Fang Zei

What Alderaan said.

I don’t have many other suggestions.

Stating who we are and the site’s original purpose of getting the unaltered’s released on dvd, and why that’s no longer enough, is indeed a good idea.

Maybe something to the effect of “we speak not only for ourselves, but for the many other fans around the world who would love to see the original versions restored.”

We might even want to appeal to their sense of responsibility over owning a piece of our cultural history. Film materials do eventually deteriorate. Just look at what happened with John Wayne’s The Alamo. Saving Star Wars, as zombie named his site, is ultimately what this is all about.

Oh, and I still think it’s worth saying “all versions” and not “both.” Even if we’re not going into detail about it in this letter (and we probably shouldn’t, it risks muddying the issue), saying “all” at least subtly reminds them that the '97 version never made it past laserdisc and that the '04 edit is stuck on dvd. Maybe a quick mention of how these movies have now been revised multiple times and that every fan has their prefered version. The “movie we grew up with” might be '77 for one person, '97 for another and '04 for someone else.

SilverWook said:

Fang Zei said:

Z6PO said:

Fang Zei said:

The exploitation of our nostalgia to sell the new movies and shows is a valid criticism. Touché, SilverWook.

But for me it goes even deeper. The Exorcist and Apocalypse Now were both revised and yet we can still view all versions in modern quality. Neither “Episode IV: A New Hope” nor its 1997 special edition won six academy awards in 1978, Star Wars did.

All versions of Close encounters of the third kind, all versions of Blade Runner… (and what about THX1138? I know it’s not Lucasfilm, but still…)

I’ve brought up CE3K/BR ad nauseum and those other examples just popped into my head.

I’d love it if Warner restored the '71 and '77 versions of THX-1138. Back when the dvd came out in 2004 my roommate picked up the single-disc sku out of curiosity (y’know, the one that had much crazier cover art for some reason?) and was watching it on his computer with headphones. I remember him saying that the cgi wasn’t nearly as jarring in this as it was in Star Wars. So yeah, anecdotal evidence and all, but the cgi being “not as jarring” kinda hurts the chances that anyone would care to see the original version. Not being nearly as well known a movie as American Graffiti is another thing going against it. Graffiti, meanwhile, hasn’t been extensively altered with cgi, so most people probably don’t know it’s not the same version that came out in '73.

Star Wars fulfills both criteria. It’s insanely well known and has been extensively/obviously altered.

Has your friend ever seen the original version of THX? The CGI is jarring as hell to me. 😉

I don’t think he had ever actually seen it before, no. To be fair though, neither had I. Not really, anyway. I think the most I’d seen of THX was one scene late at night on cable back in the 90’s, panned and scanned. For that matter I never even really heard it referenced outside of the connection to George’s company. My uncle randomly asked me back in the mid 90’s if I’d ever seen it (he just called it “THX” of course)* and I also remember seeing a vhs of it on the shelf at an fye or similar type of store around that same time.

Actually, now that I think about it, I did see that Star Wars fan film thing Kevin Smith hosted on Sci-Fi circa 99/2000 where they played the original short film Electronic Labyrinth and talked about how Coppola decided to produce it as a feature.

But this story with my roommate is an interesting example of how, even if you know a film has been altered, not having seen the original version beforehand can provide a totally different experience. How many people now look at the post-97 versions of Star Wars that way?

*Which makes me wonder, was it a more well-known movie than I’m thinking it was? Hearing Billy Dee Williams talk at Celebration Orlando about how he’d known who George was ever since seeing THX-1138 genuinely surprised me.

Z6PO said:

Fang Zei said:

The exploitation of our nostalgia to sell the new movies and shows is a valid criticism. Touché, SilverWook.

But for me it goes even deeper. The Exorcist and Apocalypse Now were both revised and yet we can still view all versions in modern quality. Neither “Episode IV: A New Hope” nor its 1997 special edition won six academy awards in 1978, Star Wars did.

All versions of Close encounters of the third kind, all versions of Blade Runner… (and what about THX1138? I know it’s not Lucasfilm, but still…)

I’ve brought up CE3K/BR ad nauseum and those other examples just popped into my head.

I’d love it if Warner restored the '71 and '77 versions of THX-1138. Back when the dvd came out in 2004 my roommate picked up the single-disc sku out of curiosity (y’know, the one that had much crazier cover art for some reason?) and was watching it on his computer with headphones. I remember him saying that the cgi wasn’t nearly as jarring in this as it was in Star Wars. So yeah, anecdotal evidence and all, but the cgi being “not as jarring” kinda hurts the chances that anyone would care to see the original version. Not being nearly as well known a movie as American Graffiti is another thing going against it. Graffiti, meanwhile, hasn’t been extensively altered with cgi, so most people probably don’t know it’s not the same version that came out in '73.

Star Wars fulfills both criteria. It’s insanely well known and has been extensively/obviously altered.

The exploitation of our nostalgia to sell the new movies and shows is a valid criticism. Touché, SilverWook.

But for me it goes even deeper. The Exorcist and Apocalypse Now were both revised and yet we can still view all versions in modern quality. Neither “Episode IV: A New Hope” nor its 1997 special edition won six academy awards in 1978, Star Wars did.

It would be interesting to compare this against the dvd and the two blu-rays (and the 4k UHD for that matter since it has a noticeably different look because of the hdr).

You could just as easily replace “the one we grew up with” with “the one that started it all” or “the one that became a phenomenon” if you want the same number of beats in that opening paragraph.

Just my two cents, take it or leave it.

I would definitely say “all” versions towards the end though and not “both.”

A few quick thoughts before I go to sleep:

We should avoid saying things like “the version we grew up with.” It starts everything off on the wrong foot when we make it about nostalgia. The OOT should be preserved because of its cultural importance, not because us older fans happen to have fond memories of it. Younger fans, after all, most likely grew up with some form of the SE and don’t have the same attachment to the unaltereds as we do.

Some of that stuff is great (the “shooting imaginary TIE fighters” part really got me, so bravo!), but it’s stuff like the '77 film becoming a phenomenon that we need to focus on. The fact that Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back have been in the National Film Registry since 1989 (the registry’s inaugural year) and 2010 respectively yet still can’t be viewed in modern quality might be worth mentioning as well.

I would also simply change “both versions” to “all versions.” If they can include five versions of Blade Runner, they can do the same for each of the OT films. I turn 32 next month and first saw the movies when I was 6 or 7, so I’ve got a very clear memory of a time before even the 1995 vhs release. Not only was the version I grew up with never released in anything better than 1993 quality, the version I actually did see on the big screen was never properly preserved on later formats either!

baron_lando said:

Meanwhile, even the movies they make fun of on the new Mystery Science Theater are in HD now! Argh…

Ain’t that the cruel irony?

The lack of respect shown to Star Wars isn’t just baffling because it’s an important film, it’s baffling because way less important films have been better preserved.

Even if they’re sitting on it until 2020 and it’s just a matter of “when” and not “if” (they would never tell us anyway), I still think some kind of open letter to Lucasfilm is a good idea.

We could explain to them in very straightforward terms that we simply want the same treatment given to the Star Wars saga that films like Close Encounters and Blade Runner have already recieved.

If it’s going to be three more years, they might as well take that time to get it right.

joefavs said:

I always thought Luke’s Dagobah food was a Twix bar when I was a kid.

It always looked like a carrot to me.

Wazzles said:

dahmage said:

Wazzles said:

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

Often, if you turn off all that image enhacent crap, lower quality sources like dvd actually look better. I have a 51" 1080p plasma tv, and i think DVD’s look pretty damn good if they were authored at high bitrate. a bit soft, but good.

I have a 40 inch 1080p and DVDs look great unless I’m directly comparing them to Blu Rays. I honestly believe that 4k as a resolution is simply too high for a TV. As far as projecting goes, I’m sure it’s great, but when you’re watching 480i-1080p content from a 40-60 inch TV and sitting about 10-12 feet away, it seems unnecessary.

It definitely makes a difference for projectors. Several years ago My uncle upgraded from a 1080p Domino projector to a 4k Sony SXRD that could also do 3D. The Domino looked perfectly fine, but with the Sony I noticed the pixels were no longer visible more than a few inches from the screen.

The pixel problem is something I’ve also noticed with TVs. It must have something to do with the display tech (ips/tn/va lcd vs plasma vs oled, etc), because I’ve seen 1080p sets in the same size range with noticeably different pixel visibility. 4k eliminates this problem for the most part.

Another funny thing to consider is the screen size / seating distance / screen resolution debate. I’ve also got a 40" 1080p but I sit less than five feet from it. The tv is a sony lcd from almost nine years ago. Right around that time, I remember there was the opinion that 1080p is wasted below 50". In other words, it was hard to see the difference over 720p unless the screen was at least that big. That may have been true at more normal seating distances, but I like to sit close enough to the screen to recreate the movie theater experience and the jump in resolution is definitely noticeable.

I seem to recall that a couple years ago the debate had turned into “4k is wasted below 80”."

towne32 said:

Fang Zei said:

towne32 said:

Wazzles said:

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

It definitely varies by TV. Rtings.com has an SD category in their ratings, and some 4K TVs do a fine job, while others are pretty miserable. It also depends on the DVD player, of course. Something with composite output or a PS3 via HDMI? etc.

Even blu-ray can look terrible on the newer TVs if the settings are all cranked up to eleven.

A little over a year ago I was at a Best Buy where they were playing Captain America: The Winter Soldier on a 4k tv (it was an lg lcd iirc) with what must have been the out-of-the-box settings. It looked truly horrendous.

Oh, absolutely. I’ve got friends who are completely ignorant about audio/visual types of matters. And some of them will say that they “hate HD” because the picture looks terrible and unrealistic. I’ll ask them how they feel about the picture quality on their 1080p laptops and in movie theaters, and of course they think it’s great. But they’re familiar with HDTV meaning shitty interpolated motion, oversharpening, and the host of other features that people will turn on (or, often are turned on by default).

This happened with a friend of mine. I was talking about blu-ray and she asked if it was supposed to be better because she was watching one of the Harry Potter movies on blu-ray at her parents’ place and it “looked like home movies.” After thinking about it for a few seconds I was like “ohhh, I know what you’re talking about” and realized she was talking about the motion smoothing on the tv and not the resolution of the format itself.

If tomorrow comes and goes without an announcement, is it time to start drafting an open letter for the 25th?

towne32 said:

Wazzles said:

yotsuya said:

Disco_Lobot said:

I laugh at people buying 4K TVs… your eyes are almost certainly not good enough to tell the difference in the vast majority of viewing scenarios. Total waste of money

http://bgr.com/2015/09/18/720p-vs-1080p-vs-4k-resolution/

If we were just talking about the absolute resolution, you are right. At my normal viewing distance I can’t tell the difference between 720 and 1080. I’m certainly not going to see much improvement from a 4k screen. But it isn’t just the resolution. The more pixels you have to display the image data, the better the image looks. The pixels start to disappear and be truly invisible. I’ve known this about printing for years, but when you apply it to video, it really helps the realism of the image, even if you are watching a 480 DVD. With the proper hardware, everything will look better on a 4k screen, even if you never get a UHD player or media.

My dad has a 43 inch 4K TV and DVDs look horrendous.

It definitely varies by TV. Rtings.com has an SD category in their ratings, and some 4K TVs do a fine job, while others are pretty miserable. It also depends on the DVD player, of course. Something with composite output or a PS3 via HDMI? etc.

Even blu-ray can look terrible on the newer TVs if the settings are all cranked up to eleven.

A little over a year ago I was at a Best Buy where they were playing Captain America: The Winter Soldier on a 4k tv (it was an lg lcd iirc) with what must have been the out-of-the-box settings. It looked truly horrendous.

Cthulhunicron said:

Fang Zei said:

Cthulhunicron said:

Another topic I’m interested is what exactly is meant by negatives. The camera negatives are the first generation, the actual frames taken from the camera. I’m assuming when people talk about the negatives of Star Wars, they’re referring to the frames that actually contain things like lasers and stuff animated onto the film. I know also some shots are composites, so there would have to be multiple negatives for that (one for a background, one for a star destroyer, another for a planet, etc).

In order for the negatives to be conformed to the special edition, wouldn’t some negatives have to start out unaltered, get translated into some kind of digital format, adulterated with CGI additions, and then re-printed back onto film?

That’s exactly what happened. They had to scan certain shots into the digital realm in order to add cgi (think all of those shots in Mos Eisley) and then print it back out to a new piece of negative. The original, unaltered piece of negative was presumably kept in storage.

But even the composite shots from the original version you mention in your first paragraph had to be redone for some reason, either because the existing composite on the finished negative had faded or because George thought that a digital recomp would make those shots look better.

Presumably? So we still don’t know for a fact that they were saved?

Someone from Fox only just recently confirmed that they were saved. I still say “presumably” because it feels weird how we’ve heard about it from someone at Fox but not from anyone at Lucasfilm. There’s a complete lack of details on all of this.

Cthulhunicron said:

Another topic I’m interested is what exactly is meant by negatives. The camera negatives are the first generation, the actual frames taken from the camera. I’m assuming when people talk about the negatives of Star Wars, they’re referring to the frames that actually contain things like lasers and stuff animated onto the film. I know also some shots are composites, so there would have to be multiple negatives for that (one for a background, one for a star destroyer, another for a planet, etc).

In order for the negatives to be conformed to the special edition, wouldn’t some negatives have to start out unaltered, get translated into some kind of digital format, adulterated with CGI additions, and then re-printed back onto film?

That’s exactly what happened. They had to scan certain shots into the digital realm in order to add cgi (think all of those shots in Mos Eisley) and then print it back out to a new piece of negative. The original, unaltered piece of negative was presumably kept in storage.

But even the composite shots from the original version you mention in your first paragraph had to be redone for some reason, either because the existing composite on the finished negative had faded or because George thought that a digital recomp would make those shots look better.

Lets at least wait until 9:41 PM EST 😉

https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-05-03-star-wars_x.htm

Amano said:

What about the difference between the “negatives” (with the optical effects applied to them) and the OCN (the reel that was in the camera back then)?

Even if they conformed the official “negative” into something else, there should remain the OCN frames somewhere for all scenes with optical effects (wipes and optical compositions etc).

With the OCN frames all optical effects would have to be recreated digitally which is probably a lot of work.

The wipes were actually redone optically (using the actual camera negatives for the relevant shots like you mention) as part of the restoration process before they made any changes. I think this resulted in the wipes not beginning and ending at the exact same frames and technically still counts as an alteration from the original version, although maybe someone can clarify if I’m wrong about that.

The vfx shots were re-composited digitally, presumably using the original VistaVision negatives (again, someone can clarify if I’m wrong). This definitely counts as a change, not only because the recomps were done digitally (although recomping of any kind would still be an alteration), but also because it resulted in slightly different positions for all the various elements.

Cthulhunicron said:

So in other words, the Special Edition negatives are all together in a receptacle somewhere, and all the frames specifically from the theatrical cuts are simply stored somewhere else? I mean, maybe it’s a bit more complicated, but is that basically the gist?

Yes

The transfers of I-VI tbs/tnt uses are essentially the 2015 edits that were made for the digital download versions, which only kept the Fox logo and fanfare for ANH. Otherwise they’re identical to the 2011 blu-ray transfer which itself still uses the 2004 Lowry master.

Cthulhunicron said:

I’m aware of the clean up that happened in the 90s, because the film was in bad shape. So as far as I understand things, the original negatives were scanned digitally, cleaned up, and then used as the basis for the special editions as well as the 1993 release.

The 1993 release was simply the final time a fresh video master was made from the 1985 interpositives (it was done for the definitive collection laserdisc release in '93 and reused for the “Faces” aka “One Last Time” aka “THX” release in '95). Since it was still the early 90’s, this last video master was only done as a 4:3 standard def transfer with the 2.35:1 image letterboxed. Hence, in 2006 when George was reminded by the people at Lucasfilm that an unaltered dvd release would make quite a bit of money but he didn’t feel like spending a dime on it, this was the most recent transfer and we got the GOUT.

The restoration for the Special Edition wasn’t even started until 1994 and involved physically cleaning and restoring the original negatives themselves. No digital scanning was done except for the SE additions where cgi was integrated into existing shots. The technology to digitally clean up an entire film at resolutions high enough to be printed back to film for theatrical exhibition wouldn’t exist for another several years AFAIK.

The SE restoration is a fascinating subject in and of itself since they cleaned the entirety of the movies, including the parts that were going to be replaced anyway for the SE. Some frames on the o-neg were damaged beyond repair and were replaced with dupe neg made from the '85 interpositives since that was the next best source. So not only are the altered parts of the negative still in storage somewhere, the '85 interpositive is also a viable source for an OOT restoration should it come to that.

But yeah, what Density said x1,000,000. See: just about any criterion release for good examples of stunning restorations that didn’t use an original negative.

I don’t really have a clear memory of seeing Star Wars for the first time the way a lot of you do.

I got into Trek first. My mom rented Search for Spock when I was 5 (1990/91) and from then on I was hooked (I detailed this recently in the Star Trek thread in off topic).

Star Wars was just something I always kinda knew about, and it was finding out relatively early on that ILM had also worked on several of the Trek films that I think helped me avoid the “Trek vs Wars” thing, though I was definitely the outlier in my class of 30 for liking Trek. All the cool kids were “down with the trilogy” (they didn’t actually say that, I’m just quoting Clerks II).

There was another connection to a separate “franchise” I remember finding out about. Really random memory time here, but back in the early days of Sci-Fi Channel there was this mini-vignette they would always play during commercial breaks. Voiceover guy was talking about so-and-so who won such-and-such awards for his work on Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, and I remember very clearly they played the shot of Artoo and Threepio crossing the Tantive corridor as blaster bolts somehow miss them. It was only in recent years that I realized they must have been interviewing John Dykstra. In any event, I don’t really have an earliest Star Wars memory.

One thing I do remember quite clearly is being in first or second grade (91/92) and looking through one of those children’s story books lying on the shelf in the classroom. It had photos from the movies (possibly it was only from RotJ). At one point, I was on a page with that photo of Jabba with Leia in the metal bikini. A friend of mine goes “you know who that guy is?” as he points to the green-armored person with the helmet standing by Jabba’s side. “That’s Boba Fett,” he tells me.

I must have seen the original movie or at least gotten the gist of it, because I remember staying over at my relatives’ place and popping in their vhs of RotJ they’d recorded off a tv broadcast. They had a whole drawer full of movies they’d taped off tv years earlier before they had ditched cable. Smart thinking, really. Since it had the word “Return” in the title, I incorrectly assumed it was the second movie of the trilogy and not the third. By the scene where Han still frozen in carbonite was revealed, I realized I had no idea what was going on. Must’ve ejected the tape not long after that.

I must have just sorta known Vader was Luke’s father, because I definitely saw RotJ first. It must’ve been when USA network was airing them in the early-to-mid nineties, or possibly when Sci-Fi Channel showed the movies letterboxed. Actually, I remember vividly my first time seeing the “I am your father” scene from ESB and I’m pretty sure it was as a clip in some retrospective vignette they were playing on Sci-Fi channel right around that same time (early to mid 90’s).

So yeah, my first clear memory of watching the OT would probably be as the USA network P&S broadcasts. I still remember it cut to commercial right after the Emperor’s “So be it … Jedi” and my dad echoed the words.

VHS rentals helped fill in the gaps, of course. I’m pretty sure that’s how I actually sat down and watched the first two films properly for the first time. My mom also ended up getting me the Faces VHS of ANH for Christmas of '95.

I saw the SE’s once each in the theater (was eleven, same age as JJ in '77) and got the widescreen vhs SE trilogy “silverbox” for Christmas that year. For seven years, that was my Star Wars. I actually have to credit my mom with getting me fascinated with aspect ratios, whether she meant to or not. Funny how almost every time I saw the SE vhs set sitting on someone’s shelf it was almost always the fullscreen “goldbox” when seven years later it was jarring to see an '04 dvd set that was gold instead of silver.

We got the ‘04 dvd set of course, a month or so after it was released. It was sheer curiosity about the fanmade bootlegs that led me to this place. During the couple hours’ wait before the midnight opening of RotS, I noticed someone in one of the rows closer to the screen watching ESB on their laptop … and it was the original version. Started lurking here later that summer, finally got around to downloading Cowclops v2 in March of '06. That was an experience, and what I would probably call my first time seeing these movies in something halfway resembling how they were originally shown in theaters.

Y’know, if a restored/remastered OOT were to happen within the next couple years, do you think Lucasfilm would just release the original three movies or do you think it would be all six (with the OT movies “just happening to include their original versions”)?

Reason I ask is because the OT hasn’t recieved preferential treatment on home media since forever ago. Yeah, there was the GOUT, but that was also the first time the original three were available individually so it hardly counts.

It’s actually kind of hard for me to imagine LFL re-releasing only the OT movies just for the sake of putting the OOT on the market. Even if the SE was from the newer 4k master, I feel like it would just seem awkward. Sure, we would be thrilled, but I could see prequel/SE fans not liking the preferential treatment the OT was getting. LFL doesn’t want division within the fandom like that. I could see them also reissuing the prequels at the same time. While the changes to TPM have not been nearly as extensive as those to the OT, it’s essentially its own SE now. The theatrical version would be a nice bonus, ditto the Imax cut of AotC.

This is why I don’t think they’ll bother to put out the OOT until the time comes for a 4k UHD release, which won’t be for another several years anyway. I could see them putting it together similarly to how they did the 2011 “complete saga” set. Maybe they could even carry over the dvd extras that weren’t included in the blu-ray (“The Beginning,” anyone?). There’s even a few good ones they’ve never included in any release, like the Fox specials hosted by Howie Long and Samuel L. Jackson that aired in '97 and '99, respectively. There was also The Legacy Revealed from EoD’s Kevin Burns, which aired on the history channel in 2007.

If it really is going to take that long, one upside is it will give us more time to petition Lucasfilm with everything we’d want to see included, like the '97 SE for example.

I just looked up ESB on disney’s site. The release date listed is June 20, 1980 (the day it went into wide release), but the running time is still the SE.

It doesn’t say “theatrical version” there or on RotJ’s page either, though. RotJ also lists the original release date with the SE running time.

So why the hell is this still happening, anyway? First the amazon thing and now disney.