Could the original, unaltered STAR WARS be on its way to Blu-ray? (3 Viewers)

[Carabimero]

At the SE premiere of Empire I spoke to someone who was present during the incidents, who conveyed what was promised, what happened, and what was said afterwards. I can't cite a source, since it was told to me off the record, but the person had no reason to lie to me, and in THE MAKING OF THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK by Rinzler (as well as Arnold's ONCE UPON A GALAXY), nothing anyone said changed my opinion that what I was told that day was true.

As far as my credibility goes, I've been posting here a long time. I'll leave it to others to judge if I'm credible.

 

[Dave MJ]

Dave MJ, I have no way of evaluating screencaps - particularly when they are not in motion and in context. As I said, I recognize that you're not a fan of the Raiders Blu-ray and I respect your strongly held opinion in that area.

Yes, I suppose the difference between these two is due to the color temperature of the projection bulb

Who needs natural skin tones or the subtle blue highlight on Indy's face when you can have it brighter, with less detail and more orange!

35mm

Blu-ray

 

[Carlo_M]

Disclaimer: This is aimed at no one in particular, just a general observation I've made, and opinions I've formed, over the years of participating in various Star Wars threads and witnessing the two factions that tend to form (OOT vs. Director's Right To Do What He Wants).

One thing that in my opinion people in general need to get over is the "deification" of directors. Films are often referred to as solely "their work," or "their vision," as if they're a one-man creative wrecking crew and the hundreds-to-thousands of others working on these films are just hangers-on, hired-hands, lucky to be in the presence of these Cinematic Giants who are incapable of making wrong decisions, and whose "corrections" many years later should never be questioned.

I'll give an example without burning my source. My very close friend of over 20 years, whom I went to college with and whose wedding I was a part of, was a Dreamworks employee for nearly a decade. She was an animator. High level. Most talented person I know personally. Also the nicest person I know.

She sat in many, many meetings with Spielberg for quite a few Dreamworks projects during her tenure. She said that while he came up with absolutely brilliant things that ended up making certain movies great (even ones he didn't direct), he also came up with just as many, if not more, cheesy, corny, and some downright awful ideas, which the room full of creative talent would rein in, and would not make the final screenplay/story/cut.

And that's where the lesson is to be learned. All creative talents need checks and balances. Stephen King famously says "only God gets it right the first time". And this is before he goes on to thank his editors, proofreaders, and his wife for their editorial evisceration of his first draft.

Many of the books written about the time the original trilogy was made relay what a difficult task it was to get those movies made for George. How many times Lucas's decisions in story were challenged by other creative forces involved (cowriters, his wife, Kurtz, etc.). How many changes were made to the story, script, dialogue both pre- and even post-shooting. Check out this article which shows the positive effect that others had on Lucas's final product in 1977, particularly his wife Marcia Lucas.

A revelation is that Marcia was the one who pushed for Obi-wan to die on the Death Star, which originally he was to survive after his first encounter with Vader. It was already well known that she reordered many of the shots that built tension and emotion throughout the film, resulting in the movie we all know and love today.

Starting with Return of the Jedi, Lucas had parted ways with many of the creative forces that challenged him to "do better" on earlier films. To keep rewriting and polishing the scripts. To add warmth and humanity. The success of the first two films gave him cachet to do things his way, hey who are you to tell him what to do, he's George Lucas, Creator of Star Wars. That movie begins showing the compromises of lazy storytelling and George having his way, from a Yes-Man director (many say Lucas himself was more director than Marquand), to a redux of the Death Star conceit, to the copout of Leia being a Skywalker (in order to have Han end up with the girl, thus avoiding Ford's request to kill him off, originally the other Skywalker was not Leia) and thus ruining what for two films was a great classic film love-triangle of "who does the Princess choose, the straight-laced hero or the dashing swashbuckler?" And retroactively resulted in a now-squeamish couple of kissing scenes in Empire.

By the time we get to the Prequels, you have Ultra Yes Man Rick McCallum basically telling us how Phantom Menace is the best SW movie of all time, and how awesome everything is. The rest is history.

So when Lucas makes these changes, yes it is his legal right to make them. But he is not above criticism. And if they're awful changes to audience members, then they're awful changes. Because that's what movies are made for: audiences. If he doesn't want audience feedback on his work, he should just keep them locked at home and refund everyone's ticket prices, because we as a paying audience created his fame and fortune. Just as "without Lucas we have no Star Wars," it is true that "without an audience and fans, there is no Lucasfilm." Film and filmgoer are inescapably linked together through commerce. The act of releasing art to the public invites both acclaim and criticism. It has always been this way, be it movies, books, paintings, plays, musicals, etc.

And as far as I know, he had a tremendous array of artists and special effects workers who worked tirelessly in ILM and Phil Tippett's studios to realize those wonderful effects of the original movies. So that when he erases their work with CGI substitutes twenty years later, then that is disrespectful of their work (which were nominated and/or won Oscars). Lucas didn't create all those models himself. He didn't make every matte painting. He didn't composite every effect on those films.

 

[TravisR]

One thing that in my opinion people in general need to get over is the "deification" of directors. Films are often referred to as solely "their work," or "their vision," as if they're a one-man creative wrecking crew and the hundreds-to-thousands of others working on these films are just hangers-on, hired-hands, lucky to be in the presence of these Cinematic Giants who are incapable of making wrong decisions, and whose "corrections" many years later should never be questioned.

I've always hated the auteur theory or an ownership title because while the director is the captain of the ship, the idea that one guy made a movie is ridiculous and dismissive of the work that everyone on the production puts in. That being said, it seems like most people feel that the director's cut is always the best version... unless they disagree with the changes he's made then the director is a dumb talentless bastard.

 

[Kevin EK]

I don't think anybody is saying that the director is the only artist on a movie.

What we were discussing is that in the case of the Star Wars movies, Lucas was not only the director but the producer and the writer who created it. Granted, he cribbed the material from many earlier sources. But Lucas was the one who put it together.

The other artists and craftsmen who worked with him all knew they were doing work that might or might not make it into the final movie. And yes, when you're making a movie, it should always be welcomed when the artists and craftsmen working on it come up with great ideas. (That's not always the case, sadly) But I have yet to work on any production where the VFX artist believes that they are the creative arbiter of what should be on the screen.



To Dave MJ, I'm not certain what the point is of trying to judge picture quality with screencaps, so the earlier point stands. Nobody is saying that you must like the Blu-ray of Raiders.

 

[Dave MJ]

I don't think anybody is saying that the director is the only artist on a movie.

What we were discussing is that in the case of the Star Wars movies, Lucas was not only the director but the producer and the writer who created it. Granted, he cribbed the material from many earlier sources. But Lucas was the one who put it together.

The other artists and craftsmen who worked with him all knew they were doing work that might or might not make it into the final movie. And yes, when you're making a movie, it should always be welcomed when the artists and craftsmen working on it come up with great ideas. (That's not always the case, sadly) But I have yet to work on any production where the VFX artist believes that they are the creative arbiter of what should be on the screen.



To Dave MJ, I'm not certain what the point is of trying to judge picture quality with screencaps, so the earlier point stands. Nobody is saying that you must like the Blu-ray of Raiders.

You just can't budge an inch can you? Lol. I'd ask you what your reasoning is to disparage the screencaps, but it doesn't matter. The 35mm cap has details and colors which are obliterated in the blu-ray so it could never have looked liked the blu-ray. Pretty simple. The whole movie is like that. But I could sit you down and project the movie for you and I don't think it would matter. Nobody is saying you have to like the original version of Raiders either, if you prefer that Indy and Marion look like Oompa Loompas. So my earlier point stands as well.

 

[Kevin EK]

I appreciate your concern, Dave, but that wasn't my point. It's not a matter of budging an inch. I realize you have a strong opinion in this area and I've already said I respect that.

Screencaps are sadly not reliable for grading picture quality, for a host of reasons that have been discussed at this forum and many others. Too many variables, too many possibilities for the screencap to not actually match what we would see on a properly calibrated HDTV or projection.

That said, I appreciate that you took the time to post the images and I'm not trying to dismiss that. I understand this is something that has bothered you enough to post a fair amount about it.

 

[TravisR]

What we were discussing is that in the case of the Star Wars movies, Lucas was not only the director but the producer and the writer who created it. Granted, he cribbed the material from many earlier sources. But Lucas was the one who put it together.

I don't remember his exact quote but Lucas has said that on Star Wars, he thinks of himself as being like an executive producer on a TV show. Everyone- including the director- is working together to bring what the EP wants to the screen.

 

[Dave H]

Hey Dave,

Thanks for posting those caps.

But I don't believe you can take an image from raw analog film and do a fair apples to apples comparison to a film meant to be seen on Blu-ray. In other words, they are two different mediums and what we are seeing with the caps you are posted is not a fair comparison. Honestly, I think that 35mm cap is not how it is meant to be seen on our monitors or for home viewing; projected, it probably (hopefully) would be brighter and more saturated and not have such a dark, crushed, dull look to it. It just doesn't look right subjectively speaking. On the Super 8, Marion is completely crushed! I don't believe this was ever how the movie was supposed to look.

I always felt the DVD pushed pink and green too much, but that's just me.

The Blu and its warmer look subjectively always felt like Raiders to me.

 

[Worth]

Had a quick look at the Raiders blu again last night, and it's not so much the colour that's the issue, but the contrast - it looks completely blown out. It reminds me of the first Ghostbusters disc.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

I'm just glad Lucas no longer controls whether or not the OT gets released. His actions over the years have amply demonstrated for me over and over that he has complete contempt for the people who love these movies, kind of like William Shatner's attitude towards Trekkies. "Get a life." At some point, Disney will see there is a hundred million to be made from re-releasing the originals "IN THEIR ORIGINAL FORM UNSEEN FOR FORTY YEARS!" and they'll cough up the million to make it happen. It feels weird to be on the side of the studio bean-counters, but in this instance I think it's our best hope.

[Cue someone saying: No...there is another.]

There's a metric crapton of money to be made here; it's only a question of how long it takes the suits at Disney to figure that out.

 

[Dave MJ]

Hey Dave,

Thanks for posting those caps.

But I don't believe you can take an image from raw analog film and do a fair apples to apples comparison to a film meant to be seen on Blu-ray. In other words, they are two different mediums and what we are seeing with the caps you are posted is not a fair comparison. Honestly, I think that 35mm cap is not how it is meant to be seen on our monitors or for home viewing; projected, it probably (hopefully) would be brighter and more saturated and not have such a dark, crushed, dull look to it. It just doesn't look right subjectively speaking. On the Super 8, Marion is completely crushed! I don't believe this was ever how the movie was supposed to look.

I always felt the DVD pushed pink and green too much, but that's just me.

The Blu and its warmer look subjectively always felt like Raiders to me.

That scene (the Ark opening) is much darker on the 35mm by design. The light sources are supposed to be moonlight and the light from the Ark plus bright, glowing ghosts and fire, and that's how it looks. The Super 8mm is even darker (too dark) because it doesn't have as much lattude as 35mm. Each home video version has progressively made that scene brighter until it is overexposed on the blu and loses most of the mood.

That particular frame grab has Marion in shadow, the light from the Ark plays across both of their faces and she goes in and out of shadow. That effect is mostly lost on the blu because it is so over brightened and flat. But I can assure you that frame is how it looks projected. The 35mm doesn't have a cold look, it's warm, just not orange. Flesh tones are more rusty than red or orange.

This is a 4th generation release print, so it has more contrast and less shadow detail than the camera negative or a low contrast print used for video transfer. We aren't used to seeing transfers of release prints.

I find it interesting that you think the 35mm looks wrong somehow but the unnatural bright orange of the blu-ray is somehow correct. If I can get permission to post more screencaps I will. The differences are striking.

 

[Dave MJ]

Had a quick look at the Raiders blu again last night, and it's not so much the colour that's the issue, but the contrast - it looks completely blown out. It reminds me of the first Ghostbusters disc.

It is all way too bright. On some scenes the highlights are dialed down to hide the overexposure, giving it a dull look. Seeing the 35mm was a revelation because indoor and night scenes have a much more moody look.

 

[Dave MJ]

Moved to Raiders thread

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-™-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray.317114/page-36

 

[ijthompson]

Isn't there a Raiders thread?

 

[Dave H]

Interesting comparisons, Dave...especially as close as the Making of Doc is to the 35mm. Can you post more pics of the doc to the 35mm to the Blu? I agree...let's take it to the Raiders thread.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/while-we-wait-for-a-few-words-about-™-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-blu-ray.317114/page-36

 

[Dave MJ]

Fair enough. Moved to that thread.

 

[Joel Fontenot]

So... back to the original question...

Could the original unaltered Star Wars be on its way to Blu-ray?

Had to ask .

 

[Carabimero]

Since you asked, I do not think it is immediately on its way to BD. Would love to wake up tomorrow and be proven wrong.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Isn't there a Raiders thread?

Yeah and they already had this argument for 20-some pages. Dead horse.