Well, glad we have pointed that out. I don't see any contradiction either in this scheme.
I don't think you would be happy with a transfer from a print of the original cut of Star Wars. Very few are left, and those that are mostly pink salmon colored. There would be very little of the original color left. Prints of that era do not hold up well. Flash Gordon was not transfer from a print.Originally Posted by Oliver_A
Nah, a new transfer from an old print would have been completely sufficient. I'm sure they could have matched the quality of other anamorphic transfers of important works of science fiction from that period. For example the 1980 Flash Gordon.
If it's not about art, then why are you repeating this Lucasfilm PR BS ("Oh, I am an artist, this 1997 er... 2004 versions were those movies I always envisioned, but were not able to do back in 1977!")
Obviously, giving his films to the public for free was not the topic of this discussion. I'm all for making money with Star Wars. I'm giving tips here how they can make even MORE money.
Huh? Like I said, he's spent the last 15 years of his life working primarily on Star Wars. He could have written a rough outline for the prequels, gave it to a writer and director, had them make the movie and then he could have sat back and cashed the checks. Instead of doing that, he spent 10 years working on them and has continued to work on more Star Wars related projects when he could have passed them off. That sounds alot more like love than business to me but you can think whatever you want.
Clearly you don't know anything about the state of Eastman film stock from the mid 1970. All release prints made in the US would have been of this film stock and would not have a quality image left on them. This is not PR, this is the sad fact, and a huge problem with most films made at that time. The film negatives are not in much better shape. Not until about 1982 or 83 do you start getting a low fade film stock from Eastman that would still be in good shape today.Originally Posted by Oliver_A
Yet another Lucasfilm PR myth repeated. There are good prints left, and I am more than sure that Lucasfilm has the best existing elements in their vaults.
From what source did they remaster the original 1977 crawl, which looks very good (despite being non-anamorphic)?
The BFI has reported (as an answer to the 2006 PR message from Lucasfilm) that they have very good Technicolor copies from the first film.
For someone who claims to be a fan of the originals, you surely repeat lots of Lucasfilm PR BS.
We all know what he said over the time. And how much he repeatedly changed his opinion. How much pride he has in his work is for anyone to see who has watched the 2006 DVD'S.
Ask Charles De Lauzirika about the Blade Runner 5 DVD disc set. I guess we must commend George Lucas for not whoring out to the wishes of his fans, and strictly provide, as any filmmaker with an artistic vision, only Laserdisc transfers of those films who made him famous.
It it would have been another person, lots of things would make much more sense.
As much as you can think whatever you want. For me, the love for the original films (and that's what I am writing about) is practically non-existent. How much love he has for the prequels, I neither do know, nor do I care much about it.
Well we've managed to get you up to 100 posts! ;-)
If anything what you say would be true, then from what source did Lucasfilm master the original 1977 crawl for the 2006 release?
BFI is the British Film Institute. They have reported that they do posess copies of the original films in good shape.
Sorry, but again, you sound like a Lucasfilm PR stooge. There were remasters done before the 1997 special editions, they most probably still have good prints in their vault. The 1993 definitive collection was mastered from a 35mm IP struck in 1985. The PAL laserdiscs for example, were sourced from a different, good-looking print, than the NTSC US versions (fans have compared framing and print defects). The japanese LD's were also sourced from a different print. It was reported that the 1997 colour correction was done using a Technicolor dye print as a reference. The 2006 DVD has the original crawl in good quality, never before seen on ANY home video release.
I can't vouch for its validity but I've read that the credit crawl for that was recreated via computer. Whether you believe that the original prints have all decayed or not, wouldn't it have been easier to make the few changes to the existing SE credit crawl rather than go back to the original for it?
A lot of people have verified the 1977 crawl on the 2006 DVD as real. The lettering, spacing and timing is 100% correct, the star pattern is 100% correct, it shifts horizontally while in motion and again I noticed the dust specks, which are 99.9% evidence that this crawl is indeed the real deal from a real film source.
Because the original credit crawl was created at and by ILM, it existed in their vaults along with all of the other effects shots. The original camera negative however belonged to Fox and was in their possession until Lucasfilm acquired ownership of the film in a deal surrounding Return of the Jedi.
Using a Technicolor print for a color reference, doesn't mean that it is in good enough shape to do a complete transfer from. I could be missing frames or whole scenes.
My understanding is that the separations were done improperly at the time and not checked.
Umm, YOU were the one who started questioning the state of the source materials. The decision whether Lucasfilm WANTS to go this route isn't the end of the story, but a completely DIFFERENT story.
