The garbage mattes should not be fixed - they were there in 1977, so "fixing" them is just another alteration. A film is a snapshot of the time in which it was made, and effects flaws are a part of that. I really wish the Raiders of the Lost Ark DVD had kept the cobra reflection, too.
I seem to be in the minority as far as this idea goes, though.
It kind of reminds me of Optimus Prime.
I was cruising the toy aisle a couple years ago (you know, with my kids...) and I saw this super awesome 20th Anniversary Optimus Prime. I thought "Wow, it's just like the one I had 20 years ago!" but it was $70. I happened to be on Ebay later looking at toys (you know, for my kids...) and I saw some 1984 Optimus Primes. Well, I had apparently grown up since 1984 so the same toy seemed really small and cheap to me 20 years later. The 20th Anny version looked the same to me in 2004 as the 1984 one did to me in 1984.
If that makes any sense, I for one would like to the mattes cleaned up.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
xhonzi said:
It kind of reminds me of Optimus Prime.
Exactly.
Wait, what?
I realized that was only half my thought (but if you didn't get the parallel before, this probably won't help).
20th Annyiversary Optimus Prime IS the way I remember 1984 Optimus Prime WAS. Michael Bay OP, Beast Wars OP, or any other modern toy OP is not.
I guess that's a key difference to me between cleaned up FX shots (mattes, transparencies, reflections, etc...) and Special Edition like changes. Not that the original original original trilogy shouldn't be preserved for education or archival purposes, but if I could get a perfect version, I would like to see the mattes and whatnot cleaned up.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
I think a blu-ray of an old movie would be a very different thing than a toy. As much as Star Wars, I grew up watching the '82 Blade Runner and the '80 Close Encounters. The blu-rays of both look so good, much better than the cruddy vhs tapes I was watching back then, that I don't even care about any effects "flaws". Plus, a lot of those flaws (like the garbage mattes) are minimized or gone totally with a good transfer. Which Star Wars has never really had, in any version.
That reminds me, I had a pack of the new old 1977 Monster Munch the other day. They were just how I remembered them.
Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here
Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here
Jay said:
Haven't watched any Star Wars anything in at least 3 years, actually.
Same here. I watched the 06 DVD of Star Wars77 the day I bought it. Since then, it's been the NPR version only. If an anamorphic version of 77 comes out, I'll buy it and watch it. Other than that, my Star Wars world is settled.
ChainsawAsh said:
The garbage mattes should not be fixed - they were there in 1977, so "fixing" them is just another alteration. A film is a snapshot of the time in which it was made, and effects flaws are a part of that. I really wish the Raiders of the Lost Ark DVD had kept the cobra reflection, too.
I seem to be in the minority as far as this idea goes, though.
I'm in that minority also.
Moth3r said:
That reminds me, I had a pack of the new old 1977 Monster Munch the other day. They were just how I remembered them.
http://www.talkingretail.com/products/product-news/10590-walkers-brings-back-original-monster-munch.html
Did you have a nostalgic case of food poisoning followed by delusional dreams that Horror Snacks and Golden Nuggets (not the hideous 1990's Nestle rip offs) were back in the shops?
ChainsawAsh said:
The garbage mattes should not be fixed - they were there in 1977, so "fixing" them is just another alteration. A film is a snapshot of the time in which it was made, and effects flaws are a part of that. I really wish the Raiders of the Lost Ark DVD had kept the cobra reflection, too.
I seem to be in the minority as far as this idea goes, though.
Count me in. They didn't bother me in 1985, they don't bother me now. I also don't want Casablanca colorized or matte lines erased on Claude Rains's "Invisible Man" reveal.
TheBoost said:
Count me in. They didn't bother me in 1985, they don't bother me now. I also don't want Casablanca colorized or matte lines erased on Claude Rains's "Invisible Man" reveal.
Reading too fast again, I read this as you don't want Chewbacca colorized, and I'm thinking, "wait, since when is he in black and white?"
Anchorhead said:
ChainsawAsh said:
The garbage mattes should not be fixed - they were there in 1977, so "fixing" them is just another alteration. A film is a snapshot of the time in which it was made, and effects flaws are a part of that. I really wish the Raiders of the Lost Ark DVD had kept the cobra reflection, too.
I seem to be in the minority as far as this idea goes, though.
I'm in that minority also.
And I also. I hesitated buying the Indiana Jones set for years just because I was so angered that they did that to Raiders.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Gaffer Tape said:
And I also. I hesitated buying the Indiana Jones set for years just because I was so angered that they did that to Raiders.
I also put off buying the first three for years. I only gave in and bought them last year because I feared further changes and increased difficulty getting the mildly-altered versions (2003 set) I have now. Figured I better get a set I like while I can.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Gaffer Tape said:
captainsolo said:
The truth is it hurts to watch star wars now. I go for classic EU novels when I want a good SW fix. The GOUTs are painful to see-especially those damn garbage mattes!
I can't blame the GOUT for that. I find the garbage mattes to be just as visible on the '04 sets as well. In fact, that's when I first noticed them.
You're right. I just went back to the 04 dvds for the first time in years just to check for this, and the damn things are there too! Why is it that this was the first time they were noticeable?
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
Awful color timing made them more apparent. Then when the GOUT came out, even though they were much less apparent (depending on what type of TV you're watching them on), they still stuck out like a sore thumb because many noticed them for the first time on the 04 DVDs.
It's like the white arrow inside the "Ex" in the "FedEx" logo - once you notice it, you can't un-notice it.
ChainsawAsh said:
It's like the white arrow inside the "Ex" in the "FedEx" logo - once you notice it, you can't un-notice it.
Damn you! Or thanks. Not sure which.
ChainsawAsh said:
The garbage mattes should not be fixed - they were there in 1977, so "fixing" them is just another alteration. A film is a snapshot of the time in which it was made, and effects flaws are a part of that.
I agree... strongly, in fact.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Removing matte lines only opens the door to other unnecessary "fixes."
Old films have flaws that reflect the times in which they were made. We shouldn't be going back and erasing these flaws to soothe our modern sensibilities. I want my grain, I want my matte lines, and I want my grey R2-D2 in the back of the X-Wing. Just leave it the hell alone.
MTFBWY…A
I'm gonna break from the herd and state that I think the matte lines should be removed.
I don't think they were visible in theaters. (Theater images can afford to be dim since they are shown in the dark.) I can't believe the matte lines would have gotten the thumbs up if they were visible, since they are such an eyesore.
It was only in the home video releases that we started seeing matte lines. The TV image is brighter to compete with a bright room.
Does anyone remember seeing matte lines when the SE was shown in theaters? I don't. But we know from the 04 DVDs (based on the SE negatives) that they were still there.
You know of the rebellion against the Empire?
I agree with Jay, but I also agree with the sentiment of Erik to an extent. Yeah, they're not supposed to be extremely visible, if at all. Like Ash said, it's the poor color timing of the discs that make them stand out. But, honestly, the more times I see any movie with optical compositing, I begin to notice garbage mattes I'd never noticed before. I was watching Star Trek II a couple of months ago, and, even though I'd seen that movie quite recently and never saw any before, I began to notice garbage mattes. And the same thing when I saw Back to the Future Part II a couple of weeks ago. An amazing DVD set, and I never noticed garbage mattes before, but now I suddenly saw them. I think it's possible that my eye is becoming more discerning in these matters. They're there. Always. That's all there is to it. And most of the time, they're hidden to the point of not being a distraction. So, no, I don't think they should be removed. They should just not be made any more apparent than they were supposed to be. A keen eye might catch one on occasion, but they shouldn't be jumping out at you.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
If they just transferred them right none of these things would even be that bad, especially on a properly calibrated tv. Plus, you could digitally fix every one of these things and you'll just notice something else and it becomes a whole endless anal retentive exercise for another 20 years. Fun! The movie is old, big deal. With all these changes (no offense to adywan) its starting to look like Joan Rivers' face.
I'm okay with garbage mattes being removed. They are distracting and irritating and aren't supposed to be visible. I wouldn't call it strictly the original version of the movie to do that, though. That is more like what the special edition should have been. Matte lines and boxes taken out, maybe a couple other very minor fixes like compositing with proper spatial perspective so snowspeeders don't appear in front of the legs of the Imperial walker they're supposed to be flying behind, etc. Aside from being overly blue, the Battle of Hoth in the SE looks quite good, because that's all they did to it, no cgi inserts. And having a well made 5.1 mix to increase the soundstage and bass but still retain the essential flavour of the originals and not insert glaring new sounds or change the balance.
If that were all they had done, the SE would have been awesome.
But the original, completely untouched with all its sound mixes, should always be available also.
With a really good transfer, most of its flaws would scarcely be noticeable anyway.
The crux of it for me is this:
Would anyone really want the effects of Ray Harryhausen "cleaned up"?
No.
As has been said they were of their time and representative of a development in cinema and not only that,in the case of Star Wars,but of a seminal leap forward in the advancement of effects technology.They should be kept exactly the way they were in the same way that I would hope no-one would want to tamper with the equally seminal work of a genius like Harryhausen.Do we need to add CG elements to Jason and The Argonaust?No we bloody well do not so let us treat the effects and flaws in Star Wars with the same respect.
And I dont buy all this shit about the garbage mattes.You know the people who complain about that and about noticing it now should take this into account.When I was a kid I didn't notice them and I have noticed that my sons don't bother about them either-all they see are TIE fighters and X-Wings and my son was open-mouthed with how cool the skeleton fight in Argonauts was.Perhaps those looking at these films now and moaning about garbage mattes could try looking at them that way?
You might even enjoy the films.Stranger things have been known to happen,lol.
<span style=“font-size:14pt;line-height:100%”></span>
http://www.bigbaddaddyvader.com
Original Star Wars Props and Production Material
bigbaddaddyvader said:
And I dont buy all this shit about the garbage mattes.You know the people who complain about that and about noticing it now should take this into account.When I was a kid I didn't notice them and I have noticed that my sons don't bother about them either-all they see are TIE fighters and X-Wings and my son was open-mouthed with how cool the skeleton fight in Argonauts was.Perhaps those looking at these films now and moaning about garbage mattes could try looking at them that way?
Hmm. Lemme try...
Nope. Didn't work. I guess I'll have to continue moaning.
For the record, removing the garbage mattes is the only change that I think should be made to the OT for a proper home release. That's it. This is not a slippery slope. I still say it's a result of the movies being brightened for TV viewing.
Erikstormtrooper said:
Does anyone remember seeing matte lines when the SE was shown in theaters? I don't. But we know from the 04 DVDs (based on the SE negatives) that they were still there.
This question still stands.
You know of the rebellion against the Empire?