opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed? — Page 7

I really don't think "restoration" and "preservation" are that complicated, it's going on all the time. It's not like they had any of these debates while preparing the disc of BLUE THUNDER.

I will give S_Matt some credibility on the Blade Runner issue. The reason being, "restoration" sometimes refers to the creative process and not the historic process. For instance, Orson Wells' Touch of Evil was restored in the 1990s to the version which he originally had envisioned, I believe reconstructed from his extensive notes on how the edit should follow; this was not a version the public ever saw, but it has historical significance for giving a glimpse at the original director's version of the film, same with Lawrence of Arabia in 1990 I think. One may argue in the case of Blade Runner that if Ridley Scott could have made Blade Runner exactly the way he wanted in 1982, it would be very near what the Final Cut is--S_Matt is not totally correct, of course, because it would never have been possible to do the visual effects like that even if he wished and also because the original colour timing was under his control and the new is an actual creative change. Of course, Scott had more control than he might like to admit--it was he who originally wanted the voice over and he could have cut the poor one finally recorded but was paranoid to do so because of all the poor test screening and pressure from the studio; ditto for the unicorn and happy ending. While he was being pressured to include these things and of course he realized how studio politics work, as far as I know he ultimately did conceed to them voluntarily, as he also did on his next film Legend for the same reasons, so the film was never wrenched away totally, even if he later regretted this, hence the issue is a bit more complicated than simply saying Final Cut is how Scott wanted to make it.

But ANYWAY....

This has nothing to do with Star Wars. Forget about Blade Runner. In a worst case scenario, Scott is engaging in simply changing his original choices (colour timing) and enhancing effects no matter how tastefully beyond the capabilities of 1982 (recomposites). In a best case scenario, and this is the one S_Matt is arguing, he is restoring a vision of his that was taken away and/or never allowed to be fully realized. Fine. That's not what the preservation of Star Wars is about. Like Final Cut, we have the Special Edition, in which Lucas has mainly changed his original choices but also artistically restored some things which he would have liked to do but never was able to (sorta. maybe).

The preservation of Star Wars is a historical one. Blade Runner has its historical preservation as well--the 1982 theatrical cut is presented from its original interpositive in a 4K scan, cleaned of dirt and scratches and presented in high definition. Ditto the International Cut of home video fame and the 1992 Director's Cut which launched the film to the status of classic. And for the hell of it they threw in a Workprint which was screened a handful of times, sourced from the original 70mm reels from which it was shown. So, restoring Star Wars would be on similar lines--none of this recomposited stuff, in Blade Runner they call that The Final Cut, not the restored  "Archival Versions" (the term BR gave to its historical restorations of the previous versions).

The Final Cut of Blade Runner is not a historical preservation, it's an artistic one if anything, and even then that's a slightly flimsy concept. The preservation of Star Wars is of a historical nature. Either the film is precisely as it was in 1977 without foreign blemishes (dirt, scratches) or it's not a true restoration--just like they did with Blade Runner, and I'm not referring to the Final Cut but the restored archival versions. You can have a "halfway restoration" which includes some enhancements and inauthenticies, like Adywan's ESB Reconstruction and what S_Matt is proposing. But another word for halfway is halfassed. I'm not interested in anything halfassed. But if it comes from Lucasfilm this is probably what we'll get.

*(Not to knock Adywan--his ESB Reconstruction isn't halfassed, he simply didn't have the materials to make it totally complete, because he is working from the unrestored older versions. So it's a circular problem--the films aren't restored and because they aren't restored fans don't have the materials to do it themselves).

The "gate weave" would be eliminated. Nobody has really seen that in home video since the 1990s. It's not on the film itself. If a guy like G Force can do that himself at home using software that is available to anyone for free, it's no surprise that professionals have the same capability.

That would be cool if LFL would embrace the whole workprint/rough cut thing. That in itself is a form of preservation I guess. I'd like to see the earlier version of Episode III before the reshoots. (And how many versions of RED TAILS must there be by now??)

     I suppose my prefered bonus version would be a HD restoration. Something as close to the '77 original release as possible. A complication is the medium. 1080 HD sets produce a picture quality all their own. There's a "crispness" to it, IMHO, that I expect would be difficult to work with. But, as near as possible.

    I could live with a good SD restoration. The GOUT with good color correction (especially on ANH and ROTJ.) Thing is, SW in bargain matinees and dollar theaters with imperfect focus, mono speakers and a well worn print was an important part of my '77 experience. 480 presentation can't reproduce that exactly, but it can recreate the the sense of the era. If it came down to what would fit on a disc and or control over what is considered the primary version, I could be sold on SD.

    We're getting so close to home 3D. I'd like to see a stop-gap set with HD restorations + HD alternate and deleted scenes, DVD SD restorations (BR on one side DVD on the other?), and loads and loads of DVD bonus docs and extras. A Collectors Set. Then, an "Official and Authorized" 3D+2D fan-edit set of the SW6 saga. :) 

    Maybe a BR restoration on one side and a DVD SD SE version on the other. The kids don't care so much about HD. 

thejediknighthusezni said:

The kids don't care so much about HD. 

Wait, what?

TV's Frink said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

The kids don't care so much about HD. 

Wait, what?

Well, even if he meant his kids...I'll wager they'll care soon enough.

doubleKO said:

TV's Frink said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

The kids don't care so much about HD. 

Wait, what?

I take it he means his kids. Though my son couldn't care less either. He gets annoyed when I fiddle with settings on the TV. "Who cares, just watch it". He doesn't even notice if he's watching a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 or vice versa :P

If that was me and my kid, I'd say, "You go to your room until you can learn to be an obsessive quality snob like your father!"

TheBoost said:

 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.

 

Almost all of the problems in the first theatrical release of Blade Runner can be traced to studio interference and mismanagement that put pressure on the schedule forcing shortcuts to be taken. The film was creatively and technically compromised by external forces. The film was "revisionist" even before it was finished. If you prefer that version, great, just remember what you're enjoying is not a film by Ridley Scott. Its a film by "Cynical studio stockholders".

We can thank underground screenings of the workprint version for raising awareness of the studio's meddling and suppression of Scott's vision, leading to the studio itself to issue the so-called "Director's Cut" of 1992 even though Scott was never personally involved in its creation.

To Scott's credit he left in many of the most famous continuity mistakes (at least, ones that didn't affect the logic of the narrative) in the Final Cut on purpose as they'd become part of the lore of the film.

It is a pity that this sort of thing simply wouln't work with Star Wars in this day and age - there's going to be no similar forcing Lucas's hand due to undergound screenings as these are extremely rare, mainly because copyright holders have vastly greater powers to confiscate personal property (i.e. privately owned 35mm prints) and to prosecute offenders. there is also a tendency to let him get away with it because it was all "his decision". The public is just willfully ignorant these days and actually supports restriction of their liberties. Empire and Jedi won't get much help either because I imagine a sizeable portion of the fan base and almost all of the general public thinks those films were directed by George Lucas as well. If he was to be honest he'd take Kershner and Marquand's names off the SE versions because they're all George Lucas films now. In any case, I bet Kershner and Marquand were denied legal final cut rights by Lucas. Incredible behavior from a man who once criticised this exact same behavior in the studio system and which behavior made him decide to go independent.

To Ridley Scott's credit he left in many of the most famous continuity mistakes in Blade Runner (at least, ones that didn't affect the logic of the narrative) in the Final Cut on purpose as they'd become part of the lore of the film.

As for digital effects, well, there's only one almost 100% new shot in The Final Cut and even this still retains some of the original elements. Recompositing footage digitally is not "redoing" anything and I will repeat this as often as is necessary. A computer is just a tool. Its achieving exactly the same thing as an optical printer but with infinitely more control and precision.

I can see some of you lump Scott in exactly the same camp as Lucas - as rapacious revisionists with no respect for history, but this is just completely wrong and misguided.

I was about to call rubbish on the dismissal of the mono mix, but several others have already done it for me, so I can tone down my reflexive outburst.  ;)

As has been said, the mono mix sounds nothing at all like the other versions.  It contains numerous differences in ADR, sound effects, and general balance that give it a completely different vibe than any of the others.  The music is mixed much more prominently throughout the movie, and in some respects it seems more 'polished' and refined, since they had more time to work on it and to correct things that were perceived to be lacking before.

It will never be my favourite version, as I became quite attached to the sound of the Dolby Stereo as a kid and because the 70mm version is amazing and leaves everything else in the dust; and also because some of the things I didn't like about the SE mixes were actually things that first appeared in the mono mix, but I didn't know that yet at the time.

However, as a '77 original, considered 'definitive' when it was made (stereo and surround were still thought of as 'gimmicky' back then before they caught on), and being what many people would have heard in theatres at the time, the mono mix is completely worthy of preservation.  It was never released on any home video format, only appearing on rare television broadcasts from the 80's and then never again.  I am very grateful to Belbucus for restoring it so well for use in fan projects, so that it will live on even if, as seems likely, it never officially sees the light of day again.

I think I can see what would happen if a "restored" version of Star Wars supposedly identical to the final release version were to come out on blu ray - most of you would still boycott it because of something or other it got wrong in any of its 120 odd minutes of run time. There *has* to come a point where close enough is good enough. Its just never going to happen that anyone would ever restore a 35 year old film in a way that would please every die hard restorationalist in all instances.

The fact is - nobody can really remember every detail of a film they saw all those decades ago, or even one that they saw yesterday. There will have to come a point where you'll have to just accept on good faith, that a restoration is as close as the restoration team and the studio could possibly make it, and be happy with what you get. Or else you truly have lost sight of the wood for the trees.

But like I said, nobody is going to be satisfied with anything they hypothetically release and I think this is one of the factors that makes Lucas highly reluctant to even entertain the possibility or spend the money on trying to satisfy a small subset of fans within a larger community of people who want to see a reasonably faithful OOT release. I can really see where he's coming from there. I don't condone his attitude, but I understand it.

The cruel fact is, most SW fans don't care what version it is - most of those that do care share my attitude that as long as the editorial matches and as long as the color appears natural and faithful it will be a worthy release. I think it might even be possible that the fundamentalist restorationalists themselves are holding back the possibility of these versions being released. Lucas knows these kinds of opinions exist - I'd also feel a bit ill at the prospect of bending over backwards to try please these fans who are actually still going to throw rocks at him no matter what he does. Of course he brought this stalemate situation upon himself but that doesn't change the fact that the kind of nitpicking we see on this forum is a factor in strengthening Lucas's resolve to not bow to fan pressure.

He should just have released warts-and-all but reasonable quality barebones DVD's and blu rays of the originals in a close-enough-to-original state years ago and then there probably wouldn't be this stalemate we find ourselves in now. I might even have opened the doorway to an extremely faithful restoration somewhere down the road. But its too late now. He knows that the target audience for a restoration version is the most likely to complain the loudest. Its really a catch 22 now.

asterisk8 said:

doubleKO said:

TV's Frink said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

The kids don't care so much about HD. 

Wait, what?

I take it he means his kids. Though my son couldn't care less either. He gets annoyed when I fiddle with settings on the TV. "Who cares, just watch it". He doesn't even notice if he's watching a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9 or vice versa :P

If that was me and my kid, I'd say, "You go to your room until you can learn to be an obsessive quality snob like your father!"

Very close. Obsessed-with-quality slob is closer.

doubleKO said:

Very close. Obsessed-with-quality slob is closer.

Please don't think I was calling you an obsessive snob. I was actually referring to myself. That's why I said, "if that was me and my kid". I care, probably too much, about things like a 4:3 picture stretched to 16:9, and I've been known to stealth-calibrate my friends' TVs while they're in the bathroom because I notice when their video settings are not optimized.  :)