There are many restorations floating around that are likely to look better than your tapes (spend some time browsing the preservations section of the forum).
However, the Polish on your tapes might be of interest. Tell us more about it.
Danfun128 said:
I am curious why such a recording would exist, especially as a transfer from a VHS tape.
That is really the most interesting question about this project. By the time SW came out in 1977, EIAJ had already been pretty much dead for a year. Now, if it were a theater dub, I could understand it. But it looks more like a dub from some other video.
If anyone is curious to see my actual EIAJ deck, it can be seen at the beginning of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKkONJpzU5w
Yay! Finally finished transfering the second tape. The credits were chopped off at the end. It's not pretty, and there are no surprises... it is what it is. Even after further baking, the second tape was very rough.
No "close the blast doors", if anyone cares.
I'll be sending the pair of .avi files to Poita. Neither of us really want the EIAJ tapes themselves -- he suggests selling them on eBay to help defray expenses. Anyone here violently object to that?
There were an additional two tapes containing Close Encounters. I played them long enough to confirm that was what was on them, but I didn't digitize them.
Only allowing letters and numbers in passwords is, like, so 1990s. And sending a plaintext confirmation email that contains the actual password I created is ill-advised these days.
Absolutely - admitting when you don't know something is indeed wise. But there's a fine line... if the person in question seems to never know anything, then you start to wonder if that air of deep calmness is actually just "nobody's home". By the end of the movie I was getting that impression with Qui-Gon, which I'm sure was not the movie's intent.
I'm not going to go back and count the number of "I don't know"s (that would require me to actually watch TPM again)... I just remember that I was struck by how often he'd point something out that he observed, as though it's important, then when asked what it meant, he'd get a concerned look on his face and say "I don't know". It just seemed like dialogue cop-out.
grainger said:
Qui-Gon seems to be pretty popular, even among people who don't like TPM. I always wondered what they are seeing in him.
He is supposed to be wise. But his most frequent line seems to be "I don't know".
Sound sync done on reel 2.
Sound sync done on reel 1. Starting reel 2 tomorrow.
I like to distinguish between whether I enjoy them, vs. whether they suck. My conclusion over time has become that TPM sucks, but I honestly enjoy it for unknown reasons. AOTC sucks and I pretty much only enjoy laughing at the parts that suck the worst. ROTS just sucks period and I can't make it from one end of the movie to the other without constructing a noose and hanging myself.
As to when I realized it - I guess it was in the theater during AOTC when, during Anakin's sleeping/dream scene, the audience started laughing.
Just started sound sync. So far it's going a bit easier than the last two.
When I had my wisdom teeth out, I woke up at home!
Also, back in the 60s they used to do fillings without novacaine. I had the dubious pleasure of being on the receiving end of one of those.
I like the line in the ad: "only a few of these were made". Makes it sound like only a few were made by the studio, but it probably means only a few were made - by the seller!
Not going to make it. But I will be working on it between Christmas and New Years. Finally will have some time off.
"Then I'll see you in hell"
Saying that he wished that they had been able to have windows overlooking Cloud City when they made the film in 1983, versus saying that they should add said windows 20 years later, are two very different things. It sounds like he said the former, not that the latter was his idea.
Was blu-ray.com ever considered "independent"? It always seemed to have suspciously over-positive, generally un-critical reviews.
RicOlie_2 said:
But it isn't a trailer, it's a teaser trailer. By definition, it's supposed to tease, not give any information about the plot. As such, I think the new teaser does its job fairly well.
Ok, that makes sense.
Post Praetorian said:
To clarify, if the assumption may be that each might make a logical and fair claim to a given system of belief absent any central organizational oversight or indoctrination, how might the individual riding among them know whether she should be wearing a scarf in the presence of one, hiding ornaments from another, remaining relatively at ease with one, while ensuring she is not left alone with the last?
We could really go around this maypole forever. At this point, I could ask how does anyone make a decision at all when faced with a situation not clearly covered in the Bible? By weighing whether an action might cause harm to others (or oneself), might help or hinder the world and its creatures - i.e., by using the brains we are so lucky to have. To which you could opine that without a spiritual anchor, one might not even know that it is bad to harm others, to which I could counter that evolution itself breeds cooperation, to which you could point out cruelty among animals, to which I could observe equal (or worse) cruelty among humans, to which... etc. etc. ad infinitem.
At some point, you either decide that you have faith or you don't. I don't.
I never did address your original question, as to whether I might feel more at ease in a dark alley with a Christian or an atheist. Hmm, I'm not sure. Depends on several factors - where I am, what race I am, etc. Me? I'd probably rather bump into a Christian. But if I were wearing a turban and it was in a dark alley in Alabama, I'm not sure I'd want that big burly drunk I bump into in an alley to be a Christian. Actually, I think the question speaks more about our biases than about any actual statistical safety. We all have subconscious biases based on how we were raised, experiences we had growing up, etc. I'm sure I do too.
timdiggerm said:
SilverWook said:
It's fun to compare and contrast with the teaser for the original. :)
The trailer just a couple of random images with a creepy voice that doesn't say anything sustantive. There's not enough information to go on, not enough to form any sort of opinion.
Of course it's just my opinion, but I think the earlier trailer conveys a LOT more information than the new one. Makes it clear that it's an old fashioned battle adventure with good guys, bad guys, romance, with a boy at the center of the story, mixed in with lots of bizarre aliens from other worlds. Watching the newer trailer, I really haven't a clue what Ep.VII is about.
I'm still hoping that it will be great. At this point in the franchise, there's nowhere to go but up!
The trailer just a couple of random images with a creepy voice that doesn't say anything sustantive. There's not enough information to go on, not enough to form any sort of opinion.
darth_ender said:
Forgive me. In my limited time I simply scanned the conversation rather than truly reading it, and I jumped to conclusions. I apologize.
Thank you, that is a very kind post.
Post Praetorian said:
When a common morality is absent from neighbors might not such misunderstandings be expected to multiply?
Yes, and force discussion where otherwise such a discussion might be considered taboo. However, just because a common set-in-stone morality might not exist, that is not to say that a common set of laws for a given region shouldn't exist. The lawn ornament thing sounds pretty minor, and not really so much about moral misunderanding as it is about the local code of behavior. Most people can adapt their behavior to match a local set of rules, so long as they don't egregiously violate the fundamentals of their own moral code. It is hard to imagine that this family couldn't easily adapt when informed of the discrepency.
For instance, if I were to visit certain countries, my wife would be expected to wear a scarf - I'm sure we could adapt to that out of respect to the local code of behavior. It would be a different matter altogether if we were to vacation someplace with an extreme religion, and be required to stone a heretic. In that instance, if there weren't such a cast-in-stone morality based on some sacred verse, maybe I would be able to respectfully question the practice without getting stoned myself.
darth_ender said:
Yes, nothing shows the superior intellect of atheists than confusing correlation for causality. Too bad I see it everywhere on the Net.
You seem to have completely misunderstood my posts. Nowhere in my responses to PostPraetorian did I ever claim atheists enjoy any such superiority, nor did I ever claim atheists have any moral high ground. He(she?) was the one who first offered a logical argument that one could reasonably expect a Christian to be more likely to behave with a moral compass, and be less likely to commit petty crime, because of various specific facets of a Christian upbringing. He is the one still sticking to this viewpoint. When I pointed out that statistics did not support his claim, he asked me to offer any argument as to what forces might forge an atheist's moral compass, or prevent an atheist to commit a petty crime. I thought my language was clear that one could construct such an argument - not that such an argument was true! In fact, I pointedly stated that neither of our arguments would constitute anything but speculation.
He asked for an argument, I provided one. Just like the one you provided regarding blacks. Just because I provided it doesn't mean I subscribe to it any more than you subscribe to the one you offered -- he seemed to think that such an argument couldn't exist. To use your tense, I have observed that many Christians believe that there can be no source of a moral code without religion. That's just bogus.
Post Praetorian said:
In contrast, is one atheist to have any information with regard to the upbringing of each other fellow atheist? With no such information, how might a common outlook be assumed? How might a common morality be assured?
Are we so certain that a common morality is desirable? Might a common morality make it harder to reassess things as times change?
Post Praetorian said:
. . .
Essentially, is such a resistance born of reasoning? Is it innate? Or might it be conditioned?
For if it is to be considered innate, why might such an inheritance not be shared universally?
If conditioned, where might come the source of conditioning and what if another were not to receive a similar quality or quantity of same?
If purely a construct of reason, what if another may reason differently?
Just as people can interpret the Bible/Koran/whatever for good or for evil, so too can reason be used for good or for evil. With regards your revenge scenario, societies of the world that maintain religious wars for centuries seem to be expert at carrying on a never-ending cycle of revenge -- after all, isn't the martyr a primarily relgious device?
What keeps me from resisting stealing from someone I dislike? My parents taught me that when someone wrongs you, to not stoop to their level and to instead set a higher bar for oneself. Where did they learn that? I don't know, my mom was raised catholic and my dad was raised atheist. My father's mother was one of the kindest people I've ever known, and I believe that she also was an atheist.
It's fine to speculate that religion leads to a higher moral code of behavior (and without doubt the extremists wrecking havoc are convinced they are behaving at the very highest moral code). I can similarly speculate that fully promoting our human intellectual potential is the more fruitful course. But it's all speculation in the absence of any evidence. Since you've discounted mine, do you have any to offer?
Hopefully I didn't type any double double words again :)