danny_boy

msycamore said:

danny_boy said:

Ahhh---- and this is the catch----what is/was the original or former condition of Star Wars(as seen by audiences between 1977 to 85)?

I saw the film myself twice theatrically(1981 and 1983) but I will not dare to hazard a guess in 2012 as to whether  what I saw 30 years ago was grainy or clean or had punchy colours or was pink shifted or had dirt and scratches or was free from such blemishes.

So you have now shifted gears from "the film was restored in '95" to "some prints were grainy, dirty and beaten up and faded when seen by audiences back in the '70's and the '80's." So, what does all of this have to do with George Lucas refusal to let it be restored and preserved? Or do you still count the Special Edition as a restoration of the original film? The National Film Registry certainly didn't... it's now 15 years later and still no plans to restore it, just bad excuses whenever it is brought up. Film enthusiasts and fans have since lost their patience.

George Lucas - "the filmmaker who care deeply about his fans" did however say that he was sorry that fans had fell in love with a half finished film in 2004. How noble of him...

If the original negative had not been cleaned and restored(as you claim) then how  do you think they managed to get the picture quality to a level to be able to re-release that special edition(much of it derived from the O-Neg)  to cinemas in 1997?

In other words----- the original negative(as conformed in 1977) was cleaned and restored------it is just that the 1977 edit that could be struck from this original negative(to make an interpositive and subsequent release prints,DVD's,Blu Ray's ect ) has not been released to the public.

But an interpositive was struck from that original negative------it was that 1st generation interpositive that was then hacked up into pieces and conformed and manipulated into what would become the special edition.

doubleofive said:

 

danny_boy said:

Yeah----Paramount must have brainwashed Wise into making statements such as the following:

''I'm happy with it now. This is the film that I really wanted (Star Trek Special Edition) .''

Which isn't available on Blu-ray, how is this relevant?

 

It is relevant because in the period that it was not available Wise(and Paramount) were never castigated in the same manner that Lucas has been.

Baronlando said:

danny_boy said: I am trying to accentuate the excessive reaction to Lucas's alterations which are getting out of hand.Robert Wise made major changes to  Star Trek: The Motion Picture for that film's release on DVD in 2001/01 whilst the theatrical version was withheld from DVD home video------ until it was released on bluray in 2009----- but Wise did not  get rebuked as much as Lucas in that time period.Only the 1992 director's cut of Blade Runner was released on DVD in 1997/98(and a poor quality 

Really with this? Do you really not see the difference in the reactions is proportionate to what actually happened? 

Really? (and by the way, not that this will make a fucking dent, but here it is anyway: the fate of theatrical Blade Runner and Trek 1 were 100% dictated by Paramount Home video and Jerry Perenchio, not Wise/Scott but who cares about accurate comparisons, right?)

Yeah----Paramount must have brainwashed Wise into making statements such as the following:

''I'm happy with it now. This is the film that I really wanted (Star Trek Special Edition) .''

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010820/re/startrek_dvd_dc_1.html" target="_blank" title="web.archive.org/web/20010822113520/http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010820/re/startrek_dvd_dc_1.html">http://web.archive.org/web/20010822113520/http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010820/re/startrek_dvd_dc_1.html

msycamorewrote:

The original negative was disassembled cleaned and reassembled. The original film was never restored, no matter what you say. Restore means; to return something to an original or former condition. This was never done. Instead, 748 of the 2,228 shots in the film were redone, that's a little bit more than one-third of all the shots in the film. 

 

 

Ahhh---- and this is the catch----what is/was the original or former condition of Star Wars(as seen by audiences between 1977 to 85)?

I saw the film myself twice theatrically(1981 and 1983) but I will not dare to hazard a guess in 2012 as to whether  what I saw 30 years ago was grainy or clean or had punchy colours or was pink shifted or had dirt and scratches or was free from such blemishes.

The general consensus from the professionals(Lucas,Mcallum,Kennedy ect) who had access to and handled the original negatives and elements was that it was definitely grainy aswell as dirty (both inbuilt and external--due to the ravages of time and usage).

Back in 77' audiences did not give a flying fuck to the resolution qualities of a theatrical print------because even the worst looking release prints of that era were obviously superior to TV broadcasts or the fledgling home video markets(Umatic,VHS and Beta).

In the high definition home video era-----films such as Close Encounters,Star Trek I and II , Superman I and II ect ect.....are the best examples of how films which were saturated with optical composits hold up up to HD scrutiny---- and the answer is in some cases ---- not very well-----the blu ray of Close Encounters looks incredibily grainy(I have the film on VHS too---and the grain is visible even there!)

Superman I and II only recieved 2k scans of interpositives(made directly from the original negatives)----and look very soft in certain areas.

A HD/2K scan of the original negative of the 1977 edit of Star Wars would yield similar results if you view the film with a 2012 mindset----

Rick Dean who supervised the 2004 DVD transfer said it best:

As Rick Dean notes, "The problem is that nobody was ever expected to watch it directly off of negative. Projection prints are the result of four optical processes and photochemical processes, which naturally even things out."

http://business.highbeam.com/3770/article-1G1-122874997/restoring-star-wars-trilogy

 

And having watched  Star Wars Ep IV, Close Encounters and Superman using a Sony 4k projector----- I can confidently say that the Star wars transfer is head and shoulders above the other films.

evan1975 said:

And in a literal sense-----the supression(of the 35mm prints) of the "original film" of Star Wars can go right back to 1981 when "Episode IV" was tacked onto the begginning-----because the theatrical re-releases in 1981.82' 83'and 85'(in 83' and 85'---Star Wars was part of a triple bill with ESB and ROTJ) all featured these new "altered" prints------ but no-one complained back then!

Why didn't VHS and laserdisc fans complain in 1982 when the "altered" version of star wars was released for the first time on home video?----- why did'nt they complain that they could not hear the mono mix on that 82' video tape/laserdisc?

The majority of the people probably never noticed the change.  And most of those that did didn't care. It was a minor, minor thing.

George made MAJOR changes in the 1997 Special Editions, many of them minor ones nobody noticed or cared about, but many of them mere major detriments that changed the films drastically for the worse.  You know what those changes are, and you know all this already.  You're just being pedantic.

And I expect a "gotcha" response from you, likely with some weird fixation on The Godfather.

You are correct----but I am trying to accentuate the excessive reaction to Lucas's alterations which are getting out of hand.

Robert Wise made major changes to  Star Trek: The Motion Picture for that film's release on DVD in 2001/01 whilst the theatrical version was withheld from DVD home video------ until it was released on bluray in 2009----- but Wise did not  get rebuked as much as Lucas in that time period.

Only the 1992 director's cut of Blade Runner was released on DVD in 1997/98(and a poor quality transfer at that)-----the theatrical version would not surface on high definition home video (and standard def DVD?) until 2007 -----but did Ridley Scott get as much abuse as Lucas has done in those years----- I don't think so.

1990osu said:

I just watched these versions.

This is going to be controversial, but I think that you best get the feeling of the original movies by watching the pre-1993 movies.  They were lifted directly off of finished prints, so the colors are right and there is grain where it should be.  The sound and music and effects aren't mixed any differently unlike 1993.  The picture is really, really sharp because the whole movie didn't undergo a smearing process (like 1993 versions).

I said pan-and-scan (obviously widescreen would be ideal) because the resolution of VHS/LD isn't great and you can actually watch the actor's performances and see this beautiful lighting and color up close. 

The biggest difference I noticed besides the sound (which is actually mixed quite a bit different) is that there is a lot of contrast in the picture.  There are shadows and areas of hard light.  This "hard light", hard contrast look typical of movies back then was washed out of all of the newer versions, which look sanitized and wishy-washy.

To be fair, they do this with most remasterings of old movies too.  But I love the sharp, high contrast, hard light look.  And if you look at screenshots from theatrical prints of the originals, they will show you the same thing. 

I don't know- I just got the feeling that I was watching the actual movie as it was, far stronger with these editions.

Excellent post---- and I understand 100%  where you are coming from.

I actually get off watching the 1982 VHS original 1st release----it probably does not match the 1991/92 version for contrast ratio and colour balance(I do have the widescreen 1991/92 tapes----but so much image information is lost due to the presense of the black bars)

But all the imperfections------dirt,scratches,sprocket tears,bobbles,gate hairs(all part of the theatrical experience) of a release print   are captured in these pre-THX VHS/laserdisc transfers.

Such a shame that  VHS could not capture the dynamic range and latitude of film------ having said that ----- the quality of release prints would vary depending on the caliber of theater you saw the film in-----and also at what point you saw it:

The 1982 reissue had a trailer for the next film, which was initially titled Revenge of the Jedi. Now that was cool. I still remember the 18 frame segment of the never- used sandstorm scene. I saw this at the Bellevue Theater, in Upper Montclair. I also saw it at the old Jerry Lewis Cinema in Union. It was here that I noted that the print was pink. I couldn't believe a film of this recent vintage had already started to fade. This gave me my first hint at just how bad DeLuxe labs were. By the way, the Bellevue has been cut into a multi screen and the Jerry Lewis Cinema has been wiped off the face of the earth. Is there no respect left for the movie palaces of our youth?

http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/archives/83-Star-Wars-at-30-Years-Old-A-Lifes-Journey.html.

The worst was Deluxe Color. They turn pink the quickest. I ran a three year old Deluxe print of "Star Wars" in 1980. There was very little color other than pink.

ttp://cinematreasures.org/polls/167_0_6_0_C/

 

Trooperman said:

danny_boy said:

msycamorewrote:

Yes, Lucas had to get it restored due to the bad shape it was in, in order to release the Special Edition, but as we all know by now, the purpose of that event wasn't to restore the original film, that being made was just a stepping stone towards the revised cut of the film. It was in fact not restored in the truest sense either, the 62 shots made on CRI-stock for example were replaced with digitally re-composited shots, all the optical wipes were redone etc.

 

That's true to a degree-----but the original film was restored---here is Rick Mcallum saying as much:

One of the most frustrating things is, if you could see the print that stuck of the original negative that we have done - it's perfect. It's not perfect in terms of the color restauration, because we still have a long way to go.

http://www.maikeldas.com/SWrick1eng.html

Unfortunately when you read that snippet in context, it's clear that they hadn't actually scanned the film yet to start making special edition changes.  After they made all the changes, it is my understanding that they went back to that clean, beautiful negative and cut it up for the purposes of pasting in the new 35mm special edition shots they had just printed from their computer. 

Yes---I agree---but it would also mean that the original negative has not been altered-----it was disassembled into it's constituents parts so that it's differing film stocks could be washed separately----but then Robert  Hart(the editor of ESB and ROTJ) put it backtogether without inserting any new frames/elements.

msycamore said:

danny_boy said:

but the original film was restored

If the film was restored why wasn't the National Film Registry given a new print for preservation, why did Lucasfilm try to persuade them to take a SE print instead, Fox who paid for this whole "restoration" in the first place could've made this happen, right? It's because it was a half-assed restoration done in order to revise the film. A year or two later Lucas had acquired the full rights to Star Wars and nothing was stopping him going ahead with his plans.

danny_boy said:

Sorry dude---my 1982 VHS tape is not being surpressed by ol' George.

And George could easily have stopped that IB technicolor print from being shown to the public in Baltimore in 2010 even if it was for free.

 

Well, we're talking about suppression of the original FILMS, not your pan & scan video tape of the '81 re-release.

Yes, but he didn't because it would've made Lucasfilm look very stupid in the media.

danny_boy said:

As long as those films are locked away there will be fans who are upset about this.

And I am one of them------but I don't hate George for it.

 

And neither do I, but I don't have to like him either.

To be fair it looks like the film was restored to the best of Lucasfilm's ability given the technology and expense at that point in time.

HD/2K scanning of an entire film was in it's infancy and also incredibily expensive in 1996.

New prints were made of  Close Encounters(20yrs),Saturday Night Fever(20 yrs) and The Godfather(25yrs) to mark their respective anniversaries in 1997 and none of them had scans at all-----the new prints were struck directly off new internegatives -----compared to those films above -----I think more effort was put into restoring Star Wars(which at least had partial scans---allbeit to produce/add effects)

(Even fellowship of the Ring which was made in 2000/2001 was 70% scanned and 30% photochemichally produced)

And in a literal sense-----the supression(of the 35mm prints) of the "original film" of Star Wars can go right back to 1981 when "Episode IV" was tacked onto the begginning-----because the theatrical re-releases in 1981.82' 83'and 85'(in 83' and 85'---Star Wars was part of a triple bill with ESB and ROTJ) all featured these new "altered" prints------ but no-one complained back then!

Why didn't VHS and laserdisc fans complain in 1982 when the "altered" version of star wars was released for the first time on home video?----- why did'nt they complain that they could not hear the mono mix on that 82' video tape/laserdisc?

Baronlando said:

Did you know they dubbed Die Hard 2 with "Mr. Falcon" over "motherfucker" in an era where MORE PEOPLE would see it that way than any other?? But where is the outrage at Renny Harlin? It's completely the same! 

LOL!

But I think it is fair to say that by 1990 most people had VHS where the original dialogue of Die Hard 2 could be heard.

But back in good ol' 1977 when an TV edit was made to a film that was it----you could not experience it any other way ------unless you were one of the wealthy/lucky few who could afford Betamax or Umatic Video-----or if the film in question had another run in the cinema.

Baronlando said:

danny_boy said:

But even within those 3 short years from 1977-81---- was there anything like the vitriolic hate towards Coppola like there is towards  Lucas for the re-edit of their respective movies----I don't think so.

 

Why the fuck would there be? 

Because Coppola altered the structural narrative of not one but 2 films---- in an era when the majority  of fans/the public had no recourse to the original versions.....comprende?

 

Akwat Kbrana wrote:

By your own admission, the number of people who owned VHS players in 1981 was miniscule.

Which meant that the TV re-edit of the Godfather would have been extremely influential in how a large amount of fans experienced and viewed the Godfather---doh!

msycamorewrote:

Yes, Lucas had to get it restored due to the bad shape it was in, in order to release the Special Edition, but as we all know by now, the purpose of that event wasn't to restore the original film, that being made was just a stepping stone towards the revised cut of the film. It was in fact not restored in the truest sense either, the 62 shots made on CRI-stock for example were replaced with digitally re-composited shots, all the optical wipes were redone etc.

That's true to a degree-----but the original film was restored---here is Rick Mcallum saying as much:

One of the most frustrating things is, if you could see the print that stuck of the original negative that we have done - it's perfect. It's not perfect in terms of the color restauration, because we still have a long way to go.

http://www.maikeldas.com/SWrick1eng.html

....which leads onto this:

No new video-release made, (the one released in '95 when the "restoration" was still in the work was dubbed "The last chance to own the original Star Wars) no newly restored prints for exhibition, no new print of the original sent to the NFR, even though they had requested it since the film was selected in '89.

....which is very true and I personally am also against Lucas's actions with regards to him with-holding the Theatrical cut----but he has still restored it(by late 1990's standards).

 Suppressed, hunted down and despised by its maker is more like it. Could it perhaps be some of these actions that causes frustration and anger directed towards this man? If he only was quiet about the issue it would be bad, but he has also been quite arrogant in media about it;

Sorry dude---my 1982 VHS tape is not being surpressed by ol' George.

And George could easily have stopped that IB technicolor print from being shown to the public in Baltimore in 2010 even if it was for free.

 As long as those films are locked away there will be fans who are upset about this.

And I am one of them------but I don't hate George for it.

Baronlando said:

The criterion laserdisc WAS the original version. The branching option was for special edition scenes, meanwhile the special edition had its own laser.

Are you sure about that?

The Criterion Collection 3-disc Laserdisc released in 1990 featured both the 1977 Theatrical & 1980 Special Edition cuts. The theatrical however held onto the '80 Special Edition shot of a shadowed spaceship flying over Roy's truck. This was requested by Steven Spielberg while overseeing the disc's production. The 1980 cut can only be viewed on players that could have re-arranged the disc's chapters from the end of the disc to earlier on, requiring a 5-second pause between chapters.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075860/alternateversions

And the original version was shown on TV regularly all through those years,

Well here is the U.S premiere of Close Encounters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcwANeCyv_U

And it is definitely the special edition(and maybe even the hybrid version?)

Baronlando said:

OK, The Coppola/Godfather thing is exactly the same as Star Wars, in fact it's worse. Way to go, Coppola. Way to not do something that you could not have done anything about. And thanks a lot for losing my car keys too, Francis.

Well it's good to see you are no longer blamin' ol' George for losing your car keys eh?!

Akwat Kbrana said:

Oh absolutely----but one forgets that Coppola re-edited both Godfather I and II into one movie which was aired over 3 or 4 successive nights  on NBC in 1977-----in the pre-home video world ---- that was as good as redefining how the Godfather would be presented to an audience(the vast majority of which had no access to the new Betamax format or the more conventional  Umatic video systems----the Theatrical edit of the Godfather on VHS would not become available until circa 1980/81)

You do insist on missing the point, don't you?

The Godfather situation isn't remotely parallel to the Star Wars situation. From 1977 to 1980 is only three years. By contrast, it has now been fifteen years since the Special Editions of Star Wars, and no decent transfer of the originals. Moreover, it's been, what, twenty-nine years since the "A New Hope" caption was added to Star Wars? And still no decent transfer of the pre-caption crawl, either. Additionally, Coppola made no concerted effort to suppress the originals of his films, which is what everyone is upset with George for in the first place.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Dude---in 1981 the amount of people who owned VHS machines(or laserdisc) was miniscule-----the vast majority of the public/fans  at that time would have been influenced by that re-edit that Coppola did for TV in 77'-----

But even within those 3 short years from 1977-81---- was there anything like the vitriolic hate towards Coppola like there is towards  Lucas for the re-edit of their respective movies----I don't think so.

As for surpressing originals---Spielberg did not release the Theatrical version of Close Encounters on home video until 2007( a full 30  years!!).

ok-- there was a branching laserdisc released in 1991 which contained it-----but it was very cumbersome to operate and apparently it still included a special edition sequence(Spielberg wanted it this way) even when you programmed it to display the theatrical assembly!-----and on top of that ----laserdisc was a niche market.

Did VHS/Beta,and V2000 owners and fans alike -----lambast Spielberg during this period for surpressing the original---fuck no!

msycamore wrote:

 

Are you f**king serious? The only one who misses the point is you, the story about The Godfather films you bring up as an example of "why are people angry at Lucas but not Coppola" is ridiculous, this whole issue became news first when film-preservation expert Robert Harris started to work on the restoration, nobody knew about this, not even Paramount.

Well they knew about it-----they just did not have the technology to deal with it---and it is certainly true that having Spielberg wielding his influence within Paramount finally allowed Coppola to exert his authority.

Back in 1997, screening the highest-quality print of the film for its 25th anniversary was a disturbing experience for director Coppola. The ravages of time, print-making and some oddities in old splices were just some of the problems spelling a dim future for The Godfather and its first sequel, as well as for Paramount’s hopes to sell product to  millions who love the mob saga.

http://www.postmagazine.com/Publications/Post-Magazine/2008/November-1-2008/RESTORATION.aspx

When it became clear how bad the situation was for Star Wars, there should've been a serious restoration done, new preservation negatives created, a new print sent to the National Film Registry for preservation,

There was a seriouse restoration done to star wars in 1995!

Let's clarify one thing to make it understandable to all------the physical condition of the original camera negatives(that were used for printing in 72' and 77' respectively) of the Godfather and Star wars are roughly the same(despite the clean up and restoration done on them)----the Godfather is probably in worse condition.

The new Godfather 4K master files that are now used to generate new archival or theatrical prints were sourced from many elements(dupes/interpositives/outtakes and the original camera negative--itself)------in other words-----this 4k digital negative corresponds to only half of the OCN:

The newly restored Godfather relies on snippets of film culled from many sources. “There was no foundation left. It is a Frankenstein,” Harris says,

http://www.postmagazine.com/Publications/Post-Magazine/2008/November-1-2008/RESTORATION.aspx

 Is that any different to the Star War's"frankenstein" digital negative?

 

If Lucasfilm doesn't get their act together soon and make a restoration, his crusade to eliminate these films will make him look even more ridiculous in a few years when some fans have scanned some prints and released those to the public. You know very well why people are upset, but if for some weird reason you don't, I'm afraid I cannot help you.

Whoa`--- I am on the same side as you----I want to see the original edit in the best quality possible too------but bashing Lucas to do it is not the way to achieve that goal.

Gaffer Tape wrote:

There is a marked difference between an unrelated, random person accidentally screwing something up, after which a comprehensive restoration is made, and the creator deliberately going out of his way to keep his original films out of the way.

 

Oh absolutely----but one forgets that Coppola re-edited both Godfather I and II into one movie which was aired over 3 or 4 successive nights  on NBC in 1977-----in the pre-home video world ---- that was as good as redefining how the Godfather would be presented to an audience(the vast majority of which had no access to the new Betamax format or the more conventional  Umatic video systems----the Theatrical edit of the Godfather on VHS would not become available until circa 1980/81)

Here is Talia Shire(who starred in the film and is Coppola's sister) presenting this re-edit it as the "complete" version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm6-Ss6BmHI

At that point(late 1977/1978)----the only way to experience the Godfather in it's original form was to patiently wait for another theatrical re-run-----a situation not disimilar to what OUT fans are in now.

Whilst the TV version was met with mixed reviews from the critics I doubt there was no where near the same level of fan backlash to Coppola for "altering"the films the way he did.

It has nothing to do with "narrow-mindedness" (unless you're talking about George) or over-dissection of the movie.Being mad at Coppola over that would be like being mad at Lucas because an intern spilled Coke on the Yoda puppet.

Remember the humdinger glitch---- I seem to remember Lucas(and Lucasfilm) getting some tongue in cheek bashing!

But that's not a fair comparison because you're comparing something Coppola had no control over to something Lucas has every control over and wondering why no one is mad at Coppola. To use marketing speak, it's the difference between, "Oh, shit, we screwed up. Sorry about that," and, "It's a deliberate, creative decision."

The Godfather was released in 1997 to mark the 25th anniversary----the editing "misassembly" from the early 1980's could and probably should have been spotted and rectified for this same 1997 re-release------(and Coppola was involved in 97').

I do, however, see what you're getting at, although I have a different reaction. I say it's a shame that it wasn't widely documented back then, and that tools like home video and the Internet have made it much more difficult to get away with crap like that.

That's fair enough and understandable-----but it just seems to me there are 2 sets of standards----one for Lucas...and another for his contempraries/peers

msycamore said:

danny_boy said:

Oh come on dude----Star wars was incredibly popular----that meant that  the original camera negative(OCN) was used extensively to create "new prints" from 1977 to 1981(long before any thoughts were given to preservation)

It is pretty much symptomatic of the era----the OCN of Taxi Driver, The Godfather and Jaws are  in woeful condition too------so much so that the OCN of the Godfather cannot even be passed through a pin registered mechanism anymore without falling apart(but Coppola does not get the type of vitriolic hate that is often attribued to Lucas because of it)

Dude, that's because he have taken care of the issue, these films have been given the care and passion they deserve, they are safe. When Lucas found out about the state of Star Wars, what did he do? not a restoration, that's for sure and that is a pretty big difference. If Coppola had treated The Godfather films in the same way that Lucas have treated Star Wars and its fans the last fifteen years, you would see quite frustrated comments attributed towards him. If you don't get why people are upset, then I don't know what to say, there is actually a reason behind all of this. Do you see George Lucas as a man who really cares deeply about the fans of these films?

You missed my point mate.

The Godfather was eventually treated to a restoration in 2008-----but it was in a severe state of disrepair prior to that point(even though new prints had been struck for the 25th anniversary in 1997)-----but Coppola did not recieve the same type of abuse that Lucas continues to get.

DuracellEnergizer said:

danny_boy said:

CP3S said:

danny_boy said:

The first time I ever saw SW was back to back with Empire in April 81'---and whilst I don't remember the content of the crawl I do remember seeing the crawl!------and this is the point----the advent of home video from the early 1980's onwards has allowed an entire generation to analyse every frame of a movie like SW to the point of saturation.

SW was never designed to be seen that many times----Lucas even says as much in the DVD commentary------the prequels on the other hand---being made in an era where home video was firmly established have been created with the "pause,slo-mo and rewind" generation in mind---hence why every frame is densily packed with visual info.

This may well be some of the most retarded stuff I have ever read on this forum, and I am used to hanging out in the Off Topic section, so that is saying a lot!

 

I guess the truth hurts huh?

You guess? You don't know?

Can you please stop posting portraits of your husband in response to my posts?

Thank you.

Baronlando said:

danny_boy said:

And I guess you don't remember this:

the first two Godfather films had sustained additional damage in the 1980s, when Paramount sent them to an optical house to make new prints. The original rolls were disassembled and then reassembled incorrectly, a cheaper but chemically damaging fill was used, and the films’ lyrical 12' and 16' dissolves were replaced with dissolves of generic length 

Hey no shit, what does that have to do with anything? Some lab goon working for Paramount home video did that.   

Everything.

Where was the fan outrage between the early 1980's to 2006/7  that should have been induced by this error to one of the most influential films in american cinema?

Can't seem to find it anywhere-----it's probably because The Godfather had not been dissected frame by frame by narrow-minded "so called fans" who had/have nothing better to with their time.

CP3S said:

danny_boy said:

CP3S said:

danny_boy said:

The first time I ever saw SW was back to back with Empire in April 81'---and whilst I don't remember the content of the crawl I do remember seeing the crawl!------and this is the point----the advent of home video from the early 1980's onwards has allowed an entire generation to analyse every frame of a movie like SW to the point of saturation.

SW was never designed to be seen that many times----Lucas even says as much in the DVD commentary------the prequels on the other hand---being made in an era where home video was firmly established have been created with the "pause,slo-mo and rewind" generation in mind---hence why every frame is densily packed with visual info.

This may well be some of the most retarded stuff I have ever read on this forum, and I am used to hanging out in the Off Topic section, so that is saying a lot!

 

I guess the truth hurts huh?

Errr, damn, I was wrong. That as a response was the most retarded thing I have ever read on this forum. Hands down. It is a pretty elementary and cliched comeback, not to mention it doesn't even work in the context of what I said.

So you are only on-topic when you bash ol' George or his work or both!

Baronlando said:

danny_boy said: the OCN of the Godfather cannot even be passed through a pin registered mechanism anymore without falling apart(but Coppola does not get the type of vitriolic hate that is often attribued to Lucas because of it)--

 

Hey, remember when Coppola ran the Godfather negative through a 90s computer in order to put Moe Greene on a cartoon dinosaur and to paste Andy Garcia's head on Abe Vigoda's body?

And I guess you don't remember this:

the first two Godfather films had sustained additional damage in the 1980s, when Paramount sent them to an optical house to make new prints. The original rolls were disassembled and then reassembled incorrectly, a cheaper but chemically damaging fill was used, and the films’ lyrical 12' and 16' dissolves were replaced with dissolves of generic length for ease of printing.

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/May2008/PostFocus/page1.php 

CP3S said:

danny_boy said:

The first time I ever saw SW was back to back with Empire in April 81'---and whilst I don't remember the content of the crawl I do remember seeing the crawl!------and this is the point----the advent of home video from the early 1980's onwards has allowed an entire generation to analyse every frame of a movie like SW to the point of saturation.

SW was never designed to be seen that many times----Lucas even says as much in the DVD commentary------the prequels on the other hand---being made in an era where home video was firmly established have been created with the "pause,slo-mo and rewind" generation in mind---hence why every frame is densily packed with visual info.

This may well be some of the most retarded stuff I have ever read on this forum, and I am used to hanging out in the Off Topic section, so that is saying a lot!

I guess the truth hurts huh?

Bingowings said:

danny_boy said: Why didn't you bash him in 1981 when he appended the Episode IV title onto Star wars for  that year's re-release?

Believe it or not some people did but I guess the bulk of us were pumped by the prospect of ten more episodes as good and maybe better than The Empire Strikes Back.

The first time I ever saw SW was back to back with Empire in April 81'---and whilst I don't remember the content of the crawl I do remember seeing the crawl!------and this is the point----the advent of home video from the early 1980's onwards has allowed an entire generation to analyse every frame of a movie like SW to the point of saturation.

SW was never designed to be seen that many times----Lucas even says as much in the DVD commentary------the prequels on the other hand---being made in an era where home video was firmly established have been created with the "pause,slo-mo and rewind" generation in mind---hence why every frame is densily packed with visual info.

msycamore said:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/01/whos-replacing-george-lucas-at-lucasfilm

"I also care deeply about our fans and it was important to have someone who would carry on the passion and care that I've given the films over the years."

"Care deeply about his fans", give me a break.

Sure, if he really have given the films this passion and care over the years, why did a film collector need to save his ass back in the '90's when he couldn't find a print of Star Wars in good condition for his so called "restoration". Why is the original negative deteriorated, why are the color separation masters incomplete. Why does he refuse to provide The National Film Registry with prints. Why oh why doesn't he let a true restoration happen?

 

Lucas: "You have to go through and do a whole restoration on it, and you have to do that digitally." "It’s a very, very expensive process to do it."

But the passion and care is there, right?

Oh come on dude----Star wars was incredibly popular----that meant that  the original camera negative(OCN) was used extensively to create "new prints" from 1977 to 1981(long before any thoughts were given to preservation)

It is pretty much symptomatic of the era----the OCN of Taxi Driver, The Godfather and Jaws are  in woeful condition too------so much so that the OCN of the Godfather cannot even be passed through a pin registered mechanism anymore without falling apart(but Coppola does not get the type of vitriolic hate that is often attribued to Lucas because of it)----whilst Taxi Driver and Jaws exibited severe tears in certain areas ------which have been fixed in their respective digital scans------but the the actual physical negatives are fucked.