Mielr

User Group: Members
Join date: 15-Jun-2006
Last activity: 27-Dec-2024
Posts: 2,805

Post History

Post: #225238
Topic: The Muppet Movie Extended Edition (Released)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225238/action/topic#225238
Time: 9-Jul-2006 4:19 AM

Originally posted by: Andrew Smith
Apologies for not being more clear. From what I gather there is a short bit of dialog prior to Rowlfs song that has been cut from most home video editions. Kermit asks for a drangonfly drink from the bartender. This clean audio leads into the song on the soundtrack album.
I thought he asked for a 'grasshopper'?
Originally posted by: ocpmovie

Here's the deal: There is an extended version of The Muppet Movie. I think it was only released in England on VHS tape. It's pretty rare. It has an extended version of Rowlf's song, and most notably it has a funnier and I think far superior ending........

+ More of Fozzie's unsuccessful comedy onstage when he and Kermit meet.
+ Longer commercial for Doc Hopper's Frog Legs and he and Kermit meet.
+ Fozzie hands Dr. Teeth the script and he reads it and recaps the entire movie at length. I presume this is in the movie but shorter?
+ Longer (I guess) chase scene as Doc Hopper follows the "rainbow colored Studebaker."
+ Longer version of the Rowlf/Kermit duet, "I Hope That Something Better Comes Along"
+ Longer version of the giant Animal scaring Doc Hopper et al away.
+ At the end, before Kermit sings "Life's like a movie ..." there's a long (I assume longer) sequence of explosions going off to blow the roof open.
+ Here's the real gem of this version ... the Muppets all talk over the credits, talking to each other in the theater. Fozzie and Miss Piggy want desperately to be told that they were good in the movie. Kermit is nice and tells everyone they were great. He tells Lew Zealand he can be in "the next one." Janice and Floyd snuggle up - Janice runs from Animal - "Woman!" Rowlf tries to converse with Beaker. "Yeah, whatever."

I saw this film in the theater in 1979 and I also have a very old (U.S.) VHS tape of it. I remember most of the scenes you listed, including the end where they talk over the credits (that was in the U.S. theatrical version as well as my tape version). However, I have no way of telling if it is really different than the British VHS version without a copy to compare. I haven't seen the DVD, either.

Post: #225237
Topic: The Academy Award winning editing of Episode IV
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225237/action/topic#225237
Time: 9-Jul-2006 3:47 AM

Originally posted by: RepDetect

Originally posted by: Mielr
All of this reminds me of the chapter in "Empire Building" where it mentions how George went nuts and went into the editing room to do his edit of ESB, and it was so fast and incoherent, that the editors had to go back in and fix it.

That sounds like the last 30 minutes of TPM, which for my money gets the nutso-editing award as far as SW goes -- Ben Burtt and Paul Martin Smith hit frappe' and let 'er rip, no doubt. And we were all so starved for a new chapter that we refused to immediately entertain its true shortcomings. (As many other threads around here have attested.) Oy vey!

Didn't Steven Spielberg suggest alternate editing for the finale of TPM? GL took his advice and re-edited it that way, then decided he liked it better the way he did it, so he changed it back to the original edit.

I wonder what the Spielberg edit was like. Better, probably. LOL

Post: #225203
Topic: BFI preserving OOT!!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225203/action/topic#225203
Time: 9-Jul-2006 12:30 AM

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi

Being a teacher, I know of school districts that have been fined and/or sued by Disney for showing their movies in the classroom. That counts as "public viewing", because it's not being shown in the home of the person who purchased the video.

That's interesting. When I was in middle-school, a teacher of mine showed ESB in the classroom just before Christmas vacation. It must have been a bootleg as well, because this was 1982 or 1983, and I don't think ESB came out on video until 1984 or 1985. I wonder if he got caught....I didn't like him, anyway.

Post: #225193
Topic: Lucas may have caved, here is a link to Barnes & Noble early review of the O-OT DVD's:
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225193/action/topic#225193
Time: 8-Jul-2006 11:43 PM

Originally posted by: generalfrevious
mielr, you said that film deteriorates after a few years- what then is the worst case scenario for the OOT?

Who knows- that's the problem. I am by no means an expert on this subject, but I know that the Eastman/Kodak film used in the 1970s was unusually unstable, and started to fade within 5 years (the piece of film in my signature is a good example- it's a frame from a 70mm release print of Star Wars from '77).

There was one particular stock that was used on Star Wars and other films from that era called "CRI" (color-reversal internegative) stock that was particularly notorious for fading. It was a stock that became a "negative" when exposed to the original camera negative, instead of becoming a positive (hence the "color reversal"), so that release prints could be made directly from it, instead of an additional positive/negative step. This saved a generation in the duplication process, so that the resulting release prints would be one step closer to the camera negatives, and would thus be clearer and less grainy, but- it turned out that the CRI stock faded very quickly. The color-fading problem was discovered in the late 1970s, and Kodak was forced to improve their film stock after 1983 to prevent the problem from happening in the future. Film-makers, upon discovering the problems with the fading film, made back-up copies of their movies on better film stock. George Lucas did the same, I would imagine, but how good the copies are or what condition they're in is the question. When they went to make the SEs, I understand that a lot of the film elements they were going to use were in bad shape, so they had to go back to the original camera negatives (or so we were told) which evidently faded at a slower rate. But, who knows what state the original camera negatives are in now that they've apparently been cannibalized for the SEs, so what remains of the OOT and what kind of shape any remaining prints, or negative dupes is a mystery.

Logically, I would think it would have made sense for them to have restored/preserved ALL of the available footage, before they went ahead and did the SEs, because I'm sure they weren't sure at that early stage what shots were staying in, which were going out, and which old shots would still remain in the film but with a bit of CGI added, etc. (also remember- in the '97 SEs they used that alternate take of Han in the cantina saying "I'll bet you have", and the previously-unreleased Luke/Biggs scene) So- I think probably all of the OOT footage exists- somewhere- even if it's chopped up and/or on a computer hard-drive. But, like everyone else, I'm just guessing.

On a side note - George Lucas (among many other directors) stores his film in a vault in an underground salt mine. The storage conditions are supposed to be ideal (temperature/humidity-wise) and are safe from earthquakes, etc.

Post: #225076
Topic: Lucas may have caved, here is a link to Barnes & Noble early review of the O-OT DVD's:
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225076/action/topic#225076
Time: 8-Jul-2006 4:25 AM

Originally posted by: Mike O

Originally posted by: Tiptup
The disk return should get a degree of official focus on this website if possible.

I've hardly seen Jay at all lately. I wonder what he'd think. I wonder how the petioners would feel. 75,000+ people X 3-6
discs per person is quite a few. I wonder if LFL would get/open the package and Lucas would get the message. I have never ever joined a forum before, but following the non-anamorphic announcement, I felt inclined to support this one and join up. I have a great deal of respect for George Lucas, but I also very much want the OOT on DVD. I just wanted to thank Jay and eveyone involved wit this site. The OOT means a lot to me, and I hope that we can save it. I just don't ever want to come across as some forum jerk either. I wonder, if we work hard enough, if we cann get a restored version of the OOT onto the 30th anniversary boxed set.

I actually suggested having Jay be the leader of this a while back, but somebody said that Jay might not approve of buying the DVDs in the first place. I'd still really like to hear what Jay thinks about this sendback idea, though. The purpose of this site now could be to organize a mass-sendback movement, instead of the petition site that it once was.

Originally posted by: darkhelmet

Honestly, I'd love to have an official, professionally crafted Lucasfilm DVD set, but, if the anamorphic thing doesn't happen, Lucas isn't going to get my money. Why reward him for treating these movies in a sub-industry-standard way?

About the idea of sending the SE discs back to Lucas, I don't mean to sound like a pessimistic curmudgeon, but how effective do you think this would really be? A huge number of people would have to get behind this, and Lucas has already demonstrated that he will do what he wants with little regard for his original fans. It's a very dramatic and poignant gesture, but by the time you send the discs back, he's already got your money.

But the money isn't the point of all this- the point is to show him WHY we're buying the DVDs (for the OT, NOT the SE), to show him that there IS a demand for the OOT, and that we resent being forced into buying the SE again in order to obtain them.

Post: #225000
Topic: Lucas may have caved, here is a link to Barnes & Noble early review of the O-OT DVD's:
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/225000/action/topic#225000
Time: 7-Jul-2006 9:36 PM

Originally posted by: Mike O

Are either of you sending back the SE discs to Lucas/ It will be interesting to see how many people do and what effect it has.

I am.

Originally posted by: generalfrevious
mielr, it's a triple MURDER

Without a doubt.

Post: #224999
Topic: The Academy Award winning editing of Episode IV
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224999/action/topic#224999
Time: 7-Jul-2006 9:30 PM

All of this reminds me of the chapter in "Empire Building" where it mentions how George went nuts and went into the editing room to do his edit of ESB, and it was so fast and incoherent, that the editors had to go back in and fix it.

Post: #224991
Topic: Lucas may have caved, here is a link to Barnes & Noble early review of the O-OT DVD's:
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224991/action/topic#224991
Time: 7-Jul-2006 9:09 PM

Originally posted by: ShiftyEyes
I doubt Lucas is letting the original elements deteriorate. They're probably nice and safe in his vaults. After all, they were restored and used for the SEs. He's just keeping them for himself.

Film deteriorates even in ideal storage conditions. If he hasn't made an effort to make preservation copies of all of the OOT material, we're screwed.

Post: #224956
Topic: Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224956/action/topic#224956
Time: 7-Jul-2006 5:45 PM

Originally posted by: THX
As far as official releases go, the Japanese Special Collection is supposed to be the closest, color-wise. Remembering the colors accurately is apparently a neurological impossibility. Comparison to theatrical reels won't help unless you have a non-faded print, hence Lucas's dye-transfer reference print.

Originally posted by: THX
Thanks for the info, Mielr. Here's yet another depressing quote from Robert Harris:For the record, the use of a dye transfer print as a transfer element, would not yield an acceptable image. Any discussion of prints, in general, for transfer would be heading in the wrong direction.

[original context]

Yeah, from what I understand, a dye-transfer print makes an excellent source for color reference, but not to create new film elements. I don't fully understand why they can't be used to create new negatives, etc., but it must have something to do with the fact that they are made so differently than chemical-based prints with emulsion layers.

Post: #224953
Topic: Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224953/action/topic#224953
Time: 7-Jul-2006 5:35 PM

Originally posted by: andy_k_250

So what official VHS/Laserdisc/DVD release has the most accurate color compared to the theatrical versions? And do people really, honestly remember the colors exactly? Even with comparison to theatrical reels, I can't imagine the color on those being the same, genuine non-faded color of the original originals.

I think the 70mm film cels from Willitts Designs are a good reference tool. They're probably the most accurate you're going to get as far as color goes.

Post: #224951
Topic: What are you going to do with your SE discs?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224951/action/topic#224951
Time: 7-Jul-2006 5:28 PM

I don't even care if they ever release the OOT with 5.1 sound- I'm perfectly happy with the 2.0 sound from the laserdiscs.

I think we are all pretty reasonable and undemanding, which makes me even more angry at GL. We really have asked for so little- just give us a new anamorphic transfer of the OOT, George. Nuthin' fancy.

Post: #224949
Topic: Quick question
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224949/action/topic#224949
Time: 7-Jul-2006 5:23 PM

I sold my Pan&Scan VHS sets a few years ago, but I'm keeping my 2 VHS widescreen sets, and my laserdiscs, even though I'm planning on buying the DVDs in September.

Post: #224946
Topic: An exact quote from Lucas on Greedo shooting first.
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224946/action/topic#224946
Time: 7-Jul-2006 5:15 PM

Originally posted by: CO
This quote is a classic by Lucas as he tries to defend the change of Greedo shooting first in the Special Edition:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GL: It's a correction. [When I made Star Wars] I said, 'Well, I don't have that shot, so I'll just, you know, fudge it editorially.' In my mind [Greedo]shot first or at the same time. We like to think of [Han Solo] as a murderer because that's hip- I don't think that's a good thing for people. I mean, I don't see how you could redeem somebody who kills people in cold blood."...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come on now, Lucas has lost his mind!

That's a load of BS. There was nothing to prevent him from shooting it that way originally if he had wanted to. Why doesn't he just admit that he changed his mind and wanted to alter the scene? Why does he keep insisting that all the changes he makes are things he wanted to do all along?

Post: #224808
Topic: Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224808/action/topic#224808
Time: 7-Jul-2006 3:39 AM

Originally posted by: boris
Did you know that camera-shake (while FILMING onto the original negatives) was removed for the 2004 DVD's - they might even try to remove the camera-shake when doing a full OOT restoration (it may not sound like a big deal to you - but to me who believes restoration is about bringing the film back to it's original condition - not surpassing it, it is). He may do the highest level of grain removal on the OOT like he did with the 2004 SE - something I wouldn't like to see either.

Yeah, even John Lowry admitted that they went overboard when they removed grain during their "Citizen Kane" restoration. I'm not crazy about those computer algorithm-based "restorations". They're too imprecise. Nothing can substitute for a slow, careful, hands-on restoration that only a human being can provide.

Post: #224802
Topic: Lucas may have caved, here is a link to Barnes & Noble early review of the O-OT DVD's:
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224802/action/topic#224802
Time: 7-Jul-2006 2:40 AM

Originally posted by: darkhelmet
Thanks for the kick in the butt, Mielr. I emailed Jim Ward a while back about the non-anamorphic thing but haven't made multiple attempts until tonight. All we can do is make our voices heard, now with correspondence or later by withholding our money. Like a lot of us fans are, I'm pretty burned out on worrying about what Lucas will or won't do, so my email was pretty much just polite brass tacks. I can't get that emotionally involved any more.

I understand, it's easy to get burned out and frustrated, especially when you feel like you don't have a voice. I get very angry when I think about George Lucas, and the fact that he might be allowing the original film elements of the OOT to deteriorate, when he could & should be saving them. I think what he's doing is nothing short of criminal.

Post: #224801
Topic: Addresses and contacts for various media outlets go in here
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224801/action/topic#224801
Time: 7-Jul-2006 2:31 AM

Originally posted by: darkhelmet
Thanks for all of the email addresses, Mielr. All we can do is make our voices heard, now with correspondence or later by withholding our money. Like a lot of us fans are, I'm pretty burned out on worrying about what Lucas will or won't do, so my email was pretty much just polite brass tacks. I can't get that emotionally involved any more.

You're welcome.

It's the shorter letters that have the better chance of actually being read, anyway. I think the key to this is volume- the more letters they receive from us, the better, regardless of how long or short they are. As long as you get your message across....

Post: #224784
Topic: Interesting Star Wars photo...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224784/action/topic#224784
Time: 7-Jul-2006 1:19 AM

That's a great pic!

Post: #224782
Topic: BFI preserving OOT!!
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224782/action/topic#224782
Time: 7-Jul-2006 1:08 AM

Originally posted by: ShiftyEyes
I recall reading about that screening a few years back but I'm fairly sure it wasn't the AFI which held it.

"At a recent Technicolor festival in Los Angeles, the programmer asked Lucafilm if they could show one of the original British Technicolor prints of "Star Wars" but they were turned down. I guess that company doesn't want the original version to be shown again and he certainly doesn't want it exhibited in 'Glorious Technicolor' which is vastly superior to any digital format." (Richard W. Haines)

Post: #224776
Topic: Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224776/action/topic#224776
Time: 7-Jul-2006 12:27 AM

Originally posted by: THX
Not all technicolor prints are dye-transfer. IIRC, Lucas had his specially made. Haines makes no mention of dye-transfer. Do you have another source that suggests there were many?

The British Technicolor lab was still doing theatrical dye-transfer prints in the late 1970s. British audiences had the enviable opportunity to see dye-transfer prints of Star Wars up on the big screen. The reason that the print Mr. Haines mentioned was only faded at the beginning, was because there was a piece of Kodak stock spliced onto it (obviously, for use in a post-1977 theatrical revival). The rest of the print was not faded, therefore it was a dye-transfer print. If it was a Kodak print, the whole thing would have been faded. Mr. Haines is an expert on Technicolor, and has written a book about it. To him, the term "Technicolor" is synonymous with "dye-transfer".

"It was a British Technicolor copy (all US prints were on DeLuxe at the time and totally faded). The problem was that the opening title through the ships coming over head was replaced faded Eastmancolor. For re-issue Lucas had 'quick fade' Eastmancolor spliced in to put in "A New Hope" title. It continued through the first actual shot splice which was the ships coming over head which is my favorite shot in the movie. I couldn't watch it with that fade opening even though the rest looked great in Technicolor." (Richard W. Haines)

The Technicolor labs in the US had stopped doing dye-transfer prints in the early 1970s. That's why there are no American dye-transfer prints of Star Wars. It would have made no financial sense for the British lab to have only made 1 or 2 dye-transfer prints of Star Wars. It was an expensive process, and many prints would have had to have been made in order to recoup their expenses.

Today, "Technicolor" exists in name only. "Technicolor prints" ceased to exist after they stopped making dye-transfer prints. All they do now is process other company's prints (like- Kodak, Fuji, Agfa), just like any other lab.

Even if you were able to find (and afford) a dye-transfer print of Star Wars now, it still might have scratches, splicing, or other signs of wear from theatrical use.

Here's another bit of depressing info:

"The camera negative on Universal's 1960 Spartacus was totally faded, totally unusable. Nothing could be done to produce any printing material from that element. We worked from black-and-white separations and had to create the equipment to manufacture a 65mm preservation internegative on the film. We worked from the seps but those seps had been produced defectively. They had been vaulted 30 years before and never tested. I will not go into the problems that were encountered, but the lesson learned was simple and dramatic: black-and-white master separations, when produced, were routinely vaulted and forgotten, assuming they would yield beautiful results when needed. We now know that this simply is not accurate in all cases.

No one knows what materials can be produced from separation masters unless they have been printed, not selectively tested or reviewed on a Rank [film-to-tape transfer machine], but printed. This should be done before the negatives that they protect are no longer viable printing elements. If the protection is defective and the negatives have gone, nothing further can be done. Without doing so, we may have no protection for the last 40 years of color film history. Every film worth saving which has not been backed up should be looked into with immediacy." (Robert A. Harris, 1993)

Full article

Post: #224726
Topic: Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224726/action/topic#224726
Time: 6-Jul-2006 5:12 PM

Originally posted by: THX
Okay, so scratch #2 from my list - great! Next step - track down the best condition print source you can. IIRC, Lucas' copy was not the only dye-transfer print made by Technicolor UK (although there may only have been two). If you can get your hands on the other one, you're in business.

There were a lot more than two. It's likely that all of the original theatrical prints in England were dye-transfer. Film maker Richard W. Haines recently posted in a DVD forum that he once had the opportunity to buy a 35mm dye-transfer print of SW, but passed on it because the opening scroll was replaced with the newer "a new hope" version, using a piece of Kodak film, which had faded. He said it was one of his biggest regrets, as the piece of film could now easily be replaced with a newer piece of low-fade Kodak film from one of the SE prints:

HERE

Post: #224720
Topic: Lucas talks about the Sept 12th Release of the O-OT
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224720/action/topic#224720
Time: 6-Jul-2006 4:54 PM

All the ads for Amazon list "easter egg-credit roll" as a feature of these new DVDs- what the heck are they talking about? Are those new easter eggs or are they also on the 2004 discs? The only easter egg I was aware of from the 2004 set was the one on the bonus disc, of the DVD credits/blooper reel.

Post: #224719
Topic: Princess Leia
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224719/action/topic#224719
Time: 6-Jul-2006 4:49 PM

Originally posted by: Anchorhead
*thread highjack*

Hey Mielr,
What's that a picture of in your signature?

It's a piece of badly faded 70mm film that I have- it's the scene from Star Wars when Luke finds the bodies of his Aunt and Uncle (close-up of his face).

Post: #224585
Topic: Some ludicrously optimistic thoughts...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224585/action/topic#224585
Time: 6-Jul-2006 1:27 AM

Originally posted by: bindibadgi
Well, it's nice to be optimistic, but the cynic in me says that if GL really hates the originals (which seems to be the case!) then the fact that he is releasing them at all can mean only one of two things:

1. He respects the fans and wants to give us what we want......

2. He just wants to fart on us.

Well, "no" to #1 (LOL!!!!!) and "yes" to #2

I hope he IS embarrassed by the aftermath of the 9/12 DVD releases. The entertainment reviewers are going to skewer him, and I'm sure there will be some complaints by irate fans who discover, upon popping the OT DVDs into their machines, that the DVDs are not anamorphic.

He SHOULD be embarrassed.

Post: #224565
Topic: Making our own 35mm preservation--my crazy proposal
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224565/action/topic#224565
Time: 5-Jul-2006 11:52 PM

Originally posted by: zombie84
And oftentimes private collectors have been the source for film restorations for material previously thought to be lost or damaged.

The censored scenes that were cut from the 1933 version of King Kong only exist today because a film collector "stole" a complete print that would otherwise would have been trashed by the studios. Film studios have a terrible history with preserving their own films. Many silent films are lost forever because the studios felt no need to house them after their theater runs had ended, and actually burned them to retrieve the silver from the silver nitrate film stock.

Originally posted by: SKot

A bunch of the actual documents involved in Roddy's story can be found here.

--SKot

That's really interesting- thanks! I had no idea that those documents were up on the Smoking Gun. That's kind of shitty that he ratted out on his friends, though. I mean, I have no idea what I would have done in that situation, maybe he was facing jail time- I don't know. I would have told them who sold me the films, sure, but I don't think I could have fingered other collectors.

Originally posted by: Zion
Don't forget that any OOT film you can find is probably going to look like this when scanned.

.....or like the 70mm cel in my signature:

Post: #224563
Topic: Some ludicrously optimistic thoughts...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/224563/action/topic#224563
Time: 5-Jul-2006 11:45 PM

Originally posted by: ShiftyEyes
At the same rate, I'm sure Lucas can't stand to release anything as embarrasing (to him) as the original versions in the first place.

He's doing it begrudgingly, for sure.

I can't wait till the home theater and entertainment mags start doing their reviews of the DVDs- they're going to rip him a new one!