rchdggr

^ I skimmed through that thread looking for mentions of the Force, I think these two came the closest (although the former got the episode number wrong). Furthermore, there was some talk about how it would be a good idea to use the word force in the title.

TMBTM said:

Star Wars Episode VIII - The Age of the rise of the Force Darkness

skyjedi2005 said:

It will be something insipidly stupid like Rise of the Force, or Return of theSith.

What bothers me about the Art Attack clip is that it is overtly cartoony. The character is too agile (more agile than any of the Jedi in OT) and way too fearless. Am I supposed to worry about her well-being? I find it hard when she is just bouncing around care-free while stormtroopers are blasting away at her. 

Too much of this:

The clip would be a lot more effective if she would really have to run for her life. She could still ridicule the stormtroopers or whatever but it would have to be more subtle for me to care about what is going on.

Oh well, it's just a clip to show off the character. I hope the characters aren't as superhuman and Bugs Bunny-esque in the actual show.  

The same goes for the other clip with Zeb. "Oh, I'll just take on these stormtroopers for kicks, smirk and throw in some one-liners while these stormtroopers point their blasters at me without pulling the trigger."

I suppose one could argue that IT IS A CARTOON. Fair enough, but I have a hard time feeling like I'm watching Star Wars when the characters do stuff that could never happen in the OT-world. It just takes me right out of it. The clip with the TIE-fighters was much better since that scene is (almost) plausible within the OT-world. The dynamics are similar to the original films.

Both rumor and rumour are correct. Jeez. 

That Inquisitor reminds me of Klytus from the Flash Gordon film..

Sorry to hear about the HDD problems.

I just watched 2.0 with my gf and I couldn't even think about checking for errors, it was so mesmerizing. Thank you so much Harmy (again)! 

Re: Luke not knowing what Yoda looks like: If OT was the only reference point, I guess this would be easier to explain away as the culture of communication is just way different from ours. It's a mixture of modern and ancient stuff. I don't remember any photographs (although cameras clearly exist), paintings or other depictions of likenesses in the OT.. Were there any? Even writing is almost non-existing. The recent SW Rebels propaganda posters and the presence of graffiti seem a bit off because of this.  

If you add PT and EU to the mix, I'm pretty sure it is impossible to explain all the stuff mentioned in this thread with sound logic so I'm not going to even try. It's a mess. If I think about OT only, I can buy the notion that, due to the aforementioned difference in communication and the fact that the Jedi are a religious (mystical, esoteric) thing, finding out the truth about these things is very hard. So hard that even the chosen one had to go to great personal lenghts to find out some facts about things that seem to be shrouded in secrecy, legends and misinformation.

As for people (including all kinds of creatures) in general, it's a vast galaxy where most cultures seem rather primitive (due to the Empire eating up the developed ones?), so perhaps people just don't know or care.

I did read somewhere that some film elements tend to turn brownish/orange, could this be the case of the print used for the Mos Eisley scenes? If yes, then I guess that should be countered during color correction? It does look like something inherent in the film to me instead of actual dirt.

team_negative1 said:

rchdggr said:

Just curious about why some shots (for instance the final shot of the last clip that has stormtroopers watching the Falcon flying) looks like half the film grain is brown? Is that dirt, a color correction issue, a brightness issue or did it look that murky to begin with?

 That's the way the clip looks like on film. We have not done any correction on it. If we can find a cleaner replacement for the shot, we will use that.

Team Negative1

 Thanks for the reply. Poita's reply and the fact that there is something wrong with the exposure of the stilt scene got me wondering if the Falcon shot would look better with different exposure levels.

But if the film itself looks exactly like that to begin with then I guess thats that.

I noticed that the graininess of the shot of the Falcon leaving Mos Eisley has been addressed before here:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-Colortiming-Cinematography-was-What-changes-was-done-to-STAR-WARS-in-93/post/584251/#TopicPost584251

A possible culprit being a pair of pantyhose over the lense!

The shot is very grainy and dark/dusk-y on GOUT too but it does not look "dirty". I don't mean dirty as in dirt and speckles on film, more like as if it is projected on a dirty, nicotine-stained wall or something. The sky looks like it is made of blotches of blue and brown. I think there was a clip of Luke in the speeder that had a similar "brown grain" look to it.

It only stands out in 1080, anything less and it sorta blends in, giving a nice warm feel to it but in 1080 it's a bit obtrusive.

Oh, and regarding the "stilts scene" with Luke and Ben walking in Mos Eisley, it really is blown out. The wall on the right-hand side has more detail on GOUT and at the back you can see a cyan/magenta sky through the two corridors instead of the white/off-white background we see in team_negative1's clip.

Just curious about why some shots (for instance the final shot of the last clip that has stormtroopers watching the Falcon flying) looks like half the film grain is brown? Is that dirt, a color correction issue, a brightness issue or did it look that murky to begin with?

Labyrinth may not hold up that well but it is more enjoyable to me than Dark Crystal. It has some great stuff but I had to stop midway. I couldn't relate to the main characters, I guess. Labyrinth has Bowie and Connely.. I love `em both so no contest there!

A work of art is inherently tied to it's context and time.

Revisions yank it away from it's context and the revision is not the work of art.

I actually like your forward-looking stance. But SW:R is not Star Wars. It will never be. It's collaboration of the filmmakers and Adywan.

I really don't see how going forward and preserving artwork are mutually excluding. We can and we should do both. We do not need to cast away the feeling that our heritage should be preserved to move forward. On the contrary, the leaps we have made in preserving things, even things we thought were lost forever are HELPING US MOVE FORWARD.

Realizing that Star Wars has dated effects has improved fx work in general. Sure, there has been some terrible CGI but BY LOOKING BACK filmmakers are starting to take note that practical effects PLUS CGI can produce amazing stuff, somthing that neither method could produce on their own.

Had we cast aside emotions and feelings we have for good old practical effects and focusing solely on CGI, I for one wouldn't be all too excited by the upcoming ST. Since I know that the makers have realized that CGI alone doesn't really fly, I think we may see something truly amazing soon.

I don't think anything could evolve without the past which is the base. Even if you use yesterday as the base you build upon, you are still looking back. Not much but back nevertheless.

It wasn't really directed at Ady. It was just an illustration of what a bad judgement call by a revisionist could be like in general AND how strange it sounds to call a version with such revisions "definitive". I know Ady's judgement calls are a lot more sensible than that.

I could have lifted an example straight from Georges SE now when I think of it..

Serious business! :3

Please do explain just how is that defecating on Ady's work?

Edit: Harmy beat me to it.

Frankly, I find the notion that (with all due respect to Adywan) a revised edition could/should be considered definitive while the original edition is still in existence both ridiculous AND scary.

"The background of Mona Lisa needs more HDR and her face doesn't really fit contemporary beauty standards. Needs more duckface too. Let's fix that. There, I fixed it. Now it's a lot better. This revision is the definitive version now. Enjoy."

As most of us know, this kind of revisionism is bad enough when practised by the artist (at least when no options are given). A revision, made by a fan with numerous judgement calls (good or bad, that's irrelevant) can be nice and possibly more enjoyable than the artists own revision if more thought is put into it (like Ady's version). If someone enjoys it more than the actual film then fine. Very strange but fine. You can call it "the definitive version for me in terms of my own personal enjoyment". Calling it simply "definitive" is madness.

If I were to think that Gone With the Wind needs more borderline hardcore sex scenes in keeping with contemporary trends, and someone would produce such an edit, I'd enjoy that more. But if I were to say "this is obviously better than the original, why are you guys so crazy about the original version?" to anyone serious about cinema, I would undoubtly get some strange looks.

What irks me is the mindset that produces comments like "I consider this revision the definitive version". If more people start thinking the same way, mankinds entire cultural history, heritage and art itself is at risk. If this mindset is at large, it can only lead to increasing neglect of works of art in their original "as is" form. No other form can be called definitive (unless, of course, the orignal is destroyed. In that case a version closest to the original can be called definitive, I suppose).

Most films made in the silent era are gone forever, partly because of fires in storage facilities and partly because they very considered dated and no effort was made to preserve them. I hope mankind does not allow such an immeasurable loss to happen again.

tl;dr: Please do not use the term "definitive" describing a revision when the phrase "a version I enjoy more because I'm overtly sensitive to inherent imperfections and dated elements in a work of art" is more appropriate. Unless you are trolling/trying to cause a stir.

That Full HD Cloud City clip looks beautiful. I hope we see a lot more 1080 clips!

Edit: lol, I thought TV's Frink was talking to me, nevermind.

..OK, right after I posted that I read moth3r's post and I realized I hadn't thought about the "managing the forum"-point-of-view. I can see how the vagueness can be very annoying that way. 

Still, I somehow don't think his/her/their style will change much no matter what anyone says or does.

Just my 2 cents, sorry, I'll go back to lurking now.

..This being a hoax does not make much sense either.

Frankly, I wouldn't bother answering all pushy, intrusive questions about who is posting what and when either if I was a part of the team, seems like they are pretty damn busy as it is. Sure, his/her/their style is weird and all but so what? If they want to be vague or even feel the need to lie about who is writing behind the moniker or whatever, I'm sure they have their reasons. That's largely irrelevant to me at least.

Now, what I would like to see is screenshots that are as close to a finished frame as possible at this time, with minimum JPEG compression and maximum resolution etc. (similar to DVDbeaver's BD screenshots of just about any BD release). They could use frames that are only in the original theatrical versions, a nice way of put the hoax allegations to rest at the same time.

bilditup1 said:

rchdggr said:

Ummm, I've had the AVCHD and the DVD5 torrents downloading for many many hours (dvd5 for days actually) and both are still stuck at 0,0%.. What am I doing wrong? The MKV started downloading right away with no problems.

For the DVD5, could be you're trying to download the nuked torrent, which won't work. Go back to the spleen and get the new one.

Dunno about AVCHD; there's only ever been one torrent for that one.

The problem was with bittorrent, I switched to uTorrent and all is well! <3

Ummm, I've had the AVCHD and the DVD5 torrents downloading for many many hours (dvd5 for days actually) and both are still stuck at 0,0%.. What am I doing wrong? The MKV started downloading right away with no problems.

Just a few quick questions (I´m not that tech-savvy): Once the fixed AVCHD is released, all I have to do is burn it (it´s an .ISO, right?) on a Dual-layer DVD and it will most likely play on my BD-player or PS3? I can use a regular freeware burning program? Should I or should I not tick the "seamless" box on the burning program when selecting when I want the layer change to occur?