Original Theatrical Versions

Hi,

  I am sure someone buried in the forums this question has been asked more than once.  I was wondering if some could tell me what released versions (VHS, laserdisc or dvd) are the original theatrical versions.  Also, I know there are a few different bootleg versions of these in existence by various people.  I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me on how I can obtain a copy of these on dvd.  Any help with this information or pointing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.  I am new to this so please forgive me if this is obvious to you. 

Thanks!!!

Much of this depends on your interpretation of what 'Original Theatrical' means.  These films have been tinkered with consistently since they were released.

The quick answer most people go to is the 2006 DVD release Bonus discs.  These were officially released by Lucasfilm: http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Two-Disc-Widescreen-Theatrical/dp/B000FQJAIW They are a variation of the movie before the 1997 Special Editions.  They are referred to around here as GOUT.  'George's Original Unaltered Trilogy'  The source of the GOUT is the 1993 laserdisc transfer.

Next is teh start of investigating the longer answer.  Which for people like me, is there is no definitive Original Theatrical version of any of the movies.  There are variations.  People's values then add weight to which variation should exist on the version they like to watch.  So if you want to get into it, it's now about learning what the variations are, where/when they existed and there's a debate there after which gets into what "most" people saw back then.

Star Wars was released immediately in different forms.  Mr. Coate has a great article on the subject: http://www.in70mm.com/news/2003/star_wars/index.htm

Variations in the soundtrack presentations of "Star Wars" can be traced to the multiple mixes that were prepared to accommodate the different formats the movie would be released in:

(1) 35mm two-track (four-channel) Dolby Stereo
(2) 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo
(3) 35mm Academy mono.

Another SW sound article to read is: http://www.wideanglecloseup.com/starwarsaudio.html

And another Mr. Coate article about SW in '77: http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/star_wars_a_day_long_remembered.htm

What brought about this interest in the OT? 

Welcome uno1971!

Like none said, the GOUT (or 2006 bonus DVDs) are very often referred to as the "original theatrical versions", but they're simply a DVD version of the 1993 Laserdiscs, which while being the original versions without CGI additions, does not represent the original look of the films.

The 1993 versions have too much red and too little other colors, are too muted in the contrast, and has lots of problems like smearing due to the noise reduction which was applied to it when they made the Laserdiscs. The original prints showed in theatres back in the day were colorful, balanced and much more lifelike.

There's lots of nice restoration projects going on here though which are aimed for a better "true" original experience. You might want to look at Harmy's Despecialized Edition, negative1's upcoming 35mm release, or mine/dark_jedi's upcoming Project Blu V2.

Most of the stuff on here can be found on myspleen.org where you'll need an invite to become a member. I have some invites left so feel free to send a pm. :)

Hi, Just a question here from another relative Newbie.

Were the LD trilogy released in the same format as GOUT, i.e. letterbox or whatever?

One of my personal gripes with GOUT versions is that as soon as I try to zoom in to make the movies fill the screen, the resolution goes and the picture quality becomes dreadful. The result is a bit like watching the original through out-of-focus glasses in a smoke-filled room.

Aren't they supposed to be HD?... or HD "in name only"? Are we expected to squint at them in that very narrow, letterbox window?

An original theatrical release should mean just that. You should be virtually able to fill a theatre screen with the picture without suffering huge losses in definition.

Are there any "true" HD versions in existence?

The GOUT is dvd, so not even lucasarts was trying to pass that off as HD.

Yes that's true. I guess I did not mean HD in the modern sense of the word. The old analogue film contained all the information necessary, yet even at the digital resolution used they really failed my expectations. Hopefully in future digital capturing techniques will improve. Many other old films have been captured with so much more detail and resolution than the SW original trilogy though.

The new trilogy I, II, III, also seem to suffer from the same problem in my opinion. As soon as you zoom in the picture quality goes.

point5 wrote: Were the LD trilogy released in the same format as GOUT, i.e. letterbox or whatever?

More or less Yes, the term you are looking for is anamorphic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic The GOUT represents probably the best digitization of the laserdisc's source film scans.  (laserdisc is an analog format)  Your zooming problem maybe because of the hardware/software you are using.  But the GOUT and laserdisc transfers don't have the resolution for close inspection that we're accustomed to with HD formats.  This was not a limitation of the scanning equipment (the film was digitized for shots of the 1997 SE), but a limitation of home video at the time.

Here's a chart of display resolutions.  GOUT/LD is the red PAL (768x576) [HD starts at 1280x720]

The 2011 BluRays are at HD1080 (1920x1080).  The PT was shot in the 2K range.  Non-special effect shots of the OT could be in the 4K range.

Thanks for explaining. I do still have some trouble understanding why some movies that were made much earlier than Star Wars do seem to have better quality DVD releases than Star Wars.

point5 said:

Thanks for explaining. I do still have some trouble understanding why some movies that were made much earlier than Star Wars do seem to have better quality DVD releases than Star Wars.

It is probably because George Lucas considers them more like workprints than actual movies.  Even the "Blade Runner" workprint they did for the 5 disc collector's set looks far nicer than the GOUT.  Ridley Scott probably cares more about what made him than George Lucas does about what made him.

It's sad, for sure.

point5 wrote: I do still have some trouble understanding why some movies that were made much earlier than Star Wars do seem to have better quality DVD releases than Star Wars.

You'll have to be more specific what release you are talking about.  If you are comparing things to the 2006 GOUT Bonus DVD, that's not a good reflection of the possibilities of the DVD format.

I think the reason they used what they did to make the GOUT DVDs was just so Lucasfilm could tell people how much the films had "improved" since then with their Special Edition, when the truth is the other way around.

If they had put scans of clean theatrical prints in anamorphic widescreen on those "bonus DVDs" it would've been obvious that they looked better than the 2004 SE.

I've read lots of reviews from 2006 about the bonus DVDs and a lot of people says "the films' age shows". That's exactly what Lucas wants them to think, that the films looked that bad when they were new.

Thanks. Yeah I agree. The DVDs are definitely a poor reflection of what was and what should be.

point5 said:

Thanks for explaining. I do still have some trouble understanding why some movies that were made much earlier than Star Wars do seem to have better quality DVD releases than Star Wars.

If you're talking about the blu-rays, it's simple. They used alot of digital tinkering to get dirt off etc, and in the process it smoothed over the whole film (I personally don't think it looks THAT bad)

The reason the original theathrical releases look so bad, is that they're made from laserdisk masters. So they weren't actually directly scanned in from film. It went scan -> digitial cleanup (Somewhat) -> laserdisk master tape -> dvd

Normally films are scanned in at 2k/4k and then downscaled to 1080p. Making them look much better.

Thanks. That would certainly explain the problem with the first trilogy.