logo Sign In

opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed? — Page 9

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 

LexX said:

This whole thread is becoming frustrating to read and I really don't see the point of it, it almost begins to look like trolling. Are you really saying you don't understand what preserving and restoring means? In that case, here you go:


Preserve: To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.


Restore: To bring back to an original condition


What I'm trying to say is that this is not subjective. I could see the point of this thread if you wouldn't mention both of those words and you'd be just asking if people would be alright if LFL only changes some effects and then debate about that. I understand that some people would be okay with some changes and that's an opinion and I can respect it. But it has nothing to do with preservation or restoration.

^ This.

 

Author
Time

^This :-)

But I agree with S_Matt on the CGI FX, nowadays CGI can (that doesn't mean it always does) produce very realistic FX. My only problem with it is that it has no place in a film from the 70s.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

To tell the truth, had George Lucas limited the 1997/2004 SE work to cleanup and subtle enhancement of the existing effects elements but still suppressed the original films I'd probably have absolutely no problem with that. In fact I reckon I'd have been happy with the 1997 SE on blu ray - apart from Jabba in ANH and "Jedi Rocks" I don't really find those versions to be terribly offensive. 2004's changes are what pushed me over to the other side.

Author
Time

I know this particular scratch is only on the print that was used for the 1995 faces UK widescreen VHS PAL  release.

It is not on the equivalent frame of the NTSC version.

Personally I don't see a problem with scratches,grain,gate hairs,colour mistimings  or film dirt.

They are part of the film and the theatrical experience.

In my opinion, if these anomalies were preserved on an eventual UOT blu ray release I would be quite happy.But that is my opinion!

 

 

I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.

kurtb8474 1 week ago

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8


Author
Time

I can't see the pic for some reason but I assume it's the one on R2 and 3P0 in Tantive IV corridor, if that's the case, the same print was used for the NTSC version too but the NTSC version had heavier DVNR, which concealed it but when you look closely you can see where it was.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

I can't see the pic for some reason but I assume it's the one on R2 and 3P0 in Tantive IV corridor, if that's the case, the same print was used for the NTSC version too but the NTSC version had heavier DVNR, which concealed it but when you look closely you can see where it was.

 

Ahhh

thanks for the info.I always presumed they were different prints.

I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.

kurtb8474 1 week ago

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8


Author
Time

S_Matt said:

I think I can see what would happen if a "restored" version of Star Wars supposedly identical to the final release version were to come out on blu ray - most of you would still boycott it because of something or other it got wrong in any of its 120 odd minutes of run time. There *has* to come a point where close enough is good enough. Its just never going to happen that anyone would ever restore a 35 year old film in a way that would please every die hard restorationalist in all instances.

You're very persistent.

We've all told you how we feel and what we want. Starting to feel like you just want to pound things into the ground or get us all to agree with you.

What we want out of a restored version isn't unreasonable. What we want is a restored version. That doesn't exist.

I am sure if Orsen Welles could have filmed Citizen Kane in color back in 1941, he would have. That is fantastic! But I don't really care what Orsen Welles might have wanted had the technology existed. I want the film that actually was made. Why is that concept so hard for you to wrap your head around?

Star Wars isn't by any means or stretch of the imagination my favorite movie, so it isn't that I am being overly anal or picky with just this one film. Plenty of other old films were restored and released on DVD and looked great. No modern special effects, no computerized recomp, just cleaned up, restored, and transferred to DVD, a representation of a film from the age it was made in stored on a high quality modern media format. Pretty simple. It isn't rocket surgery. If this was done with the original Star Wars films, I'd be happy. You don't believe me? Okay.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I never tied to get anyone to agree with me, I only defended my position on the issue and attempted to explain that position. You've put forward your position on the issue too explained it likewise. I thought that was how debates worked, unless I missed something?

I asked what everyone thought a restoration should entail and I got my answer. I just think that slavish restoration isn't always in a film's best interest actually. That's an opinion. I'm not trying to pretend its a fact.

And of course the technology to allow Orson Welles to shoot Citizen Kane in color certainly did exist in 1941 its just that he either didn't have the budget to do so, or even if he had, it could always have been an artistic decision.

And for the last time - I'd be over the moon if a 100% dictionary-definition restored version of the SW Trilogy was released.

Author
Time

I've enjoyed this discussion, since it made me think about things a little differently.

In spite of the disagreements, I think Matt_S has made some good points. He's been articulate and well behaved, even if a little repetitious. He hasn't taken his toys and run home.

If Lucas released what Matt_S is proposing, my guess is that 99% of Star Wars fans would be cool with it. The 1% that still clamored for a pure unaltered release would look pretty ungrateful to the other 99%. Regardless of right or wrong, I think that's a valid observation.

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, in order to do that, he could basically do what I'm doing and make a fake original by just cutting the scenes that were changed into the SE, leaving the re-comped shots in there, which would mean they'd have to scan and clean up about half of the shots they'd have  to to make a proper restoration that way (not to mention scanning and restoring the whole film, which would be optimal but most complicated and expensive) and that's what I'm afraid might happen :-(

Author
Time

I dunno, it seems like more of a hassle? An editor has to rebuild the 77 cut, FX people have to track down the elements and recomp all the effects shots that didn't make it into the '97 at all. It's like the creation of a special edition but with none of the stuff george actually wants in one. (Versus taking the best available intermediate and doing your basic TANGO AND CASH on it).

Author
Time

Erikstormtrooper said:

If Lucas released what Matt_S is proposing, my guess is that 99% of Star Wars fans would be cool with it. The 1% that still clamored for a pure unaltered release would look pretty ungrateful to the other 99%. Regardless of right or wrong, I think that's a valid observation.

 

Its an observation I regret having made though because as folks like Harmy have said in this thread, the easiest and best option is to simply release a restored, cleaned, completely unaltered version. It leaves no room for argument or interpretation and nobody would have to look ungrateful.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Yeah, exactly. And if there's a version with polished effects released alongside it, I have no problem with that, what I'm afraid of is a fake "original".

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Harmy said:

Well, in order to do that, he could basically do what I'm doing and make a fake original by just cutting the scenes that were changed into the SE, leaving the re-comped shots in there, which would mean they'd have to scan and clean up about half of the shots they'd have  to to make a proper restoration that way (not to mention scanning and restoring the whole film, which would be optimal but most complicated and expensive) and that's what I'm afraid might happen :-(

 

If it did happen that way though, could you accept it? What if they left the recomped shots of the SE in but didn't recomp anything else? A form of "damage control" as it were. With the requirement that they don't claim it it be the "original" and label it as the "1977/80/83 release edit conformed edition" or what have you.

I mean, it looks like the scenario you've outlined here is perhaps the *only* plausible route left open for the "original" version? A semi-original might just be the only thing one could in fact reasonably expect at this point - because nobody's going to cut the SE changes that only feature recomped shots, they'd be focused on returning the editorial to its original state. Which is all I really care about anyway - the STORY in its unaltered state. Because I think it worked best like that. And I don't care if the color timing isn't exact so much as I care that it looks natural.

All of which is hypothetical anyway as I severely doubt it'll ever happen trough the official channels.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 

S_Matt said:

Harmy said:

Well, in order to do that, he could basically do what I'm doing and make a fake original by just cutting the scenes that were changed into the SE, leaving the re-comped shots in there, which would mean they'd have to scan and clean up about half of the shots they'd have  to to make a proper restoration that way (not to mention scanning and restoring the whole film, which would be optimal but most complicated and expensive) and that's what I'm afraid might happen :-(

 

 

If it did happen that way though, could you accept it? What if they left the recomped shots of the SE in but didn't recomp anything else? A form of "damage control" as it were.

I mean, it looks like the scenario you've outlined here is perhaps the *only* plausible route left open for the "original" version? A semi-original might just be the only thing one could in fact reasonably expect at this point - because nobody's going to cut the SE changes that only feature recomped shots, they'd be focused on returning the editorial to its original state. Which is all I really care about anyway - the STORY in its unaltered state. Because I think it worked best like that. And I don't care if the color timing isn't exact so much as I care that it looks natural.

All of which is hypothetical anyway as I severely doubt it'll ever happen trough the official channels.

 

 

 

Well, like I said, that's exactly what I'm afraid of happening and no, I couldn't accept it. It would be better than nothing but it definitely would not satisfy me. If anything, it would piss me off because if they marketed it as "original" it would be a fraud.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

So if they were forced to use a secondary but "intact" source for a restoration (like say, a print in somehow miraculously good condition) I'd imagine you'd rather see the overall picture quality take a bit of a hit as a price that had to be paid for the actual "original" version that never had any recompositing or anything of that sort done to it, restored to a reasonable level of quality?

I know that 99% of people, even many OOT experts, might not even notice that a "fake original" wasn't really entirely the actual thing, but for you I can see its the principle that is more important. I think I'm beginning to understand (but not completely agree with) your point of view here.

Only thing is, how would *you* ever be convinced they weren't pulling a fast one?

Author
Time

Yeah, I mean, of course the re-comps that keep it exactly as the original (and not all the SE recomps do) don't really alter experiencing the film and it is partly a matter of principle, although like I said, I greatly enjoy the aesthetic of an optically composited effect but that's just my personal taste.

And the over-all picture quality wouldn't have to be compromised but if it was slightly worse than the SE (which is debatable because the PQ of the SE isn't that great either but in a different way) I'd accept it - but only to a point: it would have to be actually restored. Similarly to Blade Runner - the FC footage was given a more in-depth, expensive and time-consuming restoration (and I mean prior to any alterations being made) than the other versions but the other version are restored to a state of looking great - that's how I want SW restored.

Author
Time

Well, yes, it wouldn't do to just scan the first print/interpositive they could lay their hands on and then just stick it on a disc. What I mean is, find a good enough source, clean it up as nicely as possible etc.

Author
Time

Yeah, that would be perfect even if it was less cleaned up than the SE, which is a bit too clean anyway.

I'm glad we're getting to understand each other. We don't have to agree, just understand. And I disagree with but perfectly understand you view.

When you look at it as just a movie you want to enjoy, recomps can't bother you or can even enhance your experience. But I want to appreciate the film for it's historical value as well, and so I can't accept a version that's been tampered with. Clean up is something else, because in a restoration, you're trying to get rid of what wasn't originally there such as scratches and dirt but preserve everything that was such as unconvincing matte paintings and matte-lines, which definitely were there, on every single print.

But a new version with enhanced FX definitely has it's merits and I would probably enjoy it, as long as the actual original was preserved alongside it.

Author
Time

My stance is simple: You can't say its the same movie that won "Best Visual Effects" or "Best Film Editing" Oscars in 1977 unless its the movie that has those visual effects and editing.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time

    My difficulty in following the discussion is my ignorance of what the Blu format supports.

    I wonder if it is possible for the pure restoration to be imbedded with a version with clean-up, some color enhancement, FX improvements, and elimination of boxes, jump cuts, and matt lines. I wonder if either of these two versions could be pulled on-the-fly off the same bit stream.

    If that isn't possible, I wonder whether two versions could be placed on the same 50 gig DL side of a BD. Four and a half hour HD run time?