So I have a question. Let’s say you present this to Disney/Fox and they end up absolutely loving it. If they offered you a job to restore Empire and Jedi in the same manner, would you do it? I ask because I haven’t seen anyone put as much care and attention to detail into a restoration as you have and it would be great if the latter movies could also get the same treatment.
Absolutely. I don’t have the same love for those films, but absolute respect for their rightful place in film history. It’s just taken so much to get Star Wars together… so much time, so much energy. I’m so deeply in debt because of it, that the idea of going through all that again is just… what a nightmare. But if I was given the references - I mean, if somebody did the legwork and handed me the stuff and said, “fix this,” it would be great fun, and I’ve got the process for it. I mean, sure. Totally.
By the way, I notice there is talk about “speculation” regarding the “unethical” use of scans. There is no need for speculation, I am happy to provide the specific facts. They are as follows:
Legacy ultimately features the contributions of 4 (really 4 1/2) Tech prints in addition to various Eastman prints. Early on, I was loaned the “Spanish” print by -1. I didn’t end up using much of it, but I had it scanned at 4K. I was also loaned a “so-so” Tech by Person #2, and a really nice Tech by Person #3. For safety, Person #2 was given digital copies of both his AND Person #3’s scans. Person #2 was, at the time, assumed trustworthy, if for no other reason than self-interest. But then things changed. Person #2 decided to give ALL the scans in his possession to -1. Person #3 rightfully freaked the fuck out - he wanted nothing to do with -1, for all the reasons which should now be clear, but it was too late. Of course, relationships have been severed and damage done. Interestingly, in the middle of this process, a member of team -1 reached out to me because they didn’t have the Greedo scene for shit. To be cool, I actually gave them a nice Tech scan of that scene, not knowing they already had it, or were in the process of getting it. So no good deed goes unpunished, I guess.
So -1 ended up with scans they were not supposed to have, and did precisely with them what people were afraid of them doing. However, that’s spilled milk. -1 is in possession of some decent scans, which, when examining their work, should pretty much put to rest any question about how important ability and experience is in film restoration. Clearly, having decent scans ain’t enough.
Yeah, I was the person who reached out and got stuck in the middle. I had just joined the team and had no idea any of this was happening. Mike had just done a late night video Q & A and had mentioned that he didn’t know what print -1 had but would like to know if it was something he could use. I reached out to him and gave him some sample frames. Mike immediately recognized the print (which astonished me at the time) as being the Spanish print he had already scanned. I asked for help with the Greedo scene and Mike very kindly provided us with the full scene in 4k - which I used in the final version. Mike also requested we send him Reel 1 of the Spanish Print again so that he could get it rescanned, and I passed on the request to -1 who told me “no way”, and went on to bash Mike in another thread here on OT. -1 Also refused to even acknowledge Mike’s contribution to the project - not even a “thank you” for the Greedo scene.
While I can’t plead ignorance of the source for Team Negative One’s v2.0, I assumed that person #2 was the owner of that print and that if he gave it to us that meant it was ok for us to use it. For the record I don’t know that he ever sent us the scan of the second print (I’m pretty sure it never arrived although I heard it was supposed to. Certainly I never saw it, so I think he may have gotten cold feet, probably after person #3 started freaking out).
Anyway, while I initially supported the team, believing they had done nothing wrong here, I now know the truth and have since parted ways with -1.