Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!) — Page 317

georgec said:

Harmy said:

Nope. 1995 was probably the last time he gave a rats ass about his fans.

I think he stopped caring about fans in 1981/'82 when according to Gary Kurtz he began to favor merchandising and toy sales instead of storytelling.

1995 was simply the last time the fans got what they wanted or expected, in my opinion.

Curiously enough, 1981/82 was also the date when he got lazy, and decided to wrap the story with one movie (Return of the Jedi) instead of doing the whole second trilogy with Luke searching for his sister etc, and fighting the Empire for 3 more movies. You can also see how lazy Return of the Jedi is when you see how he overuses matte paintings instead of sets and he filmed at close by locations for Tatooine and Endor.

sans_fi said:

Curiously enough, 1981/82 was also the date when he got lazy, and decided to wrap the story with one movie (Return of the Jedi) instead of doing the whole second trilogy with Luke searching for his sister etc, and fighting the Empire for 3 more movies.

That's not really what happened. Read The Secret History of Star Wars. Appendix D, The Legend of the Sequel Trilogy, examines all the rumors and myths, as well as Gary Kurtz's claims that are often simply taken as the gospel truth about the sequel trilogy.

The sequel trilogy was not condensed into ROTJ. There doesn't seem to have been a set plot for it (remember, Lucas was making this stuff up as he went along). "No, there is another" was originally supposed to be a vague setup to this sequel trilogy, and didn't have anything to do with Luke having a sister.

Because "the other" turned out to be Luke's sister, some people conflate the mention of Luke's sister in the first draft of ESB with "No, there is another." I think Kurtz may have been conflating various ideas that existed at various points in time of what was to happen in the sequel trilogy - the possibility of Luke's sister showing up in later episodes (c. first draft), the possibility of "the other" showing up in later episodes (c. Kasdan's drafts), but I don't think there was ever a single set plan that was "totally tossed out the window" by Lucas, as Kurtz claimed in the Film Threat interview.

As for not going to Tunisia, I'm sure it was budgetary reasons, since Tatooine exteriors comprised a much smaller part of the film, and it wasn't seen as necessary to pack up the whole crew to another far-flung location shoot for only a few scenes. (And I'm not sure that Lucas, Howard Kazanjian, or Harrison Ford would have relished another trip to Tunisia so soon after the torturous production of Raiders...)

Lest we forget, Empire was an amazing film, but it was a grueling production, the shoot ran overtime and went overbudget, and Lucas went through much stress and anxiety. Again, read The Secret History of Star Wars.

Harmy said:

Adywan just posted this:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/93945

It's a comparison between the Blu-Ray and a 35mm scan of the original version. The Blu-Ray fails miserably.

Harmy said:

I think it might actually be an intentional change. Maybe they were trying to conceal the AT-ATs' feet being hazy by making it appear that there was actually a misty haze on the ground level, because it does look a little less like the AT-ATs are floating in the air.

And the disgustingly smeared and burnt "detail" on the foreground figures?   I think you're being too generous by assuming they had a specific goal in mind.    ...and I for one never thought there was any problem with the AT-AT/ground interaction.

I thought they were maybe trying to change the focus from the foreground to the background.

Perhaps someone could point out the flaws to the people here.

I'm not registered.

Sweet mother's cookies, that looks terrible. Harmy, when you revisit ESB:DE, you need to address issues like this. Talk w/ Adywan, where'd he get the 35mm scan?

Anchorhead said:

Harmy said:

Adywan just posted this:

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/93945

It's a comparison between the Blu-Ray and a 35mm scan of the original version. The Blu-Ray fails miserably.

Wow, that is really bad.  I haven't been following the Blu-ray quality discussions too closely, but I knew there were issues from some of the screen grabs and magazine articles.  I had no idea they looked that bad.  Shameful to ask for money for a product handled so poorly.

Once again, LFL always breaking new ground by making shittier and shittier products, and forcing internet sites to give their products good reviews- it's nothing more than a direct to video release. I hate to say this for the hundredth time, but GL/LFL is fucking evil. What's worse: that no one can be allowed to preserve the originals, or the zero effort quality work that's replacing it? 

Heyheyheyheyhey.....No Lucas bashing!  :P

It's Luca$ bashing ;-)

darth_ender said:

Heyheyheyheyhey.....No Lucas bashing!  :P

Wrong thread.

You're right.  You can bash in any thread except one ;)

Let's get back to the problem: Gl refuses to give us what we want, and what he gives us is the worst example of least effort for maximum profit. Plus, the more time that has passed joking around, the OT negatives that were not preserved 15 years ago are progressively deteriorating.