CT STAR WARS LEGACY EDITION - RESTORATION OF THE 1977 ORIGINAL STAR WARS

if you watch mike's videos you can see he's talking about color/details/etc that are in the original film prints that were not represented faithfully by the released hd versions. not just se changes

it's an amazing, time consuming, frame by frame, 4k restoration that he's doing.

i like the se myself but it is shocking the details and colors that were missed (or purposely changed i guess).

 

So the original edition that existed as the sole version of the film should just be forgotten and left to degrade into dust simply because the creator (who didn't direct The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi, mind you) decided twenty years later that he'd rather replace Academy Award winning effects with CGI and disrupt Academy Award winning editing with superfluous additions, to completely ignore the differences in coloration that occurred in the 2004 update. "That's a lark," it's the truth. Nobody sat down to watch the film in 1977 and watched a film where CGI Jabba the Hutt repeated Greedo's dialogue to Han. Between 1977-1997, nobody watched that film.

 

i own the se but i grew up on the original and it should be made available. the original is what won the awards and changed the world. not the se.

 

If that's what the filmmaker intends, then so be it. It's his/her work and you have no say and are not entitled to anything. You have an opinion on the matter. That's great. But that's where it ends. Either accept the filmmakers wishes or don't and move on. End of story.

Also, Lucas wrote, produced, financed, edited, and overall created Empire and Jedi, so don't pull up that old trick. He physically could not direct Empire for numerous reasons, least of which was he had to start up companies and finance the film and just couldn't direct it. And in the case of Jedi, he did all of the above, in addition to actually directing a substantial portion of the movie anyway, but gave Marquand sole credit as director.

 

Your signature is appropriate.

 

it is.

 

I became an artist because of the original Star Wars. I came to believe that my work is like a child; you raise it the best you can, and then you send it out into the world to do what it does, and you can't (shouldn't) try to bring it home and raise it again. This is a huge temptation, because as our craft improves and our lives change us, we always look back on previous work and can think of ways to improve it. But this leads to an endless loop of living in the past - the continual, constant revisions to the original film are testament to this danger. So it's a question not of whether one can, but whether one should. If our work is fortunate enough to make the kind of cultural impact that Star Wars has, we are wise to take pride in what our child has become, and enjoy its success as a citizen of the world - it does, in a sense, belong to everybody now, because it's become an indelible part of the very definition of their lives. This is a philosophical point, which of course any artist has the right to deny. But ironically, this idea of letting go of work, of letting it belong to the people I create it for, and putting my creative energies towards new projects, is precisely the lesson I learned from George Lucas and Star Wars; many years ago, when he was content to build his empire on that original film. History, and cultural history are important records in the annals of human society, and I would no more support erasing the original film which changed the world, than erasing the record of the Civil War, even though some are shamed by both events. We are the sum of our memories. So, eccentric artist whims and semantic debates aside, I am compelled to preserve what was, because it is perpetually part of what is. Plus, the SE sucks donkey balls.

 

They will probably release the oot on some anniversary later on there own. Not in a saga box though because the SEs fit better there. Or maybe not. Lucas vision is already made and sellin. And if the SE sucks so bad why is Disney gonna make so much off of it when they re release in October and November? :]

 

So a war is the same as a sci-fi/fantasy movie? You are really reaching hard. Your argument is so full of holes I don't know where to start.

So that's what you learned from Lucas? Lucas, who started altering his film after only a few years after release and continued to advance film technology to the point that affords you to alter his films without his permission. Try creating something of your own and not concerning your life with trying to "fix" someone else's work. Lucas' goal has been to push film as a medium to the point where filmmakers can alter their work and fix things they've never liked and do so at little cost. Kubrick is well known to have continually edited his films, even after theatrical release. He notoriously cut several minutes out of 2001 and The Shining after theatrical release. Kubrick, like Lucas, was smart to see that film is an ever evolving medium and part of the fun is the ability to continually tinker and alter ones work to further their creative juices. If Lucas thought the way you did, we would still be using stop motion, puppets, and cumbersome opticals for fantasy films, most of which would not be possible at all. You do not own the film just because you paid for a ticket to see it. You bought two hours of time viewing the film. You are entitled to nothing more than that and this inane thought that you, among others, created what Star Wars is today through purchasing tickets and making it "popular" is sheer lunacy.

 

Same, in my argument's context, in that they are both pieces of cultural history, an accurate record of which is valuable. Not so much the same in, say, number of deaths they've caused. Probably.

Well, one of the things. That, and "A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing," which I bring into my directing every outing, and of course, the importance of music in film, which is why I became a composer. Of course, we all take different things from art, don't we?

I've had my music remixed and rearranged several times in the last 30 years; as artists, we get used to enthusiastic others tinkering with our stuff. As for creating my own work, I've been a composer and vfx artist for 30 years, which has afforded me the opportunity to create one or two things.

Your suggestion that I am against progress is specious. I grew up over the threshold of analog and digital. I still compose on a 100-year-old piano, on paper, and do my scores and mock-ups on computers. Similarly, I used to shoot film, and now primarily shoot digitally. Change is good, and many of the tools we have now are indeed amazing for revising and or synergistically blending elements. I LOVE grading my Star Wars restoration on modern workstations. Ultimately, mine is but one artist's philosophy in action, and on a personal level, the act of someone profoundly grateful for that original, flawed film. It's why I never had to spend a second of my life wondering what I was going to do when I grew up. Between that sentiment, and my feelings about cultural preservation, the motivation behind Legacy should be fairly evident. Though admittedly, as a big-time Kubrick fan, I have to concede he was a tinkerer, God-love-him. The difference between his touch and what Lucas did to the SE, of course, being that Kubrick made his films better.

 

'Cause you don't have a choice, and we long ago decoupled quality from financial success. Have you not seen the latest tentpole blockbuster? A billion dollars of forgotten-like-a-fart-in-the-wind a month later. Was a great day for investors when films could suck ass and still make a **** load.

 

And there it is. The only reason you're doing this is because "you don't like it". Because you're a bitter fan incapable of coming to terms with the fact that it's not your movie and you don't have a say in what gets released, so much so that you're devoted a large chunk of your life to "fixing" someone else's art to suit your personal preference. You can argue all you want about historical significance and what not (most of which is 100% irrelevant since Lucas' final versions are official because they were altered by the artist who first conceived and created them) but that's what it boils down to.

 

I suppose that's sort of the inverse of the reason, anyway, which could be said to be: I'm doing it because I like the original version. One or two of us did. A few of us even had our lives changed by it. A few more think that sort of thing is worth saving. Like the many members of the original production crew who continually lend support, resources, and advice to the project.

And so it goes. And I must say she's absolutely gorgeous. But then, she always was.

 

Good luck in altering a truly creative persons work for petty and selfish reasons, completely disrespecting the artists wishes and blatantly ignoring the facts. I hope that works out for you. I mean, it definitely won't and you will have wasted so many hours, but hey, it's your life.

 

Thank you. Best to you and yours as well.

 

I've noticed those that accuse others of being "bitter fans" are generally those that come across as the most bitter and openly hostile, but whatever. And you're right: Lucas made some brilliant, genius, magnificent films. I'm only happy there are people like Verta who decide they want to preserve those movies, when people like you would rather they no longer exist.

 

Truth hurts, I guess.

I'm not against them existing and I would purchase them if available, but only if Lucas wishes them to be released in whatever version he feels comfortable with. You of course have the right do dislike his decisions to release or not release, but that is where it ends.

 

don't bother arguing with people on these forums. most of them don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

 

In 1997, the colors at least looked good, whatever you may think of the changes.


Mike Verta I want to have your babies right now.

 

Just watched the restored shot of the S-foils, and wow it is absolutely gorgeous.

It doesn't bother me that the special editions exist. Heck, I even like to watch them every once and a while. I think a filmmaker has ownership of his creations and the right to alter them later as long as it is preserved in its original form. The original form of the work becomes part of our cultural history the second it is released and I think we have a right to that.

So, for the SE vs Theatrical argument I say: why not release both? They did it for ET and Bladerunner and nobody died.

EDIT: Were all the color "corrections" done in the Blu Ray cuts of the film? Or are they present in the 2004 DVD releases as well?

 

Brilliant job Mike Verta! I work as a colorist for motion pictures myself and the comparisons of your scans vs. the blu-ray is just astounding. Can't really believe someone approved that.
Keep it up! I'm really looking forward to the day we get to see your work And please do let us know if you need some help or donations to keep going!

 

Thanks, guys!

The 2004 was an error-ridden travesty, some of which were corrected for the Blu-Ray while other mistakes were added. Things like this:




Notice the blue line, frame left, running straight down through the floor where a sloppy colorist tried to spot-correct the left wall...for...some...reason, without animating the mask. This should never have been done in the first place, but this is beyond retarded. Both the 2004 and Blu-Ray are absolutely full of countless, flat-out mistakes like this. In 30 years of doing asset preparation for every major studio, I have never seen a commercial release worse than Star Wars.

For the rest of the videos on this restoration, there is a full Channel on Vimeo dedicated to it, with many, many more coming!

https://vimeo.com/channels/starwarslegacy

 

I think we should make a distinction between ownership, and being the creator of some work of art.

Firstly, ownership implies you have the right to alter the work you own. Now even George Lucas agreed that being the owner should not give someone the right to alter the work of another artist.

Secondly, even if you accept that a creator has the right to alter his or her work, and destroy the original, this argument is not really valid for Star Wars or any other film for that matter. Why? Because George Lucas is not the sole creator of Star Wars. Film making is a collaborative process. Many artists worked on the film. Now should George Lucas have the right to destroy other artists award winning work? I don't think so.

 

Cool but not for me. I'm not one of those people that complain about all the changes.

 

They are only terrible if you view them to be. I do not see how anyone can objectively define terrible. I think the look of the SE is superior to the OOT, and I know I am not alone in that. But I acknowledge that is just my viewpoint.