Originally posted by: Number20
For new movies coming out, when a studio refuses to allow critics to preview the film, it usually means that the studio knows that the movie sucks. So they don't allow any previews in hopes to trick people into seeing before they hear that its bad. I'm afraid that its a similar thing going on here. Lucas knows that the quality is substandard, so he won't allow anyone to see screenshots or clips it before the release, to keep people wanting them. Then he has the fallback of "its bonus material" when people complain.
I don't believe it was a real review.For new movies coming out, when a studio refuses to allow critics to preview the film, it usually means that the studio knows that the movie sucks. So they don't allow any previews in hopes to trick people into seeing before they hear that its bad. I'm afraid that its a similar thing going on here. Lucas knows that the quality is substandard, so he won't allow anyone to see screenshots or clips it before the release, to keep people wanting them. Then he has the fallback of "its bonus material" when people complain.
1. It was inaccessible at the posted url.
2. You cannot prevent reviewers from making screenshots - that is protected under the news and documentaries clauses (which are embedded into the basic copyright laws that all countries respecting copyrights observe).
PS: I give the 2004 version a 4.0/10 for picture quality. Yes it is crisp and sharp, but the grain removal and wrong colouring gets to me. I give Terminator 1 a 9/10 for picture quality - and I would give it 10 if the film scratches (which are evident all the way through the movie) weren't there... but hen again they don't bother me.