Anyone else interested in seeing the raw untouched digital scan. I'd rather have them that way, at this point. I can't envision an 'original' which could come close to satisfying the public's opinion. So like the old documentaries, teach the world a lesson by showing warts and all, the effects of time on film.
I want a crappy Star Wars.
I must say a totally untouched hi def scan of the OOT would probably suit me fine as I actually think grain and dirt and scratches enhance the experience. Hell, this is why I enjoy GOUT so much. I'm just of the opinion that once you use a computer to erase a single speck of dirt you might as well just take the whole process as far as is practical.
I'm pretty torn on this. A simple scan of a cleaned print, with proper color timing, is our goal here. But I admit I'd be disappointed if there were visible matte lines (boxes) around ships. I don't remember ever seeing those in a theater in 1977. They would take me out of the experience.
So I guess I'd like to see both versions: a straight scan as well as a version with recomposited ORIGINAL elements.
Ultimately, I want a version of Star Wars that I can watch without being distracted by crap that's not part of the movie. I want to be transported back to 1977.
You know of the rebellion against the Empire?
You didn't see the boxes in 77, because with proper levels, they wouldn't be visible and them being visible is a side product of the telecine. But those are garbage mattes, not matte lines, that's something completely different. So when you say you want to be transported back to 77, you're effectively saying you'd like to see the film restored to as close to the way it looked in theatres in 1977 and the original optical composites are a part of that. And the film would have to be cleaned up to account for the ageing but not a step further.
It seriously frustrates me, that even here so many people would like to see the recomposited FX in an OOT restoration, because the original FX are a huge part of the film's historical value, they were a great achievement at the time and redoing them in a computer totally takes that away, the matte lines and extra grain are just a natural part of the special effects technology of the time.
Today, it would be possible to recreate the FX shots with CG, to make them look exactly the same but in higher quality, which would effectively be the same kind of thing as recompositing them.
S_Matt said
The fact that some matte lines would end up harder to see and in some cases vanish altogether would be a pleasant side effect. You can't limit the use of technology to clean and improve films just because some people used it badly before. One should also consider that there were no computers capable of frame by frame painting out of dirt and scratches and selective color correction not just of whole frames, but *parts* of the frame too, in 1977. Should they be restricted to photochemical repairs (which can only do so much)?
I actually think you misunderstood our continuation of your car analogy.
You are still talking about using modern special effects technology on an old film. I can see how some of you would like that, but some of us like to see our films in the context of their time. It isn't that some people used it "badly before". By saying those effects were poorly done is putting in into the context of our time. That technology evolved, certainly we can do it better today, but back then that is what they had to work with. That is what I want to see.
I was once watching one of the Star Wars films with someone and they exclaimed "Wow, that is amazing they could do these effect back in the 80's". Total facepalm moment! The thing is, they were right! The effects the Star Wars films had at there time were ground breaking and amazing, and was a big part of the reason the films were as popular as they were, no one had seen anything like it before. Only this person that made that exclamation wasn't seeing those amazing effects that impressed people back in the late 70's and early 80's, they were seeing 1997 special effects.
I want to see those original effect as the original audience saw them, flaws and all. I don't consider the fact that redoing them with today's technology and having the matte lines harder to see or disappear altogether a pleasant side effect any more than I'd consider souping up a vintage car with modern parts or a newer faster engine to be a pleasant side effect. I want the experience of driving that vintage car as close to the experience that people got from driving back when it first came out, I might have to crank the windows up and down, and it doesn't have power steering or anti-lock breaks, but that is a big part of what the car was. Change those things and it is a very different car.
tl;dd*
;-)
I think the Star Wars Special Editions are totally cool provided
CP3S said:
You are still talking about using modern special effects technology on an old film.
but modern digital cleanup tools are totally fine? My argument is that if you approve of one you logically have to approve of the other. Digital recompositing where possible is not only desireable, its mandatory. Why would you limit your ability to improve on what are basically enforced degradations? If you can get the separate elements you MUST recomp them. You're doing a disservice to the original effects artists by not allowing their cinematography and craftsmanship to be seen as perfectly as it can be. Most effects artists of the time will tell you how much they *hated* the final results. We want the live action cinematographer's work to be seen unimpeded by dirt or other artifacts. Why don't we also want the same for the effects crew? If we applied your arguments to restoring the OOT there wouldn't be any restoration. What about how the film is displayed? They didn't have digital projectors or LCD screens in 1977 either. Would the movie only be available as a 35mm print? Would we all have to invest in 35mm film projectors to "remain true to the conditions in which the film was made" ?
I don't want any sort of digital cleanup or recompositing. I want them to take an interpositive that preserves the color timing of the original, clean it photochemically, and scan it at 4K. All effects are exactly as they were in the theater in 1977/80/83, no grain would be removed, etc.
"If you can get the separate elements you MUST recomp them" - no. You really shouldn't, as recompositing them with modern tools is re-doing them, and is not representative of how the effects were done at the time.
I don't care how much the "artists of the time ... hated the final results." What they made captivated generations, and to alter it in any way is to do those very same artists a disservice.
Dirt, dust and print damage are a different beast entirely. Leaving it to preserve how it was is like saying, "I took this photograph in 1945, left it in a drawer, and it got dusty. I'm gonna frame it, but not clean it first, since that's how it's looked since 1945."
"If we applied your arguments to restoring the OOT there wouldn't be any restoration."
Do you consider the Back to the Future Blu-Rays to have been restored? They didn't recomposite the effects for that, and it looks magnificent. That's what I want for Star Wars.
Restoring is about getting it to look as good as it could have looked when it was originally released, not upgrading it to compete with the films released today.
@ S_Matt: Man, I seriously cringe whenever I read one of your posts in this topic.
We want the live action cinematographer's work to be seen unimpeded by dirt or other artifacts.
Yeah, dirt and other artefacts that weren't originally present - that's what restoration means, to get it as close to the way it originally looked as possible and that includes the special effects. A reasonable and careful digital clean-up (such as the one Richard Harris did on the Godfather) and digital recompositing ain't the same f*cking ball park. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same f*cking sport.
S_Matt said:
CP3S said:
You are still talking about using modern special effects technology on an old film.
but modern digital cleanup tools are totally fine? My argument is that if you approve of one you logically have to approve of the other.
But that isn't logical at all. What you are talking about is completely redoing those special effects, that isn't true restoration and that isn't even comparable to using modern techniques to remove dirt and scratches that have accumulated over time.
You've even dropped down to the point where you are mixing up content with means of presentation. How does the fact that they didn't have LCD screens back in the seventies have anything do with what is presented in the actual film? Obviously we are not suggesting you have to preserve and entire 1970's cinema along with the films to properly view them.
It is kind of interesting to see how split even us "purists" are in what we want. I'm not sure if I could blame an outsider for looking in on things like this and thinking we are absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, how can we condemn some changes and alterations while being full on supportive about others? If you're going to modernize the special effects at all, you might as well remove bad puppetry, poor looking models, and any other special effects limitations of the time. If that is what we want, George already did that.
S_Matt said:
but modern digital cleanup tools are totally fine? My argument is that if you approve of one you logically have to approve of the other.
http://twister111.tumblr.com
Previous Signature preservation link
I also don't see how using a computer to clean up tears and scratches that weren't there on opening day is in the same ballpark. Plus, isn't it possible that Dykstra and those guys were conscious of how many layers the shots are going to go through and took that into consideration when lighting and shooting the models?
Yeah, the original elements were shot on 70mm exactly for that reason.
Harmy said:
the original FX are a huge part of the film's historical value, they were a great achievement at the time and redoing them in a computer totally takes that away, the matte lines and extra grain are just a natural part of the special effects technology of the time.
For the record, this right here is my exact opinion and, I think, makes the most sense. OT-Preservation is about the fact that, in 1977, how big movies were made changed tremendously, and the original special effects were part of that.
Wow, the hostility I didn't expect. Its a debate, folks, and I don't shy away from an issue. Its good to discuss these things. I appreciate all points of view.
For the record I believe that the optical composites throughout the Star Wars trilogy are of a very high standard and would probably look perfectly fine in a restoration without any work done on them. Though I'm actually of the opinion that another blockbuster sci fi film of 1977 *should* have won the Oscar for effects, namely Close Encounters of the Third Kind. That's just some seriously refined and usually overlooked effects work - the adulation nromally being reserved for its cheap 'n cheerful companion in the optical effects revolution.
I'm just throwing a different point of view out there and I see no reason for hostility in what is to my mind a very interesting topic.
Didn't intend to offend anyone, I just wanted to see the different opinions and honestly I don't think that any of them are invalid.
I still don't see how there's a difference between a scratch that appeared on the negative the last time someone handled it and one that happened when the film was unloaded from the camera 35 years ago. Or a stray hair that landed up in the optical printer at ILM and is now sitting in the corner of an effects sequence for all to see. I hardly call that a technical limitation that ought to be preserved.
I still cite Blade Runner as an example of a film that I feel was treated right when it was revised in 2007. Its inarguably a better film than it was. Though at least they were good enough to provide the warts-and-all releases for the anal among us. (And that by the way is intended as a joke, in case anyone freaks out)
P.S. I like this forum and community very much and it has rekindled my enthusiasm for Star Wars in a big way.
S_Matt said:
Wow, the hostility I didn't expect. Its a debate, folks, and I don't shy away from an issue. Its good to discuss these things. I appreciate all points of view...
Whoa, whoa, whoa, not sure where you are seeing hostility. I certainly didn't intend any, nor did I read any into the other guy's posts. We may disagree, sometimes pretty strongly, but I think we are all good here.
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/opinions-on-film-restoration-preservation-and-how-it-applies-to-Star-Wars-what-do-you-think-should-should-not-be-allowed/post/497885/#TopicPost497885
???
And, S_Matt,
Please refrain from using the words "anal" and "warts" so closely together. Thank you.
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.
CP3S said:
S_Matt said:
Wow, the hostility I didn't expect. Its a debate, folks, and I don't shy away from an issue. Its good to discuss these things. I appreciate all points of view...
Whoa, whoa, whoa, not sure where you are seeing hostility. I certainly didn't intend any, nor did I read any into the other guy's posts. We may disagree, sometimes pretty strongly, but I think we are all good here.
Yeah, I didn't even get mad when C3PX called me a racist in the Blu thread.
;-) <--Winky
Fink is starting to feel like an anal wart. Can't seem to get him away from my ass since I made that comment in the BD thread.
;) <----------
timdiggerm said:
What are the benefits of the OT with recoposited elements (ie no matte-lines) but without any other upgrades? Could someone explain that?
Erm... didn't you just lay it out right there?
Frink and I appear to be in the minority here. I don't suppose this will really help anyone understand, but...
#1. Preserve the movies as they were. The movies were too influential to be lost to history (all 30 years of it so far) the way they have been.
#2. Why not let me enjoy my 1954 Mercedes 300 SL but with a few modern accotrements? Lots of improvements have been made in the realms of fuel efficiency, air conditioning, tyres, GPS, whatever. If I was ever lucky enough to own one of these babies, AND I DECIDED to DRIVE IT I would be less concerned with exact restoration and more concerned with my comfort and enjoyment. I understand the ideas of restoration, really I do. But I would rather enjoy myself.
#3 Back to the film- there are a lot of movies that have their theatrical version preserved and I think that is great. I think it's important to film history (as important as film history is). But I don't usually watch the theatrical version- given the chance. I prefer what I subjectively decide is the "better" version in the examples of Blade Runner, Lord of the Rings, Daredevil, Superman 2, Chronicles of Riddick, Muppet Christmas Carol, and so on to quickly name some examples.
#4 If presented with an infinity of choices, I would watch 1977-1983 cuts of the movies with digital dirt/scratch removal, and improved/removed matte lines to watch.
#5 And to let on a little secret- I like a lot of what Ady's done to SW. It doesn't detract from my desire to see the originals released, but I would probably watch something that's 60% Ady and 40% original if given an infinity of choices.
#6 Finally- I wouldn't/don't watch the 1997, 2004 or 2011 SEs for frank enjoyment at any time. I find them to be more frustrating than enjoyable. Prior to finding something better than the TR47 discs I had for years, I simply didn't watch SW at all.
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.
S_Matt said:
I still cite Blade Runner as an example of a film that I feel was treated right when it was revised in 2007. .
(no hostility, it's just dudes talking). But when you bring up Blade Runner remember that the touched-up version happily co-exists, (on a level field of quality), side by side with the others. To the point where you can even pick either one on netflix streaming. That's a whole other ball of wax, and would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do with star wars. It would just be a special edition but with a little subtlety and class. I don't think anyone would a have problem with that.
C3PX said:
;) <----------
:p <------
xhonzi said:
timdiggerm said:
What are the benefits of the OT with recoposited elements (ie no matte-lines) but without any other upgrades? Could someone explain that?
Erm... didn't you just lay it out right there?
Frink and I appear to be in the minority here. I don't suppose this will really help anyone understand, but...
<snip>
This. I agree 100% with xhonzi, except I like my face.
S_Matt said:
cinematography and craftsmanship to be seen as perfectly as it can be.
Except there isn't the universal consensus that it actually is closer toward perfection (including among the guys who actually did the work) that you're making it out to be.