Yeah, I don't believe it is a limited edition, but rather a replacement for the 04 set, which is still on store shelves, but probably running thin.
Johnny Ringo said:do people still 'trick or treat' or is that more of a hollywood thing? Halloween generally goes by unnoticed here in Oz.
Sweet! Johnny is from the merry ol' land of Oz! Yes, I have heard trick or treating was not so big over there, and that the Munchkins pretty much like to dress up all the time, rendering Halloween just like any other day.
But yeah, here in much of the US, trick or treating is pretty big, I never thought of it as anything to do with Hollywood. Pretty much in most neighborhoods with children in them make a pretty big deal fo the event. You have ankle-biters, younglings, and even some shoulder-highs, dressed up as all sorts of crazy things, carrying around sacks, buckets, and pillowcases knocking on your doors and ringing your bells demanding sugary goodness. People decorate their lawns and houses, and some people even convert their garages and backyards into haunted tours.
In all the parts of America I have lived in, Halloween is pretty big and tricker treating is a big part of it. Many movies may depict tick or treating, but that is pretty much how it is in real life.
Vaderisnothayden said:Did Lucasfilm change their minds and allow it to be available past the limited time or does Amazon just have a back stock? What's going on?
Does anybody know how well it sells/sold?
Any idea what's our chances of getting a release of some sort of original version on blu-ray and later formats?
Also, I hear that Lucasfilm was responsible for the release but were drawn into it by Fox. Can anybody give me more detail on that?
Would appreciate any answers anybody can give. :)
I don't think they changed their minds, I just think there are plenty of them in backstock that places like amazon are still working their way through. I am pretty sure it is not still being produced (well, it is being produced again for the upcoming boxset though).
As for how well it sold, I don't know, it is Star Wars which usually sells well, and they are releasing the same set again as a boxed set, so it must not have sold too poorly.
The chances of getting it released on blu-ray period are slim for the time being. Here we are with DVD towards the end of its life, or at least no longer the superior format, and Star Wars is getting yet another DVD release, with absolutly no extra content whatsoever save for the new box they come in.
Why not release it on blu-ray now? The fans are already working on making their own HD set of films via HDTV broadcasts, why not just give it to them and make some money instead of a new pointless horse beating rerelease of what is already on store shelves and in our homes.
Star Wars will eventually come out on blu-ray, but it is hard to tell if the original editions ever will. It is a good sign that they will still be included in this upcoming set, since they have kind of become a stardard special feature, maybe they will see fit to include them a future blu-ray release (though I wouldn't be half surprised if they only come in the form of remastered, anamorphic DVDs, rather than actual HD Blu-ray disc, that would be pretty funny actually).
As for Lucasfilm being pushed by Fox to do the 1996 set, I don't really know anything about that, maybe somebody else does. I wouldn't be surprised if Fox asked them to do a set of the films individually released, since before then they could only be purchased as a set.
But at the very least, you know the bike is different in all those ways, if you choose to change it, it'd be your fault, if your mom or dad or sibling changed it for you, you'd have the right to be pissed, but even if you didn't have the bike any longer at all, you still have the memories of the races, those can't be repainted. That is what Tip and I mean, your coming at this from a different angle that doesn't relate to what we are saying. The past is static and cannot be changed regardless of what the future brings.
But I do get what you are saying GA.
It is not about how you remember the movie, it is about how you remember what the movie meant to you and the times you had with it as a kid. No matter what, my memories of playing Star Wars with my friends as a kid, or the countless times I watched the films and loved them, or how much money I spent on everything with the name "Star Wars" on it when I was a kid, go on unchanged. That is why the term "raped my childhood" is absurd as Tip pointed out. The movies are altered, but my childhood is untouched, even if I don't remember every single detail of those childhood experiences. Even if I have a hard time remembering the film exactly as it was before the alterations (which actually isn't hard, I have only seen the 2007 SEs once or twice each, and have never seen the 04 SEs at all), it still has no effect on my childhood.
If Lucas were to invent a time machine, and go back to my childhood years and do something to all my Star Wars toys and then do unspeakable things to me so that I could never enjoy my childhood again, then I could claim that the man raped my childhood, but until he goes that far and does this to one of us, I think it is a stupid, overly hyperbolic term to use.
rcb said:http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/editorials/article/2312154.html
Here's the cast and comparisons. i find they did a good job, however the kirk character is a little one tree hillish. i don't watch that btw. it says the old and new kirks and spocks will be in the movies.
as far as is said, no clue of the plot, and is to be released in summer 2009.
Whoa, Shatner is going to be in it after all? Am I understanding you right on that one? I didn't read the article myself. I am not really sure I want to see a fat Kirk in this film...
Sean, 010011100110010101110110011001010111001000100000
01100111011011110110111001101110011000010010000001110
01001110101011011100010000001100001011100100110111101
11010101101110011001000010000001100001011011100110010
000100000011001000110010101110011011001010111001001110
10000100000011110010110111101110101.
I was skimming through the DVDs of old films I have done preservations on, and the only one I found that has not either been released on DVD or given a better preservation by somebody else is Three Comrades, a film from 1938 that has yet to get a DVD release in any region, and probably never will. It is based on the novel by Erich Maria Remarque (of whom I am a huge fan), was written by F. Scott Fitzgerald (the one and only screen play he ever wrote), and directed by Frank Borzage. It stars Robert Taylor and Margaret Sullavan. It was on New York Times’ list of top ten films of 1938.
Not sure if anyone here is interested in it, obviously MGM didn’t find it worth putting on DVD, but I still felt it deserved a preservation, and it is kind of ashame for me to hold onto it and not share it with other who might be interested.
I transferred it from a pristine retail NTSC VHS tape, which was pretty hard to find, it is full screen of course. I used a video capture board, and compressed it to fit on a DVD5. I learned a lot more about computers and video since I did this transfer several years ago, and would probably have done it differently now, but since then the desktop I used with the capture card has died, so I can’t have another go at it. The quality is pretty good though, for a VHS transfer anyway.
Anyway, if anyone is interested, I’d be willing to mail out copies of this (my internet connection isn’t fit for uploading such large files), or if someone is really interested in this and wants to use their own expertise to do a better transfer of this, I’d be willing to part with my VHS tape.
So, yeah, if anyone is interested reply here or PM me.
Wow, feels like Vista just came out, kind of crazy we are already talking the next version. Hopefully it works halfway decent, Vista left a bad taste in a of people's mouths.
What Erik said is exactly my point. I know all those factsyou threw at me hunter, and for the last part of your post, you are preaching to the chior, I don't care one bit about the 2004 versions of the movies or the prequels, all I want are the originals on DVD in watchable quality. I understand where you are coming from and how you feel, but I think you guys are bringing up some ridiculous stuff that just makes everyone involved in this cause look crazy.
Yeah, the truth is distorted on the advertising and box sets, but it is a DVD, nobody outside of our circles really cares and it certianly isn't enough to be sending police to raid the guys house and throw him in jail as a con artist. That is absurd and even slightly unsettling to hear people talk about seriously. The con artist thing doesn't even make any sense at all. He has not reason to con anyone, he is making a ton of money off of Star Wars either way. He has no motive to try to con people, he is just stubborn and doesn't want to release the originals.
So yeah, let's talk Star Trek. Golly gee, I sure hope this new movie has tribbles in it! That'd be swell!
Hunter6 said:The DVDs boxes state that they are in widescreen, but the con is that it does not state that the Special Edition versions is the only anamorphic version in the set. The boxes states the Special Edition versions are enhanced for 16:9 TVs and the proof of the con is here. What did lucas use the word "enhanced" and not the word "anamorphic"? This seems to be only to confuse people.
Actually, the 2006 set specifies very clearly on the back of the DVD case that the theatrical versions on the bonus discs are letterboxed.
Talk about having police raiding Lucas' house is absurd. That is going way too far, and it would never happen. You might be able to make a weak argument for false advertisment, but nobody will take this seriously. Hell, nobody will take US seriously when we have people on our side talking such blantant nonsense as this, and going under threatening names as "kill Lucas".
YIYF, you guys used to screw around and have stupid meaningless conversations back in the "golden days". This is no different. ]
@bkev, I dunno man, I think the bigger kooks and are drawn to the General SW discussion, some pretty ridiculous conversation goes on in there.
Mutton chops and side burns boring? No way! They define excitement, all good things in this life contain mutton chops or sideburns in some capacity.
sean wookie said:You're all worthless and weak!!
Yeah, I am afraid that is true Rob. The majority may use Internet Explorer, but it is only because have yet to have the courage to venture out and try new things. Firefox is like a second plan of existance for internet users, it is almost like we are more highly evolved than you. But for some stupid reason a lot of .gov sites do not support FireFox and make me use EE instead, government sites need to get a life...
Buy Fallout 3.
I saw the teaser for Bioshock 2 the other day. It came an unlockable on the PS3 port of Bioshock, which kind of made me nervous at first, I'd really hate to see that game become a PS3 exclusive. Best I can tell no details about the game beyond what is given in the teaser have been released. I really hope that thing will be a 360 title.
I don't want Lucas's money. I don't want anyones money. I prefer to make it on my own.
No way dude, that is what guys like these days. If she had a little meat on her bones, then she wouldn't be making people say "Wow, Juno was so hot, I have a hard time watching Star Wars anymore." (By the way, 1977 Carrie Fisher was WAY hotter than Juno, oh yeah and I almost forget, she also has the added plus of being a real person.)
I am sure you didn't mean to offend anyone, and I am pretty sure you didn't. Not quite sure why you seem to think you did. If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were hoping for some backlash for calling Star Wars boring that never came.
Plenty of people find Star Wars boring, I could care less. I find many things boring myself that other people find amazing. Though I think your using "now-a-days standards" to weigh a movie from the 1970s is more than a little unfair.
And I rather have to agree with Gaffer in that I fail to see how TFU and "hot" video game characters make Star Wars boring to watch. It is kind of like saying, "Laura's Croft is so f-ing hot, I am never going to watch E.T. again!"
lordjedi said:SilverWook said:And I think we've heard someone curse in Star Wars for the first time since 1980. ;)
1980? I think your signature betrays you SilverWook. We heard someone curse in Star Wars in 1977. "Some damned fool idealistic crusade" - Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Silverwook was saying we heard someone curse in Star Wars for the first time since 1980, when Han said "I'll see you in hell" I presume. Of course Gaffer is right, the weird bugish like creature in the weird out of place extremely American looking old fasioned diner swore in Star Wars for the first time since 1980.
negative1 said:the reason i keep mentioning ET , was that it was a beloved movie, with a huge following,
and success also...i think since it didn't spawn a series, there isn't a fanbase as such that
is vocal, as is there is for star wars....also, as i mentioned in another thread, the release
of the special edition, didn't originally include the original movie, and still doesn't in other
non-US regions.....so there is a valid point there...
It didn't originally include the original movie, "originally" meaning before it was ever released. So, better wording for that would be "Originally it wasn't going to include the original version, but in the end it did. You continue to try to make it sound like it was actually released sans the theatrical version, when it wasn't. From day one of the E.T. release in NTSC land, the original version was there. So why the hell would/should people complain about it? You expect people to go around saying, "Dude, remember when Universal wasn't going to include the original version of E.T. on the DVD release, then at the last minute they decided to include it? That sucked, what assholes they were for that!" You seem not to want to acknowlegde the fact that the theatrical version of E.T. was in fact released from the start. Yes, in some parts of the world the original two-disc set only included the 2002 version of the film, since then the original has been made available to them also. And there are always imports. If the region 2 discs of the GOUT had been remastered and anamorphic, you can bet I would have spent a lot less time complaining about them and a lot more time importing the things and enjoying them.
Nobody complains about E.T. because there is nothing to complain about. The Star Wars trilogy with a release half as good as E.T.'s would be more than any of us here could ever possibly hope for. Stop going around asking every one why they are not upset about the E.T. DVD release. It would be insane to be upset about it, it was a perfect release. Both versions and extras, what more could anybody ask for?
sean wookie said:Me and my no values Satanists are sacrificing black cats so Obama will win the election.
Don't let PETA find out.
I am surprised -1 has yet to cite the LOTR trilogy extended editions as yet more examples of atrocities done by film makers to their films that nobody seems to complain about.
Another one to add to that list would be the second DVD release (the first anamorphic release packed with extras) of Monty Python and the Holy Grail which had an extended scene sliced back in. I for one was among the few who whined about that, I thought the extra scene sucked, messed up the pacing of the film, and was not part of the version of the film I was so used to watching for so many years. It was one of the reasons I did not think twice about hanging onto my original barebones nonanamorphic disc instead of picking up a copy of the new release. Interestingly, on the next rerelease of the DVD, the scene was removed from the actual feature, but left accessible through the deleted scenes menu. Guess I wasn't the only one who didn't like it.
Blade Runner would have been another one to add to this list. Notice how all these have been fixed by now? All these have received a fantastic modern transfer of the original versions. Yet we cannot manage to get Star Wars Episodes 1-3 theatrical versions on DVD (seriously, if the film isn't finished yet, don't show it in the damn movie theater, especially when you have full creative control over everything in the film and have no excuse for a director's cut), and we cannot manage to get episodes 4-6 in any quality up to the standards of this century.
The wonderful thing about forums, all you got to do is look bad a page or two to catch up on the entire conversation.
negative1 said:...you don't seem to mention the mess made with the 2002 revised CG version of ET?
i'm pretty sure you didn't care for the changes in it right?
skyjedi2005 said:
Too bad we owe the era of bad cgi fakery to a mostly entertaining film Jurassic Park. It truly created a monster, made Lucas go gaga for cgi "ooh, ah. Yes that looks faker than it did before i'm sold, how much time and money does it save me."
i find it interesting how you point to a lot of movies by spielberg, (jaws, etc). and yet you
never seem to think he's also at fault for ruining a lot of current series, and using just as much cg
in movies also...
later
-1
Sky didn't mention the 2002 version of E.T. because it is a non issue. It sucked, we all complained about it at the time, it was lame, BUT the very first DVD release of E.T. included both versions is EQUAL quality, so while it sucked, it didn't matter because you had the original from the get go. Likewise, had the SW trilogy been released with both versions in EQUAL quality from the very first DVD release in 2004, or had a release equal in quality to the 2004 versions since then, you'd be amazed how quickly people like us would stop bitching, just like we did when they got smart and decided to release both versions of E.T. in 2002. What is your preoccupation with E.T.'s 2002 release -1? You seem to be talking about it quite a lot lately. Personal, I think it is an excellent example of exactly how a film that is treated to a director's cut so many years down the road ought to be treated.
As for your second comment about sky not seeming to care about Spielberg using a lot of CG and ruining current series... are you kidding me??? Sky bitches about Indy 4 and Spielberg along with it at least three time a day. Even more confusing is how you quoted him saying, "Too bad we owe the era of bad cgi fakery to a mostly entertaining film Jurassic Park. It truly created a monster..." as an example of how it is interesting to you how he does not complain about Spielberg's use of CG. Perhaps you are misinterpreting that quote to be Sky praises Spielberg for bringing on an era of CG over use?
I agree about JJ being more of a TV guy, his movies have not been the greatest, but his TV shows have been hits. This new Star Trek is obviously targeted at younger audiences, going the hot young people route. Star Trek really drove itself into the fround with Nemesis and Enterprise. With the cancellation of Enterprise we saw a world without a current running ST TV series for the first time since the long gap between TOS and TNG. Nemesis, though set up with an ending that demanded a sequel, always had an air of being the last one to it, even in its advertising. After Nemesis, we all knew it would be a very long time before we saw another ST in the cinema. After Enterprise, we knew there would very likely never be another ST tv series again.
Personally, I am pretty surprised that another ST bounced along this quickly. The point of this new movie is to revitalize the series, to move on from what it has been stigmatized as (Star Trek? Eww, nerd alert.) and to transform it back into something that can turn a good profit. The whole idea of this new movie from the very start has reaked of failure. Even if it has commercial failure, it will likely be a failure to the fan community (maybe it will cause a rift in ST fans as the SE and PT has caused in the SW fans).
That is why a guy like JJ is doing this film. He is talented with gathering a bunch of good looking people, putting them into a situation involving mystery and suspense, and creating a commercial success. If it weren't for Lindeloff and the aspects he brings to Lost, I am not sure I would enjoy that show as much as I do, at this point JJ is just a name attached to it because he helped create it and worked on it in season one, now he really has nothing to do with it anymore. I don't think that is a bad thing.
As for CG in movies, it has always been my opinon that movies should be built to last, CG feel like 'a quick fix that will look okay today and like crap tomorrow, but who cares because we are not selling it tomorrow, we are selling it today.'
Watching a ten year old movie that used CG effects is extremely jolting. Watching movies and show with CG effects from just a few years ago is bad enough. I have been watching my way through Firefly again recently, and man, those CG space shots can look pretty bad at times. It is forgivable with a TV show like that, because the budget is small. But why do that for a multimillon dollar block buster? Take a look at I Am Legend, I love the book, and I didn't think the new movie was too bad, but the CG really ruined it for me, it looked so bad I just couldn't take the film seriously. Had it used real actors in make up, it would have been like a completely different film.But why should they care? It made its money, onto something new.
Some students turn in papers that were obviously aiming for an A, then other student turn in papers that give away the fact that they really don't care, all they want to do is get the paper done and turn it in and hopfully get something higher than a D on it. Movies like I Am Legend and the prequels feel like the later. "Let's get this done and get it out there." Movies like Serenity, Lord of the Rings and the first SW movie feel like the former. It is obvious that they were built to last, and that the filmmaker did everything possibly to ensure that. Ten years from now CG ants will look lit shit to even the least picky of eyes, but the tarantulas and snakes in Raiders will still creep some some people out, or at the very least look real because they are.
You can use CG on a A grade movie, it just has to be used the right way. Doing the whole movie in front of a green screen and using as few props and sets as possible gets an F in my book. It is just too convienent and in the end looks like garbage. Lazy filmmaking.