darklordoftech

the solution is to scan or telecine an IP and don't change anything

yoda-sama said:

darklordoftech said:

All of Disney's alterations are either results of branching or in response to a claim that something is offensive/sexual/copyright-infringing, etc. Never has a non-branching "original version" had updated special effects.

The Lion King Blu-ray still has the IMAX release reanimated bits at the beginning (new crocodiles, etc).  That had nothing to do with politically correct stuff like editing out the dust that said either "SEX" or "SFX" (depending on who you believe), it was change just for the sake of change.

the original crocodiles looked like someone's painting, leading to an accusation of copyright infringement

AntcuFaalb said:

darklordoftech said:

unamochilla2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

AntcuFaalb said:

Harmy said:

Revisionism is becoming a complete norm - I've just been watching the Hobbit TDoS EE BD extras and they said that in the DVD and BD release of the first Hobbit, they re-did some shots of Smaug in the prologue to match the TDoS version of him.

I agree that revisionism is unfortunately becoming commonplace, but FWIW I usually don't mind when the creator(s) of a work revise it in some minor way only a short time post-release. (Yes, this means I don't mind the '81 crawl.)

I also don't mind such changes/fixes when it's to correct unintended errors a year after release (And when we'd barely notice the change).

They tried to show as little of Smaug as possible in the prologue but they hadn't finished designing him by that point. They eventually went for no front legs in DOS but the AUJ Smaug has front legs. So why not remove them in the EE. Better than keeping the error, or going with a consistent design for Smaug that they didn't like.

Now going back 10, 20, 30 years later and changing things that didn't need changing is another kettle of fish (However, I actually would welcome FOTR Gollum being redone by Andy Serkis, so call me a massive hypocrite if you like LOL).

In a similar way, I wouldn't mind a stunning new transfer of the OT that corrected a few flaws Adywan style but stayed true to the original print in spirit. Having the original untouched version as well would of course be preferrable.

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney did that considering they have tweaked and altered some of their own films (particularly the animated films), though usually minor and unnoticeable.

All of Disney's alterations are either results of branching or in response to a claim that something is offensive/sexual/copyright-infringing, etc. Never has a non-branching "original version" had updated special effects.

I'm not sure what you mean by branching, but many of Disney's classics (e.g., Sleeping Beauty) were digitally reanimated in preparation for a BD release.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Recommended-Editions-of-Disney-Animated-and-Partially-Animated-Features/topic/15617/

by branching I mean seamless branching.

unamochilla2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

AntcuFaalb said:

Harmy said:

Revisionism is becoming a complete norm - I've just been watching the Hobbit TDoS EE BD extras and they said that in the DVD and BD release of the first Hobbit, they re-did some shots of Smaug in the prologue to match the TDoS version of him.

I agree that revisionism is unfortunately becoming commonplace, but FWIW I usually don't mind when the creator(s) of a work revise it in some minor way only a short time post-release. (Yes, this means I don't mind the '81 crawl.)

I also don't mind such changes/fixes when it's to correct unintended errors a year after release (And when we'd barely notice the change).

They tried to show as little of Smaug as possible in the prologue but they hadn't finished designing him by that point. They eventually went for no front legs in DOS but the AUJ Smaug has front legs. So why not remove them in the EE. Better than keeping the error, or going with a consistent design for Smaug that they didn't like.

Now going back 10, 20, 30 years later and changing things that didn't need changing is another kettle of fish (However, I actually would welcome FOTR Gollum being redone by Andy Serkis, so call me a massive hypocrite if you like LOL).

In a similar way, I wouldn't mind a stunning new transfer of the OT that corrected a few flaws Adywan style but stayed true to the original print in spirit. Having the original untouched version as well would of course be preferrable.

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney did that considering they have tweaked and altered some of their own films (particularly the animated films), though usually minor and unnoticeable.

All of Disney's alterations are either results of branching or in response to a claim that something is offensive/sexual/copyright-infringing, etc. Never has a non-branching "original version" had updated special effects.

Baronlando said:

AntcuFaalb said:

There's no consensus, but there's a very simple solution: scan an IP, grade to a good release print, fix annoying temporal anomalies (e.g., flicker), dirt/scratch clean, encode, and release.

I don't see how anyone can argue against a "this is the original, as it was" release.

An as-unfucked-with-as-possible OOT release benefits everyone.

 This is absolutely the most reasonable thing to hope for and expect. Because its a thing that actually happens when they release old movies.

(bows)

The Merchant said:

The Rakata. 

Why? (just curious)

How the Cult of KOTOR hates the OT.

I always watch GOUT instead of the SEs. The alterations combined with the crushed blacks, blue tint, and ruined lightsabers make the SEs unwatchable to me.

http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-dark-disciple-cover-exclusive-reveal

that bottom saber

That part of the visual dictionary always struck me as odd because ESB and ROTJ make it clear that The Emperor turned Anakin to the dark side. Obi-Wan fears loosing Luke to the Emperor the way he lost Vader and Luke says that the Emperor won't turn him like he did his (Luke's) father.

Move the destruction of the shield generator to after Palpatine dies. That way Luke, Palpatine, and Vader aren't ignoring that they're on a falling ship.

Fang Zei said:

darklordoftech said:

Handman said:

darklordoftech said:

Considering that The Force Awakens was filmed on 35mm, will they use 35mm sources instead of digital scans for future releases, both OOT and SE?

 But... wouldn't they have to make a digital scan of that to release it?

The TPM DVD didn't use a digital scan.

I think you're a little confused...

Since I didn't speculate either way, "Curious" would probably be more accurate than "confused".

Handman said:

darklordoftech said:

Considering that The Force Awakens was filmed on 35mm, will they use 35mm sources instead of digital scans for future releases, both OOT and SE?

 But... wouldn't they have to make a digital scan of that to release it?

The TPM DVD didn't use a digital scan.

Considering that The Force Awakens was filmed on 35mm, will they use 35mm sources instead of digital scans for future releases, both OOT and SE?

Fang Zei said: It's always baffled me as to why RotS looks exactly as it should while AotC looks vastly different.

Me too. The re-editing of the Dooku vs. Yoda scene also baffles me.

DuracellEnergizer said:

IMO, instead of going with Ancient Aliens as an explanation behind the origins of hyperdrive technology, a SW equivalent of the Spacing Guild from Dune should have been created for the EU -- a third major power existing independant of the Republic/Empire and Rebel Alliance/New Republic which builds and maintains a monopoly on hyperdrive technology they sell to the other civilizations of the galaxy.

Pre-Republic humans or Duros inventing hyperdrives would have done the job for me.

NeverarGreat said:

darklordoftech said:

How everything was linked to ancient aliens, from hyperdrives to black hole clusters to planetary biomes.

 I liked the idea of the celestials. But I guess it would get old quick.

The problem is that EVERYTHING was linked to them, from the origins of the Jedi and Sith to hyperdrives to the balance of The Force to why Tatooine is a desert, not just similarities between species on different planets and things like that.

In Bane of the Sith, Darth Bane encounters spirits of Kaan and Qordis. Darth Bane: Rule of Two says that those spirits were just hallucenations.

chyron8472 said:

I agree.

So do I. 

DuracellEnergizer said:

I just like running with the idea that midi-chlorians are Force-sucking parasites which alter the DNA of their hosts to make them incapable of independant existence.

They don't create the Force, they don't connect you to the Force, they just siphon the Force from you while making you dependant on them for your continued survival.

This. Plagueis created them in ancient times.

How everything was linked to ancient aliens, from hyperdrives to black hole clusters to planetary biomes.

Alderaan said:

There is literally nothing about the EU that is useful. It's that kind of mindset that transformed Star Wars from a contained, well-told story taking place in a mysterious setting, into a meaningless serial filled with rubbish.

Basically, this.

In Darth Plagueis, Palps's father pushes him to be friends with the guy on the left in this picture:

Erikstormtrooper said:

Wait, so 720p is better than 1080i?

1080i requires a CRT. All other tvs convert it to 720p but add a blur to the image in the process.

Bingowings said:

Part of the problem with AOTC is that it has two desert planets (one orange and one red) in the same movie. It would have made for a better narrative if both of those worlds were Tatooine (the droid armies explaining how the Jawas get to sell so many salvaged droids and why the locals don't like drinking with them). in terms of numbers you get two worlds but in terms of the richness of the environments in which the story is told we get short changed.

For this to work, Obi-Wan (and Qui-Gon if he keeps the role that he has in TPM) would have to discover Anakin after being drawn to Tatooine by the war. The army being constructed on the same planet that Anakin was discovered on 9 years earlier is too much of a coincidence.

Is Lucas agreeing or disagreeing with Foster's take on Vader's motives and goals?