Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Majoran

The exact opposite can be said as far as "making a custom version". Since everything is available you could make your own custom UOT with everything being original.

Are you serious?
We should ourselves make custom versions of the theatrical films
(and i mean ANY film)?

I wonder what is your favourite film of all time.
Would you be happy if it was released in a totally altered version, and the creators told you, "go make a custom version of the theatrical film you saw, I don't care!"?

And you're wrong in another thing:
The filmmakers ARE obliged to release the original films!
Because they became rich and richer from you and me, and the other people that saw and loved these films.
So, THE LEAST they could do to return this favour (without the public maybe they would have been ruined economically), is to release the films in their trully ORIGINAL form!
A true artist respects his public and doesn't forget why he is where he is...
And i admire Spielberg for remembering that!

[Majoran]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Are you serious?
We should ourselves make custom versions of the theatrical films
(and i mean ANY film)?

I wonder what is your favourite film of all time.
Would you be happy if it was released in a totally altered version, and the creators told you, "go make a custom version of the theatrical film you saw, I don't care!"?

And you're wrong in another thing:
The filmmakers ARE obliged to release the original films!
Because they became rich and richer from you and me, and the other people that saw and loved these films.
So, THE LEAST they could do to return this favour (without the public maybe they would have been ruined economically), is to release the films in their trully ORIGINAL form!
A true artist respects his public and doesn't forget why he is where he is...

How can you question a subject you yourself brought up (making custom versions). I didn't even bring that subject up, so you would have to ask yourself that question.

There is a difference between obligation and "something one should do". You seem to be mixing terminologies here. Should they be released yes, are they obligated to do so, no.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Majoran

How can you question a subject you yourself brought up (making custom versions). I didn't even bring that subject up, so you would have to ask yourself that question.

There is a difference between obligation and "something one should do". You seem to be mixing terminologies here. Should they be released yes, are they obligated to do so, no.

Again, it's an entirely different thing making a custom version of a film adjusted to your needs, and making a custom version of the theatrical version of a film, that you shouldn't have to do anyway, because it should be available anyway..

Well, English is not my native language so "obligated" may be a very strong word for you? I am not sure..

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

"What people will be expecting from a Blu-ray released in 2015" doesn't matter. Why would you want to reward ignorance? And the fact that you'd prefer some converted 5.1 mix to be lossless instead of the original tracks is ridiculous.

Trust me, if it didn't have a 5.1 mix then we'd never hear the end of it.

It's a question of bit budget as regards the other tracks. Fox have fallen into the habit of producing 'one size' discs to serve the world over, so we're not gonna get every track (should such things be on LFL's radar to begin with) in lossless because there won't be the room.

Given the limited fidelity of the mono mix, lossy 1.0 with a decent bitrate would be fine. The 2.0 LtRt mix isn't crucial to have in lossless either seeing as it's very similar to the 6-track (in that case it may not be needed at all, unlike Empire which did have differences between the 35mm and 70mm audio), so a lossless version of the 70mm mix would cover that base.

It should be 4.1 to be accurate, yes, but this release WILL have a 5.1 track, I guarantee. It's not about "rewarding" anyone, it's about accepting the business reality of the situation. Heck, LFL remixed the audio for the 'Definitive' laserdiscs, so how is this situation any different? But if you complained about it back then as well, then fair play to you.

If they took the 70mm and applied some gentle de-correlation to the mono surround when splitting it into two then that'd do me fine, [edit] although an outright split of the rear channels would also be acceptable just as long as no sounds are added/subtracted in the process. And they could then retain the true 4.1 as a lossy 640 kb/s mix, say.

[Majoran]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Again, it's an entirely different thing making a custom version of a film adjusted to your needs, and making a custom version of the theatrical version of a film, that you shouldn't have to do anyway, because it should be available anyway..



Well, English is not my native language so "obligated" may be a very strong word for you? I am not sure..

The thing is it's no different and that my point. Making a movie the way you want it, is possible just as you suggested that others do. Just because you don't want to, you shouldn't force others to be subjected to this either. As I said they should be released, it doesn't mean they will or have to be.

For obligated would mean a binding promise contract, sense of duty. Lucas feels obligated to release the films in his vision, even if that vision keeps getting tweaked. He is under no obligation to release any other version then the one he sees fit. Should he release the UOT yes, but there is no obligation to do so. You feel that he and the companies should feel obligated to release that version, they may and they may not, but they don't "have" to release anything. Separating what we want from what must be done is important here.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Majoran

Separating what we want from what must be done is important here.

Ok.
Again, i don't change my opinion.
The thing i ask, i don't ask for it because I want it, but because i feel this is what must be done (despite what i or you or another wants). It just happens that this coincides with what I want in the Star Wars case!
I mean, I would say the same thing even for a movie I don't like at all or I don't care about.

ALL films should be available restored in the latest technology in their theatrical version.
That is my view, which i think is the right thing to do towards the films themselves, the public, history, and the people that worked on these films.
Everything else should be offered as a supplement, and not as the main release of a film.

[Majoran]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

Ok.
Again, i don't change my opinion.
The thing i ask, i don't ask for it because I want it, but because i feel this is what must be done (despite what i or you or another wants). It just happens that this coincides with what I want in the Star Wars case!
I mean, I would say the same thing even for a movie I don't like at all or I don't care about.

ALL films should be available restored in the latest technology in their theatrical version.
That is my view, which i think is the right thing to do towards the films themselves, the public, history, and the people that worked on these films.
Everything else should be offered as a supplement, and not as the main release of a film.

This I can be OK with, you WANT it to be released in its original form, and feel that they should. Im OK with that and that is your right to feel that way and want that version. As Ive said Id like to see the UOT released, Im just not in the camp that feels Lucas or the studios should feel that "Have" to release that version.

You had me until that last bit. That would mean all of the improved versions via the Directors cut, extended editions, etc would be lost. Should the Theatrical version be released if possible, by all means yes, but its not always possible or feasible to do so. For instance Kingdom of Heaven was a mess of a movie in its theatrical form, the Directors Cut resolved this by adding back the storylines that gave the motivations behind actions which were missing from the TC. Its not always a bad thing, but they "should" release both (as they are now) and give the people a choice of what they want to watch.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by Majoran

This I can be OK with, you WANT it to be released in its original form, and feel that they should. Im OK with that and that is your right to feel that way and want that version. As Ive said Id like to see the UOT released, Im just not in the camp that feels Lucas or the studios should feel that "Have" to release that version.

You had me until that last bit. That would mean all of the improved versions via the Directors cut, extended editions, etc would be lost. Should the Theatrical version be released if possible, by all means yes, but its not always possible or feasible to do so. For instance Kingdom of Heaven was a mess of a movie in its theatrical form, the Directors Cut resolved this by adding back the storylines that gave the motivations behind actions which were missing from the TC. Its not always a bad thing, but they "should" release both (as they are now) and give the people a choice of what they want to watch.

You misunderstood me in the last part.
i didn't mean that extended editions, director's cuts etc. shouldn't be available too!
I meant that they shouldn't be released as the ONLY version of a film on Bluray.
Eg. we have now only the director's cut of Amadeus and this is the ONLY HD version for anyone to see.
The thing I'm suggesting is that the theatrical release should be available, and the director's cut be included as a supplement..

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

If the unaltered orignal cuts were to be released on BD, would you guys like to see the audio mix upgraded to 5.1? or left as is?

Originally Posted by Nicolawicz

It should include the original theatrical audio (the 70mm 6-Track, stereo and mono. Although just stereo and mono is more than enough. Personally, I'm happy with just mono).

This.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I doubt it very much, some group or other will still complaint and demand that Lucas be hang

And in the event no group steps up to demands that Lucas be hanged I'm sure you guys will be more than happy to imagine one.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Majoran

The problem is people are taking those that are OK/Happy with the current release and either assuming or twisting words saying those people are arguing against the UOT. I still haven't seen ANYONE explicitly say they don't want the UOT released.

Originally Posted by Majoran

I have read the "Lucas is evil" (different terminology used sometimes) over and over. As far as the "owed" part I have read that more than a few times. People feel that they are "owed" the UOT because it's a part of cinematic history. The funny thing is he doesn't "owe" anyone anything. The "killed my childhood" is a reference to those that have said he ruined their memories of when they were young and 1st watched the UOT, the current versions are "abominations", etc.

What the difference between twisting words and using the word evil in place of 'different terminology' or using 'killed my childhood' as a 'reference' to other statements?

If I say 'these changes are an abomination' aren't you twisting my words ever so slightly if you morph that into 'Lucas raped/ruined/killed my childhood'?

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

ALL films should be available restored in the latest technology in their theatrical version.
That is my view, which i think is the right thing to do towards the films themselves, the public, history, and the people that worked on these films.
Everything else should be offered as a supplement, and not as the main release of a film.

What about something like, say, 2001 or The Shining? What you get on those discs is a theatrical version, but it's not the original theatrical version. Yes, it's the version most people who saw either in a theater would have seen, but it's still not the original theatrical version.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

What about something like, say, 2001 or The Shining? What you get on those discs is a theatrical version, but it's not the original theatrical version. Yes, it's the version most people who saw either in a theater would have seen, but it's still not the original theatrical version.

Dare we dare to compare?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

But that's just it -- I haven't read anyone say those things. One possible exception would be the last portion, which I'd rephrase as, "Lucas owes it to cinematic history to release the UOT."

Yes and no. Much of the "Lucas owes it to us' rhetoric was of the 'he should be a responsible steward, he should live up to his claim that American works of art belong to the American public' variety but to be fair, much of it wasn't.

There was definitely a fairly noticeable contingent basically arguing 'hey, we made this guy a freaking billionaire, the least he can do is release a couple freaking movies they way we want'.

I'm not saying that was common but it wasn't exactly uncommon either.

[Majoran]

Originally Posted by octagon

What the difference between twisting words and using the word evil in place of 'different terminology' or using 'killed my childhood' as a 'reference' to other statements?



If I say 'these changes are an abomination' aren't you twisting my words ever so slightly if you morph that into 'Lucas raped/ruined/killed my childhood'?

I was using a generality and then qualified it with "different terminology" as sometimes "evil" is not what's used to describe him. The difference would be that my example was in the same ballpark of negativity, whereas those saying people who are happy with the current releases and thus are against the UOT being released are not even in the same zip code.

[Geoff D]

I did recently come across a quote from Lucas about this whole 'preservation of art' thing which made me chuckle. His speech to Congress is always kinda taken out of context (he was arguing for the rights of the creator to not have their work altered by third parties) but this piece from the foreword to Drew Struzan: Oeuvre is a killer.

Originally Posted by George Walton Lucas, Jr

A painting can show how a culture works, how society views itself, what the issues of the day might have been. This aspect of art has always fascinated me, in that it can be an anthropological tool, revealing certain aspects of a culture, preserving them and offering deeper insight into the way people think.

Whether it's literature or music or film or painting or sculpture, to me it becomes an artifact, something left behind that is infused with emotion, or a particular feeling, or a cultural sensibility that is otherwise lost in time.

Lucas is of course a keen collector of paintings and whatnot, and he seems to be acutely aware of the 'time capsule' quality that all art possesses, i.e. that it is a reflection of its time, in terms of both its creator and the socio-political environment which it was created in, and that it is precisely this quality which makes art so unique. It's the ultimate irony, then, that he so willingly defaced his own works of art in attempt to drive out those elements which dated them so much in his eyes, not only regarding the VFX but also his own personal mores (like neutering Han and trimming some of the blaster hits in other scenes).

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

What about something like, say, 2001 or The Shining? What you get on those discs is a theatrical version, but it's not the original theatrical version. Yes, it's the version most people who saw either in a theater would have seen, but it's still not the original theatrical version.

What do you mean?
What is the original theatrical version of 2001 which is unavailable?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Majoran

I was using a generality and then qualified it with "different terminology" as sometimes "evil" is not what's used to describe him. The difference would be that my example was in the same ballpark of negativity, whereas those saying people who are happy with the current releases and thus are against the UOT being released are not even in the same zip code.

So 'these changes are an abomination' and 'Lucas raped/ruined/killed my childhood' are in the same rough ballpark so you weren't really twisting anybody's words.

Okay.

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

What do you mean?
What is the original theatrical version of 2001 which is unavailable?

Kubrick trimmed 19 minutes from it a couple days after it premiered. As with The Shining, he sent notes to the theaters informing projectionists where to make the cuts.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's the ultimate irony, then, that he so willingly defaced his own works of art in attempt to drive out those elements which dated them so much in his eyes, not only regarding the VFX but also his own personal mores (like neutering Han and trimming some of the blaster hits in other scenes).

It's also ironic that in his testimony (which does get taken out of context) he basically wrapped himself in public interest/ownership of works of art while arguing that Congress should step in to recognize (some might say create) and protect an author's 'moral rights'.

Even put completely in context things like 'American works of art belong to the American public' are pretty funny and a little hard to reconcile with his intransigence with regard to earlier editions of his own films.