Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DVD' started by Brennan Hill, May 20, 2004.
Amazon Link I'll be getting this, releases on June 1st for $55.18 at Amazon.
Is that some kind of a joke?
I'm a lifetime Lakers fan and that was one of the first things I noticed. Lakers won't overtake the Celtics until after the 2005-2006 championship. Nice slap in the face to the Celtics, who buy the way are not yet part of the NBA Dynasty Series, only the Lakers and Bulls.
Noticed this early this week on the official NBA site. It looks like a VERY comprehensive package. I wonder if the games included are the actual full length games? If so, I just waisted quite a bit of time transferring some of them to DVD recently. Anyway, this set is definitely mine on June 1st. I told the wife it could be an early Father's day gift.
Great. All we need now is "NBA Dynasty Series: New Jersey Nets - The Curse of Dr. J"
Last time I checked the Celtics had 16 championships. Until 2007 minimum the Celtics are the greatest NBA team of all time. Looks like a great set for Laker fans tho.
Exactly whats in this set?? June 1 is right around the corner. Any reviews out yet?
Your math is a bit off. I'll admit that right now the Celtics own the record with 16 and the Lakers are in second place with 14. But IF they win this year and next, then by 2005 they would also have 16, and then the debate is on, but I'd certainly vote for Lakers as greatest ever. Certainly IF they won also in 2006, they'd have 17 and clearly be the best, so why you'd have to wait until 2007 minimum makes no sense to me.
NBA.com's Dynasty DVD details And yep, both sets appear to have full games on them.
I think everyone's a little confused. The Los Angeles Lakers have won 9 championships. The Boston Celtics have won 16. They won 8 in a row and 11 in 13 years. A whole generation and 18 years separated the last of the 5 Minneapolis Lakers championships and the first L.A. championship. Hardly the same franchise in practical terms. The Celtics have 23 players in the hall of fame. The Lakers have 14. Anyway, I wouldn't take a promo seriously that called 14 championships "unprecedented" when the Celtics have won 16. And just why did they keep the name "Lakers"?? Are there a lot of lakes in L.A.? Still, if it's a good entertaining set, I wouldn't mind owning it. Next to hockey, basketball is my favorite sport. However, 55 bucks is way too rich for my blood. Go Pacers!!
Well it is called the Los Angeles Lakers - The Complete History, so including their years in Minneapolis is perfectly valid. And the quote was "Over the past 50 years the Lakers have won an unprecedented 14 Championships" Yes, the Lakers only won 9 of their championships in L.A., but the Lakers did win 14 championships, and so the only thing inaccurate about that statement is the word unprecedented, not the number 14. And the use of unprecedented was probably by some copywriter who thought he was implying 'amazing', rather than one who actually knew what unprecedented meant.
Thanks for the info. I think I have to pick this set up now. It has complete games!
There are a few lakes in Los Angeles, are there many Celtics in Boston?
C'mon, teams often don't change their names. I'm sure Utah is a hotbed of Jazz (originally from New Orleans). There aren't any trolleys in LA anymore, but they're still called the (Trolley) Dodgers. The Angels are still the Angels though they left the City of Angels for Anaheim many years ago. As far as the gap between the Mikan championships and the L.A. ones, there are also gaps between the early 70's championship and the 80s ones, and then between the 80s and the 2000s. So what? The Yankees are the greatest baseball franchise, but there are big gaps in there. And the gaps between the Brooklyn and L.A. Dodgers are smaller ones than the ones since they've been in L.A. Let's face it, the Lakers and Bulls got one of these before the Celtics because it made marketing sense (the Celtics have the biggest dynasty, but they haven't won a championship for many, many years, and don't have a strong (non Boston) following at the moment. The Bulls currently suck, but there's still a lot of residual interest from the 90s. If these sell well enough that they do a third, it would be pretty shocking if it were any team but the Celtics to next get the treatment.
I am surprised that they did not include Game 7 against Portland in the 1999-2000 Western Conference Finals where they came back from 15 points down in the 4th quarter, the biggest 4th quarter comeback in game 7 history. Without that comeback, no 2000 title, and who knows what would have happened after that. That was the game where they proved to themselves that they were champions and gave them the confidence to do what they have done.
Also the 2002 or 2001?? game against Sacramento when Horry hit the 3 pointer at the buzzer to save the series.
It is unprecedented! The Celtics didn't win 14 (they won 16) Seriously though, this makes a great gift for my Dad with whom I watched a lot of those 80's games when I was a kid.
I'm all over this, I can't wait. Sorry Celtic fans, and Laker haters, you have more titles...for now anyway, but for reasons that I don't have time to get in to the Lakers have passed you by in terms of franchise greatness, the fact that the Celtics haven't done anything since I was like 6 years old doesn't help them. Edited for spelling: shows what happens when you try to do 3 things at once. Oh, and I want to see the NBA dynasty series, the Fall and fall and fall and fall of the L.A. Clippers.
Freudian slip? - Walter.
Well if they got to 16 without having 14 at one point, then I'm really impressed.