danny_boy

Moth3r said:

danny_boy said:

If my understanding is correct---The original 35mm stereo audio track as it appears on the the 1982 VHS tape(and laserdisc)only has 3 audio channels(if you run it through dolby pro logic)---Left Center-Right.This was how dolby stereo tracks were encoded onto VHS linear stereo tapes prior to 1984-85.

Up to this point the surround (4th)channel was missing!

After 1984-85 new VHS Hifi stereo tracks were released to the public that could be decoded through Dolby pro logic that would  reveal that 4rth channel (the surround track).

Not quite.

Dolby tracks (Dolby Stereo® on 35mm film prints, or Dolby Surround on home video formats) have always carried the four channels.

Initial Dolby Surround decoders (c.1982) licensed for consumer use only decoded three channels - left, right and surround. It was the introduction of Dolby Pro Logic decoding (c.1987) that allowed consumers to also decode a separate centre channel.

More info here: http://www.dolby.co.uk/about/who-we-are/our-history/history-4.html

Ahh!

Thanks for that!

Has anyone here  managed to decode that surround track on the 1982 VHS tape?(or the 1982 laserdisc for that matter).

I have tried running it through my decoder(using pro logic II) and the surround channel is barely audible.

Oct. 01, 1998

-By Perry Sun

Over the past few years, a trend appears to be growing-the restoration and re-release of films from the past. These movies range from cult favorites of the 1980s to standard-setting works of the 1970s, and to seminal classics from the golden age of cinema such as Gone With the Wind. And these are in addition to Disney's longtime tradition of re-releasing their legendary animated films every seven (or so) years.

Along with the reintroduction of these films, there are often extensive efforts toward restoring film prints and remastering soundtracks. It's been well-publicized that the image integrity of films stored over decades in archives can deteriorate because of the chemical instability of the emulsion (or base) of the print. But what about the sound? Similar restoration efforts are required, if the sound to be used is the optical track from the film print. Then, special considerations need to be taken into account, among them reducing noise in the sound, such as pops, clicks and hiss, through the application of specialized technology. If the sound is to be reconstructed from magnetic tape masters, inherent anomalies are possible due to the effects of long-term storage.

In the re-release of movies, generally what is done with the picture is to assemble the best surviving film elements, restore the prints, correct color timing if appropriate, possibly use digital enhancements to fix imperfections, and then create new master prints on reference-quality film stock. In essence, the purpose of these efforts is to allow the audience to visually experience the film as close as possible to what the public saw when the movie first opened.

However, as will soon become apparent, there has been considerably greater latitude with the use of sound in motion picture reissues. For vintage films, efforts entail print restoration (and therefore the optical soundtrack) and reduction of noise, with the objective of simply presenting the sound in a condition as pristine as possible. But in other cases, the original filmmakers may decide to channel new creative energies to make use of today's digital sound technology, crafting soundtracks with new dimensions and effects, which were originally desired by the filmmakers but not possible due to financial or technological constraints. Still, experts in sound restoration may decide to enhance the spatial horizon of a film, originally released with a monaural soundtrack, by applying specialized techniques to steer mono sound effects throughout the theatre, and extract ambience from the original sound and create surround channels.

In this article, we will take a look in detail at the sonic restoration and remastering of two important films in the past two decades, both of which underwent a dramatic 5.1-channel digital sound makeover. Some impressions of these films in their new digital life follow. In addition, we will look at the reworking of the sound for older movies, and a listing will be offered of other films and ongoing projects with new digital soundtracks.

Star Wars Special Edition

This is perhaps the most widely publicized film in terms of its sound re-engineering. Star Wars is already known as one of the major milestones in the history of cinema sound. Its original opening in May 1977 signaled the beginning of a new era-the release of films with Dolby® Stereo multi-channel sound. The opening scene, in which the Star Destroyer flies over the audience, came with the premonition that "stereo surround sound" was here to stay.

In remastering the sound for the 20th-anniversary release, it was decided that the original four-track master, which had maintained its integrity over almost 20 years of storage, would serve as the backbone for the creation of a new 5.1-channel master. This master was the LCRS (Left-Center-Right-Surround) mix for Dolby Stereo, recorded on magnetic tape. In preparation for the new soundtrack, the first step was to duplicate this master, and then reduce inherent tape hiss by using the Cedar DH-1 noise-reduction system. Then, the four tracks were equalized using a GML Model 8200. Finally, an Aphex Dominator II limiter was employed to reduce harshness in the sound caused by sharp transients.

Because the surround channel in the original master was monaural, stereo surround was created by running the mono surround through a home theatre THX® processor, which splits the single channel into left and right, and then scrambles their relative phase. In some cases, stereo surround effects were added, to an extent similar to what is done with today's digital sound mixes (such as separate left and right effects to impart a feeling of spatial dimension in the theatre). For the LFE (Low Frequency Effects) channel, deep bass effects, such as for explosions, were added to give some visceral impact at key moments in the film.

New mixes were necessary for the added scenes, which were created in the 5.1-channel format. These mixes were meticulously blended into the four-track master, plus original dialog, music and effects elements to create a new 35mm Dolby SR (Spectral Recording) noise-reduction-encoded, six-channel master. Print masters were then created for the three digital sound formats (Dolby Digital, SDDS® and DTS®).

How did this new creative work sound? It was quite apparent upon listening to the first 10 minutes or so of the film that the sound engineers were trying to achieve a delicate balance of remaining faithful to the original mix and incorporating embellishments (mostly reflecting creative ideas originally envisioned but not carried out for various reasons). The music recording sounded remarkably clean, mostly devoid of excessive brightness, and with good fidelity.

The precise panning of sounds (and occasionally dialogue) along the screen from the separate front channels actually was very convincing, and was a testament to the remarkable work of the sound crew in the early days of Dolby Stereo. Of course, being able to hear the accurate placement of sounds on-screen is commonplace with today's digital sound, but experiencing this from a 20-year-old master is breathtaking.

In many scenes, "opening up" the ambient soundfield through stereo surrounds was apparent. One is the desert landscape on Tatooine, where the sound of the wind sweeps between the front and back. The opening scenes aboard the rebel ship and the final attack sequences on the surface of the Death Star exhibited similar enhanced depth in the surround field. And, some left-right rear effects were noticed, as in Tie Fighter scenes, though they seemed to be more subtle compared to current digital soundtracks. The LFE was present in the explosions of Alderan and the Death Star, and from the Millennium Falcon, though again the intensity of the effects was less pronounced than what would be encountered in a contemporary movie. These apparent subtleties could have been deliberate, in deference to the "delicate balance" mentioned earlier.

The one aspect of this new edition that was controversial was the dialogue. While there were no problems with intelligibility, it was almost impossible to overlook the dialogue's bright and strident characteristics. Such imperfections are to be expected due to the dated fidelity and recording technology. Nonetheless, the dramatic improvements to the sonics for this seminal film have prompted many film sound experts and enthusiasts to offer high praise for the achievements at Lucasfilm.

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000692295

Does anyone here have(or have read) the actual article that this blogger is referencing?:

http://aspectratio.wordpress.com/page/2/

For the last few weeks I have been reading through back issues of Mix to get a sense of how the magazine has reported on the development of digital sound technology in Hollywood. One article that stood out from the rest examined the theatrical re-release of the original Star Wars trilogy in 1997. Larry Blake, the author of the piece and a sound practitioner himself, confronted the whole question of whether or not George Lucas was committing heresy by tampering with the “original” films. Essentially, Blake found that even in 1977 there were multiple “originals” in theatrical circulation.

SNIP

This brings me back to Larry Blake’s Star Wars article. During the original release of Star Wars in May 1977 Twentieth Century-Fox released no fewer than four versions of the film to North American theaters. While audiences may have seen the same film, they heard three different ones. Star Wars was one of the first films to be mixed in Dolby Stereo and the very first film to employ a low frequency effects (subwoofer) channel, resulting in some very experimental mixing techniques. No one was quite sure how to best create a multichannel mix and the tools were not yet in place to ensure that the Dolby Stereo mixes were problem-free. By my count, there were four separate mixes readied for distribution: a 4-track master (LCRS, or Left, Center, Right, Surround), a 6-track version (LCRS+LFE), a 2-track Dolby mix (LR), and a mono track.

To be sure, the differences among the sound tracks were not merely cosmetic. Some sound effects, foley, and dialog were missing from some mixes. Ben Burtt recalls that as he and his sound crew scrambled to create the various mixes in the weeks leading up to the film’s premiere “there was a lot of stuff [in the 2-track version] that wasn’t in the stereo optical [4-track], including lines of dialog and sound effects, because opticals were being cut in after the mix.” Burtt notes that the simple-stereo 2-track mix “was the first mix finished and was also the least complete creatively, because at that time the stereo optical [format] was an unknown quantity and Dolby wanted to test it and find out how it was going to work. That mix was rushed out of the door, and we didn’t think it was that important because it was only going to be heard in a few theaters.”

Recalls Burt, “By the time we go to the monaural there were even further developments: more changes in dialog, more changes in sound effects, different processing.” He goes on to joke that “There was an offscreen line of Threepio’s, where he says, ‘That’s the main power station tractor beam switch, and you’ve got to go there and turn it off.’ And that was not in the 6-track version of the movie; it was only in the stereo optical [4-track]. It wasn’t even in the mono print, and I don’t know how it happened, but we found that line and now it’s back in.”

?????!

All of this very intriguing and slightly confusing.

So Burrt is claiming 3PIO's tractor beam line was in the 4 track stereo optical version and not in the mono print.?

It is definitely in the mono print so this  must be a case of faulty memory on the part of Burrt---right?

But then, 3PIO's line did surface in the 1984 HiFi stereo VHS release.

If my understanding is correct---The original 35mm stereo audio track as it appears on the the 1982 VHS tape(and laserdisc)only has 3 audio channels(if you run it through dolby pro logic)---Left Center-Right.This was how dolby stereo tracks were encoded onto VHS linear stereo tapes prior to 1984-85.

Up to this point the surround (4th)channel was missing!

After 1984-85 new VHS Hifi stereo tracks were released to the public that could be decoded through Dolby pro logic that would  reveal that 4rth channel (the surround track).

Was 3PIO's tractor beam line in the surround track?

(although all dialogue by tradition is routed into the center channel)

---hence the reason why it was not heard on the VHS/laserdisc releases in 1982-83?

On edit:

This website:

http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/star_wars_a_day_long_remembered_biblio.htm

--reveals the name of the article that the above blogger is referencing:

Blake, Larry, “The Force Returns: Remastering The ‘Star Wars’ Trilogy,” Mix, February 1997

Bid on one of these beauties:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Star-Wars-VHS-1977-1984-CBS-FOX-Vid-NEW-Sealed-/110712884263?pt=VHS&hash=item19c7008c27

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rare-Star-Wars-first-release-1982-CBS-Fox-Video-VHS-PAL-/280672493470?pt=AU_Movies_Movies_TV_Shows&hash=item4159625f9e

@Zombie

I agree wholeheartedly with your points.

Have you ever considered an interview/email exchange with Lucas?

You might just be the guy who can put forward a rational ,coherent argument(without coming across as obsessive!) to him directly:

http://www.lucasfilm.com/inside/faq/

 

How can I send a fan letter to Lucasfilm or George Lucas?
Correspondence to George Lucas can be mailed to Lucasfilm at P.O. Box 29901, San Francisco, CA 94129.
Please Note: Lucasfilm does not accept unsolicited submissions of any kind sent or delivered to Lucasfilm which may contain any product, artwork, story idea, or other creative material. Unsolicited submissions will be returned to sender.

How can I request an interview with George Lucas?
To request an interview with George Lucas, please send a request to the Publicity Department at publicity@lucasfilm.com. Requests should contain the name of the publication or program you are working for, a general description of the proposed interview and a deadline.

zombie84 said:

Lucas would have still repressed the OT for well over a decade and impeded a lot of people' enjoyment of their art and culture, as well as sullying the memory of those films. This should not be forgotten, as though it didn't happen.

To be fair here mate----it really does depend on personal experience and perception.

I think I remember reading somewhere that you said you were 12 in 1997(please correct me if I am wrong).That being the case  I would be correct in assuming that you never saw the films during their original theatrical runs.

I am 10 years older than you and did have that priviledge(Ok--sort of---my introduction was to see SW and ESB back to back in 81' and then ROTJ in 83'---so technically I did not see SW and ESB during their original debuts either!)

But nothing(be it SE's or prequels) that has happened post 1997 will degrade/diminish/sully my personal experience/memory of seeing those films during that original/initial era(and I will be forever grateful to Lucas and Co for this).

For a 12 year old kid in 2011 to be deprived of watching SW(in it's original theatrical form)----well I hate  to say it  -----but there are VHS/betamax/V2000 tapes and laserdiscs!

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/A-Destiny-Revealed-Star-Wars-Media-Day-Brings-Blu-ray-to-Town.shtml

Fans preservations to the rescue!

ROTJ may have faded-but LOTR has become "tinted":

Extended version:

Original theatrical:

zombie84 said:

captainsolo said:

adywan said:

i guess they got a bunch of people they knew would say how good the transfers look, but really haven't got a clue what they are saying. Clueless statements, like the above mentioned and the following, invalidated anything that they say in that review for me:

While the newer Star Wars films were ready made for high definition, the older films will obviously suffer a little from the all scrutinizing eye of HD. (The only pre-digital, color sci-fi film that holds up spectacularly well to date is 2001: A Space Odyssey; and to quote Malcolm McDowell out of context, you’re talking about Stanley fucking Kubrick. No offense, Mr. Lucas.)

 

 

Of course 2001 looks great. It's been well taken care of and was shot in 70mm for later Cinerama projection! It's not your standard 35!!!!

And I take it these people didn't see the Blu-rays of Forbidden Planet, CEoT3K, and the fantastic looking Planet of the Apes and The Day the Earth Stood Still.

 Also, I don't believe 2001 had optical composites, it was done (at least mostly) in-camera. So, the VFX sequences have no generational loss and are in 65mm to boot. There isn't going to be anything that rivals that in terms of resolution.

As for Avatar--yes, Avatar was shot in 1080p. Avatar is also a primarily animated film, whereby the 1920x1080 live action elements constitute either a small portion of a larger, digital composite, and the purely/mostly live-action sequences constitute only a small portion of the completed film. Also, Cameron filmed it with much better cameras than AOTC/ROTS, which basically used the very first HD motion picture camera. The resolution of digital video is less important than the number of lines it can resolve, the dynamic range, how it handles highlights and black levels, the depth of colour, and other such issues.

This is why modern films shot in 1080p look very good, as detailed as most or all modern 35mm films which you see theatrically. When you see a 35mm film theatrically you aren't likely to be seeing more detail than a 1080p projection anyway because of generational loss, and in the home you aren't likely to be able to resolve more lines than HD video is capable of displaying on a screen that is less than five or six feet wide. 4K home theatre would pretty much be a waste of money. I don't know if they will ever propose such a thing, but one would be foolish to buy into it unless you had a bona fide screening room (and even then the difference might be minimal). This is different than 4K scanning of 35mm film though, because you want that high resolution so that the HD downconvert has all the information possible--I don't know what exactly the science behind it is, but there doesn't seem to be true "lossless" HD scan to HD projection, whenever you scan from HD and project in HD it looks worse than when scanning from 4K and projecting in HD.

To be honest----digital(2K/1080p) looks better than 35mm(Ok--with generation loss)---they even did side by side comparisons as far back as 1999 with the Phantom Menace itself:

So how is the quality of the digital image? During a press conference held on June 17 at the AMC Burbank 14 multiplex, a short clip was shown in a split screen: Half the image was from a new, high-quality film print, and the other half was from the digital "print." Once the two images were manually synchronized, the difference was remarkably clear: The digital image was much sharper, with much better color fidelity than the film print. For example, the Jedi council room has large windows through which the sky is visible. In the digital image, the sky and clouds were clearly delineated, but they were blurred into a bluish blob on the film side of the screen. Rick McCallum, one of the producers of The Phantom Menace and a press-conference panelist, said the digital version is a much more accurate representation of what they shot than the film version.

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/content/electronic-cinema-debuts-beautiful-downtown-burbank

doubleofive said:

 

danny_boy said:

Well probably the most exceptional looking contemporary fantasy film---Avatar--- was shot at 1080p:

Despite shooting a max of 2K as opposed to 4K, ARRI is confident that their video quality will look just as good as anything shot on RED cameras—partially thanks to a 13.5-stop dynamic range. And they promise that the build quality, reliability and comfort of use will outpace anything released by RED...which is one reason the Alexa is bold enough to cost a minimum of $20,000 more that anything from RED in a shoot-ready configuration. ARRI is also less concerned about the resolution race, citing the fact that Avatar was technically shot in 1080p (Cameron's Fusion camera system is technically just dual Sony HDC-F950s) and no one seemed to complain.

http://gizmodo.com/5511054/arri-alexa-camera-digital-cinematic-bliss

Well. Huh.

 

1080p which is a negligible 6% difference than cinematic 2K holds up more than well when blown up---below is a list of fans who saw ATOTC in 2002 on IMAX:

Wed Nov 06, 2002 6:40 am
It was in 4x3, or at least something less than 2.35:1 or whatever it was in the theater. The opening shots with the senator's cruiser landing on Coursant are missing the left and right expanses of cloud that were in the analog and DLP versions.

I didn't notice any pixelation.

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtop...64114&start=40

11-05-2002, 01:21 AM
I saw Attack of the Clones on an IMAX screen at the Smithsonian (http://www.si.edu/imax/) on Friday. I could make out the pores on the face of Natalie Portman. I'm still giddy.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/.../t-142595.html

12/03/02 10:15 PM
I just saw Attack of the Clones on IMAX and here is my question:
The movie was shot in digital (something like 1920 X 1080 pixels I'm told) and transfered to the 70mm Imax format. by my calculations (1080 lines divided by an 80ft. screen) each line should be roughly 1 inch high. But I looked and damned if I could find ANY pixelization, vertical or horizontal. How do they do this?
http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showfla...-222100&fpart=.

Now this poster noticed some colour issues as opposed to pixelization:

04-28-05, 02:01 AM

In the last DLP/Christie Digital presentation I witnessed -- which was Attack of the Clones in 2002 -- the image had a vertically-ribbed pattern to it, especially noticable in areas of uniform colour, like the blue in the end credits. Maybe I was sitting too close
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/.../t-531925.html.


Even Lucas himself conducted tests when he blew up 1080 images over and above conventional screen sizes:


Lucas revealed that CineAlta is not only more easily manipulated but can also be blown up more than film. “We’ve done tests [where] we are blowing [digital images] up 50-60 percent on top of it already being blown up to be widescreen and getting an absolutely beautiful image. We had to go a long way before the [digital] image starts to fall apart… We were all shocked, even the guys at ILM.”

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/content/id...ticlesection=2

doubleofive said:

 

adywan said:

i guess they got a bunch of people they knew would say how good the transfers look, but really haven't got a clue what they are saying. Clueless statements, like the above mentioned and the following, invalidated anything that they say in that review for me:

While the newer Star Wars films were ready made for high definition, the older films will obviously suffer a little from the all scrutinizing eye of HD. (The only pre-digital, color sci-fi film that holds up spectacularly well to date is 2001: A Space Odyssey; and to quote Malcolm McDowell out of context, you’re talking about Stanley fucking Kubrick. No offense, Mr. Lucas.)

Same here. Like I said on Facebook somewhere, of course Ep 2 and 3 will look good on this format, they were SHOT at 1080p! The complaints will come next home theater standard, when the other 4 are able to be properly scanned at the resolutions the new formats will be capable of, Ep 2 and 3 will be stuck where they are

 

Well probably the most exceptional looking contemporary fantasy film---Avatar--- was shot at 1080p:

Despite shooting a max of 2K as opposed to 4K, ARRI is confident that their video quality will look just as good as anything shot on RED cameras—partially thanks to a 13.5-stop dynamic range. And they promise that the build quality, reliability and comfort of use will outpace anything released by RED...which is one reason the Alexa is bold enough to cost a minimum of $20,000 more that anything from RED in a shoot-ready configuration. ARRI is also less concerned about the resolution race, citing the fact that Avatar was technically shot in 1080p (Cameron's Fusion camera system is technically just dual Sony HDC-F950s) and no one seemed to complain.

http://gizmodo.com/5511054/arri-alexa-camera-digital-cinematic-bliss

I lurked around here from as far back as 2002/2003-----but did not join up until 2009/10!

What drew me here was a UK fan called "Wormie"--he claimed to have seen an extended version of Star Wars back in 78'---he was proven to be wrong---but it took a while!

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=4&threadid=143&STARTPAGE=1" target="_blank" title="web.archive.org/web/20030615030308/http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=4&threadid=143&STARTPAGE=1">http://web.archive.org/web/20030615030308/http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=4&threadid=143&STARTPAGE=1

Bingowings said:

I haven't seen Avatar yet but I have seen every other Cameron film and only The Terminator approaches the greatness of the first two Star Wars films and then only approaches.

Agreed with the Terminator reference.

Regarding Avatar--it is a technical marvel.

Personally I don't rate it as high as the OT but there maybe others out there who do.As I wrote in another post---in 20 years time are we going to be dissecting Avatar the way we do the likes of ROTJ now.

Any film ages overtime and with the benefit of hindsight ,any film has elements that could have been done differently.

Danny_Boy wrote:

When Obiwan told Luke, Leia was his sister---it was agreat moment.

Bingowings responded:

Really?

Personally--I think so-when you watched the film for the first time you wondered how Luke was going to accommodate this information without alienating Han.It also added another dimension of the caring Luke had for Leia.

Leia's reaction to him telling her Vader is his father is spot on but even Carrie firing on all cylinders couldn't pull off her "always knowing" with what we have seen before. It's not a great scene and Han's responses are right off, more PT Padwan than OT scoundrel.

Hmm---I see where you are coming from.

I think it added an element of friction between Han and Luke before the battle in which  they are supposed to be on the same side.

Danny_Boy wrote:

When Luke finally takes off Vader's mask it was a moment we had all been waiting for 6 years(Ok---2 years for me---I saw SW and ESB for the 1st time back to back in 81'!)

Bingowings responded:

It's OK but it's hardly amazing.

 

IMHO---In terms of tone it was spot on.

Star wars is not about the characters crying in depressive fits and hysteria---the minute that you enter into that kind of depth----you have an altogether different kind of film.

Bingowings said:

Sure that sequence is powerful but I remember seeing the audience leaning forwards 45 degrees gripped during the Death Star run in ANH both in 1977 and 1997 (as much down to Hamill's performance as the naive farm boy caught up in an adventure as the special effects and the music) and the utter bewilderment that resulted from the gantry scene in ESB.

In all the films he has responded to machines (or actors dressed as machines) and puppets with such conviction you forget and see them just as differently shaped people (the Dagobah scenes in ESB are an acting masterclass).

100% agreed on this!

Mark didn't do anything new in ROTJ, arguably without all the work he had put in before those sequences wouldn't have had any of the impact it had.

I think he showed emotional restraint--which I think was intentional given the fact that he was now a fully trained Jedi----makes it even more powerful when he lets loose after he shouts "Never!"

Visually it's dazzling (at times it's silly but only slightly more silly as some of the conceits in the ROTJ duel) but because we don't have the emotional investment it If the PT actors had built up as much of an album of solid characterisation as Mark did in his films the final duel in ROTS would have been much less of a dance.doesn't mean anything and that is incrementally built up over three films.

Agreed--the OT was a (a very advanced)product of it's time---just like Avatar is now----these moments in time are unique and can never be replicated----it probably applies to all forms of art.

The other carried over characters are running on fumes in ROTJ.  

Again I disagree---in terms of emotion--in 1983:

When Obiwan told Luke, Leia was his sister---it was agreat moment.

When Luke told Leia he was her brother and that Vader was his father it was great moment.

When Luke finally takes off Vader's mask it was a moment we had all been waiting for 6 years(Ok---2 years for me---I saw SW and ESB for the 1st time back to back in 81'!)

When Leia tells Han Luke is her brother ---- another cool moment.

These were characters who were discovering new dynamics and relationships between each other...and we the audience were discovering it with them.

theprequelsrule said:

danny_boy said:

 

If you want to enjoy the original film in all  it's analogue glory-

Just stick in your original 1982/83 pan and scan VHS or laserdisc.

At least it is a transfer of the original film before it underwent digital manipulation/restoration.

It has the original 35mm stereo audio track(long before it too was digitized and THXed in subsequent video releases)

And sure the picture is not accurate with regards to color reproduction and image resolution of the cinematic prints BUT the actual tape/laserdisc is from the era that the original Star Wars was last  screened theatrically(1982)----hence it has a lot of nostalgic value---and once you start watching you tend not to pay too much attention to the picture/sound quality anyway.

You just enjoy the story and the characters----just like you did when you were in the theater.

On edit_

Ironically due to it's bright color timing-that original 1982 VHS has detail which is not apparent in the 2004 DVD(because it so dark)----it actually allows you to enjoy the film even more.

 

 

 

You know, I agree with this.

Cheers--if I had to make an analogy---in order to enjoy a film's cultural /contemporary aesthetic value----- it would be akin to watching my 2010 2D Avatar blu Ray disc in 2030!----

instead of watching it on my 8/16K playback system that will probably exist at that point in time!(Sharp and Japan's NHK already have a working TV prototype!)

@Bingowings

Mate--I guess it is all subjective---in my personal opinion-from the moment Hamill  shouts "never!" to the moment that he says"I am a Jedi--like my father before me"-----he transcends anything he achieved in any of the 3 films.

It is all encapsulated in these few minutes--- the physical prowess and grace as he  induces Vader to go backwards--the emotional power as be cascades between anger and control---and finally the realization that he has not submitted himself to the temptation of the dark side and that he has surpassed his own father's failings.

At the time of the films theatrical release----it was a very cathartic moment for the audience---I know---I saw it twice in 83'---and the audience literally sucked it's breath in during this scene(you have to remember that for 5 years prior to ROTJ-1977-82--Vader had relentlessly kicked ass ,so to finally see him get beat was incredibly powerful---something that cannot be replicated by watching the film in 2011 for the 200th time!)

theprequelsrule said:

Bingowings said:

Mark turns in a performance consistent with the rest of the films and that's it really.

I strongly disagree with the above statement. Mark's performance is excellent; far superior to his work in the prior two films. It's not so much about what he says, then what he doesn't say. There is just a quiet sadness to the performance that really gets me when I watch ROTJ; which makes the ending Ewok celebration when he sees the ghosts, and that sadness lifts, so powerful.

Maybe I'm reading to much into it. I am a biased defender of ROTJ afterall!

 

Agreed!

The evolution of the character(Luke) was the arc of the trilogy-Hamil gave 3 distinct performances in the 3 films which gave the OT it's variety and in someways-it's unpredictablility.

If you want to enjoy the original film in all  it's analogue glory-

Just stick in your original 1982/83 pan and scan VHS or laserdisc.

At least it is a transfer of the original film before it underwent digital manipulation/restoration.

It has the original 35mm stereo audio track(long before it too was digitized and THXed in subsequent video releases)

And sure the picture is not accurate with regards to color reproduction and image resolution of the cinematic prints BUT the actual tape/laserdisc is from the era that the original Star Wars was last  screened theatrically(1982)----hence it has a lot of nostalgic value---and once you start watching you tend not to pay too much attention to the picture/sound quality anyway.

You just enjoy the story and the characters----just like you did when you were in the theater.

On edit_

Ironically due to it's bright color timing-that original 1982 VHS has detail which is not apparent in the 2004 DVD(because it so dark)----it actually allows you to enjoy the film even more.

@Zombie

Have you ever tried to contact Lucasfilm?

timdiggerm said:

Just so you know, Danny, the accepted practice is to switch in and out of quotes

Something someone said

My response.

Yeah cheers--am working on it!

TheoOdo said: What Lucas wanted to do with Star Wars seems quite different from what made it a success. The original drafts are a testament to that and the original cut of ANH is regarded as having been a disaster.

Kurtz has said that he challenged Lucas on several of his decisions, and I think it's this combative partnership which resulted in the movies working as well as they did.

The fact that Kurtz was absent when they made Jedi seems to be further evidence of this. It is generally accepted to be lower quality than the rest of the trilogy, which Kurtz worked closely on. The same can be said of the prequels, which seem to be kept afloat only by the Star Wars brand.

On financial success alone, you may be right, but I'd still disagree. Being good at making money is different from being good at making films.

 

You make valid points-but film-making is by it's very nature  a collaborative process. But if you look at in terms of contribution to the collaboration:

Lucas concieved the project.He designed the story and created it's characters.He envisioned it's enviroment and designated it's tonality.

He directed the actors and edited the footage aswell as creating and galvanizing(along with Kurtz) the effects crew.

Kurtz's contributions are less voluminous(but still significant) with regards to Star wars.

But there would be no  Star Wars without Lucas-wheras there would be a Star Wars(and was) without Kurtz(although less good).

 

Obviously not, but, then, you can hardly aspire for a movie to be a certain

way when you have nothing to go on. It'd be pretty crazy to enter a film and say "Gee, I sure hope a major character dies".

We, on the other hand, have had many years to consider this and also interviews, behind the scenes knowledge, drafts and other details to form our opinions on.

Well on that basis we could subject any film or work of art to that premise.

There are parts of Lawrence Of Arabia,2001,Citizen Kane and The Godfather or even Episode IV or V that could have been done different (or better) with the benefit of those factors that you mentioned above.

Hell Adywans version of Star Wars is proof of that!

 

 

TheoOdo said:

You seem to be making an argument for a Coruscant-like city in the same breath that you argue against it. Blade Runner very successfully created a futuristic city with the effects of the time. The reason the Coruscant of the prequels reminds you of Blade Runner is probably because it deliberately rips off several shots and features of the futuristic L.A. The industrial plane with torches shooting flame, the passenger car landing on an apartment building shot from above, holographic advertisements etc.

 

Not at all--I was under the assumption that the author of the alternative script was refering to corruscant in the terms of how it was presented in the prequels---if he was not---then he could have called it anything!

 

A futuristic city in the OT would likely have quite a different tone than the noir inspired city of Blade Runner or the political hub of the prequels. The galaxy is under the control of a despot and this is the center of his activities. The tone would probably be like Nazi occupied Berlin. Some sections would house the sympathetic elite and would be resplendent with propaganda, banners and troops while others would be slums, housing the more aggressive of the Empire's enforcers, the poor and disenfranchised and pockets of resistance represented by graffiti and destroyed propaganda posters.

Yeah sounds like a good idea.

I think it would have been possible to create a city with a style recognised as distinct from that of Blade Runner. Yes, some would accuse them of ripping off Blade Runner, but that always happens in film criticism. The Return of the King was even accused of ripping off Pirates of the Caribbean in some reviews I read for including a shot of the ghost army charging from a ship. On these terms, a successful argument could be made that Blade Runner simply ripped off Metropolis. Doesn't mean they don't stand on their own or do something different with the same idea.

Interesting about the Pirates--Lord Of The Rings claim---I never knew that and never made the connection until you mentioned it!-definitely a more subtle connection!

This is all beside the point, anyways, because ripping off others is surelybetter than lazily attempting to recreate past successes - which is what they did with the Death Star II.

Maybe the idea of recreating the death star was lazy----but the attempt or execution was exhilarating----to date---the best crafted space battle put to film---not bad for a 28 year old movie.

And with all due respect ,at least on a technical level, it put the death star conflict in Ep 4(which I love BTW) in the shade.

 

 

I think you'd be hard pressed to conceive of something less tasteful than the Ewoks. I don't actually dislike them all that much, I just see that they're corny and cutesy. A Wookiee army could work if treated appropriately, the trouble is that they were treated badly in the prequels. Firstly, they did the Tarzan yell, which was bad in Jedi and was worse in Sith. Secondly, they were facing off against a not very intimidating enemy, the droids - who actually pass close to the screen and shout "charge" in a high-pitched voice. The whole scene is bad. The wookiees don't stand a chance of shining through.

"Crass" is a matter of execution. It could have been done well.

The costumes were certainly done well, even if we weren't given time to care about the characters behind them.

 

 

If Ewoks are corny or cutesy then Wookies(in numbers----as in ROTS) are annoyingly noisy!.

Chewbacca in isolation is fine because he interacts with other species.But the minute one wookie growls to another it just sounds like an amplified version of Planet Of The Apes or even 2001(and yes-the Holiday special)!

If I am not mistaken Lucas envisioned a climactic battle involving Wookies before he really had a final concept of what Wookies would look and behave like.

It was the signing of Mahew that enabled Chewbacca as a creature to evolve into the Wookie that we all came to know and love.

Once that evolution was complete,maybe Lucas dispensed with the idea of the wookies as a pivotal fighting force.

 

Asteroid-Man said:

There are little bits of ROTJ that made it not as good as it could have been. It had the potential to be the best Star Wars film but failed. How would you have done it?

 

Here's my take:

If Endor's moon was actually a moon of Coruscant and if it was actually Kashykk, I would have loved to see Han and Chewie leading an assault on Endor and then Luke and Leia leading a battle on Coruscant, and then Luke fights his way to the Emperor's office on Coruscant in the old Republic Building, now Emperial Palace and Vader is awaiting Luke in the office. Vader then takes Luke with him to the Death Star Orbitting Coruscant. On Kashyyk, Chewie and Han free Wookie slaves to use them as help to take out the Death Star Shield. The Death Star dogfight is lead by Lando. Han has to manually detonate the charges in the shield room on Kashyyk because the remote fails to work and he is hurt by the blast. The Vader Vs. Luke battle should have a faster paced score and then it becomes slow and Dark when the Emperor intervenes. Death Star scene continues until Vader's death. Vader disappears from the suit and there is a funeral pyre on Coruscant. Luke and Leia go to Kashyyk where Han is dying. As they (Lando, Luke, Leia and Chewie) are standing around him, a last speech is given from one of them or Luke, Leia and Han. Han dies as the camera pulls back to reveal the force ghosts watching over. Camera pulls up to show the sky turn to daylight. Fireworks go off. In the morning, we see a montage of celebrations around the Galaxy, and then we get a scene where Luke is in the old Council room (partly damaged and lit only by the window) with the force ghosts sitting in their seats as they have their last words with Luke. Roll Credits.

O.K---right off the bat and as I already mentioned-I personally would not change a thing in ROTJ.

And I know it is easy to nitpick someone-else's idea.

And whilst I don't have a  problem with the content of the above alternative script, I do have a problem with how it would have been executed with the cinematic tools of the late 70's/early 80's.

Corruscant as we know it(The presentation as shown from 1999-2005) would not have been feasable with the technology of 1981-82.

Corruscant would have to have been rendered as an eloborate minature.

But it would have been lifeless(I.E not many flying vehicles ect ect---and therefore reducing it's sense of scale and size)

You also have to remember that Blade Runner debuted barely a year before.

Too many fans in 83' would have thought that Star Wars was ripping off Blade Runner( I actually thought Corruscant in 99' ripped of Blade Runner!)

And any "Wookie battle" would have been like a crass combination of the holiday special meeting Planet Of The Apes.

It barely works in 2005 with the battle on Kashyyk.

I highlighted it elsewhere---too many fans are trying to re-interpret ROTJ ,having been exposed to 20+ years of CGI infested movies (Matrix.Lord Of The Ring ect) that have come into play since ROTJ debuted in theaters.

As for Han being killed off---well it is extremly subjective....but put it this way.

Had Lucas and Kurtz never met ---who would been more successful on an individual basis---I don't know about you but I would wager Lucas would have had greater success.

And there is a reason for it.

Lucas knew exactly how much resonance(character depth) and tonality(suspense,horror,drama) to infuse in his films.If you lose the balance between these separate elements ,the quality of the movie diminishes.

Empire's secret is that it could afford to be dark and downbeat because there was still(at that point in time -circa 1980-81)an asyet untold conclusion to the story-to be resolved by ROTJ.Empire is effectively a link in the chain (and a vital one at that) but nothing more than a link.

In other words Empire's power  would fail if there was no conclusive 3rd act to follow it.

Prior to ROTJ coming out---- the anticipation of the fans(from my own personal recollection) to see the Empire get it's ass well and truly kicked(after 2 films in which it practically dominated proceedings) was sky high.

Lucas understood this and that is why ROTJ is the way it is.

I saw Jedi in 83 ,aged 9 and none of the kids aspired  for a wookie battle or for Han to have been killed.

Bingowings said:

danny_boy said:

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

TV's Frink said:

danny_boy said:

theprequelsrule said:

danny_boy said:

What would I have done to Jedi?

 

Nothing.

 

It is fine as is.

Agreed. This thread is unworthy of OOT fans.

Indeed!

I find it hypocritical that fans here curse Lucas for changing the OT,yet have no problems with introducing hypothetical changes of their own!

Then I'm not sure you understand what hypocritical means.

Is there a single fan here that would deny everyone the original versions?  Even kenkraly understands that part of it.

Well as I already said-Lucas has only deprived fans of seeing the original versions in good quality(Blu ray/anamorphic standard def DVD)-as opposed to denying them the original versions in any quality-big difference.

Oh, ok.  Forum closed.  :-/

 

Even if the OT is eventually released on Blu ray-----this forum will still be around plugging for a release in  4K!

 

Blu-Ray isn't the only issue, for one thing as a distribution medium it's probably a got a shorter shelf life than DVD.

For me the clincher is when restored prints of the original films are allowed a theatrical showing on request and when the OUT receives the same amount of home cinema distribution coverage as the SEs.

Maybe George is a OT.COM fan and won't give us what we want because he just loves reading these boards.

haha

I do often wonder if this is some cynical machination by Lucas to amplify the prestige of the OUT.

Think of a world where there had never been any SE's.

Would there have been as much clamouring for the OUT as there has been over the last 10-15 years?