zombie84

Alexrd said:

zombie84 said:

Alexrd said:

TPM set the precedent in blockbusters that you can make a profit despite a film's awfulness.

The film's awfulness is not a fact, though.

It's awfulness is not a fact, true, because this is all subjective. However, it is a commonly held opinion and a wide public census, thus making the point salient:

I wouldn't call it a majorly held opinion, nor a wide public census.

 

You can call it something else, but you'd be wrong--or at least, that the majorly held opinion and wide public census is that its "poor" to one degree or another ("awful" might be a tad harsh, but it communicates the general negative impression). The film received mediocre reviews and was slaughtered by the major press. Many fans hated it, there was the first fan edit in history to try to lesson its badness, and to this day it is regarded with infamy. I don't know where there is perception amongst a small group of people that believe it isn't infamous; were you guys around in 1999? The entire non-PT-fan world didn't just get amnesia and forget all the bad press it received. There are a swath of editorials on it, many of them still online for you to view yourself. According to Rotten Tomatoes, it has a moldy 39% meter from actual critics, and a 5.2 rating, which metacritic basically corroborates. Not exactly great. In fact, pretty poor. At IMDB, it rates better, but only 6.5 or something like that, still rather mediocre. It swept the razzies, routinely appears on "disappointing movies" list and the like, and just in terms of general experience gets mentioned in connection with mediocre films. Personally, I don't think it's totally terrible, but I will agree with the public concensus that it's not very good.

I recall seeing an article about public opinion on TPM, and it was regarded as positively recieved. Even critical reception was mixed to positive reviews. Many people saw it many times in theater (I even remember some groups going back to ticket line after watching the film, in my country).

 This may have come from George Lucas, who claimed it had positive reviews, or they may also be remembering a RT article from 2005 that is fundamentally flawed, or perhaps simply repeating statements heard from other prequel fans, who I have noticed try to convince people of a theoretical positive reception. The simply truth is that they are incorrect. The film received positive notices, sure, in fact quite a few, but it received a lot of awful, terrible reviews as well; most reviews were so-so, and even in the positive ones there is often a tinge of disappointment that the film wasn't as good as the others. That being said, there is this perception that critics ravaged the film, and that it is universally hated--and that's where the misperception comes in. According to reviews, it is disappointing overall, sub-par--but not the worst film in history.

But, of course, a film's reception goes beyond just counting up the stars on reviews. That's just one aspect. And that's where the more exaggerated perception gains a bit more merit, but its hard to exactly measure or quantify this--it's just an impression from the sum of its public image.

I've studied the critical reception of the film in two separate studies if you would like to look at the reviews at least.

One is just the initial reaction to TPM:

http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/episodeirelease.html

The other takes a look at the reviews of the saga as a whole, at the time they were released:

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/originaltrilogyreception2.html

 Again, these are just reviews, and a films rep goes well beyond mere reviews, but this is at least something that can be studied in a more analytical way than just "general impression of its public image."

Alexrd said:

TPM set the precedent in blockbusters that you can make a profit despite a film's awfulness.

The film's awfulness is not a fact, though.

It's awfulness is not a fact, true, because this is all subjective. However, it is a commonly held opinion and a wide public census, thus making the point salient: as far as most people are concerned, TPM showed that a movie can be a major success while also being widely disliked.

As for RLM, I wouldn't compare it to SSW.com, simply because SSW is an activist site for preservation, which isn't what RLM is. But, yes, I would say that, although being an opinion piece in many ways, RLM has many journalistic qualities and is very well researched, for the simply reason that his observations and criticisms are backed up with examples from the film but most importantly actual research from the films histories and documentations. This makes his "opinions" all the more important, because he bases a lot of them upon facts and thus elevates them beyond the subjective sort of "well, that's like, your opinion, man" argument in many cases. This makes his "reviews" part research project, and thats what makes his pieces so effective; you can actually learn a lot from them.

Monolithium said:

zombie84 said:

Please send these people to savestarwars.com.

I've tried.  But they look at the excellent work you've done along the same lines as RedLetterMedia.  As just another whiny fanboy trying to dilute The Bearded One's Masterful Original Vision.

Since we got the GOUT on DVD in a Laserdisc transfer.  I wonder if we will get a DVD transfer on Blu-ray?

 I was actually just browsing through the FAQ on the SSW.com tonight and I hadn't realized how useful it actually is; I really should highlight it better on the main page. The reason being, for noobs who buy into the Lucasfilm propaganda like these guys, it systematically and logically goes through all the major arguments in the order in which they would typical be raised. I think in the future I'll avoid the risk of them getting lost in the site and just link them the FAQ.

Monolithium said:

Jacobss said:

Just read some of the commentaries on blu-ray-com - Apart from famous Kenkraly and his repetitive comments, seriously I can't stand anymore people, who believes Lucas lies that all original prints of SW are lost forever. Let's take a look on some of those comments:

It never ceases to amaze me at the shear ignorance of the "unaltered theatrical" anal retentive fanboys on this issue.

Don't you people get how the restored '97 SEs were made to begin with? And actually much more importantly, WHY? Because by '95 or '96 (whatever year they started work on them) the original prints were in such bad shape thaty they had to restore them then, or lose them forever. But because they were altered with new CG stuff and whatnot, the frames that included these new effects were only restored in this state...not in the original way. So the unaltered frames, even if they still existed, are in 15 years worse shape now than they were back then. And remember, we're talking '70s film stock, which wasn't the best film stock to ever grace the film world. And I'm mainly talking about ANH here.

Why do you think the "bonus feature" of the unaltered versions on the 2nd DVD release was just a port of the LD version? And no, I doubt there are some better prints of the unaltered film out there in some warehouse somewhere. Because if there was, don't you think they would have been used during the restoration in the first place?

I mean, com'on folks, use your noggin for something other than a hat rack!

 

Guys, I don't know. Does it even make sense to explain people that they are utterly wrong?

If you want to have fun on blu-ray.com I suggest you read the Star Wars related posts by Beast and Bluyoda.  Good stuff.

 Please send these people to savestarwars.com.

To be fair Fink, I can't see how you can honestly complain about Sky with a straight face when I've hardly seen a post of yours that wasn't off-topic, sarcastic, or filled with GIFs. Everyone has their habits and eccentricities.

That sounds very tantalizing. I'm very much looking forward to seeing the results.

On a related note, to all the naysayers I find it interesting that people are against something that they haven't actually seen, because no film, not even Avatar, was shot and projected at 48 FPS. Also for the record, films aren't shot at 24FPS, they are shot in a variety of speeds, from 18 and 22 FPS to 64 and 128 FPS, it's the projected speed of the finished film that is 24FPS, but it's often projecting high-speed and low-speed input with 24FPS output, which is what Jackson says is actually his preferred method with the 48FPS camera in the quote above (taking 48 FPS input and outputing it at 24 FPS), so it's essentially the same principle. Even Star Wars has at least one high speed shot in it, probably filmed at 48 FPS (ironically). I think a lot of critics simply don't fully consider the history and mechanics of motion picture film.

captainsolo said:

It's going to be September 20th 2004 all over again.

If a new soundmix is being made, then why reuse the 04 scans? Yes they were cleaned up by Lowry Digital, but have so many other issues that a new start would be extremely beneficial.

This assumes George Lucas is aware of any issues.

The reason there is a new sound mix is very probably because Blu Rays have 6 channel surround, or whatever it is, and not the 5.1 of 2004. So, Ben Burtt probably simply asked if he could do a new mix for the format. They probably have all the original elements from the 2004 mix still on-line there, so it's a pretty simple feat, very different from doing a brand new scan and DI from scratch. It's probably not an attempt to "fix" anything from the 2004 mix, although I wouldn't be surprised if they did smooth out some of the issues from the last mix simply because they are getting another crack at it.

If they simply would scan and release the 97s as-is there would be no problems with transfers! And isn't the digital footage already at 2K?

The footage was at 2K, but I'm not sure what if any of it was kept in the computer (remember, this was 1996 after all). There was no such thing as a DI, so the scans were printed back onto film and cut into the physical negative, maybe this is all there is to work with now.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

the reveal is significant and is meant to be a surprise. That is why they must be seen in the order 4,5,6,1,2,3.  And for that reason, there is no reason to hide the reveal in the prequels.

Furthermore, it would be impossible to hide the reveal... when Ben talks about Anakin being a good friend that he was tutoring, who ELSE could he be talking about?  He also says that Vader helped the empire destroy the Jedi. In ep.3 we watch Anakin do all those things, and then become Vader. You'd have to ditch pretty much all of ep.3.  Hmm, not a bad idea, now that I think of it.

 This is why it is not possible at all to have the reveal and also have episodic order. You should be watching them in release order for a whole bunch of other reasons, of course, but if you are wanting to have the prequels seen first and then the reveal still a surprise...well, you must be counting on the audience being a bunch of retards.

One scenario someone once suggested at TFN was that Kenobi had two apprentices or something, one that was good and one that was bad, and Vader kills the good one, and so all along the audience thinks Luke is the surviving offspring of the good one and that is who Ben is talking about (i.e. he really was betrayed and murdered by Vader), until ESB throws a curve ball and we find out Ben was really lying the whole time. This is kinda neat, but highly convoluted, and it still doesn't address the other issues of release-versus-episodic order, and it doesn't really change the current situation since the prequels were not done like this.

Tobar said:

Let's have him bring back Smell-O-Vision while we're at it. I respect your scholarly work in the Secret History but the idea that abandoning the 24 FPS standard would be a positive change for the film industry is lunacy.

 I notice you've still not stated any actual reason for this thought.

Every shot except one was treated inside the computer for Ep1. So, even so it wasn't a DI in the traditional sense, it was still a digital finish, they just didn't have the technology to output it at the time. They probably had to do some mild colour timing, but whatever the case, this has existed since at least last year according to reports.

That seems a weak excuse. Black and white was iconic when Technicolor came out in the mid-1930s and when Kodachrome came out in the 1950s, but I'm sure you are in favour of Jackson shooting in colour. Silent was iconic in 1928 when sound came out, but I'm sure you are also in favour of him shooting with audio; for that matter, mono, and then stereo, was iconic when DD 5.1 came out in the early 1990s, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to see The Hobbit with one single speaker (or two) at the front of the theatre. And on and on. Whenever a new form comes out in cinema people protest it, because they don't like stuff they aren't used to--lots of people hated sound and then colour, felt it was robbing cinema of its art. To me it's exciting when filmmakers innovate and experiment and show us things in ways we've never seen (or heard) them before. That was, after all, one of the main draws of Star Wars itself.

Personally, I like 3D, I don't have a huge problem with digital these days as long as it is done right, and I'm all for the idea of shooting 48 FPS. In 30 years from now, I am fairly confident this will be how most major motion pictures are shot, as costs come down and computing speeds increase. It's been the trajectory we have been on since the early 1990s. Even consumer camera will probably be like that, and we'll look back at those blurry, flat films from decades earlier, just like people in the 1960s looked back at those black and white silent films.

None of those were shot on 48 FPS. They were shot at 24p, or 24 frames per second, the exact same thing as the projected speed of film.

48 FPS better approximates human eyesight. The rate of 24 frames per second for film was arbitrarily chosen. Early films were anywhere from 18-22 FPS, and many cameramen wanted it higher than 24 FPS (in fact, I think there might have been some early high-speed experiments), but to do so would be very expensive so they compromised for cost. The only reason we ended up with a standard as low as 24 FPS was because studios didn't want to pay more money for more film stock and lab fees. It has nothing to do with aesthetics; it's just what we're used to seeing in movies.

Alexrd said:

I have to give the trailer a small amount of credibility because it somehow has the "treated" TPM footage.

 That's a good point, however the "corrected" TPM footage has been seen for years now, case in point it was used in the SW Concert tour of 2010.

My theory? TPM was never "corrected", rather the previous transfers were simply "uncorrected". In other words, this is from the actual DI. It's been there since 1999--this is how it looked in theatres, and it came from a DI. The video transfer from this was messed up from the beginning, possibly because it came from a print or some non-negative source (it certainly looks a bit on the rough side). So, a couple years ago they finally made an HD transfer from the DI itself, seen in SW Concert in 2010 and debuting on home video in the BD in 2011.

This would be consistent with the theory that the trailer guys are just using whatever video material had been floating around for a couple years on-site, and that if the OT was being worked on it probably wouldn't have been in any shape to show by winter 2010. However, this is also consistent with the theory that there is no work being done period, because the only "new" correction--to TPM--was actually already done long ago. Incidentally, while SW Concert featured the authentic TPM colouring, the OT still contained the same basic colouring of the 2004 masters.

But why are we giving a shit about correct colours for the SE in the first place? I hope the SE gets correct colouring the day the OOT gets a correct transfer, so at least some of the SE gushers can understand what it's like to have to watch a crappy version of a film you love when it's very easy to do it right. Maybe if SE lovers and OOT lovers could unite against the LFL quality control they'll wake up and realize what happens when you screw over your supporters and your customers.

It's not an indication though, as far as I am concerned. It's meaningless. People are just latching onto it because its the only thing we have, but IMO it's a red herring that has been blown out of preportion for lack of any other tangible material (that dearth of material is possibly because there is no such final material available to show yet). But having said that, I do agree with the consensus that the problems won't be fixed, I'm just basing it on different criteria.

So, I'm calling this done, unless there are some major concerns anyone brings up after seeing the piece.

I experimented with some limited colour-correction in Womble just to see, but of course it was as bad as I feared. This was weird, because Womble real-time applies the correction when you watch it on the timeline in lossless quality, but when you export it re-renders it instead. Don't know what that is about.

So, having said that, can anyone recommend a good, easy way of colour-correcting with Womble in mind? I'm sure there must have been people here who have done this. I'm only going to be correcting about 25% of the new footage, maybe 2-3 minutes worth, usually around the transition shots if its inserted within an existing scene, as I don't think a full correction pass is necessary. Any suggestions?

EDIT

Nevermind. I was using an older Womble (4.-something). The newer (v.5 and beyond) uses a new encoder. The re-encoded footage isn't quite as good as the lossless original, but the difference is quite minimal. The results are very good. Hopefully have this up within the next 48 hours.

Trailers don't always represent the final colour grading. If they were fixing the colour issues, it's possible, maybe even likely, that the trailer from a year before its release would not feature this. So, personally, I'm not using that trailer as proof of anything, they probably just used whatever footage was onhand.

No doubt, the 2004 master is being used again, as in that particular scan. However, films usually get tweaked visually for BD compared to the same master on DVD--sometimes its just a matter of adding some DNR, sometimes its crushing the blacks a bit more, sometimes they do a better colour pass; depends on the film.

But, based on LFLs history of releasing crappy transfers, being okay with them, and re-releasing them year after year, I'm not betting on any significant new work for the OT transfers, although I do think the hues and levels might be slightly different--not corrected or better, but perhaps slightly different--just because each pressing and broadcast tweaks things ever so slightly. There's no need for DNR, since Lowry basically did that, and Lucas not only personally supervised the transfer but also has seen it screened a number of times since. I have to believe that if he actually noticed Luke had a green lightsaber or all the other issues that he would have pulled the release and issued a correction right there. So, either he's never noticed, or he's never cared, in either case we would be getting the same thing. That's my view, anyway.

doubleofive said:

zombie84 said:

No, he's right, the forest has been flipped. I was under the impression that the foreground trooper and the forest were shot live together in Guatamala, so they would have had to roto him out, flip the forest and composite him back in where he originally was (while adding a totally CG sky plate), which makes it seem extra unnecessary.

Does that make the lighting on the trooper come from the wrong direction?

 No, the lighting comes from the sky, which still has an upper-right source direction; technically, I guess the forest is lit reverse in the SE (pretty sure you can see this in the highlights if you scrutinize), but it's such a soft, vaguely-defined light that you wouldn't know it. In the SE the X-Wings look like they are lit from the left though, making them incorrect.

No, he's right, the forest has been flipped. I was under the impression that the foreground trooper and the forest were shot live together in Guatamala, so they would have had to roto him out, flip the forest and composite him back in where he originally was (while adding a totally CG sky plate), which makes it seem extra unnecessary.

Anchorhead said:

Monolithium said:

If the GOUT ever comes out on Blu-ray, I hope each disc has this warning before the films:

Warning: This film does not reflect the CREATOR'S Original Vision and should be viewed as a WORKPRINT ONLY.

Yeah, but which Original Vision? - 1974, 1977, 1981, 1984, 1995, 1997, 2004, 2006, 2011, 2013, 2014....

 

;-)

 You know, this is a really good point with regards to "original vision" arguments. Which "original" vision are people talking about? His original vision when he first started it? It was called Flash Gordon, and it eventually was released in 1980 from another director. Or how about his vision when he first wrote a story called The Star Wars? In that case, it's an outer space remake of Hidden Fortress. Or how about his first screenplay? That would be a combination of the two previous remakes, with Han as a green alien with gills, Luke Skywalker a 60-year old General, and Princess Leia a 14 year old girl, with a human General Darth Vader and an Emperor Cos Dashit. Or do they mean some arbitrary other screenplay down the line--perhaps the second or third drafts from 1975? Or do they mean his "original vision" at the time of the start of photography--well, that was released in 1977, faithful to the screenplay and with Lucas having final cut. Actually, scratch that, he re-wrote during filming--the "original vision" version would have to change the last name of Luke to Starkiller and have Ben Kenobi survive, thus necessitating removing his ghost from the sequels and explaining where he went after Episode IV. He'd have to overdub all mentions of "Skywalker" in the prequels and sequels as well, since that wasn't his original vision. And hmm, doesn't Vader have his helmet off in a conference scene in the shooting script, guess he wasn't all scared up from lava at that time, have to re-film ROTS' ending.

Ironically, the "vision" that 1997 and 2004 (and 2011/etc.) Special Editions represent are not "original" in any sort of pre-release sense. It's actually the complete opposite of original. If you want to see the film Lucas originally envisioned, you can't, because it was never made. If you want to see the film Lucas originally made, go watch the GOUT. This nonesense about an "original vision" Special Edition is total double-speak.

Yes. He lands as Batty dies and says "you've done a man's job sir. But are you sure you are a man? It's hard to tell whos who around here." Which in my cut then goes to him tossing the gun and continuing with "I guess you're through, huh?" in the theatrical version.

Harmy said:

So what is not listed stays the same as the international cut?

Contrary to my original plan in 2007, I used the 1992 Director's Cut as my A/V base. This was because the narration in this edit was from the unused sessions it sometimes conflicts with the theatrical narration (that, and most have heard, and disliked, the theatrical narration anyway), and the audio is better as a clean plate. Another reason is because, despite being the version that catapulted BR to popularity, the less-violent footage in the 1992 DC is now the least familiar to everyone since the most-viewed versions are the International cut (where it was re-discovered on video) and the Final Cut (which is now, and probably forever, what almost everyone watches when they see the film). So, unless noted the cutting follows the DC.

Well, I'm calling the rough cut complete. There are a few edits that I need to finesse a few frames and colour correction on a lot of the additions, plus the sound needs to have a final mix and then a 5.1 conversion, but otherwise this edit is pretty much completed. In a few days when I've done the audio and colour correction I'll upload a version of this as a beta in case there is useful feedback anyone can give for things that don't work or look/sound weird. What you will be seeing is listed below. The theatrical version being worked from is the 1992 Director's Cut. I've also not mentioned it, but none of the dailies had corresponding soundtracks, so in some cases I have had to add my own recordings while also cheating overlays from elsewhere in the film.

Complete List of Changes According to Scene:

-Opens with workprint (WP) Ladd company logo on white background.

-Titles: titles taken from WP, with audio re-edited so that the text syncs better with the visuals.

-Opening cityscape montage: taken from WP, with spinner radio chatter, no eyeball or Holden intercuts, and no push in on the window.

-Leon-Holden scene: has one alternate take plus two new angles for Leon's entrance, from the dailies. The rest of the scene is from the WP, with no music sting and an extra long shot of Holden's body.

-Deckard introduction: taken from alternate version with new narration.

-Flight to police station: has alternate take of Deckard eating noodles as he looks out the window, plus WP audio with Gaff speaking citi-speak. The shot of the geisha billboard is shorter by a few frames.

-Intro to police station: taken from the alternate scene, with new narration about Gaff.

-Intro to Bryant: removes one line as per WP editing.

-Video room: Features new introduction from alternate scene with new narration. Then continues with theatrical scene, with the replicant bios cut out.

-Holden in Hospital: This deleted scene then follows.

-Flight to Tyrell pyramid: taken from the alternate scene with new narration.

-Intro to Rachel: has an extra shot of a replicant owl and a shot of a replicant dog, from the dailies. One shot of Deckard has been trimmed by a few frames.

-Rachel's VK: taken from the alternate version with new narration. This continues into the theatrical version with Deckard and Tyrell's conversation.

-Flight from Tyrell pyramid: taken from the alternate scene with new narration.

-Leon's apartment: taken from alternate scene.

-Intro to Batty: taken from the alternate scene.

-Chew's Lab: has a new shot of Batty and Leon entering, from the dailies. Batty's last line is taken out, as per the WP editing.

-Drive to Deckard's apartment: taken from the alternate scene with new narration.

-Rachel and Deckard in the apartment: no change.

-Intro to Pris: taken from the alternate scene with new narration. Continues into the theatrical version of the end of the scene.

-Intro to Bradburry building: no change.

-Deckard and the Esper: Begins with the theatrical dolly across the piano photos but cuts before we see Deckard. No unicorn dream. The alternate scene with Deckard inspecting photographs and then working at the esper follows. The scene ends with the theatrical version where Deckard examins the photograph and the scale, with an extra line from the WP.

-Deckard at the noodle bar: this deleted scene then follows.

-Animoid row: taken from the alternate scene with new narration.

-Outside Taffy's bar: taken from the alternate scene new narration.

-Taffy's bar: alternate scene continues inside, but includes the dialogue scene between Deckard and Taffy. Then continues with alternate scene where Deckard phones Rachel, broken up with the dialogue exchange in the theatrical version.

-Deckard and the bartender: This deleted scene then follows.

-Deckard and Zhora: taken from the alternate scene with new narration and omitting all the dialogue. Rather than cutting to her death as the alternate scene does, it cuts from black to her chopping Deckard in the throat.

-Zhora chase: features one new shot of Deckard and two new crowd shots, from the dailies. A section of approximately ten seconds has been trimmed from the part where Deckard is riding the tram car.

-Zhora's death: taken from the alternate scene with new narration, up until the scene where Deckard buys a drink.

-Deckard and Bryant: no change.

-Deckard and Leon: new angle of Leon slapping the gun and a new shot of Rachel firing the gun, from the dailies. Omits Leon's reaction to being shot, but keeps the shot of him slumping to the ground.

-Deckard's apartment: begins with the scene of him washing, taken from alternate scene with new narration; this version omits the introductory section of Deckard drinking while Rachel cries. The theatrical version follows, with Rachel talking to him in the kitchen. The deleted scene of Rachel removing Deckard's shotglass then follows.

-Love scene: contains the extended footage from the deleted scene. Ends with an unused shot of the cityscape.

-Bryant and Gaff watching Deckard and Holden: this deleted scene then follows.

-Sebastian's apartment: contains a shot of Pris with mice, from the dailies. Cuts out the second shot of her looking at her makeup in the mirror.

-Batty joins Sebastian and Pris: no change.

-Elevator to Tyrell pyramid: taken from the alternate scene.

-Tyrell's death: New shot of Sebastian opening door, from the dailies. Features alternate line reading and less violence in the shorter director's cut.

-Batty in the elevator: taken from the deleted scene.

-Deckard stakes out Bradburry building: taken from the alternate scene with new narration.

-Deckard in the Bradburry: new long tracking shot from the second floor of Deckard entering, from the dailies. Snipped off about ten seconds from his ascent up the stairs. WP temp music used in this part. New panning shot of Pris with mannequins.

-Deckard and Pris: Re-edits the shots after he kills her of him composing himself. New shot of Deckard wandering to the hallway, seeing Batty come out of the elevator and then retreat back inside. Dialogue of Batty taken from elsewhere in the film ("Deckard!"). Deletes one shot of Deckard running away.

-Deckard and Batty: scene of Batty pulling Deckard through the wall and breaking his fingers taken from WP; audio is from WP with temp music.

-Batty chases Deckard: has a longer shot of Batty howling after smearing Pris' blood on himself and a different angle as Deckard re-sets his broken fingers, both from the WP (some temp music). New shot of Deckard pulling at boards on windows, from the dailies. Deckard in the bathroom features shot of a mannequin in the bathtub with a shortened wide shot of him sitting on the tub's edge. Two shots deleted from before Batty puts the nail in; nail going in from the director's cut. Two new shots of Batty electrocuting himself, from the dailies, with a re-used shot of Deckard on the ledge breaking them up.

-The rooftop: snips one shot of Deckard on the roof. New shot of Batty emerging from the hole. Deckard hanging features slightly different editing and a new shot from the dailies. Batty catching Deckard's arm features slightly different shot order and a new angle from the dailies.

-Batty's death: first part from theatrical version, with the alternate version of the ending, with narration. Gaff's exchange with Deckard follows, from the theatrical version.

-Deckard finds Rachel: shortens the push-in on Rachel, similar to the WP.

-ride into the sunset: includes both alternate endings, beginning with the dialogue version and seguing into the montage version with new narration, which fades to black.

-end credits: no end credits.

There are a few changes I may make in the future. One is adding the shot of Deckard finding the photos in Leon's apartment; I think the film is fine with it implied, but I'm on the fence. I might also add an alternate take of Pris hitting the wall. The scenes don't need them and the reason I have held off is because some of the cutting and matching is tricky, but I might change my mind. There are also a couple dailies shots in the film that cut somewhat poorly, but I'm only going to take them out if there are comments about them. Right now I don't have end credits--I think the film works well without them, and I don't have opening credits either (other than Harrison Ford) so it doesn't seem so out of place. The WP has a "The End" card which I might use, but I have excluded it just for personal taste so far. Any of these changes could be in place by the time the beta is done in a couple days, or none of them; I'll update this list if need be.

On the final DVD, maybe a week or two after the beta is online, as an extra I might do a montage of every outtake from the dailies--there is footage for virtually every scene. The problem is most of it isn't useable in the edit itself, either because they simply don't cut with the footage available in the final film, or in the case of dialogue scenes because most of them don't have sound. But it would be neat to see them all in a row, like going through the Warners archives and looking through all the Blade Runner camera reels. Would be a pretty big job though but something I would like to try.

Your power is only as great as your connection. Thus, your ability to use the Force, your strength in the Force, is entirely dependant on the amount of midichlorians. There is effectively no difference between midichlorians and the Force itself, the point is you can use the Force because of the measureable amount of midichlorian cells. Yoda says "strong am I in the Force," but in TPM Kenobi remarks that "even Yoda doesn't have a midichlorian count [as] high [as Anakin]", which is significant in that his power is framed in terms of a measureable scientific report.

Yeah, at this point we know Lucas would never do a puppet, so a CGI replacement is as good as it gets; the ROTS model was pretty good, though like most other CG characters it was clearly a computer construct and not actually there. As much as I dislike the TPM Yoda, I can at least say it existed in the same space as the background and looked like it actually existed.

If I could pick one, it would be Star Wars. If I could pick two, it would be Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back. But how boring is that.

Well, this is what I list on my Facebook page:

 -SW Trilogy

-Alien

-Aliens

-Blade Runner

-Fight Club

-In the Mood For Love

-Chungking Express

-Dawn of the Dead

-28 Days Later

-Royal Tenenbaums

-The Conversation

-Neverending Story

-Taxi Driver

-Terminator

-Apocalypse Now

-Ravenous

-Gladiator

-Audition

-Rashomon

-Red Beard

-Last Life in the Universe

-Indy Trilogy

-Persona

-The Matrix

-Punch Drunk Love

-Amelie

-Evil Dead II

-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

-The Road Warrior

-Conan The Barbarian

-Ghost in the Shell

-Sunrise

Yeah. I don't think I could have a top 5 or a top 10. Maybe a top 20. I think you either have a favourite movie or you don't, and either way the runners up is a pretty long list.