We wouldn't have the GOUT, at least.
If people want to just take it from Lucasfilm, fine.
I love the films too much to just stand by and say "you win." I'll die before that happens. The films will be restored in high def and when that happens, I hope everyone thanks those that fought for it.
There will never be a product with the Star Wars logo on it that sells poorly, ever. The fanbase is so big that no matter what is released, no matter how bad or how good, 50 million people will buy it. It's not like people have a choice anyway--you can either buy the SE, or not have Star Wars in high def. It's the reason why the majority of the people here own the 2004 DVDs--imagine that! It's absurd. But that's the chokehold Lucasfilm has. Special Edition sales numbers tell us a lot about the amount of fans the franchise has, but they don't tell us much about how much approval the Special Edition has, because there is no point of comparison.
dark_jedi said:
No offense zombie, but how do you know what exactly the colors should be? I mean, to play Devils advocate here, who says what you are saying is Gospel and 100% correct?
Well, this is not some hypothetical thing here, this can be factually shown; either the colours should be muted or they should be not be muted.
When you look at the Technicolor prints, look at the older bootlegs, looks at previous telecines, look at trailers, consult reports of original showings, look at the GOUt and realize it has a lack of saturation and then increase that saturation and get a result that approximates all the previously-mentioned sources--it's no coincidence. Lucas even said about the Technicolor print of SW: "That's the Star Wars I shot."
You know colors is just a very heated topic because everyone, well most everyone, see things differently, it will never look great to all, I found that out myself doing this kind of tweaking on a project of mine, it just really boils down to what Harmy wants and likes, and it is always easier dealing with the Folks that agree with you, than disagree, so I will stay out of the color talk in this thread like I have done in a couple of other members threads here to.
Good luck Harmy, just do what looks right to you.
It's not about opinion. This is either one way, or another. And whichever way it is, it can be demonstrated with evidence. Evidence indicates, practically irrefutably, that the stronger colour palette is the more accurate one--not that every choice should be taken as gospel but that, as a rule of thumb, this is the sort of levels that should be present. I realise the SE has a lot of fucked up colours, I'm not saying those should be followed, and I'm not suggesting the I.B. 2010 screening caps should be followed precisely, but I can guarantee you that Harmy is on the right track, in general terms at least. The only time the OT ever looked like it did on the GOUT is in certain analog home video telecines--even on the 1995 THX and 1997 SE telecines the colours make the GOUT look like black and white. The fact that when you dial out the red and increase the saturation the GOUT looks like many other film sources is no coincidence.
The GOUT has a red bias for sure. It's gross. You have to dial out the red a lot. But that's colour casts, not saturation. In terms of saturation, the GOUT might as well be black and white. The SE has a lot of problems, but between the GOUT and the SE, the SE is by far--by far--more closer in terms of saturation. In fact, in some cases, it is undersaturated--for example, the Wampa cave should be blue, which it is in the GOUT when you dial the colours back in, which it is in the 1980 theatrical bootleg, and which it is in the print of ESB I watched a while back; yet in the SE, it is pretty neutral white.
I made an okay page about the OT colours, but it needs to be updated with better pics and such (which is why it was never public yet), but anyway you can see it here:
S_Matt said:
I respect all the arguments for and against but you misunderstood my car analogy. If you're restoring a car, even if you put every single part back that was originally used, you still have to dismantle it first to repair and clean the components.
You do this with film too, though--without changing things (i.e. recomps, etc.). In some cases you have to disassemble the negative in order to cut in duplicate pieces from other sources, for sections that are damaged beyond repair. This happened to Star Wars. With older Technicolor negatives you have to go back to the original dye strips and re-assemble the final negative (with a scan nowadays). Sometimes for Kodak negatives you have to disassemble the colour layers and clean each one individually for dirt sandwiched in between the layers that can't be removed any other way. Etc.
A film is not a car, but if your analogy is to have any relevance it would be in the above. Doing digital recomps is, as was stated, like putting power windows in an old car, or replacing parts with ones that never existed like modern fuel injectors and turbo charging the engine. Or whatever. It'll perform better--but the point of a classic restoration is to bring it to its original state, not improve on that original state. Otherwise you haven't restored anything, you've gone beyond the restoration and enhanced it. For car enthusiasts, a lot of them are fine with that, because performance is usually the bottom line--but in film it isn't about performance, unless you want to acknowledge that its an enhanced version. Blade Runner Final Cut is about performance, about getting the slickest, best possible version of the film, and that's why its "Final Cut," because it's not the original, not a restoration, it's an enhancement that never existed quite like this but is technically superior to the original version in terms of technology (while being respectful of aesthetics, etc. of the original).
That would be like giving it modern internal parts so that the car goes faster than it could have been possible when it was manufactured. In the case of film, you are using technology that never existed back then to give it a clarity and a level of realism that it never had in the first place. The matte lines and film generations are an important artifact of its original production, because that's how the film was. It wasn't clear and seamless and you couldn't see the effects work as clearly as a modern digital composite--and that's an important facet of the film to remember. It had generation grain and matte lines and opacity issues and the composites wobbled around and never timed the same colour. It's an important distinction to its age. The movie comes from that period.
Removing this is removing part of the film's identity. Souping up a classic film or car to perform far better than it ever was possible when it was actually made is fine, but it's not a true restoration in the classic sense, it's an enhancement, and that's a distinction to recognize.
I don't even think the drooling arm is in the movie any more, is it? Didn't it get replaced with an elephant or something?
twooffour said:
Moth3r said:
greenpenguino said:
twooffour said:
Moth3r said:
... 1990s sci-fi film, heavily laden with CGI special effects but enjoyable and entertaining nonetheless.
See also Independence Day (1996), Starship Troopers (1997) and Men in Black (1997).
Discuss.
Nah.
Independence Day is cheesy and stereotypical, but a giant pile of silly fun. It's got Willi Schmidt, Jeff Nerdbloom and a wacky Jew with a beard, for Christ's sake.
Men in Black... WHAT? You troll (and forum administrator).You should add that 'Lost in Space' Remake to the heavily laden cgi list
*mutters* Although I do like that film more than TPM *mutters*
Ask someone to name a sci-fi film of the nineties that is heavily laden with CGI effects, and I suspect that very few would remember name Lost in Space.
And Men in Black is no less a giant pile of silly fun as Independence Day or The Phantom Menace.
Consider also Terminator 2. The original Terminator film was, in my opinion, a classic, even with it's low budget special effects and mono sound mix. The big-budget sequel doesn't particularly gel with the original (in my opinion - I know many would disagree). It is nonetheless a pretty decent sci-fi flick which is great fun to watch on its own merits, if you are able to temporarily forget that there was another - superior - film that preceded it.
I feel the same way about TPM.
Well, in that case something's clearly wrong with you.
Equating MiB to Episode I, simply because they're both "silly", is BEYOND absurd and displays a complete lack of thinking ability.
MiB is "silly", by the virtue of being a COMEDY. It has a funny protagonist, a well-structured storyline, a comical over-the-top villain, and tons and tons of funny one-liners, GAGS and slapstick.
Is it ever boring? Does it ever come off as uninspired, wooden and lazy?Okay, let's look at TPM - it's mostly a "serious" action adventure movie, mostly lighthearted in its tone, but generally less comedic than even ANH.
Its attempt to be comedic is almost exclusively condensed in Jar Jar Binks - now how funny that one was in comparison to Will Smith, Edgar the Bug and Jack Jeebs, I'll leave to you.
Aside from that, it's largely boring, lifeless, has no relatable main characters, and ends up being child-like, sappy and annoying at its worst when little Ani comes into play.
Can you say the same about Mib? Or EVEN Independence Day?
I'd probably put Sebulba on par with any hilarious MiB alien -that one was a really neat creation.
All the "awesome technology and funny gadgets" in TPM is quite cool (even though nowhere as refreshing as in MiB), and it has some amusing alien cameos in the podrace.
But being on par with MiB as a movie? PLEASE.
He said the movie is "a pile of silly fun." Not "it's a comedy," you moron. MIB is silly fun because its an sci-fi action-comedy that's fun to watch, ID4 is silly fun because it's an over the top disaster film that's fun to watch, and TPM is silly fun because it's a lighthearted children's adventure fantasy that's fun to watch. None of them are in the exact same genre, but they all came out around the same time, they all are sci-fi to some degree, they all have a lot of CG special effects, they all have elements of silliness in them, and they all are considered a generally fun ride, if not by consensus than at least by Moth3r. As he said, "It is nonetheless a pretty decent sci-fi flick which is great fun to watch on its own merits". Read the whole post before you make an over the top response.
I don't really care what the intentions of the filmmakers are--the film is what it is. And that's what I want to see--not the film they wanted to make, but the film they did make.
Anything less and anything more isn't a preservation or a restoration in my book. It has it's own merit perhaps, but it's different. There's a name for it--Special Edition. There's already two of them for Star Wars. The kind described here is interesting in its own right but not the same as a restoration or preservation. In fact, the opposite in some ways.
Do not alter the film or its aesthetic. Just restore it.
Removing grain and fixing matte lines is altering the aesthetic of the film and fixing matte lines is altering both the aesthetic and content of the film. Dirt and scratches are instances of foreign objects attaching themselves to the film and damage to the film, and therefore should be removed.
The three original audio soundtracks of 1977 should be included, as they are all equally unique and as much a part of the film as it's original image is.
That's all I would want. No DNR, no updates of the special effects, no new mixes, no nothing. Just a classical restoration.
In her defense, the artwork seems to have been already done when she came along. There was probably a shortlist of four or five pre-selected potentials, which she then chose from; given Lucasfilm's recent history I doubt any of them were the nice Drew Struzan's. Maybe they have to pay more royalties if they use Drew's. (Because, you know, George Billionaire Lucas is a bit strapped for cash these days--he can't even afford to restore the most popular film in history. Poor guy. I hope he makes it through the recession.)
Thanks for the offer; hopefully I can manage on my own, but I will definitely keep that in mind. The deleted scenes and raw footage are from my DVD set, but my understanding is that the Blu Ray has them only in standard def.
Yeah, if it weren't for the deleted scenes this would be 5.1 already, but unfortunately the deleted scenes are 2.0 and they constitute about 40% of the footage here. But I don't want to go mucking about with 5.1 editing until I have a picture lock. Hopefully nothing will change too much because I really like the film as it is, but there might be a little trimming and adding if people think some things are really weird.
Most likely I will be doing a 5.1, of course until it's done it's not a guarantee but I hope that I am able to. This release is basically a beta, just to see how people respond, if there are any problems or more work that is needed. In another month or two hopefully I can improve the sound editing and do a surround upmix and whatever tweaks are necessary as the result of feedback, and author a proper DVD with menus and such.
This will be available on Demonoid in about two hours from now.
I'm not sure if Lucas' kids really know the OT before the SE. Lucas said he wanted to wait until 1997 to show his son the films so he could experience them on the big screen; his son was born in 1989 or something like that, and I'm pretty sure Katie was in 1987, which is pretty close in age. So, it's perfectly possible that she has never actually seen the original and was introduced to it with her brother in 1997.
I met an adult that liked the prequels once, but she also spent her lunch break playing D&D so I'm not sure if she would be considered an average person.
Actually, Lowry worked on the films last, in the workflow. So, the SE changes and colouring were all already there when Lowry received them. ILM did a final pass to re-tweak some of the colours because some of Lowry's clean-up shifted the levels a bit--probably stuff like contrast needing correction due to stabilizing the shimmering film densities and things like that.
Ady--It was a tombstone in a cemetery with an engraving that said:
Star Wars Trilogy
1977-1983
Lucasfilm has a historical pattern of screw ups when it comes to Star Wars on DVD. First TPM has bad colouring and EE to the extreme in 2001, then OTSE is a total and utter fail in 2004, then the OOT is a total and utter fail in 2006. Instead of fixing them, they re-release the OT in at least three additional re-packages with all the same problems--surely if Lucas was aware of the issues he would fix them, if the films are not supposed to look like that. But with him supervising and approving the transfers himself, and watching said transfers himself on a number of occassions, he seems to deem them fine.
They've been airing the HD OT masters for years now. Also, while the SW in Concert tour had the new TPM footage, the OT footage appeared to be the same as the 2004 DVD. Plus, the trailer for the release promoted the films using new TPM footage and the same OT footage from 2004. Also, was it Steve Sansweet who said that the HD masters have been ready for years now?
We will wait and see, as you said. But there is ample reason to doubt Lucasfilm corrected anything, and based on their past history I think optimism is a bit naive. I will add that to me there is some possibility that they may have corrected some of the lightsaber issues, but this is total speculation on my part. It would be nice if they fixed all the issues, I guess, but history is not on Lucasfilm's side.
If it has all or most of the quality control problems of 2004, I'd at least say you've been ripped off.
So, this is done if anyone is interested. I'll upload it as a torrent in the next day or two, I don't know if the forum policy allows openly providing the links so PM me for now. The sound is 2.0 right now, possibly doing a 5.1 upmix sometime in the future. The raw DVD is about 4.9 GB, which is just barely too big to fit on a single layer--are people okay with this size, or would it be more convenient to DVD Shrink it in advance for everyone? I think its like 92% of the original quality so I'm not even sure if there would be a discernable difference.
CO said:As for what you hear on the internet from PT or OOT fans it is all jibberish, as the internet is a small % of all SW fans. So whatever TFN or OT.com say, I don't take it as a true representation of what the fanbase is thinking.
I enjoy coming here because you guys care about the OOT as much as I do, but I got news for you most of my friends are what I call "SW moderates.":
-Love the OOT, but can live with the SE
-Thought the PT was OK, went to see them opening weekend, still think they are inferior to the OT.
-Will probably buy the BluRay Saga Set (depending on if they own a BluRay player,)
-Would love if the OOT was included, but not a deal breaker.
-Havent thought of SW that much anymore, and just enjoy the OT movies when their on Spike and enjoy watching them once in a while on DVD.
CO gets an A+ for this.
Erikstormtrooper said:
I saw this at The Digital Bits and just had to post:
In announcement news today, Shout! Factory has finally revealed that the Battle Beyond the Stars: 30th Anniversary Special Edition will street on Blu-ray and DVD on 7/12 (SRP $26.97 and $19.93). Both will include new transfers from the original internegative.
Too bad Lucas can't afford to make a new transfer of Star Wars.
This deserves to be quoted again.
I'll have to disagree. For the same reason that people look at Rocky as a classic, and realize it had a bunch of sequels that are silly to varying degrees. The original Rocky film is upheld in a different manner than Rocky V or whatever.
The other thing is that there won't be this type of Star Wars stuff forever. If you asked people about the Rocky series in 1992 they'd probably roll their eyes, because Rocky IV and V were fresh in people's minds. Cut to 2000 and the sequels are just the sequels, but the original film is remembered as a classic of American cinema. Same thing with Superman--does Quest For Peace make any difference to Donner's original? But in 1989, people would have said about the Superman series was overplayed. Today, they separate the sequels and the first two films, or the sequels and just the first film.
Also, Star Wars was always thought of a kiddie movies; they just happened to appeal to adults as well. In 1978 there was the Holiday Special; in 1983 there was Return of the Jedi; in 1984 there was Ewoks Caravan of Courage; in 1985 there was Droids and Ewoks. Etc. But people still realize the original film is a classic--it was inaugerated in Congress' National Film Registry in 1989 after all, right after when all this kiddie stuff reached its apex.
So, like I said, right now all this kid stuff in everyone face, but at the end of the day, the original trilogy survives as a classic. Even now, I don't even know how much average people are even aware of stuff like Clone Wars, they might see the DVD box in stores but I think people just generally think of the films. There's always been SW merchandizing aimed at kids--in fact, most of it is.
The Clone Wars series is actually quite adult most of the time, as much and sometimes more so than most of the prequels, and with stuff like Force Unleashed as well I'd say this is actually the most adult-oriented the franchise has ever been.