Give Star Wars a break for 6 months or more...watch with a critical eye — Page 2

msycamore said:

danny_boy said:

Simple solution.

Watch it lo-fi(VHS,Beta,V2000, laserdisc)!

It forces you to focus on the characters and the storytelling and nothing-else.

Effects and sets are obscured by the relatively low quality picture that you have no choice but  to follow the story.

Maybe Star Wars fans have been too obsessed with Pixels and picture quality in the last 17 years(at least since the advent of DVD-1997) that it forbids them from just enjoying the film itself.

I know that the counter aurgument is that the picture quality is so bad(for NTSC VHS in particular) that it is too much of a distraction to enjoy the flick.

Or is that because we are so used to being spoiled in the high -definition era?

I am fortunate enough to  own a 4K Sony 1000 projector.

I can watch the likes of Oblivion,Elisium,Looper,Pacific Rim,Man Of Steel and Star Trek Into Darkness on this projector  upscaled to 4K, enjoying every last ounce of pixel information/detail that these flicks have to offer.

They may look fantastic but IMHO all the above are just average movies---great style....but little substance---I re-iterate---in my opinion!

So yeah.....I get more of a kick watching my beat up ol' 1982 1st release(library rental) VHS video tape of Star Wars than watching  any of the above movies in 4K.

I understand your view and I agree to some extent but I don't think Star Wars fans have been obsessed with picture quality in the last 17 years, more like being denied it. The story is what's most important yes, but film is very much a visual medium and a form of visual storytelling, especially in the case of a film like Star Wars. Your signature proudly says;

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.

^ If that's all that makes that movie work then why bother when you can just as well pick up the script or the novel of the film and read it instead? I can personally enjoy Star Wars in crude form, we have basically been forced to enjoy it that way since it left the theater but picture and audio quality is definitely important. And it really goes without saying that it's fucking ridiculous that not a decent modern video release exist of these iconic classics either in Special Edition or in Original form. Stop trying to justify the silly George Lucas syndrome.

I am not trying to justify anything.

I want to see that hi-def OUT release as much as anyone.

But until that happens(if it ever does) I am more than content to watch it on VHS!(I can understand if a lot of people are not happy with this proposition)

I would strongly disagree that there is "not a decent release of the special edition" version in high def.

The Blu Rays(especially upscaled to 4K) are spectacular. Incredible levels of detail-------No----- they may not be accurate with regards to colour timing and other aesthetic  issues when compared to how the films originally looked but even that cannot be confirmed until you physically  run a non faded 35mm print side by side with the Blu Ray or the 2K/4K DCP (not just rely on film cells posted on jedi net or screenshots from the IB tech screening at the senator theater in 2010).

We also did that at ILM for the transfers of Star Wars and Jedi that I worked on, where they had prints up in the Stag Theater across the hall to use for comparison. At any moment, we could stop and say, "whoa, is that supposed to be green?" and then check the print.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/true-original-star-wars-trilogy-blu-rays-coming-in-2014-or-2015-from-disney.324294/page-6

danny_boy said:

I am not trying to justify anything.

I want to see that hi-def OUT release as much as anyone.

But until that happens(if it ever does) I am more than content to watch it on VHS!(I can understand if a lot of people are not happy with this proposition)

Yeah, it's fine that you are more than content with your '82 Star Wars VHS even if the original film never gets released on a current video format, but that doesn't mean that maybe other Star Wars fans have been obsessed with pixels and picture quality for the last 17 years. It's 2014 now, the last time these films were released on video from a new telecine master was 21 years ago. You know, there's a reason this site was born. Your trolling is not even subtle. I wonder, will your children (if you have any or planning) also be content with that VHS of yours?

danny_boy said:

We also did that at ILM for the transfers of Star Wars and Jedi that I worked on, where they had prints up in the Stag Theater across the hall to use for comparison. At any moment, we could stop and say, "whoa, is that supposed to be green?" and then check the print.

Vidiot, Aug 7, 2013

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/true-original-star-wars-trilogy-blu-rays-coming-in-2014-or-2015-from-disney.324294/page-6

That's pretty damn hilarious, it makes the 2004 color timing even worse, I thought they just threw the old timing out the window from the get-go... but, they actually referenced a print and came up with that candy colored mess! I guess what the idiot is describing there is the green colored lightsaber Luke is wielding aboard the Falcon. :) I know that there is common for some people that are color blind where the blue color can be confused with green, there are many instances in that timing when objects that should be green are blue and vice versa but this just cements the fact that the 2004 timing is one of the worst color timings I've seen applied to a major motion picture in the history of home video. Please just don't let him near a potential original trilogy release.

And yes, obviously those Senator screening photos cannot be trusted (but even those are more accurate than the 2004 timing). In any case, there's really no mystery about how the original Star Wars looked, there's tons of reference material out there, I own both fine LPP and IB technicolor print reference material and I know that many others on this forum do as well. Even private cinema screenings have been arranged just to see how it actually looks projected. And I can assure you that there's nothing really surprising about its colors, except for its beauty.

I would not have a problem showing my kids(if I had them) an original VHS tape of the OUT even here and now in 2014.

An entire generation grew up watching them on VHS(or Beta,V2000 ,laserdisc or TV broadcasts) without it hindering their love of the story,characters or it's special effects.

Check out this review from the net.movies usergroups  in jan 85' shortly after ESB was released( the person owns a Betamax---at the time considered to be slightly better than  VHS)

19/01/1985

My own findings with the rental films have been
as follows (and I realize that there are bound to be
variances from copy to copy):

(1) Empire Strikes Back - I rented this primarily for my
        4-year-old, but thoroughly enjoyed it.  In terms of
        picture quality and exploitation of the HiFi sound-
        track this has been the best pre-recorded videotape
        I've encountered.  I know that many sf-lovers found
        this a disappointing stopping point between the
        more spectacular "Star Wars" and "Return of the Jedi"
        but I found the characters more touching and absorbing
        than I had expected.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/net.movies/euqD0hWQabc

Now even back then we all knew that the optimum way to experience these films was in a theater.

Personally speaking, my love for these films was created in a theater(watching SW and ESB back to back in 81')........but that  love was solidified by watching them  on my V2000(early competitor to VHS) throughout the early 80's.

Many others never had the opportunity to watch them in a cinema but still fell in love with them through home video.

And here in lies the rub.

These films(and I am refering explicitly to the OUT) were not meant to be watched over and over again.

Lucas even says so in the commentary track for the 2004 DVD

"You were meant to see it once and be blown away"

Now ofcourse, many did go back to the cinema to watch these flicks again and again  during their original theatrical runs but you can't pause a 35mm print during a screening......you cant rewind or fast forward or watch it in slow motion.Those benefits are only the virtue of home video.

I am assuming you also saw them in the cinema at the time of the original releases but be honest Msycamore, do you honestly remember every precise detail of the story(or how good the picture quality was frame by frame) from those theatrical screenings.

Of course you don't(no one does).

You only know these films back to front(like me) because you have watched them far too many times on whatever home video format you have had the priviledge of owning.

You will NEVER EVER be able to enjoy these films  as much those original cinema screenings simply because you have been over exposed to them.

It does not matter if the OUT is released on Blu Ray or 4K............you will never be satisfied due to viewing oversaturation spanning  3 decades.

So you channel your anger at Lucas' s unwillingness to release the OUT or the changes he has made(both cosmetic and story wise)to the "special edition".

You very immaturely call  a video technician who worked on the 2004 DVDs ,Vidiot(of the SteveHoffman forum)  an Idiot for straying too far from the original colour pallete despite THE FACT you have absolutely no clue as to what the original colour pallete is.

Sure....you own a few transperencies(35mm or 70mm) and you have seen a few screen shots of the senator theater showing in 2010 ...... but that does not give you the authority(or anyone-else on this forum) of having a say in exactly how these film looked originally.....when the FACT of the matter is that  the quality of resolution and colour reproduction of any theatrical viewing of SW in the late 70's or early 80's would have varied from cinema to cinema and from print to print(be it 35mm or 70mm) .

It is one of the  main reasons why 35mm is being phased out in favour of digital (2K or 4K both of which have been scientifically proven to be  better than 35mm projection).

Now having said all that I still want to see a release of the OUT on Blu Ray as much as anyone-else here.

In the meantime the 2011 BluRay(upscaled to 4K in my case) or the original VHS will suffice.

I dont complain that I cant see the original theatrical edits of classics such as Das Boot or Amadeus on blu Ray.

I suggest that you do the same for Star Wars.

And if you cant enjoy it(any version on any format) then dont watch it.

You have clearly watched it too many times already.

I like how every post from danny has to include the remark of him owning some 4K equipment, like we should be in awe or something.

LexX said:

I like how every post from danny has to include the remark of him owning some 4K equipment, like we should be in awe or something.

No I don't expect anyone to be in awe of 4K.

I want them to understand that it is not some magic number that will resolve all the flaws that maybe inherent in an anlogue production like the original Star Wars.

4K will  merely highlight the limitation of the resolution of the optical dupes that constituted large parts of the original camera negative. that made up Star Wars back in 1977.

4K works best with footage that has been shot "in camera".

2001 Space Odyssey and Alien  fit into this bracket.

Close Encounters,Superman I and Star Trek The Motion Picture(and Star Wars) on the hand featured so many optical composites that 4K scans(and subsequent projection) would accentuate the disprecancies that exist between 1st generation negative (that features no optical compositing) and dupe negative(for all the VFX).

This makes for a very uneven presentation.

The lower resolution of 35mm projection(relative to 2K or 4K) and the obviously even much lower resolution of VHS and laserdisc obscured these same discrepancies.

danny_boy said:

It does not matter if the OUT is released on Blu Ray or 4K............you will never be satisfied due to viewing oversaturation spanning  3 decades.

Speak for yourself. There are many films that I have been way overexposed to in a similar manner from time to time through the years but I was perfectly satisfied with their video releases and I enjoy them immensely. Like I said in my earlier post, I can personally enjoy Star Wars in crude form, but we have basically been forced to enjoy it that way since it left the theater. I think fans and film lovers deserve something better.

danny_boy said:

So you channel your anger at Lucas' s unwillingness to release the OUT or the changes he has made(both cosmetic and story wise)to the "special edition".

You very immaturely call a video technician who worked on the 2004 DVDs ,Vidiot(of the SteveHoffman forum) an Idiot for straying too far from the original colour pallete despite THE FACT you have absolutely no clue as to what the original colour pallete is.

Sure....you own a few transperencies(35mm or 70mm) and you have seen a few screen shots of the senator theater showing in 2010 ...... but that does not give you the authority(or anyone-else on this forum) of having a say in exactly how these film looked originally.....when the FACT of the matter is that the quality of resolution and colour reproduction of any theatrical viewing of SW in the late 70's or early 80's would have varied from cinema to cinema and from print to print(be it 35mm or 70mm) .

It is one of the main reasons why 35mm is being phased out in favour of digital (2K or 4K both of which have been scientifically proven to be better than 35mm projection).

No, no I didn't call him an idiot for straying too far from the original color palette, that's your words and also an indication that you are indeed aware that they are far removed from the original. I was only making a jokey guess on what it may have been that he was surprised of being green colored. ;) It is actually a pretty well known fact that the lightsaber Luke wields in the 1977 Star Wars is blue colored, and that the green lights on Vader's belt are consistently green throughout the film. You don't really need an authority on these matters. But that is only scratching the surface of the poor 2004 color grading...

It is one thing to make a film look more modern for todays audience (as clearly was the intention in this case) but let's be honest and call it what it actually was - a technically subpar product, period. Lucasfilm even tried to shamelessly find a way to use some of the "deliberate creative decisions" made in 2004 to their advantage as an before and after example in a promotional piece on the official site when it was time for the BD release of that same master: http://starwars.com/news/saga_bluray_restoration.html 

Completely ridiculous. From what I've heard the majority of the transfers still look exactly the same. But at the end of the day this is what Lucas himself wanted and approved so the colorists shouldn't really be blamed too much.

I'm no authority on it but I have absolutely a clue as to what the original color palette is. I also saw a LPP projected last year. However, if you want real evidence of how prints look in comparison to the 2004 master I'm sure we could get a few examples displayed for you as there's a guy on this forum who we can pretty much refer to as an authority on these matters as he have access to LPP's and happens to own a IB-Tech print but it would be quite pointless when the flaws of those SE masters are pretty well known. You may as well continue to live in your fantasy world where you think it was possible for a print to look like that in the 70's.

danny_boy said:

And if you cant enjoy it(any version on any format) then dont watch it.

Again, like I said, I can personally enjoy 1977 Star Wars in crude form. I can however not enjoy what currently is passed off as Star Wars by Lucasfilm in any form.

danny_boy said:

LexX said:

I like how every post from danny has to include the remark of him owning some 4K equipment, like we should be in awe or something.

No I don't expect anyone to be in awe of 4K.

I want them to understand that it is not some magic number that will resolve all the flaws that maybe inherent in an anlogue production like the original Star Wars.

Yeah, but I think people here fully understand that, and we get that you are worried about it.

danny_boy said:

4K will merely highlight the limitation of the resolution of the optical dupes that constituted large parts of the original camera negative. that made up Star Wars back in 1977.

4K works best with footage that has been shot "in camera".

2001 Space Odyssey and Alien fit into this bracket.

Close Encounters,Superman I and Star Trek The Motion Picture(and Star Wars) on the hand featured so many optical composites that 4K scans(and subsequent projection) would accentuate the disprecancies that exist between 1st generation negative (that features no optical compositing) and dupe negative(for all the VFX).

This makes for a very uneven presentation.

The lower resolution of 35mm projection(relative to 2K or 4K) and the obviously even much lower resolution of VHS and laserdisc obscured these same discrepancies.

You are of course absolutely right about higher resolutions being much less forgiving when it comes to the shortcomings of the source material in a film such as Star Wars, that's why you preferably scan a theatrical interpositive like they did with the 1982 Blade Runner. Could be done this week if Lucasfilm wanted to. Some of the discrepancies should be there, it's a product of its time. Sure there would be fans such as you with their fancy 4K projectors that would still complain about the softness and grain if it was done correctly, there always are but that's what your Special Edition is for - a grain reduced Frankenstein Monster straight from the negative. (upscaled to 4K in your case. ;)

And you may not know this but there are advantages and benefits for restorations to be done in 4K or higher even if the end product is 2K/1080p.

Anchorhead said:

danny_boy said:

...because you have watched them far too many times on whatever home video format you have had the priviledge of owning.

You will NEVER EVER be able to enjoy these films  as much those original cinema screenings ...

......you will never be satisfied due to viewing oversaturation spanning  3 decades.

So you channel your anger at Lucas' s unwillingness to release the OUT or the changes he has made

You don't get to speak for other fans.  I strongly suspect that the fan base is angry over the revised history, the altered films, the lies, and the suppression.  I doubt number of times seen factors into it.

Considering the number of members of this board who own, watch, and somewhat support the SEs and prequels, I think their anger is placed correctly.

Got to disagree.

Fans are only aware of the revisons/changes because they have seen the films so many times.

That is my point.

Hypothetically speaking:

If you saw Star Wars just once in 1977 ------- and you did not see it again until 1997 would you honestly remember every detail of the story or every frame composition.

No.

Obviously each individual  will remember different aspects of the film depending on a whole host of factors.

Personally speaking I cannot remember the exact details of the Han /Greedo confrontation when I saw SW in 81' back to back with ESB(aged 6).(It is just not one of the scenes/images  that is embedded in my memory)

I ofcourse I did familiarize myself with that scene by  watching SW repeatedly on home video (from the age of 9 through to 12).---so when I saw the revised sequence in 1997(aged 23)  it felt  jarring and wrong----- even though I had not seen the film since 1987/1988(aged 13/14) at that point.

But:

I would not have remembered the intracacies of that  scene from just that 1981 theatrical screening alone despite the fact that is the presentation that is most dear to me personally.

2001 Space Odyssey had 19 minutes of footage cut by Stanley Kubrik himself after it premiered but before it went into it's proper nationwide theatrical run.

That original version(as it premiered) has never been seen on home video(or any theatrical screening since).

That was Kubrik's intent(ithis lost footage only recently resurfaced in 2010!----but will not be re-incorporated back into the main film).

And there is hardly any public outcry regarding the supression of that "original" version because 2001(despite it's own huge cultural prestige) has had nowhere near the same level of overexposure as Star Wars.

Lucas is no different to Kubrik---they both altered their works of art after the fact(in different ways and chronologies ofcourse).

But Lucas has to battle with the fact that there are people out there who think they know his film better than he does himself.  

@msycamore

I dont dispute your passion or your knowledge  for SW in it's original version.

I want to see that original version released on BluRay in a package similar to  what they did with Blade Runner.

That is my personal ideal scenario.

But like Kubrik who wanted us to watch 2001 without  the original extra 19 minutes that were included in the premiere screenings------Lucas wants us to watch SW with all the digital stuff and story revisions.

Kubrik gets away with it because hardly anyone remembers what those sacred 19 minutes were(although it is documented on wikipedia/IMBD) but Lucas does not because everyone has seen his film way too many times(me included).

Who is this Kubrik guy? The fellow who invented that cube? ;)

Kubrick's 2001 trims were well documented before the internet. Even the official making of book from the early 70's mentioned them and had a still or two. Would be nice if we got to see it for the 50th anniversary in 2018.

In any case, Stanley used opening weekends/limited runs the way other filmmakers used preview screenings. The Shining lost an entire scene at the end with Wendy and Danny safe in a hospital, for example. That's different than radically altering your film twenty years later.

danny_boy said:

Kubrik gets away with it because hardly anyone remembers what those sacred 19 minutes were(although it is documented on wikipedia/IMBD) but Lucas does not because everyone has seen his film way too many times(me included).

Kubrick also gets away with it because the edited version is just about as good as the opening day version.  If he'd added a few wiggly dinosaurs on the moon, or had Hal be the first one to get locked outside the pod bay door, or similar inanities, it's quite possible 2001 would not be considered a classic today.  Similarly, if George had made his 1997 edits twenty years earlier, there might not have been enough studio interest to even make Empire.  You never know.

But yeah, in principle, the movie, as released on opening day, should always be available as an option.  But you also can't ignore the obvious--people aren't so attached to the originals only because they saw them so many times--they saw them so many times only because they loved them so much.  Had the Special Editions been as good as the originals, the outrage over George's alterations could easily have been about the same as the dust-up over 2001. 

You simply can't pretend the quality of the editing doesn't matter.

Basically it's two things:

He's saying people are over-reacting about a "lack of a good release" because image quality is only a very small part of what makes the trilogy enjoyable, and because projection prints really aren't all that quality-wise anyway.  And it's a pretty good point to make.  Not sure he needs to make it in every single post, but it's a good point nevertheless.

He's saying most of why people hate the SE's is because they grew so used to the OT.  That argument is BS, because it pretends quality isn't a factor.  (it's a bit like saying if you wanna watch This Island Earth, you should just go ahead and watch MST3K: The Movie.  It shares a lot of the same audio and video so it's effectively the same thing)

Mavericks said:

Wait, how 1080p can be upscaled to 4K? First of all if the signal is Full HD then - when transmitted  - regardless of what def a receiver is it will still be 1080p. 

Correct.

Mavericks said:

When Blu-ray is played on so called "4K" display the image is downscaled to High Definition.

With all due respect, this reads as nonsense.

Displaying an AxB image on a fixed-pixel NxM display where A<N and B<M requires an upsampling algorithm. This is what danny_boy means by "upscaling".

JEDIT: I think what you're trying to say is that an HD image on a UHD display is still HD. If this is true, then the word "downgrade" would be more appropriate for what I quoted above.

CatBus said:

If he'd added a few wiggly dinosaurs on the moon, or had Hal be the first one to get locked outside the pod bay door, or similar inanities, it's quite possible 2001 would not be considered a classic today. 

 :)

Quite interesting actually. On repeated viewings I notice those little things I hadn't noticed before and in fact wasn't supposed to notice (garbage mattes, mainly, but also some mirrored shots). But, these movies are, after all, the intricate masterpieces of a fallible race of sentient beings.