# Star Wars - The Original, One MORE Last Time



## Ayreonaut

I don't know how this escaped my attention when it was a hot topic back in May. I was browsing the DVD section at the mall music store yesterday and saw the pre-order boxes for a September re-release of Star Wars. If you don't already know, the _original _theatrical version of each movie is going to be included on a second disc along with the screwed up versions from 1997.

I spent some time poking around and found that there's been an uproar. While the 1997 "special" edition will look and sound awesome, the original version is going to be non-anamorphic widescreen and 2.0. They're going to use " transfers of the original films that were done for the 1993 "definitive collection" laserdisc box set release."

Of course George Lucas stated plainly years ago that he would never release the original versions on DVD. Now he relents, but we get a down and dirty, no-frills version. Its as though he wants us to compare the special edition with the original and see that he was right all along by giving us a comprimised transfer and sound.

This DVD says "Theatrical version availiable for a limited time only!" Who's gonna bite on this one, and who's betting that we'll get something better years down the road in HD?


----------



## Vader

I too want the original editions, but I am not about to bite. I see Star Wars as existing on two levels: 1) The classic trilogy, untouched, which stands on its own; and 2) the special editions, which cannot be taken outside of the context of the prequal trilogy, and the extended universe as a whole. I will not get into the debate of whether George Lucas has the right to "update" the films (I believe he has every right to do so), but I also believe that the untouched films as we all remember them should be given at least the same respect (both for those who prefer them as they originally were, warts and all, and for archival purposes - they do represent a turning point in visual effects). And yes, I did see _Star Wars_ (not "A New Hope") on the big screen back in 1977. I was 10, and a side note I did not want to go see (what I thought was nothing more than) some Hollywood pretty boys going at it in the boxing ring..... ya see, "Star" (as in Hollywood)... "Wars" (my dad loved boxing, so that's what I thought "Wars" were).... Oh, never mind..... guess you had to be there to find that funny....:boxer: In any case, the only way I would buy these is if GL fixed the technical goofs in the SE DVDs: The reversed music surround in ANH, the bubblegum lightsabers in ESB, etc. Otherwise, I will simply wait for the inevitable Hi Def versions...


----------



## Sonnie

> I will simply wait for the inevitable Hi Def versions...


Ditto!


----------



## Guest

Second the Ditto


----------



## Guest

Motion carried.


----------



## Sonnie

All in favor... :yes:


----------



## AverageJoe

Aye!:yes:


----------



## khellandros66

In the words of Bill Murray-

"Star Wars.... Nothing but Star Wars...."

Wow this is pathetic, why would any movie buff buy a version in 2ch stereo??

I guess I will hold for a while longer before I buy the original trilogy.

~Bob


----------



## Richard W. Haines

The question is, what materials exist on the original version to remaster it? I believe Lucas re-edited the original negative when he created the 1997 re-issue. They might not have a negative of
the 1977 release any more and all origiinal US prints in 70mm and 35mm have faded to red.


----------



## John Simpson

I'm going to buck the trend and say I'm happy for Lucas to tweak his movies all he wants. In fact, I'd like if he went back into the remastered "New Hope" and improved Jabba and spiced up the Death Star battle even further. Perhaps hire John Williams to do the music once over, so we can get the pure brilliance of his tunes in True HD.

The old versions will be out there somewhere for those people who don't want their memories sullied :daydream:


----------



## SteveB

I'm in for a HD Box Set.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

I don't object to making new versions of films providing the original theatrical cut is preserved on 35mm negative and available which might not be the case here since they're using old tape masters for the current DVD release. They did make no fade 35mm Technicolor prints of the 1977 cut in England which are floating around collector circles and are even in Dolby Stereo. The color is much better on these copies than the domestic De Luxe prints. They continued to use the superior Technicolor process in England through 1978 even though the US machines were shut down in 1975.


----------



## brandonnash

Sonnie said:


> All in favor... :yes:





AverageJoe said:


> Aye!:yes:


Carried!


----------



## wbassett

I'm one that is a sucker for Star Wars, but I think Lucas lost the charm and focus of what his original dream was. 

We have them on VHS, laser, and the new DVD versions with both movies of the original trilogy. I might bite on an HD copy of the original trilogy, but I think I'll pass on I through III. 

I am working on my own version though.  I just got done with a slight re-edit of the first two Rocky movies (I'm making a three act version out of all six movies). Anyway, that seems to be working out so I figure I'll give my next 'dream movie' version a shot! I do like the cleaned up and improved FX in the first movie. Seeing the comparison of the original to the new FX is pretty dramatic. 

...and then there is Greedo shooting first! That and Han's conversation with Jabba were the worse ideas since Jar Jar. With that said, and since I have both versions, I am seriously considering editing out those two scenes and replacing them with the scenes from the original versions. 

Granted I know this is extreme, but I'm bored I guess and I really hate those two scenes! The rest of the added and enhanced FX are fine in my opinion.


----------



## Richard W. Haines

Once again, you have to consider what is surviving on these pre-1983 movies for the future.

Here is some historical background on film stock to take into consideration.

Prior to 1983, all color negatives (Eastmancolor, Anscocolor, Fuji, Agfa) were what archivists
now classify as 'quick fade' stock. In other words, after processing, they began to slowly
deteriorate losing their color. Kodak stock was the worst and that's what most major film
companies used. Camera negatives had to be color corrected ever five years or so to compensate
for the lose of dye (cyan was the first to evaporate) and after 25 years there was the possibilty
of major fading on the negatives.

In terms of release print stock, all color positive film faded even quicker. Eastmancolor print stock
was only good for about five years (or less) and then started to fade to red. This applies to both
35mm and 70mm film. 

There was stable print film stock which was Technicolor dye transfer film. In the case of pre-1953
movies, the negatives were three black and white strips that represented each color so that didn't
fade either. For post-1953 films, the Eastmancolor negative faded whereas the dye transfer release
prints didn't which only applies to movies advertised as 'Glorious Technicolor' or 'color by Technicolor'. Unfortunately, Technicolor shut down it's dye transfer line in 1975 in the US, in 1978 in
England and in 1980 in Italy and switched to Eastmancolor. There was a dye transfer Technicolor
lab in China that continued until 1993 when it shut down too. So the years 1975-1983 were really
problem years for archivists since both negatives and prints faded and nothing was stable.

Under industry pressure from Martin Scorsese and others beginning in 1979 ('the color film crisis'), stock
manufacturers were pressured to develop better film stock. In 1983 'low fade' Eastmancolor negative
and print stock was introduced. So far it's been holding up okay in that I haven't seen any faded prints or negatives since that year although as the name implies, 'low fade' still isn't Technicolor's 'no fade'.


In any event, all Eastmancolor films made between 1953 and 1982 require extensive restoration to
try to bring back the faded color. Sometimes the results are quite good. Other times the results
are rather poor (i.e. "Tom Jones", the Roadshow version of "The Sand Pebbles").


Now when you add to this problem the "special editions" that have become common place for many
directors, what happens is that they re-cut and/or restore only the new version, not the original
which continues to fade away and deteriorate if it's been saved at all. In the case of "Star Wars",
the camera negative has probably been re-cut for the new version and it's been restored and looks
quite good for a 'color by De Luxe' title. De Luxe was notorious for having the worst color fading
back then. However, I don't know what, if anything, exists in good condition on the original cut
of the film if the camera negative has been altered for the new version. There was a duplicate negative made back in 1977 (a Color Reversal Internegative or CRI) but that had worst image stability than the camera negative stock and is probably quite faded and worn by now. So I'm wondering if any undeteriorated negative exists on the original cut of the film. They might not have the materials
to re-transfer the 1977 version properly at this point in time which is why they used an old video master
for the current DVD.


----------



## jvc

I have always loved Star Wars. The only part I really had a problem with Lucas redoing, of the original releases, was the end of Return of the Jedi. When Luke sees the spirits of his father, Yoda, and Obiwan, Lucas had the new, younger Anakin replacing the original, older Anakin.

There's no way I'll buy a release that's in 2.0. They're advertising it as the original theactrical version, which it isn't. I remember going to the theater and seeing it in 70 mm, with "6 channel Dolby" (last two anyway). That was part of their big advertising campaign, at the time. It was a big deal! 2.0? No thanks!


----------



## Richard W. Haines

ivc,

I saw it in 70mm too. One of the major reasons for going to the movies back then was the 
superior 70mm format. It was abandoned in the nineties when they began building megaplexes which bragged
they were going to be '70mm free' as if that was an attribute. You need a real projectionist
for that system and the megaplexes often use amateurs to operate the machines which
is why showmanship is so poor. For example, at the defunct Loews Astor Plaza (which is where
I saw "Star Wars") they booked a brand new 70mm print of "2001" in 2001 and ruined it due to
an incompetant operator who didn't understand how to thread or handle the large format film.


----------



## Wayde

I'll skip any new Star Wars related products.

I was a Star Wars *freak* when I was a kid. I mean it when I say it was a formative experience for me in the late 70s. By October '79 every school notebook I used was peppered with number 2 pencil sketches of X-wing / Tie Fighter battles.

Mom, Deep Snow, Outdoor Rinks, Han Solo, Pancakes with Maple Syrup, Hockey Night in Canada, Princess Lea - these things are all part of who I am.

Lucas can add all the digital effects he wants to his movies. They're his films I have no bias against it. However, I lost interest in the franchise ages ago. 

I think Lucas has milked the Star Wars puppy dry. Time to move on.


----------



## MatrixDweller

A friend of mine has all version of Star Wars on all mediums except Laserdisk. It's rediculous. Every few years there's a deluxe ultra platinum limited edition collectors box set being released.


----------



## Moviefanatic

Richard W. Haines said:


> Once again, you have to consider what is surviving on these pre-1983 movies for the future.
> 
> Here is some historical background on film stock to take into consideration.
> 
> ...They might not have the materials
> to re-transfer the 1977 version properly at this point in time which is why they used an old video master
> for the current DVD.



Man, that's truely frightening to me. The original theatrical trilogy being my #1 fave movie of all time, I'm saddened by all of this. I _did _ buy those 2006 limited versions because I really wanted a widescreen DVD of these movies in their original cut.

I was wondering why there isn't a Blu Ray editish of these out there yet.

Boy, this is a big bump up for a thread, it being 2007 since the last post. Hope no one mindss


----------



## ironglen

HA! I'm reminiscing about the first three I have on vcr tapes sitting next to my dvd's. I don't even have my vcr connected! Forget GL's 'vision', he should produce it for the people! Release the original version, with the best video and audio possible, done! People will buy it rather than some hokey he 'envisions'.

Was there ever a release on dvd such as I described???:blink:


----------



## Andysu

Moviefanatic said:


> Boy, this is a big bump up for a thread, it being 2007 since the last post. Hope no one mindss


The force is strong with this thread.:rofl:

Aye…but only if George Lucas labels it as (true original versions from the theatrical Road Show 70mm six-track Dolby stereo) otherwise he can keep them.


----------



## Andysu

Richard W. Haines said:


> The question is, what materials exist on the original version to remaster it? I believe Lucas re-edited the original negative when he created the 1997 re-issue. They might not have a negative of
> the 1977 release any more and all origiinal US prints in 70mm and 35mm have faded to red.


Well maybe they made written notes on the soundtrack and if they have the original recordings then maybe they can reconstruct it as it was heard on the 70mm Dolby release prints, without any sly tweaking of levels because there are those who like vintage Dolby mixes.

(Ioan Allan) of Dolby Labs mentions how good Star Wars was in 70mm.


----------



## Machismo

Vader said:


> I will simply wait for the inevitable Hi Def versions...


Me too, it will be interesting to see how they do.


----------



## tiggers97

Moviefanatic said:


> ...I was wondering why there isn't a Blu Ray editish of these out there yet...


I bet if there was a way to track DVD sales for the starwars franchise you could probably make a pretty good prediction on a blu-ray release. I would put a buck on rumors starting at the beginning of 2011.


----------



## MatrixDweller

There's not enough Bluray adoption yet for Lucas to consider pumping out some high def versions. He'll want to be able to press a billion Bluray discs to reduce his costs and maximize his revenue. It's kind of sad that he still has to put money first and not the art or his die hard fans. I doubt he would loose money if he released them tomorrow and I bet it would sell a few Bluray players and high def TVs. 

I would expect a release date of either 4rth quarter 2010 or a year later in 2011 depending on whether Bluray player and media sales hit a certain magic number.


----------



## Andysu

tiggers97 said:


> I bet if there was a way to track DVD sales for the starwars franchise you could probably make a pretty good prediction on a blu-ray release. I would put a buck on rumors starting at the beginning of 2011.


Prediction LOL yeah I won’t be touching it with 10 foot barge pole, not unless it has strictly original 1977 1980 and 1983 original six-track Dolby stereo mixes of that era otherwise Lucas can keep is fiddling Star Wars for all I care.



MatrixDweller said:


> There's not enough Bluray adoption yet for Lucas to consider pumping out some high def versions. He'll want to be able to press a billion Bluray discs to reduce his costs and maximize his revenue. It's kind of sad that he still has to put money first and not the art or his die hard fans. I doubt he would loose money if he released them tomorrow and I bet it would sell a few Bluray players and high def TVs.
> 
> I would expect a release date of either 4rth quarter 2010 or a year later in 2011 depending on whether Bluray player and media sales hit a certain magic number.


Yet he flogged us with that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of Crystal Skull on DVD and bluray thou I brought the DVD saw no point in the bluray just a waste of money same film different price! Now then!

_The more things change the more they stay the same._

As for his die hard fans I’m one of that era thou if it wasn’t for “us the fans” his little Star Wars would have only took £$60 or so million. Of course we liked it and paid to see it again and George’s problems of making its money back was escalated though the roof surpassing Jaws.

So if it wasn’t for us he’d still be writing wooden screenplays and making grossly cheap budget films. The money thing went to his head and he became the thing he hated most. Well he seems too well relaxed now and doesn’t give a hoot about the fans lets just leave the guy in peace to gorge on all his money...I mean our money!

Each and everyone of us wants a peace of the original because for most of us we are suckers for originals and he doesn’t want to give any of us this peace of excitement that we enjoined though the late 70’s to early 80’s.


----------



## tiggers97

I would really be interested in the blu-ray version if it removed the "jar-jar" and Ewok artifacts that seem to really distract from the movies . Ok, maybe an interactive 'gun' as a feature? 
(sorry, couldn't help myself)


----------



## Andysu

tiggers97 said:


> I would really be interested in the blu-ray version if it removed the "jar-jar" and Ewok artifacts that seem to really distract from the movies . Ok, maybe an interactive 'gun' as a feature?
> (sorry, couldn't help myself)


:devil:I think someone has already sorted Jar Jar Binks! It’s the end of days for Jar Jar! :devil:


----------



## Moviefanatic

I actually liked Jar-Jar. Go figure.


----------



## Andysu

Moviefanatic said:


> I actually liked Jar-Jar. Go figure.


Booo hisss

Well I think Jar jar is Muppet. A CGI Muppet.

I seem to recall Lucas comparing Jar Jar Binks to Buster Keaton, he has got to be kidding?

This is Buster Keaton







and this is Jar Jar Binks







they do not look alike...well maybe?


----------



## Moviefanatic

Andysu said:


> I seem to recall Lucas comparing Jar Jar Binks to Buster Keaton, he has got to be kidding?


But isn't Lucas off-color these days? Literally.


----------



## Andysu

Moviefanatic said:


> But isn't Lucas off-color these days? Literally.


Well if he keeps eating all that junk food, he well look a bit off colour.
I mean look at the size of that quid triple chin its bigger than California.


----------

