CT Will Disney Re-Release Theatrical Cut Of The Original Trilogy?

Another thing going against the originals is that no one in Lucasfilm or involved in the movies at all ever talks about the subject. I know by now not to expect them being released no matter what news there is about the classic trilogy, because those involved really don't see anything wrong with the altered versions.
I don't know why people try to make the argument that the movies look old. It doesn't make them less entertaining, thrilling, or impacting in the Star Wars saga.

 

Heh, just how old do you think I am? I grew up in the 90s and am in my 20s right now. The first copy of the OT I owned was the 1997 SE. And yeah, the OOT will reach the masses better if (once?) they're officially released on Blu-ray.

Probably not. I can't imagine Luke ever saying to Rey, "Tattooine is much better than Jakku because we had cartooon dinosaurs in it!" The only possible thing would be the Force ghost situation. But even then, the older ghost would at least be consistent within its own movie, as the unmasked Anakin is still Shaw in ROTJ, regardless of the version.

What troubles? Minuscule details about PT continuity that only hardcore fans care about (like the Boba Fett voice)? Effects that are going to look old regardless of how much (dated) CG padding they receive? Having two versions available is really no different than something like LOTR having a theatrical and extended edition available where both are there for whomever is interested in having them.

 

What's wrong with selling two versions of the same movie? Movies do it all the time. Also, I highly doubt Lucasfilm will release the OOT in some big box set alongside the SE's, especially seeing as how most people have the SE's in some form or another.

 

What trouble exactly? There are plenty of films for which multiple versions (extended editions, director's cuts, etc) exist. Why should Star Wars be any different? With regards to it not being profitable, how many Star Wars home video releases have we had till now in the US alone? Let's see:

Original release on VHS/LD: 1982 (ANH)/1984 (ESB)/1986 (ROTJ)

OOT re-releases on VHS: 1990, 1992, 1995

OOT re-releases on LD: 1985 (ANH/ESB), 1989, 1990 (ROTJ), 1992 (ANH), 1993, 1995

SE original release (VHS/LD): 1997

Original DVD release: 2004

DVD re-release (with OOT): 2006, 2008

Original bluray release: 2011

Bluray re-release: 2015

Star Wars fans will buy a new set just for the different cover or a metal box, so why would an edition mastered at 4K, that includes the OOT not be profitable? The lastest re-release, which contained nothing new outside of a different box, sold 1,069,018 units in 2015, and was the most profitable bluray set of that year. The last OOT release for ANH (single disc), which stems from 2006, was still in the top 100 sales in 2015 with 153,190 units, despite being a decade old, and having poor quality by today's standards.

http://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/bluray-sales/2015

To summarize, I think an OOT release with the proper marketing (by itself or combined with the SE as some ultimate edition box set) would be a huge success.

 

Blade Runner is the prime example with the 5 cut edition. It even had the work print version that everyone hated.

 

Great list. That brings back a lot of memories. I owned most of those editions and enjoyed them all. I also see a timeline that has never gone back to create a new version of an older release. From 1995 on each version made enhancements and changes.

The trouble is how releasing different versions of the movies agitates and dilutes the fanbase. The trouble is the money it takes to restore the film versus the amount of money made if they just release one version. The trouble is releasing a OOT keeps attention on the past of Star Wars and not what's coming out in the next year. The trouble is having to pay 20th Century Fox a cut for the OT. The trouble is there could be a clause in the contract for the sale to Disney that the OOT can't be released.

The biggest trouble is there not being enough money in this. Why spend millions to restore something when you can just release the current version of and not make any additional investment while still making all the money. The other problem is -- Star Wars is now looking forward to new movies and new content. Why go back when you can make more money on new original content, new movies, new tv shows, amusement parks, books, toys, etc.

As for looking old. Maybe the correct term is making the movie match. I'd argue that it took until the Special Edition before the effects in Star Wars reached the same level of consistency we see in the Wizard of Oz.

It would be great getting the OOT. I'm just not getting my hopes up.

 

Objectively it's the same story/movie but not the exact same telling of the story as 1977.

As we have discussed before there is a difference between the movie in itself as opposed to the presentation of the same.

To be really exacting the movie on the 2011 blu-ray is the one that started it all but the presentation (or the way the story is told is from 2011) not the original telling from 1977 or the various other versions 1981 and 1997. This of course doesn't take into account other versions within those due to soundmix changes.

This kind of exacting can of course get very tricky because as we know a 2017 telling of the "one that started it all" can look very like the 1977 version without actually being the same exact one.

The best way to get to something that we can say is the 1977 version would probably be the separation master route. That is the best and easiest way to get as "exact" a version of the 1977 version because it would recreate the O-Neg of that version.

I say that because there is so much talk about wanting the "original" version. As I have said I would like the original version as well but let's not pretend that the actual original theatrical version (ie telling of the story) is something that is created by a new version that uses modern digital compositing. The way to get that original optically composed version is by using those frames that are actually a product of that time be they from the O-Neg, Sep Masters, IP's and the like.

Now for those who really want the original but would be happy with a 2017 telling that looks like it that is fine but that is not what we usually talk about.

Well thought out.

I can see that to be the case. Lucas makes changes for 1997 then 2004 then 2011. The progression that he would make further changes for the planned 3D releases makes total sense (TPM and AOTC were changed for 2011 also). As part of the 3D process making 4K versions to base them on also makes sense.

The PT 3D versions were paid for by the time the sale happened and they got finished while the 3D OT never happened but it looks like at least ANH and probably TESB got 4K versions.

Depends on the context. When watching the originals on large movie screens in the 90's the people who actually made them were wincing because they knew of and could see all the flaws. They knew they were there in the first place but were able to get away with them before (and on VHS) but with the work that had been done since at ILM and other places the flaws might now be evident to the regular audience.

Taking the chance that they wouldn't look like old movies to the audience was not a risk worth taking when you can make them objectively and artistically superior. SW was regarded as THE best so to put out work that by that time was substandard (meaning mostly ANH) didn't make sense.

These were one-offs though that are accepted as what they are because of that. The audience memory of the releases at the time fades away. They were remembered through TV more than in the theaters. Wizard of Oz was a box-office disappointment on release. Kong was a hit but obviously did not transform the entire industry and the movie business like SW did.

 

Honestly though Qui-Riv-Brid I think the big demand probably isn't for the "originals" so much as it is for the removal of certain changes that weren't popular, Greedo shooting first, Jabba in ANH, Lukes scream in ESB, the new song in Jabba's palace, Shaw being replaced as a force ghost etc. When it comes to more general retouching I'd say that most people tend to view it positively and probably wouldn't be adverse to seeing a few more FX shots redone or indeed the older CG replacements updated.

 

Luke's scream in not in the current TESB only in 1997.

You make the point though that is the reality. Many would be happy with obvious SE's with a few changes but outside of all sorts of versions or branching that isn't going to happen.

Then you get into the whole replacement thing.

Replacing old CG that "doesn't work" is fine but replacing old model work that doesn't isn't fine. Never mind that the old CG work is far superior to the old model work it replaced already!

 

There is no consensus on what people want in these movies other than not the Special Edition. Should we get the 1977 70MM version of the film with 1977 sound? Or the 1977 70mm picture with 2017 sound? Do we really just want the 1995 VHS version in HD? Do people actually want the Special Edition without certain changes, new color timing, and all the Lightsabers redone? Are people aware that ANH Jabba in 2011 is different than Jabba in 1997 when complaining about it? Do people care about Wicket's eyes in 2011? How about Luke only screamed like the Emperor in ESB 1997 version. Should stormtroopers say Close the Blast Doors or not. Which voice should Aunt Beru have? The 1977 Sandcrawler or the 1997 Sandcrawler?

No matter what it's going to make someone upset.

 

I wonder if the promised "epic tribute" to the 40th anniversary at Star Wars Celebration will include a screening of a 4K restoration...

 

Here's the thing though. To me CG in of itself is fine, but 1990s/2000s/2010s CG in a 1970s or 1980s film is not superior to the old model work, not by a long shot. In my view the SE is sort of a monster of Frankenstein, a weird mesh of 1970s/1980s footage, special effects, and more modern CG. I can enjoy it as a curiosity, and I'm happy for those that enjoy them. However, the originals with the original effects work, sound work etc, will always be far superior to any of the SE releases any day of the week, and twice on Sunday...

 

CGI being better than model work is an opinion. Not fact.
Let old movies stand on their own two feet.
Movies with additions from decades later lose that authentic feeling imo.
I don't need old movies to be updated to today's standards to enjoy them.
Wonder what people now will think in 20 years when they hear that TPM-TFA are outdated effects?
100 years from now there probably won't be much noticeable difference between the two forms of effects.

 

I don't think large amounts of branching would be needed as its really the aforementioned changes that 95% of all criticism seems to be directed at and most of those being critical tend to dislike all of them not just 1-2 so there removal would I think please the majority of viewers who aren't happy with the current SE's.

As far as the FX argument goes I would say that CGI in the late 90's and early 00's was a technology in its infancy that could obviously be very effective when used well and could accomplish things that weren't previously possible but was not automatically superior and in some cases isn't even today.

That said I think there is room for improvement in both aspects, some of the original FX that remain in the SE's does look less than great and equally some of the earlier CGI additions also looks less than great plus as DrDre mentions I don't think enough effort was put into creating a unifed look for the films(the Death Star Attack in ANH is I think the most obvious offender). What I would like to see is much less of a piecemeal approach, consider the films as a whole rather than just adding stuff to the odd scene. I do think Rogue One showed that CGI tech has reached a level where it could be very seamlessly worked into the original FX work.

 

I think we're starting to go down the route of arguing semantics. Basically my point is that the....things (whether you want to call them "movies", "versions", "presentations", or "tellings of a story") on the 2011 Blu-rays are not the same things that audiences originally saw in theaters. Therefore, one of those things "started it all" while the other did not.

Fair point. I would definitely prefer a version that utilizes those original elements without digital re-composites.

 

If they could release the 66 Batman show after all these years, I have hope the same can happen to the OOT. Honestly, it would make my year.

 

After thinking about it, I've basically come to the decision that if the OOT isn't released on Blu-ray this year, I'm going to stop waiting for it. If it does happen in the future, great, it'll be a Day-1 purchase and I'd be first in line to get it. But if not, I'm going to concede the win to Lucas and make do with the 2011 versions, warts and all. Will I be happy with it? It's definitely not my preferred outcome, but it's outside of my control. As good as they are for what they are, I've always considered the Despecialized editions to be holdovers for the real thing, but if the real thing isn't coming along, then I'll accept the versions Lucas wants out there as the only versions he wants out there. And listen, here's the deal: The updated versions of the films are, no matter how you look at it, historically inauthentic. It's literally impossible to deny, the same as claiming the Earth is flat. They're not the versions that were released in theaters between 1977-1983, and thus not the versions that sparked the phenomenon that is Star Wars, and that will always irk me. And on a personal level, I find them to be inferior versions of the films in a variety of ways for a variety of reasons, disconnected from the idea of historical authenticity and relating solely to quality. But it's not like the movies are so fragile they suddenly become bad films. No amount of retroactive CGI tinkering is going to make me love the films any less, or going to make A New Hope not my favorite movie of all time all of a sudden. Do I think releasing the OOT is the right thing to do, both in terms of giving the fans something they've been asking for for the better part of two decades, and for preserving monumentally important parts of film history of the sake of posterity? Yes. Am I going to invest any more energy into worrying about it? No. It is what it is, and like I said, it's entirely outside of my control.

 

Amazon is now listing Episode VI as the theatrical version for streaming. I don't think it is, so that's pretty weird.

 

That's weird. It's gotta be a mistake.
https://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Re...sr=1-2&keywords=return+of+the+jedi+theatrical

 

It's definitely a mistake, but I can't help but wonder if this hints at future availability of the theatrical version.

 

Episode III Revenge of the Sith is also listed as (Theatrical Version) that seems to indicate a mistake and not future availability. The only other version of Revenge of the Sith is in 3D.

 

That's a weird mistake to make, however. Unless some Amazon Prime employee got bored and wanted to screw around with some Star Wars fans, in which case I can say that's a level of outright pettiness I can absolutely respect.

 

That's not exactly true, by the way. There are differences between the theatrical version of Revenge of the Sith and what we have on Blu-ray that are so slight they don't even bear mentioning. Like, "clone troopers say things when they were previously quite, moss and aging is added to Wookiee huts" kind of unimportant. However, it'd be fascinating if they released the theatrical versions of the prequels as well, simply for the sake of covering all their bases. There are some weird editing tweaks made to Attack of the Clones that I'd like to see undone, and I would love if Padme's "To be angry is to be human" were removed and she silently consoled Anakin as she did before so she seems like less of a sociopath, but again, there's nothing too major. The Phantom Menace, I would love to own the theatrical version of. Is TPM puppet Yoda inexcusably terrible, after how fantastic he looked nearly two decades prior in TESB? Yeah. Is it a major part of the film as it was upon release? Yes, and I'd like to see it preserved.

 

No way, that's a fireable offense if intentional and surely easily traceable to who did it.

 

I was kidding, of course no one would intentionally and purposefully so, not unless they really wanted to lose their job. I'm just saying, if someone did do it for the sake of getting us all frothy-mouthed: respect.