Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by danny_boy

Each format had it's pros and cons.
Digital may produce aliasing and moire but film produces grain,dirt,flutter and softness.

Bottom line is that 1080/24p outperforms conventional 35mm "release prints".

That is why Lucas and Cameron went digital.

Not really. A bad print has dirt, a badly projected film can be soft. I have no idea what "flutter" means, the google search I did only came up with some kind of heart condition (so that's probably not it). But you get digital noise too, when you're shooting in a low light situation.
So are we talking about shooting on film or digitally, or projecting film or digitally? Because there's a big difference between the two, and of course any movie can be projected digitally.

[danny_boy]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Not really. A bad print has dirt, a badly projected film can be soft. I have no idea what "flutter" means, the google search I did only came up with some kind of heart condition (so that's probably not it). But you get digital noise too, when you're shooting in a low light situation.
So are we talking about shooting on film or digitally, or projecting film or digitally? Because there's a big difference between the two, and of course any movie can be projected digitally.

I meant soft in terms of lacking detail:

Like in the screen to screen comparison between a film print of the phantom menace and a corresponding digital projection of the same scene from the same film(done way back in 99' when Phantom Menace premiered):

In the digital image, the sky and clouds were clearly delineated, but they were blurred into a bluish blob on the film side of the screen.
http://www.ultimateavmag.com/content...wntown-burbank

And ok, I think I used the wrong word(flutter) to descibe image instability/vibration(as was accentuated in the case below when the inadequecies of an 70mm IMAX presentation were exposed by a direct comparison with 4k projection):

The split-screen demonstration was revealing, accentuating the anomalies of film-based projection such as noticeable vibration and dirt, effectively lowering the perceived resolution of the image, while the digital version featured excellent color depth, a cleaner picture, and greater image stability.
http://www.barco.com/pressrelease/2692

[Mr. Movie Fan]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

You have to remember that in the days of Star Wars, successful films played at theatres for months at a time. And then the same print was frequently moved down to a "B" theatre. In addition, the dyes in 1970s films were very poor and even if the film was not projected and kept in a vault, it's doubtful that it looks very good today (although a vault kept print would at least be clean, not worn and not have tons of bad splices.)

It's really doubtful that any prints survived in any kind of condition that would be better than what is already on DVD (or even VHS). Normal procedure would have been that the prints were sent back to the depot at the end of their useful lives where they would have been destroyed.

And of course, even if it existed, if anyone released the footage they would be strictly violating the law. No court would consider that "morally just". There are valid copyrights associated with these prints. They are by no means in the public domain.

The law is irrelevant. Some one must do it. I am sure private 35mm collectors have good prints of all three. I am willing to bet that Lucasfilm would be the subject of so much popular outrage if the ever moved against such an individual. It would be a PR disaster, they would destroy all the personal capital they have left with fans. Look at Adywan no body touches him.

[Brightstar]

"Film purists argue the opposite. "



James Cameron:
" They're wrong. You can take an HD image and blow it up by double before you start to see the same amount of granularity you have with a 35mm negative. George Lucas did some tests that I flew up to see, and it corresponded to what we'd found. I'd say the Sony HD 900 series cameras are generating an image that's about equivalent to a 65mm original negative".

James Cameron is more smarter then Lucus

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by joliefan

"Film purists argue the opposite. "



James Cameron:
" They're wrong. You can take an HD image and blow it up by double before you start to see the same amount of granularity you have with a 35mm negative. George Lucas did some tests that I flew up to see, and it corresponded to what we'd found. I'd say the Sony HD 900 series cameras are generating an image that's about equivalent to a 65mm original negative".

James Cameron is more smarter then Lucus

Oh course he is. I mean, he gives his fans several cuts of his movies (including the edits only a select handful want to see) and he even tells his fans (in advance) "I am releasing another edition in a few months..." Just taking a quick shot at my boy George...lol Just playing around (but, imo, Cameron does release his films the right way on home viewing formats).

But to be honest, Cameron just has common sense. Say what you want about him, but he is a great director and has tremendous vision. He doesn't shy away from explaining himself either. I like him for that. Sure some of his movies are "ehhh" but they are all mostly expertly crafted.

Is he right about the HD vs. Film though? Not sure, that is pretty much open to debate. HD/digital film is still sort of in its infancy so the technology can leap forward fairly quickly. Was Lucas wrong for filming the last two Star Wars films the way he did? Yes and no. Sure the films are forever stuck in that format/resolution (bad), but would filmmaking be where it is without him doing so (good)? Probably not. So its a tough spot to be in.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by joliefan

what has Lucus given us in 35 years apart from star wars and indiana jones?? nothing !! some fans are sick of star wars becouse they dont get the cuts they want.

Industrial Light & Magic

Pixar (it was ILM's first CG division)

Skywalker Sound

Digital Film Editing

TAP

THX

...and many more things that have revolutionized the way Hollywood makes and presents films.

Only someone who doesn't actually know film would think he's just responsible for Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

[kenkraly2004]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Industrial Light & Magic

Pixar (it was ILM's first CG division)

Skywalker Sound

Digital Film Editing

TAP

THX

...and many more things that have revolutionized the way Hollywood makes and presents films.

Only someone who doesn't actually know film would think he's just responsible for Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

Agreed.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Industrial Light & Magic
Pixar (it was ILM's first CG division)
Skywalker Sound
Digital Film Editing
TAP
THX

...and many more things that have revolutionized the way Hollywood makes and presents films.

Only someone who doesn't actually know film would think he's just responsible for Star Wars and Indiana Jones.

But what has he done for us lately?

Tap? He's a triple threat. Writer, Director and dancer.... In all seriousness George Lucas's achievments are as long as Mr. Fantastic's arm, when he's really stretching it. He also wrote Willow.

[Geoff D]

And don't forget that other cinematic masterpiece from the Lucasfilm stable: Howard The Duck.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

And don't forget that other cinematic masterpiece from the Lucasfilm stable: Howard The Duck.

I quite like Howard the Duck. Amazingly it was directed by a man whose name sounds like he just vomitted Howard the Duck out of Scrabble tiles, Willard Huyck. Or one of his ancestors had hiccupps when filling out a cenus form. I think Willards son is called Mallard Huyck, I've heard he's quite wild....

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

The law is irrelevant. Some one must do it. I am sure private 35mm collectors have good prints of all three. I am willing to bet that Lucasfilm would be the subject of so much popular outrage if the ever moved against such an individual. It would be a PR disaster, they would destroy all the personal capital they have left with fans. Look at Adywan no body touches him.

Are you kidding? If anyone released a print of Star Wars commercially, no matter what version, Lucasfilm and 20cFox would have lawyers at their doors in minutes. The law is far from irrelevant. You're very naive if you believe otherwise. And while a collector (such as a Fox studio executive) might have a print which is physically intact in terms of dust, scratches, etc., the film will still mostly likely have completely faded. I don't know what negative and print stock was used for the first two. Episode VI was shot on Kodak 5293 which was only around for a year, but again, I don't know what was used for the prints. If it was Eastman Color (and Star Wars was probably printed in multiple labs), forget it...there's no color left in any prints. This was the price the industry paid when it moved away from 3-strip Technicolor, in which each strip of the negative was an easier to preserve black and white image.

There's a new documentary out about great films called "These Amazing Shadows". It's about the films chosen for the National Film Registry. I've only seen the trailer, but in it, someone makes the comment that "the more popular the film, the worse shape the original negative is going to be in. It's been loved to death." Star Wars certainly falls into that category and that's aside from the supposed fact that Lucas ripped apart the negative to make the SE's (which I don't happen to believe because little of the effects are in the camera negative, but that's besides the point.)

But having said all that, I'm wondering whether the Library of Congress got the original theatrical or the special editions of Ep IV and V (VI was not voted in) for the National Film Registry. Also, the Motion Picture Academy keeps an archive of selected films. I wonder if they have an archival print of any of the originals.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by kenkraly2004

They are all good directors Lucas , Spielberg , Cameron and Zemickis are good directors.

They're all very good producers but no, they're not all good directors.

Spielberg can be good to very good and Cameron and Zemeckis are decent directors but not particularly exceptional.

And Lucas? I'm sorry but he's just not a good director. He turned in two very good directorial efforts before most of the people reading this were born and as a director that was it.

[42041]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

And while a collector (such as a Fox studio executive) might have a print which is physically intact in terms of dust, scratches, etc., the film will still mostly likely have completely faded. I don't know what negative and print stock was used for the first two. Episode VI was shot on Kodak 5293 which was only around for a year, but again, I don't know what was used for the prints. If it was Eastman Color (and Star Wars was probably printed in multiple labs), forget it...there's no color left in any prints. This was the price the industry paid when it moved away from 3-strip Technicolor, in which each strip of the negative was an easier to preserve black and white image.

They did make separation masters for Eastmancolor films though, where the colors on the negative were recorded on several strips of black and white film. No idea if it was still being done by 1977.

(From what I've read, the live-action parts of the first two were shot on Eastman 5247, which was the only movie negative Kodak produced between 1976 and 1983; the same film stock was used for quality Blu-rays like Alien and Blade Runner, and was used even into the early 90s, so I don't think it's inherently horrible)

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by octagon

They're all very good producers but no, they're not all good directors.

Spielberg can be good to very good and Cameron and Zemeckis are decent directors but not particularly exceptional.

And Lucas? I'm sorry but he's just not a good director. He turned in two very good directorial efforts before most of the people reading this were born and as a director that was it.

What the hell have you been smoking?

I won't even comment on the other ones, please show me someone who directed a film as remarkable and thematically complex as THX-1138 at age 24!!!!!!!!
This guy has made nothing but classics!

[Show spoiler]Zemeckis has made some of the best movies as well:
Back To The Future (Original)
Contact
Forrest Gump
Death Becomes Her. He has just lost himself in this animated motion capture world, and I hope he'll wake up soon.
Spielberg has made E.T, the best children's film of all time
Minority Report
A.I.
just to name a few

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

This guy has made nothing but classics!

Please. He's directed a grand lifetime total of six features two of which are legitimate classics. I'm a reasonable enough fellow, if you want to throw in THX-1138 and say he's turned in three very good directorial efforts before most people reading this were born you go right ahead.

But there's really no disputing that to whatever extent the prequels work they work despite Lucas' ham-handed directing and writing and not because of it.

He's an excellent producer. As a big-picture idea-man type guy he's top-notch. But when it comes to actually directing...not so much.

Sorry.

And Zemeckis is an interesting contrast. You say he's made good movies and of course that's true. It's also consistent with my contention that he's a very good producer but an average director. And here's the contrast - Zemeckis doesn't get in his own way. While Zemeckis' directing is rarely particularly good it's not usually very distracting either. Zemeckis the director doesn't tend to get in the way of Zemeckis the producer.

I don't think Lucas can say the same thing. You can point to example after example in the prequels where Lucas the producer assembled an incredible cast and created amazing new worlds only to have Lucas the director turn the whole thing into a bad episode of The Guiding Light.

Again, sorry.

*shrug*

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by octagon

And Zemeckis is an interesting contrast. You say he's made good movies and of course that's true. It's also consistent with my contention that he's a very good producer but an average director. And here's the contrast - Zemeckis doesn't get in his own way. While Zemeckis' directing is rarely particularly good it's not usually very distracting either. Zemeckis the director doesn't tend to get in the way of Zemeckis the producer

Wrong wrong wrong.

If you know what the man had to do to get films like Roger Rabbit, BTTF II & III, Gump, and others which would have driven less competent directors absolutely bonkers...

He is a wizard with the camera AND he gets terrific performances from his actors.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

He is a wizard with the camera AND he gets terrific performances from his actors.

At most I'd be willing to meet more or less halfway.

You could definitely make a case for wizard with the camera. He can be a little trite visually at times (for some reason sunsets in particular come to mind but I honestly can't say why) but to be fair the been-here-done-this shots are usually more than matched by the 'whoa, that was pretty cool' sequences.

Terrific performances though? I dunno.

I've enjoyed a lot of his films (none more than Used Cars and BttF, for whatever that's worth) but the performances in most of them often strike me as much ado about very little. Gump in particular hit me that way but so did Contact (loved it overall but the Virginia ham line was funny on more levels than intended), Cast Away, Beowulf, etc.

Were the performances bad in any of those? No, of course not. Nor was the directing. I don't think they were particularly good either.

[Monolithium]

I can't wait till the specs for the BR are revealed so that we can get back to fighting about their quality. Or lack thereof.

[the sordid sentinel]

Originally Posted by Monolithium

I can't wait till the specs for the BR are revealed so that we can get back to fighting about their quality. Or lack thereof.

Absolutely.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Monolithium

I can't wait till the specs for the BR are revealed so that we can get back to fighting about their quality. Or lack thereof.

Speaking of...

Would it not be pure hilarity if early screenshots show the OTs lathered in teal?