic
Proposal for an Advertisement to Raise Awareness and Get the Original Trilogy Released!
Time

Thanks for that- I guess the Burbank address would more likely reach the right person; I don't think writing to the resort address would be of much use.

Maybe calling the main switchboard # (818) 560-1000 and asking where to send a letter of the type that we want to send? And I guess then also asking if there is a specific person we should be calling to leave a message on 5/21-5/25.

Post
#629406
Topic
Proposal for an Advertisement to Raise Awareness and Get the Original Trilogy Released!
Time


PQTkid314 said:
1. As a group, we should all call Walt Disney Pictues on May 21 and 25, and advocate for a proper release of the unchanged versions of the trilogy. Phone number here: http://studioservices.go.com/disneystudios/contact.html



I like this idea- especially doing it on the anniversaries of the film releases.

Would a phone call or snail-mail letter be more effective? (both?)

I've been trying to find a proper mailing address for Disney, but can't find one.

Post
#622992
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time


Tobar said:
Craig Good a 30 year Pixar veteran tweeted this earlier today:


Craig Good ?@clgood

Would you buy a Blu-ray or DVD of the Star Wars theatrical cut? Take & share my informal, personal, unofficial survey. http://fave.co/Us1oeb


Thanks! I took the survey & posted it on the bluray facebook page. I also changed the link, which has been switched:

http://docs.google.com/forms/d/1_DRE21pLUENsdiDfU88WJ32JbsuZtoBZhaxiaDAlcWQ/viewform

Post
#622967
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time


skyjedi2005 said:
Mark Hamill has to be in it, he has not been signed as far as i know.

That and Disney has to address the  release of the oot.  And i will pay to see it.  That and it better not be an absolute cgi trukey like 1-3.


I feel pretty much the same way.

The release of the OOT is the most important thing to me.

IF Disney does that right, then I might go and see any new Star Wars movies with Ford AND Hamill........but it's pretty much a given that any sequels made 30+ years after the originals are going to be train-wreck crap-fest CGI-turkeys like Indy IV and eps. 1-3.

But, I still went to see Indy IV and eps. 1-3. ;-)

Post
#618048
Topic
Let's all say something nice about George Lucas. No insults allowed.
Time

Bester said:


I wonder how George proposed?
From the moment I met you, all those years ago, not a day has gone by when I haven't thought of you.  You are in my very soul, tormenting me... what can I do?- I will do anything you ask: ... if you are suffering as much as I am, PLEASE, tell me.


I don't even know what that is, lol.

Seriously, he probably proposed to Melody and then told her he'd had the roof fixed* in lieu of an engagement boulder.

;-)

*(obscure reference to GL's 1st marriage).

Post
#617830
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time

I wonder if his impending marriage had anything to do with his decision to sell to Disney and retire from directing?

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/George-Lucas-engaged-to-investment-executive-4168300.php

Pretty big age difference there....hope it works out for them.

Post
#614993
Topic
48 fps!
Time

I don't like the look of 48fps. :-/ It looks cheap & flat to me, like a sit-com or a soap opera.

There was a company called MaxiVision in the 90's that was pushing 48fps using 35mm film. I actually emailed Roger Ebert about it (he was a proponent, as was Martin Scorcese) and I got a response from him. That was before I really understood what it was; it sounded good on paper at the time. Now that I've seen it, I don't care for it.

Post
#612579
Topic
team negative1 - star wars 1977 - 35mm theatrical version (Released)
Time

Removing the film from metal reels & cans helps somewhat. Last year I had 2 B&W 16mm films of TV shows from the 1950s transferred to DVD, and the owner of the shop told me that ideally the film should be on a plastic reel, but he told me I should at the very least take the metal film reel w/film out of the metal can and put it in a plastic bag. I use the kind with a drawstring, and allow it to vent at the top. One of the films has VS, the other one doesn't (different stocks, I guess) so I keep the one with VS in a different room. :-/

Post
#610760
Topic
team negative1 - star wars 1977 - 35mm theatrical version (Released)
Time


You_Too said:

Maybe he's referring to generation loss when creating a theatrical print. I don't know about the chemical process of creating a print but I know that there is negative -> interpositive -> internegative -> theatrical print. Except Mike Verta said the technicolor IB prints of SW were printed straight from the negative itself.



If he meant they were printed directly from the negative (with no intermediate steps), then he's wrong.

As I understand the Technicolor printing process (in the 1950s-1970s Eastman negative era), 3 B&W separation masters (each recording blue, red or green) were made from the negative, and the prints were made from those masters.

There was no way to make an IB print directly from an Eastmancolor negative, since that would have required a light-sensitive chemical process, and Technicolor prints were made in a full-daylight lithography-type process.

Even if there was a way to make an IB print directly from a negative, it would have had to be an internegative (in part, at least), since the original camera negatives wouldn't have had any wipes or other finished FX on them.

On a side note, for the SW Eastmancolor prints, they reportedly used the infamous color reversal stock as the intermediate between the negative & theatrical print, which cut one generation out of the equation:
negative ->color reversal negative ->theatrical print (or something along those lines).

But the color-reversal stock was unstable and faded much faster than the traditional stocks, hence the large number of fading 1970s film sources.

Post
#610360
Topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released)
Time


KoolGuy7 said:
Can I ask what an IB print is exactly? Also is there one for Empire and Jedi?


FWIW, there are no Technicolor IB prints for ESB or ROTJ because the labs were all shut down by the late-1970s.

This is a good site if you have any interest in the history:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor1.htm

Post
#610351
Topic
Disney Acquires LucasFilm for $4.05 billion, Episode 7 in 2015, 8 and 9 to Follow, New Film Every 2-3 Years
Time

SilverWook said:



Baronlando said:

From what I've heard, sales of any blu ray that isn't a new release have been shockingly low, and not getting significantly better. I don't see how that can continue for too long but I'd like to be wrong. Supposedly even always-reliable titles like Wizard of Oz and Godfather fell way, way below projections. 


Oz is out of print right now, and Warners is going to milk it for the 75th anniversary next year. Maybe somebody will find some lost footage by then.


Blu-ray players are super cheap now ($69 is not unusual) and will eventually replace DVD-only players altogether (why would anyone buy one now?)

DVD releases are also being subtly phased out as the studios trump their new blu-ray releases.

I think what's happening is just that people aren't replacing their old DVD editions with blu-rays, they're only buying titles on blu-ray that they don't already own on DVD. It's understandable, because in many cases the DVDs still look pretty good.

"OZ" had a pretty stellar DVD release several years back ('05?) which I think probably hurt sales for the recent DVD & Blu-ray release.

I doubt they'll find any more lost "OZ" footage, unfortunately, aside from what's already been released. In those days they were pretty thorough when it came to destroying stuff they felt was unneeded. But who knows....;-)

Post
#609826
Topic
Since when did ROTJ become less highly regarded than even Episodes II or III?
Time


1990osu said:
I think Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back are obviously masterpieces both. 

What I don't understand is the critical snobbery and adults thumbing their nose at ROTJ. 

ROTJ is arguably the best of the OT.


I don't remember many (if any) bad words said about ROTJ back in '83, or in the several years that followed. The backlash seemed to start in the late-1990s, early-2000s. I don't know why, but I can't imagine anyone watching ANY of the prequels and thinking that ROTJ is poor in comparison. :-/

I love ROTJ, and while I don't think it's the best of the OT, I wouldn't argue with anyone who feels that it's the best.

There was a thread a while back where people were defending ROTJ and I posted a list of what I considered to be "goosebump moments" in the film (and by some sort of miracle, I happened to actually find it by doing a search):
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Return-of-the-Jedi-the-worst-OT-film/post/350188/#TopicPost350188

Post
#606950
Topic
Star Wars - Episode VII - FACTS IN TOP POST
Time

The fact that we're even discussing this boggles my mind! If you'd asked me in 1983 if there was a greater chance of MH, HF and CF considering a SW sequel 30+ years later or me growing a third arm....I would have chosen the latter.

Fun idea, but I'm still waiting to see what Disney does about the OOT on blu-ray and then I'll see how excited I can get about anything else.