The point is, preserving things exactly as they were is precisely what should be defined as “preservation”. No one means that it is bad to want for what you see as improvements, but when you say people are wrong for using exactly the right wording for what they’re doing, that’s when there’s issue taken. You’re welcome to push for the version you want, just know that it won’t be done in a preservation project. Basically, you’re talking about it in the wrong place.
I’d like to re-define what preservation is but they won’t have it.
As in literally redefine the word preserve?
pre·serve
prəˈzərv/
verb
maintain (something) in its original or existing state.
What is the new definition? I’m not saying there is anything wrong with fixing things in movies. There are communities dedicated to that, and our community has tight connections with all of that. But what Harmy said is correct, it has no place in a preservation.
The Revisited type project is definitely where this kind of thing belongs, and probably embraces it with open arms. Apples and oranges, really!
A Preservative also keeps something to last longer than it would do without it.
As nice and as amazing as the original unaltered film is… If it’s rotten or showing moldy bit’s on it you won’t want to consume it.
It’s not an argument I get it. But how many people want moldy or rotten bits.
Being Marketable is a very important factor also.
A Preservative also keeps something to last longer than it would do without it.
As nice and as amazing as the original unaltered film is… If it’s rotten or showing moldy bit’s on it you won’t want to consume it.
It’s not an argument I get it. But how many people want moldy or rotten bits.
Being Marketable is a very important factor also.
The “moldy” and “rotten bits” are things that have been in the film since the beginning so your analogy doesn’t make sense.
What you’re asking for simply has nothing to do with the this project’s goals.
A Preservative also keeps something to last longer than it would do without it.
As nice and as amazing as the original unaltered film is… If it’s rotten or showing moldy bit’s on it you won’t want to consume it.
It’s not an argument I get it. But how many people want moldy or rotten bits.
Being Marketable is a very important factor also.
The “moldy” and “rotten bits” are things that have been in the film since the beginning so your analogy doesn’t make sense.
What you’re asking for simply has nothing to do with the this project’s goals.
They should get it back to exactly how it was or as close as humanly possible. Then use that version as a basis for future enhanced versions.
^ This Greedo.
A Preservative also keeps something to last longer than it would do without it.
Being Marketable is a very important factor also.
Like adding CG in 1996, 2004 and 2011?
As nice and as amazing as the original unaltered film is… If it’s rotten or showing moldy bit’s on it you won’t want to consume it.
It’s not an argument I get it. But how many people want moldy or rotten bits.
What are you saying? Why would there have been mold or rot on the ORIGINAL final print? If something happened to a print in the intervening years, the point of a preservation would be to take it back to how it looked theatrically before the damage. I don’t understand your point here in the least. Years of accumulated physical damage to a print and original compositing mistakes are completely different things. Fixing damage would be within the scope of a preservation, correcting “mistakes” 40 years later would not.
A preservation is not a fix all for everyone kind of thing, but the results of a preservation CAN be a launching pad for “fixed” versions that people might like to see.
They should get it back to exactly how it was or as close as humanly possible. Then use that version as a basis for future enhanced versions.
^ This Greedo.
Then what you want is NOT a preservation, so making suggestions like you have been to THIS project is not the correct outlet for you. You should instead be looking for a thread about a project that covers what you want or starting a thread yourself.
I am trying to be helpful not hinder I am not asking for anything from anyone of you just showing you something.
I am talking about peoples perception of what they expect today. You won’t find copies of “vanishing Point” from 1971 flying off the shelf six to the dozen in a mad craze to have it on DVD or Blu Ray. It’s a fairly niche film with a cult following. People who like it might prefer one version or the other.
Star Wars has an element of this but it is hugely well known and it is already in a lot of peoples DVD or Blu-ray collection but it’s more than likely “The Special Edition”.
Star Wars has nothing individual about it, It’s a “Hive Mind” type of film and utterly commercial. In spite of what people say about the Special Edition versions the unfortunate truth is that they are more marketable to the mainstream mass of Star Wars consumers who will buy it.
I want a decent copy of the Original film but I will only accept like you are doing here a proper scan from prints.
But with that said Even though I would like a decent release, I can see the validity of the special edition version.
I am not someone who craves CGI or anything like that. But as Mike put it, “The Suspension of Disbelief” is what counts. And my Belief is Suspended by that shot.
But with that said Even though I would like a decent release, I can see the validity of the special edition version.
I am not someone who craves CGI or anything like that. But as Mike put it, “The Suspension of Disbelief” is what counts. And my Belief is Suspended by that shot.
So you want a special edition, but one that fixes the things YOU want. Verta was going to do that at one point, fixing errors instead of just preserving the original work.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
If you don’t think there’s a significant market clamoring for an official release of the proper Original Trilogy, then I just don’t know what to tell you… The only thing more marketable about the Special Editions is that they’re on the market.
We’re trying to be helpful also, we’re telling you that the better and more accurate a preservation is, the better material there is to work with for stuff like custom special editions that suspend your disbelief however it is you’re wanting it suspended; but you can’t argue that the definition of preservation is to change things. There are other projects that your ideas would apply to, we’re just suggesting you go find those and share desired changes there, as they don’t fit with this project.
What I feel like after reading a Ronster post.
So am I right in saying that nobody want’s the millennium falcon with it’s rear end chopped off?
But we have to have that because that’s the way it’s always been.
We need more films like “Vanishing Point” that’s for sure.
No, you’re wrong in saying that - I (and I’m sure many others) want the Falcon with it’s rear end chopped off, because it’s a beautiful illustration of the limitations of the VFX techniques used in the '70s.
And no, we don’t have to have that - the Special Edition doesn’t have that, you may have noticed. But a version that doesn’t have that is not a preservation/restoration.
Still not sure why you keep bringing up “Vanishing Point” (which I did buy as they were flying off the shelf for $5 on Blu-ray). Anyway, YES, a good preservation really, really should maintain everything as it existed originally, that’s the whole point. AFTER it is preserved and there is a good, solid, usable common base version of the film for everyone to start from, THEN custom versions can be made as people see fit (or just watch the film as it originally looked, which is not an option without at least a good preservation).
What I feel like after reading a Ronster post.
I think that’s how Ronster looks before making a post. 😉
I am trying to be helpful not hinder I am not asking for anything from anyone of you just showing you something.
So make a thread in the fanedits section about what you personally want to fix. These types of edits tend to go by names such as “semi specialized” around here.
It’s not the goal of this, or any other, preservation, as it goes against the definition (see my last post) of preservation. Arguing for the sake of making “fixes” to a preservation in this particular thread goes against the goal of the project as well as the reason this site came into existence in the first place. As such, you shouldn’t be surprised at the response you’re getting. Though you can argue all you want in your own thread for your project, once you have started that thread.
I don’t want to fix anything because I know I lack the expertise to do it proper justice. I was pointing something out.
I am not surprised at all at the response from the preservation arena. I am not arguing either.
I am not trying to undermine the goal of any sort of preservation effort of a film. I don’t want to make a thread about an observation when I have no current plan to do anything with this film unless I thought it was worth the scope of me spending quite a lot of months doing it and even then I know I have not quite got what it takes to achieve what I would want. I’m also not making suggestions.
I was simply trying to explain Harrison Ellenshaw’s Matte painting was encroaching on another element that would make up the whole image and that I felt it was a shame that it’s that way.
Now If you’ll excuse me I am about to goose walk off to me DVD collection grab my original copy of Star Wars but whilst doing so I shall hold one hand under my nose and shout.
Good day to you 😃
There’s apparently no middle ground to be found by you here. No one is bothered by original goofs being pointed out, just the assertion that a “preservation” should go around altering things.
I’ll definitely include that on my list of things to fix in my fan edit. But such fixes are the realm of the fan edit, not preservation. I suppose some of them could be considered part of a restoration as fixing them doesn’t actually change the story in any way and most people probably wouldn’t notice if they weren’t told about it. That is what Lucas was supposed to do in 97. A restoration. Clean up the effects edits. Most of them have gone unnoticed and you have to do a side by side comparison. But the SE additions are very noticeable. Some of the things that Mike has done in his demo videos are more restoration than preservation so by that logic this fix to the back of the Falcon could be included if he left the other things as well. But that would be his call.
Unrelated to most of that, it is interesting where the live action, matte and model shots line up, as made obvious in Mike’s video https://vimeo.com/120340364 when there’s so much more of the ship/set built than is apparently used in that shot. It is amazing and confusing to me why they’d mostly just use the live action cockpit and fudge the rest of the ship, rather than only overlaying the unbuilt portion (assuming, even, that they didn’t build more of the ship after this picture was taken). And with that gaping hole in the ground, this is obviously destined to be the Death Star hanger… Anyone privy to the reasoning behind what was live and what was not?
I can’t say I’m privy to the reason, but from my work in image editing I can tell you that anytime you are merging images you need a clean join line for the most seamless edits. What using the set and just adding the rest would end up doing is creating a join line down the middle of the ship. What they did was to make the join line in a place that leaves the largest section of the upper surface as a single image. It leads to be best quality end product. Also, I don’t know if they spent much time detailing the top of the live action set so it might have been far less detailed and the may have done it for that reason as well.
[never mind]
Did you read the part about how he’d appreciate “keeping it quiet”? As in, don’t discuss it outside of the Legacy forum?
TheStarWarsTrilogy.com.
The007Dossier.com.
Donations always welcome: Paypal | Bitcoin: bc1qzr9ejyfpzm9ea2dglfegxzt59tys3uwmj26ytj
Reading is for suckers. Posting is where it’s at.