BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I do think the closeups of the Brachiosaurus skin as it passes the camera looks like bad cgi, though. It stands out like a sore thumb every time I see it. Everything else in JP is fine and actually still quite brilliant, especially the night shots of the T-rex.I don't think its 'bad', just old and dated. It also probably suffers from being a slow moving object, and in broad daylight. I think the T-Rex being mostly in the dark helps mask a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I cannot find any single flaw in the shot of the t-rex from inside grant and malcom's car just as she gets out of the enclosure. Really. Even the ilumination from the car's frontlights matches.The previous shot is also good, but i think the blu-ray shows the age of the cgi (in the DVD this did not happen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I don't think its 'bad', just old and dated. Well one glance at your bad, old, dated and relentlessly mediocre photography tells me you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 whoa, getting personal now are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 http://jwfan.userboard.net/f3-general-discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 whoa, getting personal now are we?When it comes to dealing with conceited, delusional and disrespectful young punks like yourself, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 its quite obvious someone needs a pair of glasses, or lasik. me thinks your eyes are getting old and dated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Jason, Ricard really. Isn't it time for AI to be banned again?You gave it a shot, and while I appreciate your humanity, i think we all knew this was doomed from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Burger Flipper;Not only are you a pretentious hack, you have also managed to practically obliterate any chance you ever had of making a career in the entertainment industry.Jason, Ricard really. Isn't it time for AI to be banned again?You gave it a shot, and while I appreciate your humanity, i think we all knew this was doomed from the start.Stop whining. You have no power here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Oh that is very true, but you have no future here. Which one of us is better of, would you say?It's not all a waste though, you have been amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Well stop whining like a little bitch and make poll then "should AI be banned"Make it run for 3 days.If its yes, I'll leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 This is thankfully not a Democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I take it you aren't confident in your chances of winning then...If you don't make the poll, Josh500 will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissPadmé 17 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Nah come on.. AI gives this place this "distinct FSM-board feeling"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 AI has the charm and grace of a serial child rapist.We already have enough of that going around here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AI 0 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Nah come on.. AI gives this place this "distinct FSM-board feeling"...Haha, see the chicks' behind me, and all the guys will follow. Plus I have the gay conglomerate all sewn-up, except perhaps Joey..but I always liked his creepy stories... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave this forum in peace!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Burger Flipper;Not only are you a pretentious hack, you have also managed to practically obliterate any chance you ever had of making a career in the entertainment industry.I'm not at all bothered by what you think of me, or my hobby. I'm quite content in that department thank you. And if you are the gatekeeper of getting into the entertainment industry, then I suppose I'm somewhat disappointed that the industry will go to shit a lot sooner than I thought it would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,527 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Its not realistic though....Of course it's not, but when was cinema ever realistic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,359 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Hey, AI:01 - Personal attacks will not be allowed. Please be RESPECTFUL of one another, allow for differences in opinions, and please don't make anyone feel that they cannot post their views in this forum.Congratulations, you're banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Really? So unexpected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jilal 569 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 BloadBoal should be banned too! How many times did he not break that rule! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 AI has been given enough chances in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Speaking of re-tinkering CGI.Why don't Pixar update the textures on some of their earlier stuff? Toy Story looks crude compared to part 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 That's why I posted the link to the temporary board...it's A.I.'s new homeHe can hang out with all our undead alternates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Speaking of re-tinkering CGI.Why don't Pixar update the textures on some of their earlier stuff? Toy Story looks crude compared to part 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,042 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Speaking of re-tinkering CGI.Why don't Pixar update the textures on some of their earlier stuff? Toy Story looks crude compared to part 3.Despite the likely tongue-in-cheek nature of this post, it reminds me of an important point - CGI is a medium that's constantly changing. Software becomes outdated ridiculously quickly, and the files become difficult or impossible to open. This can happen in just a few years, not to mention a decade or more. This is why you'll rarely see existing CG footage being actually revamped in 3D...you can redo it from scratch, or make cosmetic 2D changes, or augment it with additional 3D elements, but actually editing the original files is rarely practical. It can make certain things difficult, but we should probably grateful for the fact that it makes it more difficult for revisionists like Lucas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Filmmakers just need to learn to make a film and move on. It's like revisiting that memory of a summer fling you had 20 years ago, then you make a rash decision to show up at her house and you find out she's married with kids. It's awkward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 toy story really has not aged well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,042 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 The CGI is definitely dated. The story isn't. Personally, I find both charming to this day.Filmmakers just need to learn to make a film and move on. It's like revisiting that memory of a summer fling you had 20 years ago, then you make a rash decision to show up at her house and you find out she's married with kids. It's awkward.Pretty much. Once the film is finished, let it be. Accept its inevitable flaws and rough spots, and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faleel 5,347 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 If they did that, we wouldnt get ANY complete score or Blu-releases with deleted scenes and documentary;s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naïve Old Fart 9,527 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I agree. And don't get me started on Tin Toy!Why not just redo the whole of "Andre And Wally B", while you're at it, and the stained-glassed man from "YSH"?!The whole idea of NOT redoing these films, is that they represent a history of an artform. To tamper with them makes the films less vaild.Personally, I prefer the silghtly unrendered look to the hyper-real look. It lets me know that I am working not just a film, but an evolving art form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff 10 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 A real purist view would be that you could only ever release a film in its original version, copied directly onto the same medium originally used to project it.The extreme view in the other direction would be to insert better actors, voice over bad dialogue with new lines, re-shoot poor optical effects, and re-record damaged soundtrack.I'm guessing nobody here is at either extreme, so the question is, how much revision is too much? Is it okay to clean flecks and remove static? Is it okay to improve contrast, brightness, color, and audio balance? If you can make those types of changes, what is wrong with improving the texturing on a digital effect?My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with doing that, but in this particular instance it is unnecessary and would likely be counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 But isn't tinkering with a digital effect the same as tinkering with a physical effect? It was just done on a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Mark 3,631 Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 That's my point. I don't think tinkering a CGI is the same as an optical effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Cleaning up a film source, whether audio or visual, is completely different. You aren't changing the film in any way, you're preserving what it was like in its original version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff 10 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 I agree with you. But couldn't someone argue that when you originally watched it, there were flaws in the film itself, the technology used to project it, and the audio equipment? There wasn't Dolby Digital 7.1 or whatever in the 70s, so by cleaning it up we're altering the pure experience we would have had watching the original film in its original, flawed form.I think it's definitely a different caliber of modification, but it is a modification nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 You're talking about the filmic experience, I'm talking about the film in its purest form, the way it was intended to be seen. Directors didn't want there to be scratches and distorted sound, etc. Or at least I hope they didn't.Take Criterion for example, if a film has a mono 2.0 soundtrack, they preserve it. They don't add in a fake stereo surround sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 I like having both options. As long as the track isn't altered beyond the sound field, I'm usually cool with 5.1 mixes. Psycho's new mix brings out more than could ever be heard before. Everything contained in the 5 channels is from the original sound track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff 10 Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 You're talking about the filmic experience, I'm talking about the film in its purest form, the way it was intended to be seen. Directors didn't want there to be scratches and distorted sound, etc. Or at least I hope they didn't.Take Criterion for example, if a film has a mono 2.0 soundtrack, they preserve it. They don't add in a fake stereo surround sound.Just playing the devil's advocate here - the "director's intention" is the argument George Lucas made to clean up the Vaseline under Luke's speeder and led him down the path of adding Jabba to the hangar scene.In a less extreme example, I saw a documentary on the making of the Sound of Music blu-ray. The film had deteriorated to a point that the original color of the grass had faded in one scene. So the restorationists had to determine what color of green the grass was initially. They admitted that they had the ability to make the grass whatever color they wanted it to be - even purple - but in the end they had to make a decision based on conjecture and guessing at what the color was intended to be. In all likelihood, the color they chose wasn't precisely what our parents or grandparents saw in the theater. It may be better, though.So if restoration can never be exactly precise, why not "enhance" the film a little bit? And if you can enhance a little, why not enhance a lot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgaFlippinMan 7 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 You're talking about the filmic experience, I'm talking about the film in its purest form, the way it was intended to be seen. Directors didn't want there to be scratches and distorted sound, etc. Or at least I hope they didn't.Take Criterion for example, if a film has a mono 2.0 soundtrack, they preserve it. They don't add in a fake stereo surround sound.Just playing the devil's advocate here - the "director's intention" is the argument George Lucas made to clean up the Vaseline under Luke's speeder and led him down the path of adding Jabba to the hangar scene.I disagree with a lot of the changes Lucas made to the OT, but I don't disagree with his right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I don't think anyone would mind as long as he didn't destroy every last existing version of the theatrical editions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trent B 337 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I thought copies of the original prints were kept at the Library Of Congress in Washington D.C. for keeping it in a good but safe place for historical reasons. Now if he gave that properly strictly to the government, I really don't think he would be able to get that out and destroy them.I remember hearing something about the whole Library Of Congress deal quite a few years ago but never knew if it was true or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Apparently the Library of Congress only has the 1997 Se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 I am starting to doubt that Lucasfilm still have untouched versions of these films anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 So if restoration can never be exactly precise, why not "enhance" the film a little bit? And if you can enhance a little, why not enhance a lot?Are the guys "enhancing" the film the ones who made it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff 10 Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Let's say they are under the direction of the original producers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now