Not to go too far off topic, but I'll admit that I can be pretty particular about packaging.

I do agree that the content on the disc(s) is what is most important, and I would still buy the movies that I want regardless of the type of packaging that they come in.

That being said, I have at times gone to somewhat great lengths to get packaging (including slip covers) in good condition, and if there is more than 1 packaging option with one being more preferable and harder to obtain, I'll go out of my way to get it if it is that important to me. Or even customizing packaging when the occasion calls for it.

I would be lying if I said that I've never bought something more than once due to packaging, but those occasions have been few and far between, and are typically reserved for movies that I am a really really big fan of. Rarely will I buy something twice just because of better packaging that comes out later.

Actually, while I never went through with it, there was a point in time (prior to the individual releases with the UOT bonus discs coming out) where I was almost considering buying the Fullscreen DVD Star Wars OT box set and putting my widescreen discs in those cases because the packaging was gold instead of silver and would better match the PT packaging. The main reason that I never went through with this was because of the words "Full Screen" being plastered across the top of each box. If that wasn't there and it just said the aspect ratio in the fine print on the back, I could have lived with that.

However, after getting the individual OT releases, from a 3rd party Amazon seller, I did buy the bonus disc from the fullscreen OT box set (because that wasn't formatted differently nor did it say "fullscreen" on the top... the coloring of the box was different) to go with the gold packaging of the inidvidual OT and PT releases. And in all honesty, there is a good chance that even if the individual OT releases didn't include the UOT bonus discs, but still had the gold packaging, I likely would have bought them sooner or later, though I likely would have waited for a better sale price.



I really try not to "judge" anyone for their packaging preferences because I know that I'm already pretty extreme in the eyes of my family and friends, and while I say to anyone who has the money to do so to do what they will with it... I will say that I do have a hard time wrapping my mind around the logic of some of the more extreme slipcover collectors.

Yes, I have bought movies, etc. that I am a really, really, really big fan of more than once for different packaging or because different retailers offered a different exclusive item/extra disc/etc with the set and I wanted all of those different exclusives...

but there are some people who will buy pretty much any and every movie (including those crappy straight to video offerings from Disney like the "Buddies" movies) multiple times because of different slip covers or different store exclusives (with the interest in at least some cases apparently not even so much beign in the exclusive item, itself, but more so the fact that the slip cover has an additional sticker on it advertising the exclusive... as having as many original stickers on it except for the price stickers is apparently ideal for some reason.

I mean there are even people going out of their way to get those really crappy "Essentials" slipcovers from Sony, which just have a small picture of the Blu-Ray on the front of it surround by a bunch of bland nothingness. I can understand wanting a slipcover that has the same artwork as the main cover but with embossing added to it or something, but these other covers are terrible. And people will buy them in addition to having previously bought the same movie with another previous slipcover.

Again, that's their perogative, and it doesn't do me any harm, but I can't for the life of me wrap my mind around the logic of it. At least when I buy a movie multiple times because of different packaging/exclusives, it is typically out of my fandom for that movie. But there seem to be some people just buying movies that they wouldn't otherwise even bother buying just get add to their slipcover collection. With all due respect, I can't say that I understand the logic behind this.

Yeah, I agree. Hopefully Lucas is aware of this issue and is doing something about it. It will be very disapointing if he doesn't.

That would be the one! The coloring is very nice on that poster. It would be much more ideal for the packaging (or at least something more like it).

Honestly, other than the crushed blacks, I didn't really have any problem with the 2004 transfers. I'll even admit, I didn't notice the green lightsaber in A New Hope until I read about it. I guess my eyes were always on Luke or Obi-Wan.

WOW... Is this the longest we've gone with out a post?...lol

I know, we should have at least 5 more pages by now! :D

I will bite:That would be legendary in the words of Barney:p

I'd say he'd be pointlessly catering to a sex-obsessed culture, and damaging Leia's character further in the process. Honestly, I never saw the purpose of having Leia as Jabba's "slave girl" to begin with, aside from horny fanboys wanting to see Carrie Fisher in a "barely-there" costume. She's supposed to be an authoritative, principle-driven, battle-hardened warrior at this point; is any of that really served by stripping most of her clothes off? :mad:

re
 

In the first 2 movies, Lucas actually had her breasts taped down because he didnt want any sexuality in the movie.

I certainly would not complain, however she looks nice the way she was too. :D

It was because there's no bras in outer space.

And even though she ends up in a gold bikini in ROTJ, she still shows what a strong woman she is.

In fact, she's probably the most competent of the OT characters. Especially when she's the one who ends up killing Jabba The Hutt.

Yeah, then he goes ahead with the gold bikini for "Jedi", and then, years later, personally designs Padme's black dress for the fireplace scene in "Clones". Apparently, something caused him to change his mind. Is consistency really too much to ask?

re
 

Her skimpy outfit wasnt that bad. There were far worse even back then. Why dont you ask Lucas himself?

I guess the vile gangster, Jabba the Hutt should've put her in a sweater. :rolleyes:

Jabba's Twi'lek dancers were wearing more than Leia, though; anyone tend to notice that?

Well, I liked the overall idea of every Alliance member infiltrating Jabba's palace, but I think Leia made a much better bounty hunter than a slave girl.

No, it was because a bra would show through the white dress which would look bad.

You could say it was meant to demean the character. Leia is a princess, someone of great importance who Jabba caught. In order to show how powerful he is, they took this vip and made her a slave girl in that outfit. It was a sign that there is no one greater than Jabba and that people are only as important as he feels they are. It has been done before in history in various ways so if you want to think of it in terms of mythology, then Lucas did it for a reason.

Real reason: he needed to make up for that stupid hair in the original movie and threw the fanboys a bone, literally:p

Nicely said imdb_acc, I was a thirteen year old boy when RotJ came out, and I can tell you that I found her very attractive back then, and her kicking ass while dressed that way just made her even more attractive!

You guys see this yet? An awesome little news report paroding the Bin Laden thing. :)

http://www.galacticempiretimes.com/2...is-killed.html

That is pretty good...kinda makes you think about our present reality and where we all stand...then I think too much sometimes