Yeah, a creative person can call their creation whatever they like, that does not mean it does not fit nicely in an existing genre.
It is interesting how I answer your point and yet you quote something else. I specifically mentioned Plato’s Stepchildren which has no more explanation of the mysterious powers within the episode than Star Wars has. The episode mentioned the mysterious and undefined chemical compound kironide. It never explains how that chemical results in the psychokinetic powers the Platonians exhibit. Ben’s description of the Force as an energy filed created by all living things that surrounds and binds is a more detailed description than Plato’s Stepchildren ever gives. Such psychokinentic powers can not be proven to exist in our world, yet the Platonians have them and the Q have them to an even greater extent. Gary Mitchell was developing them, as was Dr. Dehner. None of these are ever given any detailed description. Isaac Asimov had his character of The Mule who could reprogram people’s minds. He didn’t have to touch them and could do a whole room full of people at once with the aid of a special musical instrument. He could even kill with his mind. He later (post ROTJ) expanded that to an entire planet with The Mule being an escapee. He had a robot initially learn the skill and teach another robot who in turn established the planet. Asimov is one of the three greats of science fiction and he didn’t hesitate to have characters with mental powers that defy science and logic.
So the argument that the Force makes Star Wars a fantasy does not hold up to comparison to established science fiction content.
Well, if they go the direction I think they will (which has not proven the case so far - I don’t have a good track record for guessing these things, but I remain hopeful), then the finale will see Rey and Kylo end up on the same side as founders of a new, stronger Jedi order. Instead of training the new generation to completely avoid the temptation, they will teach the new generation how to judiciously tap into the power of the dark side without falling victim to its temptations. Kylo will let go of the anger and hate and come back to a balanced place.
Why is that insane. If Star Trek is science fiction, so is Star Wars. I have read a lot of science fiction. I’ve watched a lot of science fiction. I do know the genre. If you are telling me that something in Star Wars does not belong in science fiction it means you aren’t as familiar with what you find in science fiction. Nothing found in Star Wars cannot be found in Star Trek (except light sabers, but those can be found in other science fiction).
There seems to be several people on the same page that thinks the force makes it fantasy and the Star Trek is science fiction. Well, Star Trek has more examples of the Force and it is by no means alone in the science fiction genre. Sometimes it is a machine that gives the powers, but usually it is some innate ability, just like in Star Wars. Jedi can lift things, so do characters in Star Trek. Jedi can read minds and implant ideas in other mind and so can characters in star trek. Star Trek characters can even make things appear from nothing, manipulate time, teleport, and a bunch of things Jedi don’t do. So… you can’t say Star Trek is science fiction and Star Wars isn’t. And both have stories based on myths and legends. In both is is people making decisions that drive the story. The force gives some characters tools to aid their journey, but the pivotal moments are all reality based character decisions and interactions.
Let’s take one Star Trek episode in particular. Plato’s Stepchildren. They encounter a planet where some aliens who interacted with the ancient Greeks live and all but one has great mental powers. They can levitate things, control the minds and bodies of others. Along comes Dr. McCoy and he figures how how their power works and concocts a formula to give the lone alien without powers and themselves the power (with a dose to make them stronger than the other aliens). McCoy’s concoction amounts to Midiclorians for all the science behind both. The episode never does really explain how the aliens have this power or how the concoction gives it to Kirk and company. It’s just that the aliens have this in their system so if we have it we would have the same powers. How is that not identical to the Force? And how, when this is a staple of science fiction in the first 2/3 of the 20th century, is Star Wars somehow not science fiction?
From my perspective, saying Star Wars is not science fiction is insane. Doubly so if you claim Star Trek is science fiction.
“No magic involved”
What about the lightning? Or the backflips? Or the super sense allowing the Jedi to parry so easily?
And your point? Did you miss my references to characters from Star Trek which most people seem to think is indeed science fiction? If those things didn’t make Star Trek a fantasy then they don’t make Star Wars a fantasy.
Yeah. It’s not like I’m comparing ANH to the other OT and PT films, or to American Graffiti, or the Star Trek films, or classic color films. Or even modern films. No, I’m taking ANH as an isolated case and completely ignoring all high quality source materials to help me calibrate the colors and ignoring on set lighting. And it’s not like I have been calibrating my TV and monitors for over 20 years. And it’s not like I have been restoring faded photo for the last 25 years.
Sorry, but one look at the skin tones you achieve and lack of color depth and it is pretty easy to see you have overdone whatever effect you are after. My early color correction efforts went the same way to try to get rid of the lobster man effect, but when I compare the blu-ray of this shot to all the other shots, it is not nearly as bad off as you claim. You praised the JSC while at the same time saying the blu-ray needed to be darker when it is already much darker than the JSC or any other of the home video versions (and on all of them you can see the garbage mattes you aren’t supposed to see). You are advocating a heavy handed correction and so many of us have done that and found it to be grossly in error and we are trying to share our collected wisdom with you and you are blowing us off. Calibrate your monitor. Recheck your references (and for goodness sake, don’t use bad scans of printed images… find higher quality scans that are not so obviously skewed by the scanning process - remember I have done photo restoration for a living and know about not only calibrating monitors, but scanners as well).
The problem with ANH is not any one color or brightness issue. It is a slew of them. The big issue is that what we are dealing with now was not scanned by a professional colorist. We have several of those working with the 35mm film prints of Star Wars and many other movies. Just check out the Technicolor scan of Song of the South. It does have some issues, but the colors are vibrant and well balanced. This site is full of talented people who know what they are talking about and you can learn a lot if you listen.
Sorry to be so hard on you, but you are basically saying all the pros are doing it wrong. The pros are using calibrated monitors and professional level hardware and software. They have excellent references and have tools to help restore the original colors by clues on the film itself so they can counter the fading time has caused. Not to mention a huge amount of experience actually doing it. I have some issue with how some are handling ANH, but that is because I think the Technicolor, while not suffering much from fading over time (why that type of print is so good) suffered from some bad handling as Technicolor closed its shop and is not a good representation of the original colors for the general release. DrDre’s work on recoloring the 4k77 release is amazing and looks better than any other recoloring I have seen.
First off, when trying to find the original look, there are some big clues and some sources that we have that are pretty good. First off is the technicolor print. While some of the shots look horrible in it, the overall look preserves the 1977 colors. Second, we have the home media versions, the 1997 special edition (which is mostly chemical color correction of a faded print for ANH and is the same negative) and its home media versions. Then we have the 2003 scan (as bad as it is). Plus we have an LLP 35 mm print (that means low fade and accurate colors.
Now, for the home media version of the GOUT, we have a few different sources. We have the US/UK sources for early releases. the US 16 mm film and the widescreen bookleg (preserved by Moth3r) appear to be from the original version of the film (4 things were changed from the early prints to the general release print and international prints made later in the year). The official VHS and LD versions that came out after that all have the Episode IV opening and the revised end credits, but the rest of the film appears to be also from the 1977 first release prints. All the foreign language and the Definitive Edition/Faces/2006 GOUT version all are from the same edit. We know that the Definitive Edition/Faces/2006 GOUT was done from a new interpositive struck in the mid 80’s. Then we have the SE and its VHS and LD release. First off, the colors of all these are very consistent. I have focused only on the widescreen versions so I can’t say how the pan and scan versions looked. Not really interested. The widescreen versions have very little color difference between them. That means there was not a lot of tweaking by the telecine operators to the colors on a scene by scene basis.
I took the GOUT and made one assumption - the orange tint of the interpositive had not been completely removed. That was pretty common in transfers. I used the accurate scans of the technicolor print (every 24th frame provided by Mike Verta and corrected for the green tint) and corrected the GOUT. I used the same corrections to TESB and ROTJ and found my corrections to ROTJ pretty much matched the colors of the grindhouse 35 mm scan of ROTJ. So the color pallet I’m trying to match has strong source corroboration. Plus I have researched and found as many set photos as I could and referenced the behind the scenes images from the Making of Star Wars.
DrDre has used more scientific means to come to virtually the same colors. He has found a way to use the dark, unseen parts of the print to balance the colors and correct fading. He and I have come to nearly the same conclusion by different means. Poita does this sort of thing for a living and has his own methods. So for you to tell all three of us that we are off and your are right when you obviously aren’t using a calibrated monitor and are using scanned stills from printed sources (and from what you have shared some of them are pretty bad), that doesn’t aid your cause.
Skin tones need to be that prefect balance between red and yellow. The X-wing flight suits are bright orange. The Imperial uniforms are green gray. R2 is cobalt to indigo (with some shots in ANH of a more purple colored version). These aren’t my opinions. They are documented. I have photos that show the colors of the original costumes. You are slanting your correction way too far to the yellow. These latest shots show very crushed blacks. The Blu-ray is not that far off.
Here is the collected versions of that shot of Luke you claim is so far off.
Top left is my BR color correction. Top right is my GOUT correction
second row is the BR and the GOUT
third row is 97 SE LD and the DE LD
fourth row is 4k77 DNR and the JSC LD
fifth row is the TN1 (1.5 I think) and the SWE LD
sixth row is Puggo Grande and Moth3r bootlegThis shows how consistent the home video releases are for this shot. It shows how close the BR is. The 4k77 is from a Technicolor print so it shows the greenish tint. TN1 is from several faded prints and is pretty close to the home video colors. The bottom two are of the most interest. They are the oldest known copies. Other shots in ANH are not nearly so close between versions. So your hypothesis that this shot suffers badly from color shift is not born out. The home video versions are either faded prints or from interpositives. TN1 was from a faded print (very red as I recall). The 97 SE LD shows very blue instead of green. The blu-ray is lacking in yellow rather than just too much red. Each of the RGB/CYM colors fades differently on film. So it is no surprise that they didn’t get the balance right during the restoration. But your idea that the colors have shifted doesn’t match the various prints/scans we have.
The JSC Laserdisc Looks by far the Best in fact I would say TN1 tried to go for that sort of also but the JSC looks about right to me. The Blu Ray is Horrid Pink man. Red is in the correct Shade of Red. Look at his Helmet stripe in the JSC.
The Gain and Levels are all wrong on the Blu-ray.
Drop Gain for Blu-Ray by by 33% increase High level by 50% and Shadow by 13%. You will have to alter contrast also. That seemed to bring it sort of back to a normal looking old transfer at least.
I am now waiting for this is a telecine and it’s not what it’s meant to look like. The JSC is better than anything else there and outshines the lot. Anything lesser that the Peak that the JSC reached we are heading downhill after this high point in so much as that particular shot never got better or was maintained even it just slid in to the pink mess it is now. And it’s also artificially bright.
So… make the bluray darker? Crush the blacks even more? Blow out the whites? Um… no. Yes, some scenes might benefit from being brighter, but contrast and brightness are one of the worst aspects of the bluray for consistency. I found the colors can be corrected in a pretty narrow range. But some shots need to be darker, some lighter, and some need to have the brights turned way up while others need it left alone. In this shot you don’t gain anything from your description. And you applaud the JSC while ignoring the reds that come from its interpositive source. The one I think is closest is the Moth3r bootleg. The bluray does not need what you think it does and doing what you suggest creates a horrible image. I’m assuming your description of gain, high and shadow is what you did to all the images you posted that look so dark and terrible. That is what the copy of a copy of a copy of Gone With the Wind looked like before they restored it. Again it comes down to a good calibrated monitor. You definitely need one.
This entire conversation is silly.
+10
And before I officially bow out from this thread for all time, I thought I’d share this article, which I agree with 100.100%:
Well, according to that, everything with faster than light travel, transporters, teleporters, real time interstellar communication, etc. are all science fantasy.
That does not fit the historical definition where there is no such thing as science fantasy. In English, when you put two words together, the first describes the second. When you use science fantasy, that means it is fantasy with some science. The describes stories that are mostly fantasy. Science fiction is science based fiction. It falls into soft science and hard science. Hard means only what is possible with proven scientific knowledge. Soft means what is possible given hypothetical scientific breakthroughs and has always included ESP and other mental powers. So the inclusion of the force in Star Wars does not make it science fantasy. It fits within the soft science side of science fiction. So does its basis in Campbell’s theories. The fantasy side of speculative fiction has always left science out of the picture and focused on magic and mysticism, usually in a historical setting.
Probably the best comparison lies in two of the oldest of the two sides. Frankenstein and Dracula. Frankenstein is science fiction because Dr. Frankenstein uses science based principles to bring dead body parts to life while in Dracula there is no science at all, just a curse. We know today that the science in Frankenstein is bogus, but that does not change the genre. It relegates it to soft science fiction, not hard (where Around the World in 80 Days could be considered hard because such a voyage was possible when the book what published). Most of Jules Verne’s and H.G. Wells’ works are soft science fiction, even when they were published because most of it was not possible based on proven science.
One of the keys to which side it lies on is an examination of whether the story is based on what is possible or fantastical. How does the Emperor die? He is thrown down a shaft. He is not undone by some magic talisman, he is killed by something that would kill any normal human being. Yes, he throws a big force tantrum on the way down, but it doesn’t save him. And very shortly after the entire Death Star is blown apart. The Force is Star Wars is its moral compass. The rebels win the day in ROTJ because Han blows up the shield generator and Lando and Wedge blow up the Death Star while Luke has his epic duel with Vader and the Emperor. It is a duel, no magic involved. What saves the day is not even the force, but Luke’s decision to not kill his father and to not give in to the dark side of the force. The Force is the internal barometer for good and evil. It does not conform to any fantasy form of magic but does match a great many forms of advanced mental powers included in generations of science fiction. In The Lord of the Rings, the good side wins when the ring that gives Sauron his power and life is destroyed. He is not directly harmed. The magic that gave him life is destroyed destroying him. The difference between that and Star Wars is pretty clear.
And it isn’t me wanting Star Wars to be science fiction. It is the fact that I have spent a lot of time reading and studying the science fiction and fantasy genres. The difference is pretty clear and those that try to straddle the border lean one way or the other. Star Wars, while it does include some mystical elements and Jedi using the Force, has a story that remains grounded in reality. You can remove the use of the Force and it might remove some charm of the stories, but you don’t have to rewrite the stories to get the same conclusion. The stories as they play out are based in the real world. Palpatine takes over by political trickery. He rules the same way. He is killed because his right hand man throws him off a balcony. Luke destroys the Death Star because he trusts his instincts over using the targeting computer (which didn’t help Red Leader to hit the target). Lucas established rules for how things work and they are based in science. Like many science fiction worlds, some of them are a bit sketchy when you really examine them, but hyperspace, energy weapons, lightsabers, droids, etc. are all done exactly how science fiction handles those things. Is everything explained in detail? No. Even Asimov did not bore his readers with the details of his made up ideas. Lucas is not a scientist himself and he called what he did space fantasy, but when you look at what he did, he was trying to evoke myths and legends and fairy tales with a science fiction setting. He provided just enough enchantment to snare the audience without straying beyond what science fiction typically allowed.
possessed?
Haiii.
Star trek is science fiction. Star wars is fantasy. Game Night is comedy. The exorcist is horror. Deep thr… Nah you get the point. Just kidding I don’t have a point.
I’m here all week.
And this is why I bring up Gary Mitchell, Q, Trelane, Apollo, Plato’s Stepchildren, Vulcan’s, Betazoids, Deltans, Star Trek V, and so many others. If you want to claim that the Force is magic, you have to account for all the exact same activities (and often stronger and more powerful and even more fantastic) in Star Trek. Star Trek and Star Wars are in the exact same genre. Star Trek has plenty of stories inspired by myths and legends. It is Horatio Hornlower in space. Wagon Train to the stars. Inspired by Forbidden Planet. Star Trek had less science fiction behind it when it started that Star Wars did. Both brought on science fiction writers (many in Star Trek and Leigh Brackett for TESB, but also Alan Dean Foster for the novelization and a sequel idea and Brian Daly and L. Neil Smith for the first EU/Legends novels). So Star Wars is steeped in Science Fiction, from its inspirations to those who contributed to it.
Yeah star wars definitely only pretends to be fantasy. Its actually firmly grounded in realism.
Yeah, sarcasm noted.
But seriously. If your definition of science fiction is “firmly grounded in realism” then you seriously need to do some reading of the science fiction classics. I seriously don’t think a lot of people have enough understanding of just how much science fiction that is not firmly grounded in realism has been produced over the years. Nothing that has faster than light travel is and none of that is fantasy. Purists like Clarke would put it there, but he and all other hard SF writers are in denial about their place in the broad science fiction genre.
First off, when trying to find the original look, there are some big clues and some sources that we have that are pretty good. First off is the technicolor print.
He’s going to stop reading right there because he “doesn’t trust prints” and wants to figure out “how it was meant to look” and not “how it actually looked.” In other words, an excuse for him to make horribly inaccurate “corrections” and then say “But I think that’s how it should look!” when someone tries to give him any amount of constructive criticism or advice.
Oh, and he’ll still refuse to calibrate his monitor, so every correction he makes will continue to have zero value to anyone but himself.
Well, that is what accurate color photos of costumes are for. I posted those as well and met with similar responses.
Such as these:
And that doesn’t even begin to get into how the sets were lit and how it was processed. I don’t think any of the extant copies are exact, but I think if you put all the pieces together, you end up with something close. That is why I point out that DrDre and I have almost the same results with completely different methods. And if you want to go a step further you could try to get in touch with the costumer designers or those who care for the costumes today for Lucasfilm, and see if you can pin down the exact fabric and color used and get samples of it (if they still make it). But that is going a bit far when there are such good resources already available.
First off, when trying to find the original look, there are some big clues and some sources that we have that are pretty good. First off is the technicolor print. While some of the shots look horrible in it, the overall look preserves the 1977 colors. Second, we have the home media versions, the 1997 special edition (which is mostly chemical color correction of a faded print for ANH and is the same negative) and its home media versions. Then we have the 2003 scan (as bad as it is). Plus we have an LLP 35 mm print (that means low fade and accurate colors.
Now, for the home media version of the GOUT, we have a few different sources. We have the US/UK sources for early releases. the US 16 mm film and the widescreen bookleg (preserved by Moth3r) appear to be from the original version of the film (4 things were changed from the early prints to the general release print and international prints made later in the year). The official VHS and LD versions that came out after that all have the Episode IV opening and the revised end credits, but the rest of the film appears to be also from the 1977 first release prints. All the foreign language and the Definitive Edition/Faces/2006 GOUT version all are from the same edit. We know that the Definitive Edition/Faces/2006 GOUT was done from a new interpositive struck in the mid 80’s. Then we have the SE and its VHS and LD release. First off, the colors of all these are very consistent. I have focused only on the widescreen versions so I can’t say how the pan and scan versions looked. Not really interested. The widescreen versions have very little color difference between them. That means there was not a lot of tweaking by the telecine operators to the colors on a scene by scene basis.
I took the GOUT and made one assumption - the orange tint of the interpositive had not been completely removed. That was pretty common in transfers. I used the accurate scans of the technicolor print (every 24th frame provided by Mike Verta and corrected for the green tint) and corrected the GOUT. I used the same corrections to TESB and ROTJ and found my corrections to ROTJ pretty much matched the colors of the grindhouse 35 mm scan of ROTJ. So the color pallet I’m trying to match has strong source corroboration. Plus I have researched and found as many set photos as I could and referenced the behind the scenes images from the Making of Star Wars.
DrDre has used more scientific means to come to virtually the same colors. He has found a way to use the dark, unseen parts of the print to balance the colors and correct fading. He and I have come to nearly the same conclusion by different means. Poita does this sort of thing for a living and has his own methods. So for you to tell all three of us that we are off and your are right when you obviously aren’t using a calibrated monitor and are using scanned stills from printed sources (and from what you have shared some of them are pretty bad), that doesn’t aid your cause.
Skin tones need to be that prefect balance between red and yellow. The X-wing flight suits are bright orange. The Imperial uniforms are green gray. R2 is cobalt to indigo (with some shots in ANH of a more purple colored version). These aren’t my opinions. They are documented. I have photos that show the colors of the original costumes. You are slanting your correction way too far to the yellow. These latest shots show very crushed blacks. The Blu-ray is not that far off.
Here is the collected versions of that shot of Luke you claim is so far off.
Top left is my BR color correction. Top right is my GOUT correction
second row is the BR and the GOUT
third row is 97 SE LD and the DE LD
fourth row is 4k77 DNR and the JSC LD
fifth row is the TN1 (1.5 I think) and the SWE LD
sixth row is Puggo Grande and Moth3r bootleg
This shows how consistent the home video releases are for this shot. It shows how close the BR is. The 4k77 is from a Technicolor print so it shows the greenish tint. TN1 is from several faded prints and is pretty close to the home video colors. The bottom two are of the most interest. They are the oldest known copies. Other shots in ANH are not nearly so close between versions. So your hypothesis that this shot suffers badly from color shift is not born out. The home video versions are either faded prints or from interpositives. TN1 was from a faded print (very red as I recall). The 97 SE LD shows very blue instead of green. The blu-ray is lacking in yellow rather than just too much red. Each of the RGB/CYM colors fades differently on film. So it is no surprise that they didn’t get the balance right during the restoration. But your idea that the colors have shifted doesn’t match the various prints/scans we have.
how can science and fantasy be compatible though ? one is real and demands demonstrable and empirical evidence and the other is pure fiction .
It really is an oxymoron in many ways, but when you have a story that pretends at science and pretends at fantasy, you have what I consider the point in the middle.
I had been dragging my heels about watching A Wrinkle In Time because I’ve never been interested in the book and the trailer didn’t look all that great. Well, it was watchable but I quickly saw that this was what some are claiming Star Wars is - a cross over between SF and fantasy. This tried to be scientific, but the fantasy was overriding. Right down to the formless great evil. It felt like fantasy with a science veneer. So it only solidified my feeling the Star Wars is firmly science fiction. A Wrinkle In Time is science fantasy.
Through the Walmart app on my android phone, I can scan the receipt barcode and any movie I buy will be loaded in Vudu automatically. I haven’t tried it with a new release BR. That may be why the Walmart exclusive doesn’t have a separate code. Might be worth a try.
For The Last Jedi, the only place I could find the BR+DVD+Digital was from the Disney movie club. So I got Solo there as well.
Okay, calibrated monitors are a must. If you haven’t done that what you are seeing is going to be wrong and your corrections are going to be wrong. There are many ways to calibrate a monitor. I do not have finely calibrated monitors, but I use 3 of them plus 2 TV’s, my phone, and a tablet. I know some lean yellow and some red, so I make sure it looks good on all of them. Also, the monitors, my phone, and my tablet I also use to check this site so I know when Dr. Dre posts an image how each of my screens displays it. Your images lean far too much to the yellow. Your image of Luke looks aweful. He is yellow orange and his jumpsuit is the same color. His face should be pinker than the jumpsuit.
With ANH blu-ray, we have a film that has badly faded over the years. It is from the original negatives (except for the composited shots). Each original shooting reel of film will fade slightly differently. So we may have a few shots that all need the same correction interspaced with other shots that need other corrections. I have been working to correct those shots as a unit and maintain consistency. But the shot of Luke you claim is so bad is actually one of the ones that is closest to the original and seems to have deteriorated the least. My correction is based on the blu-ray being so dark and trying to lighten it a bit which results in oversaturated dark areas. I have a way to fix that and tweak the color at the same time. Some shots I have to nudge the red a bit to bring it down, but what you are doing is not a nudge, it is a shove. You are using far too heavy a hand. Rather than what you are doing, you need to find what you think is the right place and then back it off. Subtle corrections are often all that is needed.
And it all starts with a calibrated monitor. You have to be using a monitor that produces colors that are accurate. If you aren’t then your correction is going to be wrong. As your correction is wrong as I and others have pointed out.
I recommend you get the 4k77 DNR version. That has very good colors (better than the non-DNR version). If you think that is off then your monitor is off or your eyes. Same with the grindhouse ROTJ. My colors are based on the sample frames Mike Verta release (every 24th frame) which hits most of the scenes and the ROTJ Gridhouse release. I used those to color correct ANH, TESB, and ROTJ GOUT and that correction is what I’m using to fix the blu-ray. I was able to apply the same correction to each of the three GOUT sources (all are taken from a set of interprositives made in the late 80’s) and have ANH and ROTJ match the 35 mm sources (adjusted for their known flaws). So when you say I did not go far enough in my correction and I look at 4k77 and my corrected GOUT and see that it is exactly where it should be, we suspect there is a flaw in your correction process. The mostly likely is your monitors. Like right now the monitor I’m using is too blue and cold. That changes what you see on the screen.
Just about every shot in ANH has some unique issues to it. This is one that was never recomposited (or done so exactly that you can’t tell) so it has remained unchanged from the 77 premier. In my work on the blu-ray, this is one of the shots that looks the best. But getting the right color to match requires a lot of fiddling. So while my correction doesn’t look a whole lot different from the uncorrected one you shared, it is.
I had done a rough correction previously (I went through and picked out the scenes that my global correction didn’t fix) and I did a finer level of color correction.
Also, you should never use pictures printed in books or magazines as definitive. I have really not found any such pictures from ANH that really provide true colors. So matching the film to them is kind of silly, especially with the 4k77 project available and the GOUT on hand. In the sunset scene you have brought out the magenta at the expense of the yellow and cyan and they need to be more in balance. If there is a color for those shots, it is variations of purple, not magenta. You’ve washed out all the blues and it needs to have a touch of gray to it (as all sunsets should when filmed on this planet). So not only have you used questionable sources, but you haven’t used any common sense or the far better sources available to us to arrive at descent color pallet for that shot. And you should really follow what Poita and DrDre have to say. I don’t always agree with them 100%, but they know what they are talking about when it comes to restoring color to films.
I have to mention that I went down the same road you did and in the end I concluded that there has been no color shift. The colors are out of balance, but that is an easy fix. Also, you have to try both ways of removing red. You can’t just assume it is the magenta/green channel that is off. I have found it is not. That is the most solid channel. It is the cyan/red channel and the yellow/blue channel that are both off. It is tempting to shift the colors, but that really just makes the problems worse. If you rebalance the colors you will get a much nicer result.
If anyone knows a potential fix for the old lady scene, the suggestion box is always open
Here’s the first scene of Luke seeing the Tantive IV being boarded
https://vimeo.com/291814966
The two things that scene needs are a landspeeder and sound. I did a draft of it, but I have a better plan. I just need to figure out how to execute it.
How could you possibly think the Force is simply a way to have telepathy, telekinesis and ESP?
Ben Kenobi from Star Wars, Yoda from The Empire Strikes Back, and Luke from The Last Jedi specifically say that it is not, and Luke directly chastizes Rey for assuming that it is.
The question is not about how it is written. The way Lucas crafted the Force encompasses ESP, meditation, samurai training (trust your feelings), and be one with nature. But the things you can equate with magic are all standard ESP based science fiction tropes. And when you look at how the force is described - every living thing has an energy field. And not just living things, but rocks, ships, planets, etc. - what you get is something that you can find in science.
Isaac Asimov addressed this layering in Foundation’s Edge in 1982. It is based on the Gaia theory (for which he named the planet and can be found in detail here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis). Asimov had his characters propose to extend this to the galaxy. But in Star Wars this very thing already exists on a weak level (the Force in Star Wars is no where near what Asimov came up with at the end of Foundation’s Edge). Couple that with ESP (telepathy, telekenisis, teleportation, mental projection, conjuration, and more) and you have all the components of the Force and force powers. And while not widely accepted as solid science, these have long been staples of science fiction. You have an energy field created by everything in the universe and then a way for some to tap into that energy field and use the power to do things. Again, nothing new or unusual for science fiction.
I understand your point but when one engages with the life force of an object we cannot move spaceships, influence thoughts or communicate over hundreds of thousands of miles (as in hearing their voice in your head) in reality (even improbably). It would be impossible, which places it firmly within fantasy.
You can apply your ideas about “magic” being science with Gandalf to some extent if you try harder.
You are ignore a century of science fiction full of force like abilities. You are also using the hard science fiction parameters instead of the general science fiction parameters. And the thing you can’t do with Gandalf is say how he does it. There is zero explanation of his magic. Ben starts to explain the force and Yoda further explains it. Most magic is not explained in fantasy and is left mysterious and magical whereas in science fiction all such powers are explained in some way. When you tell how the magic works, it isn’t magic any more.
Is the “force” really an answer to how the Jedi get their power? I mean, it’s an answer to be sure but no different imo than saying it’s “magic”.
“The force is an energy that exists in and around all things.”
“Magic is a force that one taps into that exists since the beginning of time.”
Sounds pretty similar and one that you could mold any way you want.
How to describe gasoline in fantasy: a mysterious liquid that you put in your car and it makes your car go when you turn it on.
How to describe gasoline in science fiction: a liquid refined from crude oil which was originally swamp plants burried in the ground for a million years.
How Tolkien describes magic in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings: … he doesn’t.
How Lucas describes the force in ANH: The force is what give the Jedi his power. It is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.
How Lucas describes the force in TESB: Life creates it, makes it grow. It’s energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you…me…the tree…the rock…everywhere! Yes, even between this land and that ship!In fantasy, powers just are. In science fiction they must be given a reason. That reason may be tenuous and might be as simple as just saying a character is a telepath, but in fantasy while a given character might be given a reason they can use magic, the magic itself is left undefined. That reason vs. just being is one of the main differences between science fiction and fantasy and horror.
Good vs. evil is another. Fantasy tends to take the evil and personify it and make the good vs. evil an epic battle. Science fiction, if it deals with it, internalizes it. Good or evil is in each of us and we choose which path to follow. The force has a light side and dark side and it is up to the individual which path to take. There is no evil force horde. There is no light force to come and rescue you. Even Palpatine had to make that choice and he choose great evil and has made the practice of subverting others (not so much making the choice for them as persuading and coaxing). The nature of good vs. evil in Star Wars is exaggerated, but follows the real world where in fantasy it would have been expanded and the stormtroopers would have been an extension of the evil as the Orcs and goblins were in Tolkien. Instead they are pattered after (and named after) Nazi soldiers.
I think it is a tenuous set of differences. My point is the force is described in very vague and wide sweeping terms. It could be virtually anything…just like magic.
My point was that science fiction will describe things, even vauguely where fantasy doesn’t. Fantasy might go into detail about how to cast a spell, but not about how the magic actually works. Space Opera sometimes gives you vaugue descriptions that are just enough to make it seem plausible. Compare Ben’s description of the force to Han’s description of hyperspace. Very similar. But Star Wars never describes what hyperspace is with words, they do show it, something they can’t do for the force.
Someone has to be in charge of genre definitions. And if you read what I’ve posted, I listed publishers, writers, readers, and reviewers. Not just publishers. The industry is more than just the people who publish writer’s works.
Yes, a romance is the old name for adventure fiction. All of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells are technically romances by the definition of the day. Today they are science fiction. Just as the Barsoom series were Planetary Romance in their day are are not science fiction. The term science fiction for the genre came into being in 1926 with the publication of Amazing Stories. If you read through the stories today, you might think it was some other genre. But that is the origin of science fiction and many sub-genres carry on with the fanciful imaginings that filled the pages back then. This was one of the magazines that Isaac Asimov grew up on and then submitted stories to. The early years feature names modern readers don’t recognize, but when you get into the late 30’s and 40’s, the names become more familiar. You don’t get magazines dedicated to publishing fantasy until after WWII. The Hobbit was considered a children’s book and The Lord of the Rings was when they first realized it might be more. Before that you have plenty of what are called High Fantasys. Tales of Merlin and things of that sort. David Eddings was the last big name I heard of in that sub-genre.
But when you really look at the books the get published (because, let’s face it, there aren’t that many movies or TV shows in either SF or fantasy), there is a distinct difference between science fiction (primarily space opera) that edges a bit too soft and fantasy that tries to be realistic. Song of Fire and Ice is probably the series with the least amount of magic and based on real history (the War of the Roses) that I have encountered in recent years. Tolkien tended to lean to mythology (specifically Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Finnish) and also kept magic to a minimum… most of the time. But he is the father of the different races that has been so prevalent in many later works, like Brooks.
If you read and study the genres, it is pretty clear what is what. In general, stories with a high technology setting with space travel or computers are science fiction. Stories with a medieval setting with magic and royalty are fantasy. There isn’t much cross over and when it is it is very clear which genre it belongs in. See, in a fantasy setting, the magic isn’t just one or two characters. It permeates the world. It dictates the plot. The Hobbit is driven by a dragon and a magical crystal. Gandalf doesn’t lend too much help. The Lord of the Rings is driven by the one ring. In both you have magical creatures, both good and evil. Brooks copied that and made the magic even more pervasive. In science fiction you can feel technology dominate the story. Technobabble and faux terms and hightech names. As Mark, Carrie, and Harrison have said, normal people don’t talk like that. Yes, the force is key to the story, but it is the tech and the war the drives the story. It is the death star and destroying it that the first movie is about. The force is there and it is part of Luke’s journey, but it isn’t the be all and end all of the OT. The rebellion is. The rebellion succeeds because Luke beheads the empire with his actions. But his actions are not governed by the force, but by human emotions. Magic does not win the day like it does in fantasy. Even LOTR, where Frodo destroys the ring, it is still the ring being destroyed that wins the day. In the end he could not do it and it took Gollum to do it for him. But in Star Wars Luke and Anakin take the actions that win the day. That is very science fiction.
How could you possibly think the Force is simply a way to have telepathy, telekinesis and ESP?
Ben Kenobi from Star Wars, Yoda from The Empire Strikes Back, and Luke from The Last Jedi specifically say that it is not, and Luke directly chastizes Rey for assuming that it is.
The question is not about how it is written. The way Lucas crafted the Force encompasses ESP, meditation, samurai training (trust your feelings), and be one with nature. But the things you can equate with magic are all standard ESP based science fiction tropes. And when you look at how the force is described - every living thing has an energy field. And not just living things, but rocks, ships, planets, etc. - what you get is something that you can find in science.
Isaac Asimov addressed this layering in Foundation’s Edge in 1982. It is based on the Gaia theory (for which he named the planet and can be found in detail here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis). Asimov had his characters propose to extend this to the galaxy. But in Star Wars this very thing already exists on a weak level (the Force in Star Wars is no where near what Asimov came up with at the end of Foundation’s Edge). Couple that with ESP (telepathy, telekenisis, teleportation, mental projection, conjuration, and more) and you have all the components of the Force and force powers. And while not widely accepted as solid science, these have long been staples of science fiction. You have an energy field created by everything in the universe and then a way for some to tap into that energy field and use the power to do things. Again, nothing new or unusual for science fiction.
I understand your point but when one engages with the life force of an object we cannot move spaceships, influence thoughts or communicate over hundreds of thousands of miles (as in hearing their voice in your head) in reality (even improbably). It would be impossible, which places it firmly within fantasy.
You can apply your ideas about “magic” being science with Gandalf to some extent if you try harder.
You are ignore a century of science fiction full of force like abilities. You are also using the hard science fiction parameters instead of the general science fiction parameters. And the thing you can’t do with Gandalf is say how he does it. There is zero explanation of his magic. Ben starts to explain the force and Yoda further explains it. Most magic is not explained in fantasy and is left mysterious and magical whereas in science fiction all such powers are explained in some way. When you tell how the magic works, it isn’t magic any more.
Is the “force” really an answer to how the Jedi get their power? I mean, it’s an answer to be sure but no different imo than saying it’s “magic”.
“The force is an energy that exists in and around all things.”
“Magic is a force that one taps into that exists since the beginning of time.”
Sounds pretty similar and one that you could mold any way you want.
How to describe gasoline in fantasy: a mysterious liquid that you put in your car and it makes your car go when you turn it on.
How to describe gasoline in science fiction: a liquid refined from crude oil which was originally swamp plants burried in the ground for a million years.
How Tolkien describes magic in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings: … he doesn’t.
How Lucas describes the force in ANH: The force is what give the Jedi his power. It is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.
How Lucas describes the force in TESB: Life creates it, makes it grow. It’s energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you…me…the tree…the rock…everywhere! Yes, even between this land and that ship!
In fantasy, powers just are. In science fiction they must be given a reason. That reason may be tenuous and might be as simple as just saying a character is a telepath, but in fantasy while a given character might be given a reason they can use magic, the magic itself is left undefined. That reason vs. just being is one of the main differences between science fiction and fantasy and horror.
Good vs. evil is another. Fantasy tends to take the evil and personify it and make the good vs. evil an epic battle. Science fiction, if it deals with it, internalizes it. Good or evil is in each of us and we choose which path to follow. The force has a light side and dark side and it is up to the individual which path to take. There is no evil force horde. There is no light force to come and rescue you. Even Palpatine had to make that choice and he choose great evil and has made the practice of subverting others (not so much making the choice for them as persuading and coaxing). The nature of good vs. evil in Star Wars is exaggerated, but follows the real world where in fantasy it would have been expanded and the stormtroopers would have been an extension of the evil as the Orcs and goblins were in Tolkien. Instead they are pattered after (and named after) Nazi soldiers.
I bring up Gary Mitchell because what he does makes the force powers look like pre-school tricks.
And again, space opera is science fiction. It is a sub genre of science fiction. That is not me, that is not Amazon, that is the entire speculative fiction arm of the publishing industry, along with the writers, readers, and reviewers. You are arguing against an entire industry that uses that sub-genre on a daily basis. Space Opera is not genre bending. It is a long establish sub-genre of science fiction. You can choose not to agree with them, but as they are the experts it is kind of silly. If you want to have a serious discussion about genres, you need to know the genres, their history, and what separates them. Do some stories cross genres? Yes, but they usually don’t do very well because they aren’t what people are expecting. Dune’s genre is not questioned, Flash Gordon’s genre is not questioned (being from the 30’s and predating Space Opera, it is a planetary romance).
And the only people who insist that science fiction must be totally believable are those fixated on hard science fiction being the only true science fiction. They are wrong and being snobs about something that has a lot more variety than that. Or just misinformed. Very little science fiction adheres to strictly scientifically possible ideas and most extrapolates where science and technology can take us. A lot of space opera puts the science in the background and focus’s on the story and let’s the setting take care of the science.
And like any genre, science fiction can take inspiration from other areas. History often has given a story its structure. Different authors are inspired by different cultures (sometimes their own and sometimes others). It is pretty obvious that Herbert was inspired by the Arabs for Dune. Asimov was inspired by The Rise And Fall of the Roman Empire. Heinlein was inspired by his military service. Lucas was inspired by samurai films (and Toshiro Mifune in particular). Ben is even dressed in samurai like robes (some of the unused art has it far closer to what samurai wore). He even considered hiring Mifune, but language was an issue. Sure, on the surface Star Wars looks like wizards in space, but when you dig and examine all the things that Lucas was inspired by, it goes much deeper than that. Jedi are warrior monks (from Japanese culture) and Luke is a small town hot rodder. Han is a space pirate (and part hot rodder). Chewbacca is Lucas’s dog, Indiana. R2 and Theepio are comic relief and lifted almost exact from Hidden Fortress. Vader is based on all the henchmen from Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, but tied in as an evil version of warrior monk. The force came from a desire to have morality for good and evil without invoking any real religion. You can see it mature in the drafts and the powers grow. You see mythic structure inspiring the story, but you don’t see fantasy. The final product is considered science fiction and specifically space opera. When people in the industry want to cit an example of space opera, they use Star Wars.
Very sad. He has left quite a legacy.