George Lucas Making More Changes For Star Wars Blu-Ray Release

[D.B. Barnes]

Damn, Torso. Where you been at, bro?
Hey, have you found out if the riff is going require some audio editing yet?

Unless something was added to extend the run time, is there a reason why audio editing of the riff would be necessary?

If there were any changes to the timeline, it would affect the sync, right?

Of course, I just didn't know the run time had changed for the Blu-ray versions.

That's what I'm asking.

[Tripe]

Yep, any change in the content, even if it doesn't effect the overall runtime, can effect the way the audio track (or tracks) syncs.

[MrTorso]

Damn, Torso. Where you been at, bro?
Hey, have you found out if the riff is going require some audio editing yet?

I have made re-authors for Episodes 1,2,3 and they sync fine. Star Wars is giving me a tiny bit of trouble. I am still working on it.

Unless something was added to extend the run time, is there a reason why audio editing of the riff would be necessary?

If there were any changes to the timeline, it would affect the sync, right?

Of course, Is there a reason the run time might have changed for the Blu-ray version?

With all the tinkering Lucas does you never know. Right now though A New Hope is not syncing as smooth as the first three I did. I have seen plenty of times where a Riff will line up perfectly with one DVD but go out of sync with another. RED DAWN is a prime example. No obvious cuts or additions just different transfers. The file that RiffTrax has for the collector's edition is one I did for them. I had to add bit and take out bits all through out the entire track.  When I did my HD version of Crater Lake Monster I had to do the same thing.   

[D.B. Barnes]

"I like the water"

Somebody tell me truthfully, do children REALLY like the prequels? Like watch them over and over in one day?

I'm sure they do. They're the Teletubbies of the Star Wars universe.

And like the Teletubbies they will eventually outgrow them. But there is no outgrowing the original trilogy.

I still think if the prequels had come out 10 years earlier people would have liked them as much as the original trilogy.

That's an interesting theory. Care to explain why?

The problem with the prequels, or at least Episode I, as I see it, is that there was so much expectation built up for it for so long that there's no way Lucas could have fulfilled everyone's expectations.  If there had been less time for people to build up those expectations, it would have been much easier to satisfy them.

There's a possibility that if Episode I was released ten years earlier, some people's expectations would've been slightly lower at that point. However, that doesn't change the fact that the movie was not well received for reasons not having to do with expectations, but the factors on which most people judge the quality of a film. The degree of disappointment may have been different, but I don't think you can even come close to saying that "people would have liked them as much as the original trilogy". As a matter of fact, I believe that if Episode I was as well done as A New Hope, then the overwhelming reaction to it would have been extremely positive even if Episode I was released ten years later.

[Invader_quirk]

My expectations and excitement actually made me overlook the flaws the first time. I was just so happy to be watching more Star Wars (Of course, I was pretty young and easily excited). It wasn't until a second viewing that I realized it wasn't actually very entertaining. The characters aren't as fun, diverse, or interestingly flawed. The dialog is dull. The CGI fails to capture the imagination like the models and stop-motion did.

[Russell]

Maybe I have been throwing around the word objective too willy-nilly without considering all the implications and for that, I am sorry.

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Maybe I have been throwing around the word objective too willy-nilly without considering all the implications and for that, I am sorry.

Do you understand that any form of art is highly subjective?  And film making is an art.  Trying to pin down things you can be truly objective and unbiased about is kind of a waste of time.   Even technical stuff like camera focus can be hard to pin down because the film maker might have intended to do something artistic, best you can ever say is that you personally didn't like what they produced.  You can try to convince others of your opinion and why you came to it, but that's all it is, an opinion.

[Russell]

Maybe I have been throwing around the word objective too willy-nilly without considering all the implications and for that, I am sorry.

Do you understand that any form of art is highly subjective?  And film making is an art.  Trying to pin down things you can be truly objective and unbiased about is kind of a waste of time.   Even technical stuff like camera focus can be hard to pin down because the film maker might have intended to do something artistic, best you can ever say is that you personally didn't like what they produced.  You can try to convince others of your opinion and why you came to it, but that's all it is, an opinion.

I just apologized and admitted my error, what else do you want?

[monstermoviefanchicknj]

Heh!! But seriously, WHO is going to see TPM in 3D?

Not me.  I have no intention of seeing that stupid movie again, 3D or not.  I didn't even like it the first time I saw it.  I've been jaded toward little kids in movies (i.e. Kenny, Itchy, etc.)

Besides, this whole "3D" shit is just a marketing scam designed to milk as much money as possible out of an unsuspecting public.

[Tripe]

Besides, this whole "3D" shit is just a marketing scam designed to milk as much money as possible out of an unsuspecting public.

This pretty much describes almost every movie that has a commercial release though.

[Russell]

Besides, this whole "3D" shit is just a marketing scam designed to milk as much money as possible out of an unsuspecting public.

It's not just 3D, it's the way something is marketed and released at just the perfect time... Titanic and Avatar are perfect examples of this. They were both very mediocre movies that were released against almost no competition at all and made buttloads of money as a result.

[gbeenie]

Consider, for contrast, Ang Lee's Hulk movie.  Fans of the comic all agree that it was the worst abomination ever committed by a human, and that Ang Lee is worse than Hitler for making it.  I, on the other hand, thought it was pretty good, and I bet a lot of others who haven't read the comics would agree.

No, man. You lost everybody there. I don't like comics, but HULK is an appalling sack of garbage. It is just awful. AWFUL.

It's not.  Apart from the ending and genuine lack of decent action scenes, it's pretty good.

I'm in, too. I thought Hulk was unfairly maligned.

That said, the Star Wars prequels are awful. And it has nothing to do with how spectacularly Episode I failed to meet fan expectations. For example, as a life-long Star Trek fan, I was reluctant about the idea of Paramount making a Star Trek movie that goes back to the TOS crew; and yet, I LOVED the 2009 film (even with its plot flaws).

[MartyS (Gromit)]

Maybe I have been throwing around the word objective too willy-nilly without considering all the implications and for that, I am sorry.

Do you understand that any form of art is highly subjective?  And film making is an art.  Trying to pin down things you can be truly objective and unbiased about is kind of a waste of time.   Even technical stuff like camera focus can be hard to pin down because the film maker might have intended to do something artistic, best you can ever say is that you personally didn't like what they produced.  You can try to convince others of your opinion and why you came to it, but that's all it is, an opinion.

I just apologized and admitted my error, what else do you want?

Relax.  Sorry if it seemed harsh, It wasn't meant as an attack, just a reiteration.

[Smith Dr John Smith]

My expectations and excitement actually made me overlook the flaws the first time. I was just so happy to be watching more Star Wars (Of course, I was pretty young and easily excited). It wasn't until a second viewing that I realized it wasn't actually very entertaining. The characters aren't as fun, diverse, or interestingly flawed. The dialog is dull. The CGI fails to capture the imagination like the models and stop-motion did.

Yeah same here.  I liked in theaters and then when i got the VHS I saw all the flaws and couldn't stand it.

[Darth Geek]

My expectations and excitement actually made me overlook the flaws the first time. I was just so happy to be watching more Star Wars (Of course, I was pretty young and easily excited). It wasn't until a second viewing that I realized it wasn't actually very entertaining. The characters aren't as fun, diverse, or interestingly flawed. The dialog is dull. The CGI fails to capture the imagination like the models and stop-motion did.

Yeah same here.  I liked in theaters and then when i got the VHS I saw all the flaws and couldn't stand it.

Me too. I didn't hate it, necessarily, but I was just kinda confused that I didn't like it like I just assumed I would.
  The only strong feeling I had about the whole thing was that I liked Queen Amidala much more than Princess Leia (who I never liked as a character) because she was actually GRATEFUL when she received help, and was willing to be humble and ask for help (even from Jar Jar) when she needed it. Leia sure as shit didn't learn that!