The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Han's second shooter
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> General Star Wars -> Han's second shooter Goto page Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:05 am    Post subject: Re: Han's second shooter Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
TauntaunScout wrote:
Shistavanen Wolfman fans unite! Long live Lak Sivrak!

Right on. In my SWU, Lak Sivrak is still there, sitting right behind the CG alien that replaced him. Shistavanens are a playable PC species in my game, but I think I've only had one Shistavanen PC IIRC.

Might be a good place to insert the Pherro from D6 Space to flesh out the Shistavanen culture...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5708
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can see this thread let the genie out of the bottle!

TauntaunScout wrote:
I didn't notice or care about any of this before this thread. Green boxes, head bobs, R2-D2 being the wrong color... all news to me. Then again I never notice mistakes like the stormtrooper hitting his head on the door unless someone else shows them to me.

Bless you. It's very nice to be blissfully unaware of imperfections in the art you love. I hope this thread isn't ruining it for you!

Pel wrote:
When the Special Edition released in '97 I was excited about the new footage, but that quickly turned to outrage in the cantina. However, at the time I was willing to forgive Han's transformation until the Falcon's escape and subsequent TIE battle. Lucas spent untold hours working in a weird head bob for Han but couldn't be bothered to fix the green boxes around the TIEs. Holy misplaced priorities, Batman!

I don't disagree. Greedo's gun has always been pointed straight at Han's head, but 'Greedo shoots first' has actually had multiple versions over the years. The horrible head bob was removed and replaced with Greedo's shot going off at an angle from the blaster, as the OP video shows. So one problem was replaced with a different problem (all on top of the issue of even changing it first place).

Solo4114 wrote:
I gather the blu-rays from 2012 only fixed some of that.

Correct. Some were fixed, and some weren't. It seems to me that they had a time and/or budget limit and when they reached it, they just abandoned the corrections and released what they had. It's sad. I would have gladly waited longer and paid more money for fully corrected versions.

CRMcNeill wrote:
Just imagine the good will Darth Maus could recoup with the estranged fandom if they cleaned up the Special Editions. There were plenty of things worth keeping - the open views of the clouds of Bespin from Cloud City were a welcome addition, for example - but reverting to the classic "Han shot first" scene would remove a huge bone of contention.

I know what you mean, but I feel it is an important distinction that "Special Editions" only refer to the 97 versions which were only available on VHS and Laser Disc. The 2004 DVD versions and the 2011 blu-ray versions all brought different changes (and the last version still didn't fix everything). The 2004 DVD of TESB added Ian McDiarmid. I feel the most important change of any version of any film was replacing some of the shots of X-Wings and TIEs slightly listing in the Battle of Yavin with dynamic CG shots in the SE. That's worth the price of admission right there.

I saw the original version of the CT once in the theater (each film one time). I saw ANH on network TV in 1984. From 1987-96, I saw the pre-special editions of the classic trilogy literally 97 times on VHS. (I've also seen the pre-special ANH on the horribly formatted 2006 DVD twice: once in 2007, and once again in 2017 when I showed it to my wife and son so they could get some perspective on my original Star Wars experience). I'm done on the pre-special edition CT. I'm sure that from 1997 to the end of this life I will never see all of the other versions combined as much as I saw the pre-special versions in the 10 years leading up to the SEs.

I feel the 'Greedo shoots first' revisions are righteously objectionable but still not anything to let our childhoods be ruined over. First time viewers of the film should not see the revised versions of the scene, but all of us know how the original scene went and that Han is really a good guy. The first time I watched the blu-ray of ANH, I sneezed right as Han finished saying, "Yes, I bet you have." When you sneeze, you close your eyes. When I opened my eyes, I saw the cloud of smoke and Greedo fall over. I had completely missed the addition of the blaster shots. So I found that the easiest way to recreate "Han shot first" when watching the blu-ray is to simply blink. It is literally only 1 second. In my SWU, Han shot first. A home video version of a film it can't revise my SWU, and it can't ruin my memory of my experience of the original film in 1977.

I feel that someday the technology will exist to easily restore the original versions of the films and perhaps complete the fixes that were abandoned by Lucas. Ideally, a revised ANH will have a menu option of 'Greedo shot first' or the original 'no shots shown'. But I don't think Disney will release any more versions anytime soon because it will only further enrage the older fanbase. It will probably be a while after the Skywalker-related films are done and in an off year with no Star Wars film.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5708
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:49 am    Post subject: Re: Han's second shooter Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Whill wrote:
TauntaunScout wrote:
Shistavanen Wolfman fans unite! Long live Lak Sivrak!

Right on. In my SWU, Lak Sivrak is still there, sitting right behind the CG alien that replaced him. Shistavanens are a playable PC species in my game, but I think I've only had one Shistavanen PC IIRC.

Might be a good place to insert the Pherro from D6 Space to flesh out the Shistavanen culture...

Indeed. In my SWU, the Pherro from D6 Space Aliens are an offshoot species (near-Shistavanens), just like how dogs evolved from wolves on Earth.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
TauntaunScout
Commander
Commander


Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 341

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't pick up on details that small sitting a normal distance from a TV screen. Blue can look black in the right lighting anyways. The TIE fighters don't stand still anyways and the background behind them is changing. I do notice how the Rancor and pretty much the entire skiff fight scenes are heavily bluescreened. But it took a long time.

ROTJ is the first moviee I can remember going to the movie theater. Then I saw the original network run of ANH (that's a whole other story). Some snippets of ESB were caught in between. Then I watched assorted VHS copies to death including a home recording of the original network airing if ANH. I wish I still had it with its 80's commercials.

I saw the 1997 theatrical re-releases, then I don't think I watched more than 1 or 2 complete OT movies again until the DVD release of the "close enough to originals" came out, whenever that was. '04 sounds about right but I would have bought them in '05 probably. I'm confused about this timeline though. I think I got free swag fro pre-ordering them or buying them on release day or something but that was after I moved out here which was fall '05.

I haven't seen the prequels since they left the theaters. Between them all I've watched/re-watched 5 whole prequel movies I believe.

The new stuff is hard to rewatch, I can stream it but don't. I just lookup scenes as needed for research purposes and stuff. Except Rogue One which I watch pretty much everytime I'm alone in the house. I saw that thing 3 times in the theater.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5708
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TauntaunScout wrote:
ROTJ is the first moviee I can remember going to the movie theater.

Cool! I know the original Star Wars film wasn't my very first movie theater experience, but there weren't more than a few before that and Star Wars is the first one I have any clear memories of. It is still the single greatest theatrical experience I have ever had.

TauntaunScout wrote:
I saw the 1997 theatrical re-releases, then I don't think I watched more than 1 or 2 complete OT movies again until the DVD release of the "close enough to originals" came out, whenever that was. '04 sounds about right but I would have bought them in '05 probably. I'm confused about this timeline though. I think I got free swag fro pre-ordering them or buying them on release day or something but that was after I moved out here which was fall '05.

The trilogy was released on DVD for the first time in 2004. The DVD re-release that included bonus discs of the "close enough to originals" was in 2006. FYI on the timeline.

I bought the DVD versions on the day they came out in 2004 but then decided to buy the 2006 DVDs in 2007 when I felt nostalgic and wanted to watch ANH for the 30th anniversary (which I watched again for the 40th anniversary) - No "Episode IV" in the opening crawl. I gave the 2004 trilogy set to my brother. To this day, I have still never watched my copies of the pre-special TESB and RotJ DVDs. I haven't seen those versions of the films since viewing my pre-special VHS trilogy in 1996. But I did show my son the original "Yub Nub" ending of RotJ on YouTube.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Solo4114
Commander
Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 250

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
I feel that someday the technology will exist to easily restore the original versions of the films and perhaps complete the fixes that were abandoned by Lucas. Ideally, a revised ANH will have a menu option of 'Greedo shot first' or the original 'no shots shown'. But I don't think Disney will release any more versions anytime soon because it will only further enrage the older fanbase. It will probably be a while after the Skywalker-related films are done and in an off year with no Star Wars film.


Actually, the technology already exists. Around the time of the DVD releases, Lucas himself made some....misleading statements about the source materials. He made it seem as if the original versions of the films "no longer exist," which makes it sound like it's impossible to do anything with the films other than just continue to tinker with elements done at 1080p resolution digitally.

But that's not really true.

It would be entirely possible to rescan the original elements to create, say, a 4K or 8K print of the film -- as long as you're working off of the original film elements. Allegedly, the original negatives are now chopped up and available in a state only suitable for further "special edition" (I know, not entirely precise nomenclature) work. Basically, the argument advanced by LFL back in the early 2000s was that the original negatives were too damaged and had been cut to bits to work in new digital elements and such, and therefore the film no longer exists in its original state.

For one thing, this is untrue at a baseline. There are prints of the original films that still exist and could be used as a source for scanning newer editions. Moreover, you could use other film sources such as interpositives, which would (as I understand it) actually be closer to the original negatives than the prints that exist in private collections and (last I heard) the Library of Congress.

One of the things we're going to start seeing in another generation or so of display panels is that the resolution of the 2012 blu-rays -- as well as the prequels -- is going to effectively be capped at 1080p, which will look worse and worse on higher and higher resolution displays. By the time most consumers are using 4k or 8k (or whatever comes after that), the 1080p digital elements will start looking a lot more grainy or low-res. Now, modern displays and players can "upscale" digital material, but it never looks....exactly right. For example, try watching a DVD of Babylon 5 on your 1080p display. It will look...alright, but it will also look just a little off. (And I'm not even talking about B5's own issues with composite shots of digital and live action.) Or watch an old episode of Doctor Who from 2005. Again, it'll look....fine....but you'll be able to tell it's an upscaled DVD. The same will be true of blu-rays that are "upscaled."

At the end of the day, the amount of information in a digital image is finite. There is no more data you can squeeze out of it than what is in the original source image. That's not the case with analog sources like film (or at least, it's far, far less the case).

It is my guess that Disney is well aware of this. It is also my guess that Disney has already had the original OT source materials scanned in at a high resolution (e.g., 4K or 8K) for future distribution. If they did that, then they'd probably have re-scanned from -- right -- source materials like the interpositives or some other print. It's possible they scanned from the chopped up negatives, but it's also possible they didn't, on the theory that it'd be easier to re-do the digital elements of the films from the "SEs" and incorporate them at higher resolution after already scanning the films in at a baseline resolution. (I.E., they'd re-do the ronto walking around Mos Eisley in higher resolution and slap it on top of an already-scanned version of the film at 4K.)

What I would say is the real difficulty for Disney is that (and this may shock people here)....most people don't care about this stuff. Hell, if not for the "Han Shot First" campaign, most people probably wouldn't even really remember that Greedo never shot in the first place. Unlike us, they haven't watched these films a gazillion times. They haven't memorized all of R2's beeps and boops. They don't notice the "Wilhelm scream" when they hear it. They can probably count on one, MAYBE two hands the number of times they've seen the OT. Moreover, if they've bought the blurays, they may not figure it's worth it to but another disc, and anyway, the industry is moving away from physical media and towards digital streaming, so maybe they won't even have to buy another disc ever. For them, it's just...not a big deal. They want Star Wars to look cool and modern. They aren't interested in film preservation. They probably think the original model work looks fake and cheap and old.

And there are a LOT more of those folks than there are of us. Also, they're getting older, so the actual value of the OT is diminishing over time. Will Disney take up the expense of restoring an "archival" version of Star Wars that merely cleans up some of the artifacts in the films (e.g., bad matte jobs), but otherwise doesn't insert new material? I suspect not, but I think that the best shot we have is a final physical media release rescanned at 4K or 8K. If it doesn't happen then, I question whether it will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TauntaunScout
Commander
Commander


Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 341

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solo4114 wrote:
Unlike us, they haven't watched these films a gazillion times.


This is the basis of most of my defense of the OT's flaws, particularly relative to what came later. Few films can survive the kind of re-watching we've subjected Star Wars[/i, [i]The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi to. If you watch any movie that many times, it will start to look ridiculous. Like when you say one word fifty times in a row, it sounds like nonsense. If the films weren't great art to begin with, no one would have re-watched them into oblivion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TauntaunScout
Commander
Commander


Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 341

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solo4114 wrote:
Also, they're getting older, so the actual value of the OT is diminishing over time. Will Disney take up the expense of restoring an "archival" version of Star Wars that merely cleans up some of the artifacts in the films (e.g., bad matte jobs), but otherwise doesn't insert new material?


I don't know... The original fans of classic Disney cartoon movies are so old they're dead. They still periodically re-release and touch-up those kinds of things. If you were 6 when Snow White came out, you're 87 today. Or 77 if you were 6 when Bambi came out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TauntaunScout
Commander
Commander


Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 341

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
TauntaunScout wrote:
ROTJ is the first moviee I can remember going to the movie theater.

Cool! I know the original Star Wars film wasn't my very first movie theater experience, but there weren't more than a few before that and Star Wars is the first one I have any clear memories of. It is still the single greatest theatrical experience I have ever had.


Getting in lightsaber fights in the mall hallway after seeing ROTJ, using beef jerky as light sabers... nightmares about the Jabba trapdoor scene... Good times.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Solo4114
Commander
Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 250

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TauntaunScout wrote:
Solo4114 wrote:
Also, they're getting older, so the actual value of the OT is diminishing over time. Will Disney take up the expense of restoring an "archival" version of Star Wars that merely cleans up some of the artifacts in the films (e.g., bad matte jobs), but otherwise doesn't insert new material?


I don't know... The original fans of classic Disney cartoon movies are so old they're dead. They still periodically re-release and touch-up those kinds of things. If you were 6 when Snow White came out, you're 87 today. Or 77 if you were 6 when Bambi came out.


That may be so, but I think the question will turn on which aspect of Star Wars they want to really promote. OT Star Wars is not what I see most promoted these days. It's either PT Star Wars (especially as based on the Clone Wars cartoon), or ST Star Wars. Now, maybe I need to pay attention a bit closer, but I don't see a ton of kids' merchandise emblazoned with, say, Luke Skywalker or Han Solo on them. Yoda, Vader, and Chewbacca, maybe, but not Luke, Han, or Leia, really. Meanwhile, my kid regularly reads a Disney Cinderella book, and puts on Cinderella underwear while going through potty training. She freakin' loves that stuff. (At age 3, I think she's still a bit young for Star Wars, but maybe next year.)

Disney, for better or worse, has built a huge brand and merchandising giant around its princesses and fairy tales and such for at least the last 40 years, if not longer. Star Wars has been its own thing for a long time. Now, maybe they'll update the OOT. I wish they would. I'd gladly pay a premium for a 9-disc set (or even an 11 disc set) featuring all of the films, if it also included the archival version of the original OT, without the additions put in at any of the post-97 releases. I'd be peachy keen paying for that. The question is, are there enough folks like me, and can Disney figure out the right price point to sell to us, to make it worthwhile for them to undertake the effort?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TauntaunScout
Commander
Commander


Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 341

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solo4114 wrote:
Yoda, Vader, and Chewbacca, maybe, but not Luke, Han, or Leia, really.


That was even the case in the 70's and 80's though. Photos of human faces are worse for merchandising purposes. I'm not worried. ANH and to a lesser extent ESB/ROTJ claimed it's place among the likes of Wizard of Oz and Casablanca no matter what the merchandise machine does. It'll get re-released.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5708
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solo4114 wrote:
Whill wrote:
I feel that someday the technology will exist to easily restore the original versions of the films and perhaps complete the fixes that were abandoned by Lucas. Ideally, a revised ANH will have a menu option of 'Greedo shot first' or the original 'no shots shown'. But I don't think Disney will release any more versions anytime soon because it will only further enrage the older fanbase. It will probably be a while after the Skywalker-related films are done and in an off year with no Star Wars film.

Actually, the technology already exists. Around the time of the DVD releases, Lucas himself made some....misleading statements about the source materials. He made it seem as if the original versions of the films "no longer exist," which makes it sound like it's impossible to do anything with the films other than just continue to tinker with elements done at 1080p resolution digitally.

But that's not really true.

It would be entirely possible to rescan the original elements to create, say, a 4K or 8K print of the film -- as long as you're working off of the original film elements. Allegedly, the original negatives are now chopped up and available in a state only suitable for further "special edition" (I know, not entirely precise nomenclature) work. Basically, the argument advanced by LFL back in the early 2000s was that the original negatives were too damaged and had been cut to bits to work in new digital elements and such, and therefore the film no longer exists in its original state.

For one thing, this is untrue at a baseline. There are prints of the original films that still exist and could be used as a source for scanning newer editions. Moreover, you could use other film sources such as interpositives, which would (as I understand it) actually be closer to the original negatives than the prints that exist in private collections and (last I heard) the Library of Congress.

One of the things we're going to start seeing in another generation or so of display panels is that the resolution of the 2012 blu-rays -- as well as the prequels -- is going to effectively be capped at 1080p, which will look worse and worse on higher and higher resolution displays. By the time most consumers are using 4k or 8k (or whatever comes after that), the 1080p digital elements will start looking a lot more grainy or low-res. Now, modern displays and players can "upscale" digital material, but it never looks....exactly right. For example, try watching a DVD of Babylon 5 on your 1080p display. It will look...alright, but it will also look just a little off. (And I'm not even talking about B5's own issues with composite shots of digital and live action.) Or watch an old episode of Doctor Who from 2005. Again, it'll look....fine....but you'll be able to tell it's an upscaled DVD. The same will be true of blu-rays that are "upscaled."

At the end of the day, the amount of information in a digital image is finite. There is no more data you can squeeze out of it than what is in the original source image. That's not the case with analog sources like film (or at least, it's far, far less the case).

It is my guess that Disney is well aware of this. It is also my guess that Disney has already had the original OT source materials scanned in at a high resolution (e.g., 4K or 8K) for future distribution. If they did that, then they'd probably have re-scanned from -- right -- source materials like the interpositives or some other print. It's possible they scanned from the chopped up negatives, but it's also possible they didn't, on the theory that it'd be easier to re-do the digital elements of the films from the "SEs" and incorporate them at higher resolution after already scanning the films in at a baseline resolution. (I.E., they'd re-do the ronto walking around Mos Eisley in higher resolution and slap it on top of an already-scanned version of the film at 4K.)

What I would say is the real difficulty for Disney is that (and this may shock people here)....most people don't care about this stuff. Hell, if not for the "Han Shot First" campaign, most people probably wouldn't even really remember that Greedo never shot in the first place. Unlike us, they haven't watched these films a gazillion times. They haven't memorized all of R2's beeps and boops. They don't notice the "Wilhelm scream" when they hear it. They can probably count on one, MAYBE two hands the number of times they've seen the OT. Moreover, if they've bought the blurays, they may not figure it's worth it to but another disc, and anyway, the industry is moving away from physical media and towards digital streaming, so maybe they won't even have to buy another disc ever. For them, it's just...not a big deal. They want Star Wars to look cool and modern. They aren't interested in film preservation. They probably think the original model work looks fake and cheap and old.

And there are a LOT more of those folks than there are of us. Also, they're getting older, so the actual value of the OT is diminishing over time. Will Disney take up the expense of restoring an "archival" version of Star Wars that merely cleans up some of the artifacts in the films (e.g., bad matte jobs), but otherwise doesn't insert new material? I suspect not, but I think that the best shot we have is a final physical media release rescanned at 4K or 8K. If it doesn't happen then, I question whether it will.

OK, let's not mince words this much. I did not state the technology doesn't exist now. I had an adverb "easily" in there. Now if you insist that the technology currently exists to do it easily, ok, whatever, I will not dispute you. It seems you are saying there is still an expense involved, so perhaps there is a perceived risk they won't recoup their expense.

And you didn't have to go into the whole "Lucas lied" bit this time because we have already discussed that here at length and this time, I most certainly did not bring up Lucas saying it is impossible because it no longer exists. Solo, it was you that already convinced me it is possible, so you should be able to see that this time I went straight to it is possible. This time I went further than saying just possible and said it will happen someday, but now it seems you are saying Disney may choose not do it despite its possibility. Well, if they never choose to do it, then whether it is possible or not would be moot.

I don't think the fans who are clamoring for high definition but otherwise unaltered editions will mind if it is digital-only and not a physical copy. I hope they get it in some form because I am really sick of hearing all these fans whine about the Lucas' alterations for 22 years now. Forgive my lack of sympathy but I feel ANH is the greatest film of all time, ANY version. Lucas' changes can't ruin the film because it is too awesome to ruin. Sure, there are a lot of things I would love to see further corrected and improved, but they aren't necessary for me to enjoy the film. I feel fans saying Lucas' tiny little alterations "ruin" the film are an insult to a classic.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Solo4114
Commander
Commander


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 250

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
OK, let's not mince words this much. I did not state the technology doesn't exist now. I had an adverb "easily" in there. Now if you insist that the technology currently exists to do it easily, ok, whatever, I will not dispute you. It seems you are saying there is still an expense involved, so perhaps there is a perceived risk they won't recoup their expense.


To be clear, Whill, I wasn't criticizing you. Sorry if it came across that way. I was merely offering some information that I've found isn't always known, even by long-time Star Wars fans, about the options relating to film restoration. As far as how easy it is, I don't actually do film restoration myself, so I can't really speak to the ease of using an existing print vs. an interpositive vs. a negative, but it does appear that it's possible to do a restored version of the pre-97 OT.

Quote:
And you didn't have to go into the whole "Lucas lied" bit this time because we have already discussed that here at length and this time, I most certainly did not bring up Lucas saying it is impossible because it no longer exists.


I didn't say he lied. I said he was misleading, and he was. I also said that LFL's position that it can't be done is untrue, which it is. That's all.

Quote:
Solo, it was you that already convinced me it is possible, so you should be able to see that this time I went straight to it is possible. This time I went further than saying just possible and said it will happen someday, but now it seems you are saying Disney may choose not do it despite its possibility. Well, if they never choose to do it, then whether it is possible or not would be moot.


I really hope it does happen. I'm just reconciled to the notion that it very well may not. Not for reasons that are commonly floated (I have no idea if you yourself have said any of this, by the way. I'm just speaking in generalities here.) about how it's not possible. It's possible, it just may not be financially worthwhile to Disney. My hope is that redoing a version in higher resolution than it was previously scanned would lead Disney to go back to at least the interpositives of the originals, and then figure "Well, hell, if we've already got these versions, why not just release those for an extra price, and then make whatever edits we need to get George's latest edition out afterwards?" No idea if that'll happen, though.

Quote:
I don't think the fans who are clamoring for high definition but otherwise unaltered editions will mind if it is digital-only and not a physical copy. I hope they get it in some form because I am really sick of hearing all these fans whine about the Lucas' alterations for 22 years now. Forgive my lack of sympathy but I feel ANH is the greatest film of all time, ANY version. Lucas' changes can't ruin the film because it is too awesome to ruin. Sure, there are a lot of things I would love to see further corrected and improved, but they aren't necessary for me to enjoy the film. I feel fans saying Lucas' tiny little alterations "ruin" the film are an insult to a classic.


I prefer the original versions, but I'd say the only thing that "ruins" the post-97 home release versions of the OT for me is not so much Lucas' artistic choices (which I don't love), but rather the shoddy workmanship of LFL's team in doing things like color balancing and audio mixing.


For me, the ideal version would be the "Let's make everyone happy" release. This would be similar to what happened with Blade Runner, back in the early to mid 2000s with the "Final Cut" release. That version was released alongside four other versions (U.S. theatrical, European theatrical, "Director's Cut," and workprint), so that anyone who preferred this or that version could watch their preferred version. They weren't all restored, but at least they were available.

I'd love for the Star Wars OT to be released with (1) a restored theatrical cut (although they'd have to pick versions even here), (2) the '97 SEs, (3) the 2004 DVD version but upscaled, (4) the 2012 blu-ray version, but upscaled. Even better would be if they took all of these versions, upscaled what was necessary, and allowed -- as you described -- a kind of custom-built fan experience where you can swap in the '97 version of this with the '12 version of that, and the '77 version of the other thing. I doubt they'll ever do that, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a Heaven for? Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TauntaunScout
Commander
Commander


Joined: 20 Apr 2015
Posts: 341

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well anyway I can't find any spare Star Wars cantina wolfman miniatures downstairs so this project is on indefinite hold until I get some more of them. I swore I had a couple. Very odd. Maybe there's a missing ziploc baggie of minis somewhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> General Star Wars All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0