zombie84

Lucas gets a break in cost, because its done in-house by ILM. So, what would cost Michael Bay $30 million, probably only costs him $25 million. And the price will continue to fall as the years go on. But Lucas will spending much more time than Michael Bay would to convert them because he wants them done right, so the price will probably be back up to $30 million. But trust me, TPM will make a good amount of money. I would predict $70-110 million, but it could be more depending on how well they hype it. Also, its hard to factor in advertising costs--those are paid for, at least in part if not in full, by Twentieth Century Fox. So for Lucasfilm, its a pretty decent gravy train. It also might not be just about money--Lucas will be in his mid-70s by the time the OT is being released, and this might sort of be his last hurrah to enshrine his legacy and create a fun experience with the films that people will remember.

Also, this is a package deal. TPM will do decent business, because it is the first film and people will want to see Star Wars in 3D. AOTC will slump massively, though ROTS will pick up the pace probably close to TPM levels. But then ANH and ESB will skyrocket. ROTJ won't do as well, but likely better than the prequels. So it all evens out--if one film does a bit lesser like AOTC, it is more than made up for by ANH. What is important is the profits at the end of the day, when all six films are over and done with. In any package deal there are weak links that depend on the strong entries to balance out the profit.

I always get a kick out of hearing complaints about 3D. It reminds me of the newspaper articles from when sound and then colour was invented. Literally, its almost verbatim the same sort of phrasing. Of course, a lot of early sound films had terrible, tinny audio, and some early colour films had poor, gimmicky colour effects. Done right, and done enough times, and you don't think about it as a gimmick because you aren't paying attention to it anymore. As far as 3D goes, most films try to draw attention to the effect, because that is why you are paying the premium price to see it. A lot of early sound and colour films had similar marketing philosophy. Then after a while, everyone was doing it, audiences got used to it, and then peope stopped trying to outdo each other in gimmicks and audiences simultaneously stopped paying conscious attention to it.

Ironically, the situation is now reversed--because people are used to colour and sound, if you do part of movie silent or in black and white, it is seen as being self-consciously stylistic, or maybe even gimmicky or pretentious. I have this sneaking suspicion that this will apply to 2D films ("flat pictures"?) at some point in the distant but not too distant future.

Check the official site. Its for real now....

Mixed feelings about starting with Episode I. But at least 2016 or so should be cool.

What is interesting about the 1977 vs 1981 matte painting is that in the 1977 version for some unclear reason the painting was stretched vertically. Which is why the moons are slightly eliptical. The 1981 composited the matte normally, and slightly more blue shifted from the video transfers.

This caused some people to think it was a whole new painting, because the moon looked different. But its just because it was stretched, slighly re-coloured (the 1977 composite has it green shifted), and the composite was moved ever so slightly so its not a perfect alignment. In fact, in either the 1977 or 1981 composite the moons were isolated and re-positioned slightly.

I remember doing a really detailed analysis of this back when the GOUT came up. Then I found the original matte painting and realized how much it had been manipulated. So, for 1977, they stretched it, and then I think moved around the moons and printed them slightly greenish. Probably this was for compositional reasons. 

Maybe his buddy did have a picture. I mean he took a shot of the Luke closeup there. Maybe he has one of the longshot too. Even it was a big blurry you might be able to see what the levels and grading are like.

Yeah just saw that too. All that hubub! Good thing his friend was there, with a video camera too. Its amazing how screwy peoples memories are, eh? No wonder there are so many people who saw Biggs! :p

zombie84 said:

I sent Timdiggerm a PM, asking if it was a weaker yellow, like straw or cream, or a brighter, bolder yellow. This is what he said:

"Well, they were yellow. I'd say it was a fairly strong yellow, yes. Black border, of course. But no, I can't confirm this with photos, though I wish I could."

I have followed up with this, but I thought this was extremely interesting.

 So, following up on this I asked Tim if he was sure, and if he could ask his friend to confirm it. I also have a vague memory of seeing yellow subs on video, I want to say the SE VHS, but I know Dark_Jedi's first release had yellow subs too, so I wanted to be sure he wasn't just remembering some other release. He did start to say he wasn't 100% sure now if the Baltimore print was yellow, but maybe just because I am putting doubt in his mind.

"Well, it's what I remember seeing, yeah. I haven't actually seen any of the various restorations and fanedits other than Ady's ANHR, so if it came from there, it came from screenshots (which means it could have come from screenshots, yes). I'll ask my friend, but I don't know that he'll remember.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I'm not 100% sure, but it's what I remember."

So, I dunno, perhaps less airtight than we thought on second glance, but definitely not something to write off. The story continues...

Randomly, I did come across this on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWRs0ZD8ay4&feature=fvsr

Did anyone here make it? I actually found it pretty neat, although once again they put the blame on Lowry, when it was Lucas who personally fucked up the picture himself. Strangely they quote my site, which I thought pointed out this misconception.

Puggo, can you post a pics of the raw, uncorrected caps of the scenes? Do you still have them?

I sent Timdiggerm a PM, asking if it was a weaker yellow, like straw or cream, or a brighter, bolder yellow. This is what he said:

"Well, they were yellow. I'd say it was a fairly strong yellow, yes. Black border, of course. But no, I can't confirm this with photos, though I wish I could."

I have followed up with this, but I thought this was extremely interesting.

My feeling is that the subtitles should reflect the original authenticity as much as possible. Basically, this script is being used as a "raw material" for people's own purposes. So, if you think the subs should be in the black bars and outside of overscan, you should take the script and edit it to display that way. But the starting point should be theatrical authenticity, which people can then modify for their own preferences.

I guess people who don't have the knowledge to edit the script will kind of get the shaft. But the alternative is shafting everyone not on CRTs, and non-CRTs are the majority now.

I guess this is in reference mainly to Gforce's script, since DJ could edit his how he sees fit. But I am always for theatrical authenticity.

Yeah. The Greedo subs in Puggos print look like they do have a bit of a cream/yellow shift to them, if you want to see it that way. Nothing very strong, but it looks like it is possible that they have a vaguely yellow tint to them. But certainly nothing like what you normally see in yellow subs, which are yellow, very obviously. Has timdiggerm said anything more? If they are a very faint yellow I would easily believe that.

Erikstormtroopers statement seems sensible to me. I know the materials out there are very faded, but if the subs were outright yellow it would survive even if just a bit. The subs are clearly white in all the sources. First the 1977 telecine--this literally IS a theatrical print. It should be struck from the same source as the IB print. Also, the 16mm prints. They too are very clearly white and not a faded off-white. And they too should be the same source as the IB print, just with a 16mm reduction intermediate added. They wouldn't re-transfer the subs for a 16mm library print, as that makes no sense.

So I don't know. I guess at the same time, the Death Star interiors really dont look as blue and green as they do in the IB print, so its always possible. But the previous prints still had them as grey, not white, so there was always density there. I guess if you blow out a light yellow it would turn white. But the title crawl, for example, still has colour in it, very faded but you can tell it was once yellow. Unlike the subs, which are a pretty bright white. So it just seems a little unbelievable. Has there ever been other footage of the original greedo scene based off 1977 material other than the telecine bootleg and 16mm prints?

Maybe they made yellow subs for foreign prints, but without proof I am extremely skeptical. Telecine bootleg--white. 16mm print--white. Home video--white. Plus no one else ever said, "how come they changed the subs to white for the video releases?" Plus the theatrical SE was white.

Could be true, but without something more than the word of one man I would say there's little merit to this claim. Could you quote his statements?

Cool.

About the wipes. I wonder: they obviously weren't matching them exactly. But what I am curious in this: did they just set a standard time for the wipes? As in "2 seconds is the standard time for wipes and seems to correspond to the original footage we have run." But in reality, the original footage wiped 1 second and 22 frames for one, 1 second and 23 frames for another, and one occassion 2 seconds and 5 frames. I haven't checked any of the footage but is it possible that the new wipes are set to the same amount of transition time thinking this was correct while the original wipes wavered in duration a bit?

Hmm, you are right the second shot matches. It looks like what they did was re-use the original foreground element, but they didn't use the same section for the first shot.

005: The TIE fighter POV shot looks like it has a redone canopy. If you look at the shadows, you can see that the 1977 has some shadows falling on it, while the 2004 version has a basically clean look. The X-wing is CG too, so probably the shot was 100% redone from scratch using CGI.

Baronlando said:

zombie84 said:

-1977 IP. My impression was that these are worn to bits, and the start of the film tends to be more worn due to handling. But could be a possibility.

This one is intriguing. They've always implied they were hopelessly trashed, a victim of success. But why would they be any worse off than other hit movies of the era? Ultimately, Grease and Saturday Night Fever, etc. played just as wide and it's not like Fox was using monkeys to handle it.

 I doubt the original IPs to those film would be a preferrable source to use as well.

Truth is, the original crawl seen in the GOUT could be from anywhere. Print master, IP, O-neg. I don't know. I mean, if you think about it they have all the material there and its not any harder to scan the original negative section than it would be to scan a print master. But you don't want to handle the negative unnecessarily, so for a crappy bonus video that low quality to begin with my money is on some kind of theatrical print or original IP. What I am curious is when this was done. Was it new or did they pull the video transfer that was done for Empire of Dreams? If its the latter, why does the transfer on EOD look completely different. Or was this done neither for EOD nor this release but was catalogued by LFL at some other time? It's a bit mysterious.

No one knows. It looks like a new transfer.

Possibilities:

-1977 negatives. IMO doesn't look this good though.

-1977 separation masters. I doubt they would scan and composite three different film pieces.

-1977 print masters. Possibly, if they were stored correctly. Would explain the gate weave too, due to shrinking.

-1977 IP. My impression was that these are worn to bits, and the start of the film tends to be more worn due to handling. But could be a possibility.

-1977 Technicolor prints. Another possibility, but IMO unlikely simply because this was something Lucas had printed for himself and kept in his home.

I am guessing they just pulled a print master out of an archive. But who the hell knows. I mean, if they took the original negative and did a standard-def scan who is to say that it wouldn't look similar to that? Where and most importantly when this piece came from has always been a bit of a mystery to me. The crawl appeared in Empire of Dreams but it is clearly a separate source of some sort. Maybe they re-compressed that original scan for the doc, but the footage found there does look like it is a totally different source and/or scan, however, it really is a big coincidence that the first time this was ever telecined was for that doc and now here all of a sudden for a release that only had to use existing materials it was included. So who knows.

Wait, so has the project been rendered and finished? Because all you have to do to cover up the letterbox bars is just use the video editor you are using and put a black mask over those sections, most editors have a tool for doing letterboxing over top of the existing video.

Anchorhead: Thanks for the correction; page has been updated. And thanks for the praise. I have to say, the feeling is mutual: reading your posts and interacting with you the last few years has given me an invaluable insight into the films that I doubt I would have otherwise. You are a rare breed of fan that most people my age don't get access to, and it sort of saddens me to think of the loss that people will have when they don't have first-hand access to people that have been around since 1977 but didn't keep up with the Lucasfilm machine.

005: I decided to post news on the CNET article, so thanks for bringing that to everyones attention. I will also be updating the SE page soon with your newer screenshot efforts.

None: As far as I remember, Rinzler's recent SW book was frighteningly accurate about portraying the films as they were, instead of how Lucas today wishes they were. Not 100% of course, there are a few inaccuracies, but in any book that size there will be.

Replacing the letterbox will cut down on file size and make encoding a hell of a lot easier. Instead of having to render all those changing colours and gradients, it will just be one block of colour information constantly through the film.

Actually, I would say a Lucas employee would never say that, since I think Puggo was suggesting it was an unintended shot at the SE--the Jabba CG is so bad people thought it was from the 70s.

That is why I would suggest rotoscoping the eyebrows alone and re-colouring the eyes using After Effects. I don't know if you would be able to see a composite is even there if it was just the eyebrows. But if you are using the GKAR for the whole shot, I don't know if the cross-cutting between Luke and Vader switching between two clearly different sources would work. Of course, I guess you would have to see it to judge it, I know GKAR isn't as bad as the GOUT, but to me in theory I would expect the cross-cutting to be a little jarring. It is, of course, much easier than doing AE work, so I guess it depends on how much time you are willing to invest.

ChainsawAsh said:

I believe they used a separation master for The Wizard of Oz, too, and that looks pretty fantastic.

 Wizard of Oz was shot in 3-strip Technicolor and was restored using the 3-strip original negatives. It is essentially the same technology as the 3-strip separation masters for Star Wars, except this is how the negative to Wizard of Oz was shot rather than the duplicate negative for Star Wars.