What's new

AshJW

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 29, 2013
Messages
1,172
Location
Hamburg, Germany
Real Name
Thomas
I'd wish it will be a super-duper-every-wish-come-true edition.
But, I thing if it comes it will be like Kevin predicts. And that would be ok.
 

Dave MJ

Second Unit
Joined
Feb 26, 2001
Messages
329
Yeah and they already had this argument for 20-some pages. Dead horse.
Not any more dead than this 124 page thread. People have been debating the Raiders blu-ray for years without hard evidence. So I spent a lot of time, effort and money to examine a theatrical print of Raiders and get definitive proof that the blu has revised color instead of just an opinion. I'm trying to share that with the people who love the movie. If you have a problem with people being passionate about movies maybe you are in the wrong forum.
 
Last edited:

ijthompson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
224
Real Name
Jordan
I'm passionate about movies, and about Raiders, and have found your comparisons very illuminating (see what I did there? :p). That said, it is a little aggravating to come into the Star Wars thread and see piles of posts about Raiders. I'm not knocking your views, but I do think they'll get more attention in the Raiders thread (and they deserve the attention, in my opinion).
 

Carabimero

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
5,207
Location
Los Angeles
Real Name
Alan
I repeat, since you asked, I do not think the original unaltered trilogy is immediately on its way to BD. Would love to wake up tomorrow and be proven wrong.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,274
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Apparently, this summer, the first Star Wars Trilogy will be rereleased in theaters (https://www.yahoo.com/movies/star-wars-original-trilogy-special-editions-to-190739017.html). I am very pleased about this, even though they are unfortunately and inexplicably using the 1997 cut of the films (where Han shoots first).

I wonder if they will actually be the 1997 special editions, or if they will simply be using the 2011 Blu-ray versions. On the Alamo page, I didn't see a reference to a specific year.

If they are determined to show these on film, the 1997 versions are the only special edition versions available on 35mm. Perhaps because these are booked at large venues, the organizers do not want to use the 1080p masters that the latest versions exist as, and this was the only compromise available.

It still seems more likely to me that the 2011 versions will be the ones that are shown.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,274
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I didn't see that 1997 mention yesterday, but could have missed it. If they're showing the 1997 versions, the likely explanation is that the Alamo asked the show the movies on 35mm film, and those were the only versions that Fox/Lucasfilm/Disney were willing to provide.

Similar thing happened in 2014 when the Film Forum in NYC was running a complete Alec Guinness retrospective. At first Fox simply refused to grant permission to screen Star Wars, then offered permission to show the Blu-ray, which the Film Forum turned down (they have a 35mm/16mm/DCP only policy and don't show commercial discs). Finally, they were granted permission to host exactly one screening of the 1997 edition on 35mm, with no possibility of additional shows to be allowed. So weirdly, this was the one film in that retrospective that had an advance sell-out where no additional shows were added.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
They're just calling it the 1997 version to tell everyone that it's the Special Editions but it'll be the 2011 versions. I know they have DCPs of the 2011 cuts but I can't see any reason why they would even have DCPs for the 1997 versions or why, if they're going to show the SEs, that they wouldn't use the cuts with the most modern effects.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,274
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
They're just calling it the 1997 version to tell everyone that it's the Special Editions but it'll be the 2011 versions. I know they have DCPs of the 2011 cuts but I can't see any reason why they would even have DCPs for the 1997 versions or why, if they're going to show the SEs, that they wouldn't use the cuts with the most modern effects.

To the best of my knowledge, the 1997 versions do not exist in a commercially available digital format. My thinking is that if these are definitely the 1997 versions, then they're showing them in 35mm. It's unlikely but it's possible. The DCPs with the 2011 cuts are limited to 1080p (which is less than 2K, although not by very much), so maybe Alamo rejected showing 1080p versions. Since the 1997 version exists on 35mm, it could also be re-scanned at 2K or 4K resolution. It doesn't seem like these will be shown at regular movie theaters but at larger venues. The 1080p versions just might not be up to being projected that large.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
To the best of my knowledge, the 1997 versions do not exist in a commercially available digital format. My thinking is that if these are definitely the 1997 versions, then they're showing them in 35mm. It's unlikely but it's possible.
Yeah, if they're using 35mm prints (which, admittedly, I didn't even consider as a possibility on as large of a scale as they're going) then they would have to be the 1997 versions because there can't be enough (any?) prints of the 2004 or 2011 versions. I'm still going with the idea that they're going to be DCPs of the 2011 cuts though.
 

Peter Apruzzese

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 20, 1999
Messages
4,894
Real Name
Peter Apruzzese
Some of Alamo's roadshow tours used 35mm, but not this time.

Reporter Lou Lumineck from the Post confirmed with a spokesman that they will be DCP presentations (at least at the Kings) but didn't indicate which of the Special Edition versions they would be.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,274
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Yeah, if they're using 35mm prints (which, admittedly, I didn't even consider as a possibility on as large of a scale as they're going) then they would have to be the 1997 versions because there can't be enough (any?) prints of the 2004 or 2011 versions. I'm still going with the idea that they're going to be DCPs of the 2011 cuts though.

That's correct, no prints were ever made of the 2004 or 2011 versions. The 1997 version was done on film; the new effects were cut into the original negatives from 1977-1983. For the 2004 DVD versions, Lucasfilm did HD 1080p scans of the 1997 special editions, sent those scans to Lowry for cleanup, and then made changes on top of that work. For the 2011 versions, they took that same master from 2004, made additional changes, and released that. So if you want Star Wars at any resolution greater than 1080p, you have to go back to the 1997 versions on film.

If Alamo requires something with greater than 1080p resolution, and Lucasfilm/Fox/Disney require that only special edition versions can be shown, the only thing that matches both of those criteria would be the 1997 special edition. If resolution isn't a concern (and considering that Disney has shown a willingness to release those 1080p versions to theaters before, and were comfortable with finishing the new movie at 2K, it may not be a concern), then it'll be the 2011 versions. For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with you Travis that the 2011 version is by far the most likely version to be shown.

I'm on the fence about this, on one hand, it sounds cool, on the other hand, I've seen these movies so many times that I don't know if I wanna shell out cash to see versions of the movies I don't prefer in an exhibition format that's not that interesting to me. If someone was showing 35mm prints of Star Wars (be it the 1977 or 1997 version), I'd go, but I'm not as enthusiastic to pay to see the exact same master that I already own a copy of.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I'm on the fence about this, on one hand, it sounds cool, on the other hand, I've seen these movies so many times that I don't know if I wanna shell out cash to see versions of the movies I don't prefer in an exhibition format that's not that interesting to me. If someone was showing 35mm prints of Star Wars (be it the 1977 or 1997 version), I'd go, but I'm not as enthusiastic to pay to see the exact same master that I already own a copy of.
I'm in the same boat. Plus, I just saw the SW 7 movie marathon back in December. That being said, when the tickets go on sale, me or a friend will immediately crack and I'll end up going.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,274
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
I'm in the same boat. Plus, I just saw the SW 7 movie marathon back in December. That being said, when the tickets go on sale, me or a friend will immediately crack and I'll end up going.

That underground screening that you mentioned in Philly, that's the kind of thing I'd go to. This, I dunno. If it was a 35mm print, I would 100% go.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,853
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top