Please tell me you're joking.

"Think of the children!"

Sorry Mike, but that's dumb. Forgetting the fact that it is possible to have the original and revised versions both released, god forbid I have to explain, "I-III were made 20 years after IV-VI." I mean, the poor little dear's head might explode or something.

Anyway, I have no plans of buying this set. I haven't signed a petition about it. I don't post incessantly in threads about it. I care enough to not buy it, but I don't care enough to bitch about it constantly.

By the way, I simply can't grasp how people think the restored originals are destroyed. How do you think they're revising scenes like the Han/Jabba exchange? It's easy to create film from data -- it's how Lucas has produced I and II. The original movies are saved in digital format (and likely film format as well). And even if that weren't the case, what do you think, that there weren't one billion prints of each film produced? It's not like there is only one copy of each film...

So after all this, there's still not a decent explanation for why Lucas can't release BOTH versions.

First off, it's only been 27 years since the first film came out. That's not that long. If they have a decent negative of GONE WITH THE WIND after 65 years (and for most of that time film preservation wasn't even in the vernacular), they have a decent negative of STAR WARS.

Even assuming a boatload of remastering had to be done, you can't tell me that it wouldn't be profitable for them to release the OT in its unaltered form. These days, even obscure films from the thirties and forties are getting the deluxe treatment on DVD, complete with new transfers. I dare say more people would buy the Classic Edition Original Trilogy than the Charlie Chanthology, even after the existence of a suped up SE Original Trilogy set.

This is nothing more than a marketing trick. We'll no doubt see the Classic Original Trilogy one day, but it will be long after Lucas has starved the market and driven up the demand. Then everyone will get in line to buy yet another overpriced box set. Hell, isn't that what he's done already with this upcoming set? Or do some of you people really believe that he just took all that time to release these because "he wanted to give them the attention they deserve."

Yeah. More like he wants us all to believe that if we want to own STAR WARS, we better buy this set; that this will be the ONLY one. Then, we double-dip when the versions we really want, the classic versions, come out.

Yessir. That's pretty much what Lucas thinks of his fans, that they're all a bunch of gullible cads who would eat sh*t if he put it in front of them on a Yoda hologram plate.

It's not that he CAN'T it's that he WON'T.

At least thats Lucas' current position.

For whatever deluded reason, George says he doesn't consider the original releases 'finished', and therefore won't release them (Again!).

Yes, it's a shame.

Yes, a lot of us think he is making a mistake.

Yes, I will probably buy it at some point, although at this stage I'm not desperate to get it on the first day.

But when all is said and done, it's another DVD for another film and nothing more.

What I do think is sad is that Lucas has the potential to release the "mother of all DVD sets" with these films, and although I will be interested to see what he does longterm, I think there is a danger that whatever comes along will look quite pedestrian in comparisson to the rest of the market.

Lucas - Indiana Jones, and the Star Wars Saga: Both good, but not amazing sets.

Everyone Else: LotR, Alien Quad, Dawn of the Dead.

Everyone else seems to be pushing the format, while Lucas, who has been seen as a pioneer in digital work is a definite step down when it comes to his DVDs.

Not so - film stock in the 70's was a different composition that the stuff used in the 30's. The stuff from years and years ago still looks pretty good for the most part.

The stuff shot in the 70's, on the other hand is QUICKLY falling apart. If left alone, under the same conditions, we'll be able to strike new prints for the 150th anniversary of Gone with the Wind, while the 75th anniversary of Star Wars will be celebrated with a pile of rotting film.

No, if they didnt do what they did in '97, the master negitive to Star Wars would have been lost forever.

El-Kabong:

I'd like to know where you got this info about film stocks in the 70's being in worse shape than those from forty years older. That doesn't make a lick of damn sense as films pre-1950 were on nitrate stock, meaning the film was printed on a cellulose nitrate base. Nitrate stock is not only highly flammable, but decomposes at a much faster rate than the "safety film" they've been using ever since.

From this site( http://de.essortment.com/motionpicturef_rfyc.htm) about film preservation:

"Fire hazards aside, nitrate film has other disturbing qualities that frustrate those who try to preserve our movie heritage. Nitrate film reacts with air and creates nitric acid, which eats film. What is left is brown dust. Nitrate is also highly susceptible to temperature changes and shrinks easily. Sometimes when a film preservation society receives a can of nitrate film, they open it only to find that the nitrate has completely decomposed. And if nitrate film can be likened to a stick of dynamite, then nitrate dust is nitroglycerine.

Considering the fact that all motion pictures before 1950 were originally filmed and printed on nitrate film, there is no wonder that less than half of the films made before that date still exist. And those that do are sometimes in such poor condition that huge amounts of money have to be paid for their restoration."

Where did you get your info? Hope it's not one of those: "I thought I heard it somewhere" answers.

I was with you until this point in your post. When has there ever been an overpriced boxset of the SW films? All the VHS releases we reasonably priced to their competition in the marketplace and the DVD set will clock in at around $40. For three films, that's a great deal, less than $15 per flick. Perhaps the Definitive Laserdisc set was expesive, but the LD market was saturated with overpriced discs at the time of its release.

LF's stand on DVDs has always been that they don't want to rush a release out the door. They have ALWAYS been in a position of damned if you do damned if you don't. They have finally given in and made these films available. People are complaining due to a percieved lack of extras, the same people who wanted it now, bare bones! We all know there is another set coming; GL said as much when talking post E3. This is not really any different than the two releases of LOTR, except that LOTR had firm release dates.

I'm with Terrell. I thought I was waiting till 2006 to have these at all, so I am thrilled to get them now. I'm sure that in 2006 both/all versions will be made available.

You miss the point. Which do you think was a better seller? Indy or Alien?

The mamajamma box sets are for the hardcore fans of the films or for DVD collectiors. Sets like this are for the mass market, who would be in an uproar if the trilogy was $100 (see Godfather Trilogy). They will sell tons more at $40 than at $100, and THEN give the die hards the big box set we want. Just like the LOTR EEs.

Finally, have you ever watched the Indy DVDs? The quality is astounding. To say "Lucas, who has been seen as a pioneer in digital work is a definite step down when it comes to his DVDs" is absurd. DVD is first and foremost about a quality presentation of the films. Indy has that in spades and leaves me drooling for the SW trilogy.

El-Kabong is exactly correct. There is a definite difference in the composition of film-stock used in the 70's with regard to longevity. I've heard about this on AMC documentaries and read about it numerous times in cinema magazines. Although engineers can "predict" how something will hold up over time, they can't guarantee it. So even though they thought they were designing something that would hold up better, in practical application, it isn't turning out that way.

As for the lack of a mega-set OT release, I still firmly believe that Lucas is waiting for HD-DVD. Wasn't he the one pushing for blue-ray a while back? What better way to kick off a new format than by releasing the most sought-after title? The growth of the DVD format was assisted by early adoption by techies drawn in by "The Matrix". It wouldn't surprise me if the Star Wars OT will be used in a similar manner for HD-DVD.

That is the exact reason why we have not gotten a DVD release of the OT on DVD before now. Back in the late nineties Lucas was quoted as saying that Star Wars was used as a promotional tool for VHS back in the eighties in order to sell more hardware. He said he did not want the same thing to happen again with DVD. That was his first reason why he was not putting them out on DVD. He ended up having about five more, but that was his first. So I would not expect a major Star Wars release when Blue-Ray comes out in 2006.

I've heard that from a couple of diffrent sources too. There was an AMC documentary on film restoration, and I think it was mentioned on the SW:SE release way back when it hit tape.

You're right, a 17.5% loss is sales would be huge. Except there's no way that would ever happen.

Not only is your .5 million 'estimate' just basically a guess, but I also highly doubt that any significant number of those signees are not buying the current set. They're Star Wars fans. They're going to buy the Star Wars DVD set.

I signed. But I'm buying. You signed. But you're buying. Go to next signee. Repeat.

Well in that case they should go back and fix the Griswold Vacation series so all the kids are the same... Come on, it's movies, actors don't always come back for sequels. He was a hologram in Empire and had a hood covering most of his face in Jedi, is it really that big of a deal...

There was also a TV special about the "making of" the Special Editions (on Fox, I think) which showed a scene from Star Wars showing just how bad the original negative was looking (it was of Vader giving orders in the blockade runner and it did look pretty bad for what was supposed to be the negative). While the clip was playing, they were talking about the importance of doing restoration work on it before it deteriorated any further.

If you like Star Wars, buy it when it comes out. If you don't, then don't buy it.

I know I have said this before, but I'll say it again anyway...

We will get the original versions on DVD at some point. Exactly when is anyones guess. Someone said earlier that there must be pristine copies of the original prints in the Lucasfilm vaults, and I believe Lucas would have been savvy enough to keep hold of the originals despite what he may say.

Though Lucas may say now that he considers the revised versions the definitive articles, there is nothing to say he cannot change his mind.

I think you will find that years from now, once there are no more SW films, everyone has bought the DVD's, and all of a sudden there is a falloff in the amount of regular income for Lucasfilm, we may well see a change of heart.

That may be a little cynical perhaps, but then again Lucas may simply bow to fan pressure in years to come and give people what they want.

But think about this - if he released both versions now, the amounts of units shifted would not be as many as if he releases one version now, and then the originals in 5 years time. This way, almost everybody would buy both versions.

Well, not really. As we know, prequals to movies have been done before, but they don't usually wait 20+ years to make them. To explain this to some kid 50 years from now would be quite, let's just say, interesting.

But let's just cut to the chase, shall we? What aspect of the restoration/enhancement/alterations, do most people object to?

Surely not the restoration. As many, many films have been digitally remastered through the years to much adoration, even back on the VHS format, several films got the so-called remastering threatment.

Digital enhancement? Possibly so. But com'on, is this a real reason to be upset? To see some of the existing effects cleaned up or digitally enhanced, such as light sabers, blaster fire, and explosions, is this bastardizing the films? I hardly think so.

Now altering some scenes which give them entirely new meaning, then yes, this could be a problem. Greedo shooting first? Absolutely. Putting Hayden's image in a post-mordem Jedi ghost? Possibly.

But is any of this worthy enough to get/force people NOT to buy these movies? Somehow I doubt it. Even though some may say they won't buy, you know darn well that temptation wil eventually get to them sometime down the line. How do I know? When people start hearing about all the great things that have been improved and that don't hurt the films, those probable greater benefits, will greatly outweigh the negatives and the naysayers will buy.

But then again, I'm using logic. There's a lot of people out there who shun logic in favor of dramatism and reactionarism.

Right. This is exactly the clip I think of when making the statements I make on this forum. This is why I vehemently defend the restoration process and why I tend to believe Lucas when he says the originals don't exist anymore.

And as for film stock used in the '70s, I agree with El-Kabong. Hell, ever look at some of you all's baby or young childhood pictures from the early to mid '70s? They fade and turn red. However filmstock from just a few years earlier from the late '60s, still maintain their true color.

The SE restoration in the mid-'90s had to be done then in order to save the film. (The film as in ANH, TESB wasn't in that bad of shape.)

Yes it is, because the hologram in ESB is absolutely horrid, and looks absolutely nothing like the real Emperor in the other films. The Emperor in ESB is not even a man. It's an older woman in makeup with monkey eyes superimposed over her's, and it's terrible. It's a continuity issue that can be easily fixed.

Late night / early morning typing got the better of me and re-arranged my words.

I have no doubt that Star Wars will look amazing on DVD - yes I have seen Indy and yes it is an amazing job. I also quite like the documentary on Indy, but I do miss the "Making of Raiders" documentary which came with the Laserdisc set.

I miss audio commentaries on the Indy films, but I know this is more down to Spielberg than Lucas.

Even though I bought the Indy boxset, I felt that each film did warrant a 2 disc set.

A quality presentation on DVD should be the first thing, but I personally put a lot of weight into the supplementary material which comes with DVDs.

The cost of DVDs isn't even worth mentioning, as it is purely the greed of the distributors. I haven't watched my Godfather set (I bought it in a sale a few years back), but I understand that it was:

a) Expensive

b) The prints aren't brilliant.

I remember a value of $6 million being quoted for the Episode I DVD, mainly because of the new effects shots - THAT is what I expected from a digital pioneer like Lucas. I loved the documentary on Episode I, it was a little more adult, a little more indepth. Supposedly Lucas has 200 hours of documentary footage for Episode I - A 1 hour documentary is too short for me!

When Lord of the Rings came out, I felt it positively raised the bar in terms of 'The DVD Package'. Not only did we get an extended edition with 2 discs of extras, but we knew we would have the choice between mainstream and hardcore / fan.

Dawn of the Dead, again we knew what was coming, and Anchor Bay have hit a real 'niche' market with their catalogue - but I bet they don't have astronomical production costs.

I'm not here to Lucas-bash, as I said I think he releases good solid DVDs. But for a man who is considered to be a digital pioneer, I do think he drops the ball when it comes to the possibilities with DVD. We all know what content he has in the lucasfilm archives - there are books and websites on the stuff!

- He crafts new documentaries which (I'm guessing) will put a nice sheen over the films: I accept there were production problems George, the stories are much more interesting than PR spin.

- He has something great planned for the future, when he'll really open up the archives to create a film school in a box. If that's the plan George, drop us a hint, so we know 'in our hearts'.

Every mediocre film gets a two disc treatment today, so a 1 1/3 disc treatment for a series like Star Wars (and Indy), is a little frustrating, more so if know there could have been more.

On a light hearted ending, "Star Wars might leave you drooling for picture quality" - if I remember correctly, there was a bit of an issue about edge enhancement on the Episode I Region 1 DVD. I guess even George can't get it all right all of the time...

Not necessarily. Nitrate stock issues aside (presumably most old films still in existence have been transferred to newer stock), I believe that Gone with the Wind was a Technicolor film. Technicolor used three black and white negatives, one for each color. Those B/W negatives would be much more stable, "color-wise", than later color stock negatives, that were subject to dye fade and color changes.

If anything, the old Technicolor three negative process is better for archival purposes than newer single, multiple dye, color negatives. That's one of the reasons that so many color movies from the '50s through the '70s look so faded or washed out, unless they have been restored.

If you would like to know more about the history of color movie technology, I suggest this web site.

So for everyone who is OK with improving "outdated" special effects with the latest CGI so our children can better appreciate Star Wars - can I assume when the 1933 King Kong is finally released on DVD you will want a CGI gorilla, because stop-motion is sooooooo last century?

There's a significant difference between colors fading and film deteriorating. El-Kabong stated that if left unaltered, the original negative of STAR WARS would be a "pile of rotted film". This is simply wrong, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of film preservation.

The colors fading and turning red is not the same as "rotting film". While color corrections can be costly, the film is not in danger of "withering away," only of looking faded. This problem is easily solved with money. In contrast, Technicolor films like GONE WITH THE WIND may hold their color longer, assuming the nitrate print doesn't deteriorate. Someone stated that these old films on nitrate stock have since been converted to safety stock, so it's a moot point. First off, said transfer presumably wasn't done for years, well after the effects of nitrate rotting were in place. I say again: if they could salvage a print of GONE WITH THE WIND, they can do it with STAR WARS. As far as films from the 70's colors fading and turning red, that's a distinct trait of Eastmancolor stock, which was a cheap substitute for Technicolor at the time. Any films printed on this, that have been put away for posterity, have likewise since been converted to better stock. Trust me on this one. STAR WARS was put into the National Film Registry at the Library of Congress. Do you really think the print in their archives is unwatchable?

I should have known that you guys have nothing to base these ascertations on other than some "making of" documentary on a Star Wars tape and a dubious AMC special you supposedly saw.. In the doc on the STAR WARS VHS, the example print they had of STAR WARS before the color correction was worse looking than any existing video release, worse than any presentation I had ever seen. How is this so, if the one and only source was so bad off? How is it my old unaltered VHS of Ep. 4 from 1986 looks better than their print?

They tried to optimize the look of a slightly fading film, the same way they're liable to do a new audio mix every few years. It wasn't a desperate last-ditch effort to save the film, lest it be lost forever, but an effort to give it the best presentation possible.

Ridiculous.

It's a two and a half hour documentary that you haven't even seen. First of all, how do you know what's in it? Second, what more could you want, a 10 hour documentary?

Comparisons get more and more ridiculous by the day. When Lucas starts to CG Han, Luke, Leia, and Vader in Star Wars, then you can make that comparison. When they make a King Kong trilogy that has to mesh with the original film, then you can make that comparison.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with removing matte lines, redoing lightsabers, recompositing badly composited scenes, and replacing the emperor with the Emperor that's in all the other films.


Who said it was unwatchable? All we're saying is it's in pretty piss poor shape in comparison to what it needs to be if it's put on DVD? Besides, all of this is a completely moot point, because Lucas has said it won't be put out.

No, it is more a matter of filmstock restoration and preservation is a more interesting topic (and less explored one) that the millions of posts on the topic of changes to the OT. It just gets tiresome and goes around in the same circles.