savestarwars.com Open in urlscan Pro
2606:4700:3030::6815:27c9  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

 


.: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

If you are reading this, it is probably one of your first times visiting this
site. You may know a bit about the subject matter of this site, or you may know
nothing, or you may just want a bit of orientation. There is a ton of
information in the many pages on this website, and navigating them might seem a
bit bewildering, or a bit on the information overload side of things. I hope
this FAQ will give you a crude summation of all the major questions you may have
and all the major issues at stake. Within each subject and question I have
listed here, I will provide a short and simple answer to give you a basic
understanding, and then provide a link to the corresponding page which has a
more detailed analysis. Below is the overview:

1) Q: I know about how Lucas wants the Special Editions to be the only version
available, but is there a slightly more detailed history of this issue than the
main page summation?

2) Q: Weren't the original theatrical versions released on DVD in 2006?

3) Q: Won't the original versions look really crude and in poor condition? Isn't
that why Lucas had to enhance and restore them for the Special Edition?

4) Q: Restoring or presenting the original versions in high quality is very
expensive isn't it? Lucas does not have the money or desire to do so.

5) Q: I heard the original versions do not exist as film elements. The negatives
were destroyed, and there are no good copies. Is this true?

6) Q: Where can I learn about the restorations of Star Wars? What was done to
the original film elements?

7) Q: It seems like every Star Wars fan expects something different for an
"original DVD or Blu Ray." In terms of how original, whether any clean-up has
been done, how many defects to leave in like matte lines and scratches. Isn't it
sort of impossible to please everyone?

8) Q: The Special Editions are the same basic film. Is it really that important
to have the originals?

9) Q: As both the legal rights holder and also the artist behind the films,
shouldn't the films be Lucas' to do with as he pleases? Isn't forcing an artist
to make a choice they do not wish an unethical practice?

10) Q: Is there any way to legally stop Lucas from destroying and/or suppressing
the originals?

11) Q: Is the 2006 DVD better than any bootleg DVD? And if not, which ones are
best?

12) Q: Have the originals been shown anywhere since the 1997 Special Edition
came out?

13) Q: I have heard people complaining about the video quality of the 2004
Special Edition, but the picture and sound looks great to me, very clear and
sharp. What are people talking about?

14) Q: Where can I see original film and video material of the films as they
were first released?

15) Q: Are there any 35mm or 16mm reels of the films I can get or see?

16) Q: I've heard about different sound mixes of the films. Which ones are the
originals?

17) Q: Who can we contact to help save the Star Wars films? What can we do?

 

Questions and Answers

1) Q: I sort of know about how Lucas wants the Special Editions to be the only
version available to people, and I would like to know a little more about the
issue than the summation on the main page. Is there a slightly more detailed
history of this issue?

A: There is! In 2008, I wrote a summation of the whole history of the fiasco for
the website obsessedwithfilm.com, with a mass audience in mind. I have reposted
the article in the editorials section. It looks at the issue in broad terms, and
touches upon every major aspect of the controversy, but it doesn't get too
bogged down in detail. See How the Grinch Stole Star Wars.

2) Q: Weren't the original theatrical versions released on DVD in 2006?

A: Yes, sort of anyway. Those releases were only as "bonus materials" for a
Special Edition re-package and don't constitute a dedicated release, and they
were presented in low quality. They were taken from a video master made for
Laserdisc in 1993, hopelessly outdated and with a multitude of flaws, such as
being non-anamorphic, meaning it will not fill a widescreen monitor, and being
plaugued with digital video noise reduction which smeared away detail in moving
shots. Bottom line was that it is a video telecine closing in on being twenty
years out of date today, and looks its age. As mere "bonus features" perhaps
this is more understandable, but the problem in the first place is that the
originals are bonus video from the early 1990s (which was already owned via the
1993 and 1995 releases anyway). Home theatre professionals the world over
criticized this release, both for its poor treatment of the originals and the
poor nature of the video quality. This is neither a preservation nor proper due
for the films, although it does at least acknowledge their existance, which is
not to be underestimated. In 2011, these editions went out of print.

For more information on the controversial 2006 DVD, see Got GOUT? The 2006
Original Versions DVD Fiasco.

3) Q: Won't the original versions look really crude and in poor condition? Isn't
that why Lucas had to enhance and restore them for the Special Edition?

A: The original version negatives today look as good as the Special Edition
negatives. That is because they are the same thing! The only differences are the
new Special Edition shots. In 1995, Fox started restoring the entire negatives
for the Star Wars films, which saved them from their state of disrepair.
Luckily, this means the original versions can be presented in nearly the same
quality as what you saw in theatres in the 1997 re-release. Were Lucasfilm to
not to use the negatives, there are other 35mm materials available for use.
Although some are in states of disrepair, many are not, and while not being as
high quality as the negatives, should be very presentable. For instance, George
Lucas himself kept a special Technicolor print of the original film, which does
not fade at all and would look exactly as it did when it was first printed.

For more information on film preservation and the available 35mm Star Wars
elements, see From Interpositives to Separation Masters: How Film Preservation
Works.

4) Q: Restoring or presenting the original versions in high quality is very
expensive isn't it? Lucas does not have the money or desire to do so.

A: Lucas speaks about how expensive it would be and all the work that would need
to be done, but in fact it would be relatively easy and inexpensive. One,
presenting existing prints in high-def with modest cleanup would cost in the
hundred thousand dollar range. Relatively speaking, this is very inexpensive,
which is why obscure films like Police Academy 5 are available from original
35mm elements. Restoring the films from the negatives is not too expensive as
well--because it was largely already done. In 1995, Twentieth Century Fox spent
$20 million restoring and enhancing the Star Wars trilogy for the anniversary
re-release. All that would need to be done today is retrieving the missing
original pieces (roughly five to ten minutes per film), cleaning them if
necessary, and editing them into a scan of the existing negative. Further
cleanup could be done, but this is not strictly necessary, as the 1997 release
had no major digital cleanup. So, the pricetag to finish the restoration of the
trilogy from the negatives would be in the range of a million dollars, to throw
a ballpark figure out there. To put this in perspective, the 2004 DVD set sold
$100 million in its day of release. To put it in greater perspective, Lucas is a
billionaire as it is. Lucas also need not involve himself in this, as film
restorationists could handle the project themselves and seek to match the new
digital copy to archival material. The project could be outsourced as well, to
Criterion for example.

See From Interpositives to Separation Masters: How Film Preservation Works for
greater detail on the subject.

5) Q: I heard the original versions do not exist as film elements. The negatives
were destroyed, and there are no good copies. Is this true?

A: No, this is untrue. There are relatively good quality 35mm print masters,
such as interpositves and fine-grain prints, as well as Technicolor prints.
There is also a perfect duplicate of the negative in separation masters.
Finally, the original negatives were not destroyed. What is meant when it is
said that "they don't exist" or permanently altered is that the assembled edit
of the film which uses the original pieces was re-ordered from the original edit
to the Special Edition edit, so in this sense the original does not "exist." It
would be very easy to simply put the original pieces physically back in, but in
a theoretical modern restoration they would just be scanned digitally to avoid
re-cutting the negative.

See From Interpositives to Separation Masters: How Film Preservations Works for
information on existing 35mm elements, or for the process of re-cutting the neg
for the Special Edition see Saving Star Wars: Its Restoration and Changing
Physicality.

6) Q: Where can I learn about the restorations of Star Wars? What was done to
the original film elements?

A: In 1995, the original negatives were discovered to have been in a state of
disrepair, and so a restoration was enacted. First the film was washed in a bath
and then hand-cleaned to remove dirt. Then, some optical transitions like wipes
and dissolves were re-printed using the original film pieces and new modern
printers. Some parts of the negative were damaged or too degraded, and so were
replaced with duplicate material from second-generation copies. Finally, the
faded colours were colour-timed back to life, using a non-fade Technicolor print
from 1977 as the reference. In 2004, the negatives were scanned in 1080p HD
resolution; Lucas supervised a re-colouring at ILM, and the films were digitally
cleaned to remove dirt and scratches not possible in 1997 for new high
definition digital masters.

A very detailed article on the restorations for the 1997 and 2004 releases is
available. See Saving Star Wars: Its Restoration and Changing Physicality.

7) Q: It seems like every Star Wars fan expects something different for an
"original version." In terms of how original, whether any clean-up has been
done, how many defects to leave in like matte lines and scratches. Isn't it sort
of impossible to please everyone?

A: In a literal sense perhaps, however Star Wars fans are not as hard to please
as one may think, because most of us are inclined to automatically like what is
presented. While some people may want matte lines and other "defects" cleaned,
this constitues altering the original photography, and so would not be a proper
restoration. Erasing dirt and scratches would constitute restoring the original
photography to its unblemished state, although original negative grain should be
left in simply because that was how the film existed. The audio should be the
original too, and could be presented in surround sound via the 1977 six-track
mixes. Basically, what I am getting at is that "restoring" the "original" Star
Wars means actually doing that, and I think most people would be pleased if this
was done. It is true that people might have greater or lesser expectations, and
that some would want some minor enhancements such as matte removal, however I
think most would agree that a proper restoration would satisfy both fans, cinema
buffs, and home theatre enthusiasts, therefore constituting the maximum amount
of satisfaction. Although presenting the films from high quality sources other
than the negatives would be rightfully met with some criticism, at the end of
the day I think most people would nonetheless be pleased as long as it looked
good. I would say that relying on the excuse of "you can't please everyone" is
simply pre-emptively justifying Lucasfilm's lack of effort. In order to fail to
please everyone, they have to try in the first place.

8) Q: The Special Editions are the same basic films. Is it really that important
to have the originals?

A: If the Special Editions are the same basic films as the originals, why make
the Special Editions in the first place? There is a reason George Lucas has
spent so much time and money altering the movies. While I will agree they are
the same films in the larger sense, the Special Editions do not in any way
represent the look, sound or experience of watching the original versions. Star
Wars, for example, has over 100 altered and new shots in the Special Edition, in
addition to totally new colouring and sound mixing. Furthermore, the original
material is historic in many ways. The visual effects work of ILM is pioneering,
but much of it is no longer present in the new editions, as is the award winning
sound mixing. Moreover, as culturally significant artifacts of the time in which
they were made, it is important that the films be preserved so that viewers can
understand what films were like back then. Films illustrate the technologies and
tastes of the era in which they were made, and it is important for our national
heritage that they be presented in their authentic original form, in as high a
quality as possible. It also is important for purposes of pure entertainment, as
these versions of the films are widely considered to be superior versions of the
films, and are in any case adored by millions of people.

For detailed breakdowns of how the Special Editions have been altered and
enhanced, see Special Edition Changes. For thoughts on why films should
ethically, and legally, be preserved see Right to Cultural Heritage: Film
Preservation and the Law. Thoughts on the importance of the originals can also
be found in How the Grinch Stole Star Wars.

9) Q: How can you demand that Lucas relinquish the originals? As both the legal
rights holder and also the artist behind the films, shouldn't they be his to do
with as he pleases? Isn't forcing an artist to make a choice they do not wish an
unethical practice?

A: A complex and loaded subject. First, no one has suggested that Lucas not get
the chance to make his Special Editions. Preserving the originals does not
nullify the director's version, and the current home video era of multiple
versions being concurrently released exemplifies this. Second, Lucas has already
acknowledged this with the 2006 DVD release which included both versions. Third,
that same release also deflated his integrity about one artistic version
existing, since he has acknowledged that the older versions do in fact exist and
can be made available to the public alongside his re-edits. The issue can really
die here.

Beyond this, however, it is not clear that they are solely "his" films to
unilaterally control and alter. He neither directed nor was the primary
screenwriter on either sequels, conditions that the 1987 Film Integrity Act
which he supported demanded to allow alteration of a film. That act was later
repealed, however, after being criticized for simplifying the collaborative
nature of moviemaking down to the control of two people, further muddying any
case Lucas would have had. Although Lucas legally owns the copyrights, in a
moral sense this means little, otherwise we would have to consent to unilateral
studio control in almost every other non-Star Wars example. Moreover, Star Wars
is a culturally significant artifact of 20th century popular culture. Congress
recognized both films and Star Wars in particular as important parts of its
cultural heritage. The United States has enacted laws to prevent artifacts of
cultural heritage from being altered or destroyed, regardless of the wishes of
their legal or even artistic owners, such as historic paintings, buildings and
landmarks. However, these laws have not been passed on to motion pictures, due
to the complexity of motion picture law. Otherwise, Lucas would be stopped. What
he is doing is in violation of the ethics of United States law, but there is no
enforcement agency in place. Star Wars is part of cinema and cultural history,
and it is bigger than any one man (Lucas) or corporation (Lucasfilm) and should
be protected.

See The Right to Cultural Heritage: Film Preservation and the Law for more
detail. See also The Greatest Speech Against the Special Edition was By George
Lucas for Lucas' testimony before Congress in 1988 where he rails against not
releasing films as they originally were. See also Do as I Say Not as I Do for
additional quotes from the man about the importance of
film-as-cultural-heritage.

10) Q: Is there any way to legally stop Lucas from destroying and/or suppressing
the originals?

A: Currently, no. Until cultural heritage protection law is extended to motion
pictures in the same way as it is to other fine art forms, all films, not just
Star Wars, are vulnerable to destruction by their rights holders. See The Right
to Cultural Heritage: Film Preservation and the Law.

11) Q: Is the 2006 DVD better than any bootleg DVD? And if not, which ones are
best?

A: The 2006 DVD was better than existing Laserdisc captures, but since 2006 many
fans have done their own restorations to improve upon the DVD in very
significant ways. Most notably, the image jitter has been stabilized and the
picture made anamorphic, and the original theatrical sound mixes have been
included. Some restorations reduced the grain and tweaked the colour slightly.

For a history of fan restorations and the current state of the art, see Fan
Preservations: Navigating the Waters.

12) Q: Have the originals been shown anywhere since the 1997 Special Edition
came out?

A: Yes. There have been a few showings, without Lucasfilm's approval, making
them technically illicit (probably in some cases to the ignorance of the
exhibitors). There is a black market for 35mm prints, since it is usually
illegal to own them privately, and so the Star Wars films are highly sought
after. After at least one screening, Lucasfilm confiscated the print. The most
noteable screening was a 2010 screening of a super-rare, pristine, non-fade
Technicolor print that was privately owned. This was done as a free screening
for the closing of Baltimore's Senator Theatre, which I have covered in detail
with videos and photos of the event and the print. See Technicolor I.B.
Screening.

13) Q: I have heard people complaining about the video quality of the 2004/2011
Special Edition, but the picture and sound looks great to me, very clear and
sharp, the best I've seen the films. What are people talking about?

A: While the picture does indeed look crisp and brand new, there are a number of
problems with the colouring (aside from the fact that too much grain was
removed). Noteably, the black levels have been brought down so dark that they
erase detail, such as shadows and even some of the starfields. Lasers and
spaceship engines have also been de-coloured, and many scenes have a dull
quality to them. Other scenes have been miscoloured, such as the blockade runner
in Star Wars, which has a mild blue cast to it by mistake. The most noteable
flaw, and one you probably noticed if you paid close attention, is that the
lightsabers have been frequently miscoloured. The white cores are no longer
bright white, while in A New Hope Luke's saber is green, and Darth Vader's often
looks pink throughout all three. The audio mix also accidentally reversed sound
channels in some shots, and dropped out the music for some parts by mistake.
These are not deliberate choices but merely technical errors. Some of these were
improved in the 2011 Blu-ray, but most of them were not.

See Can't Even Get the Special Edition Right for more info and screens.

14) Q: Where can I see original film and video material of the films as they
were first released?

A: In the resources section there are many examples from both official and
privately owned film materials, from 35mm prints to 70mm blowups to 16mm
reductions. The best example of how Star Wars looked on 35mm is the pictures
seen on the Senator's Theatre's Technicolor print screening. For the other
films, and for additional Star Wars material, there is a resource page
collecting much of this stuff, although many of the examples are not in good
quality because of age and use.

15) Q: Are there any 35mm or 16mm reels of the films I can get or see?

A: It might be possible to buy some from private dealers, but the quality is not
likely to be good. Being thirty years old, they are likely to have faded to
pink, and become scratched from use. However, I still insist that even a
scratched film print is the best way to see any film, especially Star Wars.
There is a decent restoration and presentation on DVD of 16mm reels by "Puggo",
but a self-made telecine is not the same as seeing it for yourself. Lucasfilm
does not loan out 1997 prints to repertoir theatres, only screening the films in
exceptional circumstance. It's a shame Lucasfilm controls circulation of all
film prints so strictly, even the Special Editions, which I would enjoy seeing
again for their quality.

See Watching Star Wars on Film for an overview of the 8mm, 16mm and 35mm
markets.

16) Q: I've heard about different sound mixes of the films. Which ones are the
originals?

A: The audio of all the films was remixed in 1985 for home video, then again in
1993, and then remixed for the Special Editions in 1997 and 2004. The 2011 Blu
Rays will have yet another mix. So the truely original versions are from 1985
and earlier, but many of the Star Wars mixes were never released on home video.
Star Wars debuted in stereo for 35mm and six-track surround for 70mm. A few
weeks later the sound was mixed for 35mm mono, which added and changed many
sound effects throughout the film. The six-track and mono versions were never
released on home video, although the unique mono mix sounds were heard in some
vintage sources like "The Story of Star Wars" LP, and some were restored for the
Special Edition. Empire Strikes Back came out in 70mm (six track) first, which
was actually missing a couple shots compared to the 35mm version released days
later. There were a few minor sound variations on the 70mm mixes of Empire and
Jedi, and also no dedicated mono mixes. The six-track surrounds of all the films
were never released on home video, although the 1993 remix uses the original
sound stems. The original stereo mixes were available on all home video versions
from 1985 and earlier. The original Star Wars mono mixe was never officially
released. Fans have restored and re-created all of these original mixes. See
Theatrical Audio Resources for further detail.

17) Q: Who can we contact to help save the Star Wars films? What can we do?

A: Perhaps cutting to the ultimate purpose of the site. To start, tell your
friends, and tell them to tell their friends. If you have a blog or a website,
write about the suppression of the films and post a link to us. Be vocally
critical of Lucasfilm to show that people are not okay with what they are doing,
to show that they will be remembered as destroyers of history. The only way
public pressure will persuade them to alter course is if they feel a sense of
public shame, that they have alienated their audiences. Write to newspapers,
websites and magazines and highlight this travesty. Want to contact Lucasfilm
directly? There is a media contacts page which has the emails of various media
outlets, as well as Lucasfilm itself. See: Media Contacts for more information.





Main menu

 * HOME
 * SITE NEWS
 * EDITORIALS 
 * RESOURCES 
 * ABOUT
 * LINKS 
 * 
 * 




 

This site is � Copyright  2010, All rights reserved. Design by website
templates.