Slashdot Mirror


Lucasfilm Creates A 4K Ultra-HD Restoration of the Original 'Star Wars' (4k.com)

An anonymous reader quotes 4K.com: When the first ever of the Star Wars films, "A New Hope" turns 40 in 2017, millions of dedicated fans of the immensely popular franchise might get a very unique treat in the form of a limited theater screening in beautifully restored form with theatrical 4K resolution of the first movie released in the series. According to recent comments made by Rogue One director Gareth Edwards, a 4K restoration of Star Wars Episode IV "A New Hope" does indeed exist and now the only real question is whether or not the cleaned up and sharpened version of the movie will be hitting the big screen once again.
White it's release status is unknown, the ultra-high definition footage is said to be spectacular. In the interview, Edwards says "You can't watch it without getting carried away... It just turns you into a child."

304 comments

  1. Keep it original... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope they don't do something stupid like add additional content like they did with THX1138.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't too bad. What Lucas did to Star Wars was terrible, hopefully they've restored the original cut.

    2. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next thing they will be converting the movie into a full 360 version by compositing onto a supersized animated background.

    3. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Wars was an amazing movie -- by the standards of 1977. Today, not so much. All the super-duper 4K ultra-HD whiz-bang gimmicky doesn't change anything. It's still a mediocre movie from 1977.

    4. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A mediocre movie, that seems to have struck a nerve.

    5. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they don't do something stupid like add additional content like they did with THX1138.

      At this point I don't give a shit anymore 4k or 8k.
      I'm covered with the despecialized edition thank you very much.

    6. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. Lucas destroyed the originals when he made the Special Editions.

      They may have found a dupe reel, but the original is gone.

    7. Re:Keep it original... by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not all of the changes were bad - just most of them. Replacing the cardboard cutouts of rebels at the awards ceremony at the end with real people, for example. Or replacing the terrible hologram of the emperor in Empire with a proper one, for another. Or fixing the low quality light saber effect in A New Hope and editing out the wires. The clank when storm trooper hits his head was also a nice touch.

      Honestly though, more than that, I'd love to see the version 2 script of A New Hope ("Adventures of the Starkiller") made into a movie - with the characters looking as much like they did the actual A New Hope, just to enhance the mindfuck effect. Because it had so much that was the same, but so much that was utterly different. Leia wasn't Luke's sister; she was Owen and Beru's daughter, who had a crush on Luke that made him uncomfortable. The capital of the empire wasn't Coruscant, it was Alderaan, but looked like Cloud City. C3P0 fired the shot that destroyed the Death Star. The Emperor isn't a Sith, he just hired the Sith as muscle - and his name is Cos Dashit (seriously). Storm troopers had silver shields and light sabers. Tuskans ride landspeeders and spy for the Empire. Grand Moff Tarkin is a "birdlike" rebel commander. Luke (Starkiller, not Skywalker) is a wannabe-archaeologist with a magic crystal. Seriously, look it up. Somebody totally needs to make it, it'd be hilarious.

      There is one thing that they changed from the 2nd draft to the final draft that I actually think might have been better left in. In the 2nd draft, Han agrees to take Luke to Aldaraan for a high fee as before, but then it turns out in the next scene that he doesn't actually own the Millennium Falcon like he claims; he's just a low-ranking crewman to the main pirate/smuggler. So he fakes a reactor leak on the Falcon to get the others to leave, then steals it, without letting on to his passengers what he's just done. Chewy is in on the plot, as is an android science officer (glad they got rid of the latter).

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    8. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think all of those changes are fucking bullshit. Replacing one special effect fromi 197X with one from 201X isn't useful, they'll all look stupid in 204X, but at least the original from 197X won't be jarring as fuck and out of place. A comedic clank when a stormtrooper hits his head? Fuck that change. Fuck it to fucking death.

      Give the original star wars back. Like the despecialized edition, except official. Not this shit festival of retcons and edits and anachronistic special effects.

      Oh the original lightsabers? Were amazing. Period.

    9. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. Lucas destroyed the originals when he made the Special Editions.

      He sure did!

      They may have found a dupe reel, but the original is gone.

      The interpositive may be gone but there should still be multiple answer prints available and these are good enough for restoration. Lucas probably used the datacine which only scanned at 2k in the '90s. A 4k restoration and a 4k upres of a 2k scan are different things.

    10. Re:Keep it original... by haruchai · · Score: 2

      The best mindfuck would be remaking Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith with Jar Jar Binks as a Sith Lord

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    11. Re: Keep it original... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 4, Funny

      episode 4 was surprisingly good in resurrecting the franchise, considering how appallingly bad episodes 2 and 3 were. :-)

    12. Re: Keep it original... by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      episode 4 was surprisingly good in resurrecting the franchise, considering how appallingly bad episodes 2 and 3 were. :-)

      No, 3 had its moments and a more appropriate, darker tone. 1 was stupid and cheezy, 2 was just horrible.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    13. Re: Keep it original... by JohnTaylor3905 · · Score: 1

      I remember watching John Carpenter's "The Thing" and remembering an earlier sci-fi called "The Thing From Planet X". The original had a charm, the reboot used newer technology with a few plot twists to.make a masterpiece. Eventually, the Star Wars films will be rebooted using newer technology under more capable directorship. Even the Clone Wars and Rebels animations have better character development and plots than all the live action movies put together. Time will tell.

    14. Re:Keep it original... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Funny

      The best mindfuck would be remaking Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith with Jar Jar Binks as a Sith Lord

      Oh no, you had to say that? Now I'm doomed to keep hearing ...

      Meesa no kill your father, Luke. Meesa is your father.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    15. Re:Keep it original... by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      of the Original 'Star Wars'

      More Fake News. I don't believe it for a second. Unless Han shoots first and all of the other crap has been put back to where it was when the film was created, then it isn't the Original Star Wars. And even though that whore Lucas no longer has any say in this production, I can't see the new whores allowing us to have a true copy of the Star Warts film masterpiece.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    16. Re:Keep it original... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Huh? I didn't THX1138 got added stuff.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    17. Re: Keep it original... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      Well I thought Hayden Christensen's character was woefully miscast. Teen romantic becomes intergalactic assassin? Sorry, didn't buy it.

      The biggest shame for me was Obi Wan's act of mercy in that he found Anakin so pitiful that couldn't bring himself to finish the genocidal crybaby off! (of course then we wouldn't have eps 4-6)

    18. Re: Keep it original... by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is that a joke? The New Hope light sabers were terrible. Very inconsistently rotoscoped. Came across as a serious rush job - unlike in Empire and Jedi.

      Seriously, a lot of the original trilogy special effects were just bad. Come on, defend the use of this hologram. Don't get me wrong, a lot - I'd say most - of their special effects worked. It's amazing how much worse Phantom Menace Jabba looks than RotJ Jabba, for example, over a decade earlier. Not. Even. Close. But just because Lucas made a habit of inserting bad digital effects is no reason to excuse places where the original trilogy screwed up. In a New Hope you can very clearly see a wire running from Obiwan's light saber into his robe. Vader's motions don't line up with his voice at one point, leaving him looking like he's doing sign language. In Empire you can clearly see the stick used to topple one of the AT-ATs. There's lots of things like this that are just simply mistakes.

      And yes, sorry, but if you're going to show a storm trooper hitting his head on camera, it should make a sound. Own up to your errors.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    19. Re:Keep it original... by mukinrestak · · Score: 1

      Now everyone else will hear it too, you monster. Gonna crush some puppies next? Kidnap children for organ harvesting?

    20. Re:Keep it original... by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      I hope they don't do something stupid like add additional content like they did with THX1138.

      They will add a dream sequence, making it clear that Luke is actually a replicant.
      (Of course they'll add stuff, otherwise it'd be hard to justify selling yet anoter special edition for $$$).

    21. Re:Keep it original... by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My favorite retcon is that Obi Wan was personally involved in the deaths of Owen and Beru.

      We'd known from early on that he was a total manipulative liar. Telling Luke, for example, that Vader killed his father, convincing him of precisely the opposite of the truth, and then layer gaslighting Luke as if it was Luke's fault for not understanding his lie. After the original trilogy came out, it gets way worse. He lies about having never seen the droids before. He sees no reason to mention that he personally chopped up Luke's dad and left him for dead. His whole purpose for being near Luke on Tatooine is to "watch over him" "until the time is right" to recruit him into the rebellion.

      So we know his motivation going into this. To recruit Luke into the rebellion. It's essential to him, for the fate of the galaxy. And we know the guy is a horribly manipulative liar. And let's face it, Luke is a moron. The guy is given a light saber for the first time and he nearly accidentally stabs Obi Wan when he turns it on.

      So Obi Wan tells him this yarn about Vader murdering his father, rather than... well, Obi Wan's attempted murder of him. And then they head out and find the sand crawler, and Obi Wan insists that it had to have been attacked by the Empire because, why again? "Only Imperial Storm Troopers are so precise." Which we all know to be unadulterated BS. If it's precise, there's no way in hell storm troopers did it. And there's no way Obi Wan would think that they did. So he knows he's lying. Which means that he was probably involved in it in some way. Which means that he would have likewise been involved in the related attack on Owen and Beru. The very thing that, shock of all shocks, motivates Luke to go with and join the Rebellion, just as Obi Wan could easily have foreseen.

      And there's no shortage of people he could have hired to carry out the attack, on a planet as lawless as Tatooine. Heck, I couldn't rule out him working with the Tuskan raiders themselves. Let's not forget, Obi Wan "coincidentally" showed up right on time to "rescue" Luke from said Tuskan raiders just moments before. They just ran off when he arrived and alerted them... I'm sorry, "scared them off", with a Krayt Dragon impersonation that wouldn't fool anyone. It wouldn't be the first time they had worked with a Jedi (Sharad Hett) - and Obi Wan had tried to kill the guy who slaughtered one of their villages years prior. And beyond the Tuskan Raiders, there's a whole bar full of bounty hunters and violent thugs in town who could have suited the bill Heck, he could have done it all himself, having arrived to "save" Luke on his way back from burning the homestead and sandcrawler while Luke was out searching for R2D2; all it would have taken was a landspeeder, and they're not exactly unattainable.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    22. Re:Keep it original... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> Unlikely. Lucas destroyed the originals when he made the Special Editions.

      Whut? Why TF would he do that?

    23. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Han didn't shoot first. Han shot ONLY.

    24. Re:Keep it original... by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Interesting
    25. Re:Keep it original... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Whut? Why TF would he do that?

      Because George is highly insecure.

      He has to keep fucking around with Star Wars, tweaking this, fixing that, until it is "perfect" in his mind's eye.

      As an artist he doesn't realize he needs to move on. The work is what is. Fans loved the original vision. Some fans love the changes. Some don't.

      George Lucas is unable to respect the fans that want to see the original version.

      We're happy with the original. Is it perfect? No. But it is perfectly fine the way it is.

    26. Re:Keep it original... by careysub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> Unlikely. Lucas destroyed the originals when he made the Special Editions.

      Whut? Why TF would he do that?

      Because he is God of the Star Wars Universe and mere things like preservation of significant historical documents, and the desires of the fan base are nothing to him.

      Lucas is a brilliant businessman, his career with LucasFilm and ILM speak for themselves. But his talents and wisdom as a director and creative force are extremely uneven, and he seems unable to consider the views of others, no matter how well founded and insightful. Again, his post Star Wars career speaks for itself. I think he was extremely lucky to have an astonishingly talented team working with him when he made Star Wars, and he was also lucky that he had to collaborate and let others make key decisions - he was not so successful at that point that he could be creative dictator.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    27. Re:Keep it original... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It was revolutionary though. No one did a lot of good science fiction with a decent amount of budget back then. And it's a very good homage to the space opera genre. It's not at all mediocre, unless you only judge a film by its effects.

    28. Re:Keep it original... by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      The space western that Lucas produced that was shown in 1977 did immeasurable damage to the Science Fiction genre.

      Not a lot of people want to acknowledge it. But it's the truth.

      All those dirty mainstream people tromping around on the carpeting. Ick.

      Subcultures want to remain subcultures.

    29. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making Vader Luke's father was the retcon that started the whole kerfuffle.

    30. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Han didn't shoot first. Han shot ONLY.

      You mean Han shot SOLO?

    31. Re:Keep it original... by irving47 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just in case you (or anyone else reading this) doesn't know, there is a very very convincing, and solid theory that JarJar was in fact THE Phantom Menace alluded to in the title. Check youtube for jarjar sith theory and check them out. I'm not saying I'm 100% convinced, but I need a better reason to disbelieve than just the fanboy hate of GL thinking, "aww, no, he's not clever enough to do that."

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    32. Re: Keep it original... by irving47 · · Score: 1

      wake me up from my cryotube when the holodeck version is out.

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    33. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he [George Lucas] is God of the Star Wars Universe

      Not no more he ain't. By his own admission, he sold his children to the white slavers.

    34. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Subcultures want to remain subcultures.

      Subterranean in sub-basements, you mean.

    35. Re:Keep it original... by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      Unlikely. Lucas destroyed the originals when he made the Special Editions.

      Lucas used to be an editor. He is famous for never throwing away anything.

      There may be no original prints of A New Hope left, but all the source material almost certainly exists.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    36. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is HIGHLY unlikely that he destroyed the originals. It would mean digging film reels out of the archives and burning them for no reason, so right away the assumption is what he means is he overwrote the remasters done at the turn of the century with the Special Edition, as those remasters likely resided on magnetic media rather than traditional film. But... that erasure would make it very difficult for the theatrical special edition, the home video special edition, and the DVD release to ALL HAVE DIFFERENT EDITS.
        The home video "special edition" releases have significant enough differences that they are clearly returning to the original movie and NOT to the theatrical Special Edition.

      In conclusion, George Lucas is a big fat liar.

    37. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The clank when storm trooper hits his head was also a nice touch.

      No it wasn't. Covering it up would actually have been an appropriate change, as it adds nothing to the story and is distracting once you are aware of it. It was ok to leave that in there for the fans who watch dozens of times, but calling attention to it with a cartoon bonk breaks you right out of immersion.

    38. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically yes, he overwrote the originals. But that was basically destroying them.

    39. Re:Keep it original... by schnell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There may be no original prints of A New Hope left, but all the source material almost certainly exists.

      The explanation, from what I recall, is that while the original source materials may exist, they are so degraded as to be useless for any kind of theatrical or master-quality presentation again. (Fair warning: my recollection is from watching documentaries on the Star Wars DVDs from several years ago, so anyone can feel free to correct me if they have watched them more recently.)

      The original master 35mm print of Star Wars, being celluloid, was subject to scratching and wear throughout the process of making all the copies for theaters to show. On top of that, even well-preserved celluloid is subject to natural degradation over time - colors wash out, etc. Think of old photos in a photo album that over time have grown dimmer and less distinct.

      I recall someone (John Knoll?) on the DVDs saying of the digital remastering efforts in 1996/1997 that the original master was already in bad enough shape that, had they not digitized it then, there could never have been a copy good enough to convert to high definition digital or theater projection quality. When they did the digital conversion though, they didn't keep (this logic sounds a bit fuzzy but bear with me) the pure original scan. Like a photographer who shoots an original photo that isn't "good enough" but needs to retouch it before publishing, they made their digital upgrades/cleanups and didn't bother to keep the unretouched versions since they (George Lucas?) in essence said, "what we scanned was crap so who needs that?"

      Ergo - at least according to the then-Lucas-owned-LucasFilm party line - you end up with a badly degraded original celluloid version in a vault somewhere still, but the only high-def/digital version left is the one that had all the cleanup and alterations done to it. That doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't keep a digital version where Han shot first, but it does mean that there is no digital version left of the fully untouched "original." Which may be a fine point of distinction worth considering as to whether it's still possible to see the "original" depending on what that means to you.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    40. Re:Keep it original... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      isn't there some law against destroying "art"?

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    41. Re:Keep it original... by haruchai · · Score: 2

      Just in case you (or anyone else reading this) doesn't know, there is a very very convincing, and solid theory that JarJar was in fact THE Phantom Menace alluded to in the title. Check youtube for jarjar sith theory and check them out. I'm not saying I'm 100% convinced, but I need a better reason to disbelieve than just the fanboy hate of GL thinking, "aww, no, he's not clever enough to do that."

      I did read that last year. If Lucas did plan that & then backed off because Binks was so disliked, then he's a fucking coward. That would have been a Crying Game-level twist.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    42. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they went on to do a much better job.

    43. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

    44. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never thought there could be an actor that bad.

      Nobody could be that bad even if they really tried.

    45. Re:Keep it original... by Aereus · · Score: 1

      The question becomes: Were most of the plot points from Episode 1-3 devised by him before shooting 4-6? Stuff like Obi-Wan precipitating Anakin's reliance on the suit, claiming to not know the droids etc. could just as easily be explained by a lot of the writing from 1-3 being retcon and thereby inconsistent with the script of 4-6.

    46. Re:Keep it original... by meerling · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not only did Han shoot first, Greedo didn't even get a shot off, he just died like the scumbag that he was. Don't forget that Greedo had just told Han that he's basically going to take him out back and blow his head off.

    47. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of issues, not all to do with effects, with the film but that doesn't stop it being a great film. There is poor editing and some bad acting (from the leads). However, that doesn't mean there are excuses for making the changes that have been made. Han was meant to be a ruthless smuggler. Not only that, he could see what greedo was likely to do. He would have been an idiot if he'd let greedo shoot first. There's no doubt that this change diminishes the character of han. Effects are amazing today. Why isn't someone producing new effects for Forbidden Planet? You can apply the same criteria. It had effects that were amazing for its time. However is obvious the krell machines are miniatures. The lion that attacks alta is obviously superimposed. How much better that film could look with some updating. The reason it isn't done is that the film is a classic and to do so would be wrong. Any change would diminish the film. George Lucas has done the same with star wars.

    48. Re:Keep it original... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      No. Nor should there be.

    49. Re:Keep it original... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Because in the original one Han Shot First.

      --
      No sig today...
    50. Re:Keep it original... by bofinger.david · · Score: 1

      The impersonation might not need to be good. If they've met Kenobi before, they might be every bit as frightened of him as of the local wildlife.

    51. Re:Keep it original... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Check out the "Despecialized Editions". They are fan made restorations of the original movies, with all the additions and changes removed. Han shoots first, Jabba is just a guy in the first one, all the stupid CG crap has been done away with.

      The amount of effort that went into the project is amazing. They took footage from multiple sources - the Bluray release, the older DVD "original trilogy", laserdiscs, scanned film prints, even some still photos taken on set and of props. Re-coloured everything to match the original theatrical release, re-build some scenes to remove the CG and alterations, cleaned everything up. Some parts even have brand new matte backgrounds.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    52. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the original lightsaber wasn't rotoscoped, it was reflective tape.

    53. Re: Keep it original... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I agree the light sabers looked like sticks a few times (and I could see them fixing that to glow consistently) but the hologram was fine. I watched the movie 24 times in the theater and the hologram was never an issue.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    54. Re: Keep it original... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well the thing was Lucas was very inexperienced as a director but by the time episode 4, "A new hope" rolled around Lucas had finally learned to trust the actors and stop redoing scenes til the emotion was drained from them. And then for episode 5 Lucas handed the reigns to another experienced character director and focused on producing.

      Also, the actors chosen for episodes 1-3 were terrible so when Lucasfilm decided to reboot series with fresh new actors as of episode 4 they did a much better job, for example picking unknown actors who had a lot of chemistry with each other. The decision to go with puppets for Yoda was a big step up from the poor CGI they had used for him in the first 3 films.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    55. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wheren't. I.e Vader as Lukes father and Leia as his sister was retconned in ep 5 so no when ep 4 was filmed none of the other movies where even planned.

    56. Re: Keep it original... by roovis · · Score: 1

      Jabba wasn't originally in ANH.

    57. Re:Keep it original... by cstacy · · Score: 1

      He has to keep fucking around with Star Wars, tweaking this, fixing that, until it is "perfect" in his mind's eye.

      And that's going to be painful, with that Splinter stuck in it...

    58. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet Lucas understood Darth Vader to be a translation of Dark Father so he clearly planned the whole thing out.

    59. Re:Keep it original... by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Unless Han shoots first and all of the other crap has been put back to where it was when the film was created, then it isn't the Original Star Wars.

      And removing "Episode IV: A NEW HOPE" from the opening crawl. That didn't appear until the 1981 re-release.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    60. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He lies about having never seen the droids before

      He said he'd never owned a droid, not that he'd never seen them.

    61. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. The Force Awakens is about on par with the quality of the original trilogy but Rogue One is horrible.

    62. Re:Keep it original... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Or fixing the low quality light saber effect in A New Hope

      Actually I don't think they did that. They look just as shoddy in the Special Edition as they do in the original.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    63. Re: Keep it original... by Rei · · Score: 1

      Except that he didn't. Read the earlier scripts. Luke's dad was "The Starkiller" and was a major figure in the Rebellion. Vader was the First Knight of the Sith, the Sith being an organization of thuggish force users hired by the emperor Cos Dashit (who was not himself a Sith).

      It's not clear when the precise moment of time was that it was decided that Vader would be Luke's father. But the character of Darth Vader was created and named while someone else was supposed to be Luke's father.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    64. Re:Keep it original... by Rei · · Score: 1

      He pretended not to recognize them at all.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    65. Re:Keep it original... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Of course not. Don't be absurd.

    66. Re: Keep it original... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      They wheren't. I.e Vader as Lukes father and Leia as his sister was retconned in ep 5 so no when ep 4 was filmed none of the other movies where even planned.

      It wasn' even labelled episode IV when it first aired, that was added a few years later.

    67. Re: Keep it original... by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I've never thought there could be an actor that bad.

      Nobody could be that bad even if they really tried.

      With Lukas giving the cues, it seems almost anyone can. Only the actors arrogant or experienced enough to ignore his bullshit instructions come of as decent when he is directing.

    68. Re: Keep it original... by Rei · · Score: 2

      Cinema Sins ripped into the original trilogy worse than they've ever ripped into any other movies, and a lot of their criticisms I found ot be dead on.

      * It was a constant violation of the rule "Show, Don't Tell". They're constantly describing events that happened off camera that sound a lot more interesting than what they actually showed, which was awkward forced "romance", politics, and badly done CG battles.

      * Everybody's beliefs and motivations were so constantly shifting that it was as if they decided what they needed someone to believe for the plot and rolled a die to determine which Jedi it would apply to. Obi Wan thinks it's good to train Anakin, then he thinks it's too dangerous, then keeps switching throughout the three movies, arguing with other Jedi whose positions likewise constantly flip with no obvious explanation as to why. He's constantly switching from scolding Anakin for being reckless, and then doing things even more reckless than him and scolding him for not doing actions that would have been reckless. The "Force is clouding the Jedi's vision" only when it would be harmful to the plot for them to see the future, but stops clouding their vision whenever the plot needs it to (and not just in line with what would be most advantageous for Sidious). And on and on. It's like they had a list of key points that they wanted to happen, and spent far too little time trying to figure out the in-between in a realistic manner.

      * Anakin and Padme's romance is one of the most unrealistic ever to appear in a major movie. The lines are awful and forced; you actually feel bad for the actors having to say them. Padme's entire character is transformed from "strong and bold warrior queen" to "sniveling lovesick damsel" with no explanation. She has no reaction whatsoever to the many times that Anakin presents himself to be an immature asshole. Just terrible writing. But again - they had the "this must happen" plot points they wanted to fill, and everything in-between was half-arsed.

      * Lucas's obsession with special effects (perhaps most exemplified IMHO with the "Anakin passing Padme a piece of poorly done CG fruit with the force" scene, as if hanging a freaking piece of fruit on a wire was somehow too hard to do any more) always bothers people, and Cinema Sins really nailed why. In the Phantom Menace, there's a scene on the Trade Federation vessel where the Jedi are attacked by a bunch of droids. After a big battle, they've defeated the droids, and you see... a couple dead droids on the ground, a couple cut off heads/limbs, and otherwise everything else is exactly as it was. No blaster shots on the walls. No scratches on the floors. No burns. No shrapnel. No soot. No little bits of debris everywhere. It's like a hospital ward, immediately after a battle. even if you can't specifically put your finger on it while you're watching the movie, this sort of stuff immediately grates on you. If you physically act out the scene, with puppet droids being destroyed by pyrotechnics and the like, you actually do mess up your set like you would in a battle. But in the prequels bad CGI, that just didn't happen.

      * And on a more basic level, the CG characters often just look bad compared to the puppets. Don't get me wrong, some of the original trilogy's puppets were pretty bad - static or poorly articulated or poorly designed or whatnot. But a lot were excellent. My favorite example is comparing 1983 Jabba with 1999 Phantom Menace Jabba. Not. even. close. 1983 Jabba looked pretty good - not perfect, but good. Phantom Menace Jabba looked like what you get when a teenager has just gotten through his lesson on texturing in a Blender tutorial.

      It's not that CG effects are inherently bad and puppets inherently good. CG can be great. Puppets can be terrible. But when you fill an entire trilogy with bad CG, expect people to hate you for it. As an example of how bad the trilogy's CG was, play Final Fantasy: The Spiri

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    69. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of effort that went into the project is amazing.

      Which is why I think we won't have a 4K Despecialized Edition. Also, IMHO 1080p is already at the limit of what a 70s film can offer. Any additional detail is just algorithmically made up and thus useless.

    70. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We all know that Owen and Beru were killed in a domestic incident.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EDiQXhYIKY

    71. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Track was great with all those effects.

    72. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, the original lightsaber wasn't rotoscoped, it was reflective tape.

      See The Making of Star Wars

    73. Re: Keep it original... by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Also, the actors chosen for episodes 1-3 were terrible so when Lucasfilm decided to reboot series with fresh new actors as of episode 4 they did a much better job

      I'm having a hard time believing you don't know episodes 4-6 were produced years before episodes 1-3.

    74. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Emperor has foreseen what you did there.

    75. Re:Keep it original... by jeepies · · Score: 1

      He may have damaged the original negatives, but fans have tracked down 35mm prints and done 4K scans of them. There's a number of fan restorations that use these. At the very least Lucasfilm has higher quality 70mm theatrical prints kicking around, but I would bet there's at least one original internegative/interpositive around from the original printing.

      Assuming even that's not the case, they can do what the fan restorations have done and simply use what's left of the original and pull the missing bits from higher quality theatrical prints. I seriously doubt Lucas went and found every high quality version of the originals and destroyed them. When he's said that he's referring to the camera negatives which were recut to match the special edition. But there are doubtless numerous high quality copies that could provide a great 4K scan.

    76. Re:Keep it original... by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Many die-hard fans watch the originals wearing rose-colored glasses because they saw it growing up as a kid on VHS tape. IF you take the original, move it straight to DVD, and give it to a modern audience, some parts look pretty bad. The rancor has a black border around it in some scenes. Some of the backgrounds look like they are filming a set on a ping-pong table, well, because they were. Some fans nit-pick every little inconsistency, but ignore inconsistencies that Lucas fixed, like the hologram you mention.

      George Lucas simply went too far. Trek fans are just as nitpicky, but they didn't complain about the changes made to the DVD releases because they simply fixed stuff. It's not like they gave Picard a toupee or something. But Lucas went too far and pissed-off his fans.

    77. Re:Keep it original... by jeepies · · Score: 2

      Some of that may have been true in the 1990s. With th advancements in video processing though, even badly faded prints can be rescued. Fans have already done several 4K preservation ls from good quality 35mm theatrical prints. The original camera negatives may be too damaged/degraded, but I would guarantee there's an interpositive/internegative or LPP print sitting around somewhere in the Lucasfilm archives that's good enough for a 4K scan with some restoration. Even better if there are multiple copies with different damage that can be used to remove scratches.

      Even before the fan made 4K 35mm scans, some restorations (harmy's) used the Blu-ray and HDTV broadcasts to get a 1080p version of most of the film with a few upscales from the (poor) DVD release of the originals. If fans can manage that, surely a studio like Disney/Lucasfilm can come up with a 4K scan and do some basic film restoration / color correction.

    78. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, Han shoots first and the explosion of Alderran is, fairly decent, lol. Also, no full body shots of Jabba the Hut.

    79. Re:Keep it original... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      >> Unlikely. Lucas destroyed the originals when he made the Special Editions.

      Whut? Why TF would he do that?

      Because he is God of the Star Wars Universe

      Isn't Disney now the God of the Star Wars Universe? I definitely got that impression from Force Awakens, which was a terribly standard Disney movie. I'd rather have Lucas owning Star Wars than Disney.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    80. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that's entirely not true. Not to mention the whole LaserDisc fiasco. get your facts straight.

    81. Re:Keep it original... by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The best mindfuck would be remaking Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith with Jar Jar Binks as a Sith Lord

      Oh no, you had to say that? Now I'm doomed to keep hearing ...

      Meesa no kill your father, Luke. Meesa is your father.

      Actually I'm fairly certain that Padme was in on Darth Sidious' scheme the whole time and was his apprentice if not a Sith Lord in her own right. Just look at how she teased Anakin, it seemed quite deliberate to me. She was leading him along the path to the dark side from the very beginning.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    82. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Han shoots. Greedo never shoots.

      You can actually get the theatrical release (with minor gramatical fixes to the crawl) on DVD. It's just expensive.

    83. Re: Keep it original... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking he's saying something along the lines of, "The Matrix was a great movie, it's a shame they never made any sequels."

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    84. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure is, if it's not something you own, there's all kinds of laws against that. Hell you can't even move a art piece on public display without the artists permission in some cases.

      If you own it, you're pretty much free to do whatever, unfortunate though it may be in this case.

    85. Re: Keep it original... by JonBoy47 · · Score: 1

      Whatever. You're crazy! Rogue One was horrible?! If anything, it was better than TFA, which was good, but played like a high budget fanfic ripping off A New Hope. Rogue One also (very belatedly) ties up many of the loose ends A New Hope had when it was trying to be a stand-alone movie.

    86. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Corr: that should be "ripped the prequels"

    87. Re: Keep it original... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Rogue One was the "prequel" everyone wanted to SW - A New Hope. We'll kindly forget that Ep 1-3 ever existed, as those films aren't worth wiping your shoes with. TFA to me was resetting the expectations of the SW fan base to where SW/TESB were leading, with a new cast. Tying in cameos from the originals seems appropriate. Effectively, with Rogue One and TFA, SW/TESB are now the back story for the new SW universe Disney wants to take us to. It's open ended, and thank goodness not populated with Ewoks nor targeted at 7 year olds.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    88. Re:Keep it original... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is. A group got a 30mm copy and restored the original. The 1080p transfer definitely has some film grain and film degradation noticeable in spots, but is generally a better quality digital copy than the DVD/BD versions, and not merely because they lack Lucas' "enhancements". I'm sure Disney has better source to scan from, and certainly more desire to engage the fan base of those versions as their new story lines appear to much more true to where the original seemed to be leading.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    89. Re: Keep it original... by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      The defense is simple: the unmodified original, warts and all, is the Star Wars I grew up with, the 'improved' versions are not. The 'improved' versions are not that good as movies in their own right, had they been originally released in, say, 2000, and with no previous history. But in 1977 (the year I was born) it was magical, and growing up with it, seeing it on SD analogue TVs, or VHS, was a magical experience. The 'improved' versions have the feel of taking away a child's favourite teddybear, and adding some improvements and giving it back. The child's usual response is that it isn't his (or her) favourite teddybear any more. So it is with the original Star Wars. The 'improved' versions may have technical improvements, but they don't excite those of us with memories of the original they way the original ones did. Many fans want an option to relive the originals, and are being denied it.

      If you've ever seen the original Godzilla, you could make many 'how can you defend' arguments vs the CGI disasters of recent years. Many of us just want the best that can be possibly done with the original footage, not a FrankenMovie.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    90. Re:Keep it original... by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      You want to give us a reference to this? I know there were VHS copies of the Original, but my understanding was that all DVD copies had been "ruined".

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    91. Re: Keep it original... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Hayden Christensen is to an actor what a deer is in headlights.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    92. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be if society is providing a copyright.

    93. Re:Keep it original... by halivar · · Score: 1

      All the early DVD's of the "Special Edition" came with a "Bonus Disc" that had the theatrical version. They're all over. I've got two of them; watched it last night.

    94. Re: Keep it original... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I think Ep 1 can be stated as "The Goonies recast in space", and the sequels (2 and 3) went downhill from there.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    95. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planned or not, it would have been foolish to label it as episode IV when the studios didn't think it was going to be big enough for another movie. Lucas had to settle for merchandising rights in large part because that saved some money to make the film. Ultimately, it proved to be a huge source of merchandising that made him a billionaire, but that wasn't expected.

      It was the portion of the story that he could actually make. Otherwise, why would he have labeled it as IV when he did get around to adding the number? It would have made much more sense for him to label it episode I.

      IIRC, that's how the story was told for those interviews in the THX enhanced DVD set.

    96. Re: Keep it original... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Too many people are bugged about the stormtrooper hitting his head on a partially opened door, I just see that as a normal soldier snafu. Shit like that happens all the time in real life when there's action ongoing. It just makes the movie scene a lot more real.

      You have a tripping guard in the navigator scene in Dune too.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    97. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will be seeing Darth Darth Binks train a new Generation of Ewok Jedi's to take on the Empire soon. Disney needs more plush toy compatible characters.

    98. Re:Keep it original... by Megane · · Score: 1

      I thought Han Solo was the replicant!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    99. Re:Keep it original... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Yep - my main complaint was CHANGING things. I have no issue with them replacing a special effect with a better version. IE, redoing the lightsabers, or even the spaceship scenes with CGI. I just am not a fan of adding in extra creatures that weren't there before, awkwardly working in deleted footage, and changing complete sequences like having Greedo shoot first.

      Particularly aggravating for me was replacing the original Anakin actor in ROTJ with Hayden Christensen. That might wouldn't be as bad if the prequels or his performance had been better received, but forcing in an actor who most of the fans really didn't like really didn't feel good.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    100. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously "The Phantom Menace" refers to the unwanted boners all teenage boys, like Anakin, suffer through for years.

    101. Re: Keep it original... by jd · · Score: 1

      There isn't, and indeed can't be as every stage in creating art is art, but storage space stopped being an issue a long time ago. Film archives could keep copies of every movie ever released. That would be perfectly reasonable. This would ideally be both uncut and cut versions, maybe the rush copy as well. This frees up small studios from having to have complex archives, frees up directors to produce new cuts from a choice of every possible angle of every take, even from deleted scenes, and unmerge/remerge the audio layers as more complex audio systems appear.

      However, if you don't do that, I think "world heritage" needs to click in a lot sooner. Star Wars (the real movie) could easily have been considered world heritage status within a couple of years.

      Where undo/redo facilities exist, they should exist to the extent that it's possible to revert to an earlier checkpoint and then play back a different development line.

      Does anyone really think that the ancient Babylonians would have cared about one of their cities being blasted into rubble thousands of years later?

      But it does matter to those there now, the past always shapes the present, and it will matter in the future as there was a vast store of knowledge that scholars can now never see and that makes a big difference in understanding how conclusions were reached, what some of their more obscure documents meant, and where the hell they came from to begin with. It's important for other reasons, but it's hard to explain in ways that would make sense to people focussed on the future. Just accept that forgetting is a very bad thing.

      So, anyway, it matters. And it will still matter when the destruction is as close to the construction as the destruction of the original Star Wars tapes was to their construction. The interval doesn't matter.

      Was George Lucas the original artist? Most of the cells in his body would have been replaced, his bones would have regenerated, the DNA in his brain cells would have new genomes. The person exists only as a virtual construct, but that means there's a new George Lucas every time he experiences anything, since the machine running the simulcra - and therefore the simulcra itself - changes with experience.

      There is no soul, there is only a construct that can be activated and deactivated by medical science at will.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    102. Re: Keep it original... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Star Wars was not a great film--it's just an action movie with some witty dialog--but it was an important part of our cultural heritage. Only the original version captures that important part of Star Wars: what we saw at the time. Cleaning up matting errors and similar? Sure, I can accept that as part of restoration, but when you start adding sound effects or the like, you're changing the content. Harmy did an excellent job, but Disney could do much better starting with something closer to the source.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    103. Re:Keep it original... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Anything would have been better than that second prequel movie. I'm not sure Darth JarJar would actually have worked, but it couldn't possibly have been worse than what we got.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    104. Re: Keep it original... by kimvette · · Score: 1
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    105. Re: Keep it original... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Also, Jabba (and Boba Fett) made it into the Star Wars graphic novels.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    106. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-watch the Padme - Anakin romance with the idea that Anakin is a poorly trained Jedi (heading to the Sith) with an infatuation for Padme from childhood and barely controlled Jedi mind powers.

      Her transformation from strong willed warrior queen to confused and lovestruck strikes me as exactly the sort of behaviour unconscious Jedi mind powers used by a barely adolescent boy might create.

      Mind-rape. Not pleasant, but more believable.

      Anakin was foretold as coming to balance the Force. The Force that had been weighted towards the Jedi for so long they thought the Sith a myth. The 'immaculate conception'? The Force being 'forced' to manifest directly. Anakin's slaughter of just about every Jedi and a reduction to a pair of Sith and a pair of Jedi? Balance. As foretold.

      Anakin's story is not the fall of a hero. It's the unfolding and manifestation of a natural force that hubris has decided can be bent to a 'side'.

      The movies are crap. But there's a thread of a far more interesting (and darker) story buried in them.

    107. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Jabba is just a guy in the first one...

      Jabba didn't appear in the first movie, the scenes you're referring to were cut and never included in any theatrical release. Hopefully the despecialized edition doesn't include this scene as it would completely contradict RotJ.

    108. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rogue One had completely unlikeable, unrelateable superhero karate characters, no character development, a story that feels like it was written by a child and was dripping in fan service to try to cover up the mess. It was a terrible film, worse than even Revenge of the Sith and far worse than TFA or the original films.

    109. Re:Keep it original... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      In the original, Han was the only one to shoot.

    110. Re:Keep it original... by thunderclees · · Score: 1
      Yes, Han shot first!

      Restoration are nice but not when a megalomaniac tried to change the storyline.

    111. Re:Keep it original... by thunderclees · · Score: 1

      Lucas is best when he has a leash.

    112. Re:Keep it original... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Jabba is just a guy in the first one

      In the original theatrical version Jabba didn't appear, he was just mentioned. The scene with him as a man was a deleted scene. So a "Despecialized Edition" shouldn't have the scene where Han talks to Jabba at all.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    113. Re:Keep it original... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Just look at how she teased Anakin, it seemed quite deliberate to me. She was leading him along the path to the dark side from the very beginning.

      "Oh, Ani, we can't fall in love!" she says wearing a revealing dominatrix outfit next to a romantic roaring fireplace...

      Three options:

      1. Lucas intended her to tease Anakin.

      2. Lucas knows women, and that some women are truly that clueless.

      3. Lucas has absolutely no clue about women.

      Gotta say my money's on 3.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    114. Re:Keep it original... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      That's right - Han shot solo.

    115. Re:Keep it original... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Just look at how she teased Anakin, it seemed quite deliberate to me. She was leading him along the path to the dark side from the very beginning.

      "Oh, Ani, we can't fall in love!" she says wearing a revealing dominatrix outfit next to a romantic roaring fireplace...

      Three options:

      1. Lucas intended her to tease Anakin.

      2. Lucas knows women, and that some women are truly that clueless.

      3. Lucas has absolutely no clue about women.

      Gotta say my money's on 3.

      1. Lucas intended her to tease Anakin because she was part of the scheme to turn him to the dark side.

      Anakin came from a 'virgin birth'. Everyone LOL's. Sounds funny, right?

      But then later on we learn that Darth Sidious' teacher, Darth Plagueis, had the ability to use the force to actually create life...

      “Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life."

      Anakin had the highest midi-chlorian count ever recorded.

      So this Anakin who came from a 'virgin birth', does that really sound so implausible now? He was created by Plagueis; Anakin was effectively an artificial person, engineered by the force to be a super-Sith. Plagueis probably intended him to become his own apprentice and use him to rule the galaxy. Sidious learned of this plan, killed Plagueis and took over the operation.

      Padme was a crucial part of this plan. She was from Naboo, where Sidious is also from. Given this and the way she treated Anakin and how well it played into Sidious' schemes it seems implausible that Sidious and Padme weren't working together.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    116. Re:Keep it original... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Here's Harmy's version (which I have): http://originaltrilogy.com/top...

    117. Re:Keep it original... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Actually, there is. A group got a 30mm copy and restored the original.

      I understand that the 30mm copies were quite rare.

    118. Re: Keep it original... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      And here's Harmy's version (which I have): http://originaltrilogy.com/top...

    119. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And because the scene with Greedo made it redundant. Even some of the lines are repeated.
      Lucas himself explained this was a writing and editing decision, only to backtrack years later when the opportunity to play with CGI presented itself.

    120. Re: Keep it original... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      I must presume that you first saw it later, on video, where you could rewind the VHS and watch it over and over and over. Those of us who saw it brand new that first week, in a theater with 500 other maniacs leaping to their feet and cheering when the Falcon reappears, didn't think they were so terrible.

    121. Re:Keep it original... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Compare to the first appearance of Yoda, pretending to be a silly little muppet who will guide Luke to the great Jedi before revealing that he's it. I think the reason it didn't work is that Lucas went overboard with it - had the reveal happened in the first movie as a cliffhanger, it would have explained why Jar Jar had such amazing "luck", and turned the so-stupid-you-hate-him character into Keyser Söze on steroids.

    122. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the marvelous original special-fx is probably replaced by shitty CG.

    123. Re:Keep it original... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Go listen to "Thanksgiving" by Paul and Storm https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    124. Re:Keep it original... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      He pretended not to recognize them at all.

      Of course not. He, R2, and Chewbacca are all deep undercover rebel operatives. Even though he hopes to pull Luke in, operational security means that they'll deny knowledge of each other and follow the cover stories.

    125. Re:Keep it original... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It's fun to think about, but everyone in the prequels acts so bizarrely, stupidly, inconsistently, without motivation, that you can basically make up any conspiracy theory and fit it to the story. "No one would actually be that stupid, so it must have been [Insert Character] manipulating everyone else into being retarded!"

      Or, Lucas is just a terrible as fuck writer who has no understanding of human emotions and motivations. A tell that the story is an incomprehensible mess is that you can make up a dozen competing theories as to what was really going on, and they're all plausible. i.e. Jar Jar is a Sith Lord, Padme was in on it, etc etc.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    126. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No; Han shot Greedo.

      </DeliberatelyMissingTheJoke>

    127. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet he likes clubbing baby seals too.

    128. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why the Funny rather than Insightful moderation you are getting. This explanation is the only one that makes any sense with the series climax in Episode V.

    129. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anakin came from a 'virgin birth'. Everyone LOL's. Sounds funny, right?

      Qui-Gon: "Who was the father?"
      Shmi: "There was no father."
      Qui-Gon: "You mean Anakin was born of a virgin??"
      Shmi: "Well, I didn't say THAT, exactly..."

    130. Re: Keep it original... by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the hologram is just fine. I liked Palpatine more monster-like in it anyway and was shocked when he was just a wrinkled up old human later on. Pretty sure they changed it after Empire.

    131. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They HAVE to change something so it becomes a "new work" and the copyright extends another 125 years in the USA.

      It isn't about being true to the artistic side.
      It is about money.

      Copyrights were meant to create an incentive for new works to be profitable for the author. They were not intended to pay corporations forever. Image trademarks and word trademarks are a complete bastardization.

      We need a graduated scale for copyrights, trademarks, and patents. Current costs for the first 25 yrs. Then increase those costs exponentially over time. At 10 yrs, $1M. Then 10x, 100x, 1000x, 10000x more to re-register every 10 yrs. Let's see how long Mickey Mouse is protected when it COSTS THEM $10M, then $100M, then $1B, then $10B.

      Works were not supposed to be locked down so that nobody else could use them .... ever. That is NOT in the public interest.

    132. Re: Keep it original... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      AC Said: "I'm not sure why the Funny rather than Insightful moderation you are getting. This explanation is the only one that makes any sense with the series climax in Episode V."

      I've heard rumors of an episode VI but something bad happened and only half the film was made. Had some exciting stuff set on tatooine with carrie fisher in a hot metal bikini and luke all dressed in black looking tres chique. I heard the writer went insane and was screaming something about furry smurfs and second derivative death stars. I saw the part that was made in a locked room at a Spectrum Con 84 on a low quality VHS back when I was in my early 20's.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    133. Re: Keep it original... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks. The changes in lighting and voice levels are disconcerting, and would have required editing for theatrical release.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    134. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then later on we learn that Darth Sidious' teacher, Darth Plagueis, had the ability to use the force to actually create life...

      I really hate the way the movies and the Expanded Universe have made the Force into some kind of Underdog-energy pill that grants super powers.

      In the first film, there was no telekinesis or Jedi super-speed or any of that crap. It was just kind of a guiding influence and mind control. Did Vader grasp Motti's throat with a "psychic hand," or did he just influence his mind to make him think he couldn't breathe?

    135. Re:Keep it original... by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      This is a good question, so I'm gonna reply even though this is days old: In 1997 when the Special Edition was made, editing was still mostly done by analog processes; physical cutting apart film and putting it back together. The technology to make a digital copy and manipulate that entirely existed, but Lucas chose not to use it. This wasn't entirely because he was an ass; the digitization process was still very nacent. And if you make an analog copy of the master, to use as your re-release master, then the rerelease ends up looking lower in quality than the original. That said, there are plenty of techniques that can be used to recover the original even if Lucasfilm destroyed theirs. You can take multiple preserved theatrical releases, scan them frame by frame, and perform digital merge operations that after processing, produces something that's so close to perfect that only massive audiophiles and their photography equivalents will have any reason to bitch.

    136. Re:Keep it original... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Not just Lucas. Look at the work of authors such as Stephen King before and after he got famous and editors became afraid to step in.

      Gerard's Game is an example of a book that could lose 100 pages out of the middle and not miss much.

    137. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: Neal Stephenson.

    138. Re:Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to get the one with the blue and black cover from 2008. It's a 6 DVD set that has Luke and Vader fighting with lightsabers on the cover. There's an X-wing to the left shooting, chased by TIE fighters. The Falcon is off to the right, also being chased. Vader's mask forms the backdrop for the space above this content.

      These discs are letterboxed, unfortunately.

      The back cover of the individual DVD cases will list: "Disc 2: Original theatrical (1977) version of Star Wars" and "Disc 2: Original theatrical (1980) version of The Empire Strikes Back" and "Disc 2: Original theatrical (1983) version of Return of the Jedi"

      There are other versions of the boxed set that lack the "bonus discs."

      Amazon is hit or miss, sometimes sellers send the non-bonus version. Try here: https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Trilogy-Widescreen-Theatrical/dp/B001EN71DG

    139. Re: Keep it original... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    140. Re: Keep it original... by roovis · · Score: 1

      Yes, I realize this. However if we're after the original theatrical releases (the topic at hand), Jabba was nowhere to be found.

  2. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know how many years and hours of effort have gone into trying to recreate this by fans simply because Lucas's ego woulden't allow it. But hearing this is amazing news.

    1. Re:Finally by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I don't know how many years and hours of effort have gone into trying to recreate this by fans simply because Lucas's ego woulden't allow it. But hearing this is amazing news.

      I suspect the word "original" is throwing you off, as LucasFilm surely intended.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Finally by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      When the word 'Original' is capitalized, it can be used as a proper noun. Lucas is tricky that way.

  3. Moichandising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moichandising!!! --Yoghurt
    I'll be making these movies till the end of time. --Y-O-D-A yoda, yo-yo-yo-yodaaaa

    1. Re: Moichandising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May the Swartz be with you.

  4. The Cantina by nickovs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "... now the only real question is whether or not the cleaned up and sharpened version of the movie will be hitting the big screen once again."

    No! Now the only real question is whether or not they will show that Han shot first!

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
    1. Re:The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will remove the scene all together and put in as a flashback in Empire Strike Back in a dream sequence.

    2. Re: The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Han didn't shoot first.

      Here's the order of operations:

      Han shoots Greedo.

      Greedo never fires, because Han shot him, and Greedo is dead.

    3. Re:The Cantina by Rei · · Score: 2

      I agree with Cinema Sins that even worse than making Han shoot first is making Greedo (who let's not forget is a professional bounty hunter) be such a terrible shot that he can shoot at Han (who isn't moving) from less than a meter away and not even be close to hitting him.

      --
      For the love of Crom, am I the only one here who wants to keep the U.S. technologically competitive?
    4. Re:The Cantina by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know, it was almost like Greedo was a Stormtrooper without uniform.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are wrong, if you look at the footage, Han does a really odd CGI-generated head movement. It looks so fake, it made my niece blurt out, "The heck was that?" When I asked what she meant, she thought the video skipped or something because the movement was so fake.

    6. Re: The Cantina by careysub · · Score: 1

      Han didn't shoot first.

      Here's the order of operations:

      Han shoots Greedo.

      Greedo never fires, because Han shot him, and Greedo is dead.

      Of course. Which it is so utterly stupid and insulting to the audience to have Greedo shoot first. Han would have been dead. They were sitting across from each other at an effing table for X's sake!

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    7. Re: The Cantina by fermion · · Score: 1

      When people under 35 tell me they have seen the original Star Wars I ask them if they saw it on VHS. If they didn't or if it says A New Hope, then it is not Star Wars, it is the remake A New Hope.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re: The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a malfunction in Greedo's gun. The laser bolt seemed to come out at 45 degrees and luckily hit the wall.

    9. Re:The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, it was almost like Greedo was a Stormtrooper without uniform.

      I just read this post which might be of interest.
      https://www.reddit.com/r/scifi/comments/gwtio/regarding_the_accuracy_of_stormtroopers/

    10. Re:The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re: The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be quite the hit at parties.

    12. Re: The Cantina by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I have the original on DVD. Lucas released it in the mid-2000s, bundled with the (then) latest recut version. There was much howling on Slashdot at the time because the originals were shipped letterboxed rather than anamorphic (the recut version was anamorphic) - supposedly they were digitizations of the official NTSC laserdisc copies, with Lucas saying he felt trying to replicate the original using surviving film copies was a waste of money.

      So, no, VHS isn't the only test and plausibly rather a lot of under 35s have seen the original version given the DVD bundles came out only ten or so years ago.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with Cinema Sins that even worse than making Han shoot first is making Greedo (who let's not forget is a professional bounty hunter) be such a terrible shot that he can shoot at Han (who isn't moving) from less than a meter away and not even be close to hitting him.

      I disagree a lot with this. Greedo was never an important character. He shows up and dies. The only purpose Greedo has in that scene is to introduce Han Solo.
      Several later scenes relies on the audience thinking of Han Solo as a mercenary that only looks out for himself.
      Having Han shoot first just after he has been introduced is an important part in establishing this part of him.
      Not only is it important to lend validity to the concern about if Luke and Obi-Wan can trust him to begin with, but it is vital for the end of the movie.
      The Millennium Falcon returning to help out in the last instant is supposed to be a surprise and the only thing that tells us that it shouldn't show up is that Han Solo is the kind of guy that only looks out for himself, something that was established by him shooting first.

    14. Re: The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That still means he shot first. I'm so sick of this nonsense. You don't need someone to shot second, for someone to shot first.

    15. Re: The Cantina by Megane · · Score: 1

      Back in the day, mid '80s or so, my family ended up with an nth generation bootleg VHS of Star Wars. I am sad that I never found it when going through old stuff, because I really wanted to find out that it had the original titles. I still have (old) hope that I might find it someday.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    16. Re: The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Samuel L Jackson would call that divine intervention.

    17. Re: The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What does Jabba look like? Does he look like a bitch??"

    18. Re: The Cantina by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least he's not completely forgettable like your lame ass at parties.

  5. 4K ultra-HD extra apostrophe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Imagine seeing "it is" in glorious 4K resolution?

  6. Star Wars and The Matrix 2: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still the only two movies I've ever fallen asleep during out of sheer boredom.

    (Matrix 2 was the one with the pointless five-hour-long car chase in it, right? I like to think the whole theater could hear my snoring.)

    1. Re:Star Wars and The Matrix 2: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Matrix 2 had an accidental extended ad for Microsoft's Midtown Madness video game.

    2. Re:Star Wars and The Matrix 2: by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Much like Star Wars Episode One was basically a really lengthy commercial for that Podracer game.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Star Wars and The Matrix 2: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the podracer game was very good. Unlike that Matrix game that was rushed so it was full of bugs when it came out.

    4. Re:Star Wars and The Matrix 2: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spent hundreds of hours playing the Podracer game, so that isn't necessarily an unfair description for it to have a 2 hour trailer.

    5. Re:Star Wars and The Matrix 2: by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If it didn't have that annoying Mary Sue character (that kid) in it...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Star Wars and The Matrix 2: by Megane · · Score: 1

      Bugs? Those weren't glitches in the Matrix?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  7. Did anyone else notice Jar Jar in Rogue One? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch closely and you'll see him!

    1. Re:Did anyone else notice Jar Jar in Rogue One? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      You failed to explain why the hell we'd WANT to.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. "It just turns you into a child" by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    if you were a child in 1977.

    1. Re:"It just turns you into a child" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you were a child in 1977.

      I'm in. I wouldn't mind watching a 4k restoriation on a BIG movie screen. Not in one of those multiplexe screens that are always too small. Project it on a 20 meter wide screen and I will gladly pay the price.

    2. Re:"It just turns you into a child" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw it that summer. Last time I saw it too. Once was enough.

    3. Re: "It just turns you into a child" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did it end? I never bothered to find out.

    4. Re: "It just turns you into a child" by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      How did it end? I never bothered to find out.

      Luke and Leia doing it, then fade to black.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re: "It just turns you into a child" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it a True Black, or just a fuzzy gray?

    6. Re: "It just turns you into a child" by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      Were you the nerd in the theater with the Pantone Color swatches?

    7. Re: "It just turns you into a child" by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is I saw "Star Wars" as a double feature with "Royal Flash" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Flash_(film)] so that would have fit perfectly. Imagine "Prisoner of Zenda" with a lot more sex.

      Apparently "Royal Flash" was released in 1975, but small town cinemas get whatever they can get whenever it comes I suppose.

    8. Re:"It just turns you into a child" by Megane · · Score: 1

      I remember watching Saturday morning cartoons one day back in 1978 when they played a Japanese commercial for Star Wars. That really blew my mind. But still not as much as the disappointment that was Galactica '80.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    9. Re: "It just turns you into a child" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw it at the drive in. It followed Smoky and the Bandit. I was 6 and dozed on and off throughout but I remember telling my parents to wake me up for the sword fight.

  9. No way to fix it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The bad acting, horrible script, terrible direction, all of it will still exist. Just be higher resolution.

    1. Re:No way to fix it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, more pixels won't fix the real issues with that movie.

      password:inflate how appropiate....

  10. I thought they originals were destroyed... by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought they claimed the original theatrical release version was destroyed and would never be released in high quality, and that was one of the main reasons people collaborated to produce the Star Wars HD despecialized edition.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:I thought they originals were destroyed... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      I thought they claimed the original theatrical release version was destroyed

      Did people claim that? I thought it was just that Lucas refused to release a HQ version of the original, because he wanted various "improvements" he had made over the years.

      and would never be released in high quality

      Yeah, I'm going to just say that I seriously doubt -- after all the crap Lucas has taken over the years for his tampering with various releases -- that he's going to actually release the TRUE original version in high quality. TFA makes it clear that nobody really knows what this will be:

      As for the question of which version of the movie will hit the big screen in 4K if the release rumor is true, thatâ(TM)s something that has also stirred up debates among fans of the franchise. ...

      That goes on to describe the various possibilities. I'd put the probability that Lucas is going to chance his mind now and release the original version as near 0%. Instead, he'll probably base this version on one of the more recent editions, probably with a few new tweaks and "improvements."

    2. Re:I thought they originals were destroyed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm gonna bet they lied to get people to buy each edition.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault is at least somewhat more honest about controlling market supply to induce demand....

    3. Re:I thought they originals were destroyed... by strredwolf · · Score: 1

      Won't matter what Lucas says. Disney owns the Star Wars franchise now. Lucas is 100% removed from it.

      --

      --
      # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
      $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
    4. Re:I thought they originals were destroyed... by steveha · · Score: 2

      When George Lucas announced the "improved" versions of the classic Star Wars movies, he famously claimed that it would be impossible to recreate the original release versions. He said something like he had accidentally "taped over" the originals (for you younglings, that's a video tape analogy).

      As this article commented bitingly, it would have been embarrassing for Lucas if the original version had outsold the "improved" version on home video release. So it was sure convenient for him that it was totally impossible to re-create the original version.

      http://www.aintitcool.com/node/23493

      The article quotes someone named Bill Hunt saying this: "Even if it's true that Lucas and his staff destroyed all of the original negatives, it's unlikely in the extreme that they also destroyed all of the interpositives, all of the separation masters, and all of the release prints. In fact, we know that they didn't." And lo and behold, once George Lucas sold the rights, it turned out to be possible to recreate the original version, and now there's a 4K cleaned-up version.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    5. Re:I thought they originals were destroyed... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Disney owns the Star Wars franchise now.

      ...and 20th Century Fox owns the original trilogy.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    6. Re:I thought they originals were destroyed... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Not exactly, Lucas said that it would be too much trouble (for him) to recreate the original from the surviving prints, for a variety of reasons from film deterioration to supposed uncertainty about what exactly constituted the original version (very early versions, seen only by a few thousand people, included Luke watching the Leia's ship being captured from Tatooine for example.)

      From this, because nerds are inherently unreasonable and get angry about stuff, an entire narrative was concocted along the lines of "Lucas says it's impossible for anyone to do! He's such a liar! He destroyed by childhood!" none of which was actually true. No, Lucas was saying it wasn't worth it as far as he was concerned, in much the same way as writing a kernel driver for your laptop might not be worth doing if you're a wall street trader. His values aren't the same as those of us who'd like to show our daughters the same movie we watched.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    7. Re:I thought they originals were destroyed... by Zxern · · Score: 1

      No reason they wouldn't want to release yet another version for sale. It's all profit it to them. Lucas is the only one that had an issue with it.

    8. Re:I thought they originals were destroyed... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Won't matter what Lucas says. Disney owns the Star Wars franchise now. Lucas is 100% removed from it.

      I'd prefer Lucas than Disney. Force Awakens was a terrible and very 'normal' Disney movie.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    9. Re:I thought they originals were destroyed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20th Century Fox has distribution rights to the original movie forever, and has rights on movies 5-6 and 1-3 through 2020.

      http://collider.com/fox-owns-star-wars/

      This means that home releases of the original Star Wars movie cannot happen without Fox agreeing, so Fox will demand a cut of the profits. But assuming that Fox enjoys getting money, Fox will not prevent home releases of the original.

    10. Re:I thought they originals were destroyed... by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      I never believed Lucas for a second that it would be impossible/unfeasible/whatever to restore the originals.

      It was his "burn the ships" maneuver, convince people that going back was impossible, so they'd have to accept his new crap.

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  11. The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by Misagon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Theatrical 4K is not the same as Ultra-HD, often marketed as "4K UHD". Seriously, don't muddle these up! The linked article did not, it even had "Theatrical 4K" explicitly, being a link to an explanation of the differences.

    The cinema standard 4K is 4096*2160, not quite 16:9 aspect ratio. However, movies can be of any aspect ratio that would fill either the width or the height. With Star Wars being in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, that becomes 4096*1743. Pixels are square and there is no overscan.

    Ultra-HD, the TV and BluRay standard is 3840*2160 pixels. Some HDTV's do have overscan, not showing the entire picture, by the way.

    Cinema 4K also uses the DCI-P3 colour space and theatrical projectors are capable of the entire range of this colour space.
    Regular Ultra-HD is not that good. Ultra-HD with HDR uses a larger colour space than DCI-P3 but mainstream LCD panels at the moment are not capable of displaying that properly even if they can handle the input signal.

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    1. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by BenJeremy · · Score: 1

      What about film grain? I thought there were limitations on resolution based on the original "analog" film because the grain simply doesn't allow you to get more detail... and I thought this was in issue back when we were just talking 1080p, let alone 4k resolutions.

      I can see color space being enhanced, though on a 40 year old film copy, I'd think that something has been lost in time, as well.

    2. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about film grain?

      You get a team of animators to paint it out in CGI. They can do this in their rest breaks between adding new Jar Jar Binks scenes.

      SPOILER ALERT: Luke missed when he shot at the reactor core, but coincidentally, a moment earlier, Jar Jar had clumsily pushed the wrong button and accidentally ejected his droid into the core.

    3. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

      Cinema 4K also uses the DCI-P3 colour space...

      Oh, come on. DCI-3P wasn't even in the original trilogy. Unless it was one of the droids that never got called out by name...

    4. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

      What's your point?

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    5. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grain pattern is not static from frame-to-frame, so backgrounds can be denoised to eliminate that factor and get higher resolution.

    6. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DCI-P3 better than sRGB, but not as great as advertised either. I've seen it and I couldn't tell the difference, until I got to compare two panels side-by-side. The colour space is only 25% bigger in area, which works out to about 12% better red and 34% better green (the blue is the same). Due to the way that our colour perception works (absolute colour isn't that important) this isn't impressive to begin with. But if you look at the gamut charts, you can see that quite a lot of the improvement is on the green end of the blue-green edge of the space. These are very vivid greens and they are pretty rare to come across; in real life I've only seen them produced by some rarely used artificial dyes and they're pretty garish, mostly used to stand out rather than for aesthetics. In fact, this is why green screens are used to substitute the background of a clip: if your screen is vivid enough you won't run into colour conflicts, a common problem of the blue screen era. But it also explains why green screen looks so horrid when done wrong: you have to shoot at really high resolution because you cannot afford to leave any of the garish green in the final clip. So in practice DCI-P3 is only marginally better than (a good) sRGB panel and most of the useful improvement is in the red-magenta range.

    7. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grain isn't a limiting factor until 8k.

    8. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What about film grain?

      Space wheat..?
      Space oats..?

    9. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression that 35mm film has *much* higher definition than anything digital has achieved. A film projector simply doesn't have bandwidth limitations. And wasn't the original shot on 70mm? I'm not sure what the equivalent resolution of that is, but I'm sure its much higher than any form of 4K.

      Ultimately grain will become an issue - especially on multi-layer optical effects - but I suspect that even then, the resolution of film will be far better than any digital system currently available.

      Digital distribution is all about saving money, not improving quality - unless you're talking about the audio tracks! It means the cinemas can be automated - you don't need experienced (=expensive!) projectionists.

    10. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by pezezin · · Score: 1

      I have an Adobe RGB capable display, and when properly calibrated is much better than sRGB. Obviously, you need source material encoded in it, but that's what I have my DSLR for.

    11. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression that 35mm film has *much* higher definition than anything digital has achieved.

      Meh, they're pretty comparable except that film has a random distribution of grain, while digital resolution is crippled in a regular 2d array. For stills that means you can get slightly larger reproductions out of film without them looking "pixely" but they will not have particularly more detail. With digital processing higher quality can be extracted from movies on film with frame-to-frame interpolation of parts that are obscured by the grain.

    12. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by HonIsCool · · Score: 1

      The original was shot in Panavision 35mm, not 70mm (except maybe FX shots?) Film doesn't have a "resolution" as per digital, but it's certainly not "infinite bandwidth". Resolving power depends on the emulsion speed, exposure and processing. A 4K scan is in all likelihood a perfectly safe capture of all details in a 40 year old 35mm negative. Although for newer stocks like Vision3 and what not, 6K or even 8K might be prudent in order to be certain to get all the detail.

      But since you also mention film projectors, the above is about the negative and obviously one rarely projects a negative in the cinema. After going through the dupes necessary, a projected mint 35mm film would probably be closer to a digital 2K projection.

      --
      "Give me six lines of C++ code written by the most competent programmer, and I will find enough in there to hang him."
    13. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      While this is true, the difference in picture quality betwen 4096x2160 and 3840x2160 is very small indeed, and very few viewers to will notice the difference.

    14. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how does that serve Darth Jar Jar's evil agenda?

    15. Re:The title is wrong. 4K != UHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can be a problem. Even development procedures can affect film grain. But exposure settings have the most direct effect outside the film quality. Some film is very grainy. However if we are allowed to use multiple frames....

  12. RIP My childhood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck these remakes
    fuck Disney
    fuck Lucas
    fuck all of you sheep who who pretend to be star wars fans because its trendy.

    fuck this generation.

    1. Re: RIP My childhood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, geeeuud! I can FEEL your angar. Let go, release your hatetred, and your journey to the dark schide will be compleeete!

    2. Re:RIP My childhood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who saw Star Wars 10 times in the theater (and who still calls it Star Wars), I wouldn't mind seeing it nice and cleaned up, but not if they messed with *any* of it.

  13. Sorry, no by mrsam · · Score: 2

    The first movie rightfully deserves to be preserved in the Library of Congress. It is part of the American culture, and history. But, having said that, I have a confession to make:

    The movie simply has not aged well. The last time I watched it on DVD, a few years ago, I decided never to watch it again. Now, that I'm much older, the movie looks rather simplistic and rough; and I would rather remember the movie the way I saw it, with much younger eyes and a less crtitical brain. These days, Darth Vader's initial entrance makes him look like a cartoonish villain. Luke playing with a starfighter, in one of his first scenes, is cringe-worthy. Ditto for the scene where he drools over the hologram Leia. C3PO's stumbling around ...just doesn't work for me the way it used to.

    To state the obvious: the 4K version is nothing more than a pathetic, utterly pathetic money grab. And nothing more. That should be fairly obvious to anyone. I can't think of any possible value that four thousand pixels will bring to that movie. I just have a bad feeling about this...

    1. Re:Sorry, no by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      To state the obvious: the 4K version is nothing more than a pathetic, utterly pathetic money grab. And nothing more. That should be fairly obvious to anyone. I can't think of any possible value that four thousand pixels will bring to that movie. I just have a bad feeling about this...

      No, the previous re-re-re-releases were pathetic money grabs. A proper 4K restoration is what they should have done in the first place.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    2. Re:Sorry, no by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Luke playing with a starfighter, in one of his first scenes, is cringe-worthy.

      Oh c'mon, you've never done it? FWIW, that wasn't a "starfighter,' that was a scale model of the speeder parked *right behind Luke.* That is his T-16, the one he bullseyes womp rats with. Seriously, you can see the ass end of his real T-16 right behind him.

      One is never too old to play with toys. Never. I have a fair collection of 1:400 diecast aircraft, and when I clean house I *always* "land" the Pan Am 707-321 on its display place.

      The day one becomes "too old" for such frippery, one is ready for the pine box. The kind with rope handles and no wheels.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    3. Re:Sorry, no by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      I'll just wait for the 32K version. Or maybe the 128K version.

      Oh! Wait a minute. The 1977 theatrical release was on actual film and not digital.

      Never mind, then. Already saw it. In 1977.

    4. Re:Sorry, no by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      One is never too old to play with toys. [...] The day one becomes "too old" for such frippery, one is ready for the pine box. The kind with rope handles and no wheels.

      How would help? It sounds like the worst toy ever.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Sorry, no by Snard · · Score: 1

      One is never too old to play with toys.

      "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"

      (Sorry for the paradigm shift, but it seemed appropriate.)

      --
      - Mike
    6. Re:Sorry, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed!

      In a 600-seat theatre with the largest screen in town, afternoon showing, with only three other people in the room (two of them busy with each other and not there for the movie).

      Excellent experience, still remember it...

    7. Re:Sorry, no by hawk · · Score: 1

      >One is never too old to play with toys

      Exactly. They just change over time.

      A couple of weeks ago, I got a pneumatic nail gun to put sheeting on the hothouse in my back yard. mmm.

      Yesterday, I got the fuel tank back onto my '72 Cadillac Convertible.

      Today, I was going to put a new water pump and fan clutch onto that '72, but I bought my wife a mustang convertible, so it's going to be a week or two.

      We just get to buy more expensive toys as we get older . . .

      hawk

  14. unique by chameleon3 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    a very unique treat

    "unique" is a binary term. Something is either unique or not unique. There are no "degrees" of uniqueness.

    1. Re:unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are degrees of grammar nazism though, and you are a 37. That doesn't mean you're particularly unique, just that you're an insufferable douche.

    2. Re:unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is completely wrong. By your logic, everything that exists is unique - nothing occupies the same position and causal role as anything else in a large enough context.

      Otherwise, for something to be "unique" in a binary sense there has to be a well-defined context in which it is provable that nothing else has the same predetermined characteristics. In general this is not the case; here it most certainly is not.

    3. Re:unique by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a very unique treat

      "unique" is a binary term. Something is either unique or not unique. There are no "degrees" of uniqueness.

      C3PO: Goodness, R2D2, spare my circuits! You sound like you have taken lessons in The Force from Master Yoda. "There is no try" indeed!

    4. Re:unique by perpenso · · Score: 5, Funny

      a very unique treat

      "unique" is a binary term. Something is either unique or not unique. There are no "degrees" of uniqueness.

      That is a somewhat unique perspective.

    5. Re:unique by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      a very unique treat

      "unique" is a binary term. Something is either unique or not unique. There are no "degrees" of uniqueness.

      True, but in all the entropy, there are things that stand out as unique. And also lots of 'unique' entropy, if you want to go there.

    6. Re:unique by careysub · · Score: 1

      Very well put!

      You make an excellent case for the usage.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    7. Re:unique by bofinger.david · · Score: 1

      "unique" is a binary term. Something is either unique or not unique. There are no "degrees" of uniqueness.

      "Unique" means "one of a kind". You can't have degrees of "one" but you can have degrees of "kind": it's reasonable to say the only member of a large category is more unique than the only member of a small category. For example, the last piston-engined aeroplane in the world would be more unique than the last Mark IX spitfire that's still got its Overlord paint scheme. (Though they'd be identical if they were in the same universe, I'm talking hypotheticals.)

  15. Theatrical 4k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this mean? What was the resolution of the original 70mm prints? I saw Empire at the Cooper Theater in Denver: 105 foot wide screen, front row, and I don't recall seeing any grain. (And I can recall every detail of that viewing _exactly_, dammit!)

  16. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    4k is supposed to be better than the original 70mm we saw?

    1. Re:Huh? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      4k is supposed to be better than the original 70mm we saw?

      Certainly not. 4k "HD" is about the same quality compared to analog video as a 96 Mbps MP3 is compared to analog audio.

      But the young generation has no concept of analog as they have never experienced it. Nor big silver screens, as they have grown up with movieplexes with numerous smaller screens with angular digital projections. And an audience that blinks on and off cell phones, ruining any chance of total immersion.

      The old 70mm big screen analog movie experience only lives on in our memories. It isn't coming back.

    2. Re:Huh? by Desler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 70mm was just a 35mm blowup.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm... but it was mind-blowing, seeing it at the Cooper and Continental theatres (both with cinerama screens) in Denver back in the day...

    4. Re:Huh? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      It probably was, either way Star Wars was not shot on 70mm.

    5. Re:Huh? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      The 35mm film was the resolution of the silver halide crystals. Which is pretty high resolution. But entirely analog, though an abstract mosaic of crystals. It doesn't fit into a world of shitty bitmaps.

      It doesn't fit in well with the digital bullshit that people today insist on imposing on all visual reality. The film as shown in the theaters wasn't 'video' nor was it in any sense digital.

    6. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if not shot in 70mm, a 70mm copy of a 35mm original would still look better than a 35mm copy of the same.

    7. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4K doesn't compare favorably to 35mm either.

    8. Re:Huh? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The old 70mm big screen analog movie experience only lives on in our memories

      There are still a few places that do that.
      The "Everest" documentary shot on 70mm wasn't all that long ago.

    9. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you figure? It wouldn't add any detail that wasn't in the 35mm print - and more detail is the only reason for shooting on 70mm.

    10. Re:Huh? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I think they mean 40 years later - after degradation has occurred.

    11. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that's what was meant. "a 70mm copy of a 35mm original would still look better than a 35mm copy of the same" implies the same source material, transferred to 2 different media.

    12. Re:Huh? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And any 70mm print still in existence will probably be 40 years old (same for any 35mm print). The size of the flaws might be smaller relative to the overall frame size and thus look much cleaner today. It doesn't matter that both came from a 35mm original. A 1mm scratch in either will be a lot less noticeable on a 70mm print.

    13. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, that makes sense.

    14. Re: Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would project better onto a larger screen. The kind that still existed in most towns in 1977

  17. Can it be an all versions blu-ray? by BlueCoder · · Score: 2

    Not sure if it's possible with blu-ray. I would like to see an all versions disc where one only has to select options in an options menu for what they want to see. Han shot first should be default but we can keep around the revisionist history for laughs.

    Better yet... come up with yet another proprietary DRM format and release it on an 128gb sd card or compact flash. Honestly it should be as lossless as possible and DRM free.. you know how much any ISP is going to complain to any customer that tries to download that? Do the equivalent of a DOS attack by providing too much data. Collectors are going to want origional media. It's not like people haven't seen Star Wars.

    1. Re:Can it be an all versions blu-ray? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      uncompressed 4K is 18gb/s so a 100gb multi layer bluray can hold a little over 7 seconds of it.

      People buying 4K blurays are buying heavily compressed movies that are barely better than the 1080p version.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Can it be an all versions blu-ray? by fox171171 · · Score: 2

      Not sure if it's possible with blu-ray. I would like to see an all versions disc where one only has to select options in an options menu for what they want to see. Han shot first should be default but we can keep around the revisionist history for laughs.

      I'll watch the Sentinel class shuttle seen, dewbacks not close up, Mos Eisley is busier, but no giant CGI ass walking across the screen blocking everything, Han shoots and Greedo doesn't he just dies, Falcon lifts off from docking bay, stormtrooper head clunk, Imps getting shot not censored, improved lightsaber effects, no matte boxes visible around ships, R2-D2 in color, no stupid ring explosion Death Star destruction, real people in ceremony not cardboard ones, and how about Chewie gets a medal version please.

    3. Re:Can it be an all versions blu-ray? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      I used to make microfiche years and years ago. It was always shot on 105mm roll film. It wasn't color, but there's no reason the color film couldn't be produced and the movie rescaled to 105mm roll film.

      Prepare a room of your house to hold all the reels of film, and the projector. You'll have to build a screen in your back yard.

      No, you can't have it in a digital form without compromise and lossiness.

    4. Re:Can it be an all versions blu-ray? by Cowclops · · Score: 1

      4096 * 2160 pixels * 30 bit color depth * 24 frames per second = 760 megabytes per second. Even if we're talking 32 bit color depth and 48 fps 3d, that only gives us 3.2 gigabytes per second.

      Pretty sure that "18gbps" number isn't right or you're mixing units. You do know that a gigabyte and a gigabit aren't the same thing, right?

    5. Re:Can it be an all versions blu-ray? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years ago, because I had a Laserdisc player, a friend of mine bought the original trilogy on Laserdisc and had me convert them to DVD for him. I told him to just buy the box set with the bonus discs containing the theatrical cuts.

      He said something to the effect of, "They won't look as good as the Laserdisc, though, because it's analog."

      So I sat him down in front of his big screen TV with the Laserdisc player and my box set, and we synced up Star Wars and switched inputs to compare.

      It was no contest. The DVD was much clearer and had better color than the Laserdisc. Not perfect; it had visible banding and compression artifacts, but an undeniably better quality picture.

    6. Re: Can it be an all versions blu-ray? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying that one digital format is superior to another digital format. Both of which were derived from the analog original.

    7. Re: Can it be an all versions blu-ray? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I showed him the Laserdisc straight (LD is analog, not digital) compared with the DVD which was taken from the LD master.

      Granted, the actual LDs may have been suffering from so-called "laser rot," but they were intended to be viewed on 4:3 NTSC sets, not big widescreen LED sets. I think the DVD upscaling played a role too, but it was quite clear that, with good compression, DVD delivers a better picture.

  18. If anyone wants, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have 2 SW's VH S tape collections, one's the unedited original issue, the other's the "Widescreen", Special Edition.

    Bidding starts at 1 Million Dollars.

    1. Re:If anyone wants, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I already torrented it.

  19. But it's FOUR KAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am waiting for SIXTEEN KAY! so I can show it off to all my dead friends.

  20. The fans are on the very tip of weather vane! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Uncle George never told you what happened to the original theatrical release version"

    "He told me enough. He told me it was destroyed"

    "No. I am the original version."

    "Noooooooooo! that's not true.....that impossible!"

    "Search your archives for you know it is true!"

    Edit: Captcha> Monetary

  21. Looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to buy the white album again.

    1. Re:Looks like by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      The first copy of the White Album that I had was on mono reel to reel tape. I recorded it on tape from a vinyl album copy that my sister had, which was loaned to her by her guitar teacher. I remember that it had jelly or something on one side of one of the lp disks that I cleaned off before recording my tape.

      It is still the best 'version' of the White Album that I have ever owned, though I don't have it any longer. I do presently have one of the same model of tape recorder. It's a Revere Tape Recorder with vacuum tubes.

  22. The only question... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    ... is how much are they going to milk it for?

    (As much as they can is the correct answer.)

  23. Maybe we will see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we will see clearly that Han shot first.

  24. Keep the android science officer... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Chewy is in on the plot, as is an android science officer (glad they got rid of the latter).

    That does sound pretty good, only I would love to see the science officer left in - though not as Android, but as hologram....

    Can you imagine the howls?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Keep the android science officer... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Is that you, Rimmer?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re:Keep the android science officer... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Now that would be a special edition of Star Wars, with Rimmer inserted into a bunch of the scenes...!

      Or, the prequels with Rimmer in place of Jar Jar.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  25. They all had moments by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    No, 3 had its moments and a more appropriate, darker tone. 1 was stupid and cheezy, 2 was just horrible.

    Come on, the lightsaber battle in 1 was really good, and pretty dark all by itself. Also the initial scene on the droid ship was pretty good if you think of it standalone and ignore the absurd droid army stuff that comes later.

    2 Had, um, well,... Clone trooper carrier ship! OK, yeah, that was a cool Clone Trooper ship. Ok, also the asteroid field with the sonic weapon was fun. Sadly though it contained the worst scene in the history of cinema by far - Anakin and Padme in a meadow.

    3 like you say had its moments. I personally think thought you cannot possibly understand or enjoy the opening without having seen the Clone Wars so as to properly appreciate General Grievous (who if you watched the original Clone Wars cartoon, was a fantastic character).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:They all had moments by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Come on, the lightsaber battle in 1 was really good, and pretty dark all by itself. Also the initial scene on the droid ship was pretty good if you think of it standalone and ignore the absurd droid army stuff that comes later.

      And if you ignore the fact that they hired 12 year old actors for it, and cheesed up the ambassadors being bumbling fools.

    2. Re:They all had moments by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      and cheesed up the ambassadors being bumbling fools.

      Yeah I just ignored that aspect and focused on two media fighting a bunch of war droids. It wasn't like they were Jar-Jar level bumbling, just incompetent.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  26. The only real question...? by Morphine007 · · Score: 1

    No. The only real question isn't if it'll be shown in theatres.

    The only real question is: does Han fucking shoot first?

    1. Re:The only real question...? by Tukz · · Score: 1

      It's been said so many times already, but I'll do it as well; Han Solo is the ONLY one to shoot.

      Preemptive strike.

      --
      - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  27. SG-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed.

    Jack O'Neil isn't too old:
    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...

    1. Re:SG-1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's O'Neill, with two Ls.

  28. Sharpened? They blurred the original intentionally by Cafe+Alpha · · Score: 2

    because in the first non-blurred print, the models looked too fake. So slight blurring restored the sense of reality.

  29. Spite and divorces strike again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> Unlikely. Lucas destroyed the originals when he made the Special Editions.

    Whut? Why TF would he do that?

    Mostly to screw his ex-wife out of royalties due from her work on the original Star Wars.

    Maybe that was the real reason the Jedi in eps 1-3 were forbidden to love - Lucas found that divorce led to hate stronger than any Sith.

  30. But but but.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    All the luddites CLAIM that 35mm film is a WHOLE LOT BETTER than digital... why did they have to clean it up and do digital restoration?

    It's because in reality, SW EP4 film is lower resolution than real 4K is so they are getting rid of film grain and using their high end software that will make it less obvious how low of resolution the 35mm film really was.

    Hell you could see the lack of sharpness and film grain on the 1080p release.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:But but but.... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      All the luddites CLAIM that 35mm film is a WHOLE LOT BETTER than digital...

      They do? I mean sure you might be able to find a few somewhere, but this is not a common viewpoint.

      It was at the beginning, but in fairness:

      1. digital sensors had poor resolution and otherwise kind of sucked
      2. Nobody wanted to sit at a clunky old desktop and look at photos, home printers sucked (and were expensive) and shop printers negated much of the advantage of a digital chain (see also 1).
      3. The software either sucked massively or was very expensive
      4. Memory was expensive (though I remember using a camera that recorded straight to floppies. That was very very useful in its day, but it was big and clunky compared to a good 35mm compact).,
      5. The battery life was nothing to write home about either.
      6. You needed special hardware (a card reader or proprietary cable?) to get stuff off the camera and on to your CRT screened clunky old desktop of the sort that was standard back in the day.
      7. They were expensive while also not being very good OR convenient (see above).
      8. Those are all magnified in film because for a long time nothing could cope with in effect a full resolution 35mm scan, uncompressed, being shoved down a databus 25 times per second.

      The thing is since the point where many "luddites" preferred film, all of those things have changed. The technology was cool and early adopters picked it up either for the hell of it or because some of the points didn't apply, then the tech got better and more people picked it up and the bad points got progressively less bad then it reached a tipping point and suddenly the phrase "digital camera" sounds charmingly old fashioned.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:But but but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      35mm film IS a whole lot better than digital, but only if you use good film.

      A New Hope was meant to be a B-movie, shot on an incredibly low budget, and they used cheap-ass 35mm b-reel film (that is, film that doesn't meet the high quality standards required of cinematic film). Basically, it's home-movie quality film.

    3. Re:But but but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to Saving the Star Wars Saga Lucas used 4 different film stocks to cut the negative together!

  31. Re:Sharpened? They blurred the original intentiona by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

    Aesthetic Distance means never having to not enjoy a dramatic presentation.

    You can screw up and lose all the entertainment value by looking too closely. That's always been the deal.

    But this is a nerd site, so we're the people who ran the movie projector in Jr. High School; we always had to be immersed a layer too deep in the presentation.

  32. Re: Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. Will the National Film Registry finally get it? by steveha · · Score: 1

    Both the original Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back were officially added to the National Film Registry when it was created in the late 1980s. However, Lucasfilm never delivered an original, unmodified copy of either movie. George Lucas tried to give the NFR a copy of the "improved" edition, but they refused it; their mandate is to preserve original versions of historic movies.

    http://www.popoptiq.com/a-new-new-hope-film-preservation-and-the-problem-with-star-wars/

    The article notes that ironically enough, George Lucas argued against colorizing old black-and-white movies, yet he has refused to follow his own arguments with respect to his own movies.

    I hope that Disney will deliver a suitable cleaned-up archival copy of the original, completely unmodified movie to the NFR.

    P.S. I personally would be happy to have a version that has some hidden wire removal and other very minor cleanups. Probably the perfect way to do it is to release a new slightly-polished cleaned-up original, with bonus disc content of the original, cleaned up but utterly unchanged. Watching the movie over and over on a 4K screen, you will spot wires and other glitches to some extent... but there should be a version where they are perfectly preserved. It's a movie that was made in the 1970's. It was an advance in the state of the art of special effects, but it wasn't perfect and couldn't have been perfect. Sometimes it's instructive or fun to watch things and study how they were made.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  34. Resolution vs Story. Uhmmm... by marco.milone · · Score: 0

    They really don't understand the errors made with epVII, and few some in Rogue1? What about focusing on writing consistent stories? May the coherence be with you. WTF They are f*ck1ng SW, and me.

  35. We can probably thank the despecialized edition by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    With the despecialized editions out there spreading around, lucasfilm/disney had to finally push out the originals after 40 years to grab the money before the market was impacted.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  36. Changes I disliked by cstacy · · Score: 1

    I saw the original first run, and was disappointed with some of the later "improvements".
    For example, when they changed the combination from 1-2-3-4.

    That's kind of change only an idiot would make....

  37. Re:Sharpened? They blurred the original intentiona by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

    They still do it in Rogue One (and pretty much every action movie). All the battles and shoot-outs are filmed handy-cam style with maybe 1 or 2 second shots, because if you keep that fixed it will probably look a bit corny with stormtroopers and other characters in heavy costumes logging about.
    Loved the movie, btw!

  38. hans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's only "Original" if Hans shoots first and does not step over Jabba's tail.

  39. Which "Original?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is it the Original "Original," or is it the fucked up bullshit Lucas shat out of his asshole in the 1990s?

    By the way, HAN SHOOTS FIRST.

  40. "Carried away" by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    I see what they did there.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  41. If Empire remake: will Carrie wear slave outfit? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Or will that get disneyfied out?

  42. Wow! The fails in visual effects... by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    ... now will have high resolution!

  43. Some parts even have brand new matte backgrounds by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Some parts even have brand new matte backgrounds

    Doesn't sound like this really meets the requirement of being a copy of the original release then. And how the hell is Disney letting them get away with this?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  44. Re:Some parts even have brand new matte background by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    They are the original matte background images, taken from still photos, coloured to match the original release based on the few remaining copies and original home releases, and then recomposited with parts of the home releases. That removes all the changes from the original and gets as close as we are ever likely to see to what was seen in theatres in 1977.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  45. For The Betterment Of Humanity by kackle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree. If a piece of art is publicly disseminated, then the copyright holder should lose the ability to alter it, that is, unless the original is equally available or relinquished to the public domain. I think this is fair, especially in our DRMed future where things can be "taken back" instantaneously via remote computer commands.

    If you think this sounds harsh, imagine the Mona Lisa getting a new hairstyle or clothes every 20 years because fashion had changed. Let's cover "David's" penis because we're politically correct this generation. And then we can change it back when the next generation lightens up... These innocent tweaks are distorting, and in some cases, ruining art (with the new ideas no longer reflective of the era in which the art was created, mind you).

    "E.T.'s" right to bear arms should not be infringed.

    1. Re:For The Betterment Of Humanity by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      " imagine the Mona Lisa getting a new hairstyle or clothes every 20 years because fashion had changed."

      Actually i can. Leonardo kept the painting most of his life and was constantly tinkering with it.

      Not a good item to use as an analogy.

      George's "sin" was to destroy the originals, but even Monet destroyed many of his works after changing his view of the world (in M's case he had cataract surgery and the world was much bluer afterwards)

  46. Re:Some parts even have brand new matte background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the accompanying video that shows most of the changes they did to get the despecialized edition created
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    *cough cough*
    https://thepiratebay.org/torre... (full 18GB file)
    https://thepiratebay.org/torre... (stripped down/eng only)

  47. Kaminski.... read Kaminski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Find a copy of "The Secret History of Star Wars", preferably v3. V4 was printed and lacked some of the detail of V3, if you can deal with the spelling and grammar errors. It details just how much Lucas has retconned the story of Star Wars into virtual oblivion.

  48. It wasn't called 'A New Hope' in original release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To provide a true original they also need to remove the subtitle in the opening scroll.

  49. Another format, one more time! by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Really? Seems like this movie is becoming the joke. How many different formats will they do? VHS, Betamax, Laser disk, dvd, 25 year edition, HD, probably some others that I don't remember and now 4K!

    I bet there are some people that have all formats.

  50. Highly over-rated kids movie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fairy-tale in space. Big deal! Most of us left this behind when our age reached double figures. Who cares?