Complete Comparison of Special Edition Visual Changes — Page 44

The original links work, I think. I replaced the ones on this page, but I don't like the G+ interface for viewing it.

Harmy said:

The more common one. The same as on the GOUT.

Ah ok, thanks. These variations doesn't seem to follow any logical pattern, at one point I thought this composite could be related to the revised credit roll as it being located on the last reel.

'77 print with cloudy composite and rare credit roll

'77 print with cloudless composite and more common credit roll

'77 print with cloudy composite and common credit roll  EDIT: (this combo not found on any print as of yet, excluding the home video master)

if we now find a '77 source with cloudless composite and rare credit roll my head will explode. ;)

doubleofive said:

The original links work, I think. I replaced the ones on this page, but I don't like the G+ interface for viewing it.

Well, it didn't work for me but I don't know maybe there's something wrong on my side.

Just throwing this out there, but I wouldn't put it past George Lucas to have made a quick last minute change to his film shortly after its premiere. He might have thought that the composite was flawed in that one shot, and managed to squeeze out a bit more money from the budget to fix that one shot (other bothersome shots like Mos Eisley would have been too expensive to fix). So in the end we have two different IPs running around: "Premiere 77" and "Post-Premiere 77". That might explain why the IB has the cloudless version.

EDIT: just saw your post about the credits. Again, George just couldn't keep his hands off of it and kept trying to make it better. There were even 3 different sound mixes for it! It seems very likely that he would go back and change a few things to the picture as well.

Wait a minute, I screwed up and misinformed you, Catnap bootleg does have the rare credit roll. So it does make more sense now.

Ok, yeah a lot more sense. What are the differences between the credit rolls?

Mavimao, see here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Credits-Leaders-Thread/topic/12960/

Yeah, it does make a lot more sense, and is what I originally thought could be the case. It's kinda cool the early composite was carried over to the NTSC video telecine.

none said:

Catnap and Puggo Grande (until proven otherwise) appear to be the same, a 16mm capture.  [and there's also the theory that they are the same print, captured years apart]

I see, didn't know that. At least now there seems to be a connection between the composite and credit variation. The only question mark now is why the cloudy composite reappeared on the NTSC video master.

It seems pretty logic that they took the opportunity to revise this composite at the same time they revised the credits as it is located on the same last reel. Maybe a possibility of more subtle fixes in the Death Star battle as well.

msycamore said:

none said:

Catnap and Puggo Grande (until proven otherwise) appear to be the same, a 16mm capture.  [and there's also the theory that they are the same print, captured years apart]

I see, didn't know that. At least now there seems to be a connection between the composite and credit variation. The only question mark now is why the cloudy composite reappeared on the NTSC video master.

It seems pretty logic that they took the opportunity to revise this composite at the same time they revised the credits as it is located on the same last reel. Maybe a possibility of more subtle fixes in the Death Star battle as well.

Mavimao said:

Perhaps they just took an early 77 IP (simply because it was the highest quality they could find for making NTSC masters) and then the person in charge of prepping the video master wasn't told about any of the other changes - like the X and Y wing takeoff - and just spliced in the new crawl and revised credits.

Yeah, a likely scenario.

hairy_hen said:

This kind of thing also goes along with what Mike Verta was saying about the '77 crawl on his sources having a lot of instability, while the version seen on the GOUT (which to me looks pretty damn authentic) weaves differently and much less.  It's possible that the GOUT version was recreated with CGI, but given the general lack of effort associated with that release, it seems more likely that it's actually real, because to have recreated it so closely would have required an authentic source to base it on, and simply scanning it and pasting it in would have been much easier.

Yeah, me and none discussed this possible scenario of a crawl re-composite here: http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-GOUT-crawl/post/582538/#TopicPost582538 none sent Mr. Edlund a mail about this but no reply as of yet I think.

EDIT:

hairy_hen said:

My first thought was that these recomposites were done at the same time they made the mono mix, but if the bootleg sources with mono audio have the early versions, then that wouldn't seem to be the case. Perhaps they were done when the film's release was extended in 1978, which would allow ample time for them to have noticed the minor flaws and decided to correct them.

^ My thought as well, and I strongly believe that to be the case as all these early versions are in fact the Dolby Stereo prints. Moth3r's is a fold-down of the stereo and for Grande, Puggo took the mono mix from the Swedish 16mm print, and AntcuFaalb's 'PS77-78?' is a Stereo print as well.

So we might perhaps start to refer to these versions as the Stereo and Mono versions.

hairy_hen said:

As for the earlier shot appearing on the 80's video master, which also doesn't have the burn damage seen on most other versions, it had to have come from an earlier source than was used for every other release.

Yeah, but the weird thing about that is that all early theatrical '77 prints have them, so where in the chain those appeared is anyone's guess, Internegatives? I have little knowledge in this field.

I don't know if this has been posted or not (may have been).

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-one.html

1977,1997,2004,2011

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-two.html

1980,1997,2004,2011

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-three.html

1983,1997,2004,2011

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-four.html

1999,2001,2002,2005,2011

Yeah, like five years ago ;-)

Harmy said:

Yeah, like five years ago ;-)

  O,ok but this also has the Blu-ray ;-)

Yeah, he updated the old articles a few months back but it's seriously incomplete. Back in the day, it used to be the best OOT-SE comparison out there though.

  That's the website I tell my Star Wars friends to go to when I say the "Original Unedited Trilogy",because they would look at me funny when I say that.

 I don't know if this has been posted or not (may have been).

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-one.html

1977,1997,2004,2011

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-two.html

1980,1997,2004,2011

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-three.html

1983,1997,2004,2011

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-four.html

1999,2001,2002,2005,2011

what website would you use.

Savestarwars.com or this comparison discussed in this thread because it shows the full extent of the SE.

I'll just tell the all 3 savesatrwars.com, OT.com, and DVDactive 

Well, OT.com is a good place to discuss it when you know the issue. To get to know it, I meant that these comparisons are far better than the DVDactive ones:

SW:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/102542760950977079734/albums/5514974191245813441

ESB:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/102542760950977079734/albums/5525747538664147553

ROTJ:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/102542760950977079734/albums/5528361230751063825

I actually think dvdactive have a quite fine article, intended to enlighten mere mortals, in this thread we are insane, at least I am. ;)

^^@Harmy: I've used those links to.

^@msycamore: me to