CT Original unaltered Trilogy on Blu ray?

Also, in regards to the above-quoted sentance, if there had been no OOT you wouldn't be a SW fan either because then we'd have no SW at all.

This whole argument is baffling.

The release of the source material does not detract from the value of the altered versions of said material. It's not wrong to prefer the OOT over the SE's, the SE's over the OOT, the PT's above all else. Preference is preference. There is no "right" way to appreciate art, but I do think it's wrong to destroy a work of art or prevent it's availability.

 

Talking about releasing the original version I'd love to see the originally shot version of that movie Smokey is the Bandit before they retooled it.

Code:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu4Ht2opvqY

 

Tell me, have you ever heard about Mozart, Beethoven, Shakespeare? Their work is centuries old and yet somehow still remain current.
There is probably tons of work of far newer writers, composers that have faded away, why? If the only relevant factor was newness, then anything older than ten years would be forgotten by now. But it isn't.
I think that there are many reasons for this but "newness" isn't one of them.

Also, if we use your logic of remaining relevant today, why stop with updating effects? Shouldn't we replace actors as well?
Young people today might not know who Mark Hamill is, so replace him with Justin Bieber. Alec Guiness? Who is that, put Johnny Deep there. Carrie Fisher? never heard of that old bag, Lets have Lady Gaga instead.

Thirdly, I was around when TRON was released and it didn't do that well, either critically or at the BO.
Why? Well I read some of the reviews and while many of them praised the effects, they also said that the story was hollow and the characters flat. So despite having great effects, the film didn't do that well. Films with far less impressive effects did much better and have lasted longer.

As for Star Trek, Star Trek, the Wrath of Khan, had far less effects and a far less expensive budget than the first film, Star Trek TMP.
Yet, Star Trek TWOK got far better reviews and has lasted as possibly the greatest Star Trek film ever. Why is that? Not the effects, it was story, directing, writing and character, things that don't age.

You do realize that the Biggs scene and Jabba scene where filmed back in the 70's and later cut?

Even before, Han still shot in self-defense. Greedo had a gun pointed at him and told Han he was going to kill him, that would make Han shooting first self-defense in almost every court today. Also Han shot several imperials without them shooting first, does that make him an unlikeable ******?

[/QUOTE]

Yet you still knew what The Wizard of Oz was. You may not like the film, which is your choice, but you had heard of it.
I can probably name ten or so far newer movies that you might newer have heard of, why is that? Wizard of Oz has become a timeless classic, you have every right not to like it but you can't deny that people still remember and talk about the film and it has inspired and still inspires films today.

What makes a film timeless isn't the effects, because those WILL become dated. If a film has nothing to offer but fancy effects, then odds are that the film will fade away when newer effects come on the scene.
Story, characters and good writing are timeless. That is why people still watch the old Frankenstein and Dracula films, even thought their effects are very much dated. I have showed my students the old "Jason and the Argonauts" from the 50's and they still like it, old effects notwithstanding. And I have seen the far newer "Jason and the Argonauts" TV film and found that far inferior, despite better effects.

Lastly, trying to keep old films "new" is a waste of time, people will still notice that it is old and if they won't like films simply because of their age, then updating the effects won't help.
There are things, other than effects, that "date" films. Hairstyles is one, fashion is another, speech style is a third, pacing is a fourth.
Take the "Three Musketeers" that has been filmed many times. If you were to take the 50's film, the 70's film, the 80's film and the 2000's film and show them to someone that knew nothing about them, odds are good that they would still be able to see which film is the oldest/newest.

Even if you replaced ALL the effects of ANH, it will still be dated because it has a far slower pace than the newer films, the hairstyles is very 70's and so on.

In closing, you are free to like and enjoy what films you want but I think you are mistaken that old films MUST be updated all the time in order for anyone to like them or even watch them.
Lucas himself would disagree with you a lot on this score. He objected to black and white films being colorized and argued that this was an attempt to make the films seem "new" and how this was a travesty.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Thank you!

 

This says a lot about the way you perceive movies. The "DVD era" is really when average people started collecting movies and box sets and TV seasons, and newer editions of all that. Before that, the few and the proud Laserdisc collectors were doing that.

Ah how I remember that premiere, and waking up on a morning to see it was on, and holding up a Chinese restaurant dinner outing to see all of it again, and counting that I'd watched the movie ten times during the month. I don't know if that was accurate since I only remember four specific times.

Now you're just sounding like someone pulling together all the stuff that's been written. Have you actually watched the films pre-Special Edition and not as those 2006 "bonus discs"? The quality of the visual effects was nothing like the visual effects on the '60s Star Trek series. The X-Wings do not look like toys on a string but like ships flying in formation. I don't care about the changes but heck, I often wonder why if there was such an emphasis on changing some things, why other things weren't changed. There's one point where Biggs, I think, looks like he's drifting right into the wall of the trench. There's a repeated shot. The TIE Fighters in pursuit are not visible in the background in head-on shots of the X-Wings---so what. Not being in the ILM-perfection-in-every-movie era, as well as this era when everyone is savvy about the magic of movie production from watching DVD featurettes, we got use to seeing things that weren't perfect, yet acceptable because they were spectacular. There wasn't really anything else of that level to compare it.
And STAR WARS didn't use "claymation."
This is what I've always hated about the 1997 Special Edition altering. It's not about changes, but the impact on culture that has people thinking movies should be updated every other year to look like they just came out yesterday. No one thought this before then. No one watched IV, V, and VI saying "jeez this looks so dated. They should update this with new effects."
And Tron...I liked Tron: Legacy, one of the few recent sequels/updatings/reboots/prequels that I like to watch, but I never think of the first movie as having bad visual effects. I still marvel at the creativity used and the atmospherics, while taking in the nostalgia of the early '80s computer fascination.
Why am I wasting my little remaining battery power on this? (when I'm about to watch 2009 Star Trek, ha.)

 

Maybe, but unlikely. The Hobbit (at least the one we have now) is nowhere near the complexity of LOTR, it (like the OT) is a much simpler story. But since it was made only 10 years later, the graphics is still pretty much the same. No no issues there. Those two trilogies will stand mostly equal to each other.

Not true, I am a huge fan of older movies (in fact if you read further up this thread, you'll see me expressing great love for the Marx Brother's films (1929-1961), and pre-code films. I'm also a huge fan of OLD musicals (I hate new ones) and old epics of the 40s & 50s. Now what I don't like is old sci-fi, because in my opinion, sci-fi RELIES on FX to make the story believable. Without it, it just seems funny & dated. (See: Star Trek TOS, Forbidden Planet, War of the Words original, Dune, etc)

Agreed on both counts. Nolan used as little CGI as possible, and in his Batman universe that was grounded in reality, it worked perfectly! No argument. LOTR too, while there was plenty of CGI when necessary, also plenty of real locations, models, and Bigatures were used & blended seamlessly. And I very much agree with Cameron's statement!

Now, imagine the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park being claymation with a thick black line around it like the Rancor?
Imagine Gollum/Smeagol being a hand puppet who barely moves?
Imagine if the battles of Helm's Deep & the Palennor Fields having only about 100 people in it because they couldn't add digital armies?
Imagine if the Batpod in The Dark Knight Rises was just slowly moving across the screen rather than zipping around between buildings.
Now you see what is comparable to the OOT, and why I have have no interest with supporting a release of it.


Unless.....they do the LOTR way (IMO, the best way) and release one Saga set with only the theatrical editions (old puppet TPM, with shorter podrace. no extra edits to the other prequels, plus the OOT with no sounds, color, or picture edits)-
And then release ANOTHER Saga set with an extended edition of ALL the films, with lots of new footage in ALL the films, with a graphical rework (no puppets) that makes them all look like they were made around the same time, with runtimes getting close to the 3 hour mark. And then a massive set of extras that encompass all the bonus materiel ever release on Star Wars. So that everyone can get what they want. That would be fair, wouldn't it?

 

That's where we disagree, because I think the more that CGI has been able to be used in movies, the directors have essentially made that a priority rather then the story and characters.

For instance, by your logic Terminator Salvation (a CGI movie) should be better then the Original Terminator (no CGI)? The Terminator is a Sci-Fi that holds up very well today, because it has a very cool story and good characters, where Terminator Salvation is a 2 hour CGI/Action-fest that has a lame story and horrible characters. I have watched The Terminator a zillion times in my life where I watched Terminator Salvation once and never will watch it again.

By your logic Indiana Jones and Crystal Skull should be better then Raiders of the Lost Ark because Spielberg/Lucas has the full ability to use CGI by 2008 when it came to movie theaters whereas in 1981 they couldn't? Raiders holds up as a true classic, and Crystal Skull is terrible that will only be remembered because they sell it in the boxset.

Bladerunner, Alien, Aliens, The Abyss are other movies that were made before the dawn of CGI (The Abyss used CGI for the first time and does enhance the movie), as those movies all hold up today, compared to all the CGI crap that comes out today where the story and characters are secondary. The great thing about those movies is they couldn't rely on CGI to sell the movie so they were FORCED to make a compelling story and characters you care about, and thats why they hold up.

And I would disagree with you that Lord of the Rings is anymore complex then the OT movies. Don't get me wrong, I love LOTR Trilogy as Jackson did a fantastic job adapting from the books, but it is essentially about a Hobbit's journey to destroy a ring to end the tyranny across the world, the same as Luke journey to destroy the deathstar to end the evil empire in the original. In fairness to JRR Tolkien, there are so many elements that I believe Lucas stole from this books: Luke = Frodo, Gandalf = Kenobi, C3PO/R2D2 = Merry/Pippen, etc.

As I said, every movie you see is framed on the context of when you see them, so your argument is that they couldn't do that back then so the movies are outdated. Where I would argue that Bladerunner is a more believable world then any CGI Star Wars Prequel world, yet Ridley Scott used models back in 1982. And did you ever notice that Coruscant looks alot like Bladerunner? Its funny cause one is CGI and the other is models/set.

 

C3PO and R2D2 are, at least in part, based on Tahei and Matashichi from Kakushi-toride no san-akunin.

 

This is true, and its wrong!

Its hard to debate this one since as far as movies go I actually prefer Salvation to the original Terminator (though nowhere NEAR as much as I like Terminator 2).....so yeah

Once again, a problem of taste. I didn't see the IJ movies until 2008, after Crystal Skull cam out & I decided to watch the whole series in a row. (see a pattern?) Now I like The Last Crusade best, then Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, then Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Temple of Doom last. FX or not, I don't get why some of these movies are so beloved since they did little for me. (I have only seen the series once, the box set is just gathering dust)

I recently just rewatched the Alien/Predator franchise again (the whole thing, yes) and there is a MASSIVE difference in the FX quality between Alien & Aliens. Aliens holds up to modern standards while Alien looked VERY dated. Now I'll agree with you here that both of those were fantastic films in spite of their FX limitations. And their sequels Alien 3 & Resurrection, are pure shill even thought they DO have excellent FX. Those last two are examples of what happens when the story is crap, and Alien is an example of what happens when the FX is laughable. (honestly, its due for a makeover)

Blade Runner is interesting, cause while the wide shots are extremely impressive given the limitations of the time, as soon as you get to ground level it looks like LA circa 1980s, and I totally didn't buy it as futuristic. A prime example of when a futuristic set or two would have been handy. Also, you'll notice in Blade Runner there weren't flying cars all over the place. They would never have been able to do that when it was made.

On the surface, the basic plotline (a Hobbit's journey to destroy a ring) is sorta simple, if that's all it was. But when you have 3-4 sets of characters embarking on a journey of their own, while also facing a lot of internal turmoil, it became far more complex. ESB (and continued somewhat by ROTJ) added complexity to the very one dimensional ANH. Having a simple basic plotline is necessary for any story, but if you don't add a secondary plotline, and a chance for some excellent inner turmoil, and a villain who knows how to play the game well, then its just too simple.

 

The theatrical version of the OT is available on DVD. Why is it necessary to have it on Blu-Ray?

 

And why is it necessary to have this same question asked at least once on every page of this thread?

(ps- if you read the controversy part of the link you provided, you'll get your answer)

 

actually that part I do understand. everything is being upgraded to blu-ray now. its just that people still weren't happy with that one during the DVD era.

 

The DVD version was a crappy laserdisc-era transfer from the early 90s that wasn't even anamorphic -- meaning you have to use zoom mode to get the right aspect ratio, exaggerating the effects of the already bad transfer.

 

"complain complain bla bla never happy never satisfied bla bla hate GL bla bla"

what is this 'laserdisc' thing you're talking about? do you mean VCD ?

 

No, he means laserdisc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc

 

To those who support GL rewriting history: What do you care? If you don't want an unaltered OT, then don't buy it. Buy the SE with its crappy changes instead.

See how simple that is?

 

I did read the controversy part of the Wookieepedia article, but is there any other option? Do they even have the true originals? I assumed they did the best they could. As for non-anamorphic, people want the original theatrical version, but then they complain when it's left unmodified just like they asked for? I have the 2008 box set and it's good quality in my opinion. I've never had any complaints about it.

 

Having a film on DVD in Anamorphic format isn't a modification. Some films are filmed and shown in Widescreen and non-anamorphic means that the image is "stretched" in order to fit on the TV-screen. So making it anamorphic means getting closer to how the film looked on a movie screen.

They did have options, unless they have destroyed the original negative, make a new transfer from said original negative and clean up the image. This isn't terribly complicated and as I understand they did do this when making the SE. They cleaned up the image and then added the SE-additions on that. So it might be even simpler, just remove the SE-additions.

Simply using a lasrdisc transfer on DVD is cheap and lazy and the quality isn't anywhere near how the films looked on screen back in the day.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

We had a good conversation this weekend, then you make statements like this and I am wondering whether you are troll in this thread to get a rise out of people? .

For education sake: The 2006 OOT DVD was a piece of crap, plain and simple. It was an outdated non-anamorphic transfer for a technology that would have looked good in 1993. It has nothing to do with hating George Lucas, it has to do with him putting out a crap product, and expecting people to be happy with it. Lucas could have put out an anamorphic version of the SE/OOT in 2004 with the DVD set, and then do the same in 2011 with the BluRay, and THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION DOES NOT HAPPEN.

 

Sorry. Just got annoyed. I still don't even know what "laserdisc transfer" is. Is it some kind of outdated video tech?

I have/had DVDs from the early/mid 2000s that were non-anamorphic. Its just something you get from time to time. Heck all the extra discs on my Ultimate Matrix collection are non-anamorphic! And for the fantastic cutscenes from Enter the Matrix, its kinda annoying and DOES reduce the quality. But i don''t care NEARLY enough to start a discussion about it every few months.
I have a feeling that the reason for the 2006 DVDs/2008 Box Set's OOT being as it is is because Lucas didn't want to go into the massive undertaking & expense of having to restore the negatives (if they even still exist) AGAIN, especially since he both didn't like them and figured the audience for that is not nearly as big as the whole fanbase. So he just got the best he could at the moment. He could have done a VHS transfer!

If anyone's good with photoshop, I'd like to develop my dream Extended Edition DVD/Blu-ray Box Set and a Theatrical Edition DVD/Blu-ray Box Set. (based on the designs for the finest box sets ever made - LOTR)

 

Yes.

 

Could you explain what it is? I only have experience with VHS, VCD, DVD, & Blu-ray

 

Really?? The "lock s-foils in attack position" scene is all the proof I need. I actually laughed when I first saw that.


Even adywan used the SE version.

 

You're in a thread called, "Original Unaltered Trilogy on BluRay?" what did you expect for us to talk about?