>Star Wars original print screening looks like shit! and basically you're a fucking IDIOT for liking it!
>please buy a Disney+ subscription to enjoy the REAL version

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/star-wars-1977-screening-version-review-1236291808/

>>211548255 (OP)
What about the HARMY version?

The unaltered theatrical cuts of the Original Trilogy are the only acceptable way to watch them.

Han shooting first is fucked up. The Lucas fixes are better.

>>211548255 (OP)
>may I see this 1977 theatrical cut?
>no

>>211548255 (OP)
As if Lucas didn't try to bury the originals when he released his Special Edition scam.

>>211549146
If you're a turbonerd, sure.

>>211548255 (OP)
the only way to view these movies is the 1996 VHS tapes before Lucas raped them

>>211548255 (OP)
It’s weird that I didn’t think that their were any original prints left

>>211548255 (OP)
So... it hasn't been remastered? "Original" means no Lucas rape not watching a completely unaltered film roll from 1977

>>211549540
I still have them on vhs and the dvds a few years later

>>211548255 (OP)
Special editions > outdated unfinished original cut
As their creator intended.

>>211549728
You're Mexican

>>211548255 (OP)
>Writer doesn't like Star Wars
>Seeing original film for first time wasn't a good experience
shocker

>>211549684
The 4k77, 4k80, and 4k83 versions are fan remasters from old film reels.

At this point Disney doesn’t want to release the theatrical versions because they don’t want their Star Wars compared to the original, actual Star Wars that made the franchise successful in the first place.

>>211548255 (OP)
Star Wars really isn't worth watching without random CGI dinosaurs.

The definitve kino version.

>>211548255 (OP)
Bunch of literally who's quoted by a shitty hollywood rag, fuck them, fuck journalists

>>211548255 (OP)
APOLOGIZE
O
L
O
G
I
Z
E

>>211549194
Bait

>>211548255 (OP)
Literally the only "significant" addition in Star Wars special edition is the jabba deleted scene

Crying about the special editions is peak neckbeard

>>211550337
Not a single change was an improvement. The real Cloud City has walls of purest white.

>>211550291
The greedo scene makes that scene completely redundant

>>211550337
Why’d they do so poorly in theaters bro

>>211550427
The real cloud city is how you see it in the ESB special edition, just like how the creator intended it to be.

>>211550506
Even MacQuarrie's art puts the lie to your statement, shill

>>211550528
It's up for George Lucas to decide, sorry neckbeard.

>>211550560
He never decided anything, his woman did, try and keep up with the facts, not the spin job narrative

>>211548255 (OP)
>Lucas' tweaks
Yeah, Marcia Lucas' tweaks.

>>211550613
>He never decided anything,
Objectively false
>He never decided anything,
Actually believing made up jewish propaganda
LOL

>>211549728
Why did you crop out that the tweet was from one of those brown Latinx 4chan screencap Twitter accounts?

>>211548255 (OP)
HAN ALWAYS SHOT FIRST JUST LIKE CASSIAN ANDOR LONG LIVE REAL STAR WARS!!!!!!!

>>211550658
>it happened that way because he said it did
Nice try, Vatican, but if the guys with Elijah fled before he got whisked away on a fire chariot then how did they know he got whisked away on a fire chariot?

>>211550738
The production of all 6 Star Wars movies are really well documented.
Star Wars being good is 90% Lucas, claiming otherwise is just spreading jewish propaganda and being a retarded neckbeard.
This is a fact

SOMEDAY FREEDOM WILL COME AND THE PEOPLE WILL SEE THE REAL STAR WARS THAT DISNEY AND LUCAS HAVE KEPT FROM THEM! SOON THE TRUTH WILL BE EXPOSED!

>>211548255 (OP)

>>211550444

>>211548255 (OP)
Uncle George wins again.

1977 THEATRICAL CUT? AT THIS TIME OF YEAR? AT THIS TIME OF YEAR? AT THIS TIME OF DAY? IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY? LOCALIZED ENTIRELY WITHIN YOUR KITCHEN?

>>211548255 (OP)
I have to be honest; that 4k restoration project that's so popular grosses me out just as bad as anything past the VHS/DVD special editions. https://youtu.be/3yWrXPck6SI?si=r9LKaZeNp3YIW6qt

>>211550337
The library of Congress wouldn't be preserving films if it wasn't for that "peak neckbeard" mentality, don't kid yourself

There's no intellectually honest defense of the special editions, and especially none where making the originals readily available along with the special editions.

>>211548255 (OP)
>“What you’re going to see is in fact the first print, and I’m not even sure there’s another one quite like it,” Kennedy said. “It’s that rare.”

Pretty sure she lied. If it was that rare, they'd be talking about how it is significantly different than the 1982 VHS;etc.

>Lucas’ tweaks to the print began with the very first theatrical rerelease of Star Wars in 1981.

And there it is. They're full of shit. It was altered immediately after its release, not just in 1981 and it was extensively reedited. More to come!

>>211548255 (OP)
i like the special editions

i prefer the special edition for rotj, victory celebration is just the blatantly superior song

>>211554888
I think they're both equally good in that one case.

>>211554270
>and especially none where making the originals readily available along with the special editions.
It’s funny, George’s good friend Coppola did something similar with Apocalypse Now. The difference is that the original cut of Apocalypse Now is still widely available. The 4K box set of Final Cut comes with both redux and the original cut.

>>211550076
i love y-bombers

This is a Kathleen Kennedy smear campaign.
And the despecialized editions are the most faithful recreations of the originals.

>>211550444
It adds 2 shots of Boba Fett
So there is a headcanon:
Boba Fett is commissioned by Vader to hunt the droids
He is on the other end of the phone with the weird longnose person
He is the one who murdered Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru: hence "No Disintegrations"

>>211555552
>This is a Kathleen Kennedy smear campaign.
Ha, no.

>And the despecialized editions are the most faithful recreations of the originals
Actually, no. Except for Empire.

For me it's Lapti Nek
https://youtu.be/wINM8zsdw9s?si=Ag7DVjupnQAFZhZ6&t=47

>>211555552
This. The Despecialized editions are the way to go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmy%27s_Despecialized_Edition

>>211555306
Steven Spielberg made the original version of E.T. available alongside the special edition version of it too. Now in that case it's the special edition version that's in danger of being lost.

Where can I watch the originals?

>>211548255 (OP)
>Kathleen Kennedy's war against Star Wars fans continues
No fucking shit.

>>211555591
>He is the one who murdered Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru: hence "No Disintegrations"
Nta, but that's kinda cool.

>>211555780
She didn't even tell the truth, anon. Maybe it's because she's badly informed, but I know for a fact that they did not in any way show the May 25, 1977 version, but instead showed the 1981 version.

No shit it looks terrible. That reel is nearly 50 years old and probably needed a shitload of repair just to safely run. On top of possibly not being a great print to begin with.

>>211555949
I bet this faggot has set his twitter to private because he's being relentlessly mocked by muh chuds

>>211555949
George Lucas has made sure to present the most inauthentic and damaged copy of his 1981 re-edit in order to make his 1997-2004-2019 version look good.
This "we're showing the 1977 version wow it's so rare" business is odd.

>>211550705
this, but unironically

>>211550705
No, Han didn't shoot first; Han was the only one who shot.

I havent watched Star Wars OT is such a long time.

>>211557361
Did you see it in 1977, 1978, or 1979?

>>211549540
you mean the despecialized editions easily available on torrent and fire sharing websites

>>211557640
Nope

>>211556590
The anti-Lucas conspiracy theories are really getting out of hand. Where do you guys get this stuff?

>>211555878
Why would you know more about the print than the BFI?

>>211559255
Because I have proof of what I say.
>>211559160
It's the truth. I'm rather surprised there aren't more anons who remember.
>>211558861
How about in 1983 or 1984 on HBO?

>>211559160
*and I am not anti-George Lucas

>>211555648
I'm glad I did see Return of the Jedi in the cinema when it first released because when that dreamworks tier trash came up on the Special Edition trailer I knew I'd never watch that piece of shit ROTJSE. Absolutely atrocious. Star Wars had some really dubious changes but some improvements, ESB was generally fine, Cloud City backgrounds looked fine, the Wampa extra shots were a little unneccesary but not egregious. But ROTJ just went overboard.
>>211557640
What retard years are those? ESB came out in 1980 and ROTJ in 1983 (one of my oldest memories was seeing it in the cinema.

>>211559606
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bsCliOges0

>>211550076
Gonk.

>>211560091
>What retard years are those?
Star Wars was re-released in 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1983. It was out of theaters for two weeks that whole time and it was re-edited in 1977, not just in 1981.
Yes, SW and Empire were on double bills in 1980, and there were triple bills in 1983.

>>211560168
That's a print made in 1981, not 1977. For whatever reason, Lucas forgot or is suppressing the real original.

>>211559606
>Because I have proof of what I say.
What is it?

>>211550560
it was the decisions and input of people other than George that made the original movies what they were. this is well documented.

>>211560315
I'm writing a book on it and editing it back into its original May 25, 1977 configuration. The proof is from more than one source, but one of the best ones is an official Lucasfilm product that flat-out asserts what I state, albeit in part.
The BFI guys would have made far more interesting statements had they truly had possession of and watched the original May 25, 1977 version. I stress May 25, because it was significantly altered on May 26, 1977. Then other changes followed through 1981.

>>211549194
F A G G O T
A
G
G
O
T

>>211548255 (OP)
>its a completely different film
good

>>211560825
I don't have a dog in this fight, but if the print that was showed at the BFI is a Technicolor print, and if the one lab that could manufacture such Technicolor prints closed down in 1977, that seems to narrow it down pretty firmly.

>>211560168
Go to 2:38, anon. That's proof just in the video that their print is from 1981-they had to splice the non-Episode IV subtitle back in that "uncut" Technicolor print.

>>211561160
See: >>211561255

Seems to just be like the 2006 DVDs that had the Unaltered version on a bonus disc that was just lazily copied from the 1993 LaserDisc version.

>>211561300
Then 10 seconds later in the video they say they found the original crawl in their archives.

>>211561807
Right, it had been cut out. No one seems to have an uncut print. Lucas source yet another print to include the original crawl as a bonus DVD supplement in 2006 and again in 2008, but that is by no means the sole alteration as we're being led to believe.

>>211561255
When it was reissued as A New Hope, the new crawl would have been spliced onto the start of the original Technicolor print. As the other anon said, all the technicolor labs had shutdown by 1981. The British sold their equipment to China in 1978.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technicolor#The_introduction_of_Eastmancolor_and_decline

>>211550687
Why wouldn't you?

>>211550820
>Star Wars being good is 90% Lucas
Being tard wrangled.

>>211561877
I don't see how that proves anything. They used to edit film in their reels forms in those days. Stanley Kubrick had theater projectionists remove the original ending of the Shining after one week of exhibition in 1980.
It seems plausible to me that Lucasfilm insisted that all Star wars projections have the new episode 4 crawl for whatever reason starting 1980 or whenever the decision was made, but they wouldn't reprint the whole movie just for a few frames difference, they'd just reprint the crawl and append it to 1977 prints.

>>211561956
Right...and they spliced it in, in April 1981. Another thing to consider is that they had in since the 1990s, not the 1970s.

>>211555306
Apocalypse now got butchered by censors originally and was just a movie about a good soldier taking a boat ride to kill a rogue colonel.

>>211555730
>Now in that case it's the special edition version that's in danger of being lost.

Good.

>>211562192
>I don't see how that proves anything.
You will see definitive proof right down specific scenes and Lucasfilm notation.

*Or rather you may read about the definitive proof since no license can be gotten for a public showing.

>>211549146
You mean the version which they didn't have money to properly put together?

According to original fags, the left shot looks better, and honors George/Mcquarrie/ILM's vision better.

>>211555306
There's three cuts of Apocalypse Now; Theatrical, Redux, and Final Cut. I think they're all available.

1997 is the canon version.

>>211548255 (OP)
Now this is damage control

>>211562593
>1997 is the one you shoot out of a cannon version.
fify fren

>>211562555
Yes.

>>211562747
I'm sorry your blankie got taken away from you, but it's been 50 years and you need to get over it.

>>211562830
It's been 48 years and it was taken from me, but I got it back.
-t. getting over it my way

>>211557864
>fire sharing websites

i remember seeing the "despecialised" version or something and it was pretty fucking rough and gnarly looking in spots. i always thought lucas made the special editions to just milk whales but maybe it really did bother him

>>211563214
The despecialized versions had to cobble together footage from dozens of different sources of different resolutions in order to unfuck what Lucas did. The 4k77, 4k80, and 4k83 versions are remasters from found film reels.

>>211562367
You seem to have some weird axe to grind. I still have no idea how you can be so definitive in your assertion behind your computer, wherever you are, without access to the Technicolor print in question.

For me it's the D+/OTD versions.

>>211564889
He’s talking about how in a few years when Disney collapses there will be a criterion level remaster of the theatrical versions that starts with a massive text crawl of the damage done to the OT or at least Star Wars on the level of what’s at the beginning of Fritz Lang’s M.

>>211565241
MACLUNKEY

>>211548255 (OP)
The original Jabba the Hut and rotj Jabba are the only way to appreciate the trilogy. I just figured he mutated or something. I like it though.

>>211564889
>I still have no idea how you can be so definitive in your assertion behind your computer, wherever you are, without access to the Technicolor print in question.

If you read books, then you will. I'm sure a video is forthcoming. Certainly a private theatrical showing in a rented theater.

>>211565973
There literally was no Jabba in the original movie. It was WAY better that way. All you know about him is that Han is deep in trouble, afraid, and trying his damnest to get money. Then he's still trying to pay him off next movie but can't get to it, and the Bounty Hunters are called. After two whole movies, we finally get to see him revealed. It works 100x better as a mysterious looming threat rather than being revealed in the first ten minutes as a joke character Han steps on

>>211548255 (OP)
We've all seen the fan restorations. Do they look fantastic? No. But they look fine.

>>211562676
i forgot how cool star wars is

>>211566668
>There literally was no Jabba in the original movie
Even I agree with this.

>>211566668
Jabba is in episode 1 retard

>>211549319
His claim is that the original elements were destroyed. Which seems like nonsense.

>>211549628
Plenty of prints (it's where fans get the scenes scanned from). But they are release prints, not the original negatives or even well (debateable) preserved early release prints. So even with all the work people put into restoring them, it still looks a bit off.

>>211563214
Maybe he shouldn't have added CGI banthas and dinosaurs to every single fucking shot and should've just cleaned up what needed cleaning up then. The special editions are trash and they seemingly got worse with time.

>>211548255 (OP)
I hate the antichrist

>>211563214
If he wanted to make money he would put out the originals in a super deelux box set. Contrary to popular belief, Lucas does not give a shit about merchandising in so far as he did it to fund Lucasfilm and give kids something to have fun with.

>>211560297
He said at one point after making the scans for the special editions that he threw the original negatives out. No one believes this.

>>211566847
That was added for the special editions. The human jabba scene wasn't originally in there. It was a deleted scene. Fortunately.

>>211566988
Drink at the fat man milk tits of The Last Jedi monster known as George Lucas you fucking apologist. Lucas is as greedy as they come.

>>211566638
I don't care that much, dude. I'm all for ''Kathleen Kennedy/Lucasfilm is full of shit", but the claims about the BFI Technicolor print in question being manufactured in 1977 as presented seems to check out, mainly due to the Technicolor plant closing down in 1977 aspect, which you haven't addressed.
As far as I can tell from the video, the spliced-in 1981 crawl appears more faded and damaged than the rest of the original print, so it appears they spliced in a regular non-technicolor print of the new crawl into the 1977 Technicolor print. I thought this was the point of contention you were raising originally.

>>211567194
>but the claims about the BFI Technicolor print in question being manufactured in 1977 as presented seems to check out, mainly due to the Technicolor plant closing down in 1977 aspect, which you haven't addressed.
No. They have a print, that's all they have proof of. Among other things, they added the 1981 subtitle, it's that simple, and I can and will prove this.

>I thought this was the point of contention you were raising originally.
It is partially of course.

>>211567053
Seems plausible to me. it's not that they "threw out" the original negatives, it's that the master negative copy of the whole movie from which the positive prints were duped in 1977 for theatrical exhibition no longer exists physically. It has been altered into a different form with different elements.

>>211567053
I heard a claim of something to that effect, but those who know, or claim to know, say that *everything* absolutely everything that has been cut or has ever been created that is Star Wars and its sequels;et al, are in the Lucasfilm Archives at Skywalker Ranch.

>>211567455
That's more proof than you. The more you speak, the more you seem like a crank. Good luck with your book.

>>211548255 (OP)
The state should demand Disney offer the original, it's an important part of human history.

>>211567604
How can I be a crank when my proof comes from Lucasfilm?
>>211567699
The real original is coming, but Disney probably won't be offering it.

>>211567515
>>211567535
Been awhile, but that's how I remember it
>George: Can't remaster the film, lost the original negative elements after digitizing. Only special edition elements remain
>Ranch employees: bullshit, they are preserved at the ranch

>>211555775
You can't. It's literally illegal.

>>211567053
Reminder that at one point blizzard were claiming to have deleted the old WoW world pre Cata

>>211567826
Ummmhmmmm. They even admit to have the "lost cut" (which is not a cut) at the Ranch. That's the one that none of us have ever seen anywhere in any shape or form because it was super unfinished and even had alternate lousy special effects.

>>211549146
There is unironically nothing wrong with Empire's special edition. Which is kind of amazing considering what a mess they made of the other 2.

>>211567898
*having
lol not illegal, but at a certain point that might become a thing.
>2050 A.D.
>Man, we gotta break into old man Wither's property...I hear he got Star Wars for real
>NO way copies are worth millions!

A guy can dream.

>Old reel of low budget indie movie from 1977 doesn't look great

>>211567826
I think people conflate different steps of the complicated analog process of putting together the film for theatrical exhibition. Not sure it is worth the technical breakdown.
>>211567766
What proof?

>>211560190
GONK

>>211568145
I don't think this is what the article is talking about. It's not that the print looks bad, it's that the film looks odd without the elements and polishing that were added after 1977 and that most people are familiar with. It's like hearing the original draft of a symphony without the later additions and edits by the composer, like a (for the sake of argument) 9th symphony missing parts of the orchestrations that contemporary people are familiar with. Then you go, ah yes, I get why he added that, it's better with that string section in that part"

>>211568284
>>211568145
Star Wars is a special case because most of its prints were CRI stock, something Lucas thought was more archival. He was wrong and discovered how wrong he was as early as 1985 when technicians reported that Star Wars AND the The Empire Strikes Back were in rough shape and would be soon lost without extensive restorative work. So keep in mind that Technicolor prints of Star Wars are exceedingly rare compared to the bulk of the CRI prints, which are all destroyed now.
There are interpositives and the like, but the original camera negative? That might be gone in the sense of being presentable, but I'm quite sure that the original camera negative for Star Wars, wasn't thrown in the dumpster.

>>211568284
>What proof?
Proof that what is being sold/told as real original Star Wars 1977, is not.

>>211548255 (OP)
How. Do I see it?

>>211549701
Based

>>211550687
Reminder the sequels are better than the prequels.

>>211555591
>weird longnose person
Umm, cool it anon

>>211568591
On one hand, you seem to be have researched the matter and be knowledgeable, on the other hand, you're talking in circle about your mysterious proof archived at Lucasfilm that will expose the conspiracy of the BFI Technicolor print.

>>211555692
How can you watch this?

>>211568872
Right because I don't want to fully expose it yet.
>>211568825
lol
>>211568700
Put in any VHS made from 1982-1995 because that's what they showed.

>>211548255 (OP)
>retardos screeched "me no likey!!" at vintage kino

>>211555878
Whats your BMI

>>211568284
I wonder if the original camera negatives still exist in useable form. I'm not sure of what use they would be, and I suppose using them would form it's own sort of special edition since you would be remaking the optical effects etc.

>>211569253
My layman's understanding is that the master negative assembly of the whole film that is used for duplication is assembled with the original negatives from the shooting for maximal quality reproduction. Once the negatives are cut, they are cut forever.
The main issue is that Lucas never wanted the 1977 version to be re-released, so all the technical reasons are essentiallymoot. They could rebuild the original assembly (with some splices in analog form, more seamlessly with digital material), they could release a second or third generation copy of the 1977 master edit, but Lucas never wanted to.

>>211548255 (OP)
everyone acts like the whole "focus group" concept is ruining art and corporatising everything. but then they see something like this where they agree with the focus group and suddenly focus groups are great and you're a dumbass for not listening to them. just goes to show how nobody believes in anything anymore, they just advocate for whatever helps them in the short term and don't care about being a hypocrite later

>>211569871
wtf are you talking about

>zoomers are now journalists

>>211550291
>terrible CGI additions left and right
>the entire Greedo shoots first thing
>rocks
>dumbshit screams
>NOOOOOOOO!!!
>that fucking concert

>>211562274
Redux was too long. The section with the French plantation owners, while not bad scenes on their own, kill the pacing of the movie.

>>211570033
I watched that in the cinema and the French plantation part was just fine as far as pacing goes. It's also crucial to show that the reason the Americans are even in that mess is because of the French trying to hold onto their colony. Without that part you lose the colonialism aspect from Heart of Darkness entirely and the whole thing is lesser for losing it.

Why yes I do have Project 4K77, Project 4K80, Project 4K83, Project 4K97 IV, Project 4K97 V, Project 4K97 VI, D+77, D+80, D+83, D+97 IV, D+97 V, D+97 VI, 4K99, 4K02, 4K05 and the new Bluray releases on my plex server how could you tell?

>>211570961
>I watched that in the cinema and the French plantation part was just fine as far as pacing goes.
It wasn't. To the point where I read that Francis cut it down in the new version. It was long, and having it be right before the landing at Kurtz' camp was a mistake.
> It's also crucial to show that the reason the Americans are even in that mess is because of the French trying to hold onto their colony. Without that part you lose the colonialism aspect from Heart of Darkness entirely and the whole thing is lesser for losing it.
I'm not saying it's not important, I'm saying it was too long and poorly placed.

>>211549194
>Han shooting first is fucked up.
Agree.

However I have always felt both versions should be made available.

>>211569064
Torrent it from the pirate bay

>>211555730
>Steven Spielberg made the original version of E.T. available alongside the special edition version of it too. Now in that case it's the special edition version that's in danger of being lost.
I find this maddening. I would like to have both versions at least at bluray quality.

>>211571738
>I find this maddening. I would like to have both versions at least at bluray quality.
Why? The Special Edition of ET was fucking PC garbage. Even the makers of the new Amadeus 4K blu ray only released the Theatrical Cut because the Director's Cut is fucking shits

>>211568067
i love ian mcdiarmid but the new version of the hologram scene sticks out like a sore thumb t b h
also hate the new voice actor for boba. the performance sounds phoned in and nonthreatening. other than that it's ok but you're really just better off watching the 4k fan remasters

>>211571921
>Why? The Special Edition of ET was fucking PC garbage.
It had all new CGI animation of ET by ILM.

I don't care that one version is superior. They shouldn't have to suppress the other. It's a popular film, it will have no problem selling. I have a bluray of Blade Runner with like 5 cuts. That's probably excessive, but at least they're out there.

I have an official, licensed dvd with both the original King Kong, and the Ted Turner colorized version. Only ever existed in SD, so a dvd is all I need. Not the ideal version, but at least I have the option. I'll waste my own time as I see fit to.

>>211548255 (OP)
>opinion piece

>>211555949
This is a fully preserved version that was put into cold storage 40 years ago. So no, it is in good shape.
Some of the complaints, though, make me wonder what version of the films they'd watched prior to this.
>“looks more like fancy dress than grand sci-fi epic.” “Every scene had the visceral sense of watching actual people photographed doing actual things with sets and props that had been physically sawn and glued into place. The slapstick between C-3PO and R2-D2 looked clunkier, and therefore funnier; the Death Star panels were less like supercomputers than wooden boards with lights stuck on, and so better attuned to the frequency of make-believe. It felt less like watching a blockbuster in the modern sense than the greatest game of dressing up in the desert anyone ever played.”
Were the panels really touched up from this original version? This sounds less like a change, and more likely somebody who hadn't watched the original films, in any form, in many years, or at least never watched them with a critical eye, now watching it trying to find "differences" and ultimately winds up nitpicking footage which is no different from what was there even in the versions available today.
The original Star Wars were of course filled to the brim with practical effects, some believable, some less so, and that's what made the addition of CGI so jarring in the first place.

>>211554269
why?

>>211548255 (OP)
I don't need a Disney+ subscription. I've still got them on dvd.

>>211548884
Harmy's Despecialized edition is a Frankenstein of the 2011 blu-ray, the 2005 DVD and photoshop.

>have a childhood in 1950s California, reading kino comics, golden age science fiction and watching manly man westerns.
>Teenage years spent racing cars and smashing prime white pussy.
>Survive a crash that would have killed a lesser man.
>U.S. army won't dare take him because of dozens of speeding tickets...despite nam going on.
> Tells his stationary store owning bets dad fuck to off, he's gonna be an artist and a millionaire by 30.
>Gets really into to pure cinema art house films when they were fresh and new.
>The student film he made while high gets him a chance to make it into a feature.
>Befriends Francis Ford coppala and Stephen Spielberg.
>Makes a movie about his teen years.
>Makes THE trilogy EPIC of American cinema. Combing sci-fi, westerns, sword and sorcery, wizard of Oz, jap kino, flash Gordon, WW2, and all things that kick ass. With a mythos that echoes true to the Aryan soul.
>Inspires generations of artists, writers, directors and yes...even you pathetic chuds.
>Retires to a comfy ranch but still works to pioneer cutting edge special effects and video games.
>Comes back to cinema with a blank check to show the world his true genius. >The backstory trilogy to his opus then spawns an even bigger mythos and inspires the chad gen z.
>Sells his toys to Disney for billions.
HE MOGS YOU AND ALWAYS WILL

>>211563186
I mean sites like DepositFiles, RapidGator, Keep2Share... they still work

>>211574539
He’s a piece of human filth. He ‘killed the thing that he loved’ as the saying goes. Worse than that, he killed what everyone who matters (that leaves out millennials and younger) loved.

The original SW is a glorified B Movie. It's a little shaky in places. that's part of it's charm.
I guess if you haven't seen it since you were a child, you might be surprised.

>>211574539
>With a mythos that echoes true to the Aryan soul.
Star Wars enshrined the post-war liberal consensus into a mythological tale for children

They should remake the OT.

>>211550291
I like the scene with Biggs but it doesn’t really work since his intro is cut out

>>211549194
>Han shooting first is fucked up
Yeah, it is. That's the point. He's not a good guy.

Weren’t there two 1977 versions? The very very first print had different sound and visual effects.

>>211573531
Those covers were so ugly

>>211571071
4K80 looks like crunchy shit thanks to them sharpening the original scan and then saving over the file lol. I'm glad they're already working on a V2 using a new source.

>>211577444
I think they also added the "Episode IV: A New Hope" subtitle not long after the initial release.

>>211549194
Han is a man of honor and integrity. He would never break a law, swear, sexually assault a princess a decade younger than him, and definitely never kill a filthy Greener in cold blood.

FAGGOT!
HE'S GAY!

>>211569622
>They could rebuild the original assembly (with some splices in analog form, more seamlessly with digital material), they could release a second or third generation copy of the 1977 master edit

Mike Verta's version combines a bunch of prints by overlaying them and he's proven that Star Wars can come close to original camera negative quality.

>>211577053
Why are you people not getting the scene? Greedo said he was going to murder Solo right then and there, so Han was defending himself. It looks "badass", but it's legal self-defense.

>>211577873
that wasnt added until after Empire was released

I don't think Disney gives a fuck about which version of the OT you like and would happily stream and sell you both. I think they're contractually bound by whatever they agreed to with George Lucas

>>211579101
again, the main issue is that Lucas had no interest whatsoever to release such a version in the first place. where this a will, there is a way, but there was no will here.
I just think he was telling a form of truth when he said that the original film didn't exist anymore, but it was misinterpreted due to people's incomplete understanding of how films are put together and reproduced (even more so in an analog manner).

>>211579245
>I think they're contractually bound by whatever they agreed to with George Lucas

They refuse to specify, but Kathleen Kennedy has stated:
>"It's George's baby. We won't be touching it."
>"Hahahahhahahahaha"

Meaning they could easily produce the original version, but they won't because George doesn't want that.

>>211579271
>I just think he was telling a form of truth when he said that the original film didn't exist anymore

Right he disassembled it. Frankly, I think he forgot the real original and only recalls the 1981 edit as if it's the original. Or he's ashamed of the first final cut. Either way he's ashamed of it like a weirdo.

>>211550291
Stupid and pointless scene that makes Jabba look like a chump

>>211555730
In fact, Spielberg regrets doing that special edition at all and the special edition is the thing that's merely included as a bonus on ET releases

>>211579386
He's explained it fairly well over the years, and I'm pretty sure he is as familiar with the timeline of the different versions as anyone else. it's not a question of shame, he just wants to present the version more in line with his full vision, not the intermediate versions.

>>211579556
>He's explained it fairly well over the years
I disagree. He's been either misleading or he's having memory problems. I don't know which it is, but he did admit more changes far earlier, then either forgot or is intentionally being misleading. I can totally see him being confronted with the true original and then saying:
>Oh that. That isn't a cut, that's not finished.
Even though it was in theaters.

>>211566668
They did shoot the scene that is included in the Special Edition with a new (hideous) CG Jabba back in 1976 but it was cut from the final film for a reason; it's redundant. Nothing occurs in it that didn't occur in the Greedo scene, and Jabba is best left as a mystery at that point anyway.

>>211577873
That was quite some time later, like four years later. The film was re-released a few times between 1977 and 1980 when ESB came, as was quite normal since home video didn't really exist as it did later.

It's insulting for George Lucas to call the initial release version of Star Wars-the one that started it all-as "unfinished."

>>211579936
not if you understand where he's coming from.

>>211548255 (OP)
wrong opinions. i'm going to watch 4k77 right now just to spite journos

>>211580113
He's unreasonable in a sense. It's not a prototype cut that he never showed to anyone, it's the May 25, 1977 cut, the one shown at the then Mann's Chinese Theater.
Hiding that away forever is some sort of crime.

>>211580194
that's his power as an artist and a businessman. he doesn't morally owe the original audiences of 1977 (or of today) anything. I'd like that original pristine version to be easily available for all I care (not very much), but it's his call at the end of the day.

I have only seen them on VHS tapes that my grandma recorded off TV in 1987. so which versions did i see?

>>211580355
i'd guess pretty much the 1977 version with the new crawl.

>>211580339
That's fine because he made all the materials that constitute the original final cut available because he's conflicted. He's like Darth Vader in Return of the Jedi
>Give us the original! Please!
>"It is, too late for me, fans."

He even half-hid a very obscure deleted scene among interviews near the actual deleted scene section. I love him, but he's strange.

>>211548255 (OP)
Star Wars is always terrible.

>>211580355
You saw the 1981 re-edit.

Why does anyone give a shit about "official" releases when we have flawless 4k releases in multiple flavours to suit your exact preferences that you can download for free right now?

>>211548255 (OP)
I don't need to indulge any of your schizophrenic greentext, but I want you to know I still feel an innate sense of moral superiority over you.

>Aldridge noted differences “like R2-D2 isn’t hiding behind rocks when the Tusken Raiders come for them …
....was this guy born in 2020 or some shit? he comes from the rocks edit?

>>211580355
Probably the 1985 new audio mix.
>1977: In May, Star Wars was theatrically released.[7] Three different audio versions (a Dolby Stereo mix, a six-channel mix for 70 mm screenings, and a mono mix print) were created, with significant differences. Notably, the mono mix print featured several alternate and additional sound effects and lines of dialogue.[8] Later that year, among others, a silent, English-subtitled Super 8 reel version of the film was released by Ken Films.[9]

>1981: In April, Star Wars was re-released, with the addition of the subtitles "Episode IV" and "A New Hope" added to the opening crawl.[13]

>1985: The original Star Wars film was re-released on VHS, LaserDisc, and Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED) with an improved audio mix (featuring a fusion of Lucas's preferred audio takes from the three 1977 mixes).[14] The LaserDisc and CED sped the film up by 3% to fit onto a single disc.[12][a]
>1993: The original trilogy was released on LaserDisc as "The Definitive Collection". With the exception of a new THX audio mix, scratch and dirt removal, and color balance changes, it matched the original theatrical releases.[12]
>1995: The original trilogy was re-released on VHS with THX audio, advertised as the final release of the theatrical versions.[15][16][17]
>1997: The "Special Edition" of the original trilogy was released theatrically from January through March for the 20th anniversary of Star Wars. This release featured the first significant changes, which were intended to prove that Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) could effectively produce CGI visual effects for the prequel trilogy. For the "Special Edition" of A New Hope, the additional sound effects and lines of dialogue from the original mono mix print were carried over

>>211580669
To be fair, that edit is over 20 years old now.

>>211562172
Cope

>>211554270
>There's no intellectually honest defense of the special editions
There is, George Lucas does whatever he wants.
Just because you jerk off to Star Wars it doesnt mean that you own it.

>>211580997
Not them, but I do own Star Wars several times over. VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray, and digital files. It is my right to watch it in the way I feel is best.

>>211549359
If you dont' watch the originals you haven't seen SW

>>211549194
>Han shooting first is fucked up.
Then you completely misunderstood Han as a character.

>>211573531
>prequelshit
not Star Wars

A lot of people really don't understand how much Lucas changed in the Special Editions. The films were completely rescanned from scratch, from the original photo elements. All bluescreen work was completely recomposited from scratch. They don't realize how bad the original versions look because their memory of those original versions has been replaced by Lucas's later iterations.

>>211581360
>They don't realize how bad the original versions look because their memory of those original versions has been replaced by Lucas's later iterations.
^
reading this gave me full blown AIDS.

>>211581288
Are you George Lucas?

Downloading Puggo Grande right now. My dudes, it's got the original Tantive IV klaxon.

>>211581294
Cope.

>>211569064
https://youtu.be/FiNL7jMyJX4

greedo never shot

>>211581566
Submit
That panned shit has been bad for decades at this point, contrarian

>>211581423
>>211581360 #
>>They don't realize how bad the original versions look because their memory of those original versions has been replaced by Lucas's later iterations.
Obviously written by someone who hasn't previously seen a film print projected in his adult life

>>211581631
Nah, its peak Star Wars and you cant do anything about it.

>>211581663
You got that right. I've watched the Biggs Darklighter cut on a 50" TV and it looks great. Film grain looks good. If you hate film grain, you hate films.

>>211581663
What does film print have to do with anything? You can rescan Star Wars from the original film stock, but it looks shit. It looks cheap and hokey, and the optical printers added more and more noise with each composited layer, so the desert scenes with R2D2 look absolutely awful, blown out, degraded. All the space scenes have issues with the moving mattes. And the film is just cheap looking, like I said. The Special Editions were essentially taking the raw elements of the films and reworking them.

Neckbeards: Han shot first!!!!!
Harrison Ford: "I dont care who shot first, if George cut it that way then that's the way it should be"

>>211581786
>it looks shit. It looks cheap and hokey
But enough about your projected self-image.

>>211581820
Star Wars was a cheap and hokey looking movie. So was THX 1138 in its original release. The special edition of THX is a vastly superior film.
https://youtu.be/1fIVnLaj6kM?si=KzsQJWMY7GxF1ewE

>>211581786
the special editions kept the matte squares around tie fighters and the terrible rancor monster on a screen. maybe a later edition fixed that, but those vhs versions just added clutter.

>>211580997
Lucas doesn't own SW anymore....

>>211581860
>anon reminds us that Lucas went insane and ruined THX-1138 as well

>>211581888
Yeah whatever Yidsney puts out is not-canon

>>211581890
*enchanced

>>211581866
The 2011 versions (Blu Rays) fixed the matte boxes in 4. There's a very extensive list of changes here.
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases

>>211581997
*enfuckered
captcha: WARSW

>>211582064
Lucas made the films better. What I find interesting is you don't find people hating Valve for replacing Half-Life 2 with the improved, bug fixed modern versions.

>>211582029
And the "WHOOAAAAAAOOOOO" Obi-Wan yell?

>>211582029
Extensive, yet incomplete.
>>211582078
I play video games from the 70s, 80s, and 90s, so no idea what you mean.

>>211582029
MACLUNKEY

>>211582064
He enchanced it, just like he did with the OT movies.

>>211582139
>enchanced
The word is "enhanced", Dajroon. And no, he did not. He ruined them.

>>211582150
Nah, he made them better.

>>211582166
>Nah, he made them butter.
Yup.

>>211582192
*Better
Superior to the original cut in fact.

>>211582211
The original cut of Star Wars that no one has seen since possibly 1983 will put hair on your nuts.

>>211582078
No, Valve did ruin HL2 but most people don’t really care enough to replay it in the first place.

>>211549194
Next Generation had nothing on The original

>>211549728
Give this to Mike for me. He Shatnered himself

>>211581677
Nah nobody ever liked it and it's not SW, and there is nothing you can do about it except making meme people laugh at and living in your nostalgic bubble

>>211581789
Neither Ford nor Lucas get to decide lmao
Once a piece of art exists, it wil only answer to itself

>>211581956
yep, just like Lucas after the OT
>>211582166
>better
lolololol

>>211581677
Lynch all prequelfags.

>>211582211
>>211582139
>>211582078
>>211580997
Trying too hard

>>211550687
fuming tranny kek

>>211582911
You’re brown Kaguya.

>>211582545
>>211582591
>>211582722
>>211582809
Fuming tranny
>>211582572
>Neither Lucas
Top delusional commie neckbeard

>>211549899
How do these compare to the despecialized versions? I watched the first two recently and it was great - 70s/80s special effects - model spaceships, stop motion, etc.

No wonder Lucas made movies for the younger generation, and not the retarded neckbeard cattle.

>>211548255 (OP)
what are you trying to achieve, jew? watching your Mud White?

>>211581786
>What does film print have to do with anything? You can rescan Star Wars from the original film stock, but it looks shit. It looks cheap and hokey, and the optical printers added more and more noise with each composited layer, so the desert scenes with R2D2 look absolutely awful, blown out, degraded. All the space scenes have issues with the moving mattes.
That's just the film medium. That's how films of that era look. That's what state-of-the-art was at that point in time. That's what won all the Academy Awards.

>>211555730
>Spielberg
Nothing of value was lost.

>>211548255 (OP)
The article is clickbait, the print itself is fairly high quality, they cherry picked a dew retards that bitched the costumes and set don't look like a fucking CGI screen.

KNEEL before his MAJESTY and APOLOGISE right NOW.

>>211548255 (OP)
who cares about the perfect crispness of the image? it is irrelevant to the cinematography and performance 99% of the time

>club dread
>shitty widely available theatrical cut you can find on various streaming sites
>actual good uncut version
>out of print dvd
For a couple of years you could get the uncut version on vudu but the uncut version has been for sale on there in over 10 years

>>211586531
Hasnt*

>>211563214
>i always thought lucas made the special editions to just milk whales
dumbest take ITT
if he just wanted money he would double dip and release the unaltered versions at double the cost for the boomers.

>>211566668
bingo

>>211549899
>The 4k77, 4k80, and 4k83 versions are fan remasters from old film reels
yes but what the article is talking about is a film reel someone found and they're screening, but without remastering
so yeah, it looks like shit

>>211586754
very poor reading comprehension

>>211583822
>I'm irrationally mad at bad movies of my youth being considered bad against my nostalgic approval
t.

>>211584301
>your kids will love it.
And then it didn't happen lol
It just a small group of nostalgic adult losers

i watch the silver screen edition. literally no issues with it.

>>211586754
>but without remastering
>so yeah, it looks like shit
no it doesnt

lol. lmao

>>211579815
To be fair, that's because the Greedo scene had different dialogue in the original draft, and they pushed most of Jabba's lines on to Greedo when they cut it

>>211560825
What’s your book going to be called. Sounds pretty interesting?

You don't get to "post release tweak" a movie period, it's not a goddamn video game with update patches. Once it's out it's out.

>>211590644
It's untitled as yet. And thanks. I just want people to know (and eventually see) the truth.

BRILLIANT! GEORGE, YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN!

>>211573531
bassadisssimo.

>>211549146
completely agreed. They should at least remove all the CGI bullshit.

The sarlaac should look like a butthole with teeth, which is scary, not Audrey 2, which is stupid.

for me, it's the 4KXX releases. film grain is soul.

>>211591366
How do you fuck your own composition like this? Why did nobody stop him? Its already a cramped arrangement and not as clear as it could be. But then you just overpower your small character by placing a huge dinosaur above his head.

>>211591366
theatrical is much better

>>211549194
I disagree

Didn't the fanmade despecialized version make an original rerelease redundant?

>>211549194
Has it been long enough? Are there actual "human beings" with this argument running through their heads now amongst the tranny and tater tot generation? I'd believe it at this point, people are mentally insane enough for it to not be a troll.

>>211579815
i really like this version of jabba, it makes han seem no less of a scoundrel, whereas the final version he's more like a victim being held hostage by an evil alien

>>211567535
so what version is "preserved" at the Library of Congress"?

>>211548255 (OP)
Thank GOD Georges x-wife fixed it in editing the weekend after it was released. That's why it became a hit.

>>211550337
What art style is this called and why did it stop being used for Space Opera

>>211595036
The 1981 re-edit with the 1977 crawl spliced in.

>>211595036
honestly it's irrelevant since the army of autists will probably inscribe it's data in crystal or some dumb bullshit for posterity

>>211567053
>He said at one point after making the scans for the special editions that he threw the original negatives out
God I hope it's true. Fucking based

>>211597938
Trying too hard

>>211597992
I think I'll seal several copies of varying formats into a concrete cavity. Perhaps under a sidewalk.

>>211550687
Jeez you really just can't win around here huh?

>>211598222
checked and keked

>>211598222
>>211597938
lame

>>211598222
Trying too hard

>>211598222
>Harrison said