Slashdot Mirror
Lucas Promises Star Wars on Blu-Ray in 2011
Several readers have written with word that George Lucas has announced a 2011 release date for the Star Wars series — all six films — on Blu-Ray. Engadget (linked) has an explanation of what to expect, and includes a video of a deleted scene that the Blu-Ray version will include. They warn that this might be a disappointment to anyone who (correctly) believes that Han shot first.
See your childhood memories die in brilliant digital picture!
That's impossible - only three Star Wars films were ever made.
... and then they built the supercollider.
George. Get the hint. Even if you aren't happy with your creation years ago - WE ARE
I will not buy anything without original footage, with solo shooting.
I'll keep my "original" trilogy dvd set until format is dead or he gets some balls
and give us what we all want - Choice of either or, or both
I bought an 'extra scenes' edition of the Original Three, which was gathering dust in my closet. A girl I rented out to said that she really wanted to watch Star Wars because, you know, "it's boy territory but she really wanted to see what it was all about". So I popped in film 1.
It turns out that the 'extra scenes' all came at the start of the movie - when R2D2 and C3P0 have just landed and are wandering around in the desert.
And they wander and wander and wander and wander.
Eternity is two robots and sand.
There is nothing but sand.
And robots.
For about half an hour.
She fell asleep and didn't want to see the rest. Epic fail.
Seriously, how many different versions will the fanbois pay money for? No matter how you feel about Greedo shooting first, doesn't owning four different box sets already make dumping $150 on another seem as silly as rebuilding your basement into the Emperor's Throne Room?
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
I mean, a couple years ago? Maybe. Now? No. So what's changed? Well, I've gotten older, there are better movies out there that I'd spend my money on, and frankly, I'm tired of producers yanking our chains with new versions every couple years.
So no. I will not be buying this, as I suspect will be the general refrain from his target base.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
As I commented on Engadget:
Originals == Buy.
Special Edition == 1080p MKV DTS torrent.
That and the decent Laserdisc rips of the originals will have to do, I guess.
Trolling is a art,
Depends on one's definition of "culturally relevant". They're good movies, but will never be viewed in the same category as something like Casablanca. Then again, there are a hell of a lot of people today who haven't seen that movie and have no interest in doing so, so there's a legitimate argument that even the movies which are considered classics are not culturally relevant any more.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
The films largely are the same from their 70's/80's versions and the 90's enhanced versions. It's not like in the middle of A New Hope that Obi Wan decides to stop with this whole turning off the tractor beam business and start selling Amway to the storm troopers.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Call me crazy, but is Star Wars even culturally relevant anymore? It feels like Disco at this point.
It is very much so, at least around here. Talk to virtually any 5-10 year old boy, and he will be very familiar with Star Wars. My own children went though a period of being fans, so I witnessed first-hand that it is still very appealing to young minds. It is such an elementary human story, put on in a very engaging production. I suspect that it will culturally relevant for generations.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
Gonna be completely honest here. I was young when the first Star Wars came out and watched it. When the Special Edition came out, I was older and enjoyed it also. Not until a few years later did I hear the words "Han shot first!" or something to similar effect. I always wondered what the hell people were talking about until I looked on the Internet one day and someone pointed out the scene in question. That's right, I never noticed that Han DIDN'T shoot first in the Special Edition. For that matter, I never even noticed in the original when I was younger that Han DID shoot first. I never noticed... or really cared. All that mattered to me is that Han blasted Greedo in the cantina. To this day I still don't really care and find it one of the more sillier things fanboys complain about. I mean, I see people's logic as to why but to me Han had his blaster out. He's gonna kill a bitch in that scene. The exact moment, if he does it before or after Greedo attempts to shoot, for the most part seems irrelevant to me. Feel free to call me a troll or whatever and point out the fallacy in establishing Han's character. That scene doesn't ruin Han's badassness for me or the movie for that matter. I still thoroughly enjoy it and Han's character.
Jar-Jar shoots Greedo.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
As a huge Star Wars geek, I've hated almost any discussion of the films I've been involved in since the prequels came out. I liked the prequels, especially Episode III, which is by far Lucas' best film. Just because you have fond childhood memories of the originals doesn't mean the prequels suck. Why is it that everyone acts as if the original three Star Wars films were perfect? They can be scrutinized just as much as the prequels have been. How is it that Darth Vader didn't sense Han coming up behind him when he was about to shoot down Luke in Episode IV? What happened to the force? What happened to Vader being the best pilot in the galaxy? Why didn't Obi-Wan kill Vader rather than sacrificing himself? He claimed that in death he would be more powerful, but his ghost did the same thing he did in life: guide Luke. We later learn that Luke never has the power to take on the Emperor himself, so wouldn't it have been better to eliminate Vader and then team up with Yoda and Luke and go after the Emperor? And for those who complain about Jar-Jar, I have one word: Ewoks. The entire series is riddled with plot-holes and silliness, but that's okay with me because IT'S A SILLY SCI-FI ADVENTURE. People are able to disregard that fact because, as a child, it was so much more. But as much as everyone wanted to revert back to that childhood mindset when they went to see the prequels, they couldn't, because like it or not they'd matured and the silliness of it all became apparent.
I feel the same way about Indiana Jones. How is the Crystal Skull any more silly than Temple of Doom? And the Holy Grail one was just absurd on every level. If you want to watch a serious Lucas film, watch THX-1138.
Concerning Star Wars, I'll always view the prequels as better, despite my fond childhood memories of the originals. The originals were so black and white, good vs. evil. The only intellectually intriguing moments was when Vader turned on the Emperor, and that lasted like 5 minutes. Episode III gave a deeper meaning to the entire series. A balance between good and evil can never be achieved when one group (Sith or Jedi) is in power. In the end, their allegiance is to an absolute adherence to their ideals, not to what they know in their heart to be right. Compromising men are the only effective governors, men like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian. Men who have vices but have a good heart. But Han and Lando are just presented as bumbling adventurers, it's not until the prequels that their greater significance is realized. It's not until the prequels until we are told that "the Jedi aren't all that," a message that many fans probably didn't want to here.
All this directly ties into politics: we want our politicians to be Jedis. To be free of vice, absolute to their ideals, and courageous. But setting such impossible standards is what makes politics as a whole so dishonest. It's what makes distinguishing between a Sith and Jedi nearly impossible. So we never understand the motives of our politicians because they're so cold an calculating, whether for good or for bad.
Maybe that's not the best explanation of the prequel's theme but that's also what makes them so good: there are so many different angles one can view them from. With the originals, it's black and white. The final declarative message clearly deals with paternity, something like, "nothing can destroy a father's love for his son." I just find the prequel haters to be so ungrateful. Lucas not only made the films, but he added elements that went beyond the simple adventurism. If you didn't like the end product, don't hate on Lucas for it, it's HIS saga, not yours.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Honestly the first 3 were just as targeted. We look at them thru rose colored glasses at this point. Dont watch them for e few years come back and watch them anew. You will see the first one is rather dull and boring with a whiney guy. The second one is a bit better written with some motivation thrown in for the chars this time. The third was a giant effects fest. Sound familiar?
The problem the newer 3 have is pacing. Trim out about 30 mins out of each movie and they would be much better. Lucas is an old school 70s director. Pacing is slow and deliberate. Not what is currently in fashion of moving the the plot along at a fairly good clip. Probably the biggest eye opener of this effect is watching the extras on Ace Ventura. The director said 'I could loose a half hour of this movie and still tell the same story but jim was just too funny not to show all of this'. Many movies get all caught up on themselves and keep telling the same point over and over. A 30 min pod race in the middle of the movie did NOTHING to advance the plot. Next time you watch it, skip it. You will find the movie is much better. The second one was such a snooze fest I do not know if it could be edited to make it better. The only thing it did was make the motivations in the 3rd one better. That one probably wouldnt need much lost out of it.
But overall they are targeted to 8-15 year olds. Just like the previous set. It was truly a rinse and repeat.
Probably the worst thing that ever happened to Lucas was that he got rich. Which removed some of his real creativity. What would we have seen from him if he had actually had to work at his craft. For example I would say his equal of Steven Spielberg really worked at what he had to do. He kept up the relentless pace of making whatever he did better than what he worked on before. Lucas got lazy and fell back onto merchandising (hence the basic re-re-release of star wars on blu ray which is the same as the dvd set).
But considering what will come out on bluray is almost exactly the same as what is currently on DVD. Hmm, guess I will wait some more (and trust me I am not shy about buying dvds or bluray). I do however tend not to rebuy things. At this point I am only slightly mildly interested in re-buying this. I already own the thing 3 times over. I would only be interested in the originals in decent enough quality to merit bluray or dvd. This is your basic shovel of what they already have. They scanned it high quality ages ago. Now it is just a bluray reencode and small menu tweak. Yawnski
Right, but what answer do you expect to the question "is Disco really culturally relevant anymore" from alt.fan.disco? That is, you're not crazy for asking, it's asking that question _here_ that makes you crazy.
but if you can stand living in a world where Greedo shot first
I can't.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
If you liked the prequels that's fine but we are also entitled to our opinions. I thought they sucked. 3 was marginally ok, 1 was just incredibad. If you want some specifics:
1) The acting. Just bad, bad, bad. This was probably partially the bad writing, partially directing, partially the fact that they were almost always on complete green screens. The combination just adds up to an extremely unconvincing performance from most of the actors. Also some were just flat out bad actors for the roles. The child Anikan was -horrible-. Anikan is supposed to be some hardened, badass slave kid and we get a kid who plays him as a happy go lucky middle class white boy.
2) The writing. As I said the writing is very poor. The dialogue is really bad. Most of it does not feel natural and appropriate, it feels forced. The love scene dialogue in #2 is one of the very worst of all. There's plenty of non-dialogue related badness though, such as the space fight scene at the end of #1 where Anikan is just "playing" effectively and yet kicking ass. Rather than show him as extremely competent with supernatural talents, as you'd expect given the backstory, he is presented as a bumbling kid that happens to be lucky and manages to do what is needed by accident.
3) The story. It was a shitty story arc. You had some just flat out retarded shit like the miticholrians, but over all the story was just bad. In particular the final part of Anikan's conversion to Vader was trite, forced, unbelievable, and poorly developed. It was a massively rushed conclusion that seemed stuck on to a meandering story to try and make it connect to the later films.
I could go on, but I really don't need to because someone already did an excellent and extremely lengthy (and funny) analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI There's one on EP2 as well.
"don't hate on Lucas for it, it's HIS saga, not yours."
Oh please, of all the cop out lines this is the worst "You can't criticize this because you didn't make it!" That is the same as saying "You can't criticize the government because you aren't the president!" Fuck you, it was MY time and MY money I sure as hell can criticize and I can can refuse to spend more on it. You can get down on your knees and blow Lucas and worship everything he does but you cannot demand I do the same. I get to have my own opinions and my opinion is that the prequels suck.
Call me crazy, but is Star Wars even culturally relevant anymore? It feels like Disco at this point.
Ask your average boy who is 4-8 years old how relevant Star Wars is. I teach pre-K Sunday School, and I can tell you that Star Wars is extremely popular, especially the prequel/Clone Wars stuff. It is weird to get kids whose favorite character is "Obi-Wan". For more details on the how relevant Star Wars is there is a great article by Emily Bazelon called Why does Star Wars still take over the minds of small boys? http://www.slate.com/id/2215160
They're good movies,
Not really, no.
I hardly need to argue that point for the newer three.
As for the original three, they are bad movies made just about bearable by (a) Harrison Ford and/or (b) being 15 or under.
Outside of nerd circles this is obvious. Inside nerd circles this is obscured by (somewhat ironically) the very same mindset that the very same nerds loudly decry in the smuggest possible terms whenever they observe it in anybody else: such as fans of sports teams, Bieber, American Idol, or whatever else. Namely, it's something people have in common. Drivel, but because it's shared drivel, it provides a platform for conversation, in-jokes, feelings of group identification and so on.
The actual quality of what is in common is irrelevant, only that it is in common. But once something becomes key to a tribal identity, it's impossible to get people to analyse it objectively, and because nobody likes to admit they base their tribal identification upon childish drivel, they will come up all sorts of long-winded justifications for why it is not.
when the first trilogy ended with dancing teddy bears.
Sup, Trekkie.
Watch "A New Hope", for the scene where Obi-Wan tells Luke he knew Luke's father in the Clone Wars. That's a classic throw away line. The writer thinks, "Where could they know each other from? I know, they were in the army together. Hey, it's SF, do they even have an army? Well, space navy or whatever... Anyhoo, they were in the war together. That oughtta fit with the title. We got this new rebellion, and now I should mention older wars so Star Wars makes more sense. Vietnam? No it's space, so they were in a spacy sounding war together. Hey, how about 'Clone Wars'?"
At that point. Lucas has no idea who or what the clones were clones of, which side the clones fought on, or anything else about the Clone Wars, just that they give the film a feel that fits his title. Later, when he writes sequels, prequels, and Christmas specials, he goes back to look for hooks that can anchor them into the same universe, and decides to make this one of his hooks.
That's not bad writing. It's also not good writing in and of itself. A half way competent writer normally asks some questions that don't follow from the basic plot ("OK, so Agent Clarice eventually stops Lecter, but what makes her succeed when others have failed? She's more committed. Why is she more committed? She really empathises with victims. I'd better write a scene to emphasise that." The writer looks for chances to fit that scene in, and a month later, realises he hasn't written a scene where Lecter tries his special mind screwing powers on Clarice yet, and realises he could probably combine the two. A week after that, the writer realises what the title of his work should be.). These days, college writing courses will teach people to add detail or individual touches to any line that comes out as cliched as "They met in the war" does in the short form. Lots of writers have learned, if you do this, you also automatically create hooks you can go back to if you want a sequel or whatever. Once it's clear that Kirk and Spock went through the academy together, a prequel about those days becomes an easier option. If the original throw away line says the academy is in Frisco, there's a setting for the new story, already picked. (Remember, for Trek, it was part of the basic rules not to show Trek era Earth, so references to where the academy was were never expected to be all that important until that rule was changed. In that case, the throw away nature of the line is more obvious than most.)
Who is John Cabal?
In this version Han shoots first and last!
Few people realize that Han Solo was using a quantum blaster. Upon the first viewing of the state of the shots fired, it appeared that Han shot first. In reality, the quantum state had a 50% chance of Han shooting first, and a 50% chance of Greedo shooting first. When Lucas remastered the movie, the observation of the quantum state rendered it as Greedo shooting first. So there was actually no change made to the movie.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
The film's original negative was in bad condition in 1997 (color fading badly) when they took it out of the can for the creation of the special edition, and they actually spliced in restorations, and inter-prints that were better quality that the damaged original, along with the new optical composites from the camera negatives, and the 'special edition enhancements' into the original negative of the film to create a new 'original negative'. After the SE film release, all prints of the original film still in circulation (always owned by the studio) were recalled and probably destroyed. There is no more Star Wars-The Original Version.
In 2004, to do a DVD release, they digitally scanned the film and did digital restoration to make a 1080p restored master (no, not 2k or 4k or even 8k, 1080p is the new digital master) with scratches and dirt digitally removed, along with the color being re-timed badly. This 1080p version is now the canon, It has been show as the HD version on tv and printed on film for further cinematic releases, and the Blu-ray will probably get a hardly-fixed version of this digital transfer. You will not see Star Wars again in the original version: the original movie no longer exists (a very awesome long article about the quality and treatment of the original Star Wars negatives.)