S_Matt

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

 I've even met a sound engineer at skywalker sound that didn't know this controversy existed.

That does not surprise me in the slightest. Even acknowledging the controversy around there is probably enough to get you fired. Juniors aren't even allowed to speak to Darth Sidious, er, I mean, George. And a company where you're not allowed to speak to the boss has got its priorities seriously wrong.

Oh well, I just innocently thought, what's the harm in giving an old film a little bit of help? Matte lines are hideous defects. They need to go away. That said, there's no harm in a completely untouched version as well. Just so nobody is denied the chance to see what films of the 70's actually look like. I'd be more than happy with such a version but I think there's plenty of room for a modernized version that doesn't also include questionable editorial changes or integration of new material. I'd just be interested to see how good the thing *could* look if the original elements were subjected to a modern post production workflow. This was the missed opportunity of the special editions. Too much time was spent changing things that didn't need changing - almost no time at all was spent on improving original footage. The dream I have is for there to someday be a seamlessly branched release with the original, an intermediate enhanced original and the SE all on one disc. The educational value of such a release would be considerable.

The only problem is - the purist crowd would be a very hard one to please and  it would be almost impossible to convince tham that an untouched but restored original is indeed genuine in every respect. Afterall, how would you tell? You couldn't possibly be 100% certain about every single frame.

xhonzi said:

Judge me how you will:

This whole conversation has made me realize that while I feel and understand the need to preserve these films as they were, I care MORE about my being able to enjoy them. 

I think that being too hung up on *exact* replication of the an idealised original condition misses the point a bit of what these films were first and foremost meant for - to entertain. I do find it incredible to consider that some would even go as far to boycott the holy grail of Star Wars fandom because its not 100% identical to an impossible to achieve ideal. Its all about balance. I say, in a restoration, the goal is, improve whatever you can but stay true to the spirit of the piece. Star Wars reduced to a sterile technical excercise - that makes me feel even more ill than Lucas's over the top revisionism.

I would prefer the films to be full of life and entertainment, not become the cinematic equivalent of Lenin's corpse.

zombie84 said:

It is redoing. The effects weren't complete until the compositing was done; this was its own art, and until it was finished it was just a bunch of bluescreen elements.

Well you should apply that argument to the final release prints as well - photochemical colour timing too was an art but they'd definitely not be using it for a release to a digital medium. If you're completely logical and consistant in your arguments you *have* to decry the lack of a photochemical process in the final output of the restored film. Your arguments preclude the use of any digital restoration tools.

 but completely redoing the special effects is not a tiny little change. That is a massive overhaul, even if it is done to resemble the original as closely as possible sans the "flaws".

Well, recompositing is not the same as redoing. They'd still make use of all the layers of film generated during the original effects process - they'd just be putting the layers back together digitally rather than using the optical printer as was done originally. This would eliminate generation loss. That's all. Its the EXACT same workflow just using better tools. Its not any different from scanning the original negative and digitally colour timing it and painting out scratches and dirt. Maybe its different on a philosophical level but technically there's no difference.

skyjedi2005 said:

If Star Wars was destroyed  by time and no good copies exist anymore, then where did they get a source for the gout, and how did they print up those 70mm film cels ?  I have been asking this for years. 

 

the 2006 "GOUT" release was probably sourced from the digital tape masters that were done in the early 90's that they had hanging around in the archive.

But the notion that the original no longer exists is more a philosophical statement on Lucas's part. It exists in whole or in part in vaults and private collections all over the world - I doubt there would be any major difficulty finding footage to splice in where necessary. The workflow I'd go for if I were in charge of reassabling the OOT versions would be to get the 1997 SE negatives scanned at 4k then just drop in OOT sections from whatever source is best on a case by case basis.

skyjedi2005 said:

The Lowry botch job is going to make them very visible at blu ray resolution.

 Don't blame Lowry for those transfers - their work was limited to cleaning - and they themselves were apparently less than pleased to get only a 1080p scan as all their cleanup processes were optimised for 2k and 4k images. Now at first glance 2k res doesn't seem to be that much higher than 1080p but in fact is it has about 50% more pixels than 1920x1080. 35mm film is said to be somewhere between 2k and 4k res depending on who you ask, but I think the generally accepted wisdom is that 2k is the bare minimum.

The irony is there are MANY cases where its been frustrating and sad to see the work of many directors bastardized by studio execs and one wishes that said directors could be independent and regain artistic control over their films.

With Lucas we're probably all wishing at this point that Fox still owned the copyright...

Wow, the hostility I didn't expect. Its a debate, folks, and I don't shy away from an issue. Its good to discuss these things. I appreciate all points of view.

For the record I believe that the optical composites throughout the Star Wars trilogy are of a very high standard and would probably look perfectly fine in a restoration without any work done on them. Though I'm actually of the opinion that another blockbuster sci fi film of 1977 *should* have won the Oscar for effects, namely Close Encounters of the Third Kind. That's just some seriously refined and usually overlooked effects work - the adulation nromally being reserved for its cheap 'n cheerful companion in the optical effects revolution.

I'm just throwing a different point of view out there and I see no reason for hostility in what is to my mind a very interesting topic.

Didn't intend to offend anyone, I just wanted to see the different opinions and honestly I don't think that any of them are invalid.

I still don't see how there's a difference between a scratch that appeared on the negative the last time someone handled it and one that happened when the film was unloaded from the camera 35 years ago. Or a stray hair that landed up in the optical printer at ILM and is now sitting in the corner of an effects sequence for all to see. I hardly call that a technical limitation that ought to be preserved.

I still cite Blade Runner as an example of a film that I feel was treated right when it was revised in 2007. Its inarguably a better film than it was. Though at least they were good enough to provide the warts-and-all releases for the anal among us. (And that by the way is intended as a joke, in case anyone freaks out)

P.S. I like this forum and community very much and it has rekindled my enthusiasm for Star Wars in a big way.

CP3S said:

You are still talking about using modern special effects technology on an old film.

but modern digital cleanup tools are totally fine? My argument is that if you approve of one you logically have to approve of the other. Digital recompositing where possible is not only desireable, its mandatory. Why would you limit your ability to improve on what are basically enforced degradations? If you can get the separate elements you MUST recomp them. You're doing a disservice to the original effects artists by not allowing their cinematography and craftsmanship to be seen as perfectly as it can be. Most effects artists of the time will tell you how much they *hated* the final results. We want the live action cinematographer's work to be seen unimpeded by dirt or other artifacts. Why don't we also want the same for the effects crew? If we applied your arguments to restoring the OOT there wouldn't be any restoration. What about how the film is displayed? They didn't have digital projectors or LCD screens in 1977 either. Would the movie only be available as a 35mm print? Would we all have to invest in 35mm film projectors to "remain true to the conditions in which the film was made" ?

I must say a totally untouched hi def scan of the OOT would probably suit me fine as I actually think grain and dirt and scratches enhance the experience. Hell, this is why I enjoy GOUT so much. I'm just of the opinion that once you use a computer to erase a single speck of dirt you might as well just take the whole process as far as is practical.

I respect all the arguments for and against but you misunderstood my car analogy. If you're restoring a car, even if you put every single part back that was originally used, you still have to dismantle it first to repair and clean the components. 

I certainly don't advocate *any* changes to the content editorial of the film - I advocate disassembly, cleaning, and putting back together. There's a BIG difference. The fact that some matte lines would end up harder to see and in some cases vanish altogether would be a pleasant side effect. You can't limit the use of technology to clean and improve films just because some people used it badly before. One should also consider that there were no computers capable of frame by frame painting out of dirt and scratches and selective color correction not just of whole frames, but *parts* of the frame too, in 1977. Should they be restricted to photochemical repairs (which can only do so much)?

Using a computer on a classic film in any capacity represents doing something to it that could not be done when it was made. George Lucas's revisionism went way too far with changing the films but I argue it is also entirely possible to go way too far the other way. How do you propose things like scratches, specks and the like that appeared as a result of the effects process be handled? You wouldn't always even be able to tell what is a scratch that appeared during the handling of an optical layer and what appeared on the negative as a result of subsequent degradation of the final cut.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with any of these different points of view, I think the debate is a worthy one.

The reason I'm in favour of a complete digital recompositing of the original elements where they still exist and are useable is thus: It would allow the original photography that effects are inserted into (background plates in most cases) to be better restored and cleaned without effects layers getting in the way. I don't see how taking the film apart into its original layers, restoring those, then putting it back together again minus all the damage and degradation photochemical compositing caused, actually undermines anyone's hard work or damages film history. It enhances it in my opinion. You get to see the effects artists hard work more clearly. Afterall if you restore an old car you have to take it apart - you can't recondition the engine for example without dismantling it first.

If they actually provided genuine OOT scenes in Hi Def it would be all to easy to just despecialize the films. Its just so weird how hostile this whole situation is to fans of the theatrical versions, as if George Lucas actually resents the fact that the films were ever so popular. I actually believe on some subconscious level he truly hates the success of the films he considered so "unfinished" - the dude seriously needs a shrink.

Only Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire trilogy really captured the atmosphere of the original films, though at times it was a bit... off. Though that was more him adding his own interpretation to it so it works. Mostly.

The only things I don't really agree with is

1) all the Jedi that come out of the woodwork despite the films setting it up that Luke is *the* last fully trained Jedi, for real, no exceptions, no passing go, no collecting $200.

2) Zahn underestimates the industrial might of the galaxy when he suggests that 600 relatively small and obsolete warships could tip the balance of power in Thrawn's favor.

But other than that, practically the only Star Wars EU material that's worth reading.

@Gaffer Tape: I know what you're saying - and I know the Star wars Trilogy would still look very good even if nothing was touched but what about if a film's effects were compromised by an unrealistic schedule or studio politics? A prime example of this is Star trek: The Motion Picture. The theatrical version on blu ray was a god send to fans of that movie who were dissatisfied with the ham fisted and half-assed "restoration" and "director's cut" DVD release (sounds familiar, doesn't it?) but there are some seriously deficient effects shots in there that happened as a direct result of mismanagement and interference from the studio. Some of those shots and mistakes and production shortcuts are CRYING for a bit of spit and polish. Its a very fine line and a very good topic for debate - just seems all the more bizarre to be splitting hairs over hypothetical versions of a film that as of now only officially exists in a bastardized condition. I think maybe in the end I'd also err on the side of "restore but don't alter, even so much as a matte line" - we've been burned once, would be better in the future, if there's ever a proper restoration, to be extremely cautious.

It is of course entirely possible to get a perfect exposure of an image projected on a screen... but extremely difficult, even if you had time to get the exposure right - which of course, in a movie theatre you don't....

I very strongly disagree that visual effects artifacts like matte lines or translucency need to be preserved. I might have thought so once but seeing how good the recomposited shots in the Blade Runner final cut looked made a convert out of me. A matte line is hardly an artistic choice - its an ugly side effect that effects artists had to live with. I'm a champion for the cause of an original Star Wars restoration, but I'm also realistic about it.

Blade Runner showed how you can revise and improve without harming the intentions of the source. 

Still, interesting to see the various opinions on the subject.

^Exactly - most studios provide a theatrical version of an updated/reworked film if they can, if for no other reason than to get people to buy multiple editions, but then, who cares, if you're able to own a decent quality copy of the version you like?

I'd also like to be on record, in case anyone at fox home entertainment or lucasfilm ltd is reading this - even if you made them $1000 per film I'd happily buy theatrical version blu rays of the original trilogy. And somehow I doubt I'm alone.

I'm new to this fan-restoration subculture of Star Wars aficionados and I hadn't really been aware that the 2006 DVD bonus feature release was called "GOUT" or even what most people's opinions of it were.

Obviously it was a highly deficient release by 2006 home video standards, even more so by current ones, even as a mere "bonus feature" on a double dip DVD release.

Personally while it is disappointing to see the films presented poorly relative to the high definition expectations of today's viewer I'm of the opinion "at least we got something" despite the fact that this represents something of a compromise to my integrity. I bought and payed for the set. It was a validation of the cynical marketing ploy that this set really was. However, I have a collection of the theatrical trilogy in widescreen format on a medium that won't degrade and capable of a presentation that is 100% digital. Boycotting it would have been a case of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

While some fan made laserdisc ports look better than the GOUT in some scenes and some instances, the DVD release is superior overall and might even have been relatively well received had it come early in the life of the DVD format when laserdisc ports were more common, than at the moment the DVD format had already passed its peak.

I've yet to obtain any fan-altered copies sourced from or using materials from GOUT but I have recently converted my discs to anamorphic and it really does look better on my 42" screen played from a native anamorphic disc than the 4:3 letterbox originals did using the TV's zoom function. So I'm pretty content that this, for the forseeable future, is how my Star Wars viewing will have to be done.

Which reminds me - is anyone putting their despecialization versions on hold until the Blu Rays are out? If nothing else these releases will provide the best available source to begin such a project with.

It also destroys the composition Irvin Kershner intended for the scene. Has Lucas actually forgotten that he testified in front of congress on the evils of altering another director's work without their supervision? And while a change as small as a slight recomposition of a shot isn't going to rape anyone's childhood, there's still the principle of the thing.

... that the blu ray sets coming out in September will sell by the million, further validating Lucas's revisionist versions and giving an entire new generation of Star Wars fans the wrong impression of the films?

I find it rather sad.

If we consider a hypothetical official release of the original theatrical versions of the Star Wars Trilogy on Blu Ray, what do you think should/should not be "permitted" in a faithful reconstruction/restoration?

In the case of Star Wars its pretty clear that George Lucas suffered minimal studio interference in the story he was trying to tell. It is true that he had many difficulties involving studio politics and financial restraints but I see little evidence that this ever greatly compromised his story, characterization and overall creative "vision". Did it make the shoot difficult? Definitely. Did he have to spend a lot of time in the editing bay getting the film to work? Absolutely. It took a team of three crack shot editors to mould the film into something coherent in time for the release date, but the results (8 oscar nominations including best picture to say nothing of the box office reception) speak for themselves. This builds a very strong case against the need for *any* changes to the actual final cut of the film. I would certainly extend this conclusion to the rest of the trilogy as well.

What about cosmetic changes?

Apart from the expected removal of film damage and artifacts that have nothing to do with any artistic choice, what else cosmetically should be permitted for the film to still be classed as a "original" release version? I would definitely say that effects re-compositing is allowed in extreme circumstances with the obvious proviso that the original elements still exist and are usable. There's nothing wrong to my mind with minimizing the uglier side-effects of photochemical effects work (especially those done under immense time and financial pressures as the effects shoot on the first film definitely did) so I'd day, if a shot looks dodgy and can be recomposited, go for it. I'd extend this to the cleaning up (but not complete removal) of matte lines on shots that don't warrant recomping. And of course opacity correction on elements is a must. I am also in favor of adjusting the grain on optical elements to match more closely the grain of the live action shoot so the change between a shot with an effect in it and one without is minimized and doesn't distract the audience.

On the subject of colour timing, I believe that the wishes of the cinematographer and director be respected and wherever possible should be done according to the original specifications where records of these still exist. Once that is all set properly then I think one can and should, refer to a selection of prints and other resources as a double-check that the color timing settings that have been applied actually make the film resemble an actual archival element. Color that changes from shot to shot in a single scene should be matched and corrected. I believe that consistency does have the edge over source faithfulness when it comes to correcting an old film, especially one laden with multi generation optical effects. Overall faithfulness to the source over the entire running time of the film is more important, I think, than faithfulness from shot to shot where said shots differed wildly from each other even in the original release.

On the audio side I think a 7.1 lossless setup is entirely acceptable in a restoration of a film that never originally had such a track so long as the overall feel and intentions of the audio are respected. The inclusion of a lossless stereo track to approximate the original 35mm release track would also be a worthwhile feature.

So to sum up, in a hypothetical official release of the theatrical versions I would be happy if they:

fixed matte lines

corrected opacity

painted out dirt and damage

stabilized and homogenized film grain

color timed the film for overall faithfulness

included both a faithful uncompressed stereo soundtrack as well as a souped up 7.1. option

^haha, you make it sound like this film was directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky (if only)

I actually like the prequels though I do tend to get eyestrain from all the rolling I end up doing.

The 1997 SE isn't too offensive I guess - at least the colour timing was nice. The 2004 versions though are so incredibly shoddy and caused so much damage to the quality and consistency of the films. Widely regarded as among the worst transfers ever done for a major release. And it looks like we'll be stuck with them on the blu ray as well. Which I will *NOT* be buying.

For me the biggest offensive issue is not that Lucas changed his films, its more that the changes are all so poorly done. Its ironic that they used new technology badly to change things that old technology got right. Lucas claims to be the father of digital cinema but he clearly has a very poor understanding of it.