NeverarGreat

Harmy said:

@Neverar: Those are photos taken from a screen, I was referencing an actual professional scan of two different IB Technicolor prints and a scan of some scenes from an LPP print. It doesn't match perfectly but it's pretty darn close.

I see. Or rather, I don't see. But those photos of the 2.1 above look very different than what I see on the screen, so perhaps it just needs a saturation boost on a screen or projector for the colors to come out.

I wish we had access to those references though! ;)

I just scanned through the 2.1 movie, and many parts look very good. The sunset in particular looks better than I've ever seen it look before.

There are some color problems that I noticed. In the dinner scene, the colors look off. Compare the colors of the flowers and foliage behind Owen to the still of the Senator Technicolor print. The greens are less bright, the purple in the flowers is too gray. It may just be my screen, but the reds (especially the skin tones) look too dark or gray, and the image often has a cyan push. This is very noticeable in the Death Star council room and in some shots in the escape from Tatooine, and the searching of the Falcon on the Death Star, to name a few. The faces have a green cast, which makes them look rather sickly. It may be that the original had a lot of cyan, but in the Senator print, especially in the "the Force will be with you" image of Ben, his face has a lot of red, which is missing from 2.1.

I wish I had a properly calibrated monitor to view these colors, but if a side by side comparison of two sources on the same screen shows different results, then I must assume that there is a very real difference between the two sources, or that VLC is not handling the video correctly.

TV's Frink said:

Also, in your first post you said you hate the menus.  That's what I was responding to.

Oh I see. Well, now that you ask, I actually almost dislike the menus more than the poor handling of the movie. Almost. Menus for me are supposed to guide someone quickly to the option that they want in a DVD, and do so without using spoilerish video and still images from the movie. I understand that most people have seen the movie, but that does not excuse the fact that the menus pull from most of the movie for their images and video. Add to that that when trying to get from one group of chapters to another there is an unnecessary change in location or poorly rendered bit of CGI, and you have an irritating and in-your-face interface.

Whew. I think I'm done.

Nope, just remembered the point of the topic. The fact that there are better colors in the menus than on the DVD rubs salt in the wound.

There. Now I'm done. :)

TV's Frink said:

I fail to see what is wrong with the DVD menus.

That's my point, the problem is that they're much better than the movie. I was just wondering why.

I was searching where to find this information elsewhere on the forums before I posted this thread, but afterwards I found the info buried in the cinematography thread. So apparently this has been discussed, but it sure would be nice to have these things more easily searchable to limit repeat information. However, my question wasn't really answered in that thread either.

That would seem to imply that those who made the menus thought that their menu version would be at least close to the final version, or that the movie actually looked, at some time during the recoloring, like they were portraying it.

It's not as if they just pulled the 97 special edition coloring, as that is much more orange. It seems strange to me to use a coloring which is very different from practically every release and then release something that is again wildly different than that.

So here's something I noticed recently. On the DVD, one of the interactive menus (god how I hate them) shows the binary sunset:

This has of course been digitally chopped and manipulated, but parts of it bear strong resemblance to Mike Verta's tech scan. It is very different from the GOUT, and even from the ACTUAL DVD IT CLAIMS TO REPRESENT!

It even shows the picture of the menu on the back of the box, as if they were embarrassed to actually show what the scene looked like:

It would seem that Lucasfilm knew precisely the quality of the product they were producing. I am guessing that the menus of the other movies, and the other menus for this one contain elements that are better than in their respective movie versions.

Does anyone know why this disparity between the menus and the movie happened?

This was actually one of the more annoying changes for me as well. The biggest problem is as you said, it slows down the action, and cuts the music in an odd way. I didn't think that much about the trauma that Vader was going through, so either line worked for me, though I like the shorter one better.

gulducati is not as forgiving as I am.

I'd label it under a prequel rewrite/script adjustment, but I understand your distinction about re-editing vs scriptwriting. It's just sad to see the scriptwriting section get so little attention.

darth_ender said:

Something I have noticed, and it's just an observation and may not be correct, but I feel that more atheists tend to have a chip on their shoulders than agnostics. It seems that because 'Mom sent me to Catholic school' or 'Bible-thumpin' George W. Bush started a crusade against Islam' or 'Evangelicals won't accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle,' therefore 'because I disagree with what some religious individuals have done to ruin my life or poison the world, God cannot possibly exist.' One may use this as evidence in their personal quiver, but still cannot actually disprove God. They may only support their theory, but they cannot 'know' that God does not exist.

I think that many who are atheist are atheist with regards to a specific god of a specific religion. For example, Douglass Adams began his journey to atheism when he heard a street preacher and realized that the preacher was not making logical sense. This specific atheism is then often generalized to ALL religion, or else the distinction is rarely made clear.

I think that when many people claim to be atheist, they are simply saying that they have examined the evidence for a god of the religion of their parents/country and found this deity to have contradictory attributes. For example, how can the Christian God claim to be completely loving and also jealous, knowing that the Bible states that love is not jealous? In breaking strongly from such a deity, they claim atheism, as it is simply more applicable in most situations to their true feelings on the subject.

Doesn't this thread belong in the Script Writing forum?

Script Writing and Re-writing

Everything from Prequel and Original Trilogy rewrites and script adjustments to new Star Wars stories and fan films. Discuss alterations and revisions to non-Star Wars material too.

This is all well and good (in fact, the last one is quite cool) but what of the skin tones? These last three have been suspiciously free of faces. ;)

Star Wars for me is about the magic of the Force, so the Star Wars movie with the most focus in this area is the best for me. The first one was a space adventure with magical elements, whereas Empire was a magical journey with adventure elements. The third was giant conceit designed to bring the story to a close. It works. It's not great, but it works.

I was actually thinking about the Hitchhiker's movie version, then again I haven't heard the radio version but a lowly once.

-Palpatine whips out his lightsaber and spins toward Mace, then stops in midair, still spinning faster and faster in order to charge up his attack.

-Take Anakin's dialogue to Padme from the Fireplace Scene in Episode 2 and have him pour his heart out to Palpatine.

-When we see the Millenium Falcon in the corner of the screen, zoom in on it so that it is painfully obvious, along with "What a piece of junk!"

-Yoda reminisces about break-dancing with the Clone troops. I don't care when.

-Beru walks up to Owen and falls over the edge of the homestead pit.

-One of Grievous's lightsabers activates upside down.

-When Obi-wan meets Bruce Spence on Utapau, he greets Obi-wan as the Mouth of Sauron.

-The wings that open on the fighters have smaller wings of their own.

-When Anakin and Padme are looking out at each other from across the city, have them looking at this: http://youtu.be/OhU_u4rq1Tg?t=1m30s

-In the first scene, Obi-wan's shipboard computer is Eddie: "If you don't mind, I'm going to take evasive action."

-The movie freezes whenever Anakin is about to say something particularly stupid, and several dialogue options appear. The worst option is always chosen. "No, it's because I'm so in love with you!" "I don't know what to say."

There's the reason. Found it.

Always sounded mechanical to me.

Move along, move along...

Hm. I don't feel all thyt mentilly shallengd.

Sometimes when a person sees something wrong the first time watching a movie, or doesn't pick up on it, it remains a blind spot for a long time. I had always assumed that the Dia Nogu was long gone after the compactor scene, so I never made the connection. The change could be as simple as making the garbage move, as if the creature was wriggling around underneath it, and when Han shoots it the movement stops.

One change that could have been made that would have made sense to me would be at the end of the trash compactor scene. When they have opened the door and are getting ready to leave, suddenly there is this klaxon and Chewie loses it inexplicably and runs away from the door. Then Han shoots at the garbage again for no reason.

In the script, Chewie is afraid of a tentacle from the Dia Nogu, which is worming its way through the hatch. Han then shoots the tentacle.

If a CG tentacle was added in one or two shots so that Han could actually shoot something other than garbage, I would have actually have understood what was supposed to be going on in that scene. As it stands now, Chewie is being afraid for no reason, Han is being recklessly noisy for no reason, and the scene feels a little pointless.

Though of course I'm against changes in general, I wonder why Lucas would put rocks in front of R2 and not fix a scene that makes little sense as it is presented.

Edit: Has Adywan or someone else added this in any fanedit?

OldOneAncarotaur said:

theprequelsrule said:

One of the worst inconsistencies is the changing timeline. In the original trilogy it is implied that The Empire has been around for a good while; at least 40 or 50 years. The Star Wars novelization provides an interesting "alternative" history of the fall of the Old Republic and rise of the Empire. A much better one that the that which is presented in the prequels, I might add.

How is is different in the Star Wars novelization?

 

When Luke leaves to save his friends, Ben tells Yoda, “That boy was our last hope.”  To which Yoda replies, “No, there is another.”  You eventually find out in Episode VI that Leia is the other hope to which Yoda refers.  Soooo, Ben forgot that Padme gave birth to twins?  He seems to remember that when telling Luke about it in Return of the Jedi, so why doesn’t he know this in Empire Strikes Back?  A conundrum…….

Perhaps Obi-wan is unable to appear to Leia as a ghost, as he never really knew her, so his statement was to the effect that Luke was Obi-wan's last hope. And as it was Obi-wan who told Luke to go to Dagobah to meet Yoda, if Luke were to be killed, then Leia would have no way of meeting Yoda at all. Ergo, Luke was literally their last hope. Yoda may have been more technically minded, and stated that even without the help of the Jedi, Leia may become powerful in the Force and defeat the Empire. Because, you know, always in motion is the future.

That is a rather technical reason, so my personal non-PT explanation is that the Jedi were always male, and Leia is the beginning of a strange new expression of the Force which Yoda has become aware of. This would explain why Obi-wan never even tried to train Leia.

thejediknighthusezni said:

      ^Those are good points.

       An advantage of rethinking education and seeing 16 as a start for vocation training while still home is that there could be more room for "false starts". Any scholarships or grants-in-aid could go towards the final choice. 

       We get the sort of society we subsidize. Non-vital fathers, Over-worked and isolated mothers, kids who blow tens of thousands on sheer time-wasting nonsense...

       I'd rather see kids still at home until 21 instead of back in the basement at 28. They progress to 12 or 13 and then slide down until 21 anyway.

Remember that some people progress at different rates. While vocational training at sixteen or earlier may work for some, others will still prefer more esoteric and technical knowledge.

What exactly do you mean by "slide down until 21"? Do you mean that kids tend to become less focused and driven until then? Again, I wouldn't lump all kids into this category, but I think that people slide down perpetually even after this point.

I'm currently in college in America, and many people are simply there because it is expected of them. It wouldn't matter what subject was taught, or whether it directly applied to their life or not. They simply would not feel that it was important. Some of this I think has to do with the American government. We've been involved in a war in the middle east for over a decade and are engaged in a perpetual and unwinnable war on Terrorism, as well as failed wars on drugs and crime. We don't look to the stars anymore, and our political system is a sad farce. Our financial problems are worse than ever, and our health as a nation is declining. Is this the kind of future that you would want?

If we had a bright future to look forward to, then our students may become more motivated even with our flawed educational system.

thejediknighthusezni said:

AntcuFaalb said:

CP3S said:

I generally consider all undergraduate degrees useless. They are easy to obtain and the market is over saturated with them. Undergraduate education is the new high school diploma, and who hangs their high school diploma on the wall?

I know it's only anecdotal, but I make a six-figure salary + benefits with my useless CS undergraduate degree and I'm only 2.5 years out of university. This is not uncommon amongst computer programmers, IIRC.

Undergraduate degrees are only useless if you choose the wrong major*. I don't think everyone should choose to pursue a STEM degree, of course, but we should be preparing prospective undergrads for the reality of the job market that they'll encounter after graduation rather than filling their heads with the standard "follow your dreams" nonsense.

* None of this applies if one plans to pursue higher degree(s) and/or plans to go into academia.

       People in Germany begin receiving vocational training in "High School".

       I wrote about eliminating all public education before the 11th birthday and replacing it with mandatory testing every six months and tax refunds going to the parent who stays home. 

      These better educated, socialized, and supervised kids would enthusiastically enter the next stage from 11 to 16. Six bad weather months would be spent exclusively on general and practical subjects such as Practical Math, English Comprehension and Composition and Essential Management of Sexuality. The good weather six months would be spent in carefully supervised member-managed clubs for personal interest such as Athletics, Popular Musical Instruments (keyboards, guitars, drums), Science, Advanced Mathematics, IT and Literature.

      The fiction of adulthood at 18 would end. Kids from 16+ to 21 could take-on limited adult responsibilities such as driving and Vocation Education Loans with approval and some contribution from a parent or guardian. Parents would remain responsible for the housing and feeding of these kids to 21. A 20 year old could not be housed away any more than a 17 year old. All vocational and advanced education would be paid for out-of-pocket or with loans until the student graduates AND finds paid work in a field related to his/her degree and only then could the graduate receive any scholarships or grants (this would encourage kids and parents to be very careful and not waste time and money.) Loans would only go to kids of proven aptitude in the chosen field after careful testing and would continue only if the kids are advancing in those subjects. Elementary schools could be converted to community college/votech centers and other facilities could be built within an easy commute. Instructors could travel to different centers. Only kids from very rural areas or in unusual advanced courses would be boarded away. Kids with serious legal/moral troubles would have to go into sex-segregated classes under even greater supervision. The student/instructor relationship would be as middle-school is supposed to be now.

       Before 1950, kids under 21 were sent off to boarding type educational institutions primarily because of transportation limitations and not because it is the best way to prepare these little snips for real life.  

I think that one important aspect of education that has mostly disappeared is the apprenticeship aspect. Most kids don't learn by sitting in a classroom copying information that they are told will be useful and being tested on regurgitation. Kids roleplay. They see adults that they admire on TV, in movies or video games, or in real life, and they model their lives to some extent on this person, or the profession that they are employed in. If they are only ever with kids their own age, then there can be unpredictable shifts in behavior as everyone in the group models their behavior off of that same group, and not off of good role models. With an apprenticeship, there is a much greater opportunity to learn many more aspects of the job than just the technical requirements. You can make connections with people in the industry, learn the personal habits of the person you apprentice under, and get a much better sense of what is to be required of you.

I wanted to be an architect at one point, but then I actually worked for one. I did 3D modelling work for presentations, something that didn't require much architectural knowledge, but I got a good idea of what that job entailed, as well as contributing to society and earning some money. This saved the college system and myself four years, as I realized that I didn't want to be an architect after all.

I never understood the argument that kids need violent video games as an outlet for their hostility. I never played excessively violent video games growing up, other than Age of Empires and Warcraft 2. At least, not that I can remember. I played Myst and Caesar 3 and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2. I also grew up with two brothers, and we got into a fight maybe three times, tops. Displacing your pent up rage from one aspect of your life to another doesn't allow you to understand why that aspect of your life makes you angry. Violent video games are rather irrelevant to that discussion. It's the failure to take responsibility for one's emotions, rather than the video games, that is the real culprit here.

My connection was choppy as well for a while, but later it evened out and didn't really buffer at all. Thank you Mike for taking the time to share all of your hard work!

Rats, you caught my stupidity before I could change it! ;)

Looking forward to it!

Yes, thank you for your detailed explanation. The new version looks much more natural than the first comparison version (though I guess I've just watched the GOUT so many times that it would take some getting used to).

By the way, in defense of my ignorance, did you know that your thread is over 1000 pages long? ;)