Star Wars discussion from The Bits... (1 Viewer)

[Josh Simpson]

Lucasfilm, if you are monitoring this, I also will not buy these movies if there are anamorphic transfers. From the announcement I have gone from elated to being very disappointed. I don't need digital cleanup. Anamorphic enhancement is a must. Thank you.

 

[Jack _Webster]

I need to apologize for things I said in the previous thread. I mentioned that I was disgusted with George Lucas and that he would have no future business from me in the future.

I said this in anger and it was an impulse statement. I've never particularly been against the "Special Editions", but I feel that it is wrong for GL to release these in the format he is about to.

I've brought myself down to earth a bit, and am cooled off. But I honestly can't see myself buying a dvd release that is non-anamorphic. Not at this stage in dvd. Please, Lucasfilm, release these in anamorphic widescreen. Give these historical films the treatment they deserve.

 

[Mark-P]

Should the Original Trilogy be restored for posterity? Absolutely.
Should the restored editions be made available to consumers in the highest quality possible? Certainly, if not on DVD then HDDVD/Blu-Ray.

Now let me play devil's advocate. This forum is flooded with die-hards who have been clamoring for the unaltered trilogy. Do they represent the buying public as a whole? I can't say. Mr. Lucas doesn't seem to think so. Speaking for myself, I had no intention of buying the Sept 12th release even if it had been anamorphic and Dolby digital EX. Why? Because I like the new souped-up special editions. They are more enjoyable and the special effects are superior. Personally, I have no desire see to the original versions ever again. And it's just possible that the majority of the buying public feels the same way and this set might not have sold enough copies to finance a restoration.

 

[MarkHastings]

I will agree that it's sad that these won't be anamorphically enhanced. I would buy them in an instant if they were anamorphic, but now I may be rethinking my purchase.

 

[Bryan X]

It's simply bewildering. Lucas created THX to bring us quality presentation in the theater and home. Lucas had minimum requirements for theaters who wanted to show Star Wars. Yet there is absolutely no effort made at a quality presentation of the three films that started it all.

I will NOT buy these discs if they are released non-anamorphic.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Guys,

Just to let you know....

I have contacted Video Business and Home Media Retailing
Magazine about this situation.

These are two leading trade publications and at least one has
expressed an interest in covering this story. I am awaiting to
hear from the second magazine.

I have pointed out that LucasFilm is simply slapping a 13-year-old
transfer on DVD with absolutely little to no restoration and as a
non-anamporphic release.

Folks, this is a 13-year-old transfer they are slapping on
this DVD. Think about that!

I am being urged to tell all of you this....

Make as much noise about this as possible.

Please write emails to the address we have given above.

Use this thread to politely express your dissatisfaction and
make a point that these DVDs be given the same restoration
effort that were given to the Special Editions.

You have no idea how much YOUR efforts here mean to those
who cannot openly voice their own concerns. To be more specific,
I would bet (though just a guess) there are too many people involved
in the DVD Industry who are probably just as upset as all of you. I
can't see anyone who loves these films to be happy about the manner
in which they are being released.

Make noise!

 

[Brent M]

Here is a very good editorial that's worth the read(even though it's quite long):

http://www.starwarz.com/tbone/editor...ilogy_dvds.htm


Thanks for the information, Ron and also for responding to the e-mail I sent you earlier today.

 

[RobertR]

Thank you, Mr. Harris, for your involvement in this effort. I appeal to the Lucasfilm people to do these films justice. Even if George Lucas is not personally enamored with these versions, I call upon him and the rest of Lucasfilm to produce a proper restoration out of professional pride, if nothing else. Look at yourselves in the mirror and ask yourselves if you, who consider yourselves one of the best film production companies in the world, really wish to release the old laserdisc transfers as representative of the kind of work you are capable of. Mr. Harris has made it clear that a proper restoration is both possible and not unreasonably difficult. So do the right thing, artistically, professionally, and monetarily.

 

[MikeRS]

It's the bare minimum. A non-anamorphic transfer shouldn't even be contemplated - let alone broadcast as some kind of exciting home video event.

That's what really bothers me. That Jim Ward and Lucasfilm promotions seem to be (insultingly) underestimating the Home Theater audience. I can see them imagining it would fly right past most of the general public, but did they really not anticipate this kind of disappointment from a big chunk of the die-hards - the ones they are obviously targeting RIGHT NOW.

C'mon.

 

[Chris S]

Mr. Harris,

Thank you so much for your participation in this thread. Can you explain the differences between the source options Bill gave in his post (interpositive prints and separation masters) and how those may differ when transferred to DVD? And how would those materials compare to the ones used to restore the 1933 version of King Kong?

And just for the record I would like to add my name to the list of those disappointed with the fact that these films are not be released in anamorphic widescreen.

Thanks,
Chris S.

 

[ShaunG]

No offense to Lucasfilms.

If its too late in the game to makes these releases anamorphic I'd be willing to purchase these discs at Walmart prices ($10/ea.) like all the other 4:3 and letterbox widescreen discs as long as GL would promise a quality release of the original trilogy in the future.

I don't know how Lucasfilms expects to sell them at $30/ea. when customers that already have the 2004SE versions don't need them and the die-hards that want the original trilogy won't buy them because they are not anamorphic. Who is the target market?

P.S. I apologize if I was one of the posters that offended someone in the closed thread.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Thanks Ron- that is exactly what was needed to be done.

this is it fellas, look sharp and get your best pull quotes ready

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Just adding my support to those who have said it much better than I ever can: treat these cinematic treasures on DVD as they deserve to be treated.

 

[richardWI]

legit question:

How is it that the current anamorphic dvd of A New Hope looks so damn good, and yet Lucas is unable to produce the same footage just without the digital cartoons that he keeps shifting around on the various releases? The fact that he keeps changing the digital additions is proof that he's been working from excellent, cleaned and restored, source prints. Wouldn't that have logically been the first step in creating the "special" editions?

 

[Sean Richardson]

I had a question for Robert, or possibly one of the other knowledgable members of this forum.

However, I will precede it by chiming in "un-anamorphic is un-acceptable". People keeping saying '2006 technology' - I prefer to use a little hyperbole; this is technology from the previous millenium; even 2000 technology would be better! Lucasfilms, we expect better of you, and it's your own fault, because you guys have set a pretty damned good bar for us.

Now, Robert, or anybody, there's something that doesn't make sense to me. It's probably just me. The story on the digital bits (and threads as well) is that the negative was destroyed during the restoration process. That actually does make sense to me ... or, at least, enough sense.

But what I don't get is the claim that there is no clean restored version ... some people say it's because the restoration was done at the same time that the Special edition stuff was being inserted, but this doesn't make sense to me. Surely you would not hire the same people do be both restoring the film (which is a specialty art) and doing brand new CGI animation (which is a different specialty art), at the same time, right? It seems to me like there would've been two (or more) teams working, some group restoring the picture, others working on the new effects, and then they'd have to be combined at some point ...

So, am I just stupid? Shouldn't there be a fully restored (as of '97, anyway) version?

I do accept that there's some reason that computers can't just remove all the things which were added in by computers initially, or, at least, that it would be cost-prohibitive to do so. But I really don't understand how it could be that there would be *no* clean version of the restored footage (or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say, their explanation doesn't sufficiently explain it away, to me).

EDIT: whoops, guess I was a bit too slow. So, yeah, same question as the one above me.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Edited response: Ron guessed at best that several folk are dumb founded about this decision.

Why are they remaining tightlipped ? Fear of losing their jobs or worse perhaps

RAH on the other hand is very different as he is most likely the best person to get this sorted.

He's right about moving the release date back to Christmas so that an anamorphic version will be released.

Was The Abyss ever released in anamorphic form ?

Cheers

Oscar

 

[Robert Anthony]

It just seems it doesn't need to be this hard and this boneheaded, it really doesn't.

let's break it down.

The people this is aimed at are the people who would understand how terribly out of date and sub-par a 1993 D1 Laserdisc Master would look when compared to the standard of even bargain bin DVD releases today from any other studio.

You've got the guy behind the restorations of Vertigo and Lawrence of Arabia pretty much VOLUNTEERING to do the work FOR YOU, at a low price, and on time(depending on if/when he gets hired), at a price that will impact the bottom line and expected profit on these things little to not at all, and as a matter of fact, his involvment with the project for that price would probably add prestige and desirability to the project that wasn't there previously, and CERTAINLY wasn't there once the Letterbox Port information was made known.

It's unfolding perfectly in front of you, and at the worst case scenario--you push this set back to late November/Early December. THAT's the worst case if you go this route. If you go the other route--worst case gets worse. Exponentially.

The gamble is that the fans you're targeting this at are as apathetic about the release as you are. And I don't think the odds are as good that is the case. Harris is laying out how to make those odds better for minimal effort on your part, I don't see how this isn't a no-brainer, especially in the face of a large and influential part of your base effectively RISING UP AGAINST YOU almost 6 months before the thing hits shelves along with a new wave of toys and video games.

Hire Harris. Push this thing back about 60 days. Tell everyone why, and tell everyone what's really coming. The ad copy will look nicer. The stories will be more postive. The word of mouth will spread. The product will become more enticing. More copies will be sold.

It seems real easy, to me.

 

[Paul_Scott]

great catch Brent. That editorial is must reading, imo, and really puts everything into a new light.
tho, I'm not sure if it makes much of a difference (as far as divorce-related residuals would go) if the material is labeled as a bonus feature or not- or whether it is sourced from proper materials or not.
But it certainly seems to be a much more rational explanation why these have been kept from seeing the light of day for these last 9 years. And sadly, if this is accurate, and Lucas wouldn't want the practice contested, he would be left no option but to spin it publicly as something it isn't (i.e. that He wasn't happy with the originals, therefore he doesn't want them seen- or that they don't exist at all anymore, which is even more convienent if their existence and eventual disemenation would entail profit sharing with someone who betrayed him and left lasting wounds).

I have a little more sympathy for the man now, but I have to say, I think he's making a bad decision for the long term. Especially if he can't shoot straight about it- he just leaves ill will due to false impressions, and that will hurt in the long term. It would be much better, imo, to take a slight hit occasionally (once on dvd, once on HD, etc) let's say once every ten years or so, as bitter as it may be, and consider that a loss leader to the benefits of maintaining fanbase support.

 

[Robert Harris]

To Mr. Richardson...

You're quite correct in that none of this makes sense. We can only make assumptions (a dangerous thing) based upon the word of Lucas executives and their press releases.

The concept of purposefully destroying archival film elements goes well beyond folly, but that seems to be precisely what we are being told.

To disbelieve the folks at LucasFilm, when we have their statements would seem improper, if not downright rude.

But if we are to believe them, then any reconstruction or restoration must begin from square one. That is, unless whatever sprocketed elements used to create the 1993 masters have somehow survived in another part of the universe.

We seem to be told that this is not the fact.

There are two ways that the new editions could have been created.

1. The original negatives were taken apart and re-used in a different conformation for the production of new versions.

2. The original negatives were scanned and recorded back to film for the same use -- some of which necessitated recomping with new digital effects.

As I have no inside information either from Fox or LucasFilm, all of this is conjecture.

If everything that we are being told is true, and I would prefer not to think otherwise, then reconstructing these films could be a very interesting situation.

Its all rather like walking in a swamp...

at night.

RAH

 

[Robert Anthony]

Especially for a man historically known to ferret away everything he does and archive it, and for a man who has gone before CONGRESS to battle for preservation and spent a good amount of time fighting that fight along Scorsese and other prominent film preservationists. The divergence there would be the definition of folly, I'd think.