zombie84

For a piece on structural repercussions of the way the prequels were joined up to the originals--essentially the 1-2-3-4-5-6 or 4-5-6-1-2-3 debate--I wrote something about it here:

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/structuringtheprequels.html

I also looked beyond Star Wars for examples, since Star Wars is not the only series with prequels attached to it. In fact, one of the examples I looked at was a Chuck Norris film. :p

On a related note, I showed my girlfriend the OT about two months ago. She had never seen it, but knew all the cultural memes. She grew up in an all-girl house and was just never exposed to them, although she had seen parts of them on TV while at friends/families places. She likes Harry Potter, LOTR, Spiderman, anime, stuff like that, so I figured she might enjoy them, although she doesn't know older movies and I knew she wouldn't treat them as though they were on equal ground to newer fantasy classics like some of the above.

-ANH: We watched the 1977 GOUT version. Overall, she liked it, found the characters amusing. She thought R2D2 was cute, predicted that Han Solo is "a jerk but then you find out at the end that he is a nice guy after all," and found it an entertaining and funny film, although I doubt she would want to watch it again on her own willpower.

-ESB: I'm not sure if she liked this better or not, but she appreciated the better production values, and the more adult nature. We watched the 2004 edition, because the changes weren't so intrusive. She didn't have much to say about this one, other than finally knowing the full context of a lot of famous quotes.

-ROTJ: Watched the SE because I never owned the GOUT. Most of her comments were made in relation to this film, mainly because of its flaws. Of course she thought the Ewoks were cute, but she noticed that the acting and dialogue was bad, especially Han Solo. A lot of other things, like Leia being Luke's sister and the whole romance triangle, made her laugh, and all the puppets and kid stuff. In general she said at the end that "it's like they didn't take it seriously anymore", that the makers sort of threw this out there. When Hayden came on at the end she did a double take and said why there was a guy "giving the creepy uncle stare." (I later explained and showed her the original, which she said made more sense) When the final scene of Ewoks dancing came on (this was the more sombre SE version, remember) she said that there had to be one more serious closing scene to tie all the story up in a mature way and was shocked when the iris went to the credits.

I haven't shown her the prequels. Maybe one day. Given her misgiving about ROTJ I am sure she would find them hard to stomach in places, but I am also sure she would appreciate the more snazzy visuals as well. I wanted her to be able to enjoy the OT, which is why I showed her this first. I can imagine her, like most people--and probably myself, were I in that situation--would find the sylistic incongruity and story/character re-focus that comes between ROTS and ANH to offputting and confusing. It's better to let people appreciate vintage films in the context in which they were meant to be seen (some SE misgivings aside).

If someone would link me the blu-ray.com thread, I would be happy to throw my 2 cents in. I seem to have reached a few people in past instances of stuff like this.

Unless George Lucas dies in twelve years and the Lucasfilm board of directors decides to restore the most lucrative and popular title in their entire library. Yeah, that would never happen.

The entire debate about "never" seeing the OOT again is a bit moot. The OT will be public domain at some point. Some of us might even live long enough to see that day. But more than likely, the films will be released not long after Lucas dies. Or before: remember, Lucas has been softening on the issue gradually, especially as his friends and colleagues have begun publically questioning him. In 1997, he spoke about the OOT being destroyed and forgetten because everyone would be watching the SE. In 2004, he instead framed it in terms of it being unfortunate that people preferred the version he doesn't like. In 2006, he then released the OOT, stating that he'll see if people really want it after all. In 2010, he said that the "classic version" the trilogy will be put on the backburner until the SE is done because of cost.

So never say never.

Plus, on a long enough timeline, someone will do their own 35mm scan. Maybe not this year or this decade, but it's simply inevitable the longer this all goes on for.

So rather I would say it is the opposite: Lucas is the one fighting a losing battle. When he is dead, everyone in his company will be doing their best to get the films released. And even if they don't--the films will be public domain, and all those archived prints in the Lucasfilm vaults and Library of Congress and Fox studios will be put to good use. You see, that's the beauty of this all: Lucas can't take the films with him. They belong to the public at the end of the day. For all his efforts, all his wishes and all his actions, he will never win the war, even if he's won a few strategic victories right now. He's already lost the war, we just have to wait around for it to happen.

Well, it is too late for it now, but many people would see it as distasteful to tamper so greatly with a classic. Imagine putting digital matte paintings in Citizen Kane to replace the classic-style mattes, or inserting new actors via bluescreen, or filming new scenes and cutting old ones. On the one hand you can ignore it, but on the other hand it's sheer existance could be seen as disrespecting the memory and integrity of the classic original. It's the principle. Some things are untouchable, regardless of who is doing it and what their intentions are. This may seem a bit of an extremist view--and it is--but it is also one that you have to account for. Even Lucas sees things this way to some degree, as he has expressed offense to the mere existance of colourized versions even when the original is released in the same package and in the same quality (i.e 3 Stooges shorts in 2004).

Dunedain said:

zombie84: Did you see those screen shots harmy posted on page 97 comparing the v3 DVD set to the new Blu-ray set? It seems like the v3 image looks a little too greenish, whereas the Blu-ray shot looked like the colors were more accurate, more neutral. What do you think?

 Like I said, my monitor right now is not very accurate, so it could be just me. If the V3 actually looks green-biased whereas it appears neutral to me, then it makes sense that something that appears to me to be red-biased is actually neutral. I just noticed that there was a difference between them and was wondering if this was an intentional tweak or whatever.

Just like when Ted Turner did it, the same thing applied. Does it really matter that he colourized Asphault Jungle when there was VHS in identical quality released the year before? But such things carry meaning. It is the principle more than anything. But unlike Ted Turner, Lucas has actual practical consequence--one can't enjoy the original version in identical quality. If having the original in identical quality was enough to cause the most important filmmakers and motion picture businessmen to bring the issue all the way to Congress, don't you think this merits a preportional amount of seriousness for how far beyond this Lucas has taken things? If it did, Hollywood ought to be rioting. It's a bit of a travesty that things have been relatively quiet until the last few years.

Instead of watching Star Wars on VHS in 1997 and 2000, when they were re-released in wake of the prequel hype, they were watching the SE. Instead of watching pristine DVD versions of the originals, they were watching pristine DVD versions of the SE. Instead of appreciating the originals, they had to listen to Lucas go on about how inferior they were. Instead of watching Spike marathons of the films, they watch Spike marathons of the SE. And instead of watching a nice, high-def restoration of the original trilogy, they will be watching a high-def restoration of the SE. And that just brings us to present day--who knows how many more years, or decades, this will go on for.

I, at 12 years of age, happened to know the original versions intimately because of the year I happened to be born in, as did you. But a kid born in 1993--he will never remember any form of Star Wars other than the version Lucas has presented. There is more at stake than just us lucky few, who now are beginning to amount to a minority in the fanbase.

And for the rest of us, we have our rotting VHS tapes and our 2006 Laserdisc master. This is not good enough. This is not a minor thing. Almost every film ever made in the last fifty years is available in some format, it just depends on how far you are going to go to obtain it. But those that do, they are obsessive, a niche fanbase of hardcore enthusiasts. One shouldn't have to belong to such a demographic as ours in order to enjoy what are among the most important American films ever made.

I'm not in any mood--I'm just saying this notion of forgiveness is weird. Lucas did what he did, and he will be remembered for it is all I am saying.

Forgive? I don't know if I would "forgive" anything. This type of thinking seems foreign to me, like Lucas is some dysfunctional family member that we have to come to terms with. He is an artist and a custodian of national treasures and he gets judged the same way anyone else in his position would be. Did people "forgive" Ted Turner because he released the black and white versions of his colourized films again? I doubt people think about it in those terms, but I'm sure they are greatful he did so. I am also sure they still dislike the fact that he had the nerve to colourize them in the first place.

The OT SE would still represent a butchering of a classic. People have the right, and are right, to complain about the sheer existance of this.

Lucas would have still repressed the OT for well over a decade and impeded a lot of people' enjoyment of their art and culture, as well as sullying the memory of those films. This should not be forgotten, as though it didn't happen.

Lucas has more to attone for his actions rather than "I'm sorry." In fact, restoring the OOT wouldn't even be saying I'm sorry. Lucas would never say or feel such a thing. IMO all it would be was, "here you go, please get off my back now," even if this seems like a cynical perspective of mine.

Would the resentment die down? Of course. But in the larger picture, Lucas cannot undo his actions and change his past. He can lessen how harsh history will judge him, but what is done is done and that fact alone is not worth forgetting. Everyone has to live with the actions they take, even if they redress them later.

I think this is an interesting concept. I'm not sure how big a deal the "sanctioned by Lucasfilm" thing is. Certainly if it was published through Lucasfilm there would be some level of white-washing that would undermine a truely critical analysis of Lucas' thinking and writing. But all "sanctioned" might mean is that Lucasfilm gave permission to publish such an anthology and are otherwise hands off.

It's amazing how much something like the GOUT can hold up when treated properly and uprezed. The screens certainly look very promising. :)

It may be too late to consider going back and re-tweaking anything but there were two things that went through my mind just from browsing the past few pages:

-I notice that the BD version is red-biased compared to V3DVD, and also not quite as saturated. Was this intentional or is it just a fluxation caused by the upconversion? The V3 caps look like they have more natural colours in the skintones compared to the BD version caps, although maybe the examples I have seen are just not ideal. I'm not looking at them on a very well caliberated monitor right now, but I can at least see that the colour balances between them are different. Sorry if this was discussed pages earlier.

-Is it possible to apply any amount of mild sharpening either before or after upconversion (I suppose ideally before)? Of course, EE can be a huge problem. It is possible, however, to extract a suprising amount of extra picture detail from the GOUT when the image is sharpened. I don't know if this is possible to do without putting edges on things, but I do think it would help the picture if it can be done, as the script tends to smudge out a noticeable amount of the fine detail in its attempt to smooth out the artifacts. It may counteract the anti-grain filter, or it might not, but it is something to consider.

The film looks good regardless. It's utterly fascinating how one video source--the GOUT--has branched out into all these parallel and shared restorations that tackle the same problems in different and similar ways. No single film has had so much fan attention paid to it. I thought maybe our efforts would plateau around 2008 or 2009, but here we are a half decade after the GOUT came out and we're still finding new ways of improving on it.

Can I suggest editing the two Jar Jar slapstick scenes together? Being broken up so quickly, the musical parody gets a bit shortchanged before it gets going. It might also make the high amount of musical parodys in the final reel seem less clustered together.

Good stuff nonetheless.

As far as it being a "pile of silly fun," yes, I think many fans of TPM would say that TPM shares this quality with MIB. I think that is also one of the greatest attributes of the original Star Wars film--like Independenec Day or Men In Black, it doesn't take itself very seriously, has good characters and good natured humour, excellent special effects and action scenes, and you feel good at the end of the picture. Which is a point you continue to miss. He didn't compare it to MIB in a general sense, but specifically in these qualities.

danny_boy said:

zombie84 said:

captainsolo said:

adywan said:

i guess they got a bunch of people they knew would say how good the transfers look, but really haven't got a clue what they are saying. Clueless statements, like the above mentioned and the following, invalidated anything that they say in that review for me:

While the newer Star Wars films were ready made for high definition, the older films will obviously suffer a little from the all scrutinizing eye of HD. (The only pre-digital, color sci-fi film that holds up spectacularly well to date is 2001: A Space Odyssey; and to quote Malcolm McDowell out of context, you’re talking about Stanley fucking Kubrick. No offense, Mr. Lucas.)

 

 

Of course 2001 looks great. It's been well taken care of and was shot in 70mm for later Cinerama projection! It's not your standard 35!!!!

And I take it these people didn't see the Blu-rays of Forbidden Planet, CEoT3K, and the fantastic looking Planet of the Apes and The Day the Earth Stood Still.

 Also, I don't believe 2001 had optical composites, it was done (at least mostly) in-camera. So, the VFX sequences have no generational loss and are in 65mm to boot. There isn't going to be anything that rivals that in terms of resolution.

As for Avatar--yes, Avatar was shot in 1080p. Avatar is also a primarily animated film, whereby the 1920x1080 live action elements constitute either a small portion of a larger, digital composite, and the purely/mostly live-action sequences constitute only a small portion of the completed film. Also, Cameron filmed it with much better cameras than AOTC/ROTS, which basically used the very first HD motion picture camera. The resolution of digital video is less important than the number of lines it can resolve, the dynamic range, how it handles highlights and black levels, the depth of colour, and other such issues.

This is why modern films shot in 1080p look very good, as detailed as most or all modern 35mm films which you see theatrically. When you see a 35mm film theatrically you aren't likely to be seeing more detail than a 1080p projection anyway because of generational loss, and in the home you aren't likely to be able to resolve more lines than HD video is capable of displaying on a screen that is less than five or six feet wide. 4K home theatre would pretty much be a waste of money. I don't know if they will ever propose such a thing, but one would be foolish to buy into it unless you had a bona fide screening room (and even then the difference might be minimal). This is different than 4K scanning of 35mm film though, because you want that high resolution so that the HD downconvert has all the information possible--I don't know what exactly the science behind it is, but there doesn't seem to be true "lossless" HD scan to HD projection, whenever you scan from HD and project in HD it looks worse than when scanning from 4K and projecting in HD.

To be honest----digital(2K/1080p) looks better than 35mm(Ok--with generation loss)---they even did side by side comparisons as far back as 1999 with the Phantom Menace itself:

 

Electronic Cinema Debuts in Beautiful Downtown Burbank

By Scott Wilkinson • Posted: Jun 20, 1999

So how is the quality of the digital image? During a press conference held on June 17 at the AMC Burbank 14 multiplex, a short clip was shown in a split screen: Half the image was from a new, high-quality film print, and the other half was from the digital "print." Once the two images were manually synchronized, the difference was remarkably clear: The digital image was much sharper, with much better color fidelity than the film print. For example, the Jedi council room has large windows through which the sky is visible. In the digital image, the sky and clouds were clearly delineated, but they were blurred into a bluish blob on the film side of the screen. Rick McCallum, one of the producers of The Phantom Menace and a press-conference panelist, said the digital version is a much more accurate representation of what they shot than the film version.

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/content/electronic-cinema-debuts-beautiful-downtown-burbank

 I agree, but only to an extent. It depends on the projector. A "digital image" says nothing about the resolution it was projected at (HD/2K/4K) and what type of projector was used. Some digital projections I have watched in theatres are the best visual presentations I have ever seen (i.e. Blade Runner), while in others the 35mm was much better (as was the case the second time I saw Inception). In an ideal situation using good equipment, digital projection wins, but this is not necessarily what every theatre is using. It also depends on the quality of the digital master as well. So there is no single answer to the question. It all depends on the variables of what you are comparing.

Yeah. They definitely removed emulsion grain, especially in Star Wars, but not in extreme amounts, although the Tatooine scenes have been tampered with quite heavily. It is not as good as some of Lowry's other work, like on Indy or James Bond, which have accuracy in terms of grain, but the OT at least wasn't butchered like a lot of modern Blu Rays. ROTJ you are right, it looks pretty authentic in terms of the image integrity; SW and ESB are just a bit too clean and slick, but not bothersomely.

No, it came from a collector as far as I know. I think it had just been improperly stored. I overheard the recipient remarking that the reels had been plagued with vinegar syndrome (a degradation phenomenon which emits a vinegar like smell) which was so pungent he could sense it even when approaching the reels' shipping package in the courier shop. Too bad. The last hour of the film had no real problems though, other than being faded. It was hard to get a totally accurate taste of the colour grading because the blacks had become quite blue, but it varied in intensity from reel to reel and I could usually detect how much the fading was influencing colour fluxuation. But still a fun experience, especially with a small room of fans. There were a lot of laughs, sometimes with the film, sometimes at the film.

One thing I noticed was that there was pretty much no visible grain in the film, even in the optical shots (well, I mean there was a tiny bit, but quite insignificant). This contrasted what I have seen of the GOUT. I don't own ROTJ GOUT, so I don't know if the opticals are as grainy as SW and ESB. But the lightsaber scenes were pretty much 100% identical in quality to the surrounding ones. Obviously a positive release print and the fact that the focus fluxuated a bit would have influenced this, but I could still see some light grain and there were never any jumpy moments (that extra-contrasty shot of Luke reacting to Vader's amputation being an exception).

My mistake, he did say EE, I guess I didn't catch the parenthesis there. I haven't seen the EE myself but I have heard, as you said, that they look good. Shame about the TE though, I generally prefer that cut for Fellowship. Maybe they will correct it if they do a TE+EE boxset.

I never noticed though, is the contention that the EE looks more green-biased than the TE? Because on the DVD version they looked identical in colour, to the point where they were both branched from the same common video in the 2006 release.

This is a totally unrelated post, but I just thought I'd report that I happened to be invited to a private party hosted at a local screening house/cinema club. They screened a bunch of funny vintage trailers and a 35mm print of Return of the Jedi. The print had been cellophaned together or something, and the projectionist had to spend 12 hours assembling it. It broke two or three times at the reel changes, and the first two reels were almost unwatchable. But it was fun times. Because the print had faded you could see all the garbage mattes, which I thought was sort of neat because you usually can't see them very well on prints. I was impressed with the sound mix, which was nothing special but the levels were mixed in a way I hadn't heard before and it felt right. It was really cool to see Sebastian Shaw in high resolution for once.

captainsolo said:

adywan said:

i guess they got a bunch of people they knew would say how good the transfers look, but really haven't got a clue what they are saying. Clueless statements, like the above mentioned and the following, invalidated anything that they say in that review for me:

While the newer Star Wars films were ready made for high definition, the older films will obviously suffer a little from the all scrutinizing eye of HD. (The only pre-digital, color sci-fi film that holds up spectacularly well to date is 2001: A Space Odyssey; and to quote Malcolm McDowell out of context, you’re talking about Stanley fucking Kubrick. No offense, Mr. Lucas.)

 

 

Of course 2001 looks great. It's been well taken care of and was shot in 70mm for later Cinerama projection! It's not your standard 35!!!!

And I take it these people didn't see the Blu-rays of Forbidden Planet, CEoT3K, and the fantastic looking Planet of the Apes and The Day the Earth Stood Still.

 Also, I don't believe 2001 had optical composites, it was done (at least mostly) in-camera. So, the VFX sequences have no generational loss and are in 65mm to boot. There isn't going to be anything that rivals that in terms of resolution.

As for Avatar--yes, Avatar was shot in 1080p. Avatar is also a primarily animated film, whereby the 1920x1080 live action elements constitute either a small portion of a larger, digital composite, and the purely/mostly live-action sequences constitute only a small portion of the completed film. Also, Cameron filmed it with much better cameras than AOTC/ROTS, which basically used the very first HD motion picture camera. The resolution of digital video is less important than the number of lines it can resolve, the dynamic range, how it handles highlights and black levels, the depth of colour, and other such issues.

This is why modern films shot in 1080p look very good, as detailed as most or all modern 35mm films which you see theatrically. When you see a 35mm film theatrically you aren't likely to be seeing more detail than a 1080p projection anyway because of generational loss, and in the home you aren't likely to be able to resolve more lines than HD video is capable of displaying on a screen that is less than five or six feet wide. 4K home theatre would pretty much be a waste of money. I don't know if they will ever propose such a thing, but one would be foolish to buy into it unless you had a bona fide screening room (and even then the difference might be minimal). This is different than 4K scanning of 35mm film though, because you want that high resolution so that the HD downconvert has all the information possible--I don't know what exactly the science behind it is, but there doesn't seem to be true "lossless" HD scan to HD projection, whenever you scan from HD and project in HD it looks worse than when scanning from 4K and projecting in HD.

dark_jedi said:

zombie84 said:

Yeah, I think Fellowship had a lot of DVR or something applied, because the resolution is very bad. Part of this has to do with the fact that it wasn't done as a DI or something like that. I've seen some screens and it didn't look very nice. I thought they corrected it though?

You must be thinking of the TE version, the EE versions that were just released do not suffer from this at all, not at all.

 Right. But the TE version does, which was the original point, and so it stands. The EE is a separate release and a separate film. What's with all the defending of perfectly valid complaints?

Also, I did mean DNR, I just typed it wrong. I don't know if that's what the issue is, but I've the screenshots and the film looks pretty bad. The HD broadcast versions are more or less correct looking and show way more detail.

Yeah, I think Fellowship had a lot of DVR or something applied, because the resolution is very bad. Part of this has to do with the fact that it wasn't done as a DI or something like that. I've seen some screens and it didn't look very nice. I thought they corrected it though?

How can it be hard to locate, if there is only one channel? There is nowhere for it to be located, as the sound spread is uniform.

Moth3r said:

zombie84 said:

Mono is sent to the centre channel because, being only one channel, it would be weird if it sent it to the left, or to the right. But in a theatrical setting, you aren't hearing it from one speaker at the front of the house. It is playing through many speakers so as to encompass the full room with front-facing sound. This is why, in a home theatre setting, it is appropriate to send it to all your forward-facing speakers, but namely the left and right which are accoustically positioned to fill your listening space.

I don't believe this is the case. A 1.0 mono soundtrack should play solely through the centre channel (on a film - mono music may be different). The centre channel is normally output by the centre speaker - unless your system doesn't have one, in which case a "phantom centre" is created by outputting the sound through both front left and right speakers.

I suppose it depends on room size to a degree. But again, in any sort of concert or theatre environment, there is no single centre speaker that provides audio for the entire room. Centre-default plays to the reality of one-channel audio, in that it is the most appropriate position if one speaker represents one channel, but it betrays the ideal listening experience. Your left and right speakers will be better manufactured as well, even if your centre channel is of high quality--the left and right are always the best speakers in the set-up, and the ones designed for the widest and furthest sound dispersal.

This is incorrect as well. The centre speaker is the most important speaker in a 5.1 set-up - it accounts for 50% of the soundtrack, as well as nearly all dialogue. It would not make sense to have the centre lesser specified than the front L & R speakers.

 What can I say except I don't agree. The centre works hard in a 5.1 set-up, but mono playback is not a 5.1 setup, therefore this becomes irrelevant what role in plays there. The left and right speakers are accoustically positioned to give the best sound spread, and they are the technically best built in a system. In a theatrical--or home theatrical--setting, you should never be using a centre speaker with mono unless it is in conjunction with the left and right. Again, this is why mono concerts and movie theatres aren't outputing through just a centre channel. They use the left and right (in multiple copies usually) to send a single channel of sound throughout the room. When someone sees Citizen Kane in a theatre, or listened to the Beatles in concert, they weren't hearing it from one speaker underneath the screen or behind the band, and neither should you.

Mono is sent to the centre channel because, being only one channel, it would be weird if it sent it to the left, or to the right. But in a theatrical setting, you aren't hearing it from one speaker at the front of the house. It is playing through many speakers so as to encompass the full room with front-facing sound. This is why, in a home theatre setting, it is appropriate to send it to all your forward-facing speakers, but namely the left and right which are accoustically positioned to fill your listening space. I suppose it depends on room size to a degree. But again, in any sort of concert or theatre environment, there is no single centre speaker that provides audio for the entire room. Centre-default plays to the reality of one-channel audio, in that it is the most appropriate position if one speaker represents one channel, but it betrays the ideal listening experience. Your left and right speakers will be better manufactured as well, even if your centre channel is of high quality--the left and right are always the best speakers in the set-up, and the ones designed for the widest and furthest sound dispersal. Which is why in mono theatres, you hear the soundtrack from the left and right throughout multiple speakers, to best fill the room.

That's my two cents, anyway. Mono 2.0, as I take it, is a way to "cheat" the default of only ending up with a centre speaker playback (or, in simpler stereo set-ups, of only having a right speaker playback) and ensuring that you have the fullest playback sound.

Even when ESB had the least and most tasteful changes of the bunch? Following this, ROTJ should have rebounded.

That it conforms to the original grosses, adjusted for inflation, is not a big surprise. That it conforms to the original reviews is also not a surprise.

I will grant one caveat in that the first 1997 release, no matter what it was, would have had the most interest. But it is pretty conspicuous that both ESB and ROTJ together couldn't equal ANH alone. On anecedotal evidence, I don't know many people who would have lined up for ROTJ that lined up for SW. On personal experience, I saw SW in 1997 about seven times, but ROTJ once and ESB only twice. My 9-year-old sister who is not a huge fan went to ANH with me, as did my dad, and we ran into family friends at ANH screenings even after two weeks, who were there with their children as well. The ANH reissue was a true cultural event, preportional to its original release. ESB and ROTJ were comparitively less eventful. This accounts for ANH's long-term popularity, but also ESB and ROTJ's comparitively niche-audience as mere "sequels", which all but the true devotees didn't bother with. If you consider that it was mostly true devotees that saw ROTJ, a film even many fans don't like that much, that gives you a good indication of the massive following the franchise had at that point (the height of the star wars rennaisance instigated in 1991) but also the great divide in which casual moviegoers embrace the original film, made with a mass audience in mind, but whom cared much less about everything made afterwards.