CT Didn't GL have an obligation to release SW's 1st version seen by directors at its 1st screening?

Star Wars' first screening in front of an audience occurred when George Lucas screened the film for other directors who were his friends. Though that version of the film did not yet have John William's score and it had WW2 dogfight footage in place of many shots that would later be replaced by special effects and some of the dialogue still had to be looped, I think this version of Star Wars qualifies as the earliest original version of Star Wars since it was the first version screened by an audience. As someone who advocates that Lucas had a moral obligation to release the O-O-O-O-O-T to modern audiences, I feel it was Lucas's duty to release this version of Star Wars on Blu-Ray, and I would argue that now that duty falls squarely upon Disney's shoulder. Who else here agrees?

 

I'd certainly love to see it, and if I had the power to do so, I'd make it widely available to all on the grounds of it being a cinematic heirloom. GL himself, however, doesn't seem to see things that way with regard to what he perceives as 'unfinished' or 'inferior' versions of the films. With regard to whether there's any kind of 'duty', I guess that comes down to how you see a creator's relationship with his or her art.

 

That would be interesting to watch.

 

I suppose you could say the same thing about the version with the movie's original editor, John Jympson. However, I understand that version has heavily deteriorated and would need major restoration work.

 

Would I like to see it? Hell yes.

Is there a duty or obligation to release something not publicly screened? Hell no.

 

I know. My wife and I were just joking around about how strongly some fans demand that the O-O-T be released on blu-ray and I joked that even if they released it on blu-ray some die-hards still wouldn't be satisfied until the rough cut shown to directors was released on blu-ray. She told me I had to work that into one of those O-O-T discussions at some point, and so, I decided to make it a thread topic as a joke. I thought people would get that I was joking around, but I guess I didn't word it well enough! (She also told me to put a smiley face at the end of post. I should've listened to her!)

 

I figured as much - was going to put that "Not sure if serious" pic of the Joker in my post.

I still think they should release any complete rough cuts as an educational tool, particularly the Jympson 'Lost Cut' - I suspect they will, too.

 

I've read that GL planned to use classical music for the score before Spielberg introduced him to John Williams. That's what I have a God given Constitutional right to see!

Edit: And hear.

 

There is a difference between any rough cut that he showed his friends/studio executives and the Theatrical Cut that premiered in 1977 and was loved by fans for 20 years until Lucas went around the bend. If he had just released the OOT as an option, he would have saved himself a lot of stress. I'm not counting the 2006 DVDs, cause they were a big GFY to people who criticized his SE and Prequel mistakes.

All we want is the chance to watch the Theatrical Cuts of the Star Wars Trilogy in the best way possible, with restored picture and sound quality.

 

I've read about that historic first screening in early '77, with Brian DePalma and Steven Spielberg among others in attendance. You know, the idea just never occurred to me that first cut version could ever actually be released to the public, but now that you mention it...... man, I would love to get a chance to watch that first cut! I could even see them doing a one-time only screening at a future Celebration, you know there are fans that would line up for that....

 

And what exactly gives you the right the demand the original version to be restored with today's picture and sound quality?
It's hypocritical to demand the unaltered version of something and then complain about it being unaltered. You don't want an unaltered version, you want a version with changes you like, like remastered sound. That's not the original version.

 

The 2006 release was a non-anamorphic letterbox laserdisc master from 1993, used so the SE would look better in comparison. So when Warner re-releases the Wizard of Oz with a new restoration, that's not the original version just because they made it look like new? Huh.

 

i think we'll get one now that disney owns the rights (or when it starts). i don't think george wanted to go through it and pay for it himself when he felt his newest versions were better and i don't blame him.

personally i would like my own version with everything new except he rotj "nooo!".

 

I hardly consider a showing of a movie to a small group of close personal friends an "audience" in the moviemaking sense of the word. This is no more of an "original version" of a movie as the dailies are. And something tells me you would be genuinely surprised at just how bad a movie is when all you are seeing is the untouched film, no effects, no soundtrack, etc.

 

The OT was released with an optical soundtrack. Optical sound stunk. If you want the unaltered OT experience, then you should want the OT with its original crappy optical soundtrack. That's the original. Some people would argue that optical sound is better than today's sound technology because it has a richness or a color or some other special quality that modern sound technology would eliminate.

The point is it's self-contradictory to say that GL is out of line to not release the original version of the films when even you aren't really asking him to release what it is the true OT. The true OT is the original 1977 Star Wars warts and all. If an altered OT counts as the original OT, then where do you stop with those alterations? Should it have improved sound over what you would've heard? Should the picture quality/colors be corrected from what you would've seen in 1977 if they were off in the 1977 version? Should the fakeness of blue screen special effects and other effects be improved so that they look less fake -- such as the noticeable pole that attaches to the wampa's arm that knocks Luke off the tauntaun? Should the lightsabers be color corrected since they sometimes look white? Should the awful TPM Yoda be replaced with CGI-Yoda? Should an X-wing when it is clearly a model be replaced by a realistic CGI X-wing? Should it have the 1977 scroll that doesn't "A New Hope" as its title or the altered scroll or the newer scroll that was done digitally rather than the words appearing on a sheet of glass? Should scenes be included in the original OT that GL intended to include in the OT -- like the Jabba scene -- but were only cut because of the special effects limitations at the time?

And the biggest problem is the way you answer these questions will inevitably be different from how someone else answers these questions. You might say, "I want better sound and picture quality but unaltered special effects." Someone else might say, "I like that old sound, but I want better picture quality and improved special effects." A third person might say, "I want better sound, picture quality, improved compositing of blue screen shots, and CGI replacing clearly fake-looking original shots." So, does that mean that GL has to 20 release different versions of the OT?

That fact is the 2004 DVD release of the OT from the laser disk version fits the definition of the OT as well as almost any of the different possible versions of the OT that I list above. In fact, at least from the perspective of most listeners, it probably has better sound than what most people saw in the theaters in 1977 because the optical sound that people heard back then stunk.

 

I don't think we really need another ding dong about what constitutes the OOT and when and how it should be released. I know you started this with tongue firmly in cheek ladnar, but I don't think this will remain a friendly chat about the 'friends' screening for too long. Hence, locking.