logo Sign In

S_Matt

User Group
Members
Join date
5-May-2011
Last activity
18-May-2011
Posts
77

Post History

Post
#499406
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_preservation

Just because its on wikipedia doesn't make it so. That article is just someone's opinion on film preservation. I respect that opinion. I respect your opinion. I agree with your opinion - to a point. I happen to have a different view on the subject.

And, in case everyone missed it the other 5000 times I mentioned it - I would be very happy with a straight cleaned up version with the effects left untouched. (Ok, I'd be pissed if you could still see the garbage mattes but those can be dealt with I think by subtle color timing adjustments and wouldn't break the "rules" of preservation, seeing in theatrical screenings they weren't always visible - but if they were there it wouldn't be a deal breaker either) I bet if they were removed some of you would boycott the release though. Imagine that, refusing to buy the restored OOT because an almost invisible flickering box was removed here and there....

 

Post
#499333
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

zombie84 said:

You're wrong because you're using the terminology incorrectly. You can't have things added to the film that never existed and could not have existed and still call it a restoration. It's a Special Edition, or an enhanced edition, or whatever.

Well, yes, I did use the terminology incorrectly at times. But I was kind of always posing the question, what is a restoration? Does it have a definition? What do members of the community consider a "restoration" to be?

I've got some answers and I think all of them are interesting and worth investigating.

However I never once suggested anything needed to be added to the film at all. I only ever advocated using elements that existed and were available and that ended up in the release-cut of the film. Some say that only the final version of the film with all the effects elements baked into it should be cleaned up. I say, if you got as many separate elements as you could and reassembled the film you could do a far better job restoring the film to a pristine state.

The definition of a term isn't always an exact one.

Post
#499322
Topic
Anyone hate Return of the Jedi?
Time

CO said:

 Oh god, here goes the revisionism of the Old movies again.......  Star Wars wasn't made for kids

I never said it was made for kids. I can't help it if it appealed to kids though, now can I? And there had to be some reason that it did. Maybe because its basically a fairy-tale? Or did I miss something? Maybe I missed some other movie called Star Wars that was an existential drama of Shakespearean magnitude?

Yes, Jedi definitely had things that appeal to kids in higher doses than the first film did. Yes, it is lacking a certain emotional gravitas of the first two films, Empire in particular. But in my opinion is nowhere near as bad as a lot of its detractors think. Too many people went "Oh, look how Phantom Menace turned out - quick, blame it on Jedi! We'll look smart because we saw this coming." - now there is some revisionism!

 

 

 

 

Post
#499314
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

zombie84 said:

 It's restored, it looks and sounds identical to how it did when it was first made.

 

I contend that such a condition is impossible because it is unknowable. But you all seem to be under the impression that I want only a special edition version with cleaned effects. I think it would be a plus but its certainly not mandatory. I'd be completely happy with a warts and all restoration. I'd also be happy with one that had a bit of an upgrade.

Let's face it - the chances of a Lucasfilm-produced restoration are very small. If it is done, it would most likely be the low-key cleanup with no changes to the original material that most people want. My idealized version won't ever happen. The opportunity was there but the SE project blew it. Still doesn't mean I can't discuss it and why I'd like such a version.

I posted this thread to find out what people would/would not like to see in a restored Star Wars. Now I know. I don't see how I can be "wrong" though - that's why this is a debate. I'm interested in the debate, not the final verdict of who is correct.

Post
#499253
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

So, what you're saying is, there's only one opinion allowed on this forum?

I must say the strange double standards of the restorationalists puzzle me. Especially the notion that its fine to use tools that weren't available 35 years ago to clean and recolor a film but not okay to use the technology to fix compositing faults like matte lines and flickering boxes?

Post
#499216
Topic
Anyone hate Return of the Jedi?
Time

doubleKO said:

S_Matt, I can identify if not agree with everything you've said except this:

S_Matt said:

Jedi and Star Wars only really differ from the prequels in that the actors and the characters are like-able and believable.

Woah there buddy! To say that Star Wars was on terms with the prequels or even Jedi in terms of pacing and story delivery is utter rubbish. George might have directed but his friends he showed it to hated it. Whoever was the editor for Star Wars (and I'm ashamed that I don't know...) was largely responsible for the movie's success. The fact that the now-replaced and horribly out-of-place Biggs hangar scene was cut is a testament to the editor's gift. In at least some of the PT I believe George used Ben Burtt, his SOUND editor to edit the video. To his exact specifications no doubt, leaving all that boring exposition-y crap intact.

Well the version of Star Wars Lucas had screened for friends and colleagues was barely more than a rough assembly. Its not unusual for these to be very poorly received. ALL films are made in the editing bay. One cannot overstate this simple truth. The film was re-edited by a crack shot team of editors that included Lucas's wife of the time (who edited Taxi Driver for Martin Scorsese). Just FYI.

And Ben Burtt was *the* editor on the Prequels. There's nothing wrong with the pacing in those films, even the story doesn't bug me much. Its all down to the wooden delivery and poor dialogue (but its a deliberate stylistic choice!) that Lucas insisted on that sank the Prequels.

The story of the first film is so minimalist anyway - its all down to the cast that it worked so well.

Post
#499209
Topic
Is GOUT resented?
Time

Converting to anamorphic does involve upscaling the picture slightly. This is almost the last thing any studio or mastering facility wants to do. The only benefit I can really see is one of convenience - of not having to adjust your 16:9 TV/projector to make the image fill the screen horizontally. I converted my set to anamorphic only for this reason. Remember that the laserdisc masters were originally only ever intended to be seen on a standard definition 4:3 screen, and when viewed this way they look barely distinguishable in terms of clarity from the anamorphic SE DVD's. While lucasfilm may have added a bit of additional DVNR to the laserdisc masters to tame some of the more excessive grain and noise, this doesn't mean it wasn't already present on the master tapes. Some form of analog or digital noise reduction was standard procedure when preparing home video content in those days. The releases of course look atrocious in absolute terms on a full HD screen, but still better than the analog playback of a laserdisc player would - but changing them to anamorphic does not magically make them look much different. I've played around with sharpening, contrast boosting, grain removal and color adjusment on sections of the footage but find this always has more negative than positive effects on the overall quality so my anamorphic conversion involved upscaling only.

Relative to the age of the masters and the limitations of a standard def source though, I think they look rather good and certainly better than many a fully anamorphic transfer I've seen.

Of course by 2011 standards, now that the crossover from SD to HD is deeply entrenched throughout the consumer domain, the release is fairly ludicrous. But they could *just* get away with it 5 years ago. If they'd released them that way in 1998 or 9 they might have been fairly well regarded. 

 

 

 

Post
#499203
Topic
Anyone hate Return of the Jedi?
Time

Jedi is not so much a step down quality wise from the highs of Empire as it is the unfortunate film that had to follow a masterpiece. But I'd say its at least on a par with the first film. Star Wars and Jedi do have a juvenile slant and feature "cute" side characters that lend themselves to merchandising, particularly the type aimed at kids. The plots of both also feature some pretty hard to swallow and difficult to believe elements - its just in Jedi these are much more obvious. But then these films are fairy tales so I don't really hold the lack of believability of some parts against them. And its pretty clear that this results purely from them being the kind of films Lucas makes - he obviously had much more active role in the production of Jedi than Empire, with Richard Marquand being pretty much a proxy for Lucas. The Lucas-directed films plus Jedi have a lot in common, much more than most around here would be prepared to admit. Jedi and Star Wars only really differ from the prequels in that the actors and the characters are like-able and believable.

Of the six films, Empire is really the odd one out - the grown-up, cynical, realistic, entirely believable one. Neither the heroes or the villains actually wins in Empire - that to me is so much like real life.

I guess the only real problem I have with Jedi is that it doesn't seem that fitting an end to an entire saga as you'd think it ought to be. Empire moved the game along massively from Star Wars. Jedi didn't really move any further.

Post
#499185
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

I think I can see what would happen if a "restored" version of Star Wars supposedly identical to the final release version were to come out on blu ray - most of you would still boycott it because of something or other it got wrong in any of its 120 odd minutes of run time. There *has* to come a point where close enough is good enough. Its just never going to happen that anyone would ever restore a 35 year old film in a way that would please every die hard restorationalist in all instances.

The fact is - nobody can really remember every detail of a film they saw all those decades ago, or even one that they saw yesterday. There will have to come a point where you'll have to just accept on good faith, that a restoration is as close as the restoration team and the studio could possibly make it, and be happy with what you get. Or else you truly have lost sight of the wood for the trees.

But like I said, nobody is going to be satisfied with anything they hypothetically release and I think this is one of the factors that makes Lucas highly reluctant to even entertain the possibility or spend the money on trying to satisfy a small subset of fans within a larger community of people who want to see a reasonably faithful OOT release. I can really see where he's coming from there. I don't condone his attitude, but I understand it.

The cruel fact is, most SW fans don't care what version it is - most of those that do care share my attitude that as long as the editorial matches and as long as the color appears natural and faithful it will be a worthy release. I think it might even be possible that the fundamentalist restorationalists themselves are holding back the possibility of these versions being released. Lucas knows these kinds of opinions exist - I'd also feel a bit ill at the prospect of bending over backwards to try please these fans who are actually still going to throw rocks at him no matter what he does. Of course he brought this stalemate situation upon himself but that doesn't change the fact that the kind of nitpicking we see on this forum is a factor in strengthening Lucas's resolve to not bow to fan pressure.

He should just have released warts-and-all but reasonable quality barebones DVD's and blu rays of the originals in a close-enough-to-original state years ago and then there probably wouldn't be this stalemate we find ourselves in now. I might even have opened the doorway to an extremely faithful restoration somewhere down the road. But its too late now. He knows that the target audience for a restoration version is the most likely to complain the loudest. Its really a catch 22 now.

Post
#499161
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

TheBoost said:

 The original creative vision includes "originally I didn't envision the film being so sloppy with atrocious ADR, slow-mo close ups of stunt people instead of actors, and numerous contiunity errors." His original vision aparently also included 21st century digital special effects. How prophetic he was.

 

Almost all of the problems in the first theatrical release of Blade Runner can be traced to studio interference and mismanagement that put pressure on the schedule forcing shortcuts to be taken. The film was creatively and technically compromised by external forces. The film was "revisionist" even before it was finished. If you prefer that version, great, just remember what you're enjoying is not a film by Ridley Scott. Its a film by "Cynical studio stockholders".

We can thank underground screenings of the workprint version for raising awareness of the studio's meddling and suppression of Scott's vision, leading to the studio itself to issue the so-called "Director's Cut" of 1992 even though Scott was never personally involved in its creation.

To Scott's credit he left in many of the most famous continuity mistakes (at least, ones that didn't affect the logic of the narrative) in the Final Cut on purpose as they'd become part of the lore of the film.

It is a pity that this sort of thing simply wouln't work with Star Wars in this day and age - there's going to be no similar forcing Lucas's hand due to undergound screenings as these are extremely rare, mainly because copyright holders have vastly greater powers to confiscate personal property (i.e. privately owned 35mm prints) and to prosecute offenders. there is also a tendency to let him get away with it because it was all "his decision". The public is just willfully ignorant these days and actually supports restriction of their liberties. Empire and Jedi won't get much help either because I imagine a sizeable portion of the fan base and almost all of the general public thinks those films were directed by George Lucas as well. If he was to be honest he'd take Kershner and Marquand's names off the SE versions because they're all George Lucas films now. In any case, I bet Kershner and Marquand were denied legal final cut rights by Lucas. Incredible behavior from a man who once criticised this exact same behavior in the studio system and which behavior made him decide to go independent.

To Ridley Scott's credit he left in many of the most famous continuity mistakes in Blade Runner (at least, ones that didn't affect the logic of the narrative) in the Final Cut on purpose as they'd become part of the lore of the film.

As for digital effects, well, there's only one almost 100% new shot in The Final Cut and even this still retains some of the original elements. Recompositing footage digitally is not "redoing" anything and I will repeat this as often as is necessary. A computer is just a tool. Its achieving exactly the same thing as an optical printer but with infinitely more control and precision.

I can see some of you lump Scott in exactly the same camp as Lucas - as rapacious revisionists with no respect for history, but this is just completely wrong and misguided.

 

 

 

Post
#499037
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

Darth Mallwalker said:

 

S_Matt said:


Mono would be a silly waste of valuable disc real estate that could be better employed for the video. You want Star Wars in mono, get a copy on VHS.

I don't think the mono mix is silly. Don't think it's available on VHS either.

 

the mono mix came about due to cheapskate theatre owners who wouldn't upgrade to stereo. There's no historical value to that whatsoever. And well, even if the VHS isn't natively mono, cheaper VCR's are so your problem is solved.

Post
#499035
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Matt, you keep using Blade Runner's Final Cut as an example of how you'd like to see the OOT restored.

Thing is, that's not a restoration of Blade Runner.  It's a special edition.  Things were changed - color timing was radically altered, new effects shots were created, existing effects shots were recomposited.

 

 

I consider the Final Cut to be the first time Ridley Scott's Blade Runner was actually released. All other versions except the Workprint are bastardized by studio meddling. Its nice that they were released in hi-def as well but I see them only as an example of the damage talentless studio executives can do to a film. Yes, Ridley Scott did voluntarily bow to every ridiculous demand the studio made but I think he was playing the long game there knowing that somehow he'd get to finish the film the way he intended.

The final cut is the restoration of an original creative vision.

Star Wars however was not terribly compromised by the studio, and no hot shot yuppies trying to make a name for themselves as a studio execs tried to take it away from Lucas and impose their own vision on it. Lucas has no proof whatsoever that the film he made in 1977 was not his true "vision" whereas in the case of Blade Runner, well, that horrendous narration is all the proof you need. 

Later on Lucas became that hot shot upstart who imposed his vision onto the film - his own film - and of course, Kershner and Marquand's films too. That is why I would support any initiative to have the release versions of those films restored. However I'm not opposed to some minor cosmetic improvements either. I quite think filmmakers have better things to do than worry if every matte line is the correct thickness.

Post
#498924
Topic
Is GOUT resented?
Time

I must say I think seeing the GOUT release as a deliberate slap in the face is a bit unrealistic. They just took the fastest, easiest, least effort approach by pulling their master tapes from the Laserdisc era and dusting them off a bit. I actually like the way they look anyway, its almost a grindhouse look.

Post
#498861
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

xhonzi said:

Let's move back to a concrete example- Ady's ESB Reconstructed.  Only looks and plays like the original.  Benefits from some recomp, etc.  If that were officially released, would you be happy?

 

I'm sure they'd be happy-er but not in hog heaven yet. I'd be prefectly satisfied with either a 100% original or one with subtle enhancements but which did not change the editorial or any visual compositions.

Post
#498702
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

Harmy said:

Also, you're talking about how great these effects were in those films, yet you would prefer them recomposited digitally, so that in effect they wouldn't be the same original awesome effects created at the time?

Well, I don't believe recompositing using better tools makes the shots any less original... you know that by now ;)  I just look at how the film seems to me as a whole. Blade Runner Final Cut to me just looks like a very good quality transfer of the film I enjoyed. I know some shots were recomposited but I don't know which they are - I suspect not many in fact. I just see the film looking better and functioning better editorially than I ever saw it look and fucntion before and that's that. This is all that really maters to me when a film comes out on blu ray. The format is unforgiving of flaws. The fewer I see the the better.

I'd be of the opinion that you should only recomp a shot if it needs recomping. Opinions will differ on what "needs" recomping - in your case, you believe nothing needs it or should have it, and as far as I can tell, we've sucessfully agreed to disagree on the matter. 

So, in Empire, I think the AT-AT battle definitely needed recomping and I'm glad they did in the SE version - it looks stunning. Its the colour timing and editorial changes that put me off watching that version of the film though. Editorial and colour faithfulness matter more to me than how clean or perfect an effects shot looks so if a version of ESB is someday released that is cleaned and restored but doesn't have touched up effects I'd choose that version over any other that is currently available. I like enhanced effects shots but don't consider them mandatory to my approval of a transfer, if that makes any sense....

Post
#498676
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

the thing with Close Encounters is a lot of the effects are completely invisible. There are many scenes one wouldn't give a second glance at that are in fact marvels of effects technology. Close Encounters was also somehwat more advanced than Star Wars in terms of the close integration of live action and effects - it was years ahead of its time in that regard. I don't think Star Wars made use of motion control on the live action shoot but Close Encounters did. The first Star Wars mostly cuts from a 100% live action shot to a 100% effects shot and then back again. Close Encounters however, blends things together in way that was remarkably prescient. Close Encounters as far as I know was also the first film to attempt to composite CGI into live action footage but the particular shots were dropped and never completed. The film also boasts a much wider array of different effects techniques than Star Wars. The difference for me is that while ILM's staff were exceptionally talented, Doug Trumbull is a genius.

As for Blade Runner, well, in my opinion nothing in any film in the Star Wars trilogy comes *close* to the gob smacking beauty and atmosphere of those effects shots.  It doesn't even compare. Star Wars remained unsurpassed in sheer complexity and volume of shots for many years but artistically its not in the same league. Another thing about Blade Runner that is amazing is how Trumbull was able to achieve some extremely complex multi-pass, multi-element shots in-camera on a single piece of film without needing to resort to optical printing and the associated generation loss.

 

Post
#498650
Topic
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)
Time

At last, The Blues Brothers! Just hope it gets a new 2k or 4k master - Universal have a habit of recycling DVD masters for blu ray catalog titles. Not that the DVD of the Blues Brothers looks terrible - its just a bit soft and sports a subdued washed out color palette that of course looks even more washed out on a dated transfer.

Post
#498649
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

Of course Dykstra's process for how the effects were to be done seems to have been optimized for speed and simplicity. It worked beautifully of course on the original Star Wars trilogy and Battlestar Galactica but it is somewhat less elegant and produced a rougher result than the setup Douglas Trumbull developed which was used primarily on Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Blade Runner. Of course Dykstra's setup was obviously better suited to rapid motion and was good for producing shots in volume. But I always thought Trumbull had the edge in producing images of genuine beauty and elegance. On the original Star Wars, and to a lesser extent its sequels, the process could not really handle anything but completely matte surfaces - while Trumbull seemed to make all the early headway with shooting glossy and even transparent objects and getting clean composites with them. Everyone cites Star Wars as *the* effects breakthrough of the late 1970's but I personally always thought the effects in Close Encounters of the Third Kind were even more jaw dropping.

Its all very interesting. I'd love to see a standalone documentary about optical/photochemical visual effects.

Post
#498577
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

  Star Wars effects were done in VistaVision, they considered using 65mm but went with VistaVision.  Of course the live action footage was shot 2:35:1 with anamorphic lenses on panavision cameras using regular 35mm film.

 

From what i understand vistavision is 35mm on its side for a larger negative area for the composite optical effects.

 

When ILM was founded Paramount was throwing out all its Vista Vision equipment so they bought up a whole lot of cameras and other equipment for next to nothing. They then built their own custom cameras and optical printers from the parts. VistaVision was developed for Paramount in the 1950's as a rival to Cinemascope and other widescreen processes. Its basically 35mm film run sideways through the camera so each "frame" is essentially two 35mm frames side by side effectively doubling the frame size. This also elininated the need for bulky anamorphic lenses and the associated distortion problems of the early cinemascope lenses. And because it used ordinary 35mm film it was cheaper to use than 65mm. 

The theory of using this for optical effects composites is that while different generations of VistaVision film would degrade, you'd elminate some of that degradation when you shrank the final output to 35mm - this would "hide" the extra grain and sharpen the image up.

Post
#498576
Topic
Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)
Time

I sometimes wonder if it was more time or less than what Lowry was given 30 days,lol.

Talk about quality control for a DVD release.

 

I also read another discussion where it was remarked they had 3 weeks or less for the cleanup of the DVD footage, so either way its not enough time, and even then Lucas quality checked the footage personally and said nothing about the bad color timing, indeed they were his choices, even though he then went against the choice of having the Tantive IV corridor white again in Sith.

 

As far as I know the workflow was Lowry was given 1080p files of the three 1997 SE negs and they ran their cleanup on it (having to customise their software to work better at the low resolution) and were asked to turn it around in record time. I have no problem with their cleanup though I think they do have a tendency to overprocess things a bit. I'd like to have seen a wee bit more grain but the films *are* pretty fine grained anyway and maybe you just can't see it at DVD res or on low-bitrate HD broadcasts.

All the colour adjustments and vfx "fixes" were done in house at ILM according to Lucas's instructions and thus we ended up with a horrible mess with popping unstable, inconsistant color, crushed blacks and, most oddly of all a lack of contrast. How you crank up colour and crush down blacks and also reduce the overall contrast all at the same time is a mystery to me. It looks like your LCD panel's backlight has died or something when you watch them. Lowry did their part just great as far as I can tell. The blame is solely on George Lucas and his spineless yes-men.

 

Post
#498388
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

Good point that.

As for the definition of a tasteful upgrade - I imagine most OOT fans would know what I mean by that. Think the Star Wars equivalent of the Blade Runner final cut. I do tend to give that film a bit more leeway than most though seeing every edition *except* the final cut is compromised by corporate meddling. That I will not abide.

 

Post
#498374
Topic
opinions on film restoration/preservation and how it applies to Star Wars - what do you think should/should not be allowed?
Time

Gaffer Tape said:

And RE: S_Matt.  I just want to make it clear that I at least am not intending any hostility towards you.  With so many engaged in this discussion arguing against you, it can somewhat seem like you're being ganged up on, but that's not really the case.  Like Harmy, though, it does really make me sad to think that this is what the term "film restoration" means to some people, and it does fill me with fear that we might get an announcement for a true release of the original trilogy, only for it to be filled with redone special effects.  And then, more than ever, people will be convinced that this is what those groundbreaking special effects actually looked like.

Well, you're right that the correct words should be used to describe a given process and its goals. Its just one tends to get lazy about such specifics. But seriously there's no offense taken - I started the thread afterall - I should be the last to complain when things get heated. Its not surprising how sensitive an issue this is given how shabbily the material has been treated for the last decade and a half.

I'd be happy with a 100% faithful restoration. I'd be even happier with a tasteful and respectful upgrade. If there was any justice in this at all then fans of whatever version would be able to enjoy the version they preferred in as high quality as is feasible, as Ridley Scott so graciously said about the Blade Runner collection.

It still strikes me as profoundly bizarre that Star Wars, arguably the most popular and well known media property in history, gets treated so shabbily by its owners while obscure cult movies get the royal treatment. Even cinematic outcasts like David Lynch's Dune, get better treatment.