Mike O

Was the 35th anniversary Blu another fucking downmix?!

Why the fuck is it so hard to include mono? Why? Do they think we're stupid and won't notice a downmix? Seriously, it's like every fucking Hong Kong release. How hard can it be to include the mono?

It's sad that the definitive Spaghetti Western has no decent release anywhere in the blasted world. Glad to see this is getting some press on this forum, though I wish there were a better way to organize it and search for stuff. Jay?

So what's the best bet for the other Leone films? My understanding is that some of the others have the same downmixed crap, which is which? Evidently the German BD of FOD is a stunner, the German release of FAFDM is good with some controversy, but both have the proper mono. I guess likewise for the Italian release of DYS? I'm figuring I should get those, pick up the unused anthology boxed set for the extras, and hope for the best?

FrankT said:

Darth Id said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Make the movies half the length?

 But how would you pack the necessary violence into just 2 1/2 hours?

DuracellEnergizer said:

Easy -- show only the violence and leave pointless things like plot out of the picture.

 They already did that with Caligula.

 We need a multi-quote button. So much. I'm kind of morbidly curious about that movie, but don't think I could stomach it.

RicOlie_2 said:

Darth Id said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Make the movies half the length?

 But how would you pack the necessary violence into just 2 1/2 hours?

 This is if there were six movies as opposed to three.

 THERE ARE THREE STAR WARS MOVIES!!

I know that LOTR is what's actually being talked about, but this dumb joke is one of the few in my lame-ass repertoire, so I'm using it anyway.

Yeah, now we only need properly master HD Blu-ray of pretty much every other Hong Kong film from 1970 forward. Fortune Star have done almost nothing but hack jobs, Kam and Ronson are upscales, and don't even get me started on the endless downmixes masquerading as original mono which is evidently too hard to put on there.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

“Stick with me, baby. Stick with me anyhow. Things should start to get interesting right about now.”
Bob Dylan

“You’d best be careful what you wish for friend, 'cause I’ve been to hell and now I’m back again.”
Steve Earle

“Keep what is useful, discard what is useless, and add what is uniquely your own.”
Bruce Lee Sing-Lung

Buckle up fanboys. Summer is here at at last, with a blast of a blockbuster to set the bar remarkable high. It’s hard to believe that it’s been almost 15 years since Bryan Singer first kicked off the still-strong wave of superhero films with 2000’s X-Men. With top-shelf thespians and sleek direction, Singer followed in the footsteps of Donner and Burton in developing a way to depict comic-book superheroes with seriousness and a degree of intelligence. X2 was even better, a bigger and more complex sequel that set up many possibilities with its finale which unfortunately never came to fruition. Sadly, the X-Men franchise was left floundering directionless with the director’s departure, devolving in a serious increasingly poor sequels. Elsewhere, Singer’s career disappointed frequently, with the misconstrued Superman Returns and the amicable but unimpressive Jack the Giant Slayer. Finally regaining a degree of sanity with the the Singer-produced First Class, the man who started it all is back in the director’s chair to attempt to untangle the franchise’s increasingly unwieldy mythology, massive cast, and increasingly irrelevance against Marvel Studios excellent lineup. And he succeeds wildly, with easily the best superhero outing since at least Joss Whedon’s The Avengers, juggling the film’s ensemble cast, pop gravitas, twisty time-travel narrative, and slick, James Cameron-style action sequences, in adapting one of the comics’ most celebrated storylines. It took ten years, but this is finally the sequel X-fans deserved, and more.

The story opens in the not too distant future, when the X-Men are on the verge of extinction, being hunted by massive robots known as Sentinels, designed by eugenicist Bolivar Trask in an attempt to wipe out mutant-kind. Liquid metal monsters to rival the T-1000, they’re adaptable and all-but in invincible and outnumber the ragtag X-Men by thousands. Hunted in a horrify holocaust in  a post-apocalyptic world, the surviving mutants, hunted to near extinction, have discovered a method to travel in time and avoid their pursuers, at least in the short term, but there’s a catch going back further than a short time, allowing the temporary avoid the ever-more powerful hunters. Going back any further is too rigorous for anyone to survive. Except maybe a certain iconic adamantium-clawed mutant with healing powers. Going back to 1973 to stop Mystique from assassinating Trask and starting the anti-mutant mayhem, Wolverine finds Xavier a bitter and broken man from the events of First Class, and desperately tries to convince him to and his only remaining pupil, the Beast, to try to change the course of the future.

Wisely discarding most of the irritating “X-kids” from Vaughn’s overrated X-Men: First Class while retaining the effective cast members-Mcavoy, Fassbender, Hoult, and Lawrence-and throwing in a delightful bonanza of cameos from the original cast, giving them a proper send-off after Brett Ratner’s hideous X-Men: The Last Stand, Singer swings for the fences. Though the future cast is disappointingly underused as they aren’t the meat of the narrative, seeing McKellen and Stewart back is simply wonderful, their chemistry and repartee remaining as delightful as ever and adding gravity to the proceeding, though the majority of the narrative takes place within the past, with Hugh Jackman returning to the role he was born to play in Wolverine. Jackman remains the most perfect bit of superhero casting since Christopher Reeve donned the Man of Tomorrow’s cape, Fassbender and McAvoy, especially with Stewart and McKellen alongside them (McAvoy and Stewart meet in one of the film’s most inspired passages) as counterpoints, and Lawrence continues to justify her superstar status, blending sexy femme-fatale action chops with surprising vulnerability, even under layers of makeup.

Finally free of the gaudy excesses of Ratner, Vaughn, and Hood, Singer’s sleek style, reminiscent of James Cameron at his peak, lends pop-gravity to the proceedings, succeeding in precisely what Vaughn attempted in First Class-tying the films historical setting with social upheavals like the original comics did. Whereas Vaughn felt like he was simply connecting the dots though, Singer properly shakes things up as much as you can in a comic-book world where nothing ever really changes, making full use of his massive budget and getting every cent up on the screen. Though the underutilized future cast feels a bit disappointing, it allows Singer to thin the ever-growing cast to allow for stronger narrative focus. The central fulcrum-the relationship between Mystique, Xavier, and Magneto-allows for an actual character-based narrative with understandable motivations on all sides. As a result, it approaches that obvious but all-too-rare point in blockbuster FX-fests of giving actual weight to the proceedings and reasons to care among the fireworks.

Elsewhere, the jokes are all zingers, particularly some lines for the fans, without spoiling too much, the resolution is wholly satisfying both on its own and a retcon to hideous previous finale, and the set pieces are all rollicking good fun. Singer’s action sequences actually make spatial sense, the Sentinels are inspired in design and execution, both as futuristic hunters and clunky 70s tech, the many set pieces executed with the clean choreography of the best pop cinema, reminiscent of James Cameron at his peak, full of clean lines and  a clearly delineated sense of who’s doing what to whom, ending with an action climax that’s both visually spectacular and emotionally satisfying. Singer cites many of his favorites as pop cinema’s very best-Nicholas Meyer’s Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Spielberg’s Jaws-and if he’s not quite in their company, he’s certainly on the right track. Qucksilver is an inspired creation, his bullet-time style FX as a particular highlight. Signer’s use of silence, tension, judicious slow-motion, impressive choreography (some of it courtesy of ace second-unit director Greg Smrz, a John Woo alum who’s clearly learned his lessons well), and the stylish cinematography and punchy editing of his top lieutenants- superb DP Thomas Newton Seigel and and editor and composer John Ottman, who lend the film a gorgeous, slightly expressionistic color palette (shot in rich digital) and strong rhythm. For once, bloat isn’t a problem as the film’s outward expansion actually suggests a larger universe (rumored deleted scenes hint at future treats as Blu-Ray extras) and the film’s running time flies by.

Setting the bar impressively high for the rest of the summer, X-Men finally earn some of their glory back, suggesting that this franchise, once on life support, might still have some life left in it yet. Sleek, smart, stylish, funny, and thoroughly entertaining, the gang’s all here, and they’re better than ever. Though this proves a satisfying denouement, a post-credits stinger nonetheless hints at a new villain and future adventures. But if the world is in peril again, we needn’t worry. With Singer back at the helm, we’re in good hands. It’s great to have him back at last. To me, my X-Men.

Apparently the master that Fortune Star gave them, in their continued mission to fuck up releases of all Hong Kong films made after the Shaw Brothers, were bad upscales. Being an HK fan sucks almost as much as being a Star Wars fans, releases are so fucked up.

This, of course, begs the question: if Disney do this mythological restoration, what would the "restored" version be? Which sound mix would it use? Which "changes" would it retain and which wouldn't it?

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Mike O said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Yeah that is what killed Voyager for me. I could have put up with some of the stupid stuff but when a show seems to forget what it's own premise is from week to week,then it loses me.  They never ran out of shuttles,or people,and no matter what went wrong it was always fixed next week. For a show that was supposed to be about being out on the edge and not having any back up they sure did play it safe.  That is just sad. Voyager could have been the best Star Trek series and instead it is the only one I can not stand. Yes you read that right. There are parts of Enterprise that I like but Voyager's forgetfulness of it's own basic premise pushes it over the top for me.

If it were not for Holo Doc I don't think I could have stuck with it for seven years.

 A friend of mine pointed out that the premise Voyager initially promised is actually more like what BSG eventually became: dark, ragtag ship on the run, etc. Is the new BSG series any good, by the way? It's up on Netflix, I'm curious. 

 Yes it is.  I don't think it is the best sci-fi series of all time(I think they some times fell into the trap of making things dark for no other reason then making them dark and there were some soap opera elements in the latter seasons I didn't care for)but it is still a very good show and right off the bat I said to myself "This is the show Voyager should have been." There is a ton of good in the show(Even if some of the plot elements don't make sense) and I would say that everyone who is a sci-fi fan should give it a shot. Be warned it is a little like Lost in that nothing was planed from the start(You know I am starting to think B5 was the only sci-fi show that's plot arc was planed in any detail)so there are a few things that are never completely explained or when they are explained seem a little silly.  Still if you can over look that I would say watch it.  It is a very well done show and is very close to how Voyager should have been done. Check it out.

 Sadly, B5 appears to be streaming absolutely nowhere. Which is a shame, since it can't grow an audience, and it damn sure isn't getting remastered as a result.  I've not seen it yet for said reason, either.

pittrek said:

One technical question for you guys.

Why does season 4 of Enterprise looks so HORRIBLY WRONG? What happened? I know they changed from 35mm film to 1080p digital Sony cameras, but that doesn't explain why everything looks and moves so weird...

For 3 years of TOS, 7 years of TNG, 7 years of DS9, 7 years of VOY and 3 years on ENT we were used to the typical 35mm film @ 24fps -> video @ 30fps (or in my European case 25fps) look. Everything looked a certain way, everybody moved in a certain speed... Now suddenly everything looks like the Hobbit movies! The movement looks "faster", more "smoother" etc. I don't know if you guys know what I'm talking about but I hope at least somebody does.

I noticed the "effect" for the first time in 2006/7 when they broadcast Enterprise season 4 on TV here. I read online that they changed from film to digital, so I thought something went horribly wrong when they converted the footage from NTSC to PAL, that they've done something bad to the framerate and that's the reason why everything looks "faster". But now after I watched the whole season 4 on bluray I'm even more confused, the bluray videos run at 24fps, and the effect seems even more noticable and even more disturbing! It goes so far that I can't watch a whole damned episode without having breaks every couple of minutes. Or does it have to do something with the fact that the episodes suck? I don't know, but the overall effect is REALLY annoying and distracting.

Does anybody know what they did? I always thought that they filmed season 4 at 1080p/24fps. Now I actually start to think they filmed it in 1080i/60fps or something similar.

 Back in the day, were TV shows shot at 24 FPS and then converted to 30 FPS for NTSC broadcast via pulldown?

twister111 said:

pittrek said:

One technical question for you guys.



Why does season 4 of Enterprise looks so HORRIBLY WRONG? What happened? I know they changed from 35mm film to 1080p digital Sony cameras, but that doesn't explain why everything looks and moves so weird...

To my understanding they were still figuring out the best way to make those cameras. So it likely boils down to the construction of the camera itself. Nothing the film crew could do about that.

Slightly unrelated but it reminds me how around that time the very chemical formula to develop film prints was changed from the old way. It was in order to give truer black levels to the image.

 RIP celluloid :(!

I'm just reticent to get my hopes up. It sounds too good to be true, plus even if they were doing a restoration, there're still a huge variety of questions. Last time we got excited, it turned out to be the GOUT. This just sounds way too good to be true.

Fang Zei said:

Finally, something:

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/15/new-star-wars-rumors-include-original-trilogy-re-release-on-blu-rayvod-and-more/

 No disrespect to said website, I don't know how reliable they are or are not, but this still amounts to little more than the rumor-mill stuff we've been hearing endless speculation about lately. The so-called e-mail they've intercepted? Maybe they're telling the truth, but we have no way of knowing, and I remain skeptical. It sounds like the same endless circular speculation we've been doing ever since Disney bought the franchise.

msycamore said:

Mike O said:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/05/could-disney-finally-give-us-the-remastered-unedited-star-wars-we-want/

We're fucked.

It's just an article basically repeating word for word what Kaminski's articles already says (which I linked to), info that has been up on his sites for years now.

Mike O said:

And that link where Drew talks about Lucas watching the OOT and sinking in his chair the way we do when we watch the SE is particularly heartbreaking. I think it's further damning evidence that like a certain other sci-fi luminary, we're fighting a war we've already lost.

But c'mon, why do you even watch the SE?

Sadly there has never been a war to win, the real situation is that most SW-fans have the battered wife syndrome, they buy their SW-product and then later they whine about it endlessly on message boards. After fifteen years there's still people discussing those awful prequel movies every day. They bought the ticket, they bought the VHS/LD, they bought the DVD and they bought the BD but they still keep going. The same with the SE...

Mike O said:

msycamore said:

Mike O said:

I didn't mean any disrespect, so I apologize if you took it that way. I merely meant that what you were suggesting was that what he was saying was incorrect (Or at least that's how I interpreted what you were saying.). It just sounded like you were saying that he had his facts wrong, and I was wondering why you believed that. I apologize if I came across as confrontational in any way, that was not my intention!

It's cool Mike, no problem. :) I guess in the last bit in my response to you I also appeared a little more grumpy than what's really was the case and intended. Irony doesn't do well in text form and English isn't my first language either. Still, I personally find it difficult to make any sense of what the former ILM'er really is talking about in that vague anecdote. I really recommend anyone who is interested in the subject who haven't yet read the great coverage on the SE over at American Cinematographer to take a look, Kaminski aka Zombie also did a nice summary on the SE restoration here: http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html

We know from the facts presented to us that the original negative was in bad shape when they started to work with it, and that it had to be repaired. The shots on the infamous CRI-stock (mostly optical effect shots, wipes and dissolves etc) had deteriorated and it was decided to digitally recomposite most of those shots, (this is obviously the part where it stopped being a true restoration) in other instances new negative pieces were made from interpositives and separation masters. Had the mindset behind this project only been restoration and not enhancement the faded CRI-stock segments had been lifted from interpositives or separation masters as well. But as we know, the digital recomposites were only the beginning...

But the story from Tanaka about negative being partly dissolved in a chemical solution when reproducing interpositives doesn't sound good no matter what he's talking about in that context. Speaking as a layman the MO sounds very unprofessional. The ones who had the task of cleaning the original negative knew that Star Wars consisted of several different film stocks, it's nothing weird or incredibly unique, so they knew perfectly well what had to be done. The stuff in Tanaka's story sounds more like a clown operation, "Let's do this and see what's comin' out at the other end!" But with Lucasfilm nothing would surprise me any longer.

In the end all of this have nothing to do with the absence of Lucas' original films on DVD or BD anyway. Some fans and nutcases seem to still believe that those deteriorated (I believe 62 shots) on CRI-stock is the reason we cannot get this classic film restored when it's only a case of a single person who doesn't want it to happen.

This sounds like an incredibly complicated issue, partially the fault of Lucas' constant revisionism, and partially just of plain old time being unkind to negatives which were apparently used and abused.

Yeah, it definitely was back in the nineties. Today it's a much more easy and much less costly procedure. It's only a question about restoring sixty something deteriorated shots. As film historian and preservationist Robert Harris said back in 2006, "As the original negative of Star Wars, like any number of other effects-intensive films, as well as certain 65mm productions, and all properly cut 16mm productions, was cut A / B roll checkerboard, it means that each and every shot could be easily disconnected from those on either side and replaced -- or removed and used elsewhere, as in the SE, without damage or loss of frames."

Kershner's Empire and Marquand's Jedi are already supposed to be in good shape. But as long as George Lucas don't want them restored and re-released, I personally think it's very unlikely that Lucasfilm will go against his wishes. He is the director, founder and former owner of the company, friend, shareholder and so on...

About those distribution rights that are so often brought up these days whenever discussions of a potential video rerelease of the original films happen, can someone initiated enough please explain to me what has so dramatically changed about the deals between Lucasfilm and Fox since Disney bought the company? Maybe I'm really stupid but why would anything have changed, Fox has been the distributor for Star Wars all these years, apparently they will retain them for the '77 film in perpetuity. Disney and Lucasfilm is the owner of the films, who then is the company distributing their film seems irrelevant to me, not for the lucky distributor of course.

Someone care to explain this issue to someone who may have missed the whole point. Why would the situation regarding a re-release be any different now than for say ten years ago? Even if Fox is the distributor, isn't it entirely up to Disney/Lucasfilm to decide when or if something is going to be distributed.

 I don't watch the SE. I haven't watched anything Star Wars in many years, and until such time as the OOT comes out remastered in 4K (Which will likely happen around the time Richard Dawkins converts to Christianity), I have no intention of doing so. And I have not bought a single goddam thing related to Star Wars since at least the 2005, and I have no intention of doing so again. You are right, of course, that in spite of their complaining, many fans do indeed purchase whatever Star Wars stuff comes out, but even if they didn't the mainstream presence of the franchise is so gigantic that the vast majority of the mainstream don't care, and certainly wouldn't boycott anything in the name of the OOT. As far as the whole situation goes, for Fox, it probably isn't hugely different than when Lucasfilm had the franchise: they'd get a cut of the profits the same way. So they probably wouldn't be opposed to it. Disney, however, probably have no interest in sharing, especially after spending $4 billion.

lovelikewinter said:

As long as Disney isn't too greedy and agrees to a fair sharing of profits, I can see Fox playing ball and doing a OOT release.  Disney needs to generate good will for Star Wars after the last decade of Prequel-only attention.  Fox will have only so long to get money from Star Wars.  Do it.

Just get rid of the awful Lowry restoration and use the GL Technicolor print as a color source, it should be good.  Disney and Fox know what the fans want, and they want happy fans for 2015.

 I don't think they much care what fans of the OOT want. Episode VII could project a blank screen for 3 hours and it will still become one of the five highest-grossing films of all time. What the 1% of the fanbase who care about the OOT think probably isn't of much interest to Disney.

lovelikewinter said:

As long as Disney isn't too greedy and agrees to a fair sharing of profits, I can see Fox playing ball and doing a OOT release.  Disney needs to generate good will for Star Wars after the last decade of Prequel-only attention.  Fox will have only so long to get money from Star Wars.  Do it.

Just get rid of the awful Lowry restoration and use the GL Technicolor print as a color source, it should be good.  Disney and Fox know what the fans want, and they want happy fans for 2015.

 I don't think they much care what fans of the OOT want. Episode VII could project a blank screen for 3 hours and it will still become one of the five highest-grossing films of all time. What the 1% of the fanbase who care about the OOT think probably isn't of much interest to Disney.

m_s0 said:

lovelikewinter said:

Disney needs to generate good will for Star Wars after the last decade of Prequel-only attention.

They don't need goodwill. Everyone is going to see those movies regardless of anything - it's just one of those franchises.

 Agreed. This is a license to print money.

Easterhay said:

DominicCobb said:

More important than references, the original trilogy continues to strongly influence the majority of science fiction/fantasy and blockbuster films made today.

I very much doubt that. What's popular at the moment? Action hero films and Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptations. Both of which we'd have if Star Wars didn't exist.

 I don't know if we'd have the blockbuster mentality the way we do today if it hadn't been for Star Wars, and Jackson has cited Lucas as an influence, and is certainly indebted to him (and his detractors will certainly tell you so in terms of his overuse of FX and other flaws too). Star Wars still casts a long shadow.

Fang Zei said:

If the Fox/Disney situation is all that's holding up a restored OOT then we're definitely not screwed. That will resolve itself eventually, even if it's not until 2020.* To me there is way too much money to be made by both corporations for it not to happen. In any event, it's certainly out of George's control now.

Like SilverWook said, we're doing a pretty good job of preserving the older versions all by ourselves.

*Speaking of which, if Disney will still have to pay for Ep4, is Fox really gonna charge them any less than they would for all six movies? There might not be a point in waiting.

 Disney could perhaps buy it outright if Fox is willing to sell it. But given that God hates Star Wars fans, I'm not holding out much hope. And even then, 2020 is a long wait.

SilverWook said:

Mike O said:

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/05/could-disney-finally-give-us-the-remastered-unedited-star-wars-we-want/

We're fucked. And that link where Drew talks about Lucas watching the OOT and sinking in his chair the way we do when we watch the SE is particularly heartbreaking. I think it's further damning evidence that like a certain other sci-fi luminary, we're fighting a war we've already lost. 

 This site, and certain projects carried on by it's members, are proof we are not screwed. It may take a little while, but we really don't need George or Disney to provide the OOT anymore. The fans are doing it.

 Fans don't have access to 35mm negatives. Though the fact that technology has reached the point where fans are capable of doing what they are is pretty amazing. Though it's sad that they care way more than the creative entities who actually fucking made the things.

generalfrevious said:

They have a lot money, so getting a restored OOT out now is just a matter of negotiation between the two companies.

 We hope. Obviously, what condition the negatives are in, what kind of work needs to be done, how it will look if it happens, etc. is all purely fan speculation at this point.

msycamore said:

Mike O said:

I didn't mean any disrespect, so I apologize if you took it that way. I merely meant that what you were suggesting was that what he was saying was incorrect (Or at least that's how I interpreted what you were saying.). It just sounded like you were saying that he had his facts wrong, and I was wondering why you believed that. I apologize if I came across as confrontational in any way, that was not my intention!

It's cool Mike, no problem. :) I guess in the last bit in my response to you I also appeared a little more grumpy than what's really was the case and intended. Irony doesn't do well in text form and English isn't my first language either. Still, I personally find it difficult to make any sense of what the former ILM'er really is talking about in that vague anecdote. I really recommend anyone who is interested in the subject who haven't yet read the great coverage on the SE over at American Cinematographer to take a look, Kaminski aka Zombie also did a nice summary on the SE restoration here: http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html

We know from the facts presented to us that the original negative was in bad shape when they started to work with it, and that it had to be repaired. The shots on the infamous CRI-stock (mostly optical effect shots, wipes and dissolves etc) had deteriorated and it was decided to digitally recomposite most of those shots, (this is obviously the part where it stopped being a true restoration) in other instances new negative pieces were made from interpositives and separation masters. Had the mindset behind this project only been restoration and not enhancement the faded CRI-stock segments had been lifted from interpositives or separation masters as well. But as we know, the digital recomposites were only the beginning...

But the story from Tanaka about negative being partly dissolved in a chemical solution when reproducing interpositives doesn't sound good no matter what he's talking about in that context. Speaking as a layman the MO sounds very unprofessional. The ones who had the task of cleaning the original negative knew that Star Wars consisted of several different film stocks, it's nothing weird or incredibly unique, so they knew perfectly well what had to be done. The stuff in Tanaka's story sounds more like a clown operation, "Let's do this and see what's comin' out at the other end!" But with Lucasfilm nothing would surprise me any longer.

In the end all of this have nothing to do with the absence of Lucas' original films on DVD or BD anyway. Some fans and nutcases seem to still believe that those deteriorated (I believe 62 shots) on CRI-stock is the reason we cannot get this classic film restored when it's only a case of a single person who doesn't want it to happen.

 This sounds like an incredible complicated issue, partially the fault of Lucas' constant revisionism, and partially just of plain old time being unkind to negatives which were apparently used and abused.

darklordoftech said:

Mike O said:

Lucas watching the OOT and sinking in his chair

Too bad for Lucas that he doesn't own the OOT anymore.

 Yeah, well, maybe it'd give him some idea of how all of us feel.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/05/could-disney-finally-give-us-the-remastered-unedited-star-wars-we-want/

We're fucked. And that link where Drew talks about Lucas watching the OOT and sinking in his chair the way we do when we watch the SE is particularly heartbreaking. I think it's further damning evidence that like a certain other sci-fi luminary, we're fighting a war we've already lost. 

I'm getting home from a full shift at work, desperately trying to forget it's "Star Wars Day," now that it's been irreparably damaged for me, pining for the non-existent dream of a 4K remaster of the OOT.

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Yeah that is what killed Voyager for me. I could have put up with some of the stupid stuff but when a show seems to forget what it's own premise is from week to week,then it loses me.  They never ran out of shuttles,or people,and no matter what went wrong it was always fixed next week. For a show that was supposed to be about being out on the edge and not having any back up they sure did play it safe.  That is just sad. Voyager could have been the best Star Trek series and instead it is the only one I can not stand. Yes you read that right. There are parts of Enterprise that I like but Voyager's forgetfulness of it's own basic premise pushes it over the top for me.

If it were not for Holo Doc I don't think I could have stuck with it for seven years.

 A friend of mine pointed out that the premise Voyager initially promised is actually more like what BSG eventually became: dark, ragtag ship on the run, etc. Is the new BSG series any good, by the way? It's up on Netflix, I'm curious. 

Jetrell Fo said:

Mike O said:

Apparently, it's still a pretty big hit at cons: penthousemagazine.com/features/geek-love/

I got a real kick out of that article.....they really do know how to have a good time at those conventions......  :)

 Do tell....

msycamore said:

Mike O said:

I'm not saying this to be a smartass, but are you sure?

If we are to believe what has been said and written about it in several magazines, articles, documentaries etc, yes that is the way they approached the cleanup process.

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars/articles/sped/ssws/pg1.htm

Fortunately, Fox's head of postproduction, Ted Gagliano, made the restoration of Star Wars a personal labor of love, working closely with YCM Labs, Pacific Title, Lucasfilm editorial, ILM and Skywalker Sound. Had the negative been constructed more conventionally, the first order of business would have been to wash it in a sulfur bath a 104F, then wipe it down by hand. But those four different film stocks couldn't be washed together; instead, they had to be separated and washed in batches. That meant dissecting the original Star Wars negative, washing it, and then reassembling it. "That made everybody suck in their breath, " Kennedy says, recalling the stressfull situation. "Thankfully, Robert Hart, the neg cutter on the second and third films, came in to put the negative back together. After doing various tests, we found out right away that nothing beats scanning original negative. Star Wars was an A-B neg cut, which meant that they could actually lift and slug original negative and send it back to ILM whenever we were enhancing a live-action shot. I think this is the first time someone has tried to bring a Seventies effects film back to the big screen."

Mike O said:

Do you think he was lying, misinformed, or just being an idiot?

No, I absolutely don't think he was lying, being misinformed nor do I think he's an idiot. David Tanaka were a visual effects editor at ILM who was directly involved with this "restoration." He was apparently responsible for finding the elements for the original optical effects so that they could be digitally recomposited.

I just find it frustrating hearing these vague stories on how things went down as there's been a lot of confusion and different thoughts on what actually was done to the original negative. It effectively muddies the water. Reading that quote from arstechnica again, my guess is that when he says original negative he's actually talking about those negative bits and pieces they had to track down for recreating and making their new visual effect shots and not the actual finished cut negative that was disassembled, washed and reassembled. But what he was saying may of course have been perfectly clear to you or everyone else besides me.

So, Mike O, what did you make of his story? Do you think I am misinformed, or just being an idiot? ;)

 I didn't mean any disrespect, so I apologize if you took it that way. I merely meant that what you were suggesting was that what he was saying was incorrect (Or at least that's how I interpreted what you were saying.). It just sounded like you were saying that he had his facts wrong, and I was wondering why you believed that. I apologize if I came across as confrontational in any way, that was not my intention!

generalfrevious said:

You know what, I don't care about whether or not Cameron made his movies with the wrong color timing. I guess I could see the difference if I trained my eyes to spot them, and I could understand it bothering me.

But what Lucas is doing to the OT is unique. I know few believe this, but I think he wants to spite us and make one of the most significant films of all time disappear off the face of the Earth. He lured us, and is now beating us for no reason. What did we ever do to him to deserve this treatment? Nothing. It was his plan all along to piss on the fans, it just took him twenty years to do it so he could fool us into thinking he was the hero while purging everyone else that made the OT great like Stalin did 50 years earlier. He is a stupid and evil man, and the tragedy is that when he passes away, it will be without any remorse for what he has done. 

Like I said, all Cameron has done is make everything teal and orange. That's splitting hairs compared to the SE.

What Lucas did to the OT is unique, I don't know if outside of Kubrick there's been any other filmmaker who's actively destroyed his own work in an attempt to revise history. This does, not, however, absolve Cameron of anything. He's engaging in exactly the same type of revisionism, and in a much more subtle way. While few members of the general public care about what happened to Star Wars, fewer still care about what happens as regard color timing since many HDTVs aren't even calibrated properly (I've been having trouble with mine). And neither scenario is one which the average viewer is likely to care enough about to boycott the releases, which is why it's allowed to continue.

twister111 said:

 Hikikomori?

danny_boy said:

Fang Zei said:

But for a scope movie like Star Wars, it really should be the full 2048 that's being used. 2K for scope is 2048:853, 2K for 1.85:1 is 1998:1080 and for 16:9 it's, of course, 1920:1080. 

Yes---although commercial 2K  cinema projectors can scale/stretch  up the image in the vertical direction(thereby utilizing the full 1080 x 2048 panel)

And with the help of an anamorphic lens---optically expand the image horizontally.

For those who own projectors which have this same scalability function---It can also be done at home (but consumer anamorphic lens cost somewhere in the region of $5000-$10000).

P.S

I have a Sony 4K 1000es projector and have watched Eps IV,V and VI at a resolution of 1706 X 4096.

The below screenshot is from projectorreviews.com:

They scale up perfectly and look nothing short of amazing.

Same applies to the prequels with Revenge Of Sith being the standout.

This screenshot below is from an AVS forum member :

 How the hell does everyone know all of this home theater and technical information except for me?! God, I'm behind on everything. My life is a mess. Anyway, that last photo is frigging creepy. Is there a point to 4K unless you have a super-badass projector? I can't even tune my cheapo HDTV right. I fail at life.

generalfrevious said:

About the debate whether Lucas destroyed the original negatives for the special editions; I think that it could have happened. Most film makers would restore the negative before adding the special effects digitally. But since Lucas is dumb enough to make Yoda fight in the prequels, he surely must be stupid enough to splice the negatives of the originals for the special editions. Let's face it: years from now the original trilogy will be on Wikipedia's article on lost films.

 In the case of other changes like Cameron's, I'm inclined to believe that were simply done at the digital stage, and they're reversible, though of course that would require people to actually boycott until he stopped doing it, and in the case of high-profile releases like that, it so won't happen. We're stuck with his revisionism. If Lucas did destroy the negatives, is it possible to make a new one from a positive print of the originals? I'm think I remember reading about it being done with Stagecoach.

msycamore said:

Knightmessenger said:

msycamore said:

Baronlando said:

The '97 certainly started out as an honest restoration, which the movie needed, even the original plan of a few shots wouldn't have been unreasonable, but then turned into a perfect storm of drunken digital crayon mayhem and classic movies being used as R&D. The lameness of the blu-rays is probably just basic cheapness.

True, it may have started out as an honest attempt at restoration but it was pretty clear from the beginning that Lucas was also going to revise the film. They started storyboarding changes to ANH in 1993, added Jabba in 1994 for example.

What I don't understand is why the heck did FOX pay for all this restoration and not release a home video release of that effort or even produced new prints before the drunken digital crayon mayhem began?  Instead they went with George's wishes and re-released the '93 telecine as a "Last time available" video in '95, simultaneously with this "restoration" being worked on. But I guess they were Lucas' lapdog at that point with the forthcoming prequels on the horizon. I don't think a restored original release on the shelves would have diminished the income for their Special Edition theatrical release either.

Fox is basically as much guilty as Lucas in this travesty.

 Did either of you watch "Anatomy of a Dewback" on the third blu ray bonus disc? It's surprisingly low quality for something you think would have been ported over from a studio videotape master. However there are a lot of interesting parts.

Lucas says he saved everything from the films 1) in case he ever wanted to reedit them and 2) he is like a packrat that doesn't throw anything out.

No, I wouldn't touch that ridiculous BD set with a ten foot pole. But if it is indeed the same featurette that can also be seen on the official site, I've at least seen it in the past. I recall it was just a fluffy Special Edition PR piece with a bunch of ass kissers and nerds who finally got the chance to play around in the SW-sandbox.

Knightmessenger said:

They do show a video of the Look Sir Droids scene, as to how they add to it in 97. But it does include a clip of the original unaltered scene, that appears to be sourced from the YCM restored print. That means the stormtrooper doesn't have 4 eyes. And before that scene, the sandcrawler goes off in with clouds visible in the sky because it was day for night. Well, in the clip they showed, it was much more apparent that it was a daytime sky than the GOUT. (which is tinted darker to hide it somewhat)

So whatever they used had to be like the most original highest generation print of the restored film without any changes.

What the hell did they do with that tape? We're told they spliced in the new footage into the film print but still wouldn't they have made some kind of a video master from that? If nothing else to use as a reference?

But wouldn't that tape have been preferable to use in 1995 for the faces set? Or the 2006 dvd? And if you're going to make an archival tape, why not stretch it anamorphically because surely, LFL knew that would retain more detail and might be useful if widescreen televisions ever became popular.

Don't know what tape you mean but yes, it's basically what I implied. That's why the "restoration" done in the 90's wasn't exactly honest even in its origin. You simply don't release "A Last Time Available" video release simultaneously with an ongoing restoration. It was meant as a replacement from the very moment the restoration began and Fox allowed it and payed for the whole thing. Sad but true.

If for some miracle the big "George champion of film preservation Lucas" suddenly made a complete 180 and wanted his earlier works of cinema available in modern video standards, Disney, Lucasfilm, Warner or Universal wouldn't exactly oppose his desire. George doesn't want them released, that's why we haven't seen them released on modern formats. It's not an issue of nonexistent or deteriorated film elements. The roadblock has always been Lucas, period.

Fang Zei said:

Cameron didn't quite do the same thing as Lucas with his newer transfers of Aliens and Titanic, no, but then again I think Cameron puts more emphasis on the original version's edit being what makes it the "original version" than any digital revisions that may be found within otherwise identical edits, and he "fixed" a whole bunch of things in Titanic for its most recent release. Funny enough, the theatrical cut of Aliens on the blu-ray can't technically be called that from an editing standpoint either: Cameron corrected the order of four shots where Ripley picks up a flamethrower, puts down a machine gun, picks up a machine gun, puts down a flamethrower.

Wasn't sure if Cameron's latest SE tweaks were applied to both cuts, thanks for confirming. That's sad but with that new color timing I wouldn't have upgraded anyway.

That pulse rifle / flamethrower edit mixup on the dropship, had apparently been corrected already for the '89 TV-broadcast version where most of the footage in the Special Edition first appeared. I don't recall if that continuity error was present in the Special Edition when it was first released back in 1992 and the DVD's brought back the continuity error or not.

The Special Edition of Aliens isn't exactly a Director's Cut in the truest sense either, new visual effects had to be created back in the '90's for example. It's just unfortunate that the 1986 theatrical cut also gets affected just because the director cannot stop dickin around with his Special Edition.

Fang Zei said:

Although I guess I should simply be thankful that the only thing he erased in Aliens (AFAIK) is Lance Henricksen's torso sticking out of the ground in a shot during the final action scene. It's almost like the snake pit reflection to Aliens' RotLA.

There was a few other minor tweaks done on Aliens, see here: http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=294598 

If I recall correctly, the hangar matte painting was also tweaked. Besides the alterations in the Well of Souls, Raiders of the Lost Ark also have the pole guiding the boulder erased. But the other tweaks done in 2003 didn't make the jump.

I'm willing to tolerate the minor edits, though begrudgingly, but the color-timing changes are simply unacceptable, it was them and the lack of the mono which kept me from buying T1, and rumor has it that HDTV version of The Abyss which started circulating recently does as well, which means the Blu-Ray will likewise. As far as I'm concerned, it makes him just as bad as Lucas. And he's about as likely to fix it anytime soon.

msycamore said:

Tobar said:

Tanaka: I remember when we were working on the Star Wars restoration, that was a different process. I think we optically recreated interpositives. But in order to do this, it went through some kind of warm chemical bath cleansing. The weird thing about Star Wars was that it was made up of different film stocks, so it went through this bath and they didn’t know what would come out on the other end...

Parker: You mean if it would survive or not? ‘George we might destroy your entire film, but it’s... we think it’s going to be OK.’

Tanaka: There’s a space battle shot and a close-up on Hans Solo, and the original negative is coming out of this cleaning solution and it’s just acetate.

Parker: It’s all clear. Oh no, did the bath dissolve it?

Tanaka: Yeah, it dissolved it, depending on the film stock.

Source

Seriously though, how many different versions and horror stories are we going to hear about how things happened for this "restoration"? What is described doesn't make much sense to me either or do I misunderstand what he is saying, he mentions that he think they optically recreated interpositives and the chemical bath dissolved parts that were of different film stock but then he suddenly says the original negative is coming out of this cleaning solution partly dissolved.

The original negative for Star Wars contained four types of film stocks, as two of them couldn't be exposed to the bath, each stock was treated separately. It was disassembled cleaned and reassembled to avoid just such a scenario he described.

 I'm not saying this to be a smartass, but are you sure? Do you think he was lying, misinformed, or just being an idiot?

SilverWook said:

JayArgonaut said:

imperialscum said:

I am convinced both original film stock (or copies of it) and scanned unaltered digital version of it exist. The only other scenario is that Lucas explicitly ordered to destroy/delete them.

Yes, ala Kubrick, who instructed Leon Vitali to destroy the deleted scenes and outtakes from 2001, The Shining, A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon. 

 Yes, Stanley had stuff burned, but even the most meticulous director can't account for every scrap of film. They found the deleted 2001 footage in a salt mine MGM uses to preserve it's library several years back. Whether we get to see it anytime soon is anyone's guess.

The Eastman House advertised a Halloween screening of The Shining a couple years back with the legendary cut ending. They had to change their plans and show the final cut, presumably because Kubrick's estate objected, but that footage is in someone's hands somewhere.

 Yeah, maybe back when they actually used film. 35mm is dead as Heaven on a Saturday night, and given how digitally obsessed Lucas is, I wouldn't put it past him to find digital archiving to be sufficient and destroy the negative.

PS What is the cut ending of The Shining? Enlighten me about some of these stories.

darklordoftech said:

Which OT?

 This. The state of Star Wars has not improved without the OOT out.

For a guy who's obsessed with digital technology, shooting only on 1080p didn't show a lot of foresight on Lucas' part.

35mm is dead, long live 35mm. 

I can't believe that boxed set didn't include the two-disc versions of the first two Iron Man movies. What the hell kind of an ultimate edition is that? The price on those damn individual releases hasn't going down either. Disney sure know that even with the physical media market on its knees, they'll still sell. 

Still cant believe Cap wasmt receptive to Widow in WS. I find it difficult t believe that any heterosexual male could resist Scarlett Johansson :D. 

Anyway, fucking Joss Whedon gets to live his dream and have the best job in the world. God I need to solve my existential crisis and fix my life. 

Blu-rays with teal and orange recoloring. The results are decidedly disappointing.