Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Truth be told, the majority of purists clamoring for "unaltered" versions don't realize what they're asking for, in the strictest sense. If Lucas were to release a truly unaltered version of the OT, it would be grainy, dirty, color-drained, and the sound would be seriously degraded. That's what "unaltered" means: not changed.

That's why I think a new term really needs to be invented, or maybe even have folks describe what they want in detail...but that would require contemplation, rational thinking, and overall objectivity, all three of which are sorely lacking in much of the "purist" community. If people want cleaned, restored, and updated video or audio for the theatrical OT films, that's fine; more power to ya. But don't stand around, constantly saying you want them "unaltered". Those who use that term are basically hanging themselves with it.

When people talk about unaltered they are referring to content. As for quality, they would prefer to have it restored to at least the same picture and audio quality that existed when the movies were first released - there was no dirt on the image nor was color degraded. At least, not on the masters.

[svenge]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

So what term should we use then? The "pre-altered trilogy"? We want the trilogy before it was altered by George Lucas in 1997, so calling it "unaltered" makes sense to me (you said yourself that unaltered means not changed). We're talking about the movies, not the state the film is in. Bringing something back to its original state isn't called altering it, but restoring. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

When people talk about unaltered they are referring to content. As for quality, they would prefer to have it restored to at least the same picture and audio quality that existed when the movies were first released - there was no dirt on the image nor was color degraded. At least, not on the masters.

Don't bother responding to Moviefan2k4. Either he's trolling, or he's been so Lucasized brainwashed that he doesn't know where preservation ends and revisionism begins.

[georgec]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

When people talk about unaltered they are referring to content. As for quality, they would prefer to have it restored to at least the same picture and audio quality that existed when the movies were first released - there was no dirt on the image nor was color degraded. At least, not on the masters.

Great post.

[Breather]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

When people talk about unaltered they are referring to content. As for quality, they would prefer to have it restored to at least the same picture and audio quality that existed when the movies were first released - there was no dirt on the image nor was color degraded. At least, not on the masters.

Correct. Nice post.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

So what term should we use then? The "pre-altered trilogy"? We want the trilogy before it was altered by George Lucas in 1997, so calling it "unaltered" makes sense to me (you said yourself that unaltered means not changed). We're talking about the movies, not the state the film is in. Bringing something back to its original state isn't called altering it, but restoring. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

When people talk about unaltered they are referring to content. As for quality, they would prefer to have it restored to at least the same picture and audio quality that existed when the movies were first released - there was no dirt on the image nor was color degraded. At least, not on the masters.

I wrote a lengthy reply to the OP comments earlier but I erased it by accident. But you've summed up my feelings exactly. What we want is the original films in their original state similar to when a painted masterpiece is restored. We don't want sunglasses added onto the end of Mona Lisa's nose or CGI creatures added to circa '77 films. The notion that we should use a print that's been played to death for thirty years is an absurd one. When the films originally came out they were in fine shape.

Maybe someone somewhere has a perfect print lying around....

[tigertron]

Originally Posted by Ryan0503

So switching subjects here ... I wish that the "spoofs" documentry would have included George Lucas in Love. That thing was hilarious!!!! It came out around the same time as TPM and outsold TPM on Amazon (I think it was amazon)!!! Wouldn't mind having that in my blu collection lol

I actually remember reading about GL in Love! wasn't it some sort of parody in which certain events and people gave him inspiration?

[chip75]

Originally Posted by tigertron

I actually remember reading about GL in Love! wasn't it some sort of parody in which certain events and people gave him inspiration?

This should have been there too. Some of the humour is a bit British.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGpVj3pGdUk

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Breather

There are two guys over at Wikipedia who keep deleting the list of changes, for some reason. Hmmm... Their names are Cameron Scott and Mike Wazowski. If you look under the 'view history' tab you'll find that info. They claim it was due to a lack of sources, yet that list has stood for years on Wikipedia, until now.

That's the problem with Wikipedia. They're biased against first hand sources and biased in favor of printed or web sources, no matter how wrong they might be. I produce websites for a number of musicians and know the musicians personally. I've corrected their pages on Wikipedia and had the changes removed because I couldn't quote a source. Well the source is the musicians themselves or my own live observations (because I'm at their shows, etc.) While I can understand why Wiki would want sources and not people writing from fallible memories, I think their current policy is ridiculous and needs improvement.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by chip75

Maybe someone somewhere has a perfect print lying around....

For years, I fantasized someone finding perfect 70mm Dolby 6-track mag prints of the OT and then a great theatre like the Ziegfeld in New York City or the Coronet in San Francisco (does it still exist?) playing them, although there are very few theatres left that can play 70mm film.

But it truly was a fantasy because it's not really possible even under the best storage conditions. Especially if it was Eastman Color (I don't know that it was, but it was likely that it was), it fades over time no matter how it was stored. The other thing to remember is that back then, films didn't play for just a few weeks like they do today. Star Wars played in many theatres for close to a year so all the distributed prints were very worn by the time they were returned to the distributors (and in all likelihood quickly destroyed). The only hope would be that some executive managed to take a print home and it's somehow survived, but even if an exec did that, it would have been a 35mm optical print, not a 70mm print.

[Sephiroth5929]

Originally Posted by svenge

You mean three feature-length commercials for action figures and playsets?

When you think about it, Star Wars' development over time in some ways is the Bizarro-world version of the Transformers franchise. The G1 Transformers TV show was originally made expressly to sell toys and subsequently grew into a successful film franchise 20 years later. Star Wars was originally a popular film franchise that subsequently devolved 20 years later into a vehicle made largely to sell toys and other licensed merchandise. While the PT is still better than the Transformers films, the inverse parallels are striking.

The sad thing is that if 20th Century Fox had ever promised Lucas proper pre-premiere marketing before the debut of ANH, Lucas would have never needed to buy back the merchandising rights, which perhaps would have resulted in things like Ewoks and Gungans never being created. Perhaps the Prequels would still have been made, but plot and dialog might have actually been emphasized.

You do realize that they were selling Star Wars toys back in the 80's too, right?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth5929

You do realize that they were selling Star Wars toys back in the 80's too, right?

That became abundantly clear in 1983, yes.

[Sephiroth5929]

Originally Posted by octagon

That became abundantly clear in 1983, yes.

Just saying.

[MCT]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth5929

You do realize that they were selling Star Wars toys back in the 80's too, right?

right above your head what is that WOOOOOSHHHHH

[Moviefan2k4]

Well, I finished watching "Jedi" a few minutes ago, and like the first two OT films, it looks very well done. However, the same issues from those entries still show up on this one as well (inconsistent sabers and visible matte areas). I even noticed a few shots towards the end, where Palpatine's complexion kept shifting. In most scenes, he's stark white, but some of the closeups have him almost tanned by comparison. I'd say about 90% of the sabers are good, but there's still a select few that are noticeable. Overall, the special FX quality is better than both "New Hope" and "Empire", but still needs a little more work.

[AlT_3D]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Well, I finished watching "Jedi" a few minutes ago, and like the first two OT films, it looks very well done. However, the same issues from those entries still show up on this one as well (inconsistent sabers and visible matte areas). I even noticed a few shots towards the end, where Palpatine's complexion kept shifting. In most scenes, he's stark white, but some of the closeups have him almost tanned by comparison. I'd say about 90% of the sabers are good, but there's still a select few that are noticeable. Overall, the special FX quality is better than both "New Hope" and "Empire", but still needs a little more work.

Just did Jedi here too. Worst looking of the lot I thought though. I thought I'd be Ok with the 'Nooooo!' bit, but I hated it, it totally f**ked it up for me. I'd totally forgotten the ghost of Anakin too! I ended the film by saying out loud, "George Lucas, you're an Ass****e"! My wife told me off!

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by AlT_3D

Just did Jedi here too. Worst looking of the lot I thought though. I thought I'd be Ok with the 'Nooooo!' bit, but I hated it, it totally f**ked it up for me. I'd totally forgotten the ghost of Anakin too! I ended the film by saying out loud, "George Lucas, you're an Ass****e"! My wife told me off!

As well she should. Sounds to me like you lost your temper, over something fairly trivial in the proper context.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by AlT_3D

Just did Jedi here too. Worst looking of the lot I thought though. I thought I'd be Ok with the 'Nooooo!' bit, but I hated it, it totally f**ked it up for me. I'd totally forgotten the ghost of Anakin too! I ended the film by saying out loud, "George Lucas, you're an Ass****e"! My wife told me off!

I think the first 'No' is just way too up front in the mix. It sounds like it is just laid over the top of everything else. It doesn't sound like it's coming from Darth Vader actually in the scene, it sounds like James Earl Jones in a recording booth. I can live with it, but I would much rather it not be there, or the second one too.

[Sith]

I just started Jedi, I suspect I'll hate the end to.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Truth be told, the majority of purists clamoring for "unaltered" versions don't realize what they're asking for, in the strictest sense. If Lucas were to release a truly unaltered version of the OT, it would be grainy, dirty, color-drained, and the sound would be seriously degraded. That's what "unaltered" means: not changed.

That's why I think a new term really needs to be invented, or maybe even have folks describe what they want in detail...but that would require contemplation, rational thinking, and overall objectivity, all three of which are sorely lacking in much of the "purist" community. If people want cleaned, restored, and updated video or audio for the theatrical OT films, that's fine; more power to ya. But don't stand around, constantly saying you want them "unaltered". Those who use that term are basically hanging themselves with it.

Be more wrong. Just to see if it's possible.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by AlT_3D

Just did Jedi here too. Worst looking of the lot I thought though. I thought I'd be Ok with the 'Nooooo!' bit, but I hated it, it totally f**ked it up for me. I'd totally forgotten the ghost of Anakin too! I ended the film by saying out loud, "George Lucas, you're an Ass****e"! My wife told me off!

It might have been worse though. He might have shouted Luke instead. When golf fans shout it after Luke Donald it sounds like 'Boo' worst case scenario Vader shouts 'Boo!' then 'Boooo!!' then throws Palps down the reactor's shitter....