Besides "The films need to be the way I want them," has Lucas stated anything as to why the Blu-rays became the travesty that they are? — Page 8

generalfrevious said:

I wonder... Has the relative unavailability of the OOT made its stature bigger than it otherwise would have been?

Wishful thinking. The Star Wars franchise has been sunk so far in schlocky fourth-rate sci-fantasy for so long that only a very few remember, or care, that it was ever anything else. Add to this the fact that the sci-fi/fantasy media markets have flourished enough in the meantime to have a wide range of excellent-quality work from other creators for people to choose from, and, well, there you have it.  The rest of the world has moved on to better things.  The OOT is the only reason Star Wars is still culturally relevant at all, sure, but that's hardly the same thing as saying its long absence has been beneficial to its stature.

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 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.

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 suppsosed to be in good shape. But as long as George Lucas don't wan't 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.

CatBus said:

generalfrevious said:

I wonder... Has the relative unavailability of the OOT made its stature bigger than it otherwise would have been?

Wishful thinking. The Star Wars franchise has been sunk so far in schlocky fourth-rate sci-fantasy for so long that only a very few remember, or care, that it was ever anything else. Add to this the fact that the sci-fi/fantasy media markets have flourished enough in the meantime to have a wide range of excellent-quality work from other creators for people to choose from, and, well, there you have it.  The rest of the world has moved on to better things.  The OOT is the only reason Star Wars is still culturally relevant at all, sure, but that's hardly the same thing as saying its long absence has been beneficial to its stature.

Very much agree. I could see it being the case if they kept them out of circulation for a few years. But last time they were given a new transfer was over twenty years ago. The brand Star Wars has been whored out and dragged through the mud excessively since then and it doesn't look like it's going to change. The sheer movie magic SW was once associated with instead brings up negative feelings nowadays for most older fans. For the last twenty years there has been a creator that believe he is more important than his work. He is always there to tell you how to watch his work and what it's all about.

Fang Zei said:

msycamore,

Yes, it's still up to Disney/Lucasfilm. Without their permission there can't be any remasters/restorations/re-releases, aside from simple repackaging of the existing transfers like the bd/dvd PT and OT combo packs Fox put out this past Fall. Disney could do an OOT restoration and a better SE and let Fox distribute, sure, but as Mr. Cobb so eloquently put it, they didn't pay a whopping $4 Billion just so some other company could get distribution. No, they want it all.

Yeah, sure. Always something that complicate matters. :)

The past few comments do present a strong case for the older fans to simply let go - or at least accept that the prequels have their fanbase and are referenced in modern films as much as the original trilogy was in its day. Ergo, when my kids were on half term recently, two of the films they watched were Hop and Marmaduke, both of which had prominent references to the prequels in them.

Now, you can lament that and typically say "Well, that just show how standards are slipping....films aren't as good as they used to be...etc" - I'd expect nothing less on this forum - but you can't deny the success of the prequels and that these "awful" films exist, will continue to exist, and are the reason Star Wars remains so prominent today.

Not only that, Silver Wook, but it was also quite a good movie. Kiefer Sutherland is tops in it.

I'm familiar with the "just because it sold doesn't mean it's good" theory. Familiar enough to not have espoused it in my original post. I simply said the films were popular and have a huge fanbase. People should just accept that and not be resentful of it or, even worse, feel superior to those folk (I've seen prequel fans referred to as "you people" on this forum, something to which I take particular offense).

And Lucas also gave his blessing to Family Guy. Personally, I think South Park is a dreadful show and about as funny as rabies. Nevertheless, just because something is lampooned is not proof positive that the subject is bad, moreover it's because the subject is successful.

Easterhay said:

...or at least accept that the prequels have their fanbase and are referenced in modern films as much as the original trilogy was in its day.

Your whole post presented a good point, but this section right here presents the limitations of that point. It's fair to measure cultural relevance through references in other prominent cultural works.  And, in works produced in the same eras, they may be about equal.  In works produced today, they may also be about equal.  I don't know either of these for a fact, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.  But the bolded text highlights the difference.

Star Wars was made nearly forty years ago and it's still a very relevant cultural work.  If someone made a reference to The Phantom Menace in 2036, it will make about as much sense to the audience as a "Dude, where's my car?" joke.  Yeah, that's a prediction, and yeah, predictions can be wrong.  But I simply see no way in hell the prequels will be anything more than an interesting footnote in 2036, akin to the Holiday Special today (which still gets referenced, but not much).

Easterhay said:

The past few comments do present a strong case for the older fans to simply let go - or at least accept that the prequels have their fanbase and are referenced in modern films as much as the original trilogy was in its day. Ergo, when my kids were on half term recently, two of the films they watched were Hop and Marmaduke, both of which had prominent references to the prequels in them.

Now, you can lament that and typically say "Well, that just show how standards are slipping....films aren't as good as they used to be...etc" - I'd expect nothing less on this forum - but you can't deny the success of the prequels and that these "awful" films exist, will continue to exist, and are the reason Star Wars remains so prominent today.

When I said people are still discussing those awful prequel movies fifteen years later I was talking about those fans discussing them in that form that seems to offend you personally. I should perhaps been more clear and said bitching and moaning.

Better, yes--obviously.  But we'd still be here complaining that the 1981 crawl made things worse for no good reason (curse you, Lucas!), that Lowry was still screwing up the transfers to home video, that the mono mix wasn't available (curse you, Lucas!), there'd be a fan restoration attempt to re-create the unavailable 70mm cut of Empire (curse you, Lucas!), and there'd be a healthy argument about whether or not Jedi was actually any good.  The internet was made for complaining, we must allow it to fulfill its purpose.  In other words, if we lived in such a wonderful world, we wouldn't even realize we had it so good.

I think the SW franchise is a lot worse off than the Superman franchise, and I only really like one Superman movie, and the theatrical cut at that.  At least I was able to buy an ultra-deluxe Superman boxed set and throw away all of the discs except one, to get the movie I actually wanted.  No such option with Star Wars.

Easterhay said:

The past few comments do present a strong case for the older fans to simply let go - or at least accept that the prequels have their fanbase and are referenced in modern films as much as the original trilogy was in its day. Ergo, when my kids were on half term recently, two of the films they watched were Hop and Marmaduke, both of which had prominent references to the prequels in them.

Now, you can lament that and typically say "Well, that just show how standards are slipping....films aren't as good as they used to be...etc" - I'd expect nothing less on this forum - but you can't deny the success of the prequels and that these "awful" films exist, will continue to exist, and are the reason Star Wars remains so prominent today.

I can tolerate the prequel fans.  Unless they compare Jar Jar to Chewbacca again.  Them is fighting words.

I think it is our duty as keepers of the original cuts, to show the kids how good Star Wars was.  To show them a less kiddied up version and how imaginative Lucas was before the prequels.  Sadly a generation is lost to us, they are the ones raised on the Prequels, Clone Wars (which i did kinda like) and the fact that a freaking X-Wing fighter hasn't been in non-exclusive release for like 10 years.  But with Disney giving all the attention to OT characters and situations, we have a chance to save the upcoming little ones.  

generalfrevious said:

What if Lucas decided in 1983 to never make another star wars film again, or anyone else to make any after his death, and it was just limited to the first three films and the EU? Would it be better then, would we no longer have to be ashamed to love this decades tainted franchise that's going to have an even lover reputation ten years from now? Cause right now the SW franchise is not much better than the Superman film series.

Crappy sequels are bound to be released for any franchise sooner or later, it's inevitable but as far as I know you're still able to buy and watch the Superman movies in up to date transfers and video formats. The big demand for the original SW is there but I'm also pretty sure their long absence and other mistreatment haven't exactly helped keeping fans around, some can only take so much before they move on. And why do you care so much what others may think of your favorite films? And to the point of being ashamed, sounds very unhealthy to me.

We know Lucas was done with SW in '83 and according to an interview with Kershner from 2004 he was still sick and tired of it ten years later. He felt trapped by it.

Why do you think Lucas directed The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones himself?

He doesn't like to direct, you know. About 15 years ago, I was with George at one of his parties on the Fourth of July. He said, "You know, I've got to get away from Star Wars. I don't want to be Mr. Star Wars all my life." I said, "George, it's your fate. You created something. The world loves it. Take advantage of it."
 
"No!" he said, "I want to do other things. I'm tired of it. I don't want everybody going on about Star Wars."
 
Three years later, we were talking again. He said, "I've come to a conclusion. I have to use Star Wars and make more of the films - and it's worth it. It's inevitable. I have to do it." So he'd changed. He accepted.

And advantage he took, Star Wars became the vehicle for his "creativity." Hence the result, Star Wars movies only in name.

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/empire-strikes-back-director-irvin-kershner 

It's a nice interview, make sure to check it out if you haven't.

Tobar said:

What a weird conclusion to come to. If you want to be known for other things than start making other things.

Still, I find it hard to blame him. There was too much easy money to be made. Fans were waiting and expecting him to do them. We can only try to imagine the pressure he must have had. But it's really sad no matter how you look at it.

Anchorhead said:

The prequels are prominent in pop culture specifically for being so poorly done.

Well, yeah, but in defense of Easterhay's point, there is no such thing as bad publicity.  The Rocky Horror Picture Show was culturally relevant for a very long time for being awful, but the awfulness doesn't equate to cultural irrelevance.  Showgirls eventually tried to embrace the same tactic, with less success.

I think the prequels are more akin to Showgirls than the Rocky Horror Picture Show in this analogy. Instead of David Schmader's color commentary, we've got Backstroke of the West, same thing essentially.  But like Showgirls, I think the prequels are ultimately too boring to survive long in the cultural imagination.

CatBus said:

Easterhay said:

...or at least accept that the prequels have their fanbase and are referenced in modern films as much as the original trilogy was in its day.

Your whole post presented a good point, but this section right here presents the limitations of that point. It's fair to measure cultural relevance through references in other prominent cultural works.  And, in works produced in the same eras, they may be about equal.  In works produced today, they may also be about equal.  I don't know either of these for a fact, but I'm willing to consider the possibility.  But the bolded text highlights the difference.

Star Wars was made nearly forty years ago and it's still a very relevant cultural work.  If someone made a reference to The Phantom Menace in 2036, it will make about as much sense to the audience as a "Dude, where's my car?" joke.  Yeah, that's a prediction, and yeah, predictions can be wrong.  But I simply see no way in hell the prequels will be anything more than an interesting footnote in 2036, akin to the Holiday Special today (which still gets referenced, but not much).

hairy_hen said:

How about instead of 'you people', we call them 'you Easterhay-people'.

Cuz I don't see many others so determined to be offended by dislike of the prequels.

[quote=Anchorhead]

 Not really one of your more subtle attempts at baiting.  The prequels are prominent in pop culture specifically for being so poorly done.  Outside of something as insular as TFN, pop culture references to Star Wars are almost solely the original trilogy.  1977 and 1980 are why Star Wars remains prominent.