logo Sign In

Fang Zei

User Group
Members
Join date
14-Oct-2006
Last activity
24-Apr-2024
Posts
2,768

Post History

Post
#253783
Topic
Here's my stance
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253783/action/topic#253783
Time
Obi, I totally know where you're coming from on the "Star Wars" vs "A New Hope" issue. I once heard it argued that if Empire has one flaw, it's the "Episode V" that's always been at the begginning of the movie. If Empire and Jedi just had titles and not episode #'s, the original trilogy could at least stand totally on it's own, but for better or for worse the sequels have always said V and VI respectively.

This is why I could really go either way on the "Star Wars" vs "ANH" issue. Seeing Star Wars as it actually was in '77 would be amazing, but that really cuts out the prequels if I wanted to do a true saga marathon (PT and the O-OT). On the other hand, letting the absence of an Episode number and subtitle slide isn't all that hard even if I were to watch all 6 films.

Like I said, people didn't get anywhere near as pissed with the addition of "ANH" as they did with all the SE changes. It is an alteration, yes, but from what I hear there were many other alterations made between the original theatrical releases of the movies and their SE releases. That is why, as far as I'm concerned, the O-OT is any release of the movies before '97, and there are many.
Post
#253774
Topic
Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253774/action/topic#253774
Time
Originally posted by: Harlock415
But damn it Lucas, this took me a couple of hours to do onmy home computer that's 4 years old. He could have done the same thing, probably with bette results.


I theorized about this during the summer. The only reason I can think of for why LFL didn't just make the 4:3 into 16:9 is that, while it would have no doubt looked better on widescreen displays than the non-anamorphic transfers that they gave us, it might not look as good on 4:3 displays. If they had cropped a 480 picture and then made a new 480 picture out of that, people watching it on 4:3 displays would be seeing it after the dvd player performed the 4:3 downscaling (or downconversion, whatever it's called). This might not have looked as good as the 480 letterbox non-anamorphic transfer that he gave us, but of course that screwed over anyone trying to watch it on a 16:9 display.

Lucas/LFL is really behind the times. First he waits until the best possible moment to release the trilogy on dvd, several years after the format had clearly caught on, then waits two more years to release the O-OT in a format that's been obsolete for nearly a decade.
Post
#253385
Topic
Here's my stance
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253385/action/topic#253385
Time
I also thought the official story was that "EpIV ANH" was added in '81, but I've also heard people say that LFL doesn't know its own history and the alteration was in '79. A story I've heard that supports '81 as the date mentions how surprised people were to read "Episode V The Empire Strikes Back" in May of 1980, but then again they just might not have seen the '79 re-release if that's indeed when it was added.
Post
#253288
Topic
Here's my stance
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253288/action/topic#253288
Time
no problemo

at the very least, there are no changes in the DC that are post-1980, even if they are visual effects changes. After all, the O-OT I grew up on in the early 90's always had "Episode IV A New Hope," so as far as I'm concerned that is the O-OT. I also heard that the "Toschi Station...Power Converters" line was not in one or more of the theatrical releases. Is this true?
Post
#253282
Topic
POLL: Which version of the OT do you own?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253282/action/topic#253282
Time
all are NTSC
In order of when I got them:

-'95 ANH fullscreen vhs. Christmas gift that year.
-'97 widescreen vhs boxset. Christmas gift that year.
-'04 widescreen dvd boxset. Mom got it a few weeks after it was released, it's still back at home.
-'86 ROTJ fullscreen vhs. Found it by pure chance at my video store's used vhs sale in May of '05, still in its original box after all these years and it also plays just fine!
-'95 TESB and ROTJ, both fullscreen. Found these only a week or so later at a record and tape traders. Perfect luck since I already had the '95 vhs of ANH. Perfect luck....or so I thought. ROTJ works fine but I got totally gyped on TESB. Either edge of the tape is wrinkled so there's constant static like every other second practically. And the worst part is that I saw the complete '95 boxset (probably also fullscreen) at that same record and tape traders but passed on it since I already had ANH, plus I might not have had enough cash on me for it. In any event, curses on whoever sold that TESB tape to them in the first place. I was soooooo clooooooooose.
-cowclops v2 transfer of the OT, not 4 months before LFL's out of the blue announcement.
Post
#253239
Topic
Here's my stance
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253239/action/topic#253239
Time
hmmmm, well, my whole point with the CE3K analogy was that the dvd is Spielberg's Director's Cut and does not have any added effects shots from after '77, but it has been a while since I've seen the original version and some people here have very good memories.

Was the original version ever available on vhs? I seem to recall seeing seperate versions, one of them the "special edition," on the vhs rack of a video store way back when. Of course one of them might have been the '97 vhs which is the same as the '01 dvd.
Post
#253117
Topic
Here's my stance
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/253117/action/topic#253117
Time
why does the OT defy comparison to any other revised work?

First of all, books are books. By nature of their medium they're not subject to the constantly changing world of home video formats, to say nothing of actual film. Plus it's only one person working on a book whereas a film has many.

Close Encounters: Columbia released a "Special Edition" not too long after the film's original 1977 release. I think this was 1980 or so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the dvd edition does not have any added special effects that were found in the SE release, making it no more than a director's cut.

Apocalypse Now: both versions, enough said

Star Trek: The Motion Picture: Paramount and Robert Wise gave it somewhat of a Special Edition treatment for the dvd. Even though they didn't include the original theatrical cut, they did include every single altered shot in its original unaltered form on disc 2 of the set, in addition to deleted scenes and scenes from the television cut.

Blade Runner: the '92 (or was it '91?) director's cut is just that and nothing else. Besides, we're finally getting the original theatrical next year.

Any argument about "Lucas didn't have the time or money" is pointless. The movie was several million dollars over budget when it was released in May of '77. To my knowledge, the only studio interference was the removal of "Episode IV A New Hope" in the opening crawl. I'll grant Lucas that one revision because, hell, it had nothing to do with money or technology. No amount of money would have achieved the SE's cgi because the technology did not exist in 1977, so please, Go-Mer, don't say one thing when you mean another. Dykstra's motion control was a huge step forward in '76/'77, that was something that had to be invented, and Lucas tries to stomp all over that in 1997 with outdated cgi? If Lucas really means what he said in that quote, I doubt he has much self respect.
Post
#252102
Topic
Here's my stance
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252102/action/topic#252102
Time
this one

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Yeah, I'm trying to keep things light and fluffy through the use of humor.

My point is, sure it's within Lucas' means to fully restore a print and make an anamorphic transfer, I just understand why he wouldn't want to, and don't think there is anything wrong in not spending your own money on things you don't want to spend them on.

Putting the laserdisc master on there was going out of his way as it was, and I don't fault him for not wanting to spend more than he did on it. Especially considering that he did it mainly for people who have crapped on his vision for the whole saga since ROTJ.


Post
#252049
Topic
Letterbox looks like CRAP on a widescreen HDTV :(
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252049/action/topic#252049
Time
Originally posted by: cador
it looks like a RealPlayer video when you try to zoom out the black bars

ouch

Originally posted by: cador
would it be considered rude if I gave away my '04 DVDs to friends as Christmas presents? They've only been watched once.


Do you mean the '04 boxset or just just the individual '04 dvds from the new '06 release? Either way I think those discs are pretty well put together despite the fact that they're the SE. Picture and sound quality (ANH issues aside) plus audio commentary make them a pretty good xmas gift I'd say.
Post
#252042
Topic
Here's my stance
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252042/action/topic#252042
Time
I don't even see why there's a debate over the merits of Lucas releasing a 1993 transfer.

Lucas releasing a 1993 transfer in 2006 is objectively wrong, that is how I see it.

Why do I complain when he does this instead of going back to actual film prints and making new transfers? Because it is perfectly within his means to do so. Last time I checked, he's worth 3.6 billion. What's interesting is that if this really is the final OOT release, Lucas will not have lied to us about the films never hitting dvd from a certain point of view. Hear me out. Back in '04 he said the originals are never coming out again, but since he didn't even bother to remaster them all we got was the '93 transfer archived on a dvd, and if that's all there is than he still hasn't put the originals out on dvd, if you follow me.
Post
#251913
Topic
Here's my stance
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251913/action/topic#251913
Time
Originally posted by: Scruffy
Originally posted by: CO

I bought the LOTR set the other day on DVD, and it included the Theatrical Versions and the Extended Versions in one boxset, both transfers with Anamorphic Widescreen and 5.1 DD. Geez, that wasn't that hard to please all of the LOTR fans?


But neither version has the car driving along the edge of Farmer Maggot's field, so you're not getting the TRUE, ORIGINAL theatrical version. You're just getting one step in Peter Jackson's ever-changing "vision." Honestly, if you're okay with Peter Jackson erasing cars from Middle-earth, but you've got problems with Lucas erasing blaster burns or inserting theme-restaurant style CGI musical numbers, you're clearly biased.


And when you look in the background of Osgiliath in the "theatrical version" of The Two Towers, can you see Minas Tirith? If you can, it's not truly the theatrical version. The studio feared that audiences would get confused over what that thing in the distant background was, especially during all that intercutting of helm's deep, ithilien, and fangorn. Peter Jackson then altered those shots of osgiliath at the studio's behest prior to the film's theatrical release in December of '02. He restored the "originally intended" version of the shots for the extended 4-disc dvd. I'm assuming the 2006 dvd doesn't have both versions of those shots on the disc, but then again I haven't seen it so I could be wrong.

In regards to the car in The Fellowship of the Ring, imdb says that all dvd versions are devoid of it. I'm assuming this includes even the 2-disc theatrical version dvd but I don't have my copy on me so I can't check. The car was visible in the theatrical release of the movie.

As an aside, I do own all of the 2002-2004 dvds but unfortunately the theatrical version of The Two Towers has a player-specific error on the disc that causes it to freeze up towards the very end of the movie when gandalf says "Sauron's wrath shall be terrible, his retribution swift." This error occurs on my parents' nice sony s-video dvd player from '99 and on their computer's dvd-rom but it does not occur on my ps2. I've google searched this and it is indeed a player-specific error. For this reason, and also because the theatrical versions (if that's what they really are) are in slightly better quality than their older dvd counterparts, the new sets looked awfully tempting. However, the documentaries were the biggest reason I wanted to buy this set and once I found out they were non-anamorphic widescreen my interest went way down.

It is interesting how Lucas is moving further away from the original versions just as the studios are moving closer to an archival approach such as Alien Quadrilogy.

Now even Superman's '78 release version is hitting dvd.

The fact that Jackson put together longer cuts of the movies immediately after finishing the theatrical cuts is yet another reason why those movies are considered so unique. He considers the theatrical cuts, with a few exceptions, to be his version of choice for the movies. I prefer them simply because they're what I saw on the big screen and I regard the extended 4-disc sets as bonus material, nothing more.
Post
#251686
Topic
Remember when...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251686/action/topic#251686
Time
another reason I look back on those thanksgiving scifi channel airings of Empire and Jedi, in addition to USA's occassional "trilogy week," is because that was when there were just those movies, no special editions, no prequels, just the classic trilogy. I think that if GL actually brings out the O-OT remastered I can finally get back to feeling that way. I can have the prequels I saw in the theaters (not technically for AOTC but I don't really care because I know it's the DLP version on the dvd, but phantom menace needs to go back to the way it was!), each of them on opening day, and also have those O-OT movies I grew up watching on vhs and on tv.

The O-OT is still just as classic now as it was in the early nineties when I first saw it. The thing is, when it ends up as #15 on AFI's 100 greatest American Films list and they aren't even allowed to acknowledge what the movie made in 1977 actually looks like, it hurts.

I remember sometime in October of '04 asking my mom to pick up the silver boxset while she was at costco. I remember her coming home and telling me she got it. I opened it up out of its black wholesale cardboard packaging with vader on it, Episode III vader IIRC, and the silver IV V VI with a faint red glow behind them-I actually saved that section of the cardboard and might still have it somewhere. Popped the movies into my ps2 and was blown the fuck away. This was before the whole GOUT debacle, I had heard and read a lot about Lowry's restoration and Lucas said the originals were never hitting dvd. Therefore, at the time, I couldn't have cared less that this was the Special Edition.

Well, maybe a little bit.

I remember popping in the bonus material and being further blown away by Empire of Dreams. My jaw was on the floor for a good part of it, and that might have been the first time I had actually seen the widescreen original version shots from ANH. That's one thing I loved about the boxset. It actually acknowledged, on both the doc and the commentaries, the history of these films.

That's another reason I wish GL had never bothered with the GOUT release in the first place, unless he was going to do it right. It's been said a thousand times, I know, but it really stings.

He may be trying to do away with the O-OT, hopefully not. Come what may, those early 90's days will stay in my memory until I'm old and senile.
Post
#251483
Topic
Remember when...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251483/action/topic#251483
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Wait. Why would they show the sequels and not Star Wars itself?


I don't know, but I'm pretty sure I'm remembering it correctly.

The possible reasons I can think up, given what I know now, are:

-tv rights issues ensuing from ANH being owned by fox and the sequels being owned by LFL

-the "incredible shrinking ratio" problem on ANH, although I find this unlikely because scifi channel's been around since not too long before when the DC laserdiscs were made.

-so that scifi could show the two movies back to back in prime time. All three movies would be a little much.

I also seem to recall years earlier, circa '93, seeing a commercial on scifi channel saying they were going to show both the pan n' scan and letterboxed versions of all three movies, but I might not be remembering that commercial correctly.

See why I finally decided to join after lurking for the better part of this year?