Lost Star Wars Footage Found On LaserDisc

Some more star wars footage? by Pieroxy · 2013-10-28 05:16 · Score: 2

May the force be with us all...

Re:Some more star wars footage? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:22 · Score: 4, Funny

May the force be with us all...
Sometimes I think the kids of the 1970s are going to go to their graves moaning and bitching about Star Wars.
You seriously can't make this shit up.
Re:Some more star wars footage? by ruir · 2013-10-28 06:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Goodgracious. As if the film was not already bad enough, and yet paying 700 dollars for that rubbish is quite over the top. Hey, if I tick the publicity button, do I get rid of this shameless plug to resell the worthless laserdisc?
Re:Some more star wars footage? by meerling · 2013-10-28 07:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

He paid $700 for unreleased and presumably lost recordings of a Star Wars movie of the original trilogy on an obsolete media format.

He'll get at least $7000 if he sells it to a collector, or even to Lucas or Disney so they can take it off the market. I bet if it went to a collectors auction, it could go for x10 that. Yeah, sure, he paid too much for it... NOT
Re:Some more star wars footage? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 07:17 · Score: 0

He paid $700 for unreleased and presumably lost recordings of a Star Wars movie of the original trilogy on an obsolete media format.
He'll get at least $7000 if he sells it to a collector, or even to Lucas or Disney so they can take it off the market. I bet if it went to a collectors auction, it could go for x10 that. Yeah, sure, he paid too much for it... NOT
So why didn't the original seller sell it to Lucas or Disney or even gasp an auction house ? I'll tell you why, he simply found someone gullible enough to fork out 7 fucking hundred dollars for a piece of shit that no one cares about.
You seriously think Lucasfilm (now Disney) doesn't have in their archives ALL possible footage pertaining to Star Wars ?
Re:Some more star wars footage? by ruir · 2013-10-28 07:19 · Score: 2

And now he is making publicity in slashdot hoping some sucker living in his parents basement is gullible enough to buy it.
Re:Some more star wars footage? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 08:02 · Score: 5, Informative

You seriously think Lucasfilm (now Disney) doesn't have in their archives ALL possible footage pertaining to Star Wars ?
If George Lucas is to be believed, then no they do not. The original, unaltered footage which was released on the LaserDisc format was damaged irreparably when they were making one of the special releases in the 80's. I don't recall the whole story but supposedly they were cleaning up the original filmstock and in the process damaged it. Suspiciously the only portions to be damaged in such a fashion are scenes such as the "Han vs. Greedo Mos Eisley Shootout" scene.
The originals allegedly had shown Han clearly firing first, in contradiction to Lucas's claims, but the VHS versions were far too low resolution to serve as a final word on the matter. With the loss of the originals, the matter was never fully resolved.
So you can say that "nobody cares" about having original, unaltered footage from one of the most popular and successful sci-fi franchises of all time. And you can even believe that if you choose, but it doesn't make you right.
Re:Some more star wars footage? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 08:36 · Score: 3, Informative

The originals allegedly had shown Han clearly firing first, in contradiction to Lucas's claims, but the VHS versions were far too low resolution to serve as a final word on the matter. With the loss of the originals, the matter was never fully resolved.
I have all the releases on VHS and laserdisc up to the "Special" Editions. The scene goes like this:
Greedo: "I've been looking forward to this for a long time."
Han: "Yeah, I'll bet you have!"
(BLAM - smoke rises, Greedo's face hits the table)
That's the way it was in the original release, Lucas-retcon notwithstanding.
Re: Some more star wars footage? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 08:57 · Score: 0

The original, unaltered footage which was released on the LaserDisc format was damaged irreparably when they were making one of the special releases in the 80's.
"No, there is another....."
Yoda
Re:Some more star wars footage? by geekoid · 2013-10-28 08:58 · Score: 0

I have found the the 2nd and 3rd generation views more about it then those of us who were in the theater when it first ran.,
OTOH, their are movie far older that get quoted all the time.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Some more star wars footage? by geekoid · 2013-10-28 09:01 · Score: 1

It's a collectors piece, Some people are collectors.
Do you say the same things about people who collect paintings?
If you bought it for 7000, it will probably be worth 20K in 10 years, if not sooner.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Some more star wars footage? by ruir · 2013-10-28 09:10 · Score: 1

Lucas ruined so much the memories of the first Star Wars for me milking it, that I think people would have to pay me to keep it.
Re:Some more star wars footage? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 09:15 · Score: 0, Troll

Can you retype that when you're sober?
Re:Some more star wars footage? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 10:45 · Score: 0

For every nerd embittered by the endless rewriting, ret-conning, special editions, holiday special, you name it... there are dozens that are slavering fanbois. And apparently some of those are rich.
Re:Some more star wars footage? by DrStoooopid · 2013-10-29 04:41 · Score: 1

..and generation Y-ine..and the millennial children will die not believing in anything, and never accomplished anything.

--
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
Re:Some more star wars footage? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-29 07:23 · Score: 0

sometimes I think the kids of the 90s are going to go directly to their graves from their parents' basements.
you seriously can't make this stuff up.
Re:Some more star wars footage? by severn2j · 2013-10-31 20:44 · Score: 1

Yeah, maybe my memories of it are fuzzy (I was 7 when I first saw it at the cinema), but I always thought that not only did Han shoot first, Greedo never shot at all..
Re:Some more star wars footage? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-03 05:23 · Score: 0

I like this version better than any of Lucas's versions!

Content Control by RunFatBoy.net · 2013-10-28 05:16 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Has there ever been a case where the copyright owner claimed that a video like this wasn't intended for release, initiated DMCA takedowns and successfully repossessed the media? This feels like rare content that content holders would want to protect if possible, maybe even enhance for a future release..

-- Jim
Receive fresh, relevant feedback about your site. Delivered to your inbox every week. Launching soon.

Re:Content Control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:26 · Score: 1

shouldn't have sold it then(repossessing).
would be easy to argue that whoever has it doesn't have any broadcast rights to it of course.
Re:Content Control by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-28 05:42 · Score: 2

It has been known about for a while so if they were going to act I'd imagine they already would have, which is surprising. They could sell this stuff as part of the extras on yet another re-release, and there could potentially be some things they wouldn't want released (a lot of shots of Carrie Fisher in that bikini had to be dropped because of wardrobe malfunctions).

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Content Control by houstonbofh · 2013-10-28 05:44 · Score: 0

Since it was not a part of the released film, it could be argued that it was never copyrighted. Of course the argument would cost millions...
Re:Content Control by ScentCone · 2013-10-28 05:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Since it was not a part of the released film, it could be argued that it was never copyrighted. Of course the argument would cost millions...
Er... what? The act of creating something - no matter what you do with it - assigns copyrights to the person who or group that creates it. If you run out with your smartphone, right now, and shoot some never-plan-to-"release it" footage, you own the copyright on what you create. Period.

You're probably confusing that basic fact with the question of whether or not the person who creates the work registers that work with the US Copyright Office. Registering the work allows you to go after an infringer in federal court, and to seek damages beyond the normal value of the work. If you don't register the work, you still own the copyright, and can use the courts to stop someone else from infringing on it, and you can sue them for what you'd normally have charged them for that use, if they'd asked you first. No punitive damages.

Federal venue for infringement or not, you make something, you own the copyrights. If you assign those rights to someone else, they own the copyrights. But someone who finds some media that contains the work? That doesn't convey copyrights.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Content Control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 06:10 · Score: 1

I don't know about that but Carrie Fisher liked to party (she had a bit of a coke problem) and some people say they filmed some gang bang scenes after hours.
Re:Content Control by dbraden · 2013-10-28 06:13 · Score: 3, Informative

It's my understanding that copyright is bestowed at the moment a work is created, whether it is officially filed or not.
Re:Content Control by Desler · 2013-10-28 06:19 · Score: 3, Funny

Since it was not a part of the released film, it could be argued that it was never copyrighted. Of course the argument would cost millions...
It could be argued but you'd be laughed out of court.
Re:Content Control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 06:36 · Score: 1

The coke part is certainly true, and most amusingly obvious in her glassy-eyed stare in the Star Wars Holiday Special. But the gang bang thing sounds like a Chinese whisper rumour based on the fact she did technically "feature" in a porn film, but just talks in it and doesn't get naked or anything.
Re:Content Control by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-10-28 06:37 · Score: 2

Well, they have sold the content to someone. That someone is free to watch that material. However, the footage is still under copyright, so whoever currently owns the copyright can prevent it from being distributed to anyone else (except by selling the original LaserDisk).

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Content Control by Joce640k · 2013-10-28 06:38 · Score: 2

I'd pay to see him in court arguing that he owns the rights to Star Wars.

--
No sig today...
Re:Content Control by msauve · 2013-10-28 06:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Prior to 1978, in the US, a copyright notice was required to claim copyright. Mere creation was not sufficient. That doesn't apply to a work created circa 1983.

Until 1989, either a copyright notice or registration within 5 years was required, something which may apply in this case. My understanding is that the 1989 change in law also brought pre-1978 works which lacked a notice under copyright.

As Wikipedia puts it "Until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would place an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, this could be prevented by registering the work with the Library of Congress within five years of publication."

No doubt, an IP lawyer will pop up and clarify things, but the GP may be correct in thinking this may not be copyrighted. I doubt a copy of this work was registered, and it may lack a notice.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Content Control by cdrudge · 2013-10-28 06:59 · Score: 3, Funny

a lot of shots of Carrie Fisher in that bikini had to be dropped because of wardrobe malfunctions
Video proof or it never happened.
Re:Content Control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 07:02 · Score: 0

so whoever currently owns the copyright can prevent it from being distributed to anyone else (except by selling the original LaserDisk).
Well, they can't prevent it from being distributed. I mean, the cat's already out of the bag. This content is sure to be appearing on the torrent sites soon, if it hasn't already.
Re:Content Control by westlake · 2013-10-28 07:39 · Score: 1

Prior to 1978, in the US, a copyright notice was required to claim copyright. Mere creation was not sufficient. That doesn't apply to a work created circa 1983.
In a work print or other special pressing, copyright information is likely to be overlaid on the video.
Re:Content Control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 08:27 · Score: 0

It's my understanding that copyright is bestowed at the moment a work is created, whether it is officially filed or not.
Yes and no.
You're referring to what is usually called a "manuscript copyright" which only covers the work until you distribute it. The second you distribute the work at all other rules come into play. You'd have to speak with a copyright lawyer for the full details, but essentially you have to put a notice on any distributed work or you're basically giving free license to distribute and use.
The problem is whether or not you will be able to actually defend your copyright. If you don't have it formally filed then you're going to have a VERY difficult time defending it in most cases unless you can prove not only that you are the original creator, AND that you never authorized it for ANY kind of release.
In the case of the LaserDisc, it was almost certainly copyrighted under a limited release license.
Re:Content Control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 10:03 · Score: 1

a lot of shots of Carrie Fisher in that bikini had to be dropped because of wardrobe malfunctions
Video proof or it never happened.
If only there was an unreleased laser disc ...
Re:Content Control by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2013-10-28 10:24 · Score: 3, Funny

Well, they can try, but...

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more LaserDiscs will slip through your fingers.

--
FGD 135
Re:Content Control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 14:08 · Score: 0

He could always just claim Antigua & Barbados as his country of residence, and then tell Lucas/Disney to go sodomise themselves with a vibrating R2D2.
Re:Content Control by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 14:51 · Score: 0

Modded troll because of your spam.

Ewoks getting Force-choked? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:17 · Score: 1

We can only hope...

Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by Freshly+Exhumed · 2013-10-28 05:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Nope, it was the original sequence in which Greedo and Han shoot simultaneously.

--
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:35 · Score: 0

A couple Ewoks and Jar-Jar getting into a nasty podracing accident.
Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 06:09 · Score: 0

Ewoks were the first indication of the George Lucas traits the gave us the remade "Greedo shot first" sequence, along with JarJar, midichlorians, Mannequin Skywalker, and "NOOOO!"
Re: Ewoks getting Force-choked? by jd2112 · 2013-10-28 06:25 · Score: 2

In the Re-remake Han and Greedo are in a Matrix-style bullet-time gunfight.

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 06:49 · Score: -1

Ewok
Ewerk
eTwerk
eeeew.
Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by flargleblarg · 2013-10-28 07:04 · Score: 1

Nope, it was the original sequence in which Han shot first, missed, and the laser bolt richocheted off the wall behind Greedo, then richocheted off the wall behind Han, and then blasted poor Greedo in the face.
Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:11 · Score: 2, Funny

laser bolt richocheted
(as the physicists silently wept in the background)
Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-29 00:26 · Score: 0

It's a film where spaceships fly like planes, lasers hit each other, and laser beams don't crystalise when you dump huge amounts of power into them, and you're concerned about a laser bolt richoet?
Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by Optali · 2013-10-29 07:12 · Score: 1

Second best to Leia pr0n!!!

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by flargleblarg · 2013-10-29 08:40 · Score: 1

Yeah, you know, just like in the garbage compactor scene.
Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 16:28 · Score: 0

that was only because the garbage compactor was magnetically sealed
Re:Ewoks getting Force-choked? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-03 14:15 · Score: 0

laser bolt richocheted
(as the physicists silently wept in the background)
They're not lasers-- blasters fire some sort of glowing blob of plasma, which is why you can not only see it, but see it moving.
(Then again, the officer on the Death Star reports that the Rebel ships are so small "they're evading our turbo-lasers." Maybe "laser" means something different in a galaxy far, far away... but I have no flimsy rationalization for that one!)

Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Will you pathetic losers ever stop wanking over that moronic movie series.

Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:20 · Score: -1

nope.
Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:26 · Score: -1

Says the pathetic loser that actually took time to post this tripe on SLASHDOT.
Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:31 · Score: 0, Funny

Cum-covered Star Wars is Best Star Wars.
Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:38 · Score: -1

It takes 2 seconds to post. Also it seems more pathetic that you took the time to post to whine about them posting.
Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:43 · Score: 0

ha ha
geeks hating hollywood for not innovating and buying up every new release of the same movies that GL has been milking for thirty years
OMG, this one has an extra half hour of the cast eating lunch in the extras
Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:49 · Score: -1

Wow, and now we have a sock puppet. Dance little puppet, dance.
Re:Give me a break. by xevioso · 2013-10-28 06:57 · Score: 1

I'd pay to watch that. What of it?
Re:Give me a break. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 07:29 · Score: 0

People like something I don't like? To the Internet!

footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:18 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV_-oGZ0U1k

Re:footage by Freshly+Exhumed · 2013-10-28 05:32 · Score: 1

Please mod parent up!!!

--
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Re:footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:36 · Score: 0

I actually put that link in the summary, but it got removed.
Re:footage by stewsters · 2013-10-28 05:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Cool, an actual link. Also contains no Jar Jar, so its safe to click.
Re:footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:51 · Score: -1

I have to say that Yoda masturbating scene at the 1:30 minute mark was totally unexpected!
"That face you make. Look so bad to young eyes, hmm?" indeed.
Re:footage by TWiTfan · 2013-10-28 06:02 · Score: 1

Do or do not! There is no try!

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Re:footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 06:31 · Score: 0

The story is submitted by drxenos. If you are drxenos, why didn't you post that comment with your user?
Re:footage by drxenos · 2013-10-28 06:45 · Score: 4, Funny

Because it didn't warrant it. Why are you suspicious?

--

Anonymous Cowards suck.
Re:footage by interval1066 · 2013-10-28 07:20 · Score: 1

meh. thrilling.

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:footage by ArbitraryName · 2013-10-28 07:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your sig, on a response to someone asking why you posted as AC, is hilarious.
Re:footage by drxenos · 2013-10-28 07:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, I guess it is. The intent of my sig. was that people that use the AC system to be abusive and rude, suck. I posted the You Tube link and the follow ups as AC, because I didn't want to comment on a story I, myself, submitted. I only planned to supply the link that was stripped from my submission (and I didn't want to be modded up for it).

--

Anonymous Cowards suck.
Re:footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 08:56 · Score: 0

Don't you mean TROOPS
Re:footage by geekoid · 2013-10-28 09:07 · Score: 1

I don't remember him yelling that line, but it would be hilarious if he had.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:footage by adolf · 2013-10-28 10:45 · Score: 1

But you identified yourself, anyway.
Fail?

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:13 · Score: 0

"Size matters not. Judge me by my size, do you?"
Re:footage by evilviper · 2013-10-28 11:32 · Score: 1

Also contains no Jar Jar, so its safe to click.
Too tempting...
http://youtu.be/acg4b3H3t-8

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:footage by drxenos · 2013-10-28 13:46 · Score: 1

Sigh. I didn't have an issue with identifying myself. I just thought it would be beyond hubris to karma whore on an article I submitted.

--

Anonymous Cowards suck.
Re:footage by adolf · 2013-10-28 14:02 · Score: 1

Screw it. It's just karma. You can take off your karma bonus if you want (as I have done on this comment), although that might lead to even more karma if it's a good comment and enough mods see it....(and so what if it does?)
Speaking for myself: I'm much more appreciative of folks who participate in the discussions they help create, than of the folks who hide in the shadows. It gives the discourse a feeling of being "grounded," somehow, especially with Ask Slashdot (which this isn't, but the point remains).
Also, I killfile /. email notifications from ACs. It's not so much that I mind ACs doing whatever it is that they're doing (they're given a neutral score in my preference settings), but it's difficult to converse with someone if they're an AC because it seems unlikely that they'll ever even notice my effort.
This means that I never see an AC reply to one of my comments unless I go looking for it, whereas I'm notified quickly if a registered user replies. (This, in a way, puts both me and the AC on equal turf, but it's a very sub-grade sort of turf.)
So, anyway, whore away. It seems like less of a fail than being intentionally non-whorish by posting as AC. :)
(IMHO, YMMV, FFS, et cetera.)

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:footage by antdude · 2013-10-28 22:00 · Score: 1

You forgot your apostrophe for "it is". ;)

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Check it for lost Doctor Who episodes by jfdavis668 · 2013-10-28 05:19 · Score: 5, Funny

The BBC is still looking.

Re:Check it for lost Doctor Who episodes by Austrian+Anarchy · 2013-10-28 05:38 · Score: 1

The BBC is still looking.
They are still looking for the George Orwell radio shows too. I think the scripts are out there, but the recordings seem to have vanished in a memory hole somewhere.

--
Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
Re:Check it for lost Doctor Who episodes by ArcadeMan · 2013-10-28 06:14 · Score: 1

The lost Doctor Who episodes have been found 14 years ago, in 2079.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Re:Check it for lost Doctor Who episodes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 07:26 · Score: 0

The lost Doctor Who episodes have been found 14 years ago, in 2079.
It Never Existed.
What never existed?

George, stop! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:20 · Score: 0

You don't own Star Wars anymore! You can't insert Jar-Jar into that footage!

JarJar by Iniamyen · 2013-10-28 05:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Unless JarJar makes a cameo, I no care

Re:JarJar by X0563511 · 2013-10-28 05:23 · Score: 4, Funny

If by cameo, you mean "dies in a fire" then I'd agree.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:JarJar by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-10-28 05:29 · Score: 1

I'd pay to see the Emperor force lightning JarJar. In my mind I am picturing something like don't taze me bro but it keeps going until JarJar is a smoldering cinder.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:JarJar by Teancum · 2013-10-28 06:17 · Score: 1

I'd pay to see the Emperor force lightning JarJar. In my mind I am picturing something like don't taze me bro but it keeps going until JarJar is a smoldering cinder.
If that happened, I would make sure that the Rebellion would grant a medal for heroism in the midst of life threatening danger to the Emperor. Seriously, you would need to have some serious balls in order to take on Jar Jar like that. I mean, he (meaning Jar jar) is only the most feared sentient being in the entire galaxy.
Then again, I suppose the Emperor owes Jar Jar a favor for establishing the empire in the first place. That is most definitely a Sith Master.
Re:JarJar by geekoid · 2013-10-28 09:14 · Score: 1

The problem with JarJar is the same problem with every single character in the prequels. The writing was horrid.
The films is pretty much the worst work of any of the main actors. Imagine judging Natalie Portman by that work alone?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:JarJar by X0563511 · 2013-10-28 09:27 · Score: 1

Imagine judging Natalie Portman by that work alone?
I have, as I've not seen her in any other role nor will I ever do so. I will avoid said movies.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Painfully obligatory joke by dkleinsc · 2013-10-28 05:22 · Score: 5, Funny

It turns out these *are* the EditDroids we're looking for!

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:Painfully obligatory joke by Gilmoure · 2013-10-28 05:51 · Score: 1

*golf clap*

--
I drank what? -- Socrates

I saw this back in the 80s by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-10-28 05:24 · Score: 4, Funny

The Mon Calamari battleships shoot the Death Star first.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Re:I saw this back in the 80s by interval1066 · 2013-10-28 07:23 · Score: 1

Johnny (as a Death Star tech) is seen behind a control bay plugging the laser cannon back into its power source giggling "Just kidding!"

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'

So yet another version by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-10-28 05:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

So I guess there will now be a "special extended digitally remastered unseen original footage director's uncut edition" that everyone will have to buy.

--
Time to offend someone

Re:So yet another version by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 06:16 · Score: 0

So I guess there will now be a "special extended digitally remastered unseen original footage director's uncut edition" that everyone will have to buy.
Yes, converted straight from 1980's technology.
Make sure you wait for the 4K Ultra-Blu-Ray edition.
Re:So yet another version by DigitAl56K · 2013-10-28 06:18 · Score: 1

everyone will have to buy.
Nobody has to buy any version.
Re:So yet another version by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 06:35 · Score: 1

everyone will have to buy.
Nobody has to buy any version.
Riiiiiight.
Nobody has to be here still giving a shit about this either.
And yet here we are, in the year 2013, still talking about a fucking movie from the 1970's that someone found "unreleased" footage barely worth the cutting room floor, as if someone just unearthed an iPhone from an 2,000-year old tomb.
Re:So yet another version by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 07:19 · Score: 0

So, again: how are you forced to buy it?
Re:So yet another version by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 09:01 · Score: 0

The best part is that the scenes will get all-new CGI.

But did Han shoot first? by Gothmolly · 2013-10-28 05:29 · Score: 1

And why would have stepped ON Jabba's tail instead of over it?

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:But did Han shoot first? by realityimpaired · 2013-10-28 06:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, can answer the second question quite easily -- When they were filming the original film, they hadn't decided that Jabba would be a giant space slug yet, and used a human stand-in. The idea was that when they decided what he'd be, they could edit the alien in during post production.
They included a copy of the original footage on a LucasArts bundle CD of the early LA StarWars games that I picked up some time around 1997, or so... along with film interview with Lucas explaining it. I still have the CD somewhere, probably in storage at my parents' place.
Re:But did Han shoot first? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 07:53 · Score: 3, Informative

Lucas is a huge liar. He continually says he "meant" for certain things to happen. The truth is the stand-in WAS Jabba, and everyone realized it looked stupid, and they removed the scene. It also kills the film's pacing, Jabba repeats everything Greedo just said. It also kills the big reveal in ROTJ.
They added it because Lucas had useable footage for the SE, and figured why the hell not. Anything to make more money.
Re:But did Han shoot first? by SlippyToad · 2013-10-28 08:52 · Score: 1

He continually says he "meant" for certain things to happen
I take that that he meant the story to turn into a turgid, cheap soap opera.

--
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Re:But did Han shoot first? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 09:01 · Score: 0

That and the way the conversation plays out in the scene makes Jabba look like an utter pussy, which also clashes with his portrayal in Return of the Jedi.
Re:But did Han shoot first? by _merlin · 2013-10-28 11:03 · Score: 1

Exactly. If that scene had been included, then Jabba's character development would've been very different, and consequently the Jabba we saw in RoTJ would've been different. You can't restore it and have it fit the story that developed without it.

It is not lost footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:32 · Score: 0

It was always there.

Re:It is not lost footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 06:06 · Score: 1

I think you're unclear on what the term "lost" means.

Digital? by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2013-10-28 05:39 · Score: 1

Was the video itself on the disc digital? I doubt it. The control was computerized, fine. Also, was this system for editing *movies*? How would the resolution be good enough for projecting on a screen? I would rather find out the specifics of the system.

--
Mostly random stuff.

Re:Digital? by mungewell · 2013-10-28 05:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Wikipedia has a good explanation... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EditDroid
Re: Digital? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:59 · Score: 0

The concept was to roll dailies into a ld, then create a edl through the editing system. The actual film manipulation would take place after cuts were selected.
Re:Digital? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 06:02 · Score: 1

It wasn't used for final production. You edited the scenes together with this and the microcomputer that ran the whole thing would print out an edit sheet with start and end frames that was used to splice the 35mm film together for the final cut. It's a digital system in the fact that it uses a computer (an old Sun Unix box) to play the scenes from the laserdiscs in whatever order you edit them.
Re:Digital? by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2013-10-28 06:05 · Score: 1

I looked but it didn't have enough details for me. The AC down there pretty much confirmed what I thought it must have been given what I know about what technology was possible back then.

--
Mostly random stuff.
Re:Digital? by B1oodAnge1 · 2013-10-28 06:09 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EditDroid

--
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
Re:Digital? by gravis777 · 2013-10-28 06:43 · Score: 1

From Wikipedia:

Once the entire movie had been edited, an Edit Decision List of marked frames was turned over to a film laboratory where the actual pieces of film were spliced together in the correct order.
So the raw footage was placed across multiple laserdiscs, the editor would then go through and decide how the movie was cut, then they would take the edit list and send it over to the film labs where they would splice the actual film together following the edits they made in EditDroid
Re:Digital? by interval1066 · 2013-10-28 07:27 · Score: 1

The Laser Disc system was first named "DiscoVision". Wow...

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Re:Digital? by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2013-10-28 07:28 · Score: 1

OK, so the LaserDisc was a specially made analog disc. That's all I wanted to know, really. I wanted to know what was "digital" about this system, looks like it was the computer controlling the LD players was the digital part.

--
Mostly random stuff.
Re:Digital? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 07:48 · Score: 0

I worked on a similar, more successful system, the Montage Picture Processor. It used multiple identical copies of the source material (on Betamax tapes) striped with SMPTE time code, on modified VCRs capable of field-accurate positioning. Through the magic of our advanced elevator scheduling algorithm, the editor could preview edits as though the material were truly random access. Although the source material was analog, that didn't matter - the output of the system was an EDL (Edit Decision List), which was then used to cut the actual film. So I doubt that it mattered whether the EditDroid used analog or digital laserdiscs.
(We won an Academy award for technical achievement after Kubrick used our system to edit Full Metal Jacket. You might also have heard of another project edited on the Montage: Star Trek:TNG.)
Re:Digital? by geekoid · 2013-10-28 09:19 · Score: 1

It's a digital disk, read by a LASER.
LD had many feature that weren't brought over to DVD/Blu-Ray disks.
I miss the seamless changing between directors cut, standard release, and Edited for TV versions of movies.
I don't miss the low quality or Disk Changing.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Digital? by hondo77 · 2013-10-28 09:58 · Score: 2

It's a digital disk, read by a LASER.
No, LaserDisc was analog.

--
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Re:Digital? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:00 · Score: 0

Why did you emphasize "LASER", as if that reinforced the first part of your (completely wrong) statement? LASERs can only read digital information?
Re:Digital? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 12:39 · Score: 0

How does that work? Video is 29.97 fps, film is 24 fps. Is the time code translated from one system to another somehow?
Re:Digital? by gravis777 · 2013-10-28 23:40 · Score: 1

Where are you getting your information from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaserDisc#DVD
LaserDisc is analog. Something doesn't become digital simply because it's read with a laser. Look at laser turntables.
http://www.elpj.com/
Re:Digital? by OpiumEd · 2013-10-29 11:35 · Score: 1

[Speaking from experience, and also being a past and current owner of players and discs (although I haven't watched them in years).....] The video recording on laserdiscs was analog, as stated. The audio soundtrack was also initially analog, however, a digital audio soundtrack was added later (sometime in the 1980s) which was similar to the digital audio signal on a CD. Once digital audio tracks were added, laserdiscs contained both an analog stereo audio track as well as a digital stereo audio track, enabling a second audio program such as a running audio commentary and other features. When these discs are played back on a first-generation player, only the analog track will be heard, which means the main audio of the film on some titles cannot be played on these players, but only the audio commentary or other feature can be played. The first Star Wars laserdisc box set added audio commentaries at various parts of the disc on the analog track. This set can still be found on ebay very cheaply, by the way. There was also an experimental format around 1991-1992 of analog video CDs, which were CDs containing up to 20 minutes of CD audio (playable on a regular CD player) as well as a music video playable only on Pioneer laserdisc players containing built-in CD players - the music video portion was analog video which cannot be played on a CD-ROM drive at all (even though the audio portion of the analog video was digital). Confusing, I know. To understand how it was possible for an analog signal to be recorded onto a laserdisc, there are technical articles on the internet available for the technically curious.

Awesome! But... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 05:49 · Score: 0

Video or it didn't happen.

Re:Digital? (No, but CAV or CLV is the real???) by gmezero · 2013-10-28 06:29 · Score: 2

If it's CAV format laserdisc then this is a real find!

The Real Story by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-28 06:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think we're all missing the real news here, folks:

Somebody paid almost $700 for a fucking LaserDisc!!!

mind == blown.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:The Real Story by snarfies · 2013-10-28 08:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is not a new phenomena. There was an anime OVA called To-Y that, on the open market, usually went for around $700. It was only printed once and didn't sell well, but has a strong cult following.
Yes, I own one. Mine has been autographed by key animator Yuzo Sato, and as such I have no idea how much it will sell for after I die (since it will only be pried out of my cold dead hands).
Re:The Real Story by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-28 08:39 · Score: 2

I never said it was new, I implied that it's mind-blowing somebody would pay 7 Benjamins for a damn LaserDisc. That's nuts, bro.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:The Real Story by compro01 · 2013-10-28 09:17 · Score: 2

People have paid nearly a million for a stamp.
When it comes to crazy spending, this doesn't even cause the needle to twitch.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:The Real Story by geekoid · 2013-10-28 09:20 · Score: 2

Someone paid nearly 10 million dollar for a really old painting!
mind == blown.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:The Real Story by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-28 09:40 · Score: 1

Someone paid nearly 10 million dollar for a really old painting!
mind == blown.
Right???
Art is a fucked up industry; it's not about the content, it's about being able to brag to your rich buddies about how you went and dropped the GDP of a few small nations on a hunk of oil and canvas.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy with the $20 prints you can buy at the local poster store ($60 framed and matted). If I want to see 200 year old oil on canvas, I'll visit a damn museum.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:The Real Story by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-28 09:42 · Score: 1

People have paid nearly a million for a stamp.
When it comes to crazy spending, this doesn't even cause the needle to twitch.
Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't think I'll ever understand dropping that kind of moolah on anything you can't eat, play, or fuck.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:The Real Story by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-10-28 10:18 · Score: 1

Somebody paid almost $700 for a fucking LaserDisc!!!
Somebody paid $700 for lost RoTJ footage - if it were on 70mm or D1 it still wouldn't have made much difference.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:The Real Story by adolf · 2013-10-28 10:55 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't think I'll ever understand dropping that kind of moolah on anything you can't eat, play, or fuck.
Um. LaserDiscs exist to be played.
That said, rare sometimes just happens. I own a few "rare" CDs. I bought them new, when they were still in their first pressing, for regular retail prices. They are special to me only because I like the music on them, not because they have any particular monetary value associated with them.
Normally the way I find out that they're "rare" is when I damage one through moving or use or neglect or somesuch thing and want to replace it, and find that all available copies are well over $100.
Fuuuh.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:The Real Story by thunderclap · 2013-10-28 12:09 · Score: 1

My guess is it will put a grandchild through the first year of college.
Re:The Real Story by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 13:56 · Score: 0

Nearly 10 million? Cezanne's The Card Players sold for $259 million in 2010.
Re:The Real Story by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 14:11 · Score: 0

People have paid nearly a million for a stamp.
When it comes to crazy spending, this doesn't even cause the needle to twitch.
Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't think I'll ever understand dropping that kind of moolah on anything you can't eat, play, or fuck.
Not a home owner then?
Re:The Real Story by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 15:48 · Score: 0

Neither are you. Either the bank or the city actually owns anything. You just rent.

Cycle Trooper Losing his Helmet by StefanJ · 2013-10-28 06:39 · Score: 1

I don't recall if I saw this scene in the theater, during "Jedi's" initial run, or in preview clips shown on TV, but:

There's a scene in Return of the Jedi in which Luke goes mano a mano with a storm trooper riding one of those cycles used to zip around Endor.

Luke knocks the guy's helmet off, revealing a dark haired guy with a rather skinny face.

I do know that this brief reveal was cut out of the sky cycle chase as it was shown on the Laserdisc.

Could it be on this new find?

Re:Cycle Trooper Losing his Helmet by CQDX · 2013-10-28 07:07 · Score: 1

Could they put it back in with Temuera Morrison's face superimposed?
Re:Cycle Trooper Losing his Helmet by wonkey_monkey · 2013-10-29 00:29 · Score: 2

here's a scene in Return of the Jedi in which Luke goes mano a mano with a storm trooper riding one of those cycles used to zip around Endor.
Luke knocks the guy's helmet off, revealing a dark haired guy with a rather skinny face.
Yeah, and there's that scene in ANH where he throws the grappling hook twice... except it didn't happen.

I don't recall if I saw this scene
You can probably stop right there. Human memory is ridiculously unreliable.
I used to have a perfect example of this from my own life, but I've forgotten it.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

Ooh What Could That Be by Greyfox · 2013-10-28 06:40 · Score: 1

I'd guess the footage of Han firing first and the Wookie Christmas Special.

I could just RTFA but I'm contractually obliged to bring this up whenever the subject of Star Wars material is broached.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

The date matters by erice · 2013-10-28 06:50 · Score: 1

Er... what? The act of creating something - no matter what you do with it - assigns copyrights to the person who or group that creates it. If you run out with your smartphone, right now, and shoot some never-plan-to-"release it" footage, you own the copyright on what you create. Period.

That's true for works created today but the US did join the Berne Convention until 1989. Works created before this time, including Return of the Jedi, needed to be registered or at least be published with a copyright notice. This material was not published, at least not in a conventional sense.

Cutting room floor footage by Boawk · 2013-10-28 06:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

In the fall of 1982 I saw a pre-release version of Return of the Jedi. Our high school had some connections to Lucas. An announcement was made that the front office had tickets available to a LucasFilm prescreening of "Twice Upon a Time" (I still have the large blue tickets saved away somewhere). They had booked a large theater in San Francisco for the screening. At showtime a person walked out and regretfully informed the full house that Twice Upon a Time wasn't to be shown, so instead they brought Return of the Jedi (wild cheers erupted).

Some of the special effects weren't finished, and some scenes had only rough editing. I remember several of the scenes were trimmed down quite drastically in the release version. The dance scene in Jabba's palace was really, really (really!) long. At the end of the movie we were all given a questionnaire to fill out on how we felt about various scenes.

All in all, a very cool experience for someone who grew up during the original releases of episodes 4 through 6.

Re:Cutting room floor footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 07:41 · Score: -1

You saw a movie once and somehow remember it in detail enough to know what differences there were when you saw another version later? More power to you man. I can understand if you watched one version 20 times and then saw a different version, like if someone showed you an edited version now after watching some other version for 30 years.
Re:Cutting room floor footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 08:56 · Score: 0

I saw the uncut edition of "Dumb and dumber" once in 1994, and then saw only the cut version thereafter, perhaps 4 or 5 times during a period of close to 20 years (it's a personal favourite). I still remembered several of the cut scenes vividly, though I had only seen them once. I got hold of the uncut version again six months ago or so, and the scenes were certainly there as I remembered them.
Perhaps we are the exceptions, but I find that audiovisual impressions like that form very strong memory bonds. I remember watching the uncut "Bad Santa" (not knowing it was uncut), and later seeing a cut version, and within just a couple of minutes turning it off since it was clearly different. I have no trouble believing that someone can remember cuts from a 30 year old movie, especially since it was such a unique experience.
Re:Cutting room floor footage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 11:13 · Score: 0

Oddly enough, I have Twice Upon a Time on Laser disc.

if you think that's nuts... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 07:47 · Score: 0

...wait till you find out about old baseball cards, or stamps!

They weren't lost by PNutts · 2013-10-28 08:24 · Score: 1

They had to be discarded. In the clips they kept referring to it as Episode III.

"Lost" footage? by lukpac · 2013-10-28 08:38 · Score: 1

I guess that part of the title is just carried over from the story, but what makes the footage "lost"? Simply the fact that it hasn't been released? Unless there's specific evidence to the contrary (which the story does not provide), there's no reason to assume the footage doesn't exist in a vault somewhere.

what is LaserDisk? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-28 10:45 · Score: 0

had to use Google to find out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc that disk is huge! it looks like it is one foot in diameter. guess you had to use an external drive to watch laserdiscs on your PCs because the drive won't fit inside the case.

Re:what is LaserDisk? by jfdavis668 · 2013-10-28 11:11 · Score: 1

No, you hooked it up to your analog TV and watched it.

Well? by Tablizer · 2013-10-28 11:19 · Score: 1

Who actually shot first?

--
Table-ized A.I.

Player by ExChicken · 2013-10-29 06:54 · Score: 1

Now they just have to find a Dragon's Lair to play it on...

...and yes, at the time LaserVision discs routinely went for many hundreds of dollars. (more for porn)

pressed disc or LD-R? by OpiumEd · 2013-10-29 11:18 · Score: 0

What I would like to know is: Is this a pressed laserdisc or an LD-R? (Laserdisc version of DVD-R, and, yes, there were such things; I have a few.)

Re:pressed disc or LD-R? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-30 07:44 · Score: 0

What I would like to know is: Is this a pressed laserdisc or an LD-R? (Laserdisc version of DVD-R, and, yes, there were such things; I have a few.)

It looks pressed, here, with other images of recordable laserdics media for comparison.
(Mods: Yes, there were recordable laserdiscs. They weren't digital like DVD-R, but they did exist. They were an absurdly-high-end industrial/professional-use technology only, never intended for consumers.)

Slashdot Mirror

Lost Star Wars Footage Found On LaserDisc

157 comments