George Lucas leaves Lucasfilm — Page 5

danny_boy said:

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.

 

 

 

 

True, but THEN they chopped it up.  So for all of probably about 2 months or so, the complete original negatives to Star Wars were restored. 

The point is, AFTER that, the negative seems to have been cut up for the purpose of inserting Special Edition scenes.

1980s internet- wow. As Spock would say,

"Fascinating."

danny_boy said:

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)

The original negative was disassembled cleaned and reassembled. The original film was never restored, no matter what you say. Restore means; to return something to an original or former condition. This was never done. Instead, 748 of the 2,228 shots in the film were redone, that's a little bit more than one-third of all the shots in the film.

danny_boy said:

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?

Yes, but who says there weren't complaints? You can easily compare it with American Graffiti which also got an updated title sequence in '98. There are fans who don't like it but most people don't care or first take notice when they suddenly see a big walking dinosaur in front of the camera. These minor alterations have a better chance to succeed with going unnoticed by the large crowd, you can still to this day hear people that are confused by or unsure if Star Wars had a title number in its crawl back in '77.

none said:

TV's Frink wrote:  there was no internet in the late 70's or early 80's.

Here are some posts to usenet from May 1981 about 'Star Wars'

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?safe=off&q=%22star+wars%22&btnG=Search&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=1&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=1981&as_drrb=b&sitesearch=

back then a well worded letter to the editor of a sci-fi publication or film magazine was just as powerful as today's internet postings.

We have no power whatsoever, as evidenced by the fact that we're still using this forum and this petition after all of these years. Few mainstream media outlets or people know about us, and fewer still actually care.

Yes, but who says there weren't complaints? You can easily compare it with American Graffiti which also got an updated title sequence in '98. There are fans who don't like it but most people don't care or first take notice when they suddenly see a big walking dinosaur in front of the camera. These minor alterations have a better chance to succeed with going unnoticed by the large crowd, you can still to this day hear people that are confused by or unsure if Star Wars had a title number in its crawl back in '77.

These are so minor the average person probably won't notice them. I don't LIKE them, I wish the wouldn't happen, but they're different than the exensive changes made to Star Wars or THX. Like I tell people who think I'm just fixated on nostalgia for what they see as inferior versions, there's a major issue of film preservation here.

evan1975 said:

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?

The majority of the people probably never noticed the change.  And most of those that did didn't care. It was a minor, minor thing.

George made MAJOR changes in the 1997 Special Editions, many of them minor ones nobody noticed or cared about, but many of them mere major detriments that changed the films drastically for the worse.  You know what those changes are, and you know all this already.  You're just being pedantic.

And I expect a "gotcha" response from you, likely with some weird fixation on The Godfather.

You are correct----but I am trying to accentuate the excessive reaction to Lucas's alterations which are getting out of hand.

Robert Wise made major changes to  Star Trek: The Motion Picture for that film's release on DVD in 2001/01 whilst the theatrical version was withheld from DVD home video------ until it was released on bluray in 2009----- but Wise did not  get rebuked as much as Lucas in that time period.

Only the 1992 director's cut of Blade Runner was released on DVD in 1997/98(and a poor quality transfer at that)-----the theatrical version would not surface on high definition home video (and standard def DVD?) until 2007 -----but did Ridley Scott get as much abuse as Lucas has done in those years----- I don't think so.

msycamorewrote:

The original negative was disassembled cleaned and reassembled. The original film was never restored, no matter what you say. Restore means; to return something to an original or former condition. This was never done. Instead, 748 of the 2,228 shots in the film were redone, that's a little bit more than one-third of all the shots in the film. 

 

 

Ahhh---- and this is the catch----what is/was the original or former condition of Star Wars(as seen by audiences between 1977 to 85)?

I saw the film myself twice theatrically(1981 and 1983) but I will not dare to hazard a guess in 2012 as to whether  what I saw 30 years ago was grainy or clean or had punchy colours or was pink shifted or had dirt and scratches or was free from such blemishes.

The general consensus from the professionals(Lucas,Mcallum,Kennedy ect) who had access to and handled the original negatives and elements was that it was definitely grainy aswell as dirty (both inbuilt and external--due to the ravages of time and usage).

Back in 77' audiences did not give a flying fuck to the resolution qualities of a theatrical print------because even the worst looking release prints of that era were obviously superior to TV broadcasts or the fledgling home video markets(Umatic,VHS and Beta).

In the high definition home video era-----films such as Close Encounters,Star Trek I and II , Superman I and II ect ect.....are the best examples of how films which were saturated with optical composits hold up up to HD scrutiny---- and the answer is in some cases ---- not very well-----the blu ray of Close Encounters looks incredibily grainy(I have the film on VHS too---and the grain is visible even there!)

Superman I and II only recieved 2k scans of interpositives(made directly from the original negatives)----and look very soft in certain areas.

A HD/2K scan of the original negative of the 1977 edit of Star Wars would yield similar results if you view the film with a 2012 mindset----

Rick Dean who supervised the 2004 DVD transfer said it best:

As Rick Dean notes, "The problem is that nobody was ever expected to watch it directly off of negative. Projection prints are the result of four optical processes and photochemical processes, which naturally even things out."

http://business.highbeam.com/3770/article-1G1-122874997/restoring-star-wars-trilogy

 

And having watched  Star Wars Ep IV, Close Encounters and Superman using a Sony 4k projector----- I can confidently say that the Star wars transfer is head and shoulders above the other films.

Baronlando said:

danny_boy said: I am trying to accentuate the excessive reaction to Lucas's alterations which are getting out of hand.Robert Wise made major changes to  Star Trek: The Motion Picture for that film's release on DVD in 2001/01 whilst the theatrical version was withheld from DVD home video------ until it was released on bluray in 2009----- but Wise did not  get rebuked as much as Lucas in that time period.Only the 1992 director's cut of Blade Runner was released on DVD in 1997/98(and a poor quality 

Really with this? Do you really not see the difference in the reactions is proportionate to what actually happened? 

Really? (and by the way, not that this will make a fucking dent, but here it is anyway: the fate of theatrical Blade Runner and Trek 1 were 100% dictated by Paramount Home video and Jerry Perenchio, not Wise/Scott but who cares about accurate comparisons, right?)

Yeah----Paramount must have brainwashed Wise into making statements such as the following:

''I'm happy with it now. This is the film that I really wanted (Star Trek Special Edition) .''

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010820/re/startrek_dvd_dc_1.html" target="_blank" title="web.archive.org/web/20010822113520/http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010820/re/startrek_dvd_dc_1.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20010822113520/http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010820/re/startrek_dvd_dc_1.html

danny_boy said:

Yeah----Paramount must have brainwashed Wise into making statements such as the following:

''I'm happy with it now. This is the film that I really wanted (Star Trek Special Edition) .''

The difference is that Star Trek TMP was a dud.  Nobody would complain if George Lucas went back and re-edited the prequels (as long as the original was available to watch and laugh at).