Fang Zei

I really don’t think “untitled fairy tale” would have anything to do with Star Wars.

They’re not going to release a new transfer of the SE on blu unless it’s either a UHD release or it includes a restored OOT.

No one will care if it’s simply a new transfer of the SE on regular blu.

Lucasfilm held back the deleted scenes from the '04 dvd so they would have something to incentivize a rebuy on the next format. I can’t think of anything that big that they can use to sell us the movies yet again, aside from the obvious.

What exactly were the bonus features on the digital release a couple years ago?

digitalfreaknyc said:

Not to throw fuel on the fire but, considering the rumor about July 28th being a theatrical re-release of the original…

This magazine is coming out July 25. Now, it could totally be coincidence but isn’t it a bit strange that a 40th Anniversary book is coming out 3 days before this supposed theatrical re-release? Instead of in May?

First I’m hearing about this rumor. Was it brought up earlier in the thread or did news (well, rumor) of it just break somewhere else?

I would change the “4k release will be made” from SPECULATION to INEVITABILITY, at least so far as the SE is concerned.

Do we know who’s idea that was (erasing the snake pit reflection)? Spielberg has said he regrets ever making the SE of E.T. and said back in 2012 that all new releases of his existing films going forward would be completely unaltered.

I’m assuming they erased the reflection yet again for the 2012 4k master. Was the 2003 dvd the first time they meddled with it or is it gone on the laserdisc as well? In any event, I’m guessing it was George’s idea.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Aliens is available in both cuts on the BD.

Yeah but it’s still not 100% the original unaltered version because Cameron couldn’t help himself / leave well enough alone and made a few “fixes” like erasing Lance Henricksen’a visible torso in one shot of the final scene. In the scene where Ripley and Newt are stuck in the room with the facehugger and Ripley tries slamming a chair against the window, visible marks on the glass from previous takes were erased for the bd. I’ve heard other shots were tinkered with but never seen definitive before-and-after screenshot comparisons. It’s not even the '86 version editorially since there was actually an editing error when Ripley pulls a couple different guns from the rack that was correctly reordered for the blu-ray.

The color-timing doesn’t bother me, though. I saw a photo from a 16mm print and it actually looks closer to the blu-ray.

Fox is probably just waiting to put it out on 4k as well.

While we’re on the subject of True Lies, I find it interesting that burying his own movie in non-anamorphic dvd quality is yet another thing Cameron shares in common with Lucas. He already made digital changes (albeit subtly) to Titanic and Aliens after calling the Star Wars SE “a revision of history.”

I’m sure True Lies will eventually get a new release as well. Maybe Cameron can record a “special introduction.” Remember how he did that for the sci-fi channel broadcast of The Abyss back in the 90’s?

I do wonder though if Cameron would have the power to halt any release of True Lies on a new format entirely. I’ve heard he insists on signing off on any new transfers of his movies (Aliens was the only movie not given a new transfer for the Quadrilogy set in 2003 since it was already anamorphic and therefore “good enough”). Then again, Fox did take the hd transfer they made for the cancelled “five-star collection” dvd release and put it out on d-theater.*

There’s also an open-matte 16:9 version that’s been playing on cable recently, presumably from an even newer transfer. The AFI Silver even screened a 35mm print as part of a 90’s series within the last couple years. Fox doesn’t seem that embarrassed by it.

*You wonder why they didn’t just quietly reissue it on dvd with the newer transfer, for those of us who cared about quality. I’m guessing they stopped pressing new copies entirely post-9/11? Yet they still put out the d-theater! Where could you even buy those things anyway?!

I notice Mark Hamill and Billy Dee Williams are the only actors on the panel who had no involvement whatsoever with the PT.

As for Hayden’s presence killing any chance of an OOT announcement because of potential “awkwardness,” I doubt he cares one way or the other. It’s beside the point anyway since the SE will still be the official version.

Hey, maybe this means we’re getting the theatrical prequels as well!

nickyd47 said:

As far as I’m concerned, the only reason why we wouldn’t get the OOT now is because the current Blu rays and digital versions of the films sell enough for the studios not to care. I don’t think George has this control in some kind of contract or anything

If the current blu-rays / digital versions are still selling well enough for them not to care, sure. But if it isn’t, and they think an OOT release will make them some money, they’ll do it.

I didn’t catch the category, but on Jeopardy! just now, “Who is Hayden Christensen?” was the correct response to an answer about Sebastian Shaw getting “unfortunately” replaced in a new ending of Return of the Jedi.

One of the players got it right away.

double post.

Search for Spock might be the first movie (in general I mean, not just Trek) that I can clearly remember watching. It was 1990 and I would have been five years old, was at West Coast Video with my mom and she must have randomly picked it off the shelf to rent.

Watched it, loved it, was hooked from there on out. Rented the other movies, even rented Encounter at Farpoint and the uncut The Cage that goes black-and-white during certain scenes. TNG became appointment television every week. Saw TUC in the theater and was blown away. Didn’t even get into Star Wars until around '92 or so, but I knew of them as Bart would say.

What I remember finding out very early on was that ILM worked not only on Star Wars but also several of the Trek films. It felt very cool to realize these two franchises shared that connection.

Oh, and thank you for bringing up Oberth class, SwissArmyTin. I was going crazy back in September trying to remember the name of it without looking it up first.

That’s because Anakin “died” when he turned to the dark side.

Also, Shaw does look completely different without the Vader makeup. From a saga POV, I can see why George went with Hayden.

Mocata said:

Which would be less painful, Hayden coming back or Sebastian Shaw being resurrected?

Well, if that rumor is even true (and either way, why are we even talking about it outside the spoiler thread?), wouldn’t they pretty much have to go with Hayden? TFA was “version agnostic” in regards to the OT, but something like Ghost Anakin would need to pick a side and I don’t see them going with Shaw.

nickyd47 said:

I think the price was lowered on the BD set because lots of people already own Star Wars on Blu-Ray

Which also makes me wonder, just how many excess copies are sitting piled up at the warehouse?

I can’t imagine it’s that high of a number. It makes sense that they reissued the complete saga in 2015 leading up to TFA. Obviously people were going to be buying it with more frequency because of renewed interest thanks to the Disney movies. But I would think everyone who’s ever going to buy it would’ve bought it by now, for the most part. It’s been five and a half years.

digitalfreaknyc said:

Fang Zei said:

I’m probably reading way too much into this, but I was over at blu-ray.com just now and noticed the “best deals” at the top of the page has the complete saga set listed for $58.49. That’s the lowest I can remember any retailer selling it for in quite a long time, maybe ever.

We’re less than three weeks away from this celebration panel. If an announcement is imminent, maybe they’re trying to clear out inventory before people stop buying it altogether and start saving their money for the new set?

If Best Buy knows about it, you think that information wouldn’t have leaked already? C’mon…

The only reason the price was lowered was to tie in to Rogue One.

It wouldn’t need to have leaked just for the price to be lowered. They could’ve done that without any reason whatsoever (well, other than the fact that putting something on sale tends to sell it faster, but that’s just simple business logic). But I am just theorizing and you are probably right about it having to do with Rogue One. Lucasfilm/Fox/Disney wouldn’t have much - if anything- to do with what price amazon decides to sell it for now that I think about it (unless I’m wrong about that).

SwissArmyTin said:

Fang Zei said:

Handman said:

I remember these films most fondly with the 2002 sets, when I went to watch the '09 Wrath of Khan Blu-ray, something was seriously off-putting about it, it wasn’t what I remembered enjoying so much. I expect the others would recieve the same reaction.

I remember reading several different people’s comments saying that the '09 color-timing was actually closer to what they remembered seeing on the 35mm prints. The '09 is probably still too blue but the '02 also looks too red. 2016 is the goldilocks edition.

Wait, is the 2016 too gold? I thought it hit the mark perfectly, but then again, I never really noticed anything wrong with the Raiders bluray until this place pointed it out (which I’m still totally fine with…)

What suspiciouscoffee said. I simply meant that it was “just right.”

But what’s weird is that I was literally going to bring up the Raiders blu-ray earlier in the thread! It’s another good example of a movie from the early 80’s we can’t confidently know the original theatrical color-timing of. Some people said it was closer to the ld, others thought the WoWoW broadcast nailed it.

Cthulhunicron said:

The surprise they keep talking about at the celebration could turn out to be nothing more than the Ep. 8 trailer.

The opening panel of the 2015 celebration was specifically about TFA. They even said ahead of time that they’d be debuting that trailer at that panel IIRC.

If one of these “surprises” at a panel about the 40th anniversary of the original film was the TLJ trailer, we would know it.

ETA: CHEWBAKAspelledwrong beat me to it

Wow, sorry for the triple post.

I accidently hit the post button twice and then when it took too long I panicked and hit it yet again.

double post

I’m probably reading way too much into this, but I was over at blu-ray.com just now and noticed the “best deals” at the top of the page has the complete saga set listed for $58.49. That’s the lowest I can remember any retailer selling it for in quite a long time, maybe ever.

We’re less than three weeks away from this celebration panel. If an announcement is imminent, maybe they’re trying to clear out inventory before people stop buying it altogether and start saving their money for the new set?

Handman said:

I remember these films most fondly with the 2002 sets, when I went to watch the '09 Wrath of Khan Blu-ray, something was seriously off-putting about it, it wasn’t what I remembered enjoying so much. I expect the others would recieve the same reaction.

I remember reading several different people’s comments saying that the '09 color-timing was actually closer to what they remembered seeing on the 35mm prints. The '09 is probably still too blue but the '02 also looks too red. 2016 is the goldilocks edition.

Yeah, re-rendering at a higher res (or for 3D) is a tricky proposition if too much time has passed.

For the 3D conversion of Jurassic Park I don’t even know if they had the finished cg shots from '93 in their purely digital form (before they were filmed back out to celluloid), nevermind the models. I think they might have had to scan shots back in from the o-neg just like the rest of the movie. The same goes for the '97 cg shots in the SE if the Lowry master is any indication. There definitely seemed to be some filmic anomalies even on the '04 dvd. Maybe it’s even more obvious on the blu-ray but I wouldn’t know. The shot that always sticks out in my memory is when the asp swats the floating droid to the ground before luke’s landspeeder zooms into frame. Even at dvd resolution I noticed some slight wobble where there should’ve been utter stillness for those first few seconds of the shot. Unless of course the wobble was intentional on the animator’s part so that it would look like it was actually photographed…

…I’m overthinking it now, aren’t I?

Sorry, got distracted when someone called me and then totally forgot to paste the link. My bad.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews45/star_trek_motion_picture_trilogy_blu-ray.htm

If you click to see the full-sized screencaps you’ll understand what we’re talking about, moviefreakedmind.

It baffled me to see so many review sites giving Voyage Home’s picture quality a passing grade. But when you know you’re reviewing something as popular as Trek and know how many amazon clicks you’re going to get, it must become that must easier to just exaggerate the truth a little.

But I will never understand how a site like avsforum that prides itself on objectivity ranks this as a silver and gives the theatrical Fellowship of the Ring a copper (below bronze).

chyron8472 said:

Of the Shatner movies, I only have 2, 3 and 4 on DVD. I bought them in a set called “Star Trek: The Motion Picture Trilogy”.

https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Picture-Trilogy-Domestic/dp/B001TH16CY

I don’t know anything about where they were sourced.

That came out same time as the blu-ray debut in '09. Khan’s transfer is likely from the '09 restoration. The Search for More Money and The One With The Whales were probably from the new (ha!) “hd” (ha!) masters, but I have no way of knowing for sure without seeing screenshots.

Here is a comparison between the old two-disc releases of Khan and SFS and their blu-ray counterparts ('09 blu-ray for Khan). Annoyingly, they did not provide dvd screengrabs for Voyage Home. I’d very much like to know what it looked like after seeing it in 35mm. The blu-ray’s colors are way off from what I saw on that print.

ETA: SwissArmyTin beat me to it!