logo Sign In

theMaestro

User Group
Members
Join date
12-Dec-2015
Last activity
28-Mar-2024
Posts
135

Post History

Post
#989827
Topic
Lucas’ EU in 1977 (midi-chlorians, space gypsies & crystal currency)
Time

The line about the midi-chlorians was actually added by Lucas during the making of the book in 2007. The original EU guidelines had no mention of them.

Source: http://www.starwars.com/news/so-what-the-heck-are-midi-chlorians
(scroll about half-way down to the note by Rinzler. He says, “Please note: While we were preparing the text for The Making of Star Wars, Lucas added a note to this passage about midi-chlorians, bringing his original words in line with his later thoughts and the events of the prequel trilogy.”)

This is the original, historically accurate EU guideline about the Force:
“The Force is really a way of seeing; it’s a way of being with life. It really has nothing to do with weapons. The Force gives you the power to have extra-sensory perception and to be able to see things and hear things, read minds and levitate things. It is said that certain creatures are born with a higher awareness of the Force than humans. Their brains are different. The Force is a perception of the reality that exists around us. You have to come to learn it. It’s not something you just get. It takes many, many years…Anyone who studied and worked hard could learn it. But you would have to do it on your own.”

Post
#985159
Topic
'97 vs. '04 (and '11) - Your preference?
Time

Density said:

Yeah no. The 2004 Emperor looks MUCH closer to the ROTJ Emperor because he is the real Emperor played by the same actor. Of course it’s not going to be exactly the same cause it was done over 20 years later but it’s still far, far closer than an old woman with chimpanzee eyes. Sorry, that’s just not gonna cut it. What you say about it being the “original” pretty much confirms what I said about nostalgia being the only reason to prefer it. So yeah, I get how that might pull you out of it more if you’re really that much of a purist, but to me it pulls me out way more knowing it’s a totally different actor and different everything. It’s not the Emperor I know, it’s just wrong. Besides, Palpatine was the best part of the prequels so I don’t mind the prequel connection here. Not that it is much of one considering, of course, McDiarmid was in the next movie anyway. And I don’t mind that he doesn’t look exactly like he did in ROTJ cause, again, out of universe it makes sense and in-universe you could just say that the Emperor changed up his style a little in between films, or it looked different cause it was a hologram. Either way, better than old woman chimpanzee with weird voice acting that sounds nothing like him.

To me, it doesn’t matter that the 2004 Emperor looks closer to the ROTJ one; the bottom line is that he still looks different. My point in mentioning that it reminded me of the prequels was that it took me out of the movie, not that I disliked McDiarmid in the prequels. And it took me out of the movie because it was clearly ROTS-era Emperor in a movie that’s supposed to be chronologically very close to ROTJ.

So, having said that, neither one looks like ROTJ Emperor. Yes, the 2004 version looks closer, but not close enough that it doesn’t take me out of the movie. His acting is even different. Therefore, in the absence of a choice that allows me to enjoy a proper continuity between the films, I look towards which version is more historically significant. It’s not nostalgia because, like I said, I wouldn’t have minded if it had been done the way that Adywan did it.

Post
#985149
Topic
'97 vs. '04 (and '11) - Your preference?
Time

Regarding the Emperor, both 1980 and 2004 versions have problems. The 1980 version doesn’t look like the ROTJ Emperor whilst the 2004 Emperor also looks different to the ROTJ Emperor. Even though it’s the same actor, both his appearance and acting don’t really match what we see in ROTJ.

So for me, neither one really matches up with ROTJ. But at least with the 1980 version, it’s the original one. Despite it later not making sense, there’s something to be said about watching the pure 1980 TESB without thinking about later movies. With the 2004 Emperor, all I’m reminded of is a prequel movie.

With all that being said, I would have mostly been okay with an Emperor change done the way Adywan did it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0q0CF5Y1cI
At least that Emperor looks like he does in ROTJ. Maybe the acting is still a little stiff but I like it better than what we got.

Post
#984283
Topic
'97 vs. '04 (and '11) - Your preference?
Time

It’s really just semantics. Technically, you can’t say that the 97SE had prequel references because the prequels hadn’t come out yet.

But if you modify your wording a little, you could simply say that the 97SE contained elements that were intended to tie in with the upcoming prequels. So maybe instead of calling them “prequel references”, we can call them “prequel tie-ins”. The inclusion of Coruscant in the 97SE of ROTJ is a prequel tie-in.

Post
#983131
Topic
'97 vs. '04 (and '11) - Your preference?
Time

About the CG Jabba, I’ll say this: the 2004/2011 model looks better but I like the 1997 version more simply because of how Han & Jabba are actually looking at each other instead of past each other.

1997 version:
1997 Jabba

2004 version:
2004 Jabba

Additionally, the 2004 model looks too dark. I’m not sure if this is ILM’s fault or Lowry’s fault for screwing up the color grading.

Post
#983042
Topic
'97 vs. '04 (and '11) - Your preference?
Time

I think the lightsabers looked awful in the 2004 versions because of the changes in contrast and color timing; the picture was darkened overall. This had the unfortunate side effect of darkening the white cores of the sabers. The color timing screw-up was also responsible for making Luke’s lightsaber look green on the Falcon.

They only redid some of the lightsabers in the 2004 OT, including much of the Ben/Vader duel. But after people complained enough, they finally went and fixed some of the 2004 problems for the 2011 release. Although, even then, they didn’t fix everything, as evident by the faded saber cores in the Bespin duel.

Post
#977494
Topic
JOHN WILLIAMS: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (Complete Score Edit) (Some SFX) REVISED (Released)
Time

I’m just curious, when you rip the music, do you adjust volume levels? I ask because I’ve noticed, in my own project (not related to Star Wars), that the music volume tends to fluctuate depending on if there’s someone talking or if there’s some other sound. And if you do adjust the volume levels, is there some kind of consensus on how this should be done? Like how do you differentiate between a section that has been turned down in the editing room and a section that was intended by the composer to be quieter? Or is it just done by ear?

Post
#972604
Topic
Harmy's STAR WARS Despecialized Edition HD - V2.7 - MKV (Released)
Time

Although sometimes, instead of changing their views as they get older, some people stubbornly defend their deep-rooted preferences and come up with all sorts of terrible arguments to justify them. Like “You guys just don’t understand the prequels. They’re highly intellectual and artistic, and most folks just don’t have the brainpower to understand them”.

And that gets annoying. I mean, it’s one thing to like the movies you like. But it’s another thing to pretend like what you like is actually some genius misunderstood work of art.

Post
#970457
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

theMaestro said:

towne32 said:

UnitéD2 said:

Is it not a combination of numerous prints, in order to obtain an image as accurate and sharp as the negative ?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

Not 100% as sharp as the negative but Mike has estimated that it’s probably 90-95% of the way there. So it’s still essentially at a much higher quality than anyone saw in theaters.

As I understand it, by using multiple prints, he has been able to isolate the negative grain, which is on every print, and preserve it, while removing the print grain, which is unique to each print, thus restoring original detail and preserving filmic quality.

Edit: by original detail, I don’t mean to original level of detail, but rather that the added detail is all original to the negative.

Yeah I get that. The grain that is present on Legacy is what was there on the negative, but not on prints. However, was it ever intended to be viewed at the quality? What I’m getting at is that Lucas surely knew that audiences were going to be seeing a version in theaters that had more grain than the o-neg did. So did that factor into how certain shots were done? Like were certain shots deemed acceptable because he knew that the extra grain in theaters might cover up some shoddy-looking effects? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t the negative-level quality of Legacy be slightly less authentic than a pure theatrical print? But like I said, maybe I’m just thinking too much about this. If anything, grain can always be inserted back into it. And personally, less authentic or not, I would love to see Star Wars at that quality.

Post
#970275
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

towne32 said:

UnitéD2 said:

Is it not a combination of numerous prints, in order to obtain an image as accurate and sharp as the negative ?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

Not 100% as sharp as the negative but Mike has estimated that it’s probably 90-95% of the way there. So it’s still essentially at a much higher quality than anyone saw in theaters.

Post
#970196
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

So I was wondering, since Legacy is a restoration of the negative, do you guys think an official release would have some more grain put into it to better simulate what was intended to be seen? Because as sharp and clean as Legacy looks, was Star Wars ever intended to be viewed at the level of clarity that the negative is? Or am I just splitting hairs here?

Personally, I’d prefer it to be released as is because once we have it, grain can always be inserted into places where it’s not; but if it already comes with added grain burned into the picture, it can never be removed.

Post
#966916
Topic
General Star Wars <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> Thread
Time

If you do have Firefox, it takes no more than 5 minutes to get Adblock Plus and Adblock Plus Element Hider. Then it’s just a matter of clicking on whatever you want to go away. So, to tie this back to Star Wars, if someone has a Hayden Force ghost avatar and you can’t stand to look at that, then all you would have to do is select that element to hide and presto…it’s gone, never to be seen again (unless you go into the settings and unblock it).

Post
#966900
Topic
General Star Wars <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> Thread
Time

TV’s Frink said:

LexX said:

SilverWook said:

Since this issue has been cropping up more often recently, I’m going to talk to Jay about slightly revising the sig image size limit. It’s worth reviewing after seven years anyway.

I don’t get why signatures need images in the first place. Many forums even prohibit it. They’re signatures.

I agree. If nothing else, we need the option back that allows us to ignore images in signatures.

So this is unrelated to “General Star Wars Random Thoughts”, but if you want to block certain images, you can use Adblock Plus with Element Hider on Firefox to select specific images and block them. I actually do this to “customize” and clean up various websites. Like if there are annoying popups that black out the entire screen, I just adblock it all to reveal the page underneath without ever having to see the popup again.