logo Sign In

Limited Edition Packaging Scans — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
I can't agree more. The covers look great. Especially when you turn it on the back, and you have the original posters and the retro font. And then you pop the disc in and get the retro menus. I love the fact that they're animated but simple. And I love the fact that there's no emphasized episode number. It's just the old logos on a DVD menu. Can't say I ever saw that coming. As interesting as the SE menus were, they were just too damn complicated and got very old after the first few times. Plus, there's no way menus as simple as these can give away ANY real plot elements.

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: Raul2106
Here is the specs for the Alien (2 disc) to prove my point.
But those discs feature branching. Would you rather they featured branching for this release? So that you'd HAVE to live with colour-correction, over-saturation and inconsistent contrast found in the 2004 transfer? How much better was Stargate Ultimate Edition, hey?
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: boris
http://rapidshare.de/files/33276331/2006R1.zip.html

Here they are cropped and rotated, but not recompressed. Cable-X1, feel free to update with these ones if you like.


Ah, THANK YOU Boris!!!

Apologies to everyone for not doing this myself.....it would have driven me crazy....
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Raul2106
Actually you are clueless... "I think most people could have been pretty pleased with a nice, new anamorphic transfer of an existing print." - Karyudo

You wanted the "original" theatrical versions not a "nice, new anamorphic transfer of an existing print."
See this is the reason why Star Wars fans are considered impossible to please. I know all about the technical side of the argument. The fact of the matter is anamorphic or not this transfer is pretty good.


What do you think comes closer to the original theatrical version, a new anamorphic transfer of an original print or a transfer of this crappy 1993 DVNR fucked up LD master tape with al new flaws introduced. It looks nothing like it was in the theatre.

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
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. The DVDs say they are the "original theatrical version". See this is the reason why Star Wars fans are considered impossible to please. 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. 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!


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.

Features:
Disc 1
Full-Length Audio Commentary by Director Ridley Scott, Writer Dan O'Bannon, Executive Producer Ronald Shusett, Editior Terry Rawlings, Actors Sigourney Weaber, Tom Skerrit, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton and John Hurt (for both versions
1979 Theatrical Version
2003 Director's Cut (Digitally Remastered)
Introduction by Ridley Scott

Disc 2
Behind-the-Scenes Featurettes, Including - "Star Beast: Developing the Story," "The Visualists: Direction and Design," "Truckers in Space: Casting." "The Eighth Passenger: Creature Design, Sigourney Weaver Screen Test, "The Chestbuster: Creature Design
Multi-Angle Scene Studies
Still Photo Galleries
Deleted and Extended Scenes, and More!
Video:
Widescreen 2.35:1 Color

I am as big a fan as the rest of you. I have done some fan editing too. 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. 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. Lucasfilm did give us THE ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSIONS. Clearly these are better transfers than the 1993 Laserdiscs and the bootlegs. My technical knowledge on the subject is what is motivating my position. Obviously Lucasfilm felt that the original trilogy did not warrent ANY enhancement. Lucas didn't touch it because he knew that SOME would consider anamorphic enhancement and print clean up as an alteration. 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.



Are you braindead?!? That dvd is seamless branched. So 99% of the time you are looking at the DIGITALLY REMASTERED image even if you select to watch the original theatrical version!!!!!! It's nice isn't it? A remastered theatrical version. Yeah, you know all about the technical side of things.

Fez: I am so excited about Star Whores.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Raul2106
Obviously Lucasfilm felt that the original trilogy did not warrent ANY enhancement.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! If that were the case, we wouldn't have the 2004 DVDs at all. They were tinkered with and enhanced to meet Lucas' "grand vision", so apparently someone felt they DID warrant an enhancement. He should've taken a page from Spielberg's book and released both the "Special Edition" and the Original Version at the same time in the same box, just like Spielberg did with ET.

Originally posted by: Raul2106 Lucas didn't touch it because he knew that SOME would consider anamorphic enhancement and print clean up as an alteration.


No, Lucas didn't touch it because to him, that movie no longer exists.


Originally posted by: Raul2106I 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.


And this is where you lose all credibility whatsoever.

F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Cable-X1
Originally posted by: boris
http://rapidshare.de/files/33276331/2006R1.zip.html

Here they are cropped and rotated, but not recompressed. Cable-X1, feel free to update with these ones if you like.


Ah, THANK YOU Boris!!!

Apologies to everyone for not doing this myself.....it would have driven me crazy....
Not a prob. I used a program called Jpegcrop, which doesn't recompress the images. It's a freeware program.
Some were not blessed with brains.
<blockquote>Originally posted by: BadAssKeith

You are passing up on a great opportunity to makes lots of money,
make Lucas lose a lot of his money
and make him look bad to the entire world
and you could be well known and liked

None of us here like Lucas or Lucasfilm.
I have death wishes on Lucas and Macullum.
we could all probably get 10s of thousands of dollars!
Author
Time
Post link
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.


I make it short for you: Idiot.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
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. The DVDs say they are the "original theatrical version". See this is the reason why Star Wars fans are considered impossible to please. 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. 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!


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.

Features:
Disc 1
Full-Length Audio Commentary by Director Ridley Scott, Writer Dan O'Bannon, Executive Producer Ronald Shusett, Editior Terry Rawlings, Actors Sigourney Weaber, Tom Skerrit, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton and John Hurt (for both versions
1979 Theatrical Version
2003 Director's Cut (Digitally Remastered)
Introduction by Ridley Scott

Disc 2
Behind-the-Scenes Featurettes, Including - "Star Beast: Developing the Story," "The Visualists: Direction and Design," "Truckers in Space: Casting." "The Eighth Passenger: Creature Design, Sigourney Weaver Screen Test, "The Chestbuster: Creature Design
Multi-Angle Scene Studies
Still Photo Galleries
Deleted and Extended Scenes, and More!
Video:
Widescreen 2.35:1 Color

I am as big a fan as the rest of you. I have done some fan editing too. 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. 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. Lucasfilm did give us THE ORIGINAL THEATRICAL VERSIONS. Clearly these are better transfers than the 1993 Laserdiscs and the bootlegs. My technical knowledge on the subject is what is motivating my position. Obviously Lucasfilm felt that the original trilogy did not warrent ANY enhancement. Lucas didn't touch it because he knew that SOME would consider anamorphic enhancement and print clean up as an alteration. 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.



Are you braindead?!? That dvd is seamless branched. So 99% of the time you are looking at the DIGITALLY REMASTERED image even if you select to watch the original theatrical version!!!!!! It's nice isn't it? A remastered theatrical version. Yeah, you know all about the technical side of things.


The Alien DVD from the 2003 Legacy Edition has the same nice picture quality as the original 1999 DVD release.
Author
Time
Post link
Does anyone know if the Best Buy tin is offered elsewhere in the world? Was it just offered in the US and Canada? What about Europe?
Author
Time
Post link
I don't think retailer exclusives often make it across the pond.