Knightmessenger

As most know, the Mos Eisley scenes in the 97 version have a pink tint to them on the home video and broadcast versions. But haven’t some people here said that pink tint did not appear in the theatrical prints, that it only occurred with the video transfers?

So doesn’t that make it even more tricky? Which color timed version do the 97 upscales preserve?

moviefreakedmind said:

It’s impossible to know for sure, especially when it comes to audio, since the vast majority of changes before the 1997 Special Edition were minor audio alterations.

That’s very interesting about the Biggs scene being included. I had never heard that there were prints with that scene included.

What about the comic book that was re-released as a Wal-Mart exclusive with the 2006 theatrical version? That had all the deleted scenes included, although Jabba the Hutt doesn’t look like the slug from Jedi or the actor used in the 1977 footage.

Who would have ultimately paid for the scan and who could have requested it? It’s assumed that Disney made the request. Can this also be that they would not have done so for somebody (like you or me) who doesn’t own the copyright to the film?

8/10 as of right now. Like many others this could change in the future but nobody else seems to have mentioned that episodes 8 and 9 might play a big part. There were many unanswered questions which is fine for a movie that will have 2 sequels. But we’ll have to wait for those see if the answers are satisfactory.

I was worried that it was going to be like a super hero movie/mission impossible/any other action movie where it was enjoyable but not special. I found this to be very involving and thrilling, felt very invested in the characters and rooting for them.

In fact for all the talk of how it was very similar to Star Wars, I’m going to say that it outdid Star Wars. Yes, I think it was better than the 1977 movie except for editing and score. I can see why people are saying it was too similar and I would have preferred a more original plot but the bottom line is, it executed very well.
My favorite movie happens to be Whisper of the Heart (Studio Ghibli 1995). As part of his Disneycember reviews, Doug Walker (aka Nostalgia Critic) pointed out that it tells a fairly conventional love story but stands out because it does a very good job of doing that. That’s how I feel about The Force Awakens, it is simply a excellently made film that is set in the Star Wars universe.

I don’t have a problem with him saying that he didn’t like Han shooting first or that it went against his principles. However, Lucas should realize that that is within Han Solo’s character. It’s like he’s afraid people think that creating a character such as Han is an endorsement of that character.
Maybe some characters would not have shot first because they thought it to be immoral or against principle. Nausicaa (from Studio Ghibli’s Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind) is one such character who comes to mind. Or maybe even Obi-Wan or Luke Skywalker. But Han Solo never was or pretended to have any sort of Jedi code or morals.
Maybe Lucas didn’t realize how popular Han Solo would become as a character and later came to realize that people thought of him as a role model, which he never intended or wanted. So he felt the need to whitewash his actions against Greedo. If that is indeed the case, it’s not acceptable because it’s revisionism and lacking in confidence to let your creation stand on it’s own, accepting how the fans react to it. But that’s just a theory.

The character Archie Bunker from All in the Family was well, I haven’t actually seen that show so let’s just say Eric Cartman (South Park) was inspired by him. Apparently, Archie Bunker was supposed to be an example of what not to be but a lot of people actually ending up liking his character for real.
Should the creator(s) of All in the Family change Archie Bunker’s dialog to be more politically correct so people don’t have to feel some of the show’s viewers really like a “bad guy” who was supposed to be an anti-role model?

So did Lucas not really have any input into how 7 would be? I thought Lucas was going to send Disney a rough story outline and then Kasden would write the script and JJ would direct. Empire is considered the best Star Wars movie and it’s because Lucas had just the right amount of influence.
It sounds like Lucas wasn’t involved once production started, which was not the impression I had of the deal with Disney. Then again, I’m sure lots of lawyers on both sides looked very carefully on the agreement before everybody signed off so I’m sure Lucas knew what he was getting into.

Is there a chance of getting a remastered extended Legend, seeing as that movie is now available on blu ray in 3 versions?

US has the director's cut and US version, the UK blu ray has their international theatrical cut and the director's cut which I don't think was available on dvd outside of region 1 before.

You know if Back to the Future really had a materialistic message, why did they still live in the same house at the end?

I mean George is a successful science fiction writer. From a time travel perspective, it would have been believable if Marty had tried to go back to his own house, only to find out somebody else lived there and his parents lived in a much richer neighborhood.

That's kinda what happened in part 2 but obviously for the sake of movie logic and ease of wrapping up the story, they just keep the McFly's in the same house. Which is believable too. I just think Glover was reading way too much into how the end of part 1 glorified materialism. It shows that George is more successful because of his self confidence.

EDIT: I mean, do we actually know George McFly specifically makes more money as an author than he did at his previous job? Self employed authors/writers are kind of a hit and miss profession. The fact that Biff is not his boss and he is a writer is simply a better fit for George McFly, career wise. Regardless of how well either one paid.

You're probably better off getting a preservation. But of the two you mentioned, the official non anamorphic dvd will still blow the official non anamorphic vhs tapes out of the water, especially if you have an HDMI connection on an upscaling dvd/blu-ray player.

Is anyone else surprised Disney isn't making the 2006 dvd's available again? I know we bitched about the quality ever since the specs were announced. But those are going for a lot on ebay. So a lot of people must really want them, non anamorphic and all.

I just watched my 2005 laserdisc sourced Empire dvd and it looked like an average 90's tape capture or tv recording. I put in the 2006 "gout" and it looked like a professional transfer off a less than stellar print. And yes, this is on a 1080i LCD widescreen television.

I suppose it helps that I was using a blu ray player with an HDMI cable.

If I had an average person walk by seeing the laserdisc port, they would instantly realize it was not optimal quality. But if they saw the "gout" footage already zoomed in, a lot of people would think it looked great and want to buy this original "restored" version.

Sooooo, why not include the 2006 dvd's or better yet, upscale the 2006 transfer to anamorphic widescreen and put them on a separate dvd with new promotional content to replace the Lego Star Wars II trailer and xbox demo?

I mean easy and they get some more money from people who are willing to spend lots more on ebay.

But Disney with their vault idea is actually very good at keeping demand up for their films. Even films like Sword in the Stone or Pocahontas that don't "go back in the disney vault" end up being officially out of print before the new edition hits stores.

So I wonder if Disney wants to release the originals restored and is not reissuing the 2006 dvd's because they want to keep demand and speculation up for an actual restoration.

I'm just saying, if Disney doesn't want to restore the OOT, it would make more sense for them to just include the existing unaltered versions in any new release, as a sort of consolation prize.

I thought the new Wampa shots looked pretty good. Mind you I'm not sure if they should have been added in or I would have placed them in that way. But it looks very realistic and not fake like the CGI Jabba.

Seriously since it was a guy in a suit, has anyone else noticed that a lot of the stuff in the prequels that still looks good was miniatures or other models? Even if just as much blue screen was used, I think a lot of effects would have looked so much better had they been photographing something real instead of CGI.

Ok so these are your screencaps from page 5. I went through the gout dvd just for another reference. I think that yes, they probably look too colorful for how Star Wars would have looked in a theater or even their original positive assembly off the original negative. (whatever the highest generation source that you could project onto a screen) But the color does look mostly accurate.

Here are the frames I did not think looked exactly right. However, keep in mind, I am just viewing them on a laptop that is not professionally calibrated. I have not seen any version of Star Wars in a theater and my only reference is the Gout dvd. Well I do have the 1997 special edition widescreen vhs. But without a digital copy of that, it's harder to look carefully at.

So I may be biased towards how the films looked with the THX mastering in 1993 and 1997, which the more I read here suggests that may not quite have been how they originally looked.

Hope this helps.

tatooine should probably be a little brighter. looks like especially crushed whites kinda flattens the whole look.

I don't know if you can do anything about it but I think the Gout dvd has more different black levels in Vader's cape that were all crushed down in 2004. so while the overall balance seems good, his cape is missing slight different gradations of dark grey, instead it's all black. 

when both this and a gout frame are fully desaturated (turned black and white) the gout actually has more contrast and it's easier to make out the different patterns of sand hills. Then again, the frame I screencaped in windows media player wasn't that close to this one so yeah. maybe try taking down the midtones a bit?

Leia's hologram seems too blue tinted, then again maybe it's supposed to be that way? Well, it wasn't in 1993/2006 but I don't know how correct that is. 

luke's face looks too bright and doesn't stand out as much from the rest of the sky. This looks like a golden color tint was applied to the entire frame blending all the colors together, kinda like instagram but not nearly as much. In gout, the face and sky are definitely set apart as different colors.

this shot is probably different in more versions than any other. (well except for CGI additions) In gout, it's a more purpleish blue. But if I remember correctly, the Making of Star Wars had it more like this while Star Wars to Jedi looked more like the gout. No idea which is more correct but I've always felt the 97 color onward looked too dark and over saturated. If you have two suns, surely it should at least look like you can still see some color in the sky. 

tarkin's face just looks flat here. Like the midtones were boosted but the highlights were not to compensate. His forehead should be a little brighter. Also you can see more shadow detail in Vader's cloak in the Gout again.

again, everything seems to be too golden orange. Namely the landspeeder doesn't look as reddish orange and the smoke doesn't look whitish blue. But maybe the THX color correction in 1993 overdid that and this is actually more correct. I don't know. 

more crushed blacks in the panel to Han's left. Not necessarily easy to fix because other areas look ok and you wouldn't want to effect them as well. 

walls are blue tinted instead of neutral grey like they are on gout. Yet again, not sure which one is right. but this one seems to have punched up contrast.

Again, walls are greenish blueish instead of neutral grey. While the color of the wall is debatable, Leia and Luke's outfits (plus Han's belt) should be white and here they seem green tinted.

Leia's face looks too flat here. Like the highlights of her face should be taken up slightly. also looks overly smooth and soft, like DVNR but the rest of the frame seems fine.

Luke and Leia's shirt seem to have crushed whites, also they're not very white. In the gout, they are among the brightest points in the frame, except for the lights (of which one is above 3po's head). Here they kinda don't stand out.

Again, this looks too golden tinted for the whole frame, making it lose the color differences between different objects. Crushed whites like in previous frame.

Although you didn't seem to use any shots changed for the special edition, this one had the elements digitally recomposited so there isn't a mismatch in contrast. Looks good as far as I can tell. 

too yellow gold tinted, too high contrast, too much crushed blacks. This is probably one where I think the Gout footage looks far more natural, in terms of being less mucked with.

the Gout looks far better for these shots cockpit shots than the official 2004 version, hands down. While your shot undoes a lot of the crushed blacks/whites and lack of natural color spectrum, I still feel it doesn't go far enough with color correction/contrast adjustment on this shot.

This one probably looks the worst of your version. Whites are way too crushed. With the midtones brought up from the official transfer, the highlights also need to be increased to correspond.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I do have screencaps of the gout dvd that are fairly close to most of these frames. Although I don't know if there would be much point in posting them seeing as the dvd was readily available and most other people here could probably get an exact frame to match it.

Oh and when you play the gout dvd in a dvd drive, my disc is officially named- Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope [1977 & 1997 Versions] [P&S]

But the bonus disc is always widescreen, even if you buy the fullscreen 2006 dvd. And I do have the widescreen edition.

I have the rowman bonus disc for Jedi that I got in 2005. It's on that, from what I understand transferred from a S-vhs vcr to a dvd recorder, along with the rest of the features.

Classic Creatures is on the blu ray set.

Erikstormtrooper said:

Harmy said:

Well, there isn't much more left to say, short of confirming that the 2004 master is cropped less than the GOUT but still there is some cropping compared to all the information available on a 35mm print. I totally understand it being cropped; most damage usually appears on the edges of prints and even on the print, the edge of the image isn't always exactly the same, so you need to leave some space for that. What I absolutely don't understand is why on earth is every shot in every transfer cropped differently? Why would they do that? I'd understand every reel having slightly different cropping but why every shot? And the amount of cropping is so small that I don't buy that it's to keep the action in the centre. Also if they just cropped by the same amount on all sides, they'd keep the originally intended centre, which should be most desirable with this minute amount of cropping.

I can't speculate about the scene-to-scene cropping. That really is confusing too.

But for the overall cropping, maybe the technology of the time made it difficult to capture the whole frame. Remember that the blu-ray of Phantom Menace has more picture information that the previous version; this was supposedly due to some technological limitation in the past.

 What kind of limitation would have existed in 1999 that would have been solved in 2011? Unless it was just for transferring Phantom Menace to video. Was this greater picture supposed to be just compared to the past dvd and widescreen vhs/laserdisc or to the actual showing of the movie in theaters?

So this gives me another question. Is the GOUT cropped differently at all from the 1993 laserdisc? Or the 1995 widescreen vhs/laserdisc? 

As strange as some of the method and pattern to the cropping is, it would be even weirder to have the framing different in something that was the same source.

Harmy said:

This is a great article, which TServo2049 just posted in another thread. It's about the advances in optical compositing made by ILM for the SW Trilogy - it is perfect to illustrate the point I was always trying to make about how digital recompositing destroys the artistic integrity of the FX shots, even if it uses the same elements, because the method and quality of the optical compositing was a huge part of the original effects.

 Is that why you put back the original optical compositing back into your de-specialized edit?

Because most people would probably be happy if the stuff was redone digitally but otherwise no visual changes or CGI additions. I can see you're a perfectionist.

this was a great video by the way.

http://youtu.be/dHfLX_TMduY

If you update the comparison site showing the changes and ways you restored the film, I would think it would be easier to go through if you gave the ability to separate it into different sections. Such as.

Undoing major changes

Restoring original effects or details that were redone, but not with new footage or CGI.

Other noticeable examples of color correction. (Since you're version seems to have a different color balance than any of the other video versions, I'm curious as to why you went with that and how well you think the THX version or 97 special edition got it right or didn't.)

someone made a fan edit called Deleted Magic years ago. It did a lot of what you're talking about, however it was made before any of the new blu ray deleted scenes and footage was available.

I'm sure such an edit could be upgraded significantly now. The only deleted scenes available prior to the blu-ray were on a highly compressed CD-rom from the 90's and they only included some from Star Wars. The footage from Empire and Jedi is new.

I'm hoping they simply transfer theatrical prints in the best condition and then do minimal cleanup. So that we could see the films exactly as they looked like in theaters. Now it wouldn't look as good as going from the original negative but there's always the question of what things if any, need to be recreated, such as compostions and color timing adjustments.

If people want the digitally restored from the negative version, they could always watch the new versions.

If Disney uses a theatrical print, there's far less ways to screw it up. Otherwise they might miss subtle differences or changes. EX: Right before the first lines in Star Wars, wasn't the camera shake on the Tantive IV enhanced during making the prints? So that it would be steadier on the original negative?

I just think the people who really want to see the unaltered versions aren't the type of people who have to have their movies ultra restored with no dirt and grain whatsoever.

If you take the deleted scenes from the dvd and the blu ray, how much longer does that make the film?

Also during the blooper reel, there's a clip of something tripping and Jake and Natalie start laughing. It's a scene that was never included in the final cut.

msycamore said:

Baronlando said:

The '97 certainly started out as an honest restoration, which the movie needed, even the original plan of a few shots wouldn't have been unreasonable, but then turned into a perfect storm of drunken digital crayon mayhem and classic movies being used as R&D. The lameness of the blu-rays is probably just basic cheapness.

True, it may have started out as an honest attempt at restoration but it was pretty clear from the beginning that Lucas was also going to revise the film. They started storyboarding changes to ANH in 1993, added Jabba in 1994 for example.

What I don't understand is why the heck did FOX pay for all this restoration and not release a home video release of that effort or even produced new prints before the drunken digital crayon mayhem began?  Instead they went with George's wishes and re-released the '93 telecine as a "Last time available" video in '95, simultaneously with this "restoration" being worked on. But I guess they were Lucas' lapdog at that point with the forthcoming prequels on the horizon. I don't think a restored original release on the shelves would have diminished the income for their Special Edition theatrical release either.

Fox is basically as much guilty as Lucas in this travesty.

 Did either of you watch "Anatomy of a Dewback" on the third blu ray bonus disc? It's surprisingly low quality for something you think would have been ported over from a studio videotape master. However there are a lot of interesting parts.

Lucas says he saved everything from the films 1) in case he ever wanted to reedit them and 2) he is like a packrat that doesn't throw anything out.

They do show a video of the Look Sir Droids scene, as to how they add to it in 97. But it does include a clip of the original unaltered scene, that appears to be sourced from the YCM restored print. That means the stormtrooper doesn't have 4 eyes. And before that scene, the sandcrawler goes off in with clouds visible in the sky because it was day for night. Well, in the clip they showed, it was much more apparent that it was a daytime sky than the GOUT. (which is tinted darker to hide it somewhat)

So whatever they used had to be like the most original highest generation print of the restored film without any changes.

What the hell did they do with that tape? We're told they spliced in the new footage into the film print but still wouldn't they have made some kind of a video master from that? If nothing else to use as a reference?

But wouldn't that tape have been preferable to use in 1995 for the faces set? Or the 2006 dvd? And if you're going to make an archival tape, why not stretch it anamorphically because surely, LFL knew that would retain more detail and might be useful if widescreen televisions ever became popular.

my s-vhs vcr's have a lot of features on them that I'm not sure if I'll ever figure out. Hopefully I know enough to use the best settings for capturing, but lot of the stuff is pretty useless anyways with today's non linear editing.

I thought I took screencaps of the same capture from my different vcr's. I'll have to find and post them sometime.

SilverWook said:

The AG-1980 was firmly in the "prosumer" category. (As was most S-VHS gear.) All the industrial decks I ever used didn't have internal TBC's, as the typical studio setup would likely have an external unit. How such a feature laden deck with such good specs came out at the original price point is a mystery to me. (The decks I used in college probably cost three times more.) I used mine as a home editing system for years.

The 1980 has a lesser known cousin, the AG-5710, which has the same specs except for the addition of an RS-232 port on the back. It can sometimes be found for less.

 What about the Panasonic AG-5700? I have that and the JVC HR S5900 svhs machines. Got them both for $80 from a member of an anime club that no longer needed high end vcr's to acquire and copy shows because of how it's all online now.

For a regular vcr sold in 2002, the Panasonic PV-9662 (another one I have) is also pretty good. I bet that wouldn't go for a lot at all and it is way better than your usual vhs/dvd combo deck all the photo stores seem to use for their tape conversion services.

Moth3r said:

StarThoughts said:

Knightmessenger said:

But I maintain the best official retail version you can get is the 2006 dvd. (or 2008 box set, it's the same discs from 2006 into thinner cases.) It is by far the best single pre 1997 source you can find and is way better than the 1993-95 laserdiscs or vhs can output.

 …except for the sound. The LPCM soundtracks on the laserdiscs sound much, much better than the anemic Dolby Digital track on the DVDs.

This is not true, the audio tracks on the DVDs are the same mixes as those on the 1993 Definitive Collection & Faces laserdiscs.

Edit: or are you saying that the laserdisc is better because it's uncompressed while the DVD is AC3? If so, I wouldn't say the laserdiscs are "much, much better", most people would not be able to tell the difference.

 The laserdiscs had uncompressed PCM stereo while the 2006 dvd's have dolby digital 2.0 only. But the audio mix is the same. As someone who has dvd's made from the 1993 NTSC laserdiscs with the PCM audio intact, the improvement in video quality with the 2006 dvd is much more noticeable than the compressed audio.

Pick your poison I guess. But I'm sure many people have taken the 2006 video, converted it to 16x9 and added PCM audio options.

My main point is that the best single official retail source for the average person is the 2006 dvd. Not everyone is going to notice the audio differences or other distinctions.

The Family Guy spoof of Jedi used one of the soundtrack Yub Nub tracks at the end.

so it still survives in that form.

CatBus said:

Any releases of Empire and Jedi prior to 1993 would be theatrical audio, and video too, if it's letterboxed.  Every home video release of Star Wars has had the altered 1981 opening (where the movie is given an episode number and named "A New Hope"), except the 2006 DVD bonus disc, which is the only one with the 1977 theatrical opening where the name of the movie is simply Star Wars with no episode number, just like it was in theatres.

How much the revised Star Wars opening matters to you is up to you (in spite of simply being the addition of some new text, they managed to screw up the edit even then if you watch carefully), but you said you wanted theatrical, and, well, that's a complicated story.  And that's not mentioning the fact that when you saw it in the theatre in 77, chances are you didn't hear the stereo mix which is the only audio mix you have the option of buying officially.  If you want the original mono mix or the six-channel mix, your only option is fan preservations.

Also keep in mind, the home video releases have been through processes that prevent them from looking or sounding quite like the theatre.  At best, they're considerably brighter, less saturated, pink-shifted, and they have compressed audio dynamics.  This makes things like the matte boxes around spaceships a lot more visible than they'd have been in the theatre.  So I can't stress enough--fan preservations are a better representation of what it actually looked and sounded like in theatres than anything you can buy.

 Ok, what Catbus says is true, the 2006 dvd's use the 1993 audio mix. Which I think is very good, but it was not actually in any original theatrical release. And various fan preservations might make you happier.

But I maintain the best official retail version you can get is the 2006 dvd. (or 2008 box set, it's the same discs from 2006 into thinner cases.) It is by far the best single pre 1997 source you can find and is way better than the 1993-95 laserdiscs or vhs can output.

I know having the original aspect ratio has been talked about. As I posted in the thread about the original english dub of Kiki's Delivery Service, I had a friend rip the old 4:3 dvd's of Aristocats and Jungle Book. Would anyone be interested in those? I also had him rip the old My Neighbor Totoro dvd (first english dub not done by Disney) and On Her Majesty's Secret Service (without the blue tinted Lowry color timing)

They are ISO image files, which apparently opens with roxio creator

Aristocats- Gold Collection 4:3
ARISCATS.iso   4.27 GB

Jungle Book- Limited Edition 4:3
JUNGLE.iso    4.29 GB

My Neighbor Totoro- Fox dvd 4:3 P&S Macek dub
TOTORO.iso 3.42 GB

On Her Majesty's Secret Service- special edition
ONHERMAJ.iso 4.28 GB