Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Ronald Epstein, Jul 21, 2013.
Greedo would have been rubbish at poker, he talked too much and gave his hand away.
Just realized how fitting this quote was given the Han/Greedo scene is essentially a homage of an early scene in this movie with The Bad (Lee Van Cleef) visiting the ranch to get information on Carson and the gold. In that scene too he shoots the other guy through the table, before the rancher has a chance to get a shot off.
And now he's been Lucas-ized too, turned orange and had his mono taken away .
Didn't Lucas go on a quest to destroy as many of the pre-SE prints as he possibly could and restrict that version ever being shown?
Never have, never will. I will watch Star Wars again when the OOT comes out in HD, not before. So basically never.
Will you settle for an HD transfer of each of the original trilogy movies as a bonus feature on a Blu-ray release? I do think you may get that in a couple of years. Will that be enough, or do you need to see an entire release based solely on the original cuts?
You know, there are... ways of watching the untouched OT in HD. Harmy has done a stellar job.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'd definitely settle for a good HD transfer of the OOT. I've seen more than enough SW special features to last me a lifetime. Right now, a good quality HD transfer of the OOT, as a barebones release or as a supplement to the SuperLucasized Extra Special Super Duper This Is Really The Final Final Version Edition would suffice (I'd use that version as coasters).
I depends on what you're asking. If it's a BS excuse like the non-anamorphic crap we go last time, then no. If there's a giant boxed set and the OOT is only available in it? If they are 100% remasters and no one has messed up the color-timing, the FX, or anything else, and they are properly remastered and restored? Then yes, I'll pay damn near any price.
I've heard about it, but I do always worry a little about owning them because of the legal grey areas where fan edits reside.
I've learned to take what Hunt says with a grain of salt at this point.
But even if they do, that's so far away .
Like I said, rampant speculation about this has been going around like an infection ever since the Disney buyout, but I don't think anyone has heard anything officially or unofficially besides fans with our fingers crossed.
As far as True Lies and The Abyss, rumors about those have been flying for years too. But now, I'm afraid the even if they do get released, we'll have to deal with another James Cameron teal wash . On that subject, how about a 40th anniversary version of The Terminator with the damn mono this time?
My assumption was the that was for a Lucas-type SE at one point, but Spielberg wisely changed his mind. What does the Blu-Ray look like? What's different? Can I get a quick rundown of the controversy?
Isn't the DCP struck from the same master as the IMAX version? I had a chance to see the IMAX version at a cinema practically within walking distance, and didn't. I've never forgiven myself. Though I did get to see Close Encounters of The Third Kind in 35mm last night .
Maybe, but when a film has had specific aesthetic on home video and 35mm prints for years and get changed decades later, I get skeptical. In the case of Raiders, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it's much like what happened with LOTF: FOTR and someone doing the mastering just messed up and the studio didn't want to do a recall and rerelese.
No. The IMAX release was a one-off, though it may well re-appear at some point. It has the smoothed-over look that many uprezzed-to-IMAX films have. The DCP that's currently making the rounds looks much different, and much better, than the IMAX release.
Mike, when you say "properly remastered and restored", are you saying that you will only accept HD copies of the original versions of the Star Wars trilogy if they've had extensive restoration work?
My understanding of how this will likely play out is that Lucasfilm could have HD transfers done of the best materials they have of the original versions, and then take a couple of days to check the color timing, etc.. And that would be it. These would be HD transfers, so they wouldn't be the little non-anamorphic treatments we saw on the 2006 releases. Not sure what they'd do about the sound - it could well just be the same 2.0 sound that was provided before. These could be released either as part of single movie Blu-ray releases in 2016, or perhaps as part of a new 6-movie set. But they already did a big set of the 6 movies as well as 3-movie sets of each trilogy. I agree that they could try to provide another uber-set, this time with the earlier cuts, but it feels more likely that they'd try to price point the individual releases so they'd make more money that way.
But are you saying that you will avoid these versions if you don't hear about a major restoration project on them?
I'm not speaking for Mike, but I'd be ok with what you've described right there, Kevin. I know the time for a true "film restoration" of it has passed, at least for now. What would be a nice "bonus step" would be if they did a bit of the "digital cleanup" that Criterion tends to do for their titles in lieu of a true restoration.That would be nice, but again I'd be fine with what you have described.
That would be awesome actually. Considering the many criterions (and the theatrical Blade Runner) that are done that way, perfectly reasonable all around.
For Mark Booth:
I'm really hoping the guys from Lucasfilm will give you direct answers to the questions the fans are asking here. The trick is not to let them just say "Oh, I'm sure there's more you'll see on Blu-ray and home video with these movies!" That will be a standard answer, as would be "You'll just have to wait and see..." The hope is that they can be asked specifically about whether 4K restorations are currently being done by Reliance of the original theatrical versions of the original trilogy. If there's confusion about this from the guys there (and I'm betting there will be), it would be a matter of bringing up the website on one's smart phone or tablet and showing them what Reliance is saying they're doing. If the response is still confusion, then we'll have a strong idea that this is what it looks like. But maybe the guys will actually say something more. We won't know until they're asked. And by the way, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to try to find out about this.
Seeing Close Encounters in 35mm would be very cool! I plan on watching the Blu on my new front projector soon.
I am skeptical of past non-HD releases. As Robert Harris and others in the industry have discussed, there were A LOT of issues involved in the NTSC mastering process and chain for VHS, LD, and DVD. I have the original VHS of Raiders of the Lost Ark and it looks much different than the DVD - both of which looks different from the Blu. I don't believe any mastering of Raiders was truly done right until it was done for Blu-ray. And subjectively, the colors on the Blu look far more accurate and film-like to me than the DVD - and my JVC front projector is pro calibrated. The Blu was sourced from the original negative and looks gorgeous on my set-up. Not much can be said for other previous home versions.
Not sure of your location, but The AFI Silver Theater outside DC is showing Close Encounters in 35mm on August 9th and 10th.
I've noted that the Lucasfilm people have been presenting materials on their animated TV shows, as we anticipated. I've also noticed that the RMW USA website no longer has the Star Wars 4K entry on its projects page.
Has anyone been able to take the time to ask the Lucasfilm people at Comic Con about this? It's looking like that may not have been a proper listing.
Maybe it's supposed to be top secret work and they removed it because it's three years from planned release date.
I think that they removed it from their site is the weirdest thing of all. If it wasn't secret, why take it down? If it was secret, why did anyone in a position of authority in the company think it would be cool to put it up in the first place?
Oh they did?
I didn't know.
Maybe they removed it because they read all the reactions and speculations, and didn't want to cause all this false alarm..