Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[brianh78]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

How can you watch the spoofs only once ?

Some are classics.

**the SNL skits where Kevin Spacey plays like Walter Matheau and Jack Lemon freakin classic (...now Barbara Streisand as Leia)

[georgec]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

That you guys "get" each other is the important thing! Have fun!

Thanks, appreciate the good vibes.

Hope you and your brother have fun with the discs as well.

[Shaft Windu]

Originally Posted by georgec

Thanks, appreciate the good vibes.

Hope you and your brother have fun with the discs as well.

Oh, we do! I've made it to Episode 4 (I'm watching them in order of episode-numbers of course) and I've seen a few Specials. The Specials are a little underwhelming in my opinion... When the best feature is called "spoofs", it's a problem. Despite a few issues the movies look and sound amazing though.

[riverbelow]

1990.....

we are coming up on the time the Prequel trilogies were first penned. When we hit 1999 the internet with asplode and evil jar jar binks code will filter through the world wide web - prompting skynet to become self aware.

[sardaukar1977]

Originally Posted by Zuiun

You keep making these jabs about how people supposedly must not "understand" the prequels if they don't like them.

I understand the 6 films just fine. I understand the way the Lucas tried to shoehorn the prequels into the storyline he created in the original films (and also the way he tried to shoehorn Empire and Jedi into the as-originally-filmed standalone story of Star Wars).

I simply don't like the story Lucas chose to tell with the prequels. But even THAT isn't the crux of the problem for me. I didn't really care for the story in Jedi, either. Yet I find Jedi to be a measurably more enjoyable experience than any of the prequel films.

The difference is style.

It's lacking from the prequels.

And I don't mean visual appeal. From a pure eye-candy standpoint, the prequels are pretty spectacular. I don't deny that they are entertaining to watch for just that reason.

But the story, the writing, and especially the dialog all lack the "snap" of the original films. The simple exchange of dialog in the detention center rescue in ANH is more "alive" than anything in the prequels. Even despite Harrison Ford's famous quip ("George, you can type this shit, but you sure as hell can't say it"), there is still a spark to the dialog.

So I could forgive - even enjoy - the story of the prequels if the presentation had been better, or if the characters weren't continually reciting mechanical and wooden exposition. Even sequences intended as "banter" feel forced and stiff.

For this reason, to me, the prequels represent a story that was weak to begin with and made worse by sub-par delivery. And since many of the actors involved are highly talented, the delivery can only be blamed on the writing and directing.

Do I think that George Lucas "raped" my childhood or in some other way personally insulted or offended me? Nope.

But I do think he missed the mark. By a very wide margin.

With the original films, he delivered a fun and entertaining product wrapped in a package that was nice, but a little scuffed and dented.

With the prequels, I feel he delivered a boring and flat product wrapped in a shiny, pristine package.

The blurays make all of this even more evident to me.

I could not have said it better myself, my thoughts exactly....

[sardaukar1977]

Originally Posted by Jay444

Okay, so back on topic. I just finished watching the whole saga and I have to say I am a bit disappointed in the set as a whole. TPM looks like crap, the sound was a bit low on ROTS (nothing adjusting my volume couldn't solve, but it should have the same levels as the other five films), and several minor issues with the OT still are there (not going to bother going into them). The extras (IMO) are of the one and done variety, nothing I will ever want to watch again.

So, to me, its a 'good' set but there is plenty of room for improvement (no idea how TPM made it past three levels of quality control looking the way it does). Certainly NOT the best release of the year for sure. I am happy to say I have it, but am not going to recommend it to my friends at all. Did anyone else feel let down a bit?

Im not arguing with you, but in what way does TPM look like crap? am I missing something here, I have heard this from many people, and honestly I thought it looked just fine, maybe not as crisp as AOTC or ROTS, but it wasn't really a stinker either, I mean sure the movie itself kind of sucks, but the image looked decent, not the best Ive ever seen, but it also wasn't filmed with digital video, I still think it looks better then the OT, especially ROTJ, I really noticed some problems with that movie during the scene when they landed on Endor. Now that really looked like crap. basically I am asking what particular scene, or scenes, or what exactly makes you think it looks like crap? Im just curious. again because several people have mentioned it. this kind of reminds me of the discussion I had with someone about how they thought Star Trek TMP looked like crap in HD, and I didn't think that it did. well anyways thats my opinion.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by sardaukar1977

Im not arguing with you, but in what way does TPM look like crap? [...] I still think it looks better then the OT

Then we must agree to disagree. Short answer: DNRsville.

[The Apocalypse]

For me the OT was better in picture quality by way of source limitations and age. Obviously Revenge of the Sith is the "best looking" film, but I expected the PT to look better than it did, AotC was good too, and TPM was hit-and-miss.

[tigertron]

Originally Posted by EclipseSSD

For me the OT was better in picture quality by way of source limitations and age. Obviously Revenge of the Sith is the "best looking" film, but I expected the PT to look better than it did, AotC was good too, and TPM was hit-and-miss.

Agreed, I thought the OT had the best level of detail, but in terms of detail and overall clarity I'd say ROTS was the best (and imo on of the best Blus). TPM and AOTC weren't by any means bad but stupid decisions prevented them from being reference quality. The DNR in TPM and the teal tint/softness in AOTC were the problems. However, both films do have scenes which are reference material. An example being the Dual of the fates sequence in TPM and Lake Coma (Naboo) in AOTC. Just stunning.

[MrJoeKalel]

Originally Posted by sardaukar1977

Im not arguing with you, but in what way does TPM look like crap? am I missing something here, I have heard this from many people, and honestly I thought it looked just fine, maybe not as crisp as AOTC or ROTS, but it wasn't really a stinker either, I mean sure the movie itself kind of sucks, but the image looked decent, not the best Ive ever seen, but it also wasn't filmed with digital video, I still think it looks better then the OT, especially ROTJ, I really noticed some problems with that movie during the scene when they landed on Endor. Now that really looked like crap. basically I am asking what particular scene, or scenes, or what exactly makes you think it looks like crap? Im just curious. again because several people have mentioned it. this kind of reminds me of the discussion I had with someone about how they thought Star Trek TMP looked like crap in HD, and I didn't think that it did. well anyways thats my opinion.

ALL the waxy images in the message boards

Btw, I like your avatar, and that you live in Dallas

[Brightstar]

I thought ROTS was shot with digital camera and looked the best out of the six.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by aiman04

I think this thread will be unstickied on Monday.

You thought wrong.

[greg_achen]

Originally Posted by joliefan

I thought ROTS was shot with digital camera and looked the best out of the six.

This is true, though there is no telling how good the original three could have looked had Lucasfilm not used outdated DVD masters for the starting point.

[Donat96]

Originally Posted by greg_achen

This is true, though there is no telling how good the original three could have looked had Lucasfilm not used outdated DVD masters for the starting point.

I could just imagine if they looked liked Gone with the Wind
Lazy Lucasfilm was lazy.

[kenkraly2004]

I think one day we will get the unaltered Original Trilogy on Blu-Ray someday but right now it's not going to happen. Why because we have been told by LFL many times over the years that their is no good copy of the UOT other than in their vaults and in the hands of a few collectors . I'm sure if LFL asked those collectors who have those prints , where going to grant you amnesty and we would like to barrow these prints of the UOT to scan them in HD and we will return them and give them back to you. That would be a good way for LFL to go as far as retoring the prints of the UOT.

[tigertron]

Originally Posted by greg_achen

This is true, though there is no telling how good the original three could have looked had Lucasfilm not used outdated DVD masters for the starting point.

Well for 70s/80s films, they looked mighty fine to me. Outdated or not.

[Donat96]

Originally Posted by kenkraly2004

I think one day we will get the unaltered Original Trilogy on Blu-Ray someday but right now it's not going to happen. Why because we have been told by LFL many times over the years that their is no good copy of the UOT other than in their vaults and in the hands of a few collectors . I'm sure if LFL asked those collectors who have those prints , where going to grant you amnesty and we would like to barrow these prints of the UOT to scan them in HD and we will return them and give them back to you. That would be a good way for LFL to go as far as retoring the prints of the UOT.

I'm hopeful that it will happen, but I know that if it does, it will be a long while from now. I really wish that they wouldn't scan it from a theatrical print, though. As good as they look, under the scrutiny of HD it would look too soft and would probably be too worn down. But again, it's just wishful thinking.

[HeavyHitter]

It's very obvious Lucas tried to give TPM the same "look" as AOTC and ROS. TPM was filmed on analog film; the other two movies were not. Lucas also went with a different style after TPM (he always changes his mind about things as we know). This is why the BD was smoothed out a bit and I feel it worked quite well given what Lucas was trying to do. I do think TPM has some shots in it, but that is more inherent to the photography than horrible DNR. Blu-ray brings out the soft shots in films. This was never an issue with DVD.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by EclipseSSD

For me the OT was better in picture quality by way of source limitations and age. Obviously Revenge of the Sith is the "best looking" film, but I expected the PT to look better than it did, AotC was good too, and TPM was hit-and-miss.

I thought ROTJ was overall just as good as ROTS. TPM's problems have been way overstated, but does have DNR issues, which I believe were intentional (smoothing it out to make it look more consistent with AOTC and ROTS).

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

Then we must agree to disagree. Short answer: DNRsville.

+1

It's clear that a lot of people can't see what DNR is doing to an image. Those of us who can really hate it.