Sign In

mverta

User Group
Members
Join date
15-Apr-2004
Last activity
26-Sep-2020
Posts
521

Post History

Post
#787913
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

I can confirm it.  I am (mostly) out of the country between now and the end of Feb. on a very important gig, career-wise, but Legacy came in on schedule.  When I get back, it's to the business of laying it all out on the website (there will be a mouse-over before/after/otherversions thing where you can scroll through every shot of the film), plus more videos and a documentary in progress.  But that'll be awhile because of some...  well, there's more to the story, yet.  :)

_Mike

Post
#784603
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

ilovewaterslides said:

FrankT said:

I take it Legacy is on schedule for its September release/showing?

He's not releasing it or showing it either.

He's keeping the final product for sale to LFL/Disney if they are somehow interested which would be quite surprising actually.

 It would be more accurate to say I'm keeping it safe for the day when it will be released and/or supplanted by an official, superior release.  It is only a matter of time. Have faith.

Post
#765436
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

@griffindodd - The so-called "destroy order" is real and confirmed.  It's not Disney, it's Fox which is legally obligated to destroy any obtained prints of the original version.  As for distribution, that pipeline is always in flux; technologies improve.  Best to have it at least ready.

@Intruder - having been warned specifically against releasing this publicly, it will be offered up the chain when the time comes.  Life is crazy, think positive and don't worry.  Trust me.

_Mike

Post
#763639
Topic
team negative1 - star wars 1977 - 35mm theatrical version (Released)
Time

Robino said:

Yesterday I had the chance to go to a private screening of an IB TECH Star Wars 1977 35mm print in Los Angeles.

All I can say is wow - this print was in INSANE shape. Great colors and almost no scratches. Basically was in a time capsule - mesmerizing. 

 

Actually, that print was about a 6/7!  Reels 4 &5 were its best.  But just goes to show you that film, especially Tech IB is a beautiful thing; even an average print is wonderful.  Senator, by comparison, is about a 7/7.5.  Glad you enjoyed it.

Post
#762920
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

My goal is absolutely to get it as close to the 1977 version as possible, with two caveats: 1) There is no such thing "THE 1977 version" and 2) I can only do the best with what I have.

To point 1, no two prints look alike (not even two prints struck the same day from the negative), there is no consistency among home releases and the original elements no longer serve as any kind of reference source. So THE look of the original 1977 defies any absolute definition. I make my color and exposure choices based - as anyone has to, now - on best guesses, but those guesses are exhaustively researched, revised, and guided by decades of familiarity with the aesthetic.  

To point 2: I am not looking to improve the film, add things, or revise shots.  There are two ways this becomes hard to stick to - one is when it comes to certain types of damage on the film.  Very rarely can I say with absolute certainty that a particular piece of damage is "original negative damage." Say it's one of those white spots we see in some shots, one that shows up on every print that's ever been struck (that we've SEEN).  Should that be preserved?  Even then, I can't say that white spot was on the original negative as it first came out of the camera after shooting.  And if it wasn't, then it's not original negative, it's damage/dirt/dust. Even if it happened on the way from the camera mag to the developer, it's not original negative.  It was shit floating in the air.  And finding some clear definition for where in the process shit on the negative is good shit and where it's bad shit becomes random and insane and arbitrary.  What, one hour after filming is good shit, but if it showed up two days later while striking IP's it's bad shit?  It's impossible to say, I mean literally impossible.  So in this case, I've decided to follow my own definition, which asks the question: Is it IN the scene, or ON the scene?  If it's on the scene (physically on the emulsion of the negative), then it goes.  Nuked from orbit; the only way to be sure.  If it's something that's IN the scene (a crewmember in the shot) it stays.  It is, technically, much more likely that any true definition of THE 1977 version - the one on the original negative as it came out of the camera - is much closer to my cleaned up version than not.

The other way it's hard to stick to this principle stems from the fact that I am attempting to compensate for working from prints.  Prints are not the negative.  They lose information in the generational copy. Even Tech IB, which is MUCH closer to the original negative than normal prints, is still not representative of the negative either.  To compensate for this, I pull data from multiple prints, and from adjacent frames, in an attempt to build up new complete frames with all the data originally lost in the dupe. Sometimes this process inadvertently improves some elements of a shot - for example, stabilizes some elements or improves flicker.  In the former's case, we know for sure the shot has been improved, in the latter case, we're not so sure - these are old prints, after all; perhaps the flicker is print-based.  Wherever possible, I try to mitigate any accidental improving of elements which are byproducts of my process.  In truth, it's a small percentage, and I've decided they're acceptable compromises compared to the extreme gain in quality.  So in this case, in pursuit of the negative, we take 100 steps forward, 1 step back.  I already do my damndest to mitigate this.  What I can't, I live with.

But in the final analysis, I feel that my version can absolutely be said, with clear conscience, to be representative of "the" 1977 version, and not a revision, whereas the SE sure as shit cannot.  

Post
#762365
Topic
StarWarsLegacy.com - The Official Thread
Time

I guess the reason all this is continually speculated about is because hope springs eternal, and we just can't believe this nightmare is real.

But the discussion is actually over.  No commercial release of Star Wars will get what it actually needs; it's just not revered enough. Nobody in a commercial venue is going through every element of every frame like I am, armed with decades of research, passion, consulting with the original crew, willing to take all the time necessary, develop all the tools necessary to get it done right.  There's nobody saying, "Here's a blank check, let's get this right once and for all no matter what, and put it to bed; let's give this landmark film what it deserves."  That dictum would have to come from the top, and Star Wars has never had that.  It's own creator distanced himself from it.  And fans don't run studios, don't allocate resources.  There is no reason to do this project; people are buying whatever they're given.  That is so true, in fact, that the new films are already taking victory laps a year before the film is even out.  Toys are made, sequels in pre-production, spin-offs funded.  It used to be you had to wait to see if what you had was successful before you committed to anything else.  But they don't have to wait anymore.  They know it will be bought.  People will buy it and like it.  They'll buy whatever they're given, no matter how shitty.  The entire landscape of commercial cinema is billion-dollar-making disposable, forgettable pieces of shit with tie-ins.  That's why there has to be a new Avengers every year or whatever; they can't ride on the wave of reverence and success that a quality film generates.  A couple of weekends, and it's off like a fart in the wind, now; time to make another one quick, before they forget entirely!  

Star Wars was 3 films, not 10 plus spinoffs.  It endured - so much so that they eventually made some prequels.  They were shitty beyond description and STILL couldn't kill the nostalgia. Of course, it's Darth Vader and Luke and Leia that are in the new films; it's those characters and costumes and toys that sell.  Nobody gives a shit about Jar Jar Binks, or Kloo Tu Fuck Tu or whoever from the prequels - we just sort of forget all that happened.  Nobody's dressing up for Halloween as one of those lame-ass droid army, roger-roger things.  Come to think of it - I don't follow this - does the 501st even HAVE a clone trooper division?  They must.  My mom might think they're stormtroopers, but she's thinking of the originals.  Anyway my point is that the original films were powerful enough to plow through the mountain of shitfail that is the prequels and get us to a whole other set of projects. So all the indications are there that the films are deserving; they just don't get what they deserve.  Never have.  I don't believe they will, unless one of us does it, and makes them an offer they can't refuse. They'll probably refuse anyway.  That's certainly my goal, and it's nice to think positive.  But if I thought Star Wars was in better hands, I wouldn't be here.  MAYBE the Reliance clips are not actually the new restoration for any number of reasons we can think up to make ourselves feel better, yeah.  MAYBE.  MAYBE it'll rain beer.  You know, you never know. In the meantime, there is nothing to do but head down and show them how to do it right.