logo Sign In

See, George, This is how it's done ... — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Well, in that case, I can't wait until 2013! This is heavy indeed!

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen


To this day, I have never purchased the Back to the Future set because I don't think it's my responsiblity to purchase a DVD, then call to have a replacement sent, and then wait for that replacement to arrive. Universal has, as far as I know, never issued corrected sets to retailers.


Actually, they did issue a correct set. I still have the first version, but the corrected set says V2 (or someting to that effect) by the bar code or credits on the packaging, letting the keen eye know that it is the corrected version.
Author
Time
Post link
I'm waiting until this whole mess gets figured out to go and grab the set. I can understand how the SIII thing happenned, someone just grabbed the wrong file, but what really has me stumped is the 2.0 on S:TM if it's not actually the kind of "deliberate creative decision" we're so used to hearing about.
Author
Time
Post link
But still it looks like a fantastic box set !! I hope GL brings out a 15 disk set next year
May the force be wth you .........
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
I can understand how the SIII thing happenned


I can't. The contents are a disc from a 6-year-old release. How could there have been that many of the old versions of Superman III lying around like, right next to the new ones, that they not only stamped a new label on the old disc, but actually put it in the box set? It's pretty ridiculous. It's obvious that WB has little to no quality control. My friend said that on the Willy Wonka remake 2-Disc edition, one of the Oompa Loompa songs is missing a verse. Yet another WB slip-up among many...
We don't have enough road to get up to 88.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: booah
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
I can understand how the SIII thing happenned


I can't. The contents are a disc from a 6-year-old release. How could there have been that many of the old versions of Superman III lying around like, right next to the new ones, that they not only stamped a new label on the old disc, but actually put it in the box set? It's pretty ridiculous. It's obvious that WB has little to no quality control. My friend said that on the Willy Wonka remake 2-Disc edition, one of the Oompa Loompa songs is missing a verse. Yet another WB slip-up among many...


Actually, allow me to rephrase that.

I don't understand how someone could've made the mistake so easily but I do understand why it happenned. No, they didn't just accidentally take unsold, unshipped copies of the old dvd and print out new disc art. What happenned was that when it came time to program the machines that would press the discs for the 14-disc set, whoever was in charge must have accidentally retrieved the wrong SIII file from WB's computer systems, thinking it was the new SIII disc when it was actually the old one. Whoever was in charge of the individual release, which is exactly what's also found in the 8 disc "Christopher Reeve" collection, did not make this mistake.

On a more Star Wars-related note, I remember people saying that the SE copies found in the '06 release were just overstocks from '04 and '05, but if that's true then why go through the trouble of printing new disc art labels for them?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Fang Zei

On a more Star Wars-related note, I remember people saying that the SE copies found in the '06 release were just overstocks from '04 and '05, but if that's true then why go through the trouble of printing new disc art labels for them?


So Lucas could undermine the OOT even furthur. He could easily have left the "Disc One" title off there. That's the only differance. Even a retard would figure out which one is which. But it HAD to say Disc One so that people would know what disc was more important.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.