>The original negative is conformed to the 1997 Special Edition, meaning the physical copy has been cut and edited with CGI "improvements." With sections of the film being too damaged to work with, parts of that print were taken from other sources.
Why the fuck would you ever do this? What was Lucas thinking?
Bullshit.
For most old films with missing negatives, don't they just go from a good condition film reel.
I refuse to believe there isn't a good quality copy of the theatrical releases out there somewhere--it's only been thirty years.
>>62788607
film reel is a lossy copy
>>62788607
>Bullshit
Lucas has said the exact thing quoted in the OP. When he went back to do the special editions, he found the master to be all fucked up. There are "back-ups" they made as they were cutting the special editions but even those aren't 100% pure master material. They contain bits from other sources.
Apparently he recorded over his master copy with a TV show, which was his primary motivation for the special editions. He won't say what it was.
>>62788697
It was Beverly Hills: 90210
>>62788697
>Apparently he recorded over his master copy with a TV show
Lmao how does that even happen. Reminds me of a story about Andrew Lloyd Webber who had just completed a musical score and his cat walked on his desk and pressed a button that deleted the entire thing. So he had to rewrite the whole thing from memory.
what a hack
>>62788607
There are old theatrical 35mm Tech IB prints in collectors hands, they sometimes have underground screenings to get around Lucas lawyers.
sadasdasd
1. This is only a problem if they destroyed the original parts they cut out
2. You don't need the entire or even any of original negative to still make a high quality restoration. There are plenty of Star Wars prints out there in good shape.
Who fucking cares
>>62788546
Didn't Disney recently say they were going to release the original theatrical cuts?
>>62788661
this!
>>62788854
If I remember correctly Lucas owns one of these, and they used it as a reference point for the color timing in the SE.
IB is great for archival prints because it's not a photochemical process, so the pigments are far more resilient.
I've never seen any of those prints with my own eyes however
>>62788546
They were able to restore Nosferatu, so I think a film from 40 years ago won't be too hard.
>>62788546
fuck you George
ITT:
No one realizes that when you strike off a new print of something you are photographing the grain over the grain.
>Just cut in some scenes from other prints
BZZZZT no... you have a grainier, less sharp image
>Hur dur... just restore it bro
How? Change the gamma... oh wait, now it doesn't match the other shots.
Add sharpness? Oh wait now this shot looks super grainy to the others
Oh that's okay we'll just use DVNR
oh wait, why does Carl Weathers in Predator look like he's made of chocolate now?
Why is bugs bunny all smudgey?
>Lucas has never taken steps to properly preserve or restore the original physical film reels. He’s gone so far as refusing to allow the Library of Congress’s National Film Registry to get its hands on a copy.
>>62789345
Oh boy!
Can't wait to buy the same movie again for the 10th time :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_iSQ65ZDAE
>>62790066
So...is there some kind of handy guide on which Blu-Ray versions of films to avoid?
>>62790066
>that nit picking pic
usually it is done extremely well
>>62789345
Source?
>>62790193
http://comicbook.com/2015/09/19/disney-to-re-release-theatrical-cuts-of-the-original-star-wars-t/
>>62790151
Yes it's called blu-ray.com
