zombie84

The genius of this man cannot be understated. Along with guys like Ben Burtt, John Williams and Norman Reynolds, this man was a fundamental part of Star Wars. Legend states that it was his illustrations that sold the film to the Fox board of directors, who had a hard time visualizing it all--despite a pretty cool script from Lucas, he is the real reason the film didn't die at the first stage of development. Rest in peace my friend.

So, the preview is now down. I'll be re-posting it on Monday or so once I get official a-ok from some of the people quoted there. Just thought I'd share some interesting news this weekend.

The prints are not in DC but in VA. But since they are protected now, you wouldn't be able to view them anyway. Once the telecine is done it sounds like that is what will be used for viewing instead.

This isn't meant to be public, so keep it under your hats for now, but I thought people might appreciate some good news for once.

Tomorrow, I may post a special preview of some exclusive news as long as people promise not to repost the link just yet. Technically, I'm suppose to secure a few permissions before I make it totally public.

[no, I don't have a 4K transfer of the films for people to see]

I decided to post a clip of the work-in-progress colour timing. Cut into the actual film, none of the deleted footage matches, and although the deleted scenes were cut and timed very well for deleted material, none of the shots match each other or the film itself. This has created quite a headache. Because so much of this mis-matched colour is "baked in" the actual footage, there is only so much I can do; a pro colour suite would do it, but I'm just using womble. I plan on exporting a couple trouble shots to get better matching but so far I think this is cutting together pretty well so far, and certainly better than the raw versions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thaBhtdvBsk

To be fair, it's usually cheaper to buy a 4-film boxset than 3 individual blu-rays. You're better off having an extra copy of a film than spending more for less. If anything you can sell it or give it to a friend.

I'm hoping there are finally deleted scenes on this. TOD alone has some fairly decently sized subplots cut out.

I'm going to say that ANH tie fighters were grey and in ESB they changed it to blue. It's a very good point that when you pump up the saturation on the GOUT, colour restores to things that looked greyscale previously--the Death Star is another big change that happens once you restore it's colour (that is, mainly blue-tinted). But other things happen too, and you see some of the flaws in the opticals. The reason ties in ANH look blue is the same reason X-Wings look green and pink in the same amount of shots. It's just what happens when you do optical composites--it never looks exactly right. In some shots, the "black" space has also printed blue, especially in cockpit shots. I think it's kind of neat to have these subtle mismatches in the film, you appreciate how hard it was to do these opticals.

In ESB though, the blue is so pronounced and consistent it's clear they were doing it on purpose. In fact, maybe the whole ANH thing was part of their reasoning--since the tie's were printing as blue half the time maybe it would be better to just do that on purpose. Or maybe seeing the look of the blue-printed tie's inspired them to colour them differently in the sequel. If I remember right they went back to the grey colour for ROTJ, the opticals seem better quality so maybe that was why.

If the box office is any indication, they didn't this time. There are enough fans or pseudo-fans of TPM to justify $45 million in tickets over the course of a month.

I guess he meant that sometimes when blue-screen in done poorly you get bluescreen spill, which would make neutral coloured objects have blue halos, and because of black-level issues in optical printing they sometimes print blueish (they also often print pink and green).

LexX said:

In Finland TPM 3D has pretty much flopped. In 1999 it was the most watched movie with 439 496 viewers. Now in two weeks it has been seen by 6 936 viewers. In its first week it finished at 7th place and on second week it isn't even in the top 10. For example the latest Mission: Impossible movie had 13 928 viewers last week (from the total of 106 601, it was released 3 weeks ago) to give you some perspective.

Edit: maybe a better example would be Lion King 3D which has now been seen by over 15 000 people here. I guess 3D releases of old movies aren't that popular here, but to be fair, both were just released on BD just last year.

I assume in Finland it is subtitled? Or is it dubbed? I ask because I'm curious what sort of pricetag the film would even come with there. At about 7000 viewers with an average ticket price of $10USD or so, I don't think that would even cover the cost of the prints, let alone all the extra work done for foreign releases. Although to be fair, the film seems to be doing exceptionally poorly in Finland compared to many other European countries.

Yeah, there is a really big update coming in a few days, I'm still porting over some files since I just replaced my computer. To be honest, there hasn't really been a lot to report the last couple months other than anything to do with the 3D release, and any relevant links/comments will be with the next update anyway.

It's being reported now that this might come bundled with 3D BD players by the end of the year. Just a rumour. But it seems they have possibly accelerated the home video plan, I'll bet because of the lacklustre performance in theatres. As far as I know, there was no home video plan, except possibly as a set when they are done. If so, it's a sign that this has been a money-loser so far.

Sorry guys, I don't check this forum often, so my replies might sometimes be sluggish.

The question of raw dailes vs deleted scenes...

They are two completely different things. The deleted/alternate scenes are taken from the edited ones on the set, although I have made a few minor modifications to integrate them into the film better--the way it stood, the "play all" function on the set was designed so that they played as a condensed alternate version of the film. I'm keeping the fuller narrative, so they sometimes have to be sandwiched between existing footage, and this required a few editorial techniques.

The dailies though, come from the documentaries. The documentaries, rather than showing the footage from the film or the edited deleted scenes, often show the raw camera outakes, usually of alternate takes and alternate angles of existing scenes, unique stuff that is only seen in these docs. I spent two days cataloging them all because sometimes they are quick and subtle, and ended up with a huge library of shots that aren't seen in any version of the film; I didn't use them all, because sometimes they didn't fit, but I tried to use them as much as possible. So, for example, when Deckard enters the Bradbury building and you get that long tracking shot of him entering from above, the version you will see here is the first half of that shot that was edited out of the film but appeared in the documentaries where it starts on an empty hallways, tracks left and then pans down to find Deckard, ending right where the shot normally begins. I had to colour-correct it intensively to match the following and preceding footage. Another example is that there is a shot of Deckard running on the top of cars from the Zhora chase, and some shots of extras that are really neat, again from the docs, that I have edited into the chase sequence (while also tightening a couple existing shots to keep it balanced better). Another example, is the scene with Chew--it begins with the deleted/alternate scene with Batty and Roy walking to the store. Once they enter, we cut to the theatrical/DC/FC version, but once Batty steps inside, instead of lingering on the close-up of his feet, we cut to a wide angle dolly shot from the dailies as he walks through the lab, cutting back to Chew from the regular versions, with some custom sound work since all the dailies are silent. So, with all these different sources cut together, that five minute sequence has only 50% of material from the regular versions.

Anyway, the reason this hasn't been completed is because my laptop died in the summer. I'm currently working off my netbook for the last six months, and it's not nearly powerful enough to do anything on this. I have all the files though, and I'm hoping to buy a brand-new desktop this week, so god willing this could be completed and finalized and available by the end of the month.

EDIT

Just got a great new computer today with a fantastic processor and monitor. In the middle of transferring files now. Hopefully start getting back to work on this tomorrow!

So, Episode I had a monstrous drop and will likely not even clear $4 million this weekend. The holiday will be a godsend, but only another million or so. And then that's it. It's gone. And it will have made barely--just barely--a little over $30 million.

Egads. I overestimated the film but I never thought that this thing would only make $30 million. Twice that, sure, but $30 million? That's even worse than Clone Wars!

It makes it pretty clear what was driving the sales of the blu-ray box set. And it wasn't anything with Jar Jar Binks in it.

People say Episode I suffered because of the hype. It was "the new Star Wars film" and everyone expected the moon. In fact, that was the only thing it had going for it. Episode I without the hype gives you a box-office flop. People today realize how awful it was and can't be bothered to even see it once. Is this going to be the new excuse? "People will realize Episode I's greatness if only they could watch it again." What a disaster. I actually think Episode I deserves better than $30 million, but then again: I still haven't seen the re-release, and don't plan to, so what does that tell you about how I really feel?

On an unrelated note to anyone interested in vinyl, I will say that you really need to get a vintage receiver/amp to go along with it, even if your turntable in modern. Modern receivers, while fine as they are, cannot compare with good vintage equipment. This is because modern receivers and vintage receivers are not built the same, nor use the same parts--unlike turntables, which today are just more advanced versions of the stuff from yesteryear. But receivers of the 70s and 80s used tubes and not digital microchips, and it's an entirely different engineering design--it's like comparing helicopters and jet airplanes. Some commonalities, but also fundamental differences. That's why so many serious musicians plug their guitars into tube amps. For home theatres, you have to use modern receivers, but if it is possible, investing in a good vintage amp/receiver is as important--maybe more important--than the turntable itself. There is still some debate about this, but ignore it--the manufactured parts are totally different, so it makes sense that it would amplify the sound in different characteristics. Not all vintage amps/receivers are better than modern ones, but in my experience they usually are. That's the problem and the advantage of analogue sound--the sliding scale. If you have really good equipment at every stage of contact--turntable, cables, amp, and speakers--it pays off big.

Don't invest in used speakers though. There's only bad things that come from that. Speakers wear out from use and can't be cheaply repaired. And the main fundamental--the way the technology is built--has basically not changed, just improved, so new speakers blow away used ones. When it comes to amps and receivers though the technology has not improved--it's just changed. And with that change comes different characteristics. New ones are more convenient and serve modern needs better (like multi-channel output, programmable buttons and decoders) but often don't sound as good. My vintage 1973 Sansui (which may sound weird since this brand went out of business in the 80s but was usually very good in it's day) broke down last year and I spent $200 fixing it because it was a much better investment than anything new. It only outputs 200 watts. Know why? Because they didn't need more watts back then. The 1000-watt digital receivers of today are a joke in comparison; they only were invented in the 90s because that is when digital technology took off, but older ones with a fraction of the wattage outperform them pretty consistently. The parts they used made it so that it outputs a signal of much higher quality and volume--and after 40 years my Sansui still works, with a bit of love. I took it to a high-end audio dealer (the same place my dad got his luxury Klipsch from) and what do you know, the technicians there owned the same piece of equipment! They even did all this extra work for me like changing some bulbs because they don't get much of these in these days. Invest in speakers and amps/receivers, not the turntable itself.

Paramecium302 said:

greenpenguino said:

George Lucas: Changes are not unusual — I mean, most movies when they release them they make changes.

Oh yeah George???

Name one.

Or better yet, name three.

Name the latest three movies that have been released that were 'changed'.

Let's see... Harry Potter 1-however many their are... umm, Avatar, hmmm.... Well, every movie ever. You do realize that by the time the original theatrical Star Wars movies had made it to home video they had already been altered by the publishing company, right? Riiight.

It is entirely atypical for movies to be altered from their theatrical release. If you can name 100 movies that have been altered, I can name you 10, 000 movies that have not.

Only because you can't watch them on blu-ray. Do you still watch Pulp Fiction and Robocop on VHS? If so, why? Don't you know you can buy them for $10 in high definition?

Carry on troll, you might find an actual argument out there somewhere.

Star Wars is not only my favourite movie, it's something I have dedicated more of my life to than anything else on the planet. It led to me having a career in the film industry, writing an entire book, running two high-profile websites simultaneously, and spending literally thousands of hours discussing the films, while also being the number one source of financial investment in my 27 years on planet earth. "Like" is an understatement.

This reeks of a troll. Do you really think we all just have nothing better to do with our lives? Or do you just resent that George Lucas has created a situation in which his actions are held accountable by some members of the public? Because let me assure you, not a single person here wants to be on this forum, we'd rather be watching the bloody films on our blu-ray players.

captainsolo said:

This!

Although I sometimes like to add in a little sub kick for vinyl. (Little!) Out of curiosity, Zombie what Klipsch do you have? I've got my whole 5.1 setup by them and my mains/surrounds are the KG.5

I couldn't say at the moment what model they are. I got into Klipsch because my dad is a real audiophile and he came home one day with the biggest speakers I have ever seen in my life--to this day--in his van and they were $4000 Klipsch towers. Before that he had really good Mission speakers (another great brand that doesn't get much recognition) but these things were so monstrous that my jaw dropped just from seeing them and let me tell you, they are the best speakers I have ever heard, anywhere, ever--and they were in my own house! When you cranked those up and put on some Zeppelin it would make you cry from the clarity and bass and power. I hooked them up to my TV at one point and put on Terminator 2. It was just a VHS tape, nothing fancy at all, but I remember there is the scene where Arnold comes in on the Harley Davidson and the bass was so intense it was like having a bike in the room. We had a motorcycle in the garage and even the real thing didn't have that much kick! Since then I've never owned anything but Klipsch. The ones I have are much cheaper but they have so much kick that I often have to turn down the bass, lest my neighbours complain (which they have!). That's why I am always apprehensive about subs. Sometimes they provide a little help, and movies (and also sometimes electronic music) have subtle low-frequency things that are designed to roll through the room and provide a physical sensation, but more or less if you have good speakers I find they just muddy the sound or get lost in the mix.

The other thing is that if you have a good turntable with a good cartridge, you then need a good amp (and possibly a pre-amp, although it's easy to avoid) and then good speakers. Last summer I invested in a pair of really nice Klipsch speakers and it really changed my entire listening experience. Even Youtube sounds nice hooked up to these things. If you only have one set-up like me that does everything--records, cds, computer, movies--I would stay away from anything that is a multi-speaker "home theatre" package, especially anything with a subwoofer. Subwoofers are now manufactured to try and hide the fact that the speakers they come with sound like shit. If you ever need a subwoofer for anything other than watching DVDs and Blu-rays it is a sign you don't have correct speakers, and even with movies you don't need a sub if your speakers are high-end quality. You sort of have to build everything in small pieces I guess, otherwise you'll be plunking down $1000 and asking why you are wasting so much money when you have more important bills to pay.

No, it's true, they sound way better, and I never owned a record until the 2000s. Even without the Loudness War (google it) they are much better. Plus you get the correct side-breaks, which is kind of how widescreen is to movies. But you usually have to put up with some degree of pop and hiss, which is something CDs overcame.

The closest comparison to a typical record is stuff like DVD-Audio and other basically obsolete formats.

I sometimes do, because some of the records I own were never released on CD or are hopelessly obscure, and also because I don't own them on CD or can't find a good-quality MP3 to illegally download, which I'm not supposed to be doing anyway.

But yeah, I guess for stuff like The Beatles and Michael Jackson, this wouldn't be necessary. The advantage of having the dynamic range and non-compressed mastering of a record usually doesn't translate that well into self-made MP3s with these things, in my experience...although my USB record player is not the greatest.

Also, unless you are willing to pay over $600 you shouldn't be using newer players anyway unless you are DJing, in which case you will find it's not feasible to use your vintage equipment anyway. In my opinion, that is.

Eh, it's pretty much just a rambling defense of the SE and prequels. Cracked has had enough anti-Jar-Jar anti-SE stuff that this really shouldn't be a big deal. I think it's grating because it's less tongue-in-cheek and more defensive than you would normally expect from them. Anyone with a brain will see through the many holes in the guys argument.

ANH-3D has exceeded the budget of the original film a year ago and they are not even supposed to be working on it in earnest. Titanic is costing $18 million, some movies cost $30 million like Transformers 3, but a typical cost for a film where the 3D is done with care is about $15 million or so. I would estimate TPM cost this much but they haven't released any numbers as far as I can tell; it might be more. I doubt it's much lower, based on the fact that ANH3D already cost over $11 million in 2011 and they had only done parts of the film. Over by how much, who knows--maybe just by a bit, or maybe by another $8 million.