imperialscum

This film was intrinsically bad idea.

If you had used private message it would not have even started in the first place. But you admitted that you wanted to troll.

TV’s Frink said:
I tried to just be good-natured about his mistake for once

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

Anyway I would suggest Mr. Frink to address any future grammar-related matters using private message in order not to interfere with the thread topic.

Hahahahahaha. I’ll just let you look foolish instead, rather than trying to help.

I only implied that you are trolling rather than trying to help. Now you bluntly admitted it. So much for the “good-natured” intent.

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

Darth Lucas said:

imperialscum said:

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

So to preserve digital movies we should carve out all of the data in stone. That seems completely feasible.

It is not feasible of course for every information we currently have.

Friendly teaching moment: It should be “all the information we currently have” or it should be “every piece of information we currently have.”

Thank you my friend. But the language has just evolved and what you suggest is archaic now.

If you consider grammatically correct to be archaic, then yes.

Archaic is naturally still grammatically correct. Words “thy”, “thee”, “thou”, etc. are grammatically correct.

True but irrelevant to his point.

So was his conditional sentence.

Anyway I would suggest Mr. Frink to address any future grammar-related matters using private message in order not to interfere with the thread topic.

Darth Lucas said:

imperialscum said:

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

So to preserve digital movies we should carve out all of the data in stone. That seems completely feasible.

It is not feasible of course for every information we currently have.

Friendly teaching moment: It should be “all the information we currently have” or it should be “every piece of information we currently have.”

Thank you my friend. But the language has just evolved and what you suggest is archaic now.

If you consider grammatically correct to be archaic, then yes.

Archaic is naturally still grammatically correct. Words “thy”, “thee”, “thou”, etc. are grammatically correct.

TV’s Frink said:

imperialscum said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

So to preserve digital movies we should carve out all of the data in stone. That seems completely feasible.

It is not feasible of course for every information we currently have.

Friendly teaching moment: It should be “all the information we currently have” or it should be “every piece of information we currently have.”

Thank you my friend. But the language has just evolved and what you suggest is archaic now.

suspiciouscoffee said:

So to preserve digital movies we should carve out all of the data in stone. That seems completely feasible.

It is not feasible of course for every information we currently have. I just pointed out that if digital storage is done well, it is by far superior to film (assuming good resolution of digital encoding). Even on hard drives or optical discs it is still better than on film, as you are not losing the information over time like on film. You just need to replace hard drives or optical discs every now and then and have a backup system.

monkeyjb1988 said:

Shokara said:

imperialscum said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

imperialscum said:

What is this crap about digital being bad? Digital medium is by far superior in terms of storage and preservation. Unlike analogue recording (film), which starts to degrade/change from the point it is being recorded, the digital recording is basically time-invariant. For example, the colour encoding of digital video is strictly defined, while in analogue film it varies based on the current conditions.

Of course, you might still want to use analogue film camera for some reason to shoot the film, but in any case you should digitalise the film as soon as it shot (in highest possible resolution).

Who here has lobbied for not preserving film elements digitally? As far as I can tell this conversation is all about capture mediums.

Still, I do not see why wouldn’t you immediately record it digitally. If you use analogue film to record a scene, by the time you transfer it to digital medium it will not be the same as it was originally recorded. Not to mention conditions of transformation process which requires projector (use different lighting during the projection and you have different results, etc.)

If you originally record it digitally, you have it completely preserved. You carve that digital recording into stone inside a cave and aliens will still be able to read it tens of thousands of years after we will destroy each other in the exact form as it was originally recorded.

The reason is that 35mm film still has inherently higher resolution than digital cinematography does. Each time we invent new video technologies with higher resolutions, 35 mm film still continues to surprise us by how much previously hidden detail was captured when we make updated digital scans and transfers of those film reels. However, digital photography and cinematography provides no such surprises. We know their respective resolutions from the get-go, and those remain constant despite whatever new resolutions come along with new technologies. Something shot in 4K will remain in 4K twenty to thirty years an so on. However, whenever we think we’ve wrung as much detail as modern technology possibly can from film, it always manages to catch us off guard.

Also, digital is not as robust as you make out. Film is still the go to for movie preservation as digital storage can falter or become unreadable over time. Film can last for 100+ years if properly preserved while digital only has 50+ at the most. You’d have to convert it and move it to new storage over time, but even then it can cause rot (the term is ‘bit rot’). Heck, Disney is printing it’s CURRENT films to separation masters to preserve them:

http://www.disneydigitalstudio.com/preserving-our-movies/

Digital in theory does not mean being physically stored on hard drives or optical discs. Like I said, you can carve digital code into a stone and the information will last unchanged for tens of thousands of years under natural conditions. On the other hand film is film and it will last only 100 years here on Earth, not to mentioned the information will constantly change from the second it is recorded.

Shokara said:

imperialscum said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

imperialscum said:

What is this crap about digital being bad? Digital medium is by far superior in terms of storage and preservation. Unlike analogue recording (film), which starts to degrade/change from the point it is being recorded, the digital recording is basically time-invariant. For example, the colour encoding of digital video is strictly defined, while in analogue film it varies based on the current conditions.

Of course, you might still want to use analogue film camera for some reason to shoot the film, but in any case you should digitalise the film as soon as it shot (in highest possible resolution).

Who here has lobbied for not preserving film elements digitally? As far as I can tell this conversation is all about capture mediums.

Still, I do not see why wouldn’t you immediately record it digitally. If you use analogue film to record a scene, by the time you transfer it to digital medium it will not be the same as it was originally recorded. Not to mention conditions of transformation process which requires projector (use different lighting during the projection and you have different results, etc.)

If you originally record it digitally, you have it completely preserved. You carve that digital recording into stone inside a cave and aliens will still be able to read it tens of thousands of years after we will destroy each other in the exact form as it was originally recorded.

The reason is that 35mm film still has inherently higher resolution than digital cinematography does. Each time we invent new video technologies with higher resolutions, 35 mm film still continues to surprise us by how much previously hidden detail was captured when we make updated digital scans and transfers of those film reels. However, digital photography and cinematography provides no such surprises. We know their respective resolutions from the get-go, and those remain constant despite whatever new resolutions come along with new technologies. Something shot in 4K will remain in 4K twenty to thirty years an so on. However, whenever we think we’ve wrung as much detail as modern technology possibly can from film, it always manages to catch us off guard.

You can store digitally in whatever resolution you want. My 10 years old digital camera has more than 4K resolution. Basically you can go even beyond the effective resolution of physical equipment (optics, sensor, etc.) but it would be redundant. So your argument really does not hold.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

imperialscum said:

What is this crap about digital being bad? Digital medium is by far superior in terms of storage and preservation. Unlike analogue recording (film), which starts to degrade/change from the point it is being recorded, the digital recording is basically time-invariant. For example, the colour encoding of digital video is strictly defined, while in analogue film it varies based on the current conditions.

Of course, you might still want to use analogue film camera for some reason to shoot the film, but in any case you should digitalise the film as soon as it shot (in highest possible resolution).

Who here has lobbied for not preserving film elements digitally? As far as I can tell this conversation is all about capture mediums.

Still, I do not see why wouldn’t you immediately record it digitally. If you use analogue film to record a scene, by the time you transfer it to digital medium it will not be the same as it was originally recorded. Not to mention conditions of transformation process which requires projector (use different lighting during the projection and you have different results, etc.)

If you originally record it digitally, you have it completely preserved. You carve that digital recording into stone inside a cave and aliens will still be able to read it tens of thousands of years after we will destroy each other in the exact form as it was originally recorded.

What is this crap about digital being bad? Digital medium is by far superior in terms of storage and preservation. Unlike analogue recording (film), which starts to degrade/change from the point it is being recorded, the digital recording is basically time-invariant. For example, the colour encoding of digital video is strictly defined, while in analogue film it varies based on the current conditions.

Of course, you might still want to use analogue film camera for some reason to shoot the film, but in any case you should digitalise the film as soon as it shot (in highest possible resolution).

NeverarGreat said:

imperialscum said:

DominicCobb said:

Lucas thought ESB should have been made worse for less money. He got his way the next time around.

I highly doubt he thought that. I see you are completely detached from reality like the guy in the other thread (http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1050968). Budget/time constraints are there for a reason - not to bankrupt. He most likely wanted to make as good film as possible within the given budget/time constraints. For that you need a director who can make great shots in minimum amount of time.

And your statement is especially stupid, considering Lucas put everything he had into the film. The evidence of that is that he had to go to Fox for extra 10 Million after it went over schedule/budget.

Making of Return of the Jedi is a great read and lays out how Lucas went about cutting corners on the film. At one point during the filming of the Sarlacc fight the crew brought him an animatronic tentacle to use, but he had specified that a simple rubber tentacle would suffice, and so he refused to use the clearly superior prop to make a point. It seems petty and counterproductive now, and some of the effects could have used more than matte paintings, but it did keep costs down.

Maximising quality of shots under the cost/time constraints is what director/producer should be best at.

I have not seen the “clearly superior prop” in action but the one used in the film looked good and real. I highly doubt the robotic prop would have looked better. Until recent developments in robotics, the dynamics of robot motion looked very unbiological and artificial, which is pretty much the most clear cue of fakeness in our perception.

Besides, the fact that they made both and chose one of them is the opposite of “cutting corners”.

nickyd47 said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

They said there’ll be multiple surprises.

Three 4k SE discs.

The 1997,2004 and 2011 cut. What a release that would be.

That would surpass even Lucas at trolling.

DominicCobb said:

questionable grammar of the topic title

I think it is okay. It is basically future passive: “Next movie seen (by me) will be X”.

TV’s Frink said:

Alderaan said:

There is literally no evidence to suggest that the OOT has been restored or will ever be released by Disney. None.

There is also literally (and lol at someone who has to keep using that word to try and make his point) no evidence to suggest it won’t ever be released by Disney. None.

You are both right. But unfortunately this thread somehow still has 130+ pages.

I think it was Jurassic Park.

DominicCobb said:

ray_afraid said:

I don’t buy the idea that female action figures are a rare sight or unpopular. My best buddies daughter has TONS of 'em and they never had to look hard to find em at the toy shops.
I also don’t think having the lead in TFA be female was a “risky move”. Maybe if they made the movie right after ROTJ, but not now. Movies, comic books, cartoons, ect. have been putting strong females in the lead for a long time now. (though it does seem that the scale is just recently tipping towards even)
I’m also not surprised that an action figure of the lead character in a Star Wars movie sold well. Who would be?
Seems like the reporting of someone who is very much out of touch.

There are plenty of articles out there about this subject. It was a widely reported phenomenon when TFA came out that there weren’t enough Rey toys on store shelves to meet demand. I don’t see how it’s so hard to believe. It’s not like they’re saying that female figures are like needles in haystacks. There just aren’t nearly as many of them as male figures which I think is a fairly obvious fact.

Was having the lead in TFA be female a “risky move”? Fuck no. I think that’s pretty clear. I guess the question is though if studio execs and toy companies still misguidedly think that it might be.

Do you have any evidence of ratio of toys produced to support that “fairly obvious fact”?

It could be that they just produced equal number of figures for each of the main three characters. That would be pretty sound strategy when you do not know who will actually be the most popular among the audience. And it happened that Rey is more popular.

Star Wars: Here We Go Again

It was no personal attack. I was pointing out that you cannot refute two solid arguments with just one person’s experience.

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

TV’s Frink said:

My wife had a hell of a time finding Rey characters for our girls, I’ll have to tell her that it was supposedly to avoid spoilers. Not sure if I buy that.

Well, apparently they start making toys way before film comes out, so I don’t know maybe they didn’t realize she’d be so popular and just assumed because it’s a female toy it wouldn’t sell.

That makes a lot more sense.

That does not make any sense. What SW and Ray said makes sense.

Well I guess not everyone is up for every task.

DominicCobb said:

I’m sorry you can’t accept the plain fact that ROTJ is worse than ESB but you don’t have to come up with elaborate rationalizations to prove otherwise to yourself.

I am sorry you cannot understand what is being argued here. There was no comparison to ROTJ with regards to which is better, let alone me expressing any preference. I simply pointed out the stupidity of your statement regarding budget.

DominicCobb said:

Lucas thought ESB should have been made worse for less money. He got his way the next time around.

I highly doubt he thought that. I see you are completely detached from reality like the guy in the other thread (http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1050968). Budget/time constraints are there for a reason - not to bankrupt. He most likely wanted to make as good film as possible within the given budget/time constraints. For that you need a director who can make great shots in minimum amount of time.

And your statement is especially stupid, considering Lucas put everything he had into the film. The evidence of that is that he had to go to Fox for extra 10 Million after it went over schedule/budget.

Alderaan said:

Sorry Imp, but I don’t think you know too much about this. Kersh didn’t shoot any master shots on Empire, which kept Lucas from fucking up the movie in the editing room. That was the main reason he stood over Marquand’s shoulder the entire time during filming of ROTJ.

I have heard of this “theory” before. There are plenty of master shots in the film, which is obvious proof that this “theory” is false. Anyway, it is not like you just need master shots to play around in the editing room. The amount of different takes is what actually matters. And the reality is that they did so many takes that editing was like playing in a sandbox compared to ANH.

The main reason he stood over Marquand’s shoulder was because he did not want the film to go twice over budget and twice over schedule.