Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[tylergfoster]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I think there's a bit of confusion here, there are three-strip separations and IB Tech prints of the film. The latter would indeed be a last resort for transfer (excellent for colour reference tho') but the separation negatives wouldn't be a bad idea if there were no other sources.

Oops. Getting the terms in my GBU and SW threads mixed up. UCLA Film and TV Archive should have a three-strip separation. If the rumors that Lucas turned the original negative "into" the Special Edition are true, UCLA's version would be the best available option.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Heck, I've been critical of Lowry's efforts for the longest time because they just couldn't nail the fake grain part, leaving these ugly patches of frozen grain that gloop and swirl about, but when it works it REALLY f'ing works.

Even if it "works", just knowing they did that to the film makes me nauseous. And I'm sure the Lowry'ed stuff would still look disgustingly unnatural if you did a side-by-side comparison with the original.

[Geoff D]

I get it, you hate that process. I did too after seeing what they did to the Bond films and the Star Wars OT (fake grain ahoy!) but the staggeringly good quality of Aliens, Terminator and Titanic opened my eyes to the sterling work that they're doing now. I think it helped that Lowry have worked on several theatrical projects in recent years for perfectionists like David Fincher and James Cameron, so they got a proper idea of what this stuff should look like when they're done with it.

Besides, grain replication/replacement is something that's been part of Hollywood's digital evolution from the outset. When ILM first started to dabble with digital VFX, and I mean waaay back in the '80s, the need to have it look suitably "film like" was one of their main concerns, and so they came up with their own grain replication techniques to add that vital layer of filmic texture. Now it's crossed over into film restoration in general, and if you think that it's only Lowry who'd do such a "disgusting" thing, think again: everyone's doing it, darling.

[mrpink134]

Having Lucas out of the picture gave me hope and now reading this gives me more hope Thank you Disney.

Once these come out I will have have to see and hear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27RVJJfny4I

[Jar Jar Stinks]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

Having Lucas out of the picture gave me hope and now reading this gives me more hope Thank you Disney.

Once these come out I will have have to see and hear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27RVJJfny4I

Agree. I've been reading The Making of Return of the Jedi. As I suspected, the book confirms that George Lucas had zero vision beyond those first two films. He's a master of marketing and checklist filmmaking.

[Blu-21]

I picked up the unaltered versions of the OT in the Star Wars Trilogy box set the other day for FREE! Of course the box set obviously also includes the 2004 cuts as well, but since I own the BDs of the OT already I obviously won't be watching those.

Sure they are non-anamorphic Laserdiscs ports, but watching them upscaled on a smaller 32" display doesn't look horrible to my eyes. They are more then watchable. Although I would never dare to watch them or anything for that matter windowboxed. That is no way to watch film.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

Sure they are non-anamorphic Laserdiscs ports, but watching them upscaled on a smaller 32" display doesn't look horrible to my eyes. They are more then watchable.

Really?

Because they sure look like ass on a 46".

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by thomas guycott

really?

Because they sure look like ass on a 46".

+1.

[filmmusic]

I just learned about the Puggo versions of Star Wars trilogy, that are transfers from 16mm film prints.
From what I read these are the only true theatrical editions of the films.
The laser discs (that were used in the 2004 DVDs too) had again slight changes.
Does anyone know what these changes are?

here's a preview of the Empire Strikes back transfer:

empire strikes back - 16mm transfer - by puggo - YouTube

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

And I say that as someone who doesn't really have complaints about the way these movies looked on Blu-ray. I remember thinking that they looked pretty good, although I probably didn't watch them in their entirety on Blu-ray (I did see all six films in their original theatrical runs as well as a second viewing in the special editions). One of these days when there's some kid around who wants to see them, I'll watch them again. I can only stand to watch these about once every five to ten years.

Episode 4-6 on Blu greatly lack in PQ behind movies which have been given 4K remasters. Do the current versions look poor? I would say they are "fair". They have that older transfer-DVD look to them especially on larger sized screens. They do contain frozen grain artifacts, some DNR and EE as well lacking a natural look. These movies whether in their original or special edition variety deserve much better treatment.

[Scarface32]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

Really?

Because they sure look like ass on a 46".

They look even worse on a 55" inch

I wish George hadn't just ported over the LD version, but did it correctly for DVD.

[HomerThompson]

Originally Posted by Jar Jar Stinks

Agree. I've been reading The Making of Return of the Jedi. As I suspected, the book confirms that George Lucas had zero vision beyond those first two films. He's a master of marketing and checklist filmmaking.

But what an incredible vision it was.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

I just learned about the Puggo versions of Star Wars trilogy, that are transfers from 16mm film prints.
From what I read these are the only true theatrical editions of the films.
The laser discs (that were used in the 2004 DVDs too) had again slight changes.
Does anyone know what these changes are?

Someone linked to a wikipedia article a few pages back that detailed the changes pre-1997. They were pretty minor, mostly sound changes, but yes they were there. Most famous change is adding Episode IV to the title of the original movie.

I think when most of us say we want the original cuts we mean the standard pre-1997 cuts we all grew up with on TV and VHS. Getting the actual theatrical originals would be fine too of course.

[filmmusic]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Someone linked to a wikipedia article a few pages back that detailed the changes pre-1997. They were pretty minor, mostly sound changes, but yes they were there. Most famous change is adding Episode IV to the title of the original movie.

I think when most of us say we want the original cuts we mean the standard pre-1997 cuts we all grew up with on TV and VHS. Getting the actual theatrical originals would be fine too of course.

yes, I saw it.
BY the way, the DVD with the theatrical cut, which is really the laserdisc master, doesn't have the Episode IV in the title.
That means that the laserdisc is the original 1977 version and not the 1981 one?

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by filmmusic

yes, I saw it.
BY the way, the DVD with the theatrical cut, which is really the laserdisc master, doesn't have the Episode IV in the title.
That means that the laserdisc is the original 1977 version and not the 1981 one?

I believe it was noted in that article that it was the later version with the title removed, rather than a true original version.

[2awesome4apossum]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't get the fuss. I'm precious about movies being unaltered, generally speaking, but with Star Wars it seems a bit silly, because the changes are so minimal.

In my life, I have owned the laserdisc, the original VHS, home-made recordings of the films off USA Network, the special edition VHS, and all DVD releases (including the unaltered editions), and now the Blu-Ray. I even spent a few hours of my life going through a side-by-side comparisons of the "changes" made to the original trilogy over the years, and I still don't get it.

I mean, I don't like Hayden being Ghost Anakin at the end of Return of the Jedi, and I don't particularly care for the beak coming out of the Sarlac pit, but I don't think this affects the viewing experience significantly. I got over it, and don't feel the need to have a few frames adjusted to enjoy Star Wars, especially since most of the changes are quite beneficial (specifically with matte lines that drive me insane in older copies of the film).

Let me make it clear, I'm not wanting to troll anyone, but I *would* like someone to calmly explain to me why the "big deal" items are such a big deal. I'm genuinely curious, although it's possible I may never "get" it. I'll throw out a few and give my take on them:

1) Han shot first. Well, sure. That's kind of a cool character beat, so I get why it might be a big deal for people in the 1997/2004 versions. In the Blu-Ray version they essentially shoot at the same time. So basically, Han INTENDED to shoot first, but didn't exactly, because Greedo wasn't as slow as he was in the theatrical version. So basically, the change here is that Greedo is no longer as stupid as he used to be, and Han's character remains in tact, because he clearly was trying to gun down Greedo before Greedo gunned down him. Right?

2) Having Jabba in the first movie ruins his reveal in the third. Everyone has seen Star Wars by now, so we already know what he looks like, right? I mean, I used to spend hours watching countless documentaries that would mention some deleted scenes, and the Jabba one was one of them, so I thought it was pretty cool to finally see it in SOME form in 1997. Stepping on the tail is silly, but fits Han's character pretty well, doesn't it?

3) The cantina aliens complaint, as far as I can tell, is that a CGI replacement was made of that dude in the werewolf costume (who also appeared in the Holiday Special). I think this is a perfect example of a bad decision that was made back when they had a small budget being rectified with technology.

4) Ice monster in Empire. Getting a glimpse of a huge monster coming after Luke made that scene MUCH more dynamic for me. It also made that "leaping" shot look less obviously like a hand puppet for me.

5) Lapti Nek. I didn't care for the new song that we got, but I didn't hate it any more than I hated the old song (I would have done away with a musical number altogether, but whatever). Every sci-fi film with an alien song from the 70s and 80s had this same kind of "sound" as Lapti Nek. (Much like that awful song from the theatrical Battlestar Galactica, I could do without hearing it ever again.)

I also love the hilariousness of the original Ewok Song at the end of Return of the Jedi (seriously, love that song and the terrible, yet endearing, 80s choir), but the new music and glimpse of Coruscant was hands-down my favorite alteration to the 1997 special edition. It made the ending seem more meaningful, and a hell of a lot more serious than what we originally had.

I understand why people hate the prequels, and I don't fault them for it, but I think that so many people saw the original trilogy as children, which has kind of white-washed their memory of all the bad elements. Like the dialogue.

I recently saw an interview where Anthony Daniels said, "I remember driving across the desert one morning with Mark Hamill. We, out of courtesy, were going through each other’s lines and I said to him, 'How can you say rubbish like that with a straight face.' He said, 'Well you have to say it as well!'" He then went on to talk about how they all thought Star Wars would turn out to be a pretty bad movie. Harrison Ford seemed to have some strong opinions about his bad dialogue in Empire, and I grimace every time Billy Dee Williams turns up on screen in the original trilogy. Granted, no one sucked as much as beloved Hayden did (I find Episode II to be borderline unwatchable), but what boggles my mind is how people act like the original trilogy was full of fantastic dialogue and great acting. Star Wars has always been an "event" type movie with mediocre, yet broadly appealing, storyline elements.

So ... where am I going wrong?

[EDIT] That said, as an obsessive-compulsive, I'm fine with seeing a Blu-Ray release of the theatrical editions, and would undoubtedly buy them as a completest.

[Thomas Guycott]

"The big deal" is that these changes obviously bother others more than they bother you. It's really nothing more than that simple.

Do you know what it was like for me when seeing the original unaltered version of the OT in HD for the first time in 15 years, without any alteration here or there to cause some degree of annoyance? I can't describe it as anything but a breath of fresh air.

[Gold Ranger]

There's only 2 things keeping me from buying the Blu-Ray of this set...
1a - Vader's "NNNOOOOO" in Return of the Jedi... That really ruins the scene.
1b - Old Ben's Yell/Howl/Scream/Orgasm in A New Hope
2a - The really piss-poor look of the films. They really need to be given a good restoration.
2b - ILM needs to stop making excuses for the way they look as well, it's NOT because of the tech that the effects look like they do, it's because of ILM that they mishandled it...

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Scarface32

They look even worse on a 55" inch

I wish George hadn't just ported over the LD version, but did it correctly for DVD.

Apart from the aliasing, the DVDs don't look too bad at all on my 55". I think they're pretty darned watchable.

[Breather]

Bill Hunt has a new column up today over at the Bits. It's his take on these latest rumors about the original versions of the OT. It's only his opinion, but I hope he turns out to be right.

http://www.digitalbits.com/columns/m...ts/051914_0010