quote:

---

Work on the movie will continue until April 15, with even more fiddling likely to go on into May for a special cut that will only play in digitally equipped theaters this summer.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I hope the digitals will charge an extra 5 bucks for that 30 seconds of added footage.

---

Isn't that how it works in video? I mean the "special edition" DVDs charge a bit extra for those special bits.

Yet another closing of the gap between home and cinema.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-16-2005, 09:36 AM:
 
They should do what they did with "CLUE" and have a different ending at various theaters. I heard that's what they planned to do for "Freddy vs. Jason" at one point.

In all honesty, though, this is a feeble move to either: 1) Get more theaters to install digital so they can run the supercool ultra mega mega ROTS, or 2) Ensure the digital screens will outgross film screens by promoting them as having the supercool ultra mega mega ROTS.

After release, Lucas undoubtedly will hold a press conference in which he will announce that the "Digital presentation is what I intended to be shown" and spin it in a way to make it sound like film DIDN'T ALLOW him to have his VISION, blah blah blah.

"...Lucas informed filmgoers that the only way to see the intended version of the new Star Wars is to see it in DLP, since film prints are missing key elements from Lucas's film..."

All hype. ENDLESS ENDLESS hype.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-16-2005, 12:33 PM:
 
Well, good. That should get teach those crappy film houses a thing or two!
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-16-2005, 02:15 PM:
 
This was also the case for Attack Of The Clones. George talks about it during the commentary. There wasn't anything major added, just some minor effects tweaking, and slight modifications. For example, in the wedding scene at the end, Anakin reaches for Padme's hand in one version, and is already holding her hand in the other version. Or something like that.

Those are probably the types of changes we can expect for Revenge Of The Sith.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-16-2005, 02:28 PM:
 
They're releasing it on film??? But George said that Ep III would be only, since film apparently doesn't allow him to fulfill his vision!

Will the IMAX DMR version be different, too?

Am I the only one who is getting a bit annoyed by this trend toward "special editions" of films, featuring "new never-before-seen footage"? For me, the original, 35mm or 70mm theatrical release of any given film, as seen by the majority of viewers, will always be the "one, true version" of any given film, and anything else is, at best, a curiousity. (Having said this, I'd really love to see the original [premiere version] cut of "2001" in 70mm.)
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-16-2005, 05:50 PM:
 
Me, too, Scott. "Director's cut" editions always irk me. I figure, the first-release cut IS the director's cut. Whose else would it be, the gaffer's?
 

---

Posted by Cody Martin (Member # 2523) on 01-16-2005, 06:03 PM:
 
Tim, of course not..it would have to be the best boys'.;-)..just playing. I agree though, the few seconds of "enhanced" footage..blah..give me the original!
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 01-16-2005, 06:05 PM:
 
I'll side with Lucas on this one in the sense that, although he is definitely a master of hype, having a digital cinema version allows him to push the "lock date" closer to release compared to a much earlier date required to complete a film print order. And digital allows "final" decisions to be changed. So I suppose, in a sense, a digital production is never "locked."

BTW, back in 1980, between the 70mm and 35mm versions of "The Empire Strikes Back," the 35mm version was the longer, tweaked version of the two.
 

---

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-16-2005, 06:27 PM:
 
The extended versions of Lord of the Rings were definately better than the theatrical versions..
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-16-2005, 07:45 PM:
 
Thats ok. There are no Star Wars films made after the first three that worth the time of day anyway. I'd rather watch "Howard The Duck" than the last two installments od SW!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-16-2005, 08:00 PM:
 
ME TOO!

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 01-16-2005, 09:31 PM:
 
I agree, Mark. Lucas lost it a long time ago.

And I don't care if I play the next installment at my theatre, the way FOX raped us all with the last two.

Heck they are only good for a week's play anyway.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-16-2005, 10:35 PM:
 

quote: Scott Norwood

---

For me, the original, 35mm or 70mm theatrical release of any given film, as seen by the majority of viewers, will always be the "one, true version" of any given film, and anything else is, at best, a curiousity.

---

So regarding Apocolypse Now...which is your real true version then...the 70mm or the 35mm? They were NOT the same. The same can be said of Oklahoma! and Around the World in 80 Days and I'm sure others.

Steve

[ 01-17-2005, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Steve Guttag ]
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-16-2005, 11:27 PM:
 
Regardless of whether you like them or not, Star Wars and George Lucas have been major forces that have always been able to move this entire industry in a direction it didn't want to go. This is another example of that.

What's amazing to me is that there are some folks here who can't see past their own personal feelings about the "Star Wars" story or story telling to comment on the issue at hand in any Star Wars related thread.

It's really funny to watch. Every thread basically starts out as "this is how George Lucas/Star Wars is changing the way we do business today." And then it eventually turns into "The last two sucked and the next one will too so who cares anyway?"

We get it, guys. Some of you don't like Star Wars. Some of you like the old ones and not the new ones. Some of you hate Jar Jar. Some of you hate Ewoks. Some of you hate George Lucas. Really, we get it. Now would you please give it a break?

Thanks.

Back to the topic...

How early does a movie have to be locked down for IMAX DMR process? Or is that process pretty well ironed out so that it can happen pretty quickly once the 35mm is locked down?

I'm assuming that it will be released in IMAX.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-17-2005, 10:54 AM:
 
Maybe some people are inferring that the original three Stars Warses were indeed "groundbreaking" and changed the industry in a GOOD way (influence with Dolby Stereo rollout, THX, influx of 70mm blowups...) whereas the recent three do not. And it DOES have a lot to do with the content of the films themselves. If the film showcases some groundbreaking, industry-changing technology but nobody goes to see it, then what good is it?

In regards to people "not caring" if they play the third one "because the last two sucked" doesn't necessarily refer to the story of the films. They sucked in booking terms, they sucked in attendance after the first 3 weeks, many have said they sucked in the visual department too, with live-action being much softer than the CGI backgrounds... a lot of things.

Story and Story Telling are the essential parts, if not the backbone of a film entirely. Usually if the movie sucks, it's because the story sucks. It can have the biggest budget, the largest cast, and the most arrogant director, but if there's no story or the telling of it is bad... then you've got Heaven's Gate.

Back on Topic: Someone should ask Lucas in an interview how come the Imax FILM version is so much better than the DLP

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-17-2005, 11:57 AM:
 
Does anyone know how many screens in the US (or the world) have DLP projectors installed. I'm talking about the "theater" DLPs not the "small" projectors used for pre-show stuff. The last number I heard was 30 DLPs in the US. My understanding is that no theater has bought a DLP, they are all demo sites, and I can't see the companies trying to sell DLPs putting in more and more demo sites, if there is no money coming in from the ones in place.

As far as lead time, don't forget that a "pile" of DVD-ROMs must be produced and sent to each theater for DLP.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-17-2005, 12:11 PM:
 

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Regardless of whether you like them or not, Star Wars and George Lucas have been major forces that have always been able to move this entire industry in a direction it didn't want to go.

---

quote: Tim Reed

---

Me, too, Scott. "Director's cut" editions always irk me. I figure, the first-release cut IS the director's cut. Whose else would it be, the gaffer's?

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Regardless of whether you like them or not, Star Wars and George Lucas have been major forces that have always been able to move this entire industry in a direction it didn't want to go. This is another example of that.

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

I think George would have made a much bigger impact had he left the two versions the same and released the digital version three weeks earlier.

---

And they should do just that with Episode III if they really want to push D-Cinema. All they have to do is use Empire's distribution as their model: released first in select markets as a 70mm exclusive; the nationwide 35mm version came a month later.
 

---

Posted by Ari Nordström (Member # 288) on 01-18-2005, 03:26 AM:
 
To me, it's Lucas's endless tinkering with his films that puts me off. They're just films, for chrissakes, and when you're done with them, you're done. Is it necessary to have a dozen or so different versions of each one? Is it necessary to have two when the new film opens?

It's cheap, if you ask me. And I don't mean that literally because that's one thing it most certainly isn't.
 

---

Posted by Paul Howard (Member # 1706) on 01-18-2005, 07:32 AM:
 
Hello Guys
I was thinking about this whole DLP before cinema thing to somehow beat film showings, unfortunatly the majority of people wouldnt care if it was been shown DLP, 70mm, 35mm or even Imax. Hell it could be on a 28inch Widescreen tv set to strech mode at the front of the cinema and no one would care.
They are just bothered about seeing it first. Thats why piracy is so popular.

Gone are the days of people (except me or most of you guys) caring about presentation especially when they are happy to watch unfinished films thru the internet in a tiny incorrect frame rate window.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 01-18-2005, 08:45 AM:
 
It would be an interesting piracy test to release the digital version with watermarking a month early.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-18-2005, 10:21 AM:
 
The reason why Lucas could influence the direction of the industry was because his first films were wildly popular. Exhibitors will spend money ONLY when they think that money will be returned by an increase in attendence, hence they foresee that they will recoup their investment and in the long run make more money. It's all about the money.

Does anyone seriously think that if there was as much interest level in the first STAR WARS as say, GLITTER, that he and Dolby would have convinced theartres to invest in all those CP50s?

His recent efforts earned him the industry influencing power to get 100 theatres over five years to invest in DLP. ONE HUNDRED verses how many current commercial screens? 9,000? That's not exactly what I would call a "powerful influential force in the industry."

The reason we point out the lack-luster performance of the last SW films is because, if you don't have sellable product, you don't have anything, no matter what the technology.

As for this business of hyping his lastest offering by purposely knocking the film version in favor of the video presentation should REALLY piss off every chain, every exhibitor (minus those 100 who have the installed video projectors and can play his "Special Cut"). Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!! For the rest of the exhibitors I guess they will be relegated to playing the "Nothing Special Cut."

This is business -- forget all the Yay or Nay about the quality or lack thereof of the films -- this is about making or loosing money. And this is where I think NATO should jump in with both feet, fists flying, stop being such wusses and state with one loud voice, "Hey, you want to publicly knock and devalue the product you intend to sell us by hyping the digital form of your release as the better version, your "vision" as you like to call it, and by adding elements that you are not including in the film release you intend to sell us, thus devaluing our engagement, all in a calculated, possibly illegal move to insure your post-theatrical video sales, then you know what, Bub, let the 100 guys who have video projectors book your product; see how much your coveted opening weekend will bring in with your video playing on only 100 screens. The rest of us will happily sit back and pass on this one, given the fact that you choose to sell us a product you have willfully damaged."

Bet digital won't look quite as good to crazy George if all he can play it on is his precious 100 Deee-Cinema screens. Bet he'll decide really fast that gee, film can portray his freakin vision just fine.
 

---

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 01-18-2005, 12:08 PM:
 
Thanks Steve and Paul for the updated info.

It would be my guess that Lucas has money invested in DLP, and is getting worried that no one is buying this thing, and Sony now has a 4K projector (but I don't see anything in their info about it being able to put out enough light to fill a theater size screen, anyone know any more about this?). He is seeing his investment turn into a bunch of dead pixels.
 

---