This is the biggest conundrum for me when it comes to the idea of releasing an OUT on blu-ray. Everyone has a different opinion of what it should be ... Basically what I'm saying is there is no consensus, which is a potential problem.
And to comment on topic - and I said this countless times before - in a case of a semi-special edition, who will decide what's still ok and what isn't - for someone the line could be drawn at matte-lines, to someone else it may be the windows in Cloud City and to yet another person a digital Dewback may be preferable to a stiff rubber figurine.
If a semi-specialized OOT were released, obviously the execs at Disney and LFL would make the calls on any changes, and they would only be interested in providing an optimal viewing experience for the original trilogy, as opposed to all of the ulterior motives Lucas had in the 1990s.
The mere undertaking of such a product, I would argue, would imply the desire to get it right.
Not everyone may get exactly what they want, but if Disney and LFL did it right -- and they would have every reason to do so -- most fans would be pleased with the final product.
There's no consensus, but there's a very simple solution: scan an IP, grade to a good release print, fix annoying temporal anomalies (e.g., flicker), dirt/scratch clean, encode, and release.
I don't see how anyone can argue against a "this is the original, as it was" release.
I think everyone here wants the 1977, 1980, and 1983 original theatrical releases restored. It makes sense for Disney to do so both for historical purposes, and also from a business point of view. There's a market for it.
But releasing only the (unaltered) OOT probably doesn't maximize the value of the Original Trilogy.
Nor do the current SE's and their backlash, I'm sure we can all agree.
If some fans want improved SPFX, then they can do it on their own with this kind of release
Most fans, I would argue, don't have the ability nor the time to make their own fan edits.
They just want to buy a packaged BluRay or DVD, pop it in, and watch on TV.
The whole problem with this opinion Alderaan is arguing for is that there's no way, if his desired version existed, we'd get a proper untouched OOT.
So certain are you? Always with you what cannot be done.
If you could provide an explanation why a semi-specialized OOT and an unaltered OOT are mutually exclusive, maybe I would better understand your perspective. I see no reason why both can't be done at the same time.
If support is being vocally thrown behind one or the other, it should be for the untouched OOT
I suspect this is the reason you are against the idea -- a fear that anything other than the (unaltered) OOT would diminish your chances of getting just that -- but I could be wrong? If that's the case, I'm taking the opposite side of that argument. Yes, it's historically important to restore the original theatrical releases, and there are those of us who would like to see them too, me included. But the largest segment of fandom and the population at large would probably be more interested in watching what camron and Harmy deemed a "Showcase semi-specialized edition".
Which, by the way, brings me to this whole post:
newly composited original elements (but no CGI embelishments), put together as a "Showcase" version for a modern DCP/Blu-Ray/4K, would be ideal for a wide release of the Classic cuts. Though CatBus makes a perfect point about preserving the film(s) as a product of their time (and where would Disney hypothetically draw the line should they decide to play in the Lucas sandbox?), I believe tidying up the original compositing would eliminate the biggest remaining distraction for modern audiences. Everything about set design, hairstyles, costumes, etc., should remain as it is, because, those are aspects that contemporary audiences *expect* to see, and will not find jarring, in the way that a blurry landspeeder (1970's VFX) or ronto creature (1990's VFX) would on a modern screen. In other words, cheap sets and costumes, by themselves, don't degrade the image quality in the way that photochemically-composited VFX may have (in some cases).
^^^This sums up my thoughts better than I could ever say them, thanks camron!
All of Disney's alterations are either results of branching or in response to a claim that something is offensive/sexual/copyright-infringing, etc. Never has a non-branching "original version" had updated special effects.
Yeah but Star Wars ain't exactly Disney, if you know what I mean.
Ryan McAvoy said:
In a similar way, I wouldn't mind a stunning new transfer of the OT that corrected a few flaws Adywan style but stayed true to the original print in spirit. Having the original untouched version as well would of course be preferrable.
And finally, this post of yours Ryan brings me to a point I wanted to make last night but never got around to. Part of Star Wars's history was that for a generation, the effects were mind-blowing. Visual deficiencies were barely noticed or overlooked because 99% of what you saw on the screen was incredible. Those deficiencies should all be preserved in an (unaltered) OOT for historical purposes, of course. After all, that technology was a moment in time, and forever changed film-making.
But today and going forward, audiences don't share the same perspective. Most of the original trilogy looks timeless -- the effects and visuals have aged very well. But there are some things that stick out like a sore thumb, and the modern viewer will be distracted by these things more than those who were in awe at theatrical releases. For some, that causes them to lose their suspension of disbelief, which diminishes the story and entertainment value for new viewers. And for others, it's simply nice to have our favorite films look and feel like they are young again.