Star Wars Wars the UOT Strikes Back and OTHER PEZ dispensers

[TheKlem]

I am tired of having this same old debate about the theatrical version so lets establish what we know that is NOT arguable!

GEORGE LUCAS SAID IT COULD BE DONE BUT WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE!

SO UNLESS ANY OF YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT HOW OBSCENE THE COST WOULD BE YOUR ARGUMENT IS GARBAGE!

One question you should be asking is, what about the effects that haven't been changed? How were those cleaned up? They were cleaned up because they saved all the original elements to be recomposited digitally, now digital compositing may get some people worked up but you know what? I think at this we'll take what we can get. It would be the old effects being recomposited and that's what matters.

You say movies like Apocalypse Now and The Godfather aren't the same because there are no optical effects that have dirt built into the frame. Well fair enough but there's an example people are forgetting. BLADE RUNNER! Optical effects from around the same time and the film was a box office disaster, yet they still inexplicably pulled out a stunning Blu-Ray release! Are you really trying to argue that George Lucas, head of ILM, THX, Skywalker sound, the ultimate in film technology can't figure out how to restore a total of 9 minutes of old optical effects yet still retaining a fair picture quality? Why are you trying to argue on his behalf? I don't get it!

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by greg_achen

I think what most people want is an experience close to what they saw theatrically, so they want the films restored as close to their original incarnations as possible.

The main problems with that are (1) Lucas has no current intention of doing it; and (2) they'd probably be able to get it very close, but some folks would still be picking it apart like crazy.

Porting over the films directly as is right now doesn't take into account the ravages of time. Fixing film degradation such as loss of color is not the same as adding new effects.

Maybe not in the same way, no...but generally speaking, both constitute some kind of change to the original source elements, thereby disqualifying it from being "unaltered".

[philzilla]

Originally Posted by compavader

George Lucas made the films, they are all his films, he can do anything with them because he created them; he has changed, optimized, add or taked out what in his opinion has to be changed, When he made Episodes IV-VI he knew what he wanted, but technology stopped him so he had to release what he could in that moment, now he has the opportunity to improve all 6 movies so they are as he really wanted them to be since the beginning.
So nobody should complain, because this are the way they are meant to be, if you still want the old ones thats your problem.
If you had a movie and after you made it you realize what could you do to improve it, i assure you would do it, and its your movie so you can do anything to make it look better, and make it be as you want to. What George makes is what many other filmakers should do, and deliver old movies tweaked to make them as they wanted them to be.

Oh, thanks

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by TheKlem

I am tired of having this same old debate about the theatrical version so lets establish what we know that is NOT arguable!

GEORGE LUCAS SAID IT COULD BE DONE BUT WOULD BE TOO EXPENSIVE!

SO UNLESS ANY OF YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT HOW OBSCENE THE COST WOULD BE YOUR ARGUMENT IS GARBAGE!

One question you should be asking is, what about the effects that haven't been changed? How were those cleaned up? They were cleaned up because they saved all the original elements to be recomposited digitally, now digital compositing may get some people worked up but you know what? I think at this we'll take what we can get. It would be the old effects being recomposited and that's what matters.

You say movies like Apocalypse Now and The Godfather aren't the same because there are no optical effects that have dirt built into the frame. Well fair enough but there's an example people are forgetting. BLADE RUNNER! Optical effects from around the same time and the film was a box office disaster, yet they still inexplicably pulled out a stunning Blu-Ray release! Are you really trying to argue that George Lucas, head of ILM, THX, Skywalker sound, the ultimate in film technology can't figure out how to restore a total of 9 minutes of old optical effects yet still retaining a fair picture quality? Why are you trying to argue on his behalf? I don't get it!

There shouldn't be any more dirt printed in the opticals than there was on day one (as long as were are talking about the final cut negative or an original interpositive or internegative), which would be negligable.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Maybe not in the same way, no...but generally speaking, both constitute some kind of change to the original source elements, thereby disqualifying it from being "unaltered".

I don't want the "unaltered" film in any pedantic, literal sense. I want the original film, the one I never had a problem with before 1997. Recompositing opticals, cleaning up the effects seams, removing the scratches and dirt, all of that is MILES away from inserting new scenes and ruining existing ones.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

The main problems with that are (1) Lucas has no current intention of doing it; and (2) they'd probably be able to get it very close, but some folks would still be picking it apart like crazy.

Maybe not in the same way, no...but generally speaking, both constitute some kind of change to the original source elements, thereby disqualifying it from being "unaltered".

Folks, this is what is called "reaching". And by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about, to boot.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Maybe not in the same way, no...but generally speaking, both constitute some kind of change to the original source elements, thereby disqualifying it from being "unaltered".

Yeah, VERY generally speaking. Generally speaking, Roseanne is as hot Angelina Jolie. Hey, they're both alive aren't they?

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by 42041

I don't want the "unaltered" film in any pedantic, literal sense. I want the original film, the one I never had a problem with before 1997. Recompositing opticals, cleaning up the effects seams, removing the scratches and dirt, all of that is MILES away from inserting new scenes and ruining existing ones.

I don't want anything recomposited. Removing scratches and dirt and other ravages of time, sure. But the effects are what they are and should be presented as such, IMO.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by al cos.

The potential complaining of some fans and whatever their ideal dream version is should not be connected to preserving the theatrical trilogy. It's 2 totally separate things no matter how much some want to connect them. Look at Close Encounters, or think of what Criterion would do if they had the license. The gold standard for that stuff is what it is. Random Star Wars fans' wishes do not enter into it.

Excellent post.

[Moviefan2k4]

More than likely, the original, 1977 theatrical release of "Star Wars" no longer exists. It had degraded like crazy by the time Lucas started writing the prequels in 1994, so he cleaned it up as best he could. This created a new print, which was altered from the original '77 version. After that, Lucas made some additional changes, which resulted in the 1997 Special Editions. Then, in 2004, Lowry Digital Images created an HD master likely based on the SE, and now in 2011, Lucas has this new version which has been confirmed by Matthew Wood as being based on the 2004 version. So, to the best of my knowledge, here's how things are at the present time...

1977 theatrical version (likely unrecoverable)
Mid-1990s cleaned version
1997 Special Edition
2004 DVD Edit
2011 Blu-Ray Edit, based on 2004 version

Now, I'm just guessing here, but I think what most people are referred to by using the term "unaltered" is the second of those five options. The problem is, they're using the wrong term. A truly unchanged release would be equal in quality to the deteriorated 1977 reels, which would almost certainly look horendous in SD, let alone HD.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Now, I'm just guessing here, .

Yes.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

The problem is, they're using the wrong term.

I see. And that's a problem because...

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by octagon

I see. And that's a problem because...

Well, at the very least, it shows a slight level of ignorance, regarding a description of what's really wanted with regards to any future release.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

More than likely, the original, 1977 theatrical release of "Star Wars" no longer exists.

Do you have a good source for this? I find it very hard to believe that Lucasfilm would just toss irreplaceable material. Keep in mind that digital technology, especially for movies, has come a long way since the mid-90s, and a lot of what was impossible/impractical in terms of restoration work in the 90s is no longer so. As I understand, the most serious problem was Kodak's defective CRI film that they used for many effects shots, which faded very rapidly. It was also used in Close Encounters and I hear that looks fine though i haven't seen the disc. The actual camera negative has much better archival life (the same film was used for Alien, Blade Runner, ESB, and pretty much every hollywood movie between 1976 and 1981), and physical damage like scratches and dirt are relatively easy to fix these days.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

More than likely, the original, 1977 theatrical release of "Star Wars" no longer exists.

Wrong.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by 42041

It was also used in Close Encounters and I hear that looks fine though i haven't seen the disc.

Correct. And it doesn't just look fine, it looks excellent.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by JoshKelhoffer

You can't tell me grown adults actually like that kind of humor?

Adults don't b---- and whine about it on the internet.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

1977 theatrical version (likely unrecoverable)
Mid-1990s cleaned version
1997 Special Edition
2004 DVD Edit
2011 Blu-Ray Edit, based on 2004 version

Now, I'm just guessing here, but I think what most people are referred to by using the term "unaltered" is the second of those five options. The problem is, they're using the wrong term. A truly unchanged release would be equal in quality to the deteriorated 1977 reels, which would almost certainly look horendous in SD, let alone HD.

No, I don't buy that. When people say they want the unaltered original trilogy, they're referring to the images, the cut and the sound mix. They are not referring to the condition. The condition is a totally separate matter.

Most people don't believe that the 1977 version doesn't exist in negative form. I think there's a good possibility it doesn't exist, if Lucas cut it up at some point to create newer versions. But that doesn't mean that prints don't exist and at the very least, the Library of Congress probably has one (they definitely have a print - the question is what version it is) and I'm willing to bet that Lucas has one. So while it will never look as good as it once did, theoretically, you could re-release the 1977 version by restoring one of those prints.

[singhcr]

You gotta love the outright lies regarding the 2004 release from the StarWars.com website.

http://www.starwars.com/news/saga_bl...ion/index.html

"Some of the issues come from these movies being finished for film and projected for film, and that's how people saw them. A lot of things that look a little different on HD or DVD are really the nature of how video treats color space," explains Huebler. A dramatic example of this came up in the 2004 DVD release, with the dimming of the lightsaber cores throughout the trilogy, even to the point where Luke's lightsaber aboard the Millennium Falcon shifted from blue to green in Episode IV."

Uh, no.... that's because you screwed around with the color timing, crushed the blacks, and turned up the contrast. Even the 1997 Special Edition releases didn't look this way! Film is a far more detailed storage medium than a 1080p Blu-ray, and color space differences have nothing to do with it either. They just won't admit that they screwed up, just like how the reverse rear channels in ANH were somehow intentional.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by 42041

Do you have a good source for this?

I have the same level of proof as those who claim that Lucas has secretly hidden a pristine copy of the '77 version from the public. Both are opinions; that's why I used the phrase "more than likely". I was writing from the following point of view: "why would a director go through so much trouble and expense, to create a high-quality copy of a degraded film, store it in digital form to preserve it indefinitely...and still keep the wrecked version around? there's no further use for it."

I find it very hard to believe that Lucasfilm would just toss irreplaceable material.

Its equally possible and otherwise that Lucas may not consider the original footage to be irreplaceable. As far as I know, he's never made any statements about it, one way or another.