logo Sign In

If GL changed his mind about releasing OUT, but with a few tweaks..... — Page 3

Author
Time

Mielr said:

Soooo....you're one of those impossible-to-please fanboys I keep hearing about on other websites! LOL. :-P

I know you're joking, but, geez, isn't it the exact opposite?  Keeping the films as they are and just cleaning them is a lot simpler than recomping everything and "fixing" shit.  So, really, I'm comparatively easy to please.

Zombie summed up everything much more eloquently than I did, but I will reiterate what I thought was my best point from the last thread:  if we get the OOT properly, we'll probably only get one shot at it.  If we get a "close to OOT", people will still be complaining, and then the mainstream will really wonder what the hell is wrong with us.  We all need to be in agreement as to what the OOT really is.  Like others have said, if you want recomps and fixes, that's what the SEs and fanedits are for.  The line doesn't need to be blurred between them and the real movies.  Save a tasteful SE for a tasteful SE.  But don't call it the real thing.

(Oh, and the deletion of the cobra reflection DOES bother me, every single time!)

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

Y'know, the subject of the digital re-comps raised a good question in my mind:

When they removed the original pieces of negative to replace them with the digital re-comps, did they place the original pieces in storage somewhere? Or did they simply throw them out? After all, those pieces were pretty faded because of the particular film stock used for those shots. If we were to get a 100% restoration of the true OOT, would the o-neg for those shots be salvageable or would they be beyond all hope of restoration after all this time (34 years and counting)????

Author
Time

Word has it that Geore Lucas is something a pack-rat. He doesn't throw away anything. Everything for the original starwars still exists. Don't ever believe what they tell you otherwise. They still have original negatives to starwars in cold storage. Every bit that was shot for starwars is in cold storage. It may not be in one piece anymore, but all the shots still exist. A far as them being useable, probably not, but they can still be used to make new negatives, just like they did for the 97 special edition. Which makes me strongly believe that they have already updated the entire original negatives for future use.

Ultimately, George is still just milking the franchise, and I would not be surprised if Lucas is testing the audience with these blu-rays, seeing how they react to some of the changes.  I think this is all leading up to the 3D releases where we could  very well see alot more changes.

Venerable member of the “Red Eye” Knights

Author
Time

I seriously doubt they threw away any of the original negative, even the sections deemed unusable. You never throw away your originals. Lucas is notorious for saving everything anyway. But if there was any sections of the original comps that were not presentable because of deterioration it would be no big deal, you just get them from other sources--Ips, separation masters, etc. Some of the shots in the 1997 SE (and on into the 2004/11) were taken from those sources because the negative was no longer any good. They cut in pretty seamlessly.

Author
Time

Nothing was thrown out. There's no way anyone could be that stupid.

All that really needs to be "fixed" is the contrast levels so that the garbage mattes are not visible. Heck, in this day and age-the fact that these are still there is ridiculous. Why worry about Ewok eyes, fake rocks or other crap when stuff like this is still present in every version?

Gaffer Tape said:

(Oh, and the deletion of the cobra reflection DOES bother me, every single time!)

Same here. Every single time. I've got the LD on my wishlist primarily for this one issue.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time
 (Edited)


Gaffer Tape said:

I know you're joking, but, geez, isn't it the exact opposite?  Keeping the films as they are and just cleaning them is a lot simpler than recomping everything and "fixing" shit.  So, really, I'm comparatively easy to please.


True, but that's not the title of this thread! (it would be toooo long, anyway) ;-P

Author
Time

Gaffer Tape said:

Hmm, it is surprising how tilted towards the other side this thread is compared to the one a few months ago.  So let me help push things back the "right" way. ^_~

Well, I'd say you did it.  ;)

I think a lot of the opinions expressed in the early part of this thread were maybe suppressed by peer-pressure from some of you heavy weights on this subject.

I'll say it again- I'm more concerned with the story than the film itself.  The parts of the SE that offend me are the changes that affect the story.

Though I will concede that I would also like to see something more original for film history sake.

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

Gaffer Tape said:

Mielr said:

Soooo....you're one of those impossible-to-please fanboys I keep hearing about on other websites! LOL. :-P

I know you're joking, but, geez, isn't it the exact opposite?  Keeping the films as they are and just cleaning them is a lot simpler than recomping everything and "fixing" shit.  So, really, I'm comparatively easy to please.

I know you're not joking, but I can only imagine the image our group would get if something like this was released and we still weren't happy.  I get your logic, and that something that is 90% what you want more than likely means you'll never get 100% of what you want...

But come on, man!  It's 90%!

IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!

"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005

"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM

"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.

Rewrite the Prequels!

 

Author
Time

I think the thinking is, Star Wars deserves the full 100%. It's not that much to ask, really--100%. Not 110%, just don't cheap out on it, just do a straightforward restoration of the actual original films. The same as the most basic presentations of other classic or simply vintage films. There's no real reason why Star Wars should be presented in a 90% accurate format, as was mentioned it actually takes more work to re-comp stuff and "fix"/"improve" (and I used those quotations deliberately) parts of the film. Just get your archival material, present it in the best quality possible (e.g. if the film is dirty then clean it, restore scratches if possible, etc.), and that's it.

Author
Time

I would not buy it. The originals won Academy Awards for Visual Effects. Just give us the original off of an IP and we'll be set. Every wipe was redone in the SE, which I can spot every time now. So I don't even want an "original" cut using the modified negatives. I want the original version, with all of its award-winning flaws.

Not that the wipes and snowspeeder recomposites are bad, I'm not saying that. I'm saying THAT'S WHAT THE SPECIAL EDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN, an alternate cut that fixed the flaws. But it should have never replaced the originals.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The way I see it is this way:

Would you want Seven Samurai restored so that the optical wipes there had been redone using modern technology, the crew wires and reflections painted out, camera bounce stabilized, some makeup and special effects retouched to seem realistic and a 7.1 Dolby TrueHDD audio remix?

Would you want King Kong with all the opticals digitally redone, the stop-animation smoothed out a bit, all the goofs and effects errors cleaned up with digital touch-ups? And a new 7.1 DTS audio mix with a couple re-done sound elements for extra punch?

Doesn't it sound absurd to even be contemplating these things? I mean, think about it, digitally re-compositing things in Seven Samurai and giving it a 7.1 audio mix? Painting out the effects errors in King Kong? Why would anyone even have such bizarre thoughts in the first place? They're old films, classic films, so you leave the films alone, clean them up so they look as best as the film pieces can, and present them as the films were, with their original audio in mono. Just like they have been.

Yet it has become normal to think about Star Wars in terms of alteration. In a reverse situation, the idea of presenting the film exactly as it is and leaving in all its flaws and original elements gets responded to with inquisition.

I think the base matter in all this--aside from the precedent of the 1997 SE, which started this all and without which such a discussion would not even be had--is that Star Wars is still contemporary and new. The films are still being presented as "new" or "modern" material, and so there is the expectation that it must match--at least as much as possible--the new material being made as well. "It's all one Saga." And so the idea of having the film mis-match--even contradict--the contemporary version is distasteful. Lucasfilm has been trying to re-write the OT in terms of its story focus, and they've also been trying to in terms of its aesthetic.

The bottom line is that the films aren't seen as "Classics." People have not fully let them go, let them be as they were with all their charms and flaws. They are still treated as though they were modern films. Seven Samurai, jesus you don't mess around with that, it's an old classic and you should respect the film as it was. King Kong, how dare you think about touching a frame of those pioneering effects, that's like re-painting the Mona Lisa. But Star Wars--why would you want all that grain and those bothersome matte lines in there? And mono sound with all those old sound effects, please, this is the modern era of 7.1 sound. What's the difference, the story is the same, the effects are the same, it's just improved so you can enjoy the experience more.

Unfortunately, it is like re-painting the Mona Lisa. Films like Star Wars and King Kong are to the fine art of motion pictures as the Mona Lisa and Sistine Chapel are to painting. Extreme? Actually no. It may seem weird to make such grand comparisons, but cinema is a very young art and movies like King Kong and Star Wars are not only genre cornerstones but cornerstones of the medium itself, some of the most pioneering, influential and culture-shaping examples of the art medium. People take cinema for granted, it's "just entertainment," but then Mona Lisa is "just a painting." That's why when I hear people write off complaints--"Oh, 'it's like crapping on the Mona Lisa,' grow up guys." I think Frank Darabont said that, and people like Lucas I think have expressed similar sentiments. Unfortunately, it is exactly like crapping on the Mona Lisa as far as cinema is concerned. I would expect classic films and Star Wars in particular to be treated the same as you would treat a classic painting.

 

Author
Time

1. Use George's Tech IB print of SW.

2. Also sync the 77 Mono which you have in your digital storage now AND the 70mm 6 track.

3. Use your best condition stored prints of ESB and ROTJ. Use the 80 Dolby Stereo and 83 Dolby Stereo.

4. Also sync the 70mm mixes for both ESB and ROTJ.

5. Fix any splices/tears/fading/damage.

6. While you're at it scan the 97s too.

It's that simple. Just release it as the LFL Archive Edition. MOD just like the MGM and Warner Archive. That way whoever wants the OT can order it-and you lose no money whatsoever!

THIS ISN'T THAT DIFFICULT!!

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time

To clarify my earlier comments, I most certainly do not want a version with recomps and other little 'fixes' to be released and passed off as the original.  I just meant that, like Gary Kurtz, I don't find that kind of thing to be on the same objectionable level as the inserts that actually change the effect of the story.  As such, in the somewhat unlikely case that a version like that actually was put out—and it became clear that this was as close to the real thing as we were ever going to get—I would purchase it gladly, and enjoy it similarly to Harmy's editions.

If that was all the SE's had ever sought to do to the movies, I don't think it would inspire anywhere near this kind of outrage; certainly from me they wouldn't have.  But with the changed versions being so vastly altered, I do think it would be best to go straight back to the original and release it untouched.  Even with minor errors present, I never found anything to be remotely lacking about them before the SE's came along, and in the end I still don't.  Indeed, I actually find the original effects to be a superior presentation in some aspects.  For example the lightsabers looked fantastic and have only ever been altered for the worse; and in a way the recomps actually work against some shots, because going back to the sources prior to any optical compositing exposes a certain 'fakeness' that was previously masked by generation loss and layers of grain and so forth.

Author
Time

In some thread was posted the link about the Godfather restoration. What is bugging me now is why didn't they just scan and use the technicolor print (rather than go through all the work with the damaged negative)?

As there is some hope out there for using technicolor of Star Wars, I'm wondering what deficiency if any there is in relying on such a print?

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

It would be fantastic if LFL came out with an opinion on fan preservation of their films.

To save LFL money, minimum effort, the old raw scans are a generous release.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

In some thread was posted the link about the Godfather restoration. What is bugging me now is why didn't they just scan and use the technicolor print (rather than go through all the work with the damaged negative)?

As there is some hope out there for using technicolor of Star Wars, I'm wondering what deficiency if any there is in relying on such a print?

Because it's the highest quality. There would be nothing wrong with scanning a Technicolor print, but it's still two or three whole generations removed from the negative. Negatives can be saved, so it's better to restore the original negative rather than making a new one from a copy of a copy of a copy.

Author
Time

Exactly. That's something a restorer like Robert Harris is loathe to do if the negatives can be used. Every time a copy is made there is some kind of generational loss.

VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader

Author
Time

Honestly, I would buy the current set with just a few tweaks, it wouldn't HAVE to be the originals (though that would be nice).  I don't mind him changing things, I just prefer that the changes are done right.  If he spent a ton of money and a year or two carefully re-doing all the dated CG effects, standardizing the lightsaber colors I'd be happy.  I never really noticed the color correction need or anything, so he might as well fix that, too, I guess.

But the different eras of CG just don't mix well, they need to re-do ALL of them at the same level, done with a film budget and not a straight to video budget.

And as far as content goes, he can keep all his changes (updated with actually good CG of course) except for the following:

Change the krayt dragon scream back to any one of the previous ones.

Remove Vader's No from ROTJ.

Remove Jedi Rocks.

 

There are a lot of easy changes that could improve the Prequels, but that's a different story.

I guess that's picky, but considering they once existed without those changes, is it really?

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I don't buy any of this stuff that the original version can't be restored b/c of the negatives. The original versions can be reconstructed. Use the best materials available - the YCM restoration, the separation masters, the IPs, George's Technicolor print, whatever. (And has anyone ever confirmed if the negatives for ESB and ROTJ were in as bad condition as the original? I've only ever actually heard reference to the negative for the first film being in that dismal condition...)

If they 8K scan the best materials, clean them up, and use George's prints as a reference to edit them together and properly time them (for example, taking the SE restoration and cutting in the original optical composites from an IP or George's print), we could have the originals in HD. It's not a question of whether they can, it's a question of whether they will.

(And even though I bet it's not going to happen, I'd love to see the pre-tweaked Indy films on Blu-ray also. Since the changes to those films were minor, it won't be anywhere nearly as bad if they were excluded, but still...)

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Mike O said:Raiders tweaked the reflection in the glass (which still drive me nuts, but moving on), what'd Blood Simple change?

Blood Simple did a number of things.  Most importantly, it RESTORED the theatrical soundtrack (due to licensing issues, the VHS had different music).  But it did still change some things to be different from the theatrical version.  In the first shot of the busy bar interior, you could originally see a sound boom hanging in from above, and a reflection of the cameras on a mirror.  Most importantly, the whole "shoes walk to the jukebox" shot got removed, and that's the one that really bugs me.

That said, my point was that this level of tweaking, while occasionally annoying, is more or less normal and I'll tolerate it. Lucas is, as far as I know, the ONLY statistical outlier, and he's way, way, outside the normal range.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

captainsolo said:


1. Use George's Tech IB print of SW.


I've heard that you can't really use IB Tech prints for film transfers- they are too dense. They really only serve as color-reference.

Author
Time

If you can project it you can scan it, it's just a little more problematic.

Author
Time

 

Bingowings said:

I feel no romantic attachment to matte lines, visible cables and the like.

I don't mind them because they are films of a particular vintage but I don't cling to them as vital components of the film.

To me it's the story that is important so a slightly wonky effects fix here or there will not make my blood boil.

Just as long as Greedo does not shoot and wax plop Jabba doesn't permit Han to walk all over him, that the colours don't look like the whole galaxy is under a UV lamp and the dialogue isn't tickled to death I'd be happy.

It would cost more than just restoring the film as it was but if that level of fiddling was as far as it went in home cinema releases since 1997 I doubt if this forum would exist.

Personally I'm more miffed that I can't even go into an art house cinema and watch a print of the film as it was.

The special editions should be special editions.

If they existed along side the original versions there would be no controversy on this subject. 

 

 

Bingo (see what I did there?).

 

 

xhonzi said:

And I summed up my thoughts pretty well when I said:

Harmy, Gaffer, Zombie, CP3S, etc... all pretty much said:

Regarding Xhonzi's question of whether or not we'd still pursue a proper release of the original if a replica of the original was made with newly composited special effects. Absolutely I would. I wouldn't even bother spending money on a set that only replicated the look of the original.

Judge me how you will:

This whole conversation has made me realize that while I feel and understand the need to preserve these films as they were, I care MORE about my being able to enjoy them.  The SEs don't offend me so much because they're not the original versions, but because they are terrible.  They took something that was good enough, and tried to improve it- instead they weighed it down with goofiness and camp.

It offends me because its UNWATCHABLE more than because it is NOT ORIGINAL.

So something that had the story and goofiness changes undone (which is most of them) and looked like the original would satisfy me personally.  Could you call it a restoration?  I suppose not, in the technical sense of that word.  Would I still say that the films should be restored?  Maybe.  But I can assume that I would be so busy watching an enjoyable version of the film that I wouldn't be here complaining about it.  Ady's ESB reconstructionis seriously good enough for me.  It saddens me that it's not widely available and is considered illegal by some.

Regarding Fink's comment about how many little changes have been made over the years. I guess to some of you we may come off as comically anal,

This is kind of my thought process.  To the outside world, we are an unsatiable group what will never be happy no matter what Lucas releases.  The GOUT was obviously meant as a slap to the face, so we took it that way and weren't satisfied.  But if something that looked and played like the originals was released- without it meeting every point on our list of demands, and we (the OOT demanding community) still demanded more-  Well, I can hear the response now.

So... call me a coward.  Call me selfish.  But I prioritize my own enjoyment of the trilogy over needs/wants of "film history".  Perhaps that makes me no better than someone who enjoys the SEs (except that I have taste) but it is what it is.

but tiny little changes here and there aren't that big of a deal to me, but completely redoing the special effects is not a tiny little change. That is a massive overhaul, even if it is done to resemble the original as closely as possible sans the "flaws".

 We're still talking about recompositing original elements, right? 

 

 

This, too.

 

But really, in the end, what I would love to see is a day when we have a restored, 100% original OT, and fan edits are in there trying to remove matte lines and strings and popcicle sticks and whatnot.

Would I buy this hypothetical POUT? Yeah. Would I be happy about it? No.

Keep Circulating the Tapes.

END OF LINE

(It hasn’t happened yet)