Fang Zei

DuracellEnergizer said:

The SE '97 would have existed, no doubt - it already did! However, the '04 and '11 versions probably wouldn't have been made, and the OOT would have been preserved.

I guess my point was that part of the SE's purpose was updating the OT to fit the vision George had in his head for the eventual six-film saga. Yes, he had to further tweak this in '04 after he'd made the first two prequels and was in the midst of the last, but almost all of the changes to the OT's visual effects were done in '97.

Perhaps this is where I'm overthinking things a bit. Would other directors have made prequels devoid of cgi characters, so that it wouldn't be (jar)-jarring to go from cgi gungans to people in suits??? Maybe the SE's were an inevitability in regards to the prequels, regardless of their directors.

I still think there might've been another way. They could've re-released the OT in '97 after doing strict restorations and no revisions. Then, directors could've come along and made prequels that, once finished, would line up fairly seamlessly with the restored OOT.

Even without George directing the prequels, the idea of there being two completely different versions of the OT out there kinda goes against the idea of there being a six-film saga that perfectly lines up.

With all of this news of Lucasfilm's acquisition by Disney, there's one quote from Lucas that really sticks out for me:

"The time has come for me to hand off Star Wars to the next generation of filmmakers."

What exactly was stopping him from doing exactly this back in the 90's for the prequels???

We know that George's leaving the DGA prevented him from hiring a union director on ROTJ and he went with Marquand. Were the same restrictions in place by the time he was gearing up for the prequels??? Would that have severely limited his choices had he wanted to hand off the directorial duties??? He says in the Maltin interviews on the '95 vhs that he "might direct the first one and then let other directors handle II and III," so it was at least a possibility at some point.

There's that story I heard about Darabont wanting to either write or direct Episode I (or Lucas wanting him to, I forget which way the story went). Why didn't this happen???

At the end of the day, the only conclusion I can come to is that it was George's midlife crisis and he just had to (officially) jump back in that director's chair after twenty years.

I think George would've always written the story for the prequels, just as he did for the OT, but others should've handled the screenwriting and directing like with ESB.

Also, I should point out that, IMO, a world where other people directed and wrote the screenplays for the prequels pretty much goes hand in hand with a world where the SE's never happened.

Sorry, this is a little stream-of-thought, but I just wanted to get it out there. It's a discussion I've been wanting to start on these boards for a while now.

SilverWook said:

I caught a 10:30 pm show with a friend on opening weekend, and we were the only two people in the whole theater.

ID4 was one of the biggest box office hits of the 90's. What theater did you see it in?!

I know, I was just bringing up that particular change as a good example of a "blink and you'll miss it" change in the prequels.

It should be possible to re-create the theatrical cut in HD. The blu-ray would be the best starting point because there's no cropping, but then you've got stuff like the different neimoidian viewscreen, digital yoda, etc, for which you'd need to go back to the cropped hd broadcast.

Really makes me wish someone could just get their hands on a '99 release print.

Alexrd said:

Fang Zei said:

From the blu-ray screenshots I've seen, it strikes me as odd that TPM and ROTS look pretty much exactly as they should, but AOTC now looks different. I wonder why they made the decision to shift the color. Did they not have a 23.976p hdtv master from 2002 lying around?? Maybe they had to make a fresh telecine from the digital files for the blu-ray and the colorist - for whatever reason - added the teal. Ugh, it just doesn't look good.

TPM does look as it should (colour-wise), for the most part. AotC teal shift was a very last minute change (like the humdinger glitch) since according to people who were at the Comic Con presentation and the press junket, AotC didn't have that teal tint at the time. Even the small clips of the movie shown in the extras look fine.

The animated menu's on the AOTC blu-ray have the teal tint, just like the transfer itself.

It's truly baffling that they made that change. Looking at the screenshot comparisons, it's like you're watching the movie through sunglasses. It just looks objectively bad and I can't think of a subjective reason for them doing this.

You_Too said:

LexX said:

Are you really saying that you'd rather leave more image out than that small change?

That was not my point. The point is who knows how many small changes here and there like that one are in the blu-ray release? Just take that little thing about the green clothes being changed to red in the Cantina scene in SW, which was pointed out just before Harmy released his version.

That's one reason why the blu-ray version probably shouldn't be used to create a theatrical version in HD. At least from a purist perspective.

But knowing the PT is not as old as the OT, there should be lots of unfaded prints out there which would look better than both the HDTV version and blu-ray.

It's true there are many changes both great and small.

For example, I remember those online text commentaries they did for the dvd's (I think they were called "depth commentaries") and something that was pointed out during an establishing nighttime shot of Theed in TPM (right after the "Weesa goin' Home!!!" and the Queen's ship blasting away from Coruscant) was that George requested that a bridge be added over the river on the right hand side of the frame specifically for the dvd release.

Actually, it might've been that the river wasn't even there at all in the original theatrical. I don't remember, it's been a while.

Someone with either the widescreen vhs or the laserdisc can confirm this for me.

That dvdactive article keeps saying "in the digital and dvd versions" for several of those comparisons, but I don't think the extended version of Anakin's confession to Padme about the Tuskens was in either of the theatrical versions (35mm or digital). I'm pretty sure that particular change wasn't added until the dvd.

Was the vhs of AOTC the theatrical cut??? I thought it was the altered version just like the dvd. They were released on the same day.

From the blu-ray screenshots I've seen, it strikes me as odd that TPM and ROTS look pretty much exactly as they should, but AOTC now looks different. I wonder why they made the decision to shift the color. Did they not have a 23.976p hdtv master from 2002 lying around?? Maybe they had to make a fresh telecine from the digital files for the blu-ray and the colorist - for whatever reason - added the teal. Ugh, it just doesn't look good.

DuracellEnergizer said:

 

Fang Zei said:

In regards to the "What will they do with the EU" question, I think they'll simply set Episode VII at whenever they're at now in the books (40 years after ROTJ). Even if it blatantly ignores everything that's happened, they can at least retcon certain things easier than just saying "oh yeah, by the way, Episodes VII VIII and IX happened only 20 years after Jedi and the characters just NEVER mentioned it afterward."

If that happens, I will commit metaphorical murder/suicide.

 

Which part? the 40 years one or the 20 year one?

I watched the first four installments the other night. Quite cool to see and hear you for real, Zombie!

In regards to the "What will they do with the EU" question, I think they'll simply set Episode VII at whenever they're at now in the books (40 years after ROTJ). Even if it blatantly ignores everything that's happened, they can at least retcon certain things easier than just saying "oh yeah, by the way, Episodes VII VIII and IX happened only 20 years after Jedi and the characters just NEVER mentioned it afterward."

Also, in the case of AOTC and ROTS, the fact that they were shot in digital with spherical lenses (as opposed to 35mm film with anamorphic lenses like TPM and the OT) is one of my big problems with those movies to begin with.

The prequels should've been done right the first time. I think a lot of us - myself included - would've loved for other writers and directors to have handled the prequels, but the time for that is long past.

I'll be happy if this Disney deal simply leads to a renewed appreciation of the OOT.

I'll second that request

skyjedi2005 said:

Fang Zei said:

It ain't Vaughn.

Several weeks ago when news broke that Vaughn was dropping out of First Class 2, it was reported that he would be directing a movie of Mark Millar's Secret Service instead. Then the Episode VII news broke and people starting going "Oh, I bet you THIS is the REAL REASON he dropped out of First Class 2." Mark Millar himself even debunked the rumor.

For the time being, it appears to be down to Bird, Abrams and Spielberg.

I loved Abrams' Star Trek (and I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with the partially-filmed-in-true-15/65-IMAX sequel), but for him to go from two Star Trek movies to directing a Star Wars movie would be a little too much like what happened with Bryan Singer going from X-Men and X2 to Superman Returns. Plus, I'm already hearing people make jokes about lens flares during lightsaber duels.

I love Spielberg, but I think the time for him directing a Star Wars movie was 1999. There's too much ill will towards him now after Crystal Skull, regardless of how many of that movie's problems may or may not have been caused by Lucas.

Bird is probably my favorite all-around choice. I saw Mission: Impossible 4 in honest-to-God 15/70 and the IMAX sequences were amazing.

If Vaughn is not directing X-men First class 2, and if Bryan Singer does not step in to direct it i will refuse to see it.  X3 and Wolverine origins sucked.

Singer is directing First Class 2. It's been confirmed.

Bester said:

Mielr said:

Fun idea, but I'm still waiting to see what Disney does about the OOT on blu-ray and then I'll see how excited I can get about anything else.

They won't do anything, because the rights to the OT were not part of the $4.05b deal.  In fact, the rights to the OT remain with Fox until 2020.

You're mistaken.

The distribution rights to the existing six films remain with Fox, but you can be sure they were never the ones holding back a proper release of the OOT. That was Lucas.

We don't know the details of the Disney deal. Lucas may or may not have included a clause stating that the OOT is never to see the light of day. We have no way of knowing.

That's the thing about the prequels: they might as well have been completely animated.

Lucas made cgi his priority to the detriment of the cinematography on the latter two films. Episode I, for all its problems, was at least shot in the same format as the OT.

I don't think Disney is gonna greenlight an entirely cgi film. They'll want this to be unmistakably live-action.

Well, I recall Robert Zemeckis taking umbrage with Beowulf getting an oscar nomination for best animated film since he insisted it was not an animated film. An "animated" Episode VII could be an interesting artistic experiment, I suppose.

Harmy said:

Wow, that's ugly - both in their unique way. I wonder if that BD shot is actually from the BD or from some rip, because look at the background to the left of Qui-Gon - that is seriously horrible.

Whether that's from a rip or straight from the disc, that's how it looks on the actual disc. Here's the same shot from doblu's review:

http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/starwarsmenace13430.jpg

and here's the only other screenshot they took from that scene:

http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/starwarsmenace13315.jpg

By the way, here's that shot of Palpatine I was talking about:

http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/starwarsmenace12404.jpg

Oh, and while I'm here, shots like THIS ....

http://www.doblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/starwarsmenace934.jpg

.... are why I wish George hadn't gone digital for Clones and Sith. That shot looks beautiful and has a look you can only get from using anamorphic lenses and 35mm film.

Atilla the Hut said:

 

A close-up of Qui-Gon made the rounds last year as an example of bad DNR. But that particular scene (along with the scene where Anakin's blood is analyzed) were filmed digitally on a Sony HDC-750 as a test for the other prequels being filmed digitally. From what I can dig up, the HDC-750 has a CCD resolution of 1920x1035 and stores to the older HDCAM format which is 1440x1080 (1080i, it's interlaced) interpolated horizontally to 1920x1080 on output. So it looks like crap because it was filmed on a crap prototype digital camera.

I saw a screenshot comparison somewhere (can't remember if it was here or at AVS Forum) using that shot of Qui-Gon, but I seem to remember the hdtv screenshot having more detail.

Wish I could find it.

EDIT: Nevermind, found it:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/78496/

It's too hard to say for sure whether that's more detail we're seeing in the old transfer or if it's simply IP grain.

Atilla, how sure are you that the nighttime Jedi Council scene was shot digitally?? I've read the story about Anakin's blood test scene having been shot that way, but where'd you read about the other one?

I ask because there are other shots in the blu-ray transfer that've been just as badly dnr'd as that Qui-Gon shot. There's a shot of Palpatine from the meeting with Amidala that's quite waxified, for example.

Journal of the Whills: From the Adventures of ..... The Skywalkers: Episode VII: THE STAR WARS

Atilla the Hut said:

Harmy said:

Even if it was so, the current version is still stuck at 1080p plus it isn't really all that detailed to begin with:

720p has approx. half the resolution of 1080p, yet when scaled down to 720p and then upscaled back up to 1080p, the BD master definitely doesn't lose half the detail, so that effectively means that the 1080p master doesn't really use all the resolution 1080p has to offer.

Interesting...

I can tell the 720p image is a lower resolution than the 1080p image from the grain structure, BUT the detail appears identical. For the longest time I used to be under the impression a 35mm release print had some sort of amazing resolution. After I got a blu ray player and saw a few films then went back to the local cineplex, I started to question that. Then I found out that a release print was sub 720p on average due to the generation loss in contact printing. That and most new films used a 2k DI meaning if the HD version was sourced from the DI it would be hands down better than the release print (unless heavily compressed). Now the local cineplex has 4k DCI equipment so that's not a problem (and comfy seats... and a full bar)

Seeing this comparison makes me wonder how much extra detail could be extracted via a modern higher scan (with the OCN). For a film like SW, I would hate to see them not try.

 

Fang Zei said:

No, they used the OCN. That's why the '04 master still holds up in full HD: the scan Lowry was working with was capturing all that detail of the original source, even if the scanner was only 2K.

But you're still missing my original point, which is that Lowry was only working at HD resolution (whether it was 1080 anamorphic or 817, either way it was only 1920 horizontal). That's an hdtv master, not a cinema master. The prequels had actual 2K masters (Clones and Sith were shot at 1920, but the effects shots and everything else in the movie were rendered and finished at full 2K). I somehow doubt even Lucas would want the OT looking even worse than the prequels.

 

I knew what you meant. :) I would like to see a new scan too, for peace of mind, preferably at 8k. I've also read they scanned the OCN, but I also read (on this site I think, links in archived posts) that OCN=1997 SE which is an internegative two generations from the OCN. I know secret history of star wars says the OCN was disassembled and reassembled with SE footage, but that contradicts what Rick McCallum said in an old interview. The OCN was disassembled, but I don't think it was re-assembled with SE footage like Kaminski wrote. All the sources conflict with themselves and since we're not in the loop, who knows?

I just wanted to point out that the 2004 source was indeed scanned in at least 2k. The de-graining stuff was done at 1080p, but the scan was not 1080p like I've seen several people on the internet claim. Can't scan a scope film at 1080p. Well I guess you could, but it would be 1200x1080p or something like that

 

It was definitely scanned straight from the OCN. Jim Ward went out of his way to mention this during the press conference for the OT dvd release back in '04 with Hamill, Kershner and the Lowry guys in attendance. He said the '97 transfers were off IP, one generation away from the negative, and that detail had never been seen like this before.

emanswfan said:

I'm honestly hoping they don't release all the 3D versions of the OT before Episode 7, and I'd be surprised if they did.  Episode 2 and 3 in 3D being right next to each other isn't surprising since both have so much digital elements that are already seperate, especially 3.  just think how amazing the opening battle will bein 3D, regardless of it being not so great in almost every other factor.  But for the OT, they don't have many digital, or atleast seperate, elements. They have to convert lots from scratch.  (wondering if they'll apply DNR to the footage...) Having them speed up the process would be horrible to the 3D experience.

Anyhow, I still hope they are planning to rerelease the originals.  I so badly want to see these movies in the theatres as I missed out previous chances.

It wouldn't make much sense for them to wait until after Episode VII already hit theaters to put out Episodes IV, V and VI. They're coming early 2015 at the latest. That doesn't mean they still can't do a quality job, but they'd have to get going pretty soon. The 3D conversion of Titanic took 60 weeks to finish.

Atilla the Hut said:

Fang Zei said:

I'm bumping this thread in light of last week's Disney announcement. Several weeks ago we learned that Clones and Sith would be hitting theaters only a few weeks apart next Fall. With Episode VII hitting in 2015, we'll obviously be seeing all three of the OT-SE installments hitting theaters much earlier than originally expected (late 2014 / early 2015 at the very latest).

I bring this up not out of any interest in the 3D versions, but out of interest for what this might mean for the OT in general. Will Lucasfilm spring for 4K rebuilds of the OT now that money is no longer an object? The current Lowry masters are stuck at 1920x817, which is just fine and dandy for hdtv and blu-ray, but the standard digital cinema resolution for a cinemascope film is 2048x872. Jim Ward called the Lowry masters a "digital negative" back in '04, saying they could use that for theatrical if they wanted to.

Well, it's been eight years and (correct me if I'm wrong) that master hasn't been projected theatrically anywhere.* That says to me that, no, hdtv resolution for a 'scope film is not a "digital negative."

*Was that special screening of Empire a couple years back (with Ford in attendance) the '04 version or was it a '97 print??? That's literally the only time I can think of where the lowry master might have been theatrically projected.

No offense to Michael Kaminski, but the Star Wars films were scanned at least 2k resolution which for a scope film is at least 1828x1556. It was more likely scanned at 4k since 1828 horizontal pixels is less than 1920.

LFL used a Cintel C-Reality film scanner which scans at either 2k (at 6-15fps) or 4k (2 seconds per frame). The C-Reality cannot, however, natively output in either 2k or 4k. It only outputs in HD and lower resolutions. The full squeezed anamorphic scope frame was scanned at a higher overall resolution than HD and downconverted then output at 1920x1080 10bit color (4:4:4 RGB). Whether it was anamorphically squeezed at the full 1920x1080 or was letterboxed on output to 1920x817 is not known. The only source is Lowry saying it was "HD" and Videographer magazine saying it was 1080p, as far as I can tell so it's hard to say.

Since the C-Reality doesn't store images, the cost between 2k and 4k probably isn't much as it only comes down to time. It would be interesting to find out whether they opted for 2k or 4k. I would hope they did 4k. Even though fans don't like the colors, the overall image on the blu ray is pretty detailed. They look more detailed than Raiders and Raiders had a 6k scan with the restoration work done at down-converted 4k. LFL color 'corrected' the 1080p version and gave this to Lowry for restoration and de-graining. I would suspect they did not use the OCN either and opted for the 1997 SE internegative.

Star Wars was shot on the same film stock as Raiders except the composites and wipes/dissolves used a different film stock (among others) which faded so they re-did them either digitally or with an optical printer. Because of the generation loss with them and the effects and also if it is the 1997 IN, a 2k scan would have captured all the detail, a 4k scan would have definitely captured all the detail. The only way to make it better would be to scan the OCN parts that are salvageable, preferably at 6k or 8k. 

No, they used the OCN. That's why the '04 master still holds up in full HD: the scan Lowry was working with was capturing all that detail of the original source, even if the scanner was only 2K.

But you're still missing my original point, which is that Lowry was only working at HD resolution (whether it was 1080 anamorphic or 817, either way it was only 1920 horizontal). That's an hdtv master, not a cinema master. The prequels had actual 2K masters (Clones and Sith were shot at 1920, but the effects shots and everything else in the movie were rendered and finished at full 2K). I somehow doubt even Lucas would want the OT looking even worse than the prequels.

That was the theory for those random extra visual changes they did for the blu-ray. "Oh, I bet they did that for the 3D version." It didn't make sense to me at the time, because I was like "why would they be adding the changes now (in 2011) when they're not hitting theaters until 2015-2017???" Obviousy, this Disney news changes things a bit, but that doesn't explain why they would've added the changes last year when they weren't (at the time) gonna hit theaters until years later.

Plus, ya never know. George might've just wanted to make those extra changes for the hell of it, just for the sake of changing things because "it's the big blu-ray debut." He took the same opportunity with the dvd in '04. The "Noooooo" certainly didn't have anything to do with 3D.

It ain't Vaughn.

Several weeks ago when news broke that Vaughn was dropping out of First Class 2, it was reported that he would be directing a movie of Mark Millar's Secret Service instead. Then the Episode VII news broke and people starting going "Oh, I bet you THIS is the REAL REASON he dropped out of First Class 2." Mark Millar himself even debunked the rumor.

For the time being, it appears to be down to Bird, Abrams and Spielberg.

I loved Abrams' Star Trek (and I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with the partially-filmed-in-true-15/65-IMAX sequel), but for him to go from two Star Trek movies to directing a Star Wars movie would be a little too much like what happened with Bryan Singer going from X-Men and X2 to Superman Returns. Plus, I'm already hearing people make jokes about lens flares during lightsaber duels.

I love Spielberg, but I think the time for him directing a Star Wars movie was 1999. There's too much ill will towards him now after Crystal Skull, regardless of how many of that movie's problems may or may not have been caused by Lucas.

Bird is probably my favorite all-around choice. I saw Mission: Impossible 4 in honest-to-God 15/70 and the IMAX sequences were amazing.

I'm bumping this thread in light of last week's Disney announcement. Several weeks ago we learned that Clones and Sith would be hitting theaters only a few weeks apart next Fall. With Episode VII hitting in 2015, we'll obviously be seeing all three of the OT-SE installments hitting theaters much earlier than originally expected (late 2014 / early 2015 at the very latest).

I bring this up not out of any interest in the 3D versions, but out of interest for what this might mean for the OT in general. Will Lucasfilm spring for 4K rebuilds of the OT now that money is no longer an object? The current Lowry masters are stuck at 1920x817, which is just fine and dandy for hdtv and blu-ray, but the standard digital cinema resolution for a cinemascope film is 2048x872. Jim Ward called the Lowry masters a "digital negative" back in '04, saying they could use that for theatrical if they wanted to.

Well, it's been eight years and (correct me if I'm wrong) that master hasn't been projected theatrically anywhere.* That says to me that, no, hdtv resolution for a 'scope film is not a "digital negative."

*Was that special screening of Empire a couple years back (with Ford in attendance) the '04 version or was it a '97 print??? That's literally the only time I can think of where the lowry master might have been theatrically projected.