darklordoftech

edit: wrong thread

Me

DuracellEnergizer said:

SilverWook said:

Threepio actually shooting someone is a disturbing thought to me.

;-P

Maul's droid shouldn't have been the same droid that appeared in the Droids comics. Speaking of which, how do you feel about the Droids comics?

TV's Frink said:

A future special edition...in 4k?

Yes.

unamochilla2 said:

imperialscum said:

moviefreakedmind said:

unamochilla2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The TFN community is kind of delusional I think. Not that I'm not also delusional, but I don't really understand how someone could honestly think that there's a reason to let the original versions of Star Wars rot away into nonexistence (which I know one specific TFNer has said before)

I believe some have said that if Disney acknowledges and releases the OOT, then it will "interfere" will the saga AKA George's vision.  Even when the OOT is released on Blu-ray, I'm guessing the 2011 versions (or newer versions) will still remain as official.

Sure, but who really cares about what is "official"?

Well if you are solely interested in OT then official canon is of no concern. However if you are interested in sequels then that might present inconveniences. For example, if for some reason they wanted to have Anakin's ghost, they might bring Hayden back in order to follow the canon. I gave the worst case scenario but still. :)

My original point was releasing the OOT wouldn't interfere with anything because it's likely the 2011 are the versions that Disney will refer to.  Disney needs to draw the line somewhere as to what is official and what isn't.  And there are a lot of fans who do care what is official.  Personally, I don't care what is official.  I just want the OOT on Bluray.

However, you have a good point about Anakin's ghost.  The same can be said for the ending of ROTJ, if the ST acknowledges it.  In the OOT, they had a small celebration on Endor.  In the SE, it was more widespread and made it seem as if the entire Empire was wiped out across the galaxy or, at least, at the various places we've seen throughout all the films.  It seems the ST has to acknowledge the "fall" of the Empire in ROTJ in some fashion considering they're still around.

A future special edition could easily remove the celebrations if it's really that much of an issue.

Darth Id said:

darklordoftech said:

It's interesting how some say that NOBODY likes the prequels yet others say that there's no demand for the OOT. 

 Those are not contradictory observations.

If someone hates how there's so much CGI in the prequels, the last thing that they'll want is a ronto in Mos Eisley. Similarly, if someone thinks that Hayden ruined Anakin, the last thing that they'll want is Hayden's pesky head ruining the ending of ROTJ.

moviefreakedmind said:

The fallacy of the "Nobody wants the OOT" argument is that, even if that is true, there is no reason why people wouldn't buy that particular Star Wars release anyway. It's based on the assumption that because people don't know or care about the OOT, they won't purchase a re-release of Star Wars because the OOT is included. Including the OOT can only help sales because it provides for an incentive for people to re-buy the trilogy, and everyone who doesn't already own Star Wars will buy the new re-release because they want to see the backstory before watching Episode VII, regardless of the OOT's inclusion. 

Oh, and also, if there is enough demand for a Blu Ray of Halloween 6: The Producer's Cut, then there is most definitely a demand for the OOT.

Also, this.

ThiefCobbler4ever said:

They'll always have IV. Disney can't take that away from them.

Tell Disney that when they decide to release a 1-9 boxset.

I love the OP's username and avatar.

It's interesting how some say that NOBODY likes the prequels yet others say that there's no demand for the OOT. 

MathUser said:

The OOT ending of ROTJ didn't make sense anyway. Why was anakin suddenly a normal guy instead of bald and pasty white?

In that case, the DVD version worsened the problem. 

Alderaan said:

*Vader doesn't calmly say "alert my star destroyer blah blah blah" when he's seething with rage.

The "alert my star destroyer" line originally came from a deleted Star Wars (1977) scene, hence it doesn't fit the Cloud City shuttle scene.

TV's Frink said:

darklordoftech said:

I realized that the prequels suck when Darth was revealed to be a title.

 Wow, it took you that long, huh?

considering that it was revealed in the promotional material (meaning before the opening crawl), I wouldn't call it long.

I realized that the prequels suck when Darth was revealed to be a title.

SilverWook said:

I've long thought Vader's look was based on ancient Sith armor. Palpatine did not just pick it at random or make up something scary on his own.

Darth Bane's appearance in The Clone Wars implies just this.

DuracellEnergizer said:

I'm still hoping the guy's not actually a villain and all this Faux Vader stuff is just deliberate misdirection.

A Vader-masked character not being a villain would be an awesome twist!

DuracellEnergizer said:

Marvel Comics: sucking all the life and fun out of their comics since the 1990s.

Who at Marvel do you blame? Editor-in-chief? President? CEO?

SilverWook said:

If Disney was behind this ill conceived bantha poodoo, it bodes ill for getting the OOT.

Do the Dark Horse omnibus volumes retain their original coloring?

Marvel's also publishing the original-colored versions.

That there's a digital scan of Shaw as ghost Anakin makes me very happy.

I found an interesting post that Harmy made in another thread years ago:

Harmy said:

Here are a few funny pictures from the 2004 DVD chapter menu:

This is the 2004 ANH scene selection menu. The images don't match the movie on the same disc. This, combined with Empire of Dreams, shows that something other than the 2004 and 2011 versions exists at LFL.

DuracellEnergizer said:

SilverWook said:

Sounds like the same sort of greedy speculation that pretty much ruined the hobby for many people in the 90's.

Which is why I have no respect for Marvel anymore. Gimmicks have come to be of greater importance to them than good writing. 

Who calls the shots at Marvel? Editor-in-chief? CEO?

DuracellEnergizer said:

So I take it Harmy's large image in the posts above is only refusing to show up for me? That's incredibly odd ...

I right-clicked it and opened it in a new page.

Zahn wanted to call the Noghri "Sith" (with Vader being a "Dark Lord of the Sith" because they served him) and wanted Joruus to be a clone of Obi-Wan, but Lucas advised Zahn against both of these ideas.

Movie studios are always finding excuses to rescan and remaster. We won't be dealing with those 04 scans for much longer.

the solution is to scan or telecine an IP and don't change anything

yoda-sama said:

darklordoftech said:

All of Disney's alterations are either results of branching or in response to a claim that something is offensive/sexual/copyright-infringing, etc. Never has a non-branching "original version" had updated special effects.

The Lion King Blu-ray still has the IMAX release reanimated bits at the beginning (new crocodiles, etc).  That had nothing to do with politically correct stuff like editing out the dust that said either "SEX" or "SFX" (depending on who you believe), it was change just for the sake of change.

the original crocodiles looked like someone's painting, leading to an accusation of copyright infringement

AntcuFaalb said:

darklordoftech said:

unamochilla2 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

AntcuFaalb said:

Harmy said:

Revisionism is becoming a complete norm - I've just been watching the Hobbit TDoS EE BD extras and they said that in the DVD and BD release of the first Hobbit, they re-did some shots of Smaug in the prologue to match the TDoS version of him.

I agree that revisionism is unfortunately becoming commonplace, but FWIW I usually don't mind when the creator(s) of a work revise it in some minor way only a short time post-release. (Yes, this means I don't mind the '81 crawl.)

I also don't mind such changes/fixes when it's to correct unintended errors a year after release (And when we'd barely notice the change).

They tried to show as little of Smaug as possible in the prologue but they hadn't finished designing him by that point. They eventually went for no front legs in DOS but the AUJ Smaug has front legs. So why not remove them in the EE. Better than keeping the error, or going with a consistent design for Smaug that they didn't like.

Now going back 10, 20, 30 years later and changing things that didn't need changing is another kettle of fish (However, I actually would welcome FOTR Gollum being redone by Andy Serkis, so call me a massive hypocrite if you like LOL).

In a similar way, I wouldn't mind a stunning new transfer of the OT that corrected a few flaws Adywan style but stayed true to the original print in spirit. Having the original untouched version as well would of course be preferrable.

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney did that considering they have tweaked and altered some of their own films (particularly the animated films), though usually minor and unnoticeable.

All of Disney's alterations are either results of branching or in response to a claim that something is offensive/sexual/copyright-infringing, etc. Never has a non-branching "original version" had updated special effects.

I'm not sure what you mean by branching, but many of Disney's classics (e.g., Sleeping Beauty) were digitally reanimated in preparation for a BD release.

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Recommended-Editions-of-Disney-Animated-and-Partially-Animated-Features/topic/15617/

by branching I mean seamless branching.