logo Sign In

Skyranger

User Group
Members
Join date
4-May-2006
Last activity
21-Feb-2008
Posts
71

Post History

Post
#220011
Topic
The Chronology of How My love for Lucas has fallen
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/220011/action/topic#220011
Time
Gary Kurtz = Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back
Howard G. Kazanjian = Return of the Jedi
Rick McCallum = Special Editions of above, Episodes I, II, and III (not worth the space to mention by name).

Strange coincidence it seems.

If you've watched any interviews with McCallum, I think you'd find he is the one who is terminally obsessed with CG. When he's not talking about CG, or how he was used as the model for nearly every CG character (this stormtrooper, that X-wing pilot, etc.) he's using GL to brown his nose, or going on and on for hours repeating "this is f--king grim... this is f--king grim".

Of course it doesn't relieve Lucas of responsibility, but I can't help but believe McCallum is largely responsible for the catastrophe that has come to Star Wars. I also have to wonder what things would have been like if Gary Kurtz had remained the producer, or if he at least had a producer that would tell him when he had a bad idea, instead of constantly proclaiming him as a genius no matter what.
Post
#215954
Topic
Luke's rope-throwing talents in EP4
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/215954/action/topic#215954
Time
I certainly seemed to remember this too, but there's really no way to confirm it now. It does appear that Luke missing was not scripted. However, if you watch the sequence carefully (as it is now), it seems like it takes Luke forever to unreel the rope from his utility belt, and he is just about ready when there's a cut to the stormtroopers on the other side of the chasm, then when we cut back to Luke he is unreeling the rope again.
Post
#212861
Topic
The Official Lucasfilm Response
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/212861/action/topic#212861
Time
Very frustrating.

Yes, I am frustrated that we won't be getting decent quality DVDs, but what I find really appalling is the disregard for preservation of these historic works, because they don't fit in with George Lucas' current "vision of the movies" (which seems to be constantly changing). Has any other creator of even a moderately successful movie ever despised the theatrical cut this much?
Post
#212629
Topic
Star Wars - The Sound
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/212629/action/topic#212629
Time
I've been trying to dig up exactly what the different sound formats of the original theatrical releases were, and here's the latest rundown to the best of my knowledge. The first two digit number refers to the Dolby Format Codes. It appears that there were differences in the audio content on each format for all the movies, with perhaps the exception of "Return of the Jedi". At least I have not seen any documented differences for ROTJ.

"Star Wars" 1977

42-70mm 6-Track (Baby Boom - see note 1)
04-35mm Dolby Stereo
02-35mm Monaural (see note 2)

"The Empire Strikes Back" 1980

42-70mm 6-Track (Baby Boom)
04-35mm Dolby Stereo

"Return of the Jedi" 1983

42-70mm 6-Track (Baby Boom)
04-35mm Dolby Stereo

Note 1. The original 70mm 6 track consisted of tracks 1-5 being used in order from left to right behind the screen for full range reproduction, and track 6 being reproduced by multiple speakers around the rear of the theater for surround effects. Dolby Labs came up with an idea to use tracks 2 and 4 to extend bass response rather than using them for full range reproduction, leaving tracks 1, 3, and 5 as Left, Center, and Right respectively, and of course track 6 for surround. This is what is known as "Baby Boom". "Star Wars" was one of, if not the first movie, to use the "Baby Boom" system. The later "Stereo Surround" system where the upper frequencies of tracks 2 and 4 were combined with the bass from channel 6 to create "Split Surrounds" was never used for any of the Star Wars movies to the best of my knowledge.

Note 2. It appears that prints using the monaural soundtrack were not put in circulation until June 1977, which implies that the theaters showing "Star Wars" prior to this time that were not equipped for stereo reproduction were showing Dolby Stereo prints (which were mono compatible).

Dolby Sound System for Star Wars This period article gives some good details of the production of the soundtrack for "Star Wars". Most of the details pertinent to "Star Wars" itself are in the last section on Page 2.


Edit - Added Dolby Format Codes. Specified original theatrical releases.
Post
#212513
Topic
Cut scenes
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/212513/action/topic#212513
Time
True, true. My intent in this thread was not to necessarily suggest that the deleted scenes for the original trilogy be made available on DVD. I was more interested in why George and Rick seem to think that EVERY deleted scene from the PT should be on DVD, but that NO deleted scenes from the OT should be on DVD.
Post
#212510
Topic
Film elements for the OT
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/212510/action/topic#212510
Time
I have some questions regarding the film for the original "Star Wars" trilogy.

Does anyone know the full history of the film elements, such as the negative, interpositives, release prints, etc?

I seem to recall reading an article in 1997, around the time of the release of the Special Editions, that generally stated the following. No preservation or archiving of "Star Wars" had been attempted until after it's initial run had been completed. This was primarily due to no one expecting "Star Wars" to be any kind of success. The dirty, deteriorated negative was used to make a 3 color separation master for archival purposes. This separation was what was what was used to make the Special Edition. Unfortunately when this separation was retrieved from the archives, the master for the yellow layer was found to be underexposed (possibly due to the fading of the yellow dye in the original negative prior to seperation master being made). As I recall the writer of this article was lamenting that "Star Wars" would never again appear as it did in 1977 due to the underexposed yellow master, and as a result true blacks would appear more blue.

This article, as I recall, seemed to also indicate that this fate had not befallen "The Empire Strikes Back", or "Return of the Jedi", as these films were archived correctly, based on their expected success.

Would there have been any reason to destroy the original negatives, or any archival material in the process of creating the Special Edition? I've seen many movies that retrieved footage from "the cutting room floor". In fact, isn't that where the Luke and Biggs hangar scene came from?

I just feel like I'm missing something here. I'm hoping someone will be kind enough to post the process of how the film goes from camera negative to the final prints we see in the movie theaters, and maybe relate that to why it's believed that the making of the Special Edition would involve the destruction of some of the film elements.
Post
#211855
Topic
Upcoming DVD covers
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/211855/action/topic#211855
Time
I agree. The IV, V, and VI labels were not used on home video cover art prior to the "Special Editions". Also, the "A New Hope" title was not used on home video cover art, or really seen anywhere except in the modified title scroll, prior to the "Special Editions".

I think I like the first ones in Falle's post best, for the front cover anyway.
Post
#211633
Topic
Should Lucus make 4,5 and 6 over?
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/211633/action/topic#211633
Time
Really, I don't have a problem with a remake being made. There's certainly no way that a remake will reproduce the success of the original trilogy even if it's spectacular, which based on George Lucas' performance since 1999, I'm sure it won't be. Simply a mass of the latest special effects accompanied by a very weak story.

All I'm really interested in is the preservation of these history making films, and being able to obtain a QUALITY copy of these movies that allows for the most accurate reproduction of the theater experiences of 1977, 1980, and 1983 using currently available home theater technology.

I suspect that those who were not old enough to experience the 1977 release of "Star Wars" really don't appreciate the impact it had on both the movie industry, and the culture in general.

How many people would prefer to have remakes replace "Gone with the Wind", "Citizen Kane", or other classic movies? Or would you like to see these movies digitally altered? And have the original classics removed from availability, or only available on VHS tape?
Post
#211586
Topic
Describe your history with Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/211586/action/topic#211586
Time
Mallwalker,

Good, Good... I was hoping I'd find someone else who knew the Glenwood, or at least someone whom had seen "Star Wars" in it's original theatrical presentation.

What I was looking at about the 70mm info was The Original First-Week Engagements of "Star Wars", which shows the Glenwood opened with a 35mm print on Thursday May 26, 1977.

I also looked at The Original 70mm engagements of "Star Wars", which does not show the Glenwood ever switching over to a 70mm print.

Honestly to be sure I'd have to go to the library, and look through the Kansas City Star on microfilm. Whatever it was, it sure was impressive on that 70 foot wide screen at the Glenwood. Too bad it's gone now.

I believe that the Glenwood showed "Star Wars" for the full 60 weeks of it's initial run (minus the first day). This would have been from May 26, 1977 through July 20, 1978. This matches both our memories of it showing for over a year. Was there ever another movie that ran continuously in theaters for over a year, save for some special venue showings? A 60 week run is still amazing to me. And for those of you who didn't experience it, that is how loved George Lucas's movie was, the movie which he now claims was just a rough cut that very few people would be interested in seeing. A theater in Portland, OR, ran it for 76 weeks.

If I remember correctly, the Glenwood had a short exclusive run on Return of the Jedi. I saw it later that summer at the Bannister Mall theaters, after having seen it a few times at the Glenwood.

I also saw the SE version of ANH at the Glenwood in 1997. The new special effects stuck out like a sore thumb, but it was good seeing it on the big screen again. I also saw "Phantom Menace" in Theater I at the Glenwood in 1999. Dickinson had already sold the theater, and the new owners had replaced the curved screen with a flat one. It added a few (undesireable) seats to a theater that they claimed they couldn't fill. It's strange that my favorite Star Wars movie started my experience with the Glenwood, and my least favorite ended it.
Post
#211582
Topic
Torn.... To buy, or not to buy.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/211582/action/topic#211582
Time
THX,

By catch 22, I meant that if I buy it, I'm spending money on something I don't really want (two really, another copy of the SE, and a garbage copy of the OOT), but if I don't buy it then I may never get what I really want (a high quality transfer of the OOT that lives up to todays technology).

If we don't spend a fortune on this garbage product, Lucas will claim that we never wanted a quality product of the OOT. So we have to buy his trash, hoping that maybe it will convince him to make something good....
Post
#211364
Topic
For all those confused...
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/211364/action/topic#211364
Time
Originally posted by: darkhelmet
Scruffy and THX: Wouldn't 4:3 TVs benefit from the anamorphic video ever so slightly due to the fact that the letterboxing is handled via the DVD player and not just a lower resolution letterboxed version being spit out natively?


Actually an anamorphic DVD shown on a 4x3 TV, one that's not capable of vertical compression (some Sony sets are capable of this), would at best be equivalent to a high quality non-anamorphic DVD shown on the same TV. In order for a DVD player to show a correctly proportioned picture from an anamorphic mastered DVD on a 4x3 display, it must remove information to reduce the vertical dimension of the picture. If the DVD player does a perfect job of removing the excess information, the amount of picture information remaining would be equal to that of a non-anamorphic DVD.

TV sets with vertical compression change the proportion of height to width by changing the scanning of the electron gun within the picture tube. In this way no picture information is lost, but the vertical dimension of the picture is shortened. So the picture quality would be equivalent to a similar wide screen TV, although the picture may be smaller.

I offer this information hesitantly, because I'm a big proponent of anamorphic DVD's, and widescreen formats as the future of TV is widescreen. Widescreen more closely fits theater formats.

Post
#211347
Topic
Describe your history with Star Wars
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/211347/action/topic#211347
Time
I guess I should be thankful I got to see the original trilogy in the theater as they were originally released. I can't imagine only experiencing these on VHS tape and Laserdisc. I also can't imagine seeing the series in order from I to VI as George Lucas suggests. I seriously doubt that "Phantom Menace" would have drawn me back to the theater to see it again, or to see any sequels had it shown first. Really, would the revelation of Darth Vader being Luke's father in ESB have meant anything if you had already seen the first three episodes? For three years, I eagerly awaited ROTJ to see if Vader's statement was really true, or if he was just trying to deceive Luke. Anyway, I just don't believe I would have been such a fan had I not seen "Star Wars" in a theater first.

"Star Wars" is really the only movie of the series that can stand completely alone. "The Empire Strikes Back" is probably the best sequel ever made, especially considering "Star Wars" was made with no expectation of a sequel (despite what Lucas might say to the contrary now). "Return of the Jedi" ties up the loose ends of ESB, although in some ways it's not as strong as the previous two, it's still a great movie.