There's still the Boston screening, which was publicized and got media coverage.
Where were you in '77?
msycamore said:
Mike O said:
I'm not saying this to be a smartass, but are you sure?
If we are to believe what has been said and written about it in several magazines, articles, documentaries etc, yes that is the way they approached the cleanup process.
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars/articles/sped/ssws/pg1.htm
Fortunately, Fox's head of postproduction, Ted Gagliano, made the restoration of Star Wars a personal labor of love, working closely with YCM Labs, Pacific Title, Lucasfilm editorial, ILM and Skywalker Sound. Had the negative been constructed more conventionally, the first order of business would have been to wash it in a sulfur bath a 104F, then wipe it down by hand. But those four different film stocks couldn't be washed together; instead, they had to be separated and washed in batches. That meant dissecting the original Star Wars negative, washing it, and then reassembling it. "That made everybody suck in their breath, " Kennedy says, recalling the stressfull situation. "Thankfully, Robert Hart, the neg cutter on the second and third films, came in to put the negative back together. After doing various tests, we found out right away that nothing beats scanning original negative. Star Wars was an A-B neg cut, which meant that they could actually lift and slug original negative and send it back to ILM whenever we were enhancing a live-action shot. I think this is the first time someone has tried to bring a Seventies effects film back to the big screen."
Mike O said:
Do you think he was lying, misinformed, or just being an idiot?
No, I absolutely don't think he was lying, being misinformed nor do I think he's an idiot. David Tanaka were a visual effects editor at ILM who was directly involved with this "restoration." He was apparently responsible for finding the elements for the original optical effects so that they could be digitally recomposited.
I just find it frustrating hearing these vague stories on how things went down as there's been a lot of confusion and different thoughts on what actually was done to the original negative. It effectively muddies the water. Reading that quote from arstechnica again, my guess is that when he says original negative he's actually talking about those negative bits and pieces they had to track down for recreating and making their new visual effect shots and not the actual finished cut negative that was disassembled, washed and reassembled. But what he was saying may of course have been perfectly clear to you or everyone else besides me.
So, Mike O, what did you make of his story? Do you think I am misinformed, or just being an idiot? ;)
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!
generalfrevious said:
You know what, I don't care about whether or not Cameron made his movies with the wrong color timing. I guess I could see the difference if I trained my eyes to spot them, and I could understand it bothering me.
But what Lucas is doing to the OT is unique. I know few believe this, but I think he wants to spite us and make one of the most significant films of all time disappear off the face of the Earth. He lured us, and is now beating us for no reason. What did we ever do to him to deserve this treatment? Nothing. It was his plan all along to piss on the fans, it just took him twenty years to do it so he could fool us into thinking he was the hero while purging everyone else that made the OT great like Stalin did 50 years earlier. He is a stupid and evil man, and the tragedy is that when he passes away, it will be without any remorse for what he has done.
Like I said, all Cameron has done is make everything teal and orange. That's splitting hairs compared to the SE.
What Lucas did to the OT is unique, I don't know if outside of Kubrick there's been any other filmmaker who's actively destroyed his own work in an attempt to revise history. This does, not, however, absolve Cameron of anything. He's engaging in exactly the same type of revisionism, and in a much more subtle way. While few members of the general public care about what happened to Star Wars, fewer still care about what happens as regard color timing since many HDTVs aren't even calibrated properly (I've been having trouble with mine). And neither scenario is one which the average viewer is likely to care enough about to boycott the releases, which is why it's allowed to continue.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
All you're talking about is whether or not Cameron is using the right set of paints. That issue will resolve itself years down the road. Lucas is burning down the whole art museum just because he happens to own the deed to the property. And Kubrick and Lucas should never be mentioned in the same context, ever. Kubrick was an artist, while Lucas is a sociopathic businessman who knows nothing about basic storytelling.
Would you suggest poison?
Ol’ George has the GOUT, I see.
At least we will have a fixed version of Aliens much sooner than a properly restored OOT.
And the revisions Kubrick did to his movies were not done decades after they had been in the public consciousness. And he didn't withdraw a clockwork orange from circulation in the UK just because it was some "rough draft" we weren't supposed to watch.
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.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Personally I've had enough of him. He's the cheapest visionary I've ever known - and he came up with the franchise in the first place! ...unless he plagiarized it from someone else.... hm....
Ol’ George has the GOUT, I see.
Gary Kurtz. He might be the real creator of Star Wars, and Lucas has revised his own story so much that the truth is forever obscured.
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/05/could-disney-finally-give-us-the-remastered-unedited-star-wars-we-want/
We're fucked. 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.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
Mike O said:
Lucas watching the OOT and sinking in his chair
Too bad for Lucas that he doesn't own the OOT anymore.
Mike O said:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/05/could-disney-finally-give-us-the-remastered-unedited-star-wars-we-want/
We're fucked. 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.
This site, and certain projects carried on by it's members, are proof we are not screwed. It may take a little while, but we really don't need George or Disney to provide the OOT anymore. The fans are doing it.
Where were you in '77?
If the Fox/Disney situation is all that's holding up a restored OOT then we're definitely not screwed. That will resolve itself eventually, even if it's not until 2020.* To me there is way too much money to be made by both corporations for it not to happen. In any event, it's certainly out of George's control now.
Like SilverWook said, we're doing a pretty good job of preserving the older versions all by ourselves.
*Speaking of which, if Disney will still have to pay for Ep4, is Fox really gonna charge them any less than they would for all six movies? There might not be a point in waiting.
They have a lot money, so getting a restored OOT out now is just a matter of negotiation between the two companies.
Fang Zei said:
If the Fox/Disney situation is all that's holding up a restored OOT then we're definitely not screwed. That will resolve itself eventually, even if it's not until 2020.* To me there is way too much money to be made by both corporations for it not to happen. In any event, it's certainly out of George's control now.
Like SilverWook said, we're doing a pretty good job of preserving the older versions all by ourselves.
*Speaking of which, if Disney will still have to pay for Ep4, is Fox really gonna charge them any less than they would for all six movies? There might not be a point in waiting.
Disney could perhaps buy it outright if Fox is willing to sell it. But given that God hates Star Wars fans, I'm not holding out much hope. And even then, 2020 is a long wait.
SilverWook 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. 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.
This site, and certain projects carried on by it's members, are proof we are not screwed. It may take a little while, but we really don't need George or Disney to provide the OOT anymore. The fans are doing it.
Fans don't have access to 35mm negatives. Though the fact that technology has reached the point where fans are capable of doing what they are is pretty amazing. Though it's sad that they care way more than the creative entities who actually fucking made the things.
generalfrevious said:
They have a lot money, so getting a restored OOT out now is just a matter of negotiation between the two companies.
We hope. Obviously, what condition the negatives are in, what kind of work needs to be done, how it will look if it happens, etc. is all purely fan speculation at this point.
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 incredible 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.
darklordoftech said:
Mike O said:
Lucas watching the OOT and sinking in his chair
Too bad for Lucas that he doesn't own the OOT anymore.
Yeah, well, maybe it'd give him some idea of how all of us feel.
“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
I've given up on the negative. Just use an IP, there's nothing unfixable about any of the existing ones, even with all their weird glue marks, age, scratches and colors. In 2014, home video is dealing with problematic old sources every day, it's no big deal. (And GL wouldn't have had them destroyed. Not because it would be wrong but because you would need them for further changes and dicking around- they are sort of the de facto negative for the original composites that are too deteriorated. The Blade Runner final cut has shots that only existed in the workprint which is even further down the pipeline. And they're scanned and integrated with original negative pretty seamlessly)
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.
It seems like people are really embracing the new characters. In fact, the big question people ask me now about Star Wars is, “Are Finn and Poe gay lovers?” And really how the f*ck would I know? My second husband left me for a man, so my gaydar isn’t exactly what you’d call Death Star level quality. ----Carrie Fisher
lovelikewinter said:
Disney needs to generate good will for Star Wars after the last decade of Prequel-only attention.
They don't need good will. Everyone is going to see those movies regardless of anything - it's just one of those franchises.
I'd suggest bribing them.
Ol’ George has the GOUT, I see.
lovelikewinter said: 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.
Whatever source they use, I'm certain that we'll see fixed sabers. The saber problems are a glaring oversight that I can't imagine getting past anybody besides Lucas.
FrankT said:
I'd suggest bribing them.
Yes ... bribe them ... that's the trick.
*quietly releases kidnapped family members of Disney head honchos*
It's a bit of a tragedy that we may never see a proper restoration from the O-neg, but decent scans of release prints will still look better than most theatrical presentations of the OOT and will even look better than the official Blu-rays in many ways.
I wonder... Has the relative unavailability of the OOT made its stature bigger than it otherwise would have been?
I still like my idea of Disney just giving Fox theatrical distribution on VII-IX (plus a little extra) in exchange for getting all of this taken care of right now.
Fang Zei said:
I still like my idea of Disney just giving Fox theatrical distribution on VII-IX (plus a little extra) in exchange for getting all of this taken care of right now.
Heh, no way in hell that's happening. Disney didn't pay $4 billion for nothing.
generalfrevious said:
I wonder... Has the relative unavailability of the OOT made its stature bigger than it otherwise would have been?
You bet.
Lucas has been playing you all along.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8