Star Wars discussion from The Bits... - Page 9

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Still waiting on a response back from LFL. Should probably assume I'm not going to get one. For a big release, they're keeping a stiff upper lip on this whole fiasco.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I'm on the fence on all of this as I have to admit that getting the originals on DVD isn't that important to me. I'm happy with my 2004 set and I'm sure I'll buy the definative (for the time being) Saga set whenever it's released. But I do sympathize with those who want to own the versions they first saw, and I do agree that it should be restored and preserved for film history's sake if nothing else. I'd love to know that the original films are in the hands of a great film restorationist and being treated like classic FILMS, while Lucas does his own thing with the modern digital movies.

RAH.......I have a confession to make: I've never watched Lawrence of Arabia all the way through. But it's my Dad's favorite movie, and when I told him I visited a site where the guy who restored it posted regularly, he thought his son was pretty cool. =)

It would seem to me that whatever Lucasfilm does in the future, the restoration of the trilogy is far from complete. As beautiful as the 2004 transfers are, they're just 1080p HD masters. I find it hard to believe that Lucas intends for those to be the final, archival masters of the films. At the time, the official line was that they didn't work on the trilogy in 4K because "they weren't sure the films were completed to 4K standards". I would think that if a 3rd generation dupe of the 1933 King Kong could benefit from a 4K restoration, then the Star Wars Special Editions certainly could. I think the real reason the films were only worked on in high def is because they had a very limited amount of time to work on them (about 6 months total for all three films as I understand, and Lowry only had them 1 month each) and HD files are easier and faster to work with than 4K. For a DVD-only release, HD was "good enough". But for a Blu-Ray release or a 3-D release in the future that would use 2K or 4K digital projection, I'd think they'd want to have a higher-rez master to work with. There's a guy on originaltrilogy.com claiming he knows somebody that works in a lab that recently washed the negatives of the Star Wars trilogy. I have no idea if he's telling the truth or not (he doesn't name the lab) but it would make since. I believe Lucasfilm would be washing the negatives in preparation for a proper 4K scan of the trilogy. As another poster mentioned, now that Lowry Digital Images is owned by DTS, it's quite possible that Lucasfilm won't be doing any more business with them. I have a feeling that any future restoration work will be done mostly in-house at ILM, so they'd want the negatives as clean as possible prior to the scan. The new 4K masters can then be cleaned up, color timed, have new FX work done (all by ILM's "A"-team, now that they don't have to devote most of their resources to Episode III), and used as the basis for the rumored 30th Anniversary Box Set, 3-D theatrical re-releases, and eventual Blu-Ray release (or HD-DVD, if it happens to win the format war). That, in my opinion, is why so many of the effects in the 2004 DVDs seem rushed or incomplete. The off-looking sabers, the wrongly colored Jabba who at times looks like he was rendered on a Playstation 2, Hayden's head hastily pasted on Shaw's body-none of that matters, because it was never, ever supposed to be a "definative" release. It was the "get a buzz going for ROTS, make us some money, and quit petitioning and bootlegging" release. Lucas was already working full time on Episode III and part-time on the restoration and remastering of THX-1138 (which honestly he was probably far more interested in than yet more Star Wars). The 2004 release was just a stopgap. Give them time and a clean schedule, and I'm sure the next remastering will be terrific.

As for no original prints surviving in the Lucasfilm archives.......didn't articles around 1997 specifically say that Lucas used his own personal 3-strip Technicolor show print as a reference when color-timing the Special Edition? "That's the Star Wars I made....." was his quote at the time. Are we honestly supposed to believe he TRASHED his own personal show print after he was done making a "better" version? No director would do that! That's like losing weight and then tossing out your wedding videos because you look fat in them. If that version means nothing to him, then pull it out of storage, run it through a 4K scanner and slap that puppy on a disc as a true gift to the fans. It would make millions and wouldn't hurt the sales of future standard-def or HD boxsets at all. A little goodwill would go a long way here.

P.S. As a side note, this whole situation reminds me of Jaws. Lucasfilm is the city council wanting to put on a happy public face and keep the truth under wraps, Bill Hunt is Chief Brody blowing the whistle on the dark truth, and Robert Harris is Quint, offering his expert service to fix everybody's problem......for a price, but one that's well worth it.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Stephen,
Nice to know that I'm not the only passionate moviebuff in the city of Indianapolis! Great Post!

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Besides the HUGE non-anamorphic disappointment, I'm also frustrated that Lucas continues to utilize crappy Photoshop images for the series' DVD covers. I'll never understand why he chooses to ignore the magnificent illustrations that could be used instead.

The original artwork was used many times over the years for the VHS and LD releases, but has yet to be properly featured for the DVDs. While I love the original poster art, I'd prefer, for once, Lucas would utilize some of the more unique artwork for the DVDs. These new re-issues, with their (crappy) Photoshop covers, look way too similar to the (many) previous editions, and will likely just end up littering the store shelves.

I also don't understand why Lucas chose not to promote the inclusion of the original versions on the covers. The original versions are the only reasons to purchase these new "limited" editions, albeit in non-anamorphic format.

At $30 for duplicate SE versions, no bonus disc from the previous box set, crappy covers, and non-anamorphic version of the originals, there is no reason for me to purchase them.

Assuming the non-anamorphic issue isn't going to change, I still think it would be better to release the original versions by themselves, rather than as "bonus" features on the SE re-issues. If they were to feature striking artwork (for a change), promote the fact these are the original, "classic" versions (despite being non-anamorphic), and price them no more than $20 SRP, I think they'd sell better. I had something like these in mind... (I might even change my mind, if they were to use covers like these...well, maybe not)

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Count me in as a happy "Definitive" LD Box Set owner, and that is what I'll use anytime I want to watch the OOT. I admit, though, that since the release of the '04 reference DVD's, I've had no desire to watch the OOT on any format.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Hey guys, here's a draft of my letter-
I haven't sent it yet, so if you have any suggestions about tuning up the prose, I'll be happy to take it under advisement


Dear Sirs,
I, like thousands of other fans, greeted the news of the release of the original versions of your studios signature films this Sept, with a mixture of shock and elated surprise.
Which is why it is some disappointment to inform you that you can keep this latest release. I want no part of it. As much as I have enjoyed, and patronized these creations down thru the years, the 'drama' that consistently seems to attend the release of these has just about sickened and soured me off the basic idea of "Star Wars" and Lucasfilm product entirely.
The idea that any studio would try to pass off a 13 year old, low resolution, non anamorphic transfer originally intended for an analog medium as the fruits of an 'exhaustive archive wide search' is at first blush laughable, and with further reflection, offensive.
Frankly I find it a bit embarrassing, as well as degrading, that tens of thousands of past and future customers have to petition you (most likely in vain) to execute this release at even barely more than a public domain level of quality.

Please note, that my unwillingness to purchase this release IN NO WAY SHOULD BE MISCONSTRUED AS A RELUCTANCE TO SPEND MONEY FOR THE ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSIONS OF THESE FILMS-
Rather- it is an unwillingness to reward sub par effort as well as what appears to be a clear disdain for your audience/customers, as well as the product that bears your brandname.

Sincerely,
etc, etc

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Paul,

I can tell you're really holding back! Anyway, you might want to specifically mention that the lack of 16:9 enhancement is the deal breaker.

Regards,

D

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I think that JEDI poster is the worst SW poster ever. Solo looks like Dave Coulier or something Anyway, the September release covers, while crummy Photoshop creations, are not the issue here. I'd be happy if they released these in blank jewel cases! I think we should try to keep our focus on the movies themselves and the astonishing lack of quality and care going into the upcoming DVDs. That said, I do like the first two covers you whipped up.

Dave

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Probably for very good reasons indeed.

There will indoubtly be more information released to further this discussion and free publicity bonanza

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

In case anyone is counting, I won't be buying any release of the original Trilogy that is not of the highest quality possible. Ironically, "THX" was once a symbol of quality and excellence in home video. I say "was once" since that will no longer be the case if these DVDs are released as currently announced. I also feel that this is just a set up for double dips, triple dips, etc down the line. All of the studios, not just LucasFilm, want us to buy their films as many times as possible. So, if this first release is non-anamorphic, the second will be anamorphic, then HD, then "archival" HD, etc etc. I have no problem with passing on this first, inferior, release and waiting for the next one, preferrably restored by one Robert Harris, whom to me signifies everything that "THX" once represented.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

It is really interesting how studios are repackaging their dvds except in the case of New Line & Peter Jackson with regards to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy DVDS.

They did it in the first place and have become the standard of how to market and promote the dvds

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I'm with you there, Steve.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

At last year's Con in Novi, there was a small attempt by local police to curtail the sales of celebrity sex videos, most of which were at or below a child's eye level and had graphic covers. I know that the cops I spoke to said they would "try to do more next year." I wouldn't doubt it if a multi-agency sting was planned and executed to kill all the birtds with one stone -- bootlegged TV & movies, music videos & concerts, celebrity sex videos, etc.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Below is a copy of the e-mail I recently sent to publicity@lucasfilm.com, thanks to Nkosi for providing the general template for it:

Lucasfilm:

As a film enthusiast and Star Wars fan since the age of four, I was excited to learn that the original, unaltered Star Wars trilogy would be coming to DVD on September 12, 2006. However, I have recently learned that the original, unaltered trilogy will be presented only in non-anamorphic widescreen, and this news as quickly eliminated any enthusiasm I once had for this release.

The issues I have with Lucasfilm's releasing the unaltered, original trilogy non-anamorphically are three-fold. First, anamorphic widescreen has become the DVD industry standard for film presentation, Lucasfilm has always prided itself on presenting the best in video and audio quality to its consumers, and this decision flies in the face of the very standards your company has been built on. Second, these are seminal films, which have received Academy Awards and entertained a generation in their original form. If for no other reason than film preservation, these movies deserve better treatment. Finally, it is hard to take the news of such a sub par release as anything other than a slap in the face to the very fans that this release is targeted towards.

It is with great disappointment that I must inform you that I will not be purchasing a copy of the September 12, 2006’s release of the original unaltered Star Wars trilogy on DVD unless the films are released in anamorphic widescreen. Your customers deserve better. It is my hope that Lucasfilm will do whatever it takes (including pushing back the September 12, 2006 release date, if necessary) to remedy this situation and ultimately release the original, unaltered Star Wars trilogy in a manner that respects both the fans and the films themselves.

I appreciate your time concerning this matter.

Sincerely,

Paul Arnette

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Just out of curiosity, if Lucasfilm is intent on working with the '93 Laser Disc digital files, would there be any point in somehow "line replicating" those up to anamorphic?

Someone pointed out that "interpolation" would be the only option here. Essentially, you can't build in any more resolution than is there to begin with, so one could argue that those existing transfers are best, most faithfully represented by offering them "as is".

I guess I'm confused by so much emphasis being put on an anamorphic transfer when--arguably--it won't make all that much difference, qualitatively, as far as the existing transfers are concerned. So if that's what'd make the difference on whether or not to snap these limited editions up, people may as well just buy them. Anamorphic would pretty much be an "in name only" difference in this case.

I guess 16 by 9 enhancement's easier to ask for than a complete restoration of the original film elements, which we all probably know Lucasfilm won't be considering for this already slated release.


--Jack

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Has a fax number been listed? Emails are easy to filter to a trash can without even being read, but faxes have to physically be dealt with. Stacks of complaint faxes would have more of an impact than "virtual" complaints. If this issue is importnat to you, fire off those faxes.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Robert,


I think I understand the issue widescreen set users face with non-anamorphic transfers; zoom jobs don't sound pretty, that's for sure.

In a way, though, wouldn't Lucasfilm simply be doing a "zoom job" on the existing Laser Disc transfers in order to create an anamorphic transfer, given that there'd be no greater amount of resolution data to work from...and so the best they could do would be to try to do the smoothest, algorithmic enlargement so as to give the impression of greater resolution. Resulting in--as another poster suggested--a somewhat more finessed zoom job than what widescreen tv users could do with the press of a few buttons? I don't know, maybe it'd make all the difference in the world with the right kind of software.

Essentially, though, you'd be faced with the same problem of not being able to create any more resolution than is there to begin with... In effect, the non-anamorphic editions would be the same thing after zooming, just without the digital resampling/filtering version of enlargement that could make these files look a little more refined?

addendum:

If that's true, Lucasfilm may have felt an anamorphic edition would be nothing but a fudge job and pointless tweak of of the '93 laser disc files. So, short of a complete restoration, the non-anamorphic release was the way to go...


Just a thought...


--Jack

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I guess it's worth stating then that if Lucasfilm is really intent on working with those existing '93 transfers, insistence upon an anamorphic treatment of them is pointless, and people holding out for that may as well buy the upcoming, NA limited editions. I've probably said that in a hundred different ways, but it might aid some in--if it comes down to it--embracing the token bone George is about to toss out for what it is.

I understand how this might undermine the cause for a new transfer from whatever elements survive, but I've seen a number of people put undue emphasis on the anamorphic issue alone, and it doesn't sound like that addresses the problem at all.

Fascinating stuff. I can see Lucasfilm's dilemma if they're determined to do these on the cheap...



--Jack

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I also don't particularly like that JEDI poster, but there are so few JEDI images available, compared to the many for STAR WARS and EMPIRE. I originally used the "A-style" one-sheet poster art (with the simple image of Luke's hands holding the up-pointed light saber), but it appeared too "plain" next to the others.

I do like the exploding Death Star, since it's a fairly striking image, next to that awful rendition of Han Solo/Dave Coulier. The three look pretty good as a set, unlike the proposed covers, and all previous issues, which seem to have been designed with little effort using obnoxious photo-montages, rather than classic artwork.

The classic artwork of this series has always been an important part of its history and marketing. It's always bothered me that Lucasfilm chooses not to make this history part of their DVD releases.

I do agree, the #1 issue here remains the lack of anamorphic transfers. I just thought I'd add my 2¢ regarding Lucasfilm's continuing neglect of their classic illustrations. It's just another insult to injury.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I stated that in the "other" thread.

Perhaps RAH can provide more detail, but zooming a non-anamorphic DVD (through your TV) is basically what happens when you create an anamorphic DVD from non-anamorphic source material...it's just that your TV may not be able to do as welll a job as if you created the anamorphic version in the computer.

If you choose to create anamorphic video from a non-anamorphic source, the computer can do some nice 'interpolation' that your tv may not be able to do, but just how much of a difference is there really between the two?

I guess you can say that on the software end, there won't be the need for a decent scaler on the consumers end, so going anamorphic may be the better choice...ALTHOUGH, let's look at this example:

While I realize that a lot of people have 16x9 tv's, what about those with 4x3 tv's? Taking non-anamorphic source material - translating it to anamorphic video and then having your DVD player do an anamorphic squish (for 4x3 tvs)....well that's not the best way to do things. Obviously it's better for us 16x9 owners, but maybe Lucasfilms took the 4x3 consumers into consideration on this release???

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I doubt if they put that much thought into it. They're just dumping a laser port. If they determined that it would be a mess to make an anamorphic print from the lasers, they should have just scrapped the idea altogether. If you're going to do something, do it right, and all of that.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

For you guys who are so insistent on calling this a "laser port", you can by the same logic call it a VHS port -- those masters were used to create the THX videocassettes as well. It's just as true, and it sounds much worse.

Actually, my point is that the source tape should be of higher quality than LD. It's still an old master and still less good than a new master would be. But this will not be the same as what you get from copying a laserdisc to DVD -- it should be better.

I realize that in your anger you want to seize upon something quick and easy to call it to express your displeasure, but please be accurate about it -- you're not going to impress or shame someone from Lucasfilm into taking action by mischaracterizing what they're currently offering.

And while I dislike repeating myself, I want to again suggest that people re-read at least the first few pages of the thread before commenting -- I'm seeing the same questions/comments/misunderstandings that have already been addressed. Let's try to keep this thread as noise-free as possible.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

I'm not angry.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

Well as long as the do the UK poster design for the United Kingdom as it was seen outside the cinemas back in December 1977, then that would wow me as that was a cool poster design or what.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/ssinc.../anhposter.gif

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

That would make sense, Lucas relying on his own junky master because he doesn't want to dig up the elements held in the Fox vaults.

Re: Star Wars discussion from The Bits...

If you've seen the US cover its inspired somewhat by the Tom Chantrell poster.

Shame no photo reference seems to exist of the famous "Jung Pose".