[Rumor] The complete Saga 4K Bluray box set in the works

[Gaith]

The issue with the prequel trilogy is that while Episode I was captured on film and can be mastered in 4K with no issues, Episodes II and III were both shot in 2K digital which means that any 4K master is going to be an upscale.

Eh, as I've observed elsewhere, normal blu-ray, which roughly corresponds to the 2K capture of AotC and RotS, already pretty much maxes out the detail available from 35mm film:

(standard blu on the left, 4K blu on the right)

Harmy's Despecialized OT files are at a resolution of 1280x720, which is slightly larger than the standard blu-ray resolution, so I doubt that even an official LFL restoration of a 35mm negative could offer more than a slight improvement on this:

TFA was shot on 35mm, so, same story. Apparently parts of TLJ were shot on 65mm, so a 4K blu ray could theoretically offer a significant improvement there, but for Eps 1-7... meh.

 

[Campe]

Harmy's Despecialized OT files are at a resolution of 1280x720, which is slightly larger than the standard blu-ray resolution, so I doubt that even an official LFL restoration of a 35mm negative could offer more than a slight improvement on this:

TFA was shot on 35mm, so, same story. Apparently parts of TLJ were shot on 65mm, so a 4K blu ray could theoretically offer a significant improvement there, but for Eps 1-7... meh.

Regardless of that, I would rather have official versions of the unaltered saga in 1080p or 4K that didn’t have recreations of stuff and things. Some of the recreations stuff (like Harmy’s version) are very good, almost great but they’re ultimately just that — recreations.

Give me the real thing.

 

[Gaith]

^ What is "real", though? Apart from first-run 35mm film reels, it's all recreations of some kind. And, unlike Adywan, Harmy isn't adding anything. So... *shrug*

 

[Qonundrum]

Isn't standard blu-ray resolution 1920x1080? (I recall 1280x720 (720P) TV sets, which was a previous generation HD, but those didn't last long at all before being superseded...)

And most 4K titles currently released had been scanned and edited (at the time or even in more recent scans) in what's equivalent to 2K, upscaling (artificial enlargement) can only do so much -- but it can do some, if the source material is of high enough resolution - try upscaling a 320x200i (approximate to VHS) image to 1920x1080p and wince... I'd rather see less compression, compression artifacting and reduced color gamut can be worse than limited resolution (aka "the megapixel myth"). HDR is great, if material is encoded for it...

Source: https://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/

 

[Kor]

Isn't standard blu-ray resolution 1920x1080? (I recall 1280x720 (720P) TV sets, which was a previous generation HD, but those didn't last long at all before being superseded...)
...

Yes. Harmy's stuff is in 720p, smaller than blu-ray.

Urrh, or so I've heard.

Kor

 

[Mach5]

Isn't standard blu-ray resolution 1920x1080? (I recall 1280x720 (720P) TV sets, which was a previous generation HD, but those didn't last long at all before being superseded...)

Yes, 1080p is standard.

32'' TV sets with a resolution of 1366x768 are still being sold though.

 

[Gaith]

Yes. Harmy's stuff is in 720p, smaller than blu-ray.

Urrh, or so I've heard.

Dunno how you're counting, and I'm no spec expert, but again, my Harmy files are 1280x720 - and, unlike the "standard blu-ray size" figures of 1920x1280, said files are fitted to the movies' widescreen aspect ratio, and therefore aren't counting several hundred pixels of useless black space.

Bottom line: yes, an official 4K release would probably be a tad better than what's available now in terms of baseline image resolution, but, unless it's a full restoration that strips away the crap of the Special Editions, it's a hard pass from moi.

 

[Qonundrum]

^ What is "real", though? Apart from first-run 35mm film reels, it's all recreations of some kind. And, unlike Adywan, Harmy isn't adding anything. So... *shrug*

I think he means the properly remastered film negatives from the 1977, 1980, and 1983 movies. They were made a certain way and later they were edited, chopped up, CGI superimposed - sometimes to good effect, sometimes it detracted. Having both the original films as well as the altered editions, some scenes of which did improve the overall story (though, yes, some also detracted) would be the best imaginable release.

 

[Mach5]

We've been talking about this for years and the closest thing to a general consensus is that three editions would be optimal. The restored, unaltered theatrical versions; the polished theatrical versions with updated visuals (lightsaber fx, matte lines), but no alterations; and lastly, the special editions with CGI, updated digital matte paintings etc. (sans the controversial stuff like Greedo shooting first, the stupid Jabba scene in ANH etc.).

 

[JD]

Which version of the special editions would you go with? Pretty much every time they've been released they've had new tweaks made to them. I would just go with the most recent.

 

[Mach5]

Which version of the special editions would you go with? Pretty much every time they've been released they've had new tweaks made to them. I would just go with the most recent.

I'd do a whole new one.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

They can make all the special editions they want. It's still wrong to not release the movies as they were first released.

From a historical perspective, you are correct. That's is what film preservation is all about.

We've been talking about this for years and the closest thing to a general consensus is that three editions would be optimal. The restored, unaltered theatrical versions; the polished theatrical versions with updated visuals (lightsaber fx, matte lines), but no alterations; and lastly, the special editions with CGI, updated digital matte paintings etc. (sans the controversial stuff like Greedo shooting first, the stupid Jabba scene in ANH etc.).

There's such a large interest in the theatrical versions being released--from generations of fans, film historians, et al., that Disney would be wise to finally release the original versions. As a property, there would be more public interest ($) in that than anything currently produced in theatres.

 

[Crewman6]

With the recent merger, Disney should add the 20th Century Fox logo onto all films going forward, even Disney-era films. Then I'd be bite.

 

[Gaith]

As a property, there would be more public interest ($) in that than anything currently produced in theatres.

Um, not even close. Three of the four Disney Star Wars movies have made over a billion dollars worldwide. The vast majority of the general public that pays for Star Wars movie theater tickets doesn't give a rat's ass about the GOUT.

 

[BillJ]

There's such a large interest in the theatrical versions being released--from generations of fans, film historians, et al., that Disney would be wise to finally release the original versions. As a property, there would be more public interest ($) in that than anything currently produced in theatres.

I'm sorry, they aren't going to gross two billion dollars on the release of the original original trilogy. They just aren't.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I'm sorry, they aren't going to gross two billion dollars on the release of the original original trilogy. They just aren't.

One, we know the ST drew in audiences thanks to the presence of the Big Three, or referencing the OT (RO, TFA). Remove Hamill, Fisher and Ford and would the films pulled in anywhere near that business?

The OT continues to have a cultural interest that cannot be denied, and for innumerable SW and basic movie fans (who actually buy films once released on available formats) who were there to see the OT in theatres, the idea of seeing the films as originally released is appealing. Its the reason the Star Trek (TOS) Blu-rays were not just selling the "remastered" versions, but featured the original broadcast versions as well: there's a sizable audience who have a desire to see original presentations, and Paramount was wise to recognize the continued interest/profit potential of that audience.

Do you think that interest is not there for the millions who watched the OT in theatres?

 

[Ithekro]

If they do it during the gap between films starting next year they might get a reasonable audiance.

But this seems more like a box set release style deal. Even if its part of a triple Trilogy set, that would likely be the way and time to pull the OT "probably" remastered to higher resolution versions of the first video releases or the 90s box set even with better sound quality.

 

[Campe]

Looking solely at the estimated ticket sales of the original theatrical runs (no re-releases, no special editions), just the original theatrical runs and no spinoffs (Rogue One, Solo) is interesting:

* Box office records were not as closely followed in the OT time. I believe there is some data missing for ESB.

I think there is something to say for the original three playing a role in the sales of the sequel trilogy but I think there are other aspects to consider as well and I think the numbers show it as well. First, the original trilogy was just at the cusp of home video coming onto the scene. While VHS was developed in the early 70s, it really didn't become affordable until the early 1980s. The original Star Wars wasn't released on home video until 1982 a whole five years after it was released in theaters with Empire and Jedi being released in 1984 and 1986 (four and three years after their releases respectfully).

With the prequels, the release window was much shorter, with The Phantom Menace's first home release just eleven months after its theatrical release, and Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith just six months after their theatrical releases. The release window shortened even further with the Sequel Trilogy as The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi being a little over three months each.

The relatively long theatrical engagement of the original Star Wars is impressive in itself and there are tales of people going and seeing the movie 20+ times in theaters. That is certainly saying something. I was only 3 when Return of the Jedi was first released so I know I only saw the initial run of one movie in theaters once. Starting with The Phantom Menace, I have seen all the saga films at least twice in theaters and on the end of things, I think I saw TPM four times. Bringing a movie home back in 1977 wasn't really a thought. Now with such a brief window of time between releases, a lot of people, even the die-hards will go and see the movie once or twice and wait to spend $20 on the blu-ray (or $25 on the UHD).

I think the proof will be in how The Rise of Skywalker does. If it follows suit with the movies above, it will do better than The Last Jedi. That will say a lot considering both Hamill and Fisher's diminished roles (and Billy Dee's not-quite-member-of-the-big-three-status). Despite what the few hundred thousand members of the Fandom Menace might suggest, I think its possible to do so. However, realistically, if I was a betting man, I'm going to say that it comes in at 90% of the box office of Last Jedi.

The point being, its impossible to say how many people actually saw each movie in the theater (and how many followed suit on home video). But the number is significant.

To bring this back home, while the presence of the OT 3 possibly playing a part in the box office success of TFA and TLJ, I am doubtful that a high quality release of the original original trilogy will make $2 billion. It would do well for Disney. Just not that kind of money.

 

[Gaith]

Do you think that interest is not there for the millions who watched the OT in theatres?

Most of those willing to buy blu-rays of the OT, whether SEs or not, almost certainly have already bought said blu-rays, and will not do so again - especially if they're planning on subscribing to Disney +, and would expect such content to be included. The minority of fans who will buy the same movies on blu-ray twice, or not at all unless they're the non-SE GOUTs, are only dominant in online forums such as these.

Yes, GOUT blu-rays would no doubt sell a tidy number of sets. But the profit wouldn't be in the hundreds of millions, let alone billions.

 

[BillJ]

One, we know the ST drew in audiences thanks to the presence of the Big Three, or referencing the OT (RO, TFA). Remove Hamill, Fisher and Ford and would the films pulled in anywhere near that business?

I have no clue what this has to do with a home video release of the unaltered original trilogy?

Do you think that interest is not there for the millions who watched the OT in theatres?

There will be interest for some. I, for one, would probably pick them up... depending on the quality of the transfer. Enough interest to make $2 billion dollars on home video? I don't think it is close.

The original Star Wars trilogy sold three million units on Blu, the complete set also sold roughly 3 million units. Which is six million units. If Disney is clearing say $50 a set, they would walk away with $300 million on a gross of roughly $600 million.

The market is constantly shifting. It wouldn't be long before these would be on Disney+ which will weaken the market for the discs.