Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by iamsometal

With Desp. ANH v2.5 and ESB v2.0, no need to show her the blu-ray's. The Desp. Ed's are superior in every way (even if they are technically lower resolution, PQ and AQ are still much improved). If she's a keeper, best go 100% Despecialized. Then later you can show her the blu-ray's and she'll appreciate you waiting.

No. She. Won't. And they are not superior in every way, especially the audio.


More than likely she won't give 2 cents. The vast majority of people don't care. They have lives.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No. She. Won't. And they are not superior in every way, especially the audio.

The DTS HD-MA 1977 70mm six track mix on the DeEd is better than anything on the official BD.

[dubious]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

More than likely she won't give 2 cents. The vast majority of people don't care. They have lives.

So says the guy with THX in his name...

[wormraper]

I love how if you DON'T like the changes Lucas made then you have no life. but people who ARGUE for pages and pages and pages over the course of YEARS on how Lucas's changes are BETTER seemingly DO have a life... lol

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by Stinky-Dinkins

The DTS HD-MA 1977 70mm six track mix on the DeEd is better than anything on the official BD.

And no clipping when the Death Star explodes in Jedi like on the BD.

My brother and I went to my parents and watched the OT when I netflixed them and they all mentioned how jarring the new Mos Isley entrance was and I can't post what they thought of the added Jabba. None of the three are big fans. My brother probably hadn't seen them since the 1980s on VHS and my parents since the theater.

[trainreck]

Mods if this is inappropriate please delete:

I've wanted to see the Despecialized versions since I heard about them but have two problems; no hard drive space and no capability to burn BDs. Would anyone here be able to make me HD copies of the OT? I would of course cover all costs and shipping. Again sorry if I shouldn't be posting this.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Arawn

That would be a direct result of two things: (1) the Jedi being attached at the hip to the Republic government; and (2) that Republic government, unbeknownst to the Jedi, being headed by a Sith. And you see that set of circumstances as justification for turning evil and wiping the Jedi out? If that logic was any more pretzel-like it would be salted and sold at ballparks!



As far as you know. In the end, there's no longer a wife to save.

Yes, it shows that the Jedis are a outdated bunch of fools who have lost whatever original purpose they had and are ineffective peace keepers. The trilogy is just as much about the failings of the Jedi at the time as it is about Anakin turning evil. I just think Lucas had all the themes there but didn't flesh them out in a way that made sense or was compelling.

And keep in mind I'm not saying that actually justifies mass murder, I'm saying those are the factors that would lead someone like Anakin to lose respect for the order and turn against them. His descent into the dark side is what causes him to wipe out the Jedi. Those are obviously evil deeds that nobody could legitimately attempt to justify.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by Arawn

<snip>
As far as you know. In the end, there's no longer a wife to save.

Yeah, and that happened in such a realistic way, too.

Not a year goes by - not a year - that I don't hear about some death involving some woman who's lost the will to live immediately after giving birth and naming the kid(s). (Not to mention all those escalator accidents.)

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

Yeah, and that happened in such a realistic way, too.

The Force isn't real. Star Wars is make-believe, not a documentary.

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

Yes, it shows that the Jedis are a outdated bunch of fools who have lost whatever original purpose they had and are ineffective peace keepers.

It only shows that the Republic elected a secret Sith as its leader. The Jedi were not responsible for that process so it doesn't somehow automatically discredit them as if you flipped a light switch. If the Jedi purpose was to back up the Republic, then that purpose remained consistent. The point is that if someone being ineffective - gasp! - is considered enough reason to turn against them and wipe them out, the problem really isn't them. A lot of people are ineffective.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by Arawn

The Force isn't real. Star Wars is make-believe, not a documentary.

Herp-derp.

Show me anywhere - in any of the films - where it was established that people can die just from not wanting to live anymore. These are still humans, you know, the force notwithstanding. Might wanna look up the word "verisimilitude."

It was lazy writing, nothing more. Lucas didn't want Anakin to actually kill her (which would make him irredeemable, regardless of the events of Jedi) and he didn't bother to come up with an actual cause of death ("she's lost the will to live," indeed.) He couldn't even be bothered with coming up with a death that wouldn't contradict Leia's memories of her mother.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by dubious

So says the guy with THX in his name...

90% out people out there (probably 99.8% of the female population) don't know what the THX means, so not sure what your point is supposed to be.

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

Show me anywhere - in any of the films - where it was established that people can die just from not wanting to live anymore.

If that's what Lucas was trying to convey in ROTS, the death scene would be the place where it was established. You act as if there's some rule that it has to appear in multiple films for the viewer to accept it. You might as well argue that it's unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

These are still humans, you know, the force notwithstanding. Might wanna look up the word "verisimilitude."

Might wanna look up the word "strawman".

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

Lucas didn't want Anakin to actually kill her (which would make him irredeemable, regardless of the events of Jedi)

Eh? Killing kids doesn't make him irredeemable, but killing Natalie Portman does?

Originally Posted by WhySoBlu?

He couldn't even be bothered with coming up with a death that wouldn't contradict Leia's memories of her mother.

He came up with that death back in the 80s. He just chose not to use it by the time ROTS rolled around, because having her die off-screen would have been incredibly lame at that point. ( But more to the point, you're still acting as if the circumstances must be consistent with the real world in that they must have nothing to do with the Force. )

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Arawn

( But more to the point, you're still acting as if the circumstances must be consistent with the real world in that they must have nothing to do with the Force. )

No, he's acting like having Padme 'lose the will to live' was a stupid way of killing her off.

And he's right.

She was a warrior and a leader and a new mother. The problem isn't that her death isn't consistent with the real world, the problem is her death isn't consistent with her character.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by octagon

The problem isn't that her death isn't consistent with the real world, the problem is her death isn't consistent with her character.

It's not consistent with any manner of coherent story telling, either.

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by Arawn

If that's what Lucas was trying to convey in ROTS, the death scene would be the place where it was established. You act as if there's some rule that it has to appear in multiple films for the viewer to accept it. You might as well argue that it's unconstitutional.

It lacks verisimilitude. It also wasn't - in any way - consistent with the character that had been established thus far, as Octagon pointed out.

Originally Posted by Arawn

Might wanna look up the word "strawman".

No need. But here:

In a literary work, verisimilitude is likeness to the truth i.e. resemblance of a fictitious work to a real event even if it is a far-fetched one.

Verisimilitude ensures that even a fantasy must be rooted in reality, which means that events should be plausible to the extent that readers consider them credible enough to be able to relate them somehow to their experiences of real life.

Originally Posted by Arawn

Eh? Killing kids doesn't make him irredeemable, but killing Natalie Portman does?

He's redeemed in Jedi - hence the force ghost scene at the end. Did you miss that?

But yes - clearly killing Padme (especially if she was still pregnant) would have made him irredeemable in the eyes of the audience.

Ugh, why did I allow myself to get sucked into one of these conversations?

[kidglov3s]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

90% out people out there (probably 99.8% of the female population) don't know what the THX means, so not sure what your point is supposed to be.

THX means edge enhancement and DNR and 50/50 non-anamorphic right? At least that's what I learned from too many DVD releases.

[Lyle_JP]

Originally Posted by kidglov3s

THX means edge enhancement and DNR and 50/50 non-anamorphic right? At least that's what I learned from too many DVD releases.

I always thought it meant "rolling noise bars". That's what laserdisc taught me. (And seriously, unless my name was Tomlinson Holman, I wouldn't be calling myself THX and getting on folks for not knowing what it means.)

[Machine Gun Willy]

So, uh, anyone want to talk about who owns A New Hope?

[JAL4U2C]

Originally Posted by Machine Gun Willy

So, uh, anyone want to talk about who owns A New Hope?

I do! :P Own it, that is.

[StingingVelvet]

I just pretend Padme dies from complications of the force-choke and hum "la-la-la" when the droid says otherwise.