I still have my faintest of faint “recreated Original Versions as a bonus feature on the box set” hopes holding on.
Essentially - a Disney-created “despecialized edition.”
It’s been confirmed that these are the 4K restorations done by Reliance in 2012, before Lucas sold the company, intended to be the base from which a 3D re-release series would be created.
Entirely new 4K scan & color grade. NOT the blu-rays from 2011 as previously reported.
I’m really curious how big a help these UHD versions are going to be for fan-restoration purposes next year.
Re: Joefavs’ “internal consistency” note - I’ve also heard that a lot of the background plates & matte paintings have been “locked down” so to speak? They didn’t replace them, obviously, but they definitely tried to make sure they blend better? They’re stabilized at the very least?
**edit
Looks like Lucasfilm employees on twitter have confirmed these are the Reliance 4K restorations from 2012, overseen by Lucas and created for the unfinished 3D re-release plan.
I’m simply arguing, that I don’t agree with the idea of the designation art being automatically attached to a movie like a toy in a box of cereal, simply because people put effort into it.
This is what I was trying to get at earlier. It’s more than enough to call something bad art. Loads of bad art exists. But there’s no real point in trying to disqualify bad art AS art simply because you don’t like it. That’s just being unfair and irrational. Manos: The Hands of Fate is a work of art. It’s a work of exceedingly, shockingly POOR art, but it’s an artistic expression. I understand the inclination to hyperbolically try and strip it of its legitimacy if you dislike it, i.e. every person who has ever looked at a Jackson Pollock and said “this isn’t art my 3 year old can do this hahaha” but that’s not how art (or the Force) works.
Art’s very definition isn’t like prizes at the bottom of a crackerjack box at all. And you don’t need to go so far as to attempt re-defining art (and the nature of artistic expression) simply because a movie didn’t work on you the way you’d hoped it would.
Further: The notion of “originality” being a key aspect of artistic validity is vastly overrated. Sure, it’s wonderful when it’s present, and I appreciate its presence quite a bit, especially when the execution is realizing the potential of the newness. But the definition of “art” isn’t reserved only for “new” things, and honestly, I’d go so far as to say “originality” as people try to describe it (i.e. “something nobody’s ever seen or tried before”) is not only limiting, but a hugely unrealistic expectation to hold over any work of art as a baseline. The large preponderance of art - not just film, or television, but book, painting, music, etc. is mostly unoriginal by those criteria - and that includes Star Wars, which is mostly pastiche of pre-existing art. You could argue the pastiche is “new” but even then I don’t think that argument holds, and the most strikingly “original” aspect of it was almost entirely technical in nature. The tech was advanced to serve the art - but the art itself wasn’t really “original.”
Nor does it need to be. It’s just another example of retroactively boxing in artistic expression in order to redefine other works in relation to it, and find those other works to be wanting. It’s not very generous, and isn’t doing any favors to art, or to the movies you love.
You don’t have to disqualify something from being art in order to dislike it. You can just dislike it. Intensely even. But it’s still art. Just bad art.
FWIW: only the 1997 Special Edition is actually a “special edition”
Everything else is just a new alteration. It’s honestly way more accurate and understandable to delineate by year of release (04, 06, 11, and now 19) than it is to just say “SE”
Also, considering what they’ve upped to Disney+, I think it’s a good bet these versions will be issued on 4K UHD next year, and that’s probably when people are going to get to really dig into how it looks, because I would imagine even for households with fine enough internet to pull down a real 4K file, the compression on Disney’s side is going to be considerable enough to make trying to do accurate side-by-side comparisons pretty difficult.
edit: LOL, Dre JUST said the same thing one post up. I should just stop.
edit: LOL, for some reason the forum zipped me past a whole page of conversation where I thought I was getting in way earlier in the discussion than I actually did. Apologies.
Wow, so are these the 4K restorations Reliance did then? The color grading is improved (thank the maker) but Greedo is still Greedo-ing.
What in the worlllld
I think that maybe the 4K restorations by Reliance are what got uploaded to Disney+
What makes me think that?
Because the Greedo scene has a NEW CHANGE in it.
You’re really misunderstanding me Broom Kid. I was never insinuating that Fox had a say in what version was released. Only that they, being the distributors, would get a large percentage of any profits made from ANY home video release.
No, I understood you on that point. I’m saying that’s incorrect. Fox doesn’t (or didn’t) get a large percentage of profits from their distribution deal. Yes, they got some of the money. But they didn’t get most of it. I BELIEVE they got less than a quarter of it? Might be even closer to 15%, I think. But I’m not remembering where I heard that now.
But when Lucas had Fox over a barrel while negotiating the Prequel Trilogy distribution rights, I think he not only got ownership rights back, but a very, very good profit split on re-releases and home video releases.
Also, the most recent release of the blu-rays (the first post Fox acquisition) is a stock-clearing exercise of old Fox product. The Fancy new product is rumored to hit NEXT year - and that’s the set that I am, for the first time in a long time, letting myself hope for the originals as a bonus feature.
You know, I never really thought of it that way, but Lucas sewing up the love triangle by making Leia “the other” in Return of the Jedi, and turning it into a big bloodline thing, it really kinda screws up the conversation in Empire Strikes Back.
Luke is hellbent on leaving because he saw a vision where Han and Leia die if he doesn’t intervene.
Ben says “you don’t know that to be true because even Yoda couldn’t see it.”
But Yoda basically says “Well, look, even if you DO go and save them, it’ll ruin everything. So you can’t go.”
So Luke leaves because he’s Luke and he can’t not. And Yoda says “there is another.”
But if Yoda knows the other is Leia, and Leia is the one that is going to die if Luke doesn’t get there to help her, why is he so nonchalant about her not being saved? At best, he’s saying “eh… she’ll figure it out. Probably. Maybe.” and at worst he’s saying “We don’t need our all-important backup plan if you just stay here and let her die.”
Well then I extend my apology to you too. And anyone else who took offense.
Yeah, I think I confused things, apologies. I was reading the fix-list, and it seemed like the “Bring my shuttle” line had been cut out entirely when I read it, leaving Vader’s exit of Cloud City to be just those shots of his shuttle approaching the executor.
That’s when I asked my question about why you’d cut his exit entirely instead of just leaving “Bring my Shuttle.” But you didn’t - Bring My Shuttle IS there in your custom special edition, now that I actually, you know, CHECK the video, LOL.
Apologies again.
But before the SE version, you didn’t know where his shuttle actually WAS. It was only until the SE that they chose to extend that scene and make it look like he was walking directly to it while he was talking.
But I get the reasoning! Thanks for responding.
Quick question I have re: the Empire Strikes Back Custom Special Edition: Is there a reason why Vader leaving Cloud City was cut entirely as opposed to simply restoring the “Bring my shuttle” line and music? I searched the thread but if the answer was there I must have missed it, apologies for my mistake.
The work done on the A New Hope hyperspace VFX is flat-out amazing.
I don’t think I’m being disrespectful to anybody at all, but I apologize for coming off that way to you.
But I’m very certain the Original Versions is a niche consumer product now, precisely because none of this is secret. Lucasfilm doesn’t have to do any market research, we’re all out here in the open and they can count us all very easily. We’re not going to make them that much money. That’s not to say it won’t be ANY money coming in. Obviously we represent a dollar amount to them. But The Original Versions is, at best, a bonus feature on a larger release. I’m fine with that, too! I don’t care if we’re a bonus feature so long as we get on an officially released product. It doesn’t hurt my pride or anything.
(as an aside: The boards were shut down because they weren’t needed anymore. They were low-traffic, and their own social media presence essentially made hosting forums pointless, especially for as much problems as they caused for the volunteer moderators (and paid administrators) who had to monitor it. It wasn’t done as a preventative measure for the blu-ray release)
To be clear: I want them to be released. I think they’ll eventually be released. I look forward to buying them when they are released. I’m endlessly appreciative of people who have filled in the hole in that market, both here and in other places, and provided this niche something to enjoy in the meantime, at quality levels nobody could have dreamed of back when this specific thread was first started.
But we’re a niche audience. Niches can still be served and served well. Being a niche audience isn’t an insult, either. But there’s not a lot of money here. If there WAS, there’d probably be a lot more pressure internally to get these versions out there. But there isn’t. We’re a small (but noisy) audience that has, in the meantime, taken care of ourselves. That’s not a criticism or a derogatory. Just because our purchasing power isn’t that strong compared to the general audience’s doesn’t mean we don’t matter, or that our desires are lesser. It’s not a personal judgment on our character or anything. It just is what it is. There’s a small group of fans who really want these versions, and a much, much larger group of fans that doesn’t really care if they’re there or not.
We’re not competing against each other. And we don’t “win” because we make Lucasfilm a lot of money. We “win” because we get to watch the movies we want to watch on the format we prefer to watch them in. Hopefully. Eventually.
The acquisition of Fox absolutely makes a difference. It wasn’t released before because Lucas was in charge and didn’t want to.
The acquisition of Fox made no difference at all, because Fox’s distribution deal had nothing to do with Lucas’ unwillingness to release it (although he DID release it while Fox was still distributing the films). Fox never had a say in what version of the films would be released, and there was no reason for them to get in the way of whatever version was released, because it was all the same to them.
Releasing any restoration would be an enormous money maker, and Fox owning distribution rights means that Disney would only get a small percentage of those potential profits.
You’re vastly overestimating how much of a financial draw “The original versions” would be. The audience for “the original versions” is very niche. This sucks (especially since I’m part of that niche and would love the opportunity to spend my money on it) but further - Fox owning distribution rights didn’t mean Disney only got a small percentage. You’ve got that reversed. The smaller percentage was actually Fox’s, and Fox didn’t mind having those distribution rights because even a small percentage of Star Wars money is nice, especially when you don’t have to do much work to get them.
Disney isn’t releasing the original versions (or hasn’t since they took ownership) primarily because they just don’t want to. It’s a sign of respect to Lucas. It’s basically been confirmed, multiple times now, that they’re not putting an “original versions” release out because they don’t want to do it if Lucas isn’t cool with it. It’s not a contractual thing, it’s not a money thing. It’s just that they consider the 2011 blu-ray versions the “canon” versions and they’re moving on from there.
That doesn’t mean the originals won’t be released ever, most likely as an “alternate version” as a bonus feature. It just means they want to make sure Lucas is cool with them doing it first. Maybe he is now (I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s in full “screw it” mode currently) maybe he won’t be until later. Maybe he never will be while he’s still around. But the originals not being released has never had anything to do with who owned the distribution rights.
Likewise, Dom.
It hasn’t disappeared from the collective conscious at all. This site is part of that, but even if this site had never sprung up in the wake of Lucas (not a corporation, but a specific man) refusing to release the original versions on home video (and then releasing them again anyway, only to not release them again, only to later give the okay to the screening of a 70mm print at the Academy) the original versions wouldn’t have disappeared from the collective conscious, if only because it was literally too successful for it to have done so. The idea that Star Wars could suffer from cultural erasure of any kind is pretty far-fetched considering how huge its pop-cultural footprint is, was, and will continue to be for some time.
Film history isn’t being ignored. Our desires to be able to purchase an original version of the movie is being thwarted, and has done so for a long time now - and it most definitely sucks, and I don’t like it. But there is most definitely a difference between film preservation, and film restoration, and being able to buy a blu-ray on Amazon. What we’re upset about is a consumerist concern, not a preservationist one.
As time has gone on, and the number of movies I’ve watched has grown exponentially, I’ve found that i’d much rather a movie be good than be “new.” Movies taking chances and failing are still unpleasant to watch, even if the intentions were noble.
Also, there’s something to be said for expanding horizons to other areas of cinema if you’re looking for new and experimental, or prioritizing its presence over practiced execution. I don’t think it’s a knock on Star Wars if some other movie made a big innovation instead of Star Wars, and I don’t think it should sour my enjoyment of Star Wars when I watch something groundbreaking happen in some other great movie that I enjoyed the hell out of, either. Again, it’s not really a competition.
Star Wars doesn’t have to be constantly pushing boundaries, and honestly, many of the boundaries it did push most successfully were primarily technical, and those advancements were only pursued because the story couldn’t be served otherwise… but the stories have never been particularly groundbreaking at all. Not as stories. They’re all sample-heavy myth pastiches. The last time Star Wars was truly groundbreaking was purely on a technical level, and those groundbreaking efforts weren’t really in service of the story, but were in service of the creation of digital filmmaking pipelines on an industry-wide scale.
I think placing the burden of “the new” on Star Wars as a primary motivating factor for watching it is only complicating many people’s ability to enjoy the films for what they’re individually trying to be.
I know that can sound like I’m making the case for lowering standards, but I’m not, really. Roger Ebert’s famous quote is something along the lines of “Judge a movie on how well it succeeds at being what it’s trying to be.” As I get older, I find that statement to be even more true. If Star Wars isn’t trying to be big bold new things all the time - there’s other stuff that IS trying to be new, and there’s nothing wrong with enjoying that stuff right alongside Star Wars. Star Wars doesn’t always have to be a testing ground. If it is, that’s cool (and you can argue that’s exactly what Mandalorian is, in a way that blends the best of OT and PT Star Wars’ innovations - VFX leaps being made because that’s the only way to get this story onscreen, and those leaps being made as a means to streamline and normalize production pipelines for future films). But I feel like holding “but you’re not NEW AND INNOVATIVE” against a film that isn’t really trying to be, and honestly doesn’t NEED to be in order to work precisely as it’s intended, is just another way for Star Wars fans to stack the deck against Star Wars, and stay slightly dissatisfied beyond the actual quality of the movies and shows AS movies and shows.
So with that history there is a lot of expectation
There doesn’t have to be. It’s largely artificial anyway.
Star Wars doesn’t need to be “special.” It just needs to be good. If it’s good enough it’ll BE special. Asking for it to make the same leaps over and over again is a recipe for disappointment.
I’m not willing to bow in allegiance to brand alone.
For what its worth, I think this is a valuable lesson to learn, no matter how you came to learn it. Nobody should be “bowing in allegiance” to any brand, and forcing an expectation to do so onto yourself is pretty unfair to both the movies and to yourself.
Star Wars shouldn’t be expected to “top” anything. It’s not really a competition. Star Wars movies need to be good, entertaining, involving movies on their own, first and foremost. Whatever standing they may or may not secure in some later brand hiearchy isn’t really anywhere near as important. If Star Wars isn’t the A1 premier brand in film anymore… eh. I don’t think I was getting anything more out of the movies and stories when it was. That status doesn’t really have anything to do with why the stories are great, you know? Something else can be the biggest brand for awhile. I’m not a shareholder in those brands so it really doesn’t matter to me which “team” is ranked #1 anyway, so long as the movies are good.
DrDre said:
I agree they are better made in some respects. However, the main driving force behind these films is not artistry.
Again, I think it’s really unfair and unrealistic of you to say this. Borderline disingenuous, really. Especially considering many of the arguments you’re currently leveraging against this version of Star Wars were leveraged against it in the '80s, '90s, and '00s. I fundamentally disagree with any attempt to somehow strip the legitimate, and easily observable intent to create art from the finished films, or to attempt to redefine their existence AS art based on a romanticized notion of what George Lucas is, was, and would have done had he not decided to sell everything. George Lucas is not an island, and his “vision” is not as all encompassing or unfiltered as you consistently describe it to be. The work stands for itself, and your criticisms of the work are primarily rooted in a somewhat cruel appraisal of its artistic intent first and foremost, one that I don’t think stands up to scrutiny at all.
I apologize for dragging this out as long as I did, and I thank you for being very civil and patient with me. Obviously we’re not going to agree, but hopefully some measure of understanding (not agreement, of course, but the two aren’t synonymous anyway) was reached.
No, I’m saying you cannot take somebody else’s art, tweak it a bit, and then claim you’re being artistic.
But that’s often how art is actually made. There’s an entire subforum of this very site that is dedicated to pursuing that ideal, in fact. You CAN take someone’s art, tweak it, and claim you’re being artistic, because that IS a valid artistic expression. Andy Warhol is probably the most famous example of that principle being accepted as truth.
And you’re still belittling the act of creation being done on the part of creatives who have been working at Lucasfilm since 2012 (many of whom have worked with Lucas both before AND after the sale) as mere “tweaking” when their contributions and execution is quite a bit more than simply “tweaking” something. You’re more or less just doubling down on the endeavour of disqualifying something as art rather than accepting it for what it is and judging it accordingly. It’s more than enough to simply not like the art being made, if that’s all there really is to it - there’s no real reason to go out of your way to suggest it shouldn’t be qualified as art to begin with. I think Attack of the Clones is a genuinely horrible movie on its own merits - I wouldn’t ever think to say it’s not really a Star Wars movie, or further, not really a movie at all because it sucks. It’s just a bad Star Wars movie. Going the extra step to disqualify its existence is sort of absurd, really.
I apologize if this reads as out of line, especially since I don’t actually know you at all and aren’t familiar with you outside of the posts I’ve seen of yours in this forum, but might I suggest that it’s at least POSSIBLE you’re a little more accepting of other people’s artistic “tweaking” of pre-existing texts and works (The Shining, The Lord of the Rings) partially because there isn’t as strong an emotional or historical connection with those works and creators as you consistently work to maintain with regards to Star Wars?
Because it feels like there’s an idealized, romanticized version of Star Wars you’re using as the measuring stick by which the Sequel Trilogy must be judged, and that version of Star Wars doesn’t necessarily exist in any quantifiable way outside of your own head and heart. Which might be why I’m reacting to the notion that there’s a fundamental betrayal of Lucas being perpetrated in the way I am, because I genuinely do not see evidence of that in the work itself. The Sequel Trilogy feels like an artistically valid continuation of the story he started telling in 1977, and on a general filmmaking and storytelling level, the films as created under Kennedy’s leadership at the studio are, on average, better made, more compelling, and more INTERESTING as a collection of films than what Lucas turned out when he had sole control of the studio.
