timdiggerm

Bingowings said:

This is what the good guys should look like.

The idea that disfigured, deformed or daringly non-conformist body types are outward signs of evil is a grain that needs to be worked against.

I would have the villains look like pretty Stepford family members.

 Good luck!

What's all this about "Sam"? Can someone explain? And don't do so with all links, please. I want narrative in this thread.

msycamore said:

timdiggerm said:

Surely the first question suggests a potential answer to the second?

 So, what's your answer to it then?

 

timdiggerm said:

Honestly though, at this point, I've read enough about people color correcting things that I am tired of it. He's probably doing a great job, and that's great, but I am no longer excited about such things.

What you're excited about, is the least of our concerns.

 Let me explain.

msycamore said:

why don't you get any support around here?

Maybe it's because he uses

dubious photos

and others don't think it's worth commenting on a project that does so.

On the other hand, in my case, I don't show much interest in this thread because

timdiggerm said:

I am no longer excited about such things.

I was suggesting possible answers to your questions.

msycamore said:

Impressive work, NeverarGreat! Fascinating what repairing that can be done on this ugly video master!

BTW, that burning homestead transitional shot should not be pink shifted, no matter what you think. Trust me, it should not ever be compared with the original shot to begin with anyway.

Why do you base your work on dubious photos and why don't you get any support around here? Are they scared?

Surely the first question suggests a potential answer to the second?

Honestly though, at this point, I've read enough about people color correcting things that I am tired of it. He's probably doing a great job, and that's great, but I am no longer excited about such things.

Obviously all his doubters were onboard the Death Star when it exploded.

Ryan McAvoy said:

But if it was a set photo from some as yet unseen Wampa footage I'm trying to imagine how Luke would have fitted in. Did he have to do a bit of Wampa shooting between blowing up the AT-AT and getting to his rendezvous with R2 and his X-Wing?

 This is specifically why I said that promotional photos can depict things that aren't in the film. Like, not even in the script. Just here's a gun, here's Mark dressed as Luke, let's take a picture.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Where is this from?

 It's a promotional photo from ESB. Promotional photos may not actually represent things that happen in a film.

Not sure what scene the gun prop is from, though.

Of course, this is just an edited form of looking up today's date on wikipedia...

This thread is inaccurately named, as it's useable every year.

Yeah this is pretty much exactly what we want, I should think.

I mean, unless there's legal action. In which case it's too late and making the video private would

• make things look shady
• make it harder to gain public support

and so far, legal action doesn't appear to be happening. Hooray!

I had so many thoughts to put in this thread before I started reading beyond the initial post into the terrible bickering about threads and purpose and meaning and usefulness and other trivial crap that I didn't really need in this thread which is unfortunately so common to this forum but no matter because I'd rather have both of you here and endure certain kinds of posts than to never have you around not that I am one to make judgments as I'm although fairly active not a very notable forum member anyway this is pretty dumb to talk about so perhaps I should find a different topic maybe I will tell you about my job no no no that's not interesting oh dear

Warbler said:

Walking off the stage just because the teleprompter malfunctioned?   What a jerk.  

 I'm preeeeeetty sure that was stage fright. Without the teleprompter, he can't handle it, has no idea what to do, freaks out and bugs out.

Ronster said:

I was just thinking of it in terms of watching the 1st film and then sticking the next one on straight afterwards if that makes sense now.

I was not considering any particular span of time that was supposed to have passed between the 2 films. It was "Fun" anyway and I made myself chuckle about the idea this morning. :)

 Well certainly some time passed. Don't forget that they had time to

• Pursue the Rebel Forces across the galaxy
• Run into that bounty hunter on Ord Mantell
• Establish a new secret base
• Dispatch thousands of probes
• Install those new landing gear boxes on the Falcon

So, no, it's a bad idea.

Molly's 100% right and it's silly to pretend otherwise.

Any chance you could make some comparison stills showing what you mean?

DuracellEnergizer said:

The prejorative term for a heterosexual is "breeder", thank you very much.

 I dunno, heteros who intentionally don't have kids can use it as a slur too.

darklordoftech said:

AntcuFaalb said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

^That's what I ask myself in regards to almost every comic book movie that's been released lately. I'd rather see Batman face a schizophrenic child killer who lives in a rat-infested apartment building than some international terrorist organization who wants to bring the First World to its knees.

Agreed.

 Also agreed. 

 And agreed again.

doubleofive said:

timdiggerm said:

Also, a fun game to play is to watch the films and try to guess how things were different at some point of production. Things like the whole Bolg/Azog actor changes. Given that Bolg and Azog are both CG, and knowing what they did with Sauron-->Troll in ROTK, I suspect that Legolas's fight at the end of DoS was originally against the earlier version of Azog.

One of the Production Dairies shows some Legolas fighting a guy in a mocap suit, so it was never against the man-in-suit Azog.

 Oh, good to know. Never mind!

No.

Yeah, you have pretty much summed up my perspective.

Although the end sequence with Smaug, although extended and made up, was really, really great.

One film w/ intermission might be best. It's hard to tell, having seen each of the first two exactly once now just how much is removable without making things confusing.

Also, a fun game to play is to watch the films and try to guess how things were different at some point of production. Things like the whole Bolg/Azog actor changes. Given that Bolg and Azog are both CG, and knowing what they did with Sauron-->Troll in ROTK, I suspect that Legolas's fight at the end of DoS was originally against the earlier version of Azog.

Is this the correct thread for Hobbit film discussion? I couldn't find a better one, but am open to such things if it exists.

SilverWook said:

The "in universe" explanation could be Han has added more smuggling compartments. There actually was a scene in the Marvel comic where the bad guys know where to look, but false bottoms have been installed, faking them out.

That doesn't really explain why the Falcon has more landing gear than before. The only good explanation is that Han installed something heavy in the front end between ANH & ESB, and it required adding more landing gear in the front.

Will be interesting to see how the new Falcon prop turns out.

 Well, if we extrapolate linerally, the Falcon could have...a lot of feet!

ray_afraid said:

What boxes? I needs pics!

 Sure thing!

http://imgur.com/a/Q22Dc

Note that in ANH, the front half of the bottom saucer is smooth, and in ESB it's got those boxes.

All images but the last one are from starwarsscreencaps.com

Ronster said:

I never noticed anything about wedges voice before... I always thought it was the same actor.

 This, btw, is why many people are tired of your posts. Just like you never noticed the voice actor discrepensy, they didn't notice the other little things. If most people haven't noticed, it's probably not worth fixing.