BLU-RAY BOX SET 2011 vs OUT ORIGINAL UNALTERED TRILOGY 2006

[edmaul1]

I was thinking of just downloading the SE OT and the unaltered ones (if I can find them) and splicing the movies together. Including some but not all of the changes. I really think Lucas and spielberg and Cameron have lost their minds. I was watching behind the scenes of crystal skull and he was saying that you look at a picture from raiders and one from crystal and you can't tell the difference. Lol


People say they want the original theatrical release on bluray. IF he was to do that and NOT adjust the effects I guarantee people would still complain! With things like the land speeder wheels smudged out with Vaseline and the bad saber effects and boxes around the ships. The list can go on. I would recommend downloading the OT and the special edition and make your own film the way you want.

[Treadwell]

People say they want the original theatrical release on bluray. IF he was to do that and NOT adjust the effects I guarantee people would still complain!

"People", huh?

Let's be clear about this - you are saying that if LucasFilm made the original, unaltered, record-breaking, generation-defining, theatrical versions of the original trilogy of movies available on Blu-Ray (presuming that this, in itself, implies with a sound mix and video specs beffiting of the format), "people" would still "complain", yes?

So which people do you mean? The people who were already happy with the current Blu-Ray release? Or the people who would like to see the original, unaltered, record-breaking, generation-defining, theatrical versions of his original trilogy of movies available on Blu-Ray?

So - I'm confused - I fail to see what either group's incentive to "complain" would be in the scenario you describe? Or are you implying that you consider there to be a third group of people, who simply complain about releases of Star Wars movies without a motive, simply because you do not agree with or comprehend the motives of group number two?
How very convenient...

With things like the land speeder wheels smudged out with Vaseline and the bad saber effects and boxes around the ships. The list can go on.

Yep, yep, yep - with those things that were in the original, record-breaking, generation-defining, theatrical versions of the movies please. I would have thought that was self-evident.

I would recommend downloading the OT and the special edition and make your own film the way you want.

How very industrious - thanks.

If I were to do this - I don't need to because people far more talented at such things than myself have already embarked upon numerous preservation projects which are sat on my DVD shelf - are you suggesting this would have to happen as some kind of alternative to discussing Star Wars, and its past/current home format releases on this message board?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am kind of entitled to continue to do both, I don't really see how the two are mutually exclusive...

[edmaul1]

With making your own copy it's just a suggestion if you want to get the movies the way you want. Cause it's obvious that George will not provide the movie everyone likes.

And as for releasing the untouched theatrical versions on bluray, the people that would be complaining would be the ones who want the unaltered versions.

And they would be complaining about the fudged out wheels on the land speeder, and some of the light sabers and the boxes around the ships etc etc. IMO they would still want to see sone adjustments in the theatrical versions.

[Alexrd]

And as for releasing the untouched theatrical versions on bluray, the people that would be complaining would be the ones who want the unaltered versions.

No, they wouldn't. Precisely because they are getting the original versions.

[edmaul1]

And as for releasing the untouched theatrical versions on bluray, the people that would be complaining would be the ones who want the unaltered versions.

No, they wouldn't. Precisely because they are getting the original versions.

Yeah right. They sure as would complain, if certain things weren't fixed or tweaked.

[ETandElliott]

I would never complain about those sorts of things. The alleged imperfections are a part of the movies. Whenever I watch the opening of Empire, it never looks right anymore. The belly of the star destroyer is way too clean. It's supposed to be a specky grainy mess.

[Alexrd]

Yeah right. They sure as would complain, if certain things weren't fixed or tweaked.

No, why would they do that? Do you know why people complain about such things? Because since they are getting the special editions (which is supposed to fix many things) and not the original version, they want that some major flaws and mistakes get fixed.

[ETandElliott]

I definitely follow what is changed or "fixed". A lot of the time, more trivial things are fixed while other things are left alone. For instance, why was Han's shirt lightened when it wasn't even a mistake, yet the lightsabers are the wrong color or Uncle Owen never had anything to say about Anakin's ideals or whatever and never even knew him? But I digress.

[edmaul1]

I would never complain about those sorts of things. The alleged imperfections are a part of the movies. Whenever I watch the opening of Empire, it never looks right anymore. The belly of the star destroyer is way too clean. It's supposed to be a specky grainy mess.

Ok that is fine, so for the unaltered editions people want them on bluray with the grainy picture etc. I never bought the last release on DVD that included the original theatrical cuts but wasn't that what people wanted?

I seem to remember them not being in letter box or something. But people complained about the picture quality sucking. Any hoo I know if I can I will splice my own OT edition together with some of the fixes and others not included like bobas original voice in esb and no Jabba anh and some others too

[Treadwell]

With making your own copy it's just a suggestion if you want to get the movies the way you want. Cause it's obvious that George will not provide the movie everyone likes.

And fans of the films will continue to discuss this issue. Your point is? Even if the films ever were released in "a version the fans want" the past 15 years of Star Wars releases would still be a hot topic on Star Wars message boards - what do you expect?

I don't see the relationship between the two things - namely: the issue of the availability of the theatrical releases on a current home format, and the issue of discussing the decisions and processes that have contributed to the releases of Star Wars over the years, particularly in the past 15 years.

Both phenomenon can occur simultaeously and independently of each other.

And as for releasing the untouched theatrical versions on bluray, the people that would be complaining would be the ones who want the unaltered versions. And they would be complaining about the fudged out wheels on the land speeder, and some of the light sabers and the boxes around the ships etc etc. IMO they would still want to see sone adjustments in the theatrical versions.

Well, obviously not.

Surely, taking into the account the inherent contradiction in what you say, the people who may not be happy with such a release would have to be people who specifically want some kind of compromise between anything we have seen before - either in the theatre or on a home format. IE: a specifically altered version of the film that is neither Lucas' vision, nor the original version.

People who would like to see a release of the theatrical cuts on a home format to current specifications, by definition, would like to see precisely that and would be happy with such a release.
Anyone who complained would, again, by definition, clearly not have wanted that in the first place.

It's not rocket science.

[edmaul1]

People who would like to see a release of the theatrical cuts on a home format to current specifications, by definition, would like to see precisely that and would be happy with such a release.
Anyone who complained would, again, by definition, clearly not have wanted that in the first place.

It's not rocket science.

Isn't that what they got in the last DVD release? And people still bitched cause the picture looked like crap. (picture may of not been letter box as i had said previously) I never bought that set.

[edmaul1]

On the main page of this site there are a couple of shots one of the blu ray the other of the DVD of a tiefighter with a box around it (from the DVD) and one without (from the bluray) is this confirmed on that on the bluray there are no more boxes? of do i still have to turn down the brightness on my TV to remove the boxes? some one please confirm this. Thanks.

[bearvomit]

the argument could be made that what right does Lucas have in making changes at all to Empire or Jedi since he directed neither of those films. Imagine the shit storm that would occur if Dan O'Bannon, writer of Alien, decided to add googlie-eyes and squirrel sounds to Ridley Scott's Alien 20 years later? Or if Michael Crichton decided that T-Rex's were actually pink and demanded a new release of Jurassic Park.

did Lucas get permission from either Director? Or was it in the contract that "hey, you can make this movie, but I own everything there is about it and will do what the hell I want with it."

He makes this argument in 1988 in front of Congress:
[spoil]

My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I’ve come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as “when life begins” or “when it should be appropriately terminated,” but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.

These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with “fresher faces,” or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor’s lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new “original” negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.

I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.

I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.

The public’s interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.

There are those who say American law is sufficient. That’s an outrage! It’s not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of “The Maltese Falcon?” Why are films cut up and butchered?

Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.

I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art–as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities."

[/spoil]

[Treadwell]

People who would like to see a release of the theatrical cuts on a home format to current specifications, by definition, would like to see precisely that and would be happy with such a release.
Anyone who complained would, again, by definition, clearly not have wanted that in the first place.

It's not rocket science.

Isn't that what they got in the last DVD release?

No, it isn't.

Read the bit I highlighted again. The last DVD release featured much-altered versions of the movies to (at the time) reasonable current home format specifications, along with unaltered versions of the movies in a format which did not meet current specifications by a long chalk.

So, no.

And people still bitched cause the picture looked like crap. (picture may of not been letter box as i had said previously) I never bought that set.

So your point is that some "people" bitched about something you have never seen yourself, because it was crap. Yes, the quality was crappy, and yes, people bitched about this.

This is a complete non sequitur of an argument anyway, on two levels:

A) "People bitched about something in the past" is totally unrelated to "people will bitch about something else in the future."

AND

B) Even if your hypothetical situation of "the release the fans want" ever happened, that in itself has no real relationship with message board users discussing whatever the hell they want. IE: Having this "desired" release does not prohibit the discussion "what the hell has Lucas been thinking for the past 15 years?"

[edmaul1]

I'm NEVER said people can't or shouldn't discuss this! And I thought people wanted the UNALTERED versions? Which is what they got on the last release. Minus the letterbox. But they still complain because the picture quality was crap.

So technically they want some form of altered version cause the picture quality would have to be improved to be in bluray standards, and therefore certain effects like the land speeder approaching mos eisly would look like total crap, and even though people would have the unaltered versions they would probably still complain because some effects werent adjusted. And IMO the only way to get this would be to do it yourself.

That is all I'm saying.

[Alexrd]

I'm NEVER said people can't or shouldn't discuss this!

Neither did he.

And I thought people wanted the UNALTERED versions? Which is what they got on the last release.

No, it wasn't.

Minus the letterbox.

And the transfer quality.

But they still complain because the picture quality was crap.

Exactly.

So technically they want some form of altered version cause the picture quality would have to be improved to be in bluray standards,

No.

and therefore certain effects like the land speeder approaching mos eisly would look like total crap, and even though people would have the unaltered versions they would probably still complain because some effects werent adjusted.

No. If the effects are adjusted, they wouldn't be the unaltered versions. We want the effects as they were.

And IMO the only way to get this would be to do it yourself. That is all I'm saying.

What are you even discussing?

[sw4dummies]

I think it can be simplified by just saying the OT fans just want an HD version of the theatrical versions of the movies.


That's it.

[Treadwell]

I'm NEVER said people can't or shouldn't discuss this!

Great. And so long as people don't actually have a grasp on the situation, the debate will go on regardless.

And I thought people wanted the UNALTERED versions? Which is what they got on the last release. Minus the letterbox. But they still complain because the picture quality was crap. So technically they want some form of altered version cause the picture quality would have to be improved to be in bluray standards

Erm, no. You couldn't be more wrong.

Why do people have this strange notion that things are currently being "improved" or "upgraded" to Blu-Ray standards? All home formats thus far, including Blu-Ray, are downgraded in quality from the original 35mm film. Simple as that.

Home viewing at 4k may be just around the corner, but at the moment, Blu-Ray with a HD TV is pretty much the standard. And that is still not even half as good as the resolution that could potentially be yielded from the original film that you watched a print of in the cinema.

So when people complain about the quality of the 2006 OUT DVDs, they are NOT complaining about the Landspeeder FX and the garbage mattes around the spacecraft (at least, not unless they are very ignorant, foolish people) they are complaining, quite literally, about the quality of the transfer compared to what DVD was capable of at that time.

Blu-Ray is an improvement on DVD, but it is still not as good as it possibly could be. And this is not a process of improving on the original film, it is a process where home cinema equipment is gradually meeting up with the potential quality of the original film. And it isn't even there yet.

People who want the unaltered trilogy released on the best current home format want exactly that. No improvement needed, because it is still technically not going to look as good as it did in the cinema - 1977 visual FX not withstanding.

In fact, this is not really about what people "want", "deserve" or "demand" - it is about the treatment a film as culturally and historically important Star Wars itself deserves and demands.
The preservation of such films is a cause for which, ironically, Lucas himself is a champion...

[edmaul1]

I think it can be simplified by just saying the OT fans just want an HD version of the theatrical versions of the movies.


That's it.

That is correct, but technically speaking even that is altered from the original and all I'm saying there will still be people complaining because certain effects weren't retouched (speeder approaching mos eisly)

[Alexrd]

That is correct, but technically speaking even that is altered from the original

How?

and all I'm saying there will still be people complaining because certain effects weren't retouched (speeder approaching mos eisly)

No, they wouldn't complain. Where did you got that from?

[Treadwell]

I think it can be simplified by just saying the OT fans just want an HD version of the theatrical versions of the movies.


That's it.

That is correct, but technically speaking even that is altered from the original and all I'm saying there will still be people complaining because certain effects weren't retouched (speeder approaching mos eisly)

For the millionth time - people who want the UNALTERED movies want the original FX. They DON'T want them retouching. Hence "unaltered".

The only way a proper Blu-Ray transfer would be "altered" from the original 35mm film is that it wouldn't have as much resolution. Why are you talking as if they would have to give it more resolution to make it suitable for Blu-Ray? That isn't how it happens.

The "FX being retouched" issue is something you keep tacking on to this debate for no reason whatsoever.

[edmaul1]

and all I'm saying there will still be people complaining because certain effects weren't retouched (speeder approaching mos eisly)

No, they wouldn't complain. Where did you got that from?

From reading countless comments on forums.

[Treadwell]

From reading countless comments on forums.

Eh, so countless people have complained about the nature of something that doesn't even exist?

[edmaul1]

For the millionth time - people who want the UNALTERED movies want the original FX. They DON'T want them retouching. Hence "unaltered".

The only way a proper Blu-Ray transfer would be "altered" from the original 35mm film is that it wouldn't have as much resolution. Why are you talking as if they would have to give it more resolution to make it suitable for Blu-Ray? That isn't how it happens. The "FX being retouched" issue is something you keep tacking on to this debate for no reason whatsoever.

All home formats thus far, including Blu-Ray, are downgraded in quality from the original 35mm film.

For the millionth time, I know that people want the unaltered versions ALL I'm saying is there will still be SOME people complaining!

I agree with you about the 35mm film but in the case of star wars the unaltered versions have degraded considerably over the years so it's not as good as what it was. Therefore the film would have to be cleaned etc before they were to transfer it to bluray.

[Treadwell]

For the millionth time, I know that people want the unaltered versions ALL I'm saying is there will still be SOME people complaining!

But not the people who want the unaltered trilogy, if they actually got the unaltered trilogy, which is the only point that matters in this hypothetical situation.

I agree with you about the 35mm film but in the case of star wars the unaltered versions have degraded considerably over the years so it's not as good as what it was. Therefore the film would have to be cleaned etc before they were to transfer it to bluray.

What do you mean?

The original negative was canibalized for the creation of the Special Edition, so it does not even exist any more. What does exist - either what remains in the 1997 O-neg, or the bits that were cut out of it and are in storage - I'm not sure how you seem to know for sure this has degraded over the years. It should be pretty much as it was restored in 1995-97.

But many have argued that it would be possible to recreate another original neg or digital restoration by scanning the pieces that were cut out, or by using the separation masters. We all know this is unlikely to
happen in Lucas' lifetime, but your initial question was hypothetical, was it not?

You specifically said, and I quote, "People say they want the original theatrical release on bluray. IF he was to do that and NOT adjust the effects I guarantee people would still complain!"
So stop moving the goalposts.

You can't adapt that to "people would complain because it would not actually be unaltered", that renders the whole question redundant to begin with.

[Starman]

As a former 35mm film collector, I need to chime in here.

Collecting 35mm was great in 1995 when the best we had was laserdisc. DVD made collecting movies much more practical. The problem with 35mm is that, just like vinyl, it's susceptible to damage every time you run it. Every. Single. Time. Then you have to take the trouble to store it properly so that it doesn't fade based on the film type (Kodak, Fuji, etc.).

My point is that even though Blu may not be as good as 35mm, it's so goddamn close to a perfect home presentation that it doesn't even matter. Is Blu's resolution close to 35's? No, but I have done side-by-side comparisons myself and in SOME cases, the Blu wins based on the type of print, and whether or not the film is damaged. Blu will never wear out, it has a great color palette, and 35mm can sometimes be soft.

Using the vinyl album analogy, some people prefer vinyl over CDs (myself included). However, there comes a tipping point of practicality vs. presentation. I still have my 35mm projector. It weighs 500 pounds. It's an old cast iron base Simplex E7. I had to make my own stereo pickups 15 years ago. I no longer use it. Compare that with buying a cheap Blu player and a projector.

I'm sure some people won't be happy until they get 4k versions of films, but I'm telling you from experience that Blu is damn good. I wouldn't crap on it unless you've done comparisons yourself.

[Treadwell]

Using the vinyl album analogy, some people prefer vinyl over CDs (myself included). However, there comes a tipping point of practicality vs. presentation.

But of course, just to reiterate, in the case of "not being happy with the 2006 GOUT release" we are not simply comparing the merits of one format versus another, in the analogy above we would be talking about something akin to a vinyl album being recorded to cassette tape... and then being transfered to CD and released, compared to how the properly mastered CD could/should have sounded.



You are right, there probably isn't a massive noticable difference between Blu-Ray and any higher res version you could squeeze out of the original source. But it is there nonetheless.

But this is moot - the point is, the OOT isn't on Blu-Ray, and people would be very happy (for all of the reasons you mention) if it was - as opposed to complaining, which was what the initial statement implied about 36 pages ago...

[Evil_Elvis]

Yeah its as bad as you'd imagine. The non-existent thing still looks weird and wrong in the fake universe of stuff that was made up by a guy with a beard and some other people.

Seriously, at this stage the thing has been out there for a week, you need to stop trolling and either buy the set or stop bothering people who did with questions about mainly inconsequential shit that only you care about.

[edmaul1]

Yeah its as bad as you'd imagine. The non-existent thing still looks weird and wrong in the fake universe of stuff that was made up by a guy with a beard and some other people.

Seriously, at this stage the thing has been out there for a week, you need to stop trolling and either buy the set or stop bothering people who did with questions about mainly inconsequential shit that only you care about.

Exsqueeze me? Baking powder! I haven't seen anywhere that this has been fixed! And I'm sorry but I feel as do many others this is one thing that needs to be fixed especially when the picture quality has been improved cause you could even see that on the DVDs. And how is this a bother to people to simply comment on this issue?

[Inv8r]

There was the vague innuendo that they'd cleaned p the garbage mattes., and, true, I saw less of them in SOME shots. What they did, I think, is just either turn the brightness down on the whole shot, or up the contrast so that the difference in the dark grey of the matte and the blck of space is the same colour. Look at the before/after shot posted - I seem to remember that after is ALOT darker.

[Treadwell]

Speaking of dark, I never actually noticed how the Jawas now have deep red eyes because they darkened the scene where Artoo is captured. Presume it has been like this since 97, but like I said I never really noticed before...

[Inv8r]

I would never complain about those sorts of things. The alleged imperfections are a part of the movies. Whenever I watch the opening of Empire, it never looks right anymore. The belly of the star destroyer is way too clean. It's supposed to be a specky grainy mess.

Ok that is fine, so for the unaltered editions people want them on bluray with the grainy picture etc. I never bought the last release on DVD that included the original theatrical cuts but wasn't that what people wanted?

I seem to remember them not being in letter box or something. But people complained about the picture quality sucking. Any hoo I know if I can I will splice my own OT edition together with some of the fixes and others not included like bobas original voice in esb and no Jabba anh and some others too

AHA! Okay, I think I can help you here, ed.

Since you didn't buy the GOUT release, let me clarify what the issues are. It's not that the films weren't letterboxed, actually that's exactly one of the problems, they WERE, and were not presented anamorphically, thereby reducing the available resolution even for DVD. This remember was based on the master for the LD releases, and therefore not a terrific resolution scan by today's standards.

I will say nontheless that the dynamic range is superior to the 2k scan for 2006 - the GOUT actually has better shadow (look at the stardestroyers in the ESB shot introducing the fleet) and highlight (check out the big floor lights in Echo base from Chewie's POV when Han comes to talk to him after arriving back from patrol) detail than the DVD, which is pathetic.

The next major problem was that the transers were subjected to absolutely HORRENDOUS, and completely over the top early technology version of brute force DNR blurring, which did absolutely bizzare things to the video (see the 4 eyed stormtrooper for an example of the kind of issues it introduced).

The process was brutally destructive in its attempts to hide dirt, leaving the video smeary and full of artefacts more objectionable than the dirt would have been. What people are dissatisfied with in that release is that the video presentation was poorly done, and an ugly, ugly mess.

[bearvomit]

Jambe Davdar' Star Wars Begins Complete Documentary Youtube

[spoil]
[align=center][flash width=640 height=385]http://www.youtube.com/v/7vW38mY5RHQ?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&hd=1[/flash][/align]

Fans can be obsessive, Star Wars fans may be the most obsessive and Jambe Davdar may well be the most obsessive of them all. He has just released his third feature-length documentary/commentary chronicling the original trilogy of George Lucas’ beloved Star Wars and it’s called “Star Wars Begins“.

Like his two previous documentaries, Returning To Jedi and Building Empire, Star Wars Begins is an unofficial look at the creation of the classic movie and features tons of deleted scenes, alternate takes and different angles, bloopers, original set audio recordings, and an insane amount of commentary from cast and crew, culled from probably every documentary, interview and commentary track ever made about Star Wars.

What’s really interesting about the format is that Davdar’s documentary is feature-length, and follows the flow of the original movie itself with the deleted scenes added where they would have been, and interviews placed over the top of the action they’re describing.

The overall effect is much more engrossing than a DVD commentary track and the wealth of material contained makes it well worth sitting through the 14 separate YouTube clips. Personally, I’ve never heard the seen the deleted scenes of Biggs on Tatooine and hearing David Prowse saying Vader’s dialogue makes you wonder how this guy was ever gonna be the galaxy’s bad-ass.

Davdar has obviously invested a hell of a lot of time (nearly 4 years!) and effort into creating this film, and the other two parts of his own trilogy, and I doubt that anything on the forthcoming Blu-Ray box setwill go into as much detail or exude as much love for the subject matter as these films do. Watch them now on YouTube and let’s hope Mr. Lucas doesn’t send the heavy mob in.

[/spoil]

This is a REALLY nice documentary with deleted scenes, actor commentary, Harrison Ford and James Earl Jones! On set sounds such as David Prowse or Anthony Daniels saying Vader's or 3PO's lines, all told in the order of the film as it plays which adds a great deal of interest. Jones only made $7,000 for Vader's voice! This should have been on the bluray!


Does anyone have a torrent link to Harmy's de-assified version - maybe a direct download link?

[Thundercracker]

bearv, you can get direct DL links for Harmy's edits from tehparadox.

Star Wars
Empire Strikes Back
Return of the Jedi

You'll have to register though.

[spitfire]

This just about sums it up for me:



From an artist named tokyosexwhale's? blog:

Tokyosexwhale Blog

[Mike_Droideka]

That argument doesn't hold any water.
Lucas was referring to studios who alter older works, who's directors/creator's are dead and gone.

[spitfire]

That argument doesn't hold any water.
Lucas was referring to studios who alter older works, who's directors/creator's are dead and gone.

Lucas the director is 'dead and gone'....A young Jedi named Darth Vader... betrayed and murdered him.

[501ST]

Lucas the director is 'dead and gone'....A young Jedi named Darth Vader... betrayed and murdered him.

This

[Inv8r]

That argument doesn't hold any water. Lucas was referring to studios who alter older works, who's directors/creator's are dead and gone.

Lucas the director is 'dead and gone'....A young Jedi named Darth Vader... betrayed and murdered him.

Yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of seeing this arguement brought up over and over again. Lucas was absolutely, clearly talking about someone other than the filmaker tampering with a film.

Now, you can argue that he doesn't qualify as "the artist" any more than say, the actors in front of the camera, the crew at ILM, Kersch or Marquand, and on and on to the grips or carpenters, but to claim that he was saying no one should tamper with a film is poor comprehension at best, or deliberately disingenuous at worst.

[ETandElliott]

You're right. Those quotes are used way too much and don't really apply. Now, opt for those From Star Wars to Jedi ones about spending too much time creating environments and boring special effects. Those are probably better cases against the prequels and alterations.

But yeah, Lucas defenders need just watch Greedo shooting first or the inserted Jabba scene. If you see nothing wrong there, I guess you never will. Then, only then, a Jedi will you be.

[Inv8r]

You're right. Those quotes are used way too much and don't really apply. Now, opt for those From Star Wars to Jedi ones about spending too much time creating environments and boring special effects. Those are probably better cases against the prequels and alterations.

But yeah, Lucas defenders need just watch Greedo shooting first or the inserted Jabba scene. If you see nothing wrong there, I guess you never will. Then, only then, a Jedi will you be.

DINGDINGDING!!!! Hand that man a see-gar! Yes, exactly one of the big issues in the prequels is that Lucas let himself fall in love with the environments so much that he spends screentime on them.

Lucas was bang-on in that interview where he expounded on exactly that - "where alot of SF films go wrong is that you don't need to spend alot of screen time to establish the environment", paraphrasing as it's been like better than 10 years since I popped in my VHS, but BINGO!

You buy the world of the OT partly because there's no time wasted going "Gee-whiz! Look at THIS cool outer-spacey thing!"; the environment is just a fact of life you take for granted.

[Alexrd]

You buy the world of the OT partly because there's no time wasted going "Gee-whiz! Look at THIS cool outer-spacey thing!"; the environment is just a fact of life you take for granted.

Same thing in the PT.

[Inv8r]

Now, you can argue that he doesn't qualify as "the artist" any more than say, the actors in front of the camera, the crew at ILM, Kersch or Marquand, and on and on to the grips or carpenters, but to claim that he was saying no one should tamper with a film is poor comprehension at best, or deliberately disingenuous at worst.

I want to quote myself here to throw this back up. For those who feel Lucas has the right as the artist to alter his work, I'm honestly (no, really, no snide comments or bullshit) curious as to your feelings about what I suggested. Does a grip, or actor, or model maker, or any of the hundreds of people involved with the production of a film have the same right to make changes to it after release that the story writer/producer evidently has?

[Joe1138]

Does a grip, or actor, or model maker, or any of the hundreds of people involved with the production of a film have the same right to make changes to it after release that the story writer/producer evidently has?

No. I think the word "artist" is used too liberally. Technically a furniture maker can be considered an artist as art is typically defined as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture..." (Google).

What this really comes down to is George Lucas is the author of the work and for better or for worse Star Wars is his work. On any film, the actors and crew are in service to the author and merely there on hand to facilitate his or her vision.

[thecolorsblend]

I think all of this is somewhat complicated by what people mean when they say "unaltered". What the hell does that mean with the original trilogy? The only thing I can think of that really makes sense is to release whatever was most commonly seen and heard on opening day for each movie in 1977, 1980 and 1983... ideally in those same soundmixes (mono for ANH and stereo for ESB and ROTJ, with optional 5.1 upgraded mixes based upon the original effects). In fact, that kind of set would pretty much be my killer app to finally upgrade to Blu-Ray and an HDTV.

[Verboten]

For those of you that insist the original release of Star Wars looked like dogshit.

[yarq]

перв186.9голоReprKeviСодеБабиКаве(183AvriповеNeapГрищPlatY70FСодеВади14ZBунивKiroстр5времДюри
РаскHighYorkJohnJavaоборстихпостспраженщПовеиллюЗолоJozePatrSexyPalmRexoPushSwamБратPaleгран
БеттПаниFashAmarCotoVoguWindWhitMaurEnteКостСодеEasyDeviГумпQuikSelaSiermattgunmFestМуляиллю
РуднПарфПрабфотоJackHansаспиMorgEnidXVII52-7сереБакшМокиавтокомпРосссражZoneменяВороZoneхар-
языкZoneХорсInteкиноDaviПащеKaseПоноИллюРодиБариСетнбезо(196KathКрымКареотлиAnnoКравЛермChri
СодесамоBFilвнешRafaМостHotpAgneBookGeomAmazсерт00004900АртиMist1772BeflRENAМетаСокоослоFlam
ApexValiпаззНаготемаSilvэкскHTMLWindjeweзаняDysoChouСтарRoyaанглСамаHighкапиЛитРЛитРAgatфайл
рынкначаАварЛаврПисаКлимФормСмирAcadAlfrАронInteeavyАнтоустрKansформNintКозлBarnТайсDonnТепл
DolbПимеВентхудоБалаRyanBillСуглАНТоКоваSillГариШибаВихаDrewслоггимнДолгGrazPhilfranвнешвнеш
внешрассMicaЛернВолоBarbДередетяThomJinnCyntвздуКороtuchkasIndoСоде

[yarq]

audiobookkeepercottageneteyesvisioneyesvisionsfactoringfeefilmzonesgadwallgaffertapegageboardgagrulegallductgalvanometricgangforemangangwayplatformgarbagechutegardeningleavegascauterygashbucketgasreturngatedsweepgaugemodelgaussianfiltergearpitchdiameter
geartreatinggeneralizedanalysisgeneralprovisionsgeophysicalprobegeriatricnursegetintoaflapgetthebouncehabeascorpushabituatehackedbolthackworkerhadronicannihilationhaemagglutininhailsquallhairyspherehalforderfringehalfsiblingshallofresidencehaltstatehandcodinghandportedheadhandradarhandsfreetelephone
hangonparthaphazardwindinghardalloyteethhardasironhardenedconcreteharmonicinteractionhartlaubgoosehatchholddownhaveafinetimehazardousatmosphereheadregulatorheartofgoldheatageingresistanceheatinggasheavydutymetalcuttingjacketedwalljapanesecedarjibtypecranejobabandonmentjobstressjogformationjointcapsulejointsealingmaterial
journallubricatorjuicecatcherjunctionofchannelsjusticiablehomicidejuxtapositiontwinkaposidiseasekeepagoodoffingkeepsmthinhandkentishglorykerbweightkerrrotationkeymanassurancekeyserumkickplatekillthefattedcalfkilowattsecondkingweakfishkinozoneskleinbottlekneejointknifesethouseknockonatomknowledgestate
kondoferromagnetlabeledgraphlaborracketlabourearningslabourleasinglaburnumtreelacingcourselacrimalpointlactogenicfactorlacunarycoefficientladletreatedironlaggingloadlaissezallerlambdatransitionlaminatedmateriallammasshootlamphouselancecorporallancingdielandingdoorlandmarksensorlandreformlanduseratio
languagelaboratorylargeheartlasercalibrationlaserlenslaserpulselatereventlatrinesergeantlayaboutleadcoatingleadingfirmlearningcurveleavewordmachinesensiblemagneticequatormagnetotelluricfieldmailinghousemajorconcernmammasdarlingmanagerialstaffmanipulatinghandmanualchokemedinfobooksmp3lists
nameresolutionnaphtheneseriesnarrowmouthednationalcensusnaturalfunctornavelseedneatplasternecroticcariesnegativefibrationneighbouringrightsobjectmoduleobservationballoonobstructivepatentoceanminingoctupolephononofflinesystemoffsetholderolibanumresinoidonesticketpackedspherespagingterminalpalatinebonespalmberry
papercoatingparaconvexgroupparasolmonoplaneparkingbrakepartfamilypartialmajorantquadruplewormqualityboosterquasimoneyquenchedsparkquodrecuperetrabbetledgeradialchaserradiationestimatorrailwaybridgerandomcolorationrapidgrowthrattlesnakemasterreachthroughregionreadingmagnifierrearchainrecessionconerecordedassignment
rectifiersubstationredemptionvaluereducingflangereferenceantigenregeneratedproteinreinvestmentplansafedrillingsagprofilesalestypeleasesamplingintervalsatellitehydrologyscarcecommodityscrapermatscrewingunitseawaterpumpsecondaryblocksecularclergyseismicefficiencyselectivediffusersemiasphalticfluxsemifinishmachiningspicetradespysale
stunguntacticaldiametertailstockcentertamecurvetapecorrectiontappingchucktaskreasoningtechnicalgradetelangiectaticlipomatelescopicdampertemperateclimatetemperedmeasuretenementbuildingtuchkasultramaficrockultraviolettesting