logo Sign In

Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!) — Page 269

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It's a common practice in Mexico, there's a really just one chain of stores that sells CDs, DVDs and Blu Rays (although stores like Wal Mart and the like also have a smaller selection) called Mixup which is in pretty much every mexican mall.

Anyway Mixup stores put  stuff out whenever they get it, last month they had some Superman Blu rays that were supposed to come out a week later, and there are tons of examples like that. I went to two different Mixup stores and both had it, several copies and actually one had Episode I playing. The official release is the 14th I think. I guess they don't care since they're a monopoly, and the stores are owned by the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim).

Author
Time

I honestly thought that I would hold my nose and buy the sets in the end...but I just canceled my order on Amazon.

Strike up another one for 'life long fan that just can't take it anymore'.  

Hell, I even had a Star Wars themed wedding in Vegas.  I have probably spent 10k+ on official merchandise since the 80's.  Easily.

But I am done.  Not another penny until Lucasfilm releases the OT in theatrical form and actually pretends like they give a shit with the presentation.

I know that this is a crappy thing to say and even think...but maybe we will just have to wait until Lucas dies.  

How did it come to this?

Author
Time

retartedted said:

I honestly thought that I would hold my nose and buy the sets in the end...but I just canceled my order on Amazon.

Strike up another one for 'life long fan that just can't take it anymore'.  

Hell, I even had a Star Wars themed wedding in Vegas.  I have probably spent 10k+ on official merchandise since the 80's.  Easily.

But I am done.  Not another penny until Lucasfilm releases the OT in theatrical form and actually pretends like they give a shit with the presentation.

I know that this is a crappy thing to say and even think...but maybe we will just have to wait until Lucas dies.  

How did it come to this?

 

No, not crappy at all.

Author
Time

Diego said:

The blu rays are already being sold here in Mexico, a friend of mine bought it. After watching the deleted scenes and parts of Star Wars and Jedi, I can say that the set really blows.

For those planning to buy the set just for the deleted scenes, you should reconsider, it's really not worth it. Check them out on youtube first or something. My feeling is that most will be dissapointed by the deleted scenes.

Also, Wicket's eyes are truly terrifying.

I can't help but think they are still holding some deleted scenes back. Unless there are easter eggs yet to be found...

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Haven't noticed the jabba scene from ANH with the human actor being in it instead, unless I'm just being ignorant.

Author
Time

I was one of those begrudgingly buying the BR set, but I canceled my order today when I heard that the DVD deleted scenes would not be on the BR set. WTF? If you're bringing it to BR why not make it THE definitive set?

You know Star Wars is in a sad state when your more excited about the new printer you got over the SW BR you had hoped to get.

My Complete Fanedit List @ IFDB

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

Diego said:

The blu rays are already being sold here in Mexico, a friend of mine bought it. After watching the deleted scenes and parts of Star Wars and Jedi, I can say that the set really blows.

For those planning to buy the set just for the deleted scenes, you should reconsider, it's really not worth it. Check them out on youtube first or something. My feeling is that most will be dissapointed by the deleted scenes.

Also, Wicket's eyes are truly terrifying.

I can't help but think they are still holding some deleted scenes back. Unless there are easter eggs yet to be found...

Well, the only ones I can think that are not included are on the BR set:

From Star Wars I believe there's some more footage of Luke, Han, Chewie and the princess wandering around the Death Star. Of course you could say that the whole Lost Cut is an alternate scene.

From Empire there's 3PO and R2 discussing the Wampas (not included in the Wampa deleted scenes on this set). There's also Lando rescuing Luke.

From Jedi, there must be some extra footage from the Rancor (the musical cue on the CD is longer than the film).

Author
Time

The only Star Wars related purchase I'm making next week is the DVD of Carrie Fisher's broadway show. ;)

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

thunderclap said:

I was one of those begrudgingly buying the BR set, but I canceled my order today when I heard that the DVD deleted scenes would not be on the BR set. WTF? If you're bringing it to BR why not make it THE definitive set?

You know Star Wars is in a sad state when your more excited about the new printer you got over the SW BR you had hoped to get.

With Lucas nothing is ever definitive. He's holding out for double dips.

Last year when they announced the blu-ray and were talking about how they found all kinds of new/lost footage, I thought, "Riiight." That guy has a stash of material he's been leaking gradually for years all under the ruse of it being newly discovered.

“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”

Author
Time

Something about every studio has done for years, especially with any franchise as big as SW. Double dip, triple dip, so on.

Author
Time

Diego said:

From Jedi, there must be some extra footage from the Rancor (the musical cue on the CD is longer than the film).

Yup, and the extended Obi-Wan revelations to Luke on Dagobah...

Author
Time
 (Edited)

 


TK-949 said:

So 35mm is supposed to be watched on VHS only? Oh crap, I have to sell almost all of my DVDs and Blu-Rays.

 

No you just have to sell your VHS's( and some DVD's)---not your Blu Ray's

I have said it before and I wil say it again.

35mm release prints as seen in your average theater(at least at the time Star wars was theatrically released) are /were no better than 720p to 1K(far less than blu ray).

Notice I said release print.

The actual camera negative (which believe me---no one is interested in seeing) has the potential equivalent of 4K of information----but most of that resolution is lost as it is duplicated to form the release prints that get distributed to the cinemas.

And people tent to forget that  1080p/24 digital cameras like the genesis(that was used for Superman Returns,2012 and Alice In Wonderland) actually has a sensor that records 5K of data and downconverts it to 2K)----much like a 35mm 4K camera negative ultimately produces only a 1K positive release print through the photochemical process.

And 4K restorations on the likes of Taxi Driver and The Godfather Trilogy have produced aesthetically beautiful transfers-----but that does not bely the fact that they are incredibly grainy(as they always have been ).

A 4K restoration of the original camera negative of  Star Wars(theatrical version) would yield similar results----probably far worse as Star wars contained a lot of optical composites which were already several generations removed from the original.

It's kind of funny----but that Star Wars 1982 VHS cassette/Laserdisc in someways is faithful to the original print in the sense that there was no digital manipulation in the transfer.It was just a straight forward telecine from film to video.

Sure the resolution and dynamic range of the VHS/laserdisc are not accurate----but even at this supposed low resolution---some of the flaws in the film print were exposed!

Here are screen caps taken from my own 1982 PAL VHS tape---you can see overflowing splice joins, dirt,grain and other imperfections----how do you think this would look in Blu ray?

 

 

Also to note---at the time this was telecined(1981-82)--this print was only a  year old---due to the fact it was a transfer of the 1981 "A New Hope" release print(as opposed to a 1977 print-without the " a New Hope" tacked onto the opening crawl.

 

I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.

kurtb8474 1 week ago

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8


Author
Time
 (Edited)

Sevb32 said:

Something about every studio has done for years, especially with any franchise as big as SW. Double dip, triple dip, so on.

Yeah, but generally they include the previous features (especially deleted scenes) on the next incarnation. And, if the DVD's are truly being pulled, then this isn't double dipping at all. This is some sort of bastardization. Oh wait... that's this disc set already. Okay... it's some sort of holy hell bastardization.

And on a side note, wasn't the sale price for this set on Amazon $89.99? Looks like it dropped $10. It's now selling for $79.99. Are they trying to make it a more tempting buy?

My Complete Fanedit List @ IFDB

Author
Time

danny_boy wrote: The actual camera negative (which believe me---no one is interested in seeing)

Why would you assume this.

Author
Time

I saw the boxes today in a store, they were still sitting under a service table waiting for Monday. I had to take a peek and the covers looked almost worse in person. The trilogy cover arts look already dated. Steve Anderson made that kind of art in the mid 00s, probably made these too and style hasn't changed a bit.

And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.

Author
Time

Film does not have a set resolution. It is a piece of transparent plastic coated in a layer ( or layers) of light sensitive, silver hallide crystals. The more sensitive the film, the bigger the crystals, and hence the more grain that is apparent.

The fact that no one crystal is in one given spot at any one frame of the film at any given time is what gives film it's "organic" look. With digital, every pixel is side by side, and this gives digital video an image with sharp edges.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make danny boy, but the only thing that the old 82 laserdisc was faithful to was a damaged IP print that had gone sour after years of making theatrical release prints.

Yes there will be grain on the original negative, but nothing like that horrid ip print. Just look back at the 97SE.

What’s the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.

Author
Time

thunderclap said:  And on a side note, wasn't the sale price for this set on Amazon $89.99? Looks like it dropped $10. It's now selling for $79.99. Are they trying to make it a more tempting buy?

Moreover, the number of one-star reviews is now 666. :D

Author
Time

Chewtobacca said:

thunderclap said:  And on a side note, wasn't the sale price for this set on Amazon $89.99? Looks like it dropped $10. It's now selling for $79.99. Are they trying to make it a more tempting buy?

Moreover, the number of one-star reviews is now 666. :D

I'd be interested in if it's a reaction to all the one-star reviews, or simple price matching of other vendors.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mavimao said:

Film does not have a set resolution. It is a piece of transparent plastic coated in a layer ( or layers) of light sensitive, silver hallide crystals. The more sensitive the film, the bigger the crystals, and hence the more grain that is apparent.

The fact that no one crystal is in one given spot at any one frame of the film at any given time is what gives film it's "organic" look. With digital, every pixel is side by side, and this gives digital video an image with sharp edges.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make danny boy, but the only thing that the old 82 laserdisc was faithful to was a damaged IP print that had gone sour after years of making theatrical release prints.

Yes there will be grain on the original negative, but nothing like that horrid ip print. Just look back at the 97SE.

I agree with you although as I said earlier the  IP print that was used for the 1982 VHS was just one year old at that point in time  ---as it was used in the limited theatrical run engagements of April 1981 when Star Wars  and Empire were shown back to back.

So in my view  it is about as fresh a transfer of an original print (when I say original--I mean without any digital tinkering) as there is out there.

*Although this is not strictly original either as it was a new print with the then new "A New Hope" crawl spliced into the opening reel*

Considering that this 1982 VHS transfer was of superior quality to the 1977 U matic/Beta/VHS  bootleg then I think it has considerable reference value(even though it is still only a VHS/laserdisc) .

Even the 1991 1st issue VHS widescreen and subsequent  1993/95 THX releases were digitally mastered in some capacity---let alone the 1997 special editions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I saw Star Wars in 1977. Many, many, many times. For 3 years it was just Star Wars...period. I saw it in good theaters, cheap theaters and drive-ins with those clunky metal speakers you hang on your window. The screen and sound quality never subtracted from the excitement. I can watch the original cut right now, over 30 years later, on some beat up VHS tape and enjoy it. It's the story that makes this movie. Nothing? else.

kurtb8474 1 week ago

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=SkAZxd-5Hp8


Author
Time

danny_boy said:


 


TK-949 said:

So 35mm is supposed to be watched on VHS only? Oh crap, I have to sell almost all of my DVDs and Blu-Rays.

... people tent to forget that  1080p/24 digital cameras like the genesis(that was used for Superman Returns,2012 and Alice In Wonderland) ...
 


Ultimately I think what we are seeing is everyone too afraid to do any Star Wars remakes or new feature films. As a result it's like an artist ruining his picture by overworking it.

Yes, I believe we won't see any Star Wars remakes for, what, Death + 70 or whatever it is.

Just like Lucas couldn't/wouldn't secure rights to Flash Gordon, we need an exciting new franchise to get behind (and it won't be from Cameron either). I'm optimistic that can happen, but I think it will be "underground" global phenomena rather than overground corporate shilled-to-death. The Matrix came close IMO, but no cigar.

Author
Time

I'm just pissed off that nothing good will be released in this set; and even if they release another set in a few years, do you think the originals will be on there, and in good quality? Of course not. The original three movies were so great, and they will never be given the treatment they deserve. It has left an irreplaceable hole in our culture. It is like literally losing a lung; you really can't go on or find some other sci-fi film to replace the gaping void that eats you on a daily basis. I hate to say this a hundred thousand times, but this is an irreparable blow to our artistic/cinematic/cultural psyche. And to think there wasn't enough corporate greed these days.

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:



miker71 said:

 
Exactly.

And is he still knocking around with Mellody Hobson?

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellody_Hobson" target="_blank" title="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellody_Hobson"></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellody_Hobson" target="_blank" title="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellody_Hobson">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellody_Hobson</a>



 


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ND920tPjWkA/SZkENqVgnzI/AAAAAAAAW6Y/RU9H_nQ8jmI/s400/george%2Blucas%2Band%2Bmelody%2Bhobson%2Bface.jpg

I was going to say "wut" but clearly George isn't the only one who loves money, and if that's all she loves, then that's what she'll receive...

Also, lol at the fact that wiki even includes something like the answer to the above question...
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><span>Mellody Hobson</span></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Born</th>
<td>April 3, 1969 <span>(age 42)</span>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago" title="Chicago">Chicago</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois" title="Illinois">Illinois</a>,
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States">United States</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Occupation</th>
<td>Businessperson</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Years active</th>
<td>2000–present</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Partner</th>
<td><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lucas" title="George Lucas">George Lucas</a> (2007-present)</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


lol indeed. sadly it's now official - i am over 40 and blind.