imperialscum

WedgeCyan said:

imperialscum said:

 But for example AT-AT motion and interaction with environment looks quite fake to me because the dynamics of the model is completely different from the dynamics of the thing that it tries to model.

You're right. Stop-motion AT-ATs are so unrealistic compared to all those real-life 20-story mechanical walking tanks.

What a childish reply. I was simply stating the physics... If you make a model of something that does not exist in real life and your model does not perform/match in terms of physics, then you can't use an excuse as lame as "the thing I modelled does not exist in real life" to justify its bad performance.

Ronster said:

But as soon as you start to try to synthesize biological things animals / monsters / natural environments i.e. trees it falls over.

It just all goes wrong when it comes to trying to create something that is alive because we can feel that it is dead there is no soul or energy transferred by cgi.

But it does do dead things like real dead things

You are correct, the motion is actually far more important than the actual visual representation of the object. However, in case of CGI humanoid creatures, this problem can be solved easily. You just fit the human joints with marker and use real-time motion capture system to obtain the natural motion for CGI model. Dynamics matching will be pretty muach perfect.

On the other hand, this problem is very evident in practical miniature models where they try to produce a feasible motion. It is okay if you have a model of a massive space ship moving through space since the dynamics is really simple. But for example AT-AT motion and interaction with environment looks quite fake to me because the dynamics of the model is completely different from the dynamics of the thing that it tries to model.

darklordoftech said:

Hoth in SWTOR. It's world shrinkage.

World shrinkage is not such a problem to me. I hate it because of the visual design.

darklordoftech said:

One of my biggest criticisms of the EU is that everyone who disagrees with the leading Jedi Master of the time becomes a Sith Lord.

Not all EU is like that.

Fang Zei said:

The bit from the badass digest article I find interesting is that apparently the people in charge at Fox don't feel comfortable releasing the OOT while Lucas is still alive.

I'm not sure why this would be the case, though.

Maybe they don't want to do it without the involvement of the creator. However I think it would be surprising that an organisation like film studio would exhibit such an "honourable stance". They certainly didn't mind releasing Alien3 without Fincher's involvement. But unlike Fincher's case, Fox is probably more on friendly terms with Lucas.

Gogogadget said:

Can't they do a Close Encounters situation and start over with the 'Directors Cut' and do it properly.

Well making Director's Cut means calling back Lucas to do it.

TV's Frink said:

imperialscum said:

That's like saying 15 and 16 are identical numbers, while 5 and 6 aren't...

 They're certainly closer to identical...

Well that is why I picked those examples. They are bit closer but still not identical.

Bingowings,

It's not just about this thread at all. It is a general behaviour of this particular individual.

The Fiery Editor said:

To TV's Frink, Lay off. I don't get why you just come onto my threads to annoy me and say disrespectful things but either way it is disrespectful and insulting. I would appreciate you not to post on my threads and if you do, be civil.

TV's Frink is a kind of clown of this forum. I estimate that more than half of his posts are off-topic, most of those disrespectful and even offensive. I think even mods just accepted his status as a forum clown since they haven't done anything about his behaviour.

So don't get too upset about him.

moviefreakedmind said:

Yes, I agree, and I also personally think that Hayden's ghost is the most offensive of all the Special Edition changes

As far as I am concerned it is pretty much the worst thing Lucas did in his career. Besides trying to erase theatrical versions from the history, of course.

If only the PT would focus on being an adventure rather than a soap opera...

moviefreakedmind said:

What? I haven't changed my mind. If anything I just said they'll revert back to '04 content-wise because I don't think they'll add the extra rocks in front of R2 because those are completely minute and non-sensical.

Well if they aren't going to redo/reshoot the PT crap which is now stuck in 2K... then the version will pretty much end up being the 1997. Non-PT differences between 1997 and 2004/2011 are rather minor.

Unless they use the 2K and up-scale it to 4K which would be extremely embarrassing and unprofessional.

And no, saying the 97 and 11 SE's are identical is not the same as comparing the SE to the original; they're the same, just with updated Jabba and new prequel references (and without the scream in Empire).

That's like saying 15 and 16 are identical numbers, while 5 and 6 aren't...

DominicCobb said:

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

especially when the '97 and '11 versions are pretty much the same, the newest ones just have more prequel crap shoved into them

That is like saying 1997 and theatrical are pretty much the same.

 Well considering both '97 and '11 are shit and '77/'80/'83 are not...

Ok.

moviefreakedmind said:

Ok, I'll admit that I'd be pretty surprised if Vader's "NOOOO" or R2's extra rocks make it into the next "Special Edition" release, or even Han shooting second (and maaaybe Jedi Rocks if we're lucky) especially since Vader's "NO" and Hayden Christiansen would have to be re-added if they're 4K restoring the 97 negative.

What happened to the "they will NEVER release 1997"? :)

If you read darklordoftech arguments about 4k from the beginning you wouldn't need to make 3 posts about how certain you are that 1997 will never be release again.

moviefreakedmind said:

especially when the '97 and '11 versions are pretty much the same, the newest ones just have more prequel crap shoved into them

That is like saying 1997 and theatrical are pretty much the same.

peter_pan said:

Alien 3 The (*directors cut*)- I think is a much better version as far as pacing and character development. However I do  miss the dog. The dog is a pet and so I feel more tense with seeing the dog in pain than a dead Ox. I think Alien 3 is a very underrated film and always has been. Sure its not like aliens, but then aliens is not like alien. Could you imagine any studio green lighting the alien 3 script now?

I like Alien3 too. I think it is pretty much in par with Aliens, considering the last 30 minutes of Aliens is quite ridiculous.

I prefer the extended version as well. A slight correction though, it is not really a "director's cut" since the director refused to participate. It is actually labelled as "assembly cut".

Harmy said:

This is true. With the analog technology, no two prints looked the same - so taking a few low fade prints as a reference and making a sort of amalgamation of that would give you something approaching the "original" colors. So, I don't think it would be a good idea for a major professional restoration to stick religiously to one particular print, if they have access to more and they probably should keep the clors somewhat consistent throughout the film. What I think should however definitely be done, is to keep the over-all color schemes of each sequence as they appear on the original prints - it would be very wrong for a restoration to attempt to make the film look modern.

The Godfather restoration is a great example of that - the colors are nice and consistent and probably better than even on the initial release, but they have that beautiful vintage look fitting for the era in which the movie was made.

When it comes to this matter I think probably the best technique to restore the colours is to just call the Director or DP and let them give their judgement regarding what kind of colour tone they were trying to achieve on the set. It will be subjective of course but I still think it better than using some worn-out film stock and letting someone who had nothing to do with the film (i.e. what people refer to as "professional") subjectively decide the tone.

riddler95 said:

Robert Harris would do anything he could to perfectly color correct the Original Theatrical Versions to match exactly how they looked when they were originally released in 1977, 1980, and 1983.

Unlike digital colour record where everything is clearly defined (RGB, HSV etc.), in case of analogue medium (i.e. film) colour is a very complex matter. "How they looked when they were originally released" is big variable and is really impossible to determine.

Alien- Theatrical, I don't like cocoon scene.

Aliens- Special Edition, adds some good stuff

Blade Runner- the Final Cut, I like visual improvements and the ending

Nick66 said:

Oh crikey, for people thinking there's any chance they'll release 97 versions in HD, or that they just as in demand or legitimate as releasing the original versions...just forget about it.

I am a realist. I don't expect them to ever release 1997 as a stand alone. I am just hoping they may release them together with theatrical.

And I as I explained already, I am aware that there is a few people who want 1997 compared to those who want theatrical. But even though much more people specifically demand theatrical release, I believe it is still is not that many that would make the thing extremely profitable. If they just somehow released 2011 again, probably more people would buy that and they would literally have not expenses with it. A lot of people who buy Star Wars releases probably don't even know/care what exactly they are buying.

It is a stretch to take an average person from OT.com and generalise it to all who saw the films in theatres. I know two people who saw the films in theatres and fit the "don't know/don't care" category.

Nick66 said:

There's like 3 people who think the world needs the 97 versions on Blu Ray, and they all post here.

Who are those 3 people? I only think that I need it.

TV's Frink said:

I was able to figure it out, and I'm 87 years old.

But not everyone has a wisdom of a 87 years old.

Cobra Kai said:

They've already released the SE's on blu-ray, so all we need are the unaltered theatrical movies.  Fans who prefer the SE can just hang on to their 2011 discs and continue to enjoy the inferior versions.

Oh the irony. This is exactly a mirror behaviour of "They already released theatrical versions on DVD", well in a sense even more ignorant. Let me remind you that it just a rumour and you are not on the safe side yet to take the old TFN-like attitude.

TV's Frink said:

97 SE whining in 3...2...1...

Did you already forget who has been whining for more than 15 years now?

TV's Frink said:

At least adywan can spell words good. Also, what 005 said.

Since we are at it... technically "good" is not an adverb.

DuracellEnergizer said:

A likeable Anakin.

This.

More info in my bio.

I like KOTOR2 a lot but I have always hated the two villain's abilities. What happened here is... if an author is not competent to write a cool character then he tries to make him cool by giving him some ridiculously powerful abilities. The end result is usually something stupid.

Since I like KOTOR2 I compensate this stupidity by just reinterpreting it. For example, in case of Nihilus I interpret his "devouring of worlds" not as force ability but rather just a sort of a fetish, i.e. he force-feeds on the destruction that he is causing with his fleet and army. So in that case it makes the entire thing acceptable and his defeat in 1on1 combat feasible.