Slashdot Mirror


Star Wars Coming To Blu-ray In September

wiredog writes "A bundle of all six movies will sell for $139.99, while sets of the original three films, and the three prequels, will go for $69.99 apiece. Obsessive types can pre-order them on Amazon now. Han shot first!"

419 comments

  1. Finally.. by xTK-421x · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can be at my post in *HD*!

    --
    "TK-421, why aren't you at your post?"
    1. Re:Finally.. by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Well, I won't be replacing my eight year old TV until it croaks, but I do plan on buying a Blu-Ray. Why? My DVD player is on its last legs; it's been incapable of playing a rented movie for a while now, and has even started stuttering on my own discs, so it's time to replace it.

      With Blu-Ray's smaller beams, it seems to me that it should play DVDs a lot longer than Blu_rays, since the beam target is so much smaller on a Blu-Ray.

      But I won't be buying Star Wars on Blu-Ray even if my TV goes titsup and I buy a hidef. I saw the star wars movies in the theater, paid for the tape, paid again for the DVD, and since the unmolested versions of EPsIV-VI aren't in high definition anyway, it doesn't make sense to replace the DVDs.

      I'm not sure if I'll buy any Blu-Ray discs at all; seems that it should take far less damage for a Blu-Ray to play then a DVD, considering the bit density.

    2. Re:Finally.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      "Well, I won't be replacing my eight year old TV until it croaks, but I do plan on buying a Blu-Ray. Why? My DVD player is on its last legs; it's been incapable of playing a rented movie for a while now, and has even started stuttering on my own discs, so it's time to replace it."

      This Xmas, I gave myself a gift....a bluray player, but in the form of a Sony Playstation.

      I looked at prices, and a standalone, wireless, 3D bluray player that can stream netflix..was in the $200 or so range. (roughly, name branded).

      I looked at the Sony PS3, and saw the same functionality plus...it played games on the side, came bundled with a Bluray dvd (karate kid or something) and a couple of games (Uncharted 2 and some other downloadable one) for only $299....online with no tax and free shipping.

      So far, it is a great player and I like streaming my netflix stuff.

      I've actually tried playing some games, and as I mentioned on other thread the other day...WOW, these things sure have come a long way since PONG.

      :)

      I used to be good at video games as a kid, but I'm having a hell of a time memorizing what all all these buttons and joysticks do, but will learn it. I just keep getting killed a lot.

      Anyway, you might consider looking into this. I feel I got a pretty good deal.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Finally.. by EdZ · · Score: 1

      With Blu-Ray's smaller beams, it seems to me that it should play DVDs a lot longer than Blu_rays, since the beam target is so much smaller on a Blu-Ray.

      BD players play DVDs using a DVD laser module.

    4. Re:Finally.. by masmullin · · Score: 1

      Sorry, did you just say you "rent" movies?

      Netflix biotch! NETFLIX!

    5. Re:Finally.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but Sony lost my business forever* since my daughter installed their XCP rootkit in my PC. There's no way I could ever trust them again, especially since the latest gaffe (taking OtherOS away from the PS3).

      I can imagine all sorts of mischief Sony could pull with an internet-connected device, so there's no way I'll ever own one. Not even if it was ten bucks.

      * Or until someone from Sony goes to prison for "accessing a protected computer" in the first instance or goes to prison for consumer fraud in the second.

    6. Re:Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can be at my post in *HD*!

      What edition are you watching?? In mine, you're NOT at your post.

    7. Re:Finally.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot doesn't show anon posts - it's fucked.

    8. Re:Finally.. by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

      Save some money. Buy a hard drive and a WDTV.

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

      Well, hell, thanks for the info... I'll hold of on the BD then, since my TV's an old analog model and won't display the higher resolution anyway.

    10. Re:Finally.. by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      EdZ addresses your laser spot size misconception below, but also, blu rays have a hardcoat that makes them a lot more resistant to scratches and damage than DVDs. Online DVD purchases that arrive loose in the case invariably have to be returned for damage. I have yet to find a BD with damage of the many I receive loose in the case.

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

      I don't rent 'em often enough to pay Netflix ten bucks a month; I have a pretty big collection of movies.

      The last two I tried to rent was Avatar and Surrogates, those are probably the only two rentals I got all of last year. Still trying to find good copies for sale, 'cause they were both "keepers".

    12. Re:Finally.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Damn... first EdZ says something that makes me no longer want BD, now you say I shouldn't only buy a BD, but disks as well?

      Shit!

    13. Re:Finally.. by socz · · Score: 1

      For me, it's like waiting for the newest andorid phone... I'll just wait until the next best thing comes out, and upgrade to that. So I'll be skipping BR myself!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    14. Re:Finally.. by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      Well, hell, thanks for the info... I'll hold of on the BD then, since my TV's an old analog model and won't display the higher resolution anyway.

      If you like watching movies, or sports events, or whatever else floats your boat, an HD setup is worth it. Cheap nowadays, too. One can buy a 40+ inch 1080p TV for around $800 according to my last visit to Best Buy, Target, and a few other retailers in my area. Blu-ray players cost around $80 at the low end, and of course you can spend much more for more features. I bought mine around a year ago for about $120: it does not have wireless, but does stream Netflix, Blockbuster, Pandora, and something else I haven't bothered with.

      Whether or not it is worth spending $140 to watch Greedo shoot first in 1080p is another matter entirely...

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    15. Re:Finally.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      One can buy a 40+ inch 1080p TV for around $800

      And it keeps getting cheaper. I paid $1k for my forty two inch Trinitron in 2002. Looks like in a couple of years I'll get a bigger one for cheaper.

  2. The Right Way by SethThresher · · Score: 5, Funny

    In this edition, obi wan shoots first.

    1. Re:The Right Way by Fibe-Piper · · Score: 3, Funny

      When I read the headline "Starwars Coming..." I think the entire galaxy shot first.

      --
      I went to battle M.C. Escher, but drew a blank.
    2. Re:The Right Way by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      No, in this version Han will shoot first, but all his blaster will do is shoot out a little flag that says "ZAP" on it.

    3. Re:The Right Way by jimbolauski · · Score: 3

      It would be nice to be able to have the option to watch the originals in an unperverted format, I would consider forking over $140 if that is an option, if that's not an option it's not worth the upgrade from the DVDs.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    4. Re:The Right Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, in this version Han reaches for his blaster, and finds a walkie-talkie in the holster.

    5. Re:The Right Way by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. That will be later on a different BluRay edition so you can but it again.

    6. Re:The Right Way by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      No. That will be later on a different BluRay edition so you can but it again.

      quite Freudian there.

    7. Re:The Right Way by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Um, in the original version Obiwan did shoot first, if you consider his cutting off that alien's arm "shooting".

      And Solo didn't shoot first, since for him to shoot "first" Greedo would have had to shoot, and Greedo didn't shoot at all. He was killed before he could get a shot off.

    8. Re:The Right Way by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      This time the "ghost" scene will contain Anakin and Obi-Wan from the Clone Wars series.

    9. Re:The Right Way by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Um, in the original version Obiwan did shoot first, if you consider his cutting off that alien's arm "shooting".

      Poor Ponda Baba. That was his drawing arm, too!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    10. Re:The Right Way by aix+tom · · Score: 3, Funny

      And Jar-Jar ducks out from under the table with Han's Blaster "Yousa dropped something", and then both Han and Greedo Shoot Jar-Jar and then drink a beer together.

    11. Re:The Right Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please, they are called wookie-tookie in that universe.

      Can somebody give me a wookie-cookie now?

    12. Re:The Right Way by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      No. That will be later on a different BluRay edition so you can but it again.

      And it will just be a Laserdisc rip like the DVD version.

    13. Re:The Right Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you're saying you didn't like that god-forsaken extra song added in with Jabba the Hutt?

    14. Re:The Right Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that Han no longer uses a blaster is this version; he uses his fists!
      Additionally, he also only fights after a loved one is killed or brutally assaulted.

      The new and "improved" Solo will be performed by none other than CHUCK NORRIS!!!

    15. Re:The Right Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately that would still mean he's in the prequels.

    16. Re:The Right Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled butt ;P

    17. Re:The Right Way by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately in the process of doing the original re-masters in the mid 90s they processed the film in a irreversible way. Chemical cleaning, re-development and re-cutting all took their toll and the digital stuff was only done at SD resolution. The only way they could do a full HD is by re-digitising and re-re-mastering it. Effects that looked good then will look terrible in HD so they will have to use CGI too.

      Best bet if you want to see the originals is to find a mint VHS copy or a Laserdisc. In fact I'm surprised some fan has not digitised the Laserdisc version and uploaded it to The Pirate Bay yet.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Which Verson??? by bstory · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can I see the original theater version or do I have to watch parodies of the original?

    1. Re:Which Verson??? by Servaas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well you don't have to -anything- to be frank. But you can't complain about parodies if you keep buying the crap over and over. Yes Lucas is a douche, but on the other hand why not take easy money from suckers?

    2. Re:Which Verson??? by kenrblan · · Score: 1

      Maybe the original theatrical releases will be part of the "special features" on the Blu-ray release. In any case, I don't plan to buy it. George Lucas already has enough of my money.

      --
      Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Which Verson??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which version of the original theater version? You do realize there were like 5 of them, right? Not to mention that the VHS and LD versions, usually touted also as being the "original" versions, also had discrepancies in things like the audio mix, etc.

    4. Re:Which Verson??? by necro81 · · Score: 2

      One would think that, this being Blu-Ray with prodigious storage abilities, you would be able to choose the version from some on-screen menu. Include or remove scenes (do we want to see Han and Jabba chit-chat in Episode IV?), swap in different version of the same scene (han shot first! death star explosion with or without shockwave), even change the soundtrack (super-echo before swinging across the abyss or no?) - it's all pretty straightforward from a technical standpoint.

      Whether the Emperor...uhhh...George Lucas will permit it is another question.

    5. Re:Which Verson??? by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      The last time Emperor Lucas included the theatrical version, he did a nice little underhanded (and spiteful) trick. The Special Edition versions were anamorphic DVD's. The theatrical versions were non-anamorphic widescreen (which, for those who don't understand the distinction, look like shit on widescreen TV's).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Which Verson??? by delinear · · Score: 1

      Blu-Ray is big enough that they could have all the variations (most of them will be the same anyway, they'd just need to have the differences on the disk and let you stream your chosen flavour together), but of course that would be a one-time sale so it'll never happen.

    7. Re:Which Verson??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi chuba da naga?

    8. Re:Which Verson??? by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which version of the original theater version? You do realize there were like 5 of them, right? Not to mention that the VHS and LD versions, usually touted also as being the "original" versions, also had discrepancies in things like the audio mix, etc.

      You know, I don't care. So long as it's one of the versions that's not overloaded with tacked-on CG creatures and such, omits the superfluous Jabba scene and leaves the Greedo scene alone, I don't care if it says "Episode IV: A New Hope" or not.

      But it sounds like they're not prepared to do a decent remastering of such a version any time soon. Oh, well. I'll just wait longer, then. There's other movies I can buy.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    9. Re:Which Verson??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One would think that, this being Blu-Ray with prodigious storage abilities, you would be able to choose the version from some on-screen menu.

      Yeah, a shopping menu. Selling you two copies is all pretty straight-forward, from a technical standpoint.

    10. Re:Which Verson??? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "...but on the other hand why not take easy money from suckers?"

      Hell, I would if "I" could!!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Which Verson??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:Which Verson??? by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      The last time Emperor Lucas included the theatrical version, he did a nice little underhanded (and spiteful) trick. The Special Edition versions were anamorphic DVD's. The theatrical versions were non-anamorphic widescreen (which, for those who don't understand the distinction, look like shit on widescreen TV's).

      They were also washed out looking LD direct transfers and only in stereo.

  4. No, NOT Star Wars by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The original theatrical releases will NOT be included, only the heavily edited "Special Editions" from the 90's (no doubt with even *more* edits from Lucas piled on, as if he didn't fuck them up enough already).

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was really looking forward to seeing Han shoot Jar Jar first. I've been waiting for that version forever.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...with even *more* edits

      I would not mind seeing Jabba go Hentai on Leia. Come on George, do it for the fans!

    3. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 eww

    4. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      "Heavily edited" now means special effects retouched, and a deleted scene or two restored? You're smoking some fine crack there.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    5. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You obviously haven't seen them, or you would know that they did a *lot* more than just some "retouches." Entire sequences on Cloud City and Tatooine are now unwatchable because of all the distracting CGI shit in the background. And it isn't even *good* CGI (you would think they could have at least sprang for some decent work).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have seen them. And no, they didn't do a lot more than retouches. There's no "unwatchable" scene because of "distracting" CGI. It fits nicely into the background, like it should. The reason you get distracted is because you're looking for reasons to hate, not because they are actually distracting.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    7. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Funny

      during Gungan cunnilingus, that tongue would be long enough to come out her nose......

    8. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously haven't seen them, or you would know that they did a *lot* more than just some "retouches." Entire sequences on Cloud City and Tatooine are now unwatchable because of all the distracting CGI shit in the background. And it isn't even *good* CGI (you would think they could have at least sprang for some decent work).

      Oh. My. GAWD. Entire SEQUENCES designed solely as panoramic scenery porn in the first place got turned into panoramic scenery porn, but not the same panoramic scenery porn as when ***I*** watched it the first time as a kid!!! ZOMG SOUND THE ALARM THE WORLD ENDED AT THAT POINT.

    9. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Rhaban · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have seen them. And no, they didn't do a lot more than retouches. There's no "unwatchable" scene because of "distracting" CGI. It fits nicely into the background, like it should. The reason you get distracted is because you're looking for reasons to hate, not because they are actually distracting.

      Have you seen Jabba's scene in A newh hope?

    10. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 3, Funny

      DO NOT WANT!

    11. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      I still have a crappy VHS recording that I made off of antenna TV, with commercials, back in the late 80's or early 90's before episode 1 came out.

      I remember telling my kids that Star Wars was the coolest movie ever, and that they'd really enjoy it, because I did as a kid. They didn't last 5 minutes into the movie before getting bored.

      Then the Lucas marketing machine cranked up with the release of Episode 1, and the kids were like "Why didn't you tell me we had this movie? This is soooo cool!"

    12. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have seen them as well. They don't fit nicely into the background, they interrupt the flow of the story and add nothing to the films. It may not be distracting or unwatchable but it is unnecessary and pointless.

      I don't get on Lucas like a lot of other people 'cause it's his art and he can do with it what he wants but let's not pretend the additions add anything to the films.

    13. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      That's one of the "restored deleted scenes" that I mentioned in my new post. Yes, that scene is a significant change from the original version of that scene (since it was completely new), but it doesn't represent a significant change overall to the movie.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    14. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I thought it made Jabba seem quite a bit less threatening, the Jabba in RotJ would have had Han (or anyone else) shot for stepping on his tail.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    15. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or the much cried-about Han-not-shooting-first edit? Never mind that it's wrecking a crucial part of his character, the CGI used to implement it is horrible. Han's Torse shears off to the side in one of the most awkward edits I've seen in any move ever.

    16. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have altered the movies. Pray I do not alter them any further.

    17. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it made Jabba seem quite a bit less threatening, the Jabba in RotJ would have had Han (or anyone else) shot for stepping on his tail.

      So first you nerds freak out and bitch because I changed it so Han didn't shoot first because it made Han look less like a rogue badass and more like a weak reactionary character.

      And then the very next scene heavily implies that Han may very well be more of a badass than you'd think because Jabba has some reason NOT to kill him right away, and you freak out and bitch about it anyway.

      That's it. Screw you nerds. Bring out the Jar Jar Binks Holiday Special. I can get far more money from merchandising than what putting up with your incessant whining about your childhood heroes ever got me anyway.

      - George L.

    18. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It fits nicely into the background, like it should.

      I'm not sure exactly how a fucking dinosaur obscuring the entire screen counts as "fitting nicely into the background".

    19. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you are missing the point; watering down 2 characters makes it worse, not better.

    20. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Zumbs · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it turned a dangerous gangster into a comical clown. Why would anyone be scared of a guy that litterally let people walk all over him? In my opinion, the new edition could be saved if they removed that scene and restored the Han-Greedo scene. It should not take to much for them to do that ... I suppose it is just to far away from Lucas' "artistic vision" ... sic ...

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    21. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Entire sequences on Cloud City and Tatooine are now unwatchable because of all the distracting CGI shit in the background.

      If you have that big of an issue watching it, you should probably see a doctor, you actually have ADD and need medication for it.

      At least go see someone about your problem blowing things out of proportion.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    22. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Yes, that scene is a significant change from the original version of that scene (since it was completely new), but it doesn't represent a significant change overall to the movie.

      As others have noted, it makes Jabba a bit of a joke. In addition, it is a complete waste of time, as every bit of the dialog was a repeat from the Han/Greedo scene. Luckily, it's trivial to remove, so it doesn't really bother me. With it gone, except for Greedo shooting, the SE of "Star Wars" does seem to be generally improved (although I could also live without the use of the Praxis effect for both the Alderaan and the Death Star).

    23. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the cgi creatures added to the foreground, blocking the camera?

      Or, of course, Greedo shooting first. Fuck Lucas. Disgusting, crusty, boring old mope.

    24. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Gungans climax, they say "eesa-eesa-eesa" really fast.

      For 5 minutes straight.

      Also a Gungan dick looks like an H.R. Giger fever dream.

    25. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I've got an even better solution. I just don't watch the SE's.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    26. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It fits nicely into the background, like it should.

      Well, except for that scene on Tatooine where there is shit in the foreground... by which I mean it is obscuring the original picture. Now it's been a while since I saw the "special edition" and even longer since the original, and I wasn't able to compare directly. But I do believe there is some big CG dinosaur thing that (virtually) walks in front of the camera somewhere in Mos Eisley. Maybe I'm wrong... but I certainly found that distracting. It wasn't "unwatchable", because obviously I was able to watch it. I just didn't like it. I liked a very few of the other CG amendments, but most were superfluous or worse.

    27. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fanboi!

    28. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by bankman · · Score: 1

      I have seen them. And no, they didn't do a lot more than retouches. There's no "unwatchable" scene because of "distracting" CGI. It fits nicely into the background, like it should. The reason you get distracted is because you're looking for reasons to hate, not because they are actually distracting.

      Excuse me, but what were you watching? The new CGI stuff not only messes with the scene composition, it also fucks up the story. Tatooine used to be a boring desert planet where nothing interesting ever happened, so it was quite understandable that Luke wanted to leave it. Now watch the Special Edition with a Mos Eisley that is suddenly a happening place with loads of activity and Luke's motivation is not that obvíous anymore. The CGI stuff in Episode IV also doesn't blend in with the whole look of the film, it's too clean.

      And no, I for one am not looking for reasons to hate the new versions. It's far less noticable, and therefore less distracting in Episode VI where I don't mind the added CGI at all.

      Apart from that, Greedo shooting first was plain stupid and the added Jabba scene was unnecessary.

      --
      I feel so sig.
    29. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but what were you watching? The new CGI stuff not only messes with the scene composition, it also fucks up the story. Tatooine used to be a boring desert planet where nothing interesting ever happened, so it was quite understandable that Luke wanted to leave it. Now watch the Special Edition with a Mos Eisley that is suddenly a happening place with loads of activity and Luke's motivation is not that obvíous anymore. The CGI stuff in Episode IV also doesn't blend in with the whole look of the film, it's too clean.

      I don't agree in the least. Apart from the fact that it's just fluff and doesn't touch the story at all, there's no reason to think that because a barren planet has one busy city that someone wouldn't want to get off that rock.

      Apart from that, Greedo shooting first was not important in any way

      FTFY.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    30. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is trolling. Anyone who watched the first street scene in Mos Eisley knows it's unwatchable because there's a HUGE FUCKING ANIMAL TORSO filling the entire screen, preventing you from seeing Luke and Ben talking.

    31. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no "unwatchable" scene because of "distracting" CGI.

      Dancing slave girl scene at Jabbas in RotJ. What the fuck is that music and why the fuck are they rendered in shitty cgi, dancing around like the spice girls?

    32. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was really looking forward to seeing Han shoot Jar Jar first. I've been waiting for that version forever.

      You're mistaken. Han met Jar Jar and then shot himself.

    33. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by cosmosis · · Score: 1

      Thank you Elrous for expressing what I have always said and felt. When Lucas ruined Cloud City in Empire Stikes Back I swore I never, ever forgive him for that travesty. They are completely unwatchable and heartbreaking. I haven't watched the Special Editions since, holding on to both my VHS and DVD copies of the originals.

      ~~
      http://www.vivation.com/

    34. Re:No, NOT Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jabba the Hut is Gungan?

  5. So This Will Be the ... by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fifth time I've paid for a license to three of these movies.

    If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS, Netbook HDD, PS3, etc in whatever the latest resolution is. I've cumulatively shelled out hundreds of dollars (with inflation adjustments) for these three movies and yet I'm continually paying for them in the latest format. I bet if they figured out a way to approve lifetime licenses to this media, a lot more people would feel okay buying a copyright. Right now, I'm 28 years old and I've been nickel and dimed since age 12. Also, for those who didn't like the sequels, there appears to be a cheaper subset for $45 of the original three.

    I'm sad that there isn't BD-Live for these in the Amazon description, I'd love to listen to fan commentary and possibly add my own. Has anyone had good/bad experiences with BD-Live commentaries? I was hoping that'd be used to do MST3K versions of popular movies or add insight to movies like Donnie Darko or Lost maybe. Unfortunately, having only received my PS3 this last holiday I've discovered that very very few movies are BD-Live.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:So This Will Be the ... by spidercoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "A fool and his money are soon parted."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    2. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 0

      If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS, Netbook HDD, PS3, etc in whatever the latest resolution is. I've cumulatively shelled out hundreds of dollars (with inflation adjustments) for these three movies and yet I'm continually paying for them in the latest format.

      The same reason you'd have to pay a second time to see a movie in theatre again, is it not?

      Its because you keep paying for them in the latest format, supposedly your money goes towards the people updating the formats, producing the physical media, and so on and so forth.

      I suppose you can just decide not to respect copyright till it reforms? Meh, its your choice. I don't have anything insightful to say. And no, I have not experienced BD-Live, my room mate has a PS3 but has never once tried to use that feature.

    3. Re:So This Will Be the ... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      so, since you multiply-paid for the set, that means to balance things out, a few of us will have to, uhhh, 'download'.

      just to balance things out.

      I'll ACK when I've done my part.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:So This Will Be the ... by pauljlucas · · Score: 0

      If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS, Netbook HDD, PS3, etc in whatever the latest resolution is

      For the same reason you don't deserve to get a free leather-bound, gold-edged anniversary edition of all of Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy novels just because you bought the original books way back.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    5. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"

    6. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you do have the right to have them on any of those devices without re-buying them, due to fair use. The only thing is you have to figure out how to do that without breaking the DRM scheme (and without getting them from some other source). The copyright cabal outsmarted us all on that one.

    7. Re:So This Will Be the ... by yorugua · · Score: 1
      >> The same reason you'd have to pay a second time to see a movie in theatre again, is it not?

      No, I' guess there are different things if I'm using a theater: I'll be using again things such as HVAC, electricity, the seat, the guy that opens the door and proyects the movie. I should be able to get a discount if copyright stands. Otherwise, the copyright thing is just mumbo jumbo. I guess a format that wanted to charge every time I saw a movie died for a reason.

      In any way the original poster is saying that the upgrade should be free, but if I own the right to see a movie at home in VHS or DVD, then the "price" should be cheaper for the upgrade as there is a portion of the product that I already own. Otherwise, oh $DEITY, I'd be forced to think that all those "download" trials based on copyright laws are just a big lie and all about people trying to make an easy buck on a corrupted law system!

    8. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the same reason you deserve to bittorrent the 720p HDTV rips that have been available for 18 months.

    9. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fifth time I've paid for a license to three of these movies.

      Why? The movies weren't that good (and before the inevitable nerd rage trying to peg me as a Star Trek fan that franchise sucks equally). Do you really have nothing better to spend your money on?

    10. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He specifically mentioned "license" for the movies. Value-adding to a movie is NOT part of his argument. Also, you buy a book, not a license to a book. Again, not part of his argument. A book example would be to buy a book and be able to download it for your e-reader. But again, I'm not sure this is a "license" so that example is probably off too.

    11. Re:So This Will Be the ... by delinear · · Score: 1

      I've noticed a fair few movies lately in multiple formats - you get the DVD, BD and a digital copy on the disk. I don't know what kind of DRM crud is on there or what crappy quality they're compressed to as I don't own a BluRay player so have no interest in supporting yet another new format. If they were sold DRM unencumbered then theoretically that allows you to format shift as much as you want, I suspect that's not the case, anyone bought one of these to find out?

    12. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS, Netbook HDD, PS3, etc in whatever the latest resolution is.

      You answered your own question there, because you respect copyright. If you well and truly respect copyright, you do not believe you are entitled to any copies other than those provided by the owner of the copyright. Copyright exists to nickel and dime you. If you have a problem with that, you don't really support copyright.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fool of a Took...

    14. Re:So This Will Be the ... by alen · · Score: 2

      other than the fact that you're a fanboy and GL's core customer, it takes time and money to transfer them to each new format. you have to buy the workstations, software and pay people to do the transfer and the work of taking a 30 some year old movie and upgrading it to HD quality

    15. Re:So This Will Be the ... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Copyright doesn't stop him from putting those movies on all those devices. It does make it necessary for him to put them there himself, because nobody else is allowed to give him copies in those formats, or possibly not even to provide him with tools to do so. But nothing actually stops him from having the things he says he deserves.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    16. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fifth time I've paid for a license to three of these movies.

      If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS, Netbook HDD, PS3, etc in whatever the latest resolution is. I've cumulatively shelled out hundreds of dollars (with inflation adjustments) for these three movies and yet I'm continually paying for them in the latest format.

      You're not paying for the license 5 times. You're paying Lucas off to keep screwing with Star Wars, thus keeping him too busy to go and retroactively ruin "American Graffiti".

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    17. Re:So This Will Be the ... by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

      Here's an idea; chaulk it up to an expensive lesson...AND THEN NEVER REWARD THE BAD BEHAVIOR AGAIN. Obviously you didn't realize that you are only buying a license for the current format and hard copy. Now that you do....

      Sure, that means you will be going with out whatever the latest HD is. Is it necessary? Really? What are you gaining?

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    18. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS, Netbook HDD, PS3, etc in whatever the latest resolution is

      For the same reason you don't deserve to get a free leather-bound, gold-edged anniversary edition of all of Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy novels just because you bought the original books way back.

      When I buy a book, they don't tell me I bought a license to read it. I bought a physical thing. The movie industry tells me that when I purchase a DVD/BluRay/Bubble Chip/etc I am buying a license, I just happen to get the media with the license. I am not buying a physical thing.

    19. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You couldn't fool your mother on the foolingest day of your life even if you had an electrified fooling machine!"

    20. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Binestar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is the fool who is following him following him so he can part the fool with his money?

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    21. Re:So This Will Be the ... by gsslay · · Score: 1

      You paid for these films on VHS video in 1994. You were aware of the limitations of that format when you bought it. No-one forced you into a purchase. You still have them on VHS video to enjoy in their full fuzzy wavy glory, at any time you wish.

      So how then do the film manufacturers owe you anything?

      Oh, I see. You want them in a better format. Well that's your choice. Again, no-one is forcing you into a purchase. Just don't expect any greater sympathy when they're released in 2030 as 3D holograms injected directly into your neural cortex. You were aware of the limitations of Blue-ray when you bought them, and will still be free to view them.

    22. Re:So This Will Be the ... by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 5, Funny

      Merchant: "You really need another copy of the trilogy."
      Fool: "I really need another copy of the trilogy."
      Merchant: "It's only $189.00."
      Fool: "It's only $189.00."
      Merchant: "It's Blu-Ray this time."
      Fool: "It's Blu-Ray this time"
      Merchant: "It's Better."
      Fool: "It's Better"
      Merchant: "I'll take your money, thanks."
      Fool: "Take my money, thanks."

      --
      Huh?
    23. Re:So This Will Be the ... by thepotoo · · Score: 1

      "A fool and his money will soon boost the economy."

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    24. Re:So This Will Be the ... by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      Honestly not trolling here but 6 films * approx 2 hours = 12 hours. How many times do you have to watch them exactly? What percentage of your life? Having seen the originals a zillion times as a kid, the remastered set at the cinema in the 90s, each of the new trilogy once or thrice I'm done. Maybe I'll watch em again at SOME point in the next 20 years (same can be said for Babylon 5 and the X Files), when I'm really bored. Or Ill.

      New movies, books and music comes out all the time. Enjoy some of that instead of giving your money to Lucas.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    25. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      other than the fact that you're a fanboy and GL's core customer, it takes time and money to transfer them to each new format. you have to buy the workstations, software and pay people to do the transfer and the work of taking a 30 some year old movie and upgrading it to HD quality

      A 30 year old movie doesn't have to be "upgraded" to HD quality... The 35mm prints already have better resolution than HDTV.

      Not to say there's not a lot of work involved in creating a good digital master...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    26. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't deserve it because you are a chump who keeps repaying for the same content.

    27. Re:So This Will Be the ... by real+gumby · · Score: 1

      I'm sad there isn't BD-Live for these in the Amazon description...

      A serious question: are there any disks where BD-Live has been used? I've tried it on a bunch of BR disks and it's never been anything but ads for new movies. Bleagh. Can you recommend a disk where it was used for something that added to the movie? That would be cool.

    28. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Syberz · · Score: 1

      I think that in this case, you're not so much paying for a license but for a new model. If you bought a car last year, the manufacturer won't freely upgrade you to the new model, you need to buy it too.

      Of course, with a car you have the option of trading it in. I suppose you could try to sell your old version of the DVDs to offset the cost.

      --
      ~Syberz
    29. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Desler · · Score: 1

      The Ghostbusters Blu-Ray had a BD-Live feature were you could chat with others online while watching the movie. Not sure why anyone would actually want to do that, though.

    30. Re:So This Will Be the ... by ZerothAngel · · Score: 1

      The majority of the digital copies I've seen are protected by iTunes DRM. At least, they are when you choose to redeem them on a Mac. (On Windows, I suspect it might be the same.) Given that, you can freely copy it and play it back on any iOS device or computer with iTunes. Probably not what you're looking for though, I'm guessing.

      Every once in a while I run into a Windows Media-based digital copy. I just avoid those entirely as the DRM is probably much more draconian.

      And just to clarify — each format comes on its own disk. Although lately I've been noticing a trend where the digital copy disk is omitted, but you are still provided with a digital copy code or voucher. In other words, you have to download it yourself. Not really great for those of us on less-than-broadband DSL connections...

    31. Re:So This Will Be the ... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It's not so much about watching them as having them. Geeks like to collect things. They'll watch them at some point but that's more by way of justifying the purchase.

      I'll agree that that's still illogical behaviour...

    32. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Merchant: "You really need another copy of the trilogy."
      Fool: "I really need another copy of the trilogy."
      Merchant: "It's only $189.00."
      Fool: "It's only $189.00."
      Merchant: "It's Blu-Ray this time."
      Fool: "It's Blu-Ray this time"
      Merchant: "It's Better."
      Fool: "It's Better"
      Merchant: "I'll take your money, thanks."
      Fool: "Take my money, thanks."

      "These are not the originals you are looking for"

    33. Re:So This Will Be the ... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's a terrible analogy. A better analogy would be ungrading your faded paperback editions with a hardcover edition for a reduced rate.

    34. Re:So This Will Be the ... by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      I've noticed a fair few movies lately in multiple formats - you get the DVD, BD and a digital copy on the disk.

      The whole point of the phrase "digital copy" is to convince you that you don't have any fair use rights for the digital versions that are on every Blu-Ray and DVD.

      I prefer to use the high resolution source already on the disk when I make a "digital copy" for my own use, because I know that copyright law says I am allowed to do this, as long as I don't distribute the copies I make to other people.

    35. Re:So This Will Be the ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fooled you!

  6. Does the Well Have a Bottom? Apparently, No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pony up, suckers.

  7. oh good by spidercoz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was beginning to think Lucas stopped liking money.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    1. Re:oh good by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Now why do you think he made a character called "Greed"-o and made him green? I mean, c'mon, it's a self-portrait!

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:oh good by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      He acts more like the Emperor these days. Too bad someone couldn't have tossed him down a shaft before he raped Indiana Jones with a crystal skull.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:oh good by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      ...Indiana Jones with a crystal skull...

      At least the ending was pretty.

    4. Re:oh good by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      Spielberg held Indy down; it's not like Lucas did the raping himself.

    5. Re:oh good by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      The ending was ripped from Total Recall.

      A buried alien artifact is activated. Water starts shooting around. The hero and his girlfriend escape as the place goes to shit, and then looks out from a plateau at the landscape changed by the alien artifact.

      Search your feelings Skywalker, you know it to be true.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:oh good by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Frank Darabont, one of the best screenwriters on the planet, wanted to write Indy. Lucas demanded certain story elements had to included, and then fired Darabont even though Darabont wrote around those ridiculous ideas.

      Spielberg actually used a lot of practical effects for Indy IV that people insist are CGI. But watch the special features on the BluRay and you'll see that crazy alien door was a real device he built.

      I don't blame Spielberg and Ford for revisiting something so fun, universally loved and profitable. I blame Lucas for being clueless these days and ruining most things he has touched in the latter half of his life.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    7. Re:oh good by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Lucas has always been very reluctant to release home video versions. It took like seven years for him to finally let people watch the movies in DVD quality. Yes, in 2004 we were still being forced to violate our eyes with VHS tapes.
      Other movies had gone through their third or fourth DVD re-release by then.

  8. Han Shot First by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

    Han Shot First!

    Also, not giving another dime to Lucas ... EVAR ... if I can possibly avoid it.

    The Ewocs were rubbish, but JarJar was unforgivable.

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
    1. Re:Han Shot First by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      The Ewocs were rubbish, but JarJar was unforgivable.

      They would make great targets for a Doom 3 mod.

    2. Re:Han Shot First by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Then you better not go to any films in theaters or purchase DVDs/Bluerays or Netflicks etc with Industrial Light and Magic work on it.

      Movies like the Transformers etc. all have his grubby paws all over them. Well, let's face it Transformers is for teenieboppers anyway.

      So, in reality if you like movies with CGI, you're probably going to be giving cash to Lucas.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:Han Shot First by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I am so sick of it. Jar-Jar wasn't as bad as you people paint him, and EP 1,2,3 aren't as bad as you whiny bitches paint them to be either.

      It doesn't matter if the reason that Episodes 4-6 aren't as over the top cutesy schlock as Episodes 1-3 is purely technical, it's still true. The Ewoks were bad, Jar-Jar is worse (hey, at least the Ewoks are stabby) and Episodes 1-3 piss on your mind from a greater height and with greater volume than Episodes 4-6.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Han Shot First by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      They probably already have. Search the intertubes young Skywalker, you'll find it to be true.

      --
      Huh?
    5. Re:Han Shot First by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      Sadly true, though I think the last thing I saw in the cinema was Kick Ass, and before that? um ... a few years whatever it was, I can't remember.

      Proudly, I can say I've never seen Transformers either. Ditto for Indianna Jones, and the jumping shark or whatever the 4th one was called.

      Don't even have a netflix account or a Blu-Ray player; I buy my movies on DVD - usually by the time they've come out, I know whether they're worth spending the money on.

      /why, yes, come to think of it I AM kind of gettng cranky in my old age
      // Get off my lawn

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    6. Re:Han Shot First by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 1

      Ouch. That was rather mean-spirited of you.

      I saw the originals in the cinema when they came out, so yea, I'm an old phart.

      As for the reeking; well, I was kind of trying to be funny with the Han Shot First part (It's an awesome meme). However, I do take issue with the way Lucas has gone back and revised the existing movies to add more zoomy spaceshippy things and bigger 'splosions everywhere. I SERIOUSLY objected to the replacing of guns with walkie-talkies in E.T. If anyone reeks of something, it's Lucas who reeks of revisionism.

      I also strongly object to the trend of adding "Happy Meal aliens" (creatures like Ewocs and JarJar). This is going to be very "back in my day", but back in my day, Chewbacca and R2 were very much loved by the young fans (myself included) even though they were actual characters who contributed to the story in a meaningful way and not just there to pander to the "cutsie kid toys" marketing frenzy.

      Hey, in the end, they're Lucas' property and he can do what he wants, but I am also free to like/dislike what he's doing and comment on it. Most certainly, I'm free to do my best to not give another dime to Lucas if I can possibly manage it.

      You're free to post ad-hominem attacks if you really feel that will make Slashdot a better place.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
  9. Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    All I have is a grainy copy from the 1980s analog LaserDisc (better than VHS but not as clean as DVD). I want to see the ORIGINALS released in high-def, not these idiotic bastard-ripped, CGI-damaged special editions.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by eln · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is a bundle of all 3 Star Wars movies available on DVD that comes with two disks for each movie: the crap version and the original theatrical release. I picked it up at Costco a couple of weeks ago. It isn't Blu Ray, but it's a lot better quality than an analog Laser Disc copy. Here it is on Amazon (not a referral link).

      I think those DVDs were covered here on Slashdot a couple of years ago. Again, not Blu-ray (and hence not high def), but the best quality purists among us are going to get of the original releases for the foreseeable future.

    2. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Everyone keeps asking for this, and yet... Of course, it could be on the next "Super Special Original Edition" just in time for next Christmas!

    3. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At this point, Lucas seems just as embarrassed by the Original Editions as he is by the Star Wars Holiday Special, and seems bent on suppressing them all similarly. Apparently we didn't realize it at the time, but the versions we saw in the theaters in '77, '80, and '83 were just beta, and not intended for release. Just like with certain software, now you'll have to either deal with old versions of the beta, the current official 2.X release, or just do without.

    4. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes that's what I was talking about. - The Original Edition DVD is a copy of the 1988 analog Laserdisc. Literally. George Lucas claimed the laserdisc was the only copy of the OE that still existed.

      Unlike some people here, I've not bought Star Wars multiple times (and therefore saved money). I bought 3 of them on VHS which I later sold on ebay to recoup my money. Then I bought the Laserdisc-to-DVD from Lucas. And that's it. (Yes I'm a cheapass.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A laserdisc, mastered properly, can be of better visual quality than the best mastered DVD.

      Not saying that's how it was done, but laserdisc is better than DVD (think about it and you'll see why I'm right--it's all about available bandwidth vs. compression, same way old analog C-Band satellite is better than a standard def digital Ku-Band signal).

    6. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      Unlike some people here, I've not bought Star Wars multiple times ... I bought 3 of them on VHS which I later sold on ebay to recoup my money. Then I bought the Laserdisc-to-DVD from Lucas.

      So, you haven't bought them multiple times... but you bought them twice?

    7. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I got the unedited trilogy on laserdisc used for fifty bucks, and a laserdisc player for thirty-five (a pretty nice Panasonic, but only 1 disc.) As far as I can tell this provides the best possible experience. I have a crate full of LDs, they really do provide very nice video and if your HDTV is decent it will scale OK. A good LD player is still expensive used, if only because all the ones left seem to be Karaoke units (with more than just a mic port) and people want a lot for them, but a mediocre one is still cheap. Mine has great output, just no disc switching. (1 disc 2 sides...)

      Again, this is probably a rational purchase only for people who live someplace where there's still a brisk trade in used LDs. Streetlight records in Santa Cruz still buys and sells them, for example, and typically has a pretty nice selection.

      Don't forget to look for laser rot!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>As far as I can tell this provides the best possible experience

      The analog to digital (LD-to-DVD) copy which Lucas sold in 2004(?) is actually the best copy of the Original Trilogy, since it was done by professional engineers. Plus the DVD can be upscaled to HD.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I have is a grainy copy from the 1980s analog LaserDisc

      So you mean to tell us that back on August 15, 2010, you were lying?!?? I'm shocked, shocked that the not-at-all-a-troll commodore64_love would ever lie about something as innocuous as DVD releases of Star Wars.

    10. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Yes that's what I was talking about. - The Original Edition DVD is a copy of the 1988 analog Laserdisc. Literally. George Lucas claimed the laserdisc was the only copy of the OE that still existed.

      Such bullshit. Wasn't the THX re-release shown in theaters? That was the 90s, not several decades ago. Pretty damn sure Lucas has a copy or four of that in his possession, and that several more are floating around somewhere. Sure, that version was very slightly changed, but it lacked all of the really bad crap and actually did improve the effects of the original a bit. I'd take that one on BluRay.

    11. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The analog to digital (LD-to-DVD) copy which Lucas sold in 2004(?) is actually the best copy of the Original Trilogy, since it was done by professional engineers. Plus the DVD can be upscaled to HD.

      So your argument is that rather than the source Laserdiscs, which I own professional copies of, I should have a DVD transfer from the source Laserdiscs, which can then be upscaled by my PC or my Xbox 360 (both of which do have excellent scalers) instead of by my Sharp Aquos HDTV (which also has an excellent scaler) so that I can have an extra and unnecessary upscaling step? I'm a little confused about your logic here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>rather than the source Laserdiscs

      Laserdiscs are 480i and although they can be upscaled to HD, it will be a lossy conversion (due to its analog nature).

      >>>I should have a DVD transfer from the source Laserdiscs

      Not what I said. I said you should BUY the dvd released by Lucas circa 2004, since it came from the *master* laserdisc, which is higher-quality than your customer disc. Plus it was done by professionals using ~$100,000 equipment to achieve the best possible quality. The end product is better than your customer laserdisc.

      And, being DVD, the data can be directly upscaled (like computer data) to HD without losses.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Laserdiscs are 480i and although they can be upscaled to HD, it will be a lossy conversion (due to its analog nature).

      Any conversion is lossy, especially when the conversion is not to a larger size which is an even multiple of the original.

      I said you should BUY the dvd released by Lucas circa 2004, since it came from the *master* laserdisc, which is higher-quality than your customer disc.

      That depends on how many discs were pressed before the stamper got to mine, how much the master has degraded, and how much my disk has degraded.

      Plus it was done by professionals using ~$100,000 equipment to achieve the best possible quality.

      That doesn't change the fact that using that DVD introduces an additional stage of processing, which is NOT lossless.

      And, being DVD, the data can be directly upscaled (like computer data) to HD without losses.

      Since when?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite - it's a copy of the laserdisc master.

    15. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Any conversion is lossy

      Not when it's done at the DVD level, directly from one form of data (480) to another form (1080). There is no loss in that upconversion process..... not like you'd see with the Lossy Analog laserdisc upscaling.

      BTW I don't know why you're so resistant? If you're happy with your original trilogy laserdisc, cool, but why not upgrade to the superior 2004 DVD release? Why continue using the old, inferior, composite video stored on the LD. That's akin to still using records when CDs or Super-CDs have better specifications.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not when it's done at the DVD level, directly from one form of data (480) to another form (1080). There is no loss in that upconversion process.....

      That is a flat lie.

      not like you'd see with the Lossy Analog laserdisc upscaling.

      ...and there are the weasel words that go with it.

      BTW I don't know why you're so resistant?

      Because so far you've failed to prove that the DVD re-release is going to provide me with a less lossy experience. If my goal is to nostalgically experience every hair and scratch and disappearing TIE then I don't gain anything, and I provably lose information.

      Why continue using the old, inferior, composite video stored on the LD.

      It's the same video upon which the DVD transfer is based. You can make something out of nothing but then you get loss. You're either arguing that they made something out of nothing which is provably lossy or that they used some kind of magic to look back in time through the Laserdisc to a higher-quality source video, I'm not sure which.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. ive bought them several times by Revek · · Score: 1

    Enough I will not buy them again. Old movies are still old. When they all start i know how they are going to end.

    1. Re:ive bought them several times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the blu-ray release. You obviously don't want decent transfers. How are you VHS copies compared to DVD?

      Once these come out, Lusas will make another billion and then start talking about going back and doing 3D versions.

    2. Re:ive bought them several times by Desler · · Score: 1

      Once these come out, Lusas will make another billion and then start talking about going back and doing 3D versions.

      That's because the only money pit more bottomless than the Fed is Star Wars fans. Lucas knows he can dredge that well of money for billions entirely at his whim.

    3. Re:ive bought them several times by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Did you realize that on your 105th or 106th viewing of Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope in the theater?

    4. Re:ive bought them several times by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How are you VHS copies compared to DVD?

      Blissfully lacking in producer interference.

  11. BluRay? Why? by fussy_radical · · Score: 0

    I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.
     
    I ask why because
    1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert
    2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35
     
    My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.

    1. Re:BluRay? Why? by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Upconverting can't magically add more detail. There is a very noticeable difference between a blu-ray and upconverted DVD. And honestly, now that blu-ray players are under $100, and movies tend to be around $20, the price issue isn't that important anymore.

    2. Re:BluRay? Why? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Go to your friend's Bluray Player and click "zoom" on the picture. It brings-up details in the movie you can't see on DVD or Upconverting DVD. (Zooming on dvd just shows a blur of MPEG2 artifacts.)

      >>>2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35

      This past Christmas I saw Bluray players for almost as cheap ($50), so might as well buy the better player. BD players also upconvert your current collection.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    3. Re:BluRay? Why? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

      I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.

      I ask why because
      1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert
      2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35

      My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.

      Up converting will never give the same quality as a source image in the correct format.

    4. Re:BluRay? Why? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      I chuckle because optical media is dead.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    5. Re:BluRay? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't tell the difference between a Blu-ray and an upconverted DVD, then you are blind.

    6. Re:BluRay? Why? by chronosan · · Score: 2

      Upconverting just makes the DVD format not look like absolute trash on larger screens. It does not add any increased definition, just blurs it nicely.

    7. Re:BluRay? Why? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      Software can't go back and add the original light back to the image, it does a decent job, but there's a pretty noticable increase in quality from upconverted DVD to Blu-Ray.
      Top image is HD, bottom image is upconverted.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    8. Re:BluRay? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.

      I ask why because
      1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert
      2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35

      My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.

      Ummm, because upconverting standard DVD != Blu-Ray quality? It's not even close on a larger TV. Upconverting does nothing for the sound quality either, which is generally far superior on Blu-Ray (again, if you have equipment that can take advantage of it).

    9. Re:BluRay? Why? by RedK · · Score: 2

      - Blu-ray players still play DVD discs.
      - Blu-ray players are also upconverting DVD players.
      - Unconverted DVDs have nothing on Blu-ray discs.

      At 100$ for a decent Blu-ray player, you'd have to be dumb not to buy one. I chuckle when people think they saved 65$ by buying a rubbish Chinese DVD player.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    10. Re:BluRay? Why? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Go to your friend's Bluray Player and click "zoom" on the picture. It brings-up details in the movie you can't see on DVD

      Yeah, but if you watch the movie at normal size, as I tend to do, it not such a big deal. Sometimes you do want to slomo and zoom for a gratuitous nipple slip, say, but otherwise I'll just wait till my old player dies before upgrading.

      Not to say that I can't tell the difference; just that it's a small factor in my enjoyment of a movie.

    11. Re:BluRay? Why? by BESTouff · · Score: 1

      Go to your friend's Bluray Player and click "zoom" on the picture. It brings-up details in the movie you can't see on DVD or Upconverting DVD. (Zooming on dvd just shows a blur of MPEG2 artifacts.)

      Oh yes ! Because I like very much stopping and zooming on movies. In fact I always do that each 5mn, so I can watch details, *that* is really much more entertaining - even if my GF disagrees.

      Thanks you for proving it's bullshit.

    12. Re:BluRay? Why? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      but the long wait at the start, the forced commecials and the draconian DRM are complete show-stoppers.

      not to mention that if you rip them to your NAS, the industry has now just DOSd your storage system with extra data bits that you can't even see or resolve on the tv and definitely 100% guaranteed that your audio system isn't up to 'linear track 24bit' standards. ie, they force you to take 40-50gb for a movie when its just not reasonable. reduced down to 10gig or so and that's more reasonable (like dvd9 sizing).

      most people don't rip 1:1 copies of their BD but I rip all my DVDs' to my NAS.

      BD is simply a pig that I do not want. uprez'd dvd on a widescreen is very nearly the same with none of the down-sides of BD (and no money going to sony, lets not forget that nice side-effect of NOT buying BD).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    13. Re:BluRay? Why? by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.

      I ask why because
      1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert
      2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35

      My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.

      Well, Yes, of course they just want you to buy the same crap again.
      That said, things really do look better when they're less compressed, assuming your display is capable of showing the higher resolution images. In spite of the impression people may get from movies and TV, you can't just "expand" an image and have the same quality as one created at a higher resolution, no matter how much smoothing trickery you use.

      My take is that the only justification for having a 1080p display is that you're going to display native 1080p content on it. So having the 1080p display without a good 1080p source is what makes me chuckle. On the other hand, it is equally silly to use a 1080p source if your display isn't 1080p.

    14. Re:BluRay? Why? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      every disc and bd player you buy makes fat old sony corp richer.

      don't you guys remember - sony is a bad guy! how soon we forget about all the evils sony has done.

      for the past 5 or more years (maybe even 10) I've had sony on my do-not-buy list. many reasons but mostly they are enemies of what we typically want. if we want it, they oppose (drm issues, rootkits, supporting hollywood laws, removing fair use, inventing useless proprietary/expensive solutions and the list goes on and on).

      I DO NOT BUY SONY.

      you should not, either, if you've done your research.

      (and bd == sony in case you didn't get that)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    15. Re:BluRay? Why? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      or maybe you don't VALUE the higher res on video since that contributes maybe 5% to the actual movie watching experience.

      you guys always forget this: content matters more.

      ever hear your favorite song on a portable 1-spkr radio? well, bad analogy: no one here is old enough to remember before earbuds and stereo. but suppose that you heard an old 1970's mono FM radio playing your favorite song. does it matter so much that its not on the best playback equipment? you still like that song and your mind connects any missing dots and the experience is nearly the same as the hifi version. for sure not THE same but nearly the same to your mind.

      you guys are getting swindled thinking that higher res visuals are going to make crappy movies at least watchable. ain't going to happen. if the movie sucks, it will suck in high res. if it was great, it won't matter if its 4:3 and from a VHS copy.

      so, its not that we can't TELL, its that we look way beyond the trivia and see into the content.

      the storytellers art is not what the storyteller looks like when he's telling the tale; its the story that he tells that matters.

      upres'd drm-free dvd's win over native-res'd drm-laden bd.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    16. Re:BluRay? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone is interested in more comparison shots you can go to AVS Forum. The user Xylon there posts comparisons between upconverted DVD and Blu Ray, often even comparison between releases in different regions of both of them.
      Usually there is a clearly visible difference. There are of course a few bad apples. The "Traffic" HD-DVD actually was the standard definition DVD source upconverted and some of the early Blu Ray releases suffered from issues as well (overfiltered and MPEG2 compressed). They seem to have gotten the hang of it now and quality is clearly better in my opinion.

    17. Re:BluRay? Why? by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      Upscaling's a funny old business. My (1st gen US 60gig) PS3 upscales PS2 games and does a pretty decent job of it. Certainly, on a dull afternoon, I got my TV to display Final Fantasy X running on:

      a) a PS2
      b) the PS3, with upscaling to 720p
      c) ePSXe2 via my laptop (with HDTV adapter), with upscaling to 720p

      Of the three, b) looked by far the best. The worst was a), which looked very blurry and muddy on a 38 inch HDTV. Meanwhile, c) just looked odd, with a very sterile and angular look. I think the point I took from this is that upscaling techniques can vary significantly in terms of quality.

      That said, I agree entirely that Blu-Ray movie footage looks noticably better than decently-upscaled DVD footage, and that there is a whole wealth of extra detail visible on the Blu-Ray. Just like how a game developed to be run in 720p, with appropriately sized textures, will look better than an upscaled standard-def game.

      I've personally bought a small number of movies that I like a lot on Blu-Ray when I already own them on DVD. I bought the shiny Alien box set for the first two movies (and partly for the third, which I don't completely hate). I can't, however, see myself picking up the Star Wars set; those movies have just been abused too much over the years.

    18. Re:BluRay? Why? by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 1

      You say "you'd have to be dumb" as if your choice of consumer electronics makes you smart? Really?

    19. Re:BluRay? Why? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      If you had a decent TV, you would know why. But, you're right that it won't make any difference on your 27" Sanyo.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    20. Re:BluRay? Why? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Upconverting does nothing for the sound quality either, which is generally far superior on Blu-Ray (again, if you have equipment that can take advantage of it).

      I don't know you (and neither does anyone where since you are AC) but I'll take a 99% chance guess: your system is not 'up to it' on bd audio, either.

      short answer, see wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range

      quote:

      [i]The 16-bit compact disc has a theoretical dynamic range of about 96 dB[7] (or about 98 dB for sinusoidal signals, per the formula[6]). Digital audio with 20-bit digitization is theoretically capable of 120 dB dynamic range; similarly, [b]24-bit digital audio calculates to 144 dB dynamic range.[/b][/i]

      and finally this:

      [b]In 1981, researchers at Ampex determined that a dynamic range of 118 dB on a dithered digital audio stream was necessary for subjective noise-free playback of music in quiet listening environments.[/b]

      look at those numbers. let me give you real world conditions: most mid-end pro audio studios can do an 'honest' 20 bits. only the best high end (very expensive, like abbey road) studios can do something close to true 24bits.

      24bits on a home playback system that has an avr of $500 or less, typically. 144db range, eh? see that number (or ANYTHING close to that) on your amp and preamp and dac specs? do you know of any single dac out there that can even give 144db of analog range? really? please show me and the analog buffer stages that also follow. would love to see that.

      they don't exist, folks. 24bits is a lie. at home 16 is 'doing very well' if you can reach 96db or so. most home setups can't. then go to 20bits for studio recording and see if you can find amps that are quiet enough to even do 120db (and not the fake a-weight stuff, either).

      ITS A LIE. bd audio is a lie.

      the lie is in the mix. they change the mix, make it sound more dynamic - but here's the catch - that same mix would have 'fit' very easily on the dyn range space of a dvd or even audio cd.

      blue ray audio. don't make me laugh. or puke. or both. its a scam and you only need to do the math to see that no home system short of 5 or 6 figures is going to be able to playback 24bit audio and truely use that extra bit-space and be able to resolve it all the way down to the speakers.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    21. Re:BluRay? Why? by FunkyELF · · Score: 1

      You realize that something will upconvert whether its your DVD or not right?
      Its either you DVD player, your receiver, or your TV. And if you have a $35 dvd player it probably uses the same $3 chip that your receiver and TV both have.

      A decent upconverting DVD player (Look at Oppo players) will do a much better job but its still not Bluray.

      If you have decent speakers the audio alone on Bluray makes it worth it and the increased resolution is just extra goodness.

    22. Re:BluRay? Why? by hal2814 · · Score: 2

      It's all a matter of priorities. Even at $100 I'm not interested. I get all of my TV and movie content online, over-the-air, or from RedBox. RedBox is still predominately DVD and if they have something in BluRay you have to pay a premium for it. Thanks, but no thanks. I'd consider BluRay if RedBox dropped DVD or severely cut the selection of DVDs but even then it's not a slam dunk because I'm pretty sure I'd have to buy an actual player instead of just adding a drive to my HTPC (It's not the fastest machine on earth). I don't want more crap in my living room.

    23. Re:BluRay? Why? by delinear · · Score: 1

      Don't Sony profit from DVD sales as well? I'm not sure exactly how the licensing for DVDs is structured so I may be wrong, but I know they were one of the founding members of the DVD Forum which is responsible, through the DVD Format Logo/Licensing Corp for collecting license fees for use of the DVD logo/specification, so I'd be surprised if they're not getting some income from that. They've had their sticky fingers in most of the media pies over the years.

    24. Re:BluRay? Why? by delinear · · Score: 1

      The internet already killed the slow-mo nipple watch - who wants to go to all that effort when they have reams (sorry, poor choice of word) of free pr0n at their fingertips. Ah, the good old days. I'm almost certain pausing videos and trying to see as the noise artifacts and image flicker make the picture jump up and down the screen are the real reason certain myths about certain activities and poor eyesight came to be.

    25. Re:BluRay? Why? by delinear · · Score: 1

      But then most of these 'old classics' that are making the jump to "high def" BluRay are just upscales from old laserdisk (sub DVD quality) copies anyway. 'See the movie as you've never seen it before' is likely a byword for 'see the movie with all kind of crappy video artifacts that weren't noticable on your forgiving old 28" cathode ray tube TV but will just be painful to watch in glorious 60" high definition'.

    26. Re:BluRay? Why? by Whyte+Panther · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between scaling a DVD video and scaling the output of a 3D graphics chip. For a simple example of this, look at the God of War Collection on PS3. The 3D assets appear for the most part to be the original models from the PS2 versions. However, with more graphical power, it is possible to render at a higher resolution without so much loss of quality. However the prerendered cutscenes were upscaled from the original PS2 disc rather than being rerendered, so the difference is more apparent.

    27. Re:BluRay? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High dynamic range makes sense on the production side. I don't know why it even exists on the consumer side, but I won't call it "a lie."
      I guess you shouldn't look at 24-bit dynamics as extrema, but as continuity. Not that it matters when the content is compressed into 4 bits and played back in a horrible environment.

      But on the production side it's nice to have the headroom. And really, we work in 32-bits because of the fact that the machines are more efficient moving whole words.

    28. Re:BluRay? Why? by FireFlie · · Score: 1

      You must not have an HD TV. These days it's not difficult to get a 40-50+ inch HD TVs. Full 1080p bluray looks significantly different (and more clear) than upconverts. I'm not a videophile, but I can tell the difference.

    29. Re:BluRay? Why? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      well, bad analogy: no one here is old enough to remember before earbuds and stereo.

      Pah, I remember when radios took time to warm up, when the dial was labeled Rugby, Hilversum, Luxemburg... I remember listening to my favorite radio station sinking in high seas...

      (wait for somebody to trump me me with a crystal set).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    30. Re:BluRay? Why? by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      I bought a PS3 instead. That lets me play games, watch DVDs, and use netflix and hulu plus streaming. Also, with MediaLink for my Mac (I know there's a free app, but it never worked right for me) I can stream bootleg video over my home wifi network.

    31. Re:BluRay? Why? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>but if you watch the movie at normal size

      I do too, but a lot of people watch the movie at large size on their 40 or 50 inch screens. Then DVD will show all the artifacts, and Bluray is the superior choice, especially since the difference is only 30-40 bucks. Might as well go with the BD player.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    32. Re:BluRay? Why? by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Oh yes ! Because I like very much stopping and zooming on movies. In fact I always do that each 5mn, so I can watch details, *that* is really much more entertaining - even if my GF disagrees.

      Thanks you for proving it's bullshit.

      Right, because that's what the poster was suggesting, that many of us like to zoom in while we watch movies.

      There's no way that he was just pointing out that using the zoom helps exagerate the existing differences in detail in order to make them more obvious.

      In fact, you can use similar techniques for 1 megapixel digital photographs or video games running at 640x480 resolution compared to those of higher resolution. If you zoom in, you can suddenly and miraculously see details that were *IMPOSSIBLE* to see before!

      But I'm sure you're right, it's all just BS. 640 lines of of upscaled resolution is more than anyone will ever need.

    33. Re:BluRay? Why? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>I like very much stopping and zooming on movies

      You don't have to stop the playback to use Zoom. I've used it a couple times to see details in the background, or to make it fit my screen better.

      >>>Thanks you for proving it's bullshit.

      Shove it asshole. Although my screen is small, those persons using 40-50 inch screens can see DVD artifacts even without zoom. It's worthwhile to get the Bluray release with 2 and half times more resolution. For you to sit there and tell them, "You're wasting your money" makes you truly stupid.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    34. Re:BluRay? Why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The cheapass Blu-Ray players are garbage you don't want to own. I got a Sharp originally $350 for like $90 and it was a total pile of shit, so the MSRP ain't a great guide either. Still, if a player is that cheap you know it's crap, usually with super-long disc load times and agonzingly slow BD-Live if it even has the feature.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:BluRay? Why? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>every disc and bd player you buy makes fat old [All the members of the Bluray Consortium] richer.

      Fixed that for you. Unless you meant this? "Every DVD/CD and DVD/CD player you buy makes fat old [Sony and Philips] corp richer." If you buy Bluray, Sony actually makes very little money because the licensing profits are shared with several dozen companies. But if you buy their proprietary DVD/CD formats then Sony/Philips get rich.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    36. Re:BluRay? Why? by FatSean · · Score: 1

      Blu-Ray players will improve and the audio is a huge improvement.

      Anyone who says upconverted DVD is "just as good" can't do math.

      --
      Blar.
    37. Re:BluRay? Why? by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I'm with you there, I'm not planning to rebuy my DVD collection but bluray players finally got cheap enough that I can enjoy the copy of planet earth in HD I got on sale a year ago.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    38. Re:BluRay? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.

      I do too, but only because of the DRM. Blurays aren't playable on homebrew equipment yet, except unreliably+illegally. When they give up on the DRM, they'll have truly entered the market and I'll stop having to use bittorrent to get stuff that Just Works. Until then, they don't get a dime.

      I ask why because [upconverting bullshit]

      Hopefully if they have even half a brain, they're very easily answer your "why" question: because they want the higher-resolution picture. Upconverting doesn't create the actual pixels; it creates guesses and interpolations. If they using a small TV, they don't need upconverting, and if they're using a large TV, they don't want it (compared to actual HD data).

      If you have a large HD TV and you bought upconverting equipment as an alternative to HD sources, you got scammed. I know you don't want to admit you're a victim, but everyone knows you are one.

    39. Re:BluRay? Why? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      The horse's ass looks much more detailed in HD. I can almost see the flies.

      --
      Huh?
    40. Re:BluRay? Why? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.

      I ask why because
      1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert
      2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35

      My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.

      Blu-Ray looks nicer and it has greater storage for more extras. Your tinfoil hat is reporting properly, but you are at least getting more detail in your picture.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    41. Re:BluRay? Why? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Upscaling's a funny old business. My (1st gen US 60gig) PS3 upscales PS2 games and does a pretty decent job of it. Certainly, on a dull afternoon, I got my TV to display Final Fantasy X running on:

      a) a PS2
      b) the PS3, with upscaling to 720p
      c) ePSXe2 via my laptop (with HDTV adapter), with upscaling to 720p

      Of the three, b) looked by far the best. The worst was a), which looked very blurry and muddy on a 38 inch HDTV. Meanwhile, c) just looked odd, with a very sterile and angular look. I think the point I took from this is that upscaling techniques can vary significantly in terms of quality.

      The reason there's so much difference is because, in the course of rendering a 3-D game, the textures on the models get scaled (usually down) anyway. Rendering the same scene at a higher resolution gives you the opportunity to better utilize that source data.

      Upscaling a DVD is different: it's pretty much just image scaling. The source material doesn't contain the sort of information that would make the end result a better picture.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    42. Re:BluRay? Why? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      The internet already killed the slow-mo nipple watch - who wants to go to all that effort when they have reams (sorry, poor choice of word) of free pr0n at their fingertips.

      It's all about getting access to the specific nipples which stubbornly remain elusive.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    43. Re:BluRay? Why? by Stormtrooper42 · · Score: 1

      Wait, if the laserdiscs were sub DVD quality, then how did they make the DVDs?

    44. Re:BluRay? Why? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      or maybe you don't VALUE the higher res on video since that contributes maybe 5% to the actual movie watching experience.

      you guys always forget this: content matters more.

      Yeah... And if you want to actually [i]see[/i] all that content, your options are:

      640x480 interlaced DVD image, anamorphically stretched to 16:9 and upscaled to the TV's resolution (but in the case of movies with really wide aspect ratios, there might be letterboxing, too - so you're taking your whole 1280x720 or 1920x1280 picture from a source image that's 640x480 or smaller, deinterlacing, etc.)

      Blu-Ray disc, which can offer 24fps at 1920x1080 progressive scan, or higher frame rates at lower and/or interlaced resolutions.

      Just about any movie ever on a reasonably-sized HD set will benefit from the extra pixels.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    45. Re:BluRay? Why? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      There is a very noticeable difference between a blu-ray and upconverted DVD.

      There's a very noticeable difference between a blu-ray and a 70-mm print projected on a 90-foot curscreen, too.

      The blu-ray is going to be an order of magnitude sharper and clearer.

      But since it includes scenes that aren't actually part of the movie, it's going to suck balls.

      I'd go with the DVDs of the originals. I'd pay ten times as much for them. Which is to say I wouldn't give you two bucks for the broken versions.

    46. Re:BluRay? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I chuckle because optical media is dead.

      If it is dead, then tell me what non-physical format gives the same video quality?

      HD video downloaded from online stores or from cable/satellite broadcasts have lower bitrate than blu-ray discs.
      Many HD files downloaded via torrent or from usenet have lower bitrate than blu-ray discs, since many of them are not blu ray disc rips.

    47. Re:BluRay? Why? by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      >but the long wait at the start, the forced commecials and the draconian DRM are complete show-stoppers.

      The wait at the start and the forced commercials can be just as bad on a DVD on players that adhere to the "specifications"

      (But I grant you, I only started buying Blu-Rays after the draconian DRM was at least broken enough so that I could rip them to extract "Movie Only, thanks" versions. Same as it was with DVD when the originals are too annoying that way. And you can always just extract the tracks you want and re-encode them to X.264 if the are MPEG2 then they fit on a DVD9 most of the time, and definitely on a Single Layer BD-R )

      >uprez'd dvd on a widescreen is very nearly the same

      Depends on the screen. I definitely see a big difference in details. When for example on DVD you just see some whishy-washy-greenery in the background, on BD you see individual leaves and branches, almost as looking out of a window. (with a good Full-HD monitor or beamer of course)

    48. Re:BluRay? Why? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It's not quite dead yet.

      First off, the Netflix streaming content is a fraction of its library, which is a fraction of the universe of movies.

      Second, at some point all that black-market filesharing is going to be shut down, probably when IP goes away and a secure network with real source identification is deployed. Only then will literally everything go online.

      Until then, not all content will be available in a ripped form, and what is available won't be something everyone will be willing to use.

    49. Re:BluRay? Why? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You have a shitty upconverter.

      I can tell the difference between upconverted DVD and 720p HD, but it's slight. And on a 57-inch DLP (that renders 1080p in a crispness that scratches the bezel) at 13 feet it's almost indistinguishable.

    50. Re:BluRay? Why? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      If the original light isn't there, it's because the conversion to DVD was borked, not because of the up-conversion to BD.

      Those comparison images aren't the same frame, by the way.

    51. Re:BluRay? Why? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      A lot of the "more crap" now comes in ridiculously small form factors.

      Blue-ray players are about as thick as your thumb, and a roku box is the size of a wireless access point.

      I'm not sure why satellite converters and DVRs are still 2U high. Probably just marketing psychology. Their guts are half an inch thick, less the power transformer, which itself can shrink as it has for notebook power adapters. Hell, my cell phone could do that job.

      They're still making receivers and amps with big transformers and capacitors (and tubes) in them, but the media sources are vanishing, physically.

    52. Re:BluRay? Why? by demonbug · · Score: 1

      I bought a PS3 instead. That lets me play games, watch DVDs, and use netflix and hulu plus streaming. Also, with MediaLink for my Mac (I know there's a free app, but it never worked right for me) I can stream bootleg video over my home wifi network.

      My only problem w/ the PS3 for DVDs (or really any standard-def content) is that I am one of the (apparently) very few with a 4:3 HD CRT. It is capable of 1080i in a 16:9 region. Sadly, when playing SD content the PS3 just outputs to a 4:3 subset of this 16:9 area, and for some reason the TV doesn't let me zoom on the HDMI input to fill the screen. Fortunately nearly all of my DVD collection is anamorphic widescreen, but 4:3 content looks really dumb (back when I had Dish HD this wasn't a problem; unlike Sony, they managed to have it properly scale on the TV depending on whether I was watching 4:3 SD content or 16:9 HD content). So, I've still got a DVD player hooked up for SD videos.

      I know, off-topic, but sometimes you just need to complain. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that the TV is made by Sony also, so you'd think it would play well with the PS3. Recently the TV seems to have had a stroke (best way I can describe it - the 16:9 picture kind of sags down on one side regardless of input) so I might talk the wife into springing for a new TV.

    53. Re:BluRay? Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    54. Re:BluRay? Why? by chronosan · · Score: 1

      Actually I have one of the best upconverters, I believe it's called a Radeon 5770. There's no denying that DVD looks better after being processed. However that same process will also make HD content look better, since there's more information to be processed. Higher resolution offers more benefits than just being able to see tiny details on screen, when more colours in the same area can be shown, they will blend better. The same goes for producing contrast. The only part of the processing that can't be applied to 720p and 1080p content is deinterlacing... because they're not interlaced.

    55. Re:BluRay? Why? by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      First I have to invest in the 50" screen, and then the Lazik surgery. A little more than $30 there to make Bluray useful to me.

    56. Re:BluRay? Why? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      But then most of these 'old classics' that are making the jump to "high def" BluRay are just upscales from old laserdisk (sub DVD quality) copies anyway. 'See the movie as you've never seen it before' is likely a byword for 'see the movie with all kind of crappy video artifacts that weren't noticable on your forgiving old 28" cathode ray tube TV but will just be painful to watch in glorious 60" high definition'.

      That may be true for old movies, but there are plenty of new movies that look much better on bluray than they do on dvd. Which makes a bluray player a worthwhile purchase for someone who watches new movies.

    57. Re:BluRay? Why? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      not to mention that if you rip them to your NAS, the industry has now just DOSd your storage system with extra data bits that you can't even see or resolve on the tv and definitely 100% guaranteed that your audio system isn't up to 'linear track 24bit' standards. ie, they force you to take 40-50gb for a movie when its just not reasonable.

      Although it's definitely true that the encodes on Blu-Ray are very poor in their usage of the overall bitpool, you can usually do a complete movie-only rip in about 20GB. It's then trivially easy to re-compress the movie using a much lower average bitrate but still retain every bit of the quality, and end up at about 12GB. For the vast improvement in both picture and sound quality, it is definitely worth about double the space of a DVD.

      Or, you could reduce the resolution to 720p, drop the lossless audio tracks, and every movie (including things like the director's cut of the LotR movies) will then fit in less than 8GB, with most less than 4GB.

      uprez'd dvd on a widescreen is very nearly the same with none of the down-sides of BD

      You really haven't watched HD material on a good large HDTV much, have you? The quality jump from DVD to even 720p is enormous. Not to mention that some Blu-Ray releases have cleaned up the film for the transfer (nothing new, just better quality). For me, the most striking has been the movie "Stargate". The Blu-Ray has correct color, no edge enhancement, and makes the DVD look pretty much like VHS.

    58. Re:BluRay? Why? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      no one here is old enough to remember before earbuds and stereo

      Incorrect; I am, and there are guys here older than me.

    59. Re:BluRay? Why? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      but the long wait at the start, the forced commecials and the draconian DRM are complete show-stoppers.

      ? The long wait on my PS3 is about 3-5 seconds on the hundreds of blu rays I have watched. The commercials are all skippable by pressing the menu button, with the exception of the stupid FBI and Interpol warnings.

      DRM can certainly be viewed as a show stopper though.

    60. Re:BluRay? Why? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      No, again the internet provides. Someone has already done all the work of obtaining the clearest screen cap possible and cataloging pretty much any specific nipple by movie for you.

    61. Re:BluRay? Why? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Then you might have posted "if you watch a movie at normal size with suboptimal vision on a small TV, as I tend to do" to be clear about the situation here.

    62. Re:BluRay? Why? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Toshiba was getting more of the royalties off DVD than Sony. Sony and Philips were the primary IP holders on CD, but not on DVD. That was the underpinning of the whole blu-ray - HD-DVD war. Toshiba wanted to extend their existing format and royalty structure into the HD world.

    63. Re:BluRay? Why? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Let's see you name two blu-rays of movies which anyone has heard of for which that is true.

      Virtually all blu-rays of any notable movie, even an "old classic", are made from a minimum of a crappy old 2k scan from the '90s created for purposes of either HD broadcast or DVD mastering, not from SD laserdisc material.

      Some suck pretty bad, but BDs which are sub DVD quality are virtually non-existent.

    64. Re:BluRay? Why? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      It's not quite dead yet.

      In fact, it thinks it will go for a walk.

    65. Re:BluRay? Why? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      How does 720p enter into a discussion about blu-ray vs. DVD?

      Oh, and move your couch up.

    66. Re:BluRay? Why? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Yeah... And if you want to actually [i]see[/i] all that content, your options are:

      640x480 interlaced DVD image

      I think virtually every DVD player on the market now does 3:2 pulldown and re-integrates the fields on DVD into proper full progressive frames for film based material. Unless you're using an interlaced display, in which case why are you even looking at blu-ray players?

    67. Re:BluRay? Why? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      If you are in any position to nitpick, then the movie has failed regardless of "image quality".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    68. Re:BluRay? Why? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That kind of requires that the new movies are something worth owning to begin with.

      The prequel trilogy is a fine example of this problem.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    69. Re:BluRay? Why? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You are aiming for a pretty low bar there.

      There are plenty of BD reviews out there that basically come of us "why bother with another release" when it comes to video quality.

      Star Trek II and Clockwork Orange fit into that category.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    70. Re:BluRay? Why? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Your entirely factual and accurate post omits the fact that DVD audion encoding (Dolby Digital and basic DTS) use lossy compression. Blu-rays are typically lossless compression (Dolby TruHD, DTS-HD MA or MLP). A lot of BDs are still 16 bit, though, I would guess 24 bit are a minority.

      Can't objectively comment on whether it is a lie by your standards, though, since I unfortunately have a sound system the cost 5 figures, so that must be why I hear a major difference.

    71. Re:BluRay? Why? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Yeah... And if you want to actually [i]see[/i] all that content, your options are:

      640x480 interlaced DVD image

      I think virtually every DVD player on the market now does 3:2 pulldown and re-integrates the fields on DVD into proper full progressive frames for film based material. Unless you're using an interlaced display, in which case why are you even looking at blu-ray players?

      Yeah, deinterlacing. My point is that the source image is still only 240 pixel rows of new content per 1/60 of a second.

      Of course, you're right, if it's a film source (24fps encoded into 60fps interlaced via telecine) there's no reason a good DVD player can't detelecine the video and get back the original 24fps content at 480p. I didn't think of that.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  12. Why? by Sky+Cry · · Score: 1

    Every new technology gives yet another opportunity to milk the crazy fans, who are willing to buy anything with words "Star Wars" on it...

    Why?

  13. yet another version by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

    So is this version still going to have the new actors replacing the original actors at the end to Return of the Jedi

    1. Re:yet another version by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      I think only only actor replacement at the end of RoJ was Anakin's Ghost (appalling as that was), wasn't it?

      --
      /* No Comment */
    2. Re:yet another version by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

      I'll have to check RoJ on the DVD set i have again but i think Lucas also replace Obiwan as well. And yes I do think it is a disgusting act for George Lucas to replace these actor(s); but what can i say it is his films he can sh*t on it how he wants.

    3. Re:yet another version by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Honestly this change didn't upset me as much as the horrible CGI Jabba with Han stepping on his tail, or Greedo shooting first (looks terrible, and alters the character of Han Solo).

      I believe the notion is that Anakin Skywalker died at a young age when he was burned alive and finished his transformation into Darth Vader. Your force ghost represents how you looked when you died. It adds a Frankenstein element to Darth Vader, that he really was more machine than man.

      I don't hate the special editions because they do look nicer for the most part. Cloud City in particular looks great in the special editions.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    4. Re:yet another version by Tarlus · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to spark a fan argument (as I'm not that much of a Star Wars fan) but by being appalled by Hayden Christianson's appearance, I mean that because I think he's a poor actor, and certainly no replacement for the late and far more talented Sebastian Shaw. The superimposition struck me as being disrespectful to Shaw, even as limited as his role was.

      Secondly, I don't buy into the "died at a young age" idea. Vader's change for the better at the end of RoJ (saving Luke, killing the Emperor) was supposed to be symbolic of the idea that Anakin resurfaced again, and was never truly dead. This was how he was redeemed before death. At least it struck me that way in the original release, especially after his line, "there's no hope for me now, son."

      Lucas just wanted to add more cohesion between the two trilogies. It's as simple as that.

      --
      /* No Comment */
    5. Re:yet another version by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I think you're right that the real motivation was to link the two trilogies and ret-con this idea that the master plan was always to tell an Anakin/Darth Vader arc.

      That being said, I don't mind the change as much as others because at least some argument can be made for it.

      The end of RotJ doesn't make much sense, but for some reason never gets ripped. Vader's armor stops blaster bolts dead in their tracks. Luke gets blaster with tons of the force lightning, but is fine. Vader a get little reflected on him and then dies from it, despite that armor.

      You can throw in this new ret-con to suggest that Darth Vader was kept alive by the Dark Side of the Force, and turning on that extinguished what was left of his life. Only the smallest spark of a mostly dead Anakin remained.

      And if Jedi can lift an X-Wing with the Force, or do a super Force Jump, why can't they just fly? Falling in a whole shouldn't kill the Emperor.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:yet another version by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      The Vader unmasked scene as well. That was Hayden.

      And to be a complete geek, they repleaced the original ESB emperor hologram (an old lady in heavy makeup) with the Palpatine we know. :)

      --
      Huh?
    7. Re:yet another version by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      No, it was still Sebastian Shaw, they just took off his eyebrows.

      They did, however, replace the original singer and some of the band in the Jabba palace number with some CGI and a new song.

    8. Re:yet another version by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Nope, it was Alec Guiness. Only Anakin changed.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  14. So you save 1 cent by Racemaniac · · Score: 4, Informative

    by buying the two boxes separately?

    1. Re:So you save 1 cent by ZJ+AJ · · Score: 1

      Or you save $70 by not being forced to buy the prequels to get the (bastardized) classic ones. Your call.

    2. Re:So you save 1 cent by jittles · · Score: 2

      Just wait 6 months and you can buy the digitally remastered Blu-Ray version. Another 6 months after that and you can buy the digitally remastered Blu-Ray version with NEW previously never seen before, add no value to the movie, scenes!

    3. Re:So you save 1 cent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.. That's a general trend for buying larger packs these days and people don't notice.

      It's like how at movie theaters or fast food joints they don't always show individual item prices so you don't see that the 'combo' saves you nothing

    4. Re:So you save 1 cent by east+coast · · Score: 1

      "A penny saved is a penny earned." -Jedi Franklin

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    5. Re:So you save 1 cent by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      It's like how at movie theaters or fast food joints they don't always show individual item prices so you don't see that the 'combo' saves you nothing

      Either saves you nothing, or at places like Taco Bell costs MORE than my normal order.

      I typically always get the small drinks at a fast food place. They all have free refills anyways and I'm not likely to go back more than once for a refill - if that. Taco Bell combos all include their large drinks - which are much bigger than any amount of soda I'd actually want. If you order the combos piecemeal with the large drinks then it's a wash - but if you order separately and get the small drink instead of large, then you actually save a decent amount on the total.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:So you save 1 cent by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      The seperate trilogies don't include special features. When you buy the boxed set of 6 movies, you get a total of 9 BluRay discs with 30 hours of special features.

      And the 6 movie/9 disc set can be had on Amazon's pre-order for $90.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    7. Re:So you save 1 cent by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      And just wait until the live action TV show gets kicked off (if that ever happens). We'll see even more releases so they can backfit TV stuff into the original trilogy.

      I'm calling it now... My prediction is that at some point in the future Lucas is going to add on another 7 to 15 minutes of new footage to the start of Episode 4. A retconned setup to the movie.

      You heard it here first.

      --
      Huh?
    8. Re:So you save 1 cent by bell.colin · · Score: 1

      Don't forget even more of the above in "3D Editions"

  15. Indeed... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    My guess is that you save on postage when buying the 6-in-1 bundle online as most shops (Amazon definitely) charge per shipment AND per item postage.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Indeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon Prime here, and I can wait my two days. A penny saved, then.

      Then again, these are insanely expensive enough to have free shipping likely for any reasonable retailer. Without free shipping, it'd be in for a penny or in for a pound... or however much shipping costs.

    2. Re:Indeed... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Unless you're REALLY in a hurry and can't wait a few days, shipping is already included with all media purchases from Amazon anyways (at least over $25, which these would definitely qualify for).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  16. Burglar's logic by John+Guilt · · Score: 0

    'If they're dumb enough to leave their window unlocked, then they _deserve_ to be stolen-from.' '[...] why not [....]' ---Because, as Mr Nixon once observed in a different context, 'That would be wrong.' '

    1. Re:Burglar's logic by somersault · · Score: 1

      It's hardly stealing if people are handing over the money willingly.

      On the other hand I am a little annoyed at this. I got fed up of waiting for the original Star Wars on blu-ray and just bought the DVDs last year. The last version I bought was the VHS "Special Edition" with the case that made farty noises when you put the lid back on.

      I think this is one of those things where I'll be happy with the DVD for now though. Old live action films aren't usually worth getting on blu-ray. If I were inclined to buy Episodes 1-3 (which I'm not.. well, maybe 3, it was okay), I'd get the blu-rays though.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Burglar's logic by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      I have yet to buy any... the local library had DVD copies last time I wanted to watch it and that took care of the issue. I don't know if I'll ever buy another copy ... my current TV is right on the edge (42 in.) of blu-ray offering a difference and since there's always "another edition" coming out, he's actually losing money on me since I have it in my head that "maybe I'll get the next one."

    3. Re:Burglar's logic by somersault · · Score: 1

      My TV is 40" and the difference with blu-rays is still noticeable - I think the ratio of size of TV, current resolution, and viewing distance probably have a larger importance than the actual size of your TV.

      Yeah I always thought the same, until I just gave up on the blu-ray, since it took so incredibly long to even bring out a DVD version, or at least that's what I thought.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Burglar's logic by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Wow, a "people willingly buying a product" == "they are being robbed by someone invading their home" comparison. Well, this *is* Slashdot.

      It's more like the guys over at Ain't It Cool News who bemoan all the crappy movies, and then when certain movies come out they are all "What a shitpile this thing will be. I can't wait to see it!" Derp.

    5. Re:Burglar's logic by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I haven't watch any SW since I sat through Phantom Menace at the theater. It's an embarrassment to the geekverse that anyone still cares. Look, it was silly fun for a while, but then it went wrong and stupid. Abandon it already and move on. Sheesh.

    6. Re:Burglar's logic by sexconker · · Score: 1

      If I were inclined to buy Episodes 1-3 (which I'm not.. well, maybe 3, it was okay)

      Your definition of "okay" includes the following.

          You are so beautiful.

          It's only because I'm so in love.

          No, no! It's because I'm so in love with you!

          So love has blinded you?

          That's not what I meant!

      Please reevaluate your definition of the word "okay".

    7. Re:Burglar's logic by somersault · · Score: 1

      I thought all the stupid romance crap was in the second, sorry. From the third I just remember some sneaky Jedi action, a whole bunch of clone troopers, and Anakin going DO NOT WAAAAAAAAAANT

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:Burglar's logic by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Poor Gen Z'ers will never know the pleasing fart of a VHS sliding into its cardboard sleeve.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:Burglar's logic by somersault · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they'll only get the fart when they pull out their cardboard Steve ;)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    10. Re:Burglar's logic by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Ironic, that the guy who's still complaining about a movie that came out eleven years ago is telling people to "move on".

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    11. Re:Burglar's logic by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that a clumsy 30 second scene ruined a two hour movie?

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  17. Not for me! by Cornwallis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unless it includes the most excellent Star Wars Christmas Special it isn't complete.

    1. Re:Not for me! by flogger · · Score: 1

      Well, Here you can watch the entire thing, all 117 minutes of its beauty. Enjoy.

      --
      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
      "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
      -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    2. Re:Not for me! by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      There never was a Star Wars Christmas Special. No one knows what you're talking about, you sound like a crazy person.

    3. Re:Not for me! by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      Completely unwatchable, even WITH rifftrax.

    4. Re:Not for me! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Given how much they have given into the Cult of Boba Fett, they might as well include his first appearance.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  18. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the 3D version, Han shoots you first!

    1. Re:Awesome! by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Funniest slashdot post ever and I have no mod points.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  19. Dead horse by TheL0ser · · Score: 1

    At what point does a franchise transition from beating a dead horse to beating the pulp that remains of the horse to hitting the ground where it used to be because the thing's turned to dust?

    1. Re:Dead horse by decipher_saint · · Score: 4, Funny

      Imagine if you will a dead horse that deposited millions of dollars into your bank account every time you beat it.

      --
      crazy dynamite monkey
    2. Re:Dead horse by spidercoz · · Score: 1

      You've just entered...the Scary Door.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    3. Re:Dead horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please excuse me, I have to take care of some errands at the glue factory and the bank...

    4. Re:Dead horse by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Star Wars still brings in billions yearly, even without a new movie in the theater. Consumers are voting with their wallets.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  20. I don't like "Star Wars" by John+Guilt · · Score: 0

    There are nice visuals---I like the worn-looking tech in the first two (release order) movies, which I saw---but I've never been a fan of knights of any stripe.
    I prefer science fiction to heroic fantasy.
    But from what I've heard, wouldn't it make more sense to charge $140 for the first three released, and $80 for all six?
    (And, yes, Jaws was never my speed---I figured that either it would leave me cold, which would make it a waste of money, or it would scare me, which I don't like---sometimes I think I'm much simpler than many people...I hate roller-coasters.)

  21. Releasing moves in the updated format by slaxative · · Score: 2

    I see an awful lot of complaints regarding rereleasing Star Wars in a new format. This is incredibly common. Its not like George Lucas is the only person releasing their movie again in a new format.

    --
    This is not the penguin you're looking for.
    1. Re:Releasing moves in the updated format by Xphile101361 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but ./ doesn't care about those other movies

    2. Re:Releasing moves in the updated format by MBGMorden · · Score: 2

      George is more heavily scrutinized on this issue because of past transgressions. There were at least 3 (probably more) VHS versions of the originals, then the laserdisc versions, then the DVD versions (sure there is more than one DVD set out for them), etc, etc, etc.

      It's not that releasing on BluRay is a bad thing - it's just that based on past experiences, most people see this as the inevitable FIRST OF MANY BluRay releases of these movies.

      Truth be told . . . my only copies of the original trilogy are still on VHS . . .

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Releasing moves in the updated format by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      But you see, StarWars is for many a geek, the first "sci-fi" movie they ever saw, and being geeks, that by itself makes it sacred. It is like loosing your virginity the first time (sic), be it bad or good, remains indelible in your mind.

      For me, the I saw StarWars at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood when I was about 13 or so, and I distinctly remember the sound of the opening fight scene where the big cruiser was overtaking Leia's ship and the surround sound making me "feel" llike I was in the ship with her.

      Now? Surround is meh, but hat that time WOW. In fact it is kind of like "sex", first time "WOW", now .. meh. Don't get me wrong, I sill like it, just not like the first time.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Releasing moves in the updated format by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      if [ $? -eq 0 ] then echo "Lets do this!"

      Two syntax errors in one line of shell script.

      You need a ";" after the "]" and ": fi" at the end.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    5. Re:Releasing moves in the updated format by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      You should try sex WITH surround sound. Man . . .

  22. That's no moon! by PPH · · Score: 2

    Its a UPS truck bearing Star Wars bundles!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:That's no moon! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      That's no moon, that's Lucas' fat ass ... mooning us!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  23. Better never than late by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

    Does this mean we're a year away from the next-gen successor to Blu-ray coming out?

    1. Re:Better never than late by delinear · · Score: 1

      Cheap hard drives were the next gen successor to BluRay befoe it came out - it's just that that medium lacks the multi-billion dollar marketing push to make it ubiquitous so it's having to take the long route, but I'm already seeing entirely non-technical people buying streaming media centres, plugging USB drives into their NAS-ready routers, and watching movies stored on servers in other countries. The uptake from VHS to DVD was huge because there was a vastly noticable difference in quality. The uptake from DVD to BD has been slower - the better quality is there, certainly, but for many DVD is still good enough. The next jump will be marginal - even cramming in billions more pixels in resolution won't be too noticable. I'd be surprised if we see another big optical format to replace BD that's not just used for backup and archiving.

  24. Blu-ray not just for Clone Wars any more! by ewg · · Score: 1

    Nice to see the films joining Clone Wars on Blu-ray, currently the only Star Wars content available in that format.

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
  25. DS and DS Lite r 4 games, not movies by tepples · · Score: 1

    If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS

    Because Nintendo made the DS and DS Lite for games, not movies. Homebrew is piracy according to Nintendo, even though I disagree with Nintendo's stance. Otherwise, it wouldn't have successfully sued distributors of R4 and R4i style microSD adapters in multiple countries.

    I've discovered that very very few movies are BD-Live.

    That's because BD-Live is an ongoing cost center: the publisher has to keep servers running.

  26. I would pay... by tompaulco · · Score: 2

    I would pay as much as $0 for all 6 movies, or I would pay up to $40 for episodes 4-6 and would accept as low as $40 in payment to take episodes 1-3.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:I would pay... by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Eh. Episode 1 was the bad one. Episode 2 wasn't terrible, and I think Episode 3 was actually decent.

      Overall, the following tweaks would have done a LOT:

      1. Make Anakin start older when first meeting Obi-wan. 14-15 years old.
      2. Remove Jar-jar - completely.
      3. Remove pod-racing.
      4. Remove midichlorians.
      5. Find a different actor to play Anakin.
      6. Used puppet-Yoda for the first movie. CG Yoda wasn't bad in Eps 2 and 3 but I almost wanted to cry seeing him in Ep 1.

      Truth be told after seeing his later stuff, despite the initial fan outcry about the possibility, I would have far preferred that Leonardo DiCaprio have gotten the role of Anakin than Hayden Christianson.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:I would pay... by MooseMuffin · · Score: 2

      Episode 3 was the biggest cinematic missed opportunity I can think of. The whole point of the movie, and the whole point of the prequel trilogy, was to see how and why Anakin went to the dark side. It was the reason we stomached the first two awful movies and should have helped us find new way to look at the original 3 movies. If they could nail that scene, the rest of the garbage might have just been worth it. Instead, the big payoff scene was clumsy and unbelievable and it manages to make all of the prequels all the more pointless. Unless they can get that aspect right, tweaking the rest hardly matters.

      // I just made a star wars post on slashdot. Kill me now.

    3. Re:I would pay... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Leonardo DiCaprio was never considered for the role. Lucas wanted a relatively unknown actor who had an athletic background so they would take to the lightsaber duels.

      Ryan Phillipe was the other finalist for the role. Hayden Christiansen played the whiny Skywalker as written and directed. He isn't a terrible actor if you see the other things he did.

      Lucas made guys like Liam Neeson, Ewan Macgregor and Natalie Portman look like average to poor actors. So why does everyone blame Hayden Christiansen?

      And I think the prequels could have been decent with some tweaking, but Lucas made the films outside of a studio, and with no input from others.

      I disagree about removing pod-racing. The sequence showed off the new THX sound system developed just for Epsiode 1, and was one of two decent scenes in the movie (along with the Darth Maul duel). A good race/chase sequence is always welcome.

      The big problem with Episode 1 is the majority of the film is people sitting around talking, Jar Jar, and an unrealistic/annoying young kid in a lead role.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    4. Re:I would pay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      guys like ... Natalie Portman

      trying to start another weird celebrity rumor? (OK OK, I know it's just a typo.)

    5. Re:I would pay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you sir, are a NERD!

    6. Re:I would pay... by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Somewhat agree. I think even Jake Lloyd could have done passably well if there had been a director present on set.

    7. Re:I would pay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's true, but I never understood why Captain Kirk didn't just destroy the Death Star with his photon torpedos. Come to think of it, where was the Enterprise anyway, and how come Mr Spock was so short? Star Wars is rubbish, it doesn't even make any sense.

    8. Re:I would pay... by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Mod up!!

      From the top of the head - see what Spielberg extracted from Liam in "Schindler's list". What about Natalie in "Leon" (I read she makes sterling job in "Black Swan" too). Or Ewan in "Trainspotting"...

      Why, oh why, GL did not give the directing to others?

  27. Also... by denzacar · · Score: 2

    Just checked on amazon.

    Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Episodes I-VI) [Blu-ray] comes with 9 discs - for $89.99.

    Star Wars: The Original Trilogy (Episodes IV - VI) [Blu-ray] and Star Wars: The Prequel Trilogy (Episodes I - III) [Blu-ray] are both 3 disc sets for $44.99 each.

    So, you get 3 extra discs in the complete set for 1 cent more, and you save on the shipping if you don't want or don't qualify for the FREE_Super_Saver_ShippingTM.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  28. US broadband still sucks by tepples · · Score: 1

    Please watch your tense. Optical media will be dead as soon as the broadband situation in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand improves. Right now, a lot of households in the anglosphere are stuck with low-cap satellite being the only remotely broadband Internet connection they can get. Good luck downloading a high-definition movie at 5 GB per month. Until then, optical media is not dead.

  29. $69.99+$69.99=$139.98 by Robert+Bowles · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, buy separately and save a penny. Sounds like the groundwork for a new economic policy...

    --
    /* MAGIC THEATRE
    ENTRANCE NOT FOR EVERYBODY
    MADMEN ONLY */
  30. I don't want the hole bundle by arndawg · · Score: 1

    How much for just Episode 1?

  31. so how's the TV show coming? by spidercoz · · Score: 1

    is it dead yet?

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
    1. Re:so how's the TV show coming? by Paspanique · · Score: 1

      Well, if they can stop putting out new format for Lucas to edit the trilogies, it will come along.

      I can't wait for the re mastering of ASCII Star wars into Unicode.

      --
      I don't have an intelligent phone, so I need to be.
    2. Re:so how's the TV show coming? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Last I heard Lucas was still busy writing the full 100 episodes in advance. They want to write them all at once, film them all at once and sell the package deal to HBO. HBO won't be able to give input as the series goes along or change anything and HBO isn't interested in that. So the two sides are having a stand-off.

      We'll see how that goes. Lucas has promised a dark show, like Deadwood in space, heavily focused on bounty hunters killing the last remaining Jedi. I'm rooting that Lucas allows other writers to write the show, and that it happens.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    3. Re:so how's the TV show coming? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      After completely screwing up I, II, and III, do you really think he'll let other writers write the show?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  32. Uh oh! by glwtta · · Score: 1

    Someone better invent a new format fast, else how am I going to pay for Star Wars again next year? (That's after the Blu-ray Remastered and Blu-ray Collectors' editions, of course).

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:Uh oh! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      probably will be "original unedited version" and 3D version

    2. Re:Uh oh! by glwtta · · Score: 1

      Now why do I think that we're way more likely to see the latter than the former?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:Uh oh! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      don't worry, the former is available in "good enough" format for digitizing, on 12" (30cm) CAV laserdisc. My friend still has all three original star wars movies in this format

  33. Never leave you window open by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or copies of episodes 1-3 might join your collection or worse, the thief will swap your 4-6 for his 1-3.

  34. Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was hand-waved months ago, when they first made the announcement.

    http://geektyrant.com/news/2010/8/14/george-lucas-star-wars-blu-ray-coming-in-2011-and-watch-a-de.html

    Lucas also went on to explain that the original trilogy films included on the Blu-Ray release will be the remastered special editions.

            Releasing the originals is kind of an oxymoron because the quality of the original is not very good. You have to go through and do a whole restoration on it, and you have to do that digitally. It’s a very, very expensive process to do it. So when we did the transfer to digital, we only transferred really the upgraded version.

    In other words, no ORIGINAL original trilogy, cause that would mean some "people" would actually have to be "hired" to do some "work" on those and they would presumably require to be "paid" in return.

    But have no fear. Few years down the road, and Lucas will have his slaves do that for free.
    Or for more actual coffee in their coffee and an additional bathroom brake.
    Cause nothing is too good for his slaves if it will help sell everyone yet another "very, very expensive" set of plastic discs.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

      What Lucas SHOULD do is get some talented web programmers to build an interface to crowd-source this expensive process. There are enough star wars geeks who would pitch in for free. And then maybe some creative ones would make slight modifications to the movie to improve it.

      Maybe those are the Lucas "slaves" you are referring to.

    2. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by tuffy · · Score: 2

      The whole excuse is crap, really. Adding all new CG effects required the original film elements that had been transferred to digital. Therefore, making an unaltered version would be a matter of transferring all those pre-CG elements back into a movie. The "Star Trek" series Blu-Ray treatment working similarly, placing both the enhanced and original versions on disc via branching. LucasFilm could do the same, but they choose not to.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    3. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by Chowderbags · · Score: 2

      The most telling quote from George Lucas since the last time he said anything: "Releasing the originals is kind of an oxymoron because the quality of the original is not very good." Apparently quality only means blue screen special effects and a jumble of completely pointless CGI aliens onscreen. Here I thought quality involved plot, strong characters, and not weighing us down with scenes of Galactic Senate CSPAN. As time goes on, we have to seriously doubt if George Lucas had anything to do with the original Star Wars at all.

    4. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by Krater76 · · Score: 2

      Releasing the originals is kind of an oxymoron because the quality of the original is not very good. You have to go through and do a whole restoration on it, and you have to do that digitally. It’s a very, very expensive process to do it. So when we did the transfer to digital, we only transferred really the upgraded version.

      This is such BS it's hard to even understand. How much has changed since the originals? 3%, 5% tops? That means they have already remastered almost the entire movie. What the fans want from Lucas is to spend a little extra cash (which we will obviously end up paying for) and remaster the few scenes that you didn't from before (which should be minimal).

      Then you need to go through and remove the crap you put in before, we want the original theatrical versions - Han shoots first, remove the crappy Jabba scene from ANH, take out the silly falling scream from Luke in ESB, and remove Hayden Christensen from the ghosts at the end and give me my celebrating Ewoks back from RotJ. Among other things.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    5. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Releasing the originals is kind of an oxymoron because the quality of the original is not very good.

      In other news, the British government has announced that Stonehenge is to be demolished and replaced with a remastered version that better reflects the original vision of the ancient Britons. "To be honest, these stones have not really stood the test of time," said a spokesman. "Half of them have fallen over and the rest are terribly weathered. The remastered Stonehenge will feature sharper edges and exciting new visual effects every solstice."

      Honestly, I don't care who shoots first in the version of the movie that plays if you just stick the disk in the drive. I don't even care whether the revised versions are "better" or "worse". But this deliberate attempt to prevent people from seeing the original, historical, culturally significant versions of these movies is simply vandalism.

    6. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by EdZ · · Score: 1

      I wonder how long until someone still hanging onto a copy of the film (as in, physical put-it-in-a-projector film) hooks up with someone able to shove a dSLR with a custom macro lens onto film moving rig (i.e. a hacked up old projector), dumps the resulting images through avisynth/whathaveyou, and releases an unofficial HD master. There are so many different custom remasters using various mixes of DVD and LD sources that they'd hardly be wanting for people eager to get their hands on 4k copy of even a grubby original film 'master'.

    7. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by desmondmonster · · Score: 1

      Actually the visual fidelity of the originals really isn't that good by modern standards. A few years ago they released dvds with the original *unedited* and the remastered versions, and they originals look very fuzzy and kind of cheesy by comparison. It's the sort of thing you might not notice on an old CRT, but the LCD screen I had definitely revealed some limitations in the original film prints.

    8. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      A few years ago they released dvds with the original *unedited* and the remastered versions, and they originals look very fuzzy and kind of cheesy by comparison.

      The originals look so bad because they were telecined for laserdisc, and that analog telecine was then digitized at 720x356 for the DVD. Meanwhile, the "special editions" were telecined direct to digital at high resolution, then reduced to 720x480.

      So, the original versions of the movie have an extra generational loss, plus 25% less vertical resolution. It's no wonder they look "fuzzy",

      Also, color correction was applied to the special editions, and what's on the DVD has as close to the original film color as can be done on that medium, while the original versions suffer from lossy color conversions.

    9. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would the bathroom brake be a good incentive because they could use it to stop the bathroom rolling away?

    10. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      WHAT THE FUCK happened to the work that resulted from the "THX" remaster release? It fixed most of the rough bits of the original (visible mattes and such) but didn't screw with the content too much (Greedo doesn't shoot, no crappy new songs in Jedi, no worse-than-the-original-effects guy in a Wampa Halloween costume in Empire)

      I can't remember whether there was a cinema re-release of those versions, but I think there was, and even if not I sincerely doubt they didn't have a higher quality copy that they used to make the VHS version. Where the HELL are those reels, Lucas?

      This isn't the first post I've seen online quoting (from different occasions) Lucas saying there's somehow NO version of the originals that can be salvaged without an insane amount of restoration... but he already did that restoration back in the early or mid 90s.

      Personally, I think he's a liar. Wouldn't be the first time he's lied about SW-related stuff for no damn reason.

    11. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Also, color correction was applied to the special editions, and what's on the DVD has as close to the original film color as can be done on that medium, while the original versions suffer from lossy color conversions.

      Actually, back when special editions came out on DVD I ripped the DVDs to make myself an "as high as possible quality" backup of each movie.

      Good god, was the color fucked up.
      The entire video stream was "burned", saturation was boosted way up, and that is AFTER you look over the fact that Vader's saber was pink in the special edition.

      I'm guessing that whoever did mastering used as big a monitor as possible with brightness turned on to maximum, in a completely darkened room.
      Whatever it was, it sure was not a calibrated 21" Trinitron (or any other monitor I tried it out) or your average TV.

      Oh, the data was still there. You just couldn't see it after all that "color correction" they did.
      Every single scene that has space in the background - on DVD the space looks pitch black.
      Fix the levels a bit (or turn the brightness on to max and dim the lights) and voila - it's full of stars.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    12. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the fact that 90-odd percent of the films ARE restored already, you would only need to restore the few scenes that were replaced in the 'Special' Editions, the number of which I can't be bothered to google, but which isn't more than a few minutes per film.

    13. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Actually, Luke's scream was cut out of the DVD release 5 years ago.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    14. Re:Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That statement by Lucas is crap.

      I began working in systems at ILM, starting in 1997, when they had just rolled out the Special Editions, and the first data I saw flowing through the dailies system were very, very hi-res scans of the original negatives, for the original trilogy.

      They used an early version of these scans to build out the Special Edition releases, upon which additional special effects were added, but that was it. Some stuff got cleaned up, but since the SpecEd was aimed for a film, VHS and DVD release, and because Lucas was busy messing around with and adding scenes, not much else was done to these scans to clean them up, at that time.

      Very shortly -after- the Special Editions were released, because they had all the scans and the data out on disk at ILM at the time, they then spent some effort to further clean things up. Like removing matte lines around ships & asteriods in Empire for example, cleaning up the light sabers in New Hope, etc.

      -Those- scans are what they are currently pulling off tape, and using to edit together these Blu-rays now. Plus a shit-ton of other stuff that was scanned from film at the time (interviews, etc.)

      Basically they already have had, for more than 13 years, access to pristine, uber hi-res scans from one or more of the original copies of the -very- original negatives, for the first trilogy.

      So Lucas is lying, and it's an insult to anyone with half a brain, to imply that he doesn't have a hi-res (4k+) copy of the -original- trilogy, as it existed on film, before he messed with it.

  35. Or, if you are not in USA... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=mk_sss_dp_1?ie=UTF8&nodeId=527692&pop-up=1

    # Applies to U.S. delivery addresses in the 50 states only, including Alaska and Hawaii.
    Geographic shipping restrictions may apply to particular products; for example, some Tools & Hardware items may not be shipped to Alaska and Hawaii using FREE Super Saver Shipping.
    # Applies to APO/FPO addresses when using a United States ZIP Code only.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  36. It could be worse; you could live in Canada by intolerant+jerk · · Score: 1

    Star Wars: The Complete Saga on Blu-ray will be available for $139.99 US/$179.99 CAN and the Star Wars: Trilogy Sets for $69.99 US/89.99 CAN. Pricing for each set will vary by international territory.

    Given the Canadian dollar is at parity and will likely be there for the foreseeable future I for one will be passing on this. Fuck you Lucas.

     

  37. Dave Prowse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow... does that mean that David Prowse who played Darth Vader will finally see some money from Georgie Lucas?

  38. Spongebob! by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    In this version Spongebob Squarepants will replace Jar Jar and the Emperor will be played by Plankton!

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  39. A winning formula... by Gunkerty+Jeb · · Score: 1

    Take the Star Wars angle and you'll always get front page on Slashdot.

  40. Why bother? Wait for the 3D versions... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    I am sure they are coming and I am sure the 2D versions will be just as good as these. In fact these will probably be the sources for the 3D versions.

  41. Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, when you're out of ideas, just sell the same thing over and over again in a different shiny box.

  42. Bundle of 2 would be better by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    I'll take just the first two in the bundle, thanks.

    1. Re:Bundle of 2 would be better by glam0006 · · Score: 1

      Episodes I and II? Masochist.

  43. Re:US broadband still sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    United States, Australia, and New Zealand improves.

    WTF? Two tiny countries.

    You could have said "Optical media will be dead as soon as the broadband situation in the United States, Côte d'Ivoire and Central African Republic improves".

  44. Still waiting... by SoTerrified · · Score: 1

    When the first movie came out on VHS video, my friends asked me why I didn't buy it. I said "This is an obvious stopgap. They are clearly going to release a better, more fully-featured version in the future. I'm going to wait for that version. Only once I'm sure that it's the 'totally complete, fully featured' last version they are going to put out, will I buy it."

    I'm still waiting. I've given a lot of my money to a lot of different movies in the years in-between, but somehow Lucas manages to convince me with every release that there's another, better release coming soon.

    So now I'm waiting for the 3D version...

    1. Re:Still waiting... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Man waiting for technology to stop is still waiting.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Still waiting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but Lucas does seem to have a habit of always releasing SW on the second-to-the-latest technology.

    3. Re:Still waiting... by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      It's a silly position to take, unless you don't actually want to watch the movies. Like many geeks, I like them enough that I want to watch them once in a while. As a kid, that meant several times a year. Now, it means every couple years maybe... about as frequently as new editions come out, now that I think of it :)

      I haven't bought all the editions, naturally. My parents bought me a VHS set back in the day, and I bought the first DVD set when it came out. I was only 11 when the special editions were out in theaters (all three of which, naturally, I went to see), so didn't "appreciate" the shittier of the changes Lucas introduced. When I saw the DVD special editions I was disgusted, and I won't be giving him any more money. I did watch Return of the Jedi a couple weeks ago when I happened to come across it on TV, on an HD station. I had to do something else while watching it, though (probably was browsing slashdot), because there were commercials.

      Anyway, what I really want to say is that there is a point where we can more-or-less stop worrying about a newer edition coming out, and we can just buy it and be done with it. That point is when Lucas authorizes the release of an edition of the *original* films in a 1080p-capable format. If it's Blu-Ray or a future disc format, it'll be ripped to a format you can keep on a hard drive like Blu-Rays are today, which is more-or-less future-proof. The only caveat that makes the release of the Star Wars films different from the re-release of other films is the changes. Cleaning up the special effects was a good idea, but all the other stuff has to go. I will not buy another edition that includes Greedo shooting first, CGI background elements and monsters that look totally out of place (the band in Jabba's Palace being the worst example), etc. Frankly I think Lucas is scared by the idea of releasing an HD version of the pre-special-edition original films, because there's really no point in exceeding this. We can keep the rips around forever, safe in knowing that there won't be a better consumer-usable copy essentially ever. Few will care about a 3D version, and there's not much you can add beyond that.

  45. Separately $0.01 cheaper by patjhal · · Score: 1

    So this is one of those oh so often times when buying the two separately is slightly cheaper. Can't they nock down the price of all six to $129.99

    1. Re:Separately $0.01 cheaper by geekoid · · Score: 0

      except yu gfet more in the set, so your not really comparing womp rats to womp rats..

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  46. Moichandising! by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 1

    Barf: Merchandising? What's that?
    Yogurt: Moichandising! Come, I'll show you. [to the Dinks] Open up this door.
    [Yogurt walks over to a wall filled with Spaceballs merchandise.]
    Yogurt: Heh-heh. Come! We put the picture's name on everything!

    Lucas: First, we release the individuals, and then...
    Slashdotter: And then!!!
    Lucas: ...we release the boxed set, and then...
    Slashdotter: Yes, and now what!?!
    Lucas: ...the Han shot version in uncut format, and then...
    Slashdotter: Okay, okay, now what...

    Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.
    --H.L. Mencken

    (Self-fulfilling prophecy when I am modded flamebait/troll.)

    1. Re:Moichandising! by Moryath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      sets of the bastardized, chopped up, mutilated corpses of the original three films, and the three prequels

      There, fixed that for ya.

      And somehow my .sig feels oh-so-appropriate today...

    2. Re:Moichandising! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sets of the bastardized, chopped up, mutilated corpses of the original three films, and the three prequels

      There, fixed that for ya.

      These are not the trilogies you are looking for.

  47. "Guess I'll have to buy the White Album again..." by buckeyeguy · · Score: 2

    As someone who has owned a video copy of SW since RCA Selectavision (gack), I welcome our new format overlords.

    --
    I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
  48. Re:US broadband still sucks by tepples · · Score: 1

    United States, Australia, and New Zealand improves.

    WTF? Two tiny countries.

    Two tiny yet industrialised and English-speaking countries that might revolt should all six major motion picture distributors abandon disc sales in favor of paid downloads. Besides, the United States isn't small; it's the majority of the anglosphere by population, yet broadband there is still considered a luxury, not an expectation.

  49. Why not wait? by kehren77 · · Score: 1

    I'm going to wait 5 or 6 years and buy the 3D Blue-Ray editions. Because that's just what we need, Jar Jar Binks in 3D.

  50. pricing? by VolciMaster · · Score: 1
    bundle of all six movies will sell for $139.99, while sets of the original three films, and the three prequels, will go for $69.99 apiece

    Anyone else find it funny that it's a penny cheaper to buy the two sets (and get extra packaging, to boot?

  51. Yes but... by hellfire · · Score: 1

    ...most media groups release the "new digitally remastered" or the "20th anniversary edition with new interviews" and simply do it once. George has demonstrated how to successfully milk a cow even after it's desiccated.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  52. OT: Your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do people here really worry about the "risk" of a troll mod? Do they really cry if they get modded troll or something else that's not +1? Jeez, I thought I spent a lot of time around this place, but apparently not as much as some people.

  53. I have them in Vinyl CED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    luckily I only bought it once and it was the vinyl version I am not buying it again.
    I bought them in a bundle in an ebay auction CED player and the complete trilogy. I removed the original case of the CED player and made one of acrylic.

  54. Star Wars? Meh. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

    The first sci-fi movie I remember seeing as a kid was They Live.

  55. red letter media extras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will the Red Letter Media reviews be included in the bonus materials??

  56. Slashdot behind the curve, by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    And apparently overpriced to boot. Over at deals.woot.com they had The full saga as well as just the original trilogy, both on blu-ray through Amazon.

    However, not only did they have them posted yesterday, they also had them for lower prices through the same vendor.

    If we can't be at least as relevant as woot, why even bother reporting on this?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  57. The Answer by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been saying for years that ultimately, the system I describe below is the most fair and equitable for both consumers and studios.

    Someone--probably either the government or a government-regulated entity--should set up a "copyright clearinghouse" for media such as movies. If you want to buy a movie, you play a license fee plus a media fee. So say you went out and bought the original Star Wars movie (Episode IV) on DVD for $15. That $15 would technically be, say, $12 for the unlimited private viewing license, plus $3 for the cost of the box, media, distribution, etc. Inside the DVD case you would get a code that you register with the clearinghouse so that they now know that you own the rights to watch Episode IV.

    Okay, now let's say that you want to be able to stream it online. Instead of paying another $15, you only pay $3, which covers the cost of hosting and bandwidth for whoever it is streaming it to you. Want to Blu-ray version? Okay, that will be an extra $5. $2 of that $5 is the cost of upgrading your license to the high-def remastered version, and $3 of it is for the cost again of the media and distribution. Oh, now you want the whole original trilogy? Well, normally it's $45, but since you already own a license for Episode IV, you get $8 shaved off the license cost and only pay $37.

    Content providers could offer discounts on license fees for things like stores that buy the licenses in volume, or for customers who buy several licenses for different products (e.g. a Star Wars/Indiana Jones bundle) at once. Retailers like Amazon could pass those discounts on to customers, or have bundle discounts by applying some of their cut of the media fee to the license fee as a loss leader.

    Content providers win because there would be a shitload more legal copies of the premium editions of their products sold. Retailers win because their profit comes from a cut of the media fee, not the license, and more sales--even for lower amounts--means more money. Consumers win because when you buy a movie on physical media x today, you don't get screwed from having to re-buy it on media y tomorrow or media z in five years.

    Some of you may have had pause when I mentioned the government being involved. The reason why the government needs to be involved is twofold. First, for this idea to work, there needs to be one and only one clearinghouse. Because it would be a monopoly, it would need to be regulated as such. Second, if it's solely a private company endeavor, it would take exactly three nanoseconds for that company to say, "Hey, you know, with all of this data on what media people own, we could make a killing if we sold it to marketing companies," and it would take either direct government ownership or strict government regulation to ensure that privacy is upheld.

    1. Re:The Answer by BaronHethorSamedi · · Score: 1

      I think this is actually a fascinating idea. To play devil's advocate (or corporate counsel for content providers, if you prefer), I see one significant problem: your estimate of $12 for an "unlimited private viewing license."

      Content providers would not like this. Right now, LucasFilm can release the Star Wars films over and over again, knowing they have a built-in purchasing base of people willing to pay $140 for the same product. If forced into a position of being compensated only once per consumer for the original IP, the cost of the license would immediately skyrocket past the means of all but the wealthiest consumers.

    2. Re:The Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad answer,
      I don't want the Government knowing (or private companies either) keeping track of what pay to watch.
      Any time I go anywere these days I am asked for my name and phone number. Last time I went to get a hair cut I was told that they couldn't cut my hair without this information. I told them to go to hell.

    3. Re:The Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, for this idea to work, there needs to be one and only one clearinghouse.

      Why?
      Couldn't Amazon, ITMS (etc) each implement their own?
      Couldn't content creators do it? (especially if it's just a "paper license")

      and it would take either direct government ownership or strict government regulation to ensure that privacy is upheld.

      Yes, because of the stellar track record the government has with respecting privacy.

    4. Re:The Answer by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Software companies already do this without government intervention. If I buy Adobe Photoshop, I pay full price. If they come out with a new version, I only need to pay for the upgrade, not the full retail price. In effect, my original purchase pays for the original license, and subsequent upgrades pay only to license the new features.

      Of course software companies still have a soul and are rooted in real-world common sense. The movie/music studios have long since lost any semblance of common sense, and are off in their own la-la land where if you're willing to pay for it then it must be legit.

    5. Re:The Answer by Sprouticus · · Score: 1

      That is fine as long as I can sell my license to another person for whatever ammount I like.

    6. Re:The Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a little like the "Digital Copy" scheme currently being pushed by Warner. The DVD/Bluray comes with a code to give you access to a downloadable copy. If you can download it more than once, and pay to upgrade the quality, then that's already pretty close to what you describe. Except not run by the government. Maybe each studio or major publisher could have their own scheme? And then, natural competition between the benefits offered by each scheme would lead to improvements, just like how Steam beats the crap out of Games for Windows Live, and Amazon's music store eats Apple's for breakfast.

    7. Re:The Answer by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      Content providers would not like this. Right now, LucasFilm can release the Star Wars films over and over again, knowing they have a built-in purchasing base of people willing to pay $140 for the same product.

      There really aren't that many people who are willing to do so. I have bought the original trilogy exactly twice: once on VHS and once on DVD. I have zero intention of buying them on Blu-ray, or buying any other editions. I've bought the prequels exactly once, on DVD, and I'm sure as hell not going to buy them again. And while I'm not a rabid Star Wars fan, I do consider myself at least a moderate fan.

      On the other hand, if I could pay something like $40 or so to "upgrade" my existing videos to hi-def copies, I'd probably fork out the money. In another five years if they add a bunch of extra features or come out with them in some edition that gives me better quality or whatnot, I'd probably be willing to fork out another $40.

      So for me--again, whom I consider a bit above-average fan of the movies--it really boils down to a choice between $40 now versus $0, and possibly who knows how much $??? in future lost revenue because I already own them and don't really see the value in buying them again.

    8. Re:The Answer by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      Bad answer, I don't want the Government knowing (or private companies either) keeping track of what pay to watch.

      It wouldn't be mandatory; people like you are free to go out and pay the whole $140 for the set if you want and never register your license. Next time another edition comes out, by gummy, feel free to pay another $200 (or whatever it will cost after inflation). And so on, ad nausem. If your privacy is worth owning umpteen licenses of the movie just so that no one will know that you own even one, that will still be your prerogative.

      If you want and you can convince somebody that you haven't registered your license yet, you can even sell those licenses at some point.

    9. Re:The Answer by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      First, for this idea to work, there needs to be one and only one clearinghouse.

      Why? Couldn't Amazon, ITMS (etc) each implement their own? Couldn't content creators do it? (especially if it's just a "paper license")

      Because if, say, Amazon and Apple maintain separate license services, then if you bought the license on Amazon's service, there's exactly no chance in hell that Apple will allow you to upgrade that license on their service. If you're Apple, how do you know that license is legitimate? What if Amazon goes out of business?

      Yes, because of the stellar track record the government has with respecting privacy.

      Compared to private companies, the government's track record with respecting privacy is indeed stellar. Plus, like I said above, this would be optional. If you want to pay full price for a new license every time and never register what you're purchasing, then go right ahead.

    10. Re:The Answer by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

      Software companies already do this without government intervention. If I buy Adobe Photoshop, I pay full price. If they come out with a new version, I only need to pay for the upgrade, not the full retail price.

      Right, but if you then buy Microsoft Office, you now have license information maintained in two different places by two different companies. If you're a retailer, it would be onerous to say the least interacting with possibly thousands of content providers. I really think the best chance of this working for everyone is to have one central clearinghouse.

    11. Re:The Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if, say, Amazon and Apple maintain separate license services, then if you bought the license on Amazon's service, there's exactly no chance in hell that Apple will allow you to upgrade that license on their service. If you're Apple, how do you know that license is legitimate? What if Amazon goes out of business?

      Yes, you'd be locked into a vendor; unless the content creators manage the licenses.

      Having worked with several levels of government as well as several large corporations, I'd far rather have content owners managing the licenses for their content.

      While we're wishing for things... how about some sane copyright laws too?

    12. Re:The Answer by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      i kind of do this already. if i buy something, i'm not necessarily going to pay for the next format, as i already have a viewing license for said product. i'd maybe pay a small upgrade fee, but if the dvd was "mastered in high definition" (or any new film that was shot in hd) then i've already paid for that transfer. therefore, i might rent/rip the blu-ray or download one. same with music. i have many things on cassette, which i have downloaded digital copies of, others i bought the cd, and probably used, at that. i have a feeling i'm not the only one who does this.

      --
      ...
  58. Beg to differ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Overall they are viewable and enjoyable.
    It is Star Wars...

    However, most of the added cgi "fluff" IS distracting, forced(pun very obviously intended), and doesn't really add to the original films.
    They just appear as "Look! I can put kewl computer stuff in my old movies".

  59. Adywon by Waste55 · · Score: 1

    You know what? I don't even need these.

    The saint known by me as "St. Adywon" has cured all my original trilogy needs. Tons of graphics fixes (light sabers cmoother coming out, laser blasts all fixed), enhancements(better space landscapes, burning on reentry, death star scene makes sense now), audio cleaned up, cool stuff added, etc. I mean this guy does Star Wars right. Even better than Lucas

    here are the various download links. For best quality burn it to a dual layered DVD, should be DVD-9. Make sure to get the NTSC\PAL version as needed.

    http://fanedit.info/SW.html

    Look for STAR WARS: EP IV 2004 Special Edition REVISITED by Adywan
    http://fanedit.org/517/

    (You can see the list of edits by clicking CUTLIST: >>>view: (its javascript so couldn't link directly)

    This is the DL DVD NTSC
    http://www.faneditfiles.dreamhosters.com/dlc/adywan/adywan_starwarsrevisited_NTSC_DL_DVD.rar

    The download took us 3 days, we used this JDownloader software for it. http://jdownloader.org/download

    This is seriously worth it! You can even watch side by side to see all the fixes. Adywon is my hero.

    1. Re:Adywon by Waste55 · · Score: 1

      Not sure how I forgot, but yes.....Han shoots first in this.......


      And Chewy gets his medal....

  60. this reminds me by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    I need to watch the Redletter Media review of Sith this weekend. I hear it's great. Whenever I feel the urge to pop in Star Wars, I do these instead.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:this reminds me by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Oh, Finally it's out! That's the "movie" I've been anticipating the most the last few months!

  61. Perfect by McTickles · · Score: 1

    I cant wait to leech this and have my childhood pissed on once more!

  62. Wait a second... by McTickles · · Score: 1

    Isn't this already on torrents anyway? google HD torrents of Star Wars... What's so new then?

    1. Re:Wait a second... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Those torrents are for versions broadcasted on TV. These Blu-Rays will feature all sorts of new tweaks and bullshit that will make even the nerd raging fans, despite proclaiming how they now hate Lucas and how he's ruined the series, lap it up and give Lucas billions more.

  63. Region free Blu-Ray someday... by FatSean · · Score: 1

    Only reason I keep my old DVD player is that it is region free.

    I bought the cheap Sony BDP-360 (it's slow) and used Blu-Ray disks and prices look the same as DVD 5-7 years ago...with better quality.

    --
    Blar.
  64. not to defend him but... by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    seeing the cut out where they masked the tie fighter flying around isn't cool and I remember that from some early versions of the film as sold to the public.

    So I can see where he is coming from, if you start with the originals you will need to do all the work all over again to achieve the clarity that is needed to put it out on Blu-Ray. Some movies just don't cut it. Hi Def reveals lots of flaws and it makes some distracting.

    What I do think he misses out completely on is that we want the story as originally presented. I don't give a rats ass about the effects, its the story I want unaltered, holes and all.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:not to defend him but... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "seeing the cut out where they masked the tie fighter flying around isn't cool and I remember that from some early versions of the film as sold to the public.

      So I can see where he is coming from, if you start with the originals you will need to do all the work all over again to achieve the clarity that is needed to put it out on Blu-Ray. Some movies just don't cut it. Hi Def reveals lots of flaws and it makes some distracting."

      If I recall, those artifacts were only on the home editions put out...something I read about mismastering the actual films when they were getting them ready for VHS release, etc. There was some mix up and they did something to the contrast/gamma something/color or something, and when it got out into public, the masking you speak of was apparent. The original films, did not show this, only the home releases if I recall correctly.

      So, a remastering, correctly...from the originals should be possible without those artifacts you speak of.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:not to defend him but... by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      The disgraceful thing, in my opinion, is that many of these kinds of artifacts are *still visible* in the "most special" edition (currently, the DVD).

  65. These are not the movies you're looking for. by blair1q · · Score: 2

    I have a bad feeling about this.

  66. Holding off for now... by radicalrendell · · Score: 1

    I don't want to waste my money on Blue-Ray... I am holding off until they come out with the Red 4K version. :)

  67. I refurse to pay for it AGAIN. by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    I bought SW, ES and RotJ on LD individually, then the "Definitive Edition LD Box Set", then the DVD Box Set. I will NOT PAY FOR THE SAME MATERIAL AGAIN. Lucas, you may have created the some of the most iconic scifi flicks in recent history, but WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:I refurse to pay for it AGAIN. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I refuse to buy nicer, quality-bound hardcover versions of my books because I WILL NOT PAY FOR THE SAME MATERIAL AGAIN. Publishers, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE LATELY?

  68. These aren't the droids you're looking for by grikdog · · Score: 1

    Not without a soothing bath of buttdents remover, anyway.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  69. He's not done yet ... 3D is comming! by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    There was a post awhile ago that after the BD editions come out they are going to re-process it for yet another release in BD-3D.

  70. Cheaper pre-order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon has pre-order for the set for 89.99 free shipping.

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003ZSJ212

  71. Anakin's Ghost by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    I believe the notion is that Anakin Skywalker died at a young age when he was burned alive and finished his transformation into Darth Vader. Your force ghost represents how you looked when you died. It adds a Frankenstein element to Darth Vader, that he really was more machine than man.

    More importantly, I guess, is that we actually get to see Anakin in the prequels, and from a story-telling perspective the audience needs to be able to recognize that ghost as Anakin - the only way that works is if the ghost is an image of Hayden Christensen.

    I always kind of liked that Anakin's ghost was an older dude, I thought it fit better with him being an old friend of Obi-Wan... I sort of pictured Obi-Wan meeting a young Anakin (like around Luke's age) and some time later, the betrayal and Anakin turning to Vader. But I never had a clear picture of how much time was in between. 20 years? Seems a bit much, since Vader supposedly killed Anakin while both were still apprentices. (Judging from the fact that Vader was "just a learner" when they last met - he wouldn't have considered himself "just a learner" after being trained for 20 years, right?) So even looking at it just in terms of the information from the original trilogy, ignoring the information that was later presented in the prequels - A 40-something version of Anakin (not Vader) never existed. Certainly this isn't Anakin as Obi-Wan knew him... Is it what Anakin would have been, if he hadn't decided to be evil and gotten turned into a cyborg? Maybe... I don't think there's a clear answer to how Anakin's ghost should look, really. As Vader? As the mutilated human parts inside the Vader cyborg? As the middle-aged man he would have been? As the young man he was? It seems like all the options are equally valid. For the ghost to be the version of Anakin that Obi-Wan actually remembers seems kind of fitting. But for the ghost to be in a form Luke could identify as a father figure also seems fitting... <shrug>

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  72. Jedi Franklin? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    "A penny saved is a penny earned." -Jedi Franklin

    Ben Franklin's not a Jedi, he's a Voodoo demon-sorcerer.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:Jedi Franklin? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      So a sith?

  73. Han shot First? by slapout · · Score: 1

    I thought Han shot Greedo.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  74. You won't be paying for the SAME material by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    In the BluRay version, Han only shoots Greedo's foot, and he steps on Jabba's back.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:You won't be paying for the SAME material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and all the blasters are replaced by mobile phones, and people fight by sending each other hurtful text messages.

  75. already burned by that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still feel burned by spending over $100 for the special edition boxed set of the originals on laserdisc ... although maybe I can interest George Lucas in copies of both the original release on laserdisc and the remastered laserdisc.

  76. Anakin's Dramatic Turn to the Dark Side by Tetsujin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Episode 3 was the biggest cinematic missed opportunity I can think of. The whole point of the movie, and the whole point of the prequel trilogy, was to see how and why Anakin went to the dark side. It was the reason we stomached the first two awful movies and should have helped us find new way to look at the original 3 movies. If they could nail that scene, the rest of the garbage might have just been worth it. Instead, the big payoff scene was clumsy and unbelievable and it manages to make all of the prequels all the more pointless. Unless they can get that aspect right, tweaking the rest hardly matters.

    Palpatine: So you see, Anakin, being evil offers terrific health benefits. If you needed, say, extensive prosthetic work, that would be covered with zero deductible. The pay is good, plus you have the opportunity to study obscure black arts and transfer the credits toward a degree program.
    Anakin: I don't know... I'm not sure about the whole "conspiring to kill all my friends and comrades" thing. Won't that sort of go against everything I've stood for all my life?
    Palpatine: Oh, let's not dwell on that... Think of the opportunities! Oh, and don't forget your lady is gonna die unless you take drastic, horrifying measures to save her. Remember what happened to your mom? How she was kidnapped and tortured in such a way that the timing of her death coincided exactly with your effort to rescue her? That's what happens if you delay your decision too long.
    Anakin: Well, I know Padme is gonna hate me for this, but OK, you have a deal.
    Palpatine: Good, good! Now, you need a cool Sith name. How about "Vader"?
    Anakin: You seem to have given this some thought...
    Palpatine: Oh, my, no... I'm just really good at this sort of thing... "Vader", "Tyranus", "Sidious", "Maul"... I could come up with names all day long.
    Anakin: Wait, haven't I heard some of those before?
    Palpatine: No, and neither have I. Now, for your first assignment, I'd like you to go slaughter a room full of children. This is a very important and challenging job, so I need to send someone who I know will be capable of seeing it through...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  77. Too much crap in the box by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that's a lot of money for a box part sh.it and part somewhat unloved re-edit.

    Shouldn't this franchies quietly fade away ? I loved the movies when they came out and watched the in the theatre as a kid(ep4-6), but as one game critic said, the sh.it of Star Wars outweighs the good, and that is by and large the first two movies(I like the third, ep6 too though) and a game or two.

    Who needs this box ?

  78. Han shot first by Thundercleets · · Score: 1

    Han shot first

  79. I'll buy them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you pry the laserDiscs from my cold, dead hands

  80. Han did not shoot first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Han did not shoot first. He was the only one who fired!

  81. DVD looks fine to me by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    paid again for the DVD, and since the unmolested versions of EPsIV-VI aren't in high definition anyway, it doesn't make sense to replace the DVDs.

    here is another reason not to upgrade: I have a HD projector and a huge screen. The SW films on DVD look very good on a large screen. The encoding on the regular DVD versions of the films seems to be pretty good, so unless you are some sore of videophile, you will probably be happy with the results.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:DVD looks fine to me by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      You are the first projector owner I have ever seen say blu-ray is not worth the upgrade. Do you have any?

    2. Re:DVD looks fine to me by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      yep, a whole bunch. But while generally look better, it depends on the quality of the disk encoding. A badly encoded blu-ray can look worse than a well encoded dvd. And the SW dvds are well encoded.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  82. Canadians BOYCOTT THIS CRAP!!! by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    "Star Wars: The Complete Saga on Blu-ray will be available for $139.99 US/$179.99 CAN and the Star Wars: Trilogy Sets for $69.99 US/89.99 CAN. Pricing for each set will vary by international territory."

    Excuse me Lucas? The dollar is above parity. YOUR dollar is worth LESS than mine, not ~30% MORE!

    I had no intention of giving Lucas another dime of my money, but this makes me even more determined.

    I did find this quote interesting:
    'Flanked by a legion of his finest Imperial stormtroopers, Darth Vader himself joined Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment President Mike Dunn at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) to announce the release, vowing "The forces of the Empire will be at your disposal to assure the success of this endeavor."'

    So Fox and Lucas are allied with the dark side...

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:Canadians BOYCOTT THIS CRAP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      180 bucks for 6 friggin' movies?!? I think someone has been at the spice from Kessel.

  83. So confused... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    ... Why do SW fans seek out crap like the 1977 special, and yet also howl in agony when they have to watch Jar Jar for 5 minutes? I mean, have you really watched the SW special? It is PAINFUL. Jar Jar is like 3% of episode 1.

    If I had a gun to my head and was forced to watch one or the other, I would pick episode 1...no wait, I would just take the bullet.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  84. Not a Chance by muindaur · · Score: 1

    I won't buy either set until DVD can no longer be played, and the player I have stops working. Have I spent a fortune on the sets?

    NO!

    I waited until the DVD set of the original trilogy was relased that had older versions of the movie. The CG used in special edition is glaring in the sense it doesn't match the rest of the film: watch the scene added of the fighters in space on their way to the Death Star in A New Hope. My beef was that, and not that Holo shot first stuff.

    Did I mention I waited until Amazon had them on sale, and that it was after the VHS set I had(orignal trilogy in a VHS release before Special Edition) finally stopped working. So Lucas isn't seeing much from me at all. I'm not an idiot that will buy every relase, and I'm only OCD about cleaning, organization, and logic.

  85. New censored version by Beerdood · · Score: 2

    These are the new censored / altered versions of the films. In lieu of other recent events, Lucasfilms decided to rewrite some of the scenes because some people were uncomfortable with the terminology in the earlier versions. With these new versions, teachers will be able to show these movies without feeling awkward.

    Some of the changes include :
    - The word "slave" will be replaced with "indentured servant"
    - Princess Leia no longer in metal bikini in episode VI, wearing a Victorian dress
    - All ewoks, wookies and other humanoid-looking aliens will now be wearing a loincloth (at the very least), even if they don't appear to have genetalia
    - Darth Vader will now don a racially sensitive multi-colored rainbow suit, so we don't infer or suggest that black is the color of evil
    - Any offensive phrases or insults will be modified as to not insult nerf herders, or anyone else. For example, the phrase : "Why you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf-herder!" - will be replaced with : "Why you highly self esteemed, intellectually challenged, unkempt appearing person that moves large animals with a cane!"

    --
    Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
  86. Save your Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make sure you buy the originals and the prequels separately. It's cheaper.

  87. Re:Why bother? Wait for the 3D versions... by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

    No. In fact there are some quotes from Lucasfilm that these are being sourced from 2K masters made for HD broadcast some years ago, and that no additional remastering will take place until it is done for the 3D versions.

    These will look better than the DVDs, but there will be a better looking version later.

    Don't have a cite handy, so Google it.

  88. Try this on for size... by denzacar · · Score: 1
    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  89. Lucas isn't a filmmaker; he's a hack by ISurfTooMuch · · Score: 1

    Let me make this short and sweet. George Lucas isn't a filmmaker. A real filmmaker has an appreciation for his creation and its significance within our culture. He treats it with respect. Lucas, OTOH, has taken every opportunity he can to take the original trilogy, rip them apart, stuff them with cheap special effects, repackage them, and sell them yet again. That behavior, as reprehensible as it is, can almost be forgiven if he had the decency to keep the original versions--the ones we all remember from our childhood--available. But NO, he refuses to do that. He is essentially spitting in the face of every Star Wars fan out there by denying them the opportunity to watch the unaltered, un-bastardized versions of the films they love and denying them the opportunity to show their children these cinematic gems. No, this man is not a true filmmaker with an appreciation of his creations and respect for the millions who enjoy those films; he's a shameless, money-grubbing hack who has made a mockery of his films and has essentially given their fans the finger.

    I will not buy this man's dreck. I have downloaded rips of the old laserdiscs and burned those to disc. The quality is pretty awful, but at least they're the original films, and these are the ones I plan to show to my kids, and when they ask me why the quality is so bad, I'll tell them what George Lucas did and use it as an object lesson as to why unbridled greed and hubris are bad things.

  90. You already own it by CuteSteveJobs · · Score: 1

    I'm in the same boat as you and feel the same way. I've paid enough for these movies many times. AFAIAC I already legally own them. My suggestion to everyone is that they download the Bluray versions off the net and when the feds knock on your door call the ACLU and EFF and tell the authorities you already legally own the film. No jury would convict, and I reckon the MPAA wouldn't like to make this a test case for fear of setting a precedent.

  91. Why so late? by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    for someone who seems to be all about technological advances per cinema, why is lucas always so late to the game with home video releases? sure he wanted to wait till the blu-ray v. hd-dvd war was won, but that was like 2 years ago. how long did it take for a dvd release? that guy can fuck right off.

    --
    ...
  92. Re:Why bother? Wait for the 3D versions... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    No. In fact there are some quotes from Lucasfilm that these are being sourced from 2K masters made for HD broadcast some years ago, and that no additional remastering will take place until it is done for the 3D versions.

    These will look better than the DVDs, but there will be a better looking version later.

    Don't have a cite handy, so Google it.

    Interesting. Thanks for the tip!

  93. Holy frak! Oops! Wrong franchise! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Wow! Could you overreact a little more? I merely mention TPM was the last SW I watched, and you act like I went on a multipage rant about it. Seriously, how high were you when you posted that, and can I get some?

  94. No, watch Adult Swim's version. by antdude · · Score: 1

    How about evil Jar Jar Binks as shown from the last Robot Chicken Star Wars episode? See the short clip on YouTube.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).