m_s0

AntcuFaalb said:

emanswfan said:

If SE, they ain't getting ANY of my money!

If the original unaltered, I will be there to get it DAY 1!

Same here. I hope someone replies to my e-mails.

Don't expect an answer before an official announcement.

I'm still hoping Disney is going to feed the OOT to the Ep VII hype machine, and the way they've been handling Star Wars makes it a fairly likely scenario. This December, maybe? Fingers crossed, but no real expectations.

And if it's not an OOT restoration they can go suck on a lightsaber™, regardless of whether it's good or not this time around.

SilverWook said:

Does that site load miserably slow for anyone else?

It's slow, but not atypically slow for that kind of site.

Here's a story about Henry Rollins recording "I Can't Get Behind That" with William Shatner. Fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnXAb6IKeeE&t=4m40s

Harmy said:

Yeah, I think it would have been fine in TDK and TDKR, if it was just different AR for entire long scenes, but I also found it pretty jarring, when the AR changed for just one shot (usually establishing shots) - in those shots, if they just cropped them to 2.35:1, they'd still get the extra resolution without the jarring AR change.

I've also just recently seen Von Triers' Nymfomaniac, which also has shifting AR, which I felt was pretty jarring (although I guess that may have been the point of it in that case) but it was made even more noticeable by the fact, that on a 16:9 TV, insted of having more picture information on top and bottom, for the 16:9 scenes, like in Nolan's films, you got a windowboxed video in the center of the screen, which was of course more faithful to the way it would have been in a cinema, but I really didn't like it for home viewing.

And I've seen Gallaxy Quest at least three times and I don't even remember any AR chages.

That's probably because the one that made it to home releases is hidden in plain sight ;)

That's a good point. I should've clarified what I meant.

I've never seen Brainstorm (Which I admit is weird, because it's something I should be all over for at least half a dozen reasons), but Galaxy Quest wasn't constantly shifting from aspect ratio to aspect ratio (never seen that one theatrically, though). Same thing with The Grand Budapest Hotel recently. That kind of use of multiple aspect ratios is fine with me - there's a logic behind it beyond "we don't need to record audio for this scene so we can use an IMAX camera" and you're meant to notice it anyway. Finally, perhaps most importantly, it doesn't happen all the time.

Something like, say, The Dark Knight Rises gets pretty jarring, even if they do try to hide it, which doesn't really work for screenings at home. I didn't notice or mind any of that when I saw that movie on the big screen, though.

doubleKO said:

doubleofive said:

I wonder if the movie will have shifting aspect ratios then? Seems odd to try to mimic the film stock and cinematography so closely to have some scenes not in 2.35:1...

I can't say I'm a fan of shifting aspect ratios. It might be fine in IMAX theatres and all, but watching movies with shifting AR at home makes me feel like I'm watching a badly cobbled-together fan edit.

Yeah. I feel exactly the same way. Plus it takes me out of the experience every time it happens.

doubleofive said:

You have to hear Mike's side. I believe he feels that Trek 09 is the best movie, as in general audience movie. He and I just did a commentary on Wrath of Khan this weekend (coming soon), so he's familiar with it. I enjoy the hell out of 09 (see our conversation on "The Whole Pre-Re-Quel Thing"). It's fun and it's getting people interested in the franchise.

I disagree. It doesn't get people interested in Star Trek. It gets people interested in the Star Trek reboots, which really bear little, if any, resemblance to Star Trek.

I've talked to a lot of people during the past couple of years about ST 09 and ST(I)D (har har) and every single one of them felt that even though they liked the reboots, they don't feel like giving the TV series or even the older movies a chance. It's odd, but the Star Trek stigma is still a thing. Kind of funny how people seem to subconsciously realize that this new Star Trek has nothing to do with actual Star Trek, hence why it's OK to enjoy it and even admit that publicly ;)

Here's something else that's funny: I've been recommending Wrath of Khan to a buddy of mine (a programmer and generally speaking a nerd) ever since the first STID trailer came out, but he refuses to watch it. Why? Because it's Star Trek. He loved STID, though, and didn't have any qualms about watching it.

All of the above is even more amusing considering that those old Star Trek movies (aside from the first one) were made with a general audience in mind.

This brings me to the "best general audience movie" part. If by best you (or he) mean it's dumbed down (and thus easy to stomach by non-nerds) and just doesn't require any involvement on the viewer's part, emotional or otherwise, then yeah, it's the best "Star Trek" movie hands down. By that logic Bay's Transformers (shitty script, unsatisfying, downright incomprehensible action scenes etc. Just a badly made expensive piece of crap) is a masterpiece. If by saying "best" he refers to the quality of the movie... consider me baffled.

I haven't listened to the podcast, but I might do that to get some fuel for the inevitable hate mail/post that will follow ;)

Oh, and btw: I enjoyed ST 09 for what it was.

edit: damn typos.

Just remake them with CGI hand puppets, I say.

I thought my earphones stopped working for a minute there.

I like the guy, but I feel the above is lacking a point of reference (even though he does say that the PT is well made and all that):

http://www.mania.com/smith-gives-high-marks-to-attack-clones_article_35442.html

Anything he says about Star Wars I'm taking with a truckload of salt. That said, it's a cool story :)

Wolfman said:

Carrie appeared this afternoon on the Paul O'Grady show here in the U.K

I caught it by chance but someone has put it on youtube. Nothing on the new film of course but a chance to see Carrie now filming has started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d6AOaplWT8

 

Well, this guy isn't nearly as creepy as that other asshole from Bring Back Star Wars, but he still manages to come across as a bit sleazy. Seriously, what's with the TV people over there acting this way in the presence of Carrie Fisher?

Feallan said:

timdiggerm said:

yoda-sama said:

Wait, easiest of the three, that must mean now we're NOT recreating the Jabba musical number verbatim with hand puppets?  Nobody tells me nothin...  Well, of course, it'll be a cakewalk to complete now...

 I think you've confused Ady & Harmy

 They're actually the same person.

Not to mention that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D0BeLz5blM&t=1m27s

So, about that musical number...

Not much better with that script, though.

Tack said:

If it was based on the novelizations

I remember reading the Attack of the Clones novelization a friend lent me ("You like Star Wars so you should read it - it's really good" he said. Sometimes I wonder why we're still friends). I wouldn't wish that abomination upon anyone.

However, if somebody made those... things into something decent, which effectively means rewriting all three movies from scratch, keeping the basic idea and nothing but the basic idea (the fall of Anakin Skywalker), I'd be interested. And impressed by whomever would be insane enough to do it.

pittrek said:

If I do the blus, I will maybe do a separate blu for the prequels and a separate disc for the OT.

Yup, that's exactly what I was hoping you'd say ;)

pittrek said:

So any comments to the sample vid? Or is it too big for downloads? :-)

I didn't have the chance to grab it yet, because my connection is crap, but I'll be doing so shortly. I'll definitely get back to you.

That sounds very cool. I'd be interested, though personally I'd prefer the OT scenes to be separate from the PT scenes. I don't know whether that's feasible for you.

This calls for a proper celebration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhqSNOPkVDg

(I'd post the main theme, but it seem to be borked for me)

SilverWook said:

m_s0 said:

Jonno said:

Episode VII should have an appropriate lightness of touch for two reasons:

1. These are family films, and shouldn't be designed to appeal solely to whiny 20-year-olds and

2. RotS demonstrated definitively that 'dark' does not equate to 'good'

RotS wasn't dark, though.

Murdered kids, dead jedi, dead Padme, and barbequed Anakin. And it's the only SW film to date to get a PG-13 rating.

Did we see the same movie? ;)

Oh, it tries to be dark, weighty, even operatic at times, but that's part of the problem: it's trying way too hard and the execution is so abysmal that in terms of impact all of that comes across as - at best - goofy. Never dark.

Jonno said:

Episode VII should have an appropriate lightness of touch for two reasons:

1. These are family films, and shouldn't be designed to appeal solely to whiny 20-year-olds and

2. RotS demonstrated definitively that 'dark' does not equate to 'good'

RotS wasn't dark, though.

timdiggerm said:

m_s0 said:

On the other hand, Whitta's track record is downright horrifying to me.

Two whole films is not quite enough of a track record, particularly when one of them is known as decent and the other was probably terrible because it was a Jaden Smith vehicle.

It's not just those two. Prey is easily the best out of the three, but it still isn't very good. I have no interest in The Walking Dead, though, so I've got no clue as to how those games turned out. Maybe that's where he shines. I hope.

There is a good chance After Earth wasn't entirely his fault, but I'd still be cautious either way. And I obviously disagree with calling The Book of Eli "decent" ;)

Edwards treated Godzilla with respect so I bet he'll do the same with Star Wars. Hopefully his Star Wars is going to end up less restrained and generic than his Godzilla (which I liked overall, despite its shortcomings). I could do with more flavour and less uninteresting characters who somehow dominate the movie despite being effectively cut out of them, for one thing ;)

On the other hand, Whitta's track record is downright horrifying to me.

Lord Haseo said:

Harmy said:

Yes and what I've been saying is, that I strongly disagree with the statement, that we have a better version. We have an alternate version - whether or not it's better is definitely not empirical - I would definitely enjoy watching the original version more than any other possible version, so I don't have a better version and I don't even have the normal version. And I'm sure a lot of people here would agree.

In what ways do you consider the OUT better? Why would it be so worth your time? And saying "because it's the original version" is not a suitable response. 

So you've responded to the above... seemingly without actually reading and comprehending the above. "Because it's the original version" is not only a suitable response: that's the entire point right there. Reconstructions don't count, because they're not the real deal, they're (in many ways) just approximations of the real deal. That is not enough for a multitude of reasons I'd be baffled to discuss with someone who has an account here.

What anyone considers superior or not is completely irrelevant in this discussion, and yet you keep going back to that.

Ryan McAvoy said:

TK-949 said:

[EDIT]: Ahhh, dammit, doubleofive was faster.

 Yay it looks like an anamatronic, latex-faced, puppety, small-person (Old Chinaman*) thing!

Die CGI, thy rain of terror is ended! JJ Abrams knowest thou not!

(* Kidding! Kidding!)

So real sets, puppets and CG actors this time around? Neat.

:P

Lord Haseo said:

kane1138 said:

FrankT said:

kane1138 said:

Roger Christian recently confirmed rumours of digital versions becoming available in November 2014.  It's possible these will be the original versions.

 When/where was this?

 Last week's episode of Rebel Force Radio.

 It would be nice to own the OUT on Blu-Ray, but I don't see the point when Harmy's Despecialized Editions are on the internet. But to each his own I suppose.

So you're saying that you see no benefit in upgrading a recreation (which by necessity will never quite be ideal) based on very low quality sources with a proper restoration? That's... odd.

thedaner said:

I think they would be very smart to get Robert Harris involved.  As for the commentary tracks--if they got Lucas to do them, he'd bitch and moan the whole way through...

And I would savor every single second of his bitching at that point :)

timdiggerm said:

doubleofive said:

They could do like they did with the Star Trek Blu-ray's pair fans with people involved in the production of other parts.

I will put my name in the hat.

 They could do like they did with the Into Darkness Blu-ray and leave assembling a bonus disc to the fans?

I imagine they'd have to give the fans something to do after an official release of the OOT. Assuming it wouldn't turn out to be another GOUT ;)

darklordoftech said:

We know that a technicolor print was used as a color reference when ANH SE was created, but what was used as a color reference when ESB SE and ROTJ SE were created?

Lucas's unflinching vision.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Anchorhead said:

Am I the only one who finds these women creepy? Seriously, it's like The Stepford Wives meets The Shadow over Innsmouth with these girls.

I think it's just depressing. They look starved, disinterested, miserable (yeah, I know, the look they're giving is intentional) and, frankly, repulsive as a result of all that.

Seriously, could anyone explain to me why anyone would watch this and find it appealing in any way? For the (supposedly) purty dresses?

pittrek said:

doubleofive said:

If this is true, I hope they remaster an original print, and don't try to despecialize it, because they'll miss something and when we start complaining we'll be told to stop looking a gift horse in the mouth.

 I'd love to see an 8K transfer of the Technicolor prints they still have

Wouldn't that be overkill?