Baronlando

I dunno, it seems like more of a hassle? An editor has to rebuild the 77 cut, FX people have to track down the elements and recomp all the effects shots that didn't make it into the '97 at all. It's like the creation of a special edition but with none of the stuff george actually wants in one. (Versus taking the best available intermediate and doing your basic TANGO AND CASH on it).

I remember the guys at the production company that put the extras together had to lobby for that. They felt using pre-SE material when talking about stuff in 1977 was more appropriate. Duh. Somehow LFL relented, partly at least. (It's not totally ricockulous like THX1138, where the expensive 2004 effects are never acknowledged, all while the extras trumpet the achievements of scrappy 70s independents with no money)

S_Matt said:

zombie84 said:

 It's restored, it looks and sounds identical to how it did when it was first made.

I contend that such a condition is impossible because it is unknowable.

Just for clarity, do you feel this way about all blu-rays of catalog studio titles from the 70s and 80s?

Lucas definitely started to miss the forest for the technology right around this time. My favorite example is how he kept saying how much better the palace creatures were than the ones in the cantina, which I've never heard anyone agree with. But the step up in hardware, from pullover masks to the more complex muppety nerf creatures with all the hoses and shit in them, was something that just had to be better. Because you know, technology. It was like the first version of the cgi-vs. models debate. (All the prequel-era debates could be found in some form during the Jedi vs. SW/Empire days. The big difference is the pro-Jedi guys were never as touchy about it.)

S_Matt said:

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 mak

Uh, it sounds like the only guy who will be hard please is you since you keep describing a truly unusual, more difficult and expensive release of a type that never really happens. As opposed to something that happens all the time. (Almost every tuesday in fact.)

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 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.

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.)

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.

corellian77 said:

 

 Is he completely oblivious to the demand, or just that entrenched in preserving his ego?

He's probably aware of it at a completely academic level but I doubt he "gets it" or can relate to it in any way. Maybe if you're not rich, these goofy little simple pleasures become abnormally important, in a way that's hard to explain. Although he sure seems to like diet Coke, it would be interesting if he could never have it. No more diet Coke for you beardy, only cherry Fanta from now on! 

It is weirdly fascinating how the number of people who don't even know anything has been done to the movies can slowly grow simply if you've got enough clout, and the blu ray box is going to really build that number. (Especially now that the term "special edition" isn't even used. In stark contrast, gotta like the honesty in Ridley Scott's intro in the booklet with the new version of ALIEN:

Upon viewing the proposed expanded version of the film, I felt that the cut was simply too long and the pacing completely thrown off. After all, I cut those scenes out for a reason back in 1979. However, in the interest of giving the fans a new experience with Alien, I figured there had to be an appropriate middle ground. I chose to go in and recut that proposed long version into a more streamlined and polished alternate version of the film. For marketing purposes, this version is being called "The Director's Cut.

Boo hoo, they didn't have enough time to do the colors, for the sound effects, the music dropping out, to do the compositing right 30 years ago, to get the Ep. I dvd to look good, the '97 special ed. for Jedi and Empire was a last minute decision, the technology didn't exist to make Harrison Ford jerk his head to one side, there wasn't enough money to film in space for real. Holy shit, it's on and on with these sob stories from LFL.

It seems like directors and cinematographers are often lamenting how inconsistent or just wrong a lot of release prints were back in the day, and how frustrating it was to get the black/dark areas to look right and for every print to be uniform, or how they would fade quickly or start to turn weird looking after a long run, etc. (side: I like that they knew to advertise a new print even to regular people after a ridiculously long run

skyjedi2005 said: I was recently watching superman II or III cannot remember which and the wires were so noticeable because of the cleanup job they did on the DVD, the fact that a fan with some off the shelf software could do it makes the studios lazyness pretty transparent.

Dude, again, there's no boxes if it's done right.

And Superman III was done wrong. The skies were supposed to be blown out in the lab. (and they were for theatrical prints)

skyjedi2005 said:

I have no problem with them removing eyesores like garbage mattes and changing nothing else.  They never were supposed to be visible in the first place.

I was told that if it's done right, they shouldn't be visible anyway.

We're not running out of internet, so it's fine. It would be nice of they just did this stuff automatically but alas, it's not that way. Like for example, you can't get a dvd of the theatrical cut of PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID. Why? Because ain't nobody's asking.

No, it's quite literally, the only way anything at all gets done in home video. We'd still have the sides sliced off Apocalypse Now otherwise. As for the 2 sides of the argument, you have: one group who really, really wants to buy 3 old movies. And the other saying you should accept the higher power, don't commit the sin of Ronto-rejection and hear the good news of 97/04/11. Not the same.

TV's Frink said:

That's one of the tricky things about Star Wars...there have been so many audio and visual changes right since the very beginning.  What would the actual OOT consist of?

I guess the opening day version? (70mm mix and no New Hope should cover it I think )

Yeah it's exactly the same.

Whether its Amazon or some other forum, navigating through all the hardcore devotees still feels like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qse_wf57tZM

CO said:

The frustrating is actually Lucas has created this fan rift between which version you love more, where it never had to get like this.

What's worse is the desired situation actually did happen, however briefly. There was that window of time, maybe over a year, where you could walk into Tower records and the 97 lasers and the 95s both sat there on the shelf, no big deal. Somehow, the world didn't end and the precious Star Wars brand was not hurt.

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.

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.

Maybe sad isn't the right word, but it's really baffling. What a weird and lame use of the kind of power that people everywhere aspire to. In the history of movies (and all art really) there are very few who have the utter, total freedom that Lucas does. And THAT'S what you use it for? To make soccer moms buying stuff at Target (and their kids) think 1997=1977? The hell?

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?