|
This is a little  but if you want hd quality versions of Star Wars that mostly follow what happens in the 70's and 80's theatrical releases without added crap like Greedo shooting first or completely changing the big Jizz song (that's the actual name of a genre of music in Star Wars, wookiepedia it) try and shake down the "DeSpecialized" editions of the films.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
Samuel L. ACKSYN posted:They are on laserdisc too, which is probably the best choice if your other options are VHS and VCD. I have this version: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:This is a little Jizz music http://youtu.be/ORD7KAgi8h0
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
therattle posted:Jizz music Sadly, what I wrote was not a typo http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jizz
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Samuel L. ACKSYN posted:They are on laserdisc too, which is probably the best choice if your other options are VHS and VCD. These are the super super originals. Star Wars doesn't say "Episode IV" in its opening crawl.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
drat it thread, now you've got me pricing laserdisc players on ebay. To be fair, I do have a stack of discs from a former roommate, so it wouldn't be a complete waste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Why isn't Arthur Christmas called Arthur Claus ? The character is named Arthur Claus, and is referred to as such. The phrase "Arthur Christmas" doesn't exist in the film at all until a text overlay in the last 10 seconds. Were they spooked by possible connection to Fred Claus ? edit: If you say it with a thick accent, it can kind of sound like "Father Christmas" but I think that's a stretch
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
ALFbrot posted:Why isn't Arthur Christmas called Arthur Claus ? The southern English accent renders "father" as "far-thur" so you actually hit on it. It sounds like you're probably aware of this part already, but Father Christmas is the more traditional name for Santa Claus in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Dr Monkeysee posted:These are the super super originals. Star Wars doesn't say "Episode IV" in its opening crawl. no, those are the special editions, says so right on the box
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Dr Monkeysee posted:These are the super super originals. Star Wars doesn't say "Episode IV" in its opening crawl. I think the only legal video with the original crawl is the limited edition DVD. Even the very first videos were released only in 1982, three years after Star Wars '77 had the opening revised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Apparently they had focus issues at a recent press screening and had to show the second half of the film in digital: Derail, but there are ~4.5 million people in greater Melbourne, which is a census designation that includes the whole urban agglomeration. There are almost 9 million just in New York City proper; there are various roughly equivalent ways of measuring the NYC metro and the population is between 19 and 23 million. So the size gap is actually considerably greater than that. New York is very large!
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:This is a little They're also just plain better-looking, the color timing is much better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
Criminal Minded posted:They're also just plain better-looking, the color timing is much better. The color timing is terrible in the despecialized editions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The color timing is terrible in the despecialized editions. Isn't it really inconsistent?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Supposedly it was timed to a no-fade technicolor print. But not by professionals so... Full disclosure: I haven't seen them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:I think the only legal video with the original crawl is the limited edition DVD. Even the very first videos were released only in 1982, three years after Star Wars '77 had the opening revised. The limited edition DVD is a direct lift of the Laserdisc transfer which came from the original film stock. I suppose there may have been more than one Laserdisc release who knows there's like 800 special releases of these drat things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Supposedly it was timed to a no-fade technicolor print. But not by professionals so... I doubt they really had a dye-transfer print to reference. The 2004 DVD of Star Wars '77 was color graded based on Lucas' own dye-transfer print, but it was horribly rushed. I think ILM and Reliance Mediaworks (then Lowry Digital) had only three months to restore, rework effects, and color grade all three films. The Blu-Ray at least fixed a lot of these problems, but they're still working from just 1080p scans of the camera negative rather than interpositives that already had the color locked in. Dr Monkeysee posted:The limited edition DVD is a direct lift of the Laserdisc transfer which came from the original film stock. I suppose there may have been more than one Laserdisc release who knows there's like 800 special releases of these drat things. It's almost a direct lift except it has the 1977 crawl edited in, probably from the same source used in Empire of Dreams. They used the 1993 transfer created from an interpositive struck in 1985 along with the other two films. No video transfers would have had the '77 crawl since it was revised for the 1979 re-release. Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
That's weird. Why would they bother to replace the crawl?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Is Disney not going to release a "definitive" Blu-Ray version of the untouched originals, or did Lucas actually destroy the original negatives after he special-edition'd them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Bloody Hedgehog posted:Is Disney not going to release a "definitive" Blu-Ray version of the untouched originals, or did Lucas actually destroy the original negatives after he special-edition'd them? The only negatives that are relatively rare are the ANH ones, which Lucas still has one. Fox controls all of the non-ANH films until 2020 (they control ANH in perpetuity) so even if Disney is planning something it will likely not be before then. It's also likely that they'll never actually release it because people will buy any version of Star Wars anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The only negatives that are relatively rare are the ANH ones, which Lucas still has one. Fox controls all of the non-ANH films until 2020 (they control ANH in perpetuity) so even if Disney is planning something it will likely not be before then. The revisions were made directly to the camera negatives. They probably kept the replaced shots that were not damaged seriously as a separate roll. A complete restoration would require using the color separations, not unlike how the original cut of Heaven's Gate was restored. I would expect the original cuts to surface once they do 4K restorations. That's what was done for Close Encounters of The Third Kind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Dr Monkeysee posted:That's weird. Why would they bother to replace the crawl? The original crawl didn't have "Episode IV: A New Hope" on it, but when they started work on the sequel, Lucas went back and put that in for the re-release to make it clear this was part of a saga.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Egbert Souse posted:The 2004 DVD of Star Wars '77 was color graded based on Lucas' own dye-transfer print, but it was horribly rushed. I think ILM and Reliance Mediaworks (then Lowry Digital) had only three months to restore, rework effects, and color grade all three films. The Special Edition was color-graded from Lucas' dye-transfer print. I believe Lowry used the Special Editions as their reference for color timing. And, yes, the 2004 DVDs were horribly rushed. In those days, Lowry generally took as long as 120 days to clean up a print. They got 30 days with each movie and then had to return them to ILM immediately -- and that's why you have weird-rear end poo poo like Vader's lightsaber being pink in Jedi because they didn't have time to fix the contrast. Timby fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:The original crawl didn't have "Episode IV: A New Hope" on it, but when they started work on the sequel, Lucas went back and put that in for the re-release to make it clear this was part of a saga. No I understand that. Egbert Souse said the DVD edition was the Laserdisc transfer except the Laserdisc's opening crawl was replaced with the original '77 crawl. To which my question was: why would they bother doing that? I assumed the DVD had the '77 crawl because the Laserdisc had it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
The gimmick with those dvds was that they were "the original versions," so they frankensteined up a new cut to undo any documented change instead of just using the best non-special editions with minor 80s changes that nobody really cared about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
What's the best Chicago theater to see The Hateful Eight in 70mm?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:What's the best Chicago theater to see The Hateful Eight in 70mm? Maybe asked the @filmspotting guys on Twitter. They'll be all of that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the Music Box is your only option, but it'd be the answer regardless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
morestuff posted:I'm pretty sure the Music Box is your only option, but it'd be the answer regardless. The Gene Skiskel Film Center and perhaps the Chicago Theatre would have been possibilities wouldn't they?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
xcore posted:The Gene Skiskel Film Center and perhaps the Chicago Theatre would have been possibilities wouldn't they? I found the full list: quote:Subject to change the so-called roadshow 70mm edition of “The Hateful Eight” opens at at least five Chicago area theaters. They are: The Music Box Theatre; the Kerasotes Showplace Icon and three AMC venues, the River East 21, the Barrington 30 and the Crestwood. If there's a sixth, according to the Chicago office of Allied Integrated Marketing, it'll likely be the Evanston Cinemark Century 12. Music Box runs an annual 70mm film festival, so they're the most familiar with the tech and likely would look and sound the best. It's an older theater, though, so if you really want stadium seating I'd go to the Showplace. It has assigned seats, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Music Box runs an annual 70mm film festival one if my favorite local theaters is talking about doing this, i'm super pumped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:one if my favorite local theaters is talking about doing this, i'm super pumped. Seeing 2001 in 70mm is pretty much unbeatable
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Seeing 2001 in 70mm is pretty much unbeatable that's one of two movies i've seen in 70mm (the other was the Master). i'd kill to see Lawrence of Arabia on 70 but i don't even know if those prints exist anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:i'd kill to see Lawrence of Arabia on 70 but i don't even know if those prints exist anymore. Music Box showed it as part of last year's festival. Although it looks like they didn't hold one this year, so maybe they weren't getting enough interest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
And one last point in the Music Box's favor:quote:For "The Hateful Eight" the Music Box is renting a 40-ft. screen, optimal for cinematographer Robert Richardson's widescreen imagery. The theater has also invested more than $40,000 in new sound equipment and speakers, according to general manager Ryan Oestreich. The projectionist in charge, Julian Antos, one of the founders of the Northwest Chicago Film Society, is a wizard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Was reading about the Music Box, I think that's the option I'll go with if I can get tickets.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
morestuff posted:Seeing 2001 in 70mm is pretty much unbeatable Seeing it in Cinerama is even better  edit: Yeah the 4k Lawrence showing was so amazing. They made a blueray from it, but if they ever do 4k showings again it's still worth seeing even if it isn't 70mm. \/ got any sevens fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Dec 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:that's one of two movies i've seen in 70mm (the other was the Master). There were new 70mm prints made in 1989 and in 2002. However, the 4K restoration projected in 4K looks incredible. Better than IMAX. It looked like a big open window. But that's Sony Colorworks working from 65mm camera negative with a full 4K workflow and 8K scans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Was reading about the Music Box, I think that's the option I'll go with if I can get tickets. The Music Box is gorgeous if you've never been. I'm way out in the suburbs so I'll probably try elsewhere first, but it's a gem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
Two minor questions: 1. Do studios need to ask permission to use a car brand from the manufacturer? I imagine the brand owner would love James Bond to drive their car, but what if the car were portrayed as unreliable or driven by an evil character. Could Pontiac have stopped Breaking Bad from using the Aztek? 2. For long running shows where there is an overweight character, are there clauses to require an actor to maintain an unhealthy weight during shooting? I'm thinking like Kevin from the Office.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 23:15
|
|
