[OT] James Cameron
Your Name
For those who think George Lucas is "greedy" for re-releasing the movies
and videos / DVDs ... think again, James Cameron beats him in the greed /
"con the fan" stakes by far.
Cameron released the movie Avatar, then there was the DVD / Blu-ray
release, then the "Special Edition" in cinemas, now a DVD / Blu-ray of the
"Special Edition" (plus more footage), and next year the planned 3D DVD
release ... all within only about two years!! Then of course there are two
sequels (at least) in the works which could easily follow the same
pattern. :-\
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
his position. And I don't care if he releases 25 versions of each
film. I wouldn't even care if he made a version with JarJar dubbed
in over R2D2. My only gripe is that he won't release the theatrical
versions of the original trilogy in decent quality. If he did that,
I can guarantee you that all complaints would cease immediately.
In rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc Your Name <your...@isp.com> wrote:
: For those who think George Lucas is "greedy" for re-releasing the movies
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> I really don't care if George Lucas is greedy. I would be too in
> his position. And I don't care if he releases 25 versions of each
> film. I wouldn't even care if he made a version with JarJar dubbed
> in over R2D2. My only gripe is that he won't release the theatrical
> versions of the original trilogy in decent quality. If he did that,
> I can guarantee you that all complaints would cease immediately.
I can understand the kind of sheer work that would have to go into
restoring the originals and why he would focus on the versions he
actually prefers himself as a director.
It's like demanding that the original cut of Brazil should be released
in Bluray (which it might have been, I don't keep up) even though
Terry Gilliam hated it.
You may not like the SE, and I can understand why, but apart from a
few key moments, the SE add to the originals, and you can just close
your eyes when SE stuff happens.
I'm trying to think of what I disliked about the SE's... I think it's
the obvious with the Greedo scene of course, and also the slapstick
droid shenanigans when Luke is coming in to Mos Eisley.
I like that the Emperor is Ian McDiarmid in ESB, and I'm ok with
Hayden Christensen taking the place of Sebastian Shaw in the ghostly
trio.
I love the attack of the death star one with the souped up SFX and the
Falcon taking off from the docking bay in Mos Eisley is orgasmic.
The Jabba scenes in ANH were cheesy in 1996 but they remade it for the
DVD release so it looked a lot better, even though the scene was kind
of unneeded.
I'm not sure I can think of anything in the SE I really hated. A lot
of the touch up was fixing matte problems and such, which is really
nice. I have an old original VHS copy of the movies and well, they
kind of suck quality-wise, and not only due to the VHS format :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
> I'm not sure I can think of anything in the SE I really hated. A lot
> of the touch up was fixing matte problems and such, which is really
> nice. I have an old original VHS copy of the movies and well, they
> kind of suck quality-wise, and not only due to the VHS format :)
> Sandman[.net]
Oh, no, Sandman, it seems that you too are part of the conspiracy of
terror that Lucas has created to hunt down and destroy the true
believers!
Once you have started down the dark path, forever will it dominate
your destiny!
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: I can understand the kind of sheer work that would have to go into
: actually prefers himself as a director.
This presumes that it would be expensive to do so. Heck, if he simply
re-released the already-existing laserdisc masters (that were used for
the 2006 bonus disk) with the anamorphic switch set to "on", a lot of
people would be thrilled. That would cost absolutely nothing.
Duggy
And a lot of people would be pissed at the second rate copy.
===
= DUG.
===
Sandman
<6bf2fe0d-cc29-453b...@fh19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
Consider my destiny to be dominated, then :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
I didn't know the laserdisc edition of Star Wars was digital 1080p
video.
Laserdiscs had 425 lines resolution of analog video. I have a hard
time assuming that the supposed master for this low-resolution format
would be suited for a bluray release. And said master would also
probably still be analog, so the same thing applies.
I read somewhere that the Bluray release will be the first all-digital
restoration of the original trilogy (SE, that is) and that the DVD
release was a mostly analog restoration and then transfer to digital.
I can't remember where I read it and I could be mistaken, of course.
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
> In article <4ce1d50d$0$1612$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
Well there you go with your facts. Facts are just going to anny him.
===
= DUG.
===
C'Pi
He's going to sprout red hair and start singing?
C'Pi
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: video.
I'm not talking about copying a laserdisc, but using the master that
was used to create the laserdisc. That is what was used to release
the theatrical "extras" on the 2006 set. Duggy seemed to think those
were perfectly good releases, and I might even be inclined to accept
that, if they would play properly on modern equipment. But since they
were mastered without the anamorphic flag set, they look pretty awful.
I have no way of knowing whether that was intentional or not, but it
certainly would be an easy fix and would at least be semi-watchable.
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : I didn't know the laserdisc edition of Star Wars was digital 1080p
> : video.
>
> I'm not talking about copying a laserdisc, but using the master that
> was used to create the laserdisc.
I talked about that in the part of my post that you snipped out.
<snip>.
--
Sandman[.net]
Your Name
"C'Pi" <Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ibtnmc$hvl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The DVDs'll come out
Tomorrow
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow
There'll be DVDs!
Just thinkin' about
Tomorrow
Clears away the VHS tapes,
And the sorrow
'Til there's none!
...
;-)
Dan Dassow
> The DVDs'll come out
> Tomorrow
> Bet your bottom dollar
> That tomorrow
> There'll be DVDs!
>
> Just thinkin' about
> Tomorrow
> Clears away the VHS tapes,
> And the sorrow
> 'Til there's none!
> ...
>
> ;-)
If "Your Name" is Annie, who is Daddy Warbucks and who is Sandy?
Dan Dassow
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: > I'm not talking about copying a laserdisc, but using the master that
: > was used to create the laserdisc.
: I talked about that in the part of my post that you snipped out.
Sorry about that. With respect to the master being analog, that in and
of itself doesn't make it bad, after all, the film itself is analog.
However, not setting the anamorphic flag during encoding *is* bad.
And easily corrected (by the studio, that is).
Your Name
<Ya...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe Duggy meant Anny Skywalker, i.e. the whiney little brat. ;-)
Duggy
> > Well there you go with your facts. Facts are just going to anny him.
> He's going to sprout red hair and start singing?
Anny = have anal sex with.
The way he over-reacts to everything it seems like that's what's going
on.
===
= DUG.
===
Your Name
"Dan Dassow" <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8510a61f-9de8-4dbe...@b25g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
Who is Sandy? Everyone playing on the beach. ;-)
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : > I'm not talking about copying a laserdisc, but using the master that
> : > was used to create the laserdisc.
> : I talked about that in the part of my post that you snipped out.
>
> Sorry about that. With respect to the master being analog, that in and
> of itself doesn't make it bad, after all, the film itself is analog.
> However, not setting the anamorphic flag during encoding *is* bad.
> And easily corrected (by the studio, that is).
A master for a low-resolution format such as laserdics can't be
expected to work well for 1080p digital content, is my point.
Whether it is anamorphic or not doesn't make much difference then :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<your.name-171...@203-109-174-85.dial.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
your...@isp.com (Your Name) wrote:
Heck, just pick Any Skywalker.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
<8510a61f-9de8-4dbe...@b25g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Dan Dassow <dan_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm obviously Sandy :)
--
Sandman[.net]
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
Of course it's not as good.
: Whether it is anamorphic or not doesn't make much difference then :)
It's a huge difference. The difference is decent/watchable
versus completely unwatchable. As yet there hasn't been a
release of the theatrical versions that is watchable on modern
equipment. An anamorphic release of the laserdisc transfer would be.
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> In rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> : A master for a low-resolution format such as laserdics can't be
> : expected to work well for 1080p digital content, is my point.
>
> Of course it's not as good.
>
> : Whether it is anamorphic or not doesn't make much difference then :)
>
> It's a huge difference. The difference is decent/watchable
I wouldn't want Lucasfilm to ever release a version of Star Wars that
could be described as "decent/watchable"
--
Sandman[.net]
Your Name
<m...@sandman.net> wrote:
We didn't ever see Shmi Skywalker as a whiney brat. ;-)
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
... he says with unintended irony :)
Duggy
It's ironic you're the one who keeps fighting for a second rate
product.
===
= DUG.
===
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
Ok, where the *quality* was described as "decent/watchable" - plus, we
ARE discussing the original trilogy here :-D
--
Sandman[.net]
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: It's ironic you're the one who keeps fighting for a second rate
: product.
You guys are the ones saying it's too expensive for him to make
a first rate product. I'm just trying to be reasonable given
his alleged financial limitations.
Duggy
> You guys are the ones saying it's too expensive for him to make
> a first rate product. I'm just trying to be reasonable given
> his alleged financial limitations.
We'd prefer to wait for a quality product.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
Me too, if it happens. Do you think there will ever be a quality
release of the theatrical versions? Do you think there should be?
Duggy
> In rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> : We'd prefer to wait for a quality product.
> Me too, if it happens.
But you're pushing a barely decent/watchable one. The irony.
> Do you think there will ever be a quality release of the theatrical versions?
Original theatrical releases? Or SE?
> Do you think there should be?
Define "should"?
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: Original theatrical releases? Or SE?
I meant original theatrical, because it was the one that
revolutionized moviemaking. But I suppose a similar question
could then be legitimately asked about the theatrical SE.
: Define "should"?
Ok, how about this... do you think that the theatrical version
of the original trilogy is a sufficiently significant historical
artifact that its creator is morally obliged not to impede its
being made available for general viewing?
My answer would be "yes" (morally, not legally), with the caveat
that he however retains the moral right to decide who releases it
and who profits from it. My guess is that your answer is a
blanket "no", which of course is a fair answer... since it is
after all a moral, not a legal question to begin with.
Duggy
> I meant original theatrical, because it was the one that
> revolutionized moviemaking.
So just Star Wars... not Empire or Jedi?
> But I suppose a similar question could then be legitimately asked about the theatrical SE.
Well, yes, you weren't clear.
> : Define "should"?
> Ok, how about this... do you think that the theatrical version
> of the original trilogy is a sufficiently significant historical
> artifact that its creator is morally obliged not to impede its
> being made available for general viewing?
If historical significance is all you care about, then, no the creator
is not obliged to make it available to the general public.
If historical significance is the only motivator he should not impede
archiving by the appropriate government bodies.
Funny thing... recently they reconstructed "Wake in Fright" which had
been "lost" for 20 years and the components were about to be
destroyed.
Thing is I saw a copying of it while doing a cinema subject at
university... the national archive had a copy all along.
> My answer would be "yes" (morally, not legally), with the caveat
> that he however retains the moral right to decide who releases it
> and who profits from it.
And if he decided no one has the right to release it or profit from
it?
> My guess is that your answer is
Don't assume.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: So just Star Wars... not Empire or Jedi?
Good question, although not a critcal one. For sake of
expediting discussion, let's just say Star Wars.
: > : Define "should"?
: > Ok, how about this... do you think that the theatrical version
: > of the original trilogy is a sufficiently significant historical
: > artifact that its creator is morally obliged not to impede its
: > being made available for general viewing?
:
: If historical significance is all you care about, then, no the creator
: is not obliged to make it available to the general public.
I didn't say "make available". I said "not to impede its being
made available". (And although it's not all I care about, it's what
we're discussing at the moment.)
: If historical significance is the only motivator he should not impede
: archiving by the appropriate government bodies.
But if something is historically significant, then only allowing
archiving by a government body, while disallowing public access,
is suppressing access to history. Is that not generally considered
a bad idea?
: Thing is I saw a copying of it while doing a cinema subject at
: university... the national archive had a copy all along.
The Library of Congress supposedly has at least one print of the
theatrical release of Star Wars. But that doesn't do a sociologist,
film student, or researcher much good if one man can decide that
nobody is allowed to ever see it.
: > My answer would be "yes" (morally, not legally), with the caveat
: > that he however retains the moral right to decide who releases it
: > and who profits from it.
: And if he decided no one has the right to release it or profit from
: it?
That would be impeding its being made availabile for viewing, so I think
I've already answered that one.
Scott
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : It's ironic you're the one who keeps fighting for a second rate
> : product.
>
> You guys are the ones saying it's too expensive for him to make
> a first rate product.
...twice.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : Define "should"?
>
> Ok, how about this... do you think that the theatrical version
> of the original trilogy is a sufficiently significant historical
> artifact that its creator is morally obliged not to impede its
> being made available for general viewing?
Morality has nothing to do with it. No "artist" is morally obliged to
retain any specific version of his artwork when and if he has
subsequently changed it in a way he may or may not prefer more than
the version as specifici subset of the public prefers.
As part of this subset of the public, you have the power not to buy
the version the artist want to sell, but your power over his decisions
stops there.
--
Sandman[.net]
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: Morality has nothing to do with it. No "artist" is morally obliged to
: subsequently changed it in a way he may or may not prefer more than
: the version as specifici subset of the public prefers.
Ok, that's the answer I predicted. And then of course the canonical
followup question goes something like: if Michelangelo in his aging
years went insane and decided he wanted to hunt down and destroy all
of his sculptures, should society be granted any recourse to stop
that from happening? I know that currently there is no such recourse,
I'm just asking your opinion if you think there should be.
: As part of this subset of the public, you have the power not to buy
: the version the artist want to sell, but your power over his decisions
: stops there.
I know that. And I have exercised that right. It's irrelevant to
the question.
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : Morality has nothing to do with it. No "artist" is morally obliged to
> : retain any specific version of his artwork when and if he has
> : subsequently changed it in a way he may or may not prefer more than
> : the version as specifici subset of the public prefers.
>
> Ok, that's the answer I predicted. And then of course the canonical
> followup question goes something like: if Michelangelo in his aging
> years went insane and decided he wanted to hunt down and destroy all
> of his sculptures, should society be granted any recourse to stop
> that from happening?
Nope.
> I know that currently there is no such recourse,
> I'm just asking your opinion if you think there should be.
As long as he owns it, he gets to decide what to do with it.
> : As part of this subset of the public, you have the power not to buy
> : the version the artist want to sell, but your power over his decisions
> : stops there.
>
> I know that. And I have exercised that right. It's irrelevant to
> the question.
No, it's relevant to the topic of morality, which would - if
applicable - be a form of power over the artist. But it's not.
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> : So just Star Wars... not Empire or Jedi?
> Good question, although not a critcal one. For sake of
> expediting discussion, let's just say Star Wars.
So you want Lucas to release just a second rate version of the
original release of only the first Star Wars film?
Wow, how pointless is that?
> : > : Define "should"?
> : > Ok, how about this... do you think that the theatrical version
> : > of the original trilogy is a sufficiently significant historical
> : > artifact that its creator is morally obliged not to impede its
> : > being made available for general viewing?
> : If historical significance is all you care about, then, no the creator
> : is not obliged to make it available to the general public.
> I didn't say "make available". I said "not to impede its being
> made available". (And although it's not all I care about, it's what
> we're discussing at the moment.)
General viewing? Yeah, he should impede anyone else from illegally
making it available for general viewing.
> : If historical significance is the only motivator he should not impede
> : archiving by the appropriate government bodies.
> But if something is historically significant, then only allowing
> archiving by a government body, while disallowing public access,
> is suppressing access to history. Is that not generally considered
> a bad idea?
Who said disallowing public access? Make up stuff much?
> : Thing is I saw a copying of it while doing a cinema subject at
> : university... the national archive had a copy all along.
> The Library of Congress supposedly has at least one print of the
> theatrical release of Star Wars.
Good. Problem solved.
> But that doesn't do a sociologist,
> film student, or researcher much good if one man can decide that
> nobody is allowed to ever see it.
Sociologists, film students and researchers do have access to it.
As I said, I say an archived film because I was a student. Make up
stuff much?
> : > My answer would be "yes" (morally, not legally), with the caveat
> : > that he however retains the moral right to decide who releases it
> : > and who profits from it.
> : And if he decided no one has the right to release it or profit from
> : it?
> That would be impeding its being made availabile for viewing, so I think
> I've already answered that one.
And you locking your doors is impeding me from living in your house.
I don't think that is fair. Please stop now.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Ok, that's the answer I predicted.
The only correct answer is usually pretty predictable.
> And then of course the canonical
> followup question goes something like: if Michelangelo in his aging
> years went insane and decided he wanted to hunt down and destroy all
> of his sculptures,
So you think that Lucas has gone insane and is trying to destroy all
copies of Star Wars?
> should society be granted any recourse to stop
> that from happening?
"any recourse"... including murder?
> I know that currently there is no such recourse,
Good. Sanctioning the murder of artists is going a little too far.
> I'm just asking your opinion if you think there should be.
No.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: So you want Lucas to release just a second rate version of the
: original release of only the first Star Wars film?
You are a grandmaster at twisting words.
: General viewing? Yeah, he should impede anyone else from illegally
: making it available for general viewing.
I already covered that when I said that he should retain the right to
determine who releases it and profits from the release. You still
haven't answered the question.
: Sociologists, film students and researchers do have access to it.
Where? Say I'm a film student, how would I access it? (legally)
: And you locking your doors is impeding me from living in your house.
: I don't think that is fair. Please stop now.
I didn't realize my home was a culturally significant work of art.
I'm honored that you think so.
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: So you think that Lucas has gone insane and is trying to destroy all
: copies of Star Wars?
That's a different question. I actually don't know the answer to that.
: > should society be granted any recourse to stop
: > that from happening?
: "any recourse"... including murder?
Of course not. By "any" I meant "some reasonable".
: > I'm just asking your opinion if you think there should be.
: No.
Eureka! You've actually answered a question! I can die in peace!
We can actually agree to disagree... for once, I actually have learned
something that you actually believe in and are willing to state, rather
than just talking in circles. This is a momentous day! A breakthrough!
Duggy
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> : So you want Lucas to release just a second rate version of the
> : original release of only the first Star Wars film?
> You are a grandmaster at twisting words.
They're your words.
> : General viewing? Yeah, he should impede anyone else from illegally
> : making it available for general viewing.
> I already covered that when I said that he should retain the right to
> determine who releases it and profits from the release. You still
> haven't answered the question.
Yes, I have.
> : Sociologists, film students and researchers do have access to it.
> Where? Say I'm a film student, how would I access it? (legally)
Through your university.
> : And you locking your doors is impeding me from living in your house.
> : I don't think that is fair. Please stop now.
> I didn't realize my home was a culturally significant work of art.
> I'm honored that you think so.
No, but it is something that you own. Like Lucas owns Star Wars.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> : So you think that Lucas has gone insane and is trying to destroy all
> : copies of Star Wars?
> That's a different question. I actually don't know the answer to that.
So that whole issue was just a straw man you created to muddy the
waters.
> : > should society be granted any recourse to stop
> : > that from happening?
> : "any recourse"... including murder?
> Of course not. By "any" I meant "some reasonable".
And you consider murder a reasonable recourse?
> : > I'm just asking your opinion if you think there should be.
> : No.
> Eureka! You've actually answered a question!
I've answered many.
> I can die in peace!
Please do.
> We can actually agree to disagree... for once, I actually have learned
> something that you actually believe in and are willing to state, rather
> than just talking in circles.
I'm sorry if I want to be clear about what I'm saying. Unlike you who
tell us you want a second rate DVD of Star Wars released and then say
you don't want one.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: > : Sociologists, film students and researchers do have access to it.
: > Where? ?Say I'm a film student, how would I access it? ?(legally)
: Through your university.
I work at a university, and know of no way to obtain a high quality
copy of the theatrical versions.
: > I didn't realize my home was a culturally significant work of art.
: > I'm honored that you think so.
: No, but it is something that you own. Like Lucas owns Star Wars.
But if my home gets listed on the registry of historic places, then
there would be limits placed on the changes that I could make to it.
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: On Nov 20, 9:32?am, sgor...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
: > Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
: > : So you think that Lucas has gone insane and is trying to destroy all
: > : copies of Star Wars?
: So that whole issue was just a straw man you created to muddy the
: waters.
Not at all. I said I didn't know the answer. But it is possible that
that situtaion does apply to him. So you believe that Michelangelo would
have had the moral right in his elder years to track down and destroy his
earlier sculptures, if he so desired? I don't, but that's just my opinion.
: And you consider murder a reasonable recourse?
Heavens no. Those are your words, not mine.
: >?I can die in peace!
: Please do.
Ah, it's YOU advocating murder!
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
Many homes are. Yet people live in them, and don't want you in their
living room.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
Which would be a relevant question if Star Wars was "listed on the
registry of historic movies" and as such was limited to be changed by
it's owner.
It's not.
And if you built your own house, you are free to re-build it as you
see fit, even if it's considered historical.
You're not having much luck with analogies :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> : > : Sociologists, film students and researchers do have access to it.
> : > Where? ?Say I'm a film student, how would I access it? ?(legally)
> : Through your university.
> I work at a university, and know of no way to obtain a high quality
> copy of the theatrical versions.
I don't think it applies to janitors.
> : > I didn't realize my home was a culturally significant work of art.
> : > I'm honored that you think so.
> : No, but it is something that you own. Like Lucas owns Star Wars.
> But if my home gets listed on the registry of historic places, then
> there would be limits placed on the changes that I could make to it.
That doesn't mean I can live there.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Not at all. I said I didn't know the answer. But it is possible that
> that situtaion does apply to him.
What if you were breaking into children's houses and murdering them in
their sleep?
I don't know if you do. It is possible that the situation does apply
to you.
> So you believe that Michelangelo would
> have had the moral right in his elder years to track down and destroy his
> earlier sculptures, if he so desired? I don't, but that's just my opinion.
I certainly don't think you have the right to murder small children.
> : And you consider murder a reasonable recourse?
> Heavens no. Those are your words, not mine.
Then what are you calling what you do to those children?
> : >?I can die in peace!
> : Please do.
> Ah, it's YOU advocating murder!
No, no, just suicide.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: Which would be a relevant question if Star Wars was "listed on the
: it's owner.
: It's not.
Of course, because there is no such thing. My question wasn't a legal one.
: And if you built your own house, you are free to re-build it as you
: see fit, even if it's considered historical.
Good point, at least for federal laws. State laws vary, and in many
countries there are such restrictions (such as Italy).
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: What if you were breaking into children's houses and murdering them in
: their sleep? I don't know if you do. It is possible that the situation
: does apply to you.
Is your analogy that since Lucas is allowed to track down and destroy
the prints of his movie, that people should therefore be allowed to
murder kids? Odd conclusion. I guess neither of us are very good
at analogies.
: I certainly don't think you have the right to murder small children.
But you just implied that I do.
: Then what are you calling what you do to those children?
...
: No, no, just suicide.
I've learned through experience that once you devolve to personal
wierdness, the conversation loses merit. Since your last post consists
of attempting to insult me by calling me a janitor (not that there would
be anything wrong with being a janitor), claiming I murder children, and
asking me to commit suicide, it would seem that the conversation is
exhausted. At least sandman is civil (or has been so far).
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : And if you built your own house, you are free to re-build it as you
> : see fit, even if it's considered historical.
>
> Good point, at least for federal laws. State laws vary, and in many
> countries there are such restrictions (such as Italy).
Not really. Not only is it rare for a house to become historical while
its creator lives in and owns it (which is the only timeframe which is
interesting in this discussion), but the owner of a C-branded facility
can usually do pretty much with it. The most common limitation is the
facade and how it should be kept in style with the contemporary style
of the house. Meaning that you can restore/remodel even the facade
slightly if you so wish.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> I've learned through experience that once you devolve to personal
> wierdness, the conversation loses merit. Since your last post consists
> of attempting to insult me by calling me a janitor (not that there would
> be anything wrong with being a janitor), claiming I murder children, and
> asking me to commit suicide, it would seem that the conversation is
> exhausted. At least sandman is civil (or has been so far).
You asshole! :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
> Of course, because there is no such thing. My question wasn't a legal one.
Then stop asking illegal questions.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> Is your analogy that since Lucas is allowed to track down and destroy
> the prints of his movie,
He's not.
> that people should therefore be allowed to
> murder kids?
You're not. Stop doing it.
> Odd conclusion.
Odd you haven't denied it.
> I guess neither of us are very good
> at analogies.
My point was you're bad at them. Good to see you're admitting that.
> : I certainly don't think you have the right to murder small children.
> But you just implied that I do.
No. Please stop and turn yourself in to police.
> : Then what are you calling what you do to those children?
> : No, no, just suicide.
> I've learned through experience that once you devolve to personal
> wierdness, the conversation loses merit.
You're right. And your whole claim that the rights to Lucas should be
taken off him is the the personal weirdness that ruined this one.
> Since your last post consists
> of attempting to insult me by calling me a janitor (not that there would
> be anything wrong with being a janitor),
When did I say that it was a bad thing to be a janitor. You're the
one saying it was an insult. I was pointing out that just working at
a university isn't enough.
> claiming I murder children,
It was an anology. It seems you can't tell the difference. So you
really do believe that Lucas is insane and actively searching out and
destroying all copies of Star Wars.
> asking me to commit suicide,
Suddenly there's something wrong with that?
> it would seem that the conversation is
> exhausted.
Good. Stop.
> At least sandman is civil (or has been so far).
With you? What's the point? You're clearly insane.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: of the house. Meaning that you can restore/remodel even the facade
Fair enough. An operative word here is "slightly", since we probably
would have to agree to disagree whether the theatrical and SE versions
of the original trilogy differ only slightly.
Duggy
There is no heritage order on films.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: On Nov 21, 7:48 am, sgor...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
: > Fair enough. An operative word here is "slightly", since we probably
: > would have to agree to disagree whether the theatrical and SE versions
: > of the original trilogy differ only slightly.
: There is no heritage order on films.
I've never said there was. Only that perhaps there should be.
I've always agreed that George could legally do whatever he wants
to do with his films. My opinion is that that is an unfortunate
flaw in the legal system. In your opinion, the law is good the
way it is.
I also question his judgement, and believe that everyone would be
happier AND he would make more money if he also released the
theatrical versions. But that too is a matter of opinion, and
I have always agreed that legally it is his decision and he can do
whatever he wants (within the limits of whatever contracts he has
entered into). While I can understand someone disagreeing with my
opinions, I still don't understand why you insist on considering
them to be signs of my insanity, but that's irrelevant.
Duggy
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> I've never said there was. Only that perhaps there should be.
No need. When the films are mass produced and able to be archived,
protection isn't needed.
You know for a fact that there is at least one archived copy in the
US. There's probably at least one in Australia. The film is safe.
> I've always agreed that George could legally do whatever he wants
> to do with his films.
And you can legally whine and bitch because he isn't doing exactly
what you want. And everyone else can legally mock you.
> My opinion is that that is an unfortunate flaw in the legal system.
There is no flaw.
> In your opinion, the law is good the way it is.
The film is archived, the heritage is protected and so are creator
rights. That is good.
> I also question his judgement, and believe that everyone would be
> happier
Everyone? Seriously?
> AND he would make more money if he also released the
> theatrical versions.
Releasing a DVD costs a lot of money and this is a DVD that there is
onlyu minimal demand for.
> But that too is a matter of opinion, and
> I have always agreed that legally it is his decision and he can do
> whatever he wants (within the limits of whatever contracts he has
> entered into).
And you legally entitled you cry like a baby about it.
> While I can understand someone disagreeing with my
> opinions, I still don't understand why you insist on considering
> them to be signs of my insanity, but that's irrelevant.
Your insanity is pretty irrelevant.
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: The film is archived, the heritage is protected and so are creator
: rights. That is good.
So, out of curiosity, it would seem that you would support Lucas' right
to request that the Library of Congress return their print so that he
could destroy it. After all, it's his. So, given that, would it be a
good thing if he were to exercise that right, and actually destroy all
copies in the world, including all copies of the SE and every other form
of the movie?
: > I also question his judgement, and believe that everyone would be
: > happier
: Everyone? Seriously?
Sure. Well, at least as happy. You and Sandman would still be able to
enjoy your preferred SE versions, I'd be able to enjoy the original
theatrical versions, Lucas would make more money. But now that I think
more about it, there are a few people out there who are getting enjoyment out
of others' disappointment. They would be less happy simply because others
would then be happy. You wouldn't fall into that category, would you?
: And you legally entitled you cry like a baby about it.
I think your posts have been considerably more immature than mine.
Your sentence includes baby grammar, too. :)
Duggy
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> to request that the Library of Congress return their print so that he
> could destroy it.
No such right exists.
Does the request actually exist?
> : > I also question his judgement, and believe that everyone would be
> : > happier
> : Everyone? Seriously?
> Sure. Well, at least as happy.
That isn't happier.
> You and Sandman would still be able to enjoy your preferred SE versions,
I've never said I prefer the SE. I don't recall Sandman ever saying
so either.
Another of your delusions?
> I'd be able to enjoy the original
> theatrical versions, Lucas would make more money.
Or lose money.
> But now that I think
> more about it, there are a few people out there who are getting enjoyment out
> of others' disappointment.
Yes. They're plotting against you.
> You wouldn't fall into that category, would you?
Yes, I'm clearly part of the conspiracy.
> : And you legally entitled you cry like a baby about it.
> I think your posts have been considerably more immature than mine.
> Your sentence includes baby grammar, too. :)
I know you are but what am I?
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: No such right exists.
: Does the request actually exist?
No, it doesn't, but that wasn't the point of my question. So far, the
jist of the defense of Lucas' refusal to release the original theatrical
versions (since the SE came out), seems to be: "it's legal, and it's what
he wants, therefore it is good." I was just curious is there was any limit
to what he could legally do with the films that you would still consider
to be a *good* thing if he did it.
Duggy
> No, it doesn't,
Then what is the point of the question?
> I was just curious is there was any limit
> to what he could legally do with the films that you would still consider
> to be a *good* thing if he did it.
Please learn to read. Your bizarre claims about Lucas' secret plan
isn't true. He cannot request to destroy the copies kept in the
archives.
Despite your conspiracy theory.
Do you plan to murder everyone who visits your house?
===
= DUG.
===
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
In terms of comparison to the cngaes you're allowed to do to a
C-branden facility here, they compare to changing the carpet and
putting in 3-sheet windows. I.e. not at all. Some 99% is identical and
actually better than the original (i.e. even if the inner walls are
the same, all the small cracks that has been there all the time have
been fixed).
We were stretching this analogy out thin as it was, I think it's about
to burst. Let us just agree that it doesn't really support your line
of thinking :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> I've never said there was. Only that perhaps there should be.
> I've always agreed that George could legally do whatever he wants
> to do with his films. My opinion is that that is an unfortunate
> flaw in the legal system. In your opinion, the law is good the
> way it is.
Look at it the other way around - when the film is owned not by the
artist but by the movie company and they have butchered the artists
vision of the movie and the final product looks nothing like the
artwork he had in mind from the start.
I'm sure you're familiar with movies like Brazil and Blade Runner just
to mention two obvious ones.
Now here the artist most definitely wanted to track down every copy
and delete it from the face of the earth and instead release their
intended version. Both got the chance (eventually) in these cases and
the syndicated versions are left around for historic trivia of
corporate idiocy.
And don't forget the Star Wars Holiday Special, which is more close to
the subject at hand. I'm sure you'd have no problem letting GL hunt
down every single copy and burning it.
GL is special in this case since there is no middle man that owns his
work as opposed to the above examples.
> I also question his judgement, and believe that everyone would be
> happier AND he would make more money if he also released the
> theatrical versions.
I disagree. There are very few Star Wars fans that prefer the
originals to the special editions. Many dislike certain aspects of the
SE, but still like most of them more than the originals.
> But that too is a matter of opinion, and
> I have always agreed that legally it is his decision and he can do
> whatever he wants (within the limits of whatever contracts he has
> entered into). While I can understand someone disagreeing with my
> opinions, I still don't understand why you insist on considering
> them to be signs of my insanity, but that's irrelevant.
--
Sandman[.net]
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: Look at it the other way around - when the film is owned not by the
: vision of the movie and the final product looks nothing like the
: artwork he had in mind from the start. I'm sure you're familiar with
: movies like Brazil and Blade Runner just to mention two obvious ones.
That seems like a different issue to me. Perhaps you can clarify?
Something else I was thinking of, was the loss of some 80% of feature
movies during the silent era. I know why it happened (not through any
deliberate nefarious reason), and just think that it is unfortunate,
because they were important artistic achievements that we cannot see.
Whatever the reason, whatever the legality, I think it is unfortunate
when a revolutionary work of art cannot be seen. SW won oscars for
special effects and editing (among other things), and so I think it is
unfortunate that we can't see the effects and the editing that won the
oscars in 1977. Watching the SE, there is no way to tell which effects
were the ones that revolutionized filmmaking, and which effects are new.
: And don't forget the Star Wars Holiday Special, which is more close to
: the subject at hand. I'm sure you'd have no problem letting GL hunt
: down every single copy and burning it.
He'd have to pry my copy out of my dead hands! :)
: GL is special in this case since there is no middle man that owns his
: work as opposed to the above examples.
True, it is a singular case in many respects.
: I disagree. There are very few Star Wars fans that prefer the
: originals to the special editions. Many dislike certain aspects of the
: SE, but still like most of them more than the originals.
I think a far more accurate description, is that there are very few people
that even realize that the new releases aren't the theatrical versions.
Lucas has long stopped putting "SE" on his releases. The recent Fox
75th Anniversary box set lists the Star Wars track as being "1977".
I don't see how anyone anymore would learn that there is a difference.
I was listening to the radio while driving last year (a daytime talk show),
and the co-hosts were talking about how inferior the 1977 effects were to
the prequel effects, and they used the Jabba scene from the SE as their
example of a bad 1977 effect! And these are alleged Star Wars fans.
Most fans I know prefer the original versions. But you and I probably hang
with a set of differently-inclined fans, so I'm not sure either of us could
lay claim to which is more popular. Besides, most people who see the two
side-by-side would be comparing a restored anamorphic copy, to one that
many believe was intentionally made non-anamorphic so that it would suffer
by comparison. It's little wonder that many casual viewers would wrongly
conclude that the original versions looked like crap, when in fact they
were spectacular 70mm marvels, every bit as sharp as the SE looks today.
The sound in fact was better, as the more recent versions are overcompressed
and have the rear channels inadvertently swapped.
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : Look at it the other way around - when the film is owned not by the
> : artist but by the movie company and they have butchered the artists
> : vision of the movie and the final product looks nothing like the
> : artwork he had in mind from the start. I'm sure you're familiar with
> : movies like Brazil and Blade Runner just to mention two obvious ones.
>
> That seems like a different issue to me. Perhaps you can clarify?
>
> Something else I was thinking of, was the loss of some 80% of feature
> movies during the silent era. I know why it happened (not through any
> deliberate nefarious reason), and just think that it is unfortunate,
> because they were important artistic achievements that we cannot see.
Sure (to a certain extent, that period of film making wasn't really
known for it Oscar-winning-esque works of arts, really :)
But 80 years from now, the SE will suffice as an heritage of this
particular artistic achivement.
> Whatever the reason, whatever the legality, I think it is unfortunate
> when a revolutionary work of art cannot be seen.
Sure, but this isn't the case in this discussion. THe original Star
Wars most certainly can be seen, and will be able to be seen 100 years
from now - at least as much as the silent movies that have been kept.
> SW won oscars for
> special effects and editing (among other things), and so I think it is
> unfortunate that we can't see the effects and the editing that won the
> oscars in 1977.
But we can. It's not like the SE was an effect transplant. I'd say
some 95% of the original effects are on-screen in the SE. Most notably
is that the trench run has been revamped.
Plus, if you want to see the original effects, then see it. GL can't
stop me.
> Watching the SE, there is no way to tell which effects
> were the ones that revolutionized filmmaking, and which effects are new.
I think it's easy. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
> Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
>
> : Look at it the other way around - when the film is owned not by the
> : artist but by the movie company and they have butchered the artists
> : vision of the movie and the final product looks nothing like the
> : artwork he had in mind from the start. I'm sure you're familiar with
> : movies like Brazil and Blade Runner just to mention two obvious ones.
> That seems like a different issue to me. Perhaps you can clarify?
It can be. The artists original vision is lost... possibly never
exists.
> Something else I was thinking of, was the loss of some 80% of feature
> movies during the silent era. I know why it happened (not through any
> deliberate nefarious reason), and just think that it is unfortunate,
> because they were important artistic achievements that we cannot see.
Some were, some weren't.
> SW won oscars for
> special effects and editing (among other things),
So?
> and so I think it is
> unfortunate that we can't see the effects and the editing that won the
> oscars in 1977.
We can. They are available on DVD.
> Watching the SE, there is no way to tell which effects
> were the ones that revolutionized filmmaking, and which effects are new.
New and revolutionary.
> : I disagree. There are very few Star Wars fans that prefer the
> : originals to the special editions. Many dislike certain aspects of the
> : SE, but still like most of them more than the originals.
> I think a far more accurate description, is that there are very few people
> that even realize that the new releases aren't the theatrical versions.
Really? You honestly think that? That people can't tell the
difference?
> I was listening to the radio while driving last year (a daytime talk show),
> and the co-hosts were talking about how inferior the 1977 effects were to
> the prequel effects, and they used the Jabba scene from the SE as their
> example of a bad 1977 effect! And these are alleged Star Wars fans.
That guy in furs was pretty lame.
> Most fans I know prefer the original versions. But you and I probably hang
> with a set of differently-inclined fans, so I'm not sure either of us could
> lay claim to which is more popular.
Sales figures?
> to one that
> many believe was intentionally made non-anamorphic so that it would suffer
> by comparison.
Conspiracy!
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: On Nov 23, 9:40?am, sgor...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
: > and so I think it is unfortunate that we can't see the effects
: > and the editing that won the oscars in 1977.
: We can. They are available on DVD.
In a quality that obfuscates the actual technical achievements.
And, they are unlikely to be released again, at least under George's watch.
: > I think a far more accurate description, is that there are very few people
: > that even realize that the new releases aren't the theatrical versions.
: Really? You honestly think that? That people can't tell the
: difference?
I gave the example below.
: > I was listening to the radio while driving last year (a daytime talk show),
: > and the co-hosts were talking about how inferior the 1977 effects were to
: > the prequel effects, and they used the Jabba scene from the SE as their
: > example of a bad 1977 effect! And these are alleged Star Wars fans.
: That guy in furs was pretty lame.
He looks a lot more realistic than the cheesy 90s CGI Jabba... plus, he
was not even in the original release. He was wisely edited out... an
example of Academy award winning editing being undone. Now we get Solo's
spacecraft reveal prematurely.
: > Most fans I know prefer the original versions. But you and I probably hang
: > with a set of differently-inclined fans, so I'm not sure either of us could
: > lay claim to which is more popular.
: Sales figures?
I don't see how sales figures could be used to compare relative popularity,
when the two versions can't be bought separately.
: > to one that many believe was intentionally made non-anamorphic so
: > that it would suffer by comparison.
: Conspiracy!
The word "conspiracy" comes from the word "conspire". As I've said many
times, I don't think this is a conspiracy at all. It's one person's
decisions and he is doing them openly. He would probably claim that the
choice of making the original disks non-anamorphic was an "artistic decision".
My opinion has never been that this is a "conspiracy". They are simply
disturbing strategic decisions, and terrible artistic decisions.
Duggy
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> : On Nov 23, 9:40?am, sgor...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : > and so I think it is unfortunate that we can't see the effects
> : > and the editing that won the oscars in 1977.
And obfuscates the problems.
A good quality blu-ray release is going to look stupid to the modern
audience.
And most viewers aren't going to care about the technical
achievements.
I watched "Birth of a Nation" the other day, and the fact that is
created the modern film language is great and everything but you can't
actually see it on screen. All you can see is the bad.
> And, they are unlikely to be released again, at least under George's watch.
Happens.
> : That guy in furs was pretty lame.
> He looks a lot more realistic than the cheesy 90s CGI Jabba...
True. Lucas needs to do another re-release with new CGI.
> : > Most fans I know prefer the original versions. But you and I probably hang
> : > with a set of differently-inclined fans, so I'm not sure either of us could
> : > lay claim to which is more popular.
> : Sales figures?
> I don't see how sales figures could be used to compare relative popularity,
> when the two versions can't be bought separately.
What the hell are you talking about? The SE can easily be purchased
separately.
> : > to one that many believe was intentionally made non-anamorphic so
> : > that it would suffer by comparison.
> : Conspiracy!
> The word "conspiracy" comes from the word "conspire". As I've said many
> times, I don't think this is a conspiracy at all. It's one person's
> decisions and he is doing them openly. He would probably claim that the
> choice of making the original disks non-anamorphic was an "artistic decision".
> My opinion has never been that this is a "conspiracy". They are simply
> disturbing strategic decisions, and terrible artistic decisions.
Ah, so no one works for Lucasfilms except Lucas.
===
= DUG.
===
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : > and so I think it is unfortunate that we can't see the effects
> : > and the editing that won the oscars in 1977.
> : We can. They are available on DVD.
>
> In a quality that obfuscates the actual technical achievements.
Much like Bluray.
> And, they are unlikely to be released again, at least under George's watch.
Much like those silent movies...
> : > I was listening to the radio while driving last year (a daytime talk
> show),
> : > and the co-hosts were talking about how inferior the 1977 effects were to
> : > the prequel effects, and they used the Jabba scene from the SE as their
> : > example of a bad 1977 effect! And these are alleged Star Wars fans.
> : That guy in furs was pretty lame.
>
> He looks a lot more realistic than the cheesy 90s CGI Jabba...
But the SE Jabba looks more realistic than the ESB-Jabba from 1980. I
don't think "realistic" is a metric you should insert into the
argument here.
> plus, he was not even in the original release. He was wisely
> edited out... an example of Academy award winning editing being
> undone.
False logic. The Best Film Editing award was not awarded as a result
of that scene being edited out.
> Now we get Solo's spacecraft reveal prematurely.
Not really, you see very little of the Falcon in that scene, so the
Falcon scene carries no less weight.
> The word "conspiracy" comes from the word "conspire". As I've said many
> times, I don't think this is a conspiracy at all. It's one person's
> decisions and he is doing them openly. He would probably claim that the
> choice of making the original disks non-anamorphic was an "artistic
> decision".
No, he has openly claimed that it was a cost issues, as you know.
> My opinion has never been that this is a "conspiracy". They are simply
> disturbing strategic decisions, and terrible artistic decisions.
I know one way to make a terrible artistic decision; to release a copy
from an old outdated master that would be "decent/watchable" at best.
--
Sandman[.net]
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
: > In a quality that obfuscates the actual technical achievements.
: Much like Bluray.
One clearly obfuscates considerably more than the other.
: > And, they are unlikely to be released again, at least under George's watch.
: Much like those silent movies...
And as I said before, I consider both to be unfortunate.
: > He looks a lot more realistic than the cheesy 90s CGI Jabba...
: But the SE Jabba looks more realistic than the ESB-Jabba from 1980. I
: don't think "realistic" is a metric you should insert into the
: argument here.
Duggy called the guy in furs "lame" in my response to my scenario
in which the Jabba scene was used as an example of bad special effects.
"Realistic" is an appropriate term in response to that.
: > plus, he was not even in the original release. He was wisely
: > edited out... an example of Academy award winning editing being
: > undone.
: False logic. The Best Film Editing award was not awarded as a result
: of that scene being edited out.
It certainly wasn't awarded for the scene being edited in.
: > He would probably claim that the choice of making the original disks
: > non-anamorphic was an "artistic decision".
: No, he has openly claimed that it was a cost issues, as you know.
It costs money to check the "anamorphic" box in the encoder?
The same software does it anamorphic, or non-anamorphic.
: > My opinion has never been that this is a "conspiracy". They are simply
: > disturbing strategic decisions, and terrible artistic decisions.
: I know one way to make a terrible artistic decision; to release a copy
: from an old outdated master that would be "decent/watchable" at best.
Your sarcasm meter must have been turned off. Of course it would be
preferable to release it properly. I find it hard to believe that it
is a cost issue, or an artistic decision. He simply wants it forgotten,
after all the VHS copies deteriorate. That he has made clear.
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: Ah, so no one works for Lucasfilms except Lucas.
Hmm, so far you have always insisted that the films are entirely
his, and so he gets to make all decisions regarding the films.
Are you suggesting that actually isn't true?
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: True. Lucas needs to do another re-release with new CGI.
Ugh. Maybe they should add some CGI aliens to 2001 and "improve"
that movie too.
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : > In a quality that obfuscates the actual technical achievements.
> : Much like Bluray.
>
> One clearly obfuscates considerably more than the other.
Only because the version of the latter has been massively remastered.
I'm sure you have seen the quality of the masters as they looked back
in 1996.
> : > And, they are unlikely to be released again, at least under George's
> watch.
> : Much like those silent movies...
>
> And as I said before, I consider both to be unfortunate.
It's just that they have no usenet group? :)
I'm not sure why you focus on Star Wars here, there are literally tens
of thousands of artistic works that will never be released again, or
seen in their original form.
Like Mona Lisa, the last supper, Nosferatu. On and on and on.
> : > plus, he was not even in the original release. He was wisely
> : > edited out... an example of Academy award winning editing being
> : > undone.
> : False logic. The Best Film Editing award was not awarded as a result
> : of that scene being edited out.
>
> It certainly wasn't awarded for the scene being edited in.
Whatever that has to do with the subject at hand...
> : > He would probably claim that the choice of making the original disks
> : > non-anamorphic was an "artistic decision".
> : No, he has openly claimed that it was a cost issues, as you know.
>
> It costs money to check the "anamorphic" box in the encoder?
It costs money to release the original trilogy in a format that is
described in better terms than "decent/watchable", yes.
> : I know one way to make a terrible artistic decision; to release a copy
> : from an old outdated master that would be "decent/watchable" at best.
>
> Your sarcasm meter must have been turned off. Of course it would be
> preferable to release it properly. I find it hard to believe that it
> is a cost issue, or an artistic decision. He simply wants it forgotten,
> after all the VHS copies deteriorate. That he has made clear.
Where has he made that clear? Do you have some substantiation for this
statement?
Plus, the original versions do exist on DVD, so I have no idea why
you're bringing up VHS here. A letterboxed DVD version is still better
than the VHS version.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
Or how about changing the color of the sky in Blade Runner? Or
inserting a unicorn that wasn't there before? Or removing an entire
audio track?
I'm just assuming that you consider the Final Cut/Directors Cut of
Blade Runner to be better than the original and thus are ok with these
changes?
--
Sandman[.net]
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: I'm just assuming that you consider the Final Cut/Directors Cut of
: changes?
I'm OK with those changes, because the theatrical versions are also
being released side-by-side with the new versions. I have stated
many times that as long as the theatrical versions of the original
trilogy were also released in comparable quality, I would have no
qualms with the SE (or any other SSEs) whatsoever.
Now there are a few other movies that have suffered a similar fate,
like THX-1138 example - oh, wait, that's Lucas too.
Duggy
No, I'm suggesting that if he says that it would cost too much to
rerelease the films and that is a lie that others at Lucasfilms would
know this.
This means your theory is that a number of people at Lucasfilms are
keeping the truth from us.
You think there is a conspiracy.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Nah. 2010 needs the aliens.
2001 needs StarGate FX added. (I know someone who believes that).
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
> I'm OK with those changes, because the theatrical versions are also
> being released side-by-side with the new versions.
In a very, very limited release only available in a hughly expensive
box set.
It's clearly to promote sales of BR:FC. SW:SE doesn't need something
to promote sales.
> I have stated
> many times that as long as the theatrical versions of the original
> trilogy were also released in comparable quality, I would have no
> qualms with the SE (or any other SSEs) whatsoever.
Are you going to finance it?
> Now there are a few other movies that have suffered a similar fate,
> like THX-1138 example - oh, wait, that's Lucas too.
There are hundreds. There's the original series of Star Trek, too.
That's not Lucas.
Picnic At Hanging Rock:DC is missing footage. Is that a crime?
Can you get the original US release of Highlander anymore?
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: But we can. It's not like the SE was an effect transplant. I'd say
: is that the trench run has been revamped.
That contradicts the notion that it would be too expensive to restore
the theatrical versions. Some estimates I have heard is that only
about 10 minutes of the original negative would need to be restored.
The rest already has been. Again, I just don't believe that cost has
anything to do with it. He simply doesn't want to.
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: Are you going to finance it?
Well, by buying it, yes. I bought the Blade Runner set.
: There are hundreds. There's the original series of Star Trek, too.
: That's not Lucas.
: Picnic At Hanging Rock:DC is missing footage. Is that a crime?
: Can you get the original US release of Highlander anymore?
I have complained about similar instances in other movies as well, yes.
But this is a Star Wars forum.
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: Only because the version of the latter has been massively remastered.
: I'm sure you have seen the quality of the masters as they looked back
: in 1996.
Er, it wasn't the SE that was restored, it was the original movie.
The restored footage was then used to create the SE.
: I'm not sure why you focus on Star Wars here, there are literally tens
: of thousands of artistic works that will never be released again, or
: seen in their original form.
I'm focusing on SW here because this is a SW group. How do you know
that I haven't complained similarly in other cases elsewhere?
: Like Mona Lisa, the last supper, Nosferatu. On and on and on.
Well, all of those cases are considerably older, and not comparable at all.
Kino has done a rather admirable job with Nosferatu, given its early demise
due to copyright infringement.
: > He simply wants it forgotten,
: > after all the VHS copies deteriorate. That he has made clear.
: Where has he made that clear? Do you have some substantiation for this
: statement?
Have you read the interview in American Cinematographer from Feb 1997?
: Plus, the original versions do exist on DVD, so I have no idea why
: you're bringing up VHS here. A letterboxed DVD version is still better
: than the VHS version.
Hmm, when I suggested making that version at least watchable (by checking
the "anamorphic" setting), you objected that the quality was unacceptable.
Now you think I should be happy with the last (non-anamorphic) version,
which is worse?
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : > One clearly obfuscates considerably more than the other.
> : Only because the version of the latter has been massively remastered.
> : I'm sure you have seen the quality of the masters as they looked back
> : in 1996.
>
> Er, it wasn't the SE that was restored, it was the original movie.
> The restored footage was then used to create the SE.
�Releasing the originals is kind of an oxymoron because the
quality of the original is not very good. You have to go through
and do a whole restoration on it, and you have to do that
digitally. It�s a very, very expensive process to do it. So when
we did the transfer to digital, we only transferred really the
upgraded version.�
> : I'm not sure why you focus on Star Wars here, there are literally tens
> : of thousands of artistic works that will never be released again, or
> : seen in their original form.
>
> I'm focusing on SW here because this is a SW group. How do you know
> that I haven't complained similarly in other cases elsewhere?
I don't think you have the energy! :)
> : Like Mona Lisa, the last supper, Nosferatu. On and on and on.
>
> Well, all of those cases are considerably older, and not comparable at all.
How so? All originals have suffered from considerable wear and tear
through the ages and have been retouched and remastered as good as
possible, but we will never ever lay our eyes on the original last
supper or the original mona lisa.
The Mona Lisa is even more interesting, since the current version most
definitely is comparable to the SE, where there are original versions
of the painting hidden under the paint, but the artist choose to
forsake these and remaster what he considered a final version.
> : > He simply wants it forgotten,
> : > after all the VHS copies deteriorate. That he has made clear.
> : Where has he made that clear? Do you have some substantiation for this
> : statement?
>
> Have you read the interview in American Cinematographer from Feb 1997?
Asking me a question doesn't really constitute substantiation :)
If you think this interview substantiates your explicit claim, then
for all means, link to it and quote the relevant parts of it.
> : Plus, the original versions do exist on DVD, so I have no idea why
> : you're bringing up VHS here. A letterboxed DVD version is still better
> : than the VHS version.
>
> Hmm, when I suggested making that version at least watchable (by checking
> the "anamorphic" setting), you objected that the quality was unacceptable.
> Now you think I should be happy with the last (non-anamorphic) version,
> which is worse?
I'm saying you shouldn't use the VHS version as being the current most
high quality release of the movies.
--
Sandman[.net]
Sandman
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com wrote:
> : But we can. It's not like the SE was an effect transplant. I'd say
> : some 95% of the original effects are on-screen in the SE. Most notably
> : is that the trench run has been revamped.
>
> That contradicts the notion that it would be too expensive to restore
> the theatrical versions.
Not at all.
> Some estimates I have heard is that only
> about 10 minutes of the original negative would need to be restored.
> The rest already has been. Again, I just don't believe that cost has
> anything to do with it. He simply doesn't want to.
While your unsubstantiated guess may be right, it is contradiction to
what "he" has explicitly told the media.
I have no reason to think he is outright lying about a restoration of
the originals being to expensive.
--
Sandman[.net]
Duggy
One sale isn't going to cover costs.
> I bought the Blade Runner set.
More money than sense?
> : There are hundreds. There's the original series of Star Trek, too.
> : That's not Lucas.
> : Picnic At Hanging Rock:DC is missing footage. Is that a crime?
> : Can you get the original US release of Highlander anymore?
> I have complained about similar instances in other movies as well, yes.
> But this is a Star Wars forum.
Point is most films with a new release the old release disappears. No
Duggy
Nothing to say?
===
= DUG.
===
sgo...@changethisparttohardbat.com
: You think there is a conspiracy.
: Nothing to say?
I once asked a sound engineer at Skywalker Ranch what he thought about
the theatrical versions of the original trilogy not being released.
He hadn't even heard about the topic. I think most people there are
just doing their jobs, like the rest of us. No conspiracy. It doesn't
have to be a conspiracy to be wrong.
Duggy
And a minor tax official isn't part of any conspiracy to hide aliens
at Area 51 (if such a conspiracy exists).
Not every Lucasfilm employee needs to be part of the conspiracy for a
conspiracy to exist. Just more than just Lucas who you claim is the
only one who knows that a restoration isn't going to be too expensive.
You're stumbling around trying to distance yourself from claiming
there is a conspiracy, but your claims don't work without there being
one.
===
= DUG.
===