msycamore said:
danny_boy said:
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.
So you have now shifted gears from "the film was restored in '95" to "some prints were grainy, dirty and beaten up and faded when seen by audiences back in the '70's and the '80's." So, what does all of this have to do with George Lucas refusal to let it be restored and preserved? Or do you still count the Special Edition as a restoration of the original film? The National Film Registry certainly didn't... it's now 15 years later and still no plans to restore it, just bad excuses whenever it is brought up. Film enthusiasts and fans have since lost their patience.
George Lucas - "the filmmaker who care deeply about his fans" did however say that he was sorry that fans had fell in love with a half finished film in 2004. How noble of him...
If the original negative had not been cleaned and restored(as you claim) then how do you think they managed to get the picture quality to a level to be able to re-release that special edition(much of it derived from the O-Neg) to cinemas in 1997?
In other words----- the original negative(as conformed in 1977) was cleaned and restored------it is just that the 1977 edit that could be struck from this original negative(to make an interpositive and subsequent release prints,DVD's,Blu Ray's ect ) has not been released to the public.
But an interpositive was struck from that original negative------it was that 1st generation interpositive that was then hacked up into pieces and conformed and manipulated into what would become the special edition.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
Baronlando said:
Don't you understand? It's a double standard. Why was Robert Wise spared the fans outrage merely for being dead? Why didn't fans conduct a seance to yell at him for Paramount's decisions? And why have fans consistently failed to build a time machine to yell at 90s Ridley Scott for not releasing all the various versions he had no control over? Where is it?
The double standard is your own.
Robert Wise was alive and well in 2000---he even contributed a commenatary track to the DVD highlighting why he made the changes he did-----all those peeved off Trekkies obviously failed to make their voices heard ----when the theatrical cut was witheld eh?
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.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
Double post
I wish that I could just wish my feelings away...but I can't. Wishful wishing can only lead to wishes wished for in futile wishfulness, which is not what I wish to wish for.
danny_boy said:
An interpositive was struck from that original negative------it was that 1st generation interpositive that was then hacked up into pieces and conformed and manipulated into what would become the special edition.
Do you have a source on that?
I wish that I could just wish my feelings away...but I can't. Wishful wishing can only lead to wishes wished for in futile wishfulness, which is not what I wish to wish for.
Anchorhead said:
doubleofive said:
And that TMP:DE, which was the director's "final cut" (which he didn't have for the original release) isn't available on Blu-ray because Paramount is too cheap to re-render the new effects. To be fair, why aren't we up in arms about NOT having this "special edition"?
That's it, I'm calling it; originalpentology.com
...ah the giants.
1990osu said:
danny_boy said:
An interpositive was struck from that original negative------it was that 1st generation interpositive that was then hacked up into pieces and conformed and manipulated into what would become the special edition.
Do you have a source on that?
This 2004 article(that coincided with the DVD release) made a clear distinction between the original negative and the special edition negative.
Interestingly, the negatives that were scanned were not those of the original releases but of the 1997 Special Edition reissues, because of their additional effects sequences (more of which are said to have been added in the DVD releases). Defects such as dirt and scratches from the original negative, then, had made their way through to the 1997 negative
Restoring the Star Wars Trilogy.
Article from: Videography | September 1, 2004 | Hurwitz, Matt
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.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
danny_boy said:
It is relevant because in the period that it was not available Wise(and Paramount) were never castigated in the same manner that Lucas has been.
1) People WERE pissed about only having the DCs on DVD. But at least all the scenes that were changed WERE on the DVD as deleted scenes bonus features. A fan editor could have used those and reassembled the original cut if they wanted to. (I don't think anyone did, though.)
2) People ARE pissed about the current inverse situation, where we can't get the DCs on Blu-ray
3) But the majority of people don't give a damn about Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It was a lousy to mediocre movie depending what cut you watch. Many, many more people love Star Wars, thus a disproportionate outcry.
But you know this already.
danny_boy said:
If the original negative had not been cleaned and restored(as you claim) then how do you think they managed to get the picture quality to a level to be able to re-release it to cinemas in 1997?
No I didn't claim that, I clearly said that the original negative was disassembled cleaned and reassembled but just because they washed all the elements from dirt doesn't mean that all deteriorated and faded elements were magically restored. They are probably in the same condition today if not worse than when they replaced them with recomposites and CGI etc.
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
evan1975 said:
3) But the majority of people don't give a damn about Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It was a lousy to mediocre movie depending what cut you watch. Many, many more people love Star Wars, thus a disproportionate outcry.
That majority you are talking about probably like Star Wars anyway George gives it to them (most of them possibly aren't even aware it's any different from 1997).
I on the other hand find TMP to be the best of all Star Trek movies, it's not my favourite one though.
msycamore said:
danny_boy said:
If the original negative had not been cleaned and restored(as you claim) then how do you think they managed to get the picture quality to a level to be able to re-release it to cinemas in 1997?
No I didn't claim that, I clearly said that the original negative was disassembled cleaned and reassembled but just because they washed all the elements from dirt doesn't mean that all deteriorated and faded elements were magically restored. They are probably in the same condition today if not worse than when they replaced them with recomposites and CGI etc.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Having said that the public have never been shown which or what frames(that featured optical composites) have/had deteriorated.
A lot of the original composites are still in the special edition----and they look to be in excellent condition(although they exihibit the extra grain and contrast associated with 3rd generation 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.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8
evan1975 said:
doubleofive said:
And that TMP:DE, which was the director's "final cut" (which he didn't have for the original release) isn't available on Blu-ray because Paramount is too cheap to re-render the new effects. To be fair, why aren't we up in arms about NOT having this "special edition"?
Well, I am! I preferred that version! That's what a special edition should be. Fixing what didn't work and leaving the rest alone. They should have fixed Star Trek V while they were at it. I've refused to buy those Trek Movie Blu-rays because they all contain the theatrical cuts only.
Some of the films seem to have had someone go DNR crazy on them too. I saw Insurrection on cable recently, and some scenes were like a ghoulish wax museum. My DVD's will suffice until Paramount double dips.
Where were you in '77?
doubleofive said:
Somewhere on the Episode 2 disc is the rough model doing lines from ESB as proof ILM could make it work, but it's video on a monitor, nothing major.TV's Frink said:
AFAIK there are no ESB CGI Yoda clips on the prequel discs.
Oh yeah, I remember that, it's in the Puppets to Pixels doc. That doc has some great unintentional comedy, btw.
George, you are tearing us apart! Release the UOT and the fighting will end. :)
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”
Bingowings said:
That majority you are talking about probably like Star Wars anyway George gives it to them (most of them possibly aren't even aware it's any different from 1997).I on the other hand find TMP to be the best of all Star Trek movies, it's not my favourite one though.
Agree about them liking it, but I think the public does know it a modified product. When they see gawdy CGI Rontos jumping around, they know that effect couldn't have been done in 1977.
The ST:TMP DC was done in a such a classy way that I've seen many people after they've watch it post, "Well, what did they change?" It looks like the kind of thing that could have been done back then had they the time and money.
SilverWook said:
Some of the films seem to have had someone go DNR crazy on them too. I saw Insurrection on cable recently, and some scenes were like a ghoulish wax museum. My DVD's will suffice until Paramount double dips.
That's the sole reason I don't have a big collection of Blu-rays. The few I do have seem ok, but tons of the ones I've seen previewed have gone way over on the DNR.
"I don't want my grain taken away! - I need my grain!"
Every time I think about leaving this thread, you people keep bringing me back with quotes like this.Anchorhead said:
"I don't want my grain taken away! - I need my grain!"
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
Danny Boy brings up a good question: if there is indeed a copy of a negative of the original star wars, but with recomped special effects and nothing else, would you be satisfied with this version? Or would it still not be THE original film for you?
What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.
Mavimao said:
Danny Boy brings up a good question: if there is indeed a copy of a negative of the original star wars, but with recomped special effects and nothing else, would you be satisfied with this version? Or would it still not be THE original film for you?
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.
danny_boy said:
Baronlando said:
Don't you understand? It's a double standard. Why was Robert Wise spared the fans outrage merely for being dead? Why didn't fans conduct a seance to yell at him for Paramount's decisions? And why have fans consistently failed to build a time machine to yell at 90s Ridley Scott for not releasing all the various versions he had no control over? Where is it?
The double standard is your own.
Robert Wise was alive and well in 2000---he even contributed a commenatary track to the DVD highlighting why he made the changes he did-----all those peeved off Trekkies obviously failed to make their voices heard ----when the theatrical cut was witheld eh?
I've said this before and I'll say it again.....though some may not like Star Trek OR the Star Trek Bluray set, what Robert Wise DID when he did the directors cut was what George Lucas SHOULD have done with the Star Wars Trilogy S.E.. Robert Wise told his team to redo the effects shots chosen and make them look like they were done in the same time frame as when the movie was first done. And they accomplished just that.
Robert Wise respected Star Trek and ALL those that worked so hard to make the original version of the first film look and feel the way it did. He did not want to hide or deny it....he wanted to honor it and them.
Mavimao said:
Danny Boy brings up a good question: if there is indeed a copy of a negative of the original star wars, but with recomped special effects and nothing else, would you be satisfied with this version? Or would it still not be THE original film for you?
The truth is, if the original special effects are replaced with new ones, it isn't the original film any longer, no I wouldn't be satisfied with such a version. A version like that is perhaps what most people hoped the Special Edition was going to be.
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
msycamore said:
Mavimao said:
Danny Boy brings up a good question: if there is indeed a copy of a negative of the original star wars, but with recomped special effects and nothing else, would you be satisfied with this version? Or would it still not be THE original film for you?
The truth is, if the original special effects are replaced with new ones, it isn't the original film any longer, no I wouldn't be satisfied with such a version. A version like that is perhaps what most people hoped the Special Edition was going to be.
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.
Mavimao said:
Danny Boy brings up a good question: if there is indeed a copy of a negative of the original star wars, but with recomped special effects and nothing else, would you be satisfied with this version? Or would it still not be THE original film for you?
Nope. It's not the original. It's not true to what the artists at the time had to go through to get their optical effects to work, and it's not true to history. And, yes, xhonzi, it's started... again!
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.
But if some of those original composite shots are just too far gone, what can you do. That one particular stock was defective, and I assume those shots are just rotting and getting worse all the time? Close Encounters had the same issue I believe, (the same defective stock from '77) not sure what the solution there was.
evan1975 said:
Bingowings said:
(most of them possibly aren't even aware it's any different from 1997).Agree about them liking it, but I think the public does know it a modified product. When they see gawdy CGI Rontos jumping around, they know that effect couldn't have been done in 1977.
(he said 1997)
But to your point, a few years ago there was a local radio show in which the hosts discussed the SW marathon they had just done. They watched all 6 episodes in succession, then discussed it the next day on the radio. They all agreed that while the OT stories and acting were better, the effects in the prequels were better, and that the effects made in 1977 were primitive. The example they gave to bolster their claim was the Jabba effects when he met Han in Ep.4. Sad, but true.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Idiots.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
