Could the original, unaltered STAR WARS be on its way to Blu-ray? (2 Viewers)

[gizzy2000]

Well, look at Rotten Tomatoes, who's audience gauge is based on the percentage of people who gave it a 3.5 or higher. Phantom Menace and Clones are both 60% and Sith is 65%, and that's compared to all 3 original films being at least 95%, and that's all based on hundreds of thousands (and in the case of Ep. III, millions) of ratings. I know it's not entirely accurate, but if the prequels are beloved films then they wouldn't have lower audience ratings than things like Need for Speed. I won't deny that I am not a big fan of the prequels, I'm not angry about them or bitter like so many other fans of the OT are, but I do think they're very poorly written/poorly executed films, and I'd go so far as to say Ep. II was incoherent. Again, I know it's anecdotal, but I spend everyday around late teens & early 20's students that would have grown up with the prequels, and every now and then Star Wars gets brought up in film class discussions (not everyday by any means, but somewhat often since it's a classic), and I just sit back and listen to what they have to say, and I've never heard anyone who thinks the prequels are better, or who even really cares about them. I've even had one student say something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, but Ep. I-III were just bad" and he said he's just someone who's seen them all once, and was by no means a fan, and his comment was met with a chorus of, "oh yeah, those weren't as good" etc. etc. I'm not making this up or exaggerating, I've said before I just look at the prequels objectively and I'm not angry at all, I don't think they should be removed from canon, I just didn't like them and therefore am not concerned with them. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the number of people who like the prequels as much as the originals is the equivalent of the people who like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull better than Raiders of the Lost Ark.

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Maybe the IMDB could be a barometer of the general public's feelings on a normal movie but I would think that something like the Star Wars prequels brings out an unusual amount of people who will either vote it a 1 or a 10.

That being said, if people need to think that the whole world hates the prequels, go for it.

I don't think it's necessarily that the whole world hates the prequels. And those who were kids when they came out are probably going to have some nostalgia for them, but...

Not necessarily. If they were on the level of something like The Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy, I'd agree, but the prequels just aren't very well made films. There are any number of films I loved as a kid that I have still have a certain nostalgic affection for, but now know they're pretty bad. I suspect most kids who grew up with the prequels view them the way I view something like Buck Rogers or The Black Hole now.

This. I LOVE The Black Hole, but I am under no illusion that it is a "good" movie. There are some, for the time, high-quality elements (the visual effects and score, for example), but the movie as a whole is a bizarre mess. However, I still have a nostalgic fondness for it because of how old I was when I first saw it.

What I've often wondered is not whether kids who grew up with the prequels still have a fondness for them, but if they feel quite the same way for them as we do the originals. Of course, we had other movies (and sequels), but there was really nothing quite like the original Star Wars trilogy in terms of a multi-part mythical story (the closest in that regard was probably Back to the Future). In the last 15 years, kids have been growing up with not only the prequels, but also Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Twilight, The Hunger Games, and all the various superhero franchises (including the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe), not to mention the wide variety of genre television out there. (I recently met an 11-year-old girl who was a huge Walking Dead fan, both the show and the comics.)

I may be completely off the mark, but it doesn't seem like Star Wars would be as special to them, and that would be understandable.

 

[ROclockCK]

I agree with Steve in his points, but I should point out that Lucasfilm actually has preserved the original versions of these movies. And we have copies of them on DVD today - just not at the level of quality we would prefer.

...rather, just not at the level of quality they deserve Kevin...for the sake of film history. Although mileage may vary in terms of personal interest in the Star Wars saga, this was a technologically innovative, award-winning, game-changing series of movies. Classic by any measure.

Yet their current state on home video isn't even remotely faithful to what audiences saw back in 1977, 1980, and 1983. Letterboxed...on DVD...at 480i...from a pre-millennium transfer for Laserdisc? I mean, grungy grindhouse releases have been afforded more basic respect on home video. The OOT cuts are now such pallid versions of their original form, modern audiences can be forgiven for wondering what anyone ever saw in them in the first place...a self-fulfilling thing, no?

That prints of the OOT have been protected via Lucasfilm and The National Registry is a good thing for sure, but somehow that just doesn't seem good enough. Not for this landmark series. I'm still confident that Lucasfilm under Disney will see it that way too, and redress the current imbalance via future home video releases.

I don't begrudge Mr. Lucas his creative liberties with the SEs, but there is a long overdue debt to film history yet to be paid.

 

[TravisR]

(I recently met an 11-year-old girl who was a huge Walking Dead fan, both the show and the comics.)

That is simultaneously the coolest and scariest thing I've ever read.

 

[TravisR]

I've even had one student say something along the lines of, "I'm sorry, but Ep. I-III were just bad" and he said he's just someone who's seen them all once, and was by no means a fan, and his comment was met with a chorus of, "oh yeah, those weren't as good" etc. etc. I'm not making this up or exaggerating...

I don't think you're making up or exaggerating anything but I'd be curious to know how many of those people are actually familiar with those movies and how many of them are just repeating what has become an accepted fact on the internet. Similarly, I'd be surprised if that many college age kids have seen The Sopranos (given the age of the show and the kids) but I bet you almost all of them will tell you that the ending sucked.

 

[gizzy2000]

I could certainly ask them about the sopranos, that'd make an interesting experiment. The question isn't why even young kids dislike the prequels, but do they like the prequels, and from my experience with modern youth they just dont remember them too fondly.

 

[Carl Johnson]

Well I've been a Star Wars fan since I saw Return of the Jedi when it was initially released, making me an old fan. Of the six movies the only one that I would say is a truly great film is Empire Strikes Back. Phantom Menace is so bad that I would personally delete it from the Jedi archives if I could. The other four films have high and low points, but they are all entertaining and I'll happily rewatch them.

 

[Carlo_M]

Maybe the IMDB could be a barometer of the general public's feelings on a normal movie but I would think that something like the Star Wars prequels brings out an unusual amount of people who will either vote it a 1 or a 10.

That being said, if people need to think that the whole world hates the prequels, go for it.

Here's proof against the 1 or 10 scenario for TPM. If anything, 10.2% of IMDb voters voted it a 10, while only 3.7% voted it a 1. What's more interesting is that it rates only slightly higher with under 30 year olds (around 6.9 with one weird outlier of 7.5 by girls under 18 which I'm sure for TPM was not its target demographic) as it does over 30 year olds (remarkably consistent and uniform at 6.3). So at best you could say older audiences thought it was worse than younger audiences, but a 6.9 for younger audiences doesn't sound to me like a resounding endorsement of a high quality film.

So TPM pretty consistently rates in the 6.3 - 6.9 range for all ages and sexes, except for that one blip of females under 18, which also has the smallest statistical sample size of only 704 respondents.

From IMDB.com: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120915/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

 

[TravisR]

^ To me, that graph makes it look like it's a fairly well regarded movie. Nothing spectacular but nothing bad either. I like The Phantom Menace well enough and would likely give it a 7 so I'm surprised to see that such a denigrated movie gets nearly a quarter of all voters giving it the same grade as I would.

 

[Kevin EK]

Steve, I agree with you that the Star Wars trilogy are a classic series of movies. Although I do think the first two movies are much stronger than the third one.
And I agree with you that we'd all like to see the original versions on home video in a higher quality presentation.

But again, this doesn't mean they haven't been preserved for film history. Lucasfilm has maintained elements of everything on those movies, and there's also the matter of the movies being preserved for the National Registry. By the way, I'm not certain whether the prints or negatives have actually arrived at the National Registry yet...

And even today, I can take my bonus DVD of each of the original movies and put it in my player, and watch Star Wars in a manner very similar to what I experienced when I saw it in the theater several times between 1977 and 1982. It just isn't in HD picture or sound, and I have to zoom the image if I want it not to just be in a little box. But I do have it. Not having it in HD yet is not the same situation as one where the movies haven't been preserved or presented at all.

 

[FoxyMulder]

And even today, I can take my bonus DVD of each of the original movies and put it in my player, and watch Star Wars in a manner very similar to what I experienced when I saw it in the theater several times between 1977 and 1982. It just isn't in HD picture or sound,

I don't recall seeing edge enhancement halo's at the cinema.

 

[ROclockCK]

And even today, I can take my bonus DVD of each of the original movies and put it in my player, and watch Star Wars in a manner very similar to what I experienced when I saw it in the theater several times between 1977 and 1982. It just isn't in HD picture or sound, and I have to zoom the image if I want it not to just be in a little box. But I do have it. Not having it in HD yet is not the same situation as one where the movies haven't been preserved or presented at all.

Oh well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point Kevin. In the year 2014, a zoomed 480i letterboxed image scanned from intermediary elements is w-a-y too far down the food chain in terms of baseline acceptable quality...especially for this classic series.

Heck, there are homemade YouTube clips which look better than that.

 

[Carlo_M]

^ To me, that graph makes it look like it's a fairly well regarded movie. Nothing spectacular but nothing bad either. I like The Phantom Menace well enough and would likely give it a 7 so I'm surprised to see that such a denigrated movie gets nearly a quarter of all voters giving it the same grade as I would.

And that's where we are going to disagree. 6.6 might be good enough for a movie from a novice director with no built-in fanbase, limited budget, and limited staff and talent to work with.

LFL had hundreds of millions to spend on these movies, the very best effects houses, access to the best production and costume designers and the ability to pick and choose almost any actor they wanted. And you're saying 6.6 is good enough for hundreds of millions of dollars + Neeson, Portman, Jackson, MacGregor? That's where we'll agree to disagree. I think 6.6 given little to no constraints and access to nearly anyone they wanted is falling short of the mark, especially in light of the scores of the original trilogy.

It's great that you liked the PT. But to try and convince me that 6.6 is "fairly well regarded" is where it's clear that our definitions for fairly well regarded differ greatly, especially given all the advantages Star Wars had going for it. 6.6 would be acceptable for a first film by an lesser-known director working with budget constraints and limited access to talent.

 

[JColl]

And even today, I can take my bonus DVD of each of the original movies and put it in my player, and watch Star Wars in a manner very similar to what I experienced when I saw it in the theater several times between 1977 and 1982.

You really should have asked for your money back.

 

[Carlo_M]

And one more thing about that IMDB rating scale for TPM: I think there may have been some movement to try and increase the rating. 10% gave it a 10? I'm sorry, but I personally know several hundred people of all ages, from all walks of life (let's just simplify the number to 200) and I can't think of 20...or 10...or 1 who would rate TPM a 10. I know it's anecdotal, but I do recall that TPM was ranked way worse on IMDB up until maybe the late 2000s (I am recalling a score in the five range) and now suddenly 10% of people rate it a 10? Maybe I'm just running with the wrong crowd.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Oh well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point Kevin. In the year 2014, a zoomed 480i letterboxed image scanned from intermediary elements is w-a-y too far down the food chain in terms of baseline acceptable quality...especially for this classic series.

Heck, there are homemade YouTube clips which look better than that.

 

[Dave H]

I don't recall seeing edge enhancement halo's at the cinema.

I don't recall all of the noise in the image either (and it certainly ain't film grain, folks). Those non-anamorphic DVDs were unwatchable to me as the video and compression noise is beyond horrendous. The quality is so bad I don't think they should have even been released, but they were marketed as a "bonus" feature.

As much as I prefer the originals, I will only watch the Blus which are not exactly high quality either, but at least they are presentable even with their flaws.

Either way, I hope we see new 4K masters of some version of the original trilogy next year.

 

[Dave H]

Regarding the prequels, I think The Phantom Menace has probably aged the best!

 

[Kevin EK]

I find it interesting that the comments about the bonus DVDs with the original cuts all discuss the picture quality. But we all already agreed that the PQ was problematic, given that Lucas did not make them available in anything more than the non-anamorphic 1993 laserdisc masters. As I'm sure the very funny posters are aware, I wasn't heralding the PQ. I was noting that the original cuts are available if we wish to see them on DVD. When I talked of seeing the movies the way I enjoyed them in the theater, I was referring to their content, not to whether the DVD could fill the Avco cinema's huge screen or provide the massive theatrical sound mix. But again, I think people know that.The comments I was addressing had to do with people believing that Lucas had either not preserved the original cuts or that he had destroyed them entirely. My point was that those cuts do exist and are available - just not in the best quality. That said, I would shudder to be a projectionist in Malcolm's neighborhood movie theater... (That was a joke in case anyone thinks I was serious.)

 

[ROclockCK]

If I understand correctly, the point Kevin is making is that the original movies have been preserved for historical purposes in the form of the original elements; whereas Steve, you are talking about preserving the originals in HD form for home consumers. If Kevin is correct and the originals are preserved and archived in negative or print form, then Lucas has discharged his duty to film history. Whether the OT is released to consumers in HD form is another matter, which despite our objections, is quite rightly at the discretion of Disney as the rights holder and/or Lucas as creator.

I understand that distinction Koroush, but in our post-celluloid era, it's kind of a Catch-22: any major work that now exists only on film might as well not exist at all...a practical distinction vis-à-vis access to a reproduction which is representative of the quality of the original work.

Not shown + No credible reproduction = "Enjoy your memories; tough toot for future generations."