Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[phansson]

Originally Posted by HandyDandy

Bill Hunt is not going to stand there and lie about the what he saw.
I think this will look amazing on blu.

He didn't see much, he was shown clips of the movies that LucasFilm wanted him to see. He was then shown "updated" frame images with the old frames to show the differences. Obviously those particular frames were "particular frames".

By his own admission, he "dug into the extras" more than the actual movies.

I don't doubt the movies will look good, but they could have looked SO MUCH better.

Originally Posted by HyperRealist

Does anyone still listen to what Bill Hunt has to say?

I tend to listen to Bill Hunt because he is usually right..... Check his track record.

[AlexG]

Originally Posted by timbersbimbers

Just saw the scene with the added No's for Vader. Very bad.

Part of Vader's personality was his strong silent type.

Maybe Lucas should and some deleted scenes showing Vader in therapy sessions or chatting away with his girlfriends while camping it up. That would do wonders to add depth to his character and "futurize" Star Wars for generations to come.

Yeah that was pretty bad...but the Obi-Wan's Krayt Dragon call?...WTF...

[phansson]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

Something I'm puzzled by, that maybe people here can clear up for me:

When GL first started making digital changes to the OT (for the 1997 release, I think?), he must have done a restoration and reference scan of the original versions of the films, no?

Is there any logic or credibility to the idea that he didn't keep those scans somewhere, either as source material for alterations or simply archives?

So when Lucas says he *can't* release the original theatrical versions on DVD or Blu-ray, because they "don't exist", he's *got* to be telling porkies, hasn't he?

This is what I personally don't get about the guy. I'm not out to rag on him, and the only thing I'm "hating" is that inane piece of newspeak itself, but I don't understand why George Lucas revises his own PR history as much as he revises his films. Why claim he never said there would be nine Star Wars films, when I and countless others have copies of the souvenir program from the film's première where he says precisely that, and even details what the third trilogy would be about? Why claim he doesn't even have a copy of any of the original films, when he must have had one to even start making changes from? Why claim he's fixed all that was wrong with the 2004 release -- which itself was claimed to have fixed everything that was wrong with the previous version -- when reports are starting to make clear he hasn't?

Bottom line for me: the guy can do anything he wants with his films, and I'll either buy them -- again! -- or I won't. That's how it works. But I'm bewildered by the constant flow of revisionism and what looks like outright fibbing.

Or am I just missing something?

You can find a TON of information about this on the web. Essentially, the story goes that supposedly the films were in such bad shape that LucasFilm had to go back to the original negatives. This negative was cut up and essentially destroyed to make the 1997 "Special editions" so his stance is that the original movie DOES NOT exist anymore in any form. Which of course isn't true.....there are copies that exist.

Here is a long explanation. Whether or not is accurate is debatable by certain circles.

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Ite

Ite, your avatar rocks.

[22soultaker]

I wanna get this early off Amazon.uk is it region free?
Anything different about this then the U.S version?

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by georgec

With a huge release like this the advance reviews (if any) will come on the eve of the release and most likely be very positive. It will take a couple days after the release for a real consensus to begin to form.

It might take weeks or months even. Look at all the initial praise showered on the DVD releases.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by phansson

You can find a TON of information about this on the web.

Thanks phansson. I know asking questions like I did risks looking like I'm just being lazy and haven't bothered searching, so thanks for not telling me off. I have read around various sites on this, but so much on the web is of doubtful provenance and reliability, and is presented as-is without the chance to ask about aspects that aren't clear. So I thought people here might have some more sense about it and insight into what the story really is.

It makes no sense to me that a negative would have to be cut up just to access it, and they had the capability for high-def scanning in the mid-90s (Lucasfilm would have, surely?). So it still sounds like porkies to me. If Lucas just doesn't *want* that original version out there, he should just say so in as many words, shouldn't he?

[phansson]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

Thanks phansson. I know asking questions like I did risks looking like I'm just being lazy and haven't bothered searching, so thanks for not telling me off. I have read around various sites on this, but so much on the web is of doubtful provenance and reliability, and is presented as-is without the chance to ask about aspects that aren't clear. So I thought people here might have some more sense about it and insight into what the story really is.

It makes no sense to me that a negative would have to be cut up just to access it, and they had the capability for high-def scanning in the mid-90s (Lucasfilm would have, surely?). So it still sounds like porkies to me. If Lucas just doesn't *want* that original version out there, he should just say so in as many words, shouldn't he?

No I am not trying to be a jerk, there is a TON of info on the net, I just don't know what is 100% accurate.

I'm with you, it does sound like B.S. to me and maybe Lucas just popped all that out there to cover his own back side. I guess it is possible that the original negative was in such bad shape that much of it couldn't be used at all. I could see that being true with the amount of copies that must have been made!

[42041]

Originally Posted by MacEachaidh

When GL first started making digital changes to the OT (for the 1997 release, I think?), he must have done a restoration and reference scan of the original versions of the films, no?

Is there any logic or credibility to the idea that he didn't keep those scans somewhere, either as source material for alterations or simply archives?

In 1997 they didn't digitally scan the whole film, that wasn't really practical at a time when a top-dollar workstation had a fraction of the power of a modern cell phone. They reconstructed some physically damaged negative from B&W color separations (which do not fade and were created specifically for preserving the original film) and they reconstructed some visual effects that were printed on a defective intermediate film from the original camera elements Lucasfilm and ILM had archived. Presumably, they still have them archived. If the original negative does not exist in its 1977 form, most of it still does, and the rest could be reconstructed from separations like they did for the SEs.

[Weirded Wonder]

I'm gone one day and I'm behind 27 pages? Great goggs of gaggoo I'll be up til two.

[Breather]

Originally Posted by phansson

I tend to listen to Bill Hunt because he is usually right..... Check his track record.

I read the Bits regularly and he does a nice job. On the other hand, along with just about every other professional reviewer, he gave the 2004 DVD set glowing reviews on video quality, even scoring Star Wars(ANH) an "A". We all know the video problems with the 2004 release. It was only much later that he saw the problems with color timing, crushed blacks, and lightsabers.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/review...rstrilogy.html

[phansson]

Originally Posted by Breather

I read the Bits regularly and he does a nice job. On the other hand, along with just about every other professional reviewer, he gave the 2004 DVD set glowing reviews on video quality, even scoring Star Wars(ANH) an "A". We all know the video problems with the 2004 release. It was only much later that he saw the problems with color timing, crushed blacks, and lightsabers.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/review...rstrilogy.html

I missed that one, yes if he gave ANH an A for video (audio was hard to catch the mistakes) he missed the boat and was way off base....

[22soultaker]

I dont get amazon UK it says shipping 2-4 days so does that mean im gonna get it on the 16th or 17th? Might as well just wait then instead of trying to get it early.

[kurtlingle]

Originally Posted by AlexG

Yeah that was pretty bad...but the Obi-Wan's Krayt Dragon call?...WTF...

I'm going to reserve judgement until I hear it in 6.1 lossless (cranked way up).

I'm sure I'll get used to it.
The 2004 one was weird also.

[nathan_393]

Originally Posted by phansson

I missed that one, yes if he gave ANH an A for video (audio was hard to catch the mistakes) he missed the boat and was way off base....

It happens when you're human though. And like we've all noted, everybody loved those DVDs at first.

[Ite]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

Ite, your avatar rocks.

You can tell what it is?

[phansson]

Originally Posted by 22soultaker

I dont get amazon UK it says shipping 2-4 days so does that mean im gonna get it on the 16th or 17th? Might as well just wait then instead of trying to get it early.

I considered ordering from the UK but what would happen if they didn't make it by the 16th? My son and I are all ready planning to watch all of them in a row on a Sunday! I am looking forward to it........

except for the ROTJ "noooooooooooo": mad:

WTF was he thinking?

[georgec]

Do any of the forum mods know when this site will receive review copies?

I'm surprised Lucasfilm hasn't threatened lawsuits against pirating the leaked rips. I know it happens with most releases, but something this big almost calls for that type of response from the studio.

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by 22soultaker

I wanna get this early off Amazon.uk is it region free?
Anything different about this then the U.S version?

All info available in the first 2 posts in the front page. Yes, they're region free. Only different is the packaging:

US:



UK:

Originally Posted by Beard Esquire

I'm gone one day and I'm behind 27 pages? Great goggs of gaggoo I'll be up til two.

Yup, I gave up already, it's fine for people to have opinions but they've been saying the same things again and again it gets tiring. Me and a couple others asked a question just now and we were ignored, so it's obvious that this thread can no longer serve it's purpose.

Ok, enough of that. Maybe you can put those pics into your second post.

[phansson]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

It happens when you're human though. And like we've all noted, everybody loved those DVDs at first.

I am not trying to stand up for Bill, but I fell into that "it looks so much better than VHS" for the longest time myself. When we started getting REALLY good dvd transfers and TV sizes kept getting bigger and bigger, those older transfers just didn't hold up as good.