But did George approve?
>>224272603No, the rocks R2 was hiding behind weren't big enough.
>>224272603Mister Lvcas here. Yes, I did approve of this release. You are all allowed to enjoy this inferior version.
Hell no. It's not even going to be the real original. Lucas hoped everyone forgot, and everyone did, except for a small handful. What they're going to show is just the 1981 re-edit with the 1977 title.-t. Real SW expert.
I was too young to see Star Wars in the theater, but I did see the THZ remastered version in the theater and the later special edition. My parents said it wasn't the same because they saw it in a drive in theater....lol
>>224272792>1981 re-editwhat is this?
>>224272603they even managed to make the poster completely soulless
>>224272857Probably the edit that added in the title A New Hope.
>>224272603Will Mon Mothma be played by a somali female?
>>224272857Mostly the title change.
>>224272603
>>224272857Not just the title change, but some scenes were switched in their order, some scenes were altered, and others were cut out. This relates to Star Wars fans who swore that it was cut down the 1984 premiere because it was. Yes I have proof. Yes the proof is from Lucasfilm materials. Some of it cannot be proven, but this is case where the remaining evidence supports the other. If this was a court case, I'd win, no doubt.
*in the>>224272887Nah, the title is the least of it. I estimate that everyone except Lucas and maybe five people didn't forget after all these decades.-t. anon with "highly superior autobiographical memory" who owns some LFL materials that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt these claims.
>>224272922is 4K77 in the original order?
I remember the first time I watched the special edition after growing up with the VHS like 40 times. Every change is so noticeable.
>>224272943I'm aware of some of it, but its biggest historical significance is the title for the average person. You're probably right, though there are extreme nerds that are aware of the details (the 4K77 guys are meticulous about what they use and what the alternatives were).It annoys me when idiots like Rick Worley appeal to these edits in a continuum fallacy, but as trivia it is interesting.
I was to see the one that has all the imperfections from the older film reels and projectors. We'll never have the true 1977 experience.
>close the blast doors>open the blast doors, open the blast doors
>>224272922The hell? How many versions of Star Wars are there actually? I thought the main thing was the post-prequels edit with all the added cgi.
>>224273145No, but it's the closest. I've been seriously ill lately and it's slowed down my book on it. The great news is that the hardest proof is from Lucasfilm and not my memory.
>>224273312Mandela Effect changed that to the singular, last I checked.
>>224273216Yes, but some scenes were dramatically changed. You'll see.
>>224273415see, I remember laughing at it in the theater when I first saw it, and then it was never in any of the later editions so I thought maybe I was misremembering it somehow, but I found a copy of a 16mm print that has it so I feel sane again.
>>224273350>How many versions of Star Wars are there actually?Barring the ones that had unfinished effects that were shown at literally just a few theaters, they are:>the real original>the TV original with some extra Biggs scenes>another TV cut that has a lost scene of Leia chastising Luke for missing the grappling hook>the Biggs cut (it played in 24 theaters) >the 1981 re-edit (this is the version of all the old VHS tapes;etc)>the 1997 SE>the 2004 SE redux So seven.
>>224273457The trouble is that the line is present in some version and not in others, but no kidding, the plural was wiped out in favor of the singular form a couple of years ago. That is, last I checked it is now in all versions that have the line it's:>Close the blast door!>Open the blast door! Open the blast door!Haven't checked it lately, so maybe it flipped back, but to be sure, I have not changed it intentionally in any edit or restoration.this is similar to:>You're gonna need a bigger boat. (the original)>We're gonna need a bigger boat. (the change that changed back)
>>224273303There's still Puggo Grande which has the reel marks and cigarette burns.
>>224273415It's not plural? I could swear it always was too.
>>224272603>uses ai poster to tell you its not using updated cgi versiongrim
>>224273536oh, sorry I misunderstood you, I thought you were referring to them dropping the "close the blast door(s)" line entirely and just having the "open ..." line, which is how it is in the Despecialized version I have.
https://youtu.be/xaeTOMvf67c
>>224273606Last I checked the plural wasn't in anything I had, not a DVD, not a Laserdisc, not a Blu-ray, and not online at all. And it was plural, I promise you. There's a chance it changed back, but either way, I won't obsesses over it since I hate that feeling.youtube link showing the uploader uploaded it as the plural and most if not all commenters agree that it was plural: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlyPGKnCg_UIt's clearly singular now.
>>224273702It's because the modulation on his voice makes it sound like he's saying it as a plural.
I really want to see Star Wars in theaters but I doubt it will be the exact version that I want to see.
>>224272603Zero effort poster.
>>224273740No, it was changed. On my soul it was changed. I got this movie on everything except film. I don't wish to argue, but I won't lie and say that I misremembered or anything like that. Best I can tell you is that the comment section and uploader seem to support my view, but given the nature of the effect, if you will, it cannot be proven unless it "flip-flops" like the Jaws line or Apollo 13 film (not the actual event) line flipped back. So, again, I won't argue, but I also won't lie. If you disagree, I fully understand and don't have any hard feelings since I've gotten used to the ME, which has always happened btw long before CERN or the HC was created.
>>224273789It's a cheap way for Disney to make money off of Star Wars so it makes sense effort did not go into the poster.>LOOK IT'S THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF STAR WARS YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT DON'T YOU WANT TO SEE IT???
>>224273759What is the exact version you wish to see?
>>224273789
>>224273797NTA, not a huge Star Wars fan but can appreciate the autism. What's a Star Wars fact you find very interesting?
>>224272603There's something off about the Death Star getting so much focus despite it being integral to the film. Is it simply because we're used to Vader taking up portions of the posters?
>>224273874>What's a Star Wars fact you find very interesting?I think it's interesting that the spy character that rats out our heroes in Mos Eisley was voiced with a heavily processed line from John Wayne from one of his films.I also think it's a bit eerie that the dinosaur skeleton in the film that C-3PO stands nears is from a Disney film decades before they bought Lucasfilm.(And thanks!)
>>224273829Kino. I used to have it on my wall when I was a kid
>>224273931It's the fact the the blast apparatus or whatever you call the cannon is usually offset and not central as it is there, is my guess.
>>224273813The one that my dad saw with his dad in 1977 at the Chinese Theater in LA
>>224273945That is pretty cool. I appreciate the attention to detail and passion. We need that more around here instead of just shit flinging.
>>224273987You can still visit this set if you can somehow get there right? They left everything up and then later came back and fixed it up for the scenes it's in in the prequels from what I know.
>>224274009Yeah, but you gotta watch out for sand people
>>224273975You will see it soon enough. You probably won't see it in a theater by Disney next year, but I am renting a local theater to play exactly what you saw.>>224273986It's stuff to consider for sure. The Disney thing gets me the most.>I appreciate the attention to detail and passion. We need that more around here instead of just shit flinging.Agreed. Personally I just try not to argue too much and respect the opinions of others and generally try to be helpful, or funny if possible. I used to argue a lot and it just sucks. No one likes to see anons calling names or whatever. Star Wars 1977 is my favorite film of all-time, so I admit I've done a lot of hardcore obsessing over it, not gonna lie.
>>224273987>>224274009>>224274024I was in Cappadocia, Turkey and went on a tour because they said they were visiting some filming locations for Star Wars. I was hyped. Then it turned out that they were talking about Turkish Star Wars
>>224274032That's great. It's hard to come across genuine discourse, so it's always a breath of fresh air on here when you do.
>>224272603A reminder that Tom Yung, the artist who painted the OG poster for Plan 9 also did the OG poster for STAR WARS among many other films as you can see in the attached pic.....https://youtu.be/-L-TUj8qXvE?si=S3nPfDuLAqOayyFc!!!FACT!!!
>>224273657The quality of the new transfer puts everything to shame, I cant waithttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyOu3S7tz0o
I remember when the stormtrooper bonking his head was first noticed by everyone. And then George of course added a sound effect to it instead of just letting it stay a fun blooper that stayed in the film
>>224274079>It's hard to come across genuine discourseRight? The other day I had to post again to someone to assure them that while it may have looked like sarcasm, it wasn't. Kind of sad, but it is what it is. We all are doing out best, right? Trolls aside, we're trying here.
>>224274032I remember you going conspiracy nut over a found print of an original 70mm print in british archives.
>>224274162Maybe it was me. Probably. I do wonder exactly what they saw, but I think it's safe to say that it was the 1981 re-edit because otherwise they would have had a lot more to comment on.
I bet you they edited it to make it look and sound like the original and cut the added CGI scenes and it's still not THE Star Wars.
Come to think of it, I think I laid the case that the print was not in fact untouched, and they did admit that its title was changed, but nothing else. I do make the case that all surviving prints are the revised ones and not the real original, otherwise the de-specialized and 4K77 would reflect it.
>>224272603Next year we should be getting a massive end-all-be-all-if-it-isn't-in-this-it's-not-worth-knowing boxset of the OT with every doc about every aspect of it and its cultural impact!One thing I wish they had the balls to do is include a digitally remastered copy of The Holiday Special while it was such a massive missed opportunity to not get Fisher, Hamill and Ford together, ply them with booze and drugs and have them do an audio commentary where they do nothing but talk shit about it!!!FACT!!!
>>224274203They've admitted almost as much. Best I can tell from Disney's statements, they are doing their own de-specialization of SW. I do like the de-specialized regardless of what version it truly is, but it is a Frankensteining of elements, and Disney is steps above that in terms of materials, yet in spirit it's about the same.
>>224274191You're polite and seem in good faith and I don't want to needlessly shit on you but you totally failed to convince me back then, if i remeber correctly you swore you had some massive evidence but refused to elaborate whatsoever on what you were on about, and i think you're way too early to put your hand in the fire about which edit will be released next year. if anything it will be a new mashup of preserved elements. it's already known they will stick a new logo beofre the movie, so already there's no claim from them it's a pristine 1977 print with zero alterations.
>>224272603Sick, one of the 3 and a half things titled Star Wars I don't hate.I'll see it and continue acknowledging everything else as much as possible.
>>224274203>I bet you they edited it to make it look and sound like the original and cut the added CGI scenes and it's still not THE Star Wars.I just want a copy where they cleaned up the FX shots (matt lines etc...) but don't include anything else from the Special Editions while the best thing would be to include both versions of all three films, also, check out my 2016 summary of George Lucas....https://web.archive.org/web/20160208161157/http://247365hatemachine.blogspot.ca/2016/01/citizen-lucasfact.html!!!FACT!!!
Lucas should've kept updating the CGI shots in the special editions
>>224273479You don't even know the Disney+ version aka the Macclunky edit.
>>224274256>but you totally failed to convince me back then, if i remeber correctly you swore you had some massive evidence but refused to elaborate whatsoever on what you were on about, and i think you're way too early to put your hand in the fire about which edit will be released next year.That's fair, anon. That's why I'm writing a book. It wasn't finished months ago because I got very ill. Sorry for my lateness. Suffice to say I will at the very least prove that the title is not the sole visual/scene alterations in the film.Putting up or shutting up is in order, so that's why I've skipped most recent Star Wars threads because I've already said a lot, and secondly, I need to get back to work and prove what I say, or shut my mouth. You seem cool. Thanks for being cool.
Almost asleep, but bumping best thread one more time.
>>224274298Yeah. heh Honestly, does anyone count that as a distinct version? There's several Special Edition versions and I refuse to speak of any of them except for the '97 and '04 versions since they have major CGI changes, but on a technical level, I guess I'm leaving some out, but come on.
>>224273896me on the right
On one hand I've never seen Star Wars in theaters before and I love the first Star Wars. On the other hand I don't want to give Disney money.
>>224272858That's what they do best.
>>224274331Can you blow up Earth please? Alderaan is peaceful, take us instead.
>>224274354-t. Marvin the Martian
>>224274126I was honestly happy with 4K77 and D+77, but there's a good chance this turns out better. I wonder if this will kill Special Edition copers or embolden them because it's another opportunity to seethe at Disney.
>>224272886Look aht me. I am deh female now.
>>224274344>>224274449my last hope is that they do replace most of the actors with darkies. then destroy all other copies, so the disney legacy is complete.
>>224274441If Disney somehow makes it even worse then I will never talk shit about George ever again.
I guess it really could be the best version, but they gotta do ESB and ROTJ as well. If they do and they're all better than 4KXX, then I guess I'll be pleasantly surprised.
>>224274484they can't help themselves. there will be a feminist dyke somewhere along the pipeline that jams something in or rips something out.
>>224274126Interesting that they use some music from Gustav Holst's "The Planets" and the real original did feature one scene with some of "Mars, The Bringer of War".Maybe Disney went the extra mile, but I doubt it. Probably a coincidence. We'll see.
But will it have Proboscis Luke?
They're definitely going to start doing Han shot first shit in their advertising when the date gets closer.
>>224274298Maclunkey is one of the funniest things ever to me, a black swan edit to an already excessively edited scene in a way nobody ever expected and which does nothing to address the issue prior edits were about, just a sudden elephant in the room out of nowhere
If I were in charge of a Star Wars rerelease I'd add the deleted Tosche Station scene with Biggs and also the scene where Luke meets him again on Yavin and Red Leader talks to them too.
>>224274548That was the very last alteration George Lucas made before selling to Disney, he even said so. He surely did it to mess with fans.
Somebody do a wellness check on Rick Worley
>>224272603Being a star wars fan is 20x easier when you don't give a shit what George thinks
>>224274301Allright, cool, be well.Anyways just to add a propos of nothing, Rick Worsley made the case that just in terms of mono mix, stereo mix and 70mm mix, and perhaps even 35 mm 5-channel mix or something like that, it wasn't such a simple matter to determine what was an unaltered Star Wars original version. Clearly, Disney is not going to put out a digital version of an old print with muffled audio or print damages, it will be a restauration, so there is a lot of room for nuances. I think for 99.99% of the public, if they put out a version of Star Wars with the original crawl and no digital effects additions from the 90"s, they will consider it honest advertisment. It remains to be seen what exactly will be presented in terms of very subtle editing choices.
>>224273896reminder:the trench run is not along the center, for some fucking reason
Kind of reminds me of when George was gonna do the whole saga but in 3D but said fuck it and sold it to Disney instead.
>>224274621Every video game trench run level has all these obstacles when in the movie apparently they just have to fly in a straight line and go fast
>>224274621Is there a canonical visualisation of where it goes?
>>224274645my favorite and also the first to do this was the arcade game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJv94FPRddA
>>224274617>Anyways just to add a propos of nothing, Rick Worsley made the case that just in terms of mono mix, stereo mix and 70mm mix, and perhaps even 35 mm 5-channel mix or something like that, it wasn't such a simple matter to determine what was an unaltered Star Wars original version.The argument he attached it to was mind-numbing, however. He's like a font of trivia that just wants to fuck twinks.
>>224274617>>224274617>Rick Worsley made the case that just in terms of mono mix, stereo mix and 70mm mix, and perhaps even 35 mm 5-channel mix or something like that, it wasn't such a simple matter to determine what was an unaltered Star Wars original version. Clearly, Disney is not going to put out a digital version of an old print with muffled audio or print damages, it will be a restauration, so there is a lot of room for nuances. I think for 99.99% of the public, if they put out a version of Star Wars with the original crawl and no digital effects additions from the 90"s, they will consider it honest advertisment. It remains to be seen what exactly will be presented in terms of very subtle editing choices.Makes sense to me. I just want to get the book done beforehand so maybe Disney gets a chance to push the release out, but I doubt they will even know it exists, not unless the right fan brings it to their attention. What's probably going to happen is this, they release "the original Star Wars" and it's the one that's on the VHS tapes;et al, but a small faction will learn later on that Disney did not deliver the real goods. Frankly, just bringing the VHS version back to big screens is a huge victory over the inferior SE versions, so there's that. Everyone will get what they want, yet not everyone will know there's a choice.And thanks, same to you!
>>224274658yes in the movie during the briefing they show a cg version of it and its locationhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOgtj00Rp8s
>>224274661>The argument he attached it to was mind-numbing, however.To be fair it does get mind-numbing after not too long.-t. Star Wars "autist"
>>224274661It all tracked to me. If by mind-numbing you mean it was too boring to get through the whole argument, then I must have special autism because it was all clear and logic and straightforward.
i really don't care about these micro differences, its not like i can go back to being 4 years old and seeing it for the first time i mean the hallway/walkway scene with luck and leia is just cringe in its directing, but child me loved it
I'm trying to get this book as short as possible because:1: It is mind-numbing.and2: Time is running out.and3: It's rankling to hold myself back and not show the proof immediately as I've made myself not do.
>>224274698I feel that way about much of the OT, in a way I feel the sincere absurdity of the prequels is easier to appreciate as an adult than the immaturity of the OT
>>224274660Dude Star Wars Trilogy Arcade was so fucking sick. And I did pay for the Battle Pod and that was also fucking sick but you have to pay per level instead of only paying if you lost all your lives. Either way both are so fucking awesome.
OT has the cooler ships
>>224274720Why are you sounding like a whistleblower that's hunted down by lawyers and snipers? We're not talking about fraud or the tobacco industry here. And I'm by no means a supporter of Disney or current Lucasfilm. I just don't get the emergency or the indignation that you seem to hint at but not name or describe.
>>224274747Nta, but I got SW trilogy (upright model) and would love to have the 1983 game too. The cockpit version is legendary. It was so cool how Atari designed the coin mech to be where the Vader chest buttons and lights were.
>>224274685I mean it was mind-numbing because it doesn't carry the significance he thinks it does. The entire video is just Rick mumbling in a protracted circle around a big fat screaming CGI elephant. I only know he doesn't have his own cock in his mouth because that would exclude the possibility of Lucas's.
>>224274768It's because I want to make some money from my book. If I spill all now, then I stand to make nothing. I'd rather do a good deed and make some money, and can use money. Can't we all?Say Disney beats me to the punch. Then the best I can say is "SEE, EVERYONE?!?!" and be seen a nut or a liar. Heck, some will see me that way anyway. Although I'm probably worrying over nothing concerning Disney.
>>224274797I don't get the hate. His narration might be monotone but his claims were pretty straightforward and as i recall he backed them all out with unambiguous examples in the video.
>>224274685Nta, but what are Rick Worley's main points? Can you give me a QRD?
>>224274767By freaking far.
>>224274814pretend i'm an editor that can take your book inside bookshops all across the US next week with a massive marketing push. Pitch me your book in one comment.
>>224274851I thought I already did. In 1977, Lucasfilm released several versions of Star Wars (mono mix, stereo mix, 70mm mix and perhaps another) which all have subtle differences, not just in terms of "mono" or "stereo" but editing choices within them. As if Lucas had never settle on a final version of Star Wars, and kept adding or refining things as he was working on different sound mixes one after the other.
>>224274861Phew, ummmmm:>This book will prove that all authoritative sources on the original Star Wars are wrong. What you are holding is the definitive story with long-forgotten Lucasfilm evidence that will guide you to the real honest to goodness original version of Star Wars.It just that I'm more concerned over the nuts and bolts and haven't thought too hard on a hook except the title of my book. It'll be digital since I don't have the cash or time to do otherwise. Not unless you know someone....
>>224274899Ok, fair enough. Lucas has said as much for decades. >I'm sorry you fell in love with an incomplete version, but it's my movie.Or words very close to that effect. He's always made it clear that the original SW is some sort of illegitimate bastard.
>>224274950To be honest, Rick Worley might be overall making more the case that the 1997 version is the real Star Wars, I'm not going to rewatch the video just to make sure of what Rick's main point is, but what I do remember is that there is not a single specific version of Star Wars that could be considered unaltered. I might be giving a fellow autist too much leeway, but I think his point is mostly artistic license to Lucas to keep pushing and working on his project past an initial release, like artists in other mediums do. For non-autists, the distinction might just be "original star wars" or "travesty version with digital effects additions from the 90's"
>>224274922What are they wrong about, and why does it matter?
>>224275024I see.For me, it's "what played in theaters in wide release in 1977 and not on video in 1982", essentially. The changes range from subtle to dramatic, but the dramatic ones aren't widely known and I'd estimate that truly only a literal handful of people know about it. Over 20 years ago some of the experts in the collecting community knew, but now, I'd say that number has shrunk down to just two or one, excepting Lucas himself, who may have forgotten some of it by now owing to his busy lifestyle and age.
>>224275041They are wrong that all changes are accounted for and that they largely amount to audio changes only outside of the title change. It matters because the film changed not only film itself and filmmaking, but it managed to change people. Furthermore it matters because some of the alterations can be called significant or even dramatic, like I mentioned. When I show this to people, they will be surprised how different their Laserdisc or VHS copy of the original truly is, and that's why I care.
One more thing that will be in the book, my first friend ever in the world discussed the alterations to SW. Who knows what became of him, but I remember our conversation, his name, where he lived. My first childhood friend-that may or may not be alive at this point in time-is a good part of the reason why this is important to me.
>>224275089I pass. Thanks for your time. And don't hesitate to contact us if you ever write a touching memoir about your friend.
>>224274839He gets the facts right. They just don't have the implications or significance that he thinks they do. Where he gets the closest to being right is when he emphasizes that Star Wars fans can be indignant, and that Lucas had the right to do what he did. He's right about that if tediously long-winded, and to be fair I think that's most of the video. To the extent that there is no "original" Star Wars, since it was host to a number of running changes, is irrelevant. That's just the continuum fallacy. The 4K77 guys handled it just fine, and they did so with fastidious documentation and reasoning. It's not an intractable problem.But many of the most conspicuous Special Edition changes are just bad. People care because they are bad. "If you watch them in good faith you'll see these changes aren't problems at all" is just circular. Even more mundane examples of changes see some debate, and the entire concept of a director's cut (as opposed to a theatrical cut) is hardly foreign. People debate Weir's changes to Picnic at Hanging Rock and Brian Bolland's recoloring of The Killing Joke and all sorts of things all the time, often for good reason. He wants Lucas to be exceptional and unexceptional at the same time. The Special Editions are just tasteless dogwater.
>>224275070Yeah, I would agree about Lucas having the moral right to release whatever version he sees fit, without denying the historical importance or interest in the 1977 edits, and the validity of people's interest in preserving or rewatching those instead. I don't know if Worley holds the seond part of that equation.
>>224275146lol ok, but it's like everyone has the TV edited for time cut and the director's cut has been hidden for decades.
>>224275192Thanks. I gotta go.
>>224275207Take care. Wish me luck. I'll need it. >>224275182>I would agree about Lucas having the moral right to release whatever version he sees fit, without denying the historical importance or interest in the 1977 editsIt's too bad that he dislikes the original so badly, that he's hidden it, maybe even forgotten about it. He may even consider what played in 1977 theaters to be some beta version, same with what played on HBO in 1983. To all that I say: Too bad! :) I'm bringing the real original back to the light of day for everyone to learn about and to watch. If he didn't consider it "real" then he should have waited until 1997 to release it, or at least until 1981.
>>224275249So you're going to put out your bootleg in theaters or mass release? (bootleg in the sense of, legally unauthorized)
>>224275249>If he didn't consider it "real" then he should have waited until 1997 to release it, or at least until 1981.
>>224275300No, that'd be illegal and Disney would rip me apart. I will do three things. One, write the book, then give explicit editing instructions, and finally I've got a theater in mind that has agreed to show it to "friends and family only" in a non-commercial private showing.
>>224275320Lucas has maintained that the real SW is the Special Edition version, straight up. 1981 being the lesser option since that was the first major re-edit he did and he was fine with that being for sale until 1995, then a short 11 year break until he relented on the 1981 version being sold again beginning in 2006, then again in 2008.
>>224275332>I will do three things. One, write the book, then give explicit editing instructions,Hey, I've got a good idea for a title for your book, how about "How to waste 20 hours from your fucking life"!
>>224275375You don't have to read it and you also don't have to watch the real original Star Wars. :^)It is too bad that I can't just upload it, but Disney would frown.
