Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

My fantasy ultimate set:

The original versions of the first three films
4K scans
Original stereo mixes losslessly encoded
Digibook packaging with the original US poster art

That's it. I don't need extras or anything else. I would pay more than I paid for the definitive laserdisc box set almost 20 years ago.

While I would be more than happy with a lossless two-channel mix we could reasonably hope for more. Even as far back as 77 Star Wars featured six-track audio. Replicating that without any additional wizardry would be more than acceptable for a UOT release.

At a street price of, I dunno, say $25 per I would snap up Star Wars in a heartbeat, agonize over Empire but eventually break down and wait for Jedi to drop.

That would be a great set.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Unlikely you'd remember the color timing in the cinema.

What about the American Cinematographer articles that state that George Lucas told Gilbert Taylor (the director of photography) that he wanted everything to look grounded, a bit bland and lived in, to sell the universe he was creating? Or the fact that he wanted the desert scenes to be shot with a stocking over the lens to create more diffusion? Both of which you can't tell, when you're watching the 2004 DVDs.

[horizonline]

Originally Posted by octagon

They're definitely trying to stoke the fire - which is fine, of course, they're trying to sell stuff - but I wonder if they're keeping mum about video specs to minimize fires too.

Screenshots, clips, encoding details, etc are almost guaranteed to start all sorts of rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. Anything short of full-blown reviews are as likely to raise questions as to answer them (and even then people who haven't seem them will be more than happy to subject the PQ to everything short of DNA analysis).

The same could hold for details about added, removed, changed scenes as well. There's probably next to no upside to saying 'oh, yeah, we changed X, Y or Z' until it's ready to be seen in its entirety.

I'd love to see more details sooner rather than later but I have a feeling from where they're sitting less might be more until we get pretty close to the release date.

I always like to think of it as their way to justify the means.

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by Breather

Agreed.

Not too often that two Star Wars fans can agree to diagree ...

[GC13]

Originally Posted by frogmort

Hopefully, that's just a given.

I hope so too, but marketing departments don't generally like to leave such details to the imagination.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Sarcasm aside there are too many threads derailed by the slipcover obsessed cult here.

When I see people who already own the ALIEN Anthology going to buy the new standalone discs just for the slipcovers....

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.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by kenkraly2004

I hope this time around that this time around for the blu-ray release LFL will correct the mistakes that where made in 2004 for the OT SE dvd's. Those issues must be corrected and fixed for the blu-ray box set release.

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.

Originally Posted by Duffy12

You mean like these by John Alvin-

[Show spoiler]

Man...I really wish that they would have used one of these instead.

Now that's refreshing!

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).

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by miniroll32

I certainly know the film looked nothing like the 2004 releases. The Laserdisc release has been the closest yet!

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.

[-RONIN-]

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

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by -RONIN-

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!

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by imdb_acc

What would you guys say if Lucas digitally added cleavage to Leia?

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

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by imdb_acc

What would you guys say if Lucas digitally added cleavage to Leia?

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?

[brps3]

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

[Fenny]

Originally Posted by imdb_acc

What would you guys say if Lucas digitally added cleavage to Leia?

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

[Beast]

Originally Posted by brps3

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

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.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by brps3

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

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?

[brps3]

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

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

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?

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

[Moviefan2k4]

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

[Moviefan2k4]

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.