Sign In

70mm screening

Author
Time
Some guys have all the luck....

"Last night a famous collector pulled out his 1977 70mm mag print of STAR WARS and projected it for a few selected guests."

read more

However, in practice you must take into account the “fuckwit factor”. Just talk to Darth Mallwalker…
-Moth3r

Author
Time
Wow. That guy is lucky. A personal 70mm screening room AND a 70mm SW print?? Maybe we can all pitch in to buy an Arrilaser and make our own scan of it. :p

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
Wow, there can't be that many good 70-mm prints out there. Does anyone know if new ones were created for the 81/82 re-releases?
I saw a 70mm showing around 1990 and it looked FANTASTIC (this was the same festival of 70mm in L.A. where the workprint of Blade Runner was unearthed), but I can't remember if it had "A New Hope" at the beginning. I wonder if that print was privately owned or from Fox.
Author
Time
It is nice to see whole other forums with people who appreciate the originals.
Author
Time
Pieces and even entire reels of 70mm prints have turned up on Ebay over the years, and they were all horribly faded, so this is amazing that someone has a decent print!

If only this "famous collector" was a member of our little group!
originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
I have some strips of an original 70mm print and they are really pink. I'm surprised that there are any 70mm prints still out there that have just "turned a bit".
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1047/celcollectiongi7.jpg

Author
Time
 (Edited)
zombie84 said:

Maybe we can all pitch in to buy an Arrilaser and make our own scan of it. :p

Failing that, just take a PC or Mac along with one of THESE in it, and get a capture of that elusive 6-track!

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
I've been wondering lately why someone doesn't just track down one of these prints and do a bootleg digital version of better quality than the GOUT dvds. I didn't realize they were that rare or in poor condition, but now that I'm thinking about it that makes sense - I'm sure few people thought to keep a copy in proper storage like that.

Someone told me that a collector offered a good copy of it on film to Lucas and he turned the guy down.
Author
Time
I know that any company that could do a proper scan likely wouldn't touch a Star Wars print because of copyright infringment. However, in the US, there is an exception to legally back up a copy of something if the current copyright holder does not have the material, or is otherwise unable to. It would still be illegal to publicaly screen such a video but then again, so were the dvd's made from the laserdiscs.
I'm just wondering if recording one of those prints off a screen with a decent video camera might get something at least better than the Gout.
1. There would be no THX smearing.
2. Depending on which lens was used on the projector, the film could be left vertically squeezed so an animorphic recording would be possible. (although 70mm is not anamorphic)

Seriously, wouldn't even my Hi8 camera yield more resolution than a D1 letterboxed master tape if the film was squeezed to fit a 4:3 frame?

My only other crazy idea would be to check with film preservation organizations in Rhode Island. A friend of mine (we live in the midwest) told me his grandfather owned a theatre there and has all the prints for all kinds of films willed to some museum or similar organization.

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
Knightmessenger said:

I know that any company that could do a proper scan likely wouldn't touch a Star Wars print because of copyright infringment. However, in the US, there is an exception to legally back up a copy of something if the current copyright holder does not have the material, or is otherwise unable to. It would still be illegal to publicaly screen such a video but then again, so were the dvd's made from the laserdiscs.


I wonder if every quote from George Lucas saying something to the effect of "the original film was destroyed and cannot be recovered" would be a good defense in court.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Knightmessenger said:

I know that any company that could do a proper scan likely wouldn't touch a Star Wars print because of copyright infringment.

Get me a 70mm print, and Puggo will find a way to scan it.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
It turns out it was almost as crazy as I thought it was.

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
 (Edited)
the fact that only a few collectors and film collections have these is heartbreaking.

That all we have is the non anamorphic 2006 gout home video release vs memories of its original theatrical exhibition in 35mm and 70mm showcase theaters.

i'm suprised the guy did not face legal action from lucas for screening a non special edition version for a few friends.

indeed he has done everything he could do to keep them out of the hands of private collectors including recalling all original theatrical prints and having them destroyed.

He could not get his hands on the library of Congress copies. Afi copies or bfi copies though. That and the fact that a few unnamed collectors possess original versions leaves some hope.

I think the original I.P.'s as well as the dailies and selected takes still exist on reels in lucas cold storage vault. as well as the dye transfer print of 1977 star wars.

We do know he cut up and altered the original physical negative to make the special edition. this seems to me actually a almost criminal outrage, that the original footage cut ended up in trim bins and destroyed is beyond words.

one of the reasons i have not gone and have boycotted the star wars celebrations is because they don't even show versions of the original films. We know lucas has prints in his vaults someplace, he would not have been crazy enough to have them destroyed as well.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
OK, yes. Now I am starting to really dislike Mr Lucas. Whatever he was, now hes a petulant old man who meanly refuses to sell what he allowed every man and his dog to pay him hundreds of millions of dollars for in 1977.

Like others, I think that once you release a film for public consumption, YES, you should give up the right to absolute control over it. At the least preservation in the highest possible quality should be possible.

Otherwise, I'm sorry, but the copyright deal is off.
Darth Lucas: I am altering the trilogy. Pray I don't alter it further.
Author
Time
skyjedi2005 said:

I think the original I.P.'s as well as the dailies and selected takes still exist on reels in lucas cold storage vault. as well as the dye transfer print of 1977 star wars.


This is the question I keep coming back to.

If the original IP's still exist then that's all that matters. Then Lucas really is just sitting on them and told the publicist to tell us that "existing prints are in bad condition." Because even if that's true, "bad" could mean anything. It doesn't necessarily mean that the IP's are beyond any hope of restoration.

Aren't the IP's all that really matters in regards to the OOT anyway? Yea, it's a shame about the O-neg, but what's done is done and I'm getting tired of people acting like it's the "end all be all" of us ever seeing the OOT remastered. All we would need is the IP's or, if worst came to worst, the theatrical release prints. But I'm hoping it doesn't end up resorting to that because a print is even further removed from the original quality of the negative than the IP already is.
Author
Time
Can I just point everybody to this thread and the information in the 1st post.

starwarsmania said:

GARY KURTZ (PRODUCER-STAR WARS AND THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK)

For the re-mastering of STAR WARS for the SPECIAL EDITION, Kurtz recalls that scenes on the negative were so badly scratched that they had to use the best quality material possible from the remaining worldwide theatrical prints used in cinemas twenty years early. It was a difficult job finding good quality prints and Kurtz was heavily involved in this work-even loaning LUCASFILM his own personal print of the movie for one scene which was heavily damaged on the original.



This would support the claim that the negatives have either been destroyed or are way too damaged to be useful in any future restoration but the fact that they used theatrical prints when they remasterd the '97 SE means thay could do that again.

Anyway, lets hope that somewhere a rich collecter has a 70mm print of Empire.

Your brain just makes s**t up!

A fate worse than death? Having your head digitally replaced with that of Hayden Christensen!

Author
Time
I thought GL outright destroying the OOT negatives was a tad far-fetched the first time I heard it. Now I know the truth: time did it for him.
Author
Time
The negatives WERE deteriorating. The multi-million dollar restoration effort effectively resolved this issue.

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
Have there ever been any good detailed articles on the actual restoration process?

Everything I recall seeing or reading 11 years ago was focused more on the special edition changes.
originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)
bits and pieces on the restoration can be seen in the magic and the mystery, the making of the special edition documentary on the laserdisc.

I'll haver to try and dig them up online but i believe cinefex or american cinematographer had some info on the restoration not too sure though

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars/index.html

found this article on the restoration.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
The info is piecemeal, there was some stuff on it in the home theater mags, theres some stuff on it in American Cineamtographer, and other info has come out in books and just random interviews.

The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!

"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."

--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010

Author
Time
Thanks for the info!
originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
It was mentioned on the official Star Wars site back in 1997 that before any alterations could be made, they had to make a restored unaltered print first. I can't imagine why you would then cut up that reel instead of make a duplicate first. Lucas didn't know exactly what he would change. There was an article about how redoing one of the Death Star battle shots would make other ones look dated. So they would redo more. And there are the shots that used original footage with CG added. Lucas might have thought in another 20 years he may want to redo some of the CGI so that be easier if he was sure to save an unaltered print.
Like when Jabba was redone in ANH in '04, did they go back to a print with just Mulholland in it and make a new Jabba or just paste it over the '97 one? Some of the CU frames of Han Solo that were cut out in the Greedo scene to make way for the overhead shot were reinserted back in for the dvd. The words "Yes" and "I" were put back to "bet you have."
(The '97 Greedo scene can be found on the deleted scenes video of the Episode I dvd if you want to check)

So don't tell me Lucas can't restore footage that was removed in '97, he already did. I just wish there was an easier way to show or explain this.

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time
 (Edited)
SilverWook said:

Have there ever been any good detailed articles on the actual restoration process?

Everything I recall seeing or reading 11 years ago was focused more on the special edition changes.


There was also quite a bit of detailed info about the restoration in the ILM "digital realm" book that came out a while back. I remember skimming through it at a bookstore a few yrs ago, and that was the first place I think I ever read about the infamous CRI dupe stock. One of the members of the Home Theater Forum read the book and paraphrased some of the info about the restoration (I'm sure he won't mind if I quote him here):

"I read about the restoration of "Star Wars" in the book "Industrial Light and Magic: Into the Digital Realm". I don't have the text in front of me so I have to rely on memory.

Three-fourths of "Star Wars" negative went threw a chemical bath to clean it, then wet gate printed to get rid of scratches and the remaining dirt.

One-fourth of the movies negative was to damaged to do that too, so the footage was replaced in one of three ways. One involved replacing the footage from an interpositive made of "Star Wars" in 1985 for the video release. Another was used if the damaged footage was an effects shot. ILM dug out the original plates of those shots and sent them to Pacific Title, who recombined the plates with an optical printer (I guess ILM couldn't do this themselves because they had gotten rid of all of there optical printers.) The third involved ILM scanning the footage in and correcting it in the digital realm.

So to answer your question, lets say approxatly 5/6 of "Star Wars" was restored photochemcially and 1/6 digitally (and this only done if the footage couldn't be photochemically restored for some reason). Of course, this dosen't take into account all of the new CGI that Lucas added.

Incidently, the audio restoration involved Ben Burtt digging out all the original audio tapes of "Star Wars" and remixing them digitally at Skywalker Sound. (I remembering hearing that in a video promotional feature on the Special Editions at the time)."


Knightmessenger said:

ANH in '04, did they go back to a print with just Mulholland in it and make a new Jabba or just paste it over the '97 one? Some of the CU frames of Han Solo that were cut out in the Greedo scene to make way for the overhead shot were reinserted back in for the dvd. The words "Yes" and "I" were put back to "bet you have."
(The '97 Greedo scene can be found on the deleted scenes video of the Episode I dvd if you want to check)

So don't tell me Lucas can't restore footage that was removed in '97, he already did. I just wish there was an easier way to show or explain this.


I agree with that, Knightmessenger, and feel the same way you do.