AshJW
Screenwriter
I'd wish it will be a super-duper-every-wish-come-true edition.
But, I thing if it comes it will be like Kevin predicts. And that would be ok.
But, I thing if it comes it will be like Kevin predicts. And that would be ok.
Not any more dead than this 124 page thread. People have been debating the Raiders blu-ray for years without hard evidence. So I spent a lot of time, effort and money to examine a theatrical print of Raiders and get definitive proof that the blu has revised color instead of just an opinion. I'm trying to share that with the people who love the movie. If you have a problem with people being passionate about movies maybe you are in the wrong forum.Yeah and they already had this argument for 20-some pages. Dead horse.
I repeat, since you asked, I do not think the original unaltered trilogy is immediately on its way to BD. Would love to wake up tomorrow and be proven wrong.
Apparently, this summer, the first Star Wars Trilogy will be rereleased in theaters (https://www.yahoo.com/movies/star-wars-original-trilogy-special-editions-to-190739017.html). I am very pleased about this, even though they are unfortunately and inexplicably using the 1997 cut of the films (where Han shoots first).
They're just calling it the 1997 version to tell everyone that it's the Special Editions but it'll be the 2011 versions. I know they have DCPs of the 2011 cuts but I can't see any reason why they would even have DCPs for the 1997 versions or why, if they're going to show the SEs, that they wouldn't use the cuts with the most modern effects.
Yeah, if they're using 35mm prints (which, admittedly, I didn't even consider as a possibility on as large of a scale as they're going) then they would have to be the 1997 versions because there can't be enough (any?) prints of the 2004 or 2011 versions. I'm still going with the idea that they're going to be DCPs of the 2011 cuts though.To the best of my knowledge, the 1997 versions do not exist in a commercially available digital format. My thinking is that if these are definitely the 1997 versions, then they're showing them in 35mm. It's unlikely but it's possible.
Yeah, if they're using 35mm prints (which, admittedly, I didn't even consider as a possibility on as large of a scale as they're going) then they would have to be the 1997 versions because there can't be enough (any?) prints of the 2004 or 2011 versions. I'm still going with the idea that they're going to be DCPs of the 2011 cuts though.
I'm in the same boat. Plus, I just saw the SW 7 movie marathon back in December. That being said, when the tickets go on sale, me or a friend will immediately crack and I'll end up going.I'm on the fence about this, on one hand, it sounds cool, on the other hand, I've seen these movies so many times that I don't know if I wanna shell out cash to see versions of the movies I don't prefer in an exhibition format that's not that interesting to me. If someone was showing 35mm prints of Star Wars (be it the 1977 or 1997 version), I'd go, but I'm not as enthusiastic to pay to see the exact same master that I already own a copy of.
I'm in the same boat. Plus, I just saw the SW 7 movie marathon back in December. That being said, when the tickets go on sale, me or a friend will immediately crack and I'll end up going.
Based on the latest installment not even being currently slated for 4K UHD release, I'd suspect it's rather unlikely.What's the probability we'll get the Original Unaltered Trilogy on 4kUHD?