NeverarGreat

You_Too said:

That frame is mirrored but anyway, in the GOUT source there sure is glue marks at the bottom because I remember fixing that frame because it had been "cleaned up" by their DVNR in 1993 leaving some extra aliasing where the glue marks were.

By the way, after some more analyzing of some frames from the Reliance clip, I'm starting to believe it's a new scan or something we haven't seen before. Not only is it less cropped on all sides, (especially left, right and bottom) but it's also less "eaten up" by DVNR which can even be seen through vimeo's compression. Look at Obi-Wan's lightsaber core here: http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/109157

I'm starting to think Disney is working from new scans or something, but making their own special edition. The new lightsaber glow looks very photoshop-ish to me.

 That's my conclusion as well:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/4K-restoration-on-Star-Wars/topic/16857/page/14/

grainger said:

CO said:

While the duel is action packed, and John Williams music is great, it pretty much sums up what is wrong with the PT:  There is nothing more to it then that.  What makes a great duel from the OT was the action AND the dialogue, and Duel of Fates lacks any dialogue.  In a sense, Lucas chose style over substance for the PT again.

To be fair, the force fields did show us a little about the Jedi characters - Qui Gon's patience vs Obi Wan's impetuousness, so there was an attempt to have some depth in the fight.

However, the scene didn't tell us anything meaningful about the conflict itself - both sides just agreed to fight each other because they were "the enemy". There was nothing personal at stake, and we knew absolutely nothing about Darth Maul - he was just a costume.

 This is it exactly. I remember reading a synopsis of the first draft to TPM, where the generator room was actually the planetary shield generator. If Maul was guarding the generator and the Jedi were fighting for control of it to stop more Federation craft from landing, it would have integrated into the movie far more. But the battle itself would have remained impersonal.

Obi-wan's lightsaber effect was clearly unfinished in the trailer, so I doubt that the trailer actually used the elements from the re-release, probably just took bits from earlier trailers.

The Deathly Hallows always struck me as a kind of Pirates of the Caribbean At World's End type plot contrivance, where a certain number of random objects has some special significance not at all foreshadowed in previous installments. I distinctly remember Ron explaining that invisibility cloaks were very rare, thus saying that there were more of them than one. For all her careful plotting, this was a bizarre departure for Rowling. I wouldn't mind seeing this trinity de-emphasized.

Darth Id said:

NeverarGreat said:

Lynch's Dune was a good movie. Perhaps not great, and it doesn't do Dune justice, but I'm glad that it exists. 

To put this necro'd thread on topic, I'd rather have too little exposition than too much. I'd say 2001, A Space Odyssey comes dangerously close to having too little exposition, whereas Interstellar has far too much.

 I'm gonna go with...uproariously terrible on the whole Dune issue.  And certainly not light on the exposition, to forgive an on-topic connection.  IIRC, the "film" opened with about 6 1/2 minutes of uninterrupted spoken-word doggerel re "THE SPICE," etc., while the screen just alternated back and forth between shots of two static planets.

I'm not sure how to feel about that exposition dump. Star Wars had one in text form, so if Dune went the same way, would it be viewed as harshly? Dune in book form prefaced most chapters with quotes by the Princess Irulian, so having her preface the movie doesn't seem out of place. However I don't think that it needed to go on for so long. Just a little about Arrakis and the spice, then cut to Caladan.

Lynch's Dune was a good movie. Perhaps not great, and it doesn't do Dune justice, but I'm glad that it exists. 

To put this necro'd thread on topic, I'd rather have too little exposition than too much. I'd say 2001, A Space Odyssey comes dangerously close to having too little exposition, whereas Interstellar has far too much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHfhorJnAEI

It's now possible to recover sound in a video by analyzing the movement of objects within the video. I hope somebody uses this for old silent movies, just for fun. Also, for Star Wars, it may be possible to recover some of Prowse's original dialogue on set. That's neat.

Harmy said:

Or maybe just mo-cap?

 Most likely

It's quiet....too quiet.

This will be much more funny when Duracell inevitably changes avatars to something horrific.

It looks very much like the wings of that new ship rotate 90 degrees when in flight for a more streamlined appearance. The red markings and the guards make me think that this is a diplomatic vessel, while the TIE aspects feel very military. An odd combination, but but cool.

Yeah Harmy, way to steal -1's thunder on this ;)

Star Wars '77 was the soup that your mom made once by starting with grandma's recipe, then throwing new things into the pot without measuring them. The result was absolutely, unexpectedly delicious and completely satisfying on its own.

ESB was your mom's attempt to replicate that soup by laboriously measuring each ingredient and tasting it at every turn, while grandma hovered around wondering what was wrong with her old recipe. It was only supposed to be basic vegetable beef soup, after all. The taste was more subtle, more delicious, more simmered in sauce than before, but the initial delight of discovery was gone, never to be recaptured. It also seemed incomplete on its own; it left you wanting more.

ROTJ was the soup as grandma made it, simply wanting her old vegetable beef soup again. Mom tried to add what made it special, but the results were confused, conflicting.

The prequels came about when grandma got too old and tired to care about using good ingredients, and instead made do with cans of Campbell's soup while hoping nobody would notice.

Looks great, how did you get such a clean result out of all that grain?

Having now seen BotFA, it's time to render a verdict on the Hobbit Trilogy, and compare it to the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy.

First of all, Battle of the Five Armies is the most tonally uneven of all the Hobbit films, with poignant character moments jarringly interspersed with mind-numbing CGI battle scenes. The oddest part is that I had a better understanding of the battle while reading the book than by watching the confused movements of CGI armies on the big screen.

Moments which were cinematic in the book, such as the return of Bard from the ruins of Laketown or the heroic battle of Thorin and his company agains the orcs, are completely different and strangely muted in the film. On the other hand, the character of Thorin is actually more heroic in the film than in the book in my opinion.

The primary decision of Bilbo, which I believe is the most important character moment in the book, is done justice. Barely. However, just as much or more time is given to characters entirely absent from the book and who add nothing to the story. Characters such as Tauriel and Legolas ultimately serve no purpose in the story, and the character of Legolas is entirely confused in an attempt to link him to a character in The Lord of the Rings.

In summary, I was relieved to see that the central story which focuses on the titular Hobbit remains strong throughout all three films. Unfortunately, the final chapter shows just how superfluous all of Jackson's additions really are to the story, and how pleasant the story will be when someone edits the films down to a single movie about Bilbo.

So is the Hobbit trilogy suffering from the same problems as the prequels? Not remotely. There is a compelling story hidden within the Hobbit films, something entirely absent from the prequels in any form.

As much as I like the idea that the Jedi council is comprised of people with complex and compelling ulterior motives, I highly doubt that Lucas put that much thought into their characters.

Or even listening to talk radio. Who knows?

Or you could have the clones keep talking to him as he's leaving, giving advice over the comm.

TSHI

Post Praetorian said:

First question:

Is it possible for God to have a sense of humor? If so, what form must it take?

Consider:

Is God able to have a light sense of humor?

1) A light sense of humor may be described as the ability to laugh at one's self or others in a lighthearted manner.

2) Lightheartedness is expressed as being 'carefree; cheerful; [or] gay' 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lightheartedness

3) God cannot be described as the third option above (reference: www.Bible.com)

4) Cheerfulness is described as 'noticeably happy and optimistic' 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cheerful

5) Carefree is described as 'without cares; free of concern; easy; casual; without difficulty'

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/carefree

6) God is never once heard to sing happily to himself or whistle.

7) God invented Hell.

8) God cannot be considered cheerful (from 4 and 6).

9) God cannot be considered carefree (from 5 and 7).

 10) God cannot be said to have a light sense of humor (from 3, 8, 9).

But which God are we talking about?

God, after all, is only a title for the current president of the universe.

The previous president of the universe is God's political rival, Satan, who was ousted after a particularly clever campaign by Jesus, who sold himself as a political savior who was nevertheless relatable to the common man.

Unfortunately, upon taking the oath of Godhood, Jesus has apparently continued many of the failed policies of his predecessor. Most notably, he has failed to close Hell, where many are still incarcerated due to simple ignorance of official divine policy or of petty offenses such as masturbation or eating shellfish.

Let's just calm down now. If people didn't put up with Hollywood mediocrity, they would be forced to make better movies. And Jackson doesn't despise Tolkien, that's absurd.

adywan said:

I don't want to nitpick a beautiful shot like this, but my first impression is that there is dark blue sky right behind all the trees. Perhaps turning it into a darker gray fog would better sell the illusion of a mysterious forest behind the X-wing.

The closer you get to perfection, the more these details jump out at you ;)

Drcll, cld y pls mk thrd tht Frnk wnt pst n?

;)

DuracellEnergizer said:

Maybe Santa will finally get me that hypertime machine I've been asking him for for the past ten years.

Try skipping forward in time by only small amounts, saving up potential time energy like pulling a rubber band taut. Then the snapback may fling you decades into the past!

Perhaps these are scans of the damage on the surface of the film, to be used in cleanup later.