millenniumfalcon.com

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

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)

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?