Fang Zei said:
Finally, something:
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/05/15/new-star-wars-rumors-include-original-trilogy-re-release-on-blu-rayvod-and-more/
No disrespect to said website, I don't know how reliable they are or are not, but this still amounts to little more than the rumor-mill stuff we've been hearing endless speculation about lately. The so-called e-mail they've intercepted? Maybe they're telling the truth, but we have no way of knowing, and I remain skeptical. It sounds like the same endless circular speculation we've been doing ever since Disney bought the franchise.
msycamore said:
Mike O said:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/05/could-disney-finally-give-us-the-remastered-unedited-star-wars-we-want/
We're fucked.
It's just an article basically repeating word for word what Kaminski's articles already says (which I linked to), info that has been up on his sites for years now.
Mike O said:
And that link where Drew talks about Lucas watching the OOT and sinking in his chair the way we do when we watch the SE is particularly heartbreaking. I think it's further damning evidence that like a certain other sci-fi luminary, we're fighting a war we've already lost.
But c'mon, why do you even watch the SE?
Sadly there has never been a war to win, the real situation is that most SW-fans have the battered wife syndrome, they buy their SW-product and then later they whine about it endlessly on message boards. After fifteen years there's still people discussing those awful prequel movies every day. They bought the ticket, they bought the VHS/LD, they bought the DVD and they bought the BD but they still keep going. The same with the SE...
Mike O said:
msycamore said:
Mike O said:
I didn't mean any disrespect, so I apologize if you took it that way. I merely meant that what you were suggesting was that what he was saying was incorrect (Or at least that's how I interpreted what you were saying.). It just sounded like you were saying that he had his facts wrong, and I was wondering why you believed that. I apologize if I came across as confrontational in any way, that was not my intention!
It's cool Mike, no problem. :) I guess in the last bit in my response to you I also appeared a little more grumpy than what's really was the case and intended. Irony doesn't do well in text form and English isn't my first language either. Still, I personally find it difficult to make any sense of what the former ILM'er really is talking about in that vague anecdote. I really recommend anyone who is interested in the subject who haven't yet read the great coverage on the SE over at American Cinematographer to take a look, Kaminski aka Zombie also did a nice summary on the SE restoration here: http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html
We know from the facts presented to us that the original negative was in bad shape when they started to work with it, and that it had to be repaired. The shots on the infamous CRI-stock (mostly optical effect shots, wipes and dissolves etc) had deteriorated and it was decided to digitally recomposite most of those shots, (this is obviously the part where it stopped being a true restoration) in other instances new negative pieces were made from interpositives and separation masters. Had the mindset behind this project only been restoration and not enhancement the faded CRI-stock segments had been lifted from interpositives or separation masters as well. But as we know, the digital recomposites were only the beginning...
But the story from Tanaka about negative being partly dissolved in a chemical solution when reproducing interpositives doesn't sound good no matter what he's talking about in that context. Speaking as a layman the MO sounds very unprofessional. The ones who had the task of cleaning the original negative knew that Star Wars consisted of several different film stocks, it's nothing weird or incredibly unique, so they knew perfectly well what had to be done. The stuff in Tanaka's story sounds more like a clown operation, "Let's do this and see what's comin' out at the other end!" But with Lucasfilm nothing would surprise me any longer.
In the end all of this have nothing to do with the absence of Lucas' original films on DVD or BD anyway. Some fans and nutcases seem to still believe that those deteriorated (I believe 62 shots) on CRI-stock is the reason we cannot get this classic film restored when it's only a case of a single person who doesn't want it to happen.
This sounds like an incredibly complicated issue, partially the fault of Lucas' constant revisionism, and partially just of plain old time being unkind to negatives which were apparently used and abused.
Yeah, it definitely was back in the nineties. Today it's a much more easy and much less costly procedure. It's only a question about restoring sixty something deteriorated shots. As film historian and preservationist Robert Harris said back in 2006, "As the original negative of Star Wars, like any number of other effects-intensive films, as well as certain 65mm productions, and all properly cut 16mm productions, was cut A / B roll checkerboard, it means that each and every shot could be easily disconnected from those on either side and replaced -- or removed and used elsewhere, as in the SE, without damage or loss of frames."
Kershner's Empire and Marquand's Jedi are already supposed to be in good shape. But as long as George Lucas don't want them restored and re-released, I personally think it's very unlikely that Lucasfilm will go against his wishes. He is the director, founder and former owner of the company, friend, shareholder and so on...
About those distribution rights that are so often brought up these days whenever discussions of a potential video rerelease of the original films happen, can someone initiated enough please explain to me what has so dramatically changed about the deals between Lucasfilm and Fox since Disney bought the company? Maybe I'm really stupid but why would anything have changed, Fox has been the distributor for Star Wars all these years, apparently they will retain them for the '77 film in perpetuity. Disney and Lucasfilm is the owner of the films, who then is the company distributing their film seems irrelevant to me, not for the lucky distributor of course.
Someone care to explain this issue to someone who may have missed the whole point. Why would the situation regarding a re-release be any different now than for say ten years ago? Even if Fox is the distributor, isn't it entirely up to Disney/Lucasfilm to decide when or if something is going to be distributed.
I don't watch the SE. I haven't watched anything Star Wars in many years, and until such time as the OOT comes out remastered in 4K (Which will likely happen around the time Richard Dawkins converts to Christianity), I have no intention of doing so. And I have not bought a single goddam thing related to Star Wars since at least the 2005, and I have no intention of doing so again. You are right, of course, that in spite of their complaining, many fans do indeed purchase whatever Star Wars stuff comes out, but even if they didn't the mainstream presence of the franchise is so gigantic that the vast majority of the mainstream don't care, and certainly wouldn't boycott anything in the name of the OOT. As far as the whole situation goes, for Fox, it probably isn't hugely different than when Lucasfilm had the franchise: they'd get a cut of the profits the same way. So they probably wouldn't be opposed to it. Disney, however, probably have no interest in sharing, especially after spending $4 billion.
lovelikewinter said:
As long as Disney isn't too greedy and agrees to a fair sharing of profits, I can see Fox playing ball and doing a OOT release. Disney needs to generate good will for Star Wars after the last decade of Prequel-only attention. Fox will have only so long to get money from Star Wars. Do it.
Just get rid of the awful Lowry restoration and use the GL Technicolor print as a color source, it should be good. Disney and Fox know what the fans want, and they want happy fans for 2015.
I don't think they much care what fans of the OOT want. Episode VII could project a blank screen for 3 hours and it will still become one of the five highest-grossing films of all time. What the 1% of the fanbase who care about the OOT think probably isn't of much interest to Disney.
lovelikewinter said:
As long as Disney isn't too greedy and agrees to a fair sharing of profits, I can see Fox playing ball and doing a OOT release. Disney needs to generate good will for Star Wars after the last decade of Prequel-only attention. Fox will have only so long to get money from Star Wars. Do it.
Just get rid of the awful Lowry restoration and use the GL Technicolor print as a color source, it should be good. Disney and Fox know what the fans want, and they want happy fans for 2015.
I don't think they much care what fans of the OOT want. Episode VII could project a blank screen for 3 hours and it will still become one of the five highest-grossing films of all time. What the 1% of the fanbase who care about the OOT think probably isn't of much interest to Disney.
m_s0 said:
lovelikewinter said:
Disney needs to generate good will for Star Wars after the last decade of Prequel-only attention.
They don't need goodwill. Everyone is going to see those movies regardless of anything - it's just one of those franchises.
Agreed. This is a license to print money.
Easterhay said:
DominicCobb said:
More important than references, the original trilogy continues to strongly influence the majority of science fiction/fantasy and blockbuster films made today.
I very much doubt that. What's popular at the moment? Action hero films and Peter Jackson's Tolkien adaptations. Both of which we'd have if Star Wars didn't exist.
I don't know if we'd have the blockbuster mentality the way we do today if it hadn't been for Star Wars, and Jackson has cited Lucas as an influence, and is certainly indebted to him (and his detractors will certainly tell you so in terms of his overuse of FX and other flaws too). Star Wars still casts a long shadow.