Blu-ray Review Star Wars: The Force Awakens Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Mikey1969]

If there's one thing Disney knows how to do, it's how to market a concept and sell us practically the same thing over again.

I'm sure we'll see a new Special Edition of TFA in December, in 3D and 2D flavours, with commentary and expanded extras, including tie-ins with Rogue One.



I sure hope a 3D blu of SWTFA IS released in December. There still has not been any definitive word.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

I feel that to release a movie presented in one format theatrically and then brutally chopped down for home viewing (widescreen/pan-and-scan; 3-D/2-D; IMAX/my tiny cell phone) diminishes and cheapens the film.

 

[Tino]

I don't think it diminishes or cheapens the film, just the way it is watched which is Completely the fault of the viewer. If you didn't see this in a theater, at a minimum it needs to be watched on the largest screen at home possible. NOT on a phone, tablet or airplane. If that's your first time viewing it, you haven't seen it.

 

[Carabimero]

The more I watch TFA the more I like it. There are so many layers to it.

One thing I missed, maybe someone can explain: How does Starkiller Base renew its energy once the sun is depleted? It's a planet. Does it move? Where did it get its energy for the first attack on the Republic if it uses up the sun each time it fires? If it had survived and wiped the Resistance out, where would it have gotten energy for its next blast? The sun was gone. The only thing I can see is that it sucks suns dry from long distance...?

 

[Mikey1969]

Star Wars TFA doesn't really count as it was filmed and finished in 2D. The 3D was added in post-production for the parallel 3D release.

I feel that to release a movie presented in one format theatrically and then brutally chopped down for home viewing (widescreen/pan-and-scan; 3-D/2-D; IMAX/my tiny cell phone) diminishes and cheapens the film.

 

[TravisR]

One thing I missed, maybe someone can explain: How does Starkiller Base renew its energy once the sun is depleted? It's a planet. Does it move? Where did it get its energy for the first attack on the Republic if it uses up the sun each time it fires? If it had survived and wiped the Resistance out, where would it have gotten energy for its next blast? The sun was gone. The only thing I can see is that it sucks suns dry from long distance...?

I thought it would just start sucking suns in other systems dry but you piqued interest so I took a look at Wookieepedia and the answer is that the planet can move via hyperspace. That's not stated or even implied in the movie but that's the way that the LFL story group looks at it. Before anyone points out the scientific impossibility of any of that, the whole idea is pretty crazy.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Starkiller_Base

 

[Carabimero]

Thanks Travis. Yeah, my first reaction to the whole thing was, "Oh, cool!" But any way you slice it, it can't work. If you sucked a sun dry, the gravitational chaos alone would wreck more havoc than the planets you destroy with your weapon. And the idea that a planet can move is nuts. How? Even if you explain it, there's that darn thing called gravity again. I guess SW has always been light on the science. But it always did take into account basic physics: You can't breathe on an asteroid (inside a giant space slug) without a mask, etc.

I like the movie a lot, but they needed a single line in there to explain away SOMETHING.

Still, after many, many viewings, I continue to consider this easily the third best SW film ever made. My order: 5,4,7,6,3,2,1.

 

[TravisR]

Thanks Travis. Yeah, my first reaction to the whole thing was, "Oh, cool!" But any way you slice it, it can't work. If you sucked a sun dry, the gravitational chaos alone would wreck more havoc than the planets you destroy with your weapon. And the idea that a planet can movie is nuts. How?

I like the movie a lot, but they needed a single line in there to explain away SOMETHING.

Still, after many, many viewings, I continue to consider this easily the third best SW film ever made. My order: 5,4,7,6,3,2,1.

I guess you could say that since they had the science to make a hyperspace engine that moved the Death Star and have enough shielding that that it didn't fall apart that a big enough hyperspace engine and shielding would do the same for a planet. Though I'm sure that ignores a ton of science that should even apply to a galaxy far, far away. As long as it worked to move their weapon and let it remain functional, the First Order probably wasn't too concerned with the effect that movement would have on the planet or its ecosystem.

 

[Lord Dalek]

There's a reason why Star Wars isn't considered science fiction. The science in it basically always boils down to "it just works ok???".

 

[Tino]

Star Wars TFA doesn't really count as it was filmed and finished in 2D. The 3D was added in post-production for the parallel 3D release.

Sure it does. It was released theatrically in 3D so that's what counts. Almost all current 3D films are converted after they are finished, and if done properly like TFA, Titanic, Gravity etc. it's near the quality of a native 3D film.

 

[George_W_K]

I had no interest in home 3D until I bought my OLED tv with passive 3D. Glasses are cheap, I already had a 3D bluray player, and I was able to pick up a bunch of used discs for a reasonable price. Our living room tv was 3D capable, but I wasn't about to spend $50 on a pair of glasses and new movie prices are ridiculous. Iron Man 3 in 3D was $50 last I looked.

So for me, price is why I balked at home 3D. I'm sure a lot share my opinion.

 

[Carabimero]

I will become interested in so-called 3D when I can watch a movie in 3D WITHOUT glasses.

 

[Tino]

I had no interest in home 3D until I bought my OLED tv with passive 3D. Glasses are cheap, I already had a 3D bluray player, and I was able to pick up a bunch of used discs for a reasonable price. Our living room tv was 3D capable, but I wasn't about to spend $50 on a pair of glasses and new movie prices are ridiculous. Iron Man 3 in 3D was $50 last I looked.

So for me, price is why I balked at home 3D. I'm sure a lot share my opinion.

3D bluray are regularly on sale. And the most I've paid on release day is $27.99. Plenty are on sale under $20 right now.

I expect the 3D blu of SW TFA to retail at about $24.99

 

[Carlo_M]

Consider this: 3D is thriving in the theaters because theater chains have it in their best interest to show movies in 3D to charge a price premium. I wanted to see Star Wars in 2D. I live in Los Angeles, no shortage of movie theaters here. Guess what? The number of 3D vs. 2D showings was like 10-to-1 in favor of 3D for SW:TFA. And guess what else? The ticket prices were considerably higher for the 3D showings. Those 3D sales numbers for SW:TFA were high, but not because consumers are preferring 3D over 2D, but that in many places, they didn't have a choice. The only places near me showing 2D were lower-quality theaters, so in my case, if I wanted to see a great presentation of SW:TFA, I had little choice but to see it in 3D.

 

[Mikey1969]

That's much like I stated earlier. Theaters have a pretty small profit margin. Indeed most of their profit comes from the concession stand and they're always eager to grab a bit more. Nearly every advance ticket theater in my area was 3D and all of the reserved-seat theaters were as well. I don't know it it was good or bad 3D but it seemed dark and hard to follow in spots and the extra visual info didn't really add anything, IMHO.

Consider this: 3D is thriving in the theaters because theater chains have it in their best interest to show movies in 3D to charge a price premium. I wanted to see Star Wars in 2D. I live in Los Angeles, no shortage of movie theaters here. Guess what? The number of 3D vs. 2D showings was like 10-to-1 in favor of 3D for SW:TFA. And guess what else? The ticket prices were considerably higher for the 3D showings. Those 3D sales numbers for SW:TFA were high, but not because consumers are preferring 3D over 2D, but that in many places, they didn't have a choice. The only places near me showing 2D were lower-quality theaters, so in my case, if I wanted to see a great presentation of SW:TFA, I had little choice but to see it in 3D.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I had no interest in home 3D until I bought my OLED tv with passive 3D. Glasses are cheap, I already had a 3D bluray player, and I was able to pick up a bunch of used discs for a reasonable price. Our living room tv was 3D capable, but I wasn't about to spend $50 on a pair of glasses and new movie prices are ridiculous. Iron Man 3 in 3D was $50 last I looked.

So for me, price is why I balked at home 3D. I'm sure a lot share my opinion.

This and the availability issue for me. Around these parts you have to go of your way to get a 3D blu-ray player outside of the internet and even then it still costs 2X as much for what has become an unsupported niche format and you still have to buy the glasses separately so that's another 40 bucks wasted depending on which tv you bought because its all proprietary!

In other words, 3D Blu-ray has become the second coming of laserdisc.

 

[Wayne_j]

I believe that the disc for this movie uses the theatrical mix which should be played back at reference. Most home releases these days use near field mixes that are meant to be listened to at around -10dB. Because of this they sound a lot louder than theatrical mixes but might have less dynamic range.

 

[TonyD]

Yikes that would be super loud. I'll try it tomorrow.

 

[Dave H]

Not here to preach, but as someone who suffers from some mild hearing loss and a moderate sufferer of Tinnitus, I strongly urge all of you not to watch movies (includes the peaks) much above 85 db as recommended by the medical community. Get a sound meter and test it out. Tinnitus 24/7 is not fun - no - it sucks! (and there is no cure), trust me, and it's related to hearing loss which for me came from loud home theater and car stereo days as a teenager.

Here are some noise exposure limit guidelines.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/conten...phones-and-hearing-safety#2pcWyFfGUJfG2th2.97

 

[Tino]

Not here to preach, but as someone who suffers from some mild hearing loss and a moderate sufferer of Tinnitus, I strongly urge all of you not to watch movies (includes the peaks) much above 85 db as recommended by the medical community. Get a sound meter and test it out. Tinnitus 24/7 is not fun - no - it sucks! (and there is no cure), trust me, and it's related to hearing loss which for me came from loud home theater and car stereo days as a teenager.

Here are some noise exposure limit guidelines.

http://www.innerfidelity.com/conten...phones-and-hearing-safety#2pcWyFfGUJfG2th2.97

I suffer from tinnitus too since I was about 12 and I echo Dans comments. People have committed suicide in extreme cases. Protect your ears.