Star Wars Wars the UOT Strikes Back and OTHER PEZ dispensers

[starwarsagent]

Originally Posted by octagon

It wasn't a lightbulb behind the projector, it was a candle.

And if you looked inside there was a tiny pterodactyl using its beak to chisel the image into each frame and another tiny dinosaur running on a treadmill to make the reels move.

It was horrible back then, just horrible.

Hey I like the flinstones movies too.


I sense sarcasm, but you know it's true...the projections were horrible in the late 70s...so the UOT fans that cry and whine should be happy with the original on DVD as it was intented to be viewed.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by octagon

Are we celebrating the creation of this new thread by trying to outdo the absurdity of the old one?

If so, keep up the excellent work.

Its an amazing effort, isn't it?.

[starwarsagent]

All i'm saying is that the UOT fans want an unaltered version right?


they want the movie as they remembered it at the movies? it was DVD quality...and they already have that...so what else do they want?


If they are asking for the UOT in HD; then thats not what they saw at the movies when they were kids so they can't complain. If they do want star wars in HD, then thats not the UOT...it's ALTERED!!!

[madlou2]

Pardon my ignorance but what the hell is an UOT? I hate abbreveations!!

[Taipan]

Originally Posted by madlou2

Pardon my ignorance but what the hell is an UOT? I hate abbreveations!!

+1

Wtf

[Taipan]

Ok I found out by reading page 1...

"Unaltered Original Trilogy"

Good lord....

[madlou2]

Thanks Taipan, I did read the first page and the last but I missed the UOT term. Didn't mean to burden you. WTF indeed.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

You said it. properly projected. Obviously, you never saw the original star wars at the movies..with dirt, cigarret burns and blur. The DVD is good enough it represents that the UOT looked like at the movies. Not in HD.

Come on, do you really believe the nonsense you're talking? The trilogy was shot on 35mm properly, and I like my home video release to reflect that, now that's possible. So not some ancient master done for Laserdisc, since obviously, the movies didn't look like that, no matter what you're arguing. I'm not saying to you that you cannot watch the special editions, so why do you think you have to be so annoying to those who do want the originals?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Come on, do you really believe the nonsense you're talking? The trilogy was shot on 35mm properly, and I like my home video release to reflect that, now that's possible. So not some ancient master done for Laserdisc, since obviously, the movies didn't look like that, no matter what you're arguing. I'm not saying to you that you cannot watch the special editions, so why do you think you have to be so annoying to those who do want the originals?

Uh, because they live in a fantasy world of their own concoction, where George DIDN'T act like an overly self-struck idiot and burn the old prints?

(Recently watched the Mythbusters episode where Adam & Jamie successfully busted several of the "Moon landing hoax" myths as sloppy science, and it almost makes you wish they were still around to take on the "George Lucas's Secret Vault" myth.
You know Grant and Tory would be on it in a heartbeat. )

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

Come on, do you really believe the nonsense you're talking? The trilogy was shot on 35mm properly, and I like my home video release to reflect that, now that's possible. So not some ancient master done for Laserdisc, since obviously, the movies didn't look like that, no matter what you're arguing. I'm not saying to you that you cannot watch the special editions, so why do you think you have to be so annoying to those who do want the originals?

No kidding...the films were pristine 35mm prints in back in 1977.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

...so what else do they want?

Anamorphic widescreen.

as most of us here do not own 4:3 televisions anymore.


Or are you going to tell us that is not how we watched it in the theaters now, are you?



.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

All i'm saying is that the UOT fans want an unaltered version right?


they want the movie as they remembered it at the movies? it was DVD quality...and they already have that...so what else do they want?


If they are asking for the UOT in HD; then thats not what they saw at the movies when they were kids so they can't complain. If they do want star wars in HD, then thats not the UOT...it's ALTERED!!!

As I wrote (and which you ignored), I couldn't care less whether Lucas releases the UOT or not. But everything you've written about this makes no sense. You are totally wrong about the presentation quality of theatres when the Star Wars films were originally released. Cigarette burns? Maybe on the seats, but nowhere else. Maybe the quality is as bad as you state if one saw it in a "grind house" two years after it was originally released.

Star Wars UOT in HD would NOT be "altered" - that's a ridiculous argument - you might as well argue that any film released on DVD or BD is "altered" because it's not the original print being projected or because we're not watching light being pushed through a transparency. And then you can even take it another ridiculous step by stating that even if the films were projected again, they would be "altered" because today's projectors use Xenon bulbs and back then many theatres still used carbon arc lamps.

The only legit argument is that a Star Wars UOT release should not be 7.1 or even 5.1 audio - it was really 4.2 because even in 70mm, they had mono surround and 2 of the 5 screen channels were low frequency only.

So get off your Lucas fanboy high horse for a moment. Again, personally I couldn't care less if the UOT is released or not, but there's obviously a high demand for the UOT and IMO, there's no reason why they couldn't have found a decent print (either Lucas's own prints or the ones in the Library of Congress, for example), cleaned it up, scanned it, accomplished some color timing to correct for any fading and released it as part of the BD set or as an optional extra set, perhaps available only directly from Lucasfilm. If they could release five versions of "Blade Runner" and three versions of "Close Encounters", Lucas could have released one additional version each of the OT. While it may be true that the original negatives or IPs (with effects) don't exist, it's not credible that there's not one single decent print of each.

The reason why the DVDs aren't good enough is because as DVD's, they're not hi-res and because they weren't anamorphic.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Uh, because they live in a fantasy world of their own concoction, where George DIDN'T act like an overly self-struck idiot and burn the old prints?

So wait, in addition to believing that every negative has been spliced to unusable ribbons are we now to also believe that every print has been destroyed as well?

Seriously???

[octagon]

Originally Posted by starwarsagent

Hey I like the flinstones movies too.


I sense sarcasm, but you know it's true...the projections were horrible in the late 70s...

No, I do not know that true. If fact, I know it's not true.

Theaters in the 70s were no different than theaters today. First run theaters projected clean prints on well-maintained equipment operated by competent people. Second and third run theaters often (though even then not always) projected beat up prints on poorly maintainted equipment operated by people who didn't always know or care what they were doing.

That's true today, it was true in the seventies and it was likely true when people were lining up to see Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz.

Sorry.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by kenkraly2004

What is so wrong with Hayden being added to the end of ROTJ as the ghost of anakin skywalker? I thought it was a good change and it tied the saga together remember when he got burned up he died as darth vader now when he dies in ROTJ he dies as his good self anakin skywalker.

1. If you only watch the OT, you have no idea who he is.
2. If you think he died in the volcano, then it makes some sense, but if you think he died in Luke's arms, then it makes no sense. Why should he come back young, but Obi-wan and Yoda come back old? If Lucas wanted to be consistent, Obi-wan should have been replaced with Ewan McGregor and Yoda should have been replaced with CGI-Yoda (only kidding on Yoda).

But there's a bigger conceptual issue:
When Lucas made ROTJ, we didn't know the depth of Vader's evil. Most of what he did was under the guise of war and government quashing a rebellion. But in Episode 3, we learn that (as the previous poster stated), he killed innocent children among others. So if you watch in Episode order, it seems ridiculous that Anakin is "redeemed" at the end. If he had lived, he would have been tried for murder, war crimes, etc., in most societies. While I think it was brave of Lucas to make Anakin as evil as he became as he fell to the "dark side", it causes big problems because it completely changes the audience's feelings towards him (and even towards Luke buying into his "goodness" - could Luke have said those words to Hitler?) when you get to the end of the OT.

If Episode 3 had been written before Episode 6, I think the dialog between Luke and Anakin as Anakin lay dying would have been quite different. Anakin would of had to confess the worst of his actions, saying "it's too late for me" not because he knew he was dying, but because he knew he could never be redeemed from the evil he caused and became. When Luke looks at the "ghosts", you get the feeling he's thinking "oh yeah, my Dad wasn't such a bad guy." But Luke only knows part of Anakin's story and after viewing the PT, you wonder what happens when he finds out the rest. The guilt that he (and Leia) must bare would have made (IMO) a really interesting 7th film. (I've never read the books, so I don't know if any of this is covered in those novels.)

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by Beast

Cause it doesn't matter what anyone wants. The only one who needs to come out of this satisfied is Lucas himself.

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by Beast

Not the UOT complainers forum. There's a website dedicated to that.

How about you dial down that sanctimonious tone of yours, okay.

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

1. If you only watch the OT, you have no idea who he is.2. If you think he died in the volcano, then it makes some sense, but if you think he died in Luke's arms, then it makes no sense. Why should he come back young, but Obi-wan and Yoda come back old? If Lucas wanted to be consistent, Obi-wan should have been replaced with Ewan McGregor and Yoda should have been replaced with CGI-Yoda (only kidding on Yoda).

I had never seen sabastain shaw before and I was able to figure out that he was Anakin at the end of return of the jedi. (and no, the scene with his death does not count cuz the way he looks there and the way he looks at the end are completely different.) Point is it doesn't matter if the audience has seen hayden or not before, they'll be able to figure it out just like we did

[Beast]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

1. If you only watch the OT, you have no idea who he is.

That's the weakest argument I have ever heard regarding the change.
Are you seriously telling me that people are that brainless and incapable of grasping it?
Maybe they shouldn't watch Star Wars at all, and stick to something more their speed. Barney and Friends?

2. If you think he died in the volcano, then it makes some sense, but if you think he died in Luke's arms, then it makes no sense. Why should he come back young, but Obi-wan and Yoda come back old? If Lucas wanted to be consistent, Obi-wan should have been replaced with Ewan McGregor and Yoda should have been replaced with CGI-Yoda (only kidding on Yoda).

It makes sense no matter what. Both Yoda and Ben comments in the films explain why Anakin can manifest as the man he once remembered being. Rather than a ghostly form of the body he was trapped in for 20+ years. You know, the whole "Luminous Beings Are We, Not this Crude Matter". So if Anakin can legitimately manifest without the damage of his physical crude matter body. You know, no missing limbs, scars, or bald. And you notice, not in a Darth Vader costume. Then why can't he manifest in the form he actually recognized in life. Especially if you go with Ben's point of view that Anakin did die when he turned to the dark side. And no, Obi-Wan and Yoda shouldn't be replaced with their younger versions. They Never Turned To The Dark Side!

But there's a bigger conceptual issue:
When Lucas made ROTJ, we didn't know the depth of Vader's evil. Most of what he did was under the guise of war and government quashing a rebellion. But in Episode 3, we learn that (as the previous poster stated), he killed innocent children among others.

Are you implying there were no children on Alderaan?

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Ryan0503

I had never seen sabastain shaw before and I was able to figure out that he was Anakin at the end of return of the jedi. (and no, the scene with his death does not count cuz the way he looks there and the way he looks at the end are completely different.) Point is it doesn't matter if the audience has seen hayden or not before, they'll be able to figure it out just like we did

But how could you be sure?! He had limbs, and no scars, and hair! He could have been anyone!