opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed? — Page 6

Harmy said:

Also, you're talking about how great these effects were in those films, yet you would prefer them recomposited digitally, so that in effect they wouldn't be the same original awesome effects created at the time?

Well, I don't believe recompositing using better tools makes the shots any less original... you know that by now ;)  I just look at how the film seems to me as a whole. Blade Runner Final Cut to me just looks like a very good quality transfer of the film I enjoyed. I know some shots were recomposited but I don't know which they are - I suspect not many in fact. I just see the film looking better and functioning better editorially than I ever saw it look and fucntion before and that's that. This is all that really maters to me when a film comes out on blu ray. The format is unforgiving of flaws. The fewer I see the the better.

I'd be of the opinion that you should only recomp a shot if it needs recomping. Opinions will differ on what "needs" recomping - in your case, you believe nothing needs it or should have it, and as far as I can tell, we've sucessfully agreed to disagree on the matter. 

So, in Empire, I think the AT-AT battle definitely needed recomping and I'm glad they did in the SE version - it looks stunning. Its the colour timing and editorial changes that put me off watching that version of the film though. Editorial and colour faithfulness matter more to me than how clean or perfect an effects shot looks so if a version of ESB is someday released that is cleaned and restored but doesn't have touched up effects I'd choose that version over any other that is currently available. I like enhanced effects shots but don't consider them mandatory to my approval of a transfer, if that makes any sense....

Negative 1 is still around? WHOA!!!

negative1 said:

as an experiment, if we take some of the raw 1080p ESB test transfers, and give them to 10 different people, we'll end up with 10 different takes on the restoration of it.. i can provide a short sample of 1-2 minutes, and see what you come up with...

I think that is only when you muddle the term "restoration". If you've paid attention to the last few pages, Chainsaw, Zombie, Gaffer, Harmy, myself, and others I am forgetting (sorry guys), all have pretty much the exact same idea in mind of what restoration actually is. Our goal, as the goal of any true restoration ought to be to bring it as close to the original as possible. It has always been that way, that is what restoration is. Maybe we would have slightly different variation on what we think would need to be done, if you gave a project to ten of us to do on our own, sure, our results would all probably look slightly different.

But not that much different considering our goal is the same. For the most part, we simply aren't in favor of adding escalators to the Roman Colosseum, so to speak. Throughout history it has only had stairs, and we are interested in experiencing it with stairs.

It is the people who want changes that are on the slippery slope of never having what they truly want. They have to debate and question how far is too far. Is Adywan's project too far? Are the 97 SEs too far? Would the SE be too far if it was exactly the same minus the added camp? In the version Frink, Xhonzi, S. Matt and others want, would there be the added windows on Bespin, or would the walls be left how they were in the originals? I've said it before, I rather like the windows. This is the point were ten different people will vary substantially. When it comes to flat out true preservation of the originals as close to how they were seen in theaters as possible, it is pretty clean cut with little room for variances

Exactly, CP3S. The restoration of the film is not very complex, and is not hard to please people expecting this--a restoration of the film. Just...restore it. Make it look exactly like it looked and sounded in 1977. If something wasn't there in 1977--then it doesn't belong in the film. You take the negatives, you take the sound masters, you clean them of foreign dirt on the surface of the film and clean out scratches where there are any and bam--there's your restoration.

The "hard to please" crowd is created out of the fact that people want something more than this or less than this, they either accept or actually want things tampered with, to become inauthentic to how the film existed previously and originally--doesn't matter if the sound is different or has a new mix, wants a new mix, wants re-done special effects, wants no re-done effects elements but re-done composites, wants it all the same as 1977 except one or two extra elements, wants deleted scenes put in, wants it the way George Lucas says he wanted it, wants the grain removed, wants the colours altered, wants the image sharpened, wants all of these things, wants all of these things except for one, wants some of them but not all of them. Etc. It goes on. Then, when someone says "I just want the original, nothing more or less"--we're hard to please. No, it's very simple--just present the film as it was. If that does not satisfy you: you want a Star Wars that never existed, that you've just created in your mind as an idealised version of the film.

Anything which "improves" on the film, or changes any sound or picture beyond what was seen on either the final negative or the answer print in 1977--is not a restoration. Because you aren't actually restoring anything, as in putting the film back to its original state. This is what would be called an enhanced version. It is, to describe it another way, a Special Edition. This is not necessarily bad. I for one will likely never watch the pre-Final Cut versions of Blade Runner because that version is the best viewing experience. It's nice to have a version of the film that is not necessarily 100% authentic to its original release but has slight modifications in order to make the viewing experience more pleasing from a technical standpoint. But, aside from the fact that this is secondary in my mind to the actual original, this would not be a preservation or a restoration. If you want to talk about a tastefully enhanced version then fine, but let's call it that, because tp talk about it as a restoration or preservation is a gross misunderstanding of terminology.

In 4 years I don't think I've come across a single negative thing regarding the work done on the Close Encounters blu-ray, a movie that is just as old and just as problematic in it's own way. (And without a ton of fanfare and playing the martyr about it). It's actually not hard to please everyone, LFL just says stuff like that to have a reason to half-ass stuff.

Eh, it seems kind of ridiculous to be cutting slack to LFL that no other company on Earth would get. It's like some nerdy doormat doing the hot girl's homework for her. (And I love how LFL characterizes itself as this scrappy independent little NorCal boutique company, but only on this issue. The rest of the time they're like effing NASA.)

xhonzi said:

Let's move back to a concrete example- Ady's ESB Reconstructed.  Only looks and plays like the original.  Benefits from some recomp, etc.  If that were officially released, would you be happy?

No.

If that is what we wanted, I for one, would be more than content with the one Ady released.

xhonzi said:

Let's move back to a concrete example- Ady's ESB Reconstructed.  Only looks and plays like the original.  Benefits from some recomp, etc.  If that were officially released, would you be happy?

I'm sure they'd be happy-er but not in hog heaven yet. I'd be prefectly satisfied with either a 100% original or one with subtle enhancements but which did not change the editorial or any visual compositions.

Okay, purely for the sake of wishful thinking, here's my own take on what I'd ideally like to see for these movies in the future.  After the frustrating 'altered' treatment of the 'Original Trilogy' for their 'Theatrical' SE re-release, DVD release, and upcoming BLU-RAY release...there's only one way now that GL could finally rectify things for me personally now, as far as any possible future BLU-RAY release of the OT goes, from where things currently stand -

1.  My *main* wish - a release of the unaltered versions (meaning original editing, and warts-and-all effects) of each of the OT, but cleaned-up of dirt and scratches to a high standard where the prints are concerned .  Something that approaches a reasonable and respectful 'representation'/'restoration' of what was initially seen on their blockbusting, award-winning 'Theatrical' releases, that's done to a high quality that today's BLU-RAY format demands.

2.  My *secondary* wish - on top of the above, also release equally high-quality cleaned-up versions of each of the OT (with original editing), but with re-comped , spruced-up versions of the original effects, where matte lines etc. are concerned...but without excessive additions, or alterations.  This is the route I'd wished GL's proposed 'Special Editions' had gone down originally, by the way.

3.  My *anything goes Special Edition* wish - If GL ended up wanting to do *even more* 'altered' versions of his current 'Special Edition' cuts in future, but with flying Rontos and tinted purple, then that would be fine with me (although I reckon he'd be better subtracting certain additions, rather than just adding to them, of course)...SO LONG as he finally organises high quality releases more faithful to how the movies originally looked TOO, as I mentioned in my 1st wish above! ;) 

I may not care for some of his current 'creative choices', but if a high quality release of how the OT originally looked became available too, then it wouldn't particularly bother me if he ended up adding even more crap I don't like, to any further BLU-RAY release...although I'd still wish that anyone new to the franchise would get to see the way it was to begin with, first.

Good thing then that adywan's ongoing 'Revisited' efforts are already giving me the kind of 'Special Edition' cuts/'alterations' that I could only wish for a long, long time ago...

Matt, you keep using Blade Runner's Final Cut as an example of how you'd like to see the OOT restored.

Thing is, that's not a restoration of Blade Runner.  It's a special edition.  Things were changed - color timing was radically altered, new effects shots were created, existing effects shots were recomposited.

But the US theatrical, international theatrical, director's, and workprint cuts, included in very high quality 1080p in the same set as the Final Cut - those are restorations.  They present them with their original color timing and all original effects without any recompositing, and they look fantastic.  On top of that, they exist alongside the tweaked and polished Final Cut.  That's what I want out of an OT Blu-Ray set.

Mono would be a silly waste of valuable disc real estate that could be better employed for the video. You want Star Wars in mono, get a copy on VHS.

ChainsawAsh said:

Matt, you keep using Blade Runner's Final Cut as an example of how you'd like to see the OOT restored.

Thing is, that's not a restoration of Blade Runner.  It's a special edition.  Things were changed - color timing was radically altered, new effects shots were created, existing effects shots were recomposited.

 

I consider the Final Cut to be the first time Ridley Scott's Blade Runner was actually released. All other versions except the Workprint are bastardized by studio meddling. Its nice that they were released in hi-def as well but I see them only as an example of the damage talentless studio executives can do to a film. Yes, Ridley Scott did voluntarily bow to every ridiculous demand the studio made but I think he was playing the long game there knowing that somehow he'd get to finish the film the way he intended.

The final cut is the restoration of an original creative vision.

Star Wars however was not terribly compromised by the studio, and no hot shot yuppies trying to make a name for themselves as a studio execs tried to take it away from Lucas and impose their own vision on it. Lucas has no proof whatsoever that the film he made in 1977 was not his true "vision" whereas in the case of Blade Runner, well, that horrendous narration is all the proof you need. 

Later on Lucas became that hot shot upstart who imposed his vision onto the film - his own film - and of course, Kershner and Marquand's films too. That is why I would support any initiative to have the release versions of those films restored. However I'm not opposed to some minor cosmetic improvements either. I quite think filmmakers have better things to do than worry if every matte line is the correct thickness.

Darth Mallwalker said:

 

S_Matt said:

Mono would be a silly waste of valuable disc real estate that could be better employed for the video. You want Star Wars in mono, get a copy on VHS.

I don't think the mono mix is silly. Don't think it's available on VHS either.

 

the mono mix came about due to cheapskate theatre owners who wouldn't upgrade to stereo. There's no historical value to that whatsoever. And well, even if the VHS isn't natively mono, cheaper VCR's are so your problem is solved.

S_Matt said: 

I consider the Final Cut to be the first time Ridley Scott's Blade Runner was actually released. All other versions except the Workprint are bastardized by studio meddling. Its nice that they were released in hi-def as well but I see them only as an example of the damage talentless studio executives can do to a film. Yes, Ridley Scott did voluntarily bow to every ridiculous demand the studio made but I think he was playing the long game there knowing that somehow he'd get to finish the film the way he intended.

The final cut is the restoration of an original creative vision.

 The original creative vision includes "originally I didn't envision the film being so sloppy with atrocious ADR, slow-mo close ups of stunt people instead of actors, and numerous contiunity errors." His original vision aparently also included 21st century digital special effects. How prophetic he was.

S_Matt said:

Darth Mallwalker said:

 

S_Matt said:

Mono would be a silly waste of valuable disc real estate that could be better employed for the video. You want Star Wars in mono, get a copy on VHS.

I don't think the mono mix is silly. Don't think it's available on VHS either.

 

the mono mix came about due to cheapskate theatre owners who wouldn't upgrade to stereo. There's no historical value to that whatsoever.

If it played in theaters, it has historical value.