Star Wars Returns to Theaters…In 2027

[Psab keel]

The digital changes of George's versions stand out like lousy and irksome commercial breaks in an otherwise seamless experience.

I think the 50th anniversary theatrical release is just one more way to make some easy cash from Gen X and the people who grew up in the analog world. Theaters have been dying and while I don't think they'll vanish for good, as those generations age out, theaters will mostly be a relic of a bygone era.

Kids by and large dont give a rats ass about a 50 year old movie. Why would they? I think many hard-core fans have an unrealistic fantasy that their kids will carry the torch for the OT the way we did. Trust me. They won't.

 

[Gregatron]

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

But how would it be any different from a Fathom Events anniversary screening of, say, CITIZEN KANE, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, or THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS?

Since when is STAR WARS some terrible-looking film that needs a massive restoration in order to be presentable?

 

[Ron]

For me, it's gotta be the unaltered original trilogy. If it's the Special Editions (which it will most likely be), then I'm out. That being said, if I had never been fortunate enough to have seen the Special Editions in '97, I would definitely go this time around.

 

[CessnaDriver]

I'll be needin' me some of these if this goes down proper.
They still make them seasonally.

 

[batguy]

I still argue that you could follow a simple formula and make a version of ANH that pleases 99% of the public:

Technical improvements: YES.
Creative changes: NO.


Smoother spaceship movements in the Yavin battle?
Fix the vaseline blob under Luke's speeder?
More consistent lightsaber animation?
Yes. These are technical fixes.

Greedo shooting first?
CGI Mos Eisley?
The Jabba scene?
No. These are creative changes.


Of course there are gray areas. I think the 1997 CGI Death Star explosion is a pure gain for the movie. And I would like to see better fighting shots of Obi-Wan & Vader. These are more things that were technically-limited in the 1970s.

(Yes, I've seen the fan-made clips of improved Obi/Vader duels. They are way too modern & stylized to integrate into the old movie. But I like the idea if it was done in a very subtle seamless way.)

 

[Gregatron]

I still argue that you could follow a simple formula and make a version of ANH that pleases 99% of the public:

Technical improvements: YES.
Creative changes: NO.


Smoother spaceship movements in the Yavin battle?
Fix the vaseline blob under Luke's speeder?
More consistent lightsaber animation?
Yes. These are technical fixes.

Greedo shooting first?
CGI Mos Eisley?
The Jabba scene?
No. These are creative changes.


Of course there are gray areas. I think the CGI Death Star explosion is a pure gain to the movie. And I would like to see better fighting shots of Obi-Wan & Vader. These are more things that were technically-limited in the 1970s.

(Yes, I've seen the fan-made clips of improved Obi/Vader duels. They are way too modern & stylized to integrate into the old movie. But I like the idea if it was done in a very subtle seamless way.)

As noted, some of the fanmade projects have taken 1997 prints and comformed them to the original edits. Thus creating a hybrid which takes advantage of the 1997 restoration, color grading, and recomposites, but without the SE changes.

That said, even a "cleaned up" version isn't the original version.

I'd be happy with a good quality interpositive being scanned, with competent grain management and color grading.

I'm not seeing a scenario where The Mouse doesn't screw up, somehow. I'd be willing to be they just take the existing 4K master and add the trimmed material back on, then stick it on Disney +.


But I find myself more and more annoyed by people who've been brainwashed into thinking the original versions look "terrible", as in the clickbait articles which came out of the BFI screenings. Ridiculous.

 

[batguy]

I'm not seeing a scenario where The Mouse doesn't screw up, somehow. I'd be willing to be they just take the existing 4K master and add the trimmed material back on, then stick it on Disney +.

I'm assuming Disney won't put decent time or money or thought into it. Anybody wanna bet against me?

To be fair, I dunno if any other big studio would have treated it much better. Not without a driving force behind the project like the original filmmaker. Corporate bigwigs understand the relatively simple concept of "clean up the old print and release it with higher res.' But the situation with SW/ANH is a lot more complicated than most old movies.

But I find myself more and more annoyed by people who've been brainwashed into thinking the original versions look "terrible", as in the clickbait articles which came out of the BFI screenings. Ridiculous.

Yeah I didn't pay any attention to that. They are just jerking around for clicks.

 

[blewis17]

As noted, some of the fanmade projects have taken 1997 prints and comformed them to the original edits. Thus creating a hybrid which takes advantage of the 1997 restoration, color grading, and recomposites, but without the SE changes.

That said, even a "cleaned up" version isn't the original version.

I'd be happy with a good quality interpositive being scanned, with competent grain management and color grading.

I'm not seeing a scenario where The Mouse doesn't screw up, somehow. I'd be willing to be they just take the existing 4K master and add the trimmed material back on, then stick it on Disney +.


But I find myself more and more annoyed by people who've been brainwashed into thinking the original versions look "terrible", as in the clickbait articles which came out of the BFI screenings. Ridiculous.

We used to think VHS at its 240p image was great! I can watch movies at home! And on standard NA TVs, NTSC was 525 total lines (slightly higher for PAL in Europe). And yes, Beta-Max was better

Then you saw a DVD at 640i, and THEN at 640p with component inputs, and thought... wow, what a difference!
Side by side, VHS looked like garbage.

And the first High Definition televisions at 720p with Blu-ray (which were 1080p), you could see the difference next to a DVD.

Now TVs are largely 4K, and 4K content (3840 × 2160p) on a large enough screen, your "brain" becomes used to the increased resolution and overall digital look of the picture.

So maybe a 35mm print from 50 years ago will look "odd" to a modern, younger audience. It's not apples to apples, I know. You can't compare a digital image directly to a 35mm piece of celluloid... it's not the same technology. and you would need a 5.6K resolution image to represent the data in a 35mm slice... but you get my drift. The younger generation that has only ever known digital display (TV, streaming, cell phone, and even theatrical releases which all use 2K laser projectors now), and has never really EXPERIENCED 16mm, 35mm, or 70mm film in a large theater, they may see it as off-putting to their digitally trained brains.

 

[Gregatron]

Here’s a comparison of the 2006 bonus DVD (aka the 1993 laserdisc master, but with a scan of the 1977 opening crawl spliced in), the “Silver Screen Edition” (which was essentially the proto-4K77, since it was a scan of a theatrical print), 4K77, and the 2011 Blu-Ray.

The 2019 4K isn’t included, unfortunately.

You can instantly see how the 2011 Blu-Ray sticks out, with its wonky colors and crushed blacks. Whereas the 2006 DVD is pretty faithful to the theatrical colors, with 4K77 itself faithfully representing the theatrical color grading.


Meanwhile, here’s a short comparison by Petr Harmy (yes, THAT Harmy), comparing the 2019 4K, 4K77, his own DeSpecialized 2.5 (based on the 2011 Blu-Ray), and his beta version of DeSpecialized 3.0 (based on the 4K).

The 4K has those dark and drab colors, compared to the more natural and vibrant look of the 4K77 print (and Harmy’s regrade of the 4K to match 4K77 for DeSpecialized 3.0).


People think the 4Ks look great because of all the sharp detail visible in the scan of the negative, but there’s a lot of oversharpening/processing/grain removal, and the color grading is too dark and drab. In no way representative of the original photography and how it was intended and presented as.

 

[Psab keel]

I think there could be a happy medium, but business decisions aren't made off of artistic integrity. Especially for a company like Disney.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

I do have to say, I prefer the latest version of Return of the Jedi, which has the Force Ghost of Porkins…

 

[Gregatron]

I do have to say, I prefer the latest version of Star Wars, which has the Force Ghost of Porkins…

View attachment 1956208

The real Chosen One all along, but for the fact that he didn’t eject when he should have.

 

[Paul Andrew]

Here’s a comparison of the 2006 bonus DVD (aka the 1993 laserdisc master, but with a scan of the 1977 opening crawl spliced in), the “Silver Screen Edition” (which was essentially the proto-4K77, since it was a scan of a theatrical print), 4K77, and the 2011 Blu-Ray.

The 2019 4K isn’t included, unfortunately.

You can instantly see how the 2011 Blu-Ray sticks out, with its wonky colors and crushed blacks. Whereas the 2006 DVD is pretty faithful to the theatrical colors, with 4K77 itself faithfully representing the theatrical color grading.


Meanwhile, here’s a short comparison by Petr Harmy (yes, THAT Harmy), comparing the 2019 4K, 4K77, his own DeSpecialized 2.5 (based on the 2011 Blu-Ray), and his beta version of DeSpecialized 3.0 (based on the 4K).

The 4K has those dark and drab colors, compared to the more natural and vibrant look of the 4K77 print (and Harmy’s regrade of the 4K to match 4K77 for DeSpecialized 3.0).


People think the 4Ks look great because of all the sharp detail visible in the scan of the negative, but there’s a lot of oversharpening/processing/grain removal, and the color grading is too dark and drab. In no way representative of the original photography and how it was intended and presented as.

The bonus disc looks the most "right" to me as far as coloring goes, excepting how ruddy some of those facial tones are - this is I'm sure a product of how much I watched the old THX VHS copies I had as a kid.

The Blu-ray feels overly blue (irony!) and 4k77 has a weird pink tinge in the white hallway.

Super weird to watch how different the timing is for the crawl for the BD also.

 

[batguy]

I would have been pretty content with the DVD copy of the old Laserdisc version, if it wasn't for that stupid letterbox transfer preventing it from filling the whole screen.

(Yeah, I know the resolution would not be great on a big modern TV. It wasn't great in 1970s movie theaters either.)

 

[Analyzer]

But how would it be any different from a Fathom Events anniversary screening of, say, CITIZEN KANE, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, or THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS?

Since when is STAR WARS some terrible-looking film that needs a massive restoration in order to be presentable?

from project 4K77

now from an "art or film history" I think 4k77 is really what you want to preserve in the film archives

personally I think the 2011 Blu-ray is a nice improvement as well, but being a child growing up in the 70's, I like the warmer tones of the project 4K77

But again, there are really two different audiences that are being catered to

while I personally dislike most of the added scenes of the special edition I do prefer a cleaned up crisper modern look

There are probably more fans now who grew up with the special editions or have never seen it vs one who saw it in the theaters

I mean even those special editions will be hitting the 30th anniversary, and for a good number of fans, those are the versions they will remember

 

[Gregatron]

View attachment 1956219

from project 4K77

View attachment 1956220
View attachment 1956214
now from an "art or film history" I think 4k77 is really what you want to preserve in the film archives

personally I think the 2011 Blu-ray is a nice improvement as well, but being a child growing up in the 70's, I like the warmer tones of the project 4K77

View attachment 1956218


But again, there are really two different audiences that are being catered to

while I personally dislike most of the added scenes of the special edition I do prefer a cleaned up crisper modern look

There are probably more fans now who grew up with the special editions or have never seen it vs one who saw it in the theaters

I mean even those special editions will be hitting the 30th anniversary, and for a good number of fans, those are the versions they will remember

But the 1997 version isn't the one having its 50th anniversary.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

The real Chosen One all along, but for the fact that he didn’t eject when he should have.

 

[Treadwell]

Smoother spaceship movements in the Yavin battle?

That is more than a technical fix. They move they way they were shot. Either we keep Dykstra's work or we don't.

 

[Gregatron]

That is more than a technical fix. They move they way they were shot. Either we keep Dykstra's work or we don't.

Right.


There are two, and only two ways I see this being done well:

1) They rescan the negative (or use the previous scan), scan in and restore all the trims, and then digitally reassemble Humpty Dumpty, with a new color grade faithful to the original release, and also holding back on the heavy DNR and grain removal.

2) Scan an interpositive or other high-quality, non-negative source, and do standard cleanup/grading/correction, as you’d see from a botique release from Vinegar Syndrome, Criterion, etc. You don’t see those boutique labels rethinking the films that they release. They just dohigh-quality scans and as much cleanup as necessary to ensure a nice-but-faithful presentation.

Recomposites and whatnot are revisionism. The speeder needs that blob underneath, as ugly as it is. Because that’s the movie.

Again, I need to reiterate that Lucas was absolutely correct and within his rights to want to clean the films up and make them as high-quality as possible, in terms of the composites and replacing dodgy shots. Objectively speaking, the CGI replacement shots from the Battle of Yavin are vastly superior and more dynamic than the original model shots they replicated.

So, again, no problem with Lucas altering his films or his story. It’s the erasure of the original work and the original experience that’s so bothersome. There’s no reason they can’t coexist, but for his stubborn insistence that the final iteration is how it was always intended to be, so tough.


A lot of people don’t actually realize just how extensive the Special Edition changes are. There are the VISIBLE changes (new scenes, altered scenes, sound mix/music changes, etc.), and there are the INVISIBLE changes (recompositing the original model shots and matte paintings to eliminate matte lines/transparencies/timing issues, redoing and replacing all of the optical wipes/dissolves/scene transitions, etc.).

When people talk about the SE changes, 99% of them are referring to the obvious stuff. But the films were completely broken down and reassembled. Literally dozens of shots featuring original model/matte effects and optical scene transitions were digitally redone, but you wouldn’t notice these “invisible” changes without a side-by-side, frame-by-frame comparison.

I can absolutely see Lucas’ point in that it would be a strange and expensive thing to spend so much time, money, and energy restoring shots and opticals which are objectively lower-quality than the 1997 versions, especially after Fox spent $15 million to clean and restore the films. It would literally be a step backwards, just to restore a version of the films that he now considers obsolete.


But this all raises the question: What do people actually want? A slick and polished version of the original edits, so they can wallow in nostalgia without the messy bits from the original release (like matte lines and other imperfections) and the controversial Special Edition changes, or a faithful, warts-and-all preservation of films with huge historical importance?

 

[OddballFett]

I loves me some Maclunky…

I was yesterday years old when I finally saw Maclunkey for the first time, on Youtube.

So now there's even multiple versions of the Special Editions, cgi Jabba 1, cgi Jabba 2, and Maclunkey. Any others I'm missing?