logo Sign In

The "original crawl" on the new DVD is NOT the original crawl! Screenshot inside! — Page 5

Author
Time
Post link
Okay, so the SE starfield matches the EOD, trailer & '04 DVD, but is different from the SC & DC starfield.

This means the crawl was redone for the SE, as I speculated earlier (since we have two different starfields with the same "ANH" crawl).

Which makes me think the EOD & trailer crawls are original and the starfield was changed (for "ANH") and changed back (for the SE).

It's still possible (however unlikely) that the EOD & trailer crawls is a remake based on a starfield that was new to the SE, and that the original theatrical starfield is either the same as the "ANH" one or different from both.

Confused? You won't be...
Author
Time
Post link
D'oh! Um, yeah - I did see those. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think the ANH print will match the pre-SE LDs. As I said, I have a vague memory that the starfield changed for the ANH re-release. And I don't think it would've been remade only for the early home versions.

Zion, could you resize one of those film scans to match the video examples?
Author
Time
Post link
just seeing that in film puts the biggest smile on my face
Author
Time
Post link
We should probably put all information like this into a neat little packet in case Lucas really is putting these out to lean on bootleggers. Whoever gets sued first can give a steel-balled "fuck you" to the cease and desist and go to court with confidence.

"Look at that logo recession! If the original crawl was digitally photoshopped, you must aquit!"

And of course, the famous Chewbacca defense.

Spaced Out - A Stoner Odyssey (five minute sneak peek)

Author
Time
Post link
Chewbacca defense? What's that... Grooooonkkkk!?!

“I love Darth Editous and I’m not ashamed to admit it.” ~ADigitalMan

Author
Time
Post link
"You really hate me don't you MeBeJedi? LOL"

I'm sure knowing as much would certainly please you to no end. Of course, if we want to see who really hates who:

"just plain speculation and general Lucas hate-mongering."

"It's the forum members here who are flat-out lying about the September release, not LucasFilm, Fox or George Lucas."

Yeah, you won't see me going to boards where I hate the overall mindset of the members, and arguing continuously with them. That's a whole level of hatred I don't care to get myself involved in. Have fun, though.

"With this little bit of info, and the word about the transfer quality, I'm starting to seriously wonder if they're not just packaging the editdroid rips.

Seriously. I mean, these could straight up be the Editdroid rips for the quality and the amount of effort LFL is putting into this. I'm sure I could sucker some people into betting me money. I mean, I know I'm probably way wrong, but it's close enough that it doesn't make a difference. Editdroid team essentially pulled off Lucasfilm's release of the Original Trilogy onto DVD about 5 years ago.

Except they managed to fit in seamless branching doctored opening scroll AND an isolated score. LFL couldn't even do that.

Wow. It's like they set out to find EVERY worst case scenario possible, and then lived up to them all."


This actually makes some sense, since the "Editdroid" system was created by LFL, and I know those guys were not happy to see their version get out in the public. Perhaps this was an "in-house fan edit" that LFL is now taking into their own hands, and attempting to make some money off of. Lord knows how much people have been willing to pay for LD-sourced transfers. Why wouldn't LFL want to make some money off of this, especially since the hard work is already done?

"1. The Empire of Dreams crawl is not genuine, but is a digitally recreated crawl done with the same starfield used on the 2004 DVD (and apparently the OUT DVD).
2. The Empire of Dreams crawl is genuine, and the original starfield was used on the 2004 DVD. This would mean that the '93 starfield is not the original."


I think the EoD crawl, at the very least, is film-based, because my crawl was created and timed by superimposing my version over that one. The EoD crawl jumps as film would, whereas my digital version rises very smoothly. In my mind, just the "film wiggle", itself, makes it look better than mine.

I'll try to find it, and post it online for comparison.

[EDIT]

Here's the link.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Editdroid v1 and v2 don't have the "original" starfield.

Edit: but v1 does have 3 audio options; matrixed dolby surround 70mm 6-track mix, dolby stereo surround mix and original mono mix. If only the september release had these...
Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Okay so here is a rundown:

-1977: original crawl
-1981: new crawl, backdrop unknown
-1980's-1990's: 1981 crawl recomposited on a non-1977 starfield background
-1997: 1981 text composited on original starfield backdrop
-2006: 1977 crawl with original starfield (whether genuine or not)

I am almost absolutely positive that the EOD clip is from a film source. Not only are all the outtakes and vintage clips from that doc taken from film sources, the crawl in this doc has some subtle jitter as well as a little subtleties like fading, scratches and grain that you come to be familiar with from watching thousands of hours of film footage. It certainly looks like a twenty-five year old film source to me. Also, if they had not the original 1977 element it would not have been necessary to go through the trouble to re-created it, they simply could have omitted it; furthermore, since most of the footage from that doc is from archival 35mm footage dug up from the original negatives in the Lucasfilm archives it would stand to reason that they obtained the original crawl and trasfered it. So I don't think there is any credence whatsoever to the notion that this is artificial. I am certain it is genuine. Zion's 35mm copy is also identical to it.

So here we have established what the original crawl looked like. Regarding the colours being different, they are actually closer to the original colours than the video versions (naturally); the original crawls were more of a deep yellow-orange colour, while the videos were more of a bright golden-yellow colour (the DVD is unintentionally closer to the original colouring since the black levels are brought down).

The only thing missing is an original film source of the 1981 ANH crawl. They totally re-filmed the opening crawl with a new text element--would it stand to reason that they also used a new starfield background as well? If they used a new backdrop they would have had the unfortunate problem of blending the two together for the tilt-down, which would be accomplished through a dissolve--someone here seemed to recall this actually being the case. Seeing as it was so recent after Star Wars, some might think it possible that the original starfield backdrop was still available, though I think its a stronger possibility that it was a new backdrop--how many starfield backdrops are used in the film, like 60? They were just made by randomly punching holes in plexiglass (or something like that) and thus were not recorded in reference photos or blueprints and were almost certainly discarded after the shots were filmed in 1977. The only possibility is that the actual background plate was still available for compositing.

Then on home video a starfield backdrop different from the 1977 one appears. This could be due to many things. The first is that the telecine process gobbled up the original starfield, though this would mean that the other starfield shots in the film (ie every special effects shot) would also need to be re-created, which obviously did not happen. The second is that it is perhaps an alternate version of the 1981 crawl that was done using a different starfield. Another is that is simply is the 1981 crawl, which used a different backdrop. Another is that, for some unknown technical reason, it was felt that the crawl should be re-done and another version made using a newly-created starfield and re-compositing the 1981 text over it.

Then in 1997, the crawl returns to the original 1977 starfield, only with the 1981 text. This may be due to many factors. In the making of the special edition, all the original elements and outtakes were unearthed--perhaps the original starfield was discovered and a new version of the crawl (or perhaps the 1981 text itself) composited over it. The other possibility is that the 1981 crawl was found and used, meaning that the 1981 crawl used the original starfield backdrop. This however rules out the possibility that the home video crawl was re-created due to technical reasons (i.e. jitter, damage, starfield exposure). However, this may also illiminate another possibility about the home video crawl--it was merely a standard-definition video re-creation, and thus could not possibly be used for theatrical exhibition. Thus, this would mean the 1997 crawl is either the original 1981 element or a new version made in 35mm resolution from the original 1977 backdrop element. I would say either one of these is strongly possible.

My theory is this: We know that many of the special effects shots were totally re-composited for the SE. They scanned in the original 35mm bluescreen elements and backdrops and digitall re-composited them, eliminating dupe grain and matte lines. I would say that the opening shot--the opening crawl which then tilts down to Tatooine to reveal the Tantive IV and stardestroyer--would have been in fairly poor condition and very scratched and grainy because of the title composition and all the editing done to this clip over the years. Therefore, in my mind, it is almost certain that the shot was re-composited. This would allow for the original starfield to be recovered, if not from an original background plate then simply from the original composite negative, and the ships and crawl to be totally re-composited; it would make sense, seeing as it was the SE, to simply make a high-quality digital re-creation of the crawl, free of jitter or grain, that could be composited seamlessly into the original scene.

Whatever the case, it was carried over into the 2004 DVD, meaning that both the 1997 and 2004 versions are likely re-created crawls. If they had the ability to do this for the SE it be easy as cake to simply alter the text to remove the Episode listing to re-created the original crawl. A true judgement is really dependant on seeing the whole dvd crawl when it comes out. Would be interesting to compare the original 1977 35mm tilt-down to Tattoine with the 1980's and 1990's home video alternate-starfields and the 1997/2004 DVD.

Here is the clincher regarding the 2006 DVD though: the original crawl is already available. It was seen on EOD. If the DVD crawl is the original it would certainly be the EOD footage, which it clearly is not. Therefore it must be some kind of re-creation. My guess is that they are using the same source elements that were used for the 1997 SE, which is the original starfield backdrop but with newly created text. Thus, this is really like an OOT-SE and not really the OOT.
Author
Time
Post link
Thanks for that pretty exhaustive analysis, zombie. I think you are mostly right, but this is how I see it:

1) 1977: original text and starfield, also used on Empire of Dreams and 2006 DVD;
2) 1981: new text and starfield, (probably) also used on all pre-SE home video versions;
3) 1997: 1981 text digitally composited onto 1977 starfield, also used on 2004 DVD.

I think the '06 DVD crawl is the original. I also think that although the PT crawls are generated, the SE crawls used existing optical elements. I think SE-OOT is a little harsh. But if there is an issue with the theatrical authenticity of the '06 DVD, it is with the mix and color correction, both of which date from 1993.
Author
Time
Post link
RE: the starfields, see mverta's Thread around 7 June:
Originally posted by: mverta
Ok, I've done some checking and I can confirm for you that there are at least two different composites of the first shot. There are any number of reasons why this may have been done, most likely having to do with crawl issues, but the matte painting, starfield and foreground ships were optically composited in the printer at least a couple of times, leading to variations in versions. I'm not 100% sure, but I will be once I finish checking, but it appears that both versions here use the same starfield, only one of them is reversed horizontally and slightly higher up.
I did the reversing and moving, but didn't have any success in matching the starfields.

Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here

Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, I tried flip-flopping them with no match either.

Thanks to JennyS1138 for posting this article by Steve Daly, which sheds some light on the subject:
originally posted by: JennyS1138, quoting Steve Daly
To be fair, the perfectionism isn’t all coming from Lucas. Fox “has actually pushed us as hard as we’ve pushed them,” says producer Rick McCallum, who’s overseeing the logistics of both the reissue work and the new movies. The suits in LA insisted, for instance, that the incredible opening shot of that humongous ship passing overhead in Star Wars be put back together again from its originial pieces, the better to remove some fine bits of dirt and grain from the scene. “I’ve never argued with a studio about them spending more money than we have. They’ve been unbelievable supportive.”
So we now know it was recomposited, as we suspected.
Author
Time
Post link
Wow, this has really taken off. I've been absent for several days and missed out on 5 pages.

Anyway, my point way back on page one was that the exact portion of which line of text is visible as the "Star Wars" logo fades from view is probably a poor way to judge if the title crawl is the original 1977 version or a digitally remade version. Does anyone know exactly what source EOD used, and how much the EOD version is cropped from the original negative? 1%, 10%, or more? Variances in cropping would cause this difference.

Author
Time
Post link
It's not a cropping issue - the trailer crawl is clearly altered for the trailer (hence the turbo SW logo). The question is "was the trailer crawl altered from an original source rather than remade completely?" And it looks like it was.
Author
Time
Post link
Well, I guess the force is weak with me.

I forgot to look at one very important aspect, and that is the position of the text crawl compared to certain stars in the starfield. Based on this and by comparing Zombie's scan, and the scan of the DVD trailer frame, and viewing the EOD crawl frame by frame, the difference between the two scans in the original post could not be more than 2 frames (probably no more than one). The "Star Wars" logo on EOD has clearly disappeared at least 20 frames before this, but is still visible on the DVD trailer frame. Even with the age of the film, and a possibly incorrect black level for the video transfer, I doubt this would account for a difference in fade of more than 20 frames.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: THX
It's not a cropping issue - the trailer crawl is clearly altered for the trailer (hence the turbo SW logo). The question is "was the trailer crawl altered from an original source rather than remade completely?" And it looks like it was.


I also have not actually seen the trailer. And I HATE the turbo SW logo on A New Hope. It looks horribly out of place, and goes faster than Empire and ROTJ.
Author
Time
Post link
Something that may be of interest in all of this is that the same starfield was used for the crawl on all three films. Of course, this excludes the original pre-Episode IV starfield, which is clearly different.

I'm with the general consensus that the starfield was changed when 'Episode IV' was added. I believe that when they created the new crawl, they used the starfield they had just done for The Empire Strikes Back, which was subsequently used again for Return of the Jedi. All of this makes the original crawl that much more unique.

The Starkiller's Guide to the Mono Sound Mix

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: The Starkiller
Something that may be of interest in all of this is that the same starfield was used for the crawl on all three films. Of course, this excludes the original pre-Episode IV starfield, which is clearly different.

I'm with the general consensus that the starfield was changed when 'Episode IV' was added. I believe that when they created the new crawl, they used the starfield they had just done for The Empire Strikes Back

Yes that seems very likely, although the starfield in the star-destroyer flyover scene was also changed for the EP IV, so this will also need to be 'recreated'? for the 2006 theatrical SW version.

Actually speaking of the flyover scene, the star-destroyer in the 1980 ANH seem to be positioned slightly lower (or closer to the planet below) than in the 1997 ANH and maybe in 1977 SW.
And in the 1997 ANH the lasershots are slightly misaligned with the spaceships or maybe it's the ships that is out of position, the laserglow is also almost missing or very faded. And damn that star-destroyer looks so clean comparing with the dirty pre SE footage, so how much of this scene was actually redone for the 1997 ANH SE and 1980 ANH??


Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
"You really hate me don't you MeBeJedi? LOL"

I'm sure knowing as much would certainly please you to no end. Of course, if we want to see who really hates who:

"just plain speculation and general Lucas hate-mongering."

"It's the forum members here who are flat-out lying about the September release, not LucasFilm, Fox or George Lucas."


Yeah, you won't see me going to boards where I hate the overall mindset of the members, and arguing continuously with them. That's a whole level of hatred I don't care to get myself involved in. Have fun, though.
And you have a choice, I happen to like Star Wars so that's why I come here.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
I for one don't see anything unreasonable about what you've been arguing, Boris, and I hope you're right. But George Lucas does have some major issues and I do believe that he'll try to give the original trilogy very cheap treatment.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Wow, a friend turned me onto this thread (and forum) when we were discussing the upcoming DVD release on another message board.

Needless to say, I am exhasperated and bummed. You may not (or perhaps may) believe how difficult it was, and for how many years I toiled, to convince people that I WAS THERE in '77, saw the movie a gazillion times, and KNEW for a FACT that the movie called "Star Wars" had neither an episode number or a subtitle.

It was not until Empire of Dreams came out that I was finally vindicated - even among many who think of themselves as die-hard Star Wars fans (my pals are the folks who line-up for the premiers on Hollywood Boulevard for weeks ... which I myself have been doing since ESB in 1980 - - though admittedly the Hollywood line-ups for the O.T. were on a much smaller scale and duration than the 6-week festivals for the prequels ... but they were still groundbreaking for their time - 24 hours for Empire and 7 days for Jedi ... ah, that seems so quaint now)


Anyways, as an old-school fan who's been chomping at the bit to see Star Wars restored to the way I (and the world) fell in love with it in 1977, the news that the upcoming DVD release has been falsely advertised is very sad. I found the evidence in this thread to be quite convincing that the crawl will most likely be a lame re-creation. In any event, I would be one of those who would recognize original '77 sound effects and such ... and so the 1993 audio mix would reek of false advertising to me anyways.

Bah!