TCFHE Press Release: Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Blu-ray) (1 Viewer)

[robbbb1138]

Originally Posted by RobertR There are other sites where people discuss their desire to have the original trilogy.


Where you're off base is in equating legitimate criticism and/or analysis of George Lucas' films and business practices with some sort of personal "hatred". This has always been a forum where legitimate criticism of filmmakers and studios (Lucas is as much a "studio suit" as he is a filmmaker) is present. Check out any number of threads about poor quality transfers, OAR/audio issues, alternate versions, extras, etc. If you would "banish" such discussions just to avoid offending your sensibilities about "pissing and moaning", there wouldn't be much left of this forum.


If it's your position that complaints about other studios/filmmakers is ok, but that Lucas should be "immune" to such criticism and/or there's "too much" criticism of him (Who dictates what's "allowed" or "too much"?) or that there is no legitimate criticism of him, that's extremely off base.


There are entire threads devoted to people discussing how much they love Star Wars. There are sites dedicated to talking about how great George Lucas is. There are even sites where people take Star Wars so seriously that they pretend the Jedi are a real religion. Is that "too much", or is only "criticism" too much?

As one of the complainers about the complainers, I apologize for transposing my feelings that come from frequenting too many Star Wars message boards over the years to the people in this forum. As someone that is a hardcore Star Wars fan, it's generally frustrating to me that every thread about the movies becomes hijacked into discussions about what we're not getting, instead of excitement over what we are (presumably) getting. To play devil's advocate, I guess I should be equally frustrated with Lucas for even making this an issue by not making all cuts available, but I'm still confident those will see the light of day eventually...

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Carlo,


It was much more than the accents that got people up in arms!


To be honest, I don't personally get worked up over that stuff -- it's just a funny thought I had and it seemed an apropos time to re-route the thread.

 

[Tim Mauldin]

Originally Posted by Aaron Silverman

I was watching one of the prequels on TV the other day and it suddenly struck me that Jar Jar Binks is actually the *least* racist character in the series, because he's the only example of a non-human creature who doesn't act exactly the same way as every other member of his race.


Discuss.

This is a tough call. Jar Jar was part of the same race, he just wasn't one of the stereotypical Gungans. Most of rest of them appeared to be confident warriors, and Jar Jar was a pathetic lifeform, or whatever Obi-Wan called him. As far as being a non-human that stood apart from the rest, you're right on the money. I wouldn't say in a positive way though. To the audience or the other characters.


Carlo makes a good point about the OT, the Chewbacca exchange in Jedi was much better with the huttese language included. I think the Prequels could have benefitted from some of this too.

 

[Carlo_M]

Actually the whole interplay of who could understand whom made the OT very exotic.


Han could understand Chewy and Jabba, but not R2.

Luke could understand seemingly everyone.

So could Obi-wan.

Leia, not so much initially but progressed through the trilogy.

Etc., etc.


And it worked to accentuate their character traits. The Jedi of course had this innate ability to understand all races and act as a bridge. Han understood who he needed to in order to be successful at his profession. Leia was royalty from a small planet and didn't need to understand anyone outside of it (at first) and then learned as her role in the Rebellion grew over time.


Sometimes it's the little things like this that add up and really add flesh to a story.

 

[Tim Mauldin]

Originally Posted by Carlo Medina

Han could understand Chewy and Jabba, but not R2.

Yeah, and even though Jabba wanted Han's frozen head on a platter he was still talking to him like they were old pals. "Jabba, you're throwing away a fortune here." Seemed like Jabba could kind of understand Han too.

 

[Nick Martin]

Of course Star Trek in its various forms is far more racist than Star Wars could ever hope to be, but that's a whole other topic...

 

[SilverWook]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

exactly, if the original negative was cut apart and reconformed, it would be as Lucas says, "it no longer exists" as an extant negative. The writer of the article is unaware just how bad it is to change an original negative.


It would make a magnificent Yellow Layer Failure column to see RAH interview the restorationist in charge of the 1997 special edition. I wonder if that's possible...

I'm not going there, but for the record, there is no problem, and never was. These films are heavily protected.


I do however, appreciate a bit of sizzle with my steak. Ruth's Chris, anyone?


I'm sure the new set will be gorgeous.


RAH

[/QUOTE]
Does this mean the official story from Lucasfilm about the movies being "rescued" from turning forever pink in the nick of time back in '97 was a lot of PR baloney?

 

[Johnny Angell]

Originally Posted by RobertR

Where you're off base is in equating legitimate criticism and/or analysis of George Lucas' films and business practices with some sort of personal "hatred". This has always been a forum where legitimate criticism of filmmakers and studios (Lucas is as much a "studio suit" as he is a filmmaker) is present. Check out any number of threads about poor quality transfers, OAR/audio issues, alternate versions, extras, etc. If you would "banish" such discussions just to avoid offending your sensibilities about "pissing and moaning", there wouldn't be much left of this forum.


If it's your position that complaints about other studios/filmmakers is ok, but that Lucas should be "immune" to such criticism and/or there's "too much" criticism of him (Who dictates what's "allowed" or "too much"?) or that there is no legitimate criticism of him, that's extremely off base.

I do believe the complaints about the lack of an OOT have risen to an emotional level, at least part of the time. But that is not my complaint. It is the incessant repetition of the same complaints over and over and... The points have been made.

I do not think anyone is immune to criticism, but don't you ever get tired of the same old complaints? Don't you ever want to read a Star Wars thread without having to sift through all the old complaints for a new nugget of info about SW?


In short "Methinks thou dost protest to much."


There is a somewhat frivolous definition of insanity: repeating the same action while expecting different results (or something to that effect). Therefore, in observance of my complaint about going on and on and on, I will acknowledge I have had my say, and will not expect different results. I will do the sane thing and stop complaining.

 

[Robert Harris]

Originally Posted by SilverWook

exactly, if the original negative was cut apart and reconformed, it would be as Lucas says, "it no longer exists" as an extant negative. The writer of the article is unaware just how bad it is to change an original negative.


It would make a magnificent Yellow Layer Failure column to see RAH interview the restorationist in charge of the 1997 special edition. I wonder if that's possible...

I'm not going there, but for the record, there is no problem, and never was. These films are heavily protected.


I do however, appreciate a bit of sizzle with my steak. Ruth's Chris, anyone?


I'm sure the new set will be gorgeous.


RAH

[/QUOTE]
Does this mean the official story from Lucasfilm about the movies being "rescued" from turning forever pink in the nick of time back in '97 was a lot of PR baloney?


Not at all. Like Close Encounters and a few other titles in production during that era, the film stock used for comping effects was later found to be chemically unstable. While everything could be fixed to perfection, the instability was a real problem. In that regard there was no "PR baloney."


RAH

 

[cafink]

I'm confused. I don't know many of the technical details of processing, storing, or restoring film, but at first you said "there is no problem, and never was," and now claim that "the instability was a real problem." Are you talking about two different things? Was Star Wars ever really in danger of "turning pink forever" or not?

 

[Robert Harris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cafink

I'm confused. I don't know many of the technical details of processing, storing, or restoring film, but at first you said "there is no problem, and never was," and now claim that "the instability was a real problem." Are you talking about two different things? Was Star Wars ever really in danger of "turning pink forever" or not?

While there was a technical problem, it is easily overcome.


RAH

 

[Nick Martin]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell

I do not think anyone is immune to criticism, but don't you ever get tired of the same old complaints? Don't you ever want to read a Star Wars thread without having to sift through all the old complaints for a new nugget of info about SW?


In short "Methinks thou dost protest to much."


There is a somewhat frivolous definition of insanity: repeating the same action while expecting different results (or something to that effect). Therefore, in observance of my complaint about going on and on and on, I will acknowledge I have had my say, and will not expect different results. I will do the sane thing and stop complaining.

Speaking as a massive James Horner fan who knows all too well about people complaining ad nauseam about the same things endlessly (on many, many forums), the answer is a resounding "YES", so therefore I can easily relate to this. Of course Star Wars fans don't come off as so superior-minded and snobby, just over-the-top passionate.

 

[AlexCosmo]

All the same star wars talk is old and tired now sure, but I think a distinction should be made when it comes to beating the drum on a blu-ray forum about customers' desired content on a blu-ray. It's not unreasonable. Especially since it seems like demand for that content actually is gauged by the amount of noise generated by the squeaky wheel (look at the aspect ratio for Apocalypse Now and Star Trek VI, doing the Donner Cut of Superman 2, a redo of Gladiator etc.)

 

[Mark Oates]

Over the years I've managed to collect most of the movies I've loved from the past. Some have been released readily by the Studios, others have turned up more reluctantly (licensed by small labels and unrestored in keeping with their unloved status). Whatever the circumstances of the releases I'm glad to see these old friends irrespective of the care or lack of care in their release. That's not to say I'm not disappointed by slipshod releases, but when the checks and balances are done I'd rather have a copy of a loved movie in my hand than it remain in the vault. Not buying a disc as a protest against lack of content, shoddy production or whatever ultimately strikes me as a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I can bitch to my heart's content after the fact, in the hope the shortcomings of the release may be rectified, but prior to the event I'd advise a little prudence.


You see, I always have the concern in the back of my mind that the Studios sell movies on DVD and Blu-ray to make money. They're also, as a breed, very thin-skinned. I always wonder if there's not going to be a point where some Suit is going to say: "Screw this. We've had so much negative publicity on this title we'll never cover the duplication and publicity costs." And some long-awaited title will stay exactly where it is down some salt mine. It won't happen with Star Wars, of course, but I wonder if it has happened elsewhere in the industry (Paramount's reluctance to dig into its catalogue more adventurously).


I agree with Alex that encouraging content for the upcoming release would be far more constructive. When Uncle George pops his head up and says "by the way, guys, as a way of thanking you for thirty-four years of humungous paychecks we'll be including the original theatrical versions of the original trilogy in 1080p" we can all cheer and hold his name blessed, rather than growling "about time you beardy fecker.."


Look on the bright side. They're releasing Star Wars on Blu-ray. Isn't that worth a little woo-hoo??

 

[cafink]

[FONT= 'Times New Roman']Quote:[/FONT] [FONT= 'Times New Roman']Originally Posted by Mark Oates [/FONT]

[FONT= 'Times New Roman']Not buying a disc as a protest against lack of content, shoddy production or whatever ultimately strikes me as a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.[/FONT]



[FONT= 'Times New Roman']I'm not buying the Star Wars trilogy on Blu-ray disc, but not as a protest. I'm doing so because it doesn't contain a movie that I'm interested in watching. I love the original Star Wars, and will purchase it should Lucasfilm ever release it on Blu-ray, but it's not included on the upcoming Blu-ray, so I'm not cutting off anything by not purchasing it.[/FONT]


Quote: Originally Posted by Mark Oates [url=http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/307588/tcfhe-press-release-star-wars-the-complete-saga-blu-ray/120#post_3770570]

I can bitch to my heart's content after the fact, in the hope the shortcomings of the release may be rectified, but prior to the event I'd advise a little prudence.



This doesn't seem consistent with your observation "that the studios sell movies on DVD and Blu-ray to make money." If that's true, why should they care about bitching? They've already got their money, and thus have no incentive to address the problem.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by cafink





This doesn't seem consistent with your observation "that the studios sell movies on DVD and Blu-ray to make money." If that's true, why should they care about bitching? They've already got their money, and thus have no incentive to address the problem.

Also, they would have zero incentive to issue a tender-hearted "thank you" (why would they suddenly morph from a profit oriented business into tender hearted altruists?) to people, since they would have years and years of proof that those people eagerly buy whatever they're offered.

 

[Carlo_M]

Remember when Lucas said that Star Wars would never be released on DVD? Well he backtracked on that, and while he would never admit it, one would have to say that the internet and respected forums like this (don't forget we have a bona fide, highly respected film restorer in our midst, as well as numerous members of the industry here). If we had all just kept quiet and accepted what he decided to put out, that likely would never have happened. Heck we even got the OOT on DVD, albeit in non-anamorphic format, after he said the laserdisc was "the last time you could own the OOT".


Change can happen, and it starts with civil discourse and not with the quieting of opinions. If you are tired of reading these opinions, please feel free to stop reading the threads. It's real easy to do, you see a Star Wars thread, you don't click on it. Or you read the main announcement by the OP and stop there. Meanwhile, the arguments, while the same, do encounter some new readership. We gain members regularly, and while they may not all post, some do read these threads and become educated on the issues. Some may even choose to get involved, and that's always a good thing. In fact, that's the whole point of internet forums. As long as discussion remains civil I see no issues with threads and discussion such as this.

 

[Robert Harris]

This thread is beginning to grow, and take on a life of its own. Those who reject the Star Wars package, for its presumed lack of the original productions are not alone. Personally, I find both versions of interest in their own rights, with the original taking great precedence, for a myriad of reasons.


They are the original, now classic films, as released starting in 1977. They have incredible technological relevance, especially in terms of their use (also with CE3K) of the Dolby process, and Dolby's pioneering CP50 and SVA printed optical soundtracks on 35mm film.


But, for me, beyond the changes in effects and storyline, the veritable 800 pound gorilla is what the films and their filmmakers proved, especially in that 1977 original. And that was that a filmmaker with a certain brilliance toward technology, production techniques, and story could work in a pre-digital world, and on an extremely limited budget, noted on iMDB as only thirteen million dollars, and create an extraordinary masterwork using every trick in the book, and some new ones, to create one of the most beloved and highly regarded films ever to hit the silver sheet. It is precisely those occasional garbage mattes, layer upon layer of composited effects, beautifully manufactured sound, and yes, what appear to be occasional cardboard cut-outs, that prove how, within that limited budget, an extraordinary film could be created, by a master filmmaker.


In that sense, when those in this thread communicate on line regarding their feelings toward Mr. Lucas, please keep in mind, that behind the corporate structure is the extraordinary technical showman who created what this discussion is about in the first place. My personal respect for him, and his work goes all the way back to those budget-saving measures used in creating that original masterpiece. It is for that reason, that I believe the original films should be available on Blu-ray in their highest possible visual and aural states -- to show those who never had the opportunity to see these films in their original 70mm blow-ups, what real filmmaking on an epic level is all about. It is for that reason, that I believe a nine film set is in order.


As to what is being posted, I would suggest that personal gibes be restrained, and that if there is a desire to communicate one's feelings, that it be done in a respectful manner.


RAH

 

[David_B_K]

Originally Posted by cafink [/FONT]

[FONT= 'Times New Roman']Not buying a disc as a protest against lack of content, shoddy production or whatever ultimately strikes me as a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.[/FONT]

[FONT= 'Times New Roman']I'm not buying the Star Wars trilogy on Blu-ray disc, but not as a protest. I'm doing so because it doesn't contain a movie that I'm interested in watching. I love the original Star Wars, and will purchase it should Lucasfilm ever release it on Blu-ray, but it's not included on the upcoming Blu-ray, so I'm not cutting off anything by not purchasing it.[/FONT]




That is my feeling exactly. I'm not making a statement, either. I just am not buying what they are selling.I really am content to watch the non-anamorphic DVDs of the OOT rather than the new Blu-rays.


RAH really sums up why the OOT should be seen. One cannot fully appreciate Lucas' original achievement without actually seeing the original version.


I still remember the excitement of the release of the original Star Wars in 1977. I'd dismissed it as "some cheezy sci-fi action film" when I heard about it. Then I started seeing blurbs in ads from critics who called it "the year's best film". So, I decided one Saturday to check it out. I was quite surprised to see a long line stretching out from the theater. The movie had snowballed and I had scarcely heard about it. Of course I loved the film. I was already a film buff who loved classic adventure films like the Errol Flynn classics. Like a lot of people, I saw it several times that summer (this was in the days before home video).


That original version really does need to be seen; even if the "improved versions" are also released.

 

[Stephen Brooks]

You know what I'm looking forward to? The 14 threads that will pop up complaining about DNR. The movies shot on film ARE going to be scrubbed of grain to match the digital look of the prequels. Let's just accept that right now, and get it over with.