Star Wars Wars the UOT Strikes Back and OTHER PEZ dispensers

[jedilips]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Like I said, that list was strictly a "one-off" deal. I've said my piece with it, and I'm leaving it at that.

Stop posting.

You clearly only like polished, shiny things and not movies themselves.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by octagon

Star Wars won Oscars for both sound and visual effects. There's no reason a BD release of the theatrical editions couldn't look and sound as spectacular as other releases from that era and earlier.

My point was that the original copies are reportedly in very bad shape. You've probably seen the "green and faded" version of Vader's hallway scene, from the 1990s VHS segments. Would you really want over 6 hours of that in your collection? I wouldn't.

[42041]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Did we run into problems with The Godfather? Casablanca? Apocalypse Now? The Wizard of Oz? Nope. Flawless releases.

Perhaps the most appropriate example being Alien. It's an effects film from about the same time and looks stunning, while still not being removed from its time and place, or without misguided, hubristic changes to the content of the film.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

My point was that the original copies are reportedly in very bad shape. You've probably seen the "green and faded" version of Vader's hallway scene, from the 1990s VHS segments. Would you really want over 6 hours of that in your collection? I wouldn't.

If you care enough to learn something (which I'm assuming, from your post, you don't), check out this link:
http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html

[skyofcrack]

Unaltered doesn't mean un-remastered. All they would need to do is take the current files and tweak them down to an unaltered state by removing the CG, changing the Greedo shot, etc...basically turn it into the 1977 version but cleaned up.

[danny_boy]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Yes.

Because CLEARLY that's what we always get with older releases.

If Lucasfilm put as much attention into making these releases as good as new, we wouldn't be having this issue.

Did we run into problems with The Godfather? Casablanca? Apocalypse Now? The Wizard of Oz? Nope. Flawless releases.

Clearly you think that Star Wars doesn't deserve the same attention...or that we'll get something sub-par from it.

.

Films like Godfather and Apocalypse Now are not special effects movies in the vain of Star Wars.Because of this their original negative master prints do not contain lengthy segments which contain negative stock of optically composited frames.

The original unaltered version of Star Wars would have significant parts(e.g the death star battle) of its "original "negative reels that were several generations removed from the original---which means the quality or resolution of those segments would would have less clarity(relative to the those parts which contain the original master negative--eg-- Luke talking to Beru and lars in the hovel).

You can even see the marginal increase in granularity when Luke lights up his lightsaber on the original 1982 VHS tape!---on blu ray this discrepancy would be accentuated even further.

But that is how the film looked in it's original theatrical release and that is the way I would prefer to see it if it ever got a high def release.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

OK, I'm only going to detail this once, so all the purists better pay attention. Here's what you'd essentially get with an "unaltered original trilogy" release...

1) Excessive dirt, specks, noise, and inconsistent lighting and/or color in every frame
2) Non-anamorphic letterbox transfers
3) No "Episode IV" on the 1977 crawl
4) Visual boxes and matte lines around almost all the ships and creatures
5) Inconsistent lightsaber effects in all 3 films
6) Visual mistakes left intact (prop sticks, wires, obvious blue-screens, etc.)
7) Older soundtracks, full of pops, hisses, and other distortions
8) An actress with superimposed chimp eyes for the Emperor, voiced by Clive Revill
9) Claustrophobic versions of places like Cloud City or Mos Eisley
10) Both Death Stars exploding like someone put a firecracker in a tennis ball

I could keep going on, but I'm sure you get the point by now. I strongly suspect most people don't really want the films in an "unaltered" state. They want their versions, and everyone has an opinion.

http://savestarwars.com/faq.html

3) Q: Won't the original versions look really crude and in poor condition? Isn't that why Lucas had to enhance and restore them for the Special Edition?
A: The original version negatives today look about as good as the Special Edition negatives. That is because they are the same thing! The only differences are the new Special Edition shots. In 1995, Fox started restoring the entire negatives for the Star Wars films, which saved them from their state of disrepair. Luckily, this means the original versions can be presented in nearly the same quality as what you saw in theatres in the 1997 re-release. Were Lucasfilm to not to use the negatives, there are other 35mm materials available for use. Although some are in states of disrepair, many are not, and while not being as high quality as the negatives, should be very presentable. For instance, George Lucas himself kept a special Technicolor print of the original film, which does not fade at all and would look exactly as it did when it was first printed.

Q: Have the originals been shown anywhere since the 1997 Special Edition came out?

A: Yes. There have been a few showings, without Lucasfilm's approval, making them technically illicit (probably in some cases to the ignorance of the exhibitors). There is a black market for 35mm prints, since it is usually illegal to own them privately, and so the Star Wars films are highly sought after. After at least one screening, Lucasfilm confiscated the print. The most noteable screening was a 2010 screening of a super-rare, pristine, non-fade Technicolor print that was privately owned. This was done as a free screening for the closing of Baltimore's Senator Theatre, which I have covered in detail with videos and photos of the event and the print. See Technicolor I.B. Screening.

Q: Restoring or presenting the original versions in high quality is very expensive isn't it? Lucas does not have the money or desire to do so.

A: Lucas speaks about how expensive it would be and all the work that would need to be done, but in fact it would be relatively easy and inexpensive. One, presenting existing prints in high-def with modest cleanup would cost in the hundred thousand dollar range. Relatively speaking, this is very inexpensive, which is why obscure films like Police Academy 5 are available from original 35mm elements. Restoring the films from the negatives is not too expensive as well--because it was largely already done. In 1995, Twentieth Century Fox spent $20 million restoring and enhancing the Star Wars trilogy for the anniversary re-release. All that would need to be done today is retrieving the missing original pieces (roughly five to fifteen minutes per film), cleaning them if necessary, and editing them into a scan of the existing negative. Further cleanup could be done, but this is not strictly necessary, as the 1997 release had no major digital cleanup. So, the pricetag to finish the restoration of the trilogy from the negatives would be in the range of a million dollars, to throw a ballpark figure out there. To put this in perspective, the 2004 DVD set sold $100 million in its day of release. To put it in greater perspective, Lucas is a billionaire as it is. Lucas also need not involve himself in this, as film restorationists could handle the project themselves and seek to match the new digital copy to archival material.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by skyofcrack

...basically turn it into the 1977 version but cleaned up.

In the strictest sense, "unaltered" means exactly that...no changes whatsoever. The moment you change anything - even for preservation purposes - the film is no longer in its original state. Therefore, other films like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With the Wind" do not exist in their original forms, on the Blu-Ray format.

[Jumpman]

And the wheel keeps going round and round....

George, for the love of all things holy, could just please release the theatrical cuts of the Original Trilogy so the constant complaining can finally die a quick, merciful death.

I've never seen anything like this...an argument about a set of films that have been going on for 14 years and counting....and it's been the same argument during those 14 years.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

In the strictest sense, "unaltered" means exactly that...no changes whatsoever. The moment you change anything - even for preservation purposes - the film is no longer in its original state. Therefore, other films like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With the Wind" do not exist in their original forms, on the Blu-Ray format.

You're right. We don't want reel after reel of 35mm or 70mm film.

Good catch.

[greg_achen]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

In the strictest sense, "unaltered" means exactly that...no changes whatsoever. The moment you change anything - even for preservation purposes - the film is no longer in its original state. Therefore, other films like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With the Wind" do not exist in their original forms, on the Blu-Ray format.

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. 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.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by danny_boy

The original unaltered version of Star Wars would have significant parts(e.g the death star battle) of its "original "negative reels that were several generations removed from the original---which means the quality or resolution of those segments would would have less clarity=.

So what? The same is true of TRON and Roger Rabbit, the Star Treks, Jason and the Argonauts and a ton of movies pre-1990s. (moviefan, I don't think you know what anamorphic means)

[danny_boy]

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. 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.

Well film emulsion/degradation is one of the reasons why Lucas chose to shoot II and III digitally.
They will look exactly the same in 100 years time as they do now(assuming the hard drives that they are on don't get messed around with)

[phatrat1982]

Originally Posted by JoshKelhoffer

That's not what i was talking about. The whole redundant scene with Jabba, with redundant information. The blatant cut to Vader's Shuttle arriving at the Star Destroyer. The pointless scene of Luke bumping into Biggs.

And really? ANH is all that much better because you see Boba Fett look at the audience? Sheesh! Boba Fett isn't a badass as many fans suggest. He stands around around posing like a cardboard cutout. Then, in the last movie, he gets killed...by accident! It was the fans that glorified him by keeping him alive in the glorified fan fiction (the expanded universe).

And what about all the stupid moments like Han steeping on Jabba's tail, the Jawa falling off his creature, the two stupid droids, and the dumb as rocks Jedi Rocks musical number. Those don't the movie any better, nor do they improve them. They just make them even more juvenile and if you want to say that ANH is a kids movie, need I remind you that the best childrens films don't dumb down the movie for an audience with stupid nickeloadian fart jokes. Those scenes suck!

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

OK here is why the Jabba scene is NOT redundant. IN the Greedo Scene Han is talking to Greedo, he kills Greedo and then he goes to meet Jabba. Now Jabba was *not* in the cantina with Greedo so Jabba did *NOT* here Han's conversation with Greedo, so Han had to explain himself to Jabba after he had already explained himself to Greedo, that is not redundant that is having a different conversation with a different person at a different point in time and repeating some of your dialog because even in real life people do happen to do just that.

The scene of Luke and Biggs is far from pointless, earlier in the film Luke mentions his friend Biggs, who has already left Tatooine, so it makes sense to bump into him here even without the other scene.


I agree that Bobba Fett was blown out of proportion by the fans but I disagree with the books being fanfiction, the books are some of the best works of science fiction ever produced if you think they are glorified fanfics you probably have never read any of them. Or you already made up your mind they were going to suck because of who knows what reason you could have.

I don't know what movie you are watching but I never heard any fart jokes in any of the Star Wars special editions so you must be imagining things or you are watching a bootleg fanedit or something.

[danny_boy]

Originally Posted by al cos.

So what? The same is true of TRON and Roger Rabbit, the Star Treks, Jason and the Argonauts and a ton of movies pre-1990s.

Exactly!

But if the unaltered trilogy does get an eventual hidef release the whiners may complain that there are dirt specks,splice residue,shifts in granularity and inconsistent colours.

But that is how the original films looked.
And that is the way they should be preserved.

[42041]

Originally Posted by danny_boy

They will look exactly the same in 100 years time as they do now(assuming the hard drives that they are on don't get messed around with)

Yes, the limitations of HDCAM tape and digital cinematography circa 2002-2004 are locked in forever

[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.

[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.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by al cos.

So what? The same is true of TRON and Roger Rabbit, the Star Treks, Jason and the Argonauts and a ton of movies pre-1990s. (moviefan, I don't think you know what anamorphic means)

Yep, and I'll go a step further and add that EVERY film before the digital age has optical composites. Credits, crossfades, you name it. I'm with you, so what? That's what movies were before digital.

Most people in this thread need to pull their heads out of Star Wars' ass for just a few minutes and understand that Star Wars isn't some unique case. It's not the only film with optical composites, and it's not the only film shot on Eastman stock that has fade problems. If Jason and the Argonauts, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, Close Encounters, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc can look as good as they do, there is no reason whatsoever that Star Wars can't look equally as good.

Unless you're one of those plebes who think the Harryhausen films and Close Encounters look bad.

[skyofcrack]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

In the strictest sense, "unaltered" means exactly that...no changes whatsoever. The moment you change anything - even for preservation purposes - the film is no longer in its original state. Therefore, other films like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With the Wind" do not exist in their original forms, on the Blu-Ray format.

The film was clean in 1977. That would be unaltered. You wanna put up a poll? I don't think anyone wants a dirty, scratched up print on BD.