Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Geoff D]

Well, the 40th anniversary of the original is only three years away. Lucasfilm celebrated 20 years by pulling the film apart and putting it back together in its Special Edition form, so what better way of celebrating another 20 years by restoring it to its former glory? The digital restoration tools of today and the vast wealth of Disney/LFL means that there are no more excuses.

They don't even have to **** with the recut SE negative, once they've scanned it they can leave it 'as is' because they can film out brand-new archival elements when the digital restoration is complete.

For some reason the 35th anniversary was practically ignored in terms of home video cash-ins, so now is the time Disney. Do what's right and preserve Star Wars as it was originally seen.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Well, the 40th anniversary of the original is only three years away. Lucasfilm celebrated 20 years by pulling the film apart and putting it back together in its Special Edition form, so what better way of celebrating another 20 years by restoring it to its former glory? The digital restoration tools of today and the vast wealth of Disney/LFL means that there are no more excuses.

They don't even have to **** with the Frankensteined SE negative, once they've scanned it they can leave it 'as is' because they can film out brand-new archival elements when the digital restoration is complete.

For some reason the 35th anniversary was practically ignored in terms of home video cash-ins, so now is the time Disney. Do what's right and preserve Star Wars as it was originally seen.

Honestly, I don't think Disney needs an anniversary date to release the OT's. They would be pretty big sellers right out of the get, especially if advertised as so, OR came with additional bonus material.
Of course what would all the decades long Lucas Bashers have to cry about then?
I'm sure some will find something.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Honestly, I don't think Disney needs an anniversary date to release the OT's.

Of course they don't, no film ever does, but that's what it usually takes to get the studios to do a new version, either that or a remake/new movie - would we have got that lovely remastered Blu-ray of RoboCop if MGM didn't have a new Robo movie to shill?

Even if Disney were to start the project today, three years should be more than enough time to get it done so why not give the fans something special for the 40th?

[thebard]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Honestly, I don't think Disney needs an anniversary date to release the OT's. They would be pretty big sellers right out of the get, especially if advertised as so, OR came with additional bonus material.

Heck they could even release it a year or two early and still call it the "40th Anniversary Restoration", I wouldn't mind.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Of course they don't, no film ever does, but that's what it usually takes to get the studios to do a new version, either that or a remake/new movie - would we have got that lovely remastered Blu-ray of RoboCop if MGM didn't have a new Robo movie to shill?

Even if Disney were to start the project today, three years should be more than enough time to get it done so why not give the fans something special for the 40th?

C'mon Geoff, you know SW is, and has been, a special case all unto itself. Also it's one of the biggest, if not the biggest franchise to change studios. So there are a couple outside factors to consider here.
It certainly would be a golden opportunity to release on the 40th, but I wouldn't be surprised if we received an announcement in 15 days!

Originally Posted by thebard

Heck they could even release it a year or two early and still call it the "40th Anniversary Restoration", I wouldn't mind.

You and me both!

[AintNoSin]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

So, is the consensus opinion now that Lucas simply lied when he said...

Lucus has a history of being flexible with the truth.

There were going to be twelve movies. No just nine. There were always going to be nine. I meant six. Nope, it's nine again.

Darth Vader was always going to be Luke's father, except he made that up on the spot. Same with Luke and Leia as brother and sister.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Of course what would all the decades long Lucas Bashers have to cry about then?

The prequels still suck. Plenty of fodder still left to work with for us Bashers.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

They don't even have to **** with the recut SE negative, once they've scanned it they can leave it 'as is' because they can film out brand-new archival elements when the digital restoration is complete.

I'd bet the moisture farm on an eventual restored theatrical editions of the movies from 4k scans and super-sized final cuts with all new special effect sequences replacing most of if not all the SFX from the original movies.

And to be honest I'd be thrilled to bits to get both versions, as long as they commit themselves to doing both releases 100%.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Of course they don't, no film ever does, but that's what it usually takes to get the studios to do a new version, either that or a remake/new movie - would we have got that lovely remastered Blu-ray of RoboCop if MGM didn't have a new Robo movie to shill?

Even if Disney were to start the project today, three years should be more than enough time to get it done so why not give the fans something special for the 40th?

Yep and as I mentioned earlier they're going to have to do something for 4K for some point.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by chip75

And to be honest I'd be thrilled to bits to get both versions, as long as they commit themselves to doing both releases 100%.

Good call. That's something which seems to have been an alien concept to Lucasfilm re: their handling of Star Wars in the digital age.

[Jar Jar Stinks]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Yep and as I mentioned earlier they're going to have to do something for 4K for some point.

I thought the prequels (at least the last two anyway) were filmed at a resolution lower than 4k.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

I thought the prequels (at the last two anyway) were filmed at a resolution lower than 4k.

The Phantom Menace was shot on 35mm film. Clones and Sith were shot in 1080p, so there would only be mild improvement in a 4k release for those two films.

[RayCRP]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

I thought the prequels (at the last two anyway) were filmed at a resolution lower than 4k.

Yup, 1080p.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

I thought the prequels (at least the last two anyway) were filmed at a resolution lower than 4k.

Yep - was referring to the originals. At some point they will have to move past the 1080p scans that were done in 2004 for the original DVD boxset.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

The Phantom Menace was shot on 35mm film. Clones and Sith were shot in 1080p, so there would only be mild improvement in a 4k release for those two films.

It's a damn shame Lucas insisted on shooting those on digital when digital was so limited. He has handicapped those films severely.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by RayCRP

Yup, 1080p.

1080x2048 at 2.35:1, specifically.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by Cook

It's a damn shame Lucas insisted on shooting those on digital when digital was so limited. He has handicapped those films severely.

Largely, I think it's because he's not a terribly good director. And a mediocre director makes up for it by shooting 5x more footage than they need so they can craft something that works in the editing room.

Lucas shot on digital so that he could shoot dozens of takes and have absurd amounts of coverage. Yes, he could have done this on film too, but not without incurring not just an extreme expense, but a great inconvenience as well (waiting for dailies from the lab, etc...)

Besides, since more than 50% of every shot seen on-screen has some kind of CGI or other optical special effects layer, it probably made sense just to start with video, since that's where a majority of the shots would end up anyway.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Lyle_JP

Largely, I think it's because he's not a terribly good director. And a mediocre director makes up for it by shooting 5x more footage than they need so they can craft something that works in the editing room.

Yeah, like Stanley Kubrick.


He shot digital because he was sick of the limitations of film. He has stated so dozens of times in interviews. He wanted a medium that could be manipulated indefinitely without losing quality. Lucas saw digital as the future and he was correct. He was just one of the first.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

1080x2048 at 2.35:1, specifically.

Incorrect. The CineAlta F900 and F950 had a maximum resolution of 1920x1080. George Lucas shot the two movies in cropped 1080p, no anamorphic lenses. The resolution for Clones and Sith is 1920x817.

Therefore, there is little to no benefit in remastering the Star Wars prequels in 4K.

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Incorrect. The CineAlta F900 and F950 had a maximum resolution of 1920x1080. George Lucas shot the two movies in cropped 1080p, no anamorphic lenses. The resolution for Clones and Sith is 1920x817.

Therefore, there is little to no benefit in remastering the Star Wars prequels in 4K.

The Phantom Menace sure would benefit. It's a DNR mess at the moment.