Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[aiman04]

I guess Matthew Vaughn is out. Or is it? Is this a cover up? I love conspiracy theories.

According to Mark Millar:

"What we're doing is that 'Kick-Ass 2' is filming now, and next year we'll start production on 'Secret Service' which I did with Dave Gibbons, and Matthew and I have been talking about that for years. We thought Matthew was going to do X-Men first, but we found out there were actually a few imitators of 'Secret Service' in the works. People think you're lying when you say you're not trying to get your comics made into movies so quickly, but the two reasons it happens like that is first because it's the best ad for the comic you'll ever have. And for me, selling the book is the most important thing. The second reason is because people are always trying to rip you off. Somebody will start to work on a spec screenplay about your idea. There are three other projects I know of now about a James Bond kind of guy taking a street kid and turning him into a spy. Three screenplays were already going through Hollywood about this! So Matthew and I said, '**** this. We're not letting anyone steal our ideas.'"

[42041]

Originally Posted by Zeus Pater

I just bought this set recently and was dreading watching TPM because most of the reviews mentioned waxy faces and too much DVR. After watching it, what waxy faces? When I think of waxy faces, I think of Predator and the original version of Gladiator.

Did we watch the same disc

I'm not gonna dig through 2155 pages of this thread for it, but in that one awful shot of Liam Neeson that was posted, the old HD transfer had a way more natural human skin texture. I don't recall how the film looked in theaters or even previous video masters, but at least in that shot, the DNR was applied specifically to the new DI, not the original 1999 scans.

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by 42041

Did we watch the same disc

I'm not gonna dig through 2155 pages of this thread for it, but in that one awful shot of Liam Neeson that was posted, the old HD transfer had a way more natural human skin texture. I don't recall how the film looked in theaters or even previous video masters, but at least in that shot, the DNR was applied specifically to the new DI, not the original 1999 scans.

That is the only shot I find it distracting. The rest looks good in my opinion. I hate DNR, but I think they did okay. Like in Aliens the DNR was applied with care except in a few shots.

But they did much better job with Aliens though.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by Zeus Pater

I just bought this set recently and was dreading watching TPM because most of the reviews mentioned waxy faces and too much DVR. After watching it, what waxy faces? When I think of waxy faces, I think of Predator and the original version of Gladiator.

Furthermore, I went back to read some of the reviews and they mention that since it was shot on film (unlike the other two prequels), it should look the best. Some reviewers mention grain on the DVD and users mention HD broadcasts showing 'fine grain and detail'

My eyes are pretty good, and I notice that it has a grainless soft look. But it was always soft and it went through a Lowry de-graining and super resolution process. Is this just viral group think? Two people say it so everybody thinks they see it and repeat it? Sort of like the many DVDs that had edge halos from compression which were mistaken for edge enhancement in titles that didn't have edge enhancement?

TPM, like FOTR, did not have a digital intermediate process but was almost entirely digital. The first blu ray (and theatrical and DVD) release for FOTR was a scan of an interpositive. The EE version is from a 100% digital intermediate without the generation loss of going to an internegative and then and interpositive.

Same thing with TPM, the limited digital release (one of the first) and the DVD were sourced from and IP as was the HD broadcast version shown in some countries. This is where more grain would have been picked up and less details (more grain = illusion of detail to some eyes?). Now when TPM first came out, only one shot (gas vent in the beginning) was not digitally altered meaning it was almost entirely a digital film, but it was edited with a tradtional negative process. Like FOTR EE, the blu ray and 3d versions are from the original digital files:

http://legend3d.com/sites/default/fi...5%208%2012.pdf



The film-out tapes are the digital shots. All the CG works was probably done at 2k after the film was scanned into a (late 90s) 2k film scanner, then stored on the tapes. If it is true only the one shot wasn't digital, they probably scanned that at 2k. Then they had to digitally re-create the wipes and dissolves (which I'm guessing were optical in 1999) and re color time it to a new digital master for the blu ray and 3d release (both used same master).

I know that Lowry cleaned and de-grained it. They don't use DNR, they use a technique that looks for identical frames and combines the detail in adjacent frames reducing grain since grain is random. This also increases the perceived resolution, but only in still frame shots.

It's possible that LFL used a DNR at this point to assist in the 3d process (because it helps). I'm not convinced that's what they did here. TPM was probably scanned into a spirit datacine scanner in 1998 which would have been slightly lower than 2k. Even if it did receive DNR, I don't think it would destroy two optical generations of detail (spatial resolution is lowered a lot in optical duping due to uneven film speed 'smearing' which is why original negatives are the best scanning source if available).

I think people are looking at the interpositive-sourced grain and confusing it with detail and confusing the soft look (especially on the sides which might be due to an anamorphic lens because they do that). The only way TPM could look better is if they re-rendered the 3d and further re-assembled the film which isn't viable. That goes for all films with 2k digital intermediates which is most films in the last 10 years.

Wow! A blu-ray related post! A true miracle in this thread these days.

I just watched TPM on BD 2 days ago to listen to the 2nd audio commentary, and study the movie again.

I remember the movie to look very natural in '99, and the look on BD is not ideal, as there has definitely been DNR, or de-graining applied. What's the difference between those two anyways?

I think it could look as good as the remastered Gladiator.
A few shots reveal that, such as the wide shot of the white bounty hunter during the podrace, or a couple of Anakin close-ups, when he gives Padme his gift. It looks alright, but I really believe it could look quite a bit better.
Most of the VFX shots look great. It's the people shots that don't reveal all the detail that should be there IMO.

I'd love to see a remaster without any, or only very skillfully applied DNR.
It's still great to watch though.

Originally Posted by 42041

Did we watch the same disc

I'm not gonna dig through 2155 pages of this thread for it, but in that one awful shot of Liam Neeson that was posted, the old HD transfer had a way more natural human skin texture. I don't recall how the film looked in theaters or even previous video masters, but at least in that shot, the DNR was applied specifically to the new DI, not the original 1999 scans.

That is the worst shot of the entire film by far.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

You're killin me, bro. Killin me!

[bttfiii]

Originally Posted by Canuck21

It was clear to me that in the past, there were more Jedis, but they all died in the hands of the Empire and in the end, Luke was the only Jedi left. I also believed that Luke was going to restore the Jedi clan with new disciples after Return of the Jedi.

Luke wasn't a Jedi until he was trained to become one

[beadelf]

Originally Posted by Riddler The Slag

The power of Cynicism

I see her on an interview recently, she dont look like that. if you believe that photo then...good for you

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I worry most about Carrie Fischer returning.

Harrison Ford I can see returning. Mark Hamill can probably pull it off, too, but he'd have to hit the gym a little bit (he doesn't need to be "buff" or anything, but he needs to lose a few pounds).

I wouldn't want them to be the absolute main focus of the new films, but it would be nice to have them involved to a reasonable degree. I could see Luke taking on a similar role as Obi Won in Episode IV.


Carrie, however, just hasn't aged very well, quite frankly, she has her mental issues, and with all due respect to her, she seems like a bit of a mess these days. When she talks these days she just sounds kind of 'slurry' to me, and sometimes I get the feeling that she's not "all there".

I just think that any attempt to have her reprise her role will not work out well. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe she can pull it off, but I just can't picture that happening. If they do use her, hopefully it's VERY minimally.


If anyone is interested in her bizarreness, I suggest checking this out if you have a chance:



This is the complete series of "Get A Life", which was just released withint he past couple of months. It's a sitcom that aired on Fox for 2 seasons in the early 90s that has a solid cult following. It's about a 30-year-old paperboy and all of the very strange situations that he gets himself into.

I think most or all of the episodes have a standard commentary by series producer David Mirkin, but one rather bizarre and (IMO) disturbingly hilarious episode called "Spewey and Me" (about an alien from space who comes to earth, and beats up on Chris and spews goo all over everything, and Chris is convinced that he's come to earth to teach everyone about love) has a hidden extra commentary which isactivated by clicking on a picture of the Spewey alien on the DVD menu.

For some reason this hidden commentary has David Mirkin and Carrie Fisher (yes, it really is her!) discussing the episode. I have no idea why she's on there she had no involvement with the show to my knowledge. I suppose because it's an episode that involves an alien and she was in Star Wars? At any rate, the commentary is probably more bizarre than the episode itself, which is no easy feat!

While I can understand people not wanting to buy this set just for the commentary if you have no other interest in the series, itself, if you can get it on netflix or borrow it from someone who has it, I recommend checking it out just for how surreal it is.

A post about a show called Get a Life in a Star Wars topic

Originally Posted by aiman04

That is the only shot I find it distracting. The rest looks good in my opinion. I hate DNR, but I think they did okay. Like in Aliens the DNR was applied with care except in a few shots.

But they did much better job with Aliens though.

I have seen TPM a few days ago and.. I had the impression the Naboo stuff all looked pretty good, the image got quite a bit softer in the Tatooine section and when they return to Naboo the PQ for the most part goes back to being quite good (not perfect mind you)?

[Troy73]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

I remember the movie to look very natural in '99, and the look on BD is not ideal, as there has definitely been DNR, or de-graining applied. What's the difference between those two anyways?

DNR can also add extreme sharpening of the image and cause the image to lose it's natural fine detail.

[NYorker]

Originally Posted by rikraq

I've been having a discussion with a co-worker and I want to ask you guys: For those who were around back when Return of the Jedi first came out, do you think that the word "Jedi" was referring to Luke specifically or the Jedi order?

IMO, the Jedi order - just like Revenge of the "Sith" didn't refer to a single entity but to the entire sect.

[beadelf]

sorry if this has been asked before but is there anywhere or anyone that can give me a full list of the easter eggs on the complete star wars blu set and how to find them?

I tried to google it but can only find mention of the bobba fett cartoon sequence.

any help is much appreciated.

thanks

[Zeus Pater]

Originally Posted by 42041

Did we watch the same disc

I'm not gonna dig through 2155 pages of this thread for it, but in that one awful shot of Liam Neeson that was posted, the old HD transfer had a way more natural human skin texture. I don't recall how the film looked in theaters or even previous video masters, but at least in that shot, the DNR was applied specifically to the new DI, not the original 1999 scans.

This is the one, right?



Yes it looks pretty bad, but it could be for another reason. This particular scene and also the scene where Qui-Gon takes Anakin's blood were shot with a Sony HDC-750, one of the early digital cinema cameras from the mid 90s. Unlike the cams used in AOTC and ROTS, this one has a 1920x1035 CCD and stores video in the older HDCAM format which displays at 1920x1080i but records images at 1440x1080i (squeezed and interlaced). This was a test run for the tech. You can tell it's a lower resolution being interpolated to a higher one by looking at his hair.

DNR was probably applied to these scenes because both are low-light and these Sony cams had a lot of CCD noise in lower lighting (and sometimes even with good light). Whether it was applied then or now, I dunno. Guess I'd have to compare it to another source.

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Wow! A blu-ray related post! A true miracle in this thread these days.

I just watched TPM on BD 2 days ago to listen to the 2nd audio commentary, and study the movie again.

I remember the movie to look very natural in '99, and the look on BD is not ideal, as there has definitely been DNR, or de-graining applied. What's the difference between those two anyways?

I think it could look as good as the remastered Gladiator.
A few shots reveal that, such as the wide shot of the white bounty hunter during the podrace, or a couple of Anakin close-ups, when he gives Padme his gift. It looks alright, but I really believe it could look quite a bit better.
Most of the VFX shots look great. It's the people shots that don't reveal all the detail that should be there IMO.

I'd love to see a remaster without any, or only very skillfully applied DNR.
It's still great to watch though.



That is the worst shot of the entire film by far.

Technically digital de-graining is a form of DNR. It's just not the same as a detail-destroying DNR filter which is the culprit behind the worst offending blus with waxiness. A filter destroys detail, usually by blurring. There are different ways to filter it by blurring. Blurring just the chroma can reduce noise, but the chroma resolution is already halved on blu rays.

De-graining the way Lowry does it is also known as super resolution. It's more effective on still scenes shot with a tripod where the background doesn't change. Since film grain is random, the stationary frames are all analyzed in a computer and the grainless details are combined to create a relatively grain-free version without destroying detail. It doesn't really work if the camera is moving or if there is a lot of movement. Sometimes scenes look too still so they ironically re-introduce fine 'digital' grain. It's probably more technical that that, but that's my understanding anyways.

I've always thought TPM looked a little soft and I still think that has much to do with the late 90s Spirit Datacine 2k film scanner. I think this is why the original DVD looks terrible with so much ringing artifacts on fine edges (rather than just edge enhancement like reviewers claimed). I could be wrong.

I don't think any of our eyes are deceiving us, I just don't think it's been DNR'd, at least not to the degree the initial reviewers claimed. Some reviews also claimed that AOTC was DNR'd which I definitely don't agree with. AOTC has a softer look because it was shot with a Sony CineAlta HDW-F900 while ROTS was shot with the improved HDC-F950. The OT wasn't DNR'd at all, it would be strange if they only did it to TPM. Some claim it would be to make it match the others, but that doesn't make much sense to me. It would make sense for the 3d conversion, but since they went back to the film outs and made a DI, it would take a pretty bad DNR job to kill the extra detail gained by returning to the sources rather than the IP with generation loss.

I guess they could have did a bad job, but it looks mostly good to my eyes. Vista Vision was used for some scenes with FX, these would benefit the most and appear sharper to the rest. Especially compared to those primitive digital scenes. I could be wrong here, but I don't think I am. I think this is the best TPM can possibly look short of re-rendering and re-compositing the entire film. Which some day studios will probably do to most of the films made in the last 10 years so they aren't stuck at 2k

[aiman04]

My instinct was saying that Michael Arndt is writing Episode VII. And you know what today we hear the first rumor that he is.

http://www.vulture.com/2012/11/star-...witter_vulture

[Sephiroth5929]

I think an interesting series of movies or a TV show ala Clone wars is the story of Jacen Solo. I'm just reading up on what happened to him and I'm amazed. I think it would make a grea story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Caedus

[Sephiroth5929]

bump

[aiman04]

A couple of writers confirmed working right now, and I'm betting a director already hired. The hint: a director that is a big Star Wars fan, and both writers and director might have worked with Kathleen Kennedy before.

Part 2: George Lucas and Kathleen Kennedy: Getting Started on the New Star Wars Films - YouTube

[aiman04]

Directors worked with Kathleen Kennedy before:

Steven Spielberg
Peter Jackson
David Fincher
Joe Dante
Barry Levinson
Robert Zemeckis
Martin Scorsese
M. Night Shyamalan
Joe Johnston
Hayao Miyazaki
Clint Eastwood
Gary Ross
Julian Schnabel
Scott Hicks
Jan de Bont
Frank Marshall

[RudyC]

Originally Posted by stvn1974
"Yep, Princess Leia will give birth to twins and then die .003 seconds later and her daughter will remember her."

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

never underestimate the power of the force

[aiman04]

MICHAEL ARNDT TO WRITE SCREENPLAY FOR STAR WARS: EPISODE VII

November 09, 2012

As pre-production of Star Wars: Episode VII begins, Lucasfilm has confirmed that award-winning writer Michael Arndt will write the screenplay for the new Star Wars film. As revealed in the ongoing video series posted here on StarWars.com, Kathleen Kennedy and George Lucas have begun story conferences with Arndt. Arndt won an Academy Award® for Best Original Screenplay for writing Little Miss Sunshine (2006), and was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay for writing Toy Story 3 (2010).

For more news about Star Wars: Episode VII -- slated for a 2015 release -- keep checking StarWars.com.

http://starwars.com/news/michael-arn...isode-vii.html

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Dark Horizons reporting that Spielberg, Tarantino, and Snyder (thank god) do not want to direct a Star Wars film.