or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Star Wars Blu-Ray Release Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Star Wars Blu-Ray Release Thread - Page 79

post #2341 of 2403
"Jorge"? Is he Spanish now?
post #2342 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

What's with all these "if" & "never" posts?!?!
Jorge released the theatrical original trilogy on DVD.
No, its wasn't too our expectations (non-anamorphic for one thing).
However it WAS released.
Any one think someone gave Jorge $4,000,000,000.00US in currency/certificates & isn't even considering re-releasing the "OT"???

Exactly

If it turns out George included a clause in the Disney deal about never letting the originals see the light of day, I will be at a loss for words. I would find it surprising - even for him - if he still cares about all of that after selling his company for $4.05 Billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

"Jorge"? Is he Spanish now?

Heh, you've never seen Red Letter Media's reviews of the prequels?
post #2343 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

Exactly
If it turns out George included a clause in the Disney deal about never letting the originals see the light of day, I will be at a loss for words. I would find it surprising - even for him - if he still cares about all of that after selling his company for $4.05 Billion.

He sold his company, not his intellectual property. I'm sure he does care.
post #2344 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

He sold his company, not his intellectual property. I'm sure he does care.

Any proof to that claim? I'm pretty certain that's exactly what Disney paid $4 billion for.
post #2345 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post

I'm pretty certain that's exactly what Disney paid $4 billion for.

Any proof of that claim? wink.gif

...I'm just guessing yes, but I'm under the impression that as an artist and a creative person, George Lucas didn't sell *all* his rights. Most of them maybe but not all of them. No one knows the terms of the deal so maybe you're right too.
post #2346 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Any proof of that claim? wink.gif
...I'm just guessing yes, but I'm under the impression that as an artist and a creative person, George Lucas didn't sell *all* his rights. Most of them maybe but not all of them. No one knows the terms of the deal so maybe you're right too.

No way does Disney eject $4B for this franchise to not be able to do broadcast and distribute the films and anything else they want to do with them. The shareholders would surely storm the Jedi temple like the 501st! Sorry, couldn't resist. And opinions regarding what Lucas has done to his movies aside, one thing I could never say about Lucas is that the man isn't highly intelligent. While he may have sold his franchise, I'm sure he didn't sell his right to do other things Star Wars if he so chooses. At the very least in its likeness.
post #2347 of 2403
Anyone thinking Disney was dumb enough to pay that much money with any sort of clause from Lucas preventing anything on the Original Trilogy, is fooling themselves. There are heavy rumors that Lucas was personally upset by the general fan backlash on the Internet and in real life to his handling of the franchise over the past decade, and that selling it was Lucas washing his hands of control. I assume what will happen is that the Original Trilogy will be released on home media again, likely as part of some uber-deluxe box set where we will have to buy all six movies again.
post #2348 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger View Post

Anyone thinking Disney was dumb enough to pay that much money with any sort of clause from Lucas preventing anything on the Original Trilogy, is fooling themselves.
In the great scheme of things and the money Star Wars makes even when they are only realesed as SE (just look at the BD sales) I think some people overestimate the importance of OT in the general publics eye.
post #2349 of 2403
I have doubts because a modern HD presentation of the OT would be technically superior to the Special Editions in every way.
This would make the "improved" versions terribly inadequate presentation wise to the "old" versions.
post #2350 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanboyz View Post

I have doubts because a modern HD presentation of the OT would be technically superior to the Special Editions in every way.
This would make the "improved" versions terribly inadequate presentation wise to the "old" versions.

Not if they do 4K rebuilds of them for the 3D conversions, which will now be hitting theaters much earlier (and more rapidly) than anticipated. With the prequels, they have actual 2K files to work with (yes, Clones and Sith were shot at 1920x817, but that footage was essentially scaled slightly to full 2K when the effects were added). On the other hand, the Lowry masters of the OT (made for the 2004 dvd and used for the blu-ray) are entirely stuck at 1920x817. I'm sorry, but for a movie that was shot in cinemascope with visual effects shot in vistavision, 1920x817 cannot be considered a "digital negative" as Jim Ward called it in '04. If LaserPacific can do 4K jobs of Raiders TWICE in the span of four years, I think Disney and LFL can swing for the OT's first new scan since 2003.

I'm wondering if ILM still has the final renders of the cgi shots added in '97.* I'd assumed the new Phantom Menace transfer would essentially be a 2K scan of the negative, which was itself mostly a filmout of 2K files. Then it turned out ILM had practically the entire movie still saved somewhere after all these years!

*I'm guessing the answer might be no. I remember watching the 2004 dvd and noticing certain filmic anomalies during the '97 shots, like frame drift/weave, which would mean they were scanned off the '97 assembly of the negative just like everything else. I guess this wouldn't necessarily preclude the possibility of the files still sitting in a computer somewhere at ILM, but fifteen years is a pretty long time.
post #2351 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

I'm sorry, but for a movie that was shot in cinemascope with visual effects shot in vistavision, 1920x817 cannot be considered a "digital negative" as Jim Ward called it in '04.

Not to apologize for mediocre, outdated transfers (especially from a company that advertises itself as technically-prioritized and technologically advanced), but in light of the fact that the resolution you describe is at least equivalent to what could be expected from a commercial 35mm print, I think "digital negative" is an entirely reasonable term (or, more particularly, was, circa 2004).
post #2352 of 2403
lucas didn't sell everything to disney. he still owns the real estate, skywalker ranch, lettermen digital arts building, and the other ranch in marin he bought fairly recently.

so there may be other assets not transfered to disney in this deal.
post #2353 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG ED View Post

What's with all these "if" & "never" posts?!?!
Jorge released the theatrical original trilogy on DVD.
No, its wasn't too our expectations (non-anamorphic for one thing).
However it WAS released.
Any one think someone gave Jorge $4,000,000,000.00US in currency/certificates & isn't even considering re-releasing the "OT"???

Shhhh... You are not supposed to say the originals were released on DVD, it's accepted wisdom among Lucas haters that never happened. Just as they continue to claim the original first SW is Lucas owned not Fox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger View Post

Anyone thinking Disney was dumb enough to pay that much money with any sort of clause from Lucas preventing anything on the Original Trilogy, is fooling themselves. There are heavy rumors that Lucas was personally upset by the general fan backlash on the Internet

Rumors and internet plus Lucas, false Lucas claims have been going on for years, such statements have proven themselves the last things believe in. Strange how these great internet geniuses were caught totally off guard by the disney buyout, so much for their great abilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

lucas didn't sell everything to disney. he still owns the real estate, skywalker ranch, lettermen digital arts building, and the other ranch in marin he bought fairly recently.
so there may be other assets not transfered to disney in this deal.

What about the shirt on his back? It could be a collectors item.
post #2354 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

"Jorge"? Is he Spanish now?
England is "Engerland" now?!?! tongue.gif
post #2355 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger View Post

There are heavy rumors that Lucas was personally upset by the general fan backlash on the Internet and in real life to his handling of the franchise over the past decade, and that selling it was Lucas washing his hands of control.

... and maybe the fact that California and Federal tax rates are going to skyrocket starting next year. If I were on the fence about selling anyway, I would sell now to maximize profits as well. Even the most die hard "tax teh rich" proponents love avoiding taxes. LOL
post #2356 of 2403
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Shhhh... You are not supposed to say the originals were released on DVD, it's accepted wisdom among Lucas haters that never happened. Just as they continue to claim the original first SW is Lucas owned not Fox.
Rumors and internet plus Lucas, false Lucas claims have been going on for years, such statements have proven themselves the last things believe in. Strange how these great internet geniuses were caught totally off guard by the disney buyout, so much for their great abilities.
What about the shirt on his back? It could be a collectors item.

Lucas actually said in the statement, why do them if people just hate you for it. I will try and find the quote
post #2357 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Shhhh... You are not supposed to say the originals were released on DVD, it's accepted wisdom among Lucas haters that never happened.

While not a "Lucas hater" at all, stacking these films as a non-anamorphic bonus feature is hardly what I would call "released on dvd". At this point I really don't care if they ever get a proper release to be honest. But I do look forward to the next installment.
post #2358 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

While not a "Lucas hater" at all, stacking these films as a non-anamorphic bonus feature is hardly what I would call "released on dvd". At this point I really don't care if they ever get a proper release to be honest. But I do look forward to the next installment.

Yes, a non-anamorphic "release" was scarcely an improvement over the laserdiscs. At this point, I don't care either. I will watch the de-specialized editions which are the closest we'll ever get to the OOT. If anyone thinks Disney will ever bring out the OOT on Blu-ray, they'll probably get to it after they release Song of the South (i.e. when Hell freezes over).
post #2359 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

Not to apologize for mediocre, outdated transfers (especially from a company that advertises itself as technically-prioritized and technologically advanced), but in light of the fact that the resolution you describe is at least equivalent to what could be expected from a commercial 35mm print, I think "digital negative" is an entirely reasonable term (or, more particularly, was, circa 2004).

It's the principle more than anything else. 1920x817 is HDTV resolution for 'scope, 2048x872 is digital cinema resolution for 'scope. It would be especially ridiculous for them to use this old master in 2014/15 for the 3D version when so many other films of Star Wars' level of importance have already been given much better treatment by now in 2012.

How much money has been generated from this franchise again????

We've got 4K masters of the Indy films (two for Raiders). The prequels are stuck at a lower resolution because (almost) every last shot has some kind of digital effect and they were made a decade ago which = no 4K. That's not the case with the OT. If DreamWorks (or whoever paid for it) can do a 4K rebuild of Minority Report, a movie shot on 35mm but with lots of digital effects from ten years ago, I don't see why something similar can't be done for the OT-SE.
post #2360 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

1920x817 is HDTV resolution for 'scope, 2048x872 is digital cinema resolution for 'scope.

There's not a huge amount of difference there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang Zei View Post

It would be especially ridiculous for them to use this old master in 2014/15 for the 3D version when so many other films of Star Wars' level of importance have already been given much better treatment by now in 2012.

Well, of course, but that's not the question, is it? The question is, "Was it reasonable to refer to that master as a 'digital negative' back in 2004". The answer is, "Yeah, pretty much."
post #2361 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Shhhh... You are not supposed to say the originals were released on DVD, it's accepted wisdom among Lucas haters that never happened.

They weren't released on DVD. They were entirely sourced from the laserdisc masters.... it was the LD presentation even down to it not being anamorphic.

I could transfer a VHS to my computer, encode it and stick it on a DVD and have it be identical to a VHS apart from the fact that it's stored on the DVD medium - but is that really "releasing something on DVD"? No, that's absurd.

Personally though, I don't really care. Harmy's De-specialized editions have made the whole debate irrelevant to me. Release them officially, don't release them.... doesn't matter.
post #2362 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

They weren't released on DVD. They were entirely sourced from the laserdisc masters.... it was the LD presentation even down to it not being anamorphic.
I could transfer a VHS to my computer, encode it and stick it on a DVD and have it be identical to a VHS apart from the fact that it's stored on the DVD medium - but is that really "releasing something on DVD"? No, that's absurd.

"Absurd" or not, if that's your criterion, there are a fair number of movies out there in people's DVD collections that they may be surprised to learn 'have never been released on the format'. Laserdisc masters defined the DVD standard for a while.
post #2363 of 2403
I can see where Fang is coming from. It's not even the resolution that concerns me in and of itself, but add to that the baked-in grain reduction artefacts and the horrible colour of the Lowry "digital negatives", and the 3D versions will have a lot of obstacles to overcome. I find it baffling that a company which prides itself on technical excellence continues to let crap like that out of the door. New 4K masters would give the 3D conversions bods a cleaner, sharper image to work from. Hell, maybe they could even re-scan the large format elements seperately, like Warners did with the 65mm effects work on Blade Runner.

But LFL, for whatever reasons, just doesn't wanna know. Perhaps "Jorge" doesn't want stunning 4K versions of the OT upstaging his precious 2K PT, although the new movies will SURELY be finished at 4K so they'll show up everything that went before anyway! Or perhaps he knows how savvy people are these days, and if word got out that Star Wars was being rescanned people would naturally start questioning whether the originals were being reconstructed, and LFL would catch all kinds of hell when people are told "no, it's the SE only". So he's thinking, "why should I bother?".
post #2364 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectator View Post

"Absurd" or not, if that's your criterion, there are a fair number of movies out there in people's DVD collections that they may be surprised to learn 'have never been released on the format'. Laserdisc masters defined the DVD standard for a while.

Not in 2006 as non-anamorphic "bonus features" coupled with proper releases of the same films. It's not analogous.

They were essentially the laserdiscs stored as bonus material, from a poor 1993 telecine master, alongside a set with new transfers from a new master based on the original negatives. If you consider that releasing the Original Trilogy on DVD that's fine, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. It had been released on DVD for years then, as Laserdisc preservation projects had existed for many years up to that point.
post #2365 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

Not in 2006 as non-anamorphic "bonus features" coupled with proper releases of the same films. It's not analogous.

I'm not claiming it was a good/aesthetically-acceptable release... but it was released.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

It had been released on DVD for years then, as Laserdisc preservation projects had existed for many years up to that point.

Laserdisc-sourced fan preservation projects are not releases.
post #2366 of 2403
Yeah, the laserdisc was released on DVD.
post #2367 of 2403
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

Yeah, the laserdisc was released on DVD.

Master, Not laserdisc
post #2368 of 2403
You guys and your semantics
post #2369 of 2403
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff D View Post

You guys and your semantics

I am always up to some antics
post #2370 of 2403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins View Post

Yeah, the laserdisc was released on DVD.

Again, not at all a unique circumstance.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Star Wars Blu-Ray Release Thread