It's Official -- Star Wars on DVD 646
savagexp writes "There's yet to be an actual press release, but according to DVDFile.com, 20th Century Fox and LucasFilm have confirmed that The Original Trilogy will arrive on September 21st in a four-disc set. More info can be had here."
Special editions only :-( (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what are the faithful to do if they don't want to watch the altered 1997 editions of the trilogy? Either give in, or don't buy. "We realize there's a lot of debate out there," says Ward. "But this is not a democracy. We love our fans, but this is about art and filmmaking. [George] has decided that the sole version he wants available is this one."
So you say it's not a democracy? That George "Artist" Lucas can do what he damn well pleases?
Perhaps Lucas has forgotten that he's in the marketplace -- where democracy indeed rules, and the cash register is the ballot box.
My vote will be for the version where Han shoots first. For me, it *is* about "art and filmmaking". Both of which were evident in the original, absent from the remake, and forgotten in the prequels.
*snore* (Score:5, Insightful)
Timing (Score:4, Insightful)
It probably has to do with the amount of money Lucas is spending on Episode III. He must have a significant burn rate. It also could be an attempt to generate interest after the abysmal response to Episode II.
Re:what's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hey, we can do computer generated graphics... let's add some big creatures in the background"
There is one scene with a computer generated Jabba the Hutt that is just awful.
No Thanks (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll just have to get some genetic work done and outlive ol' George by 75 years or so. Then I'll get hold of the REAL original trilogy. Unless the copyright extensions keep pace with Mickey(tm)(r) Mouse(tm)(r) indefinitely, the films will be public domain.BR>
They'll have more releases (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:HDDVD (Score:0, Insightful)
I'll save my credits... (Score:5, Insightful)
This should answer all the questions below. Forget it. I want the original unaltered versions on DVD. Didn't anyone learn anything from New Coke?
Re:Not a democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you been to the cinema lately or watched any TV? The voting public is not terribly critical, which is why crap keeps selling. The public is buying it.
Remember Sturgeon's Law: 90 percent of anything is crap.
Re:Press Relase Link (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Special editions only :-( (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not a democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats right. It *isn't* a democracy. He can sit on those movies until the grave and then have the originals destroyed and there is not one damn thing you can do about it.
Re:what's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
It effectively changes Han's character from an outlaw who cares only about himself, to some sort of good guy who found himself in trouble.
Add to that the fact that the added effects shot was so poorly done that I still cringe just thinking of it. Greedo is sitting two feet away from Han with his blaster aimed squarely at him, yet somehow misses by a mile?
The rest of the Special Editions are not too bad though.
I'll still be getting it on DVD - I have the original Original Trilogy on VHS, as well as the Special Editions of the Original Trilogy, so like a true fan-boy I'll fork out for the DVDs...
Re:Not a democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cold blood? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get why people say that. In the dialogue, Greedo had just said the he was going to enjoy killing Solo in a moment, so Han shot first and killed Greedo in self-defense. It's not like Solo sneaked into the cantina, spied Greedo, and shot him in the back.
Except Peter Jackson told the truth up front (Score:3, Insightful)
Except for the inconvenient fact Peter Jackson told the truth up front about there being two releases.
If they ever release hyper-super-extended editions, then you can make that comparison. In any case, there might be legitimate reasons for another release of many movies, if HD-DVD becomes the norm.
Of course, if you think regular DVDs are already good enough, no one is forcing anyone ot upgrade.
Re:They'll have more releases (Score:3, Insightful)
Original Trilogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Does this mean the theatrical version, the digital version or the fubar version with new scenes and a Han Solo that doesn't fire first?
If this isn't the theatrical version I (and probably everyone else) will pass for obvious reasons.
Democracy does not mean you get to buy Star Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, right.
Listen, I know there are many people out there who think that the marketplace and democracy are the same thing. They're wrong, and so are you.
Democracy; various flavors, but the intention is that what the majority of people want, they get. This means that if the country votes for a government-controlled socialist utopia, it's democratic, and when another country invades and forces a market-based economy upon them, it's not (or vice versa).
Marketplace; people have money and goods. Money and goods are exchanged at the highest perceived benefit to both parties. Those with more money have more buying power. Those with goods/rights can do what they like with them. Those with no money or goods/rights have no power.
Do you understand? Two separate concepts. Until the people in such-and-such a country vote for a law that says George Lucas must release the original Star Wars trilogy on DVD, there's nothing "undemocratic" about his decision (in the sense that we are discussing here) like it or not. The democratic USA (*) (and most other countries) has passed laws which allow whoever holds the rights to do pretty much what the hell they like with the Star Wars movies.
And while I'm here, I'll point out that liberty is also different to capitalism *and* democracy, regardless of bluster to the contrary.
(*) You can argue the toss about the effectiveness of US democracy, but that's another topic altogether.
Re:They'll have more releases (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they could release both versions on the same release. Recently, I bought the Pink Floyd "Directors Cut" of Live at Pompeii and it has the original and the directors cut versions. I have other dvds that have widescreen and 4:3 versions.
Plus, there are only like 20 or so minutes of different footage, so it would fit on one disk easily.
Bah, I'll just keep buying them.
Re:Yes, but it's not really the original (Score:4, Insightful)
In the grand scheme of things, Lucas f-ing up his original Trilogy is small potatoes... but in the context of a Star Wars article on Slashdot - you have to expect some bitching about the Greedo scene
Re:Yes, but it's not really the original (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like Lucas went back to your childhood and stole your teddy bear, people! I don't think Greedo should have shot first, and I agree with leaving Han's character as a rogue who did what he had to to stay alive. But damn, get over it already.
It's HIS movie, he can do as HE pleases with it. He is not screwing you. He is not raping your childhood. He is not having sex with your mother while you watch, helplessly duct-taped to a chair.
Stories evolve, folks. You just happened to see the rough drafts.
Re:Pan and Scan? (Score:4, Insightful)
a) Cut back and forth between the actors
b) Pan back and forth
c) Use a crop to show both actors on screen.
Now, the first two suck. They are just not the same as the original version, and sometimes clumsily done. I can name many movies with obvious Pan & Scan artifacts (e.g. Ghostbusters media coverage montage scene, Austin Powers Vegas scene and so on). Pretty annoying.
On the other hand, using a matte allows the director to use footage from the top and bottom of the screen to flesh out the bars that would normally be in a 4:3 presentation of a 2.35:1 movie. Often this causes feck-ups, especially boom mike goofs. The IMDB goofs pages has many entries that only apply to certain aspect ratio versions.
Back to the point. Cinema is all about the big screen. That's where directors want their movies watched. Maybe because of the artistic merit, maybe for the per-person revenue. Whatever. The point is that the original theatrical version is the one to watch.
Not all movies are WS, some directors didn't take to it. Kubrik for example didn't use it, except maybe for "eyes wide shut" (never seen it, too much BS hype). Jeez, most of his films only had monoural sound.
By the way, in case anyone is wondering, I checked the press release. The SW DVDs in this thread will aparently be released in separate anamorphic WS (yippie) and 4:3 (if that takes your fancy).
I'll be going for the WS ones. I don't buy a painting to cut pieces out to fit an old frame I happen to have lying around. The same with film.
Re:Yes, but it's not really the original (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, Lucas and his people know what bothers so many fans, with regards to the remastered trilogy. I can't believe that they're so oblivious that they don't know by now. So if they really were going to change the Cantina scene back, don't you think they'd let people know, or at least drop large hints, in order to raise the hype around the DVD release more?
-Todd
So what? Splice your own movie!! (Score:2, Insightful)
It effectively changes Han's character from an outlaw who cares only about himself, to some sort of good guy who found himself in trouble.]
Add to that the fact that the added effects shot was so poorly done that I still cringe just thinking of it. Greedo is sitting two feet away from Han with his blaster aimed squarely at him, yet somehow misses by a mile?
Assuming the new scene is the same length as the old scene, it would be pretty easy to splice the old scene back in.
I don't mind the new Jabba scene, having already seen the film. But I think it takes away from Jabba's evilness in part VI. Which is one of the few decent parts of that film...
Why Greedo v. Han (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, I agree with all of you, Han should be shooting first, it's more "in character" with him, and makes him coming in to save the day at the end that much more important (If he's always a good guy, why is it such a shock - sometimes there are shades of grey George!)
OTOH, we should be pointing out what a tremendous slap in the face to all those that worked so hard on the original movies (that made George into what he is today) it is to refuse to release the original versions on DVD. By refusing to release the original, unedited editons on a format that preserves them for generations instead of decades because they (paraphrased quote)"aren't the movies the way I wanted to make them, but wasn't able to because the technology didn't exist," George is saying that the incredible achievements of ILM on those orginal versions is worthless. He forgets the fact that those movies changed the way all movies were made from that point on. He dismisses the hard work of his cast, crew, and effects workers on the original cuts as weak, and unfinished products - nevermind the fact that those unfinished, weak versions made him a millionaire many times over, defined a genre, created groudbreaking visuals, and broke box office records that stood for years to come. Think about it, when "A New Hope" came out it cost roughly $2.00 a ticket, and it wasn't until Tim Burton's "Batman" came out at an average ticket price of more than twice that for the box office returns record "A New Hope" held was broken.
George's attitude shows through in more than his words, his actions speak louder than he ever could, he hates the fan base. He ignores our request to be able to relive a cherished moment in our upbringing in order to feed his own ego. Why do we put up with him anymore. Listen to your fans George, they put you in that ranch, and while we won't be taking you out of it, I miss being able to look up to you. Stop ignoring our requests, and quit stoking your own ego. Stop spitting on those that made you who you are.
Save the Original Trilogy - Sign the petition [originaltrilogy.com]
Re:HDDVD (Score:4, Insightful)
He can only sell it to you twice if you choose to buy it twice.
Re:Special editions only :-( (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a reason why Sam Spade doesn't meet the Fat Man before his initial scenes with Peter Lorrie's character. Once the mystery of "my employer" is gone, the pathetic lackey is not really as interesting.
Re:I'll save my credits... (Score:3, Insightful)
When you finally do release the original product, it's a huge boost [wikipedia.org] with lots of publicity, and you make a lot of money?
Yeah, I think they might have learned that lesson.
Re:what's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
If George had fixed minor flaws in the movie, that doesn't ruin the effect. But all this CG stuff looks so out of place in these old 70s/80s films. It definitely changes the feel of the movie.
The sad thing is that everyone will go out there and buy the DVDs, even though it seems like everyone hates the Special Edition. Bitching about how they suck is obviously not a clear message to Lucas. The only way to get the message through to them is to not buy the movies.
Re:Oh, yes, LOTR is sooo much better. (Score:5, Insightful)
Peter Jackson and New Line, regardless of the movie's content, are treating those who choose to purchase the films with respect. George Lucas is not.
Since you brought up the content and the genre defining aspects of films, I have to make a side comment:
Star Wars may have come out in 1977, but we aren't talking about
Re:Yes, but it's not really the original (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, I worked in a day camp in 2000, one of the kids asked why guys my age loved Star Wars so much, he'd seen episode 1 and didn't see what all the fuss was about: Its not that good he said.
I explained he was right, episode 1 isn't that good, and the reason guys my age loved Star Wars so much was that the original were
And that was a 10yr old, exactly the target audience for a kid-friendly poop-joke infested flick like Ep1.
Its not just the rose-tainted glasses of nostalgia. Lucas lost it.
big deal! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Yub Yub" at least made SENSE in the STORY! (Score:4, Insightful)
The Second Death Star had been destroyed. Whee. The Imperial Fleet was defeated. Whee.
The Rebels were victorious. Oh joy.
We forget two very important things:
#1 - People fear change almost as much as they hate oppression (look at Iraq / Islam in general; a bunch of seventh-century savages they remain, even while claiming to overthrow governments in the name of their "freedom").
#2 - The Rebels were a minority in the galaxy, whose population mostly just wanted to be left alone.
It's been explored in the novels and elsewhere; during the time of the Empire, there were a few planets in rebellion, but mostly it was just business as usual. Unless you got the attention of the Imperial government, you did business the same way you'd done it under the Republic.
If you joined the Imperial Forces, chances are you did it because of a slick recruiting plan and promises of good wages / adventure -- hey, Luke was about to join up before Obi-Wan came along, wasn't he? For that matter, the officers of the Imperial Navy might have feared Vader, but the grunts were happy enough as they were, obviously.
Therefore, having a LOCALIZED celebration on Endor made sense. There were a bunch of Rebels present, because they'd won the battle, and there were a bunch of Ewoks around because they were indigenous.
Showing celebrations elsewhere? Yeesh, people. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO CELEBRATIONS ELSEWHERE.
You think the entire galaxy would have just cheered and shouted and gone "Whee, the Emperor's gone! Yay!"???
Fuck that. They'd have been hand-wringing, worried about who was restoring/keeping order with the StormTroopers now out of a job. Planetary governors would alternately have been quelling civil distress and working on plans either to take over territory or work their way into positions of power in the new government. Smugglers wouldn't have given a flying fuck, except that the unrest made it easier for them to slip stuff into ports undetected.
That's the reality. On Endor, and maybe a few other Rebel bases, there might have been a party. Mon Calamari perhaps, given what the Emperor did to them.
Coruscant? The seat of the Emperor's power? FUCK NO. Coruscant wouldn't have been cheering. The other planets shown? Likewise.
"Yub Yub" and the original party scene make sense. The Special Edition bullshit is just that, BULLSHIT, and completely ignores the realities of the universe Lucas constructed in the first place.
Re:what's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what's the difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW, I lived in Marin County when the SW movies were originally released and I remember seeing all of them and liking all of them, so I do have something to compare the SE to.
Acting? Cinematography? Sorry, but who the heck cares? The difference between us is that I go to a movie to be entertained for 2 hours, not to find a new philosophy in life. Is the SE perfect? No, but it's not the end of the world and I'm certainly not going to throw a temper tantrum because of the addition of a few scenes that in no way affect the story (except the cantina scene).
That's not quite true (Score:3, Insightful)
Now as for movies, generally all-digital is going to give higher quality. Why? Well mainly because when you go from analogue film to a digital format, there's always problems with the consistency of the exposure. It's easiest to see with stuff shot on lower res flm like 16mm. Watch Resivour Dogs and notice the sort of "snow" effect in solid colour areas. It's less pronounced on good 35mm film, but still happens.
Now, this is no big deal when the presentation is analogue, you'll probably never see it, even on the big screen, and certianly not on a TV. However that's not true when it goes compressed digital. The MPEG-2 encoder will try to encode all this, or rather an approximation thereof. Now this causes two problems:
1) Uses data that could be used for other information. There's only so many bits per second it's allowed to use, and when they get used encoding something unnecessary like this, there's less for other detail. It's also not real efficient at encoding that kind of noise which leads us to...
2) Because it's not good at encoding it, it tends to generate artifacts that make it much more noticable.
Now when it comes from a digital source, and is digital the whole way, this is not a problem. Thus, on a compressed digital distribution medium, like DVD, you get a better end result.
It will also probably result in a better theatre experience. In the theatre analogue film suffers from some major problems that digital does not:
1) Generation loss. You never see the orignal film, you see, at best, a copy and usually a copy of a copy. Each time, detail is lost. Digital is the orignal every time.
2) Film damage. I've never seen a movie that the film didn't have at least a few flects of dust or the like on it that were visible. Again, never happens with digital.
3) Projector rumble. At all the theatres around here, the projector shakes ever so slightly. This is understandable due to the mechanics of it. Thing is, that slight shake becomes not so slight when transmitted to the large screen. The jitter is certianly visible. DLP projectors (and related technologies) don't do this either.
Combine that with the high resolution that digital films are ususally shot at (3840x2400), and I think the experience will be superior.
Re:what's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:HDDVD (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you either haven't used a good digital camera or you haven't done a fair comparison.
My wife is a professional photographer who shoots with a Nikon D1x. Film admittedly has higher line pair resolution, but as my wife isn't taking pictures of line pairs, that's irrelevant. For real-world shooting like portraits and nature photography, the D1x is easily comparable to 35mm film (a bit better in some respects, a bit worse in others).
And the D1x is only a 5.5 megapixel camera. There are already much higher resolution cameras on the market, and anyone who believes that 35mm film actually compares favorably to a good 16 megapixel imager is suffering from a severe inability to accept reality. The fight is already over. Film is dead.
Of course, I'm sure that a hundred years ago there were still horse-and-buggy proponents arguing that cars were inferior...
Good movies do both (Score:2, Insightful)
Good movies do both. Take Kurosawa's films for example. His movies entertain, they impart strong messages, and part of that is because he pays attention to great acting (Toshiro Mifune, Takashi Shimura) and cinemoatography. A great actor can make people feel something (and that is entertaing!) in 1 motion which would take normal people 10 to convey (Kurosawa said something similar about Mifune). Great actors a part of the story and they make it their business to play their role and show the audience their role in the film. By your logic, blocks of wood be as entertaining as actors (even the masses don't believe that - look at Keanu in the last to matrix films and fan reactions).
Cinematography too does the same thing; the way a shot is light, balanced, etc. subtly imparts a mood or vibe for a movie. Take the balances in Seven Samurai - they show a lot of how the samurai see other, the villagers, etc. Take The Royal Tenenbaums for example - the cluttered Tenenbaum house says a lot about the family themselves. Unless you're stuyding it, you might not see it the first time through, but it does affect your perception of the characters.
Cinematopgrahy and acting are paramount to a great, entertaing film. It's the difference between a 2 page plot synopsis of Lord of the Rings and reading the novels; there's no comparsion.
Take a film class somewhere, I promise you'll learn quite a bit about visual story telling.
How about 140Megapixels? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you mean physical medium formats (e.g. DVD, etc...)
But here, you're WAY wrong.
"Same goes for digital cameras - even the best still don't match the resolution of a decent 35mm film."
First, standard DSLR's have advanced a LOT in the past few years. Although megapixels are fast becoming irrelevant (color depth, CCD sensitivity, etc... are becoming much more important) the top of the line cameras are much higher resolution than they used to be. The Kodak DCS 14n which isn't even new is 13.8Megapixels. As mentioned the Canon EOS-1Ds is 11MP.
But if you want to compare against the high end, how about a PhaseOne H25 22Megapixel 4x5 scanback?
Or how about a 140.76Megapixel Super10K-2 from BetterLight.com?
Super10K-2
10200 x 13800 pixels - Native CCD resolution
402 MB max. file 24-bit RGB (804 MB in 48-bit RGB)
Now you may argue I'm comparing apples and oranges (4x5 vs. 35MM), but your comment was that the best digital cameras don't match 35MM...which IMHO is wrong when compared to the best format digital cameras.