Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Maybe (and hopefully) they will update some of the CGI for the prequels if they can do so. If they still have the original elements (which I assume they do), they could probably render the details at a higher resolution or something to get a better look out of them for the prequels and any CGI that was added to the OT.

[Jumpman]

Honestly, you can't worry about dated CG. There's dated CG in the Rings Trilogy. Hell, some of it was dated when those films were released.

This is something that can't be helped. I'm sure, if you sit at the appropriate distance from your television, it's not going to be an issue for most people...

[NMR1723]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Honestly, you can't worry about dated CG. There's dated CG in the Rings Trilogy. Hell, some of it was dated when those films were released.

This is something that can't be helped. I'm sure, if you sit at the appropriate distance from your television, it's not going to be an issue for most people...

Understood...but we're HT enthusiasts...we like to sit close to the screen...no? I find less of LOTR CGI looking weak than some of the prequel stuff.

I was watching on a 50" Pioneer KRP-500M at about 11 feet away. This is actually a little too far away so things should look better than they did. Maybe my display is too accurate

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by shelldweller

So what you are asking for to satisfy all fans is a Blu-Ray set like this? Does anyone seriously want Star Wars to be released Blade-Runner-style?

Star Wars - the insanely complete Saga Set

BD 1: Episode I - the Phantom Menace (1999 theatrical Edition)
BD 2: Episode I - the Phantom Menace (2000 DVD Edition)
BD 3: Episode I - the Phantom Menace (2011 Blu-Ray Edition)
BD 4: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002 theatrical Edition)
BD 5: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002 DVD Edition)
BD 6: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002 UK DVD Edition)
BD 7: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2011 Blu-Ray Edition)
BD 8: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005 theatrical Edition)
BD 9: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005 DVD Edition)
BD 10: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2011 Blu-Ray Edition)
BD 11: Star Wars (1977 theatrical Edition with multiple sound formats)
BD 12: Episode IV - A new Hope (1981 rerelease Edition)
BD 13: Episode IV - A new Hope (1997 Special Edition)
BD 14: Episode IV - A new Hope (2004 DVD Edition)
BD 15: Episode IV - A new Hope (2011 Blu-Ray Edition)
BD 16: Episode V - the Empire strikes back (1980 theatrical Edition 35mm Master)
BD 17: Episode V - the Empire strikes back (1980 theatrical Edition 70mm Master)
BD 18: Episode V - the Empire strikes back (1997 Special Edition)
BD 19: Episode V - the Empire strikes back (2004 DVD Edition)
BD 20: Episode V - the Empire strikes back (2011 Blu-Ray Edition)
BD 17: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983 theatrical Edition)
BD 18: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1997 Special Edition)
BD 19: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (2004 DVD Edition)
BD 20: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (2011 Blu-Ray Edition)
BD 21: Prequels Specials (included in the BD Set)
BD 22: Prequels Archival Specials (all previous DVD Specials)
BD 23: Original Trilogy Specials (included in the BD Set)
BD 24: Original Trilogy Archival Specials (all LD and DVD Specials)
BD 25: the Documentaries (included in the BD Set)

Originally Posted by JasonWard

A 25 disc Star Wars set would cost too much money. Your average consumer would find it overkill.

While I know that some of those things would require separate discs (particularly the different variations of the OT), if a set like this were to happen, a lot of things could be accomplished with Seemless branching. There really wouldn't be a need for each version of the PT movies to need a separate disc. At least not for the differences between the Theatrical versions and DVD versions. There weren't THAT many differences. And depending on how many changes are being made for the new Blu-Ray editions, it may be possible to include those versions on the sames discs with seemless braching. So, they could probably get 3 different versions of the PT movies (4 in the case of AOTC per the above list) on 1-disc per movie. If that were to be the case, then we've just eliminated 7 discs from the set right there by not having each version of the PT films on separate discs (bringing this down to 18 discs). The differences between the first 2 listings of Star Wars/Episode IV could probably be combined via seemless branching and different sound options. And I'm not sure that separate discs for a 35mm and 70mm master of TESB would be necessarily... is there any difference in the editing, itself, or is it just a difference in quality?... if the the quality issue, then just pick the better of the two and be done with it. Right there... 2 more discs eliminated. It's now a 16 disc set. There's probably a few other places where things could be trimmed/ condensed to bring the number down a bit more.

Plus, let's face facts. These days individual movies often come in combo packs with 3 or 4 discs anyway for about the same price as other brand new movies that don't come in combo packs. When you consider that 6 movies in 3 disc combo packs would come out to 18 discs total (or 6 movies in 4-disc packs being 24 discs total), the concept of a Star Wars set with that many discs really isn't that absurd.


It would be kind of cool if sometime down the road, some kind of ultimate fan set would come out with almost every possible variation of all of the movies in one big set. Even if it was a limited edition (an ACTUAL limited edition... not just a regular release that says limited edition with no real special meaning behind it) and cost a decent chunk of $$$, I'm sure a lot of SW die hards would by it. I'd probably get it.


At any rate, despite my issues with certain things, I am still looking forward to this Blu-Ray set. If they correct the technical errors from the '04 OT DVD set for the editions included , I will be happy overall. Ironically, once I am done with my plans for custom packaging and mixing in some DVDs to make combo packs out of these sets, as of my plans right now, it IS going to be a 25 disc set!

[Deromax]

11 feet from 50 inches is about twice too far! I'm at 11 feet from 109 inches 2.35:1

Dated CGI is no worst than dated opticals effects. A movie is a snapshot of the then current technology and should always be watched with this context in mind, imho.

[Deciazulado]

^^ Still too far

[Show spoiler]

[NMR1723]

Originally Posted by Deromax

11 feet from 50 inches is about twice too far! I'm at 11 feet from 109 inches 2.35:1

Dated CGI is no worst than dated opticals effects. A movie is a snapshot of the then current technology and should always be watched with this context in mind, imho.

Amen! I wish we were closer...but it's one of those "make it work" type of family room setups. I love my display and setup though. In our next home it is projector & 100+ inch screen or bust...

I get what your saying. I was trying to carefully state that I think the OT will look as good or better than the PT on Blu-ray by pointing out some of the CGI issues with the PT.

I probably should have just said "I think the OT will look great on Blu-ray and will hold up just fine compared to the PT." It was more in response to KenKraly2004's post...

Some of my favorite films on Blu-ray are older with rather poor CGI and/or model/puppet use.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

Honestly, you can't worry about dated CG. There's dated CG in the Rings Trilogy. Hell, some of it was dated when those films were released.

This is something that can't be helped. I'm sure, if you sit at the appropriate distance from your television, it's not going to be an issue for most people...

Agreed - if there is any fault with blu-ray its the fact that nothing can be hidden. Not with 1080p and fairly close viewing distances. The CGI in both SW and LOTR has its moments of "dodginess" and I expect it will be even dodgier with these new releases. Like you said - not a helluva lot we can do.

As for the puppets and models used in the older films - they really can and do look better than CGI in many cases. I also feel that good matte paintings look great too.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Agreed - if there is any fault with blu-ray its the fact that nothing can be hidden.

That's not a fault of bluray any more than it's a fault of theaters and 50 foot screens.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Agreed - if there is any fault with blu-ray its the fact that nothing can be hidden. Not with 1080p and fairly close viewing distances. The CGI in both SW and LOTR has its moments of "dodginess" and I expect it will be even dodgier with these new releases. Like you said - not a helluva lot we can do.

As for the puppets and models used in the older films - they really can and do look better than CGI in many cases. I also feel that good matte paintings look great too.

I agree with this too. I love the good look of oldschool model based special effects.

HOWEVER, there are times when a matte painting becomes TOO obvious on bluray. The film Aliens had several instances in which a matte painting was sooo obvious it was distracting.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I agree with this too. I love the good look of oldschool model based special effects.

HOWEVER, there are times when a matte painting becomes TOO obvious on bluray. The film Aliens had several instances in which a matte painting was sooo obvious it was distracting.

I agree blu-ray tends to make these things stand out, but you have to look at it not as distracting, but as a part of the era in which that movie was made.

Up until the early 90's, matte paintings were the norm until CG became convincing enough to use for backgrounds. Just like real models and explosions were composited into the scene, also until the early 90's (I think Blade Runner is one of the last films to use these effects)

The late 80's were the "grainy years" as a lot of studios started turning towards cheaper film stock, resulting in grainier looking films (more for the lower budget movies or lesser known films, like Ghostbusters for example).

Late 90's to 2004 or so was the infancy of CG, from 2005 onwards it's gotten much better, it's hard to tell the difference between a film from 2005 and 2011 based on special effects alone (in most cases)

Blu-ray brings all of these elements to light, but all you can do is accept it as the limitations of the technology during the time the movie was being made. I actually enjoy 70's-80's movies with all their puppets and strings, it's a lot more work making a model out of resin or a puppet out of latex or painting a background than it is to make a model on the computer, especially in terms of backgrounds. You can throw a couple of lights in to a 3D scene for a background, It's amazing how well the lighting is done in some of the paintings, there are some I've never noticed were paintings until it's been pointed out to me (or mentioned during the commentary.)

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by nmycon

I agree blu-ray tends to make these things stand out, but you have to look at it not as distracting, but as a part of the era in which that movie was made.

Up until the early 90's, matte paintings were the norm until CG became convincing enough to use for backgrounds. Just like real models and explosions were composited into the scene, also until the early 90's (I think Blade Runner is one of the last films to use these effects)

The late 80's were the "grainy years" as a lot of studios started turning towards cheaper film stock, resulting in grainier looking films (more for the lower budget movies or lesser known films, like Ghostbusters for example).

Late 90's to 2004 or so was the infancy of CG, from 2005 onwards it's gotten much better, it's hard to tell the difference between a film from 2005 and 2011 based on special effects alone (in most cases)

Blu-ray brings all of these elements to light, but all you can do is accept it as the limitations of the technology during the time the movie was being made. I actually enjoy 70's-80's movies with all their puppets and strings, it's a lot more work making a model out of resin or a puppet out of latex or painting a background than it is to make a model on the computer, especially in terms of backgrounds. You can throw a couple of lights in to a 3D scene for a background, It's amazing how well the lighting is done in some of the paintings, there are some I've never noticed were paintings until it's been pointed out to me (or mentioned during the commentary.)

that's what a lot of people don't realize about bluray - the resolution is so much better that the tricks filmmakers used such as matte paintings sometimes don't work. it is like 90's tv: x-files looked great when it first came out but now with the low resolution, the digital effects don't have the same punch they used to. that doesn't mean all effects are going to look bad - ILM usually did a great job so the ships in both Star Wars and Star Trek stand up pretty well. but for some movies, clearer is not better and a bluray release means there will be work to do. it all depends on when it was done and who did it - quality matters!

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

That's not a fault of bluray any more than it's a fault of theaters and 50 foot screens.

Ok - not a "fault" but shall we say a characteristic?

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

that's what a lot of people don't realize about bluray - the resolution is so much better that the tricks filmmakers used such as matte paintings sometimes don't work. it is like 90's tv: x-files looked great when it first came out but now with the low resolution, the digital effects don't have the same punch they used to. that doesn't mean all effects are going to look bad - ILM usually did a great job so the ships in both Star Wars and Star Trek stand up pretty well. but for some movies, clearer is not better and a bluray release means there will be work to do. it all depends on when it was done and who did it - quality matters!

Yes siree - and it will simply force the "tricks" they use to be better and more UN-noticeable. Sounds good to me

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by NMR1723

I find less of LOTR CGI looking weak than some of the prequel stuff.

LOTR has dated badly in some shots. At least the prequels didn't have characters floating above the environments they're matted on.
There's also a helluva lot of modelwork in the prequels. I've found that those people who "prefer" modelwork somehow see "flaws" in CG or things they THINK are CG and are completely mistaken.

I was watching on a 50" Pioneer KRP-500M at about 11 feet away. This is actually a little too far away so things should look better than they did. Maybe my display is too accurate [/QUOTE]

Or maybe your gamma/contrast is too pumped. Keep in mind there's no pixelization on the clone troopers at all when you watch ATTACK OF THE CLONES on a digital screen.

I have all the movies on DVR, except they're in MPEG4 AVC from hi-res satellite capture. The OT looks extremely weak and flat compared to the prequels. Basically picture quality starts out "low-fair" for A NEW HOPE and increases with each new film. REVENGE OF THE SITH looks 3-D.

[The Apocalypse]

Well, I won't comment on any CGI or other effects on the Blu-ray until I see the films. When I watched them in the cinema, I thought the prequels' (especially AotC and RotS) visuals were generally outstanding, although that it just me really.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

As for the puppets and models used in the older films - they really can and do look better than CGI in many cases. I also feel that good matte paintings look great too.

No way. It's heresy to most, but the muppet needs to be enhanced with an aged CGI model. It would still be used as the "green screen" stand-in.

Originally Posted by NMR1723

Do that...and I can overlook some of the SE changes

I think you self-identified your bias right there and won't be happy with it, regardless.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by Uxi

No way. It's heresy to most, but the muppet needs to be enhanced with an aged CGI model. It would still be used as the "green screen" stand-in.

I think you self-identified your bias right there and won't be happy with it, regardless.

I agree that CG is an improvement upon the puppets in terms of speaking and body motion.

How can CG possibly look better than models when it comes to X-Wings or Tie Fighters though? The CG artists are trying to recreate the original model props, but the lighting is never going to be 100% correct with CG.

Imagine what it would look like if they filmed the models in front of a blue screen, then used modern technology to get rid of the blue and the wires! That would be awesome!

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Uxi

No way. It's heresy to most, but the muppet needs to be enhanced with an aged CGI model. It would still be used as the "green screen" stand-in.



I think you self-identified your bias right there and won't be happy with it, regardless.

I hate how people keep saying the original Yoda looks like a muppet. I mean, I know his movement was a bit limited for its time, but he looks nothing like a muppet.

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

[jala12]

Actually, from those two pics, he kinda does...

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by jala12

Actually, from those two pics, he kinda does...

Other than the fact that he looks much more real and believable.