Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Merlinpants]

Every argument has a counter point, the thing with the rights to the original Star Wars is that no-one really knows and the discussion is pointless. Provide sources from either standpoint and they can be debunked. If the rights were handed back and documents signed, confidentiality would prevent any real comment. If the rights stayed with fox, they wouldn't need to say anything. Aside from the copyrights changes, nothing provided for either argument backs anything up other than speculation and personal opinion.

Personal viewpoints mean little, when and if the UOT released, will anyone actually care?

Move on everyone, enjoy STAR WARS, that is what this forum is supposed to be about.

[StingingVelvet]

Guru has been shown to be a troll in this thread and doesn't listen to evidence. Stop worrying about it and move on.

[GuruAskew]

I agree that every argument has a counter point, but in this case the argument that LucasFilm got the rights from Fox is a lot weaker.

I don't have a horse in the race. I don't have anything to gain by being right. Like every Star Wars fan I'd rather have the whole saga controlled by the same entity for the purposes of box sets and theatrical re-releases.

If LucasFilm got the rights from Fox the evidence simply isn't there to state it as fact. I could very well be wrong, but if I am wrong it's not from lack of information or ignorance of any kind.

Maybe the source of that anonymous rumor in that New York Times article was accurate. Maybe he was telling the truth. But how do you get to the point where you vehemently defend that as fact when it goes unconfirmed for nearly two decades?

At most the people who believe Lucas got the rights from Fox need to chalk it up as a long-unconfirmed rumor. That's no crime, especially in regards to something as inconsequential as which film studio controls a film. But nobody who believes that believes it because they know it to be true and factual.

If I turned out to be wrong I'd be able to look back and say my belief was based on credible and recent sources including an industry trade publication. But if the "other side" turns out to be right there's gonna be a lot of embarrassing stuff: citing rumors from the 90s and self-published fan books, picking and choosing online resources to suit their argument and ignoring equally- or more-credible ones that don't, immature gifs and name-calling.

Don't get me wrong. Part of me loves the absurdity of it. I love finding a quotes from a self-published author that destroy his credibility. I love stuff like being egged on to go to the Library of Congress only to find that it actually strengthens my argument. It's oddly fun arguing with people who have no argument, but it flies in the face of the naive and unrealistic "every argument has a counter point" concept.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

I love stuff like being egged on to go to the Library of Congress only to find that it actually strengthens my argument.

Wow. Just...wow.

[GuruAskew]

No gif?

[octagon]

Would a jpg be okay?

[Show spoiler]

[Merlinpants]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Guru has been shown to be a troll in this thread and doesn't listen to evidence. Stop worrying about it and move on.

I see your point. Sad in todays age that things like this still exist, I have no axe to grind on either side, just sometimes it is worth being a bit more balanced than stating your opinion only as fact without a single source backing your opinion as FACT, and NEVER considering anything else.

[crazyBLUE]

Gents

Please Back on topic or I will need to close & clean it all out ~ Thanks

[Ernest Rister]

George Lucas comes up in this article about Walt Disney's "Tomorrowland" TV episodes. Yeah, I wrote the thing. Yeah, I self-promote. I'm all like that with the, "Look what I did!" stuff.

http://pulpepic.com/posts/tv/disney-...trilogy/id=630

[BossTweed]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

George Lucas comes up in this article about Walt Disney's "Tomorrowland" TV episodes. Yeah, I wrote the thing. Yeah, I self-promote. I'm all like that with the, "Look what I did!" stuff.

http://pulpepic.com/posts/tv/disney-...trilogy/id=630

Excellent article!

[Norbie]

More of a general question -

People say that they want the OT with its correct original colour grading and this could be done with scanning the original negative.

Isnt the negative black and white? How can you judge how the colour should be from a black and white image that's taken from the original negative?

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Norbie

More of a general question -

People say that they want the OT with its correct original colour grading and this could be done with scanning the original negative.

Isnt the negative black and white? How can you judge how the colour should be from a black and white image that's taken from the original negative?

Geoff will hopefully chime in, but when you go back to the original negative, you then create an interpositive where it forces you to re-color grade. Sources for it? This is where it can get tricky and causes debate, but preferably the filmmakers are involved, there is an answer print, or an existing (older, previous) IP for reference.

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by Norbie

More of a general question -

People say that they want the OT with its correct original colour grading and this could be done with scanning the original negative.

Isnt the negative black and white? How can you judge how the colour should be from a black and white image that's taken from the original negative?

I don't really know too much about this, but from what I understand, it's the separation masters that are black and white, while the o-neg has totally normal colors and any color grading changes have to be created on a copy such as a print, interpositive etc. I could be totally wrong, but this sounds like what I've heard over the years.

[stvn1974]

Just now pre-ordered all the of the new Marvel Star Wars comics that are coming out in hope that they know what they are doing with the property. Optimistic that we will get the UOT on BD and the new films will be amazing.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

Just now pre-ordered all the of the new Marvel Star Wars comics that are coming out in hope that they know what they are doing with the property. Optimistic that we will get the UOT on BD and the new films will be amazing.

I have the original issues (used to be a comic book collector in 70s and 80s) - are these new ones reprints?

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I have the original issues (used to be a comic book collector in 70s and 80s) - are these new ones reprints?

No, Marvel is starting a new line of Star Wars comics and the first issue is supposed to be the highest selling comic book in a very long time.

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I have the original issues (used to be a comic book collector in 70s and 80s) - are these new ones reprints?

These are going to take place between A New Hope and Empire. There are also a Vader and a Princess Leia miniseries being released so far.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

I have the original issues (used to be a comic book collector in 70s and 80s) - are these new ones reprints?

The new ones are considered canon too. I read someone that there will be loads of variant covers for the first issue.

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by chip75

The new ones are considered canon too. I read someone that there will be loads of variant covers for the first issue.

Its something like a dozen variants or more. One of them is a photo diorama of action figures. Another is an homage to the first Punisher appearance with Boba Fett and Han Solo taking the place of Punisher and Spidey. Alex Ross did a painted version of the original Marvel #1 from 1977.

As cool as most of them are its too much to even consider tracking them all down and its a reminder of the 90s-era gimmickry that killed the industry. I'll probably buy the digital version and be done with it.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Geoff will hopefully chime in, but when you go back to the original negative, you then create an interpositive where it forces you to re-color grade. Sources for it? This is where it can get tricky and causes debate, but preferably the filmmakers are involved, there is an answer print, or an existing (older, previous) IP for reference.

From the original negatives they'd make three interpositives, one for each colour, red, blue and green placed on top of each other. Together they'd create the colour for the film. They'd go back to those interpositives to find the exact colours used (if they're available), in some cases it's a better reference for colour than the negatives.