The problem with Greedo shooting first is that it doesn't make any sense for him to miss at that range. Han had to shoot first because if Greedo shot first he would have shot Han right in the face.
They should just go all out and replace Greedo with a CGI version that acts visibly drunk. That'll make it believable.
Though now that I think about it, if Greedo really is such a terrible shot, then it's pretty mean of Han to shoot him at all. He should have just smacked him down.
I'm pretty sure the blue tint was intentional. Also, the force ghost and Greedo shooting first were basically graphical updates, because it doesn't effect the story. Just like how Mario went from 8 bit to 16 bit.
You must not know the definition of graphical because arbitrarily changing the fact that Han Solo is a scoundreldoes change the story as it affects the character's development.
If the blue tint is intentional, it is stupid. Adywan says it was not there before the 2004 DVD.
I'm pretty sure the blue tint was intentional. Also, the force ghost and Greedo shooting first were basically graphical updates, because it doesn't effect the story. Just like how Mario went from 8 bit to 16 bit.
Hayden as a ghost doesn't change the story, you're right about that, but how can you say the Han/Greedo scene doesn't change the story?
Greedo is a bounty hunter who in pretty clear terms just told Han that he was not only about to kill him, but that he was going to kill him. So Han shoots him. Not only is this totally bad ass, but really it's the only logical thing for Han to do.
In the new version, Han waits for Greedo to shoot first. Greedo is a bounty hunter in the employ of Jabba the Hutt, which presumably means he knows how to use a gun. Also he's at point blank range. A ten year old could shoot somebody from across a three-foot table. Refusing to fire on him first should be tantamount to committing suicide. But somehow, he manages to miss anyway. Not only does this change manage to make Han look like an idiot, but it even manages to make Greedo look incompetent at the same time.
You must not know the definition of graphical because arbitrarily changing the fact that Han Solo is a scoundreldoes change the story as it affects the character's development.
Again, how? He still killed him. In the new version they shoot almost at the same time. http://m.youtube.com/?dc=organic&source=mog&hl=en#/watch?v=mKEX6QJ-zlQ As for the blue tint, I only remembered it being on Hoth and thought it was to make it look colder. I have no idea why it's in the rest.
I think the blue-tint works for some scenes. Improving them. Particularly the scenes involving imperial ships and the like, because otherwise they seem too white. Tinting them a bit makes them seem more foreboding, and less fake. For the hoth scenes, not so much.
I think the blue-tint works for some scenes. Improving them. Particularly the scenes involving imperial ships and the like, because otherwise they seem too white. Tinting them a bit makes them seem more foreboding, and less fake. For the hoth scenes, not so much.
In the new version, Han waits for Greedo to shoot first. Greedo is a bounty hunter in the employ of Jabba the Hutt, which presumably means he knows how to use a gun. Also he's at point blank range. A ten year old could shoot somebody from across a three-foot table. Refusing to fire on him first should be tantamount to committing suicide. But somehow, he manages to miss anyway. Not only does this change manage to make Han look like an idiot, but it even manages to make Greedo look incompetent at the same time.
I don't think he was supposed to be waiting, Greedo just happened to shot first.
I don't think he was supposed to be waiting, Greedo just happened to shot first.
Back when it first came out, I remember Lucas saying in an interview that he did not want Han to shoot first because Han was supposed to have a sort of cowboy-like honor system, or something. I'll try to find the quote.
Hayden replacing the other actor is something I personally don't agree with. Out of all and any edits that is the hardest for me to settle with.
Well, I didn't even realise that was meant to be young anakin until after my maths teacher mentioned his sympathy for the guy (something along the lines of the actor buying the DVD version and going "look son, here's my bit coming up..."). I think I always just assumed that it was meant to be obi-wan's instructor or some random jedi-ghost. The change is to make that obvious to kids like I was at the time (because let's face it, the guy looks nothing like deathbed anakin or younger anakin, so kids would get even more confused without the swap!)
@Chyrron: With the yoda scene, I think it makes it look a bit less fake, but I prefer the bottom one. I think the blue tinge should've been limited to certain space scenes, and the imperial spacecraft.
Here we go. From an Entertainment Weekly interview in 2004.
George Lucas: If you really look at it, there's hardly any changes at all. The thing that really caused the trouble on Star Wars is the whole question of whether Han Solo or Greedo shoots first. The way it got cobbled together at the time, it came off that [Han] fired first. He didn't fire first.
EW: So you consider this a correction?
GL: It's a correction. In my mind [Greedo] shot first or at the same time. We like to think of [Han Solo] as a murderer because that's hip -- I don't think that's a good thing for people. I mean, I don't see how you could redeem somebody who kills people in cold blood.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE. THE ENTIRE SERIES IS ABOUT THE FALL AND REDEMPTION OF ANAKIN SKYWALKER. AAAAAARGH.
Dude. Seriously.
If Vader can kill the Jedi, his wife, and even kill younglings(!), and then redeem himself and return to the light side by saving Luke, how the FUCK can Han Solo not be redeemed after shooting a guy who JUST SAID that he was about to kill him?
Well, I didn't even realise that was meant to be young anakin until after my maths teacher mentioned his sympathy for the guy (something along the lines of the actor buying the DVD version and going "look son, here's my bit coming up..."). I think I always just assumed that it was meant to be obi-wan's instructor or some random jedi-ghost. The change is to make that obvious to kids like I was at the time (because let's face it, the guy looks nothing like deathbed anakin or younger anakin, so kids would get even more confused without the swap!)
I always thought that the ghost was supposed to be just-dead Anakin, but with more limbs and hair. And I did get that right off the bat as a kid, because it looked a bit like Vader when he took his mask off just a few minutes previous. I really didn't see much of a discrepancy there.
It's more confusing to me to have Anakin coming back as his younger self when all the other dead Jedi came back looking just the same as when they died.
I always thought that the ghost was supposed to be just-dead Anakin, but with more limbs and hair. And I did get that right off the bat as a kid, because it looked a bit like Vader when he took his mask off just a few minutes previous. I really didn't see much of a discrepancy there.
It's more confusing to me to have Anakin coming back as his younger self when all the other dead Jedi came back looking just the same as when they died.
Yes. I first saw these movies when I was, like, 12, and I can't say I had a hard time figuring out that the new ghost was Anakin. I mean, it's the same actor that played death-bed Vader... he just has hair now.
Plus if I was ghost Obi-Wan, I'd be annoyed that I was stuck being an old man when Anakin got to float around looking all young and suave.
It's more confusing to me to have Anakin coming back as his younger self when all the other dead Jedi came back looking just the same as when they died.
I always thought that the ghost was supposed to be just-dead Anakin, but with more limbs and hair. And I did get that right off the bat as a kid, because it looked a bit like Vader when he took his mask off just a few minutes previous. I really didn't see much of a discrepancy there.
It's more confusing to me to have Anakin coming back as his younger self when all the other dead Jedi came back looking just the same as when they died.
Well, Anakin died being bald, wrinkly and with scars.
And then came back as a younger version with hair, no scars and no wrinkles.
I don't think it's that much of a leap to say he could comeback as what he looked like before he went to the dark side (or before he died, so to speak.)
Well, Anakin died being bald, wrinkly and with scars.
And then came back as a younger version with hair, no scars and no wrinkles.
I don't think it's that much of a leap to say he could comeback as what he looked like before he went to the dark side (or before he died, so to speak.)
Keep in mind, THIS is what he looked like before he came to the dark side.
Also, I don't know what universe George lives in but Hayden is the absolute worst actor I've ever seen in a major motion picture. That just proves to me George has lost touch with all sense of reality. I cringe whenever he comes on screen and spouts his lines. And not because he's a pretty boy, but because he's a whiny little baby that CAN'T ACT TO SAVE HIS LIFE. I was sadly privy to his performance in Jumper as well, equally cringe-worthy.
I'm not going to be upset that World of Warcraft has a new dungeon to play through, or that there's a few new hats for me to wear in Team Fortress.
Funny you pick the 2 games that have been changed most throughout their game career. WoW at launch and current WoW? Vastly different. TF2? Unrecognisable.
So, why is it allowed there, but not to Star Wars? After all, the original SW's are still about. The original TF2 or WoW? Unplayable. Because you cannot just "not patch".
Also, I would bring you in contact with a French Star Wars fanatic who complains about every bug I squash in the The Sith Lords Content Restoration Mod should remain in, because the "developers intended it to be broken that way"...
I don't hear many people upset that Lucas added in the Jabba and Biggs scenes that were originally cut from A New Hope when the Special Editions came out.
You must have not read this thread. Especially Chyron8472's posts.
Most people that I know that own the Lord of the Rings films own the extended editions.
So do I. So why all the fuss here?
The LOTR movies extended versions did modify existing content too after all. Especially musically...
Altering scenes from the movie, and then refusing to provide people the chance to buy the originals instead
Can you buy the original disk version of MI1? Tree stomp joke was even cut out of the SE! :eek:
I could probably lists hundreds more examples, but I don't care enough to think of more
Simply put, people do not want things they love to go away forever. Lucas can make all the changes he wants, and nobody would have a problem with that, if he wasn't doing it while simultaneously refusing (for no good reason!) to provide us with the old school as well.
Odd. I seem to have the originals on my DVD... AND YET YOU COMPLAIN ("well, he does, but it's bad quality *rant rant*).
So, what point are you guys trying to make?
And who says a first BluRay release doesn't mean another with the originals later, like happened with the DVD's, right?
Jumping the wagon rather fast, aren't you? Not that I believe anyone rants here for this reason anyway.
Fun fact;
This was supposed to be a big fight scene, but Harrison Ford was sick and unable to shoot it, so this is what they came up with instead.
Indeed, the legendary scene was ad-libbed (ad-madeup? Whatever) on the set.
If GL wanted to edit to follow the script, it would indeed be removed .
It was always obvious to me that it was Darth Vader showing up there. I saw it as the way he was inside, when he died. How he really wasn't Darth Vader but Anakin. But with his actual age, because it wasn't pretending none of the Darth Vader thing had happened, either. To me, it was showing his redemption by showing that after death, he looked like he would have had he not turned to the dark side.
Being a ghost of him before any of that happens makes less sense to me. I've been told it was what was supposed to happen from the start, but Anakin was supposed to turn to the dark side later in life in the original script. Still, I don't like the idea of pretending nothing happened. I like that it's his older self. To me it shows he repented, but isn't pretending none of the bad stuff happened.
To me, the ghost thing is also a representation of the person's soul, and so while the age can be represented because a person evolves with experience, things like physical scars or wound weren't part of the person's soul but only their physical bodies. Similarly, they wouldn't have the wounds that caused their deaths or be in two parts if they died cut in half, that kind of thing.
There is no fuss with the DVD Lazerdisc transfers, people just hating. Ok, it's technologically imperfect, or something...resolution is bad or something. I can't imagine the actual original is any better or worse, but apparently it is.
What you think the Special Editions only look nice because they have CGI doodled all over them? I really don't understand where people get ideas like this.
If you honestly want to learn something then click here. Reading all of it is advised but scrolling down to points 4 and 6 would suffice.
In the interest of maintaining the information from the link in Tobar's post (for the furtherance of conversation on this thread) in the event that the corresponding website goes down:
Some people might argue: "What are you complaining about? Weren't the original versions of the films released on DVD in 2006?" This is true. You might also have noticed how poorly the films look. "That's because they are old, unrestored films, the original versions with all their defects." Right? Not by a long shot. The original, unaltered films on the DVD look poor because the transfer was done in the early 1990s for Laserdisc, and was hopelessly outdated by the home video standards of 2006. Given that these original versions were presented as bonus materials, maybe this low quality is understandable, but that's the problem in the first place. I'll get into the issues surrounding this release and examples of the telecine problems in a bit, but here is some background about how the 2006 DVDs came to be.
After George Lucas swore that the original versions of the Star Wars trilogy would never be seen again, about half the film world cried out in terror, much like denizens of Alderaan as their world literally exploded. Lucas, however, maintained that it was his "vision" that the films remain as their Special Edition incarnations, and that the originals not only were "half complete" but that they didn't exist for him anymore. After protests and criticism, people began transferring their Laserdiscs to DVD, and a gigantic bootleg circuit opened up. Originaltrilogy.com had petitioned 70,000 signatures to get the original versions released, and as pressure mounted on Lucasfilm, eBay and street bootleggers were swamped with dozens of different kinds of unofficial DVDs of the films. Behind the scenes, it was rumoured that Lucasfilm VP Jim Ward desperately wanted to have the original versions released, even as the 2004 DVD boxset contained the Special Editions only, but Lucas maintained that there was only one version of the films he wanted people to have access to. "The other version, it's on VHS if anybody wants it," he said in a 2004 interview. "I'm not going to spend the, we're talking millions of dollars here, the money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn't really exist anymore. It's like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it." As you can imagine, this ticked a lot of people off even more.
Then, In 2006, Lucasfilm finally broke. It was announced on May 3rd on the Star Wars website that the original versions of the films would be coming to DVD that September:
"In response to overwhelming demand, Lucasfilm Ltd. and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment will release attractively priced individual two-disc releases of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Each release includes the 2004 digitally remastered version of the movie and, as bonus material, the theatrical edition of the film. That means you'll be able to enjoy Star Wars as it first appeared in 1977, Empire in 1980, and Jedi in 1983. See the title crawl to Star Wars before it was known as Episode IV; see the pioneering, if dated, motion control model work on the attack on the Death Star; groove to Lapti Nek or the Ewok Celebration song like you did when you were a kid; and yes, see Han Solo shoot first. This release will only be available for a limited time: from September 12th to December 31st. 'Over the years, a truly countless number of fans have told us that they would love to see and own the original version that they remember experiencing in theaters,' said Jim Ward, President of LucasArts and Senior Vice President of Lucasfilm Ltd. 'We returned to the Lucasfilm Archives to search exhaustively for source material that could be presented on DVD. This is something that we're very excited to be able to give to fans in response to their continuing enthusiasm for Star Wars.' "
All at once, the internet burst out into wild elation and jubilant celebration. The mass media began running stories on it, from MTV to USA today. Then, Lucasfilm VP Jim Ward started saying something fishy about 1993 being the source for these. "It is state of the art, as of 1993, and that's not as good as state of the art 2006," he said in an article for USA Today on May 4th. Websites swore that there was no way he could be implying that these were the 1993 Laserdisc sources; that was just paranoia. There was no way that in 2006 a company would put out a thirteen-year-old non-anamorphic Laserdisc master for such momentous films and with such media focus on the release. There was no way Lucasfilm could be that callous and show that much disrespect for such classics. Lucasfilm later confirmed the horrible truth that this was so, and that the originals were furthermore merely bonus features in another Special Edition release. Home theatre enthusiasts could hardly believe their eyes. After a massive load of angry letters reached Lucasfilm, publicist Lynn Hale issued a general statement which read in part:
"As you may know, an enormous amount of effort was put into digitally restoring the negatives for the Special Editions...The negatives of the movies were permanently altered for the creation of the Special Editions, and existing prints of the first versions are in poor condition. So many fans have requested the original movies, we wanted to find a way to bring them to you. But since these movies do not represent George's artistic vision, we could not put the extraordinary time and resources into this project as we did with the Special Editions. The 1993 Laserdisc masters represented the best source for providing the original versions as DVD bonus material."
Is this true? Preeminant home theatre website Digital Bits followed the fiasco and was very vocally critical about it. They were especially upset when they confirmed the releases were not even treated to anamorphic enhancement. Their own Robert Harris, the guy who hand-restored Lawrence of Arabia and Vertigo, said that he knew it was not true that the 1993 master was the best source, and knew that there were 35mm elements available, and he and the Bits offered to obtain 35mm material for a new transfer. This began a lot of debate about the original negative. Did it exist? Was George Lucas being literal when he said it no longer existed? Was it destroyed, along with all copies? They couldn't have done that...could they have? Even in the 2010 documentary The People Versus George Lucas, no one seems to really know.
Well, as I've written on the site before, Lucas is being technically accurate, but misleading. The negative is conformed to the Special Edition edit, because there can only be one original negative. So, technically speaking, the negative assembly of the originals does not exist. But it would be very easy to simply put the original pieces back in and conform it to the original versions. Actually, in a theoretical modern restoration, they would just scan the original pieces and make a digital edit, especially since disassembling the negative puts a lot of wear on it. There are also secondary sources, such as separation masters and interpositives, both of which were used to make duplicate pieces to repair parts of the original negative for the 1997 release. So, basically, the official Lucasfilm stance is a lot of crap, designed to confuse people who don't have a thorough knowledge of how post-production works.
What the publicist said is also technically correct, but misleading. The last time a new transfer was done of the originals was 1993, which was also re-released in 1995. There are ample 35mm materials available to do a new transfer, but the most recent pre-existing version is from 1993, ergo this is the best version Lucasfilm had access to without having to re-transfer the films fresh. Again, if one did not fully have knowledge of the home video history of Star Wars, this might seem to imply that this is the best version of the films that is ever going to be possible.
So, in September of 2006, the DVDs hit shelves. While being technical "bonus features", you sure wouldn't know it from the way the release was advertised, with giant cardboard store standups touting the original theatrical versions being included. There was even a commercial for the DVDs, showing the original crawl and everything. Lucas was interviewed by MTV for the release, where he stated: "It's just the original versions, as they were. We didn't do anything to it at all. But we're not sure how many people want that...Now we'll find out whether they really wanted the original or whether they wanted the improved versions. It'll all come out in the end."
Of course, gone was his pretentious statements about his vision. It seems these versions do exist to him after all. It marked a severe injury to Lucas' crusade; his personal integrity about artistic intent had imploded. And if it was about stopping bootleggers from pirating the original versions, as some theorized, then it shows that not only does he still acknowledge these versions, it also shows that making money is really the bottom line when it comes to this franchise and the integrity of his "vision."
However, fans had a sneaking suspicion about the reasons for the quality of the release. It borders on paranoia, but there seems to be lots of truth in it. On originaltrilogy.com, the release was coined the GOUT--George's, Original, Unaltered Theatrical versions.
That is, Lucas deliberately wanted the original versions to be presented in an inferior format so that they would not have to compete with the Special Editions. First, while bootlegs were sourced from Laserdiscs, to outcompete them all one would have to do is make an official transfer from the Laserdisc master--the result would be just a bit better than the bootlegs, which would be enough to put them out of commission. In other words, the least amount of quality possible to still have this as the "best available version." A high quality new transfer is unwanted because it also makes the Special Edition not look as good, so all you have to do is pull that 1993 master tape out of a dust bin in the Lucasfilm archives and you've accomplished your mission of not letting people really enjoy watching the originals; they look rough, crude, the way Lucas wants us to think they look.
Probably this was done because Lucas maintained that if the originals were to be included then they were to not spend any money on a new transfer but instead use the pre-existing material. Possibly because of this, or possibly at Lucas' urging that these not be the focus of the release, Lucasfilm was relegated to marketing the transfers as technical "bonus material". Given all of this, it also seemed like a set-up: as Lucas said, "now we'll find out whether they really wanted the original," yet anyone who would have been seriously interested in a release of the films was likely to stay away and save their money, which Lucas could then point out as indicating that no one wanted the original versions after all, in a circular self-fulfilling prophecy.
The release was also touted as "limited time" availability to lure in customers, with the press release stating they would be pulled in December of 2006, but the films have been continually sold until the time of this writing, which is late 2010. How did the release do, anyway? There are no official numbers, but internet rumours started maintaining the release was not a huge success. Actually, from what I could tell, it was pretty successful, especially considering that it was something that should have never been sold in the first place. When it first became available it was in the top purchases of amazon.com, and given its modest marketing budget and the length of time it has been on sale, it must have sold millions of copies by now.
I should also point out, making a new transfer from a 35mm source is not expensive. It literally costs thousands of dollars, which is why stuff like Revenge of the Nerds 2 are presented in modern, anamorphic transfers from 35mm material. Lucas has convinced some people that one would have to totally restore the films for them to look good and spend millions of dollars, but they would still look acceptable if taken from existing prints and materials, and certainly many times better than a master made in 1993. As I have written in other articles for this page (most recently here), Fox restored the negatives in 1995-1997, and almost all of the work is already done. But of course, given that Lucas is a billionaire, this is a moot point, isn't it? Which is why his using this 1993 master is likely a deliberate attempt to create an unfair advantage for his Special Edition.
A final detail might be: what is this master anyway? In 1985, new Interpositive (IP) prints were made for the purposes of home video telecines. In 1993, these were telecined to a Sony D1 or D2 digital cassette tape, probably by means of a 1/3" CCD telecine. These tapes were then used as the sources to make Laserdisc pressings and VHS dubs for that year's releases.
Okay, so I have ranted about how bad the films look, but what am I actually referring to? As a telecine made in 1993, the master is pretty decent, and if you have a smaller 4x3 television that does not make the lack of detail obvious the films are watchable. And, to give Lucasfilm credit, they did include the original 1977 crawl for Star Wars, without Episode IV; which is weird that they would take the time to edit that in, but I guess they had to in order to market it as the "original theatrical version." It also makes me wonder where they got that from, because it looks in great condition, and appears to be a recent transfer; this is probably how the rest of the film would have looked in a new transfer from 35mm elements. However, for anyone that wants to sit back and actually enjoy and appreciate the originals, not just have a copy on disc, the release has a multitude of serious problems.
1) The issue most vocally touted is that the films were not 16x9 anamorphic. The DVD transfers are 4x3 letterbox, because the 1993 masters were so. If you have a regular 4x3 television, this won't affect you, but for everyone with 16x9 widescreen sets, which are now the only kind of television being manufactured, this means that the widescreen image won't fill your screen. Instead, you have a tiny rectangle in the middle of your screen, surrounded by black bars on all four sides. It looks something like this:
Not a very enjoyable way to watch the films, is it? It is very easy to convert this image to anamorphic so that it automatically fills a widescreen set; it pretty much costs nothing, and consumers can do this themselves using free software on the internet. But since this was not done, the only solution is to use your television's "zoom" function to blow up the image until it fills the frame. This is not the same as true anamorphic conversion, though, which re-scales the image so that it retains all its quality. Zooming your set also makes any subtitles get cut off, since they are displayed in the black bar area. Anamorphic enhancement has been the standard for home video for years, and pretty much every widescreen film is presented this way on DVD. Also, in case one is wondering--no, this does not count as "altering" the film. In fact, the letterboxing above is altering it, because those bars are not on the original film. Widescreen 35mm is actually itself anamorphic.
2) However, even were the image to fill your screen properly, this would simply highlight the most important issue of them all: it's a 1993 telecine. It will still look poor, because it was over a decade out of date when it was released in 2006 and now in 2010 is closing in at two decades out of date. There is a lack of fine detail, and the picture is a bit soft. This is simply because this was as state of the art as home video technology was at the time. Okay for 1993, but not acceptable in 2006. Laserdiscs did not display very much detail compared to DVD anyway, so it was not necessary to have any better picture quality than what we have here. As soon as you start displaying the image on larger screens, you can see how bad the picture is compared to modern transfers of films. This is the real flaw of the release. It was never meant to be seen in 2006.
3) Aside from that, however, another striking feature is the high level of film grain. This is especially apparent in the earlier reels of Star Wars. Why is this? Is it just because these are old movies and when not remastered and restored like the Special Edition this is how they look? A lot of people might be under this impression, but this is inaccurate. Star Wars should not look this grainy. Some even suspected that Lucasfilm added digital grain to make the films look worse, but I'm sure this isn't the case. The reason some would go as far as to make this accusation is because other releases, including the Laserdiscs that supposedly used this master, do not have grain like this. I have to admit, the situation here is slightly baffling. However, what I do know is that the films are not normally this grainy. One only need to look at the Senator Theatre's print. Take a look at those images, and you can see they are usually far less grainy than this transfer--and they've gone from negative, to interpositive, back to internegative, and then the print itself. The cap of Vader on the blockade runner looks downright clean. Other examples like the 70mm cell collection shows the same picture quality. No surprise since the film was shot on 100ASA fine-grain stock. The fact is, the negative that was used for the 1997 and 2004 Special Editions is the same negative used for this interpositive, and the original films should look similar in quality (the 2004 release had its grain dialed down, but you can see from raw negative scans that it is not this bad, and the 1997 release had no de-graining at all, so grain-wise it should have at least looked like that).
I do have some explanations. One is that the Laserdiscs themselves were softer, and so never displayed the full level of grain that is apparent on the masters themselves; the discs may have also been futher filtered in their pressings. Two is that the negatives at the time (in 1985 when the prints were struck, after all those theatrical re-releases) and the 1985 prints themselves were much dirtier than was apparent, again because the previous releases were a bit softer. When the negative was washed in 1995 for the restoration, it looked anew. However, one can distinguish dirt from grain here; dirt on both the negatives and prints makes the problem worse, but the problem is still already there. Given that the print was struck directly from the negative (in theory, that is what IPs are derived from; if this was derived from an internegative it would make more sense how grainy the image looks, but it would make no sense to do this), this means that most of the grain you see is on the interpositive print itself. Film stock from the 1980s was much grainier than what we are used to. However, 1985, the year these IPs were made, was a bit notorious. Kodak made a batch of stock that was so grainy they eventually recalled it with a new version in 1986. James Cameron shot Aliens on this stock, and was always unhappy with the grain--he is currently working on de-graining it for the impending HD release. Now, raw negative stock is totally different than duplicate stock, especially since the Aliens raw stock was a special low light stock (low light means more grain). I don't know if Kodak had similar issues with its duplicate stock, but it's a bit of a coincidence, for what it is worth.
I wonder what they'll do to the 3D cinema re-releases?
I don't know, but I am not looking forward to it. Every time these films are released they seem just that little bit worse to me, and whacking it all into pointless and unnecessary 3D is the next logical step.
I wonder what they'll do to the 3D cinema re-releases?
I hate to say it, but the 3D releases are either going to be CG-ed out the arse, OR they're going to be the worst instance of 3D ever. Know why? Because a good amount of background shots in the original trilogy were against MATTE PAINTINGS. Just a for instance, after Han tells Lando to take the Falcon for the Battle of Endor, Lando walks towards a matte painting. IE, no depth, which is the primary focus of...yeah, 3D.
I was looking forward to this when I heard they were cleaning up ILM's piss-poor, half-assed rush job of editing up the effects for the DVD releases. Then I heard about the new changes. Now the only way I'll get these Blu-rays is if someone buys them for me as a birthday or Christmas present(can't really complain about those and I'm not spending the dumb money) or when I see the whole set marked down to $20 in a bargain bin.
I hate to say it, but the 3D releases are either going to be CG-ed out the arse, OR they're going to be the worst instance of 3D ever. Know why? Because a good amount of background shots in the original trilogy were against MATTE PAINTINGS. Just a for instance, after Han tells Lando to take the Falcon for the Battle of Endor, Lando walks towards a matte painting. IE, no depth, which is the primary focus of...yeah, 3D.
Fake 3D conversion is all fake anyway, so it's not like it makes a difference whether the original had real depth or not. CG-ed out the ass is pretty much the only way to do it either way.
Comments
They should just go all out and replace Greedo with a CGI version that acts visibly drunk. That'll make it believable.
Though now that I think about it, if Greedo really is such a terrible shot, then it's pretty mean of Han to shoot him at all. He should have just smacked him down.
You must not know the definition of graphical because arbitrarily changing the fact that Han Solo is a scoundrel does change the story as it affects the character's development.
If the blue tint is intentional, it is stupid. Adywan says it was not there before the 2004 DVD.
Hayden as a ghost doesn't change the story, you're right about that, but how can you say the Han/Greedo scene doesn't change the story?
Greedo is a bounty hunter who in pretty clear terms just told Han that he was not only about to kill him, but that he was going to kill him. So Han shoots him. Not only is this totally bad ass, but really it's the only logical thing for Han to do.
In the new version, Han waits for Greedo to shoot first. Greedo is a bounty hunter in the employ of Jabba the Hutt, which presumably means he knows how to use a gun. Also he's at point blank range. A ten year old could shoot somebody from across a three-foot table. Refusing to fire on him first should be tantamount to committing suicide. But somehow, he manages to miss anyway. Not only does this change manage to make Han look like an idiot, but it even manages to make Greedo look incompetent at the same time.
Again, how? He still killed him. In the new version they shoot almost at the same time. http://m.youtube.com/?dc=organic&source=mog&hl=en#/watch?v=mKEX6QJ-zlQ As for the blue tint, I only remembered it being on Hoth and thought it was to make it look colder. I have no idea why it's in the rest.
What about the scene with Yoda?
I don't think he was supposed to be waiting, Greedo just happened to shot first.
Back when it first came out, I remember Lucas saying in an interview that he did not want Han to shoot first because Han was supposed to have a sort of cowboy-like honor system, or something. I'll try to find the quote.
Well, I didn't even realise that was meant to be young anakin until after my maths teacher mentioned his sympathy for the guy (something along the lines of the actor buying the DVD version and going "look son, here's my bit coming up..."). I think I always just assumed that it was meant to be obi-wan's instructor or some random jedi-ghost. The change is to make that obvious to kids like I was at the time (because let's face it, the guy looks nothing like deathbed anakin or younger anakin, so kids would get even more confused without the swap!)
@Chyrron: With the yoda scene, I think it makes it look a bit less fake, but I prefer the bottom one. I think the blue tinge should've been limited to certain space scenes, and the imperial spacecraft.
THIS MAKES NO SENSE. THE ENTIRE SERIES IS ABOUT THE FALL AND REDEMPTION OF ANAKIN SKYWALKER. AAAAAARGH.
Dude. Seriously.
If Vader can kill the Jedi, his wife, and even kill younglings(!), and then redeem himself and return to the light side by saving Luke, how the FUCK can Han Solo not be redeemed after shooting a guy who JUST SAID that he was about to kill him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGg_F7s7xg&feature=related
I always thought that the ghost was supposed to be just-dead Anakin, but with more limbs and hair. And I did get that right off the bat as a kid, because it looked a bit like Vader when he took his mask off just a few minutes previous. I really didn't see much of a discrepancy there.
It's more confusing to me to have Anakin coming back as his younger self when all the other dead Jedi came back looking just the same as when they died.
Yes. I first saw these movies when I was, like, 12, and I can't say I had a hard time figuring out that the new ghost was Anakin. I mean, it's the same actor that played death-bed Vader... he just has hair now.
Plus if I was ghost Obi-Wan, I'd be annoyed that I was stuck being an old man when Anakin got to float around looking all young and suave.
Well time to change that scene to Hayden too.
Related: http://youtu.be/PD138saK_4M
Well, Anakin died being bald, wrinkly and with scars.
And then came back as a younger version with hair, no scars and no wrinkles.
I don't think it's that much of a leap to say he could comeback as what he looked like before he went to the dark side (or before he died, so to speak.)
And here's a further blu-ray change.
Keep in mind, THIS is what he looked like before he came to the dark side.
Also, Celebration vs Yub Nub.
So, why is it allowed there, but not to Star Wars? After all, the original SW's are still about. The original TF2 or WoW? Unplayable. Because you cannot just "not patch".
Also, I would bring you in contact with a French Star Wars fanatic who complains about every bug I squash in the The Sith Lords Content Restoration Mod should remain in, because the "developers intended it to be broken that way"... You must have not read this thread. Especially Chyron8472's posts. So do I. So why all the fuss here?
The LOTR movies extended versions did modify existing content too after all. Especially musically... Can you buy the original disk version of MI1? Tree stomp joke was even cut out of the SE! :eek:
I could probably lists hundreds more examples, but I don't care enough to think of more
So, what point are you guys trying to make?
And who says a first BluRay release doesn't mean another with the originals later, like happened with the DVD's, right?
Jumping the wagon rather fast, aren't you? Not that I believe anyone rants here for this reason anyway. On the DVD they shot similarly. Which makes sense, happens in Western's too in such standoff's, right? But a war-breed Clone Commando/Stormtrooper cannot. So why should Bounty Hunters in the galaxy of really bad shooters? Fun fact;
This was supposed to be a big fight scene, but Harrison Ford was sick and unable to shoot it, so this is what they came up with instead.
Indeed, the legendary scene was ad-libbed (ad-madeup? Whatever) on the set.
If GL wanted to edit to follow the script, it would indeed be removed
Being a ghost of him before any of that happens makes less sense to me. I've been told it was what was supposed to happen from the start, but Anakin was supposed to turn to the dark side later in life in the original script. Still, I don't like the idea of pretending nothing happened. I like that it's his older self. To me it shows he repented, but isn't pretending none of the bad stuff happened.
To me, the ghost thing is also a representation of the person's soul, and so while the age can be represented because a person evolves with experience, things like physical scars or wound weren't part of the person's soul but only their physical bodies. Similarly, they wouldn't have the wounds that caused their deaths or be in two parts if they died cut in half, that kind of thing.
This is an accurate representation of how dumb this scene is now.
What you think the Special Editions only look nice because they have CGI doodled all over them? I really don't understand where people get ideas like this.
If you honestly want to learn something then click here. Reading all of it is advised but scrolling down to points 4 and 6 would suffice.
That is the first of your posts on this forum that I love completely. How can you not adore that. :wub:
A CGI edit of the Luke and Vader battle, to include an overlay of George Lucas thrusting his nuts out of the screen.
I hate to say it, but the 3D releases are either going to be CG-ed out the arse, OR they're going to be the worst instance of 3D ever. Know why? Because a good amount of background shots in the original trilogy were against MATTE PAINTINGS. Just a for instance, after Han tells Lando to take the Falcon for the Battle of Endor, Lando walks towards a matte painting. IE, no depth, which is the primary focus of...yeah, 3D.
I was looking forward to this when I heard they were cleaning up ILM's piss-poor, half-assed rush job of editing up the effects for the DVD releases. Then I heard about the new changes. Now the only way I'll get these Blu-rays is if someone buys them for me as a birthday or Christmas present(can't really complain about those and I'm not spending the dumb money) or when I see the whole set marked down to $20 in a bargain bin.
Replace Alec Guiness with Ewan McGregor. But not the actual Ewan McGregor, no, a creepy entirely digital Ewan McGregor.