Maybe he didn’t remember the scene where Han Solo talked to a big fat cartoon Jabba the Hutt.
The Person in Question
R2-D2 And Luke Skywalker said:
The DP of Rogue One Greig Fraser mentions that they had a look at the 4K versions of Star Wars AND Empire in the February issue of American Cinematographer:
“With Gareth Edwards, we wanted to be attentive that the look be consistent with A New Hope, which is seared in our brains. We weren’t necessarily trying to reproduce what it actually looked like, but how we remember it — there’s a difference between reality and the remembrance of reality. Part of our research was to look at the 4K scanned versions of A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. They look fantastic, but they don’t look how I remember them.”
Maybe cause there is more detail cause of the resolution and restoration than he remembers and that’s why they don’t look how he remembers them.
This. I feel everyone else is reading way too far into it.
“That said, there is nothing wrong with mocking prequel lovers and belittling their bad taste.” - Alderaan, 2017
MGGA (Make GOUT Great Again):
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Return-of-the-GOUT-Preservation-and-Restoration/id/55707
I never had LD, but I remember they were pricey at the stores. It was a niche market.
As is 4k. And the quality was amazing. I’d be thrilled if 4k was as successful a niche as laserdisc but had high prices.
Star Wars Revisited Wordpress
Star Wars Visual Comparisons WordPress
- Most 4K discs can be found for $25-30, the same price DVD or Blu-ray was at first.
- You’re telling me you wouldn’t pay $45 each for a 4k restoration of the OOT? I’d be first in line.
That boxed set with the extras retailed for, if memory serves, $250 in 1993. Figure that out with inflation. That was totally worth it back then.
Laserdisc at the time was an entirely new phenomena in terms of home media. 4K is similar enough to blu-ray that it doesn’t justify laserdisc prices. When all we had were tapes, laserdisc was groundbreaking. 4K blurays, not as big of a jump.
The Person in Question
- Most 4K discs can be found for $25-30, the same price DVD or Blu-ray was at first.
- You’re telling me you wouldn’t pay $45 each for a 4k restoration of the OOT? I’d be first in line.
That boxed set with the extras retailed for, if memory serves, $250 in 1993. Figure that out with inflation. That was totally worth it back then.
About $415-420.
- Most 4K discs can be found for $25-30, the same price DVD or Blu-ray was at first.
- You’re telling me you wouldn’t pay $45 each for a 4k restoration of the OOT? I’d be first in line.
That boxed set with the extras retailed for, if memory serves, $250 in 1993. Figure that out with inflation. That was totally worth it back then.
About $415-420.
And, tbh, if they released the OT with all extras and documentaries, I’d pay it.
I think Jaws is more saying they didn’t study it when making Rogue One because it’s the black sheep, not that it wasn’t restored for that reason.
I said that and you are correct in my intended meaning.
oops…
Don’t worry about it.
Laserdisc at the time was an entirely new phenomena in terms of home media. 4K is similar enough to blu-ray that it doesn’t justify laserdisc prices. When all we had were tapes, laserdisc was groundbreaking. 4K blurays, not as big of a jump.
I think the fact 4k is more of a niche market, and one that wants the best home theater experience possible, justifies the premium somewhat, at least in the minds of the people who set the price. With cheap online streaming, something Blu-ray didn’t have to compete with at this point in its life, there’s going to simply be less demand.
- Most 4K discs can be found for $25-30, the same price DVD or Blu-ray was at first.
- You’re telling me you wouldn’t pay $45 each for a 4k restoration of the OOT? I’d be first in line.
That boxed set with the extras retailed for, if memory serves, $250 in 1993. Figure that out with inflation. That was totally worth it back then.
About $415-420.
And, tbh, if they released the OT with all extras and documentaries, I’d pay it.
I wouldn’t. That’s an insane price for movies on a medium that trends around 10% of that price.
The Person in Question
- Most 4K discs can be found for $25-30, the same price DVD or Blu-ray was at first.
- You’re telling me you wouldn’t pay $45 each for a 4k restoration of the OOT? I’d be first in line.
That boxed set with the extras retailed for, if memory serves, $250 in 1993. Figure that out with inflation. That was totally worth it back then.
About $415-420.
And, tbh, if they released the OT with all extras and documentaries, I’d pay it.
I wouldn’t. That’s an insane price for movies on a medium that trends around 10% of that price.
I think $250 for a comprehensive set would be my limit.
- Most 4K discs can be found for $25-30, the same price DVD or Blu-ray was at first.
- You’re telling me you wouldn’t pay $45 each for a 4k restoration of the OOT? I’d be first in line.
That boxed set with the extras retailed for, if memory serves, $250 in 1993. Figure that out with inflation. That was totally worth it back then.
About $415-420.
And, tbh, if they released the OT with all extras and documentaries, I’d pay it.
I wouldn’t. That’s an insane price for movies on a medium that trends around 10% of that price.
I think $250 for a comprehensive set would be my limit.
I wouldn’t even pay that for three movies. Entire TV series cost less than that.
The Person in Question
It won’t cost that much, because most people wouldn’t pay that much. Economics.
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
Wouldn’t the set cost $4,000?
Yeah, if I can get 14 Hitchcock movies for $40 on Blu-ray, I should be able to get 3 Star Wars movies for that or less.
Yeah, if I can get 14 Hitchcock movies for $40 on Blu-ray, I should be able to get 3 Star Wars movies for that or less.
false
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
Yeah, if I can get 14 Hitchcock movies for $40 on Blu-ray, I should be able to get 3 Star Wars movies for that or less.
false
What? I’m not saying it’s going to be that cheap, but it should be.
Yeah, if I can get 14 Hitchcock movies for $40 on Blu-ray, I should be able to get 3 Star Wars movies for that or less.
false
What? I’m not saying it’s going to be that cheap, but it should be.
It’s called supply-demand economics. There comes a price where it’s not worthwhile for Lucasfilm to drop the price any further. I guarantee that price is higher for the OT than any number of bundled Hitchcock films. Not to knock on Hitchcock, there are just many more buyers for SW.
Edit: Also consider all the royalties Lucasfilm needs to pay out that don’t need to be paid for the Hitchcock films.
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
These are Star Wars movies, were talking about let’s not get crazy. I don’t even know if I’d feel comfortable spending <$40 on an OOT set, and I’m cheap as fuck.
I bet an OOT set would be around $60 or so. More than that is pushing it, but I’d be shocked (and wouldn’t buy it) if it were one of the prices that has been thrown around in this thread, like 400 dollars for example.
The Person in Question
Yeah, if I can get 14 Hitchcock movies for $40 on Blu-ray, I should be able to get 3 Star Wars movies for that or less.
false
What? I’m not saying it’s going to be that cheap, but it should be.
It’s called supply-demand economics.
I am aware of the concept.
There comes a price where it’s not worthwhile for Lucasfilm to drop the price any further. I guarantee that price is higher for the OT than any number of bundled Hitchcock films. Not to knock on Hitchcock, there are just many more buyers for SW.
The current Blu-ray set of the OT goes for $40. I imagine it would be the same for the OOT after the first three months or so of release, as the average, often clueless, consumer doesn’t know the difference. The Hitchcock set I mentioned here is a Region Free UK set from a few years back, the US release goes for about $120, which is what I’d imagine you’d want for an OOT set.
Edit: Also consider all the royalties Lucasfilm needs to pay out that don’t need to be paid for the Hitchcock films.
The estates still get something.
None of this changes the fact that I think $40 is a good price for any box set.
I agree. Usually they list for 60 and go down to 30-40. This was the case with Indy and Alien.
The Person in Question
It won’t cost that much, because most people wouldn’t pay that much. Economics.
And people paid $250 for it in 1993.
It won’t cost that much, because most people wouldn’t pay that much. Economics.
And people paid $250 for it in 1993.
That’s because laserdisc was a totally unique medium. It isn’t like Star Wars came out on a slightly higher quality VHS tape and they charged 250 bucks for it. The difference in quality between VHS and laserdisc was also night and day. The difference between blu ray and 4K blu ray is not.
The Person in Question
It won’t cost that much, because most people wouldn’t pay that much. Economics.
And people paid $250 for it in 1993.
But it’s not 1993. Premium home entertainment is no longer a niche market. There certainly would be people buying it at $250 plus today, but they would make more money selling more at a lower price. In 1993, you already had to have money to have laserdisc, but BD is a format for the relative masses.
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.