Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

You keep treating this as an abstract. This is not an abstract. Are there sound guns in Dune the book, yes or no?

I think I've fully explained my answer to this, that answer being, more or less, "maybe".

How about these similar questions- is Kyle Maclachlan's hairstyle in the book? Is the melody Gurney plays on his baliset in the book? Is the precise color-value of the sky on Arrakis in the book? Is a direct cut from Duke Leto's restrained smile to the Emperor's arrogant glare in the book? Is the credit, "Production Design - Anthony Masters" in the book?

A book is not a movie is not a book and anything you can say is or isn't "in" one, but not the other, is only so by a matter of degrees. You can certainly claim that an expression wasn't true to your understanding of the material, but that's only one opinion, no more valid than any other.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by patrick99

Under this line of thinking, why would he even bother with creating a thread on Avatar?

Please, are you that naïve, or just supportive of him?
The answer is simple, to give himself credibility in the eyes of any new AVS membership who are unaware of his past posting history to try to show that his motives are noble and he truly is a non-biased “enthusiast”, and I use that word very loosely.

The fact of the matter is, longtime readers of “xylon” realize that the OVERWHELMING majority of threads he initiates are to find fault with some Blu-ray movie and the overwhelming minority are to show how good a particular Blu-ray incarnation turned out.

The following was essentially xylon’s ‘mission statement’ as posted on HTF awhile back, shortly after which somebody on that or another thread told him not to bring that sh*t “over here”….meaning HTF.

Originally Posted by xylon

I know most people won’t see any difference between the two even if doing A/B doing comparisons. Heck I think this applies to pretty much all HD titles with different encodes, bitrates and DNR. But when you visit my threads we go beyond this. See if claims by studios and their cheerleaders are true. "This is more effecient or this will look better than that." You know the usual talking points. See which one is talking FUD.

Yup nitpicking to the max and I offer no apologies.

^ Translation – I enjoy playing *gotcha* with the professionals who do this for a living, esp. when the marketing people and Blu-ray enthusiasts think it is a good looking movie…and even if I can’t prove that I discovered some screw-up in the Blu-ray production process with my screenshot *analysis*, I sure as hell will do my best to convince all my lap dogs that there is one.

So, Xylon initiating a thread about AVATAR is tantamount to “Kram Sacul” giving a complement to RAH (meaning every once in a Blu moon over time) or Rush Limbaugh complementing the Democratic party.

[Jeff Kleist]

I think I've fully explained my answer to this, that answer being, more or less, "maybe".

Then you need to go back and re-read the book

They use laser rifles (lasguns), and the weirding way is a martial art with no technological assistance.

How about these similar questions- is Kyle Maclachlan's hairstyle in the book? Is the melody Gurney plays on his baliset in the book? Is the precise color-value of the sky on Arrakis in the book? Is a direct cut from Duke Leto's restrained smile to the Emperor's arrogant glare in the book? Is the credit, "Production Design - Anthony Masters" in the book?

Of course not, but that isn't changing the story elements or characterization. The style of Gurney's playing is in the book, Paul's general appearance, and a fairly vivid description of the general look and feel of Arrakis is however. Having a slightly different shad of tan is not the equivalent of blowing up Vulcan or the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.

[blu2]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The fact of the matter is, longtime readers of “xylon” realize that the OVERWHELMING majority of threads he initiates are to find fault with some Blu-ray movie and the overwhelming minority are to show how good a particular Blu-ray incarnation turned out.

Out of curiousity, let's have a look at his last ten comparison threads:

Avatar comparison *PIX*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...926&highlight=

I observed no banding of any kind (please indicate the timestamps) like some people say. That just might be a limitation of your viewing set. The 2D image is Reference PQ compared to others like it especially the all CGI portion of the movie. The live action looks too processed for my taste but it looks like that when I watched this on different versions of 3D and IMAX presentations in the theaters.

Apollo 13 comparison *PIX*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...394&highlight=

Piece of cow manure!

A new "remastering" of the new "remaster" is in order. Maybe in our lifetime.

A Nightmare on Elm Street comparison *PIX*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...165&highlight=

I'm suprised that its in pretty good shape. A low budget 80s movie that actually looks like film from the beginning. None of that "It looks good 90% of the time" excuses.

Minority Report comparison *PIX*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...019&highlight=

Excellent PQ. Remastered to be better looking. Nice work by the company who did this

Waterworld comparison *PIX*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...610&highlight=

Both versions of Waterworld is mediocre. Hilarious attempt to "improve" the picture for blu-ray by sliiiiiiiighhhhhttttlllllllyyyyyy adding DNR Guys, you think maaaaybe, I don't know, its better to just leave it alone? Especially if this all you got

Toy Story 1 and Toy Story 2 comparison *PIX*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...254&highlight=

Reference PQ and AQ. As good as every Pixar release.

Die unendliche Geschichte aka The Neverending Story comparison *PIX*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...653&highlight=

The fine details are obviously better than DVD. But the color timings and brightness and contrast is way overdone. A majority of the movie is tinted with orange and yellow hues that sucked out the rest of the colors visible on the DVD. Some dark scenes that has some elements barely seen or even invisible compared to DVD. The Dutch release however did not suffer any of these anomalies, but the transfer is very dirty. If you can lets all just wait for the remastered version with the director involved. Assuming he is not going to William Friedkin on us.

Warner has been doing great so far with catalog titles recently but this one is botched job.

Collateral comparison *PIX

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...199&highlight=

Excellent PQ and AQ

Clash Of The Titans DVD, Mpeg-2 & Blu-ray comparison *PIX*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...775&highlight=

This one did not get the "Sapphire" treatment The transfer overall is very good. Some parts like low light scenes is often hard too see because of heavy grain. But daylight scenes is where the extra details compared to DVD is more obvious. I dont see anything here that exhibit overtly digital tamperings. I wish they could've have gone back to remove more of the dirt, scratches and damage for this release.

Ponyo comparison *PIX*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...781&highlight=

Excellent film with Reference picture quality. This one is a work of art. One of the best looking animated film on blu-ray.

Hmmm. I count 7/10 as positive on the transfer.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by blu2

Out of curiousity, let's have a look at his last ten comparison threads:

If you want to be a statistician, out of accuracy, go back and total up all of them from the past and also do a subset of the number of replies/views of the threads which are 'pro' vs. the threads which are 'con'.

Additionally, it would be interesting to see how many 'pro' non-animation threads there are.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

As for JJTrek, what was the purpose in altering the ship design? Arrogance. He had zero understanding of what makes those characters immortal, and instead produceda "superficial representation of the collective memory of Star Trek". You cannot blow up Vulcan, or turn the bridge into an Apple store, or claim they all met in the academy. Because it didn't happen that way. And for Gods sake, dont ignore all continuity except Enterprise, the show everyone but the diehards that just want to watch Trek despised, and had it's own issues playing fast and loose

You can blow up Vulcan...it's another timeline. You can claim they met at the Academy: there was nothing on screen (canon) saying they didn't."Arrogance" or not I thought the original series ship design was bland, the sets ugly by modern standards: I didn't like the Enterprise until The Motion Picture!
JJ Trek was awesome and I can't wait for the next one.

But we've been over this, right Jeff.

But I am wondering on your inflexibility on translating novels to the screen, by your measure something like The Wizard of Oz is a failure. The Library of Congress may want to know about that.

[pro-bassoonist]

Originally Posted by blu2

Out of curiousity, let's have a look at his last ten comparison threads:

Good afternoon,

There is absolutely no need to question the validity of Penton's statement. In fact, I would suggest that you expand your research of Xylon's activities beyond AVS in order to understand better what his agenda is. There is a very good reason why he started promoting his practice elsewhere - and objectivity really has very little to do with it.

Thanks.

Pro-B

[Jeff Kleist]

But I am wondering on your inflexibility on translating novels to the screen, by your measure something like The Wizard of Oz is a failure. The Library of Congress may want to know about that.

none of those changes were necessary either. Oz is really funny in that no one dares remake it(and call it the wizard of oz). Why? because the general public knows how it goes, and might get upset if they changed things.

Course I was really upset at that Peter Pan that xame out a few tears ago that promised that it was accurate to the book and then changed one of the most famous scenes (tiger Lilly) and violated one if the most sacred rules of the book(adults cannot fly), while at the same time mixing up their pages with dragonball z. Hook did for the most part what should be done

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

none of those changes were necessary either. Oz is really funny in that no one dares remake it(and call it the wizard of oz). Why? because the general public knows how it goes, and might get upset if they changed things.

Course I was really upset at that Peter Pan that xame out a few tears ago that promised that it was accurate to the book and then changed one of the most famous scenes (tiger Lilly) and violated one if the most sacred rules of the book(adults cannot fly), while at the same time mixing up their pages with dragonball z. Hook did for the most part what should be done

I actually thought Return to Oz was pretty cool. I loved it when I was younger, although Im not sure how I would like it today since its been YEARS since Ive seen it.

WHich Peter Pan are you talking about? I also liked Hook as well. I would buy it day one when it comes to bluray.

[Jeff Kleist]

The live action one from a few years back.

[Ataneruo]

I remember that Peter Pan. I had been excited about it, and it was a bit of a letdown. Agreed there Jeff, changes from the original story were totally unnecessary.

[garyrc]

[QUOTE=Jeff Kleist;3192349]Please name a book whose story is incommunicable by film. [QUOTE]

The media are quite different, but the overlap is great enough to make translation possible, in most cases. Rare exceptions can be cited.

Books that are sufficiently difficult (but probably not impossible) to make into a film, given the failures, and for very different reasons, are:

Steppenwolf

Almost anything by Mark Twain

Almost anything by Hemmingway

Flims that would be nealy impossible to do as books are:

Last Year at Marienbad

Fantasia

Cases in which the book and film were very different animals, with largely different aesthetic means, but in which both the film and book had merit are:

Naked Lunch

2001: A Space Odyssey (screenplay and book "written simultaneously, with feedback in both directions," according to Clarke)

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

You can blow up Vulcan...it's another timeline.

And in a timeline alternate to ours, Star Trek XI was a good film that didn't trample canon.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Danielle Ni Dhighe

And in a timeline alternate to ours, Star Trek XI was a good film that didn't trample canon.

Hmm, in my timeline reviews across the board were excellent, as was box office returns and word of mouth. Dissatisfaction is limited to a few die hards who won't accept anything different.

[Jeff Kleist]

Hmm, in my timeline reviews across the board were excellent, as was box office returns and word of mouth. Dissatisfaction is limited to a few die hards who won't accept anything different.

Ah, but the question that is never answered is: "With an equal level of hype and studio support, would an accurate film have made less money". The answer is likely no.

[Objectivity]

Regarding translation of book to screen, to me the ultimate question is whether the movie keeps the spirit of the book.

Three examples, two bad, one good.

Last year, Time Traveler's Wife came out. The movie, compared to the book is horrendous. The screenwriter/production team was so anxious to make a romantic drama that he left out almost every single element that make people love the book. Fans of the book despise the movie because it gets pretty much everything wrong. That being said, if you're a fan of the book and watch the movie a second time after getting the taste of failure out of your mouth, it's not a bad movie. It just isn't the book.

Almost 20(!) years ago, the movie based on Tom Clancy's Patriot Games came out. The screenwriter/production team took a psychological, suspenseful thriller and turned it into a brainless action movie. Again, if you watch it again knowing it's a failure of a translation and can get past it, the movie isn't that bad.

Also almost 20 years ago, Robert Redford made A River Runs Through It, based on a highly acclaimed novella. To make the story work, the screenwriter/production team change a lot. Ages change, family interactions change, etc. On paper, the people on page are entirely different that the people on screen. Yet, the movie is considered a classic adaptation of book to screen. Why? Because the changes made were necessary to tell the story on screen, but they kept the essence of the book intact.

Take a look at the new Star Trek. Let's say the next movie tells a basic Star Trek story and makes no reference to the timeline shift or Vulcan being destroyed. If it tells the story well and is true to the characters, does the universe it is set in matter? Personally, I think it does, to some extent, but if someone were a fan of classic Trek and then watch this hypothetical movie, could they enjoy it on its own merits? If so, is it a success?

I'd also be curious about Jeff's opinion regarding the Star Wars prequels in light of this discussion. They do to the timeline of Star Wars what JJ Trek did to Star Trek. The only difference is that Star Wars had its timeline discarded by its own creator.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Objectivity

Regarding translation of book to screen, to me the ultimate question is whether the movie keeps the spirit of the book.

Yes, this is my feeling, as well. For this reason, the kind of "translation" I have trouble with is something like Minority Report which literally presents the opposite philosophical argument to that made by its source short story.

[Jeff Kleist]

Take a look at the new Star Trek. Let's say the next movie tells a basic Star Trek story and makes no reference to the timeline shift or Vulcan being destroyed. If it tells the story well and is true to the characters, does the universe it is set in matter? Personally, I think it does, to some extent, but if someone were a fan of classic Trek and then watch this hypothetical movie, could they enjoy it on its own merits? If so, is it a success?

It's not a sequel without the violations. Spocklar's motivations are wayout of wack, he's far too emotional even for spock at a younger age, it's far too broken to do anything other than start over again. I'm shaking to think what they're going to do with Khan

Only Karl Urban seemed to really get it out of the cast. His job was to play DeForest Kelly playing McCoy. And he wasn't horrible. He needs some more practice. Chris Pine was just generic arrogant youth, there was nothing Kirk about him that wasn't laid on with a trowel. Yes, it's virtually impossible to play Shatner playing anything without it turning into farce, but there's surely some middle ground

George Lucas didn't do anything to the timelines, there's a lot of stretches, but again, he is god of that universe, and therefore he is allowed to do that. I thought the first movie was terrible, the second movie....Obi-Wan's quest was fun, the third movie was up and down, at least the last lightsaber fight lived up to 30 years of waiting for a balls to the wall Jedi battle. If George Lucas wants to place a CG rasberry donut with sprinkles on Yoda's head for the duration of the trilogy, it is his perogative to do so. He may be a moron if he chose that, but it is his right. JJ Abrahams has the right to do anything he wants to Lost, Fringe Alias or Felicity, he does not have rights outside of those franchises to change sock color.

Yes, this is my feeling, as well. For this reason, the kind of "translation" I have trouble with is something like Minority Report which literally presents the opposite philosophical argument to that made by its source short story.

Phillip K Dick is one of the most abused authors out there. I think only Screamers and Scanner Darkly even resemble the original text

[Doctorossi]

Jeff, I'm going to call time on my attempts to get you to acknowledge that there is no movie without original contribution. However, I'm still dying of curiosity, wanting the answer I believe you still have yet to give about what exactly you hope to get from viewing your theoretical perfect adaptation- the one that in no way differs from the experience of the story the book provides. In all seriousness, why don't you just read the book for that?

[Jeff Kleist]

Jeff, I'm going to call time on my attempts to get you to acknowledge that there is no movie without original contribution. However, I'm still dying of curiosity, wanting the answer I believe you still have yet to give about what exactly you hope to get from viewing your theoretical perfect adaptation- the one that in no way differs from the experience of the story the book provides. In all seriousness, why don't you just read the book for that

I do. And if I want to watch the movie version I want it to be as verbatim as humany possilble.

And there are plenty of people who never read the book of whatever, so the movie is not for me, it's making sure that the creator's vision is perfectly preserved in the transition.