Originally posted by: Raul2106
Alien features the original theatrical version along with the special editon and it doesn't say anything about remastering that version.
Yeah, because most of the classic movies released to DVD are remastered nowadays. The DVD of the original theatrical version of Alien, which btw came out in 1999, looks like day and night compared to the official OOT release. Fox has an excellent reputation of releasing quality versions of old movies, granted they were absolutely not happy being forced to release this substandard product.
The DVDs say they are the "original theatrical version". See this is the reason why Star Wars fans are considered impossible to please.
Argumenting or logical conclusions are apparently not your strongest side...
You want anamorphic? You got it! The 2004 editions give you all the anamorphic enhancement and craptacular remastering you could ever ask for. The theatrical versions are EXACTLY what they are supposed to be.
Nope. The original Star Wars, released in 1977, was presented on 35mm anamorphic film in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Like all those fanboys who get vocal on this issue, you have absolutely no clue about film technology. A single 35mm frame, even from a release copy, can hold much more picture information than HDTV.
Honestly, this release has something in it for everybody especially those who didn't buy the 2004 boxset. Next year when we get the 30th Anniversary boxset people will be complaining again so we should all look forward to that!
If rumors are true that these movies are again being tampered with, yes you can bet that we are going to complain further.
Here is the specs for the Alien (2 disc) to prove my point. Notice there is nothing here about "anamorphic". Also you will notice that the original theatrical version is not listed as digitally remastered either.
I own both the original DVD release from 1999 and the Legacy Boxset from 2003, and you know what? Both DVD´s have a nice, crisp anamorphic transfer of Alien. So, what now, fanboy? Pretty embarassing to write about something, which you apparently did not watch or own yourself, isn´t it?
I have lots of other movies, which are apparently more important than the OOT of Star Wars, since they have a nice and anamorphic picture transfer:
Flash Gordon (1980)
They Live! (1987)
Airplane! (1980)
Legend (1985)
Ewoks (1985)
Willow (1987)
I am as big a fan as the rest of you.
Nope, you defend that the OOT should be looking worse than these movies I listed above. You call yourself a fan, and defend bad quality, very embarassing and pathetic for you.
I have done some fan editing too.
Whooooo!
For an "official" DVD I don't have a problem with the theatrical release. Star Wars in not the only film to present it's theatrical version in a non-anamorphic state and that is my entire point.
Dude, we are in the year >twothousandandsix<, not >nineteenninetyeight< ,
I am not saying that I wouldn't appreciate anamorphic enhancement with some clean up. However this is acceptable in my opinion and if we do not get a remastering next year thats fine too.
Great fan you are. You approve that the original movies, which started this whole franchise, are being treated as a substandard waste product. Bravo!
Lucasfilm did give us THE ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSIONS.
According to this logic, we could have been eternally happy with, let´s say, the VHS releases of the 80´s.
Clearly these are better transfers than the 1993 Laserdiscs and the bootlegs.
In some aspects, but not all. I live in PAL land, and I am VERY angry they DID NOT USE the PAL videomasters used for my THX PAL laserdiscs. They might look better than some fan preservations, but they sure as hell look worse than most of my movies I have in posession, including movies of the 20´s, 30´s, 40´s and 50´s. Metropolis, a film made in 1927, looks VASTLY SUPERIOR in terms of picture quality to this messy DVD release of the OOT.
My technical knowledge on the subject is what is motivating my position.
Nope, your LACK of knowledge apparently is motivating your position.
Obviously Lucasfilm felt that the original trilogy did not warrent ANY enhancement.
Say what????
Lucas didn't touch it because he knew that SOME would consider anamorphic enhancement and print clean up as an alteration.
Sure, fanboy. Of course, according to this, a video transfer made in 1993 is a totally accurate presentation of how these movies were projected in 1977, 1980 and 1983.
I don't blame him because everybody is a critic and wants things their own specific way. At least by releasing it as is he cannot be bashed because he didn't present the original versions. Oh wait a second... THIS IS A STAR WARS FORUM so no matter what he does people are going to bash him to hell for one reason or another.
Alien features the original theatrical version along with the special editon and it doesn't say anything about remastering that version.
Yeah, because most of the classic movies released to DVD are remastered nowadays. The DVD of the original theatrical version of Alien, which btw came out in 1999, looks like day and night compared to the official OOT release. Fox has an excellent reputation of releasing quality versions of old movies, granted they were absolutely not happy being forced to release this substandard product.
The DVDs say they are the "original theatrical version". See this is the reason why Star Wars fans are considered impossible to please.
Argumenting or logical conclusions are apparently not your strongest side...
You want anamorphic? You got it! The 2004 editions give you all the anamorphic enhancement and craptacular remastering you could ever ask for. The theatrical versions are EXACTLY what they are supposed to be.
Nope. The original Star Wars, released in 1977, was presented on 35mm anamorphic film in 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Like all those fanboys who get vocal on this issue, you have absolutely no clue about film technology. A single 35mm frame, even from a release copy, can hold much more picture information than HDTV.
Honestly, this release has something in it for everybody especially those who didn't buy the 2004 boxset. Next year when we get the 30th Anniversary boxset people will be complaining again so we should all look forward to that!
If rumors are true that these movies are again being tampered with, yes you can bet that we are going to complain further.
Here is the specs for the Alien (2 disc) to prove my point. Notice there is nothing here about "anamorphic". Also you will notice that the original theatrical version is not listed as digitally remastered either.
I own both the original DVD release from 1999 and the Legacy Boxset from 2003, and you know what? Both DVD´s have a nice, crisp anamorphic transfer of Alien. So, what now, fanboy? Pretty embarassing to write about something, which you apparently did not watch or own yourself, isn´t it?
I have lots of other movies, which are apparently more important than the OOT of Star Wars, since they have a nice and anamorphic picture transfer:
Flash Gordon (1980)
They Live! (1987)
Airplane! (1980)
Legend (1985)
Ewoks (1985)
Willow (1987)
I am as big a fan as the rest of you.
Nope, you defend that the OOT should be looking worse than these movies I listed above. You call yourself a fan, and defend bad quality, very embarassing and pathetic for you.
I have done some fan editing too.
Whooooo!
For an "official" DVD I don't have a problem with the theatrical release. Star Wars in not the only film to present it's theatrical version in a non-anamorphic state and that is my entire point.
Dude, we are in the year >twothousandandsix<, not >nineteenninetyeight< ,
I am not saying that I wouldn't appreciate anamorphic enhancement with some clean up. However this is acceptable in my opinion and if we do not get a remastering next year thats fine too.
Great fan you are. You approve that the original movies, which started this whole franchise, are being treated as a substandard waste product. Bravo!
Lucasfilm did give us THE ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSIONS.
According to this logic, we could have been eternally happy with, let´s say, the VHS releases of the 80´s.
Clearly these are better transfers than the 1993 Laserdiscs and the bootlegs.
In some aspects, but not all. I live in PAL land, and I am VERY angry they DID NOT USE the PAL videomasters used for my THX PAL laserdiscs. They might look better than some fan preservations, but they sure as hell look worse than most of my movies I have in posession, including movies of the 20´s, 30´s, 40´s and 50´s. Metropolis, a film made in 1927, looks VASTLY SUPERIOR in terms of picture quality to this messy DVD release of the OOT.
My technical knowledge on the subject is what is motivating my position.
Nope, your LACK of knowledge apparently is motivating your position.
Obviously Lucasfilm felt that the original trilogy did not warrent ANY enhancement.
Say what????
Lucas didn't touch it because he knew that SOME would consider anamorphic enhancement and print clean up as an alteration.
Sure, fanboy. Of course, according to this, a video transfer made in 1993 is a totally accurate presentation of how these movies were projected in 1977, 1980 and 1983.
I don't blame him because everybody is a critic and wants things their own specific way. At least by releasing it as is he cannot be bashed because he didn't present the original versions. Oh wait a second... THIS IS A STAR WARS FORUM so no matter what he does people are going to bash him to hell for one reason or another.
I make it short for you: Idiot.