Slashdot Mirror


378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s

Mrbill points to this USA Today story on the digital makeover given to the original Star Wars trilogy, noting that the digitized films have also been converted to HD for later release as high-definition DVDs.

416 comments

  1. I'm waiting for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... Lucas to digitally remaster the Star Wars Kid in all his iterations, and sell them on DVD for $50.

    But I won't by it until the "Special Edition" comes out in 6 months!

  2. Great! by Fnkmaster · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can now watch your childhood dreams get stomped on ... in HIGH DEFINITION!

    1. Re:Great! by RonXX · · Score: 4, Funny

      All your greatness are belong to us. You have no chance, remake for more money.

    2. Re:Great! by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Now I have become a corporation, the very thing I was against." - George Lucas

      He's gone over to the dark side.

      KFG

    3. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Who wouldn't want to see Natalie Hershlag and Carrie Fisher naked and petrified with hot grits in HIGH DEFINITION!

    4. Re:Great! by polecat_redux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just wait, once the 3rd trilogy tanks at the box office, Lucas will deny that Star Wars ever even existed. Greedo shot first? Huh? Who's Greedo?

    5. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does that mean in a few years his son will come back to kill him and he'll see the light and finally release the originals?

    6. Re:Great! by kfg · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, but he might see the money. That's the power of the dark side.

      KFG

    7. Re:Great! by ZhuLien · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "with the equivalent of 378 terabytes" - is that like the MPAA's equivalent?

    8. Re:Great! by ti.payn · · Score: 2

      For all we know Lucas was going to make three more, but because of people like you that whine about his movies he will not.

      Do you have any idea how man layers of worshipers likely surround George Lucas in his real life? The idea that he would even be aware of criticism (especially on an internet message board) is mad. The idea that he would take it seriously is ludicrous.

      His prequels did suck. But they made money. And I can guarantee you his entourage have him convinced he is a brilliant, rebel genius.

      Fame really becomes a disability. People become helpless in navigating the physical word.

    9. Re:Great! by sxmjmae · · Score: 1

      Yes. You see every family member will fight over the rights after his death. The laywer will take all the money. Now who ever wins the cases will want to make more money so they will release it in varying forms and maybe with their own twists. Or the worst will be the lawyers owning it. I can sleep better when I try not to think of such things.

      --
      My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
    10. Re:Great! by Trekkie+Monster · · Score: 1

      I disagree. His son will come back to kill him, but for the money. In that moment, Lucas will realize that his son's skills are complete.

    11. Re:Great! by Cloudface · · Score: 1

      Actually, what about that? I mean, remaking, say, numbers four five and six? 1977 (& 1980 and 198x) was a loooong time ago, and Johnny Depp wasn't in the original. Two major flaws. No, five. No, three. No... wait... uh

    12. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually,

      I saw a documentary on him that was rather new and he said on it that he never intended to go beyond the first three films. He said the reason there were three films to begin with is that he could split the story up and if the first one could be successful he could finish telling the story, if not, he would be sol. He asked FOX if he could retain the licensing rights to the movie or movies. The execs didn't care because they had a slight feeling this thing could be a bomb, but were willing to take the chance after seeing how American Grafitti did after a lot of studios passed on it. The real break was Copolla who said he would help pay for it if no studio would.

      So there you go, the real reason why the prequels aren't as good. They were an afterthought and not originally planned. One of the good things about it was that it got him back into directing, and he hasn't directed a Star Wars movie since Episode 4. I think the real reason he named it episode 4 was that he loved the radio serials.

    13. Re:Great! by kfg · · Score: 1

      Ah! But his only known son is adopted.

      KFG

    14. Re:Great! by Corpsesarecute · · Score: 1

      If so, I'm joining the rebel alliance.

  3. Ah by iamdrscience · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course. Release the DVDs now. Special edition DVDs next year. Limited Edition DVDs the year after that. Then redo the whole cycle again on high definition DVDs, making it so that people have to buy the trilogy six times, spending a couple hundred bucks.

    Well, at least they're not releasing them both individually and as a set with different special features. That would double the number of times it will be released.

    ...I really hope George Lucas wasn't inspired by my above comment.

    1. Re:Ah by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course. Release the DVDs now. Special edition DVDs next year. Limited Edition DVDs the year after that. Then redo the whole cycle again on high definition DVDs, making it so that people have to buy the trilogy six times, spending a couple hundred bucks.

      Star Wars HD: The Search For More Money.

    2. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or you could just... get a life. you'd save your money that way too.

    3. Re:Ah by 0racle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do know that you don't actually need all of them right?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:Ah by d_jedi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah, that's Space Balls 2 :->

      --
      I am the maverick of Slashdot
    5. Re:Ah by lewp · · Score: 1, Funny

      Next to real women even George Lucas is a cheap date.

      --
      Game... blouses.
    6. Re:Ah by krymsin01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What, and not have something to bitch about? Ye gods, you are crazy!

      --
      stuff
    7. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the HDTV releases will probably be like this:

      720p version 2007

      1080i version 2008

      HD version RAW and uncompressed (after all mpeg compression does create artifacts) - 2011

      So basically, there will be two or three HD releases.

      Mad money for Lucas.

    8. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because he was so quick to jump on the DVD bandwagon in the first place. You people are talking like he's going to capitalize on this thing every year, and history has shown that Lucas doesn't work that way.

    9. Re:Ah by The+Bender · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...people have to buy the trilogy six times..."

      Really?

      As far as I know, nobody is being forced to buy it even once.

    10. Re:Ah by Golias · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      He's not making a whole lot of money from me. I'm not buying this release. Nor am I likely to be the HD version of this release when it arrives.

      I would gladly pay $200 for good digital transfers of the 1977, 1980, and 1983 versions of the original trilogy. Seriously. I loved those films, and would like to own DVDs of them in all their unvarnished glory.

      Since Lucas is no longer interested in selling me the movies as they once were, I'll probably just have to by bootleg LD rips off eBay or something.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    11. Re:Ah by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As far as I know, nobody is being forced to buy it even once.

      That's because you don't think like a fanboy.

    12. Re:Ah by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the closest you will get is laserdisc rips in DVD-R format from your friendly and varied P2P applications. The quality is good although not exceptional, however, most importantly, they are the unaltered theatrical releases.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    13. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. I just need to

      a) borrow friend X's LD box
      b) borrow friend Y's DV capture card
      c) some leisure time to make a nice DVD set with menues and stuff.

      Enough friends out there would support me with beer and pizza during the job for a copy of the result.

    14. Re:Ah by The+Bender · · Score: 1

      Well, fair enough. For die-hard fans it's worth it. So there's nothing to complain about. In any case, the fanboys would easily enough find some other useless memorabilia to spend their disposable cash on.

      On the other hand, if someone doesn't think it's worth it and still 'has to' buy it, or if they spend their non-disposable cash on this kind of stuff, then they're displaying addictive behaviour. That would be consistant with them being so easily manipulated into parting with their cash even when they know what's being done to them and how.

      In a case like that, I would recommend attendance at a local branch of Geeks Anonymous. Remember, the first step is admitting you've got a problem.

    15. Re:Ah by DrPepper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then when Episode III comes out, release that DVD, then a DVD set of I-III, then the DVD set of Episodes I-VI, then the HD DVDs, then the limited edition HD DVDs...

    16. Re:Ah by lewp · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't see who I could be trolling. All those women who read Slashdot? All those guys who like girls who read Slashdot?

      Let's be serious...

      --
      Game... blouses.
    17. Re:Ah by kubrick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      making it so that people have to buy the trilogy six times

      TPM taught me pretty quickly that there was no "have to" involved with Star Wars... I guess time had washed away my memories of the Ewoks seeming to me like a cheap marketing gimmick, even as a 9-year-old.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    18. Re:Ah by Rotting · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny. This is modded up as +informative.

      Personally I found the comment both funny and insightful but I suppose that is beside the point.

      There is so much bitching going on here about Lucas not releasing the original versions on DVD. I for one would love this as well but I do have to wonder about some of the posts being made. The claims that Lucas is screwing us all for more money doesn't really make sense seeing as how this is the first release of the Trilogy on DVD.

      I think we all know it will happen eventually as new medium/media becomes available but that is to be expected is it not?

      There are plenty of other movies that have been released several times on DVD (Stargate, Terminator 2, anything "Criterion"), this is nothing new and has literally been going on for years now.

      Is it really worth getting mad about the possibilty that there _might_ be another release of this _movie_ on DVD one day even though nothing has been announced as of yet?

      The main thing that will get to me about this release is changing Boba Fetts voice. Was this really necessary? Could they not have just added a scene in episode 3 where his throat gets punched or something? ;)

    19. Re:Ah by Snaller · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Of course. Release the DVDs now. Special edition DVDs next year. Limited Edition DVDs the year after that. Then redo the whole cycle again on high definition DVDs, making it so that people have to buy the trilogy six times, spending a couple hundred bucks."

      Such are the amoral evils of copyright. Vote against it each chance you get.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    20. Re:Ah by Stucifer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's not holding anyone over hot coals to buy any of them, is he?

      I, for one, will purchase the DVDs for this simple fact. They are entertainment. A way to blow 6-7 hours of time away to be entertained. Not to relive childhood fantasies (I owned a vast majority of the SW universe in action figure form, the first time), not to find historical inaccuracies (enough of the "who shot first?" drama), but to be entertained by one of the best overall stories ever put to film by someone who, although he has succumbed to the ever-present need to make money, made the majority of your lives a little bit better by making something that everyone so feverishly fights and nitpicks over.

      I know that people tend to argue for/against something that they hold dear, but I know that when I put these DVDs in my player at home, I will be sure of one thing. I will be entertained. I hope everyone who buys these DVDs will get the same.

    21. Re:Ah by Gondola · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've downloaded the laserdisc rips you refer to, or at least, "some laserdisc version of the original Star Wars trilogy ripped from laserdisc and available online through various p2p applications." Disclaimer done.

      Anyway, the version I looked at was pretty crappy; it was blurry like I would expect a VHS version to be.

      I'd rather see a couple apocryphal scenes (obligatory reference to Han vs. Greedo) than look at grainy 200-lines-of-resolution rips.

      Seriously, at this stage of my life, I understand the nostalgia, and I'll gladly trade 480p and surround sound for the price of Han vs. Greedo and the other additions of questionable worth. I *want* the cleaned up special effects transparencies, and I don't mind a little cleaning up here and there, although I would prefer the original soundtrack, not any substituted audio or music.

      On another topic, at the risk of being shouted down by hordes of fanboys, the original Star Wars is overrated. It was a great trilogy (I was disappointed by Jedi, but it was Completion to the series, and I am a forgiving person), but there was something more behind it that caused all of us kids growing up seeing the movies to become fans like we did: marketing.

      The marketing juggernaut behind Star Wars is what got the hundreds of action figures and model sets, fast food cups and posters and toys, t-shirts, towels, lunchboxes, watches, cookie jars, etc. etc. into our homes.

      I would argue that the toys themselves are what kept Star Wars alive much longer had there been a mediocre marketing campaign behind it. When the movie was out of the theater (after an amazingly long run IIRC), we still had our action figures and toy sets to put them in. Personally, I had several friends with Star Wars figures, and we would pool our Star Wars toy resources and set up bases and enact elaborate battle scenes, scenes from the movies, and scenes we would create on our own. We still had the posters, the magazines, the watches, the lunchboxes (I had the original metal Star Wars lunch box, but the last time I saw it (about 15 years ago) it had already rusted up pretty badly.) the bedsheets, etc., etc., to remind us and keep Star Wars close in our thoughts.

      This indoctrination of a whole generation in the Star Wars mythos created the best ongoing Star Wars marketing; fans who had SW so ingrained in their life that their favorite philosopher wasn't Socrates or Plato; philosophy and wisdom meant Yoda. Kids (mostly kids, some weird adults) who saw these movies as they were growing up, took Star Wars almost as a replacement for religion or oral tradition, or as a replacement for every Mother Goose story their parents never read them because they were too busy working overtime because they were single parents, or because dad was an emotional cripple as a result of his dad being an emotional cripple.

      I'm sure if some interested college psych major wanted to, he could interview hundreds of 30-something children who gravitated to Star Wars and come up with a great dissertation subject about marketing and the psychological effects on young children who become overdoctrinated with commercialized fictional characters.

    22. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the version you downloaded was crappy VHS quality, you just don't have the right version.

      There are a number of LD rips floating around out there. Some are quite good.

    23. Re:Ah by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      Your memory might be a bit foggy. It took a year after the release of StarWars for any toys to come out.

    24. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not true in my case (and, one can assume, in many other cases). As far as I can remember, I had only one Star Wars toy (see Walrus Man at http://www.ugo.com/channels/filmTv/features/eleven /strangeststarwars/), and at the time I did not even KNOW it was from Star Wars. I hadn't really noticed (or maybe just not paid attention) to advertisements for Star Wars stuff (perhaps owing to the fact that I was 3 years old when the original was released - though that wouldn't explain it for the other 2). I didn't even see any of the movies in the theatre. I caught all 3 in bits and pieces on showings on TV. Yet I still became a fan of the Trilogy and now own 2 different boxed sets of the VHS version (original and Special Edition) and also plan on getting the DVDs when they come out.

    25. Re:Ah by Golias · · Score: 1

      If what you were saying was at all true, there would be legions of 60-somethings who were convinced that "Hop-along Cassidy" and other oaters from 50s television were ground-breaking triumphs of story-telling, simply out of nostalgia for the entertainment from their youths.

      The original Star Wars endures in popularity because it combined the fun of the Saturday Matinee with ground-breaking special effects, WWII-style dogfights, samurai ethics, and the scale of a big-budget saga. Joseph Campbell revisionism aside, the story and themes were Wagnerian in scope, and for all people's complaints about dialog and acting, the truth is that Sir Alec Guinness, Harrison Ford, James Earl Jones, and Carrie Fisher all put in masterful performances of their roles, delivering lines which people still quote to this day.

      It was far from the best film of the 70s (that would be an honor shared by Godfather I & II), but it was perhaps the most important, from a film history perspective.

      LD boasts a superior image over DVD, so a high-quality rip to DVD can look very, very good. Certainly good enough that I would rather watch it than the goofy re-invention which Lucas is currently peddling.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    26. Re:Ah by Gondola · · Score: 1

      Since I couldn't remember clearly the timeline behind the release of the action figures, and John Harrison challenged my memory, I did some Googling to find out...

      One press release from Kenner regarding the prequel toys states, "When Star Wars hit the theaters in 1977, Kenner was there with the
      first (and only) Star Wars action figures and accessories."

      But, in contradiction to this, the Star Wars Archive Database has a blurb about the "Star Wars Early Bird Certificate Package" (http://www.toysrgus.com/index.php?action=disp_ite m&item_id=39696) which states:

      "The Early Bird Certificate Package was the first Kenner Star Wars action figure item. It was also one of the great marketing coups in the history of toy retailing. You see, although Kenner had signed on to produce Star Wars toys prior to the film's release in May 1977, they were blindsided (as was everyone else) by its massive popularity. They must have initially planned on making fairly easy-to-produce, low-investment Star Wars items, such as puzzles, coloring books and paint sets. But a hit this big (and there really never had been one bigger) all but demanded an action figure line. However, it takes close to a year to develop a line of plastic toys: they have to be designed, sculpted and tested. Most importantly of all, steel molds need to be created, and that takes time, not to mention money. So, in mid-1977, as Star Wars sold out theaters across the country, Kenner found themselves in a bind. On the one hand, they were sitting pretty as a license-holder for the biggest hit in movie history. On the other hand, they they had no proper toys to release. Even if they worked around the clock developing them, they wouldn't be ready for the all-important Christmas season.
      How does a scrappy mid-western toy company solve the problem? It pulls a fast one, of course. It tells its retailers that they're going to sell what is essentially an empty box. Moreover, it convinces them that parents will go for the idea; that they will, in the absence of Star Wars action figures, settle for the mere promise of Star Wars action figures and place the Early Bird Certificate Package under their Christmas trees.

      Did it work? Of course. In fact, it's a testament to the sheer force of Star Wars' popularity that this empty box was such a success. For Christmas of 1977, thousands of children received a cardboard envelope in which was packed a pointless display stand (pointless since there were no figures to display on it), a gimmicky Star Wars "Club Card," a few anemic stickers, and something that sounded more like a coupon for a small town breakfast joint than the ticket to Toy Nirvana-- the Early Bird Certificate itself.

      The idea behind the Certificate was that kids could fill it out with their names and addresses, mail it in and wait. Months later, their set of the first four Star Wars action figures would arrive along with the plastic pegs that allowed them to be affixed to the once pointless cardboard display stand. The figures included in this set were Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, R2-D2 and Chewbacca. Although they were all sold individually later on, the special four-figure set was available only as a mail-away."

      While I remember seeing the movie at the theater after waiting in a line that wrapped around the theater building, my being 6 years old at the release of Star Wars (May of 1977, and I was born June of 1971) could be a factor in my glossing over the continuity between the release of the movie and the release of the figures.

      How to reconcile Kenner's press release? I don't know, not my problem. But I do remember that you could get Star Wars anything, as I mentioned. Perhaps just not right away.

      I do remember going to Burger Chef and having little punch out Star Wars character cards with my meal.

      Also, according to this page (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1977/0STRW.html ), Star Wars was still grossing a million dollars a weekend 7 months after release, and made a boatload of more money every time it was re-released.

      It may have taken a while for the promotional giant to rear its head, but once it did, the marketing machine hasn't stopped since.

    27. Re:Ah by Gondola · · Score: 1

      Well, I already pre-ordered the DVD's for the trilogy, but I wouldn't mind owning another version, as a collector.

      I wouldn't really consider it piracy or theft in any moral sense (legally that's a different matter) since I already own two different VHS copies and have pre-purchased the DVDs and have seen every movie several times at the theater. I think I've paid enough into the franchise (not counting the thousands of dollars in toys, collector memorabilia, and videogames) to have a right to an older, basically defunct, version with just a bit more resolution. Is that so wrong of me?

      If anyone cares to send a valid torrent link my way, I have a gmail address; supergeek is the username. Perhaps I'll shoot a gmail invite your way as a reward.

    28. Re:Ah by Gondola · · Score: 1

      All of those things you quote about Star Wars is true, however the big difference I think between Hop-along Cassidy and Star Wars was marketing.

      Was there ever before as huge a marketing campaign and number of product tie-ins as seen with Star Wars? Fast food merchandise (posters, toys, etc.), watches, lunchboxes, bedsheets, toothbrushes, t-shirts, night shirts, curtains, notebooks, pencils, pens, squirt guns, toy lightsabers, action figures of various sizes and accompanying toys, bean bag chairs, blow up chairs, rulers, coloring books, sleeping bags, clocks, cookie jars, Legos(TM), and probably dozens if not hundreds of item lines in addition that I just couldn't even imagine.

      Sure, not all of them came at the same time, but that marketing machine had to have been the biggest and most successful in history.

      Yes, the original worth of the movie made a big difference. What you said was spot-on; ground-breaking special effects. Wonderful acting performances. Unforgettable music. How many people can't hum or hear the Star Wars music (at least the introduction and Vader's theme) in their heads? Was it the movie itself that did that? I believe it was the movie AND the endless commercials on television for the PRODUCTS, not the movies.

      PLUS the follow-up movies reinforced these things, whereas any single movie might fade in memory. Repetition is the key to making any short term memory a long term memory, and the marketing aspects of Star Wars combined with its intrinsic worth and its sequels combined to give Star Wars lasting power. I wouldn't hesitate to say Star Wars has become a demi-mythology among many 30- and 40-somethings.

      However, this demi mythological status is a direct result of MARKETING. Without it, I don't think it would be what it is today; which is to say, something that has become ingrained in our culture.

      I'm not saying Star Wars sucks; I'm saying that the people that promoted Star Wars were very lucky, and the insinuation of Star Wars nomenclature into popular culture is due in a VERY sizeable part to marketing, not just merit.

    29. Re:Ah by iantri · · Score: 1
      LD boasts a superior image over DVD, so a high-quality rip to DVD can look very, very good.
      You're smoking crack...
    30. Re:Ah by Schnapple · · Score: 1
      Anyway, the version I looked at was pretty crappy; it was blurry like I would expect a VHS version to be.
      Well, either you wound up with a bad version, or you have high standards. The one I have is, make no mistake, less than standard DVD quality, but it's better than VHS and, most importantly, won't degrade over time (i.e., it can't wear out).

      Was your version anamorphic? There's an anamorphic one floating about which is apparently bad on the visuals - probably the 2+ hour movie being a bit much for the resolution required for anamorphic.

    31. Re:Ah by Gondola · · Score: 1

      Well, I was viewing the LD rips on my computer monitor, and the quality was noticeably blurry. I've watched some DVD clips and HD DivX rips on my computer, and they weren't anywhere near that kind of quality. They must not have been the optimal versions I've heard discussed in this thread.

      I am currently downloading the ones mentioned by someone else elsewhere in the thread, so we'll see how that goes. In 2d6h41m.

    32. Re:Ah by Golias · · Score: 1

      The marketing machine you refer to did not come into play until after Star Wars was a major box-office hit. When it was released, LucasArts was a relatively small company, partly backed by 20th Century Fox, but mostly made and promoted outside the Hollywood system. The toys didn't come out until an entire year later (while the film was still running in theaters. Fox gave Lucas the toy exploitation rights for almost nothing, because nobody at the time realized what a gold-mine it was.

      The heavy marketing didn't really come into play until Lucas started ramping up for Empire, and while a lot of hard-core fans call Empire their favorite of the original three, it was probably the least well-received by critics and general audiences at the time.

      If sequels are what it takes for a film to have lasting power, than Casablanca would not have had the impact it did. Star Wars became "demi-mythology" and "ingrained in our culture" for the exact same reason that "Lord of the Rings" did. Specifically, it captured people's imaginations.

      The "Police Academy" movies had just about as much marketing, and far more sequels, but you don't see nerds going to hotel conventions dressed up in Steve Gutenberg costumes.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    33. Re:Ah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...ground-breaking special effects...

      (Almost as good as 2001 had, 9 years earlier!)

      LD boasts a superior image over DVD

      DVD has 500 lines to LD's 420, higher dynamic range, etc. (FAQ) And it's not just the specs: anybody looking at them can typically tell the difference.

      If your DVDs don't look as good as LDs, there's something wrong with your DVD player.

  4. Links! by Xoro · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anyone got a torrent?

    --
    Kill, Tux, kill!
    1. Re:Links! by hype7 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Star Wars, terrabytes, and lots of G5s, all posted on /.

      the porn sites are going to have a bad day today

      -- james

    2. Re:Links! by Pope · · Score: 1

      That's what Usenet is for!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  5. Finally by Nos. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Its nice to see that we're finally getting the original 3 films on DVD... it does piss me off a bit that Lucas seems to do everything he can to ear a few more bucks... first we'll redo them and release them in to different VHS boxed sets. Wait a few years, now we'll do them on DVD. Wait a few years, now we'll release the HD versions.
    Though I guess if consumers keep buying them, then you can't really blame Lucas too much.

    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      >Though I guess if consumers keep buying them, then you can't really blame Lucas too much.

      Yes, yes I can.

    2. Re:Finally by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Its nice to see that we're finally getting the original 3 films on DVD... it does piss me off a bit that Lucas seems to do everything he can to ear a few more bucks... first we'll redo them and release them in to different VHS boxed sets. Wait a few years, now we'll do them on DVD. Wait a few years, now we'll release the HD versions."

      You know what? I'm sick of listening to people bitch about George Lucas bilking the fan-base with multiple releases. Its not like George is up at Skywalker Ranch snorting his wealth up his nose like most of Hollywood. The man spends his money on making the "film" process better. Look at what ILM has done for films since 1977. How about THX sound? Yeah, thank George Lucas for that. He'll also be one of the reasons why movies will eventually been shown at the theatres in digital form. At such time, it won't matter if you go to the theatre on opening night or two weeks later, the "film" will look the same. No "cigarette burns," vertical strip lines, or any other glaring issues with the projection will you ever deal with again.

      Now compare that to say, MGM, with multiple releases of the James Bond series. Are they getting any better? Not really. Where's the MGM profits going to? Bankrolling sequels to "Legally Blonde"? Yeah, Lucas really bilks us cinema fans alright.

      Go back to bitching about Greedo shooting first. At least that's a valid criticism.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    3. Re:Finally by 0racle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You want the original films? These are not the films your looking for.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    4. Re:Finally by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its nice to see that we're finally getting the original 3 films on DVD

      We certainly are not.

      You people are getting something very close to it though. With a few inane and useless change here and there. The orihinal, these are not.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:Finally by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      The orihinal, these are not.

      These are not teh films you are looking for...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:Finally by Babbster · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're most assuredly right on the multiple-release issue. If George were ONLY about bilking people out of cash (I do concede that he's at least partly about that, whatever he happens to spend the money on) we would have had Star Wars on DVD two years ago, and the one coming soon would be the "special special edition" DVD set with the new changes.

      If you want to see what real bilking is all about, take a look at the various versions/packaging of the Die Hard series. Or, how about the hosing taken by those who bought the South Park discs with four episodes a piece while the series is now being released season by season with more extras. In the "for kids" category it gets even worse with shows like Justice League and X-Men released in multiple un-numbered editions only to be collected in yet another edition - at particularly high risk for accidental re-buys since often the parents don't even pay much attention to the cartoons.

      In short, George Lucas is NOT a multiple-release offender except in the imagination of those projecting his future actions. Of course, I don't think taking advantage of new technology (such as HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, etc.) even counts - it would be like complaining that since Star Wars is out on VHS, there's no reason to buy the DVDs (there are other content reasons not to buy the DVDs but that's a different discussion entirely).

    7. Re:Finally by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "If you want to see what real bilking is all about, take a look at the various versions/packaging of the Die Hard series. Or, how about the hosing taken by those who bought the South Park discs with four episodes a piece while the series is now being released season by season with more extras. In the "for kids" category it gets even worse with shows like Justice League and X-Men released in multiple un-numbered editions only to be collected in yet another edition - at particularly high risk for accidental re-buys since often the parents don't even pay much attention to the cartoons."

      Don't forget about Paramount with the Star Trek TOS discs. Originally released with two episodes per disc and now its going to a season "box" set release.

      I would expect two or three more releases of the Star Wars movies in the next decade-and-a-half. We're in store for HD releases on either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray in 1080i for sure. However, the restoration company has created a way to scan the film prints to achieve full 35mm quality in digital form. That means the display technology will have a ways to catch up, but the movie studios will have access to digial copies of 4000 lines of resolution. Crunch a few numbers and realize that Empire Strikes Back and ROTJ were both filmed in 70mm.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    8. Re:Finally by vijayiyer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I watched the latest Star Wars release in the much-hyped digital projection format. It looked terrible. It's a method of saving money since most consumers aren't very discriminating. And THX is an utterly worthless certification nowadays. Look at the "THX" computer speakers out there. Garbage with a fancy logo.

    9. Re:Finally by sahonen · · Score: 1

      Re: Movies shown digitally. Yeah, too bad the movies will be about a sixteenth of the original effective resolution. Film has an effective resolution of 4000 pixels wide or so. The highest resolution I've heard about projecting movies digitally at is 1280x1024. Can you imagine that resolution stretched out to 50 feet wide? Hello pixellation. Plus, RGB color space has a smaller color gamut than film.

      --
      Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
    10. Re:Finally by polecat_redux · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Its not like George is up at Skywalker Ranch snorting his wealth up his nose like most of Hollywood. The man spends his money on making the "film" process better.

      OK, wow.... Who cares what he does with his personal fortune? The point is that he's screwing with "art", seemingly with the intent of generating more revenue. It's one thing to make money off of your hard work and expression in order to continue such an activity, but it is quite another to do so with the sole intent of lining your pockets. From what I can tell, Lucas was abnout the art when he first started to pitch ep. 4, but since then, he's seemed to buckle against the very establishment he was fighting against. Once a movie is released to the public, I do not think it should be (sensitive eyes turn away) fucked with.

    11. Re:Finally by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Where's the MGM profits going to? Bankrolling sequels to "Legally Blonde"? Yeah, Lucas really bilks us cinema fans alright.

      Come now. At least "Legally Blonde" has some interest value if you play segments of the movie in mute. Even that doesn't add value to any scene with JarJar in it.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    12. Re:Finally by joib · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Though I guess if consumers keep buying them, then you can't really blame Lucas too much.


      We have a saying over here that translated to english goes something like "the idiot is not the one who asks, but the one who pays".

      E.g. if you think this is fantastic and all, go buy the set and enjoy it. If you think it's a ripoff and so on, well don't spend your money on it. It's not like you're losing out on anything by Lucas making yet another "rip em off" edition.

    13. Re:Finally by 1arkhaine · · Score: 1
      While releasing two episodes per disk IS a greedy tactic by the various companies guilty of such things, it should be remembered that that sort of thing only really happened during the early years of DVDs, when the medium was new and unpopular. Now, with the massive popularity in owning various television shows, and thanks to the pioneering efforts of (possibly) lesser-known programs, it is expected that entire seasons will be available.

      A similar situation would be the features selection on DVDs. Very few early DVDs had much variety of depth in features - some didn't have any. But, thanks to the storage space of DVDs (and of course with a little help from it being one of the most popular forms of entertainment around) the advantages in including extra material is now obvious to all.

      So I don't feel like it is a greed situation, more a learning experience. Woe to the distribution company who decides on two episodes per DVD now, right?

    14. Re:Finally by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the exhorbitant costs for the Star Trek DVD's, more expensive than any TV series I've seen!

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    15. Re:Finally by Britz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course You realise that George Lucas makes truckloads of money on THX licsensing? It is NOT an open standard! Any investment they made on THX was certainly not for an greater good and repaid itself over and over again. I would have loved to be one of the investors on this one.
      But it does make it harder for independent little movie theaters to compete, since they find it hard to come up with the money for the system AND those stiff liscence fees.
      I can make them more dependent on the large studios like MGM, since they have to get back the investment they put into the system and will prefer to show THX movies from now on. Any halfway independent movie like, for example Star Was Episode 4 would never include THX for the simple reasons that it would be a) too expensive and b) many theators, especially those showing independent stuff don't have THX.

      The effects shown above are much, much greater with digital projectors. The investment (at least at the moment and for some time to come) is much greater than with THX. Also the large studios will have tighter control on that distribution channel. A bit like the big networks (when was the last time you saw an independent film on the networks?). So more "Legally Blonde" and less movies like the first "Star Wars" coming to a theater near you.

      George Lucas makes shitloads of money on both "inventions" (rip offs with his licsensing sticker attached to it) while raising the bar tremediously for people like him 25 years ago.

      Also a pattern of greed has already been established with Episode 1 first coming out on VHS and then, when every true fan that couldn't hold out, because they wanted to see the movie at least a couple times more had purchased it brought out the DVD of the same shit (I will quickly don the asbestos suit and then admit that Episode 1 sucked IMHO). Now do you really need further proof for greed at its lowest?

    16. Re:Finally by Ed_Moyse · · Score: 1

      I dunno - I've seen several films on digital projectors, and the quality was excellent. I expected to see pixellation but failed to spot any at all. I was extremely impressed. I'm not sure we have Lucas to thanks for this though - weren't the Pixar films out on DP before Star Wars 2? For insatnce the bbc seems to agree with me.

    17. Re:Finally by quecojones · · Score: 1

      While I think you do have a point, I think it would also be fair to remember that it's his art that he happens to be fucking with. It's not like he bought the rights to someone else's work and decided to annoy the fans of that work... know what I mean?

      --
      "PROFANITY is the inevitable literary crutch of the inarticulate MOTHER FUCKER." -- some PC user
    18. Re:Finally by jesuscash · · Score: 1

      After watching the video over and over and frame by frame I can say that it's probably not real. My number one issue with it is that it's too dark, probably to make up for any filtering done from a VHS or Laserdisc. Secondly and probably my most solid argument, as Anakin fades in he's looking behind himself then it looks like he's looking down at Yoda. Which doesn't make sense as Yoda is looking forward and Obi-Wan is the one that appears to be making eye contact.

    19. Re:Finally by Snaller · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "The man spends his money on making the "film" process better. Look at what ILM has done for films since 1977. How about THX sound? Yeah, thank George Lucas for that. He'll also be one of the reasons why movies will eventually been shown at the theatres in digital form. At such time, it won't matter if you go to the theatre on opening night or two weeks later, the "film" will look the same. No "cigarette burns," vertical strip lines, or any other glaring issues with the projection will you ever deal with again."

      If he hadn't someone else would have. And the reaosn they do it is: TO MAKE MORE MONEY - and to save money (cheaper not having to make celluloid copies for instance)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    20. Re:Finally by Reapy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find it pretty funny that people are angry they have more options as to what to buy. It's not like someone is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to buy the new release of star wars. What are people complaining about really? OH NO!! I HAVE THE OPTION TO BUY MORE STAR WARS STUFF!!! LUCAS IS SUCH A JERK!!!!

    21. Re:Finally by JPelorat · · Score: 1

      They probably did 2 per disk because that's how they released the VHS tapes. My guess is they already had the masters done and didn't want to mess with re-collating everything into season format.

      I haven't looked at the TOS DVDs, but I suspect that the episodes are packaged the same way they came on the tapes.

      --
      Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
    22. Re:Finally by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Re: Movies shown digitally. Yeah, too bad the movies will be about a sixteenth of the original effective resolution. Film has an effective resolution of 4000 pixels wide or so. The highest resolution I've heard about projecting movies digitally at is 1280x1024. Can you imagine that resolution stretched out to 50 feet wide? Hello pixellation. Plus, RGB color space has a smaller color gamut than film."

      That's funny since I saw pixellation in Episode II in a film projection. The fireplace scene with Anakin and Padme was heavily pixellated and it appeared in the film stock. Roger Ebert liked the digital projection but still prefers a fresh film stock.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    23. Re:Finally by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "From what I can tell, Lucas was abnout the art when he first started to pitch ep. 4, but since then, he's seemed to buckle against the very establishment he was fighting against. Once a movie is released to the public, I do not think it should be (sensitive eyes turn away) fucked with."

      The original print of Star Wars is preserved in the Library of Congress. It was donated by Lucas. That was many years ago and a fact that escapes most of these news clippings.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    24. Re:Finally by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "If he hadn't someone else would have. And the reaosn they do it is: TO MAKE MORE MONEY - and to save money (cheaper not having to make celluloid copies for instance)"

      That's not true. No one else during that time period stepped up to guarantee a better theatrical experience besides Lucas. THX certification predated Dolby Digital 5.1 or DTS. THX made it possible for others to improve upon the experience. Its just like Lucas was the man who championed digital camera usage for "films." Others have now converted like Robert Rodriguez. But it took Lucas first, whose company worked hand-in-hand with Sony and Panavision to create a suitable HDTV camera for theatrical productions.

      As for your comment about making more money, that's the essence of capitalism. Lucas is a pure capitalist because like many economic theorists theorize, Lucas takes his profits and redistributes them into improving production techniques, whereas the majority of Hollywood just blows the money and operates on oligarch principles of capitalism, i.e. the bastardization of capitalist theory.

      The fact that it saves a ton of money to distribute films digitally has not moved Hollywood into the direction of insisting that films be produced using digital cameras. Throw-away comedies would be a no-brainer to produce digitally and then save the added cost shooting with film adds to actual films that merit such expenses. But Hollywood bucks change even when it would be beneficial to them. It takes a George Lucas to change the system, just as it took Steve Jobs to change the commercial distribution of music even when it should've been painfully obvious to the RIAA that they needed to adopt digital download distribution as their business model years before the iTunes Store debuted.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    25. Re:Finally by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Also a pattern of greed has already been established with Episode 1 first coming out on VHS and then, when every true fan that couldn't hold out, because they wanted to see the movie at least a couple times more had purchased it brought out the DVD of the same shit (I will quickly don the asbestos suit and then admit that Episode 1 sucked IMHO). Now do you really need further proof for greed at its lowest?"

      That's not greed. Not everyone had DVD players back then, so the VHS release was justified. What wasn't justified was Lucas holding the DVD release of the same film for several months after the VHS release. I consider myself a true fan but I was smart enough to hold out for the DVD release because I've had a player since 97 and know better than to buy anything VHS since then.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    26. Re:Finally by bonkedproducer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I saw Episode 2 on Film, and the next day on DP, both at very high end theaters in Phoenix, AZ. I could tell a distict difference in the DP and Film versions - the DP looked much better and more vibrant. I paid to see the film in digital specifically to look for problems in DP since so many people mention the things you brought up - and saw none, but the film did look much better than any film I had ever seen in the theater and it was nice to not see the streaking and "cigarette burns" that always seem to draw my attention from the film.

      --
      Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
    27. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll also be one of the reasons why movies will eventually been shown at the theatres in digital form. At such time, it won't matter if you go to the theatre on opening night or two weeks later, the "film" will look the same. No "cigarette burns," vertical strip lines, or any other glaring issues with the projection will you ever deal with again.

      Yeah, digital movies are going to fix any and all issues with production. Whatever, nerdbot. All digital production will do will change the production issues into other production issues. From the onset of digital theaters it will easily take a decade for the technology to settle. If you are bitching about movie technology you don't know what you are talking about anyways. I have been scads of movies lately and have yet to see even a single of these production issues that you are whining about.

      You would know this too if you ever got out of the house and stopped being a breathless slashdot nerd.

    28. Re:Finally by tb3 · · Score: 1

      Now compare that to say, MGM, with multiple releases of the James Bond series. Are they getting any better? Not really. Where's the MGM profits going to? Bankrolling sequels to "Legally Blonde"? Yeah, Lucas really bilks us cinema fans alright.


      Actually, the same company described in the article is working on the Bond movie prints. Those should be DVDs worth buying.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    29. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Plus, RGB color space has a smaller color gamut than film.

      Which RGB? There are different RGB color spaces. Wide Gamut RGB is the largest, extending from the numerical minimum to maximum of R, G, and B, but this is a theoretical space that contains many colors our eyes cannot see. This is a much larger gamut than film. EktaSpace RGB and ProPhoto RGB spaces approximately contain all colors on film, but you must edit them at more than 8 bits per pixel to avoid posterization.

      If you are comparing sRGB or NTSC RGB (approximations of video color range) to film, you are correct, because sRGB and NTSC RGB are extremely limited subsets of the theoretical RGB range. But it is not true that RGB itself contains fewer colors than film.

    30. Re:Finally by noewun · · Score: 1

      I saw the new version of THX 1138 on a digital projector, and it looked like shit - pixellation everywhere, banding in the highlights and shadows, etc. Now, maybe spending my days in Photoshop has made me hyperaware of digital image quailty, but I can't stand digital projectors and I can tell the difference between digital and film in a heartbeat. Film looks much, much better.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    31. Re:Finally by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "If he hadn't someone else would have. And the reason they do it is: TO MAKE MORE MONEY - and to save money (cheaper not having to make celluloid copies for instance)"

      That's not true.


      Wow - you can tell what would have happened in alternate timelines. Can you tell the future as well? What's the lottery numbers next week?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    32. Re:Finally by DeadScreenSky · · Score: 1

      Any halfway independent movie like, for example Star Was Episode 4 would never include THX for the simple reasons that it would be a) too expensive and b) many theators, especially those showing independent stuff don't have THX.

      Huh? The original Star Wars was fully funded by Fox. How is that remotely independent? In fact, the new films are far, far more independent. Lucas paid for all of them.

      (You could maybe argue Empire, etc. were, because Lucas became non-union after all of the problems he had not having traditional credits in front of Star Wars.)

      --
      There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
    33. Re:Finally by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "The man spends his money on making the "film" process better. Look at what ILM has done for films since 1977. How about THX sound? Yeah, thank George Lucas for that. He'll also be one of the reasons why movies will eventually been shown at the theatres in digital form. At such time, it won't matter if you go to the theatre on opening night or two weeks later, the "film" will look the same. No "cigarette burns," vertical strip lines, or any other glaring issues with the projection will you ever deal with again."

      If he hadn't someone else would have. And the reaosn they do it is: TO MAKE MORE MONEY - and to save money (cheaper not having to make celluloid copies for instance)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  6. Special Edition Questions... by IanDanforth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can someone in the know please answer these questions?

    1. When the much hated special editions were released, were the originals digitized and altered then reprinted?

    2. Is the stock that this company used the original, originals? Meaning that when lucas got the cleaned-up digitized versions he had to go back and redo all the SE stuff?

    finally

    3. Does this give hope to the idea there might someday be a Highdefinition original cut version of the films?

    Thanks in advance!

    1. Re:Special Edition Questions... by bottlerocket · · Score: 5, Informative
      1. Yes. Lucas wasn't on his digital projection kick yet.
      2. Well, the articles claim that they are the original prints. They describe how they've been sitting in storage for more than twenty years. But if they are the originals, that does raise the question of whether all the new special effects had to be reinserted.
      3. Original cut, no. Those are dead and gone and will never be released again. But HD-DVDs of the Special Editions? Oh, you betcha.
      --
      where the comment ends and sig begins
    2. Re:Special Edition Questions... by Thedalek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Original cut, no. Those are dead and gone and will never be released again. But HD-DVDs of the Special Editions? Oh, you betcha.

      That's a little misleading. The original cut may not exist in assembled form (although I suspect it actually does, despite Lucas' claims otherwise), but the original stock that comprises it almost certainly does. That, or the SE stock sans CG effects (that is, cleanup only) still exists. I seriously doubt that Lucas took original archival material which would provide for a better source in the event of additional changes and thrown it in a fire or something.

      After all, he may eventually want to run with the idea of Jabba being a humanoid.

      Anyway, if such material still exists, it will almost certainly be released immediately following GL's death. But please, don't kill him. I wouldn't want the legal backlash of giving you the idea.

      --
      Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
    3. Re:Special Edition Questions... by falser · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt that Lucas took original archival material which would provide for a better source in the event of additional changes and thrown it in a fire or something.

      I think you're giving him more credit than he deserves.

    4. Re:Special Edition Questions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      After all, he may eventually want to run with the idea of Jabba being a humanoid.


      Jabba WAS originally a humanoid....

      Anyone else remember the tabliod sized comic version of Star Wars????

      It had the Jabba scene in it.... and this was long before SE came out, probaly about '81...

  7. Raiders of the Lost Arch by OldSchoolNapster · · Score: 1, Troll

    Go for it George Lucas. Ruin all of your movies.

    1. Re:Raiders of the Lost Arch by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Go for it George Lucas. Ruin all of your movies. "

      Empire Strikes back, despite being 'special', is still entertaining.

      Though I agree with the sentiment, we've been around this block a million times. Don't buy it. Let the people who do enjoy it. In the mean time, let's talk about something a little more up-beat:

      - Lots of people were employed to work on this.
      - The technology and experience will help ILM make better effects for upcoming movies.

      - SW in HD will hopefully make broad adoption of higher-resolution DVD players an easier transition.

      - Just the number '378 Terabytes' is enough to cause underwear tents to rise all over the Slashdot population.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Raiders of the Lost Arch by Atrax · · Score: 2, Funny

      > Go for it George Lucas. Ruin all of your movies.

      Howard The Duck, Special Edition!

      (although he only produced that, so Maybe...)

      Ewoks! Special Edition: Caravan of High-Definition Courage

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    3. Re:Raiders of the Lost Arch by paedobear · · Score: 1

      That I would gladly buy... (saw it again recently, it's actually not a bad film. Most people who remember it are seeing it through shit-coloured glasses)

    4. Re:Raiders of the Lost Arch by OldSchoolNapster · · Score: 1

      Though I agree with the sentiment, we've been around this block a million times.
      Just going for one more lap.

      Don't buy it. Let the people who do enjoy it. In the mean time, let's talk about something a little more up-beat
      I should stop and smell the roses a little more often.

    5. Re:Raiders of the Lost Arch by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      - Just the number '378 Terabytes' is enough to cause underwear tents to rise all over the Slashdot population.

      I don't wear underwear, you insensitive clod.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  8. Great!-Memories! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " You can now watch your childhood dreams get stomped on ... in HIGH DEFINITION!"

    How many people even remember their childhood dreams, between work, the bills and the kids?

    1. Re:Great!-Memories! by djtripp · · Score: 2, Funny

      I saw a fireman once.... That's the closest to my childhood dream.

      --
      "This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
    2. Re:Great!-Memories! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "How many people even remember their childhood dreams, between work, the bills and the kids?"

      Simple...don't have kids...sure you get work and bills...but, you yourself never have to grow up...and being an 'older kid' with money to spend is big fun!! The dream never has to end...

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  9. Speaking of degredation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Scratches and loss of color is not the only degredation to SW that seems to have developed over time. A copy I watched recently seemed to have developed small cute computer animated characters that detracted from the development of suspense in the film..

  10. Coming to HD DVD... by AvantLegion · · Score: 4, Funny
    ... not only does Greedo shoot first, he shoots TWICE!

    1. Re:Coming to HD DVD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently they will shoot at the same time in the new version.

    2. Re:Coming to HD DVD... by rokzy · · Score: 1

      Split Screen! You know how movie-goers have been screaming for more split screen in films! It's the new Bullet-Time!

    3. Re:Coming to HD DVD... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2, Funny

      Uh-oh... Ultra-special High Definition, "Who really shot first" edition: The unarmed Han reflects Greedo's shots back at him with his walkie-talkie in bulletime.

  11. Restore again? by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why exactly did it need to be restored again anyways? I mean, wasn't it restored for the THX video re-releases a decade ago and further restored for the theatrical re-releases with new scenes?

    1. Re:Restore again? by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

      My guess, Lucas wants to include more details. Things he had in mind but could not have done at the time they were first made.

      Apart from, of course, that digital format is easier to work with these days.

    2. Re:Restore again? by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

      "Why exactly did it need to be restored again anyways? I mean, wasn't it restored for the THX video re-releases a decade ago and further restored for the theatrical re-releases with new scenes?"

      Uhm, ten years ago, they didn't have Power Mac G5's or its equivalent processing power on the desktop. 20th Century Fox gave Lucas $10 million to "improve" Star Wars, which was then spread out to the entire original trilogy. You can't exactly do that great of a job restoration-wise to three epic films. Maybe a Pauley Shore film. Maybe. Its debateable whether it was an improvement to digitally erase Shore from a film and substitute him with Jar Jar Binks.

      --
      "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
    3. Re:Restore again? by falcon5768 · · Score: 5, Informative
      if you compair the images there are numerous touch ups...

      Jabba looks MUCH better in the first one

      the image is cleaned up even more

      the rotoscoping effects on the lightsabers are cleaned up and made to look like the current sabers

      now Han and Geedo shoot at the same time

      biggest change, now its Hayden as Anikan at the end ghost scene

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    4. Re:Restore again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does it have Natalie Hershlag naked and petrified with hot grits?

    5. Re:Restore again? by hobo2k · · Score: 1

      And jar-jar's voice makes the cut also. Naboo is shown during the celebration and you hear "we-sa free!!"

    6. Re:Restore again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about Jar-Jar, tell about Natalie Hershlag. Is she in the original trilogy now?

    7. Re:Restore again? by advocate_one · · Score: 5, Interesting

      every time they make editorial/artistic changes they get to reset the copyright clock. Mere cleaning up wouldn't have let them do this.

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    8. Re:Restore again? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      biggest change, now its Hayden as Anikan at the end ghost scene

      No! I thought that was a photoshopped JOKE!!!

    9. Re:Restore again? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I always thought that the celebration edit was a STUPID way to end the series. I could understand the celebration on Endor. The Rebels had just won their greatest victory to date, the Emperor and Darth Vader were dead, and the new Death Star destroyed. Sure, its pah-tay time.

      But CORUSCANT, the Imperial Capital celebrating before the debris from the Death Star had even faded from sight? I guess the whole Imperial Navy was under mind control, and unconditionally surrendered immediately.

    10. Re:Restore again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I guess the whole Imperial Navy was under mind control

      Funny you should say that... stupid Timothy Zahn... those books were AWFUL! Nothing but derivative of the original work...

    11. Re:Restore again? by CrackedButter · · Score: 0

      I do beleive that in the Timothy Zahn books for the star wars episodes 7,8 and 9, it is explained as to why everything fell so easily for the empire. They were all under the influence and drew their strength from the emporer, when he died everybody lost heart and ability. What annoyed me more was the imperial fleet that was at endor which buggered off even though it still outnumbered the rebel fleet. Its an explanation in any case but a damn lousy one.

    12. Re:Restore again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      biggest change, now its Hayden as Anikan at the end ghost scene

      Darth Vader's face is also changed to better match Anikaina's when the mask is taken off.

    13. Re:Restore again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very interesting take on this. Georgie would either

      a) Leave the original to moulder, making no money
      b) Modify and extend the copyright, leaving the originals to moulder and making pots of money.

    14. Re:Restore again? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not quite. The modified version is a derived work of the original, which has its own term of copyright. The copyright on the originals will still expire at the same time though.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Restore again? by Mant · · Score: 1

      I beleive in later books its also mentioned the Imperial Authorites pretty quickly round up and execute the people celbrating on Coruscant, and they hold the capital for a long while after.

      I only read the ocastional SW book though, so I could be wrong.

    16. Re:Restore again? by CrackedButter · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, you're right, they do, i think certain warlords come to power don't they?

    17. Re:Restore again? by Steve+B · · Score: 1
      I recall reading someone's suggestion for the real ending for Return of the Jedi. The commanding Admiral of the surviving Imperial fleet vents at some length about all the stupid ideas implemented by the clueless civilians (the Death Star, the second Death Star, the easily tripped Walkers, etc).

      After he winds down, his aide asks him if he has any orders.

      He responds, "Get me a crown...."

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    18. Re:Restore again? by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      Not quite. The modified version is a derived work of the original, which has its own term of copyright. The copyright on the originals will still expire at the same time though.

      Which is technically true. Here's a question that has never (to my knowledge) been tested. Say by some miracle, copyrights will actually expire someday... If the original movie is no longer under copyright but the derivative still is, could I write my own Star Wars story using Luke, Leia, etc... or would they (the characters) be protected still by the derivative work?

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    19. Re:Restore again? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      every time they make editorial/artistic changes they get to reset the copyright clock. Mere cleaning up wouldn't have let them do this.

      I wonder, how strong of a "versioning" concept does United States copyright law contain?

      If "A New Hope: original edition" is copyright 1977 and "A New Hope: Special Edition Remastered THX Greedo-and-Han-shoot-simultaneously DVD edition" is copyright 2004, does that mean that the 1977 edition of the film will fall into the public domain 27 years earlier than the 2004 edition? Or does the re-release effectively extend copyright term for the earlier version to the expiration date of the later version?

    20. Re:Restore again? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      My understanding (and I only have limited training in IP law, so this is not legal advise) is that you could do this, providing that you can demonstrate that your creation is derived only from the original, and not from the modified version. For example, you could not refer to any events that happened in the extended edition, but not in the original. The same is true of sequels. The copyright on Star Wars will expire before the copyright on Empire Strikes Back - at this point you will be allowed to publish a story derived from Star Wars, as long as it contains no reference to the later films, which may be difficult.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:Restore again? by abischof · · Score: 1

      If the original movie is no longer under copyright but the derivative still is, could I write my own Star Wars story using Luke, Leia, etc... or would they (the characters) be protected still by the derivative work??

      I can't speak to the copyright issue but, if by some miracle you and I are still alive when the copyrights expire, I believe you'd still have to deal with trademarks on the various characters (Lando(R), Yoda(R) and so on). And, there's a chance I may be wrong about this, but it does appear that trademarks can be renewed indefinitely.
      --

      Alex Bischoff
      HTML/CSS coder for hire

    22. Re:Restore again? by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      I believe you'd still have to deal with trademarks

      That's a good point. tepples mentioned it earlier. Has there been trademarks on earlier works that have since entered public domain (either still enforced or no longer)?

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    23. Re:Restore again? by SirLeNerd · · Score: 1

      The only good part of that edit was the removal of the "Yup Yup" Song ... I really didn't like Ewoks and that silly bit of music just made it worse.

    24. Re:Restore again? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Why the hell do people always complain about something being milked to death and OTOH can't wait to make their own version - of course without paying anything to the original creators? If your story is good, why can't the hero be named Dave Starflyer?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    25. Re:Restore again? by justins · · Score: 1
      If the original movie is no longer under copyright but the derivative still is, could I write my own Star Wars story using Luke, Leia, etc... or would they (the characters) be protected still by the derivative work?

      Actually, those characters might be protected by trademark, which can last longer than copyright. I think this is why you can't use Mickey Mouse in anything, although I'm not an expert on the subject.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  12. Now.. by Laimbrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they could only digitally remaster Lucas to restore him to his original 1970's form. I'd pay 70 bucks for that.

    1. Re:Now.. by euxneks · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's called liposuction.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    2. Re:Now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does digitally mean liposuction using your fingers? Ugh.

    3. Re:Now.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget the lips, that boy needs neckosuction.

  13. Expensive computer network by lothar97 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The office has 80 employees, running 600 networked Power Mac G5. Assuming no bulk discounts, that's about $1.8 million total, or $22,500 per employee. I wish I worked for a company with those resources. Any chance they're running Seti@home when not working on any projects? ;-)

    --

    1. Re:Expensive computer network by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      What's to bet one of those guys has gone into one frame and put "I was here '04" in a slightly slightly lighter shade of black in one of the blacker space scenes. Bastard.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    2. Re:Expensive computer network by Zemplar · · Score: 0

      They don't need to run Seti@home. They've already found their aliens/ET lifeforms!

  14. Special Edition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yeah, but this one comes with a 20 min clip of Lucas pretending to ass rape you for more money. Even better you get he I've been fucked by the Jedi Council bumper sticker too!

  15. Oho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So that's how Lucas intends to discourage piracy.

    I have to hand it to him; Between not having enough space and bandwidth, and not wanting to see how he's butchered Star Wars this time, I don't think I would bother trying to share the 378TB of video.

    I tip my pirate hat to you. Arr.

    1. Re:Oho by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I tip my pirate hat to you. Arr.

      From "Pirate's Cove" minitaure golf in Bar Harbor, ME's animatronic parrot:

      "What's a pirate's favorite letter?"

      "Arrrrrr!"

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  16. Forget the DVD's... by NTmatter · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can somebody just post a link to the torrent?

    1. Re:Forget the DVD's... by Jarnis · · Score: 1

      378 terabytes is a mighty big torrent :)

    2. Re:Forget the DVD's... by NTmatter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I figure that by the time that anyone's finished downloading it, 500TB hard drives will be the norm.

    3. Re:Forget the DVD's... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Informative
      Here you go, these are laserdisc rips encoded for DVD burning. The torrents worked just a couple of weeks ago.
      - Sound is English Dolby 2.0 Surround
      - Audio Commentary
      - English Subtitles (the kind burned into the image for alien speak)
      - Chapters Selection (the 79 original LD markers)
      - Production Notes
    4. Re:Forget the DVD's... by Snaller · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "English Subtitles (the kind burned into the image for alien speak)"

      How pathetic is that!

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    5. Re:Forget the DVD's... by neil.pearce · · Score: 3, Informative

      They even have an easter egg. On the main menu of Episode IV, push left and select the darth vader helment and you're treated to the "New Hope" video by Blink 182.

    6. Re:Forget the DVD's... by Darth+Maul · · Score: 1

      These DVDs are great. There's even a 4th disc with 'making of' documentaries and such. The transfers from LD are in widescreen (anamorphic!).

      --
      --- witty signature
    7. Re:Forget the DVD's... by Cowclops · · Score: 1

      I'd have to see it to believe it. Most of the LD->DVD rips, especially the non SEs, are extremely crappy. Thats why I did my own version, which is pretty good as far as sharpness/lack of noise is concerned, but the color ain't the best. I'm redoing them with better video capture equipment and this time it'll be even better.

      And no, laserdiscs are NOT anamorphic so they weren't magically increasing the resolution. It'll just be scaled multiple times by the time it gets to your screen instead of just once.

    8. Re:Forget the DVD's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The torrent appears dead, no seeds are available. Anyone have another link?

  17. Just saw some of it on TV by dancingmad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have been refusing to give any more money to Lucas, be it the new DVDs or Episode III, but the commercials for the trilogy DVDs almost (ALMOST!) changed my mind) they change is very apparent, even if you've watched the LDs or especially on cable. All three films look much crisper and brighter - I almost thought for a second that Lucas had added some new stuff.

    I still won't be buying the trilogy, but I'm amazed at how good the restoration looks.

    --
    "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
    1. Re:Just saw some of it on TV by Xoro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I watched the stolen versions of the DVD and it convinced me to buy the trilogy.

      When the SE came out, I was so agitated by Greedo shooting first and the distracting eye candy that I didn't even go to see Empire and Jedi on the big screen. The eye candy is still there but the Greedo scene passes muster with me.

      In this version, they shoot almost simultaneously (boys, boys), so close that Greedo's first shot could be a mere relativistic side-effect of photons crossing at a certain angle.

      Empire seemed pretty straightforward. I had heard there weren't many changes in the SE, and didn't see many other than too much wampa.

      Jedi made me wish I still did acid, but I don't think that was due to the alterations. That Chewbacca-Tarzan thing is just too weird. Jubjub indeed.

      And you are right about the film quality -- it kicks my videotape's ass. And the colors are greatly enhanced, but don't pop like technicolor, they're still balanced and realistic. More like moving from 16 to 24 bit color.

      I recommend any fan give it a look before absolutely deciding against buying.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    2. Re:Just saw some of it on TV by cgenman · · Score: 1

      All three films look much crisper and brighter - I almost thought for a second that Lucas had added some new stuff.

      Trust me, that's exactly what you don't want.

    3. Re:Just saw some of it on TV by unclethursday · · Score: 1
      That Chewbacca-Tarzan thing is just too weird. Jubjub indeed.

      If memory serves, that was not an addition. That was in the original version.

  18. The St4r w4rZ experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I wonder if star wars will eventually be defined as a movie that changes through the years and keeps being packaged and resold? Add a top hat on jar jar one year, a pepsi coke in the hand of the enemy and a coke a cola in the hand of the hero another year, a new previously unreleased scene of chewbacca taking a shit in a bathroom, a year later a "forgotten" or "lost" scene of chewie in the bathroom wiping, etc.

    Add a little more as time goes by and make more money.

    Plenty of stupid people out there to buy anything.

    ^ all in my opinion

  19. Misleading by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Note: The article summary is misleading. While the 'original' (Han shoots first) prints may have been restored by this company, this is not the print that will be on the DVD. Lucas is not releasing the original trilogy, only the special edition

    1. Re:Misleading by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lucas is not releasing the original trilogy, only the special edition

      WHAT!?!? No 5.1 version of the original ending sequence of Return of the Jedi?!?! I am sorely disappointed.

    2. Re:Misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Lucas is not releasing the original trilogy, only the special edition

      And for that he must die.

    3. Re:Misleading by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it's been posted before, but the word is that Han and Greedo shoot *simultaneously* in the DVD release, therefore preserving Han's new caring sharing persona while still confounding fans as to how Greedo can miss from point-blank range.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  20. Come on by SavedLinuXgeeK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like honestly, I understand keeping with the original, but in retrospect if you really wanted the true triology, you would pull out your VHS tapes, and watch it into oblivion. When you put in a dvd that is low-quality, poor sound, yeah the novelty will be pretty cool, and the story carries it, but it would get old fast. In comparison to everything we have now, the late 1970's were not known for their technological feats. And while I would rather him not add the extra scenes to the movie, the fact that he remastered the audio, and is hidef'ing the video is a plus. Basically its either original and crappy, or hidef sweetness and alterations.

    --
    je suis parce que j'aime
    1. Re:Come on by Golias · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Plenty of movies from the 70s and early 80s have been released on perfectly acceptable DVDs.

      The effects from the original print of Star Wars were remarkable. Everything was done with models, hand-drawn animation cels, and inserted footage for things like explosions. It was painstaking work done by an army of special effect technicians, and stands as an important moment in Hollywood film history. In fact, many would say it rivals Citizen Kane in terms of landmark technical achievement in cinematography.

      Now we have the Very Special Edition version of Star Wars, in which many of these effects were masked over by what is, frankly, quite unremarkable CGI.

      The original explosion of the Death Star may have been crude by today's standards, but in the context of what could be done with film at the time, it was thrilling to see, and it's still impressive to look back at it and know what it took to make that shot. The new CGI version of the same shot looks almost okay (ILM's digital effects pale in comparison to what WETA has been up to), but really nothing special, and it will probably look extremely dated in five years or so, assuming Lucas doesn't "re-do" it yet again with the technology of tomorrow.

      What I really want is a good-quality DVD with restored video, remastered audio, and not a single addition to (or subtraction from) the original content. Lucas can make all the Special Editions and Director's Cuts he wants, as far as I'm concerned, but the only version I will ever buy is the original. Until he releases that, he doesn't get another dime from me. (Not that he needs it or anything, I'm just sayin'.)

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Come on by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Lucas can make all the Special Editions and Director's Cuts he wants, as far as I'm concerned, but the only version I will ever buy is the original. Until he releases that, he doesn't get another dime from me.
      As far as DVDs go, I'm in the same position. I will only buy the original trilogy on DVD, and I will only buy it once (if they release a second original trilogy version with new extra bonus features blah blah, I will ignore it -- I want the movies, I don't care about the bonus crap).

      I do plan to go see Episode III in the theater, of course, if only to uphold the tradition of waiting all day to see a midnight show at Mann's Village Theater in Westwood. :)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    3. Re:Come on by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      "and is hidef'ing the video is a plus"

      At first glance, I read this as "hide f*cking" (which IS what I think he did to the movies!), and wondered why you considered it a "plus"

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
  21. Same films? by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny

    So now that it's been restored 3 times, had scenes added once and re-edited twice, how many re-releases do you think it will take before it contains no shred of the original film and it becomes a romantic comedy set in a hospital?

    1. Re:Same films? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares as long as Darth Lucas adds in Natalie Hershlag naked, petrified with hot grits.

    2. Re:Same films? by kfg · · Score: 1

      . . .a romantic comedy set in a hospital?

      While You Were on Dagobah

      KFG

    3. Re:Same films? by krymsin01 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Around the time that Leia is finally revealed to be not only the hero of the whole series but a lesbian pro golfer, and that Tatooine is really just one big sand trap in her cosmic ACT-up tour.

      --
      stuff
    4. Re:Same films? by dfj225 · · Score: 1

      Big Swedish female nurse: Luke I am your father!
      Luke: But you are a woman?!?
      Nurse: So it would seem...
      Luke jumps out 6th story hospital window

      --
      SIGFAULT
    5. Re:Same films? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      ...how many re-releases do you think it will take before it contains no shred of the original...

      Kinda like Darth Vader himself, eh?

  22. G5s of Purity by Mulletproof · · Score: 4, Funny

    So does being done on Apple G5's constitute a washing away of all of lucas' sins, or will they have to burn the hardware in order to keep the contamination from spreding???

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
    1. Re:G5s of Purity by Tumbleweed · · Score: 2, Funny

      The RDF (Reality Distortion Field) prevents one from taking conscious note of the differences between this new version and the original, so you really don't _mind_ Han & Greedo firing simultaneously (that's what I've heard this new (third) version shows). Good ole RDF!

    2. Re:G5s of Purity by unclethursday · · Score: 1
      I still prefer my SEP Feild (Someone Else's Problem).

    3. Re:G5s of Purity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonderful as SEPs may be for avoiding attention, they're not so great for selling things to people.

    4. Re:G5s of Purity by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Wonderful as SEPs may be for avoiding attention, they're not so great for selling things to people.

      Do you have problems with your Windows computer? Buy a Mac, and they'll become Someone Elses Problem.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  23. High Def of Low Def by airider · · Score: 5, Informative

    So the question I've been dying to find out from all the high def zealots out there is... does making a high definition recording of something originally recorded in some other definition (in this case celluloid) going to look "better"? It's been my experience dealing with image processing of "analog" imagery that the higher up in resolution you go, the more "anomolies" can be detected...i.e. there is only so much you can do with the original baseline, and going up in resolution requires huge amounts of post processing to clean up those anomolies. AAANNND the final product is still limited by the originals. So even if we get more lines of resolution from the celluloid, the celluloid is still the limit on how good you can go. So will high def DVD STAR WARS look better than standard DVD STAR WARS. Probably, but not any better than the original and not THAT much better than standard DVD. I think the movie industry (and music too) have lost the fact that we aren't clamoring for higer resolutions of our recorded media, we just want ones that don't wear out. That's why I think SACD and DVD-A haven't taken off.

    1. Re:High Def of Low Def by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      analog film is inherently 'higher' def than normal video signals, or even HD video signals, becuase it has no 'pixel' resolution, beyond the atomic structure of the film media itself (which you can beleive is pretty damn high def)

      If they were taking a VHS tape and trying to convert it to 'high def', your comment might make sense.

    2. Re:High Def of Low Def by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me, once larger TVs got common, VHS tapes clearly weren't good enough. When HD TVs get common, it's likely DVD will also not be good enough.

      Obviously 35 mm film is much higher resolution than the .4 megapixels or so that DVD resolution supports. IF screens continure to get larger and higher definition, why wouldn't people want higher-quality video to watch on it?

    3. Re:High Def of Low Def by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      "...becuase it has no 'pixel' resolution, beyond the atomic structure of the film..."

      And this does make sense? He made fairly good sense and you don't sound like you understand how film, or the sfx of the original trillogy, work.
      Now admitedly I don't know most of the details on the sfx end, but try watching the extra's on the SE vhs tapes for starters. In on of them they talk about some of the same issues the person you responded to, and said simular things.
      Film DOSE have a 'pixel' like structure, the individual grains of light sensitive material, and they are quite a bit bigger than 'atomic' would imply. Thier a bit irregular as well.
      The problems he was talking about showing up in part are due, in part, to how many sfx were done then, which involved the film itself and led to minor glitches of all sorts. Now these glitches et. al. aren't very visible on theatre screen or ld tv, but once things get higher resolutions and greater sharpnes you start to notice things like the fact that the cockpit frame is slightly transparent as they showed in the extra's on the SE vhs tapes.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    4. Re:High Def of Low Def by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      But most film operates at 4K : 4096 x 3128 or thereabouts. Much much higher than 1080i

    5. Re:High Def of Low Def by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's been my experience dealing with image processing of "analog" imagery that the higher up in resolution you go, the more "anomolies" can be detected...i.e. there is only so much you can do with the original baseline, and going up in resolution requires huge amounts of post processing to clean up those anomolies.

      The article is about the company that does the post-processing to clean up the anomolies.

      AAANNND the final product is still limited by the originals.

      To some extent but perhaps not as much as you think. I've spoken with the CTO of the company and he told me that sometimes films they "restore" look better than the originals because they can use extrapolation techniques.

    6. Re:High Def of Low Def by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      More info about making the movie look better than the original: "In the first movie, you have C-3P0 and R2-D2 walking across the desert, and I think half of that desert sand ended up in the camera. It was unbelievable. One technique we use is where you look at the frame before and the frame after to determine what is dirt on the frame in between. When you have as much dirt as this, though, the before and after frames have the same damn dirt -- and more. It's really hard for the program to separate what's dirt and what's image. It led to a lot of extra work -- run it again, check it again, multiple passes, a lot of hand work at the end."

      here

    7. Re:High Def of Low Def by DuncMan · · Score: 1

      Extrapolation: Inventing information which wasn't stored before. How do you know whether what you've invented (read: guessed) correctly matches what was present but not stored?

      I know they're getting really good at guessing accurately, but it's still *guessing*! Often it's better to stick to information which you know is correct than to add a guess which is only *probably* correct (even for large values of "probably").

      Do the restored movies look better? Or just different in a way that aesthetically pleases him?

    8. Re:High Def of Low Def by captaineo · · Score: 1

      Depending on whom you ask, and on the quality of the processing, 35mm film has equivalent resolution to a 800 to 4,000 pixel wide digital image. Even the worst 35mm material has finer detail and greater dynamic range than can be captured on 720x486 NTSC video. 1920x1080 HD video captures a lot more of that detail. For most 35mm films, HD probably gives you all the useful data you're going to get from the print. In rare cases there may be need for a higher-resolution digital capture, or one with higher dynamic range. This could be useful for future display devices.

      If you are curious, try the "T2: Extreme DVD", it includes an HD version of the film at something like 1280x600 compressed with the WMV9 codec. It looks a lot better than the NTSC DVD version.

    9. Re:High Def of Low Def by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 2, Informative
      does making a high definition recording of something originally recorded in some other definition (in this case celluloid) going to look "better"?
      At the risk of my bandwidth limit, here is your answer with full-resolution captures from Fellowship of the Ring.

    10. Re:High Def of Low Def by mihalis · · Score: 1

      At the risk of my bandwidth limit, here is your answer with full-resolution captures from Fellowship of the Ring.

      Firstly, I HATE YOU! :-)

      Secondly, were did you get the high-def footage from?

    11. Re:High Def of Low Def by angle_slam · · Score: 1
      I think the movie industry (and music too) have lost the fact that we aren't clamoring for higer resolutions of our recorded media, we just want ones that don't wear out.

      Sez you. There are many people on AVS forum who are gleefully looking forward to the HD future. Basically, once you get to a certain screen size (some say 50", some say 60" some say 46" or less), standard definition sucks and you need HDTV. There seems to be a lot of clamoring for HD video.

      I think you're right about SACD/DVD-A, though. Although there is a small subset of people who don't like CD and want higher quality, their numbers aren't nearly as big as the HD fans.

    12. Re:High Def of Low Def by Kenbo · · Score: 1

      Yes the final product is limited by the originals.
      However, the originals are on at least 35mm film. Even 20 yr old film has *much* more resolution than NTSC/PAL video or even HD video.

      An non-interlaced (1/30 sec) frame of NTSC video is roughly 640x400 or .25 megapixels and has the added nastiness of a severely limited color space. Color film from the seventies is likely good for 3-5 megapixels of resolution (say 2500x1600) with a much larger color space.

      The restoration process will likely fix color casts, remove noise and remove dust and scratches from the scans. My main hope is that they did the whole restoration in full resolution and are downsampling for dvd and HD releases.

      Another benefit of this is that having Lucas go through this process further legitimizes the process and helps fund the development of new tools for restoring other films.

    13. Re:High Def of Low Def by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Slight correction:

      Most 35mm film is roughly equivalent to a 4096x3128 pixel resolution. However, it is not exactly equivalent, that's just a rough estimate, and it varies from frame to frame.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    14. Re:High Def of Low Def by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I couldn't remember the exact numbers.
      Movie film is a bit higher than consumer 35mm films, (thus the bright lights), but hardly 'atomic' like that guy was implying.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    15. Re:High Def of Low Def by tuffy · · Score: 1
      Secondly, were did you get the high-def footage from?

      FotR has been broadcast on various high-definition cable channels. Naturally, a few people have captured it from there.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    16. Re:High Def of Low Def by mihalis · · Score: 1
      FotR has been broadcast on various high-definition cable channels. Naturally, a few people have captured it from there.

      I never knew this - thanks! Guess I am interested in high-def after all, had been ignoring it so far...

  24. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dear George,

    Could you please stop using our computers? You are lame. We are leet.

    Thanks.

    Steve

    1. Re:Heh by wormeyman · · Score: 1

      How did that post get modded to 5? anyways correct me if i'm wrong but isn't THX "sound" incorrect usage. thx is a standard not a sound type. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THX

    2. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.S.

      Thanks for Pixar.

  25. I wonder... by Johnny+Fusion · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet if the restoration was done on a beowulf cluster of old amigas running Linux, everyone would start saying Greedo shooting first was the best thing that ever happened to the trilogy...

    (Holy Karma-Risk Batman!)

    --
    There are two kinds of fool. One says, This is old, and therefore good. And one says, This is new, and therefore better.
    1. Re:I wonder... by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      I bet if the restoration was done on a beowulf cluster of old amigas running Linux, everyone would start saying Greedo shooting first was the best thing that ever happened to the trilogy...

      A frosted dog turd is still a dog turd.

    2. Re:I wonder... by kabocox · · Score: 1

      I bet if the restoration was done on a beowulf cluster of old amigas running Linux, everyone would start saying Greedo shooting first was the best thing that ever happened to the trilogy...

      Nah, we'd have to wait another twenty or thirty years for it to finish rendering. Then we'd complain about waiting x amount of years for that.

    3. Re:I wonder... by Johnny+Fusion · · Score: 1

      A frosted dog turd is still a dog turd.
      You know, frosting seems to work for mini-wheats, which is just one or two steps above a dog turd in terms of "things I would put in my mouth without frosting".

      --
      There are two kinds of fool. One says, This is old, and therefore good. And one says, This is new, and therefore better.
  26. SUHDDVD version by Thiago+Ize · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People keep complaining that Lucas keeps re-releasing the trilogy over and over to milk the populace of their money, and while I do agree that changing the movies is a cardinal sin, I think it's great that he keeps putting out improved versions of the movies.

    Would you honestly prefer that he not release these movies on DVD or HDDVD and instead wait 15 more years for Super-Uber-HDDVD? I mean, that way he couldn't be accused of milking us right?

    In fact what does piss me off is that he waited all this time to release these on DVD -- he should have done this sooner!

  27. We don't need no digital makeover by frovingslosh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The sad thing is that the original Start Wars, in it's original form, was one of the best sci-fi films made. It stood on it's own fine, and certainly didn't need the digital make over it got for it's release a few years ago. Sure, a good high quality copy on DVD would be great, a HD DVD someday might be even better. But if Lucas continues to destroy waht he did in the first movie, who needs it? I would rather have a VHS tape of the movie in it's original form that shows what he acomplished in the 70's than a DVD that does a makeover of a great film that didn't need one.

    This is a somewhat biased point of view from someone who saw the first film on the Friday of the week it opened, and several times in the same theater after that, where it ran for a full year! And I compare it with seeing "episode 1", which made such an impression that I refuse to ever watch episodes 2 or 3.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:We don't need no digital makeover by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      (Emphasis added...)
      The sad thing is that the original Start Wars

      And:

      Damn you Bill Gates!(TM)

      Make a neat juxtaposition.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:We don't need no digital makeover by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      Did you read the article? The makeover is RETURNING the movie to the quality that you saw "the week it opened"

      The article says: "Even though the original film elements of the three movies have spent most of their time resting in vaults, they had gathered wear and tear that would have been noticeable had they been transferred, as is, straight to DVD."

      Lowry's company fixes up analog movies by removing "scuffs, dirt, scratches an the like." Are these the parts of Star Wars you like best?

    3. Re:We don't need no digital makeover by zangdesign · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is about George Lucas's vision of the film and him laying out a huge wad of cash to get the film closer to what he originally wanted. Sure - it's one of the classic films from our childhood, but at least he's the one making the changes, not some Turnerized producer who just wants to colorize Casablanca.

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    4. Re:We don't need no digital makeover by Golias · · Score: 1

      If that's all they did, there would be no controversy.

      But the CGI effects, the inserted additional characters, the extra (and totally redundant) scene with Jabba restored from the cutting room floor, the ruining of Han's big intro moment (he shot Greedo unprovoked to avoid being captured in the original), etc. These are the kinds things which whiny nerds like me are complaining about.

      Fix up the scuffs on the 1977 version of Star Wars, and I'll be first in line to buy it. That's not what this is, though.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:We don't need no digital makeover by sg3000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > These are the kinds things which whiny nerds like me are
      > complaining about.

      One would think that reading this thread, hundreds of people absolutely hate what Lucas has done to his movies. However, looking more carefully, it seems we've got a relatively small crowd of really angry people posting millions of times to a story for a movie they hate with every fiber in their bones. It seems the time could be better spent if they would get together with a co-op of like-minded individuals, and make their own version of Star Wars, where Han Solo is a trigger-happy murderer and rubber suits are king.

      It's Lucas's movie. He had a vision for the movie, and he was clearly disappointed that he couldn't make that movie because of the limitations of effects in those days. Now he has the chance to get closer to his vision. Yes, his vision does include flatulent animals, but, hey it's his right.

      As a fan of Star Wars since 1978 (when I was old enough to see Star Wars in the theater), I like the changes Lucas made to his movies. I think that if every time Lucas released a version of his movies for a new format with no changes ("Well, I used that rubber suit in 1975, and it looks good in 2004!"), that would be a bit disappointing. I saw the documentary last night, and it was clear that Lucas was embarrassed by the cantina scene. I think Mark Hamill said it was like something out of the Nutcracker Suite. So, Lucas makes a few changes to make the movie he intended.

      I like Episodes I and II, too. And no matter how many times rabid Slashdot posters like to say otherwise, Jar Jar is no more annoying than C3PO in the Episodes IV-VI or a screenful of Ewoks.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    6. Re:We don't need no digital makeover by RebelWebmaster · · Score: 1

      AMEN. It never ceases to amaze me how people blather on about how their childhoods are ruined and such, because a guy alters a film a little? The story hasn't changed at all, just some of the details were tweaked for continuity and the effects were improved. OH THE HORROR!!! Seriously, if that kind of stuff is ruining people's childhoods, they've got other far more serious problems.

    7. Re:We don't need no digital makeover by Golias · · Score: 1

      Okay, let me be crystal clear about this, since you seem to misunderstand me.

      I don't mind if Lucas wants to make revisions to his film and sell them to people. I think they are awkward changes that weaken the film, but if that's what he wants to do and that's what most people want to buy, good for them.

      All I'm saying is, I won't bother buying it, and if Lucas were to offer the original theatrical release in a format that looks good on modern wide-screen TV's, I would cheerfully pay a premium price to own them, because I consider Star Wars, as it was in 77, to be a landmark work of cinema art, and a rip-roaring fun time to watch.

      It was well-known, long before the SE films were produced, that Lucas ran out of money when making the masks & costumes for the Cantina scene, and many people feel that, even though Lucas hated the outcome, the half-finished costumes added to "dingy" feel of Mos Eisley and the overall charm of the movie.

      This is a film where outer-space is thuderously loud, where three-foot swords are crafted out of light beams that stop in mid-air, where lasers move slower than bullets. Suspension of disbelief is a prerequisite of watching these movies, and a few rubber maskes and puppets is not a hard pill for the audience to swallow. It certainly didn't stop it from breaking box-office records in 1977.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    8. Re:We don't need no digital makeover by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      But the CGI effects, the inserted additional characters, the extra (and totally redundant) scene with Jabba restored from the cutting room floor, the ruining of Han's big intro moment (he shot Greedo unprovoked to avoid being captured in the original), etc. These are the kinds things which whiny nerds like me are complaining about.

      None of this has anything to do with the services that Lowry Digital performs. Lowry Digital takes analog movies, converts them to digital and removes degradation caused by analog rot and dust. They also sharpen the picture to make up for limitations of the original filming. But they are not a special effects company. You are talking about work Lucas did long before Lowry Digital had even touched the Star Wars originals. I know because I know someone who works there. But you could also just RTFA.

    9. Re:We don't need no digital makeover by Sunnan · · Score: 1
      Jar Jar is no more annoying than C3PO in the Episodes IV-VI or a screenful of Ewoks.

      Personally, I don't find Jar Jar to be annoying; I do find the slapstick and lowbrow scenes he's in very annoying; such as stepping in shit, for example. When Jar Jar first appeared on the screen, I liked the character; I just can't stand the fart-smelling or the tongue-in-engine gag or the flailing around in the battlefield. That's why I prefer that stuff edited out.

      C3PO was never funny. Now Chewbacca wanting to tear somebody's arm off - that's funny!
      And the Ewoks are adorable.
  28. The HD Master Being Kept in Storage... by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 5, Funny

    virtually guaranteeing that the Hans/Greedo controversy will continue. At this rate, soon Hans will not have even shot Greedo. It will turn out that due to a high fat diet and sedentary life-style befitting a rich assasin, Greedo's arteries were clogged full of cholesterol. Hans didn't shoot Greedo, he was dead before he hit the table!!

    --
    My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
    1. Re:The HD Master Being Kept in Storage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Franz in your version as well as Hans?

    2. Re:The HD Master Being Kept in Storage... by stud9920 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, with Lukas and princess Frieda

    3. Re:The HD Master Being Kept in Storage... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Dude, his name is HAN. HAN SOLO.

      *Claws out his own eyes*

  29. I hear that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this version, Alderaan shoots first.

  30. The saga on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Quick summary of posts to follow:

    1) Lucas is a money-grubbing third-rate director.
    2) Can they wipe out Jar-Jar?
    3) Jar-Jar is not in these episodes, you moron.
    4) Who you calling a moron? Lucas is a money-grubbing moron.
    5) Why are they doing it on Macs when it is cheaper to do it on Linux?
    6) No, it's not. Look at Virginia Tech.
    7) Teh MACS suck.
    8) Nope, you idiot, M$ sucks.
    9) You are all idiots, Lucas sucks.

    Nothing else to see here. Move along now.

  31. More info on Lowry Digital Images by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1

    Back in 2003, Apple had an article about John Lowry. It's a little out of date since the Apple article says he has 100 G5s, 300 G4s, and 100 TB of disk space.

  32. To Lucas by d_jedi · · Score: 2, Funny

    [Jedi mind-trick a-la Obi Wan]
    These aren't the films we're looking for
    [/jedi mind trick]

    --
    I am the maverick of Slashdot
    1. Re:To Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think these are not the film we are .. looking ... for..

      ehh. Lets ehh move along, ... Nothing to ... ehh see ik guess...

  33. Raiders of the Lost Arc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe George Lucas and Paul Graham could do a film together...

  34. With all this talk of new versions.... by rokzy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ....how would Star Wars fans (I'm not one) feel about an entire new reshoot of the film (assuming original script)?

    Maybe Luke would turn out less of an annoying brat this time, or is that one of the central plot themes?

    CGI Yoda?

    Bullet-time fight sequences?

    1. Re:With all this talk of new versions.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! And how about we do the Seven Samurai with bullet-time fights! That will be grrrrrreat.

    2. Re:With all this talk of new versions.... by vidarh · · Score: 1

      With a father like that, I'm not at all surprised he has issues...

    3. Re:With all this talk of new versions.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell motivates this kind of idiocy? Bullet time is old news! It was good the first time, but now it's like a tired old joke.. you really, really DON'T want to hear or see any more slow motion bullet dodging.

    4. Re:With all this talk of new versions.... by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1

      I thought that was what Thumb Wars was. Luke wasn't less annoying in that one though.

  35. And you know what? by mcc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm still far, far happier with my little cardboard box containing a digitally remastered but unaltered Star Wars Trilogy on VHS tapes.

    1. Re:And you know what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how, excatly, are they "digitally mastered?" Did they exist for a few minutes on some primative DigiBeta format during the production cycle?

  36. And the new, more humane Stormtroopers... by koelpien · · Score: 3, Funny

    And the newly enhanced, more humane Stormtroopers will all carry flashlights instead of blasters.

    1. Re:And the new, more humane Stormtroopers... by NBarnes · · Score: 2, Funny

      How would you tell the difference?

    2. Re:And the new, more humane Stormtroopers... by Grave_Rose · · Score: 0

      ...and still not be able to shine light on anything accurately. ^_^

      Gr@ve_Rose

      --
      !ekoj on si aixelsyD
  37. What Was That On The Emperor's Head? by JohnPerkins · · Score: 0

    I've always wondered what that thing is on the emperor's head in Return Of The Jedi. In several shots there's what looks like an edited-in black blob floating over the emperor's head (well, more like his ear, but i'm not sure). I've been wondering, since the 80s no less, what the heck that thing is? The best guess i've been able to come up with is that there was something wrong with the actor's makeup that they had to cover up.

    I'm terribly curious if they cleaned this up for whatever the new version is, but nowhere near enough to purchase this new dose of crap/Lucas ego/childhood memory destroyer. I wonder if they ever completely cleaned up those matte boxes following moving ships around?

    1. Re:What Was That On The Emperor's Head? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't fix it, and I have no idea why.

      No, I take that back. The video engineers were all fans of Empire more than the other two films. So Empire looks and sounds amazing, but New Hope and Jedi could still use some clean-up. (Most notably, still a few matte lines, and, as you mention, the black blob under the edge of the Emperor's cowl.)

  38. Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dear George,

    Piss the hell off.

    Why for the love of whatever god you pray to, if any, do you feel the constant desire to further destroy this set of films?

    Ok, so maybe it wasn't the best acting or the best special effects or whathaveyou, but for the love of god, man, it was an amazing thing at the time which had an amazing effect on a great number of people!

    It put my cousin on the road do his job at NASA, it put me into an Aerospace Engineering program!

    There's is nothing to be gained by all this revisionist history other than to make you look like a complete money-grubbing idiot!

    Greedo shoots first? WTF?!?!?! Next step is walkie-talkies instead of balsters, that's just fantastic.

    Please just stop trashing my and many other's childhoods, and please just go away. You've done enough damage. Nearly everyone who used to love you now curses your name, and the once great ILM is a sad shadow of its former glory.

    Begone foul demon.

    As much as it pains me, I have no choice but to conclude that you are nothing but a no talent, monyey-grubbing hack, with nothing more to give that destructive remakes of great films. So just bite me, you won't see another dollar of mine.

    Bastard.

    This isn't a troll, it's a heart-felt responce.

    1. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, these are not your films. These are not your vision. You put jack-F'ing squat in to them. You didn't elect Lucas to be your guardian of truth and have him betray you so get the fuck over it. They belong to him, it's his universe and if he wants to send Mario in to bounce from Storm Trooper head to Storm Trooper head while searching for magic mushrooms because they adhere more to his vision, so be it.

      Trash your childhood? Get a grip. When was the last time you worshipped at the alter of Lucas? When was the last time a woman said to you "So, what was it like when your grew up?" and you said "I devoted my life to Star Wars".

      Snivling idiot.

    2. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      If you're so upset by a movie scene being changed to something you don't like, I question your mental health. :-P

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by inkswamp · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm sure I'll get modded as a troll, but there really is a real message here, but first let me get this out of my system...

      Just shut the fuck up. Please? They're movies, for fuck's sake. Some of us enjoy them and would like to continue doing so without you and your gloomy band of whiners coming along to piss in the pool. I love the original movies too. I've watched them more times than I can count and can recite my favorite lines, but it's not my religion. I cannot relate to you whiners who consider these films to be some cornerstone of your existence. I wish you would all just fuck off and stop spazzing out every time the words Star Wars flash in front of your face.

      There... much better. Now on with the comment.

      They were part of my childhood too, but I had lots and lots of other great things in my childhood that had nothing to do with Lucasfilm Ltd. so even if Lucas decided to replace the characters in films with Looney Tunes animations, it wouldn't really make that big a dent in my life. If Lucas wants to futz around with the originals to make them his ultimate vision, then more power to him. Yeah, it sucks a little because it drills a little hole in that precious bag of nostalgia that we carry around, but in the end, is it really that big a deal?

      Seriously? Did you really feel the need to scream rape of your childhood like that?

      Get over it. Quick. And please stop drawing attention to yourself every time you feel your precious youth has been violated by a fucking movie. It gets tiresome REAL quick.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    4. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by smallpaul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why for the love of whatever god you pray to, if any, do you feel the constant desire to further destroy this set of films?

      Did your read the article? "Even though the original film elements of the three movies have spent most of their time resting in vaults, they had gathered wear and tear that would have been noticeable had they been transferred, as is, straight to DVD." ""They have been printed more often and been duplicated more often, and each of those passes adds scuffs, dirt, scratches and the like."

      Are you such a damn purist that you love every scratch on the film? And if so, do you love them all or only the ones that were put on before the original theatrical release or perhaps the ones that occurred only during the 70s and 80s but not 90s?

    5. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're hardly a certified genius yourself. Think about it, I know it hurts, but just THINK.

      > These are not your vision.

      When they were originally filmed, they fit his vision, maybe not exactly, but they still fit them. These days, he's having to change them because he's now got a new vision. It seems logical to deduce that he's making new movies out of the old ones.

      Example? Greedo shooting first. All he needed to do to make it acceptable was have Greedo move his arm from an intimidating position to a directly threatening position, and there's no problem. But no, he changes his mind 20 years later.

      There are several examples of that through-out the trilogy.

      Now, do you know what happens to a show or movie that doesn't follow what the viewers want to see? It gets trashed by reviewers. Do you whine at the reviewers? No. Go take your aggressive attitude elsewhere, it's not needed or wanted here.

      Oh, and another thing... grow the fuck up.

    6. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

      Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood

      "raping your childhood"? Don't you think you may be taking all this a little bit too seriously? Surely you did other things as a child than watching Star Wars? Right?

    7. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by tuffy · · Score: 1
      They were part of my childhood too, but I had lots and lots of other great things in my childhood that had nothing to do with Lucasfilm Ltd. so even if Lucas decided to replace the characters in films with Looney Tunes animations, it wouldn't really make that big a dent in my life. If Lucas wants to futz around with the originals to make them his ultimate vision, then more power to him. Yeah, it sucks a little because it drills a little hole in that precious bag of nostalgia that we carry around, but in the end, is it really that big a deal?

      It's not a really big deal to me because I've got the original trilogy of films memorized. But it is a big deal to those who haven't, like the generations that'll come after me. They'll never get to see the films I saw. Maybe they won't care about seeing the special effects that changed the industry, or pointless re-edits to things done right the first time. But I feel it's obnoxious not to give them that choice.

      If you don't care about any of that, that's fine. But I think those that do care have a right to complain - even though it may sound like a broken record after awhile. Though in the end, voting with one's wallet is the only thing that'll make any difference.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    8. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by desktop_dope · · Score: 1

      Well put. This whole thing is ridiculous.

      --
      ^^^^^^^ Man, those Samoans are a surly bunch.
    9. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by raptorspike · · Score: 1

      ROCK ON MAN! You have said the words that I have been trying to say for a while. I think that if he wants to go back and make the movie he really wanted, go for it. I personally will be waiting at my local Wal-Mart to buy this trilogy for myself, considering I don't own a copy of my own.

    10. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      I do seem to remember metal Tonka trucks and watching alot of Saturday morning cartoons. Remember when the Bugs Bunny Road-Runner show was an hour and a half long, and had some silly cartoon violence? Guess all that had to end after the adults saw that the streets were littered with the bodies of kids who'd done each other in with anvils and huge falling rocks and the like.

      I don't know of any generation that has had more of it's childhood culture altered like this, forgotten is one thing, but altered and diluted?

    11. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      " I think that if he wants to go back and make the movie he really wanted, go for it."

      So why doesn't he do that? Instead of stupid bandaid editing and sub-par computer animation, why doesn't he just remake the entire damn film?

      It's not like no one ever remakes a movie. But then movies shouldn't have version numbers like software. How many versions are we up to now?

    12. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by boschmorden · · Score: 1

      great post, sums up how I feel pretty well.

    13. Re:Thank you Mr Lucas for raping my childhood by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      They're movies, for fuck's sake.

      Citizen Kane is just a movie, as is Gone With the Wind, as were all those films that Turner and whoever else wanted to colorize and alter. They are also part of our culture.

      Some of us enjoy them and would like to continue doing so without you and your gloomy band of whiners coming along to piss in the pool.

      Some of us might want to be able to pass on and share our cultural history with the generations that follow us.

      I love the original movies too. I've watched them more times than I can count and can recite my favorite lines, but it's not my religion.

      Who said anything about it being anyone's religion?

      I cannot relate to you whiners who consider these films to be some cornerstone of your existence.

      Ah, so you're a Star Trek fan then? =P They aren't a cornerstone of existence, they were pretty influential to some kids tho, that is for certain. So you're saying you aren't bothered when art and culture is distorted? What say we update the Mona Lisa? She should have shown some teeth anyway. (Just an example, not comparing the 2 works)

      The basic fact of the matter is that a film, book, sculpture, song, painting, whathaveyou, is supposed to be a work of artistic endeavor. When it is released to the public it becomes a part of the cultural landscape. It belongs to all of us at that point.

      If he wants constant re-edits, thinks it isn't finished, fine, let him do it. So he starts to look like the Microsoft of film-making what do I care. But in the process he IS destroying a part of our cultural heritage.

      How about we start revising history next?

  39. This always bugs me... by fiddlesticks · · Score: 1

    > 600 networked Power Mac G5 computers with the
    > equivalent of 378 terabytes (378 million
    > megabytes) of hard-disk storage.

    Now, when they say 'equivalent of 378 TB' are they talking about a different system of measuring HD space (that only the media use), are they discussing the finer points of the TiB/ TB debate, or is it easier to write 'the equivalent of' rather than 'an approximate total of' ?

    1. Re:This always bugs me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Now, when they say 'equivalent of 378 TB' are they talking about a different system of measuring HD space (that only the media use), are they discussing the finer points of the TiB/ TB debate, or is it easier to write 'the equivalent of' rather than 'an approximate total of' ?

      None of the above. In truth, it's just a single, fast 100GB drive-- but they use the RIAA's counting methods.

    2. Re:This always bugs me... by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are alluding to the fact that it doesn't all sit on one big hard drive as a layperson (CNN reader!) might presume.

  40. Maybe we will get lucky.... by stretch0611 · · Score: 1
    making it so that people have to buy the trilogy six times, spending a couple hundred bucks.

    Maybe a few of the hard drives will crash and Lucas is too ignorant to have a backup. This will save our money.

    --
    Looking for a job?
    Want your resume written professionally?
    DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!
  41. 378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s by polecat_redux · · Score: 0, Troll

    This just in:
    Full-length movie (1.5 hours) created on 129,600 frames of film.

    1. Re:378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s by cei · · Score: 1

      Not sure the point of your post, but all 5 Star Wars films that Lucas has released so far (plus the various Special Editions, etc) have clocked in at over 2 hours...

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    2. Re:378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s by polecat_redux · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should have been more blatantly sarcastic. The point was that films have become far too reliant on special effects and that it is still possible for very good movies to be created in their absence. One of my favorite movies for example is The Shawshank Redemption... not one special effect.

      I think eye-candy is becoming far too acceptable - generally at the expense of plot and convincing acting.

    3. Re:378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s by cei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then I wonder why they credit a special effects person?

      Not to take away from the intent of your post. But I think there are levels of effects technology, and levels of the audience's saturation thereof. Groundbreaking effects years ago, the ones that really made us think "how'd they do that an make it look so real", really come apart at the seams 20 years later. Look at Star Wars, or Terminator 2, or the Matrix. In their day, they were at the tops of their games. But the cost of those effects has come down, and they've become commonplace.

      While I agree effects should be secondary to the story, I think the real talent is in creating effects that are as realistic as possible, so that the audience doesn't question what they're seeing, and can get swept up in the story. That's probably why there was an effects guy on Shawshank, and why you didn't notice him... he did his job well.

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    4. Re:378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s by polecat_redux · · Score: 1

      While I agree effects should be secondary to the story, I think the real talent is in creating effects that are as realistic as possible, so that the audience doesn't question what they're seeing, and can get swept up in the story. That's probably why there was an effects guy on Shawshank, and why you didn't notice him... he did his job well.

      Very true. You make a good point, and I suppose I should qualify my previous statements by saying that I believe special effects do have a valid place in movies as long as they help to develop the story. As much as I hate to admit it, Titanic did this very well. That movie was loaded with effects, but many of them were imperceptible, and were only there to make the movie more convincing.

      BTW, if you happen to know what the special effects person actually did for Shawshank Redemption, I would love to know. If you haven't seen it, I would suggest that you do. It really is a classic.

    5. Re:378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s by BlameFate · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, but special effects done with vision and detail last for a long time. I'm taking 2001: A Space Odyssey as possibly the only valid example of this. I can watch the film now, almost 40 years later and still believe that it's real. The stewardess rescuing Floyd's wayward pen in zero-g and returning it to his pocket still astounds me, the way that shot is done so very deliberately and in slow, careful detail so as to compel the audience to watch rather than get it out of the way quickly with a sleight of hand distraction trick.

      --

      --is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait

    6. Re:378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Don't confuse CGI with special effects. I'm sure the special effects in Shawshank range anywhere from the noises made from bones breaking to the lightning & thunder during his sewage escape. And blood, bruises, etc.

      A movie I often check out a lot (because I have this theory that every person in it becomes a star) is "Dazed And Confused". One thing I found interesting in my last lookup was that there was a stuntman coordinator. Stunts? In that movie? Well, it turns out that this guy even got to play a role in the movie. He was the guy that said, "You busted my mail box, didnchoo? Tampering with a mail box is a felONy OFfense". Remember when they tore away, and he tumbled with the car? I'm sure that counted as a stunt.

      So does safely hanging out a car window and picking up a trash can to throw at mailboxes. And climbing moon towers. And jumping off buildings as you run away from pouring paint on O'Banyon.

      A lot of weird crap goes into movies.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    7. Re: 378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s by Quatermass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nice article. But nothing new.

      If you are interested in reading more on how the experts restore old stock then you can't do better than visit the 'Doctor Who Restoration' web site.
      These bunch of guys have to restore awful video and film masters from the sixties.

      http://www.restoration-team.co.uk/

      Look up in the DVD releases section:
      'Lost in Time' or the detailed 'The Seeds of Death' article.

      They have before and after examples that will blow your mind!

      --
      Stuart http://stuarthalliday.com/
    8. Re:378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I just watched it for the first time and I totally agree :-)

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    9. Re:378 Terabytes Of Star Wars on 600 G5s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Shawshank Redemption... not one special effect"

      That's a lie.

      When Tommy Williams (Gil Bellows) was shot in the courtyard, that was a special effect.

  42. I will not buy these by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

    Back when the Star Wars Definitive Collection LD set came out I bought them as they were simply the best way to see the original films. They were far better quality than the previous widescreen LD releases and the extras were pretty cool too. Then the SE versions appeared and I went to the cinema to see them and while it was nice to see the film at 35mm resolution, the new digital effects really didn't work for me. I couldn't see what was wrong with the original effects. They were great for the time and even today I think they still look pretty impressive. However, I did end up buying a cheap copy of the boxed set of SE LDs as they were in CLV mode giving an hour per side compared with the 25 mins or so for the THX LDs. Still, I watch the original versions more often than the SEs. They just seem much purer.

    So, these new DVDs, well the picture isn't that much better than the LD releases really. They're still standard definition and they're still not the originals. If they release these in HD I might plunk some cash down but that clearly isn't going to be an issue for another half decade I expect. But really George. Give people the choice to see the new cut and the original.

    I think the original in the context of the time it was made is much more powerful as a piece of cinema, these bastardised versions look far less impressive because it is obvious that they are using 21st century effects but that makes them seem less special as many other films look as impressive. Compare the original cut to films of the same time or shortly afterwards and it really stands out.

    --
    "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    1. Re:I will not buy these by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      If they release these in HD I might plunk some cash down but that clearly isn't going to be an issue for another half decade I expect.

      Sooner than you think HD-DVD is expected next year. You can already by players in Japan.

    2. Re:I will not buy these by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

      I think that we will have the same situation as with the current DVD release. DVD first appeared in, what, 1997, and here we are seven years later and just getting the trilogy on the format. This pattern may well repeat with blu ray or HD-DVD which is why I said it wouldn't be an issue for another half decade.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
  43. FFS by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    ...noting that the digitized films have also been converted to HD for later release as high-definition DVDs.

    Just when you thought there couldn't be any possible way to get even MORE money out of fans by selling the SAME movies AGAIN - HD DVD's.

    How many versions is that now?

    How many versions in HD will we have? All of the previous ones? (HD 'Special Edition' anyone?)

    Thank god other movie companies don't follow suit - I could do without 15 different versions of Gigli clogging up stores.

    1. Re:FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see.....

      I have Pink Floyd "The Wall" on tape.

      Then I got Pink Floyd "The Wall" on CD...

      But after a couple years, the CD's got scratched, so I bought another set.

      How much music have you re-bought?

      You want him to GIVE you a set of DVD's? Maybe he should just mail everyone in the US a set, becuase hey, we all own the VHS.

      All things considered, $42 isn't that bad for a premium 4 disk set of anything.... Especially considering what I paid for the Godfather DVD trilogy.

    2. Re:FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I only count one version on DVD so far, and it's taken him long enough to get these out. Do you really think he'll release another edition of standard def on the same media before the next technology, whatever standard they choose, is accepted?

    3. Re:FFS by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      How much music have you re-bought?

      Nothing. Ever.

      You want him to GIVE you a set of DVD's? Maybe he should just mail everyone in the US a set, becuase hey, we all own the VHS.

      No. He obviously has about 15 different versions in mind and releases them piecemeal. For example, regular, widescreen, special edition, special edition widescreen and now we will have DVD edition, DVD widescreen, DVD special edition, DVD special edition widescreen, then HD DVD edition, HD DVD edition widescreen, HD DVD special edition, HD DVD special edition widescreen, then we start getting into Director's Cut editions and so on.

      Quite frankly he's taking the piss. You can't even be smart and wait a few years like I did in the past - oh no - he comes out with something that you never thought of in the past like HD DVD.

      I mean if people want to keep throwing money at the guy by buying the same movies over and over again then that's their business but I can't help feeling that it's exploitation.

      And please dont post as AC - it's childish.

    4. Re:FFS by sg3000 · · Score: 1

      > I mean if people want to keep throwing money at the guy by
      > buying the same movies over and over again then that's their
      > business but I can't help feeling that it's exploitation.

      No one is demanding that everyone buy every copy of every movie. You go buy a version, then Lucas comes out with a new one with incremental improvements. The market for people buying Star Wars movies is large enough that Lucas can come out with slightly different versions on a periodic basis to match constant demand. The product remains fresh because the version bought a couple of years later is slightly different. However, just because Lucas refreshes his product doesn't mean you have to buy another version. Not unless you've got a psychological need to own the "definitive version".

      I bought the Special Edition Full Screen (gold package) VHS version. The old, unremastered full screen version of Star Wars went to Half Price Books (and the complementary versions of ESB and ROTJ recorded from cable TV went into the trash). The only regret I had was there was a widescreen version (silver box) released about three months later. Did I buy it when it came out? No, I just accepted the fact that I didn't want to buy the set again.

      Years later, I now have a chance to buy the version on DVD. Cool. I'll buy the widescreen version, but I realize that it's likely in 2005, there might be a set with Episodes I-VI. I can either wait and buy that version (if released), or buy the offered versions in two weeks.

      Being a rational consumer is about trade-offs. If you've got a neurotic need to own the "definitive version", then you'd better resign yourself to buying a new version every couple of years.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    5. Re:FFS by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Ok - one question - why have they not been released on DVD until now?

      I mean - DVD quality is great - and I would argue a perfect medium for the Star Wars movies and had they been released on DVD in the past, I would have bought them.

      So why no DVD version until now?

    6. Re:FFS by sg3000 · · Score: 1

      > Ok - one question - why have they not been released on DVD
      > until now?

      I imagine you'd have to ask Lucas, but I suspect it's related to a number of reasons. First, it's probably because when he released Episodes IV-VI, he wanted to release them right; that is, the same quality as Episodes I and II. So he wanted to take the time to restore the films to better than new quality (from what I've heard, they've done an excellent job in restoring the pictures).

      I also expect that Lucas knew that funding a restoration of the Star Wars movies would be expensive, but if he could leverage new technologies that came about from Episodes I and II, it would be a lot cheaper. For example, the CG in Episode II is more elaborate than in Episode I. I would expect then that creating Episode I-level effects using the technology in Episode II would be cheaper than they were during Episode I (assuming Lucas uses cutting edge technology during the production of each movie). Thus, by the time he gets to Episode III, doing the effects he needed to redo Episodes IV-VI would be far less expensive.

      Finally, by releasing Episodes IV-VI in time for Christmas, he builds demand for Episode III arriving in May 2005. So by the time May 2005 rolls around, you will be able to see all six episodes as a whole.

      If Lucas were really trying to milk people, he would have released the Special Edition versions of the movies (already digital) on DVD with no additional work, and then released the current set. However, Lucas waited until he had the time to make it the way he wanted.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
  44. If I didn't know it would be 100% ineffectual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I'd say it's time for a petition to Lucas, demanding that he stop fucking with the original trilogy and just release the 1977, 1980, and 1983 theatrical cuts in a DVD box set.

    No added stuff that wasn't technically possible at the time, no special features, no pumped-up sound, no 'making of' documentaries, no nothing. Just the three movies that I watched, wide-eyed, as a kid.

    Yes, they're dated and maybe kinda corny, but they are CLASSICS. You don't see the Louvre giving the Mona Lisa bigger tits, a pierced navel and a belly shirt so she appeals to younger generations, do you?

  45. What happens when digital archive discs degrades? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They supposedly have this stored in an archive digitally .. umm but what happens when the tape or DVD degrades (yes it does happen .. magnetism in the tape degrades cause the earth's field messes with it, also the heat/vibration) and same thing with DVD's there are bacteria that eat DVDs ..no joke.

  46. MJ by joshlewis · · Score: 1, Funny

    Bizarre... I'm starting to see a connection between Star Wars and Michael Jackson's nose.

    --
    If senility was a race, I would win.
  47. In Soviet Russia by LardBrattish · · Score: 1, Funny

    YOU stomp on George Lucas' childhood dreams

    --
    What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
  48. Some more details by smallpaul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ian Caven is a regular member of the Vancouver Python User's Group and he spoke about this amazing system at our conference a month ago.

    One intersting bit is that the vast majority of this system is written in Python using numpy. Ian says "he doesn't know how they would have done it" otherwise. C is used for the inner loops but Python does the majority of the algorithmic stuff that makes one image processing job (e.g. removing dust) different from another (e.g. correcting for film degradation). Python also manages all of the distributed processing.

    Another interesting bit is that they are using Python, Zope and HTTP to make a virtual file system for managing the frames and movies. This will help with the storage management problems that arise from working with such massive files.

    There are other amazing facts but it is hard to know which are competitive secrets that are better not divulged. One hint I'll give is that the productivity of the programmers at this company would shock you. They've obviously benefitted from building on a very high-level language and they also have some very sharp tools they've built themselves to make these amazing jobs possible.

    1. Re:Some more details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, and I'm sure the programmer's productivity of the programmers has nothing to do with the fact that it's ILM we're talking about here, who only hire the cream of the crop.

  49. Lucas needs to check himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As I recall not to long ago, wasnt there an article about Lucas getting mad that 'older' movies, were being changed for re-release(Threestooges being colorised). We are talking nothing but alittle color there and he was fuming, now he wants to add new scenes, reshoot the ewoks molesting princess lea, han solo giving jaba a handjob, and darth's real comment 'Luke I molested your father'...

    I refuse to spend any more money on any Lucas/ILM productions.

    1. Re:Lucas needs to check himself by inkswamp · · Score: 2, Interesting
      That was Lucas's perfectly consistent response to someone other than the filmmaker making changes to the films.

      I love how we all just overreact and start making Lucas out to be the evil villain here by assuming everything he says or does must be wrong.

      --
      --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
    2. Re:Lucas needs to check himself by vjmurphy · · Score: 1

      "That was Lucas's perfectly consistent response to someone other than the filmmaker making changes to the films. "

      Well, how do we determine who the "filmmaker" is, then? Lucas did not direct Empire or Return, so is he actually the "filmmaker" in those cases?

      Is the producer the filmmaker? The executive producer?

      --
      Vincent J. Murphy
      Spandex Justice
  50. yaswmo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are they going to call it?

    Yet Another StarWars Make Over - YASWAMO?

  51. Is Lucas running out of money? by Coryoth · · Score: 1

    I have to ask, in all seriousness, is George Lucas running out of money or something? The release of the DVDs (reworked of course), along with the prequels, a new Star Wars TV series in the pipeline, and talk of doing a sequel trilogy - at a time when demand and interest in Star Wars is declining. I was under the impression that Lucas was quite happily independently wealthy so why the sudden push for more and more Star Wars? Rick Berman I can understand - He wants to bleed the series for every last drop of cash now while he still has influence because if he gives Star Trek a rest for 5 years people will likely come to their senses and fire his ass - But why is Lucas maing a cash grab?

    Anyone know?

    Jedidiah.

    1. Re:Is Lucas running out of money? by obeythefist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think he's running out... but I think he does like the cash. Also there has to be some kind of perverted satisfaction with altering his successful work from 1977 and replacing it with a sweaty, crude, and mismatched looking set of special effects and previously deleted scenes that should have stayed on the cutting room floor.

      I'm more concerned about his plans for a TV series and for more movies. Although, looking at it another way, TV is way too small for Lucas to directly intefere with as he does with the movies. For that reason, it's quite likely the TV series could be pure gold - with quality actors being allowed to act properly, something noticeably missing from the prequels.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  52. Hey George! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EAT ME! i've got the Laserdiscs.

  53. Multiple screen formats? by imgod2u · · Score: 1

    So......there's a Full Screen Edition and a Widescreen Edition? They couldn't just put them in one box? So if you currently have a 4:3 screen and want it to be full-screen, you buy the Full Screen, but then you miss out on some of the "theatre experience" and if you were to later get a widescreen TV (or watch it on your widescreen laptop), you're SOL. So then you pop $40 for the Widescreen Edition as well? That just seems a bit absurd to me.

    1. Re:Multiple screen formats? by luferbu · · Score: 1

      Always buy the Widescreen Edition of any film, period. These days cropping a video to get full screen in a 4:3 is a quite common thing.

  54. NO WAY...they still make film?! by rhizome · · Score: 1

    >The point was that films have become far too reliant on special
    >effects and that it is still possible for very good movies to
    >be created in their absence.

    What is this "film" you speak of? You mean it hasn't all burned or disintegrated? I thought actors were only there for voiceovers!

    Oh, but maybe you meant "films" as in the kind that you pronounce with your jaw jutted out a little along with talk of "auteurs" and "vision".

    See how silly categorical marginalization is? Here's a news flash, people have been making thin plots and lame actors since the beginning of drama. If you're going to complain about its acceptibility, you're going to need a Ouija Board and time machine because the industry doesn't care. There will always be good stuff to see that doesn't force you to choke down more CG, so you know...save your pennies and be an educated consumer.

    In other words, "lighten up, Francis"...

    --
    When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  55. Sneaky? by Mobster · · Score: 1

    Now the question is.. how many of you nay sayers who hate what is happening, will secretly go out and get your copy on the 21st?

    --
    ---- You have been programmed by the Illuminati to not see the word ""!
    1. Re:Sneaky? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I don't have to. My GF pre-ordered it for me as a Christmas present.

      I don't have the heart to tell her...

  56. The original cut will always be the best... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I first saw the unedited, original cut of Star Wars in late 1976, when it consisted of the original reels fresh out of the cameras from the various sets. That was the best version - the definitive version.. I mean, Han shot Gredo fifteen times in subsequent takes.

    Damn you to hell, George, for cutting that original 52 hour uncut version! What were you thinking, you butcher!?? Do you think you had the right to cut and change things AFTER THEY WERE FILMED? It's almost as if you had something else in your head about what the films should be, and when the filmed material didn't suit, you cut it and changed it, you bastard, until they fit what you wanted.. how could you? Who do you think you are?

    So, I'll be hanging on to my 27 reels of original film, and ignore some new version that's been changed by some idiot who really had nothing to do with the films at all..

  57. Re:Misleading-Han might 'shoot first'... by iamcf13 · · Score: 1

    ...if an insider helped himself/herself to a private DVD copy of the 'original trilogy' AFTER restoration/cleanup but BEFORE the Special Edition 'enhancements' are added to the three films.

    As an aside, I was under the impression that the negative to STAR WARS (1977) was destroyed during the Special Edition restoration process for its 20th anniversary re-release in 1997. Maybe I was wrong about that now....

    Anyway, if the insider is smart, they will 'sit' on their copy of the 'original trilogy' and anonymously leak it out onto the internet and make it available as 'DVD warez' long after sales of the 'official trilogy' has died down to a large extent.

    Of course, this act will likely ruin the restoration house as LucasFilm Ltd. sues them into oblivion but the masses finaly get what they want, right?...

    The 1977, 1980, and 1983 versions of:

    STAR WARS

    The Empire Strikes Back

    Return Of The Jedi

    on DVD.

    Just a thought...

    PS: Maybe George Lucas will finally 'cave in' and put out an 'ultimate DVD box set' in 2007 (STAR WARS 30th anniversary) consisting of:

    Episodes 1-3

    Episodes 4-6 1997 Special Edition versions

    Bonus: Episodes 4-6 Original 1977/80/83 versions

    Steven Spielberg gave fans two versions of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) on DVD in the same package:

    The politically correct, SFX enhanced, bonus-footage-added, 'walkie talkie', I'm-not-a-terrorist 2002 20th anniversary version.

    And the original, treasured, beloved (unmodified?) 1982 version.

  58. Re:What happens when digital archive discs degrade by obeythefist · · Score: 1

    Of course let's assume there are multiple copies of the master for backup purposes and in seperate locations. This is likely because of the amount of changes that have occured to the original, presumably all the "in work" copies are also archived all over the place.

    Secondly I'm pretty sure DVD media degrades from bacteria slower than film degrades from sitting around in cans.

    Finally, the rate at which Lucas re-releases Star Wars is relatively high (in fact, Star Wars has to be the most re-released movie in time ever). So he's going to be going to the originals and remastering them at regular intervals.

    I would say that Star Wars is well preserved. The real problem is finding a version that Lucas hasn't photoshopped Jar Jar Binks into.

    --
    I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  59. Incorrect Title by Manip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If whoever had RTFA correctly they would have noticed that it did *not say the new star wars was 378TBs but instead said that in total that is what all the Mac workstations can hold. Conclusion - New Star Wars 378TB

    1. Re:Incorrect Title by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      If whoever had RTFA correctly they would have noticed that it did *not say the new star wars was 378TBs but instead said that in total that is what all the Mac workstations can hold. Conclusion - New Star Wars 378TB

      Which isn't all that impressive at all... 378TB / 600 = 0.63TB (645GB) per workstation. Hell, I've got that in my video editing box (3 individual 250GB drives, each holds stuff at various stages of processing).

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  60. unused DVD features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why oh why doesn't The Ferengi use the option of alternate angles to give the option of either the digitally mutilated or the untampered holy version of the original trilogy? Why is alternate angle almost exclusively used for pr0n? This would so be a chance to make use of that feature on a major film, but nooo, he needs to be stubborn.
    For every shit there is a law, but none against this bullcrap.

    1. Re:unused DVD features by tepples · · Score: 1

      Traditional movie theaters cannot show multiplexed angles. Therefore, movies shot for traditional movie theaters do not contain multiplexed angles, so neither can their DVD copies.

  61. Yoda = Kermit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sooner they replace the old Yoda with a nice CGI version the better. You see him and Luke in the swamp and you keep expecting Miss Piggy to come out and thump someone. Like the old school Dr Who, some FX need to be redone.

    AC

  62. 600 G5s vs 1 ADS Instant DVD USB 2.0 by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

    They may have 600 G5s, and I just have a lowly ADS Instant DVD USB 2.0 hooked up between my Laserdisc player and my PC...but at least the DVD I'm making right now will actually be "Star Wars"!

    1. Re:600 G5s vs 1 ADS Instant DVD USB 2.0 by keeleysam · · Score: 1

      Its onl god if you ar capturing to DV with the diital soun from the laserdisc... If it isnt that, it isnt true... Get the DVD images from a torrent site.

      --
      Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
  63. Geez by I7D · · Score: 1
    What is this? +5 Day??

    Oh crap, I ruined it

    --
    Neil is that you? Yeah yeah, it's me... Neil...
  64. Have to? by tod_miller · · Score: 0, Redundant

    making it so that people have to buy the trilogy six times, spending a couple hundred bucks.

    I think this needs no further comment. (other than to say)

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  65. Re:What happens when digital archive discs degrade by gabuzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Secondly I'm pretty sure DVD media degrades from bacteria slower than film degrades from sitting around in cans.

    Well I guess you are talking about real DVD not DVD-R which seems to degrage themselves faster than bacterias can do. However in the digital archival process saving the media is only one part of the problem and you also have to deal with: being able to do something with the media. If you find a 100 years old film sitting in an attic you'll be able to watch it pretty easily while I doubt you'll be able to do anything beside a decorative object of a 8" floppy disk, a 2" video tape or a vintage computer tape reel. So how will it be for a DVD 50 years from now?

    Another interesting point of the interview is the constreversy about the fidelity of the digitized version. Even Lowry admit that he could do a better restoration of Citizen Kane now that he has done a few years ago. Now if the digitized master has to become the "original" how could new improvments in film restoration technology applied again?

  66. Special German ReEdit by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 1

    In case anyone wonders: In Germany they'll relase the "Deutsche Spezial Version von Krieg der Sterne" in September. Han Solo will be called Hans Einsiedler. Just to clarify that.

  67. the HD DVD will come out when.. by majid_aldo · · Score: 1

    ..when the UHD (ultra-HD) DVD format first appears.

    --
    --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
  68. 378 Terabytes you say? by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh my god, that must be real high definition!!

    But why the heck do you need 600 G5s to view it?

    This "locking viewers in with Apple hardware" bullshit must go!

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  69. Doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If my memory serves, three years ago the entire set of Star Wars films was broadcast in Australia in High Definition. I remember them looking pretty good then, and sounding great in 5.1 surround. Do any aussies remember that?

    Also dust busting is a pretty standard operation these days and is done in all films, film stock is very good at picking up dust. Its not a terribly glamorous job either!

    Much harder is restoration of very old film where the colours have faded and there is an uneven purple tint on the edges of the film that bleed into the frame. It requires some very trickly color correction.

  70. Dear George Lucas, by roka · · Score: 1

    I once was a damn big fan of you and your movies and also your game company Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts.

    But somehow you seem to have been captured and replaced with some perverted Ferengi. Please notify me if you are free again and are willing to make some good decisions for your company's reputation, so I can reconsider buying something from you again.

    regards

  71. For the Original Trilogy, Check Usenet by Thedalek · · Score: 1

    Okay, I ordinarily don't openly encourage piracy, but in this case Lucas is clearly profiteering on his own fans, which is Not Good. Besides, most of us already own VHS versions of the OT which are long since suffering from age. So still illegal, but a moral victory.

    Anyway, alt.binaries.starwars, people. DVD rips of the non-special edition laserdiscs. There are, of course, other places to acquire these rips, some of which cost money.

    If you do go for the bootleg LD rips, the two best versions are the TR47 version, and the Dr. Gonzo version. The TR47 version has slightly superior video quality, but has no menus or bonuses, while the Dr. G version has menus and commentary tracks (which are pieced together from various interviews), but loses a barely noticable amount of quality.

    --
    Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
  72. Restored THX1138 by Danathar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just saw the restored (and enhanced) version of THX1138 at the theater and I was pretty impressed. It looked like the film was done yesterday.

    The enhancements are questionable, but the restoration process worked wonderfuly. The newer process Lowry uses is able to keep some "grain" in the film depending on how much the director wants.

    It did not have the "hard" look of a digital film.

  73. More proof of NASA Conspiracy! by ShipiboConibo · · Score: 1
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracted with him to process the live broadcast feeds from the Apollo 16 and 17 missions to the moon in 1972. "We cleaned up the images and sent it back over microwave to Houston again, and it went out to the world," says Lowry...
    Hmm... NASA using a Hollywood post production house. Let me clerify, I think they meant 'The images were sent to us from the Nevada desert, then sent back over microwave to Houstin again, and it went out to the world'. Somebody had to make sure it actually looked like the moon this time!

    P.S. No, I don't really believe this... just having fun :-)

    *Puts on foil hat*
    --
    "It seems that when people become desperate they consult the gods, and when the gods become desperate they tell lies." -
  74. It's the search for more money. by sgant · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I mean, doesn't anyone else here see what Lucas is doing? He's not stomping on your childhood dreams...it's pure marketing genius. Remeber back when Coke said it was changing the recipe for Coca-Cola? Their sales went through the roof for the ORIGINAL coke!

    He's releasing the "Special Editions" now. He'll make the money off of them...let them stay out there for like a year or two. THEN it will be get the entire box set of Episodes 1-6 that will set you back like $150...let that stay out there a few years until they don't sell anymore.

    Then around 6 years from now or so, the Original 3 movies with no changes at all...the ones that were released starting back in 1977 will be a box set. There's certainly a market for this now and everyone that's bitching and moaning will snatch it up!

    Lucas won't be laughing all the way to the bank btw...he'll just install a bank at Skywalker Ranch and be done with it.

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    1. Re:It's the search for more money. by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 4, Informative

      I remember some changes from the original 1977 release and the "A New Hope" release that came out with "The Empire Strikes Back". Most vivid in my memory is the bridge scene inside the death star: I recall Luke throwing his rope once, and it missed. The door opens a little bit, and Leia shoots stormtroopers on the other side, Luke throws the rope again, it catches, Leia kills the last storm troopers on the other side, climbs on Luke, and kisses him. He is startled, and asks "What was that for", and she answers "for luck", and they swing across.

      Can anyone else confirm or deny?

    2. Re:It's the search for more money. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see that at all.

      George Lucas said this was the movie he wanted to make. Why are you guys bitching that he's stomping on your childhood when you're stomping on his vision?

      How bad is it anyway? So what if Greedo shoots first?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re:It's the search for more money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that was his vision why did it take 20 years for Greedo to shoot first? It's not like he didn't have plenty of oppurtunity to do things like that in the original.

      The main point most people I've talked to have put forth, though, is that Han shooting first is a part of his characterization. He's a fucking scoundrel, not a Dudly Do Right.

    4. Re:It's the search for more money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Remeber back when Coke said it was changing the recipe for Coca-Cola? Their sales went through the roof for the ORIGINAL coke!"

      Just a note on this. The New Coke switch was actually a complete disaster, one that at the time hurt Coke a great deal. It was not a gimick or trick; they were honestly trying to "update" the product. The extreme loss in sales resulted in the switch back to "Classic." Any gains they received in the rebound were not "through the roof."

    5. Re:It's the search for more money. by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

      Remeber back when Coke said it was changing the recipe for Coca-Cola? Their sales went through the roof for the ORIGINAL coke!

      Actually, that really was just a dumb mistake. Coke was trying to compete with the growing competitor, Pepsi. As Pepsi drinkers know, Pepsi has more of a duller, sweeter taste compared to Coke's more biting taste, and Coke was trying to replicate that formula since they were losing sales to Pepsi at a rapid rate.

      It was unexpected by everyone that there would be a sudden public uproar over it, so they reintroduced the original Coke. Guess what, sales of that actually went up way more than they had been beforehand. The replacing of the original formula had reminded people how much they liked Coke, and got a lot of people drinking it again. Suddenly, Coke was a mainstay product in people's lives. All because of the replacement of the original formula.

      All the former executives of the time have all stated they *wished* it was really someone's idea, because it would have been a brilliant one, but it really was just a fluke mistake on Coke's part.

    6. Re:It's the search for more money. by griffeymac · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that one, but the scene that I remember that I think is missing is right before Vader kills Obi-Wan. Kenobi says something like "Darth, if you strike me down, I'll be more powerful than even you can imagine." Or some such thing. The VHS that we have of A New Hope doesn't have that dialogue/scene in it.

    7. Re:It's the search for more money. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Remeber back when Coke said it was changing the recipe for Coca-Cola? Their sales went through the roof for the ORIGINAL coke!"

      Yeah, but, if I recall correctly...we NEVER got true original Coke back. The original was pure cane sugar...what you get now is with corn syrup to sweeten it...a cheaper alternative.

      :-(

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:It's the search for more money. by sgant · · Score: 2

      What if like in 1980 or so Orsen Welles decided he didn't like the final cut of "Citizen Kane" and wanted to go back in, shoot some more scenes and re-edit it a little...people would have strung him up!

      Though, in contrast to this, Welles did write notes about re-editing "A Touch of Evil" and in 1998 they did re-edit it and ya know, it was better. But we're talking about Orsen Welles here, Lucas couldn't even walk in his shadow (and Welles cast a big shadow...literally.

      So I guess I see two side of the coin here. I understand that it's Lucas' vision, but I also see him releasing the original cuts in the future also. If not Lucas, then someone like the Criterion Collection may...if they get the rights to it. I mean, there is certainly money to be made here AND critical interest. At least release it for historians.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    9. Re:It's the search for more money. by toastgoddess · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't see this listed as a change in the exhaustive list of Special Edition changes.

      Personally I'm most intrigued by the small decisions - the removal of a flame effect from the shooting of an Imperial Officer, or the translation of the tractor beam label from English to Lucasian. (That was changed in the 2004 edition, not the SE.)

    10. Re:It's the search for more money. by Isca · · Score: 1

      actually, the website you referenced DOES show it as a removed scene. On this page

    11. Re:It's the search for more money. by daBum · · Score: 1

      [conspiracy hat]
      The whole "New Coke" fiasco was a plot by Coca-cola Enterprises to change over to the cheaper "corn syrup" formula, rather than the older "cane sugar" formula. They created something godawful, called it "new coke", and released it, knowing perfectly well there would be a major outcry and they could "change back" (to the corn syrup formula), and gain a major PR point ("the people have spoken, and we listen to the wishes of the people").

      [/conspiracy hat]

      Not that this is necessarily what happened, but it certainly is plausible.

      --
      I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
    12. Re:It's the search for more money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow dude! Did you figure all this out on your own?!? Do you have any other blatently obvious things to share with us?

    13. Re:It's the search for more money. by MarcosL · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who thinks the alteration of tiny littel bits of the movies intends to generate exactly this kind of turmoil to further boost the new version's sales??? Am I the only one who thinks if George Lucas wants to show you his original idea with todays tecnology, let him be, your vote is in your wallet??? Am I the only one who thinks thiniking so much about this stuff does not lead anywhere, it is just a waste of time over what already is supposed to be entertainment, a.k.a. a waste of time???

      --
      MacBook Pro... still a Powerbook.
    14. Re:It's the search for more money. by sgant · · Score: 1

      I agree with you there. How many fans of the original Star Wars...the one's who cry about the changes...that say they're going to go ahead and buy the original trilogy even though they don't like the changes? I've seen quite a few.

      I'm coming from a historical point-of-view. I don't mind the new changes as long as they're done well...BUT also release the original prints to see where it's come from.

      If they're never released in original form, lost is the document of state-of-the-art Special Effects from 1977. There is no touch-stone to show us where we've come from. We look back at King Kong, Forbidden Planet, 2001 and so on to see how special effects have progressed in the cinema. Star Wars was a HUGE boon to special effects, and if those original effects shots are lost due to Lucas "not being happy with them"...well, that's just wrong.

      But after he's dead, they'll come out I'm sure of it.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    15. Re:It's the search for more money. by EvilAlien · · Score: 2, Funny

      This doesn't undo his status as "fucking scoundrel". Its not like Lucas had him save a box of kittens from getting eaten by a Hutt. Failing to shoot first is poor reflexes or a lapse in anticipating your enemy's next move, if anything. All we know is:
      1. Greedo is a lousy shot
      2. Han should have had some coffee or a Red Bull before confronting the little green bastard

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    16. Re:It's the search for more money. by |/|/||| · · Score: 2, Informative
      That line is definitely in my VHS copy. I'm not sure about the special edition, though. I'd be surprised if they took it out.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    17. Re:It's the search for more money. by tnak · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's the way I recall it. You mean it doesn't play that way now??? That sucks. I'm all for releasing "director's cut" editions, but the original release should stay just that.

      Good thing I enjoyed reading more than movies when I was growing up.

    18. Re:It's the search for more money. by toastgoddess · · Score: 1

      actually, the website you referenced DOES show it as a removed scene.

      Are you certain? There's a screenshot from that scene on the page, but the text only discusses

      1. the choice of sound effect for Leia's blaster
      2. the matte painting
      3. the footage from the original 70mm print of Luke missing his first rope toss (mentioned by the original poster)

      I thought the parent meant "didn't they delete the whole scene?", including the kiss for luck. Sorry if I misread it.

    19. Re:It's the search for more money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... you see... they changed the Coca-Cola recipe because cocaine was made illegal...

    20. Re:It's the search for more money. by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      You mean this?

      "The fabled footage from the original 70mm release of Luke throwing the rope and missing once is not restored. "

      I feel better now. I started to believe I had imagined it.

    21. Re:It's the search for more money. by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      Looks like SOMEbody taped a condensed copy of Star Wars when it was on USA or TBS or something....

  75. Congress needs to enact a law by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Funny

    stating that every time someone comes out with a re-release of a classic work, they have to include in it the South Park episode where the boys try to stop George Lucas and Steven Speilberg from ruining classic films by trying to "enhance" them. Maybe they could learn a lesson from that :P

    1. Re:Congress needs to enact a law by Kredal · · Score: 2, Funny

      So wait a minute. They would re-edit the South Park episode to reflect the new changes to classic movies? Wouldn't that be ... well, changing the classic South Park episode? And then they would have to add Matt and Troy to the episode, which would result in a temporal loop from which nobody would ever escape!

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    2. Re:Congress needs to enact a law by keeleysam · · Score: 1

      No, the full episode of south park would be included as a "Special" (read: INFORMATIVE) feature

      --
      Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
    3. Re:Congress needs to enact a law by Kredal · · Score: 1

      Oh, my mistake. I read "include in it the South Park eps" as "include it in..." Sorry. (:

      But it would be funny if they updated the South Park eps!

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  76. Oh goody by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1

    Digitally remastered. Great. 'Cause we all know that digital effects are so much better than, say, models.

    I walked away from Lucas after Phantom. Never going back. No reason to. His movies are crap.

    (tig)

    --
    Ignorance and prejudice and fear
    Walk hand in hand
    1. Re:Oh goody by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      'Cause we all know that digital effects are so much better than, say, models.

      Well, sometimes they can be. Honestly, this anti-CGI prejudice is so silly. They're ALL fake effects. Who really cares if it's a model or computer creation? It's that sort of obsession on the icing that has allowed the cake of movies to become so dry and unsatisfying.

      You're not one of those film geeks who prefers guys in rubber suits to digitally created monsters, are you? Those people just need to be kicked in the balls.

      I walked away from Lucas after Phantom. Never going back. No reason to. His movies are crap.

      You are a true revolutionary, and have made my nipples hard with your bold decision.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    2. Re:Oh goody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not one of those film geeks who prefers guys in rubber suits to digitally created monsters, are you?

      Guys in rubber suits? Not really my taste, but everyone is entitled to his/her own fetish.

      Those people just need to be kicked in the balls.

      Some people might like that too, although you shouldn't assume that

      Rubber-suited gay fetish --> Ball-kicking fetish

      You are a true revolutionary, and have made my nipples hard with your bold decision.

      Now, you don't see anyone here having a go at your sexual, uh.... quirks, do you?

      I think that ends today's lesson.

    3. Re:Oh goody by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      I think that ends today's lesson.

      Judges?

      USA: 1

      Russia: 2

      France: 10

      Romulus: 1

      China: 1

      Shanklin, Isle Of Wight: -7

      Sorry, kid. Try again in 4 years.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    4. Re:Oh goody by The+Infamous+Grimace · · Score: 1

      (Yeah, I know it's been a while since this was written; I've been in the field.)
      No, I'm not anti-CGI. Loved Tron, for instance. Looking forward to Sky Captain. Unfortunately, Lucas seems to be of the mind that a story is irrelevant so long as there is lots o' eye candy.

      You may be of a different mind.

      (tig)

      --
      Ignorance and prejudice and fear
      Walk hand in hand
  77. How long before someone re-edits the new DVDs? by Quizo69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is one silver lining to the new super- duper- special- editions coming out on DVD:

    It is only a matter of time before an enterprising team of audiovisual specialists takes the DVD content and edits it to re-insert the original footage (as was done with Episode I to get rid of Jar Jar). There are thousands of people with the skills and technology to do this, and given the historical importance of the originals (they won Oscars!) deserve nothing less.

    Alternatively, I wonder how much of a donations fund could be set up somewhere, with the full proceeds going to the first Lucasfilm employee (who would then be an ex-Lucasfilm employee) who uploads the cleaned up, ORIGINAL DVD masters to the internet for people to convert to DVD. It might be interesting to see how much money could be raised to do such a thing.

    So, if any Lucasfilm employee wants to become an instant millionaire, here's your chance to nominate a price at which you will upload the cleaned up, original trilogy (which are dead according to Lucas) for the world to turn into proper, ORIGINAL TRILOGY DVDs.

    1. Re:How long before someone re-edits the new DVDs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      homebrewed DVDs of the orginals have already been made from laser discs. it just takes a little looking to find them.

  78. So where is the torrrent? by Snaller · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'm surprised nobody has asked this yet ;-)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  79. Vivid-Schmivid by Deslock · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just get the Asian version of the DVDs of the original series (not SE) and be done with it. Sure, the picture quality isn't as good, but Greedo doesn't shoot first (or "almost simaltaneously" or whatever he does in this new DVD version).

  80. Shoots twice... by dark-br · · Score: 1

    and MISSES twice!!! *That's* the worse, missing a shoot less then 1 meter away right in front of you! Dumb ass bounty hunter!

  81. OT:Completely OT by Paleomacus · · Score: 2, Funny

    I saw your sig and had to post. The power of my UID compels me.

    1. Re:OT:Completely OT by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE!!!

      I've been seeing 666 a lot more (almost daily) since the year 2000.

      That, and light posts keep turning themselves off when I drive under them. Not quite daily, but at least 3 times a week.

      I love the subtle signs of the apocalypse. ;-)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  82. More jokes (groan...) by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    ...Dante shoots first

    ...No wonder Greedo shoots first, it was digitized on a G5!

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  83. 98% of these morons will not only buy the DVD ... by Augusto · · Score: 1

    ... but also watch Episode 3. Most hard core whiners are just hypocrites looking for attention, but they'll buy buy buy and whine whine whine at the same time.

    --

    - sigs are for wimps.
  84. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  85. The best version of Star Wars (in ASCII!!!) by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    Forget about DVD, forget about HD! One of my faves is a work that's still in progress over at ASCIIMATION. Barely better than a flip book, this is clearly a labor of love on the part of the creator. Check it out!

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  86. 6ology by smallguy78 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just wait for the sexology (that's like trilogy but with 6, right?) to come out on a single disc on blu-ray, and save your groats till then.

    --
    Nothing costs nothing
  87. Butchered? by dfj225 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, as a Star Wars fan I tend to dislike some of the changes made in the SE of the original series. So people even go as far as to say that Lucas butchered the series. I don't really see how this could be considered butchering the series. If you enjoyed the movies in their original form, you should still be able to enjoy them now. The core of the movies remains untouched, and only a few scenes had small alterations. Star Wars is still great in my mind, it still has a great story, battles that were way before its time, and an engulfing universe that continues to be expanded today. If a few changes ruined the movies for you, then you must not have enjoyed them that much in the first place.

    --
    SIGFAULT
    1. Re:Butchered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a few changes ruined the movies for you, then you must not have enjoyed them that much in the first place.

      Wrong, asshat. It's precisely because we enjoy them so much -- ALL of the film -- that we don't want it altered and fucked with.

      This really ranks up there on the most idiotic things I've seen posted on Slashdot, GNAA and goatse notwithstanding.

    2. Re:Butchered? by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 1

      At a gala wedding, "I do" is only a small part of the entire ceremony. So changing it to "no" shouldn't alter the wedding at all, should it?

      Note: I am only a marginal Star Wars fan. But I believe ANY alteration to ANY movie classic just to pull in a few more bucks is an abomination that should NOT be tolerated!

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
  88. The good things about getting old by agtwilight · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't think I'll notice the cleans ups or anything - I'm 25 years older also and can't remember what had I had for lunch yesterday.

  89. /. supporting piracy? by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Is there no shame left?

    1. Re:/. supporting piracy? by fr2asbury · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well one could ease his or her conscience by recognizing that one can not actually buy these movies anymore, in any format. Even in music school we were allowed to photocopy music that was out of print. ;-)

    2. Re:/. supporting piracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron

    3. Re:/. supporting piracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight. You're trying to make an ethical dilemma out of trying to download a product that as far as Lucas is concerned DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

      Since Lucas has made it clear that in his mind the un-botched trilogy no longer exists, then what are you getting upset about?

      Additionally, since these materials are no longer available commercially please tell me how money is being lost on a product that is no longer commercially available and that the product's own creator now admits no longer exists in his eyes.

      And the simple fact is that even if peoplpe do download the laserdisc rip, if Lucas announced that it will be released for historical purposes, people will flock to purchase it, especially if it is released on HD-DVD.

      Lucas obviously isn't worrying about this. Why are you?

  90. Has to be said... by rdt21 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    With the obvious exception of Greedo shooting first I actually prefer the Special Edition with all the snazzy special effects.

    Really.

    Both editions should be available, though, for those whose fanaticism is more religious than mine. That is, if LucasFilm even bothered saving a digital version of the original print during the Special Edition restoration.

    1. Re:Has to be said... by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

      With the obvious exception of Greedo shooting first
      I am being serious here.

      I do to, other than Luke screaming as he falls after jumping off the platform in Cloud City, the sly snoodles and other silly Jabba palace extras, and Han now saying "It's Ok I can see much better now" from "It's OK, Trust me" when he's shooting the tentacle off Lando's leg in the pit of Sarlac, and the jumpy editing when adding the new scenes when Vader is leaving cloud city, and of course Greeto cant hit the broad side of a barn shot, I prefer the SE too.

      Pre-SE after Luke jumps off the platform, when Vader says "Bring my shutle" he seems pissed, angry, and seems affected by Luke's rejection. Now Vader says "Inform the Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival" in a "Oh well, my son is jumped off and is probably dead. too bad, so sad" like it doesn't mean anything.

      Anyways, these little changes may seem nitpicky but some of them really changed how some scenes are perceived.

  91. Won't HD have articfacts? by funkdid · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Clue my in if I'm clueless here, but if you convert the grainy low res film of the original star wars to HD won't it not be HD?

    For example if I take pictures with a 2 Megapixel camera, then san the images at some insane resolution, they're still crappy photos.

    --

    I boycott signatures

    1. Re:Won't HD have articfacts? by saddino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your mistake is in thinking that the original film is "grainy low res." Remember, film is analog not digital. Even 35mm film (I believe SW was filmed in 70mm) can be resolved to something like 5000 dpi.

      Lucas did an insane scan of insanely detailed film -- and then this guy mentioned in the article cleaned it up.

  92. Just wait... by natron+2.0 · · Score: 1

    I for one will be waiting until the 6 movie box set is released. why buy the first three now (again) when I can just hold out a another year or two and get all of them in one set, like LOTR. I am still waiting for the Matrix Trilogy box set. I have not purchased Revolutions or Reloaded for that specific reason. Patience my friends...

    1. Re:Just wait... by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Same here!

      Except that I didn't buy Revolutions or Reloaded because they sucked, and won't be buying the trilogy when it comes out.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  93. Photocopy Star Wars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even in music school we were allowed to photocopy music that was out of print. ;-)

    You want to photocopy Star Wars? At 121 minutes and 24 fps, you'll need 349 packs of 500 A4/Legal-sized photocopy paper to copy it onto. Man, and I thought VHS was bulky.

    Plus, imagine how much change you'll need for the university library photocopier.

  94. Piracy, of SW? This is SLASHDOT remember? by superultra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there no shame left?

    No, but only in the sense that every single slashdotter who reads your post has bought essentially the same movie 5 times over. I'd say that after paying for the same flick 4 or 5 times a little fair use is in order?

    Just to piss you off more, here's some more delicious fair use "piracy"

  95. Re:Can this be true High-Def though? by saddino · · Score: 2, Informative

    Uh, no.

    The original print is analog film, which can be a resolved to about 5000dpi -- many more pixels per frame than required for High Def.

    The problem is that the scan is filled with huge artifacts (scratches dirt and dust), and this guy has cleaned up the digital scan to deal with that.

  96. Re:What happens when digital archive discs degrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if the digitized master has to become the "original" how could new improvments in film restoration technology applied again?

    Best (and most sensible) guess; they make a very high resolution scan of the original film, warts-scratches-grains-n'-all, then they retain that unaltered copy.

    Now they make a restored version. If restoration technology improves in subsequent years, they make another restoration using the original scan. The only problem would be where the original scan did not preserve all the information on the film; for ordinary films, we're probably reaching the limit now where it would be nitpicking to say that any remotely visible information would be lost.

    Of course, this assumes that the transfer was at resolution way higher than that of the original film, that it was done *competently* and that there was nothing special about the original film (e.g. the colorspaces of the film itself and the scanner were not identical).

    Please be aware that I do not work in the industry, so I could be talking out of my ass; if so, please provide an explanation of where I went wrong.

  97. You'll be dead first by tepples · · Score: 1

    No, you will die before the copyrights on works first published in 1977 expire.

    In 2073, provided there's no Chastity Bono Act, nothing in copyright law will prevent your great-grandchildren from being able to make copies and derivatives of those parts of the Star Wars universe covered in the original version of episode IV. Trademark law, on the other hand...

    1. Re:You'll be dead first by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      No, you will die before the copyrights on works first published in 1977 expire.

      Yes, I know. The question was hypothetical.

      In 2073, provided there's no Chastity Bono Act...

      Given current trends, there very well could be, hence the "by some miracle..."

      So, then, given the original copyright actually expires, could my great-grandchildren create a derivative Star Wars story with Luke Skywalker as a character if Luke is still under the copyright of Lucas's re-re-release derivative work?

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
  98. It's the prequels, stupid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but Lucas has to enhance the original trilogy so it fits seamlessly with the prequels. Future generations will watch Episodes I-VI in chronological order and will expect the effects and the look of them to be consistent. And they won't give a rat's what the "Star Wars Generation" thinks.

    Like Lucas always said, movies are never completed, just abandoned. We are now seeing his original vision, that he did not have the technology to realise at the time.

  99. how about you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about you shut the fuck up instead, please? See how I was all nice in putting a please on my shut the fuck up? It isn't polite to ask someone to shut the fuck up without asking nicely.

    I'll start by saying Star Wars isn't my religion either. Yeah, I make jokes referencing it, etc. That's all fine. But I don't own any memorabilia, or even any tapes/DVDs either.

    I'll pretty much finish by saying this. Maybe you don't take up every cause in this world. But that doesn't mean it's your job to shit on them either. There are a lot of people who care about what Lucas has done wrong. In the very least this concept of revisions of movies (lets include E.T. and other movies too) is an interesting social phenemonena. We can talk of it in the context of art. We can compare art to the canonical art, paintings. We can even discuss it in the context of our childhoods.

    The important thing is we can discuss it. If you aren't interested, feel free to ignore the discussion. Don't feel free to control it or quash it. If it's not for you, it's probably for someone else. Don't elect yourself decision maker for them.

  100. Definitive?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you've got a neurotic need to own the "definitive version", then you'd better resign yourself to buying a new version every couple of years.

    If you're buying a new version every two years, then they can't be very "definitive", can they?

  101. That's Not True... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Windows ME to name one... can't think of any others off-hand...Anyone want to pipe up with some? Who are we to complain that he goes back to work on it? People with brains and mouths. Who are we NOT to complain. But tne complaint as I see it is that he isn't releasing High Quality versions of the original unedited for content version.

  102. Award by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    In this version, they shoot almost simultaneously (boys, boys), so close that Greedo's first shot could be a mere relativistic side-effect of photons crossing at a certain angle.

    You have my vote for the "best rationalizaton ever" reward.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  103. Odd eh? by DarkMantle · · Score: 1

    From the Article... "Especially prevalent were scratches and dirt on the Tatooine sand dune scenes in Episode IV"

    Are they sure it wasn't supposed to be there?

    --
    DarkMantle I been bored, so I started a blog.
  104. Great, however... by cmacw · · Score: 1

    They have basically stopped using Mac for digital creation at ILM from what I have heard. I have a good friend that works there. He worked on the last Star Wars on a Mac. Came back to ILM to work on the next one and its all PC's all the time over there now. Not a Mac to be found. :(

    1. Re:Great, however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's PCs running Linux, I presume?

      As seen in the Episode III "webdocs" on The Official Site http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii, the concept art and animatics departments are exclusively Mac (mainly PowerBooks). And good to see Photoshop creator and effects supremo John Knoll is still a Mac man!

  105. Re:sugar'd coke by daBum · · Score: 1

    From what I've been told by my Jewish friends, around passover (March?), in large Jewish areas, Coke sells it's original formula (cane sugar). It has something to do with the fact that corn syrup can't be made kosher, and cane sugar can. Since this time of the year requires many people to be kosher, they could only drink "kosher coke"... So CCE sells the cane sugar formula.

    Of course, they could be lying to me...

    --
    I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
  106. Re:What happens when digital archive discs degrade by shotfeel · · Score: 1

    If you find a 100 years old film sitting in an attic you'll be able to watch it pretty easily while I doubt you'll be able to do anything beside a decorative object of a 8" floppy disk, a 2" video tape or a vintage computer tape reel. So how will it be for a DVD 50 years from now?


    Pretty good I would say.

    Do you really think anyone would be able to view a 100 year old film stored in an attic? Very few people have the equipment to do that now, while there are millions of DVD players around. not to mention the fact that you're not going to want to run that fragile film through the usual mechanical playback/copying mechanisms.

    One factor that everyone seems to ignore is the sheer simplicity of moving the digital data not only from one disk to another, but from one format to another. The difficulty with film is seen in the efforts it takes to try to restore the original to something resembling what it looked like when new -a lot of info has already been lost.

    WRT your last point, that is a problem. The other side of the coin is that the longer you wait to do the restoration/digitization, the worse shape the film will be in.

  107. sweeeet by comet69 · · Score: 1

    i like how Star Wars has their own little icon :-)

    --
    - Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
  108. Re:What happens when digital archive discs degrade by jaoswald · · Score: 1

    If you find a 100 years old film sitting in an attic you'll be able to watch it pretty easily

    Actually, if you find a 100 year old motion picture, the film base was probably celluose nitrate. After 100 years, there is a very good chance you'll have nothing left but a dark brown, extremely flammable, acidic powder. Even if you have film, it is extremely hazardous and fragile. Hardly "easy."

    Even for film that is only 60 years old, it is likely to be on acetate base, which degrades into acetic acid (vinegar), which doesn't provide much support for the emulsion.

    Which doesn't even touch the topic of the degradation of color dyes in color film.

  109. get over yourself by I+judge+you · · Score: 1
    Ian Caven is a regular member of the Vancouver Python User's Group and he spoke about this amazing system at our conference a month ago.

    There are other amazing facts but it is hard to know which are competitive secrets that are better not divulged.

    Dude, get a fucking grip - it was at a fucking phython user's group, not the stonecutter's leet brunch meeting.

  110. Re:Forget the DVD's...suprnova by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    those torrents are on suprnova as well with a few hundred downloading them. get em while they're hot!

  111. Mac by mortation · · Score: 1

    Macs rock, star wars?? Well not so much :P

  112. $70? by Qamle · · Score: 1

    70 DOLLARS!? Crap, now it looks like I have to steal this.

  113. Re:sugar'd coke by jebell · · Score: 1

    I'm not Jewish, but my understanding is that there's regular old "kosher" and then there's "kosher for Passover," which has much stricter dietary restrictions. During Passover, the rules severely restrict eating grain-based products like corn and its derivatives, including corn syrup. Thus, we have the "kosher" Coca-Cola - with no corn syrup - sold during Passover.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  114. Of course it can. by raygundan · · Score: 1

    Another poster already pointed out that film is more than good enough to make HD versions, and he's right. Your analogy is a bit flawed: it's not like converting 8-track to CD, it's like converting an analog 2" reel-to-reel master to CD, which is what many studios have been doing for years. It may be analog, but it's of significantly higher quality than the digital media we're converting to.

  115. Damn you George Lucas!!! by cryptochrome · · Score: 1

    Personally I'm all for cleaning up effects (like the transparencies and the wampa), and don't even mind adding in deleted scenes like the one with Han and Jabba in the first movie (although I thought it was better without, makes his appearance in ROTJ better).

    Hell, Greedo can even shoot first for all I care. Compared to all those cops with walkie-talkies in ET, it's a minor alteration.

    But I'll be damned if I'll ever accept that tacky musical number "Jedi Rocks" in Jabba's palace in ROTJ.

    --

    ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

  116. Re:What happens when digital archive discs degrade by Carnildo · · Score: 1

    Do you really think anyone would be able to view a 100 year old film stored in an attic? Very few people have the equipment to do that now,

    I don't, but I figure I can build a projector in about an hour -- film is one of those media with what is known as a "self-documenting format", sort of like photographs or writing on paper.

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  117. haha by Whatthehellever · · Score: 1

    The digital resoration found that Vader did not say "Luke, I am your father", he really said "I'm Bi with your father."

    No wonder Luke screamed "No!"

    They should have cleaned those prints a long time ago.

    --

    ---
    IMHO, of course.
    May the SOURCE be with you.
  118. People sometimes become decadent by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

    George Lucas said this was the movie he wanted to make.

    No, he made the movie he wanted to make, he's changing it to be the movie he would want to make now.
    Look at the side by side comparison of the additional changes from 1997. Do you really believe they didn't have the technology to realise his vision to shave off people's eyebrows 20 years ago? Or is it that his vision has changed since then?

    Why are you guys bitching that he's stomping on your childhood when you're stomping on his vision?

    There wouldn't be a problem if he released both versions and let money do the talking. People aren't stomping on his vision, we bitch because he's not giving us what we want: his original vision. Not his revised vision after 20 years and tons of money and power. A youg man's vision is different from the vision of an old guy with his own firetruck.

    So what if Greedo shoots first?

    He's four feet away! How incompetant can you be? He misses a sitting target 4ft away from him. This is what Jaba hires as muscle? Ooooo, I'm so scared.
    That Jabba must be one hell of a looser then. Hey, what's this, a scene with Jabba. He lets people litterally walk all over him! Oh, big scary mobster! I'm shaking in my boots.

    In the original, Jabba is an unseen mobster who's henchmen are beast dealt with by shooting them in cold blood and getting the hell away from the planet. In the revised edition, he's some 2 bit slug with the worst henchmen half a sandwich can buy.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  119. Greedo Speaks! by Kong99 · · Score: 1
    Easy for you to say but then again I guess your not Greedo are you?!?!

    Well I am and all I $#%^! hear is "Han shot first", or "you cheater shooting first", or worse, "Greedo, you are one suck *ss lousy shot"! I am sick of it! I wasn't the director, I had no say in how the scene was shot, I tried but George threatened me, said I'd never get another job in Hollywood again!! Boy he sure wasn't kidding...Hell I can't even speak any form of human language! Either $@%#! way I get my ass blasted into oblivion, I mean Han didn't even get wounded!So what is the problem here!??!

    I feel damn lucky I got an action figure made of me!!

  120. But the real question is.... by artnoc · · Score: 1

    How many Library of Congress's is that?

    --
    -Dave
  121. bit of an overstatement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    378 terrabytes? That's the storage array, not the size of the film.

    Quick calculations put 6 hrs of 1080p (not bloody likely) at 86 terrabytes totally uncompressed, plus music.

    Hmm, now that I think about it, I can understand why that HD-Tivo costs so damn much.

  122. So what if Greedo shoots first? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mother of all trolls...

  123. HD by Mike+Hicks · · Score: 1

    Heh. I was browsing around Target's electronics department and an ad for the new Star Wars DVD set came on. Mr. Movie Voice said "The ultimate series in the ultimate format." But I knew it was only the penultimate format at best. We'll see how long it takes the HD DVDs to come out now.

  124. George Lucas is a cnut... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  125. Re:What happens when digital archive discs degrade by gabuzo · · Score: 1

    You're right but that's not really my point. Both digital and film are plagued by the preservation of the physical support: you outline pretty well the problem with film and /. readers have probably heard of glue problem in double layer DVDs, fading dyes on DVD-R, etc.

    But if you are lucky enough to find a film in pretty good shape you could always learn something by simply looking at the backlit frames while you'll have to build a player to know the slightest thing about the digital media.

  126. i'm sure you've found this already... by slappyjack · · Score: 1

    ...but this is pretty good stuff.

    http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2374

    enjoy.

  127. Lucas NOT a re-release whore?! Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shame on you all!

    Lucas has had the gall to sanction multiple VHS releases of the original Trilogy in the 1990's!

    Original, widescreen, remastered original, remastered widescreen, box sets, alternate covers.... blah blah.

    And another thing....
    In the face of a truly mighty movie triolgy that is based on a coherent plot and mighty mythos Star Wars looks anemic. Gandalf rocks.

  128. Finally! A sensible comment! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give the man a prize!

    Changing any part of any movie is plain wrong. If Lucas is unhappy with his own third-rate-no-brain-sci-fi-nerd-em-up then you know what? He should REMAKE the whole damn series. He has the money. He has the technology. He can afford an actor instead of Mark "The Whine" Hammill (Having said that Hayden Wassisname has to be THE WORST ACTOR since Keanu).

    Remakes generally suck but at least we can laugh at Marky Mark and sit back with a DVD of Charlton Heston, safe in the knowledge that no one has tinkered with the film, changing dialogue, music or even adding whole new scenes.

    I think that we are all within our rights to complain about the digital hack-job that Lucas has performed on his movies (and Spielberg too for that matter. I mean have you SEEN E.T. lately?!). Would we stand for the butchering of other 'classic' movies? Of course not.

    Dont Buy Them

  129. What about Greedo's Hair! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just loved Greedo's Hair after he got hit with the blaster.