1980s George:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykmZp5cgbkU
walking_carpet said:
he'll probably rave about it now, but for years it wasn't his cup of tea. By no means does this film reflect his 'vision'. The cast and crew went above and beyond his 'vision'.
That is ironic considering that for many people, the whole part with Yoda and Luke is what Star Wars is ABOUT. It is the heart of the Star Wars trilogy. That and the imperial march, and "I am your father." To many people this IS Star Wars, not a random deviation or a mistake.
I was also under the impression that "Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan" should actually have read "George Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan", since drafts 2 and 3 of Empire were 100% George. If you read the George Lucas drafts you see that most of the good stuff is all there...the dialogue just isn't as polished.
Bingowings said:
The panic cut still intrigues me greatly but he seemed to be a much more grounded guy back then.
Agreed. The man behind the original "Star Wars Trilogy" was a brilliant filmmaker. If you watch the old interviews, his personality is even different. More alert, more intelligent sounding. More humble, more grounded. A very striking contrast to "old George" who made the prequels.
Library of Congress?
Come on, you can't say something like that and then say "wait a few years". Tell us now;)
I interpret this to mean that someone in 20th Century Fox or Lucasfilm has contacted you and supplied you with archival material direct from the company, but there are certain strings attached.
Interesting....
If it was as good as the Star Trek original series and it kept Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fisher, it would have been worth it.
Could somebody show me evidence that he actually said it wasn't very good? Thanks
Thank you for preserving this important piece of history and important reference as to how the colors on Star Wars looked on unfaded prints of the day. This is definitely the highest quality 1970s tape reference yet discovered and it is great to see all of the money and time you have put into getting the most out of it:)
So it was a creative decision by Lucas and co.
Seriously, how many of these stupid changes are hidden in these movies? I wonder if he removes shadows and stuff in the background, knowing that nobody will ever catch them, just to mess with people...
The plot thickens...
TServo2049 said:
And I love the color; this is probably the closest representation of the timing of the original Eastmancolor prints that we'll ever see.
Exactly. That is why this is such an exciting find. Star Wars looked a certain way when it came out. This is it.
It was timed a certain way by the colorists which quickly faded due to the instability of that stock. But these are those colors before they faded- videotape doesn't lose color like that.
AntcuFaalb said:
frank678 said:
AntcuFaalb said:
Should I grab a new copy of the 1990 P/S release as well? Any interest?
If you can get it at a reasonable price why not, since you're in the process of putting together a quality set-up seems a shame to limit it to one or two tapes.
And even if say someone else had done a tape from a release run doesnt mean you might not make an improved transfer on your copy/set-up
Good point(s). I may pick up the 1995 THX (Faces) Widescreen and P/S releases as well.
'95 Pan and Scans would be interesting because they are a different transfer from the '93, and so represent the newest official transfer of the original versions (barring the 2006 DVDs made from the '93 D1 tape)
^^During the lightsaber fight maybe? I know it's been suggested before.
msycamore said:
1990osu said:
Let's see what 1970s George Lucas has to say about grain....
Lucas in American Cinematographer, October 1971:
"I was well aware that there would be those in the audience who would be shocked by the graininess at first, but I was sure that after the first minute or two they would get used to the grain and simply accept it as part of the stylistic concept, the documentary approach."
That really don't apply to Star Wars though, as Star Wars is a Panavision film and THX 1138 is a Techniscope film. It's a big difference in grain structure between the formats. But that doesn't mean Star Wars looked like the blu-ray, far from it.
That's true, but the quote just shows that he is not uncomfortable with grain because people "would get used to" it.
Here's another old GL quote I just found (about SW):
"I'm trying to make a film that looks very real, with a nitty-gritty feel, which is hard to do in a film that is essentially a fantasy."
Let's see what 1970s George Lucas has to say about grain....
Lucas in American Cinematographer, October 1971:
"I was well aware that there would be those in the audience who would be shocked by the graininess at first, but I was sure that after the first minute or two they would get used to the grain and simply accept it as part of the stylistic concept, the documentary approach."
Looks great:)
I would definitely check out the PS78 too. It's a videotape filmed one year after Star Wars was released- being one year later, the film didn't have time to fade and being a videotape, it didn't lose its color. It seems like it would be a great reference. Frank was a theater projectionist back then and he said that it matched his memory of the movie, especially the heavy bias towards blue- green....
I want to see this as untouched as possible. The more grain the better!
Well, like they're saying in the 35mm thread, the standard release prints were 3 generations removed and so they had grain.
When we watch these shows like Star Trek taken directly from the original negative and then shown in crystal clear HD, it's actually a disservice to the TV show or movie because the effects never would have been done that way if they were going to look that lame.
Gregatron said:
Both Lucas and Roddenberry, after being hailed as visionaries, decided that their franchises needed to be IMPORTANT, to the detriment of said franchises.
In other words, they finally started to believe their own hype.
Ego is the enemy of good entertainment.
They are similar because they both begin with "Star", both set in space, both have one man that mastermined it all (Lucas and Rodenberry), and both have a really huge, nerdy fanbase.
Although, Star Wars nerds have historically been a lot cooler than Star Trek nerds.
negative1 said:
Brooks said:
Millions of dollars?? What scanners are those, I'd like to read about them. That's obviously not practical, but this project will provide us with great results that will sustain us for years, and by the time house sized tv's are common maybe scanners will have advanced too and gotten cheaper. When I worked at a camera store in 2000 a one megapixel digital camera cost hundreds of dollars. You could have gotten a nikon f100 for not much more (which was much much better).
The only improvement I would suggest to their current setup is to use a slr, if only because they shoot faster and have larger apertures (and arguably better focus). And you can get 18mp slrs now for $800 or so. I got my 8mp rebel xt for $200 used and that was years ago.
the machines that pro's use are these:
============================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_DataCine
later
-1
Lucasfilm could do it.
May I have an invite also? Sorry to be annoying like this...
Great. Keep up the great work! I think that using the new 35mm HD version coming out, combined with the colors from this version, we will be able to reconstruct the original SW. Very exciting!
msycamore said:
I'm one of those crazy persons who consider the end credits to be a part of the film, and that's how I must be seen by others as I realize I'm in minority everytime I go to the cinema as me and the one I go with are usually left alone in the theater when the credits roll.
Me too. I have been the last person in the theatre many times because I sat through all the ending credits to listen to the music.
I almost feel guilty sometimes, because they're turning on the house lights and everyone is gone and I feel like I'm holding up the projectionist.
zombie84 said:
I'm pretty sure the slave owning southern elite sending young men fighting to the bloody death to defend their right to hold a human being as property are the bad guys of the American Civil War, and not simply guys with "a different point of view."
To be fair, that's not exactly what the war was about- that's more of a retroactive Northern interpretation that doesn't take into account state's rights and the fact that the original colonies never would have joined the Union in the first place if they could be forced to remain in the Union involuntarily. Slavery is indefensible but if it really were a war about slavery then what about the New York City Draft riots? What about Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky? Those look like northern slave states to me. So you see it wasn't so tidy like that.
Not to get us off topic:)
Something I've noticed- People will get on youtube and post on a video (from, say, the 1950s) and say, "What, no 1080p back in the 50s? LOL"
Somewhere along the line people have picked up the idea that 1080 HD is a new invention and that anything older than 10 years is "lower quality". Of course, this is totally wrong and older film is not "360p" or "480p".
Just a pet peeve...