Why was he banned? I didn't think his posts were that bad. The worst part of banning him is that we'll never get to see him go toe-to-toe with kenkraly.
My workstation has been tied up for the past two weeks with a paying gig. I'm almost done with that one - about 2 or 3 more days. Then back to PSB.
David, you're mistaking lack of sympathy for outrage. After reading your description, I didn't have much sympathy (if any) for your situation, but I wasn't outraged. We have people here who post much wilder stuff.
Sometimes mods delete posts and ban users because they don't want a significant base of their readers to start leaving, or for the discussion to degenerate and cause new readers to shy away. Sometimes it is to keep a few people from getting offended and leaving. I delete some feedback posts from my YouTube videos precisely because I don't post those videos so that my friends can be insulted. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private sites on the internet.
DominicCobb said:
Of course, what they should do, is re-edit the film to make it "better".
Fixed.
DavidBrennan said:
(aside from the removal of the Don Rickles Yoda puppet, which I thought was a good change.
Aw, I liked Creepy Puppet Yoda.
Just because a telecined capture has a particular brightness and color palette doesn't mean that is how it would look when projected. It is really hard to set the white balance and aperture during capture, and almost always needs some tweaking in post.
If you stop and think about it, it is quite an accomplishment of sorts to make a movie that is so bad that it not only literally ends the lead actor's career, but also ruins his life. Has there ever been another movie that can make that claim?
If you use Wikipedia, try to follow the associated links to the original source material, and quote THAT. Wikipedia is valuable but it generally isn't considered a quotable original source.
Also, make sure that any useful stuff that you get here is either rewritten in your own words, or that the author here (and the site itself) is cited. You wouldn't want to get in trouble because you used text that was written by someone else.
I think Siskel and Ebert have done some retrospectives on Star Wars that could be useful, and I think they would be considered a quotable editorial source.
There is a book called "The Science of Star Wars" by Jeanne Cavelos (I didn't find it to be as interesting as it sounds), that is fairly scholarly and you might find it useful for any sections of your paper that relate to actual science.
What is the "catnap" telecine?
Indeed, the reason I so much prefer "close the blast doors" to be IN the original film, is that every single time I saw the film in the theater in 1977, it led to audible laughs in the audience when the "open the blast doors" line followed. So yes, audience reaction changes the film-viewing experience.
What made it great to me was that it was a craze for nerds. It made things like science, space travel, robotics, computer programming, etc., all seem cool and fun. It wasn't like other crazes involving celebrities or rock stars or sports or clothing, or other things that made the popular kids even more popular. It was a real, bona-fide craze, for us nerds!
The other thing I remember about it is that it lasted so long. Star Wars was playing in theaters for something like a year, or more. It seemed like for a long, long time, any time you wanted to see Star Wars you just pop on down to the theater and it was there.
PD - you have a private mail.
YES, this is definitely of interest. I have an excellent Nakamichi deck and will happily volunteer to make a good digital dub of it.
It would also be of great interest to know the location (which theater), and approximate date when it was recorded.
You can't really expect an actor to speak against a film he was hired to be in. He wants to continue to get gigs, and directors might be reluctant to hire someone who is likely to turn around and bad-mouth them. It would be unprofessional.
Who chose Jake Lloyd? Lucas himself, or other people?
American Hominid said:
I don't know, I'd give the prequels a tad more credit than that, if only because their (very) general plot already existed in the 1970s.
Really?
You might want to coordinate with the folks in the preservation thread.
I don't think I could bring myself to cut them.
I wonder if it's possible to re-engineer the Bezier curves used to build a font? The advantage of course would be scalability to any desired size without artifacts.
On hold until I finish PSB.
I don't consider the PT's weakness to be its visuals. While they can be tacky at times, overall I think they're pretty awesome. Unfortunately, the story, acting, script, characters, plot, pacing, etc. are so bad that it manages to drag everything down with it, including the uninspired application of said visuals.
none said:
I'll second that, and request a before/after pic. Or an explanation of when a hair/dropping becomes large enough for removal duties.
I'm not removing any mouse-droppings that were on the film. But sometimes a tiny spec will get on the workprinter lens, and in some cases despite that I still may want to use that clip. The tiny ones can't be seen during capture, and even the tiniest ones are terribly distracting because they don't move during a pan. They are pretty easy to remove if they're small, by making a tiny feathered mask and filling it with a part of another capture.
So rest assured I am not trying to clean up the film... just cleaning up the capture. All historic mouse-droppings will be preserved!
Just so you all know what's going on, I've been slowly working my way through reel 2, cleaning up a series of distracting mouse droppings (don't worry, I'm leaving the ones that aren't distracting). It's very minor stuff, but also very tedious.
STENDEC said:
Also, reading the response from Lucasfilm that the LoC could ONLY show the Special Edition, even for just a private screening, is absolutely disgusting. If it were up to me, I would've just exercised the right to show it anyway. If Lucasfilm don't want to oblige the LoC in any way, why should the LoC oblige Lucasfilm?
Presumably because LucasFilm has far deeper pockets to survive a lengthy legal battle, than does the National Film Register.
Yeah something tells me this puppy is not going to be cheap.