Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Indyjones]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

Really? they look amazing on DVD so I'm sure even a 1080p DVD master would look great. I also am not sure the cost of restoring all the films would've been worth it.

Originally Posted by al cos.

I don't think the other 2 would need the same level of restoration as Raiders. They didn't play in theaters for over a year, with all the wear and tear that goes with that.

I haven't watched the DVD's in almost 10 years or seen an HD telecast of any of these , so I don't know how these look.

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by Indyjones

Then again, only Raiders received the white glove treatment, while TOD and TLC will be simple remasters, and this is after the Indy Trilogy was pulled from a blu release at the last second back in 2008, due to quality concerns. You would think that in those 4 years, all 3 films would've got the same attention to detail. There definetly was enough time. Kinda sounds half-a**ed to me, just like every other Lucasfilm release - including SW. I am excited to watch Raiders on blu, but at the same time, concerned with the quality of TOD and TLC - both in the audio and video dept..

I wouldn't worry too much about TOD and TLC. The HD Broadcast versions look great and the Blu Ray should be a step up from there. The only reason Raiders got the 'white glove' treatment was because it was celebrating its 30th anniversary and was re-released in select theaters a little while ago. Spielberg and Ford even attended one of the screenings and did a Q&A afterwards. Here is a link of that event, audio only though:

Raiders of the Lost Ark 30th Anniversary Q&A With Spielberg & Ford - YouTube

Anyway, if you are going to present the film to fans with the Director and Star of the film there, you betcha they are going to make it look its best. Besides, this is more or less a Spielberg release (at least to me) than it is a Lucas release. His stuff on Blu Ray (with the obvious exception of Jurassic Park) looks pretty spectacular.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Aquel

I have to agree with this, you pay a premium for blu-ray over DVD, it is quite reasonable to also expect a better PQ + AQ.

Hopefully when 4K hits they will finally do 1,4,5,6 justice and give them a proper 4K scan, so that we finally have all the films in their optimal (in whatever edition) quality.

Wouldn't be worth doing with Phantom Menace, as 99.999% of the film has had some sort of digital enhancement, which was done at 2K resolution and then output to film for the theatrical release. Hence the highest quality version of the finished movie only exists as 2K digital files.

Sure, they could rescan the relevant sections of original camera negative and redo the CG for 4K (or even upscale the 2K effects a la Spider-Man 3) but that would cost far too many simoleans. People say 'oh, George can afford it', but considering that the OT Blu-rays are derived from problematic 8-year-old HD masters which were specifically created for a DVD release, even if the 4K redo cost a buck fifty George still wouldn't prise open his moth-eaten wallet.

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Wouldn't be worth doing with Phantom Menace, as 99.999% of the film has had some sort of digital enhancement, which was done at 2K resolution and then output to film for the theatrical release. Hence the highest quality version of the finished movie only exists as 2K digital files.

Sure, they could rescan the relevant sections of original camera negative and redo the CG for 4K (or even upscale the 2K effects a la Spider-Man 3) but that would cost far too many simoleans. People say 'oh, George can afford it', but considering that the OT Blu-rays are derived from problematic 8-year-old HD masters which were specifically created for a DVD release, even if the 4K redo cost a buck fifty George still wouldn't prise open his moth-eaten wallet.

I'm sorry if I'm asking a dumb question now but wouldn't the practical effects of the OT also cause a lower image quality due to the layering of the effects.. (I can't recall the word for it)? I think it was somewhere on these forums that I read something like that. The blu-rays also exhibit quite some variety in PQ from time to time in 4,5,6 (and I'm not talking about the CGI stuff)

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Aquel

I'm sorry if I'm asking a dumb question now but wouldn't the practical effects of the OT also cause a lower image quality due to the layering of the effects.. (I can't recall the word for it)? I think it was somewhere on these forums that I read something like that. The blu-rays also exhibit quite some variety in PQ from time to time in 4,5,6 (and I'm not talking about the CGI stuff)

It would depend on how they were filmed (if you're talking about the miniature shots, the practical effects would be all in-camera), but there does seem to be a belief that optical effects lower the quality or have a lower quality (it's mentioned with the earlier James Bond movies). So I guess in theory that if the effects shots were shot on lower film stock than the life action stuff there would be a difference (it's possible that shots were enlarged and shrunk as well).

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Edit: lulz how did Beast get banned?

I hadn't noticed that he was until I saw your post. [sarcasm]Oh, what a shame![/sarcasm]

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by al cos.

I don't think the other 2 would need the same level of restoration as Raiders. They didn't play in theaters for over a year, with all the wear and tear that goes with that.

In other words, the original negatives weren't used to crank out so many prints for the other two movies, therefore not much work needed on the negatives while doing new prints to be scanned for the Blu-rays? I could definitely see that.

[Canuck21]

Originally Posted by Roonan

Ah, the fallacious and hypocritical arguments that compose Plinkett's opinion are back. How people still listen to him is beyond me.

Please explain why Plinkett's arguments are fallacious and hypocritical? Because they're not in-line with your opinion? You apologists never make sense.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Canuck21

Please explain why Plinkett's arguments are fallacious and hypocritical? Because they're not in-line with your opinion? You apologists never make sense.

Generally speaking, many apologists just want to point out the illogical flaws that exist in self-defeating statements, regardless of the issue at hand.

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by Canuck21

Please explain why Plinkett's arguments are fallacious and hypocritical? Because they're not in-line with your opinion? You apologists never make sense.

I love Plinketts review!!! Granted I love the prequels but they do have their flaws (as do the originals) ... just because I love something doesn't mean it perfect and Star Wars is far from perfect...

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

In other words, the original negatives weren't used to crank out so many prints for the other two movies, therefore not much work needed on the negatives while doing new prints to be scanned for the Blu-rays? I could definitely see that.

Right, Doom and Crusade had the big opening weekend and then that's it, as they gradually fade away during the summer just like movies do now. Contrast that with stuff like this happening all over the place (which was even before the wide '82 re-release)

[42041]

Originally Posted by Aquel

I'm sorry if I'm asking a dumb question now but wouldn't the practical effects of the OT also cause a lower image quality due to the layering of the effects.. (I can't recall the word for it)? I think it was somewhere on these forums that I read something like that. The blu-rays also exhibit quite some variety in PQ from time to time in 4,5,6 (and I'm not talking about the CGI stuff)

Indeed, but in TPM almost every shot in the film (except the poison gas scene) has some kind of digital effect which would be rather cost-prohibitive to redo. The OT has much more material that's straight from the negative. The OT effects were also shot/composited on Vistavision to preserve quality so if the transfer uses the VV elements I bet they could still look pretty darn good.

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by Canuck21

Please explain why Plinkett's arguments are fallacious and hypocritical?

Someone has already done it for me. But the most common fallacy he uses is using his perception (and others) as a fact (i.e: he says there are no strong characters in the movie because hi friends say so). Or using flat out lies as criticism (i.e: Samuel L Jackson's casting). And for his hipocrisy? What about using the Original Trilogy (which has similar "flaws") as a flawless example?

Originally Posted by Canuck21

Because they're not in-line with your opinion?

What? Please explain how you've reached that false conclusion.

Originally Posted by Canuck21

You apologists never make sense.

Oh, because I've criticized RLM I'm called an apologist? And even if I were, what does that prove? Next time come up with a real argument, instead of using ad hominem.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Roonan

But the most common fallacy he uses is using his perception (and others) as a fact (i.e: he says there are no strong characters in the movie because hi friends say so).

Is that a fallacy or just an opinion you don't share?

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by Starpower67

Haha! Thanks! He is so hilarious!

So much for the Plinkett pretends the OT is perfect argument. I just finished it. First time I ever listened to a commentary.. no regrets! I put his reviews of the PT on at work and they were a big hit.

http://redlettermedia.bandcamp.com/t...ommentary-full
^ TPM commentary

[Troy73]

I listened to Plinkett's commentary and found it completely unfunny and immature. I just don't see the humor in anything he says about SW. He gains his popularity by bashing and slamming someone elses films. He's a clown with no real talent of his own who rides the coat tails of others. I'm amazed anyone with any kind of common sense would entertain such an obvious jack ass.

[Starpower67]

Originally Posted by Troy73

I listened to Plinkett's commentary and found it completely unfunny and immature. I just don't see the humor in anything he says about SW. He gains his popularity by bashing and slamming someone elses films. He's a clown with no real talent of his own who rides the coat tails of others. I'm amazed anyone with any kind of common sense would entertain such an obvious jack ass.

Well humor is subjective, and there is no way I could explain to you why I find something funny. Especially since you obviously have disdain for his type of humor. Also I must add that a lof of critics especially the internet critics get their popularity from bashing movies. A lot of people enjoy that especially on movies they don't like. They enjoy someone else pointing out the same flaws in the film that bothered them.

I enjoy his type of humor, and I don't mind when people point out flaws in a film that I happen to like a lot. Some people hate that though, and it frustrates them when people point out flaws in a film they like.

[Roonan]

Originally Posted by octagon

Is that a fallacy or just an opinion you don't share?

A fallacy. He may think there is no strong character in the movie, but that doesn't make it a fact. And his friends sharing the same opinion proves nothing.

[octagon]

You keep using that word. - YouTube

[Moviefan2k4]

I just think a lot of folks were shocked - and somewhat offended - that Anakin wasn't some invincible, all-powerful, galaxy-known hero, like they were expecting. That notion isn't backed up by anything in the OT, so I don't understand where it came from. Instead, we're shown he was an ordinary human being, with the same selfishness and insecurity as all of us. The one thing that destroyed him was his fear of change, which was a result of his childhood slavery, combined with the strict traditions of the Jedi Order. He'd wanted to be an emancipator for his own people on Tatooine, freeing slaves from their cruel masters, but Palpatine manipulated him for his own ends. His love for Padme wasn't a weakness, but a strength; what went wrong was a combination of many factors on both sides. The murders he committed were horrendous, but as Obi-Wan said, "he was deceived by a [terrible] lie".