Star Wars blu ray in September
- Thread starter jcoffman99
- Start date
JD
Master Member
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
The change I hate the most is that song and dance number in Jabba's palace. I hate it. Everything else I can live with.
I also hate that Hayden Christensen is at the end of Jedi. If you are going to change his ghost, you have to change Alec Guiness to Ewan McGregor to match. It doesnt make sense to me unless you leave them both the same or change them both.
I also hate that Hayden Christensen is at the end of Jedi. If you are going to change his ghost, you have to change Alec Guiness to Ewan McGregor to match. It doesnt make sense to me unless you leave them both the same or change them both.
Warning: STAR WARS Blu-Rays May Contain Additional Tinkering With The Original Trilogy | Badass Digest
Already mentioned in that Digital Bits article, though not confirmed as to what new changes/surprises OT might have besides color correction and clean up.
Back To The Future - BTTF DVD Framing Fiasco FAQ
More detailed explanation
"BTTF is not like most movies in that it was filmed in a soft matte format where the full frame is "matted" (covered, horizontal 'black bars' on the top and bottom) to achieve a 1.85 widescreen aspect ratio. The photography of the shots was composed for a cinematic widescreen ratio (OAR), even though the print might actually contain 4:3 information. It is important not to confuse "more" with "all" or "better". When the film is released on Pan 'N' Scan, the film is unmatted (some films are unmatted for P&S, most aren't AFAIK). Thus you see more of the picture vertically, but this is usually not the way the director intended. Most of the time the director prefers the widescreen framing of his film. This process can often reveal the intrusion of filming equipment such as boom-microphones at the top of the screen. "
Already mentioned in that Digital Bits article, though not confirmed as to what new changes/surprises OT might have besides color correction and clean up.
Back To The Future - BTTF DVD Framing Fiasco FAQ
More detailed explanation
"BTTF is not like most movies in that it was filmed in a soft matte format where the full frame is "matted" (covered, horizontal 'black bars' on the top and bottom) to achieve a 1.85 widescreen aspect ratio. The photography of the shots was composed for a cinematic widescreen ratio (OAR), even though the print might actually contain 4:3 information. It is important not to confuse "more" with "all" or "better". When the film is released on Pan 'N' Scan, the film is unmatted (some films are unmatted for P&S, most aren't AFAIK). Thus you see more of the picture vertically, but this is usually not the way the director intended. Most of the time the director prefers the widescreen framing of his film. This process can often reveal the intrusion of filming equipment such as boom-microphones at the top of the screen. "
Last edited:
niennumb1
Master Member
It is VERY encouraging to read that new Digital Bits article. The thing that really bugs me about what impression we've been given is that, while it sounds like they went through and addressed many of the issues the fans have been beating into the ground to get fixed, they very lazily pieced together the trailers for the Blu-Ray with previous material? So if the hues of the sabers were fixed and other things like the Emperor's sluggy thing on his head, why didn't they show THOSE clips instead of the existing goofs?
That's just really odd!
That's just really odd!
That's because the new BluRay is using the same rushed masters that the 2004 DVDs used. No going back to the original negatives and scanning them in at 4k or 6k for a brand new presentation built specifically for BluRay. This is almost the equivalent of Universal Home Video using their HD-DVD (30g storage) sources and just throwing them on the BluRay discs (50g storage) when you can get a much better looking presentation if they just did a new mastering job.
cayman shen
Master Member
The Rock-a-who
Well-Known Member
As a sum of the whole, of all kids and young adults who saw Star Wars in theaters multiple times, each time it was released in theaters (sans SE in the 90s) spent an unnatural amount of money on comics, toys, underoos, books, bedsheets, etc to help GL make Star Wars as successful as it is and as wealthy as he is as a result.
...yea, I think deserve is an appropriate word.
cayman shen
Master Member
And to those who say "it's HIS movie," I'm gonna come back with "It should BE in a museum!" If I dug up the Holy Grail, sure it's MY freaking grail, but it's also an important cultural artifact and it would be an outrage for it to sit in a box in my garage.
Like has been said a billion times, yeah it's GLs movie to tinker with as he sees fit. But to not provide the originals is a spit in the face of cinema, and he should know better and have more respect for his art form.
Like has been said a billion times, yeah it's GLs movie to tinker with as he sees fit. But to not provide the originals is a spit in the face of cinema, and he should know better and have more respect for his art form.
darth_myeek
Sr Member
.
A ****in men!
Also don't feed us a bull **** sandwich that the original-original source is lost.. so-sad too bad.
Ok back to my pity-party.:angel
JD
Master Member
Cry me a frakking river. These aren't your movies - you're a patron just like everyone else.
No one deserves anything they didn't work for or earn. And you and I, did neither.
I want the the original cut of the film, too. But, I'm not egotistical enough to think that I deserve it. History may deserve to preserve the original film, but I don't and neither do you.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
I deserve an original Picasso!!
cayman shen
Master Member
I didn't say I deserved to OWN the OT. But if you owned a Picasso and chose to draw on it with a Sharpie, don't you think art lovers would be justified in feeling like you'd ruined something precious, even if it wasn't theirs? Please. How can anyone not see the historical and cultural significance to the OT and not be outraged that it's suppressed?
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
Because I still get enjoyment from the films?
I'm sure he sees it as adding to his story. The ONLY two issues I have with his tinkerings of the OT are Han not shooting Greedo in the nuggets before Greedo can think to pull the trigger and Christensen replacing Shaw as Anakin in RotJ. The rest I consume happily.
I'm sure he sees it as adding to his story. The ONLY two issues I have with his tinkerings of the OT are Han not shooting Greedo in the nuggets before Greedo can think to pull the trigger and Christensen replacing Shaw as Anakin in RotJ. The rest I consume happily.
Solo4114
Master Member
Oh come on. That's hardly an apt comparison. An original Picasso is a one-of-a-kind work. Hardly the same thing as a mass-produced film which is still being reproduced (in one form or other).
A better comparison is "I want a poster of the ORIGINAL version of that piece from his "Blue" period, not the one he later went back and re-did thirty years later in a bunch of different colors!" At the very least, you want the option to own both versions.
Bottom line is this: Yes, the films are legally GL's to do with as he pleases. If he wants to paint his house Jar Jar, etc., etc., etc. But you've got to admit that the refusal to provide archival versions of the original films is pretty stupid.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
I am allowed to take an argument to the extreme once in a while. Please, I KNOW comparing a one of a kind Picasso to Star Wars is silly. So is saying you "deserve" a film a certain way.
As to the decision being stupid or not, I am reminded of the quote "Always leave them wanting more". It's worked for him in the past.
As to the decision being stupid or not, I am reminded of the quote "Always leave them wanting more". It's worked for him in the past.
