CT Rumor: Disney to Release Unaltered Old Trilogy on BR

Couldn't they have at least made the scream sound like Luke? Hamill and McDiarmid don't have the same voice whatsoever.

 

yes I agree with CA and dark lord of tech on that point

PymParticles: I've got to say for me, having him fall completely silent doesn't really work either (for me at least) perhaps it's the way the scene was shot.

I suppose what I'm getting at is: out of all the dreadful changes that Lucas has done over the years, complaining about this one seems to be a bit too nit-picky, at least to me. There IS a reason for him to scream here (as I say involuntarily) whether it ruins the context of the scene (which in itself is subjective as to me it kinda hurts it having him silent)

but lets get back on topic, which is about OOT Blu-ray

 

This night I have been in a tomb, buried deep within a system of catacombs. Inscribed upon the lid of the coffin, I read these words:

„Hast du durch Zauberwort Totes zum Leben erweckt, sei auf der Hut vor deinem Geschöpf. Tritt der Uranus ins Planetenhaus, fordert Astaroth sein Werkzeug zurück. Dann spottet der tote Lehm seines Meisters, sinnet auf Trug und Zerstörung.“

Though the meaning might be opaque to some, those who need to know, I guess, will take heed.

 

I'm more making fun of it than I am complaining about it.

For me, the main issue isn't whether the OOT or the SE OT is better (my favorite version of ROTJ is the 97 SE), but rather the issue is the principal that all versions of any movie should always be available. Even if the OOT was worse than Bayformers and Batman & Robin combined, I'd advocate its release.

 

There will be no release that doesn't also include Lucas' Latest Original Vision, so Saga fans will be pleased.

 

A release that includes all versions of the film(s) would be neat to see, although I'm hoping there would also be a tidy little boxset with only the OOT versions of the films. I wonder, though, if the 04/11 versions would be considered distinct enough to warrant each being included. I'd argue that '04 is definitely distinct enough from the original '97 SE to be in a hypothetical set, but the DVD and Blu-ray releases are really similar save for a few cosmetic alterations here and there.

 

I've lomg dreamed of seeing 97 ROTJ on a format other than VHS because I love the celebrations and music but hate Christensen and the "no"s, although removing Christensen and the "no"s from the 11 version would also do the job. I'd also enjoy the ANH mono mix, as that's what most people heard in 77.

 

I've mentioned a few times on various threads that a Blade Runner style boxset would be very cool for each of the OT films. When that was released a few years ago it contained 5 versions of the film, from an original workprint, to the 1982 theatrical release through to the most recent final cut.

 

Actually there is a 6th version which is the deleted and alternate scenes with alt narration that basicaly tells the story in 45 minutes as well.

So if it was there in the first place then taken out you'd be OK with it just like you'd be OK with Vader saying NO if it happened first then was taken out?

 

If the scream was there in that form in the original theatrical cut of the film, I'd think it's stupid and out of place, and advocate for it to remain the way it is instead of being removed for subsequent home video releases. There are plenty of things I don't like in the OOT that I don't think should be changed or removed on basic principle. Crazy concept, I know. The OOT versions of all three films are, on the whole, the superior cuts of each movie, but even in cases where I think a SE change is an improvement (I'm not black and white on the issue), the OOT is still the more authentic work by far. Regardless, I was talking about why its inclusion in the perfectly good original version of the scene was pointless, out of character, and ignorant of the scene's context. The fact remains that it wasn't there in the original scene, and thank god Lucas had the good sense to undo the alteration, because it's freaking awful.

 

PymParticles has already given an answer but I would like to add this.
The first Version of Blade Runner I saw was the one with VO. But I still prefer the non-VO version because I find it overall better.
The first versions of Aliens and the Abyss I saw were the theatrical cuts but I prefer the longer versions.
Same with Kingdom of Heaven.

The first Bond I saw had Roger Moore as Bond. But I don't think he is the best Bond.
The first Star Trek film I saw was TMP, do I think that is the best Trek film? No!

In short, people don't automatically like the first version of something and are capable of seeing the por's and con's of something when it is altered.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

If it had always been there though the same people would have spent years coming up with reasons as to why it was in character and fully in line with the scene's context.

It's only out of the context they built up around it because no one in the movies spends time specifically talking about things like that.

This is why the bustling space port Lucas always wanted for Mos Eisley is totally in context as far as what Lucas wanted all the time and not in line with the context that others built up that it was not that busy.

 

A change made to a film (or a book, or a play, or even a computer game, for that matter) may improve on the original work... but that still doesn't make it part of the original work.

 

Is that the "non-CGI approach" that features two motion-capture CGI characters and a ton of CGI spaceships? The combination of CGI and location work will make 7-9 look far more like the special editions than the originals.

As for Hayden's ghost, these are the versions that have been airing on TV, and have been available on DVD and Blu-Ray, for the last 16 years. Almost every kid who has seen the trilogy since 2004 will have seen it with Hayden's ghost. The horse has bolted with that one.

 

Sorry, meant 11 years - site won't let me edit for some reason.

 

And all those kids said, "Who the hell is he?"

 

DarkMark
And everyone who had seen the trilogy over the course of twenty years from 1977-1997 had seen it the original way. Twenty years vs. eleven? It's actually not even a contest, especially when considering no one here is advocating for the special editions to be taken off the market; they simply want the OOT to be released alongside it. This isn't hard.

Also, let me copy and paste you what I said concerning the meaning of non-CGI approach. "It's not that they don't use digital effects at all, but they use practical when they can and they don't overdue the CGI. In the Vanity Fair article, Abrams saying he didn't want the seesaw puppet touched up with digital even if it meant streamlining the effect, because he wanted to keep the "wonderful preposterousness" of the practical effect intact is an example of this. In the SE, you have practical effects augmented with digital elements, like blinking eyelids on the Ewoks or extra digital widgets flying out of R2. It's aesthetically inconsistent with the OOT, and with the approach Abrams is taking with The Force Awakens."

More importantly, the Original Trilogy was released from 1977-1983, and the Sequel Trilogy will be released from 2015-2019(?). This context is key, because the ST will look of its time, where CGI is heavily used. However, the renewed emphasis on practical effects (no one has ever suggested that there is no CGI in the film, Abrams himself has been very clear on this) will be refreshing amidst the current climate. The SE-OT, however, does not look of its time. Rather, it looks like it was filmed between the late 70s-early 80s, but with modern colors and digital effects augmenting or replacing practical. It's jarring, noticeable, and distracting, and makes the films look less like films and more like Frankensteined products.

 

If they're complete morons. And so what if they do? It's not like their parents won't tell them or show them the PT. This also assumes that they haven't watched the PT first.

 

So once again that just makes Star Wars like the Mona Lisa.

Besides that so many things are part of the original work it's just they didn't make it to the first release.

As for "original" you have to be very careful with that term.

When is something "original?" when do you freeze it and say "That's it! It's done."

It's very hard to get the original Hobbit. Tolkien's revised version is the one that is everywhere. No one has seen the original version of TESB except in theatres.

This is for another thread but briefly:

The writer of the article seems to be confused as to what practical, digital and CGI actually are.

The OT was made optically. The PT digitally. The ST will be made digitally. CGI is a part of digital and the term applies more specifically to animation and there is lots of cell animation in the OT.

I'm afraid JJ is just playing to the 1 quarter of 1% of the crowd that actually cares about this kind of thing and what's worse he's playing them by feeding into their misconceptions about what CGI actually is. They seem to think that CGI and digital are one and the same and that practical effects and digital don't work together. In fact they work hand in hand.

JJ is not cutting on film or viewing film rushes or using photo-chemical color-timing or doing anything else like that. All he is doing is making a totally modern movie but telling people how he is balancing things between "CGI vs practical" which is a false argument.

JJ is making digital movies not optical. The reason why the PT are the biggest practical effects movies of all time is because of digital compositing allowing what was impossible with optical compositing to be done.

It's also rather mean of JJ to mention one shot of one puppet that he didn't "touch up" but apparently not bother to mention the hundreds of other shots that he will "touch up" to remove all of the things that enhance shots.

It might be a renewed emphasis compared to films of the last few years but will be nothing at all new for Star Wars. In all likelyhood the new films will struggle to come close to the practical effects levels of the PT.

Can't say I find them jarring at all. As has been gone over before the SE's had a whole host of practical elements added to them. Some people for whatever reason see even the non-CGI work as being CGI when it isn't.

They also don't seem to realize at that time the work was still done mostly optically. The VFX were redone primarly optically with the latest optical compositors of the day.

 

Good grief, QRB, relax will you?

 

I am totally relaxed.

 

BTW in case anyone had any doubts about Secret Cinema's screening of TESB:

http://makingstarwars.net/2015/06/r...resents-the-empire-strikes-back-by-owen-ward/

For those interested, it is the Blu-ray release of the film which is shown (the Fox fanfare is still there) and not the original cuts as some have hoped.

 

Which is only natural since, I would assume, this was an official screening.

 

I know not to expect original screenings of the movies whenever theaters show them. They always show the newer editions straight from video releases.