Star Wars Returns to Theaters…In 2027

[Cephus]

I honestly don't care. I grew up watching grainy VHS and old movies. I care about the content, not the visuals. I would much rather watch all the matte lines and the film grain, in mono, to get Han shooting first and zero CGI. It doesn't bother me one bit to have it look old, because all media is a product of its time.

 

[Gregatron]

This is where I dig my heels in and disagree with a lot of fans of originality.

The visibly-obvious garbage mattes in the DVD/Blu-Ray releases are NOT original to the movie. They are a by-product of later video equipment, which raises the image contrast higher than it ever was during a theater viewing.

Those matte boxes bother me because the movie DID NOT look like that in theaters in 1977. Removing the boxes would RESTORE the original appearance (when it's viewed on modern video equipment).

I'm only saying that they shouldn't be digitally removed, not that they should be glaringly visible.

Many earlier home video transfers were too bright, and made them stick out.

 

[blewis17]

This is where I dig my heels in and disagree with a lot of fans of originality.

The visibly-obvious garbage mattes in the DVD/Blu-Ray releases are NOT original to the movie. They are a by-product of later video equipment, which raises the image contrast higher than it ever was during a theater viewing.

Those matte boxes bother me because the movie DID NOT look like that in theaters in 1977. Removing the boxes would RESTORE the original appearance (when it's viewed on modern video equipment).

While I think the matte lines around the ships should remain as they were in 1977, I specifically remember NEVER seeing blocky garbage mattes like that in the theater, for any of the 3 original trilogy films. Like you said, maybe something with the black levels when you convert from film to another medium?

 

[Captain Dunsel]

You know guys and gals…Han didn’t actually shoot first.

Han is the only one who fired a shot…poor Greedo never got a shot off.

 

[Gregatron]

You know guys and gals…Han didn’t actually shoot first.

Han is the only one who fired a shot…poor Greedo never got a shot off.

And the retcon that "it was always intended that they both shoot" is demonstrably not true. The script, novelization, and Marvel Comics adaptation all have Han shooting ONLY.

His line, "Yes, I'll bet you have." is a dark joke, because he's about to shoot Greedo from under the table.

Lucas obviously rethought the casual violence of this scene 20 years later, and after becoming a father.

Just as he also trimmed frames from the shots of the uniformed Imperial officers being shot by Luke and Han aboard the Death Star so as not to linger on the violence.

 

[batguy]

The ILM guys have talked about the garbage matte boxes before. That stuff is more visible on the home video releases because of the medium. Showing anything in a theater on film gives you less deep blacks.

ILM relied on space backgrounds to hide some of their compositing sins. That's why they were groaning when George wanted to do the ESB Hoth battle against bright/white scenery.

When the Laserdisc came out they mentioned trying to get the "levels" down to reduce the compositing evidence. They talked about how the previous home video releases had made that stuff look too bright.



IMO they should digitally tone-down the appearance of the matte boxes. It's not a change, it's bringing the movie back closer to the original.

Originality is a nice goal but it's not a practical rule. It's never 100% original unless you use a film projector and a Scotchlite screen.

Heck, the 1990s salvaging job with the film negatives . . . that already made the ANH image quality better than it originally was. The prints that people actually watched in 1970s movie theaters looked like crap compared to our standards. When fans call for an original version now, they don't want originality, they want some kind of hyper-original version with higher image quality. But that brings out more compositing flaws as a side effect.

 

[3Dsf]

Heck, the 1990s salvaging job with the film negatives . . . that already made the ANH image quality better than it originally was. The prints that people actually watched in 1970s movie theaters looked like crap compared to our standards.

Definitely. We know what the 4K77 scans of original film look like. I saw the preserved Technicolor UK print shown by the BFI recently, and boy did it show a lot of the flaws that were considered normal at the time! But these flaws (heavy grain, inconsistent colour and contrast, real softness of the image, etc) also concealed a lot of the rough edges, particularly around optical compositing and some of the worst matte paintings!

 

[batguy]

Definitely. We know what the 4K77 scans of original film look like. I saw the preserved Technicolor UK print shown by the BFI recently, and boy did it show a lot of the flaws that were considered normal at the time! But these flaws (heavy grain, inconsistent colour and contrast, real softness of the image, etc) also concealed a lot of the rough edges, particularly around optical compositing and some of the worst matte paintings!

That's what I'm getting at.

The lower quality of the OG theater film & projectors was hiding some of the flaws. And the filmmakers counted on that when they were making the movie. They let some of that stuff remain rough because they assumed we would never see it.



The same issue rears its head with editing in pre-1990s TV & movies. The old editors didn't count on widespread home video players. They planned for their work to be shown on network TV or in a theater and that's it. Viewers could not scrutinize the footage frame-by-frame. Editors could get more aggressive with "sloppy" shots, they could get away with re-using old shots & sound effects more, etc.

Today they ask "Does this shot hold up?" (Matte painting, VFX, etc.) 40-50 years ago they would say "Can we get away with this rickety shot? How long will it hold up before the audience starts to notice?" It was a different mindset. Different quality standard. And the audience was way less informed about the tricks of the trade in general.

 

[Psab keel]

If matte lines and similar technical issues aren't a concern, then Team Negative One efforts should suffice.

While I'm beyond grateful to have them, as well as the 2006 Bonus DVDs because they're the original cuts, I still would love to own a pristine official version.

If Disney is going to release the theatrical cuts, why on earth would they not do a proper restoration to make the films look and sound their best for high definition home theaters? Our current technologies would magnify the analog limitations without some help. Where George went wrong in 1997 was to make changes that affected the content of his films. Disney could fix that and make a pile of money. Win/win for everybody.

How many versions of this trilogy did we buy over the decades in the hope to get a superior quality copy? That was the only reason I bought them over and over with each new release. What would be the point otherwise?

I mean if we're talking about recreating the 1977 experience, the 2006 bonus discs would be far closer than any other current format because it was lower resolution, yet the number one complaint with those is that the image and sound quality was not up to 2006 standards.

Why go halfway again in 2027? By its very definition, a preservation effort on a classic film is to preserve it for future generations, and that means bringing it in line with the most modern technical advances for future generations to enjoy, without destroying the story with unnecessary content changes.

 

[blewis17]

Definitely. We know what the 4K77 scans of original film look like. I saw the preserved Technicolor UK print shown by the BFI recently, and boy did it show a lot of the flaws that were considered normal at the time! But these flaws (heavy grain, inconsistent colour and contrast, real softness of the image, etc) also concealed a lot of the rough edges, particularly around optical compositing and some of the worst matte paintings!

Yep. Film back then had its own built in "anti-aliasing"

 

[blewis17]

If matte lines and similar technical issues aren't a concern, then Team Negative One efforts should suffice.

While I'm beyond grateful to have them, as well as the 2006 Bonus DVDs because they're the original cuts, I still would love to own a pristine official version.

If Disney is going to release the theatrical cuts, why on earth would they not do a proper restoration to make the films look and sound their best for high definition home theaters? Our current technologies would magnify the analog limitations without some help. Where George went wrong in 1997 was to make changes that affected the content of his films. Disney could fix that and make a pile of money. Win/win for everybody.

How many versions of this trilogy did we buy over the decades in the hope to get a superior quality copy? That was the only reason I bought them over and over with each new release. What would be the point otherwise?

I mean if we're talking about recreating the 1977 experience, the 2006 bonus discs would be far closer than any other current format because it was lower resolution, yet the number one complaint with those is that the image and sound quality was not up to 2006 standards.

Why go halfway again in 2027? By its very definition, a preservation effort on a classic film is to preserve it for future generations, and that means bringing it in line with the most modern technical advances for future generations to enjoy, without destroying the story with unnecessary content changes.

You've got to toss common sense aside. As a rule, Corporate Disney doesn't "think" that way anymore. They are not going to sink a lot of money into ANOTHER "restoration" of the original Star Wars. The majority of casual fans are not aware of these OCD nuances, and would not care anyway. I could be wrong, but my BET is we will get the Special Edition in 4K as the theatrical release.

Now, Disney could make a facsimile of the original film, by simply cutting the 1997 changes from the SE version, and only working on shots that need to be re-incorporated from the original film (the Stormtrooper stop in Mos Eisley, the Death Star attack) and digitally remove the floating Imperial droids, etc.

 

[Psab keel]

I agree with you. They will put in the least amount of resources and time for maximum profit and I honestly doubt a theatrical cut will be released. If they do another physical media release of the trilogy it will probably be the SE versions (in whatever new configuration exists currently). Though given the fact that Jedi and Sith have only seen theatrical rereleases for a limited time with no new home media offerings, I suspect the 50th anniversary of Star Wars will likely be the same. There might be some more fanfare in the media about it, but my guess is the focus will be on it being in a theater, not about a new Blu-Ray set we haven't heard about.

We're speaking hypothetically here though and this entire discussion is conjecture on what ought to happen versus what will happen. These rumors have been floating around for over twenty years now, and amounted to zip, so I'm not counting on it happening, and none of us should. We can hope they are true and that's all that can be done.

If they did release a facsimile as you mentioned, as long as the quality was good overall, I could live with that. I mean we've been settling for all this time with inferior releases (SE versions) and if that was the best we could ever get was a reconstruction to align with the original content, I would still grab a few copies. That's really the best we could ask for.

 

[Gregatron]

I agree with you. They will put in the least amount of resources and time for maximum profit and I honestly doubt a theatrical cut will be released. If they do another physical media release of the trilogy it will probably be the SE versions (in whatever new configuration exists currently). Though given the fact that Jedi and Sith have only seen theatrical rereleases for a limited time with no new home media offerings, I suspect the 50th anniversary of Star Wars will likely be the same. There might be some more fanfare in the media about it, but my guess is the focus will be on it being in a theater, not about a new Blu-Ray set we haven't heard about.

We're speaking hypothetically here though and this entire discussion is conjecture on what ought to happen versus what will happen. These rumors have been floating around for over twenty years now, and amounted to zip, so I'm not counting on it happening, and none of us should. We can hope they are true and that's all that can be done.

If they did release a facsimile as you mentioned, as long as the quality was good overall, I could live with that. I mean we've been settling for all this time with inferior releases (SE versions) and if that was the best we could ever get was a reconstruction to align with the original content, I would still grab a few copies. That's really the best we could ask for.

In terms of a new scan/remaster, I’d be perfectly happy with something akin to a Vinegar Syndrome or other boutique release: a good scan of the negative or an interpositive with faithful color grading and whatnot.

But, this is The Mouse we’re talking about. Low-effort is the name of the game. They’d probably just scan in the trimmed elements and splice them into the existing 4K master.


And, of course, no physical release. Just “exclusively streaming on Disney +”, to try and bolster their subscription numbers.

 

[Psab keel]

In terms of a new scan/remaster, I’d be perfectly happy with something akin to a Vinegar Syndrome or other boutique release: a good scan of the negative or an interpositive with faithful color grading and whatnot.

But, this is The Mouse we’re talking about. Low-effort is the name of the game. They’d probably just scan in the trimmed elements and splice them into the existing 4K master.


And, of course, no physical release. Just “exclusively streaming on Disney +”, to try and bolster their subscription numbers.

THIS. Not to mention that their "4K" version isn't even truly 4K.

 

[greenmachines]

50th Anniversary.....

of the original

None of the changes are having a 50th anniversary.

How can that be a difficult thing to grasp?

When the changes become 50, have another showing of the changes..... yay, they are fifty..... yay.

50th Anniversary of the original (drops mic, walks away)

 

[Gregatron]

50th Anniversary.....

of the original

None of the changes are having a 50th anniversary.

How can that be a difficult thing to grasp?

When the changes become 50, have another showing of the changes..... yay, they are fifty..... yay.

50th Anniversary of the original (drops mic, walks away)

View attachment 1956073

The inherent problem here is that Lucas was constantly rethinking and revising both the story and the films themselves. He considers the 4K version—and the six-film story—to be the final iteration, with everything prior as a sort of “rough draft”.

Now, in terms of a director being unsatisfied with their work and going back to correct it, that’s not inherently bad. That said, director’s cuts are always labeled as such—they’re always revisionist and reflective versions of the actual, released film.

BLADE RUNNER: The Final Cut may be Ridley Scott’s preferred version, but it’s not the movie that came out and bombed in 1982. STAR TREK- THE MOTION PICTURE: THE DIRECTOR’S EDITION may be the best version of that film, but it’s not the unfinished, compromised film fans had waited ten years to see, back in 1979. The original versions have historical value.

STAR WARS is one of the most important films ever made. And its 1977 iteration is a completely different beast from STAR WARS: EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE, which is now merely the fourth chapter in The Tragedy of Darth Vader.

In 1977, Vader was just a henchman, Luke was related to nobody except his aunt and uncle, Ben Kenobi wasn’t waiting for Luke to come of age so he could kill his own father, etc.

Lucas began radically reshaping the story with THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, and then began altering the films themselves so they’d all retroactively fit together. And has done his level best to expunge the “rough drafts” from the history books.

Whether it’s “artistic vision” or an almost pathological obsession with keeping up the illusion that The Tragedy of Darth Vader was always the plan is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Psab keel]

Another example of why revisionist history sucks.

 

[Gregatron]

Another example of why revisionist history sucks.

Yep. But there wouldn’t be a problem if all the versions were just made freely available, as with BLADE RUNNER. Instead, it’s “this was always the intent, and so this is now the ONLY version”. When it most demonstrably was not.

I have no problem with Lucas’ final, six-film arc. I have no problem with his right to rethink and revise his films. I can study and enjoy all three iterations: STAR WARS, the 1977 standalone film which made history, the original STAR WARS TRILOGY (1977-83), and the six-film STAR WARS SAGA (1977-2005).

It’s the suppression of the actual history and evolution of the films and the story which bothers me. The real, messy behind-the-scenes story is way more interesting than, “it was always planned this way”.


The other thing which really bothers me is what we’re seeing now, with both the older members of the Lucas Cult (like Rick Worley) and younger Gen Z-types (like Anomaly, Inc.) who mock and berate anyone who questions Lucas’ choices, and insists that the six-film Saga is the only version of the story with merit, that the films “must” be watched I-VI, and that the the 4Ks are superior to any of the previous, “unfinished” theatrical/home media releases.

This is something we’re seeing more and more, now. The kids actively hate the old fans and the original source material (See: DISCOVERY and STRANGE NEW WORLDS fans attacking TOS and its fanbase, and prequel fans attacking original trilogy fans). They think everything new is just peachy-keen, and older material deserves nothing but contempt. Recency bias in the extreme.


I often think of the ending of THE WICKER MAN, when it comes to these people. Not the Nic Cage version, mind you.

The pagan cult singing and laughing as the man representing traditional religion is burned alive.

 

[Analyzer]

I know it is heresy, but I would think one of the main purposes for the 50th anniversary is to try bringing the theater experience to a new generation

No offense, but a pristine 1977 copy of the original in a modern theater to the younger generations would look very dated and crappy

Sure there is a difference between watching something with a film school type eye maybe for educational/historical reasons, but for entertainment purposes, a restored movie will just look better to modern audiences

a few years ago, our local park would have summer outdoor movie nights

one of the nights was Star Wars. One of the comments I had heard most that night was how well the look of the film and its effects stood up compared to other 70's and 80s sci fi
a big part of that was really the efforts put into keep it modern looking
it really would feel dated if you were watching a true 1977 copy

as far as the special edition added/altered scenes apart from restoration...

The 10 year olds of the current generation experiencing it for the first time will not care if Han shot first.

No one in the park got upset over it

let them enjoy it

Sure a pristine original release might be good for nostalgia sake, but that could be a different event really. One for the hardcore member berries

 

[greenmachines]

I have talked to sooooo many new viewers who liked the original better. Still haven't met anyone I personally know, from 5 to 65, that can't immediately go 4th wall out of the movie when they see the McClunky and other badly done effects, let alone the bizarre Jaba tail stepping scene. They just laugh and say wow your graphics back then were soooo bad. Then I tell them it really wasn't and this is the remake with effects added. They watch the original and are wowed at how real everything looks.