Star Wars Wars the UOT Strikes Back and OTHER PEZ dispensers

[Scooter1836]

Originally Posted by georgec

Spielberg supports the notion of letting films exist in the time they were created. If there are enhancements, make the original available.

This is different from Lucas' philosophy. Those comments by Spielberg are illuminating and express how people feel about wanting to see the original versions of the OT. It is a counterargument to some posters who have said that they don't see the fuss about wanting the originals when the special editions look better.

Do you need me to explain it more for you?

Here is where I am not in complete agreement with Spielberg and is why in the past he released digitially enhanced versions of his filmsl Like he did with ET where he gave both the original and the digitally enhanced.

Digital enhancement does not necessarily mean changing, and if a film like 1941 was realease in BD it will be losing something seeing the wires. Yes they were actually there, but when the film was being made he knew they would not show up based on the film stock and other factors. The fact of them showing up in higher definition releases ruins the "suspension of disbelief", That is a main goal every diretcor has.

In that particular point since the intent of the director was to not see the wires. I think leaving them be and showing them is wrong.

But with his films he is the artist and it is his choice. I just do not 100% agree with it. Some digital enhancement can be a good thing.

So like ET I hope he has both enhanced and not enhanced versions in his future releases.

[Nicolawicz]

Originally Posted by Scooter1836

if a film like 1941 was realease in BD it will be losing something seeing the wires. Yes they were actually there, but when the film was being made he knew they would not show up based on the film stock and other factors. The fact of them showing up in higher definition releases ruins the "suspension of disbelief"

A theatrical print has much higher definition than a Blu-ray, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Roonan

That's true.

No it isn't. The Library Of Congress doesn't have the original 1940 roadshow version of Fantasia, because it hadn't been re-assembled yet. They have the 1990 restoration in their vaults. The LOC doesn't have the new Lowry passes on Pinocchio, Snow White and Bambi, either, or the restored versions of the True-Life Adventures...they have what was available at the time when they were added to the Film Registry.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

No it isn't. The Library Of Congress doesn't have the original 1940 roadshow version of Fantasia, because it hadn't been re-assembled yet. They have the 1990 restoration in their vaults. The LOC doesn't have the new Lowry passes on Pinocchio, Snow White and Bambi, either, or the restored versions of the True-Life Adventures...they have what was available at the time when they were added to the Film Registry.

My point more or less is that the library of congress aren't film critics. They are going to want what was close to the original print as possible as that is the piece of history they are preserving. They aren't there to compose a list of the greatest films of all time and the best version of each film in regard to special editions or directors cuts.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

"They are going to want what was close to the original print as possible as that is the piece of history they are preserving."

No, the National Film Registry was created to protect artists' rights and their films from future unauthorized meddling. For living artists, the Registry is going to take whatever the artist/producer gives them, as it is the producer's property in the first place. For DECEASED artists, like David Lean, they'll surely ask for the generally-accepted "best" version, but they don't fall into the logic-hole of thinking that "closest to release version" is the "best" version, or the version that the artist wanted to preserve.

So the library of congress does have the special editions of star wars. I didnt know that.

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by Boone_Carlyle

So the library of congress does have the special editions of star wars. I didnt know that.

I think Empire just got added, soI would imagine it is the special edition that they have. I guess it would depend when Star Wars (ANH) was added to determine which version of that film they put in their archives.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Also, the National Film Registry was created to protect the rights of artists against the likes of Ted Turner, who resold classic black and white titles in colorized versions, and whose network "time-compressed" classic films to make them fit in two-hour blocks with commercials. The National Film Registry was NOT created to force artists into accepting the idea that an initial release version was the only correct version...the Registry is there to help preserve their work, in case someone else comes into ownership of the negative. The films are protected from others, they aren't protected from their own creators. The National Film Registry doesn't confiscate property, or dictate to artists which version of their work should be preserved. They politely ask living artists to contribute an IP to their archives, they sure as hell don't dictate terms to them.

I disagree with your definition of the National Film Registry. It wasn't created to protect the rights of artists or to stop Ted Turner from colorizing black and white films, it was created to protect the films themselves. More than 50% of all films created before 1950 have been permanently lost. Furthermore, when Turner colorized films, he first preserved the originals, so he doesn't deserve the bad rap he usually gets about this (even though I was aghast that he did this) and the Turner Network is probably better than most networks about broadcasting in the original film's aspect ratio (although Ted himself has nothing to do with the company anymore). They even ran a short featuring Martin Scorsese for a while, explaining why the original AR was so important. I think you can still find that short on YouTube.

In fact, in spite of all the publicity about preserving "favorite" films, their primary mission is this:

The Foundation's primary mission is to save orphan films — those without owners able to pay for their preservation. The films most at-risk are newsreels, silent films, experimental works, films out of copyright protection, significant amateur footage, documentaries, and features made outside the commercial mainstream. Orphan films are the living record of the twentieth century. Hundreds of American museums, archives, libraries, universities, and historical societies care for “orphaned” original film materials of cultural value. The Foundation will work with these film preservation organizations to preserve orphan films and make them accessible to “present and future generations of Americans.”

However, I do agree with you that the mission of the National Film Registry has absolutely nothing to do with whether Lucas or anyone else can re-edit his own films.

As to whether the LoC has preserved a copy of the Star Wars UOT, that was answered on this forum a long time ago (a poster actually wrote to the LoC and got a response), but I forget what the response said. I've searched for the post, but couldn't find it.

[Scooter1836]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Sorry but you have already been beaten to the punch....

yep. These will be the standard Lucasbot responses to any negative backlash:

- they're his movies and he can do what he wants with them √
- nobody is forcing you to buy them √
- you're just a hater √
- average transfers are better than no transfers at all √

just be happy we have them at all. Check mate!

And yes Lucas did ask them that, it was in several articles and they said they wanted the original in the archives....we have been over this before.

Cowboy.

What benefit does your repeating this demeaning response do to moving the conversation along.

This is at least twice you have used this.

Just because people have a differing opinion than your self does not make them "bots".

Take a step back, and instead of insulting others by implying they are mindless bots write something that adds to the converstation. If others are not backing up their opinions, then do not respond to them rather than responding like this.

[Ernest Rister]

The National Film Preservation Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-446) - 100th Congress, 446th bill passed - was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, as an appropriations bill for the United States Department of the Interior. The law specified three tasks:

1.Directs the Librarian of Congress to establish a National Film Registry to register films that are culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.

2.Prohibits any person from knowingly distributing or exhibiting to the public a film that has been materially altered, or a black and white film that has been colorized and is included in the Registry, unless such films are labeled disclosing specified information.

3.Directs the Librarian to establish in the Library of Congress a National Film Preservation Board.

Which is why you suddenly started seeing all those disclaimers on pan-and-scan videotapes back in the mid-90's, because the studio had no control over what was named to the Registry, but had to comply with the "label" mandate. So it made more sense to slap on a "this film has been modified blah blah blah" on every MAR title then risk a non-compliance fine by the US Government.

Notice the original mandate though, regarding colorization. That was a shot across the bow of Ted Turner, but even then, there was no prohibition mechanism. If a film is in the registry, if someone alters it and wants to air it, they have to inform the public that the film has been materially altered, and such alterations are left vague.

The act has been since reformed and reauthorized several times.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Scooter1836

Cowboy.

What benefit does your repeating this demeaning response do to moving the conversation along.

This is at least twice you have used this.

Just because people have a differing opinion than your self does not make them "bots".

Take a step back, and instead of insulting others by implying they are mindless bots write something that adds to the converstation. If others are not backing up their opinions, then do not respond to them rather than responding like this.

I didnt type that you must talk to the OP about it. I just copied and pasted and added my own input. Also it moves it along by pointing out the fact that the same excuses would be used over and over in that list and they have been. I also said that for the sake of the buying public that this issue does not turn out to be a 2004 version with just a few additions here and there. Lucas has had seven years to get this release right and there is no excuse for these films not to have been remastered for such a long and anticipated release, in fact I would dare say the OT has been the crown jewel for all video releases regardless of media format has it not?

[Scooter1836]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Sorry but you have already been beaten to the punch....

yep. These will be the standard Lucasbot responses to any negative backlash:

- they're his movies and he can do what he wants with them √
- nobody is forcing you to buy them √
- you're just a hater √
- average transfers are better than no transfers at all √

just be happy we have them at all. Check mate!

And yes Lucas did ask them that, it was in several articles and they said they wanted the original in the archives....we have been over this before.

Originally Posted by Cowboy

yep. These will be the standard Lucasbot responses to any negative backlash:

- they're his movies and he can do what he wants with them √
- nobody is forcing you to buy them √
- you're just a hater √
- average transfers are better than no transfers at all √

just be happy we have them at all. Check mate!

Originally Posted by Cowboy

I didnt type that you must talk to the OP about it. I just copied and pasted and added my own input. Also it moves it along by pointing out the fact that the same excuses would be used over and over in that list and they have been. I also said that for the sake of the buying public that this issue does not turn out to be a 2004 version with just a few additions here and there. Lucas has had seven years to get this release right and there is no excuse for these films not to have been remastered for such a long and anticipated release, in fact I would dare say the OT has been the crown jewel for all video releases regardless of media format has it not?

Well you have used it twice.

Even though you were nt the original poster that does not in any way shape or form give you an excuse to propogate insults to others.

Once you copied and reused it you made it your insult also.

It does not move the conversation along

You have good opinions, use those instead of resorting to this.

[StarksRevenge]

National Film Registry has the classic version of Star Wars

In 1989 the film was one of the first 25 titles placed on the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress’ Film Preservation Board.

http://www.filmbuffonline.com/Editor...alStarWars.htm

Lucas can do what he wants with the films, but the steadfast resistance to releasing the "classic" versions in any type of decent shape is shameful.

As Mr. Lucas said in 1988:

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.

These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."

"The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work."

And yes, I understand Mr. Lucas is owner of the Star Wars copyright, but the point is, the party line from Lucasfilm is that the original negatives have been destroyed or faded beyond repair. If that was true, then that happened on his watch, and he and his company are to blame. As he states in his last paragraph, the public interest is ultimately dominent and his ability to retain the copyright will only be so long.

I don't believe the party line, I believe if they spent the resources, they could produce a negative that is pretty close to the original.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

However, I do agree with you that the mission of the National Film Registry has absolutely nothing to do with whether Lucas or anyone else can re-edit his

Not that anybody was actually making a contrary argument to that.

[georgec]

Haha someone needs to sue George Lucas to make him release the OOT.

[killermike2178]

Originally Posted by georgec

Haha someone needs to sue George Lucas to make him release the OOT.

Let's see, George Lucas is a billionaire, and probably has access to the best attorneys in Southern California, the same kinds that helped Jared Loughner get off his forced medications in prison. Yeah, good luck with that, buddy!

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

And yes Lucas did ask them that, it was in several articles and they said they wanted the original in the archives....we have been over this before.

We've been over that but proof has NEVER been offered.
Just useless internet sniping and urban legend.

Even if he did offer and they reject it they would have not said what you're implying.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Also, the National Film Registry was created to protect the rights of artists against the likes of Ted Turner, who resold classic black and white titles in colorized versions, and whose network "time-compressed" classic films to make them fit in two-hour blocks with commercials. The National Film Registry was NOT created to force artists into accepting the idea that an initial release version was the only correct version...the Registry is there to help preserve their work, in case someone else comes into ownership of the negative. The films are protected from others, they aren't protected from their own creators. The National Film Registry doesn't confiscate property, or dictate to artists which version of their work should be preserved. They politely ask living artists to contribute an IP to their archives, they sure as hell don't dictate terms to them.

Shhh. Those who say Lucas is a hypocrite might actually have to come up with arguments that don't involve name calling.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

The National Film Preservation Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-446) - 100th Congress, 446th bill passed - was signed into law by Ronald Reagan, as an appropriations bill for the United States Department of the Interior. The law specified three tasks:

1.Directs the Librarian of Congress to establish a National Film Registry to register films that are culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.

2.Prohibits any person from knowingly distributing or exhibiting to the public a film that has been materially altered, or a black and white film that has been colorized and is included in the Registry, unless such films are labeled disclosing specified information.

3.Directs the Librarian to establish in the Library of Congress a National Film Preservation Board.

Which is why you suddenly started seeing all those disclaimers on pan-and-scan videotapes back in the mid-90's, because the studio had no control over what was named to the Registry, but had to comply with the "label" mandate. So it made more sense to slap on a "this film has been modified blah blah blah" on every MAR title then risk a non-compliance fine by the US Government.

Notice the original mandate though, regarding colorization. That was a shot across the bow of Ted Turner, but even then, there was no prohibition mechanism. If a film is in the registry, if someone alters it and wants to air it, they have to inform the public that the film has been materially altered, and such alterations are left vague.

The act has been since reformed and reauthorized several times.

I'm not curious enough to dig out the DVDs - do the special editions of IV and V include 'this film has been modified' disclaimers?

[killermike2178]

Originally Posted by octagon

I'm not curious enough to dig out the DVDs - do the special editions of IV and V include 'this film has been modified' disclaimers?

Of course not. That would be redundant. They're George Lucas films, after all, so that should be a given.

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by Lincoln6Echo

OK, quick question... for all those unaltered theatrical version fanboys out there...

What is it exactly that you do not like about the altered versions...

It's not about not liking, it's about having a proper version of the original films on home video.

Why is that so hard to see the difference? It's just giving people the choice.

Originally Posted by killermike2178

Let's see, George Lucas is a billionaire, and probably has access to the best attorneys in Southern California,

I hardly believe you need the best attorneys to win a case like that (as if ever there was a case).

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

We've been over that but proof has NEVER been offered.
Just useless internet sniping and urban legend.

Even if he did offer and they reject it they would have not said what you're implying.

I agree. I would like to see some proof, otherwise I will take it as mindless bashing.