yoda-sama

Darth Mallwalker said:

gizzy2000 said:

Disney isn't against preserving classics like Lucas was

They'll preserve OOT just as they've preserved Song Of The South

Song of the South is offensive and embarrassing to them, they have good reason to ignore it in this day and age (though, they haven't destroyed it, either).

Star Wars presents no such issues.  It is a humorous comparison, but hardly a valid one.

Took me a minute to process what CatBus was getting at.  It sounds like the 70mm version that was originally released wasn't as complete as the 35mm version that followed shortly after for the wider release (which most people would have seen).  There are different takes of some scenes (audio, video or both in some cases), different transitions, some different effects...  Making a faithful 70mm reconstruction would be a whole other effort than this project (and all for a version that only got put out because of financial implications of recalling and reprinting).  Making a bastardized version of the current mix with some sounds removed or changed to at least sound more like that mix would be pointless on this release, since the rest of the project wouldn't be faithful to the 70mm look.  So, it does bring into question what to call the best quality 5.1 mix h_h will put out, I can't say "purist" is a term I'm fond of, but 70mm wouldn't be accurate.  So, if not "purist", the only other thing I could suggest is dropping what type film the audio was associated with and just list the original tracks along the lines of 1980 5.1 surround and 1980 2.0 stereo, which especially would make sense since every other track is defined mostly by date ('85, '93, etc.).  Something about "purist" just gives the vibe that it has been altered more to a personal preference than with the intent of being faithful (that is, the name probably only makes full sense to those that know the audio was sourced from the '93 mix but altered to revert some changes from the original).

70mm differences:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/70-mm-print-of-the-Empire-Strikes-Back-Differences/topic/2321/

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Hopefully-the-last-70mm-vs-35mm-ESB-audio-differences-thread/topic/14128/

I'd say the less attention the better.  So if Mr. Doesn'tUnderstandSubtitles could just take down his horribly ill conceived upload, that would be for the best.  Escalating things should be avoided if possible.

How about this, in the Western world, if twins are born the first one out is considered the "older" sibling (and heir, where applicable), though in Japan, in the same situation, the second one born is considered "older" (I dunno, maybe because it gestated for a few minutes longer, or sat above the other in the womb...).  Either way, still the same birthday, regardless of your perception of which is older.

That doesn't hold the weight you're expecting it to.  The lack of the "director edition" of the first Star Trek movie wasn't about creative choice or going back and righting a wrong (the director edition actually tried--and did well--to complete effects and make the movie more coherent, all of which was caused by studio meddling at the film's original release.  There weren't many complaints about that being the only version available on DVD) (Wrath of Khan is the only other one you could be referring to as having a director's cut on DVD, but it also had a theatrical DVD).  The only reason they were released on Blu-ray as they were was for technical and financial reasons.  The director edition of The Motion Picture was done entirely to SD elements and would have to be redone from scratch for an HD master (much like the 2004 and 2011 Star Wars SE's changes would have to be redone if a 4K transfer of the 97SE conformed o-neg exists), so as to pop the movies out quickly and cheaply to Blu-ray, they just scanned existing elements (didn't even clean up dirt and scratches much).  Don't be surprised if they put out new editions sometime down the road.

@darklordoftech  I'm not trying to argue that you didn't answer the question, I'm just sarcastically pointing out that what you say are reasons to keep SE changes don't necessarily hold as much weight to others.  I particularly don't see any need to keep any SE changes, and if something in the PT clashes with OOT, then the PT should be changed, and then maybe it would be less shitty in the process.

Actually, about Jango and Boba, in the PT did we ever really hear Jango talk with his mask on?  In the OOT, Boba only talks with his mask on, and sounds like his voice is modified a bit by the helmet.  If he didn't develop the silly accent (by not visiting the "down under" part of the galaxy?  You tell me), then it wouldn't be hard to explain the differences of Boba's helmet voice to Jango's non-helmet voice.

Lucas has said flat-out that Boba Fett died in ROTJ and will never come back.  So I don't see how which voice is canonical is actually being considered an impediment to how they can do follow up movies, the character is dead.

Firstly, I agree that revisiting Anakin's force-ghost would only serve to spoil "the tragedy of Darth Vader" arc of the first six films.  Going further with that, I don't think they would/should approach many other force-ghosts of recognizable characters (except maybe Yoda), since what are they supposed to do?  Bring in force-ghost Ewan McGregor for Obi-Wan?  It is starting to sound like the segment of "How Return of the Jedi Should Have Ended", where Anakin's force-ghost morphed into young Ani (never have been sure how to spell his shortened name, surely not the very feminine Annie) and horrified the other force-ghosts by squeaking out "Now that's what I call Pod-racing!".

And yes, all official versions of the films should be available, for historical reasons if nothing else.  Heck, it is fun to watch Lucas' decent into madness.

Oh, and darklordoftech, putting in parenthesis why you think SE changes matter doesn't mean they'll matter to me.  So I'll say again, what about them?

What about them?

Also, 97 SE's wouldn't get you Boba's laughable Australian accent.  BTW, just because he's a clone doesn't necessarily mean he'd talk with the same accent as Jango, would it?  Isn't that more about upbringing?

Wasn't Episode 1 the last Star Wars shot on film (until ep 7), with Episodes 2 and 3 quite famously being all digital?  In that case, I don't think we should be concerned about any conspicuous absence of Episodes 2 and 3 from rumors of 4K restorations (and if they didn't do it for Episode 1 for its 3D release, I don't think anyone plans to bother doing much further with that one).

So, do you know exactly what all to look out for, or will you be needing a crash-course from the group?

I don't know what it is that I like about this statement of the prequel generation being lost and needing to focus on the EpVII generation...  But I do like it...

Oh don't worry about that, there isn't any chance they will.  The only question is, where do they go from the point of having a good scan of the '97 SE?  Create an acceptable OUT, or make a needless, yet superior to current release, 2011 SE remake?

Excellent point!  Glad to finally have this solved.

But in all seriousness, got them to at least say they'd report back with which Jabba was in it, so if no other reliable reports of quality come in, we should know, at a minimum, if it was the '97.  And that being distributed to them in a new digital format and "looking and sounding stunning", should say a lot about what is or isn't going on with new scans.

Wow, a full-on Frink rant, can't remember the last time I've seen one of those...  BTW, way to combo-break there, Beatleboy.

Got this response from them on facebook.  I also have since given them Jabba pictures to pick between to tell me which one is in this movie, that should narrow down what they're looking at.  I'll let you know if I get a response.

" I did get to see 20-25 min today . It is a stunning digital print and is the "Special Edition " version . Hans shoots second . We are using the term special addition to help with confusion but technically there is no such thing . "

Basically, once we know what it is they're actually playing at Plaza Atlanta, we'll know more about if it is a product of a new scan of the '97 SE film.  But even the theater doesn't know EXACTLY what they have yet, as they can't unlock the DCP until tomorrow.

In short, though, there's possible evidence of a 4K scan having been done on some or all of the trilogy.  But all the changes done to the films since '97 have been done to an old scan, and none of that could possibly be used for a higher quality scan.  The only options to make a new scan would be to go to original non-SE elements or use the '97 SE film.  All of which predate the horrors that came from the original Lowery restoration.  So, if there is a new scan out there, it probably doesn't have anything more than what was put into the '97 SE, and it is unknown if anyone at Disney would see reason to bother putting ALL those silly changes after it back in from scratch.  All of this could usually be chalked up to crazy theories, but it is known that a new digital version of what is supposed to be the '97 SE is set to screen tomorrow at the anniversary of some historic theater.  So, we should know more very soon.

Harmy, will there be a workprint release of the version with updated colors and non-rounded edges?  I think it would be good to have everyone giving you feedback on the most up to date version possible (if such a thing could exist before this weekend, that would work out great for something coming up on my end).

Oh, and I neglected to chime in earlier, but I think the first official release you do should probably be named 2.0, since 2.1 would probably confuse people without the existence of a 2.0 (you could explain this till you're blue in the face, but who wants to be blue in the face?).  Any tweaks made after that could go into a 2.1 if needed (and you have the option of releasing updates all the way through 2.4, God forbid), and then lock in all your changes and make a final 2.5 release (same pattern with Jedi would make for well rounded consistency across the whole project).  Even though your efforts are more in line with what 2.1 was, I think jumping over 2.0 will just cause you more headache than it is worth in the long run.

Yeah, Harmy, I looked at it fresh just now, and I'd say the consistency is quite acceptable, and having the distinct blue blade makes the scene so much cooler (lightsabers kick butt, there's no getting around that).  So, what method did you go with to get that saber color back?

Hrm....  If I were to complain, I'm not sure if it should be that the moment he turns on the lightsaber is slightly less blue than later, or that while he is cutting himself down from the hanging position (around the time of the flash) that the saber is slightly more blue than the scenes immediately after...

Overall it looks beyond good and is ultimately acceptable, but this is still the opinion of outside eyes seeing possible consistency issues...

Wow, just wow Harmy, that lightsaber sequence looks absolutely incredible.  I can't believe you got that level of improvement done that quickly...  So, how did you end up doing it?  Rotoscoping I'd expect would take a while...

Also, that sucks about the motherboard, especially since you were one of the few people not trying to screw them, but honestly having a problem.  So, I'm not familiar with modern Intel stuff (when I build myself, I go AMD, but I get a lot of used Intel or Intel in laptops), do they not put pins on the processor anymore but on the motherboard?  I have a 2 x quad core Xeon server here (that's 2 processors, 8 physical cores, and incredibly cheap to buy...) that seems to do it that way.  Actually, it is funny, mine is technically supposed to be a low voltage variant, but a bit of electrical tape over a "pin" on each processor allows the FSB to go at full speed, therefore the processors run like the non low voltage version.  Anyway, I wasn't expecting to see that manufacturing process outside of server grade stuff...

I didn't say it was a good idea, just a fun idea.

@zer0squared: When I first brought it up I tried really hard to be clear that I didn't mean for donation amounts to be displayed, just names put in an order based on it.  I don't mean to belittle anyone's generosity (which, displayed amounts would definitely cause, since that alone doesn't tell a whole story), I just thought it would be neat having it ordered by who was able to donate the most to the cause.

Didn't think it would be as difficult to rank as it sounds, I guess I was assuming it was all noted down in a spreadsheet with the converted values to your local denomination (if that's what paypal shows you on the receiving end) next to names...  A text file of names you'd have to match up to donations in multiple currencies this long after the fact, yeah, that'd be a hassle.  It was just a thought, stemming from my wondering how my donation stacked up to others, more comparison than competition, really.

Can't look at it till I get home, but whatever you've done I'm surprised it happened this quickly.

Also, what do you guys think?  Arrange the donation credits based on donation amount?  I think it would be fun to see it that way.

Part of me actually wants to see them arranged by amount donated...  That might be a fun way to do it, and I know I've wondered how I stack up compared to other donators.  (Not to be confused as my saying donation amounts should be listed next to names.)

Just a thought.

Thanks, man.  :-)

BTW, about those honorable mention credits, I am wondering if there's a meaning to the ordering of the names, care to give us any insight as to what?