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

[Kevin EK]

Steve I need to differ with that opinion. I find it vitally important that films be preserved on film as well as in digital files. That's a crucial part of the process. What you're referring to, I think, is whether you are able to enjoy that preserved film in the quality you would prefer. And that's a different barrel of apples as I see it.

 

[Carlo_M]

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.



It's odd that you would post hard data to back up one point, then doubt that very data when it goes against your preconceptions. I can only speculate, but as time goes by, a lot of the harsh initial reactions to The Phantom Menace and the rest of the prequels is being dulled down. Several possible reasons:

- Nostalgia is starting to kick in for younger viewers, perhaps even for older viewers.
- Repeat viewings with reduced expectations are yielding better results. Remember that when TPM came out, most of us went into the theater with insanely high expectations.
- As time goes by the OT looks more and more dated, and the PT less so.
- Ratings are relative - if you compare the PT to the OT, it suffers greatly, but if you rate the PT to any other current "blockbuster" movies, the PT actually holds up extremely well. For example, I don't like TPM all that much, but if I was forced to choose to watch TPM vs. say Gravity, I would prefer TPM by a mile.

We can play guessing games forever and not know what everyone thinks about the OT and the PT, but I think we have enough evidence to suggest that the PT is not universally hated; indeed an average of around 6.6 for a movie (equivalent to around 3-3.5 stars out of 5) certainly does show that a movie is well-regarded, especially when you see that 57.1% of voters voted 7 or above - i.e. the majority of people voted The Phantom Menace as a 70%+ viewing experience.

Hey I acknowledged it was anecdotal. But my point still stands. 6.6 for all that money and talent...not good.

Especially in comparison to the near-9 scores of SW and ESB.

 

[ROclockCK]

Steve I need to differ with that opinion. I find it vitally important that films be preserved on film as well as in digital files. That's a crucial part of the process.What you're referring to, I think, is whether you are able to enjoy that preserved film in the quality you would prefer. And that's a different barrel of apples as I see it.

Not what I "prefer" Kevin, just what adequately represents the original work...both cut and quality. For example, many of John Dykstra's Oscar-winning creative contributions have been effectively erased from the Star Wars Fx. Ditto for the rhythm of Marcia Lucas' Oscar-winning Editing.

And poor Gary Kurtz, who in his extended interview in the supplements of The People vs. George Lucas DVD remains to this day a gentleman about the whole thing. It's like he never achieved any of those [then] remarkable production values on such modest budgets...like his quick thinking in taking the story info from the Han/Jabba scene, which wasn't working very well, and including that in the Han/Greedo scene. This little bit of creative problem solving has been trashed with the now-redundant (and flatly delivered) Han/Jabba scene inserted back in the film, CGI enhanced.

Again, unfortunately we just fundamentally disagree this subject Kevin. I will never accept those 2006 Bonus Disc DVDs as credible representations of the early history of these films. Sorry, but I don't know why you keep pointing to them as an acceptable alternative - they were obsolete media the day they were released.

 

[TravisR]

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.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My point was that for a movie that gets as much crap as TPM does, its score is surprising to me. Personally, I absolutely hate rating things with a number or a letter because no one's definition of a 7 is going to be the same as someone else's. When you consider that a 7 is only 3 away from perfection or true excellence, I think a 7 is a fairly respectable grade but I imagine that most people consider a 7 to be the equivalent of a C grade or average (at best) so while nearly a quarter of the voters gave it a 7, I doubt that many of them were thinking of their vote as a ringing endorsement.

 

[Kevin EK]

Steve, I'm a bit confused by your last. And I'm not trying to dismiss your opinion. My point was that the original cuts, complete with the original VFX, the original editing rhythms, and everything else have indeed been preserved. Lucasfilm has multiple resources in their possession. These movies have not been lost - unlike Orson Welles' original cut of The Magnificent Ambersons or Erich Von Stroheim's Greed. And I realize you're not happy with those bonus DVDs. I agree with you - those were not done in a way that would make fans of those versions happy. But there is a difference between saying a movie has not been preserved, and saying that we'd like to see a better quality home video presentation. I'd even say an acceptable presentation for viewers who have the larger HDTVs. Please keep in mind that I say that with the knowledge that many viewers around the country still have smaller sets. Heck, I have family members who are very happy with their 19" or 22" tube tvs. People watching on that kind of equipment will not notice a huge difference in the PQ. For me on a 65", yes, it's not what I would call good PQ. But I can still watch it if I wish. In the same way I can still watch my lasers if I wish but the PQ really leaves something to be desired. (It's for that reason that I've been confused by posters who prefer the quality of their lasers to Blu-ray...)

 

[ROclockCK]

They're merely "lost" in the sense that they are not currently available in any easily accessible (read: home video) form that does them even minimal justice as creative works. Perhaps "in limbo" would be a better term.

Again, I'm not just talking about the original cuts but a reasonably accurate representation of the quality of work that went into these films for theatrical release...what contributed in no small way to the huge impact they originally had critically, commercially, and culturally.

You don't get that from those Laserdisc-redux bonus DVDs. The best we currently have is the technological equivalent of 'kinescopes'.

 

[AshJW]

I still have a tube TV-set, ca. 30", 16:9. Even on that the "Laserdisc-redux DVDs" look not so good.
It's watchable, but only because I love the films (in that versions) so much.



Onother point, I hope (an do believe) the OOT will also be released in Germany with the original dub.
Because I can't stand the new scenes with the new voices, especially on Vader.

I consider the German dubbed version equivalent to the original English track - which is not very often. Usually I prefer the original, in whatever language.

The PT on the other hand, I watch only in English. I don't even own the German BDs.

 

[Harry-N]

It's funny. I get email notices every time someone replies to this thread - and since HTF no longer sends the text of those messages - in an attempt to force us to the forum to read them, I generally ignore them until I get a chance to sit down to the computer and wade through them. As it seems to happen, I get to the forum just about the time that this thread is on an even-numbered page, and I don't have the patience to read every post any more on this subject, so for the last few weeks, I've only seen the even-numbered pages. And the thread continues to meander. Is there anything of worth on the odd pages? Harry

 

[AshJW]

Is there anything of worth on the odd pages? Harry

Well, it's more or less redundant

 

[Persianimmortal]

Is there anything of worth on the odd pages? Harry

Funny you should ask. I believe the contents and release date of the upcoming Star Wars Original Original Trilogy Deluxe Remastered Edition were announced and discussed on at least one odd page, before we went off on some tangents again.Also, I made some hilariously witty remarks, and then some brilliantly insightful comments on what was probably yet another odd page, before returning to posting my usual drivel.So yes, you've missed out on some really important stuff.

 

[Cinescott]

Stay away from the odd pages; nothing good ever comes of them.

 

[atfree]

Head on over to IMDB. Look at their Star Wars (1977) message board. First thread at the very top: Overrated. Anyone?. I quote the first post:


Now as that thread progresses, and obviously as you'd expect on a forum dedicated to discussing Star Wars, many people defend the film. But you get glimpses of younger people popping in to add their dislike of Star Wars.

That's just one quick example I found within 30 seconds of looking. There are plenty of others if you have the time to Google it. For one thing, a lot of younger people don't even bother to post their dislike of the OT because they know they'll be jumped on by Star Wars fans. We have to understand that younger people quite simply don't view Star Wars as the masterpiece that we do, and the prequels are more to their taste if only because their visual style and pacing is more in line with those of current action/sci-fi movies.

Not a direct comparision but interesting nonetheless (I think) re: younger viewers not being "wowed" by the original SW films.

Last Halloween, my wife and (ages 50 and 45 at the time) decided to have a retro-Halloween film fest at our house. It was our kids (ages 13, 14, 17 and 21) and some of their friends in the same age groups. We cleared everything with parents, etc.

That night we showed the original "Halloween", the original "Friday the 13th", the original "Alien", and the original "Nightmare on Elm Street". To make a long story short the reactions, while not totally negative, encompassed a lot of "there wasn't any gore", "those weren't scary at all", "you could tell that was fake", etc. Bottomline, we realized younger viewers have been so exposed to ultra graphic violence, action scenes every 5 minutes, anything-is-possible CGI effects, and style over substance that older films are viewed almost like curiosities or, at worst, MST2K features.

I think the same thing happens with the original SW films....just my 2 cents.

 

[gizzy2000]

Well, as I've said before, I've never heard anyone older than Jr. High age say that about the OT. It can't be argued since it's all anecdotal, but (from my point of view) to say that the OT are viewed as curiosities by young people is inaccurate, but even if they do most kids outgrow the phase where they only want to see explosions. If you were to show Citizen Kane to a child they'd probably not be too impressed, but it's still regarded as one of the greatest films of all time, and I'd bet if you showed it to the same kid, just 20 years older, he'd respect it. Saying that younger audiences don't like the originals really doesn't mean that they'll never be released again, if that were the case then the studios wouldn't even waste time restoring a movie like Lawrence of Arabia. Kids under age 15 isn't the only market.

 

[FoxyMulder]

If you were to show Citizen Kane to a child they'd probably not be too impressed, but it's still regarded as one of the greatest films of all time, and I'd bet if you showed it to the same kid, just 20 years older, he'd respect it.

Don't be too sure, i think Citizen Kane is one of the most overrated films ever made and i'm sure i am not alone with that view.

 

[atfree]

Well, as I've said before, I've never heard anyone older than Jr. High age say that about the OT. It can't be argued since it's all anecdotal, but (from my point of view) to say that the OT are viewed as curiosities by young people is inaccurate, but even if they do most kids outgrow the phase where they only want to see explosions. If you were to show Citizen Kane to a child they'd probably not be too impressed, but it's still regarded as one of the greatest films of all time, and I'd bet if you showed it to the same kid, just 20 years older, he'd respect it. Saying that younger audiences don't like the originals really doesn't mean that they'll never be released again, if that were the case then the studios wouldn't even waste time restoring a movie like Lawrence of Arabia. Kids under age 15 isn't the only market.

I will tell you that I work in an office environment where 80% of the staff of 500+ are under 35......I could mention "Citizen Kane" to the majority of them and they would think I was talking about a new brand of sugar. Unfortunately, for the current generation, history began the day they were born.

 

[atfree]

Don't be too sure, i think Citizen Kane is one of the most overrated films ever made and i'm sure i am not alone with that view.

Oh Foxy......

 

[FoxyMulder]

Oh Foxy......

I love classic cinema but i just have very little time for Citizen Kane, i can appreciate many of the technical aspects of it but the film never really grabs my emotions or makes me feel anything, thus to me it is overrated, i know that to even say that is sacriledge but i just feel that way. Maybe it's because some kid pulled my sled apart when i was a young nipper, ah Rosebud.

 

[atfree]

I love classic cinema but i just have very little time for Citizen Kane, i can appreciate many of the technical aspects of it but the film never really grabs my emotions or makes me feel anything, thus to me it is overrated, i know that to even say that is sacriledge but i just feel that way. Maybe it's because some kid pulled my sled apart when i was a young nipper, ah Rosebud.

I understand completely.....just poking the bear (or fox in this case). There are many films that are considered "unassailable" classics that I don't particularly care for (I won't mention them for fear of starting a fire-storm of replies).

 

[Dr Griffin]

When you consider Citizen Kane in relation to the time in which it was made, it is anything but overrated. I can't even entertain the idea of it being overrated today!

 

[JoeDoakes]

New article from the Atlantic: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/star-wars-george-lucas-doesnt-150000465.html.