Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Galactus123

They should release the movies also separately. It would be awesome if they used the original movie posters as the Blu-Ray covers.

That should be the least of our worries. One of the guys making covers here on the site will make better covers
using the original poster art than the studio would put out.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

Yeah. It may be complicated, but I'm sure the first thing 20th Century Fox wants to do after losing the Star Wars franchise to Disney is to prevent themselves from making any more money off of it.

They can only do that with Ep IV, since the distribution rights of all the others goes to Disney automatically in 2020. I doubt we'll have to wait that long tho because Ep VII is going to be the biggest movie of the new trilogy, and probably top Phantom Menace in buzz and popularity (popularity before it came out) so I'm sure they'll want to strike a deal and release the OOT to coincide with that release. I guess I feel more confident about selling my copies of SW on blu-ray now...

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Elvis

That should be the least of our worries. One of the guys making covers here on the site will make better covers
using the original poster art than the studio would put out.

Yeah, all my other first world problems wouldn't even let this one get its coat off before kicking it back out.

[The Fallen Deity]

Surely if Disney strike up a deal with Fox, Fox can also get money from the BD's so it's a win-win situation isn't it?

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

Surely if Disney strike up a deal with Fox, Fox can also get money from the BD's so it's a win-win situation isn't it?

Yes, that was the point I was making. No way 20th Century Fox says, "no, we don't want a bunch of free money."

[stvn1974]

Hopefully the deal between Disney and Fox would mean that the Disney logo a music would come first and then the FOX Fanfare before the Star Wars theme. Win win for everyone. But that makes sense and if studios have shown anything in the past is that they rarely do anything that makes sense.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Hopefully the deal between Disney and Fox would mean that the Disney logo a music would come first and then the FOX Fanfare before the Star Wars theme. Win win for everyone. But that makes sense and if studios have shown anything in the past is that they rarely do anything that makes sense.

It's likely that you wouldn't see the Disney logo on these at all, given 20th Century Fox still controls distribution. There would likely be some lip service to Disney in the copyright information, but that's about it.

Disney still hasn't even put their logo on any of the Marvel films, and it seems like they won't.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

It's likely that you wouldn't see the Disney logo on these at all, given 20th Century Fox still controls distribution. There would likely be some lip service to Disney in the copyright information, but that's about it.

Disney still hasn't even put their logo on any of the Marvel films, and it seems like they won't.

That's true, their logos will probably only be included on the new films.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

That's true, their logos will probably only be included on the new films.

It's even possible they won't be on the new movies, and it will just be Lucasfilm's logo at the front (like Marvel). It sounds like Disney's "hands-off" agreement with Marvel really paved the way for the Lucasfilm one.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

It's even possible they won't be on the new movies, and it will just be Lucasfilm's logo at the front (like Marvel). It sounds like Disney's "hands-off" agreement with Marvel really paved the way for the Lucasfilm one.

There's always that possibility as well.

So we might get the traditional Star Wars fanfare after all.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Id' like the theatrical cut too. Phantom Menace was shot on film, but 99.9999% of it was digitally manipulated so you actually get better quality going straight from the digital files, which is what they did for the Blu-ray. What they also did was to give it to Lowry to work their mojo on it, whereby they degrain, enhance detail then regrain - only someone left out the 'regrain' part, so it looks very smooth and shiny and nothing like film.

I actually watched a regrained version of Phantom Menace the other day, with no other edits or colour correction, just a very light dusting of grain laid over the top and it made all the difference. What looked plasticky and fake now had a semblance of filmic realism, and the grain also had the effect of dithering the EE ever so slightly.

You can't add back grain. You can add back digitally generated noise that is meant to emulate grain, but IMO, it never looks like grain. And detraining, which also eliminates detail, then trying to add back detail and then regraining sounds like a very bad idea which is always going to result in a terrible image.

It would be like filtering out all high frequencies from an audio recording and then using EQ to attempt to restore the high end. You can't restore what's no longer there.

I can see trying to take some grain out of an optical or out of a shot filmed at high ISO in very low light, but otherwise, they should just leave it alone.

I suspect, in the case of this movie, they felt they had to do it in order to match the film footage with the HD footage.

And I say that as someone who doesn't really have complaints about the way these movies looked on Blu-ray. I remember thinking that they looked pretty good, although I probably didn't watch them in their entirety on Blu-ray (I did see all six films in their original theatrical runs as well as a second viewing in the special editions). One of these days when there's some kid around who wants to see them, I'll watch them again. I can only stand to watch these about once every five to ten years.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by solaris72

Right, it's such a no-brainer cashgrab that I would bet on it happening.

Actually, I don't think it really is, especially if Fox takes a big piece of the action for Episode IV.

While there is certainly plenty of interest among the Star Wars geeks, I really don't think the general public cares as much as sites like this one would lead you to believe.

For the non-geeks, if they wanted Star Wars on Blu-ray, they most likely already purchased it on BD and probably also purchased it on DVD and possibly VHS before that. Will non-geeks double (or triple or quadruple) dip to get the unaltered version? I don't think so. I just don't think they care that much.

Furthermore, at this point, I think it would be almost impossible to get a really good looking restored version of the original. There would be something that the geeks would remember differently - a frame missing here or there or a slight difference in an optical or in the sound mix that they would pounce on and badmouth the whole thing. And once it starts getting badmouthed, it kills the enthusiasm for the whole thing and sales drop as the press reports the grumbling.

There were, for example, reportedly differences between the original 70mm Dolby Baby Boom 6-track mag, 35mm Dolby Optical and 35mm mono mixes. In order to remix into 5.1 or 7.1, they have to go back to the stems. And once you go back to the stems, things will never be exactly the same.

Would it generate a reasonable income stream? Sure. Would it pay for itself if it involved a major restoration? Maybe, maybe not. Would it be a really big-selling title? Not in my opinion. In my own case, and even though I've been hanging on to a pretty much unaltered VHS version, I'd probably only buy it if it were around $20 for all three films. IMO, in the United States, I think sales of this would be a lot closer to 50 to 100,000 units than the million units that would be needed to make it a big success.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

You can't add back grain. You can add back digitally generated noise that is meant to emulate grain, but IMO, it never looks like grain. And detraining, which also eliminates detail, then trying to add back detail and then regraining sounds like a very bad idea which is always going to result in a terrible image.

It would be like filtering out all high frequencies from an audio recording and then using EQ to attempt to restore the high end. You can't restore what's no longer there.

I can see trying to take some grain out of an optical or out of a shot filmed at high ISO in very low light, but otherwise, they should just leave it alone.

I suspect, in the case of this movie, they felt they had to do it in order to match the film footage with the HD footage.

And I say that as someone who doesn't really have complaints about the way these movies looked on Blu-ray. I remember thinking that they looked pretty good, although I probably didn't watch them in their entirety on Blu-ray (I did see all six films in their original theatrical runs as well as a second viewing in the special editions). One of these days when there's some kid around who wants to see them, I'll watch them again. I can only stand to watch these about once every five to ten years.

But I'm not talking about the sloppy heavy-handed noise reduction favoured by certain studios. Lowry has a patented computer-driven process which analyzes each frame and removes the random components of the image (dirt, grain etc) leaving the high frequency detail information intact. They can then, if the customer requests it, layer a pre-selected vintage of fake grain back over the top of it to restore that organic film-like appearance.

Note: the fake grain won't restore detail - and no-one said it would - but it DOES make all the difference as to whether the finished product looks all shiny and shot-on-video (Phantom Menace) or whether it looks decidely grittier and more of its time (Aliens, Terminator). And some enterprising guy has taken it upon himself to do the regraining part for Phantom Menace, adding a light layer of grain/noise/whatever to try and restore that filmic appearance.

Heck, I've been critical of Lowry's efforts for the longest time because they just couldn't nail the fake grain part, leaving these ugly patches of frozen grain that gloop and swirl about, but when it works it REALLY f'ing works.

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

So we might get the traditional Star Wars fanfare after all.

Well, it would lack the part that simply belongs to 20th Century Fox.

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Furthermore, at this point, I think it would be almost impossible to get a really good looking restored version of the original.

There would be something that the geeks would remember differently - a frame missing here or there or a slight difference in an optical or in the sound mix that they would pounce on and badmouth the whole thing. And once it starts getting badmouthed, it kills the enthusiasm for the whole thing and sales drop as the press reports the grumbling.

There were, for example, reportedly differences between the original 70mm Dolby Baby Boom 6-track mag, 35mm Dolby Optical and 35mm mono mixes. In order to remix into 5.1 or 7.1, they have to go back to the stems. And once you go back to the stems, things will never be exactly the same.

I don't think the fans are worried about differences in opticals. If they used the three-strip Technicolor print housed at the UCLA Film and Television Archives for a new 4K master, then I think it would turn out fine, picture-wise. As for sound-wise, if we're going back to the original, I doubt anyone would complain much if it was simply the uncompressed sound off of that print, and whatever HD sound is from the current Blu-Ray.

As for sales, just pack it in a set with the Lucas edited versions and add some new bonus material and you'll rope in plenty of average folks who didn't get the first set (because they didn't have a player or whatever else). Especially if it's just 4-6.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Furthermore, at this point, I think it would be almost impossible to get a really good looking restored version of the original. There would be something that the geeks would remember differently - a frame missing here or there or a slight difference in an optical or in the sound mix that they would pounce on and badmouth the whole thing. And once it starts getting badmouthed, it kills the enthusiasm for the whole thing and sales drop as the press reports the grumbling.

Forget imagined differences. I would expect a lot of harping over actual differences. People tend to (reasonably enough) focus on all the content changes and overlook things like color changes and CGI-enhanced sunsets and if/when those things revert back to their original states a lot of supposed purists will likely be up in arms about the 'washed out' look and 'drab colors' and whatnot.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

You can't add back grain. You can add back digitally generated noise that is meant to emulate grain, but IMO, it never looks like grain. And detraining, which also eliminates detail, then trying to add back detail and then regraining sounds like a very bad idea which is always going to result in a terrible image.

They "grain" CG all the time and have so for many years (for the STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE Director's Edition the guys at Foundation Imaging talked about their grain matching algorithms...back in 2001). It's not noise, it's texture.

Originally Posted by tylergfoster

If they used the three-strip Technicolor print housed at the UCLA Film and Television Archives for a new 4K master

You'd never use a print for a video transfer unless it's as an absolute last resort.

[The Fallen Deity]

It'll be interesting to see what prints Disney would use if this turns out to all be true and whether they'd give the films a full on restoration.

[Scarface32]

If Disney released the original unaltered trilogy, do you think they will (at the same time) also release the prequel unaltered as well? The current Blu-ray set differs from the theatrical releases.

What would also be cool, is if they could put all the minor movies on Blu as well. And acquire the rights for whatever they don't already have (I think CBS owns the rights to the Holiday Special)

The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)
Cavern of Courage: The Ewok Adventure (1984)
Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (1985)
Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008) [the movie, not the TV series]

And any others I might be missing. They could release it as "Star Wars: The Other Stuff Collection"

[Geoff D]

I think there's a bit of confusion here, there are three-strip separations and IB Tech prints of the film. The latter would indeed be a last resort for transfer (excellent for colour reference tho') but the separation negatives wouldn't be a bad idea if there were no other sources.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

If Disney released the original unaltered trilogy, do you think they will (at the same time) also release the prequel unaltered as well? The current Blu-ray set differs from the theatrical releases.

What would also be cool, is if they could put all the minor movies on Blu as well. And acquire the rights for whatever they don't already have (I think CBS owns the rights to the Holiday Special)

The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)
Cavern of Courage: The Ewok Adventure (1984)
Ewoks: The Battle for Endor (1985)
Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008) [the movie, not the TV series]

And any others I might be missing. They could release it as "Star Wars: The Other Stuff Collection"

I highly doubt it but who knows, anything is possible.

The only way I could see the Holiday Special be included is through an on disc easter egg.