Star Wars Wars the UOT Strikes Back and OTHER PEZ dispensers

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by EclipseSSD

Re-releasing films is not uncommon, if it was, there probably wouldn't be any need for any home media formats at all. And with a multibillion dollar franchise like Star Wars, I'd do the same.

I was not faulting him, I was just pointing out that he can milk it for as long as he sees fit just like Disney.

[The Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

I was not faulting him, I was just pointing out that he can milk it for as long as he sees fit just like Disney.

That's true. He's a businessman though, and that's probably why he does it, the profit is huge at the end of the day, and he knows it.

[Beast]

I doubt that the 3-D release will really bomb. Since people will still go see it to see the films on the Big Screen again.

As for the "Milking It" argument, I don't see it. It's the companies that license Star Wars making all these products.
And why? Because there's a demand for Star Wars Toys, Cookie Jars, and Mugs. People love Star Wars and want this stuff.

If Lucas and Lucasfilm were really "Milking It", we'd be seeing releases of the Original Versions as well as the '97 SE Versions as well.
People claim he re-releases the films so many times. But if you don't count the simple repackagings, it's less than a lot of films.

[Shaft Windu]

Is "MGM" milking James Bond? Is Christopher Nolan "milking" Batman? Is Peter Jackson "milking" Tolkien? Well, one might say they do but these are franchises after all and they should stay alive as long as there are stories to tell and people to enjoy them! If a franchise has run its course (as with Alien maybe) then it will die out eventually anyway... In the case of Star Wars Lucas has done an exceptional job in keeping an integrity with the 6 movies and keep them seperate from all the expanded universe that surrounds it. If it had to been up to Fox there would be dozens of Star Wars movies by now - most of them terribly disfigured abominations!

[DarthMarino]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

Is "MGM" milking James Bond? Is Christopher Nolan "milking" Batman? Is Peter Jackson "milking" Tolkien? Well, one might say they do but these are franchises after all and they should stay alive as long as there are stories to tell and people to enjoy them! If a franchise has run its course (as with Alien maybe) then it will die out eventually anyway... In the case of Star Wars Lucas has done an exceptional job in keeping an integrity with the 6 movies and keep them seperate from all the expanded universe that surrounds it. If it had to been up to Fox there would be dozens of Star Wars movies by now - most of them terribly disfigured abominations!

Not to mention that Star Wars was anything but milked as far as DVD releases go. With the exception of the original trilogy being rereleased with the non-special editions as a bonus feature (something EVERYONE was demanding), each film was only released once. They put together a few trilogy box sets but the discs were identical. I get so tired of people predicting that these things will be quadruple dipped on Blu Ray as if that's what happened on DVD.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Beast

I doubt that the 3-D release will really bomb. Since people will still go see it to see the films on the Big Screen again.

I would be willing to bet you anything that TPM does not gross over 100 million on a re-release in 3D.

In 1997 a whole generation of people had never seen Star Wars on the big screen and Star Wars (A New Hope for some of you) grossed 130 Million far more than ESB or ROTJ on rerelease. Not quite as beloved as the OT I don't see the PT doing squat on the big screen again.

[GuruAskew]

Originally Posted by DarthMarino

Not to mention that Star Wars was anything but milked as far as DVD releases go. With the exception of the original trilogy being rereleased with the non-special editions as a bonus feature (something EVERYONE was demanding), each film was only released once. They put together a few trilogy box sets but the discs were identical. I get so tired of people predicting that these things will be quadruple dipped on Blu Ray as if that's what happened on DVD.

The double-dip is extremely rare in the Blu-ray era too. The bubble has burst on home video and studios are having a hard enough time getting people to jump from SD to HD let alone re-purchasing Blu-ray discs. Furthermore a substantial chunk of the Blu-ray "double dips" that do exist are cases like "Evil Dead 2" and "The Third Man" where rights have changed hands.

If Anchor Bay or Criterion can no longer distribute a title and Lionsgate all of a sudden can that isn't some suit sitting in a boardroom trying to figure out ways to get people to re-purchase something, it's just a necessity to getting the movie on the market again.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

There will never be 3D BD sets of these films because:

1. 3D is a fad and is currently dying
2. After Episode 1 tanks at the Box Office they will not release the others.

I am sure there will be another HD set someday as Lucas thinks he is Disney and can milk a set every five to ten years.

While I do not like 3D, I think you're incorrect. While there has been some backlash for 3D at the boxoffice, due primarily to the higher ticket prices, all other things being equal, 3D is still bringing in more money.

And while consumers weren't buying HDTVs because they had 3D, that's becoming a moot point as all but the bottom end of the line has 3D built-in.

The move towards standardization of 3D glasses is also going to help 3D.

Personally, I can't stand 3D theatrically. I don't like it because it gives the perception that the screen is smaller and you're not enveloped by the image and it also makes the image dimmer. And I despise it because so many theatres are keeping the 3D polarizing filter on when projecting 2D movies, making those movies dimmer, softer and off-color. I don't know why theatres can't dedicate a few screens to 3D and the rest of the screens to 2D to avoid this issue.

Star Wars doesn't have to do that well in 3D to make it financially viable. It's not going to do what a new title does. No one expects that. If it adds a few $ million to the Lucas coffers (of profit), that's all they need and they'll be more. And it should do that easily. But aside from 3D, I don't think there's going to be another boxed set of Star Wars in 2D in physical form. I think this upcoming Blu-ray release is the last one, even if technology is invented that would make it easy and inexpensive to release the UOT. That's not to say that they won't repackage it for future editions (40th anniversary in 2017) or release the movies separately, but I think these are the last remasters.

I've always been one to strongly support seeing movies in a theatre, but this 3D issue as well as poor projection and maintenance in what were once considered to be high-end theatres is starting to push me to avoid movie theatres, something that I thought would never happen. I've asked for my money back in half of the movies I've seen recently. One local theatre has a terrible buzz/hum on one screen and the movies I want to see always wind up on that screen. I've complained numerous times, but they haven't fixed it -- they just throw up the level to try and "hide" it.

I went to see "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" in a large Manhattan theatre the other day (one in which projection/sound used to be pristine) and the center channel was coming out of the left channel. (I suspect they blew a center channel driver so they switched the channels around.) So I got my money back and went to a completely different theatre (but same chain) and they projected the film through the 3D filters (I originally thought only UA was doing this, but AMC is apparently doing it as well) and it looked like crap. So I'm hoping 3D fails if only to preserve the proper presentation of 2D.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

Is "MGM" milking James Bond? Is Christopher Nolan "milking" Batman? Is Peter Jackson "milking" Tolkien? Well, one might say they do but these are franchises after all and they should stay alive as long as there are stories to tell and people to enjoy them! If a franchise has run its course (as with Alien maybe) then it will die out eventually anyway... In the case of Star Wars Lucas has done an exceptional job in keeping an integrity with the 6 movies and keep them seperate from all the expanded universe that surrounds it. If it had to been up to Fox there would be dozens of Star Wars movies by now - most of them terribly disfigured abominations!

Yes MGM has milked Bond! How many releases did we have on DVD? We had three releases in a 6 year period.

Originally Posted by kenkraly2004

. So I'm looking forward to the blu-ray box set. And what is the deal with some of these bloggers bashing the star wars saga on blu-ray and GL? Do they have nothing better to do my goodness where does it end? And also I'm tired of some fans saying GL is miking the release of the blu-ray's over and over again. This is the biggest blu-ray release in the history of the blu-ray format.

Ok first of all who is bashing him? I said he can and does milk Star Wars just like Disney ( he has even used their marketing campaign before "for a limitied time. for the last time etc..). How is that bashing? And the biggest release in History? Says who? You? Most people I know are not even going to buy this set and the ones that are are only buying the OT so which release is going to be the biggest? The Saga, OT or PT?

[PlayLoud]

Hard to imagine anything being milked more than Terminator 2.

[kenkraly2004]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Ok first of all who is bashing him? I said he can and does milk Star Wars just like Disney ( he has even used their marketing campaign before "for a limitied time. for the last time etc..). How is that bashing? And the biggest release in History? Says who? You? Most people I know are not even going to buy this set and the ones that are are only buying the OT so which release is going to be the biggest? The Saga, OT or PT?

Cowboy the star wars saga on blu-ray is one of the most anticipated titles in the history of the blu-ray format. All you like to do is be so negative about the box set. Why say anything if your not going to buy it?

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by kenkraly2004

Cowboy the star wars saga on blu-ray is one of the most anticipated titles in the history of the blu-ray format. All you like to do is be so negative about the box set. Why say anything if your not going to buy it?

I on several occasions have stated that I am waiting to see (conclusive) evidence on some things with regards to the OT before I purchase that set.

[kenkraly2004]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

I on several occasions have stated that I am waiting to see (conclusive) evidence on some things with regards to the OT before I purchase that set.

Fair enough.

[rickah88]

Is not Home Video, on the whole, just one big milking process?
Just to name a few formats: Beta, VHS, LD, DVD, hd-ded, BD!
Anyone that is a film collector, pretty much by virtue of keeping up with the current format is getting milked, IMO.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Is not Home Video, on the whole, just one big milking process?
Just to name a few formats: Beta, VHS, LD, DVD, hd-ded, BD!
Anyone that is a film collector, pretty much by virtue of keeping up with the current format is getting milked, IMO.

Sure but some "franchises" err studios took it to a whole new level (within the same format)

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Sure but some "franchises" err studios took it to a whole new level (within the same format)

No doubt! I'm just stating that if you're going to be a HV collector, you better be ready to get milked. How many different ways you get milked is a whole other conversation(thread). Don't shoot the messenger! I agree it's a sorry state of affairs, but the nature of the business, I'm afraid.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Sure but some "franchises" err studios took it to a whole new level (within the same format)

Yes they not only milked the Cows, they made leather jackets and hamburgers out of them!

[phatrat1982]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

yes it only had had 350 special effects to TESB 450. Why do people keep saying that SW is dated? Dated as compared to what?

I am not talking number of effects but common on dude the Death Star graphics alone look way outdated compared to the rest of the films, there is a difference from respecting the greatest movie ever made, and blindly ignoring that it does have some faults. Empire does NOT look half as dated as the original Star Wars, um maybe the reason people keep saying it is because it is true, it is still a fantastic movie but someone how has not grown up on it will see that it looks dated compared to the rest. It wasn't a the movie is old and gonna suck, hell even Wizard of Oz looks dated and yes I mention that to people who never seen it because if you have the same expectations as those who grew up on it as those who have been exposed to better effects than it could lead to disappointment, there is a LOT of hype still to this day around Star Wars and while the movie broke ground back in the 70's a lot of the effects were improved in the very next film to the point of not diminishing what Star Was accomplished but out doing it for sure.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by phatrat1982

I am not talking number of effects but common on dude the Death Star graphics alone look way outdated compared to the rest of the films, there is a difference from respecting the greatest movie ever made, and blindly ignoring that it does have some faults. Empire does NOT look half as dated as the original Star Wars, um maybe the reason people keep saying it is because it is true, it is still a fantastic movie but someone how has not grown up on it will see that it looks dated compared to the rest. It wasn't a the movie is old and gonna suck, hell even Wizard of Oz looks dated and yes I mention that to people who never seen it because if you have the same expectations as those who grew up on it as those who have been exposed to better effects than it could lead to disappointment, there is a LOT of hype still to this day around Star Wars and while the movie broke ground back in the 70's a lot of the effects were improved in the very next film to the point of not diminishing what Star Was accomplished but out doing it for sure.

Well said. There's a reason why the majority of the SE changes with the OT are focused on ANH. Where as most of the other films the changes are aesthetic, such as adding window to Cloud City to make it less a claustrophobic set. Or changing OLME Emperor to the Emperor from the other films.

ANH suffers in a lot of ways. Mos Eisley being one of the biggest issues I've had with the movies since 1977. Instead of a major spaceport it looks like a backlot with few extras milling about. The SE helped make it seem like a living and breathing city. But yeah, I really wish they would have changed the Death Star Plans readouts for the Blu-Ray release as well. Since they weren't changed for the SE or DVD editions.

And it's a good thing to keep in mind that these SE, DVD, or Blu-Ray editions are not at all "Replacing" all the model work and such of the original version. If anything they're slightly enhancing what was already there. So most of the original work is still there on film for generations to enjoy.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by phatrat1982

I am not talking number of effects but common on dude the Death Star graphics alone look way outdated compared to the rest of the films, there is a difference from respecting the greatest movie ever made, and blindly ignoring that it does have some faults. Empire does NOT look half as dated as the original Star Wars, um maybe the reason people keep saying it is because it is true, it is still a fantastic movie but someone how has not grown up on it will see that it looks dated compared to the rest. It wasn't a the movie is old and gonna suck, hell even Wizard of Oz looks dated and yes I mention that to people who never seen it because if you have the same expectations as those who grew up on it as those who have been exposed to better effects than it could lead to disappointment, there is a LOT of hype still to this day around Star Wars and while the movie broke ground back in the 70's a lot of the effects were improved in the very next film to the point of not diminishing what Star Was accomplished but out doing it for sure.

Well I guess since I grew up with it I can't tell that SW looks anymore dated than ESB.

Now I will agree that it looks dated compared to films of this era but I really cant tell between SW or ESB.

Mos Eisley being one of the biggest issues I've had with the movies since 1977. Instead of a major spaceport it looks like a backlot with few extras milling about.

You have had that issue since 1977? How old were you when you first saw this in the theater so I can get a perspective on the issue you might have had in 1977. I was 12 in the summer of 77 when I saw the film and I don't remember it looking like a "backlot" at all....in fact I still dont think it looks like a back lot. What special effects films in 77 did you draw a comparsion to to arrive at that conclusion? Logan's Run? Silent Running? The Omega Man or Soylent Green?