zombie84

Both versions of The Room aren't available, just the standard one. I could be mistaken, but I think the actual movie itself uses footage from both formats depending on which version Wiseau thought looked best. I could be wrong about that, but I remember someone telling me that. I'm not sure if they filmed both 35mm and HD simultaneously, or if they actually shot two distinct versions of each scene.

The Room was shot twice, with HD and 35mm, because Tommy Wiseau didn't understand the difference.

Also IMAX is larger than 70mm. That's part of the reason the format no longer exists. It's technically inferior.

It's the same mix, they just corrected a couple errors in effects placement, IIRC. There was a shot where the X-wings are diving and the music dropped out, which has been corrected. I think the swapped channels are still there though, and the levels and everything are all the same. So, technically, it's not the same mix, but in terms of the discussion with regards to correcting the mix it hasn't been fixed, overall. The only way to fix it would be to re-do it all over again. Something like a missing music channel for one moment you can just add that back in, but it's a whole new thing to actually go back to the mix itself and re-balance the whole film. As far as Lucas and the mixers themselves are concerned, that's how the films are supposed to sound.

pat man said:

zombie84 said:

The thing is that a lot of the SE changes were made in 2004. That means they are hardwired right into the Lowry transfer, so to speak. That was one reason why they re-used the transfer for the blu-ray, and I am guessing the 3D releases as well. There basically is no more "negative" of the SE, it's all digital now because the 2004 changes were never put on film in the first place.

When it comes to an eventual OOT release, I predict they will either use an early generation archival print master and restore it, or base it off the negative. Obviously there will be a lot of challenges with using negative because so much of it is the SE; they'd have to fill in the holes using another source and then somehow match them together. Personally, I don't trust them to do it right. A lot of the SE changes are so subtle that they might overlook them or just leave them in. Stuff like the re-comps. They might not see the point. That's why I hope they just go get the best non-o-neg print that exists and clean it up, the negative has just been too reworked. That might be seen as lazy by some, and creating a poor quality scan by others, so I'm not sure what they will actually do. Probably they will use the negative and fill in the holes, but probably they will accidentally leave some changes in the film. The amount of work they will do will depend on how big of an 'event' they want to make the release.

  Yes most of the changes was in 2004/2011, but can't they use the 2004/2011 files as a reference for the changes (Apart form the color, crush blacks) and audio form the 6.1 blu-ray (not from the 2004 DVD and the No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!)?

Are you talking about using the raw scan from 2004, before it was further altered, as the basis for an OOT release? Because what they scanned was the negative, which basically exists in the state of the 1997 Special Edition. When it comes to the Special Edition, what you see today is what you will always get. It was always be 1920x1080 lines of resolution with the sound and colour all weird. That's how George Lucas wanted it, and since he no longer owns the film he's not in a position to "correct" it--nor would he be even if he did own it since nothing is in need of correcting, in his mind. But even if he had a second opinion it would be a lot of work for him to come back and re-tinker, and I think just mentally he's said his goodbyes and let the films go. Disney won't be deliberately tinkering with the SE--nor should they be.

The thing is that a lot of the SE changes were made in 2004. That means they are hardwired right into the Lowry transfer, so to speak. That was one reason why they re-used the transfer for the blu-ray, and I am guessing the 3D releases as well. There basically is no more "negative" of the SE, it's all digital now because the 2004 changes were never put on film in the first place.

When it comes to an eventual OOT release, I predict they will either use an early generation archival print master and restore it, or base it off the negative. Obviously there will be a lot of challenges with using negative because so much of it is the SE; they'd have to fill in the holes using another source and then somehow match them together. Personally, I don't trust them to do it right. A lot of the SE changes are so subtle that they might overlook them or just leave them in. Stuff like the re-comps. They might not see the point. That's why I hope they just go get the best non-o-neg print that exists and clean it up, the negative has just been too reworked. That might be seen as lazy by some, and creating a poor quality scan by others, so I'm not sure what they will actually do. Probably they will use the negative and fill in the holes, but probably they will accidentally leave some changes in the film. The amount of work they will do will depend on how big of an 'event' they want to make the release.

Crime Zone (1988)

A low budget David Carradine film produced by Roger Corman. Blade Runner meets The Terminator meets 1984. Hilariously bad. Highly recommended with friends and drinks. At one point a woman kicked open a door with a machine gun, back-lighted with blue light while wearing leather with synth score, and shouted "show me your dick!!" and the VCR actually broke. We were watching it on a VHS. But we burst out laughing so much that it took us almost 15 minutes to retrieve the VHS tape with knives and pens and repair the mangled tape. It will probably never play right again. But man was it worth it.

Ip Man (2008)

Me and my friend tried to watch Enter the Dragon after the masterpiece of Crime Zone, but it was a cantonese dub. Mildly dismayed, we checked out Netflix. No Enter the Dragon right now, surprisingly. But they did have a semi-biographical film about Bruce Lee's master. I said, "meh." My friend replied it starred a guy named Donnie Yen. That immediately had my attention and I informed him that we better watch this thing. It was incredible. Great fights, but a really interesting story, and Donnie Yen gives a great performance as usual. If you want a good kung fu film that isn't too over the top but just exagerated enough, this is for you. A really surprisingly good movie. It's more of a period film than a martial arts film, but however you classify it it's pretty well made. A very interesting story about how a humble chinese guy in the 1940s invented his own martial arts school without really meaning to.

It's amusing how some people are so openly hostile about 48 frames, like it raped their moms or something. I don't get it. Personally, I would be glad if I never saw a 24FPS film again.

This is coming from a guy who carries a piece of super-16mm negative in his wallet. It was the first piece of film I shot, because I was in the camera union, the International Cinematographer's Guild, and film was so, so special, it was my life. I found the negative of that film in the trim bin of the editing room, back when we still shot, cut and finished on film--I had to break into the editing room to do so, but it was literally garbage so no one cared. I was a film guy, and prided myself on being an expert on film, not this video crap. That piece of negative has been with me for a decade now, even if its all scratched up and has beer stains on it by now. I also stole some other trims and short ends and things, but if you open up my wallet right now you will find that 10 frame length of 16mm film. It's my good luck charm. I felt that I was really lucky in the film industry, and in life, so I kept it with me all these years, and the only time that piece of film will end up in the garbage is when I am dead.

And so given all those variables it's not a flippant remark when I say this. It's actually something that I never thought I'd be saying in 2006. But fuck film. It's dead. And thank god.

That would certainly clear the way to avoid having overlapping releases. I would prefer a 1997 type scenario myself when I could see each film one month after another. They could make a Christmas 2014 3D boxset if they put them in theaters early in the year. It would be a lot of work to convert them all at once, but with Disney at the helm they could literally throw money at the projects until they were done in time. That's one huge advantage of having Lucasfilm financed by one of the largest multi-national corporations in the world: there really aren't any resources to be tied up anymore.

The 3D releases are slated to end in 2016. If they are following the current pattern, Jedi will be out in January or February 2016. That would mean that a 3D boxset could be released in November 2016 for the Christmas season. They would have to do something special for the 40th anniversary and I'm not sure if a 3D boxset would be a big enough thing. Very few people own 3D televisions, and growth will be slow. I would see the 3D films in the theater because it's only an extra few bucks, but I'm not going to buy a 3D player and a 3D tv just to have Episode I in that format. A 3D box set won't be a big seller.

When it comes to Star Wars, Lucasfilm doesn't have to milk the franchise in the same way they used to. Before, they were mainly dealing with 3 popular films and 3 semi-popular films, so all material had to be spun off from there. It's hard having such a big company with so little product. Now the solution is easy: they will just make more movies, and television shows. They don't have to rely on milking 6 movies over and over because when they've gotten all they need from them they will just move on and make more films, and therefore more product. Which is exactly what they are doing. A new trilogy to start, and then more movies after that. It will be like Star Trek, for better or worse.

That's why I don't think they will make the original versions a huge waiting game. With the 40th anniversary interest in the original film will be enormous again. It would be hard to come up with a reason to postpone it. I guess we'll see.

I predict Disney will release them on the 40th anniversary in 2017. As far as anyone has indicated there isn't some special contract thing where they are forbidden to release the originals. Even Lucas, a year or two ago, said something about schedules and budgets holding a re-release up--which is absurd of course, but in hindsight maybe he was already thinking about selling the series and simply wanted someone else to pay and deal with it.

The only thing I can think of holding up a 2017 release is the Fox deal. I'm not sure how future home video deals will be, but Fox's distribution rights will lapse in 2020 but for A New Hope I think they might own the rights in perpetuity (is that the word?). There's some confusion on that status. It would make things like a box set potentially a bit complex, legally. But Disney knows that will happen, no matter what, so I'm sure they'll work out something, if they haven't already.

So, that's my prediction. 2017. It would dovetail with the 3D releases, since they will end in 2016. But I wouldn't stop working as though we know that might happen, as it could easily not. But with Lucas out of the way it will definitely be soon. He sold the films entirely so I guess he doesn't really care anymore. That also means no more SE updates. I guess Disney could do one themselves but the only time I can think of a company making an updated version of the film without the director (or the directors notes) is Night of the Living Dead, and that totally backfired (and sucked).

Also, I think Disney will follow Lucasfilm's lead when it comes to fan projects. The Star Wars machine is simply too big to stop now and Disney has been pretty relaxed when it comes to Marvel fan projects.

The problem is that all footage of the original plate comes from 1980s and 1990s videotapes, and even then it is only part of the scene and sometimes not widescreen. Making a really good stop-motion insert would probably be seen as far too much work for such a low-quality final product. The option of rotoscoping over the CG model would probably be a better option, though you'd still have the problem of making sure the new model totally covered up the old one which could get tricky at times.

Was it the TPM Jabba? It certainly doesn't look like it. I have always tended to prefer the 1997 model, and maybe it is because of the animation like you said.

Star Wars Purist said:

I became a purist when my friend got the shiny new silver box DVD version of the Star Wars Trilogy I grew up to love (I grew up on the '95 Faces VHS set mind you) and he told me I had to get it since DVD was so much better and clearer. etc. I got the set for Christmas 2004. The box looked so cool and I thought this was going to be the greatest movie going experience of a lifetime...higher definition Star Wars...movies I hadn't even seen in a few years...on the big screen. I watched the original film...it seemed okay, mostly, at first although I didn't really care for the Mos Eisley scene or when Han killed "that alien". It was weird...because I remembered liking these scenes as a little kid. Huh. I didn't know what to think. Maybe I was just growing up.  Later the next night, I got impatient and wanted to see "The ghost of Luke's father" at the end of Return of the Jedi (because I had forgotten what he liked like)...I watched it...and...

...He wasn't Hayden Christensen. He couldn't have been more than a little kid in 1983. And...and I remembered...the ghost was old, regal, and kindly. Not the star of the as of yet un made 3rd prequel. 

...The music wasn't the same. It wasn't so happy. And...it didn't just end with the core guys all together...it ended with all these planets some prequel stuff. 

I went on the Internet to look this up...I first thought the changes were only to ROTJ. So I avoided the DVD of that. 

Then a year later I read more about all the changes. 

I found my 95 VHS set and watched them and I loved the Mos Eisley seen again and didn't groan because of the horrible CGI Jabba or the cgi jar jar rats or the dewback obscuring the iconic mind trick scene. I forgot how much I loved it. 

And when I was done...

...I saw Sebastian Shaw smiling at me, as it should be. 

I never went back to the SEs...and I NEVER will. 

This is a really good post that better approximates what its like for casual fans. Re-read this.

Tyrphanax said:

Bingowings said:

BmB said:

All I know is he was incredibly annoying kiss-ass to listen to in the prequel special features and commentaries.

I found Joe Letteri defending the dried banana turd CGI Jabba much more annoying personally.

JOE LETTERI: We wanted people to think there was a giant banana turd on set with Harrison Ford and we just photographed him stepping in it.

Yeah, that was pretty egregious.

I think you guys are forgetting that, in 1996, to insert CG like that into unseen 1976 footage was pretty impressive, and looked real(-ish) to us. Almost no one was bashing the CG quality of Jabba in 1997; it hasn't aged well, in the same way that all CG from 1997 hasn't, nor have many early 3D video games like 1996's Resident Evil (one of my favourite games of all time that I routinely play every so often). But for the time, it was for sure a proud moment in ILM history.

Well, keep in mind I don't know that much about TNG behind-the-scenes. This is what I know:

Seasons 1-2 aren't so great. Roddenberry is alive.

Roddenberry dies. Season 3 is an improvement.

Someone else takes over. The series takes off for three or four more years, or whatever it was.

As the creator of all this I love him, it just always seemed to me that once he died, TNG stopped being dissapointing and started matching TOS. But based on what you are saying it seems more coincidental. Or we have different views on the series; IMO, like Seinfeld the series got better the longer it went on, although people like early Seinfeld too, and I have to preface that with the fact that I haven't studied them season-to-season like TOS, they bleed together a bit more because there were so many seasons. So I can't say if season 5 was better than 4, I just know that there was a noticeable change of quality around 1991 or 1992, right around when Gene Roddenberry died.

DominicCobb said:

The Dark Knight Rises (2012) 10/10 - Finally got a chance to watch this Blu-ray Christmas gift of mine, and, you know what? Still awesome. With all the criticism going around, I keep expecting myself to like it less each time I re-watch, but quite the opposite happens. Still my favorite this year.

Me too.

I loved it, and then I thought about it. And then I realized all the holes, and how some of the criticism was right. So I watched it again.

None of that meant squat. You know, in Star Wars, how Princess Leia says she knows the Falcon is being tracked yet still flies to the Rebel base, which leads the Death Star to there? Well, stuff like that. The sign of a good movie is when it surpasses some pretty clear flaws just on the basis of being entertaining, and I feel like pretty much every movie Chris Nolan has made is like that.

I bought the Neo Geo X Gold. The first new system I buy (on launch month no less) since 1996 and it's a retro throwback. I guess I'm just one of those guys.

Will let you know if it's awesome or junk. I'm curious to see if they will actually develop new games for it or if it's just going to be endless ports.

SilverWook said:

I always thought "All Good Things" would have made a great movie. As some remastered TNG episodes have been getting theatrical screenings, maybe I'll get my wish.

I agree, I still have my VHS tape from when it first aired, with a making-of special, and it's a better send off than any of the TNG movies save for First Contact.

Final Frontier I will agree has all the markings of a classic Trek story, and it's not nearly as bad as people say. It just has some major flaws. But I never understood the venom thrown at it; in fact, I would say TMP and Insurrection are the worst Trek films, and even those are pretty watchable in my opinion. Voyage Home is "dated" in certain respects, but it's a 1987 time travel story so those "dated" elements actually enhance the authenticity of it. I think that's why it continues to hold up. At first it was current. But as soon as it ceased to be current it started to become retro, which dovetails with the storyline pretty nicely.

TV's Frink said:

That gif is the best thing in this thread.

 

Anyway, I liked First Contact, but on par with Kahn?  Child, please.

Not on par--although very close, in my opinion--but equivalent in terms of a really lame first film followed by a really kick-ass second film that re-kindled faith in the series and showed what could be possible. Search For Spock gets crictism as the odd-numbered entry, but really the only problem it has is that it isn't Wrath of Kahn or Voyage Home. It's a pretty good movie, surrounded by great movies. Too bad Insurrection was even more average than Generations. You'd think after the success of First Contact they'd put more thought and money into the follow-up than the two-hour TNG episode that Insurrection is.

SilverWook said:

Interesting, but a bunch of old movie serials had that sort of text crawl.

I'm more interested in the "Far far away in a distant galaxy" part, which you can practically hear complete itself with "an incredible adventure took place," which was the original opening. If you've seen the teaser poster and the teaser trailer, some of the wording is very reminiscent of this ad, and the layout and font is very similar to early promotional material.

I thought Zahn did just fine with the character growth, especially with Han. He introduced him struggling to take on his new role as a diplomat and husband, trying to reconcile his now "adult" responsibilities with the devil-may-care smuggler persona of the past. Leia was written a bit weaker but she still has grown a lot as a character, where we see her actually acting as a politician while trying to learn about the Force and her new responsibilities as a mother. These are very different characters than who we left off with in the OT--yet it's perfectly believable that in 5 years after ROTJ, those characters would grow up to become these people. I wouldn't say there is as much of an "arc" like in the OT, but it's pretty unfair to say that Zahn didn't handle character growth and character change--he did it better than any other EU writer I have come across.

BTW, who here saw the intro with The Hobbit? How awesome was that? We all wanted the movie to continue! Luckily The Hobbit was a worthy successor. The 3D effects in ST made everyone in the audience duck, with all those spears flying in our faces. Loved it. I regret seeing the first film once, and this so far looks to one-up it in every way.

LOL fair enough. The slow-motion wrestling moves took up enough screen time to kill any hope at romance.

I don't understand this anti-Abrams thing. Have you guys seen TOS?? Really?? It was a fucking action adventure series with romance and humour. TNG was when we started having slow-paced episodes with philosophical discussions at conference tables. TOS had that element, but it was mixed in with a plot where spaceships were shooting each other and Kirk was uppercutting an alien lizard after flirting with whatever female was in that episode. TOS was a mainstream action television series and that's why it took off. I would say Abrams films take place along side the Nicholas Meyers films as the most faithful Star Trek movies made. Whoever says otherwise has either a short memory or has been too influenced by TNG (which I love) and the post-TNG series (which I don't love). I love TOS and Abrams has hit the nail on the head better than Meyers, who was dealing with an older cast who had the ability to reflect philosophically on their life, unlike the younger, more rip-roaring years of the 1960s show. In my opinion, anyone who hates the Abrams series was into TOS for the wrong reasons in the first place. Get lost so we can get back to Star Trek at its roots and at its best. Seriously, some Trekkies are pretty clueless. I have this suspicion that they say they know TOS but really don't, otherwise they wouldn't be saying such blatantly contradictory things. They would probably be saying ST IV was a disgrace with its humour and unrealistic time travel. If you think that, you shouldn't be watching ST TOS movies.

SilverWook said:

I am wondering how 48fps will look with a 2D film now.

That would be an interesting test. I'm not sure I would accept it. It's hard to picture one without the other.