logo Sign In

danny_boy

User Group
Members
Join date
23-Oct-2009
Last activity
12-Mar-2023
Posts
385

Post History

Post
#792558
Topic
What if TFA is awful?
Time

DominicCobb said:

Bingowings said:

Ridley Scott is still a strong visual director but he allowed himself to be associated with a script mangled to death by Lindelof.

It's interesting that every time Lindelof is involved with something people always blame him for its perceived failures. If I remember from what I read, the main issues people have with Prometheus were Scott induced issues, a lot of them in the editing phase.

Not that it really matters in regards to TFA. Lindelof has nothing to do with that.

I like Super8 and Cloverfield but his first Star Trek is as bad/good as any TNG movie and the second one is truly painful in places. He didn't write the screenplay but he allowed himself to be closely associated with it. He is allowing himself to be closely associated with TFA.

But he wrote the screenplay to TFA, he didn't just allow himself to be closely associated with it. The challenge of directing a Star Wars movie vs. the challenge of directing a Star Trek movie is completely different. Sorry Trekkies, but the Star Wars one is a bigger challenge. Abrams is not a Trekkie - that's why they brought him on as director, so that he could reimagine the franchise and make the film engaging for everyone (I'm not saying that's what the film needed, but certainly it was what the execs wanted and it worked). Abrams is a huge Star Wars fan. That's exactly what TFA needs. Someone who loves the franchise (read: the good parts of the franchise) and who understands that if he effs this movie up he won't just be disappointing the whole world but himself too. Hence why he threw away the original, Lucas-story script and wrote a new one from scratch with Kasdan.

 You are correct to say that they are different assignments but as the director/producer/screen writer(who is inheriting a franchise) --you have to stay true to the source.

Abrahams veered way off course to supposedly make Star Trek more popular. And there in lies the rub....Star Trek did not need to be made more popular and it did not need a new movie or story-it had had plenty of both already.

  Star Wars does not need to be made more popular  or to have a  good story/movie --it has had plenty of both already.

 

Post
#792553
Topic
What if TFA is awful?
Time

John Doom said:

danny_boy said:

Lucas could have shot the Phantom Menace with lens flares,shaky cams and rapid fire editing(ala Michal Bay) in 1998 but chose to preserve the static compositions and conservative editing(by 1990's standards)of the OT.    

:D If Abrams turns TFA into another "michael bay", it may require careful fan-editing to slow down the scenes, but how to fix shaky cameras and lens flares?

danny_boy said:

But one factor that affected the prequels which hardly anyone notices is that the audience already new where the plot and the characters were headed(they just did not know how) across all 3 episodes(I,II and III).

What was the main attraction of the OT whilst it was unfolding?......the idea that you had no idea where it was heading and who would survive and who would not.

Big difference.    

If you think about it, the only character we knew would survive were Anakin, the Emperor, Obi-wan, the droids and Yoda. Vader's motives were at the core of the prequels and kept the audience's interest high, but in the end they didn't carefully handled them :\

 

Knowing the fate of the characters that you mentioned was enough to supress any potential excitement that can be derived from not knowing what is going to happen.  

In 1981,when I watched SW back to back with ESB for the first time , I thought Han was dead in the carbonite(despite Vader's, Fetts's and C3P0's assertion that he would be/was ok---hey I was 6 years old!) and I thought Luke would bleed to death on the gantry when his hand was sliced off.

When that did not happen I thought Luke would die when he jumped off  said gantry (only for him to get sucked into the airshaft).

And when that did not happen I thought he would die on the weather vane--lol! 

All of that excitement/adrenaline was accentuated by the fact that I(we) did not know what was going to happen in those tense few minutes.

Now maybe an  older person in 1980/81 would have anticipated that the hero/main protagonist would not die in ESB.

But compared to any of the prequels, there was never a threat of death or impending doom to any of the principle characters (for someone who was familiar with the Star Wars mythology).

The real test though would be to show the saga in episodic order(I- VI) to someone who is not familiar with it and see if it works(on them). 

Post
#792541
Topic
What if TFA is awful?
Time

John Doom said:

About Abrams, yesterday I (tried) to watch again Mission Impossible 3 to study his directing and, screenplay aside (which, I HOPE, he had nothing to do with), here's my opinion:

-the way he put faces VERY CLOSE to the frame is painful to watch, making the resulting screen look cropped. I think he said it looks more "intimate", but it just looks like bad composition to me;

-I understand quickly switching between shots is useful to give a sense of tension, but during gunfights he completely abused of this "trick", making most of the time hard to tell what's really going on;

-to this, add "lens flares": they're so strong (especially in the helicopter scene), that basically cover almost half the screen, making really hard to understand what's going on (though Abrams recently said he is aware of this issue and he's going to use them less);

-camera shaking: common "trick" to make the scene look live and add tension. He shaked it half the times so much (even when unnecessary) that it kind of gives you headache (again, helicopter scene).

So, so far I dislike his directing. Later on, I turned up TV and watched "Killer Joe" which was directed by William Friedkin, and his work looks WAY more professional than Abrams's.

 

Totally agreed on all the above.

Lucas could have shot the Phantom Menace with lens flares,shaky cams and rapid fire editing(ala Michal Bay) in 1998 but chose to preserve the static compositions and conservative editing(by 1990's standards)of the OT.

Lucas's main departure with the prequels was the use of CGI and the character (or lack of) portrayals.

But one factor that affected the prequels which hardly anyone notices is that the audience already new where the plot and the characters were headed(they just did not know how) across all 3 episodes(I,II and III).

What was the main attraction of the OT whilst it was unfolding?......the idea that you had no idea where it was heading and who would survive and who would not.

Big difference.

     

Post
#792539
Topic
What if TFA is awful?
Time

Anchorhead said:

I'm surprised at the doubt some fans are expressing, particularly around here. The very reason so many prequel & SE fans are pre-judging it (non-Lucas film) is the very reason I would assume people here would be optimistic.

I've never made any secret of the fact that I own, like, and on occasion watch only the 1977 original Star Wars.  I all but abandoned the franchise thirty years ago, EU excepted. Even then, that was only after several people here made me give some of it a read (thank you again, by the way). 

However, everything that caused me to abandon ship all those years ago has now been eliminated. With the restored franchise we now have a director with a proven track record of quality films. In just over 20 years, Abrams has an impressive record of success and recognition in film and TV, both critical and commercial.

He has successfully handled the restoration of another culturally significant franchise which had long since lost its way (Star Trek).  He also very clearly understands the type of story, character, and tone of film that connected with audiences in the late 70s\early 80s, as well as how to continue it (Super 8).

His casting choices have also been amazing.  If you can successfully recast Kirk, Spock, & McCoy, you can recast anyone.  He's obviously a fan of Star Wars and from what we've seen so far it shows in his aesthetic, his set design, and his pacing (or sometimes lack of it, which is equally important).

To add a cherry on top, Kasdan is the screen writer.  The very person who gave us what many people consider to be the best film of the franchise, not to mention the third Star Wars film and Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Second cherry; they've gone back to the original McQuarrie art to guide the visual design.

There are plenty of people saying things like "I learned my lesson in 1999. I was tremendously let down with Phantom".  How could you not have been?  Nothing had changed since Return other than Lucas having removed anyone who didn't parrot his every thought.  We'd seen how Lucas had tampered with the originals, and we'd witnessed him continually lying about the franchise while attempting to revise history.

Here we are 15 years later and all that made Phantom terrible has been removed and a great deal of what spoke to us 30 years ago has been returned.  Not the least of which is the original cast, who have nothing but praise for all this is turning out to be. 

If you have Harrison Ford fully engaged and complimentary, arguably one of the most outspoken critics of the original trilogy and director, you've no doubt moved the franchise back to solid ground.

For me, a fan who jumped ship a long time ago, what I've seen the past year is light years better than anything post-Empire.

I could not disagree more with your opinion on this.

But you are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

And it is my opinion that JJ "Armageddon" Abrahams  pissed all over whatever Star Trek ever stood for.

If revitalising a franchise involves lens flares, shaky cams, school boy dialogue,superfluous and generic action set pieces, 1 Dimensional CGI and shallow character emotional arcs then yes.....JJ "revitalised" Star Trek.

In 1978 it would have been easy for Robert Wise to have done Star Trek The Motion Picture in the mould of the then fresh and new Star Wars.

But they did not.   

They chose to tread their own path which was met with a polarised response.

And whilst some claimed STMP strayed away from what made the TV original series such fun I believe it was still faithful to the source material....it just added an epic, cinematic aesthetic to the proceedings.....I personally love the Motion Picture as much as I love the original Star Wars.

JJ on the other hand chose every generic  cliché trick in the book to create Star Trek in 2008.....pandering to  contemporary demographic sensibilities instead of creative intuition.

And yes , I will take any of the SW prequels over the 2009 and 2013 Star Treks any day of the week.....just my opinion of course.

Post
#785132
Topic
Info: Comparison of GOUT, JSE, SE laserdisc vs 35mm
Time

I just bagged the Japanese Special Collection Laserdisc off ebay.

Fired it up in my laserdisc player(which I got in march)and am very impressed with the quality.

Actually hooked the laserdisc player to my 4k projector(which has component connections)just to see what the results were-it still holds up.

Was wondering if the insert section(which is in Japanese has ever been translated into English)---the print used for this 1986 widescreen transfer resembles the same print used for the pan and scan 1st release in 1982 as  there are scratch marks in identical places(Han chiding Luke about the force on the Falcon ect)

Interesting that even the limited resolution of laserdisc still picks up the extra grain levels that spike in darker scenes.

But in my view this is the best official home video  release of Star Wars. Period.

Why they did not use this master for the 2006 dvd is beyond me.

Vidiot(on the Steve Hoffman forum) claims that the O-neg of star wars were transferred to Japan in the 1980s and got badly damaged out there.Vidiot says that vertical scratches were created during the O-negs stay in Japan.

Was wondering if  a 1st generation Interpositive(courtesy of the  O-neg) was used for this 1986 master?

There are vertical scratches down the side(big black bar on the right hand side) when the star destroyer comes in overhead at the beginning.

If anyone can chime in on this one that would be great.

 

   

Post
#776515
Topic
The lost frame of ESB
Time

Good spot.

I think it was inherent in the editing techniques of the time....probably due to a torn frame in the OCN....if it was ripped or unusable...they spliced it out.

I noticed a similar jump cut in Raiders of the lost ark.

It occurs  when Indy is describing the ark to the 2 Army intelligence officials in the school hall.

Observe when Indy says:

"yeah the Ark of the covenant....the chest the Hebrews used to carry the 10 commandments in ".

Now I  only noticed it when I was projecting the blu ray onto  a screen of 77inches.

But then I thought I would double check my original 1983 V2000 Raiders video tape to see if it was always there...and sure enough it is!

Post
#759962
Topic
Do you think Disney will release the unaltered versions for DVD and blue ray?
Time

Ronster said:

danny_boy said:

msycamore said:

I am stunned, actually shocked! Do you actually own a 4K projector!! Why haven't you told us before?!

I also own a laserdisc player(newly acquired), VHS and V2000 player too-quite happy to watch star wars on any of them.

 Without putting your purchase down....Brightness : 2000 Lumens

Seriously the price tag and the Lumens don't match up. Although bulb technology has improved massively the brightness is measured at 2000 candles. For Home theater that you could still enjoy during the day you need at least 4000 Lumens. So I am a bit miffed at Sony and there price tag is unreasonable pulling the wool over people eyes.

It should house at least a 4000 Lumen Bulb to be a bit more flexible at the price tag I saw.

 

 

You make a good and fair point but these type of projectors are conducive to light controlled or darkened environments.

If you do not have the option of a bat cave(and obviously the majority of people do not)  then this is not the projector for you.

I actually have a 720p short throw business projector and it has 2500 lumens at it's disposal but the picture is awful!

As for the sony 1000es-here it is showing star wars during a review by projector review.com:

Post
#759747
Topic
Do you think Disney will release the unaltered versions for DVD and blue ray?
Time

AntcuFaalb said:

It has been demonstrated that the '77 35mm IB Technicolor release prints have more visible detail than what's available on the current BD.

 

I am aware that you are bound by "grey area" legalities with regards to divulging who owns these prints-but do you have any screen shots to demonstrate the above?

because that is one hell of a statement.

It would contravene scientific studies which have shown that release prints have resolution significantly lower than HD. 

IB prints could look visibly sharper relative to standard 35mm delux prints---but only because of higher contrast-not because they were  inherently sharp.

the blu ray for all it's lack of adherence to the original color timing-does have very good detail.

If you did an A-B comparison with a 35mm release print-what display were you using for the blu ray( a plasma or LCD tv--or did you screen it in a local cinema)

I am using a 4KSony 1000es projector to upscale the blu ray onto a 77inch screen(still quite small compared  to other high end home theatre enthusiasts)  and I doubt a 4th generation release print(full of optical dupes like Star Wars) would have any where near the same resolution.  

Post
#755026
Topic
Which version/release of the Star Wars movies do you watch and why?
Time

Just bagged my-self a laser disc player(pioneer CLD 925-dual NTSC/PAL capability).

Bought the 1st release pan and scan Star Wars(PAL)

and Empire Strikes back(NTSC)

Decoded the 2 channel stereo tracks using dolby pro-logic.

I have  a 7.1 set up.

Using a 27inch LCD LOGIK TV to watch them.

Wow!

Superb presentation both picture and sound--especially considering both discs are over 30years old.

Pretty constant use of the surrounds.

To see the original elements in pristine quality(all be it in pan and scan) is fantastic.

I am aware that there are preservation efforts on this site regarding these discs.

And whilst watching a well rendered DVD rip is cool.....nothing quite beats putting THE original laserdisc in a player and sitting back and enjoying the show-like stepping back in time.

My 4K projector is retiring for the moment.

  

Post
#754745
Topic
Film cells from a Technicolor print on ebay
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

Well that sucks that leaves the film all but lost and no film level restoration can ever be done.  Just a video restoration. No wonder its stuck at 1080P.

Having to actually use release prints that is shocking.

Even if only for sections.  So what the other sources the IP/IN were unusable?

I suppose what was used to strike the original release prints is in worse or similar shape to the camera negative.

 

Even if the separation masters were in relatively good shape there would have been no guarantee that it would have saved the day.

A sizable portion of the original negative of Superman The Movie had been lost and had to be salvaged by using the separation elements but it did not yield 100% accurate results:   

There was a big chunk that was a dupe negative section, when
Lex Luthor pulls the Kryptonite out of the case all the way until he pushes
Superman into the pool. The original cut negative had been damaged by some lab, and somewhere someone combined YCM separations to make the dupe section. The colors were slightly out of registration. We never did find the negative for that. There was a dupe section for all of that and then there was
damage in other places, torn frames, stuff like that which had been backed by
mylar They would put clear mylar on the back of the negative so that the tear
wouldn't pull any farther and it would hold the film together. "

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/mohenryfanclub/message/298?l=1

Post
#754701
Topic
Film cells from a Technicolor print on ebay
Time

skyjedi2005 said:

Were the seps misaligned or just missing a color layer?

I have heard of other restorations where either a layer was missing or was accidentally duplicated.

Is this why we have so much more dirt and grain than what was originally exhibited in 1977.  Because they did a bad job?

 

At 51:20 :

http://www.dga.org/Events/2011/04-april-2011/George-Lucas-on-Star-Wars.aspx

.......Lucas says he went to Poland and Czechoslovakia to retrieve prints.

In other words huge chunks of the special edition are based off 35mm release prints.

Having watched the 2011 bluray  upscaled to 4K it easy to determine 1st generation negs from dupe stocks.

The discrepancies have been equalized by DNR.

Post
#745953
Topic
Film cells from a Technicolor print on ebay
Time

It is a shame that one of these rare prints has been hacked up:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-2-x-35mm-Film-Cells-Vintage-Star-Wars-1977-Rebel-Briefing-room-/121534059491

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-2-x-35mm-Film-Cells-Vintage-Star-Wars-1977-Han-Luke-Stormtrooper-/121534396423

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-2-x-35mm-Film-Cells-Vintage-Star-Wars-1977-Han-Luke-Stormtrooper-/121534397133

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-2-x-35mm-Film-Cells-Vintage-Star-Wars-1977-Throne-Room-Finale-/121534398071

This one has Luke's blue saber while  he is training on the falcon:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-2-x-35mm-Film-Cells-Vintage-Star-Wars-1977-Luke-Skywalker-Jedi-training-/121534422329

there are plenty more!

Post
#745332
Topic
Was Star War re-colour timed for the 1981 re-release.
Time

NeverarGreat said:

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.

 

Yes that is correct although the 81' trailer looks more bleached out than the earlier ones but in doing so look very similar to the 82'VHS.

Will  try and get screen caps.

Post
#745330
Topic
Was Star War re-colour timed for the 1981 re-release.
Time

csd79 said:

Given the stories how they chopped off the original crawl from '77 prints, and then re-released them with the new crawl, I would say 'no'.

 

Sure

Although I think it could also have been a mixture :

Of recalling (already faded) 1977 35mm delux prints and chopping off the original opening and inserting the new Episode IV crawl and sending those back out into circulation for the 1981 re-release

And

Creating new 4th generation 35mm prints(delux) but without altering the colour of the (maybe already faded) original negative.

hence the reason why that 1981 trailer and the subsequent 1982 VHS release has that bleached out look.

Dunno just guessing! 

Post
#745328
Topic
Was Star War re-colour timed for the 1981 re-release.
Time

CatBus said:

Seems incredibly unlikely, and IMO easily explained by fast-fading film stock.

Certainly Technicolor showings were not retimed--they just took the existing Technicolor reels and spliced in the new crawl/flyover using the cheaper filmstock.

 Yes the  fast fading film stock hypothesis would explain the difference.

But what about Artoo in the canyon?

I was under the impression(please correct me if I am wrong) that the 1977 prints had a dusk look for that scene.

In the 82' VHS it looks like daytime.

In subsequent releases on home video (at least from the mid 90's onwards)  it looks like dusk again.

Would colour fading(from 1977 to 1981) explain the dusk to dawn look.

Or

In 1981--- to meet the demand for prints in some areas they created new interpositives/internegatives to produce release prints  that used the original negative's  colour palette without(or very little)  any alteration- as opposed to 1977 where the original negatives were colour stamped differently  to produce more vibrant release prints. 

The release(not the teaser) trailer from 1977(also on the 2004 bonus DVD) is quite  vibrant.

It may explain why that Artoo shot in particular looks like a daytime scene in the 1982 VHS(and I assume the 1981 35mm release print)

Post
#745305
Topic
Was Star War re-colour timed for the 1981 re-release.
Time

was just watching the 1981 re-release trailer from my 2004 DVD set and only just realized that the colour timing  is very similar (if not identical) to the colour timing  on the 1982 VHS/laserdisc.

here is the trailer on youtube:

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

I have the 1982 VHS and V2000 video tapes but not the laserdisc.

Unfortunately I cannot take screen caps at the moment.

So was Star Wars re-colour timed for that 81 re-release?

Apologies if this has been discussed before.

(I actually saw SW with ESB back to back in 81' but I was only 6 and paying attention to the colour of the prints was not a top priority!....and even if I did there is no way I would remember .)

 

Post
#744081
Topic
"Die dunkle Bedrohung" better than "The Phantom Menace"?
Time

1st I must congratulate you on your excellent English.

And it is interesting that by divesting your interest in the characters and by lowering your expectations you derived more benefit from re-watching the movie. 

I  actually saw the movie last night too-in Italian.

I would wager also that the Italian dub actually sounds more organic with regards to the dialogue(relative to it's english equivalent).

I was watching it in 4K-it looks amazing but you can also see some of the lip synch issues in both English and Italian-like when Ani chants "yes!" after he has won the pod race.

I would say the biggest discrepancy between this movie and any of the OT films is the fact we already knew what was going to happen -we just did not know how it would happen-this fact allied to the expectations that were affiliated with our perception of how certain characters(or groups like the Jedi council)  would behave or be(especially those from the original trilogy) also handicapped the experience of watching this flick.

Compared to other summer block buster fares I can't think of a series where the main protagonist ,Anakin , goes from being good to bad completely without any sense of a reprieve-this in my opinion makes it unique-irrespective of how well this conversion from good to bad is executed.

It did not happen in Harry Potter , The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings, Transformers ,any of the super-hero movies(ok Raimi's Spidey 3 for about 20 mins!),Avatar-(never seen Twilight so don't know) or the Hunger Games-my apologies if I have missed something.

So the trick is to take a some-one (young or old) who does not have a clue about anything star wars and expose them in episode chronology- just to see how shocking(or not) this conversion from good to bad is.

  

Post
#737509
Topic
Should I buy the Original Trilogy Blu ray? I already have the 2004 DVD.
Time

CatBus said:

danny_boy said:

 

When I ask Conheim if there’s a Honus Wagner card of film prints, he names the British Star Wars, processed in Technicolor. It doesn’t fade, he says. “They were still using that process in England up to 1977 or so. Those are really sought after, because even the original negative has faded.” A Technicolor print of Vertigo is also valuable. “I saw one sell for $10,000 two or three years ago.I’ve never seen a Star Wars British version for sale. I know two people who have them. One guy is so freaked out it’s going to be a disappointment he’s never opened the box it came in. I’ve been standing in front of the box with him many times, he’s like, ‘I’ll get there.'”

http://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2014/01/05/the_projectionist/

Yes, we're very lucky to have so many members with access to these prints.  We already knew that, but it's good to hear you say it, even if using someone else's words (and, FWIW, the prices have gone up since your quote).

 

Yeah I found that link as well as this one.....Richard Edlund confirming Star Wars were the IB prints ever made(at least that is the way I am interpreting it)

Complicated though it was, it was still quite cheaper than photochemical printing because it didn’t require silver, and though the cameras were shelved in the early 50’s, IB prints were made through the 70’s; Technicolor London made the final IB prints for Star Wars in 77-78.

http://www.theasc.com/asc_blog/parallax-view/2013/04/17/edlund-restores-technicolor-camera-dills-book-to-hit-the-presses-soon/

Post
#737505
Topic
Should I buy the Original Trilogy Blu ray? I already have the 2004 DVD.
Time

CatBus said:

It's definitely a semantics thing.  I consider Harmy's to be a fan restoration, which is a subset of fan edit in my book.  I also consider the Special Editions to be a fan edit, just one that's neither as enjoyable nor as well done as Harmy's.

 

I would have to disagree with the definition of the special edition as constituting a fan edit.

Harmy did not work on the original production of star wars in 1976....by all accounts....he was not even born!

Lucas,Muren,Hart(who cut the negative on ESB and ROTJ) and Burrt were all involved in making those  original flicks......and yeah they vandalized them  in 1994-1997.....but they are not "fan editors".

Post
#737501
Topic
Should I buy the Original Trilogy Blu ray? I already have the 2004 DVD.
Time

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:


just saying. 

 No, not true.

 

Hey dude....I can get more of a kick from watching that 1982 VHS tape than watching the 2011 blu ray..........but I will still acknowledge that the 2011 bLu ray is superior in technical quality.

 Beating a horse that's been dead for several pages now is not the same thing as "just saying."

Could you elaborate?

 I'm pretty sure you're the only one here who needs elaboration, so I'm going to say...no.

I think you just created a new dead horse. 

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Should-I-buy-the-Original-Trilogy-Blu-ray-I-already-have-the-2004-DVD/post/734948/#TopicPost734948

Page 1.

JEDIT: Also on page 1, you got support from Easterhay...just saying!

safety in numbers approach applies to dead horses too you know!