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)
They'll have more releases (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They'll have more releases (Score:3, Informative)
> then the widescreen edition. And then the digitally remastered
> edition.
I remember it as:
1. Original trilogy full screen
2. Original trilogy with THX re-mastered sound, full screen (I think the three movies had the stormtrooper mask, Yoda, and Darth Vader)
3. Then re-mastered trilogy, full screen (in the gold box)
4. Then re-mastered trilogy, wide screen (in the silver box)
I imagine Peter Jackson saw the above and was a bit inspired when h
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They'll have more releases (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They'll have more releases (Score:5, Informative)
New Line Cinema and Peter Jackson have been very upfront about their release plans for the Lord of the Rings movies. Saying they are doing the same thing as Lucas is inaccurate... at least so far. Plenty of people thinking they will put out some form of mega-collector's set after the final (extended) movie comes out. But, up to now, they have been very fan-friendly in terms of their openness regarding the release plan.
"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:They'll have more releases (Score:4, Funny)
They needed it for Phantom Menace.
Re:They'll have more releases (Score:3, Informative)
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,
Re:Special editions only :-( (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Special editions only :-( (Score:5, Informative)
This has been done, and a nicely transferred version is floating around the internet already - complete with high resolution covers and a "bonus" DVD full of extra material. The quality isn't ideal (the transfer is for 1 single-layer DVD per film) but it's widescreen, better than VHS and the best version of the originals we're likely to get.
Re:Special editions only :-( (Score:5, Informative)
Original triology, SE on German DVD with 5.1 German audio and 5.1 upmixed (from 2.0) English. The original English 2.0 soundtrack is also available. Verdict: Very good, but all text is in German, including scrolling start. English 5.1 isn't real 5.1 unfortunately, but the German is.
Original trilogy, SE on DivX. Sound is prologic, one disk per movie. Verdict: A keeper until the offical DVDs are out.
The Phantom Menace Phantom Edit. A rip of the VHS version, minus as much Anakin and Jar-Jar bullshit as possible. Verdict: Worth checking out. Available in mpeg2, DivX and VCD. I kept the mpeg4 version I found on e2k.
The Phantom Menace Peoples Edition. A DVD rip including several deleted scenes. Verdict: Worth a look, educational purposes.
Finally, a someone I know made proper DVDs from his own LD-cap, supposedly very good but I never got to see it.
Fuck Lucas. Like the RIAA, he has learned that missing a business opertunity costs. We want DVD, you don't give. We go elsewhere and your products are forever tainted. Combined with the poorish recent movies, Lucas has almost succeeded in making Star Wars suck.
(whistling) (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:what's the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:what's the difference? (Score:3, Informative)
I think the alteration in question (guns -> flashlights) is absurd as well, but talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
Re:what's the difference? (Score:4, Funny)
And Leia's suddenly wearing an iPod.
Re:what's the difference? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:what's the difference? (Score:3, Funny)
Its more effective [jumpstation.ca] than harsh language [garnersclassics.com]
Re:what's the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
All, in all the new scenes were a waste of time. Its sad that Lucas is such an arrogant that he refuses to put the originals out on DVD. I was actually hoping he'd do something similar that my T2 DVD does, watch the original, or watch the expanded version...
Oh well, I'm on the fence on whether I'll get these or not. I'm actually pretty sick of the whole Star Wars brand at this point which is sad, cause I was one of the die-hards originally. (guess I wasn't die-hard enough)
Re:what's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
In the first film, they took some cutting-room floor footage of Han talking to Jabba as he's preparing to take off in the Millenium Falcon. (I thought I read somewhere that Marlon Brando was actually playing Jabba in that scene). Anyways, they put in a computer generated Jabba walking alongside Han, and it looks pretty cheesy to me.
I hate overused computer animation. I think it looks out of place and fake, and the world of Star Wars was much more believable made out of foam rubber costumes and cheesy props.
The big one that gets all the geeks riled up is they changed the Cantina scene, so that Jabba's bounty hunter shoots at Han, and he kills him in 'self defense'. In the original, Han just shoots him under the table and gets up and leaves.
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.
I haven't seen the special edition versions of the other two movies.
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:what's the difference? (Score:3, Informative)
I could do without Luke screaming as he's falling from the platform in "Empire", though. It's completely pointless and out of character. Except for the two Han scenes in the original, that's the third most irksome thing about Lucas' "adjustments".
Re:what's the difference? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:what's the difference? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Other lame dialogue changes (Score:4, Funny)
Re:what's the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
Worst. Special Editions. Ever.
I only bought four copies.
Feh.
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:what's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
In the first film, they took some cutting-room floor footage of Han talking to Jabba as he's preparing to take off in the Millenium Falcon.
Want to hate that scene even more?
Notice the part where Han circles Jabba while proposing a deal. Originally, that was fine since Jabba was a fat guy who looked like the rancor handler. But now that they were pasting a big slug with a long tail over the guy, Han couldn't really walk around hom anymore. Unadjusted, Han would be walking right through the animation.
Their solution? Make it look like Han is stepping on Jabba's tail by cutting him from the background and moving him up a bit then down a bit as he circles Jabba. They even make Jabba comically cringe when Han "steps" on his tail. This looks about as real as when a kid bounces a doll along the ground to make it "walk".
Re:what's the difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
I also agree that this scene just didnt work.
(all of this negated by starwars ep1)
Re:what's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what's the difference? (Score:5, Funny)
(I thought I read somewhere that Marlon Brando was actually playing Jabba in that scene
Common misconception. Marlon Brando was actually Jabba in Return of the Jedi. A lot of people think it's a big puppet, but it's just Brando naked.
Re:what's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:what's the difference? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Special editions only :-( (Score:3, Informative)
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:Special editions only :-( (Score:5, Interesting)
1) In LOTR, they told everyone up front was the plan was so the informed consumer could choose... instead of feeling ripped off.
2) In LOTR, they made sure that there was no overlap in the special features between the theatrical cut and the extended cut.
3) In LOTR, the extra features on the extended cut, plus 45 minutes of NEW footage justify the second purchase - instead of only offering a version that was modified (for the worse) for sale initially, and then relenting and offering the original at a later date.
In other words, with LOTR the extended cuts are actually GOOD, and are put out there for fans, while leaving the original theatrical cut available for everyone. In the Star Wars case, no one can get the original version they know and love, and are stuck with the extended/special versions, DESPITE the fans.
Peter Jackson and New Line are treating fans like people worth of respect, and offering them as much of the LOTR magic as they can soak up. George Lucas is treating Star Wars fans the way a school bully treats kids in cartoons - turning them upside down and shaking money out of their pockets, all the while trying to dampen whatever Star Wars magic is left with a thick blanket of corporate greed.
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: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.
Finally! (Score:3, Funny)
HDDVD (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:HDDVD (Score:3, Funny)
translation: we are waiting until the best possible moment to extract the maximum
Re:HDDVD (Score:4, Insightful)
He can only sell it to you twice if you choose to buy it twice.
Re:HDDVD (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, because like all movies until pretty recently it was recorded on good ol' photographic film, which offers a resolution far higher than any existing digitised video format. Same goes for digital cameras - even the best still don't match the resolution of a decent 35mm film.
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
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...
Re:HDDVD (Score:5, Informative)
Remember: 35mm _still_ frames go along the film, whereas 35mm _movie_ frames go across the film. Also, only a fraction of the frame is actually used in movies, due to the widescreen aspect ratio. That means a lot less pixels are required to get the same resolution.
A lot of 35mm movie effect shots are rendered at around 2048x1024-ish resolutions, so while 2 megapixels is a little low for the full 35mm movie resolution, it's not far off.
Re:HDDVD (Score:3, Interesting)
At ISO (film sensitivity) at or over 800, digital will come out way ahead, since grain will be so large on the film that resolution is severely compromised. Digital will have a small amount of noise at higher ISO's, but it would be not nearly as severe in deteriorating the image quality as large grain fast 35mm f
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.
Re:Not a democracy? (Score:4, Interesting)
It has nothing to do with politics, the final product is George's choice...not yours
Don't like it, vote by not buying it
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.
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:Not a democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a democracy? (Score:4, Informative)
In the original release, Greedo corners Solo, levels a gun across the table and threatens to turn him into Jabba unless he hands over the money.
Solo distracts him while unholstering his blaster under the table and then blasts poor dumb unsuspecting Greedo in the nuts.
Guess Lucas felt this was unsportsman-like, to blast a guy under the table instead of in a fair gunfight (ala Gary Cooper).
So Lucas changed it in the "Special Edition". Greedo pulls off a shot, misses (how can you miss at point blank range?) and _then_ Solo blasts him in the nuts.
Much more honorable. Han is going to be a major Alliance general and hero. Can't have him shooting first under a table - not Kosher. Bit of revisionist history, actually. Solo was presumably a smuggler scumbag before meeting up with Luke and Ben. I'm sure blasting Greedo from under the table is not the worst thing he did before getting the hots for Leia and joining her rebellion.
Someone send this to George. (Score:5, Interesting)
Please bear with my rant..
When I read of the Star Wars DVD release I immediately thought of the speech Gordon Gekko give the board of Teldon Papers in the movie Wall Street (1987) [imdb.com] Years after the DVD has become ubiquitous they decide to release the original 3 on that medium. It was only a few years ago that they released the VHS set to the consumers. Wow! Thanks, George! The story makes it sound like they're doing us a favour! Yeah right. The only favour is to their bank accounts. The tide of cash flowing in from the "Official VHS set" has slowed to a crawl. They want the consumers to re-purchase the same stuff on a new format. George didn't "[find] some time", the market studies indicated that this is the right time to release the DVDs.
Thanks but no thanks George. After the embarassment of Episodes I & II and your blatant milking of the franchise you've lost a big fan in me. I'd only buy the set if I could guarantee that my money buys the exact slice of pizza you choke on.
Press Relase Link (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but it's not really the original (Score:5, Informative)
Greedo did not shoot first.
-Todd
Re:Yes, but it's not really the original (Score:5, Interesting)
Mike
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
Re:Yes, but it's not really the original (Score:3, Funny)
this is the best you'll be able to get
Re:Yes, but it's not really the original (Score:5, Funny)
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, Funny)
> summer and complained that wax cylinders were the only true
> way to appreciate recorded music.
Slow-witted guy eating donut: "You wanna watch the new Star Wars movie?"
Guy wearing scarf: "Oh, puh-lease! The new Star Wars movies blow! People were not meant to see movies with good special effects. People need to see strings, rubber suits, and that shit."
Digs out worn VHS copy of the original Star Wars movie.
"What is that?"
"This, my friend, is the only version of Star Wars I will touch," he says while lovingly stroking the VHS tape.
"Is it the THX remastered version?"
"No! I just -- it's the original Star Wars movie on VHS. It allows me to watch the only decent movie ever committed to celluloid."
"Celluloid?"
"Yessss!"
"Does it have computer effects?"
"Jesus! Just watch. It's so pure it hurts
Screen zooms in to a rubber suited alien flopping around a dingy sound stage threatening a young Harrison Ford. A man in a metal robot suit starts prat-falling on the scene.
The fact is, the new Star Wars movies are just as good as the old ones. Complainers were just 20 years younger when they saw the originals.
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:Yes, but it's not really the original (Score:3, Interesting)
Did I miss something? I believe the parent poster simply stated that he probably won't be buying the revised DVDs...
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.
mmm..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:mmm..... (Score:5, Funny)
Dark Helmet: Who made that man a gunner?
Maj. Asshole: I did, sir. He's my cousin.
Dark Helmet: Who is he?
Col. Sandurz: He's an Asshole, sir.
Dark Helmet: I know that. What's his name?
Col. Sandurz: That is his name, sir. Asshole, Major Asshole.
Dark Helmet: And his cousin?
Col. Sandurz: He's an Asshole too, sir. Gunner's Mate, First Class, Philip Asshole.
Dark Helmet: How many Assholes we got on this ship, any how?
Everyone: Yo!
Dark Helmet: I knew it. I'm surrounded by Assholes. Keep firing, Assholes!
*snore* (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefly is the answer ... (Score:5, Informative)
I warn everyone who has not seen Firefly yet -- if you get the DVDs and start watching them, you will go one half of the best ride of your life. It will be like getting on the world's greatest rollercoaster (with 10 loops!), making through the first 3 loops and having the rollercoaster stop in the middle of the ride. You will love what you get and be disgusted that there is not more.
Still, if people continue to buy the DVDs and word of mouth continues to spread, there is still the movie in the works and hope for SciFi or someone else to pick it up. Fox should be smart enough to put it into production again as long as they are getting paid.
SciFi Acting (See Babylon 5) (Score:3, Funny)
In non-scifi works, actors are expected to have emotional range and be capable of pulling the audience into the plot for the plot's sake. Their ability to project the suspension of disbelief is key into the audience feeling that they are part of an actual event instead of simply an observer.
The SciFi sliding scale, however, is broken into several sub-categories of attributes that are appealing to your
I want, but.... (Score:5, Funny)
GREEDO SHOOTS FIRST!
FUCK THAT.
I know it's super nerdy to complain about it, but I'm not willing to pay for a copy of the movie if that's the way it's going to be. Solo is supposed to kill him in cold blood.
Lucas, if you want my cash you're going to have to release the real deal. Spielberg, you too. I didn't buy none of your walkie talkie E.T. shit. Good thing I still have the real deals on VHS. But still, DVD would be nice.
Man, I am such a freakin' fanboy sometimes.
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.
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:Timing (Score:3, Informative)
Originaltrilogy.com (Score:5, Informative)
Well it may be too late, but the fans must be heard!
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:I'll save my credits... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is an interesting comment. While the 'special editions' suck less than the prequels, they do suck almost as bad as the original 'Star Wars' scripts before Lucas read Joseph Campbell's books, so we can conclude from this that if Lucas hadn't been kept in check by the studio he'd have released a 'Star Wars' movie that sucked in 1977 and would have vanished without a trace.
Of course, having seen the prequels, the fact that Lucas' "artistic vision" sucks shouldn't really be a surprise.
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.
Tuesday? What were they thinking (Score:3, Funny)
so.... (Score:5, Funny)
So unofficially, it's official?
Chris
Special Features To Include: (Score:3, Funny)
Ehhhh (Score:5, Funny)
I will wait a little longer (Score:3, Funny)
USAToday Article (Score:5, Informative)
Do a Beauty and the Beast, George (Score:5, Interesting)
There are 3 versions of the film on the disc. Firstly, the original theatrical edition that means that if you want to watch what was first released at the cinema/on VHS, you can. Secondly, a 'work in progress' edition that was shown at the NY film festival - lots of non-coloured images/coffee stains etc. Thirdly, the Special Edition which includes "Human Again" which was a song added for the stage show and added in later (which as an add-on is quite entertaining and works with the rest of the film).
I imagine these versions were done by setting the film to just use different chapters, so parts could be added at different points.
Why can't Lucas do that? Give us the improved sounds and visual effects of the Sp. Editions, but give people a choice of Original or Pointlessly Remixed versions of the film.
PS If you've never seen the Platinum Edition of B&TB, do so. It's a great example of how to make a great DVD set.
"When he already has a comb... (A COMB!)" (Score:5, Funny)
Oh please let the bonus materials be a digitally restored copy of the Star Wars Holiday Special! [salon.com]
Imagine the marketing possibilities! You could promote the touching "Life Day" celebration! Multicultural wookie Goodness!
If you haven't seen it, go here [x-entertainment.com]. You really need to.
Have a Very Wookie Christmas! I know if I get this I will!
Original rips? (Score:3, Interesting)
Star Wars? Overrated. (Score:3, Interesting)
What I want to see is THX-1138 on DVD. His one great movie.
Wrong menu option Lucas! Whoops! (Score:5, Funny)
You can't blame him. I mean how many times have you clicked on "Save" in the File Menu instead of "Save As"?
New Coke? (Score:5, Interesting)
The public were unhappy with the new taste, and even more unhappy that they were no longer able to obtain the original product, and so the company had to backtrack and return to the older formula. However, when they went back to the original formula - now renamed Classic Coke/Coca Cola Classic - demand for the classic taste grew to a greater extent than before New Coke...
Sounds like something an evil marketer might want to try... Who knows, maybe we'll see Classic Star Wars in 2006, when all of the marketing from the newer Star Wars' is finished and Lucas is scrounging around for something to sell before making Episode 7. G'ah.
Re:So has he edited Jar Jar into all three films? (Score:5, Funny)
Han shoots first dammit!
Re:OMG!!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Makin' the Mozilla Move (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gods Must Be Crazy (Score:3, Interesting)
The humor in "the Gods" movies is for all ages, really. It was so popular in Kansas City when the first movie came out that it ran continuously in a small private theater for over a full year. This is some of the best independent filmmaking ever. Ever.
Re:Can you believe it? (Score:3, Funny)
What we REALLY need is the 'extended edition' (Score:3, Funny)
1. 5 minutes of yet unseen footage of Princess Lea in chains and bikini
2. 15 minutes of extended (grusome) Ewok death scenes during the final battle.
3. 10 minute conversation of luke and Darth reminicing and coming to terms over their 'broken family' .
4. cut scene of Luke working on the farm....tilling perhaps...or milking the cows. - you know, to add context
5. an ind
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.