Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda

Very unusual item up on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110313824475

Vaderisnothayden said:

I read on imdb that in he 1981 reissue of the first film "Close the blast doors" was added

"close the blast doors" was present in every 1977 showing I saw (5), in two different theaters (probably 35mm at both locations) in CA and UT.  When I saw SW again several years later in an OT marathon (mid-80s), the line was absent. Bugged me, because it always had drawn audible laughs in the theater.

They were fun to watch once  in the theater.  In each case, the second viewing was much worse and I found myself cringing at the dialogue.  The only part of the PT that holds up to repeated viewing is the lightsaber duel at the end of TPM.

Vaderisnothayden said:

They're the main good thing about the SE (I suppose I could count the Biggs scene resoration too).

The Bigg's scene wasn't a restoration... it was chopped up to match the prequels too.

JediMasterFisher said:

omg your wrong I can't even watch the old verson of A New Hope because it's visually terriable.

So is this a joke, or are people so dumb that they actually fell for George's non-anamorphic trick?

negative1 said:

you said it yourself, most people didn't mind the changes

then, but only now they don't seem to be needed..

You're really missing the whole point.  It's true I also didn't mind the changes when I first saw them in the theater.  That's because I NEVER DREAMED that they would permanently replace the original, and the Lucas would NEVER restore the original.  Once I found out THAT is what those changes really meant, that they meant that the originals were destroyed, I immediately hated them.  Had I known from the outset that's what they meant, I might have even picketed the local theater.  It's just plain wrong to do that.

I don't mind colorized versions of movies, as long as the original is retained and cared for.

I don't mind "director's cuts", as long as the original is retained and cared for.

I don't mind remakes, as long as the original is retained and cared for.

But don't destroy the original... people will get mad and form forums like this.  And rightly so.  This would be true for any major motion picture, not just SW.

Johnboy3434 said:

In your humble opinion, of course. Other people think the added elements aren't intrusive at all. Are you saying they're wrong because they don't agree with you? Isn't that just a tad egocentric?

I would be against changes to classic films even if I liked the changes.  That is, if the originals were not also being made available.  You just don't do that to great works of art.

Davnes007 said:

Where can I download/watch the sample clip you made?

I've been to your site, and haven't see it...and I can't download the audio clip either. Me soo sad :(

Yeah, I felt obliged to take it down.  When it appeared on YouTube, I decided that I needed to be more judicious with it myself.

On another note, I received the enlarged gate today!!  Although, with the semester ramping up, it'll probably be late December before I can return to the project in full swing.  Xmas break starts Dec. 26, in earnest.

The enlarged gate is supposedly on its way back to me.  Supposedly Roger enlarged mine, then somehow it got lost in their shipping department.  He made me a replacement and shipped it out yesterday.

AxiaEuxine said:

I love all the fan edits that this site does, but man you guys posts are exhuasting to read....do you like anything?

I've answered your questions before, and you've ignored my comments. So how about answering a question of mine: .... Do you think it is OK that the original academy-award winning movie "Star Wars" has not been restored and is unavailable in a modern format?

Hunter6 said:

The Thing is, We just need a good Private investigator to look into it because I said It is about the Truth.

I think the mods should delete this entire thread.  Not just close it, delete it.  It's like a Monty Python skit that turned out to be real.

I cannot think of any reason these days to cut negatives.  You transfer whatever segment you want, and cut in software, right?  I've transfered hundreds of films, sometimes bits of one mixed with bits of another, and I can't remember ever cutting any of them.

digitalfreaknyc said:

LordVader said:

SilverWook said:

LordVader said:

SilverWook said:

Any idea what film print was sacrificed so that Star Wars might live? ;)

Hopefully Star Trek...

Hey! A lot of us are card carrying Trek fans in here. ;)

William Shatner is the man, but George Takei killed it for me, especially seeing him nowadays. :D 

 Why?

Presumably, Takei strikes at LordVader's own insecurities.

Suits like those being discussed here generally are based on being defrauded into buying something and then being denied a refund.  In fact, that's how most infomercials work.  But people who have been disappointed enough with SW discs to ask for a refund seem to have gotten one.  So I don't understand the basis for suing. What were the damages?  Emotional distress at seeing Greedo shoot first?

skyjedi2005 said:

Also the cropped sample does not to appear to be anamorphic or even play back at the right ntsc speed it almost sounds a bit sped up in some players.  Is this audio pitch shifting?

The film is scope, and all I did for the sample I posted was tell Vegas to change the aspect ratio.  After I do the real capture, I'm going to need some advice as to the best way to convert 4:3 scope into actual anamorphic.

As for the speed, all I did was guestimate the fps and do a crude pulldown, then synched the audio as best as I could.  There shouldn't be pitch shifting, because wherever I had to stretch or shrink the audio, I had the editor retain the pitch (that more often causes artifacts, but I didn't notice any here). When I do the final capture, I'll use the existing mono mix as reference.  Is it pitch-accurate?

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Will whomever posted my 16mm clip on YouTube please take it down?

Followup -- thank you very much for quickly honoring my request.

What I like about the original series is that most of the episodes involve some sort of moral dilemna that doesn't have an obvious or easy answer.  Often lurking underneath the cheesy action was a fairly heady topic with multiple viewpoints.  In that respect, it was often an intelligent show.

KillLucas said:

George Lucas can suck my balls! This guy not only irrevocably destroy Star Wars with his horrendous prequels but he also won’t let us have the OT the way it was suppose to be. Hayden Christensen was the biggest miscasting IN CINEMA HISTORY! So was Jake Lloyd! I can’t believe the scripts he wrote!! Hey George, EVER HEARD OF HIRING WRITERS AND DIRECTORS?!!! The ’06 DVDs was a spit in our faces and a huge disgrace to the cinema industry. Now he is releasing his shit versions again FOR THE FORTH TIME! I’ve had it with this guy, lets sue him!!! If I ever come in contact with George Lucas I will seriously climb over all his bodyguards and knock the shit out of him! Lets get some knowledge together, hire some lawyers and sue this ASSHOLE!

I'm guessing this is an attempt at humor/satire.  If so, it's pretty funny, actually!

Will whomever posted my 16mm clip on YouTube please take it down?  It's not that I necessarily have anything against it being there, but I wasn't asked, and so I never had a chance to ask the owner of the film if he minded.  So please, remove it. Thanks.

This project is proceeding with the grace, generosity, and a bit of trepidation on the part of the owner of the film, and I hope that members of this group can respect that and use some appropriate discretion.  I would not want to have to terminate the project.

I don't know if this is off-topic or not:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/ig/Sarah-Palin-Pictures/Comparing-the-Candidates.htm

negative1 said:

puggo, just out of curiousity,

how fast does it run?

are you able to modify the rate?

The WorkPrinter grabs frames at about 8 frames per second.  The software then assembles them into an .avi file.  The speed of the motion in the .avi file then, of course, depends on the original frame rate of the film.  Pulldown can then be done either in software, to whatever rate you desire, or via a pulldown flag on the DVD. By visual inspection, these films appeared to be 18-20 fps.  If I remember right, I did a software pulldown to 20fps on the clip I posted.

Moth3r said:

Also noticed, interestingly, the image gets marginally brighter towards the right hand side of the image. Could that be a slight misalignment of the camera?

Regarding the camera, is that the optimal focus you can get? It looks a little blurred, just wondered if that could be improved, or if it's a limitation of the workprinter method.

And what are you doing spending money on a swanky new plasma display? You need to be getting a new HDV cam for this project... ;-)

The slight brightness towards the right side of the image is a byproduct of the WorkPrinter.  I was waiting for someone to notice that.  It's more pronounced in the 8mm WorkPrinter, and I did my best to correct it in post for the Puggo 8mm edition (it corrected well except for the very beginning).  Roger claims that the upgrade to an LED bulb corrects the problem in the 8mm device, but I'm skeptical (he also claims it was never a problem in the 16mm devices, but it clearly is).  Luckily, it's minor enough in the 16mm that I'm confident it will be easily compensated in post, and will then be undetectable.  Very good eyes you have.

As far as the focus, that's either the film or my ability to focus the camera.  I'll just have to try my best for the final capture.  I expect it to improve slightly when the larger gate allows me to shrink the image.  I've also found that the 16mm captures tend to look sharper when played through a television, so I'm a bit reluctant to do any sharpening.

Unfortunately, the telecine capture software would not be able to run fast enough for HD, so rather than spend the money on a camera, I spent it on a REALLY nice monitor :)

GOUT reassessment...

I just recently got a widescreen plasma TV (a 58" Samsung).  Previously, I had only viewed the GOUT on a 4:3 TV.  This morning, for the first time, I tried watching the GOUT on the new plasma... and for the first time I appreciate just to what extent the GOUT truly is - to quote Luke - a piece of junk.  WOW.  They actually rendered it unwatchable on a modern display.  Now I'm beginning to realize why some posters are hoping that the Puggo Grande might turn out more watchable -- I'm beginning to wonder if it just might.  Amazing.

negative1 said:

i derive very little critical and artistic merit from watching 'Star Wars', because i don't view it from that perspective as a 'serious' film that was a commentary on society from the 70's...

A film doesn't have to intend to be a commentary on society, to be one.  "I Love Lucy" was never intended to be a commentary on the 1950s, but that is exactly what it has turned out to be.  History looks back on pop culture to reflect on was going on then... it looks at normal things, comedies, posters, cartoons, and the entertainment of the day.

negative1 said:

I also quoted:

Puggo wrote:

  As such, every cultural, historical, and artistic sensibility that I know of demands that it be preserved in its original form.  Students of the history of cinema should be able to study it, for example. 

why don't you explain why exactly should this movie be studied?

i don't see any reason to... it's just a movie, that some people liked in 1977..

are you studying it? are you student of the history of cinema? is anyone here?

 

I'm going to try hard to answer this calmly and without getting angry.

Just because you or I might or might not be interested in studying the history of anything in particular, is irrelevant. History is what it is, and there are a lot of people that study it. History is more than a timeline of events - it is also its artifacts. One way we learn about ourselves, our culture and how it changes through time, is by studying what we produce. That's why people preserve and study artifacts of pop culture - books, films, artwork, music, etc. Maybe you don't, but not everything is about you.

I think that SW is a work of art. You might disagree, but that's what I believe. And, as any work of art, it exists in a context. Consider film noir - it is what it is as a product of its times, and the dark mood the western world was in in the 1940s. Contrast with the films of the upbeat 50s which reflect a happier time. Could you imagine Val Lewton or John Huston or Billy Wilder or Orson Welles going back and "brightening up" all of their noir films to reflect the more recent happier times?  We'd lose not only an entire genre, but a valuable window into the sensabilities and mood of life in the 1940s, and of course what people were watching then.  And as things invariably run in cycles, those older noir films were to speak to a particular younger generation some 50 years later.

Consider the movie 2001-A Space Odyssey.  Sure, as it turns out, a lot of the characterizations of what would have transpired by 2001 are incorrect. But what would we lose if Kubrick decided to go in and "fix" those "mistakes"? We would lose a vibrant window into the boundless optimism of a nation on the verge of the first moon landing.  We can see for ourselves how many people 40 years ago saw their future.  A culture's mindset is reflected in its art - to change it is to destroy it by destroying the all-important context in which it resides.

Suppose that Federico Fellini or Ingmar Bergmann or Andy Warhol decided to "update" their works and destroy the originals.  Wouldn't that be a tragic loss of cultural art? What if Romeo & Juliet were "improved" by making the protagonists a little older, say 21, so that we wouldn't have to squirm about them getting married at 13?  Wouldn't we lose a striking element of historical cultural interest?

Should we go back and "correct" all those pre-Rennaisance paintings that don't properly use perspective?  Hmm, as it turns out, the devices that they used - in the absence of technical innovations of the 1500s - became influential centuries later in other ways and to other artists.  They also allow us to study the cultural and spirituality of midieval times.  They also allow us to discern the evolution and development of the geniuses that followed.  I'm glad this window is preserved.

And what about the development of SW itself?  How do you think George got those story ideas?  It's because he himself was very much a student of film history and drew inspiration from Kurosawa, Flash Gordon, as well as the writings of Joseph Campbell.  Good thing they didn't destroy their earlier works and replace them with "better" ones.  Just because YOU don't study film history doesn't mean that it is useless, because a lot of people who DO, as a result create things you enjoy!

Now regarding special effects - those too are a product of their times. And to think that "newer" is necessarily "better" completely ignores the whole notion of what art is.  Is Beethoven better than Mozart?  Is Monet better than Michelangelo?  No, the craft of all great art is itself great and worthy of preservation.  What if the rise of the Romantic composers had led music publishers to destroy the previous Baroque works?  Well, fast forward 400 years, and which style is studied and rehearsed by jazz pianists?  The baroque works of Bach. What does it have to do with Star Wars?  Well, suppose someone wanted to make a really great puppet movie... who do you think they would study?  They would study the muppets, and they'd study Star Wars.  But--- oops, George replaced all the "bad" puppets with CGI.  Too bad, now our aspiring puppet movie director can't see what works well versus what are the challenges.

Consider Greedo shooting first. In the 70s, apparently, it was OK for Han to shoot first. Whereas in the more PC late 90s, that is less acceptable. By changing that, that little window into the 1970s is obscured slightly. It is possible that, 100 years from now, Han shooting first might be just as jarring then as a 13-year old getting married is today.  But then, we won't know, will we, because George changed that.

Now about editing... you made it clear you don't care about an award for editing.  Well, a lot of people believe that the reason the original SW was SUCH a good movie, was not because of the effects, the actors, or the script, but because of the editing.  Editing can make or kill a film... it's what produces the pacing, and it can turn drab dialogue into snappy repartee. Anyone studying film editing would have to consider SW a masterpiece.  Every cut, every scene, every turn of phrase, is assembled with perfection.  Examine the dialogue in Obiwan's hut, look at how the drama towards the end unfolds and hightens during that pregnant pause at the end, and then the perfectly timed change in angle... the entire movie switches direction at that moment and it's all because of the editing.  The academy awarded it with best editing in 1977 but oops... George re-edited it 20 years later. Too bad!  We don't get to see the original editing that so many other filmmakers awarded their highest honor.

The great jazz musician Charlie Parker stated several times that if he could go back and erase every copy of his famous recording of "Lover Man", that he would. He was drugged out at the time and he was ashamed of it. However, it's widely considered one of his masterpieces - the simultaneous anguish and beauty of his life crying through every note. It's a window into the life and times of bebop artists.  As it turns out, Parker did re-record "Lover Man" later when he was sober, and it's nowhere near as great as the first recording.  I am glad he didn't have the resources to do what George did and wipe out the original.  I am glad both are preserved.

Finally, your argument that it's not stopping you or I from doing our preservations, is a joke.  I'm not talking about it being preserved for ME, I'm talking about it being preserved FOREVER, and for everyone.  I'll be lucky if 100 people see the PuggoGrande, and it's not a proper preservation anyways.  It should be preserved as it appeared in the cinema in 1977... that means a high end transfer from a pristine print off the original negative, not a crappy 16mm transfer done in my basement.

You don't go changing a finished work of art - to do so is to destroy it to its core.  At least not without preserving the original too.