Mielr

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

Post History

Post: #218785
Topic: The Official Lucasfilm Response
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/218785/action/topic#218785
Time: 15-Jun-2006 2:37 AM

Originally posted by: zombie84

Originally posted by: Mielr

Originally posted by: zombie84
Wasn't the technicolor print used to restore the OOT? Shouldn't it have frames missing?

No, I don't think they actually cut up the Technicolor print, they used it as a guide as to what the color saturation should be, etc. Even if it was directly used, I imagine the frames would have been scanned, rather than physically cut.

No, if it was used it would have been cut, not scanned and copied. Hmm. I had also heard that the 85 interpositive was used to fill in the rotting section. But then someone told me it was the technicolor print. I wonder which one it really was now (both? neither?)

I doubt very much that they cut apart the Technicolor print. It was my understanding that the INs -which were the notorious CRI or "color-reversal intermediate" Kodak stock that was used in the 1970s, and it deteriorated quickly, so they had to go back to the original camera negatives.

Post: #218769
Topic: The Official Lucasfilm Response
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/218769/action/topic#218769
Time: 15-Jun-2006 2:13 AM

Originally posted by: zombie84
Wasn't the technicolor print used to restore the OOT? Shouldn't it have frames missing?

Post: #218764
Topic: The Official Lucasfilm Response
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/218764/action/topic#218764
Time: 15-Jun-2006 2:08 AM

Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father

Originally posted by: Mielr
I know for a fact that George Lucas owns a pristine, Technicolor Dye-Transfer print of Star Wars. As a matter of fact, he wanted the folks at YCM (or whoever did the '97 SE restorations) to use the print as an example of what he wanted the finished restorations to look like (Dye-Transfer prints don't fade like chemical-based Kodak prints do).

How do you know this?

I read an interview with one of the film restorationists who worked on the SE (can't remember the guy's name- it may have been someone at Lowry) who said that Lucas took him into a vault, and showed him the print and said something to the effect of "this is what I want the film to look like".

Post: #218761
Topic: The Official Lucasfilm Response
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/218761/action/topic#218761
Time: 15-Jun-2006 2:05 AM

Originally posted by: canofhumdingers

I wonder how people would feel if da Vinci came back from the dead and repainted the Mona Lisa to look like Pamela Anderson because his tastes changed?

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but, after the stupidity with which the "Da Vinci Code" has blinded the general populace, i have to correct you. (No, i'm not saying you're dumb, just that people have been fed all sorts of falsities from that book/movie) & this is one i just can't stand. Leonardo da Vinci's name is LEONARDO. Da Vinci is NOT A NAME. It simply clarifies that you're talking about Leonardo from the town of Vinci, and not some other Leonardo. It'd be like if you knew a guy named Bob who was born in Chicago and contantly referred to him as "from Chicago"..... "hey, from Chicago, wanna go catch a movie tonight?"

Yes, but that's how all last names started. People with the last name "Tailor" or "Taylor" are decended from people who were tailors by trade, people with the name "DiGiacomo" (which means "Of James") were decended from someone named "James", or some people's surnames came from the region they came from like "Da Vinci". So, it's not really incorrect to refer to him as Leonardo DaVinci.

Post: #218756
Topic: The Official Lucasfilm Response
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/218756/action/topic#218756
Time: 15-Jun-2006 1:54 AM

Originally posted by: ricarleite

Are you telling me that there are no copies of STAR WARS left? Lucasfilm and Twentieth Century Fox, two multi-billion corporations from the United States of America, who produced and distributed the most popular movie in the world, cannot provide ONE SINGLE COPY of the movie in it's original form? They have to resort to a LD because there is NO other way? And he has used the original films to make the SEs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how it's possible to overwrite celluloid. What did he use to make the 1993 and 1995 sets? It obviously didn't come from an inferior form. Did he BURN it afterwards? Maybe they just burned it as an accident and are too embarassed to say, because that is the only reasonable explanation that comes to mind.

I know for a fact that George Lucas owns a pristine, Technicolor Dye-Transfer print of Star Wars. As a matter of fact, he wanted the folks at YCM (or whoever did the '97 SE restorations) to use the print as an example of what he wanted the finished restorations to look like (Dye-Transfer prints don't fade like chemical-based Kodak prints do).

Why couldn't we have that gorgeous print on DVD? Even if he doesn't own D-T prints of ESB or ROTJ, at least we could have a beautiful example of SW on DVD for posterity.

When they say "laserdisc" masters, do they mean the one with the hair in the gate? (from ROTJ) Or the one with the scanlines removed, to hide the hair in the gate? Or, the corrected 1995 versions?

Am I the only person who doesn't think the people involved in this would even know the difference? They "searched exhaustively" for laserdisc masters? Give me a freakin' break!