logo Sign In

A Question to the Older Members

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
As most of you know by now, I'm relatively young in the grand scheme of Star Wars... er, sorry, the epic scope of Star Wars, being born nine years after Star Wars was first released. I was a fan for a little over a year before the special editions came out (but it seems like so much longer... but maybe that's because the SEs never replaced the originals for me, and I still watched the originals much more frequently). But whatever "mistakes" there were in scenes or special effects never bothered me. It wasn't until the 2004 release that I ever noticed the garbage mattes around TIE fighters in the first movie. Matte lines were obviously always there, but I'd never seen garbage mattes until then. Now I've gotten differing opinions on this before, so I figured I'd start a thread about this. This one goes out to guys like CO, Anchorhead, Obi Jeewhyen, and anybody else who saw Star Wars in theatres. Did the DVD technology finally present a clear enough image so that these were visible, or was this another example of the crappy color correction for this set? In other words, were garbage mattes visible in theatres?

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
They have always been visible, to a lesser or greater extent, in every version. However, they are much more visible on home video formats than theatrical prints. It's not a DVD thing, though - they really stood out when SW first came to TV.
Author
Time
Post link
I saw Star Wars in 70mm around 1991 and I could be wrong but I don't remember any matte boxes. I was used to the vhs version which has them everywhere, and this was quite a difference. I also couldn't stop looking at all the stuff on the sides that I'd never seen watching it pan/scan a million times.
Author
Time
Post link
I never noticed them until the laserdisc, and later the DVDs. Never saw them in any theatrical prints, either during the original run or the many re-releases.


The one and only thing I can stand about any revisionism is technical goof clean-up. I don't want any editing out of stormtrooper head-hitting, or erasing of cardboard award ceremony audience. But crappy mattes and uncolored light saber blades are the kind of things I wouldn't mind Lucas tinkering with.

Why LFL did such a half-assed job on technical clean-up during all the revisionist work is simply beyond my comprehension.


But, nah, during the original run of Star Wars ... never noticed 'em.




BTW, not true of Empire Strikes Back ... Tie-Fighter square garbage mattes and generally craptacular matte lines (snowspeeders mostly) were very apparent in the theatrical run. And, yeah, horrible Rancor matte lines were quite visible during the theatrical run of Return of the Jedi.
Author
Time
Post link
I honestly don't recall seeing them until SW showed up on HBO in the early 80's. And when I did, I thought they were the TIE fighters deflector screens or something.
When the DC boxset was released on LD in 1993, there was one magazine article that mentioned the transfers were done at the corrrect "gamma levels", so the garbage mattes wouldn't show up as previous video transfers were done too bright. I don't think they were ever visible in the movie theatre. Video and film are different beasts after all.
I know from experience a movie theater can project a print too dark either through being careless, or a bulb that needs replacement, but could they also project too "hot" or bright as well? Steven Spielberg once made a comment about tweaking various print runs on Raiders(?) to cope with theater chains notorious for "bad projection".
Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link
This movie was released in the late 70's dodgy mattes was the norm back then every effects movie had them but movie goers weren't as fussy about what they saw on screen back then. as long as it was believable it would be accepted. Fast forward to todays more cynical times and every little glitch in an effects movie gets pulled to pieces by the fanboy base. As I said 1977 was a more innocent time as far as movies were concerned.

Ranting aside yes the matte lines have always been there.
Author
Time
Post link
I have a somewhat unique perspective since I was in the original Star Wars generation, but never got to see the films in the theaters during the original run. But I did notice the garbage mattes on the TIE Fighters when I picked up the widescreen "Faces" set on VHS. I had the pan & scan Lucas signature set prior to that, but can't recall if I spotted the garbage mattes on that or not. A lot of it had to do with how the brightness on your TV set was adjusted.

--SKot

Projects:
Return Of The Ewok and Other Short Films (with OCPmovie) [COMPLETED]
Preserving the…cringe…Star Wars Holiday Special [COMPLETED]
The Star Wars TV Commercials Project [DORMANT]
Felix the Cat 1919-1930 early film shorts preservation [ONGOING]
Lights Out! (lost TV anthology shows) [ONGOING]
Iznogoud (1995 animated series) English audio preservation [ONGOING]

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
I never noticed them until the laserdisc, and later the DVDs. Never saw them in any theatrical prints, either during the original run or the many re-releases.


The one and only thing I can stand about any revisionism is technical goof clean-up. I don't want any editing out of stormtrooper head-hitting, or erasing of cardboard award ceremony audience. But crappy mattes and uncolored light saber blades are the kind of things I wouldn't mind Lucas tinkering with.

Why LFL did such a half-assed job on technical clean-up during all the revisionist work is simply beyond my comprehension.


But, nah, during the original run of Star Wars ... never noticed 'em.




BTW, not true of Empire Strikes Back ... Tie-Fighter square garbage mattes and generally craptacular matte lines (snowspeeders mostly) were very apparent in the theatrical run. And, yeah, horrible Rancor matte lines were quite visible during the theatrical run of Return of the Jedi.


My thoughts exactly. I couldn’t say it better so I won’t try.



"Look, going good against bashers/gushers is one thing. Going good against the living? That's something else."
- Darth-Adroit

“I also thought George could be turned back to the good side. It couldn't be done. He is more CGI now than story. Twisted and evil.”
- Darth-Adroit
Author
Time
Post link
I'll be honest, before I started posting on SW sites a couple of years ago, I never knew of the mattelines, and never noticed it either when watching the movies in theaters, on cable, or on home video.

The only thing that ever stuck out to me was the white line around the Rancor in ROTJ, but all the stuff in the space battle in SW '77 that the SE lovers complain about, I really never noticed and frankly never gave a crap. That is why I know those fans watch it for the effects, not the drama, cause that is all secondary to me.

As I got older I did notice some effects flaws in the death star battle, but again, Lucas did such a good job of focusing my attention on Luke and the Rebellion, or Vader following Luke, that the special effects stuff was all good to me in '77 and still is in '06.

It is a good question Gaffer, because I think many SE fans just totally overrate the SE changes, and I guarantee alot of fans who haven't seen the O-OT since '96, are going to be very suprised at how well the effects hold up on September 12th. I think many fans who only have seen the SE, and atleast rent the O-OT are going to start to wonder that this isn't this huge difference that Lucas conquered with the SE. To me it is just a bunch of nonsense.

Author
Time
Post link
Wow, it seems even in this thread there are a wide range of repsonses. I said I never saw the garbage mattes until the '04 DVDs. Others say they first noticed them on the '95 Faces set, which is my only copy of the original version, and on which I've never seen garbage mattes. Some say they were visible in theatres. Some say they weren't. some say they were more visible in Empire. I say they're much less noticeable in my DVDs. I guess it goes to different film and TV setups that cause so many differing opinions.

And I don't necessarily mind them. I don't want any type of corrections done. I mean, these kinds of things should have been the kinds of things fixed for a special edition if a special edition had to be done, which I don't believe it should have been. But otherwise, I want all the "mistakes" including uncolored lightsabers, vaseline on the lens, matte lines, et al!

But thanks for the response guys. Keep 'em coming!

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
The landspeeder vaseline bugs me ... and really was the only effect to bug me in '77.



Oooh, that reminds me of another story to post in the "Your Best Star Wars Day" thead. (I've had a lot of really good Star Wars days, heheh)
Author
Time
Post link
When I was a kid I honestly thought that was heat distortion from the repulsor field under the landspeeder.
In some of the SE shots it's like they digitally shaved a couple inches off the bottom of Luke's speeder.
Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link
I always remembered them from the home video versions of the 80's and early 90's. These releases had the brightness of the image turned up to accomodate daytime viewing, and likely my television was a bit bright as well. The DVD release IMO represents the best release ever in terms of garbage mattes since it is very unnaturally dark and thus hides the mattes very well (though this is not intentional). Gaffer i suspect your television is not completely caliberated correctly.
Author
Time
Post link
the garbage mattes are much more apparent now with the clean up work done by Lowry digital, and the image being much sharper.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Post link
I saw all 3 in the theater and honestly don't remember looking at the screen and saying to myself "wow that looks really crappy". I just remember being blown away by the effects. In all honesty the only thing that made me go "huh" was in ROTJ when Luke turned his speeder sidways to fit between two trees. By turning sidways he made himself and the speeder wider.
Author
Time
Post link
I never saw any mattes when I saw it in the theatres. I remember noticing them for the first time after the cleaned up versions came out on laser disc.
Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Well, I watched Star Wars on video hundreds of times. The other two I've seen many times as well. All while I was very young though, and never in a theater till the special editions.

The first bad effect I ever noticed the first time through each movie were the long-range Tauntaun images in Empire Strikes back that looked obviously fake. They moved like claymation. The second was the Rancor which was of a different brightness level compared to Luke.

Otherwise, after having seeing Star Wars many, many times, I began noticing the weird boxes around the tie fighters (mostly when the Millenium Falcon is escaping the Death Star) and I began noticing some of the bigger stop-motion hiccups (like when Luke shut off his lightsaber on the Millenium Falcon or when Alderaan exploded).

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
There is an explanation to the matte boxes, not the lines, but it comes down to the flaws in video vs film presentation. I'll have to look it up in my ILM book, but there is a section dealing with garbage mattes specifically and why they are seen on tv and not movie screens.
There's good in the Original Trilogy, and it's worth fighting for.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
http://www.myspace.com/harlock415
Author
Time
Post link
I've never noticed those until I've seen the 2004 DVDs, to be honest...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
I never noticed them in theaters (although they might have been visible to a trained eye.)

Like CO, I never noticed them on video either (although they certainly are visible) until reading about them on the Internet.

I wonder if it's North America's NTSC setup (7.5 IRE black level) which makes them stick out like a sore thumb ?
Are they so obvious on Japanese video (0 IRE) or in PAL regions ?

However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r

Author
Time
Post link
I noticed some of the worst of the effects as kid, such as the black lines around the rancor in ROTJ, and the orange blob below the landspeeder in ANH, but I can't say that it bothered me. I never noticed things like the transparent canopies of the snowspeeders in ESB until Lucas went out of his way to point them out to us all during all they '97 SE making of hype specials that came on around that time.
Even with the effects I notice now, I can't say it bothered me when I first saw it, nor does it now. Maybe part of it was that at the time, that was the state of the art effects, and the standard. You couldn't find "better". So I never really looked for the flaws. Today, maybe people notice issues because our expectations have gone up, and if someone who never saw the OT, but watched the prequels or some other modern sci-fi, or maybe even something a bit older like T2, then saw the OT, might notice the effects issues more than someone who grew up watching Star Wars first.
I think its somewhat silly to be put off by the special effects stuff. I'm also a fan of old 40's and 50's sci-fi such as Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, etc, and that stuff looks terrible by modern standards. You can see the wires holding up the ships, etc. But it didn't bother people of the day, because these things were very popular, and are still enjoyed by many. Basically, I think that the noticability of special effects stuff is somewhat determined by what you grew up with.

EDIT: I just thought of something else: I think that it also depends on how much you look for mistakes. Some people just have to find mistakes, and aren't happy until they do. Others can gloss over them.
Author
Time
Post link
I just want to clarify that I didn't start this thread to point out mistakes or to show that I'm condemning or complaining about "mistakes." I'm pretty tolerant with special effects, and I still believe that the Star Wars trilogy effects for the most part look great even today. And that's what's amazing about them. And the stuff that does stand out, like the rancor, just adds to the charm. I never complained about that as a kid. I just realized that they couldn't get everything perfect. That's just the way it is. It's a movie, and we're supposed to deal with it. No big deal.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
I never noticed any bad effects until Jedi, but then I was a bit older and was able to understand some of the effects better. The speeder bike chase was fun but looked "phoney-boloney" as I was fond of calling things. I did notice the rancor but the shot was so short, I just noticed it looked funny. I also noticed the some of the TIE fighters were poorly layered in the last space battle. It wasn't until the 86 video release that I started noticing the flaws. I can live with most of them. I just get bugged with Lucas claiming they fixed them in the Special Edition, when they did no such thing.
Author
Time
Post link
Really? I always thought the speeder bike chase was one of the best-looking effects segments of the entire trilogy. I thought it looked extremely believable. And, once again, it was something I never saw garbage mattes on until the DVDs.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
It was just the lighting differences between the live action and the background plate. It took me out of the movie for a bit.