Sign In

Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!) — Page 70

Author
Time

none said:

The idea that their monitors are a different class then the TVs in most people's homes, provides another wrinkle to how the films look different dependent upon the equipment you use.

The claim that ESB came out too blue because they were using better monitors is, frankly, laughable.

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

Author
Time

TheCassidy said:

Sluggo said:

Last I remember of Cassidy, he was telling us that we all would eat crow because Indy IV would rock.

And boy oh boy did that crow taste delicious, Sluggo.

Long time poster, first time lurker - how's everyone been?  Place looks a little different than I remember...

Hey, welcome back!  Now all we need back is stinkydinkins or zebonka and all will be right in the world.

Author
Time

ImperialFighter said:

 

 

It's funny, every time I'm trying to explain to someone, why it is wrong to meddle with works of art in the way that SW SE does, I think of Mona Lisa and say that it is as if some restorers were doing a preservation of Mona Lisa and decided that it could do with some update using a black marker. 

And if I take the metaphor even further, it would be as if they then hanged a copy of the "newly enhanced" Mona Lisa in Louvre, and when people started complaining, that they want to see the original, they would just print out a 1.3mpx photo of it and hang it next to it, saying that the original has been irreversibly altered with the black marker and this is the best source of the original that they could find.

 

Author
Time

Harmy said:


It's funny, every time I'm trying to explain to someone, why it is wrong to meddle with works of art in the way that SW SE does, I think of Mona Lisa and say that it is as if some restorers were doing a preservation of Mona Lisa and decided that it could do with some update using a black marker. 

And if I take the metaphor even further, it would be as if they then hanged a copy of the "newly enhanced" Mona Lisa in Louvre, and when people started complaining, that they want to see the original, they would just print out a 1.3mpx photo of it and hang it next to it, saying that the original has been irreversibly altered with the black marker and this is the best source of the original that they could find.
I like it. You can go further with all history books from that point on commenting on the quality of Leonardo's brush strokes while showing a close up of the black marker addition...

Star Wars Revisited Wordpress / Facebook / Twitter

Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress / Twitter

Author
Time

I wonder if the audio will still be screwed up. I know they said they are remastering it, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was still messed up like it was on the 2004 DVD's.

"When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." - Tuco from The Good, The Bad And The Ugly
Author
Time

Harmy wrote:

I think of Mona Lisa and say that it is as if some restorers were doing a preservation of Mona Lisa and decided that it could do with some update using a black marker.

Add in a snappy new title, and i'd agree with Duchamp, you've got a new work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.H.O.O.Q.

The issue with film and preservation which I don't have a good answer for, is inevitably the film original negative will degrade.  When you start the preservation process, to get it back is not really 100% possible.  So for instance the guy from the other forums who worked on the 2004 said they looked at the SE as a guide.  But what did the Lowry people use as a guide?  The only constant is George, so they all followed his lead, but would still be interesting to hear what some of the conversations were as they reprocessed.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

none said:

Add in a snappy new title, and i'd agree with Duchamp, you've got a new work

And I'd say that the 2004 'STAR WARS:A New Hope - Special Edition' did indeed come across as a 'new work' in many respects.  Not that I was against that, if that's what GL wanted to do at some point.  That was fair enough, and was certainly of some interest, whether you ended up appreciating all his latest 'creative changes', or not.  Personally, I reckon adywan's 'new work' kicks it's ass in comparison.

But what I certainly didn't expect to happen, was a complete disregard for the much-loved 'original work' known as 'STAR WARS' (or 'STAR WARS:A New Hope' if you must) by GL.  The one that smashed box-office records to become the number one movie of all-time, on it's release.  And by default, I didn't expect a complete disregard to properly preserve the work of others that were involved in it (and it's sequels) either...especially from someone who had a reputation for being at the forefront of technical excellence, and who claimed to have a keen interest in the preservation of cinema history.

Of course, the current poor treatment of the 'original works' could just be a misunderstanding on our part, as we may find that they've actually been faithfully preserved in something approaching their original look after all...and will be released in a respectful, high quality standard eventually, after all.  In the meantime, it's difficult to believe that, sadly.  

Author
Time

This is why I see no paradox with Fan-edits of the SE 2004 (they are just further variations of a theme) on a site advocating a restoration of the OUT (soon to be a lost classic of cinema if Lucas keeps dragging his arse).

Pretty soon SE 97 may go down the tubes too which may not be as important but has an interest in terms of the history of iterations of the story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Dp2OfIT_M

Author
Time

Either he knows something we don't or I question his definition of fully protected.

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)

"These films are heavily protected" he says. Is he just so used to working with seps and intermediates for movies where the negative is gone that this is no big deal to him as long as that other stuff exists?

And gee it's funny, I was just thinking what we really need is more cryptic talk from home video guys about this.

Author
Time

Come on, guys, Robert Harris is on our side (although it may not seem so from that particular post). He's the guy who offered Lucas that if he gave him the materials to work with, he'd restore the OOT for free.

Author
Time

Where'd PPoR go.  (Post Proof or Retract)

I do hate stuff like this.  It keeps me stupid.

Author
Time

none said:

Where'd PPoR go.  (Post Proof or Retract)

I do hate stuff like this.  It keeps me stupid.

I agree. It's one article here, other post there, and real proof remains to be seen.

Author
Time

Harmy said:

He's the guy who offered Lucas that if he gave him the materials to work with, he'd restore the OOT for free.

Does anyone happen to know if RAH ever confirmed if GL took up his offer, or not?

Author
Time

It's also strange that just two years ago he went on about how Godfather's negative was about to be lost and they had to this really high-tech (8k?) restoration right then or it would be gone forever. In fact, they had to use alternate takes for some shots because the original negative shot was no longer usable. Weird that he would say a film that is only 5 years older and historically has been reported as being in similar condition would be "fine" and "fully protected" for the near future.

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

I wrote a PM to him some time ago, asking him about this and here's what he replied:
Robert Harris
Dec 31, 2010 at 5:11 am

Petr,

 

The Star Wars situation is a great deal of publicity "sizzle" without the steak.

 

While there are technical deficiencies with the original elements do to the manner in which the fx elements were

produced and conformed, there are also full and complete separation masters.  I created a process which would 

yield original quality without the use of the three masters.

 

The bottom line is that there are no real problems with any of the elements that would prevent the creation of

original version elements, inclusive of down-rez to HD video masters, that would be anything less than stellar.

 

This is less about the film elements and more in regard to Mr. Lucas' desire to have the newer versions front

and center.  And that is his right.  While many of us prefer the original versions, that does not control the marketplace.

 

My offer to restore the films for GL was half in jest, and more to make the point that it was all very doable.  There is nothing here

that cannot be dealt with to a point of perfection.

 

All best,

 

RAH

 

Author
Time

Interesting, thanks for that. (Does that mean his process only needs one of the three seps?)

Author
Time

It was a confusing use of words, but I think by "the three masters" he meant the o-negs for the "three" original films (the original trilogy).

Author
Time

Ok that makes sense. I know he did exactly that for Spartacus with the separations because the negative was useless.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

But I think it would be a bad idea to use all 3 separation masters, because it would mean combining 3 different film strips together, thus combing four different grain patterns (that of the o-neg plus one for each of the seps), so the sep-masters combined would have to be 3 generations worse than the o-neg and that's assuming they were stuck directly from the negative.

Author
Time

It was interesting to read that reply from Robert Harris.

Although this bit:

While many of us prefer the original versions, that does not control the marketplace.

The marketplace has been sold the hyped SE versions and never offered the originals since the early 1990s, so that kind of shapes the demand for those movies.

Anyway, from his comments there's still hope that one day the originals can be reproduced from the restored elements.

Author
Time

I was optimistic upon first seeing the trailer, but as soon as Liam Neeson showed up, I knew that all hope was lost.

Author
Time

^That is the best username on this website. I wish I could give you a prize.

OT: I'm still not getting this set. I have the DVDs, which leave me in the clear for fanedits... I think... I hope...

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em