Sign In

I'll never understand the attitude of people who oppose the release of the unaltered original trilogy. — Page 2

Author
Time

I’ve tried to avoid being a ‘hater’ on this point, but the moment when I really knew just how pissed I am about this was when I saw a Youtube clip of Lucas on stage for the Star Wars 40th anniversary. People were cheering and waving lightsabers while Lucas crapped on about mythological motifs etc - I was thinking “no, you don’t get to celebrate 40 years of a movie you’ve deliberately tried to bury. You can celebrate 40 years in 2037”.

Author
Time

At least all the crew got to have a proper celebration and private screening. They deserved it.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I’ve seen some pretty bad takes against the release of the unaltered movies. The one that takes the cake was when someone said “When a new format comes around, you guys are just going to complain about releasing the theatrical cuts again!”

Death of the Author

Author
Time

Just like everybody else who wants their favorite movie on the latest format? Golly, I’d love to have an early 2000’s anamorphic OOT DVD release I could bitch about being the only thing out there one could buy. Even the original cut of The Warriors got one.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Me in 2325 watching Star Wars on an intentionally bad laserdisc transfer to a DVD while everyone else is watching Avengers 433 on MatrixVision

Death of the Author

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Just like everybody else who wants their favorite movie on the latest format? Golly, I’d love to have an early 2000’s anamorphic OOT DVD release I could bitch about being the only thing out there one could buy. Even the original cut of The Warriors got one.

It would be ironic if an official restoration happened and got released to blu-ray and uhd … but never got an official anamorphic dvd release.

For the record, I’d be okay with that if it meant the OOT was future-proofed in the highest possible quality physical media can provide.

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

I’ve been putting up with that mindset since at least the early 2000’s. Gave up on a Trek forum, (one with a general SF discussion board) and the Home Theater Forum because I was just plain weary of the Groundhog Day/temporal loop those discussions always seemed to end up in. Thank goodness I found OT, and for the life of me, I don’t even recall how I found it.

I don’t even want to imagine the pro Maclunkey arguments now. 😉

HTF folks are hostile to the OUT? I’ve never talked Star Wars there, mostly just like to read catalog BD reviews and might use it for some hardware advice in the future, but I find it hard to believe that such a place wouldn’t as a general rule support SW77 on disc…

TV’s Frink said:

I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

SilverWook said:

I’ve been putting up with that mindset since at least the early 2000’s. Gave up on a Trek forum, (one with a general SF discussion board) and the Home Theater Forum because I was just plain weary of the Groundhog Day/temporal loop those discussions always seemed to end up in. Thank goodness I found OT, and for the life of me, I don’t even recall how I found it.

I don’t even want to imagine the pro Maclunkey arguments now. 😉

HTF folks are hostile to the OUT? I’ve never talked Star Wars there, mostly just like to read catalog BD reviews and might use it for some hardware advice in the future, but I find it hard to believe that such a place wouldn’t as a general rule support SW77 on disc…

It might have been just a few people making more noise than others. Not so much hostility as not understanding why anyone would want the original versions. There also was some sneering at SW nerds who wear costumes or have SW collectibles on display in their homes, as opposed to normal stuff like sports memorabilia. The climate may have changed in the years since I left.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shopping Maul said:

I was thinking “no, you don’t get to celebrate 40 years of a movie you’ve deliberately tried to bury. You can celebrate 40 years in 2037”.

What do you mean 2037? He buried the 1997 version even more than the original.

So if it is not the original version, then it is all the same shit right? This kind of attitude is the symptom of the same problem I was describing in my earlier post.

真実

Author
Time

imperialscum said:

Shopping Maul said:

I was thinking “no, you don’t get to celebrate 40 years of a movie you’ve deliberately tried to bury. You can celebrate 40 years in 2037”.

What do you mean 2037? He buried the 1997 version even more than the original.

So if it is not the original version, then it is all the same shit right? This kind of attitude is the symptom of the same problem I was describing in my earlier post.

I meant no offence, I was just making a generalisation based on when the SEs overtook the originals as a concept. I mean the originals were tinkered with too - different mixes, different opening crawls etc - but I was merely referring to 1997 as the particular line in the sand where the original theatrical films were written off and the new Star Wars (with its conga-line of versions/changes/additions to follow) became a thing.

Author
Time

Shopping Maul said:

imperialscum said:

Shopping Maul said:

I was thinking “no, you don’t get to celebrate 40 years of a movie you’ve deliberately tried to bury. You can celebrate 40 years in 2037”.

What do you mean 2037? He buried the 1997 version even more than the original.

So if it is not the original version, then it is all the same shit right? This kind of attitude is the symptom of the same problem I was describing in my earlier post.

I meant no offence, I was just making a generalisation based on when the SEs overtook the originals as a concept. I mean the originals were tinkered with too - different mixes, different opening crawls etc - but I was merely referring to 1997 as the particular line in the sand where the original theatrical films were written off and the new Star Wars (with its conga-line of versions/changes/additions to follow) became a thing.

No worries. I cannot be offended.

I was just pointing out that such generalisation is not really fair to the reality of things. Like I said, the 1997 version was more neglected than the original version when it comes to re-release.

真実

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It has been my observation that most pro SE people who support the suppression or the original cuts are ignorant about film and video tech in general. A lot of people don’t seem to understand what “HD” or “4K” even really mean and act as if they are some sort of application that you apply to old films to make them look better.

I literally got into an argument with someone in the comments for an upload of a Star Trek Generations deleted scene on YouTube that was from a barely watchable multi generational VHS copy of a workprint, which was then uploaded to YouTube in sub SD quality. This person seemed to think that movies come out of the camera in this kind of dog shit lo-rez VHS quality and that they use some kind of magic “upscaler” to make films look the way they do when they are released.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think a lot of young people these days don’t necessarily know enough about film (as in, physical film, not ‘movies’ or ‘cinema’) to realise just how much detail 35mm captures. Growing up in the last 20 years myself, I remember TV going from SD to 720p to 1080p to 4K, and digital/phone cameras doing similar. I think it’s feasible that a person of a similar age who doesn’t take a particular interest in A/V (or fanediting, or film preservation, or anything else along those lines) could just assume that the picture quality of movies would have also followed a parallel progression, and that modern Bluray releases of old movies must therefore be some kind of upscale. It doesn’t help that many have heavy DNR giving them a waxy, unreal look.

Author
Time

Nien Nunb said:

It has been my observation that most pro SE people who support the suppression or the original cuts are ignorant about film and video tech in general. A lot of people don’t seem to understand what “HD” or “4K” even really mean and act as if they are some sort of application that you apply to old films to make them look better.

I literally got into an argument with someone in the comments for an upload of a Star Trek Generations deleted scene on YouTube that was from a barely watchable multi generational VHS copy of a workprint, which was then uploaded to YouTube in sub SD quality. This person seemed to think that movies come out of the camera in this kind of dog shit lo-rez VHS quality and that they use some kind of magic “upscaler” to make films look the way they do when they are released.

Must be related to the fellow I once encountered who insisted all of TNG’s 35mm shots of the Enterprise D miniature were tv resolution and could never be used for an HD remaster. Ignoring the fact some of that footage was used in Generations!

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

I just want the OOT. I have no interest in the SEs (1997 / 2004 / 2011 / 2019).

Author
Time

The irony is that some of the changes, like Weird Science Jabba and Luke’s Emperor scream have become as elusive at the OOT itself.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Nien Nunb said:

It has been my observation that most pro SE people who support the suppression or the original cuts are ignorant about film and video tech in general. A lot of people don’t seem to understand what “HD” or “4K” even really mean and act as if they are some sort of application that you apply to old films to make them look better.

I literally got into an argument with someone in the comments for an upload of a Star Trek Generations deleted scene on YouTube that was from a barely watchable multi generational VHS copy of a workprint, which was then uploaded to YouTube in sub SD quality. This person seemed to think that movies come out of the camera in this kind of dog shit lo-rez VHS quality and that they use some kind of magic “upscaler” to make films look the way they do when they are released.

If only that were possible. To make those shot-on-video TV shows like Doctor Who or Fresh Prince of Bel-Air look like film would be a godsend for me.

Divergent Universes
Dreams of a Randy Git-Fiend

Make Off Topic great again.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DuracellEnergizer said:

Nien Nunb said:

It has been my observation that most pro SE people who support the suppression or the original cuts are ignorant about film and video tech in general. A lot of people don’t seem to understand what “HD” or “4K” even really mean and act as if they are some sort of application that you apply to old films to make them look better.

I literally got into an argument with someone in the comments for an upload of a Star Trek Generations deleted scene on YouTube that was from a barely watchable multi generational VHS copy of a workprint, which was then uploaded to YouTube in sub SD quality. This person seemed to think that movies come out of the camera in this kind of dog shit lo-rez VHS quality and that they use some kind of magic “upscaler” to make films look the way they do when they are released.

If only that were possible. To make those shot-on-video TV shows like Doctor Who or Fresh Prince of Bel-Air look like film would be a godsend for me.

This might actually become a common practice in the future. Fans have already begun using machine learning to upscale Deep Space 9 to HD. It looks surprisingly good already, and who knows where this might go as the software improves. My biggest worry is that it will be used as a cheap alternative to proper remasters, even of shows that were shot on film, but for shows that were shot on video or outdated digital formats this could be a great solution.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The single worst argument I ever heard was - and I kid you not - … “haha, those old 1977 special effects were so bad, just look at that scene of Han meeting Jabba.”

I honestly don’t know what’s worse. Knowing there are people in the world who would make that argument or knowing that there people in the world who would believe that argument!

Author
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

The single worst argument I ever heard was - and I kid you not - … “haha, those old 1977 special effects were so bad, just look at that scene of Han meeting Jabba.”

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

So, have any of these characters opined on the FX of other venerable classic genre films? Or is it just the OT that has to go to Carousel and renew every few years?

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

A few weeks ago some guy commented on my “Gary Kurtz on the Star Wars Special Edition” youtube upload, saying:

“I completely disagree with this man’s stance.”

I asked him why and he answered:

“I love the special editions.”

I stayed polite and tried to get a more detailed argument out of him by remarking:

“That is completely fine if you love them. Which version of the Special Edition do you like the most? To this day there are four versions of Special Editions: 1997 - The first Special Edition, 2004 - The DVD Special Edition (Haydens Ghost added to ROTJ, Ian McDiarmid added to ESB), 2012 - The Blu ray Special Edition (Darth Vaders ‘NOOO’ added to ROTJ), 2019 - The Disney + Special Edition (Greedos ‘Maclunkey’ added to ANH).”

His answer:

“2019. Those are the final definitive versions.”

Since he stayed by his one-sentence-replys, i had no desire to deepen the discussion any further.

Rogue One is redundant. Just play the first mission of DARK FORCES.
Being surrounded by yes men: the hallmark of a corrupt leader.
‘The best visual effects in the world will not compensate for a story told badly.’ - V.E.S.
‘Star Wars is a buffet, enjoy the stuff you want, and leave the rest.’ - SilverWook