Battlestar Galactica: The Original Series + Galactica 1980 - May 12, 2015

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Several other episodes were exhibited theatrically, even some of G80 AFAIK so it would've made sense that the protection was maintained throughout the run. Do I know for sure? Nope, hence my CYA comment above. But it wouldn't have been difficult to maintain for a single season run and its short-lived successor (as I said before, it's as simple as putting a different ground glass in the viewfinder and framing accordingly).

Complete and utter conjecture time: it wouldn't surprise me if Universal came across camera reports or framing guidelines when they put together the recent 'movie' Blu-ray (which looks excellent in 1.85) and discovered that the whole series was covered that way. [edit] Still, I do hope that they received the consent of Glen Larson to do this before he passed away.

Oh, as for your Buck Rogers list, you left out Erin Grey. Man, dat purple jumpsuit.

The main reason I'm skeptical - and I'm using skeptical in its traditional 'on the fence, have doubts' sense, not its internet 'polite way of saying are you out of your mind' sense - is that tvs were so freaking small back then.

Screen real estate was pretty precious and blocking off even relatively small chunks of it doesn't seem like something directors/producers would be inclined to do 'just in case'.

It's possible that overscan protection meant there was enough dead space all around to allow for a reasonably inoffensive crop but I'm not sure crop is the wrong word here.

But who knows. And really, it's academic since both are readily available anyway.

As to Universal's proclivities, I must confess to a bias here. I absolutely hated the hatchet jo...framing choices they made when they released some the 80s/90s Columbo specials on DVD. To be fair to Universal I grew up watching Columbo on Sunday nights and would have been at the very least cold to any widescreen no matter how well done but these did not exactly test that theory.

Originally Posted by kemcha

I find it truly astonishing to find the Rom Moore fanatics dismissing the original series. For those of us who grew up on the original series, remakes of original episodes of a series that goes through the reboot treatment simply do not do justice to the original episode.

No offense but that's just crazy talk.

I loved the original series. I still love telling the story of how pissed I was when the premiere was delayed by Jimmy Carter and the Israel/Egypt peace thingie. And I really, really loved Lloyd Bridges and the whole Cain/Pegasus subplot.

But all that said, the Cain/Pegasus do-over in the rebooted series was freaking brilliant. It just was.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

IMHO, comparing the original BG 1978-1979 & G: 1980 series to the re-imagined 200X series is like comparing apples to oranges - each series is completely different in tone from the other. Also, IMHO it's unfair to compare them since one came out in the late '70's/early '80's, and the other came out in the 200X's. Each is very much a product of it's time.

And, there's nothing wrong in admitting that you like BOTH - I do!

[kemcha]

The original series was restricted in what they could do because Lucasfilm leveled a shitstorm of restrictions in what special effects that Glen Larson and Universal could use. These days, studios are don't engage in those kind of hijinks.

Far as comparing the original series to the new series, that's exactly what some have been doing. I'm just not a fan of producers of rebooted/remake shows doing adaptions of episodes from the original series. They're often not done very well and they usually chuck all of the good points of the original episode of which they are based. I equate that to how a movie adaption is adapted from the book or where an adaption of a novelization of a television episode leaves out a majority of the written content.

Case in point? I remember reading the novelization of the DS9 episode "Way of the Warrior" before the episode premiered. There was a lot of original story left out of the episode adaption and if Paramount had left a lot of those scenes in, the episode would have made more sense.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by octagon

The main reason I'm skeptical - and I'm using skeptical in its traditional 'on the fence, have doubts' sense, not its internet 'polite way of saying are you out of your mind' sense - is that tvs were so freaking small back then.

Screen real estate was pretty precious and blocking off even relatively small chunks of it doesn't seem like something directors/producers would be inclined to do 'just in case'.

It's possible that overscan protection meant there was enough dead space all around to allow for a reasonably inoffensive crop but I'm not sure crop is the wrong word here.

But who knows. And really, it's academic since both are readily available anyway.

That's true about smaller screens and whatnot, but what's also true is the hefty amounts of overscan that most CRT sets had, so I'd wager that people weren't watching it thinking 'gosh, what a lot of headroom that shot had'. The phrase 'TV safe' exists for that reason, whereby the main action of the to-be-transmitted image was framed well within the Academy aperture to account for the overscan. What this means is that the top and bottom of the 16:9 image could be matted down to the TV safe dimensions and the sides opened up slightly using spare negative area. You can see exactly what I mean in the graphic below, appropriated from one of David Mullen's posts on cinematography.com.

[edit] But what's crucial is whether the filmmakers are protecting the exterior of the frame or not; we know from the TNG Blu-ray special features that this wasn't considered when shooting that show which is why decently framed 16:9 versions are a no-go, but the producers of Galactica had explicit knowledge that the shows would be made into features for overseas theatrical releases, so it makes sense that it would've been adequately protected.

[Thomas Guycott]

Could depend on how much was "opened up" on the DVD compared to the original broadcast overscan.

[Geoff D]

Exactly, yep. I highly doubt that we've seen the full Academy ap on the various 4:3 versions over the years, which is why you can't just crop the DVDs to 1.78 without losing a bit more info top & bottom than intended (though they don't look bad at about 1.60). But with a brand new fullap transfer they could line it up as shown above, with the 1.85 intersecting the TV Safe area and adding the extra image area of the Academy ap.

[HDMe]

I never mind opened/cropped alternate versions when I can also have the originals... so as long as I'll be able to get the original OAR versions I'll be happy.

I have the DVD sets of both original series... and I bought the movie-version on Blu when it was a Best Buy exclusive.

I guess I need to look at unloading my current versions in advance of this coming out next year while the getting will be good and the price hasn't fallen out on the current DVDs yet.

I look forward to these next year probably about as much as I've looked forward to anything in a while.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by octagon

The main reason I'm skeptical - and I'm using skeptical in its traditional 'on the fence, have doubts' sense, not its internet 'polite way of saying are you out of your mind' sense - is that tvs were so freaking small back then.

Screen real estate was pretty precious and blocking off even relatively small chunks of it doesn't seem like something directors/producers would be inclined to do 'just in case'.

It's possible that overscan protection meant there was enough dead space all around to allow for a reasonably inoffensive crop but I'm not sure crop is the wrong word here.

But who knows. And really, it's academic since both are readily available anyway.

As to Universal's proclivities, I must confess to a bias here. I absolutely hated the hatchet jo...framing choices they made when they released some the 80s/90s Columbo specials on DVD. To be fair to Universal I grew up watching Columbo on Sunday nights and would have been at the very least cold to any widescreen no matter how well done but these did not exactly test that theory.



No offense but that's just crazy talk.

I loved the original series. I still love telling the story of how pissed I was when the premiere was delayed by Jimmy Carter and the Israel/Egypt peace thingie. And I really, really loved Lloyd Bridges and the whole Cain/Pegasus subplot.

But all that said, the Cain/Pegasus do-over in the rebooted series was freaking brilliant. It just was.

It really was not that unusual to protect for a theatrical feature with expensive action shows, it was a very real possibility (I think MAN FROM UNCLE was a big pioneer, during the 60s spy craze, of sticking 2 episodes together and calling it a movie )And just between Galactica and Buck Rogers you have 4 movies (harvested from 10 or more episodes) that actually happened. They would have been unwatchable in a theater without some consideration given to the framing.

[MTRodaba2468]

Well, I'm a stickler for the OAR, so it looks like I'll be going for the Definitive Collection...

[Lincoln6Echo]

Originally Posted by steel_breeze

Oh god no. Stop retooling historic effects. Just reboot the whole show (again) if you want to see updated effects with old spaceships. The Star Trek "updates" are an abomination, as were the Star Wars special editions. Each TV show and movie is a work of art that should reflect the time in which it was made.

Oh Lord...not another one of these "can't touch the original" bigots (and by bigot I mean, someone unwilling to change their mind, or see it the other way on such issue)... What you're missing is that "being made when it was made" is not necessarily the reason why such things as VFX are the way they are. More times than not, it's BUDGET. Hell, look at any SyFy movie of the week, made today, but usually the CG effects look like shit. The '78 run of BSG suffered from a low (for the time) TV budget and they could not afford to create new shots for each and every episode that required them. Today new shots can be created at a very little to modest budget, as per the demo reel shows, because the tools are there.

"Remastering" BSG:TOS ala ST:TOS, with new FX could revitalize the series and bring in new fans of the show. I know I'd like the show much better if the VFX were remastered. Do it just like ST:TOS. Remaster all space and planet shots. We're only talking one season here. Wouldn't take very long to do really if a professional team was put on it.

That said, I grew up on the original series too, but even at that young age, I too noticed the overuse of stock footage, and the even poorer blue screen matting than SW:ANH had. If BSG:TOS could be remastered with all new unique visuals it could become somewhat more relevant today as a companion piece to nBSG.

[Lincoln6Echo]

As far as nBSG doing rebooted episodes of TOS episodes, the Pegasus episodes are obvious choices, but I notice that some of the story elements in the first few episodes on nBSG like the "Water" episode were used in the first few, perhaps even pilot movie of BSG:TOS. Which is why I said as I rewatch TOS episodes, and hear some of the same story elements that nBSG used, it just makes me want to shut off TOS and pop in the nBSG episode instead.

[Carcaridon]

I'd really love to get the definitive set. Loved this show as a kid and still have a fondness for it, but after watching that short FX demo they did of the Pegasus ep, I'd MUCH rather have a version with the redone FX if they ever get the green light on it.

[Robbo1999]

The German Set is REGION B only
The new UK set is REGION FREE
The new Australian set is REGION FREE
The Japanese Set (December 19) is REGION FREE
The new DEFINTIIVE EDITION (May 2015) is REGION FREE

NOTE: The new DEFINITIVE EDITION and REMASTERED Sets are NOT new, digital restorations or cleaner prints than those already available. The new sets have been newly reformatted in widescreen. Misleading I know, but true.
So basically, its the same set as the Aussie set, which I bought for $45 AU, apart from the fact is has newly reformatted versions plus the already available movie.

Grrrrr Advertising....

[Geoff D]

Whilst I agree that the 4:3 US edition may well be the exact same discs that were issued in the UK and elsewhere (the alternate language options in the first post of this thread are VERY similar indeed), we've got no idea how the 16:9 versions will look as regards to whether they've been cleaned up any more than the 4:3 versions.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by MTRodaba2468

Well, I'm a stickler for the OAR, so it looks like I'll be going for the Definitive Collection...

I think it's really crazy they're making people pay more for OAR. Is there any other difference between the sets?

I'm conflicted because I think 16:9 cropping can look good (ER) and bad (X-Files) and it's hard to predict which this will be before seeing it.

[Robbo1999]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Whilst I agree that the 4:3 US edition may well be the exact same discs that were issued in the UK and elsewhere (the alternate language options in the first post of this thread are VERY similar indeed), we've got no idea how the 16:9 versions will look as regards to whether they've been cleaned up any more than the 4:3 versions.

I have already enquired whether the full screen prints have been cleaned up any more than those currently available. Of course, it may change depending if the studios are prepared to invest in proper restoration. The Japanese NBC Universal Branch (formally Geneon Universal)tend to end up financing these things- eg Knight Rider, Thunderbirds etc--they know how to do a good job. Reformatting a picture is a small burden for the studios- unlike proper HD restoration which most studios turn a shoulder to - It is no longer what fans want, but whether the studios can make a profit. Sad but true. If you compare the HD restoration of Knight Rider, or Geneon's Thunderbirds set, (both in HD 1080p and DTS MA 5.1, ) you will see just how good they are in comparison to the recent Galactica releases.

I do agree that nothing is definite until you have the set in your hands, so you can argue what I say is speculation. I just have my doubts Universal USA will invest in the project..

[Geoff D]

Sure, I'm not saying that Universal have restored it from the ground up, because they haven't. But simply cropping the extant 4:3 masters to 16:9 would be a fool's errand and I hope that Universal US haven't been so spectacularly stupid to do it that way. To do it right they'd need to go back to the film elements and properly transfer it.

I don't think I've seen any comparison caps of the 1.85 'movie' to the relevant 4:3 TV episodes, that would be a good way of judging what they've done with it, whether it's got any extra information on the sides or whether it's simply a hard crop from the 4:3.

[oddbox83]

If the HD scans were performed in 2K or above scanning the full film aperture, surely there'd be more than enough to detail to output both 4:3 and 16:9 1080p versions from the same scan? That's common practice these days, it means getting the film elements out of storage and costly scanning only need to be done the once.

[chip75]

Battlestar Galactica 50280-2 'Saga of a Star World Parts 1-3' DVD and Battlestar Galactica: The Movie Blu-ray Comparisons

*Blu-ray captures from Blu-ray.com's review.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Very cool screen comparisons re: BG full-screen vs. widescreen; especially nice for someone like me, who hasn't seen this show on Blu yet.

That being said, is this going to become another X-files thread (as seen in the wish-list section)?! If so, no problem

Not for the first time, I noticed that the four-eyed, two-mouthed singer (there were three of them in the pilot) actually looks like someone who was unfortunately born with some kind of birth defect instead of an actual alien - quite disturbing....