silverwheel said:
russs15 said:
Try this for starters...
http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=541751
it might be some of what you are looking for
As best as I can tell, this covers all of them.
No, it doesn't. There are more alterations than what that page covers but it is a pretty extensive article.
Harmy said:
Use Subtitle Workshop - if it's the same cut but different speed, you can set the time of first and last subtitle and then it moves all the other subs accordingly.
Sounds wonderful! I never did get this function to work properly when I used SubtitleCreator, will have to try that program. The problem with my file though is that I took the subs from the 2004 DVD and just inserted the "new" lines in the correct order, and deleted the lines in that cut. So it's not a matter of PAL vs NTSC, just a subtitle project in its infancy.
Well, I checked the subtitle file I made but unfortunately it isn't synced at all, so it's not a simple matter of adding a delay value or anything. :( You will need to start from scratch to making them work, a tedious process. But all the lines of dialogue are there at least.
AntcuFaalb said:
Now the question is: What's better, a median-of-three or a TooT?
I've heard that TooT is very effective but I have never been able to try it out for myself. The median script of g-force was very effective at getting rid of the herringbone pattern on my Technidisc-pressing of Star Wars but maybe it's worth a comparison to see which proves to be the most effective method? I recall that Moth3r was pointing out that a multi cap average proved to be more effective to get rid of dotcrawl but a median was more effective at getting rid of dropouts etc.
AntcuFaalb said:
Has someone hacked-up subtitles for LD preservations? If not, then how hard do you think it would be to transform the subtitles/CC on the DVD/Blu-ray to work with the version on the LD?
I made subtitles (a srt file) for the LD transfer but I don't remember if I ever began syncing it. Will have to check.
none said:
I don't think it is a different take. It is noted in the 005 guide that some of the landspeeder shots the timing was changed. Best to use one of the Split versions to see the effect over time, it is generally two to three frames where the landspeeder from the original ends up +3 or -3 frames in the 1997 or 2004.
Yeah, I think you're right. It looks like they indeed used the same footage but it is so heavily manipulated that you can never get them to match up even if you went a few frames backwards and forwards to get their timing right. In the SE the speeder is at the same angle throughout the shot, R2 is in a different position and so on. It just looks like a huge copy and paste job to save time.
none said:
The backgrounds were often stretched vertically as that made the lifting of the speeder easier to recomp.
That is only if the speeder was a composite in the first place. Not only did they stretch the background but they copied the topmost part of the foreground in order to lift the speeder, you can see the clone stamp result all over the place. Something they wouldn't need to do if the foreground and speeder was composite elements.
Also, if comparing them, try to look at something else than the bonus DVD as the DVNR on it is disastrous on shots like these.
EDIT: nevermind, adywan beat me to it. ;)
doubleofive said:
Alright, help me out guys.
It was brought to my attention that 3PO was in a different position during the wipe, but now taking a closer look, everyone is different. Was this a different take they used in the SE and put the original foreground over top?
Yes, they definitely used the original foreground and then enhanced the shot with another take.
doubleofive said:
Was the foreground a composite element originally?
No. You would be able to make out the matting if they did. It's just shot at a low angle to hide the wheels.
I think by keeping the foreground of the low angled original shot and at the same time lift the speeder, it just makes the impression that the speeder is flying way too high above the ground.
Easterhay said:
Was Matthew Woods involved with the sound on the DVDs in 2004? Sorry, I thought he only became involved with the blu-rays. My mistake.
Yes, Matthew Wood was the Supervising Sound Editor on the 2004 DVD production. He may or may not have been directly responsible for those "deliberate creative decisions."
But, even if he hadn't been involved in the production back then, stuff like professional audio and video presentation should normally be expected by customers. But when it comes to Lucasfilm they instead make a promo piece of correcting past mistakes.
How did you like the changes made to Empire for the 1997 theatrical rerelease?
My film is the way I cut it. The other films were changed - a lot. My film, I can tell you just what was done. The Snow Creature [Wampa] was added, which was good for merchandising. It was okay, but I could have lived without it.
When I went up to San Anselmo, California, to see the work in progress on the Special Edition, we looked at the film, and I was making some notes about color changes and sound - never about cutting. No cut changes. And we came to the scene where the group is on Cloud City, walking through a corridor. When I had originally shot it, I was not happy, and I told George I didn't like the set because it was just a corridor and we should have had round openings so you see the city as they walked through. It would have cost a lot of money to open it up and put miniatures out there, and it would have taken more time to build it, and you're always fighting time.
So, I'm sitting in the screening room looking at the scene. They walk down the corridor, and here are the openings and there is the city. I was shocked. I said, "George, look!" And he said, "Yeah. It's a gift for you." But those were the only changes.
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/empire-strikes-back-director-irvin-kershner
Tobar said:
What a weird conclusion to come to. If you want to be known for other things than start making other things.
Still, I find it hard to blame him. There was too much easy money to be made. Fans were waiting and expecting him to do them. We can only try to imagine the pressure he must have had. But it's really sad no matter how you look at it.
generalfrevious said:
What if Lucas decided in 1983 to never make another star wars film again, or anyone else to make any after his death, and it was just limited to the first three films and the EU? Would it be better then, would we no longer have to be ashamed to love this decades tainted franchise that's going to have an even lover reputation ten years from now? Cause right now the SW franchise is not much better than the Superman film series.
Crappy sequels are bound to be released for any franchise sooner or later, it's inevitable but as far as I know you're still able to buy and watch the Superman movies in up to date transfers and video formats. The big demand for the original SW is there but I'm also pretty sure their long absence and other mistreatment haven't exactly helped keeping fans around, some can only take so much before they move on. And why do you care so much what others may think of your favorite films? And to the point of being ashamed, sounds very unhealthy to me.
We know Lucas was done with SW in '83 and according to an interview with Kershner from 2004 he was still sick and tired of it ten years later. He felt trapped by it.
Why do you think Lucas directed The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones himself?
He doesn't like to direct, you know. About 15 years ago, I was with George at one of his parties on the Fourth of July. He said, "You know, I've got to get away from Star Wars. I don't want to be Mr. Star Wars all my life." I said, "George, it's your fate. You created something. The world loves it. Take advantage of it."
"No!" he said, "I want to do other things. I'm tired of it. I don't want everybody going on about Star Wars."
Three years later, we were talking again. He said, "I've come to a conclusion. I have to use Star Wars and make more of the films - and it's worth it. It's inevitable. I have to do it." So he'd changed. He accepted.
And advantage he took, Star Wars became the vehicle for his "creativity." Hence the result, Star Wars movies only in name.
http://www.soundandvision.com/content/empire-strikes-back-director-irvin-kershner
It's a nice interview, make sure to check it out if you haven't.
Easterhay said:
No, the changes go back as far as 1977. It's just that in 1997 the most changes were made. And, obviously, those were the changes which were trumpeted most loudly by Lucasfilm.
It surprises me, though, that on a forum such as this, where fans will pick up on anything and everything (from colour coding to the different fonts used for the subtitles), no-one appears to have noticed the dialogue change that I mentioned. Or has it become de rigeur to just post endlessly about the changes that we don't like? Perhaps that's why the audio cock up with the music during the Death Star battle on the DVD of A New Hope drew so much stick and yet, when Matthew Woods changed it back to how it was originally, there was barely a murmour.
I blame the papers! Appeal to the lowest common denominator by selling bad news and people begin to believe that that's what they want to talk about. The endless negativity is rather wearing, though.
You are welcome to post your findings, you very much seem like the kind of guy who are very interested in film history. Don't be surprised that we on a forum such as this haven't catalogued every audio change in the recent mixes. Speaking for myself, I haven't even heard Lucasfilm's latest and greatest inventions in audio for these films and I'm honestly happy for it.
And seriously do you expect people to applaud and give Matthew Woods a medal for fixing an error he supposedly introduced in 2004? It's like ordering a dinner at a restaurant and when the chef comes out to your table after your complaining, removes the worm that was in the salad with his hands. Do you kiss his feet afterwards for doing so or do you leave the table?
Easterhay said:
The past few comments do present a strong case for the older fans to simply let go - or at least accept that the prequels have their fanbase and are referenced in modern films as much as the original trilogy was in its day. Ergo, when my kids were on half term recently, two of the films they watched were Hop and Marmaduke, both of which had prominent references to the prequels in them.
Now, you can lament that and typically say "Well, that just show how standards are slipping....films aren't as good as they used to be...etc" - I'd expect nothing less on this forum - but you can't deny the success of the prequels and that these "awful" films exist, will continue to exist, and are the reason Star Wars remains so prominent today.
When I said people are still discussing those awful prequel movies fifteen years later I was talking about those fans discussing them in that form that seems to offend you personally. I should perhaps been more clear and said bitching and moaning.
Arnie.d said:
Don't know if anyone is interested, but here is a file with the JSC artwork I made years ago for DVD (also includes the raw scans).
Thanks for posting, Arnie.d! Very nice quality.
And thanks again for your superb job on these, Althor! :)
Fang Zei said:
msycamore,
Yes, it's still up to Disney/Lucasfilm. Without their permission there can't be any remasters/restorations/re-releases, aside from simple repackaging of the existing transfers like the bd/dvd PT and OT combo packs Fox put out this past Fall. Disney could do an OOT restoration and a better SE and let Fox distribute, sure, but as Mr. Cobb so eloquently put it, they didn't pay a whopping $4 Billion just so some other company could get distribution. No, they want it all.
Yeah, sure. Always something that complicate matters. :)
CatBus said:
generalfrevious said:
I wonder... Has the relative unavailability of the OOT made its stature bigger than it otherwise would have been?
Wishful thinking. The Star Wars franchise has been sunk so far in schlocky fourth-rate sci-fantasy for so long that only a very few remember, or care, that it was ever anything else. Add to this the fact that the sci-fi/fantasy media markets have flourished enough in the meantime to have a wide range of excellent-quality work from other creators for people to choose from, and, well, there you have it. The rest of the world has moved on to better things. The OOT is the only reason Star Wars is still culturally relevant at all, sure, but that's hardly the same thing as saying its long absence has been beneficial to its stature.
Very much agree. I could see it being the case if they kept them out of circulation for a few years. But last time they were given a new transfer was over twenty years ago. The brand Star Wars has been whored out and dragged through the mud excessively since then and it doesn't look like it's going to change. The sheer movie magic SW was once associated with instead brings up negative feelings nowadays for most older fans. For the last twenty years there has been a creator that believe he is more important than his work. He is always there to tell you how to watch his work and what it's all about.
Mike O said:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/05/could-disney-finally-give-us-the-remastered-unedited-star-wars-we-want/
We're fucked.
It's just an article basically repeating word for word what Kaminski's articles already says (which I linked to), info that has been up on his sites for years now.
Mike O said:
And that link where Drew talks about Lucas watching the OOT and sinking in his chair the way we do when we watch the SE is particularly heartbreaking. I think it's further damning evidence that like a certain other sci-fi luminary, we're fighting a war we've already lost.
But c'mon, why do you even watch the SE?
Sadly there has never been a war to win, the real situation is that most SW-fans have the battered wife syndrome, they buy their SW-product and then later they whine about it endlessly on message boards. After fifteen years there's still people discussing those awful prequel movies every day. They bought the ticket, they bought the VHS/LD, they bought the DVD and they bought the BD but they still keep going. The same with the SE...
Mike O said:
msycamore said:
Mike O said:
I didn't mean any disrespect, so I apologize if you took it that way. I merely meant that what you were suggesting was that what he was saying was incorrect (Or at least that's how I interpreted what you were saying.). It just sounded like you were saying that he had his facts wrong, and I was wondering why you believed that. I apologize if I came across as confrontational in any way, that was not my intention!
It's cool Mike, no problem. :) I guess in the last bit in my response to you I also appeared a little more grumpy than what's really was the case and intended. Irony doesn't do well in text form and English isn't my first language either. Still, I personally find it difficult to make any sense of what the former ILM'er really is talking about in that vague anecdote. I really recommend anyone who is interested in the subject who haven't yet read the great coverage on the SE over at American Cinematographer to take a look, Kaminski aka Zombie also did a nice summary on the SE restoration here: http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html
We know from the facts presented to us that the original negative was in bad shape when they started to work with it, and that it had to be repaired. The shots on the infamous CRI-stock (mostly optical effect shots, wipes and dissolves etc) had deteriorated and it was decided to digitally recomposite most of those shots, (this is obviously the part where it stopped being a true restoration) in other instances new negative pieces were made from interpositives and separation masters. Had the mindset behind this project only been restoration and not enhancement the faded CRI-stock segments had been lifted from interpositives or separation masters as well. But as we know, the digital recomposites were only the beginning...
But the story from Tanaka about negative being partly dissolved in a chemical solution when reproducing interpositives doesn't sound good no matter what he's talking about in that context. Speaking as a layman the MO sounds very unprofessional. The ones who had the task of cleaning the original negative knew that Star Wars consisted of several different film stocks, it's nothing weird or incredibly unique, so they knew perfectly well what had to be done. The stuff in Tanaka's story sounds more like a clown operation, "Let's do this and see what's comin' out at the other end!" But with Lucasfilm nothing would surprise me any longer.
In the end all of this have nothing to do with the absence of Lucas' original films on DVD or BD anyway. Some fans and nutcases seem to still believe that those deteriorated (I believe 62 shots) on CRI-stock is the reason we cannot get this classic film restored when it's only a case of a single person who doesn't want it to happen.
This sounds like an incredible complicated issue, partially the fault of Lucas' constant revisionism, and partially just of plain old time being unkind to negatives which were apparently used and abused.
Yeah, it definitely was back in the nineties. Today it's a much more easy and much less costly procedure. It's only a question about restoring sixty something deteriorated shots. As film historian and preservationist Robert Harris said back in 2006, "As the original negative of Star Wars, like any number of other effects-intensive films, as well as certain 65mm productions, and all properly cut 16mm productions, was cut A / B roll checkerboard, it means that each and every shot could be easily disconnected from those on either side and replaced -- or removed and used elsewhere, as in the SE, without damage or loss of frames."
Kershner's Empire and Marquand's Jedi are already suppsosed to be in good shape. But as long as George Lucas don't wan't them restored and re-released, I personally think it's very unlikely that Lucasfilm will go against his wishes. He is the director, founder and former owner of the company, friend, shareholder and so on...
About those distribution rights that are so often brought up these days whenever discussions of a potential video rerelease of the original films happen, can someone initiated enough please explain to me what has so dramatically changed about the deals between Lucasfilm and Fox since Disney bought the company? Maybe I'm really stupid but why would anything have changed, Fox has been the distributor for Star Wars all these years, apparently they will retain them for the '77 film in perpetuity. Disney and Lucasfilm is the owner of the films, who then is the company distributing their film seems irrelevant to me, not for the lucky distributor of course.
Someone care to explain this issue to someone who may have missed the whole point. Why would the situation regarding a re-release be any different now than for say ten years ago? Even if Fox is the distributor, isn't it entirely up to Disney/Lucasfilm to decide when or if something is going to be distributed.
Just checked this compilation clip on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cThdJ0mYbo
I think that will be enough. :)
Thanks for posting!
His similar work on Alien was awesome as well. Have still to this day not seen the turkey Battlefield Earth. Have I missed anything?
cruel1079 said:
Thanks for the info. So this means that I will use the unaltered scene, instead of any other option. Again, information like this is helpful, thanks.
The problem is that the original cut scene has never been released (except for bits and pieces in various documentaries) and it's very unlikely it ever will be as the footage is now part of the SE. Attempts have been made to restore the scene but I'm afraid it's not in the quality to be presentable in an edit of the film as far as I know.
I only wanted to point this out as it is a very common misconception, it's also very likely Declan Mulholland had been dubbed by another actor had the scene been kept due to his thick accent.
I wish you good luck with your project, it's a cool idea. I'm sure there are many members around here who are able and willing to help you out.
cruel1079 said:
For the Jabba Scene I was probably going to use the un-edited scene with the fat stand in in the fur (the alternative would be a stop motion Jabba since that was Lucas' original plan).
The fat "stand-in" was actor Declan Mulholland and he was never meant as a stand-in for a planned stop-motion effect despite what Lucas says nowadays. He was meant to be the real Jabba in the original film before the scene was cut. See Kaminski's great article on the subject: http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/jabba.html
Also keep in mind that had the scene not been cut, the scene with Greedo had also been slightly different in terms of dialogue.
Easterhay said:
Reservations remain fully intact, though, on account of there being an absence of a certain bespectacled, bearded bloke in a lumberjack shirt from the photo of the read-through released last week
Backslick (SW & TESB)
Glam metal (ROTJ)
Chewtobacca said:
That's true, and it is puzzling, but I received the impression (from post #24) that csd79 meant different captures of the same disc, rather than differences between captures of different discs/pressings. Perhaps I misunderstood though.
Ah, yes you're right. I misunderstood it. That is puzzling and doesn't seem all right.
Chewtobacca said:
It puzzles me that the problematic fields show up in some captures but not others.
Yeah, I don't get it. It's not the first time either. I recall Mallwalker pointed out some differences between pressings of the Special Collection somewhere.