logo Sign In

George Lucas leaves Lucasfilm — Page 4

Author
Time

The criterion laserdisc WAS the original version. The branching option was for special edition scenes, meanwhile the special edition had its own laser. And the original version was shown on TV regularly all through those years, (as well as a hybrid version for ABC.) Also, Sony controls that movie, not Spielberg. He doesn't control Poltergeist either. 

Author
Time

danny_boy said:

But even within those 3 short years from 1977-81---- was there anything like the vitriolic hate towards Coppola like there is towards  Lucas for the re-edit of their respective movies----I don't think so.

 

Why the fuck would there be? 

Author
Time

Gaffer Tape said:

Maybe one day software will be advanced enough to "create" enough on a guess that it could accurately resemble what a high-definition image would look like, but could you still even consider that the original anymore?

Well, that is kind of what I had in mind. I'm not saying it would be the best option, but if such technology becomes available, and the original negatives become so degraded that there's no way to restore them in a more conventionable way, then I can't see why it shouldn't be done.

Author
Time

But even within those 3 short years from 1977-81---- was there anything like the vitriolic hate towards Coppola like there is towards  Lucas for the re-edit of their respective movies----I don't think so.

By your own admission, the number of people who owned VHS players in 1981 was miniscule. Thus, this is a red herring.

Again, the two situations aren't even remotely comparable. Why are you torturing logic and reason so in order to force one?

Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!

Author
Time

danny_boy said:

There was a seriouse restoration done to star wars in 1995!

Let's clarify one thing to make it understandable to all------the physical condition of the original camera negatives(that were used for printing in 72' and 77' respectively) of the Godfather and Star wars are roughly the same(despite the clean up and restoration done on them)----the Godfather is probably in worse condition.

The new Godfather 4K master files that are now used to generate new archival or theatrical prints were sourced from many elements(dupes/interpositives/outtakes and the original camera negative--itself)------in other words-----this 4k digital negative corresponds to only half of the OCN:

The newly restored Godfather relies on snippets of film culled from many sources. “There was no foundation left. It is a Frankenstein,” Harris says,

http://www.postmagazine.com/Publications/Post-Magazine/2008/November-1-2008/RESTORATION.aspx

Is that any different to the Star War's"frankenstein" digital negative?

Yes, Lucas had to get it restored due to the bad shape it was in, in order to release the Special Edition, but as we all know by now, the purpose of that event wasn't to restore the original film, that being made was just a stepping stone towards the revised cut of the film. It was in fact not restored in the truest sense either, the 62 shots made on CRI-stock for example were replaced with digitally re-composited shots, all the optical wipes were redone etc. No new video-release made, (the one released in '95 when the "restoration" was still in the work was dubbed "The last chance to own the original Star Wars) no newly restored prints for exhibition, no new print of the original sent to the NFR, even though they had requested it since the film was selected in '89.

The goal and purpose of the Godfather restoration shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as the Star Wars - Special Edition, it was something entirely different. If the negative is a "Frankenstein" or not is irrelevant, it's sad but the films are saved and restored, Star Wars is not, quite the opposite. Suppressed, hunted down and despised by its maker is more like it. Could it perhaps be some of these actions that causes frustration and anger directed towards this man? If he only was quiet about the issue it would be bad, but he has also been quite arrogant in media about it;

    "The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won't last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the [Special Edition] version."
    --George Lucas

 

So when he says things like "care deeply about the fans" it becomes quite laughable. Many people love these films, and the only one who stands in the way of a true restoration happening is Lucas. Get real and see the facts, THX 1138 is treated in a similar way and to a lesser extent American Graffiti, had it not been for Spielberg we wouldn't have the original Indy films restored either. You're on a site that was created with the goal to get the original Star Wars films restored and you wonder why there is frustration directed towards him. As long as those films are locked away there will be fans who are upset about this. Your historical comparisons with Coppola and the Godfather films are embarrassing.

We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions. 

Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com

Author
Time

So basically, even if Lucas suddenly went insane and did want to restore the OOT, the negatives don't exist for it to happen?

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time

Most of it could still be used but some of the shots would have to come from other sources, which is not uncommon in restoration. (Or they could ignore the negative and use something else, like the Blade Runner '82 blu-ray)

Author
Time

Baronlando said:

The criterion laserdisc WAS the original version. The branching option was for special edition scenes, meanwhile the special edition had its own laser.

 

Are you sure about that?

The Criterion Collection 3-disc Laserdisc released in 1990 featured both the 1977 Theatrical & 1980 Special Edition cuts. The theatrical however held onto the '80 Special Edition shot of a shadowed spaceship flying over Roy's truck. This was requested by Steven Spielberg while overseeing the disc's production. The 1980 cut can only be viewed on players that could have re-arranged the disc's chapters from the end of the disc to earlier on, requiring a 5-second pause between chapters.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075860/alternateversions

 

And the original version was shown on TV regularly all through those years,

 

Well here is the U.S premiere of Close Encounters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcwANeCyv_U

And it is definitely the special edition(and maybe even the hybrid version?)

 

 

 

 

 

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

Baronlando said:

Most of it could still be used but some of the shots would have to come from other sources, which is not uncommon in restoration. (Or they could ignore the negative and use something else, like the Blade Runner '82 blu-ray)

I find it very difficult to believe that THX COULDN'T do a proper restoration, it's a question of the cost and Lucas' willingness. I also find it pretty difficult to believe that there isn't a usable negative that could be used to restore it SOMEWHERE. Still, we're tilting at windmills, in any case, since it's never happening. I am sort of surprised they didn't do something for the 35th anniversary this year, just like they didn't for the 30th. What did they do for Blade Runner? An example, incidentally, of how Star Wars should've been handled, but that's beside the point.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
 (Edited)

msycamorewrote:

Yes, Lucas had to get it restored due to the bad shape it was in, in order to release the Special Edition, but as we all know by now, the purpose of that event wasn't to restore the original film, that being made was just a stepping stone towards the revised cut of the film. It was in fact not restored in the truest sense either, the 62 shots made on CRI-stock for example were replaced with digitally re-composited shots, all the optical wipes were redone etc.

 

That's true to a degree-----but the original film was restored---here is Rick Mcallum saying as much:

One of the most frustrating things is, if you could see the print that stuck of the original negative that we have done - it's perfect. It's not perfect in terms of the color restauration, because we still have a long way to go.

http://www.maikeldas.com/SWrick1eng.html

 

....which leads onto this:

No new video-release made, (the one released in '95 when the "restoration" was still in the work was dubbed "The last chance to own the original Star Wars) no newly restored prints for exhibition, no new print of the original sent to the NFR, even though they had requested it since the film was selected in '89.

 

....which is very true and I personally am also against Lucas's actions with regards to him with-holding the Theatrical cut----but he has still restored it(by late 1990's standards).

 

 

 Suppressed, hunted down and despised by its maker is more like it. Could it perhaps be some of these actions that causes frustration and anger directed towards this man? If he only was quiet about the issue it would be bad, but he has also been quite arrogant in media about it;

Sorry dude---my 1982 VHS tape is not being surpressed by ol' George.

And George could easily have stopped that IB technicolor print from being shown to the public in Baltimore in 2010 even if it was for free.

 As long as those films are locked away there will be fans who are upset about this.

And I am one of them------but I don't hate George for it.

 

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
 (Edited)

 

Akwat Kbrana wrote:

By your own admission, the number of people who owned VHS players in 1981 was miniscule.

 

Which meant that the TV re-edit of the Godfather would have been extremely influential in how a large amount of fans experienced and viewed the Godfather---doh!

 

 

 

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

Baronlando said:

danny_boy said:

But even within those 3 short years from 1977-81---- was there anything like the vitriolic hate towards Coppola like there is towards  Lucas for the re-edit of their respective movies----I don't think so.

 

Why the fuck would there be? 

Because Coppola altered the structural narrative of not one but 2 films---- in an era when the majority  of fans/the public had no recourse to the original versions.....comprende?

 

 

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

Did you know they dubbed Die Hard 2 with "Mr. Falcon" over "motherfucker" in an era where MORE PEOPLE would see it that way than any other?? But where is the outrage at Renny Harlin? It's completely the same! 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

danny_boy said:

msycamorewrote:

Yes, Lucas had to get it restored due to the bad shape it was in, in order to release the Special Edition, but as we all know by now, the purpose of that event wasn't to restore the original film, that being made was just a stepping stone towards the revised cut of the film. It was in fact not restored in the truest sense either, the 62 shots made on CRI-stock for example were replaced with digitally re-composited shots, all the optical wipes were redone etc.

 

That's true to a degree-----but the original film was restored---here is Rick Mcallum saying as much:

One of the most frustrating things is, if you could see the print that stuck of the original negative that we have done - it's perfect. It's not perfect in terms of the color restauration, because we still have a long way to go.

http://www.maikeldas.com/SWrick1eng.html

Unfortunately when you read that snippet in context, it's clear that they hadn't actually scanned the film yet to start making special edition changes.  After they made all the changes, it is my understanding that they went back to that clean, beautiful negative and cut it up for the purposes of pasting in the new 35mm special edition shots they had just printed from their computer. 

Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side

Emperor Jar-Jar
“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition

Author
Time

Yeah he's talking about a print struck directly off the newly created '97 special edition negative that they've made, and lamenting how many more stages (and lab trial and error) it has to go through before it gets to your theater. (back in pre-digital 1997)

Author
Time

Mike O said:

What did they do for Blade Runner?

They used existing IP's for the archival versions.

We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions. 

Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com

Author
Time
 (Edited)

danny_boy said:

but the original film was restored

If the film was restored why wasn't the National Film Registry given a new print for preservation, why did Lucasfilm try to persuade them to take a SE print instead, Fox who paid for this whole "restoration" in the first place could've made this happen, right? It's because it was a half-assed restoration done in order to revise the film. A year or two later Lucas had acquired the full rights to Star Wars and nothing was stopping him going ahead with his plans.

danny_boy said:

Sorry dude---my 1982 VHS tape is not being surpressed by ol' George.

And George could easily have stopped that IB technicolor print from being shown to the public in Baltimore in 2010 even if it was for free.

 

Well, we're talking about suppression of the original FILMS, not your pan & scan video tape of the '81 re-release.

Yes, but he didn't because it would've made Lucasfilm look very stupid in the media.

danny_boy said:

As long as those films are locked away there will be fans who are upset about this.

And I am one of them------but I don't hate George for it.

 

And neither do I, but I don't have to like him either.

We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions. 

Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:


Even if the original negatives decay to a point where they're completely beyond restoration, maybe technology will one day improve to the point where you can do a complete restoration from something as crappy as the GOUT.


You'd still be better of using existing 35mm prints (however faded they may be) than using the GOUT as a source. It's a lot easier to color correct than it would be to digitally manufacture detail. The prints are out there- collectors have them.

Author
Time

Baronlando said:

Did you know they dubbed Die Hard 2 with "Mr. Falcon" over "motherfucker" in an era where MORE PEOPLE would see it that way than any other?? But where is the outrage at Renny Harlin? It's completely the same! 

*giggle*

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Baronlando said:

Did you know they dubbed Die Hard 2 with "Mr. Falcon" over "motherfucker" in an era where MORE PEOPLE would see it that way than any other?? But where is the outrage at Renny Harlin? It's completely the same! 

LOL!

But I think it is fair to say that by 1990 most people had VHS where the original dialogue of Die Hard 2 could be heard.

But back in good ol' 1977 when an TV edit was made to a film that was it----you could not experience it any other way ------unless you were one of the wealthy/lucky few who could afford Betamax or Umatic Video-----or if the film in question had another run in the cinema.

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

"Yippee ki yay mr falcon!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soeQ1i-tYAg

 

“In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.” - George Lucas

Author
Time
 (Edited)

msycamore said:

danny_boy said:

but the original film was restored

If the film was restored why wasn't the National Film Registry given a new print for preservation, why did Lucasfilm try to persuade them to take a SE print instead, Fox who paid for this whole "restoration" in the first place could've made this happen, right? It's because it was a half-assed restoration done in order to revise the film. A year or two later Lucas had acquired the full rights to Star Wars and nothing was stopping him going ahead with his plans.

danny_boy said:

Sorry dude---my 1982 VHS tape is not being surpressed by ol' George.

And George could easily have stopped that IB technicolor print from being shown to the public in Baltimore in 2010 even if it was for free.

 

Well, we're talking about suppression of the original FILMS, not your pan & scan video tape of the '81 re-release.

Yes, but he didn't because it would've made Lucasfilm look very stupid in the media.

danny_boy said:

As long as those films are locked away there will be fans who are upset about this.

And I am one of them------but I don't hate George for it.

 

And neither do I, but I don't have to like him either.

 

To be fair it looks like the film was restored to the best of Lucasfilm's ability given the technology and expense at that point in time.

HD/2K scanning of an entire film was in it's infancy and also incredibily expensive in 1996.

New prints were made of  Close Encounters(20yrs),Saturday Night Fever(20 yrs) and The Godfather(25yrs) to mark their respective anniversaries in 1997 and none of them had scans at all-----the new prints were struck directly off new internegatives -----compared to those films above -----I think more effort was put into restoring Star Wars(which at least had partial scans---allbeit to produce/add effects)

(Even fellowship of the Ring which was made in 2000/2001 was 70% scanned and 30% photochemichally produced)

And in a literal sense-----the supression(of the 35mm prints) of the "original film" of Star Wars can go right back to 1981 when "Episode IV" was tacked onto the begginning-----because the theatrical re-releases in 1981.82' 83'and 85'(in 83' and 85'---Star Wars was part of a triple bill with ESB and ROTJ) all featured these new "altered" prints------ but no-one complained back then!

Why didn't VHS and laserdisc fans complain in 1982 when the "altered" version of star wars was released for the first time on home video?----- why did'nt they complain that they could not hear the mono mix on that 82' video tape/laserdisc?

 

 

 

 

 

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
 (Edited)

Trooperman said:

danny_boy said:

msycamorewrote:

Yes, Lucas had to get it restored due to the bad shape it was in, in order to release the Special Edition, but as we all know by now, the purpose of that event wasn't to restore the original film, that being made was just a stepping stone towards the revised cut of the film. It was in fact not restored in the truest sense either, the 62 shots made on CRI-stock for example were replaced with digitally re-composited shots, all the optical wipes were redone etc.

 

That's true to a degree-----but the original film was restored---here is Rick Mcallum saying as much:

One of the most frustrating things is, if you could see the print that stuck of the original negative that we have done - it's perfect. It's not perfect in terms of the color restauration, because we still have a long way to go.

http://www.maikeldas.com/SWrick1eng.html

Unfortunately when you read that snippet in context, it's clear that they hadn't actually scanned the film yet to start making special edition changes.  After they made all the changes, it is my understanding that they went back to that clean, beautiful negative and cut it up for the purposes of pasting in the new 35mm special edition shots they had just printed from their computer. 

 

Yes---I agree---but it would also mean that the original negative has not been altered-----it was disassembled into it's constituents parts so that it's differing film stocks could be washed separately----but then Robert  Hart(the editor of ESB and ROTJ) put it backtogether without inserting any new frames/elements.

 

 

 

 

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

They cleaned it and put it back together, then George decided they should not just re-release the movie, so they ended up tearing it up to replace the shots with the special edition re-composites.

I really should finish my research on the SE and get this info out there.

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress