Star Wars (1977) original Blu ray. Crappier than ever.

For the original theatrical releases, shots are extended, shots are cut, shots were replaced, sequences were changed... it's not a simple "just drop this in" kind of change. The runtime of the movies and the mixes changed several times, too. From a purist standpoint, I could see providing the original mono mix, the original Dolby Stereo mix, and the 6-track 70mm mix.

My hope is that in 2020 they'll provide two versions of the first three films (Star Wars, Empire, Jedi), including the original theatrical version and the final director's cut. That way, the fans will be happy and Lucas will be happy (even though his vote no longer counts). And there were actually changes on Episode 1, 2 and 3 as well. I don't know 7 & 8 well enough to know if they were truly unaltered between theatrical and home video or not.

Note that what is being shown on Disney+ are the revised 2004+ director's versions. In fact, the "Greedo" scene was reportedly revised around 2010-2011 and is new to video (and a revised mix as well). The actor who played Greedo in the scene is reportedly very confused by the new version:

Greedo Actor Paul Blake Found Out About ‘Maclunkey’ From Bib Fortuna

 

Funny thing being is if George just gave the people the choice between the original cuts and the special editions we wouldn't have gotten 20+ years of complaining. Wasn't Spielberg only going to have a special edition of E.T. and make the original obsolete before he caved to pressure from the public and released the special edition alongside the original version?

 

Until the box set reissue market and DVD/BR format wars started to kick off, very little attention was paid to preserving existing works of art : evident in early CD editions of albums, and the often appalling VHS-quality that some early DVD's early DVD releases had (I recently upgraded my late 90's copy of Hard Boiled which was poorly presented, cut, and in 1.33:1). The longevity of titles, cuts, and availability of material was never given much thought. (I'm not even getting started on old concert releases that have never made it out of the VHS ghetto, and there are thousands of those that are currently only available through fan efforts and YouTube). I suspect that this will only become of interest to companies when they start to realise they're going to lose copyright on them : hence the Bowie box sets of every last scratch he recorded.

This interview seems to indicate that Disney have now scanned and preserved the original Star Wars reels : The unseen Star Wars archive footage used in Rogue One - given that Disney has paid $4bn for Lucasfilm, it would be daft not to invest some extra money in ensuring the archive is as well preserved as physically possible.

 

I don't think that's true when ET came to DVD Steven from what I understand demanded that both versions be made available for the same price. With the Blu-ray release, they didn't even bother with the anniversary edition though it said that the changed scenes would be in the deleted scenes I haven't really looked through.



As for Star Wars, it's quite interesting to read the press release for the GOUT DVDs and look at how they were put together. The tone of the text is quite negative, it really sounds like they're trying to contain their rage as best they can with a "Will you shut up now?" release. It also seems to indicate that there must have been someone on the inside really selling this idea to whoever makes the decisions. The DVDs themselves can't hide their contempt either because it's got the DVD release and a BONUS disc which includes the theatrical release which as you can see was done with almost minimal effort. They couldn't even be bothered to get the commentary tracks from the Laserdiscs for use on the GOUT Bonus discs.

 

Huh, Could hav sworn I remember hearing about him wanting to only release the Special Edition and make that one the norm.

That release is very much the least amount of effort they could do to appease the fans who spent 10 years complaining about the Special Editions. George probably agreed to even release them through gritted teeth.

 

Lucas made that decision back in 1997. 22 years later, people are still whining about it. I've said many times that he hasn't owned any of these films since October 2012. All the current decisions on what to release since then are up to Disney (and was, until recently, Fox).

I think it was always his intention to have both versions available. Within a few years of the altered 2002 E.T., Spielberg realized it was wrong to change it at all and disavowed the altered version:

"[In the future,] ... There's going to be no more digital enhancements or digital additions to anything based on any film I direct. ... When people ask me which E.T. they should look at, I always tell them to look at the original 1982 E.T. If you notice, when we did put out E.T. we put out two E.T.s. We put out the digitally enhanced version with the additional scenes and for no extra money, in the same package, we put out the original '82 version. I always tell people to go back to the '82 version."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.T._the_Extra-Terrestrial

 

Maybe this is what I am remembering then.

 

Out of curiosity where would standard practice end to satisfy all parties? IIRC the optical transitions were all redone digitally, which should preserve the quality of the shot better, but in that regard it’s another deviation from the original. How often are little details like this worried about? I think the biggest issue Disney would face with resorting these films is the intense scrutiny of the market, and most purists would likely argue for the original transitions. I’ve certainly never seen normal non academic / film need people go through a film with such a fine tooth comb approach outside of Star Wars.

 

We will never see a official release.

Never going to happen and there are alternatives that make me happy.

I never expect to see the official originals, I seen in the theater on disc in my lifetime.

 

I got to see a bit of the new ANH and the new version 5 Greedo remix on a friend’s D+.
I’m such a geek I asked: “hey can I check out what they did to Star Wars for a second?”He had no idea Greedo was changed again and said behind me: WHAT was that??
I did notice the grade and overall visual presentation seemed different to the 2011 Blu-ray master so I’m not surprised they did a new one as the BDs are atrocious and only slightly better than the 2004 DVDs.

For true 4k they have to go to the OT negatives and it’s likely already been done quietly and along with transferring most of the massive LFL archives. It’s never been disclosed how much material there is but it’s quite a lot and rarely dovetails with the official rewritten histories which is why it stays locked away.

It was mentioned in a featurette years ago that they even have all of the original sound mixes digitally archived which is why they were easily able to fly in pieces into each of the remixes. The OT hasn’t sounded good since the 1997 SE mixes which were dynamic and rich and faithful outside of the entirely new sequences inserted.
Each new mix after that is a mess. I haven’t gotten to fully examine the new track but I assume it will be a tweak of the 2011 6.1 mix which was a tweak from the bad 2004 5.1 ex dvd mix that had the surround channels flopped and was derived from the unbelievably superior 1997 SE mix.

It’s a shame that even the prequels are affected. They seem to be he same as the Blu-ray releases. TPM should be gorgeous if soft due to the effects but they hit it with so much DNR that the new transfer is ruined plus it’s the lesser longer dvd cut and lacks the theatrical audio mix. AOTC has a shift towards teal coloring and they may have messed with the sound a little bit. ROTS is the only one that seems unaffected.

 

We obsess about them endlessly. All the 2003-2004 optical transitions in the Star Wars 1970s films were recreated on Quantel iQ with 2K files. I had a conform editor at ILM who meticulously recreated every wipe frame-by-frame and pixel-by-pixel in order to match them perfectly with the original A/B camera negative. Years later, I had to do the same thing myself with Phantom of the Paradise, and believe me, it's tough to do. Once it's done, it's indistinguishable from the print in terms of content, and because we have all the picture on each side of the transition, we can apply the color without having it change in the middle of the effect.

 

And apparently, even George Lucas' daughter is pissed-off at him...

George Lucas' Daughter Furious After Discovering Special Edition of High School Graduation Video

(Note this is a "humor" website.)

 

You know what would really be a awesome but would never happen:

pulling out all the film material that was found and archived for the 97’ SE’s (OG camera negatives, inner negs, inner positives, additive mattes, subtractive mattes, multi-tracks and sound effects source tapes and prints and sound mix reels)

And do a complete photochemical washing of the best original source materials and a brand new Dolby Vision 8K RAW scan of everything!

Then use a original theatrical print of the all 3 movies and frame sync all of the lowest generation unrestored elements together.

Then do a complete re-composite/reconstruction of all of the Optical combining, matte and optical effects (Wipes, dissolves, etc..)

By re doing these you would not only eliminate the matte lines created by optical printing but also get a consistent quality of performance as you are not cutting to a second gen in camera shot and then to a 4th gen copy FX shot. It would all be first gen: or first gen for as much as exists

Then do full digital restoration to remove the scratches, dirt and dust and do a GOOD colour restoration, colour grade.

Then do a full Dolby Atmos Remix from the source tapes and original multis. With the intent to create full and direction mix that embodies the spirt of the film. The 1977 Mono, Stereo and 6 Track mixes should also be included.
(although It is acceptable for the 6 track mix to be down mixed to 5.1)

Then finally release as 4K HDR Blu Ray

For people saying Star Wars fans will never be happy

I can’t see a single Star Wars fan not buying that

 

They did something very very similar for the Star Trek Original and TNG Blu Ray box sets, I think.

 

Lucas has had no say in the release, changes, or lack of changes to Star Wars since October of 2012, when he sold Lucasfilm to Disney. I was told directly when we did the remasters that "the only version of Star Wars that exists is the one in George's head at the moment." So it changed day-to-day and month-to-month. Lucas did not believe any of the films were "finished" per se. For all I know, he still believes that.

8K won't buy you anything from 4-perf 35mm negative. I'm not even sure there's 2K resolution in old 1970s negatives like Kodak 5247 and 5254, especially with old anamorphic lenses. And (in the case of Star Wars) Gil Taylor used a ton of diffusion, so the subsequent image is really soft. Lucas was not happy with that, and you'll note they didn't use a lot of diffusion with Empire and Jedi, as well as the subsequent prequels. Even 4K would be overkill, but since that's the industry standard, it'll work fine for restoration purposes.

I'd agree that there is 6K of information in 65mm negative, so you could go with that format for Lawrence of Arabia, My Fair Lady, and 2001. Not so much with anamorphic scope. HDR and Dolby Vision are more of a decision made during mastering, and the exposure in film negative (assuming a decent 16-bit log scan) could yield a terrific HDR image.

"Washing" the film doesn't quite describe what would need to be done to the original Star Wars negative, because it's in bits & pieces and parts are badly damaged. It'd be like seeing a house that was partially burned down and collapsing, and saying, "just slap a coat of paint on it and it'll be fine." It's months and months and months of work.

 

The above is very true in terms of resolutions and practicalities of film and cinematographer preferences.
However it should be stressed that there are some variations between 35 and 70mm print versions and even differences between original prints of Star Wars in some instances.
So you’d have to have a reference of each and I don’t know if officials would take the time to do so since it would be hard enough to get the original editions released with all three main original sound mixes of each.

 

Former Lucasfilm VP of marketing, Jim Ward... that's who.

He strongly and repeatedly advised George of the depth of fans' desire to have the original theatrical versions available on DVD... and when the latter finally (very reluctantly and grudgingly) agreed to it, but insisted on them using the 1993 Laserdisc transfers instead of a brand new 1080p remaster from the existing interpositives, Ward was reportedly aghast and desperately tried to convince his boss not to do it, knowing full well the backlash that would follow such a contemptuous release... but when George makes his mind up, nothing and no-one can change it... and the only person who ever could divorced him.

I wouldn't... we want the original as-initially-released theatrical versions with the original optical composites and original soundtrack mixes.

It isn't complicated...

 

In terms of picture, the 70mm release of Star Wars was just a blow-up from 35mm done to accommodate the 6-track magnetic tracks. You can put more light behind a big 70mm frame for the theater, but actually a 70mm blow-up is softer and grainier than the 35mm original. I'm pretty sure the mag tracks survive, but it was said in the 1990s that they've got lots of dropouts and other issues that will be challenging to solve. And of course the 6-track mix was different than the 2-track mix or the mono mix.

They still have a half-dozen good-condition 1977 theatrical prints of Star Wars in the Lucasfilm archive, so getting a reference for the digital conform is not a problem. They also made Internegs (INs) and Interpositives (IPs) of the cut original camera negative (OCN), so even in cases where the OCN is damaged or missing, they can drop in fixes as needed to reconstruct the complete original theatrical release. But that's a) if they want to, b) if they're willing to spend the time, and c) if they're willing to use a whole lotta spendin' money.

 

That's what they did for Blade Runner, 10 years ago...

 

I think people accept this much more with films than they do with music. I don't know what sounds you like but imagine if all the Beatles catalogue available were remixes done in 1985 with more modern drums added and additional guitar parts. Fans would (rightly) be mad about that and it would be unacceptable. But in films this is exactly what the situation is with Star Wars, but somehow people are just willing to accept this?

 

Note there were about half a dozen versions of Blade Runner, too, and Scott and the studio changed the film almost as much as Lucas changed Star Wars. For the record, the most recent version was put together by Technicolor/Hollywood and color-corrected by Jill Bogdanowicz (now at Company 3). I think the color correction alone took more than 6 weeks.

Memories of Blade Runner: Ethics of Film Restoration in the Digital Age | A Series of Splices

These restoration stories are rarely simple and easy, and tracking down the pieces of a released film and later trying to put back the things that got removed or changed... it's not as easy as it sounds. I did it myself for Oliver Stone on Nixon, and at one point I think we had 150 boxes of film that had to be individually checked over a period of weeks. And it still wound up a patchwork job, with a little from here and a little from there.

 

1. You seem like you have a deep knowledge of this stuff! Have you ever seen or worked on the OT before?

2. If so, is it true that the 97’ SE shots were printed on film negative and then physically spliced into then OCN reels?

I think I got that wrong because that’s is a totally destructive process and is just a generally awful thought, do you know?

3. Wouldn't washing the OCN leave less work for restoration? I know it would still need a lot but wouldn’t it help?

 

Thanks for sharing, I found that to be a really interesting and thoughtful article.

I was really grabbed by that last line, "However, any restoration of a film must be seen as a new version of that film. As Giovanna Fosatti states, “In the restoration of a film, theory and practice should meet eventually and result in a new artifact, ready, once again, to be (re)interpreted.” I think this obviously makes sense in a cultural context but also a technical one. Building on what you said earlier in this thread about the "accuracy" of color on these restorations being flexible vs absolute due to shifting color across release prints and digital scans, I think many fans goals of having a 100% accurate recreation of the theatrical experience just seems impossible for any film. Further, with new TOTL TVs and remasters we're now seeing way more detail and dynamic range than on any released 35mm film print I have ever seen.

As far as the edits go, it's always been interesting to me that Blade Runner gets a pass from most fans and critics, having started with the domestic cut I can say the Final Cut came across as a more radically different take than any edits to Star Wars have been. In fact I would say the injections of footage in the film would do little to alter a first time viewers perception of the film vs an earlier cut — having been one myself. Based on what you said about the meticulous detail paid to the wipes in 2004 it's obvious to me that the internet narrative of the Star Wars restorations having no respect for the past is untrue. Rather, the film went through a process much like the one in the Blade Runner article above. Perhaps Lucas goes a bit too far and he was certainly working with some very early CGI with questionable results, but I think the current state of the films really isn't too far off from Blade Runner. I guess the main objection is unlike that film, there is no decent 1080p or better restoration of the released cut.

 

I find the additions on the Star Wars films much, much more intrusive and out of character than the ones on Blade Runner, partly maybe I discovered SW with the original cuts, and BR with the 1992 director's cut... But I doubt many would disagree with me and see both styles of alterations as equivalent.

 

No I agree, they're aesthetically at odds with the original, sticking out like an army of sore thumbs. I've said this before in this thread, the biggest sin of the special editions is that the scenes just don't integrate at all, and spoil the visual cohesion of the film. Still, the narrative alteration and changes to the feeling of the film is minimal. Sure maybe the Han thing changes his character (although with the recent cut its hard to tell what the hell is going on at all) but all in all, the lack of a narration leads to a radically different sense of time in Blade Runner and that comes across as far more stark . Even worse is the Gold Rush Chaplin edit I mentioned earlier. That feels radically different. The additions to Star Wars are less like like to me, and more like brief interruptions.