Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[happydood]

Originally Posted by ariakon

On my 1080p Mitsubishi projector, Episode 1 looked rather good. Then again, I may have had low expectations after hearing about how horrible it would look.

That may have also informed my opinion. I definitely went into both of these with the many reports of discontent in mind...

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by happydood

I'm wondering... are you using a projector or a screen larger than 42 inches? PM looks great to me on my 42" lcd, but I can see how blowing it up bigger than that might cause issues. I thought that even more so of AOTC watching it last nite. Looks great to me and I'm more than happy with it, but that might not be the case if I ever go larger than I actually have.

Also, did your second statement here really solve anything? I get your frustration, but there ARE plenty of reasonable people on this thread. Blanket opinions are, of course, never 100% true.

50" plasma with all the factory edge enhancement and DNR stuff turned off, self-calibrated with a disc. Nothing crazy, nothing special, but plasma does represent movies better than LCD.

I don't consider myself an expert, but I can easily distinguish the difference between say "The Thin Red Line", "I, Robot", "2001: A Space Odyssey", and say, "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly", the first-pressing of "Gladiator", the Ultimate ed of "Predator", etc.

It's not like something I have to really look at and pore over to see, either. It's immediately evident. In the case of "The Phantom Menace", what jumped out at me is how nothing jumped out at me. It was just flat, soft, and sort of drab.

If you don't see issues with it, that's cool, but a lot of people can and it is rather disappointing based on what it could have been. That's all.

My second statement is a joke.

[The Bread]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

No, to be totally honest, I didn't spend $93 on this set so I could complain about it on the internet.

It is pretty awful, for a 1999 big budget epic with a presumably pristine 35mm print. There isn't one truly redeeming quality on that transfer. The fact that it's not the worst-looking movie I own from that year is about the best thing I can say about it (American Beauty is worse, and it makes me really sad).

What do you have to put in the positives column for this one?

Sorry, I really don't have some secret hidden agenda on this one, it truly is a bad-looking movie (as I said, for a 1999 movie etc). I actually came into watching it with higher expectations, because in the screencaps it looked like the DNR was applied selectively, only to faces to smooth them out, but in the finished product it affects everything.

Here are some blurbs from reviewers that are at least "professional" enough to end up on Cinema Squid, the aggregate BD review site:

"I want a refund. Simply put, this ain't "1080p." I'm sorry, but no. DNR, DNR, DNR, DNR, and some more DNR. And a film that isn't even 1080p native, to boot. Yeah, that's a real winning combination, right there. When we say we want unedited films, we also mean non-smeared, non-****ed up, actual DETAILED films." - Nate Boss, Project Blu, also reviews for High Def Digest.

"Let's get the bad out of the way first. Namely, The Phantom Menace. Somehow it seems appropriate that the worst film in the series would have the worst picture quality of the set, but it's still disappointing. The main culprit here is digital noise reduction." - Casey Broadwater, Blu-Ray.com

"Who would have thought that one of the prequels would end up being the worst looking one of the bunch? I didn't. Still 'Episode I' is a DNR'd mess of waxy faces, flat shadows, and murky colors.

It looks extremely dated, and in HD even more so. Almost every face in the movie is devoid of any real fine detail. Pores have been scrubbed away. Hair comes to us in giant matted masses instead of standing out individually. Blacks are flat and at times take on a bluish tint. They have no depth to them. Crushing is a standard offender, swallowing up faces, textures, and characters." - Aaron Peck, High Def Digest.

"As I watched "Episode I: The Phantom Menace," I wondered if Lucas deliberately dialed down the sharpness. It´s softer than the DVD, with more grain. " - James Plath, DVD Town

"Phantom Menace isn't just the most disappointing film of the six in terms of narrative, but visually as well. It was originally shot in 35mm and it appears that some digital smoothing has been employed here, perhaps to make it look a little more like the two later films, which were both shot in HD. You can understand the reasoning, but it results in a softer picture with less detail than we got in theaters." - Cindy White, IGN

So either all these gentleman/ladies are part of The Big Conspiracy™, or The Phantom Menace is an ugly-looking 1999 film, and it's not because of a poor source.

Even in these cases its all personal preference. The criticism you're reading above has to do with the noise reduction (which produces a hazy effect). On my giant Samsung LED TV, the picture is still mega clear. You can also tell what looks animated at some points (but this is due to WHEN the movie was made). The stuff that looks animated to you on your blu-ray also did in the theatre. To be honest, often times film is appealing because of the lack of detail. The people above are looking for pores on faces???? That's just a weird, hi def gang of esoteric cats. And I would hardly say it looks worse than the originals...its just different. who cares? It was decided that this story would be processed a certain way (maybe due to the level of animation capability at the time). big deal? Like they said above, maybe to match the HD shots...big deal.

Maybe it looks better in blu-ray now than if the digital enhancements weren't applied. The funny thing is, you don't know. Professionals who've seen it both way decided to process it in this manner. WGAS WGAF? Honestly, let it be and enjoy the movies. You spent $93 and are entitled to what it entails. Take it back if it sucks so badly.
I watched it 2x and think its awesome! Never got why people ganked it so hard.

[The Bread]

Originally Posted by The Bread

Even in these cases its all personal preference. The criticism you're reading above has to do with the noise reduction (which produces a hazy effect). On my giant Samsung LED TV, the picture is still mega clear. You can also tell what looks animated at some points (but this is due to WHEN the movie was made). The stuff that looks animated to you on your blu-ray also did in the theatre. To be honest, often times film is appealing because of the lack of detail. The people above are looking for pores on faces???? That's just a weird, hi def gang of esoteric cats. And I would hardly say it looks worse than the originals...its just different. who cares? It was decided that this story would be processed a certain way (maybe due to the level of animation capability at the time). big deal? Like they said above, maybe to match the HD shots...big deal.

Maybe it looks better in blu-ray now than if the digital enhancements weren't applied. The funny thing is, you don't know. Professionals who've seen it both way decided to process it in this manner. WGAS WGAF? Honestly, let it be and enjoy the movies. You spent $93 and are entitled to what it entails. Take it back if it sucks so badly.
I watched it 2x and think its awesome! Never got why people ganked it so hard.

Just want to note - not trying to be combative in WGAS. Just don't get the gripe - the version I'm seeing on blu-ray is far better than any before.

And like I said - maybe the 35mm on blu looked worse without the DNR. We don't really know right? Trust the creators and don't act like we're in a board room discussing how we should launch the blu-ray (without seeing ANYTHING). We haven't even seen it without the dnr applied.

Everybody be well! Enjoy the flicks!!!

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by ariakon

Actually, Dynamo, I prefer the original cuts, but I defend Lucas's right to change the movies if he wishes. I'm an aspiring writer, and any work I create belongs to me. It is the right of my customers to be upset by any future changes I would make but in the end, it is my work, and if I wish to change it (perhaps even ruin it) I will fight for that right. Things are perhaps trickier for movies, which have producers and a whole host of actors and crew, but it does seem to mainly be Lucas's baby. Creators hold ultimate responsibility and culpability with their works, but they don't "owe" their audience anything. Their job is to influence you, to captivate you, but not to pander. Lucas has done some goofy things over the years, but that is a matter of poor judgement, not betrayal.

Well, parts of what you say I agree with, others not so much.

IMO, for any art form that is "consumed" via mass replication and distribution (i.e. books, movies, music), once these things are released, there should be at least an ethical obligation to make the original version available going forward. That's not to say that the artist shouldn't have the right to make an alternate version and release it as well, or to make a sequel/prequel that doesn't go over as well as the previous work.

But the way I see it, once something like this is released to the public, in some manner (whether it be big or small) it becomes part of the culture. It becomes a part of many people's lives who experience it. Perhaps a movie holds a special memory for someone because they went on their first date with their spouse to see that movie (as a possible example, amongst many). And they want to be able to get it on Blu-Ray and have the closest possible thing to the theatrical presentation that they saw back at that time. Don't you feel that it's a bit selfish on the part of the artist to deny them that?

Now, this is not just limited to the UOT. While I actually like the change to digitial Yoda in Episode 1, I do think that anyone disapointed by it because they have fond memories of the puppet version from that film has the right to speak up, and that version should also be available as an option.

This isn't just limited to original versions either. The 1997 Special Editions of the OT were a major theatrical event, and are probably the way that many people were introduced to the films. IMO those versions should be made available as well. Then there was the recent announcement by Speilberg that E.T. is being readied for a Blu-Ray release and will likely only include the original version and not the 2002 update. While that is the version that I prefer to get if we are only going to get one, I do feel that for those who want it, the 2002 version should be made available as well. Both versions were sold together on DVD back when it came out, so I don't see why Blu-Ray should be any different.


I agree that artist's shouldn't necessarily pander to the audience. For instance, despite the many complaints that a lot of people (myself included) have about the prequels, it would be absurd to actually expect him to go out of his way to make new, specific changes to the PT movies or to refilm them just to get better performances or things of that nature. That would be pandering. But IMO to release something that already exists and has been released many times before.... that's not pandering. That's just reasonable logic.

And aside from a few exceptions here and there, to put it simply, it is pretty much the standard of the film industry... that the same movies are released on new formats, and the only difference is that they are improved in quality and are in their OAR. There's no hard "law" when it comes to this, but it's kind of one of those "unwritten implied rule" kind of things. Which is why, as I said in my previous post, many more people who currently defend Lucas now would be crying foul if this sort of thing happened more frequently with a lot more movies, because sooner or later it would be bound to effect a movie that they like for what in their opinion would be for the worse.

It only makes sense to make the previously released versions available. And it's just good customer service. Unfortunately when it comes to movie making (or any other mass market art form), you really can't completely separate the artistic aspect from the business aspect. They have to co-exist, cross over, and effect each other at some point or another. It's just the nature of the beast. And in business, it's pretty much a standard to please your customers to get the to come back for more. That doesn't mean that you "pander" to them by letting them just walk all over you, but at the same time denying them a highly demanded product that already exists, has been sold to them in some form in the past, and that you have the complete absolute power to further provide them is just not good business.


Can you imagine the backlash that would happen if Ringo Star and Paul McCartney (the 2 surviving original group members) got together now and decided to remix each and every Beatles song, adding in things here and there like additional instruments not used in the original recordings (in some cases instruments that didn't exist back in the 60s), or adding additional lyrics to the songs, in some cases using modern artists for them, and then ONLY releasing them that way going forward, not allowing the original versions ever to be released again? All hell would break loose! And for good reason.

So, I do feel that once something is released, there is a certain obligation for future accessability of that content.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by The Bread

Even in these cases its all personal preference. The criticism you're reading above has to do with the noise reduction (which produces a hazy effect). On my giant Samsung LED TV, the picture is still mega clear. You can also tell what looks animated at some points (but this is due to WHEN the movie was made). The stuff that looks animated to you on your blu-ray also did in the theatre. To be honest, often times film is appealing because of the lack of detail. The people above are looking for pores on faces???? That's just a weird, hi def gang of esoteric cats. And I would hardly say it looks worse than the originals...its just different. who cares? It was decided that this story would be processed a certain way (maybe due to the level of animation capability at the time). big deal?

I watched it 2x and think its awesome! Never got why people ganked it so hard.

Well, what about it is "clear" to you? If you can't distinguish fine detail, how exactly is it clear? I have a feeling you mean it's smooth, there isn't distracting noise. Great. The flipside of that is that taking out the distracting noise and making it "clear" eliminates fine details.

Innocent question, but do you feel that film grain is a negative or a positive? This is essentially a dividing line for viewers.

"Pores on faces" are essentially the difference between HD and not HD. It's not like it's nit-picking stuff, it's the whole reason to have a 1080p display and content at high resolutions. If I'm looking at a Sergio Leone (ESPECIALLY Sergio Leone) closeup, I should see beads of sweat, pores on faces. These are things that give an image depth. The Phantom Menace is flat, you can't get a very dimensional image. Cinematography is a legitimate art, and post-production decisions like slathering an image of DNR negatively impact the deliberate choices made by a cinematographer and in some cases butcher his artistic decisions and negate his impact on a film's production.

Hit up Google for examples of DNR being used excessively, what to look for, whatever, if you're really interested. If you can't see the difference and just want things clean and scrubbed of grain, well... okay then. It's not something to debate, we just see things differently. Most of those reviews espouse the value that Blu-ray should be like owning a copy of the FILM itself at home, uncompromised, with minimal processing. Blu-ray has that capability, and using the same DNR and EE tactics we used on DVD takes away the detail and a lot of the reason for owning an HD display and media.


I notice you edited your post to include "WGAS WGAF"... well if you don't care and just want to "enjoy the movies", there's no sense even bothering with HD. That's where we differ.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by TheTimeTraveler-808

Anyone have issues with bonus disk 3? The disk freezes 2 minutes into the star wars spoofs. my player is a Samsung BD-C6900 and its up to date. works on my PS3 though.

That's likely your problem right there.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

50" plasma with all the factory edge enhancement and DNR stuff turned off, self-calibrated with a disc. Nothing crazy, nothing special, but plasma does represent movies better than LCD.

I don't consider myself an expert, but I can easily distinguish the difference between say "The Thin Red Line", "I, Robot", "2001: A Space Odyssey", and say, "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly", the first-pressing of "Gladiator", the Ultimate ed of "Predator", etc.

It's not like something I have to really look at and pore over to see, either. It's immediately evident. In the case of "The Phantom Menace", what jumped out at me is how nothing jumped out at me. It was just flat, soft, and sort of drab.

If you don't see issues with it, that's cool, but a lot of people can and it is rather disappointing based on what it could have been. That's all.

My second statement is a joke.

Point taken. I guess the dvd of Phantom Menace was old enough that this did seem like a substantial improvement to me, but it should be better than a dvd by miles.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly was nothing but disappointing, soft and mushy to me to give you some frame of reference for my opinion...

[kurtlingle]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Thank you.

That's all I'm saying. Not out to slander the movies or even just that specific one. I just think that the PT should be a shining example of reference Blu across the board, and Sith is the only one that comes (very) close.

TPM's PQ is a missed opportunity.

I also agree that TPM should have (and could have) looked better.
It's a mixed bag - some parts look good to great and a few seconds later, less than good.

I wonder if this will be fixed in the next release.

That said, it's 100x better than my old DVD and it certainly is watchable.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by happydood

Point taken. I guess the dvd of Phantom Menace was old enough that this did seem like a substantial improvement to me, but it should be better than a dvd by miles.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly was nothing but disappointing, soft and mushy to me to give you some frame of reference for my opinion...

Oh yes, it is significantly better than the DVD... but that shouldn't be the measurement of satisfaction. We buy into a new media format because it has the potential to deliver a lot more than a previous one.

It is good, compared to an HDTV showing, or the DVD, definitely... but it could have been almost totally analogous with the actual film from the theatre, the way that Taxi Driver, Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, The Thin Red Line, remastered Gladiator, and any number of new releases generally are. With the right attention to detail, TPM could have looked reasonably on par with new releases like X-Men: First Class. How cool would that have been?

I bought the set and I end up settling for what I get like everyone else, but that's no reason not to discuss that it's disappointing they didn't put more time into it and make it a total home run.

Thankfully, besides what seems to be digitally-added grain in the OT, they look fantastic, so that's a real plus.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by nathan_393

I can't believe people aren't agreeing with you. I say it's an improvement over DVD but still nothing to write home about.

I might compare the other Blus to their respective DVDs. I'm sure there are improvements on Blu but I've been so focused on the bad I keep forgetting to look for the good. Detail looks great but I'm not sure how substantial the improvement is on the Blus - particularly the OT (although I could probably say that about all 6).

That's a problem that I think too many here suffer from. Put it this way, I don't mind dealing with a couple of thorns in order to enjoy the beauty of the roses. The blu ray release is not perfect. However it's the best the entire saga has ever looked and sounded, so why nit pick and complain?

[kdawq]

Just watched ROTJ, My favorite scene in all the Star Wars movies is when Vader tosses the Emperor into the pit, IMO the adding of the "No, Noooooo!!!" made it a better scene and added more emotion to the whole father/son aspect. Again its my opinion as a loooong time Star Wars nut.

[Agent Cooper]

Just want to tell owners of the UK/EU saga set to be carefull with the 'tape' holding all the discholders in place. Mine came very close to falling out of the cover just from me flipping them to access the last discs in perfectly normal fashion. I managed to save it but have to be carefull in the future. I'd wish they had made this set like the Alien Anthology where the content is revealed by folding it out.

Anyone else had this problem?

Otherwise I'm very happy with how the OT looks and sounds. Yeay, TPM is the weakest of the bunch picture-wise, but it better than the dvd hands down.

[El_Jay]

Originally Posted by Agent Cooper

Just want to tell owners of the saga set to be carefull with the 'tape' holding all the discholders in place. Mine came very close to falling out of the cover just from me flipping them to access the last discs in perfectly normal fashion. I managed to save it but have to be carefull in the future. I'd wish they had made this set like the Alien Anthology where the content is revealed by folding it out.

Anyone else had this problem?

Otherwise I'm very happy with how the OT looks and sounds. Yeay, TPM is the weakest of the bunch picture-wise, but it better than the dvd hands down.

Which set do you have? Mine is the cardboard digistack one, I'm not sure which tape you're referring to.

[dookiex]

Originally Posted by kdawq

Just watched ROTJ, My favorite scene in all the Star Wars movies is when Vader tosses the Emperor into the pit, IMO the adding of the "No, Noooooo!!!" made it a better scene and added more emotion to the whole father/son aspect. Again its my opinion as a loooong time Star Wars nut.

I actually agree with this. Yes, having Vader go "nooooooo!" leaves very little for the imagination as to how Vader felt about it but it makes that whole scene hit more concisely. Overall, it feels tighter. This was a good move.

[Mavrick]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Which set do you have? Mine is the cardboard digistack one, I'm not sure which tape you're referring to.

Sounds like he has the digistak set, the UK/EU/AUS packaging.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Which set do you have? Mine is the cardboard digistack one, I'm not sure which tape you're referring to.

He might be referring to the UK set (or one that is similar) which has those digi-stack trays instead.

[LetoAtreides82]

Watched episode II Attack Of The Clones for the first time last night and I liked it a lot but I think Phantom Menace is better.

Don't read further if you don't want to be spoiled:
*****SPOILER WARNING*****
*****SPOILER WARNING*****
The Good:
1. I love the chase scene, reminded me a little of the one from The Fifth Element, but it's so much better in AotC. However I think the pod race from Phantom Menace is better.

2. The picnic scene is amazing, especially when all the waterfalls are shown on the screen. I want to make a poster of it.

3. Jango Fett, greatest bounty hunter ever! His stare down of Obi-Wan was so cool, he had no fear.

4. Love the arena scene.

5. Finally Yoda does something, and he was awesome!


Things that surprised me
1. Near the beginning when Anakin disrespects Obi-Wan I was shocked. He seems so different now that he's grown up. I thought they were about to fight.

Things I wasn't too happy about
1. Anakin talked a lot about how he will one day be the best Jedi ever so I was shocked at how fast Darth Tyranus defeated him. I noticed that Anakin didn't seem to know how to defend himself from the electric bolt attack while Obi-Wan did, I'm guessing Obi-Wan for some reason isn't teaching Anakin all he knows.

I'm hoping Anakin improves his skill greatly in Revenge Of The Sith, so far i'm not too impressed by his skills.
*****END OF SPOILER WARNING*****
*****END OF SPOILER WARNING*****

Watching Revenge Of The Sith tonight!

[The Bread]

Originally Posted by El_Jay

Well, what about it is "clear" to you? If you can't distinguish fine detail, how exactly is it clear? I have a feeling you mean it's smooth, there isn't distracting noise. Great. The flipside of that is that taking out the distracting noise and making it "clear" eliminates fine details.

Innocent question, but do you feel that film grain is a negative or a positive? This is essentially a dividing line for viewers.

"Pores on faces" are essentially the difference between HD and not HD. It's not like it's nit-picking stuff, it's the whole reason to have a 1080p display and content at high resolutions. If I'm looking at a Sergio Leone (ESPECIALLY Sergio Leone) closeup, I should see beads of sweat, pores on faces. These are things that give an image depth. The Phantom Menace is flat, you can't get a very dimensional image. Cinematography is a legitimate art, and post-production decisions like slathering an image of DNR negatively impact the deliberate choices made by a cinematographer and in some cases butcher his artistic decisions and negate his impact on a film's production.

Hit up Google for examples of DNR being used excessively, what to look for, whatever, if you're really interested. If you can't see the difference and just want things clean and scrubbed of grain, well... okay then. It's not something to debate, we just see things differently. Most of those reviews espouse the value that Blu-ray should be like owning a copy of the FILM itself at home, uncompromised, with minimal processing. Blu-ray has that capability, and using the same DNR and EE tactics we used on DVD takes away the detail and a lot of the reason for owning an HD display and media.


I notice you edited your post to include "WGAS WGAF"... well if you don't care and just want to "enjoy the movies", there's no sense even bothering with HD. That's where we differ.

I actually agree with you on most of your points...believe me. I do. What I'm saying is...it looks much better than any standard dvd I have by XXXX.

Blu-Ray is helping me to enjoy this franchise more. I don't have a problem with film grain or even smoothness in a picture as long as it looks banging.

The reality of the situation is...the creators of the flicks decided to preseni it in the manner it is. Maybe the 35 MM looked gash in blu-ray without the effects. You wouldn't know.

Regarding I notice you edited your post to include "WGAS WGAF"... well if you don't care and just want to "enjoy the movies", there's no sense even bothering with HD. That's where we differ.[/

TPM HD blows any non HD (DVD etc...) out of the water. There is a huge difference between the blu-ray and dvd....that is what I'm saying. Enough of a difference for me to consider it Blu-Ray. I can but it in after any blu ray in my collection and the quality stands up. Is it the most detailed flick? No. Does it look awful? My God no! That's all I'm saying.

[Steelmaker]

Originally Posted by kdawq

Just watched ROTJ, My favorite scene in all the Star Wars movies is when Vader tosses the Emperor into the pit, IMO the adding of the "No, Noooooo!!!" made it a better scene and added more emotion to the whole father/son aspect. Again its my opinion as a loooong time Star Wars nut.

IMO, it neither helps nor hurts the scene. It's just different. If it had been there from the beginning and Lucas suddenly removed it from the scene, people would be on here *****ing about how stupid the scene is without the dialogue.