I am NOT a fan of CPY. It was so bad compared to the original. CGY is better and consistent with the other 2 prequels.
yotsuya said:
Yup, exactly why those two scenes are plot holes in my book. Both took me right out of the movie.There is no “in my book” when it comes to definitions. You can’t change a definition based on your personal beliefs.
Ah, but you provided the definition and to me both those perfectly meet your definition. I’m not changing the definition, I’m telling you that when I fist saw TFA, both those scenes interrupted the film and for my experience they exactly match the provided definition of a plot hole. R2 waking up didn’t have the same effect.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotHole
Plot Holes are those gaps in a story where things happen without a logical reason. When a Plot Hole involves something essential to a story’s outcome, it can hurt the believability, for those who are bothered by such things. Hitting a Plot Hole at high speed can damage your Willing Suspension of Disbelief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_hole
In fiction, a plot hole, plothole or plot error is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story’s plot. Such inconsistencies include such things as illogical or impossible events, and statements or events that contradict earlier events in the storyline.
So that you actually know what a plot hole is.
Yup, exactly why those two scenes are plot holes in my book. Both took me right out of the movie.
Now let’s look at that claim on the escape from Hoth. How many ships left Hoth without a functioning hyperdrive? 1 - the Millennium Falcon. How many ships got chased from Hoth? 1 - the Millennium Falcon. Now, without a hyperdrive, the Millennium Falcon should have been easy to spot traveling from Jakku in real space. And what did Han say later? Something about the Falcon being easy to track. No, the entire sequence is just too convenient and strains credibility. All that would be needed is for Rey to engage the hyperdrive and have it carry them a short distance before it gives out leading to the necessary repairs that she then performed. And there is no way such a famous ship would not be in the First Order database and no way for it to escape detection (just like Han said). There is no internal consistency in the scene. It is a huge hole in the story.
DrDre - you sir are a master. That is it. Perfection.
TFA has two huge ones that cannot be fixed unless you edit the film.
I must be extremely stupid, what huge plot holes are there in TFA that are inconsolable?
So, the Falcon leaves Jakku… How does Han happen to be right there? Where is the First Order. They were in orbit of Jakku and not having patrols out to detect an escaping ship is incredibly stupid, especially when Kylo Ren is so keen to capture them. The leaked spoilers said they jumped to hyperspace and then Han found them. As it sits it is a huge hole. Then there is Starkiller Base firing on the Republic. Nothing about it is explained in the movie. We know there is a Republic, but how big is it? They have a fleet, so was the entire fleet in one place? They destroyed a system and just how did the people on Takodana see it? Is Takodana is the same star system? How is the republic destroyed by destroying one star system? The Old Republic spanned thousands of system so is this a little upstart or will the Republic regroup? How is the fleet destroyed? Any government dealing with an adversary will have multiple fleets. Was a special event going on that brought all the ships of the fleet together? That entire sequence made no sense. It required me googling info on what they had intended (some of the missing deleted scenes) to even get an idea of what had been intended. As it is now, it just doesn’t work. It leaves more questions than it answers. Lucas managed to not have any such glaring absence of data. He always managed to keep the audience informed about what was going on. This just feels like sloppy writing combined with sloppy last minute edits and the result is a section of the movie that really ruins it for me.
I find it ridiculous that someone would consider Empire a good ending and TFA a cheat, and give reasons like “ESB felt solid” and “Luke needed dialog.”
TESB follows our main characters as they get split up and try to get away from the Empire. Luke goes to train and ends up back with them as they all try to finally get away. The ending gives us our remaining characters safe on a ship in the rebel fleet. Luke and Leia bid Lando and Chewy good luck finding Han and the two take off on a quest. The big story is wrapped up - the rebels are again safe, but they have lost Han. In TFA, the quest was to find Luke… then what. Showing that they found Luke was a weak ending. It’s like if TESB ended with Lando and Chewy landing on Tantooine and learning that Han is on display in Jabba’s palace. The unfinished quest worked better as an ending. Either no Luke or give Luke something interesting to say that makes the scene worth including. What they did didn’t work for me.
I don’t see the ending of TFA as weak (far from it - I loved it because it left me really excited for the next movie while at the same time not being too frustrating a cliffhanger), I can’t think of many plotholes (certainly far fewer than were in the prequels), and frankly I have no idea what you are talking about. Lucas’s “plots” (if you can call them that) were terrible. If we disagree on that then we’re just not going to agree on anything. And dialogue is a huge part of writing, and Lucas may be the worst dialogue writer of all time. The characters in TFA actually felt real, their interactions and motivations felt real, the humor felt lively rather than childish and cringey. It was just all a massive, massive improvement. Fortunately, my opinion is the majority opinion which is why future SW films are going to be more like TFA (which is a lot more like the OT, so I don’t understand how you don’t like it then) than the prequels.
Also, Lucas only directed one of those “first 3 forays into directing” you claim…
And if this was a Trekkie site I’d be crucified, but fuck it: I would watch Into Darkness any day of the week before Wrath of Khan and certainly before any of the prequels. I really just don’t care about originality as much as I do being entertained in sci-fi action movies like these. Something new but shitty isn’t nearly as good as something old but good. (Not that the prequels were exactly innovative - Lucas himself goes on about how they “rhymed” with the originals. TFA actually felt fresher to me despite the parallels with the original, probably because it was a new story with new characters and I didn’t know and still don’t know where it was all going, but we all knew how the prequels would end.)
Being entertained and being entertained intelligently are two different things. These new Star Trek films do not entertain intelligently and that was what made the original popular with fans. Not only some good action adventure, but stories with meat. The Wrath of Khan was about revenge. Into Darkness was about action scenes. The Wrath of Khan is hands down the best written and best produced of the Star Trek movies. Into Darkness couldn’t even make an intelligent plot. No one I know liked it. All the reviews I read of it were horrible. If you like pointless action then maybe it is a good film, but that isn’t science fiction.
And you are incorrect. The three films I was talking about weren’t the OT. Lucas directed THX-1138, American Graffiti, and Star Wars (A New Hope) - all fantastic movies with stellar casts and marvelous performances. So either he got rusty between 1976 and 1998 or the complaints about his directing abilities are incorrect. I love all 6 of his Star Wars stories (not the films equally, but the stories the films tell). I find his dialog writing in the PT to be rushed and careless. In the OT, he spent several years drafting Star Wars and had Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan to clean up Empire and Jedi. He didn’t have any help (credited anyway) for Eps I and III and considering his help for Ep II also penned The Scorpion King, I’m not sure he was of much help with the dialog. I think Lucas failed to put the effort into polishing the dialog. I think the story underneath is stellar.
And yes, I love that the Jedi are a bit twisted in how they do thing. The have been doing things this way for 1000 generations and after that length of time they are bound to be a bit out of touch. That is the point. They aren’t what they once were so they don’t detect Palpatine is the Sith lord. Their slanted view of things is one of the reasons the force it out of balance. And Palpatine takes great advantage of it by creating conflict and playing both sides. His actions are designed to get rid of the Jedi. The ultimate Sith victory scenario. I love how classic the stories are. Their execution could have been better, but I can see past a lot of the stuff that so bugs others. I keep hearing the CG looks fake. Well, in so many pre-CG effects movies I can see the effects so that is nothing new to movie making. A New Hope is so rife with production gaffs that I have a high tolerance for such things in a Star Wars film. I don’t demand perfection to be able to enjoy a story.
None of the first 6 films have any major plot holes. TFA has two huge ones that cannot be fixed unless you edit the film. Things that apparently were originally scripted to happen differently but Abrams the director took some shortcuts that really wreck the story. And the ending does suck. It isn’t an ending, it is a “to be continued” cheat. It puts off the real ending to the next film. More proof that Abrams sucks at ending stories. Each of the first 6 films has a solid ending. Empire nicely segues to Jedi, but the ending feels solid. TFA demands more from Luke than a look. Yeah, Rey found Luke, but now what? That scene should start a movie, not end one. Flying off to find Luke should be where the film ends. Either that or Luke needed some dialog.
So yeah, in the Prequels, I can forgive imperfect dialog, I can forgive a classic Hollywood style romance (which often happens just by the two characters interacting followed by some event that makes them realize they are in love - sound familiar), I can forgive noticeable special effects, but what I can’t forgive is bad writing or a director who rewrites badly during the editing process. Abrams creates great characters and cam write great scenes, but he is inept at writing a satisfactory conclusion to the stories he starts. He has proven that to me time and again. Many award winning writers share my opinion so do many fans of Star Trek and Lost. I bet Kasdan’s original script is far better than the film we got. We got a few token deleted scenes, but there are many more than that. We got a handful of minutes and there is evidently more than 20 minutes of things that were cut. I keep wondering what got cut that would have fixed the issues I have with the film.
I spend too much time with writers. I know few who like Abrams two Star Trek movies and most of my off-line circle of friends were more disappointed in TFA than the PT. As I said, bad writing.
I can only assume you and your writer friends were disappointed in the lack of racist overtones in TFA. Either that or the lack of tentacle porn.
Considering the Rathtars, I’m not sure your statement is correct.
On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being fantastic…and 10 being awful
You’ve got that backwards.
Not to mention putting the PT above TFA for the writing (what?).
Face it, TFA is badly written like all of Abrams projects. Good scenes and good acting can’t save it.
Face it, your opinion is wrong.
See how effective that is?
Seems you have an irrational hatred of Abrams since you gave Into Darkness a “10” (which in your universe apparently means “worst”). It wasn’t a masterpiece but god knows it wasn’t that bad. So something tells me you might be a little biased if you’re going to be so ridiculously hyperbolic about how terrible Abrams’s writing supposedly is. I mean really, Lucas a better writer? The prequels specifically being better written? That’s hysterical.
There are levels to writing. To start with, you have to create a good story. Lucas excels at that (or we wouldn’t be here). Then you have to develop the idea, flesh it out, people it, and develop the characters. Lucas isn’t too bad at that. Then for films, you need to hire a production designer, director, cinematographer, and actors to realize it. According to the general consensus, Lucas failed to adequately develop parts of the story, and didn’t direct his actors well. Those are things Abrams does well. But Abrams has a track record for failing to deliver a satisfactory ending to his stories. Lost started out great but became boring after the first 3 seasons and the ending was weak. Star Trek took a good story telling property and turned it into near senseless action trash. With Star Trek Into Darkness he went the hack route and stole (and stole badly) from the best of the old films. With TFA he gave us a weak plot filled with holes and inconsistencies. He gave us fantastic characters with great scenes and great dialog, but failed to string those scenes into a great story. And so typical of Abrams, he gave us the weakest ending out of 7 films. Weak endings seem to be his hallmark.
Lucas at least gave us good plots even if a lot of the other pieces weren’t up to OT standards.
I spend too much time with writers. I know few who like Abrams two Star Trek movies and most of my off-line circle of friends were more disappointed in TFA than the PT. As I said, bad writing. I’m fairly certain that 8 and 9 are in better hands. They still have a chance to be better than the PT.
By the standards I judge by, TFA failed to be as good as the PT. It failed to capture the vast grandness of the Star Wars universe. Something the PT provided on abundance. Even the OT managed to make the galaxy feel big and vast just with the dialog without showing things. I attribute it to the quality of Lucas’s writing ability. His first 3 forayed into directing produced incredible results. I believe the great fault of the PT lies in the way the story developed and a lack of honest outside editing - one of the big things that was different from the OT. I just think TFA has worse problems.
On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being fantastic…and 10 being awful
You’ve got that backwards.
Not to mention putting the PT above TFA for the writing (what?).
Yeah yeah yeah… you don’t agree with where I put TFA. You have your opinion and I have mine. I think the writing is the most important part of any movie. It is where things start. Face it, TFA is badly written like all of Abrams projects. Good scenes and good acting can’t save it.
On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being fantastic (ANH and TESB) and 10 being awful (Star Trek Into Darkness, Star Trek: Generations, Avatar, and any other movie that is so badly written that it can’t even be considered a cult classic), I rate the prequels something like 4. Rotj would be a 2 and TFA would be a 6 (due to bad writing). I always feel more akin to the story as written than some of the specific directing or acting (some of the biggest complaints about the PT).
I love the glimpse into the Old Republic. The original role of the Jedi, their organization, the weight of their presence. I don’t particularly agree with the timeline. I think the Clone Wars should be longer than 3 years - maybe more like 10. There really isn’t anything in ROTS to indicate how long the war has been going on and then they did the two Clone Wars animated series. But that is outside of the films themselves. I love the way Palpatine is portrayed and I love the influence he has over Anakin. It makes his fall to the dark side inevitable. I love the subtle things Lucas did with his story telling to give the PT the flavor of another era. In many ways it was like watching one of the 50’s epics. The scale, the grandeur, the scope of the story. Being a fan of some cult films as well as the Hollywood classics of the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s (I find it hard to watch most 60’s and 70’s films) I may be immune to some of the things that get the frequent complaints. The love story is very reminiscent of a Hollywood classic.
So yes, I have a lot to like about them, but they are no where near as good as the OT. I rank the OT up there with some of the greatest movies ever made (in fact I only rank 1 movie higher than ANH and TESB). But compared to some of the other science fiction films out there, such as Battle Beyond the Stars (a cult favorite of mine), the PT are superior.
Considering the subjective nature of human vision, not to mention the variation in print tone, I don’t think anyone would have noticed a bulb tint in the theater. I also don’t think it would have changed the tint of the color so much. I still vividly remember watching the 70 mm 5 Star Trek marathon in Denver. Some of the reel changes were painfully obvious because the film would change tint and be more red or yellow than the last one. But the eye quickly adjusted and I forgot until the next obvious reel change. My understanding of how film print sets were assembled indicates this was normal print variation (with the copy I saw being assembled from the best available prints after the original run). They normally tried to match the tone on new film so audiences don’t notice. This was particularly difficult for Pleasantville.
So while I admire your dedication to choices you feel add to the 70’s feel, I don’t agree with the end result.
Most of what I was trying to say initially was that when we perceive a color issue, we tend to over correct. I feel the yellowish tones are an over correction. I don’t think it matches the majority of films have seen. You have a different perspective. That is fine. That is why I’m doing my own color correction. My opinion (on several things) seems to be in a minority around here.
@kk650 - Sorry to hear you took my comments so personally. You are far from the only one to take the skintones too far to the yellow. I’ve noticed it is a common problem. I did the same thing myself on my first few attemps at color correction. Since then I have done a lot of comparison between Star Wars and many other films and done some observations of people and I’ve found that I prefer the mid tone, not too red, not too yellow. That is my preference and I believe that is typical of how most films are color graded. Though I have noticed many films where the skin tones are redder and many where the saturation is upped so the skintones are more orange than peach. Skintones have quite a range and in Star Wars it is particularly noticable between Leia and Tarkin’s more pale skin and Luke, Han, and Ben which are darker. You by no means have to agree with me, but I have yet to add any correction that I find to yellow to my go-to version of the films. I still watch the GOUT or the old LD’s when I want good color.
And as for TFA, I find the original film to be oversaturated and the skin tones too red. It was like he was trying to match that ANH blu-ray skintones. Not good. I think you did an excellent job with the skin tones on TFA, but I think the entire film benefits from lowering the saturation as well as bringing down the red in the skintones. Almost felt like he was going for Fuji color instead of matching the OT’s Kodak color.
I’m gonna come across as a bit of a dick here so I apologize in advance.
I see very little difference between the TFA shots. Actually at first glance, I thought you had accidentally posted the same pictures twice. Wasn’t until I looked really closely that I could see the very slight change in the skintones. I guess if that minuscule difference is something that really bothers you then more power to you, I just don’t see how it’s a difference anyone could notice or care about on casual viewing.
No worries, you don’t last long as a regrader without developing thick skin haha. I don’t see anything dickish about what you wrote there though to be honest, until a couple of years ago I was exactly like you, I didn’t really notice or care whether fleshtones looked too red/green/blue, all I cared about was removing blanket tints, it was creating the V2 Star Wars Semi-Specialised Editions that really opened my eyes in that regard and made me a lot more sensitive to fleshtones. Now its the first thing I look at when regrading because fleshtones are actually really important. When a viewer is watching a film he/she actually spends the majority of the film focused on the faces of the characters which is completely normal, like our eyes gravitate towards a person’s face in a photograph, our brains are hardwired to lock onto faces. I completely understand where you’re coming from because I used to be exactly the same, that’s why i’ve been so surprised that the regrade for The Force Awakens has been as popular as it has been.
What I have noticed is a tendency to over correct. Yes, some of the skintones in the Star Wars movies are too red in their blu-ray versions, but a great many of the corrections remove virtually all of the red creating a very jaundiced look that is just as unnatural as the original red. TFA is particularly bad, but what I find the biggest issue with that one is that it is over saturated. So I very much think that all of these movies need to be corrected to remove some red, but not to the level that many do it. Leia in ANH should never look yellow. She should have a nice pink to her tone - about halfway between the above blu-ray and the offered correction. She seems to have the same skin tone as one of my coworkers. I still remember noticing several of our staff sitting across the table from me in indirect natural lighting and realizing how pink they were. A definite pink tone to the skin. Since I saw that, I have backed off my original corrections and approached it with a lighter hand and the results have been much more pleasing. I’ve also compared them to other movies and found that a lot of films have similar tones.
I can’t speak for Darth Lucas about the recreation of the 81 crawl, but my purpose has been to recreate what was seen on LD and home video. While the handful of prints of the 81 crawl that have been examined don’t show many stars the LD archived versions do so many many stars at a brightness relative to the following scene. Also, in the version I have been working on (which is not complete due to the difficulty of fixing up the flyover portion of the TN1 35 mm scan included with the SSE 1.0 - for me no other source is acceptable) I am trying to use only components that are true to the 81 crawl. The title fade out is identical to TESB, the crawl is identical to the SE, the stars, moons, and planet have been recovered for the most part by Poita, that just leaves an accurate 1981 flyover. It is different in 77, 81, and the 97 SE so for me only the 81 flyover will work. Darth Lucas has pulled his starfield from TESB - which used the same painted starfield, but not the same shot of it. To properly match the 35mm scan of the 77 crawl, some added grain and a tiny bit of gate weave really make the difference. I’ve had too much on plate to work on the flyover or the improved starfield/moons/planet. To be honest, from the quality of the scan, I am going to have to manually edit ever frame of the flyover (roughly 400) to align each from to a known stable version. Some frames are warped and stretched noticeably.
Looks like with the issues it might be just as well that its distribution has been hampered.
Eftydub at MySpleen wants to hear directly from Williarob before he will re-enable the torrent.
For what its worth, I sent the admin who took it down a message. Who knows when they might get it.
Every movie you see that says Dolby Stereo has 4 channel matrixed surround sound. The simplified home version of the decoder was called Dolby Surround and only extracted the surround channel from the existing 4 channel matrixed surround. It is a simple matter to generate an LFE to go with it. The 70 mm 6 track was comprised of left, center, right, surround and two LFE channels. Before Dolby Stereo, you either had optical mono soundtracks or magnetic 6 track (there were some older formats that were 4 track). But there was only one surround channel. The two extra tracks were either mid right and mid left or LFE. 5 front channels kind of made sense with some of the very wide format movies presented on very large screens.
The 1985 and 1993 mixes should be matrixed as well. Some of the later matrixed surround contains 2 surround channels. Dolby Surround equipment can extract 1 surround channel. Dolby ProLogic can extract 1 surround channel and the center. Dolby ProLogic II can extract 2 surround channels and the center. There have to be 2 surround channels to extract or it will just duplicate the single surround channel. LFE is usually mixed with the surround and cut off between 80 and 120 hz. The LFE channel isn’t necessary as most systems will direct the low bass sounds to the subwoofer and filter them out of the surround channels.
The original 77 Dolby Stereo was included in video releases before 1985, including multiple LD releases. I am currently working on a way to extract the original multi channel audio from the stereo source. If it works I should be able to create a 4.1 channel AC3 or DTS file for the original audio. From my first attempt with the 1985 soundtrack, I think I can extract a full 5.1 channels from it and the 1993 soundtrack.
Every movie you see that says Dolby Stereo has 4 channel matrixed surround sound. The simplified home version was called Dolby Surround and only extracted the surround channel from the existing 4 channel matrixed surround. It is a simple matter to generate an LFE to go with it. The 70 mm 6 track was comprised of left, center, right, surround and two LFE channels. Before Dolby Stereo, you either had optical mono soundtracks or magnetic 6 track (there were some older formats that were 4 track). But there was only one surround channel. The two extra tracks were either mid right and mid left or LFE. 5 front channels kind of made sense with some of the very wide format movies presented on very large screens.
The 1985 and 1993 mixes should be matrixed as well. Some of the later matrixed surround contains 2 surround channels. Dolby Surround equipment can extract 1 surround channel. Dolby ProLogic can extract 1 surround channel and the center. Dolby ProLogic II can extract 2 surround channels and the center. There have to be 2 surround channels to extract or it will just duplicate the single surround channel. LFE is usually mixed with the surround and cut off between 80 and 120 hz. The LFE channel isn’t necessary as most systems will direct the low bass sounds to the subwoofer and filter them out of the surround channels.
The original 77 Dolby Stereo was included in video releases before 1985, including multiple LD releases. I am currently working on a way to extract the original multi channel audio from the stereo source. If it works I should be able to create a 4.1 channel AC3 or DTS file for the original audio. From my first attempt with the 1985 soundtrack, I think I can extract a full 5.1 channels from it and the 1993 soundtrack.
Oh yes, I am quite aware of that. But my primary purpose for this remastering project is to replace the missing GOUT 81 crawl. Other than that one short segment, the ANH GOUT is an exact match to the Definitive Edition/Faces LD. But the less I have to do manually the better. Trying to overlay those LD scans over the 35mm film scans is fraught with errors. What you have provided probably would suffice on its own, but I would like to match anything I can detect from the LD’s to keep it as faithful as possible.
Well, that changes things. That is awesome. I’ll have to really look at it later, but that will nicely replace my previous efforts to recreate it. But the two LD source I have do have more stars and have stars all the way through. I suspect it was an issue during duplication, not in the master.
Thanks Poita.
I hate to mention it since you are so busy, but that is the top half of what we see. The frame right before the blockade runner shows up has the rest of the starfield as well as the moons and planet. Both are needed to properly render the starfield.
That image did help me get rid of some ghost stars and add in a few that weren’t in my other sources. So big thanks.
A thought just occurred to me. Wouldn’t it be useful to have the border scanned as well? My understanding is that it is printed using the photographic process, so it is the 3 color black and should faded in the same way. So couldn’t it be used to better predict the original unfaded colors? Just a thought. I like the way your algorithm works. It makes some very nice images.
I’m taking cold medicine so I hope that made sense…
The limitation was the hardware. Computers were not able to handle full raw film scans until recently. In 1993 I bought my first new computer with an impressive 420 MB hard drive and 16 MB of ram. I did an impressive upgrade to two 800 MB hard drives and 32 MB of ram in 1997. Using PNG compression just the titles and opening crawl of A New Hope would fill those two 800 MB hard drives at 1080p resolution. So in 1997 it took massive computing power to just scan the segments they did scan for each film in the Special Edition. No home machine could handle it. In 2004, things were better, but still, storage did not really allow for filming or scanning movies at such high resolutions. Today it really isn’t a problem and they do it on a regular basis. 2k captures everything the average viewer is likely to ever notice. 4k captures everything a discerning viewer is likely to notice. Double that for anything shot on 70 mm (the original negative was actually 65 mm - the extra width is for the magnetic soundtrack) and double it again for anything on IMAX. The original negatives and even a first generation print (usually studio presentation prints and the distribution interpositives) maintains much of that quality (Citizen Kane’s negative was lost long ago, but they did a 4k scan of the print they have for restoration).
With hardware no longer the issue, what becomes important is the original intended resolution. I think Lucas did a great job on that because there is hardly anything that shows up on the blu-rays. The worst I noticed was some traces of blu-screen (I noticed this in 1997 in the theater while watching Empire and I think it is on the blu-ray). I’m not sure if much more would show up at 4k. With such effects heavy films I worry that increasing the resolution will just make the composting artifacts more visible. But Star Wars is already ahead of most films. Many have noticed things in some movies at 1080p that the photoghaphic print process rendered invisible. From the Team Negative One Silver Screen Editon, I did some comparisons between it and the blu-ray to try to figure out the resolution of the details and I found no difference between the SSE and the blu-ray reduced to 50% (960x540). Now, the primary source is a copy of distribution print, so there is bound to be some quality lost in the copying process. But Harmy is working on enhancing the scenes for a full 1080p Despecialized edition, so they are considerably better (in most respects) from the GOUT, so it can be upscaled a bit. His works gives hope that we could see 4k versions of Eps 2 and 3 that wouldn’t look worse than the originals. When you combine the quality of that scan (along with the Empire and Jedi grindhouse versions) and the variables in projection, you get a distribution print quality that isn’t much better than DVD’s. Especially not crip ones played on an upscaling blu-ray player on a 1080p screen. That level of quality hides a multitude of sins that 4k scans reveal in stunning clarity. Star Wars doesn’t seem to have many such sins and I wish Disney would do a quality 4k restoration of the 4 35mm films.