logo Sign In

zombie84

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Nov-2005
Last activity
12-Jan-2024
Posts
3,557

Post History

Post
#318052
Topic
Oh yeah!!! Lucas...clueless as ever.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318052/action/topic#318052
Time
Mielr said:

see you auntie said:


Has this already been posted? I think its very appropriate to this topic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPzDjaA03ts


That's pretty funny- I especially like the part at the end. ;-)

Well, I hope Indy IV is a good film. We'll just have to wait and see for ourselves. I'm very glad that Karen Allen is in it. I really liked her in the first movie (much better than Kate Capshaw's whiney character) and it's too often that we see over-50 actresses go into retirement (forced or otherwise).

Is everybody pretty much planning to go see this on opening day?


That was absolutely hilarious. I had seen the one he did for Episode III and didn't think much of it but that was really well done! One can only hope that Indy IV won't suck. I think this (sadly) encapsulates the undercurrent of fear thats going with the anticipation--it could be great, but who the hell knows, George Lucas is still in charge!
Post
#318044
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318044/action/topic#318044
Time
The OOT prints exist! Of course they do! LFL did not destroy them. All Lucas said was that the original negative no longers exists. Because it doesn't--it wasn't physically destroyed, as in chucked in a furnace, it was just re-edited, so the negative now is in the edit configuration of the 1997 SE, thus technically you cannot go and make a new print without doing some work to put the O-neg back together the way it was. In any case, they have multiple Interpositives and Internegatives, plus reference prints, and Lucas himself owns a dye-transfer Technicolor print, which he lent to YCM labs as a reference for color since dye-transfer does not fade.

Anyway, my point was that its not necessary to re-edit the O-neg back to its 1977 form because everything is done digitally now anyway. The O-neg was already scanned in 2004, so 95% of the OOT is already in the computer from the original negatives, all you would need to do is get the missing pieces from storage and scan them and edit them into the DI. Which is my point that this is about two days of work with a pricetag of under ten thousand dollars to produce a DI of 1977 Star Wars taken from the original negatives, so cost is not the reason why it is being held back.
Post
#318043
Topic
Oh yeah!!! Lucas...clueless as ever.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318043/action/topic#318043
Time
Hey, Robert Plant's done some respectable solo stuff, just not big scale like Zeppelin, and the boys still play a tight show when they got back together.

But I get your point! :p

Also, I think the big problem is that Lucas honestly doesn't have much experience. Everyone has their prime--Kershner never made a good film after ESB, and look at what happened to Coppola--and certainly Lucas is past his, but they eventually do some good stuff if they keep at it. Coppola never could live up to his own legacy after Apocalypse Now, but he went on and made about ten more movies, and even though they aren't as good as his prime stuff, some of them are good, like Rumble Fish and Tucker, even Dracula has its moments. Kurosawa made 30 films, and I'd say about 10 of them suck. In 1977 he had made about three bombs in a row, but he kept at it and eventually he made three more films that are considered among his best--and then made another three that are considered among his worst. So directors have ups and downs. But Lucas never worked enough to have anything like this. THX 1138 was cool and unique, he totally got lucky with Graffiti, and then he made Star Wars. But when you don't work for 20 years--how can you expect to keep your skill? Filmmaking is not like baseball or painting, you can't practice at home in your spare time, and even though Lucas did a bit of second unit stuff on ROTJ and Young Indy, doing two stints of shooting little dink second unit material is not the same as directing a film. Its really not that surprising that he didn't have a grasp on what he was doing when he came back, and because he's only directed 6 films half of his entire career went down the toilet. Its like a baseball player playing only six games, sure he might hit nothig but homeruns for the first three, but then he can just as easily strike out three games in a row--especially if he plays 3 games, retires for twenty years, and then plays three more. Plus, Lucas has never really liked directing anyway, in fact he hates it but its a necessary process, so theres no enthusiasm for the process of making the picture. Its kind of inevitable that he would end up with the reputation he has now.
Post
#318015
Topic
Oh yeah!!! Lucas...clueless as ever.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318015/action/topic#318015
Time
thecolorsblend2 said:

I haven’t even told Steven or Harrison this," he said. "But I have an idea to make Shia [LeBeouf] the lead character next time and have Harrison [Ford] come back like Sean Connery did in the last movie. I can see it working out.

That's actually been my worst nightmare for the Indie franchise. Continue it with Harrison or else drop it but don't let some other character take over.


Indeed. But then--it wouldn't really be Indiana Jones, would it? I mean without Indy...uh, its not Indy. I would't worry all that much, I'm not sure if Lucas would have the energy to put together another film anyway, I mean it took him a decade just to make Indy IV.
Post
#318014
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318014/action/topic#318014
Time
Fang Zei said:

zombie84 said:

Thing is, it was never expensive to begin with. In fact, restoring it from the original negative might actually be cheaper since 95% of that has already been digitized in 2004. Just scan the missing pieces--what, maybe 300, 400 feet of film? So thats under $1000 dollars. A little bit of digital cleanup to get rid of a few of the scratches, and then the standard telecine color correction--the labor charges for these things are a few grand, I would suppose. So really, we could have a digitally remastered, restored version of the OOT made from the original negative for a few thousand dollars. If everyone in this forum chipped in five bucks we could pay for it ourselves. Cost has never really been a factor.


I'd prefer a well-preserved print from the 80's. Failing that, I'd prefer the Robert A Harris route. Meticulously de-SEing the movies, while a noble effort, will never really be 100% true to the original conformation.


It wouldn't be "de-SE'ing" an SE print it WOULD BE the actual original version! Why would you want a second-generation (at best) reconstruction when LFL already has the actual negative, already restored and digitized? All that remains is a few hundred feet of the original FX shots, so to dig those up and scan them--through a proper transfer house--would be less than a thousand dollars; ILM actually probably has its own laser scanner, so potentially it could be as cheap as the hundred bucks it would take to pay an employee to run the machine.
Post
#317989
Topic
Star Wars - The Vintage Edit (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317989/action/topic#317989
Time
Personally, I don't think the GOUT needs more saturation at all. In fact, I would say it looks like it already has had contrast and saturation tweaking.

I was going to recommend using Adywan's source. However, I don't think its entirely accurate, to me it seems like there are instances where he took some libertys, for instance in Luke and Obi Wan's first encounter the rocks are a bit too white. IMO, the GOUT is actually the most reliable source of color information available. The one good thing abut Adywan's cut is that he got the starfields and the laser blasts and engine glows right, because the SE totally desaturated them but the GOUT has jaggies, so Adywan's cut is probably the most reliable source for those elements.

Adding grain is an interesting idea, and it would certainly help smooth over the Laserdisk patches. You have to be really careful though, not only in amount, but because fake grain doesn't look the same as real grain, its not just a "mask" thats dropped over the image like digital grain, its actually part of the image itself and changes and fluxuates depending on the exposure and levels. Maybe I'm just a stickler for these types of photographic things. Anyway, there is grain as part of the SE image if you look at it, not much is needed to be added because those are from the original negatives with digitized comp-shots, a lot of the grain we are used to seeing is just dupe grain and would not be there if we were to go back to the original negatives. But its true that Lowry minimized some of the natural emulsion grain.
Post
#317980
Topic
Robert Harris Godfather Restoration WHY cannot lucas restore the oot ?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317980/action/topic#317980
Time
Well the opening sequence kind of frames things in terms of adventure serials, so when it returns to it in the latter half of the film its not out of place. And then it still pauses for a breather with that TERRIFIC scene of Indy and Marion on the ocean liner. You know, just some character bits for ten or 15 minutes. And even then it never really gets back to the "serial" formula, I mean Indy threatening to blow up the ark is just his character, and theres no serial precident for what happens at the end, it just Spielberg comic-book craziness.
Post
#317939
Topic
blowing up things SW style
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317939/action/topic#317939
Time
Technically, there were more SW models in Episode I than in any of the OT, but you're right, the explosions are all CG. I know they filmed models of the N-1 Naboo starfighters blowing up because I've seen videos of it, but in the final film I'm pretty sure they used CG explsions for all, or at least almost all. Beyond that, there really isn't any examples in the PT of dogfights where ships explode--the land battles used some real pyro elements, but they are comped in totally CG landscapes and totally CG vehicles, so it doesn't look like real elements anyway. The ROTS opening spacefight, as far as I am aware, was a 100% CG affair.
Post
#317936
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317936/action/topic#317936
Time
DarkGryphon2048 said:

Typical Star Wars fan-pessimism. Shove it up your ass and twist on it. So very irritating to always having to hear about your bitching and moaning about this shit.


Is typical Star Wars fan unnecessary-hostility really any better?

Personally, I can't blame certain people for being pessimistic, I mean they gave Lucas the benefit of the doubt three times in the last nine years, and each time he failed to deliver. But I don't think theres reason to be pessimistic because this is really Spielberg's film, and he does not make movies like Attack of the Clones so theres not going to be "I hate sand" scenes, especially with David Koep at the typewriter.
Post
#317922
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317922/action/topic#317922
Time
Thing is, it was never expensive to begin with. In fact, restoring it from the original negative might actually be cheaper since 95% of that has already been digitized in 2004. Just scan the missing pieces--what, maybe 300, 400 feet of film? So thats under $1000 dollars. A little bit of digital cleanup to get rid of a few of the scratches, and then the standard telecine color correction--the labor charges for these things are a few grand, I would suppose. So really, we could have a digitally remastered, restored version of the OOT made from the original negative for a few thousand dollars. If everyone in this forum chipped in five bucks we could pay for it ourselves. Cost has never really been a factor.
Post
#317895
Topic
Robert Harris Godfather Restoration WHY cannot lucas restore the oot ?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317895/action/topic#317895
Time
Regarding the new Lawrence of Arabia:

You will be pleased to know it has the CORRECT Superbit transfer on disk 1, plus all the original bonus disk extras. So its finally the way it should be. Unfortunately I already bought the Superbit long ago and I'm not going to buy something twice when it should have been done in the first placce--though I should commend Columbia for rectifying things, unlike many other companies.

As for the original Raiders script--how can you say "thats not Indy"? That IS Indy! Rather, it was the sequels that went off. Raiders of the Lost Ark--much like the original Star Wars--is only VAGUELY like the serials, its more like a Humphry Bogart adventure for most of its running time, like Treasure of Sierra Madre and Casablanca, and that was certainly what Lawrence Kasdan was trying to create. Spielberg and Lucas made things faster and more action oriented in the later sections but the film is still faithful to Kasdan's original conception. By the time we got to Last Crusade it had drifted and evolved into its own thing.
Post
#317891
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317891/action/topic#317891
Time
The color was fine. I mean every telecine has its flaws--sometimes the skin tones are a bit off, or sometimes theres too much contrast, or its too dark or too light. Aside from nit-picking details, the coloring of the Indy set was great. It wasn't that dark, because the VHS versions were much too light if thats what you are comparing it to, and I didn't think there was any color-shifting. The skin-tones I felt were occassionally a bit on the red side, but not alarmingly so, and it could very well be the way it was photographed. I thought the set was extremely faithful to the original photography (barring those one or two touch ups).
Post
#317811
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317811/action/topic#317811
Time
Opinion seems to be the new extras are thin but pretty cool all the same (they are only 30 minutes each for each film) but if you have the previous set theres no need to buy this. The extras are really just a bonus for those that don't have the films or want one or two of them individually. Theres no doubt going to be a 4-film set this christmas, so maybe then we'll get all the extras from both sets plus some new material.
Post
#317741
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317741/action/topic#317741
Time
Thats very interesting. Reading the thread though, it seems like its mostly one or two people saying its new, and then an equal amount saying its not, thats its just cleaner.

" just did a side by side comparison with Raiders playing on my tivo, and my dvd of raiders playing on my pc :P. I can't really tell if it is CG or not....I can tell it definately looks better on the USA version. I don't know if it is CG, or if they just cleared it up real well, but it looks more real, like the truck is really in the scene in the USA version, rather than added in later."

One explanation is that it was just re-comped. I don't believe the DVD version had any special enhancement done, and that shot is always been one of the dodgier composites. If they went back to the original elements and digitally recomposited it, the truck would blend in and look seamless, and the whole shot would be much cleaner as it has some grain in the original version. This might give it a "CG" look when it just goes by and you are not expecting it. But then some people are saying its a whole new shot. I just saw Raiders on TV last week, not on USA, but it was a 16x9 letterbox in HD--which may very well be the same transfer USA got. I didn't watch up to the truck shot, but what I did notice is that this new 16x9 aspect ration version had custom panning and scanning, so shots looked different often, even though they weren't. Either one of these, or a combination of both, could possibly explain it. To me it just seems out of place to do one single CG shot.
Post
#317708
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317708/action/topic#317708
Time
Are people still stalking about that Marcia Lucas thing? Guys, come on, the stench of bullshit is so strong I can smell it over the internet.

Actually, its interesting though--Lucas' aquiring of the original film was never reported. Not in press releases, AFAIK, and not in any LFL books released since. It was very quiet, almost secretive. And it happened right around the time Fox got the deal to distribute the PT. Because Lucas didn't have to go with Fox, he was free to take SW to Warner or whomever, but he chose Fox--and then mysteriously was the new owner of Star Wars. My theory is that it was part of the deal--you can distribute the PT, sure to be the most lucrative trilogy of all time, but only if you give me ownership of the original film. And Fox couldn't resist. Lucas is a very brilliant businessman.
Post
#317668
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317668/action/topic#317668
Time
I actually love the idea of a Greaser biker character, fits with the era of the movie, its fun but also kind of hip, and with LaBeuf in the role that gives me confidence that they won't make it too cool, that they will be able to make it lighter and more human, maybe like Paul La Mat's character in American Graffiti (for instance, if they had Orlando Bloom in the role, I'd be worried that it'd be too image-conscious). And it makes for a good contrast like in Last Crusade, I can imagine cranky old Indy not exactly fitting in with a wanna-be-hipster.
Post
#317653
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317653/action/topic#317653
Time
You mean these one?

generalfrevious said:

Consider these questions:
Did Lucas even read Joseph Campbell, or even heard of him before the PT?
Is the SW saga supposed to be a modern mythology, or just some homage to cheesy 30's serials?
Did you know that the first star wars was based on the Akira Kurosawa film The Hidden Fortress?
Did Lucas think of anything from the PT before 1990?
Why Darth Vader's name means 'father" in Dutch, even though Vader wasn't established as Luke's father until 1978?


I really don't see how they have anything to do with the discussion here. But:
-yes
-both
-thats pretty well known
-yes
-coincidence
Post
#317630
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317630/action/topic#317630
Time
BaronLando, that was directed at Fang Zei, not you.

Fang Zei, you just proved my point though. You have the SE. You read all the hype in 2004 with the features and commentary's and such--how do you think the much-anticipated Blu Ray set will be? The one with "hundreds" of hours of documentaries, (according to McCallum), possibly all the deleted scenes we wanted, new features, exlcusive Blu-Ray frills like PIP video features, and the first-ever six-film Saga collection? Thats aside from what the main selling point is--fricking STAR WARS in high-definition! It'll be huge, and hyped to death, and everyone that has Blu-Ray will get it. And it doesn't need the OOT at all. If Lucas wants to smooth over fan relations or whatever reason, then it could be included, but it doesn't seem like he is eager to do that. In fact, with it being the first-ever "Saga" collection, where you finally get Episode I-VI in a single piece, it might be more important than ever to deny the original versions.

It sucks, but what can we do? Put up with it or just learn to like what we have, I guess.
Post
#317624
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/317624/action/topic#317624
Time
I would even disagee with "95% of fans prefer the OOT", I don't think thats even close to being accurate, I would say only about 50% of the fans prefer the OOT because 95% of younger fans like the SE and prequels, and this is LFL's primary demographic right now, that under-20 years old crowd, the one that loves Spiderman 3 and Iron Man and The Matrix. Its sad, but being here, or being amongst friends in the over-20-years-old bracket gives you a warped perspective, just as young fans who only knew the PT-SE and think no one likes the older versions have a warped perspective. So when its just the SE on video, theres backlash but its not huge, and at the end of the day, 95% of the people who DID complain--like, lets face it, most of us, the oldest of oldschool--still buy it.

Who here doesn't have the Lucasfilm DVD's? Maybe 10%? And we are the most stubborn, self-rightous group of fans there is. That says a lot. We'll buy the SE because its still Star Wars, just like most of us will buy the SE on Blu Ray when thats the only version sold and just like most of us will see the SE in theaters in 3D when it comes out in a few years.