logo Sign In

Mielr

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

Post History

Post
#302409
Topic
.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302409/action/topic#302409
Time
Originally posted by: Baronlando
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if this project had begun now, would it have been easier to use the 2004 dvds, and color correct them, and use the X0 for all the missing shots?
I asked the same question a while back. I was told (I think by Zion) that they have no interest in doing that.

I also started a thread a few months ago, asking if any other members of the forum here were working on a "hybrid" trilogy project (basically doing just what you said- using the unaltered and perhaps some mildly altered scenes from the '04 DVDs and combining them with the original shots from the '06 DVDs). There are a couple of members doing it, but I don't think they're anywhere near completion.

Here's the thread:

HYBRID TRILOGY LINK
Post
#302408
Topic
The Vault
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302408/action/topic#302408
Time
Originally posted by: gnome
This entry at the Star Wars blog links to a virtual peek at the book on the site of the French publisher and also has a quick video preview sent by HarperCollins. Not much but still worth checking IMHO.
Thanks that was helpful. I noticed that the zoom-in for the last spread (w/the ROTS lava pics) was wrong. It's actually a zoom-in of another spread.

Post
#302300
Topic
A New Thought on George
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302300/action/topic#302300
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
The battles in the Star Wars trilogy were made to carry the stories forward, but in many cases were themselves the story. And they too did their job beautifully. The battles in the PT felt like they were battles for the heck of it. The battle at Hoth served the purpose to divide up and scatter our heros. The battles at the end of SW and ROTJ served to provide an entertaining climax for the film. The PT battles, such as the overly boring Jango/Obi-wan chase scene, and the battle at the beginning of ROTS, seem like they serve little purpose other than to extend the film and show off effects.

FOr the most part, none of us gave a damn about the Ewoks dying in ROTJ or about the Gungans dying in TPM, or about the the Jedi dying in AOTC or ROTS. Heck, did any of us even really care when Padme died of her broken heart?

I agree with most of what you said. However, I DID care about the Ewoks. I felt sympathy for them and I felt sad when that one Ewok died. But the Gungans- not really. The Ewoks reminded me of pets and the sadness one can feel when you lose a beloved cat or dog. But the Gungans never really went beyond CG-cartoon characters for me. Padme's death felt rushed and forced and I never really grew to care about her character anyhow.
Post
#302230
Topic
Ian McDiarmid's performance in the PT (also the OT) is memorable and absolutely enthralling
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302230/action/topic#302230
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
Originally posted by: Sevb32
Also being that Ian McDiarmid had age 20 years, I don't think his face was a quite as thin as it was in 1982 when filming ROTJ.


???

I don't think thickness of face really has much to do with it. And I am not so sure everyones face actually gets thicker as they age.
I understand what he means- just look at John Travolta. I think his head is about twice the size it was as when he did Saturday Night Fever. People tend to gain weight as they age, which adds to the chubbiness of the face too. But, in the case of McDiarmid, I think the main problem was poor makeup and CGI.

Post
#302106
Topic
Fall to the Dark Side?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302106/action/topic#302106
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
Even Superman's lame turn to the darkside in Superman 3 (it was part 3, right?) was more convincing than Anakin's.

Yeah, it was Superman III. Not a very good movie, but worth seeing just for the sight of Chris Reeve swilling booze with a dirty cape and five o'clock shadow. A lot more interesting than seeing Anakin throw a hissy fit, for sure.

Post
#302055
Topic
The Vault
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/302055/action/topic#302055
Time
Originally posted by: SKot


I haven't had time to give it more than a compulsory skim, but so far I'm very pleased with it. Yes, it's steep... but oh the goodies you get!

--SKot
When you've had a chance to examine it more thoroughly, could you give us more details about what's included?

Post
#301946
Topic
The Vault
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301946/action/topic#301946
Time
Originally posted by: LinkTGF

I don't own it, but I have leafed through it and it's pretty interesting - lots of pullouts and stickers and iron ons and reproductions - it's like a pop up book for grownups!

In any case, I do think 60 bucks is a bit high, but it does look worth it. I'll probably pick it up once the price goes down to something like 30-40 bucks

Does the book have any PT content? I would be even less likely to buy it if it does.

If I do decide I like it, I'll probably also wait for the price to go down. I got the Star Wars Scrapbook on clearance at Barnes&Noble for $5 or $6 (reduced from about $30 or so) and the same thing happened with the Action Figure Archive book from a few years back. I bought it at Borders for $30 and then I found it at B&N for like $6 (so I bought it and took the other one back to Borders).
Post
#301918
Topic
A New Thought on George
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301918/action/topic#301918
Time
Originally posted by: corellian77


As for my original question, is the PT "technically" different from the OT? For example, is it just my imagination, or are there more medium and close-up shots in the OT? If so, would this have a subconscious effect on the viewer by making them feel more/less intimate with the on-screen characters?

I honestly think that the main difference between the PT and OT battles were that the PT battles were just poorly planned out and edited. Of course, the fact that I ended up not really giving a crap who died had something to do with it, but I also felt that the battle scenes were way too crowded with junk, and not properly executed - just plain messy. The OT battles were super-tight and created suspense and tension that the PT battles couldn't because they were sloppy. I'm sure the editing is mainly to blame for that. I didn't care for the saber battles, either.

Post
#301692
Topic
A New Thought on George
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301692/action/topic#301692
Time
Originally posted by: corellian77


From a more technical standpoint, does anyone think that the PT was less effective due to such things as cinematography, editing, etc? For example, I find that I'm not emotionally involved in many of the battle sequences in the PT, and I sometimes think it's partly due to the fact that the camera is more concerned with capturing all the chaos going on instead of focusing on particular individuals in the action (such as in the Death Star battle in the OT).

I feel the same way. None of the space battles/races in the PT drew me in the way the OT battles/chases did. I knew it was over when I saw the race scene in TPM- it was totally flat to me. I had no idea about where they were going, who was winning, etc. It was just a confusing blur of CGI and sound effects and there was absolutely no suspense in the editing. The same goes for the end battle in TPM, and the opening scene in AOTC (or was that ROTS? ).

But the battle scenes in the OT totally sucked me in. I felt like I was IN the movies. I'll never forget when I saw ROTJ for the first time on opening day, how everyone in the audience ducked when the speederbikes had that near-miss with the fallen tree trunk.
Post
#301647
Topic
A New Thought on George
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301647/action/topic#301647
Time
To me, TPM doesn't deserve to be called "best" anything. That's really lowering the bar. "Least terrible" perhaps, but IMO calling it "best" (and I'm not picking on you, Tiptup, many here have done this) is like being given a list of diseases, and choosing the "best" one to get.

It only seems better because of the two other films it's compared to. Again, just my opinion.
Post
#301640
Topic
Info Wanted: 70mm Film Cel Scans (good reference or pointless?)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301640/action/topic#301640
Time
Originally posted by: Sluggo
Has (or can) anyone posted any pics of these frames actual size? I am most curious how big an actual 70mm cell is compared to a 35mm or a 16 mm or even an 8? Some actual-sized scans would be interesting.
These are actual size. As you can see, they are about twice the width of a piece of 35mm film. This is from my collection of badly faded 70mm SW film strips. These cels are from a 1977 print - the Kodak codes next to the sprockets confirm it. The ones sold individually by Willitts Designs look much better, of course (I posted a bunch yesterday in the 'GOUT film grain' thread). I attemped to scan these cels with a flatbed scanner and a lightbox, but ended up with a lot of wierd lines/artifacts. BTW, I can't get the link in the first post to work anymore (?)


http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/Himg230/scaled.php?server=230&filename=celcollectiongi7.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480
Post
#301584
Topic
Info & Info Wanted: GOUT film grain
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301584/action/topic#301584
Time
No, those other scans definitely aren't representative of what the film looks like. When I first saw those, it looked to me like what happens when you jack up the contrast/saturation in photoshop, like someone had intentionally monkeyed with the colors.

Here's another one. ImageShack is scaling down all of my uploads for some reason.
http://imgcash2.imageshack.us/Himg145/scaled.php?server=145&filename=trioid4.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480

This one is probably the only one that's not really overexposed. Still a bit blurry on the edges, though. I won't bother posting any more of these since they're being automatically shrunken.
http://imgcash4.imageshack.us/Himg517/scaled.php?server=517&filename=tantivegn3.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480
Post
#301566
Topic
Info & Info Wanted: GOUT film grain
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301566/action/topic#301566
Time
The photos I took of the 70mm cels are ALL overexposed (I back-lit them with a bulb that was too bright which is totally my fault- the cels look just stunning in person), so they're really not suitable for reference. I just wanted to show how they differ from the scans on the previous page, which seem to have some serious digital compression/color issues.

It's interesting, though, how in my photo, Han's pants look blue, and his shirt looks pale yellow (which it actually was) while in the GOUT frame, his shirt looks more beige and his pants more grey.
Post
#301563
Topic
Info & Info Wanted: GOUT film grain
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301563/action/topic#301563
Time
A while back, Laserman asked me to send him some scans from ANH for reference. I don't have a scanner that scans film, so I had to photograph these back-lit. Unfortunately, they came out a bit overexposed/blurry (and of course, the 35mm film I used adds another layer of grain to the images) but a few look OK :

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4774/hancel3lt2.jpg
http://imgcash5.imageshack.us/Himg132/scaled.php?server=132&filename=benhousebm2.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480
http://imgcash3.imageshack.us/Himg99/scaled.php?server=99&filename=hologramgr4.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=480
Are these too small? I didn't want to make them annoyingly huge, so I scaled them down a bit.
Post
#301555
Topic
Info & Info Wanted: GOUT film grain
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301555/action/topic#301555
Time
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
What do you mean by video noise? Is there a difference between video noise and grain? I think they are scanned pretty well. You think the scans don't show the full quality of the original 70mm frames?


Video noise is very different from grain. Film grain is what the actual film is composed of, video noise is basically interference caused by the imaging sensors and is those tiny tiny red blue and green dots you see mixed in the image. Thats not part of the film, thats created by the digital capture and its quite heavy on these scans.

OK. I got mixed up because of this videonoise on film idea. But I understand what you mean. Isn't it possible it's on the 70mm frames like that?

Yeah, I was going to say that those 70mm scans don't look very good. Tons of artifacting. I own about 100 of those 70mm cels (they were made by Willitts Designs in the 1990s) and they are just as wonderful as you'd expect them to be. You can still find them on eBay. I'll try to post a few scans later.

Post
#301450
Topic
Info & Info Wanted: GOUT film grain
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301450/action/topic#301450
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84


I had forgotten that its sans-subtitles. Were the previous releases burnt-in? Was the 1995 LD burnt-in? I ask because the VHS of the THX release has burnt-in subs that I always assumed were from the print itself and not overlayed by video.

The '95 "faces" LDs have the subtitles in the black-bar area, as do the DC LDs and the "faces" widescreen VHS tapes (as well as the "hologram" widescreen VHS tapes from '92/'93).

Since the GOUT used the same masters as the aforementioned LDs, I was hoping that they would leave the subtitles as-is, since the LD subs were positioned in such a way that they weren't cropped off if the image was zoomed in. However, for whatever reason, they decided to re-do the subs for the GOUT DVDs.
Post
#301392
Topic
Ian McDiarmid's performance in the PT (also the OT) is memorable and absolutely enthralling
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301392/action/topic#301392
Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: Mielr
So, why was the make-up job so bad? The original prosthetic pieces for the Emperor's make-up in ROTJ were up for sale on eBay a while back- maybe GL should have bought them!

I think those were the ESB ones.
That's right, I remember now. My mistake.
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
I guess the same reason the Yoda puppet in Phantom Menace looks as weird as it does--trying to "improve" the same design with new technology. The results are just weird-looking.

Yeah, I kept thinking, are they trying to make Yoda look younger? There's about 30 years between TPM and ESB, right? In a life span of 900 years, 30 years is about the equivalent of several months (or a few years?) in a human life span, so theoretically Yoda should have looked EXACTLY the same in TPM as he did in ESB.
Post
#301365
Topic
Info & Info Wanted: GOUT film grain
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301365/action/topic#301365
Time
I also do not believe that there was grain added, nor do I believe that there was intentional blurring. The grain is indeed more obvious in the heavy-fx scenes (as expected - can you imagine the grain level if they hadn't used those VistaVision cameras?!). In the rest of the scenes, the grain is at an acceptable level (to me, at least). I don't hate film grain. At least film grain isn't static, like some digitally-induced artifacts.

The prints that they used weren't theatrical prints obviously as they had no burnt-in subtitles. So, would I be wrong in thinking that they were of slightly higher quality (less generations) than a typical theatrical print?
Post
#301291
Topic
Emmet Otter's Jugband Christmas (Complete) - (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/301291/action/topic#301291
Time
I had no idea that they cut all those scenes out for the Emmet Otter DVD. I have the Nick version from '98 (SP). I also recorded it from HBO in '84 or so (probably SLP), but that tape is long gone. I'm so glad I held onto my Nick version and didn't buy the DVD!

I'd love to have the first John Denver/Muppets Christmas special too. I haven't seen that since it first aired (in '79 or '80?)