The Power of the (Unaltered) Force

posted by Tygrrius @ 12:06 AM

It's been a long summer. Lucasfilm's May announcement that the unaltered versions of the original Star Wars trilogy will be released September 12 on DVD slowed time down to a crawl.

During the making of the originals, George Lucas was quoted as saying that he planned at least three trilogies in the Star Wars saga. In more recent years, he's stepped away from that comment.

To borrow a line from Obi Wan, it turns out that what Lucas told us back then "was true, from a certain point-of-view."

For there really are three Star Wars trilogies now: the nostalgic originals, the 2004 special editions, and the prequels.

When news of the unaltered release of the originals broke, I could not quite believe it.

Sure, I always knew this would eventually happen. I just didn't expect it to be this year and in the exact way I hoped it would be: the true, original, theatrical releases.

Lucas has made it clear that he considers the upgraded editions of the movies (currently from 2004) to be the "official" versions from his perspective as an artist. The fact that he is allowing the unaltered versions to be released at all is an apparent attempt to make peace with a very vocal group of fans who have persistently requested them on DVD for years.

Lucasfilm's announcement indeed brought a brief, but very real, peace to the Star Wars fandom.

But, soon enough, the complaints began.

The audience is listening

First, there were complaints about the sound. The unaltered versions feature a Dolby 2.0 soundtrack, rather than the more modern Dolby 5.1 Surround that the 2004 editions sport.

While some audiophiles may find this unacceptable, I'll take the 2.0 sound - it fits with the nostalgia. And that's what this release is all about.

How much does it cost if it's free?

Then there were complaints that the unaltered versions are actually packaged as bonus features to re-releases of the 2004 editions of each movie, available for the first time as stand-alone movies rather than as a set.

I knew when I bought the 2004 versions that I would buy them again in their original forms as soon as they became available. And, when I buy these versions (with "free" backup copies of the 2004 editions), I'll know that I'll probably buy them five or six more times in my lifetime as the movies and formats evolve.

People are getting two full-length movies for the price of one if they shop wisely. I can only imagine what would have happened if they released these as single disc DVDs containing only the pre-1997 version of each movie (and they would have been about the same price point).

Some would likely complain that since they avoided the 2004 set for not including the pre-1997 versions, they were now being "forced" to go back and buy the boycotted set as a separate purchase. At least with these double-DVD sets, while they are being made to buy the 2004 versions--it's essentially at no extra cost.

Anamorphic whining

As complaints about the sound and packaging began to cool off, the big story hit.

Due the unavailability of the original movie negatives or acceptable prints of the first versions, the theatrical versions for the DVDs are taken from 1993 Laserdisc masters. Consequently, they are in a non-anamorphic format.

For those who watch the DVDs on widescreen TVs, this means they will either have to watch the unaltered movies with bars surrounding the entire image on all four sides, or zoom the picture in to remove the bars on the left and right at the expense of image quality.

Most modern DVDs, including the 2004 editions of the Star Wars trilogy, are presented in anamorphic widescreen--a higher quality process that utilizes more screen resolution for the actual movie picture.

For the record, I think these DVD versions will be better than the Laserdiscs. For one thing, they were sourced directly from the Laserdisc masters.

This is not the same thing as someone going out and buying the Laserdisc set and then making their own DVDs out of them. This is going to be higher quality than those sort of bootlegs, I have no doubt of that.

And yes, non-anamorphic is somewhat disappointing but certainly not a deal-breaker, at least not for me. This is still an upgrade from the existing VHS and Laserdisc versions. Is it the ultimate upgrade? No, but still an upgrade.

A question of motive

While I think early attempts to have Lucasfilm reconsider its stance that they would not restore the films in order to produce anamorphic versions were legitimate efforts, it soon turned into counter-productive whining.

Lucasfilm has been very upfront about it and given their reasoning directly to concerned fans. People can buy the DVDs, or not buy them.

Disappointed "fans" soon began filling Amazon and similar sites with negative reviews of the new DVDs, sight unseen. I'm sorry, that's just wrong.

The issue really is about ego, but not necessarily George Lucas' ego in this case.

It's the ego of those who want power over that which they did not create. It's obvious that a lot of the people stirring up the anamorphic controversy and calling for a boycott already own the Laserdiscs.

Here's something else to think about: the day Lucasfilm made the unaltered DVDs announcement, the value of those Laserdiscs and the associated equipment, which had been quite the collectibles, plummeted. I imagine the same could be said for DVD bootlegs sourced from those same Laserdiscs.

Could there be some other reason that some people don't want anyone buying DVD-quality versions of these movies? Could the seemingly altruistic campaign to make people boycott them really have a completely different motive?

Sure, I'm just speculating on why some are doing this. But isn't that exactly what they are doing on why Lucasfilm is releasing the DVDs in this form?

The future of the past

Taking Lucasfilm at their word, I believe they currently have no plans to restore the nostalgic versions beyond what we'll get this year. Business is business, though, and plans can change.

On the other hand, it's not like they're going to say, "We want you to be aware that we have future plans to restore the earlier versions and release them anamorphically in 2007," because then almost no one would buy these editions.

Well, yeah, schmucks like me would probably still buy them.

While I doubt we'll really have fully restored, anamorphic versions of the originals as early as 2007, I hope I'm wrong. I think it'll be more like 7 to 10 years before the pre-1997 versions re-surface again, though. By then, the 1993 masters will be an even harder sell.

So, while I don't really believe this will be the last time, I do think it'll be the last time for awhile.

And, hey, if I'm wrong and a higher quality DVD release of the nostalgic versions comes out next year, you can bet I won't lead a boycott in order to keep the value of my "inferior" DVDs up. I love these movies too much for that.

Where the fun began

The best thing of all about this new DVD release is that it'll serve as a reminder of the days when Star Wars was all about having fun.

Ultimately, why do so many people love Star Wars? Why is it so great? Because it's fun. For me, Star Wars is still about having fun. It's just harder to get past all the muck to see that sometimes.

The day it stops being fun, the day I find myself in sheer agony because of picture and sound not being 100% perfect or hurling insults at the very people who made this incredible universe (and deserve to profit from it), that's the day I'll leave Star Wars behind as a relic of my past.

I hope that day never comes.

Unaltered states

In the grand scheme of things, this is a small change, but one of the things I'm looking forward to most in the unaltered editions is seeing "Star Wars" without 1981's addition of "Episode IV, A New Hope" to the opening crawl.

As far as I can remember, I've never seen it this way in context--only the brief clip shown in Empire of Dreams. That will definitely start the unaltereds off right, giving that 1977 feel when Star Wars was just Star Wars.

Another seemingly small scene that I'll be happy to see in its original version again is the approach of the Falcon to Yavin IV after Han and Luke have rescued Leia from the Death Star in Star Wars.

The orange planet filling the top half of the screen had a much more dramatic effect than the way it looks now, even though I'm sure the overall shot is technically "better" in the special edition.

I'm also looking forward to seeing the first Death Star battle in its original presentation, without the CGI fighters. Matte lines and all, there's just something about physical models. And those effects were really one of Star Wars' main innovations.

I think people who haven't seen or don't remember the original versions will be quite surprised at the tremendous quality that was already there long before the 1997 and 2004 upgrades.

Nostalgic Originals vs. Special Editions

I love all three Star Wars trilogies. As a stand-alone trilogy, I prefer the unaltered originals.

Within the context of the overall six episode saga, though, I prefer the 2004 special editions. When I want updated effects, 5.1 surround sound, and films that flow a bit better with the prequels, I'll watch the 2004 versions.

When I want pure nostalgia, I'll go back to the originals.

Continuing the countdown

I'm definitely looking forward to finally watching Star Wars: Unaltered on DVD, and then pulling out the VHS copies one last time to see if it was worth the wait.

Hopefully, this will be the best home version of these movies released to date. I have a feeling it will be.

September 12 can't get here fast enough. I'm ready for the fun to begin . . . again!

The Great "TV Land" Mystery

posted by Tygrrius @ 12:02 AM

TV Land's recent announcement that they will be adding Star Trek to their regular lineup is fantastic news. Things were never really the same for the original series once its reruns were yanked out of syndication and became exclusive to the Sci Fi channel in 1998.

Don't get me wrong, Sci Fi did a great job showcasing the series. And I'm sure the deal made Paramount plenty of money at the time, too, but was it good for Star Trek?

Ultimately, I'd have to say no, because making the series exclusive to a single cable channel effectively limited the potential audience. For example, in the area I live, Sci Fi is not available as part of the regular cable package. It is only included in more expensive digital packages.

Earlier this year, the fledgling G4 network began airing Star Trek, after the Sci Fi contract presumably ended. While their Star Trek 2.0 may rightly be viewed as a travesty by some, G4 at least makes up for it by also showing uncut, non-2.0 versions of each episode.

The change this time around is that it seems G4 will continue airing classic Trek even after TV Land begins their broadcasts. If I'm not reading too much into this and it truly is the end of exclusive single-cable channel agreements for airing the original Star Trek, then I'm all for it.

Anything to get more people to actually see the show is a step in the right direction. It deserves to shine. It's the one that started it all and still hasn't been topped. Things are finally changing for the original Star Trek, which was hidden away and abused for far too long.

Though this is only speculation on my part, I would not be surprised if J.J. Abrams and Paramount break their relative silence on the details of the eleventh Star Trek movie on or about September 8, the show's 40th anniversary.

Unlike some of his more recent predecessors, Abrams appears to have a genuine respect for the original Star Trek, which should make for an exciting new direction in the Trek movies.

I'm also happy to see that TV Land will air "The Man Trap" on the actual night of Star Trek's 40th anniversary. I can think of no better way to celebrate 40 years of Trek than to watch the first episode that ever aired. While not the first season's best episode, it's certainly a good representative.

A Programming Mystery

Looking over the rest of TV Land's schedule for the September 8 special, though, something looks odd.

Up next after "The Man Trap" is "The Trouble With Tribbles." Seems like a reasonable choice to represent the second season, since this David Gerrold episode is certainly a fan favorite.

Airing after "Tribbles," though, is "Plato's Stepchildren," the third season entry.

Now, if it's not already obvious from this site, I'll come right out and tell you: I love Star Trek, especially the classic series and movies. And I strongly disagree with those who hate the third season. There's plenty of good episodes there.

"Plato's Stepchildren," however, is not one of them.

There are only three, maybe four episodes of classic Trek that I loathe. In a 79 episode run, that's a great record. "Plato's Stepchildren" would make my very short "Worst Of" list.

In this episode, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy beam down to a planet whose society supposedly embodies Greek ideals. They meet Alexander, a dwarf who acts as a jester in the court of a "philosopher king."

Other than Alexander, the planet's inhabitants all have strong telekinetic powers. They can move objects with their minds, as well as force people to do things against their will.

Kirk and Spock are made court jesters as well and are forced into a number of humiliating acts--including being made to imitate a horse. A true low point in the history of the series.

Resolving the Mystery

So, why in the world would TV Land choose to spotlight "Plato's Stepchildren" in particular? As I mentioned, there are some good episodes in the third season. Even a couple of great ones. Why not "The Enterprise Incident"? Or "The Tholian Web"?

Why "Plato's Stepchildren"? Well, there does appear to be a reason. I won't go as far as to call it a "logical" one, but there is an explanation of sorts.

Yes, "Plato's Stepchildren" was a bad episode, but it also has some historic value.

For, you see, "Plato's Stepchildren" is the one where Kirk kisses Uhura.

Nearly 40 years later, this does not sound like a big deal. In fact, if you believe some idiots, Kirk must've kissed every woman on the ship at least twice by the time of this episode.

But "Plato's Stepchildren" aired in 1968. William Shatner kissing Nichelle Nichols was the first kiss between white and black characters on American television. For 1968, it was a huge deal.

Apparently, then, choosing to air "Plato's Stepchildren" on the big night is a well-intended, if somewhat misguided, attempt to showcase Star Trek's cultural significance.

With this line of thinking, I'm frankly surprised that "A Private Little War" wasn't chosen to represent the second season. That was the episode that did what no contemporary show could do at the time: discuss the war in Vietnam.

The Importance of Being Uhura

As you'll be constantly hearing over the upcoming anniversary weeks, one of Star Trek's main contributions was that, as a "science fiction" series set in the future, it could get away with social commentaries far beyond what other shows could achieve.

I know that's the standard line, but I don't completely buy it. To me, the whole social commentary angle is just something people like to bring up in order to justify Trek's popularity--an attempt to make it something more than it actually was.

Yes, there's certainly some truth to it. For me, Star Trek's most important social commentary, for its time period, occurred on nearly every episode. And that was simply showing Uhura as a member of Kirk's senior staff and part of the bridge crew. She's there, but in a matter-of-fact way.

No one on the crew mentions it or points it out. Why should they? It's the 23rd century, people have long-since gotten over this sort of thing. They work together for a common good. Male, female, black, white, American, Russian, Asian, and yes, even Vulcans and humans.

With this, Star Trek shows us how incredible our world can be. We achieve so much more working together than apart.

Gene Roddenberry and Nichelle Nichols both had the courage to bring Uhura to life, and she is certainly an important part of Trek's legacy.

But. . . .

A Bad Episode is a Bad Episode

Star Trek, like any other decent series, was at its best when it featured good storytelling. "Plato's Stepchildren" is simply a poor episode. Uhura and Kirk are mere props of the Platonians. Despite its greater significance in the actual world, the kiss means nothing within the context of the episode.

Unlike its sequels, the first Star Trek series was not truly an ensemble piece. The show featured Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, and in that order. The others were simply supporting characters. There really aren't any "Sulu episodes" or "Uhura episodes." Beyond the big three, the other characters had moments. But that was about it.

Perhaps, if there had been more seasons, we would've finally gotten that Uhura episode. With what we have, though, I don't think "Plato's Stepchildren" is one to highlight her. I'd much rather see "Mirror, Mirror" for instance, which contains much stronger Uhura scenes. Not to mention being one of the best episodes of the entire series.

Making Peace In TV Land

Like I said at the beginning, though, I'm thrilled TV Land will be broadcasting Star Trek, especially on September 8. While I'm poking them here a bit, I certainly don't intend to be too hard on them.

I plan to tune in for all three episodes that night. Yes, even for "Plato's Stepchildren."

Sure, I may cringe a bit at the horse routine but, in the end, I'll just be happy that Star Trek is back. And that, despite our ongoing problems, perhaps the world is a little better now than it was 40 years ago.

That gives us some hope for our future. And that's what Star Trek was all about.