Chilmayka said:
Wow. People should be aware that Chris Foss was doing this stuff before the original Star Wars.
Chilmayka said:
They won't be able to maintain the aesthetics of the OT for one good reason.
It was plagiarized from Chris Foss' SF book covers:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?2195
I'm rather stunned at how much that cover looks like the Probot. Wow. I'm a huge Chris Foss fan by the way. A new art book came out last year I believe with a collection of all of his works. It's amazing.
laserdisc said:
When you say that you wouldnt be able to accept anyone else playing han,luke,leia can i remind you that youre probably like me: OLD
Do you think Disney cares about that demographic? Seriously? Its nothing too do with us anymore. It's basically a reboot for the next generation of kids. We've been told goodbye as an audience.
Unfortunately I feel you're correct. Am I old? No. Am I old according to the demographic they aim the Clone Wars cgi show to? Yep. Like you said, Lucas has long abandoned the original fans in favor of the younger demographic, so they can sell more new toys and action figures. There's always hope that Disney will see things differently, but it's highly unlikely, given how much Disney is into marketing and merchandising their own crap.
rpvee said:
Honestly, I'm really worried about the scores. A Star Wars feature, live-action film without John Williams? Unthinkable.
Aw, c'mon now - I'm sure Danny Elfman would be a great choice!
1990osu said:
According to the Associated Press,
The seventh movie, with a working title of "Episode 7," is set for release in 2015. Episodes 8 and 9 will follow. The trilogy will continue the story of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia beyond "Return of the Jedi".
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5isZzQ0Rv9bEkLNtP9TjI8lGu1h9A?docId=9ad81ca01a9e4246b0e719fb4e3a3b18
I have no idea how they would pull that off. I can't imagine Harrison Ford wanting anything to do with Star Wars again. His career has done just fine without it and he's past all that now. Mark Hamil, maybe, he has appeared in many chessy sci-fi films over the years, so he may be interested if the script seems interesting enough to him and the timing is right. Carrie Fisher, I can't imagine her coming back for more. The thing is - how shall I put this gracefully - they have all aged.
What if they tried to pull it off as an animated film, like Polar Express or Final Fantasy:Spirits Within? Use the likeness of the main characters (with their permission of course) and have the film near photo-realistic. They could maybe convince them to provide the voices that way. That would also allow them to offer visuals that are boundless. Of course after Mars Needs Moms flopping, I'm not sure if Disney would want to do a motion-capture Star Wars, even though it wasn't the animators' faults.
Obviously though they are planning on a live-action film. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to accept anybody else playing Luke, Han and Leia.
Troyig88 said:
my guess is there is going to be a 3rd Death Star.
Death Star Mark III - this time with absolutely no open ports!
TServo2049 said:
If someone wanted to to shut us down, they'd have done it a long time ago. I'm not losing any sleep over this.
I feel mostly the same way. Although I have to wonder, did Kim Dotcom feel the same way before he heard the helicopters?
Promus said:
What I'd just like to know is... does this mean Princess Leia will be a Disney Princess?
Yes, it does.
yoda-sama said:
Perhaps originaltrilogy.com should consider becoming a private, member's only site to help protect it from the eye and ire of Disney. Lucasfilm was good enough to fan edits, but Disney probably won't so much... What are everyone's thoughts on this?
Bad idea. It will just draw more attention and make it look like we have something to hide. We have not needed to hide up until now. To do so now would be a bad idea. Do you really believe private sites can't be infiltrated?
EyeShotFirst said:
Disney does spend a good deal of time and effort in restoring their films. Just count on Star Wars costing 2 times what it's worth in future releases.
Take it from someone who has purchased a lot of DVDs and blu-rays of the old Disney classics (my girlfriend is a big animated Disney fan) - they don't always do the right thing with their restorations. The latest and newest blu-ray set of Fantasia, while fantastic, has been tampered with, and still is edited - they refuse to release it uncut because of a certain controversial scene.
Their latest diamond edition blu-ray - Cinderella - was met with a ton of criticism because their remaster has lost a lot of the finer details originally seen in the film - there's tons of screenshots floating around the blu-ray forums. The general press thinks it looks great, but the fans know all too well how they digitally scrubbed it to the point that it looks like it's a Saturday morning cartoon, all bright and shiny instead of looking like a Disney classic.
adywan said:
At first i was quite excited that there now may be a chance we could see a restored version of the OUT, but then realised that Disney owning the rights to the Star Wars franchise will probably spell the end of anything fan created as their lawyers will be ready to pounce
Exactly, that was my first thought. There's an article on arstechnica about this very fear. Hope you're almost done with ESB:revisited, Ady! The mouse is watching us now.
Midnight_Trooper said:
Regarding the menu; I dont like the idea of being reminded that the special edition exists every time I go to watch Star Wars.
With respect to and knowledge of what Harmy has done for us and removed, I would prefer to pretend I was just watching the film because its something I love, not watching it because its not something I hate.
That said I think education and credit to Harmy are still important.May I suggest either an auto play with a menu that pops up after the feature Or a menu at the start with a more generic STAR WARS theme with PLAY, OPTIONS, DESPECIALIZED selections?
Not saying you dont have the right to make sure everyone knows its Despecialzed 2.0 but being reminded of that first thing every time and, if I am showing it to a group, having to discuss with to people before they enjoy the film (instead of after) might slightly lessen my enjoyment of the experience.
But then that does come off as a bit ungrateful since none of us would have this option if it werent for you and this project! So I will just take it and love it either way but I wanted to offer that perspective to you.
Also I realize I could probably separate the menus from the feature somehow? but to a not tech savvy person like myself, that seems fraught with potential failure on many levels.
Don't mind the "negative" comment - I agree entirely with your rationale. Of course it's totally up to Harmy in the end, and I did find it entertaining, but honestly I think when I'm in the mood for some Star Wars the last thing I want to see is a visual reminder of what I hate so much about it nowadays.
Harmy, don't let the naysayers get you down. I can see you've put a ton of work into this and I thank you for wanting to share your efforts with us all. So many of us have wished for ages that this film could be available in high-quality, without the hideous blue tinting and awful SE changes. Finally we're getting that, and we all owe you a huge collective thank you. It's amazing that some will pick you apart just because you've decided to go back a make a few changes before finalizing it. I can't think of how many times I've bought retail blu-rays and find out that they are recalled due to errors and screw-ups. Halloween II was recalled and replaced due to a missing opening credit, Deadly Spawn got recalled due to a poor DVD upconversion, The Star Trek Next Generation discs were recalled due to the audio tracks being mixed up, Sunshine got recalled due to forcing a pop-up track, and Event Horizon was released in an incorrect, stretched aspect ratio. Just to name a few examples. So if the big studios can screw up, I think you're entitled to put out a 2.1 version of despecialized.
I like the idea of the film countdown like you used to see in theatres. That would be great to see on the blu-ray as an opening title before the film starts.
And thanks for deciding to do an AVCHD. Like you said we can always make our own mkv if we choose from the blu-ray, but honestly it sounds like the AVCHD will offer the same quality anyhow, so thanks!
pittrek said:
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
I too believe that the AVCHD is the most important release, because it is by far the HD format that most people can handle.
That's funny. I know NOBODY who uses (or even KNOWS) the AVCHD format :-) Honestly, EVERYBODY who watches HD movies watches them in mkv format, or from BluRays - that includes my colleagues, friends, "collectors of unreleased videos", people on various forums ... People here at originaltrilogy.com are the only individuals which I know that use the AVCHD format :-)
Don't take me wrong, but I just believe that the full Bluray should be the "product" done with the most care, because other people can always create "smaller"/alternate formats from it.
Sorry for the offtopic :-(
I really think MKV should be considered due to it being such a high-quality format.
Blu-Ray
pros:
Highest quality; multiple audio tracks; chapter support; menus and extras; high compatibility with blu-ray players;
cons:
requires burning on a blu-ray disc; requires a blu-ray player for playback (or else playable as-is by some media players - my Micca can play blu-ray ISO files and folders as-is), or on a pc with a good video card and software; very large download
MKV
pros:
very high quality - approaches blu-ray quality; multiple audio tracks; chapter support; only a single file needed for playback; playable in a large amount of home media players (my Samsung LED tv, my Panasonic blu-ray player, and both my WDTV Live and Micca media players all support mkv playback); playable on any modern PC with a descent video card, and supported by tons of free media player software
cons:
needs to be "delivered" on a usb stick or other means, can't just be given away to friends on a disc; not playable on older equipment; unknown format by many non-techies; large download, but much smaller than blu-ray
AVCHD
pros:
high quality; multiple audio tracks; chapter support; easy to burn; playable on most? blu-ray players; easy to give away to friends when burned on a DVD-9; reasonable-sized download
cons:
requires burning on a DVD-9; requires a blu-ray player for playback (or else playable as-is by some media players - my Micca can play AVCHD files as-is), or on a modern PC with a good video card; unknown format by many non-techies, though you just need to tell them to play it in their blu-ray player
DVD
pros:
easy to burn; cheap media (if DVD-5); multiple audio tracks; chapter support; menus and extras; easy to give to friends; plays on every DVD player and PC; reasonable-sized download
cons:
low quality
They all have their place. I think MKV is a great choice, since it is higher quality than the AVCHD, and doesn't require burning to watch it. Many non-techies will not know what an mkv is. Most of us on here will know, and any internet-savvy person who plays lots of media is familiar with it. But it may not be the best format for giving to friends. Personally, I would like an MKV for myself because it's easy to play on my players, and gives me close to blu-ray quality. I'd probably want the blu-ray if it will have some extras and menus, otherwise I'd be happy enough with a good MKV. However, I would certainly want an AVCHD to burn for friends who have blu-ray players. I don't care about DVD, but I can see how some who haven't stepped into the world of digital and blu-ray might find it a blessing.
CatBus said:
Harmy said:
Most people still don't have BD burners (got beaten to it), so the AVCHD may be their only way to watch this in HD on their BD players na the encode quality is still very very high. And I think that if there's another SD DVD, it will be a DVD9, because this is very grainy and that doesn't agree well with mpeg2 compression.
I dunno, my opinion is that the whole point of a DVD downscale is to cover the lowest common denominator, and a DVD5 does that better than a DVD9 (media, layer-change issues, tech-savviness, etc). Also I actually think Chewtobacca's DVD5 downscale looked fine for SD (weird software playback glitches notwithstanding). I'm not really sure throwing more bits at MPEG-2 SD content would improve matters that much. I guess it's a bit early to argue that one though.
I think a DVD-9 would make a huge difference over a DVD-5, especially if multiple soundtracks will be included. It could definitely use the higher bitrate, and a DVD-9 is just as easy to burn as a DVD-5 (though I admit the media can be more finicky). I use Verbatim DVD-9 with my lite-on drive and they always burn beautifully (for DL that is). I do think a DVD-5 has less playback issues.
CatBus said:
FWIW, here's how I see the releases in different formats:
BD: everything and the kitchen sink, hell yeah!
DVD5 downscale: still a must-have for visiting relatives and friends, lots of people still can't do HD. I'm hoping your 2.1 release gets the DVD5 treatment too.
AVCHD: Neither here nor there. Not as pretty or feature-rich as a BD and not as compatible as the DVD5. I don't see much point now that it's not the top video-quality tier for the DeEd anymore.
MKV: I actually still like this as a way to get the best-quality video without all the extra bulk from lossless soundtracks and (yes, I admit it) subtitles cluttering up the thing. Then again, I'd actually like a .264 download which would work just as well and would be even more bare-bones ;)
EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot. The point of AVCHD is people without BD-burners. I think this is a shrinking market, the media and burners have both been down to reasonable prices for a long time.
I do not own a blu-ray burner, nor is one on my list any time soon. Eventually I will have one, but money is extremely tight for me. The availability and affordability doesn't mean that everybody owns one now.
I do agree that the mkv is a great trade-off. I personally like the MKV, but I know somebody I would like to give a copy to, and for him it would need to be the AVCHD since I cannot burn a blu-ray and he doesn't have a media player for his tv for mkv playback. I think all of these formats are ideal, for different people.
Harmy said:
Most people still don't have BD burners (got beaten to it), so the AVCHD may be their only way to watch this in HD on their BD players na the encode quality is still very very high. And I think that if there's another SD DVD, it will be a DVD9, because this is very grainy and that doesn't agree well with mpeg2 compression.
I very much hope you will decide to do a 2.1 AVCHD. I believe that will definitely help many like me who do not have a blu-ray burner, but want to watch it in HD. I am likely to download the blu-ray also, since my media player connected to my tv will play back ISO and blu-ray folders, but I think AVCHD is important for many people.
Good to know - I'll probably hold off then for the BD. I bet it'll look fantastic, just a bit larger than I was planning for. It'll be worth it.
Still, too bad you won't consider an AVCHD also - I'd probably grab both since I know someone who's a huge Star Wars fan and he'd love this, but there's no way I could get him a BD since I can't burn it - the AVCHD would have been perfect.
Harmy said:
V2.1 sounds good. And the fixes will only be done to the BD. No AVCHD v2.1.
I see. That's too bad. How big will the full BD be? Is it single-layer? I wonder if I should hold off on the AVCHD and wait for the BD then, but I don't have a burner. Luckily my stand-alone media player will play BD ISO files and folders so I can still watch it on my tv. I liked the idea of the AVCHD for size but if there's some improvements in 2.1 I might wait.
Stinky-Dinkins said:
Harmy said:
Yeah. There would really be nothing to be gained from using a higher bitrate. And, ok, I'm just gonna go out and say it, even though it's against my better judgement - I will likely do a new render for the BD in which I will fix a few things. I would still prefer any problem be reported via PM, so that I'm not caved in by an avalanche of suggestions and people trying to convince me to fix stuff I don't want to fix.
I might lower the gamma slightly on a few shots in the Luke meets Ben scene, but that's as far as I'm going with it.
That would be fantastic. I've already watched it a few times and that's the only thing that I noticed that seemed slightly off - a few shots when they first meet appear to be too blown out.
Can't wait for the BD version man.
I agree, those few extra-bright early scenes with Luke and Ben, and maybe the couple darker shots of the Millennium falcon docked on the Death Star, are really the only things that stood out to me - otherwise this looks phenomenal. I haven't watched the whole thing since I've been waiting for the updated audio files and I juts grabbed them.
Very true - I just called it that so he would know what I meant. But you're right - nothing is official yet.
I'm just wondering if I should hold off on the download of the 2.0 AVCHD version if an updated "2.1" version will be showing up any time soon? Downloading is painfully slow at the moment, I've got 5 parts coming over now and it's gonna take close to 2 hours just for those 5 parts, I don't mind the slow download, but I'd rather just hold off if you think and updated version is coming soon.
Thanks a ton for posting the fixed audio!
Doesn't seem to be there yet.
Harmy said:
Also, the matte shot you mentioned was put together from various sources originally and was only like 70% faithful to the original, in v2.0 it's sourced from a 35mm scan, so it's 100% faithful.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
