One of the major financial reasons Lucas decided to invest big cash at a low point to do the Special Editions, was that all licensees contracts (read: all traditional income) connected to the original movies was about to expire. By tweeking the hell out of the originals and finally releasing them big in cinemas, he juridically circumvent the old deals and made new licensees contracts, thus securing money for the prequels.

You're not listening to me.

Other studios > LFL

They can afford to put out 4 versions of a shitty movie and it doesn't matter, Lucasfilm can't.

These 're-releases' you speak of are 9 times out of 10 repackaged versions of the same edition. You know that 3 pack limited release we got earlier this year? Yeah, that was leftovers not sold from the 04 release with different packaging. Does it start to click now why this set is sold in a 2 pack? Yeah, you guessed it...you're buying the leftovers not sold from the previous releases. It's a simple business tactic to make more money.

Second, you're putting way too much stock in the 'fan request' aspect of this whole thing. Your problem is that you think that enough fans want this product, which would in turn make it a worthwhile investment for LFL to put its stock in. I disagree. Obviously I'm not 100 percent sure and don't care to look for statistics, but I would think they would prove that close to ALL secondary releases for a film on DVD make less money than the original release. a) not all people have money to throw around on multiple issues of the same film b) many don't care as much as movie fan boys do.



Like I originally posted, a non-anamorphic transfer is laziness on LFL's part. The majority of fans however, are going to be more ticked at the lack of video/audio quality that would entail a restoration. If it was anamorphic, you would focus your complaint on the 2.0 sound or the shotty video. Bottom line, the set isn't going to be presented in the prestine form fans truly desire, and I have outlined the reasons why this is being done accordingly. Personally, I wouldn't release anything. I wouldn't have even released the 2004 editions, but business is business and LFL is bent on maximizing profits from the DVD format before it expires.


To conclude my part in this debate, I would suggest to fans that they should wait for the next big release that will obviously be on the next format. I would think LFL would have something to prove in that new arena and would offer fans more bang for their buck.

Most intelligent response I've seen in this thread, including my own.

In a way, we are seeing that Star Wars is simply a victim of its own success. It's *so* popular that its fanbase is equally diverse and has a diverse set of opinions. Which of course means there will be (unjustified) complaining going on, and as we know, those who bitch are always louder than the majority who are happy.

Me? Sure I'll buy this set. I have the luxury of having a DVD player here in my office, so when I'm working late at night, I can have the 2004 DVDs here to watch or play in the background. I'll get the OUT DVDs more as collector's items rather than thinking of them as the definitive ones I watch.

I personally see the 2004 editions not as special editions, or DVD editions, but "corrected" editions. This is something very few, if any, OOT fan wants to admit. From a storytelling and continuity standpoint, especially the changes in ESB have to be viewed as corrections. The Emperor, Boba Fett's voice, those are continuty corrections, not just changes.

I think the point a lot of these people are missing, is that if they truly want the OOT to be released in the exact way it was 20-odd years ago, then restoration would not be a part of that process whatsoever. If they want the OOT untouched, they will have to accept a 2.0 sound standard, for example, for it to truly be "untouched." Cloud City will still look fuzzy, unsightly matte lines would still surround the Rancor, and snowspeeders would still be translucent. But hey, if that's what you want, great! It's yours!


In regards to the anamorphic nature of the release, I won't be stooping to AK's form of personal namecalling. All I'll say is that people should be very careful what they ask for. They might actually get it. So when they do that, and then start to bitch about it, their credibility level drops to zero with me.

That's my point in reference to Bill Hunt's crying. Go back and read his reviews of the 2004 OT release, as well as his Bitys Awards for the year 2004. Sprinkled throughout his reviews are sentences like "Why make these changes, George?" and "Please, just give us the unaltered originals on DVD?" Seriously, they are all over the place. So now, LFL releases the OUT editions, and all Hunt can do is cry like a little bitch about it. I had a lot of respect for his views and his knowledge of the format. My respect for him is gone now.

One thing that LFL could do is simply make an anamorphic transfer from the existing LD masters that exist. Crop off the spare data at the top and bottom and "cut" the image down to 1.78 (with, of course, the traditional black bar remnants at the top and bottom to accomodate SW's 2.35:1 aspect ratio) and hit the "encode anamorphically" button.

At that "zoomed in" level, the video won't look great by any modern objective, but it could allow LFL to more accurately judge the market demand for this product while saving some money in the process (which, as CoGro says, are their prime objectives here) while also satisfying (to some extent) Krispies complaints.

I'd be surprised if LFL don't end up doing this actually. It's the path of least resistance. I don't see how it would cost them anything extra and the mere act of doing it will likely silence at least a few naysayers. I'm not complaining either way.

What do you think CoGro?

You're not listening to me. The original Star Wars Trilogy is not a "shitty movie."



So...what? You're saying that they never had any intention to release individual discs a year or so after the box set? That they were going to ignore the consumer who didn't want to buy all three at once? Come on. This whole release pattern has been following a very simple marketing plan: at the moment of greatest demand, they release the product at its highest price point. Then, in each succeeding year, they lower the price point until, when they finally arrive at the lowest price point (I'm talking per unit here, not the price of the individual discs combined, which is obviously higher than either of the box sets), they add something of "bonus" value, in the hopes of sucking back in a large percentage of the people who bought it the first time around. Hell, I'm surprised that they didn't change the covers last year. And if these are at all successful, it won't really shock me if next year sees these 2-disc editions split into two individual packages.



I did sort of get that impression.

I think it would be fair to say that you think I'm overestimating the demand and I think you're underestimating it. The key point here is that if LFL releases something that the potential market believes is substandard, you are far more likely to be proven correct than I.



LOL! What you mean is...



...you won't be returning to it. Or is it OK if the people you're insulting won't ever see it? Very brave.



Hey, they're not my complaints. I have 3 or 4 copies of the LD rips on DVD, not to mention owning the LDs themselves. If LFL isn't going to do anything new with these masters, they'll save me some money, because I'll have no reason whatsoever to buy them. I do think it's laziness practically bordering on a lack of professionalism on LFL's part -- but mainly I'm just sick and tired of reading comments from the people who bitch about the bitching without contributing anything else to the overall discussion, especially when one of them wasn't even aware of what an anamorphic transfer was just two days ago. To extend CoGro's analogy, it's like someone in Alaska telling someone in Arizona to stop bitching that their new car doesn't have air conditioning. Yeah, maybe you never needed it and never will, but in that case, what the fuck are you doing in a discussion thread about air conditioning in the first place?

Well, last I checked, Hunt ran a website dedicated to DVD news and reviews. It's 2006, and non-anamorphic 4:3 letterbox DVDs ported from Laserdisc (technology growing increasingly ancient) are generally considered shit. I can't understand how people wouldn't view this release as embarrassing on LFL's part. This is Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi being held to a lower standard than every other DVD release I can think of. Now, I don't know exactly what they were trying to push on us with this "We returned to the Lucasfilm Archives to search exhaustively for source material" horse shit, but they were apparently talking about old Laserdisc masters, which is laughable. But hey, to each his own.

Embarrassing is pretty much the word for it.

Short of setting up a movie theater in your basement, the home video experience is never really going to equal the theatrical experience; all it can ever do is attempt to replicate it as closely as possible. If the technology to do anamorphic transfers had existed in 1993, they'd certainly have done it with the "Definitive Collection" -- but what was done back then was the best that could be done. Is it necessary to reconstruct them with the best that can be done today? I don't think so, but I think the very least that anyone should expect is that these releases will be brought up to the technical level of other films from the same time period that currently benefit from better treatment. If American Graffiti can have an anamorphic transfer, it makes precious little sense that Star Wars can't.

Big difference between calling fellow MFers names and calling out outside individuals who need to be called out. Bill Hunt doesn't need me to call him a whiny bitch....his own words do that for him.


From a marketing/money-making standpoint, it's good business for LFL to do this release. It keeps the Star Wars brand out there for the time inbetween ROTS and the much-rumored (but totally unconfirmed) 30th anniversary stuff. Last I checked, LFL is not a non-profit organization.

I still wish LFL would have stuck to its guns and never released these, but the bottom line is well, the bottom line. These DVDs will be produced at minimal cost and will have a high profit margin. Pure marketing genius, which is something Lucas has shown from day one. He's always been a master at marketing the Star Wars brand, and will continue to be. I guess that's difficult for people to accept, that a great storyteller can also be a great businessman.

i don't understand? are some people actually ok with these not being the highest quality available by today's standards?

two words: cash grab

A lot of fans are under the mistaken impression that Lucas "owes" them something, like this very release. Lucas owes nothing to me, you or anyone. I doubt we'll ever see again so many people telling the creator of a body of work what he should or should not do with that work. It's enough to make me giggle, at some people's sense of self-importance.

I’m by no means under the impression that Lucas “owes” me anything of the sort. But let’s be honest. We’ve all churned through a lot of bullshit from Lucas & Co. about digital this and high-end that. I’m just surprised they wouldn’t go about releasing the highest quality version available. Hell, I can buy some crap Jackie Chan movie in the $1.00 bin that apparently has more bells and whistles than this.

Only as the term applies to DVD. But that's a meaningless point because DVDs didn't exist in 1977-83.

"Anamorphic" as it applies to widescreen cinematography however, (the kind that was used to photograph the O-OT by Directors of Photography Gilbert Taylor, Peter Suschitzky and Alan Hume) was first popularized with "CinemaScope," and its first use in 1953 with the film "The Robe". The 35mm anamorphic film aperature's proportions have changed slightly since then, but it was still the same thing in 1977-83 as it is in 2006.

The Anamorphic process was created to maximize the amount of emulsion area to be used on the 35mm film, while still resulting in a widescreen image. This "anamorphic" approach is actually done for similar reasons on DVD.

As has been stated already by others, the term "anamorphic" as it applies to DVD, was developed for higher resolution, clearer presentations on all displays, 4:3 or 16:9. But it also mimics better the way anamorphic films are presented at your local theater.

For instance, I have a $500 refurbished 4:3 DLP projector, a 35mm anamorphic CinemaScope lens bought cheap off Ebay ($150) and a 1080i upconverting DVD player that can further stretch the image vertically ($200). I can view an anamorphic DVD like the 2004 version of "Star Wars" the same way it's optically done in theaters. Sure, I can do it with a letterboxed 4:3 DVD too, but it looks pretty bad because you aren't starting out with as many pixels as an anamorphic DVD has.

The point is, the term "anamorphic" as it applies to movies has been around a very long time and it is the current state of the art for widescreen presentation on DVD. It is highly ironic that Mr. "Superior Sound and Picture Quality" Lucas, who is always at the forefront of movie tech, would allow the films that he is most known for to be presented like this in 2006.

I'm sure they'll still get the THX seal of approval, right?

I think we're looking at three possible scenarios:

1) The OUT discs will be produced from the LD masters with no changes. They'll look a little better than the laserdiscs (and obviously will be presented on one side of a single disc), but will garner little more than a lackluster "at least we have them" response. If this is the case, I personally will use the method that DP has suggested to obtain these.

2) The LD masters will be used, but there will be some cleanup, such as editing the crawl on ANH to remove the subtitle. But they still won't be anamorphic.

3) They'll be new anamorphic masters, along with the changes from 2). This will either be because the rumors are wrong, or because someone at LFL heard all the criticism and changed the plan -- in which case they'll insist that that was the plan all along.

If there isn't already a plan in place to do anamorphic transfers, though, then I think it's probably already too late. Every "source" has said they heard about these things only about a week ahead of the official announcement, which almost suggests that doing the OUT discs at all was a last-minute decision.

I'm figuring 2).

So, I'm a long-time lurker here and a veteran of the home video industry. I can tell you that Hunt is 100% correct - these are the 93 LD masters and non-anamorphic. This does make a difference to those who have 4:3 displays - as stated before, anamorphically enhanced DVDs have higher resolution. The point of Lucas being on the cutting edge of presentation is true - Anamorphic transfers are the standard and this is a little embarrassing. And it's more than a "click" of a button to fix this, but nevertheless. There's been a lot of conjecture about other source material : Show prints, IPs. etc and the rumours that Lucas had every print of of OUT he could find destroyed. Who knows? Digging up these masters might have been somewhat difficult, it's hard to say.

What's very telling is the fact that we have seen the original crawl from Star Wars looking excellent and anamorphic in the "Empire of Dreams" documentary. Very interesting.

As for Darth First's suggestion of a petition? It's most likely too late. To make the release date, everything is moving very fast. They will not budge on this release date.

Also, the argument regarding the cost of a re-master and how Lucasfilm has less financial resources than a major studio? Nope. I would argue that they are in better shape to do this correctly in every way. They control EVERYTHING. The mantra over there at LFL has been to spend as little on this particular release as possible. The menus on these "bonus discs" are state of the art for DVD circa 1998 - no motion. Completely static.

I guess the reality is that they need some revenue and this was a sure thing. I think its just a shame that they could have handled all this with a little bit more care.

Thanks for the info. Even if it backs up Hunt's bad news.

I don't enjoy it, trust me.

Check your PMs, DP.

Thanks for the news HB. I guess that lends credence to the theory that this is a cheapo, last minute move to move whatever discs they had left over from the 2004 release.

Any reason to believe that they didn't just digitally recreate this for the documentary?

I'm guessing that the source has to be anamorphic to benefit from the better picture quality. That would make sense that they are using the 93 LD masters. They were never in anamorphic to begin with. I cant say thats a bad move, and I cant say it's a good move. If they are spending a little as possible on this release, then using the 93 LD masters is a smart move financially. Anyway, I find it really hard to believe that Lucas had every print of the OUT destroyed.

Exactly my point. There's no way he could have destroyed EVERY print. I'm sure there's a multitude of "show" prints in the hands of collectors. Hopefully these prints would be in better shape than the more common regular "release" prints. But we then have the problem of degrading film stock - a real problem with a lot of films from the 70s and early 80s. Anyway, you have the telecine and coloring process... the costs add up. Remember the mantra: Don't spend any money.


Once again, the point of this whole debate is that the presentation of these films could and SHOULD be better.

Thats why I'm believing more and more that the source material for this OUT dvd release are from the nonanamorphic 93 LD masters. I think they probably approached the whole idea of avoiding the expansive task of tracking down all the origional film elements and doing a expensive new film to telecine transfer process and went straight for the 93 LD masters which might happen to allready be in a PC harddrive at lucasfilm. Or they could have built a special LD player ( similar to the XO project ) to transfer all the material to editing bay to do some minor touch up's and inserts via origional opening crawl.

This of course is just a theory.

"Built a special LD player?"

Huh?

No, that's not...no that's not how that would work. That's wild.

And the masters for the LD release would not be on a hard drive, no. And yes, they are using the LD masters - there's no believing - it's a fact.

Dude, if you've been following the conversation here, you know that facts are of zero importance. Believe me, what you've had to say has been appreciated by the people who pay attention, even if (as DP said) it's confirmation of bad news. But as for the rest, if you hang around trying to argue the stuff that it almost seems has been deliberately misconstrued, then you're heading straight down the path to Hell.

Noted! I did notice the reality distortion field around some of these guys.

In only my defense, while Bill Hunt does supposedly have decent contacts in the industry, his word isn't law in my book. The fact that so many people have since spoken up in support of his view changes the picture for me.

Even so, I think there's a lot of good to be seen in this situation.

But even if you disagree, I do appreciate you speaking up like you did. Good job!

Allrighty then, I guess my first 2 theories "really" sucked ass. My apologies. Anyway, my next theory would be that they could be on high storage capacity CD-ROM's. I can't see them using the actual anamorphic film elements for all 3 movies and then decide not to encode them in anamorphic.

No, it still doesn't work like that. High capacity CD-Roms? No, see everything is digital tape-based at the authoring level. We deliver a set of masters - in this case these would probably be D1s - due to the age of the masters, circa 93. I'm guessing they would have transferred these to D5 by now, as D1 is no longer used. The signal would be 16X9 encoded on this master tape. It's digitized in and compressed. Then it's sent to authoring - or programming - once it has been emulated (a simple test to make sure everything works as it supposed to) and QC'd, it is then laid back to a D5 for delivery to replication. Now, adjustments can be made in authoring to permit 16x9, but it's not preferrable.

Once again, the term "anamorphic" means two different things when we're talking about film and DVD. It's easy to confuse.

Your theories are creative, but not based in any fact. Sorry.

The crux of this whole argument is that these SHOULD be 16x9 enhanced. Even if you only have a 4X3 (standard) TV, you WANT these films 16x9. The extra lines of resolution ARE noticeable. Here's an example: compare the first DVD release of Tim Burton's BATMAN to the latest Special Edition that came out late last year. The first one is just a standard transfer. The new is a new transfer, enhanced for 16x9. The difference is easily noted.

Also, Bill Hunt is an INCREDIBLY reliable source. He is plugged in to many levels of the Home Entertainment Industry. There is no reason to doubt his word - there may be a lot of jokers on the internet, but he is not one of them. He is bonafide.

There are some curious arguments here. The one that says LFL can't afford a good new transfer/clean-up or it would not be profitable to do so is more than a little baffling. The smallest distributors of age-old exploitation films can afford new transfers for dvd. Am I to believe that LFL has less money than the smallest of small dvd distributors? Am I to believe that, even if only a tiny percentage of SW fans are interested in the OUT editions, sales will be less than a film like, say, 'The Forbidden Photos of a Lady Above Suspicion'? Am I to believe that it was profitable for a company to clean and digitally colourise yet another version of 'Night of the Living Dead' for dvd because it would sell more than Star Wars?

Each and every week old films are restored, or simply have new transfers done, and are released on dvd. Many, if not most, have a ridiculously limited audience. These films are being released, in part, to make money back for the distributor. There are profits to be made.

And yet...we're to believe that LFL couldn't justify a new transfer and clean-up for its little series of SW films?

There may be arguments here among the uninformed about this, but in fact LFL CAN afford to clean up and anamorphically enhance the OUT films.

THEY DON'T WANT TO.

Its a marketing decision. Spend X amount to make Z amount. Spending less means more profit. That's their perogative.

Also, AGAIN, the OUT versions are being considered as BONUS MATERIALS. Disc 2. Not Disc 1.

What they're doing is looking at the sales figures for the past 2 years, and to keep revenue coming in they had to put SOMETHING on these discs to finally ensnare those who have held out buying the films on DVD. This is the cheapest, easiest no-brainer, I'm sure. AGAIN, Lucas himself may have said, "Fine, but don't spend any time or money if you don't have to."

What they have in mind for the 30th - who knows? But this keeps revenue coming in. I'm not sure they even thought about the controversy of releasing these non-anamorphic.

The difference you are describing is one of market penetration. Star Wars has already reached millions of more consumers than something like Night of the Living Dead, so putting another variant on the market means, in essence, that LFL is competing with itself. As I think I mentioned earlier, and as HB says as well, this year's release is primarily for the purpose of snagging the consumer who didn't want to buy either of the boxsets...and despite what the "bonus" material is, that's the way LFL's marketing department is going to continue to look at it. To their way of thinking about this, the "enhanced" version is the real product here, and it doesn't matter if the customer is influenced either way by the quality of the OUT discs, but only whether the simple presence of them helps to move units. If these discs sell in poor to mediocre numbers, they'll say that the market is saturated and will be grateful they didn't spend any money restoring anything. If these sell well, they'll pat themselves on the back for a marketing tactic well done and be even more grateful that they didn't spend any money. I think HB's point that they can easily afford the anamorphic cost, but that they haven't even considered it, is right on target.

Bear in mind also that no matter how well they sell, this is more than likely the last time these movies will be released on standard DVD. It's possible, I guess, that whatever changes are made for a high-def set might also be ported down to standard DVD for the sake of consumers who haven't yet upgraded their home systems (of which there should still be a large percentage, if we're talking about a 30th anniversary set next year), but nevertheless, any future work on either the enhanced or the original versions is only going to be done because of the new format.

Even so, LFL has always presented the bonus material for the previous DVDs respectfully, in anamorphic widescreen. I had cosidered the possibility early on that the OUT disc would be using the 1993 LD master, but never that they would be non-anamorphic. If they were anamorphically enhanced, I'd probably pick them up. As such, I already own what they're now repackaging on a different format.

I'd just like to inject something here about video quality. Some of you are saying that the fact that the '93 masters aren't anamorphic shouldn't make a difference in why we wouldn't be getting an anamorphic version on DVD. If we can assume that the '93 laserdisc masters are in fact what they are using as a source, and if we can assume that the master is on a D2 digital video tape, then it actually does make sense that they would want to leave the video as letterbox. Let me to explain:

If you do a little research, you might learn that D2 digital tape has about 450 lines of resolution - just a little less than DVD (500) and a little more than laserdisc (400). This means that the source video they are working from is just about the same (actually slightly less) resolution as the final product.

Seeing as the video on the master is in letterbox format, it would mean there is approximately 280 lines of video information (not counting the black bars). This would need to be upscaled in order to create the anamorphic video - approximately 360 lines.

It would, of course, not be difficult at all to upscale the video. However, studios usually work from a much higher resolution source, and I can understand a little better as to why they would opt to leave the video in the original letterbox state.

Though, there is something to be said about upscaling video during the transfer process, as opposed to during playback. A real-time upscaler used by your television or separate video unit almost always does a worse job of upscaling. This is mainly because more complex algorithms are too slow to be used in real-time. During the transfer/authoring process, a Lanczos or similar algorithm does a beautiful job of upscaling because of it's sharpness. You can bet there will be a lot of us who will be taking the OUT discs and creating our own anamorphic versions.

Bravo to the Ayatollah - I think you summed that up rather well.

Also, Zion is dead on with his technical review. Very nice.

Thanks for clearing up the facts for me on that issue. I had though about mentioning digital tape but since I don't know much about the home video "mastering" process; I can only come up with non factual theories.

I am; however, very familiar with the anamorphic process, but only in the commercial venue. I have been a theater projectionist for almost 12 years. I will be starting on on my 12th year this August.

Anyway, how durable is the D-Tape medium? Wouldn't that show signs of wear and tear after periodic use? I have read a little about the D-Tape medium used for Episode 3 ( assuming thats the same medium were talking about here for the home market ), but the info really didn't tell me much about the medium other than how how it was used during the filming process.




Awsome info!

Everything you said after this makes sense and sums it up along with HB's post. But you and I know that there is a far bigger piece of the pie to be had than simply the people who haven't yet bought the dvd set - there are the people who would be willing to buy the films again to get the originals. Even if that's just a tiny percentage of SW fans, it's still a lot of buyers. By the time a company had put the effort into completely re-colourising NotLD (which is not an easy process), there had been over four editions of the film released on dvd - each one originating from a different film transfer. Given that the audience would have been pretty limited to begin with, I was simply illustrating that there would be a market there regardless of market penetration.

Seems when it comes down to it, HB's answer said it best - "THEY DON'T WANT TO."

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is an example that does not apply.

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is a public domain title. ANYONE can put out a DVD of NIGHT if they want to - even you. (The story behind this is that the original distributors never put a copyright on the film in 1968 - it was basically up for grabs immediately. George A. Romero and his partners lost untold profits because of this.) Elite Entertainment recognized the importance of the film, and recognized a market for a properly re-mastered from the original elements release.

STAR WARS is a bit different. The copyright is intact. But an important thing to think about is the actual merchandising of the product. There are only so many stores - and there's only so much space on the shelves. You'd think EVERY store would have a copy of the STAR WARS films on hand at all times, but they don't. At the Best Buy near me - in Los Angeles - they went months without having copies of ANY fo the films. And this is a problem everywhere for every studio. So, what they do is continually re-release the films to get maximum exposure. They even do it when they are just marking down a price. The intent is to get it right in front of the consumer, who has a gazillion choices every week. And no matter how many millions of copies LFL has already sold, they've only scratched the surface on what they COULD sell. A lot of people will not drop $50 or $60 for a box set. They may buy them individually, though... so now we have them individually! And for all those trouble makers who didn't buy because they weren't OUT? Well, we put it on there now, didn't we?

Heh. My local Best Buy (as of Friday night) has multiple copies of both the widescreen and full screen versions of each boxset, not to mention all 3 PT films, the Clone Wars discs, the Ewoks discs and the Droids discs. They're probably sick of looking at the things.

AK - yeah, the BB I was talking about recently re-stocked and have tons of them now, but for a while they had nothing. It was sort of wierd.


To Stale_Elvis: There are no "HiDef DVD companies". iHD and BluRay are formats (although you are sort of correct as BluRay is a Sony-backed format). Lucasfilm's deal for the STAR WARS films are with Fox. Fox has decided to back BluRay. The Indy films are at Paramount who are backing both iHD and BluRay. As DoubleSith pointed out, it will be a bit of time before we see these films on a HiDef format. Lucas waited the DVD format out, and with the problems these battling HD formats are facing, there's no doubt he'll do the same here.


I highly doubt there will ever be a OUT package with a HiDef player bundled alongside for purchase. That sort of thing doesn't happen anymore. Video game formats may still do this, but it doesn't play in the studio system. We haven't seen that type of thing since the waning days of LaserDisc. And if you'd like, you can purchase a Toshiba iHD player now - although I wouldn't recommend it just yet. Next year, perhaps.

Everything you say in your post is completely accurate and yet misses the point of the example. If you don't want to use NotLD as an example, feel free to substitute just about any film that has a limited audience from a small distributor that required a new transfer for release. Ownership is not the issue here.

The point was simply this, and only this - cost of transfer and clean-up is not a deal-breaker for a SW release and the reason for using non-anamorphic masters. In terms of a SW budget, with a print in hand, the cost of a new transfer would be negligible for the "#1 film franchise worldwide". I have no idea what sort of rates people are thinking for film transfers but I'm sure I could get them a few good quotes if LFL were really that hard up for cash.



Oh and Kitfist0, your last sentence shows a complete lack of understanding - unless (and this is entirely possible) I'm missing the sarcasm?

Actually, we have made your exact point much earlier. We have agreed that cost is not an issue. We have agreed it's not a dealbreaker. All earlier in this thread.

The issue is that they don't want to take the time or spend the money. And it's not that LFL doesn't have the money - that's patently ridiculous. It is a bottom line decision that they have every right to make. It's just more than a little disappointing.

And how can STAR WARS be the "#1 film franchise worldwide" and have a limited audience?

It would be more correct in comparing NOTLD to an art film, or a foreign film restoration. Smaller boutique labels factor the limited audience into their strategies. Criterion may do an initial pressing of 50,000 for a popular title like THE SEVEN SAMURAI. Anchor Bay may press less for something like VICE SQUAD. Fox? Fox and LFL will press 5- 8 million of these 2 discs in the first pressing. Big difference.

Here's some info I gave to Darth Psychotic earlier - LFL is going so bargain-basement with this, that they are not working with their usual partners. They have gone with cheaper vendors on many levels for this release. And again, this is about maximizing profit compared to expense. I can't blame them. But I don't have to buy these things either.

Sadly, though I will. Argh.

HB, we are agreeing here. I don't think SW has a limited audience. Again, that was exactly my point - if a film with a limited audience can justify the cost for the pressing of 50,000, then a film like SW with such a huge fanbase should have absolutely no problem with it. A good transfer should be standard, even if simply thrown in as an extra. And if any filmmaker was lucky enough to have control over the release of their work (as you know, most don't), they'd be pushing for the best possible release regardless of the fans.

As for us all agreeing with this earlier, well yes, I was initially commenting on a viewpoint which indeed was earlier in the thread ->

Well, unfortunately, that's probably exactly what's at the heart of this. Lucas has probably said that he doesn't want these movies to be fixed or cleaned up in any way since, in his eyes, he's already done just that.

Those bastards!

I was expecting to buy a little box which - when opened - transported me back to some dingy little piss-soaked theatre in 1977, full of kids whooping and throwing popcorn and a screen and projector, and I would, like, totally be able to racapture the joy of seeing these films at the cinema again.

Let's get this straight - I've got to actually put this shit in a "DVD player" and watch it on a TV screen?!?

No way!
That is not how I remember it at all. We didn't have "DVD players" back in '77.

You know what, when those letterbox VHS versions came out - and Lucas pulled this sick stunt on us on more than one occasion - I didn't refuse to buy them, I actually bought them and burnt them in public protest. Letterboxed. The bastards.
And the Laserdiscs. Doin't get me started on the laserdiscs. What a missed opportunity.

This DVD release may well be the best version of the O-OT ever released in a home format - but, fuck that, that doesn't concern me, I demand a magical trip back to the cinema circa 1977.
If my memory serves me right, SW has never been better than it was in the cinema in 1977.
Through the smog and the popcorn and the yelping - man, it looked so much better than letterboxed DVDs. It must have done, because I was there.
In fact, I don't even know why I've even remained a SW fan all these years - I mean, no home release version of the original trilogy has ever met my specifications. I haven't even watched the films for more than 20 years...


PS: "thecoloursblend"? Surely not a Morrissey reference...?

Just need to emphasize that HB here is the real deal holyfield. So in addition to DarthFirst, we now have HB. Now lets take a look at some confirmations and new info HB posted in this thread and the other one...

[hr]

"Hunt is 100% correct - these are the 93 LD masters and non-anamorphic."

"The menus on these "bonus discs" are state of the art for DVD circa 1998 - no motion. Completely static."

"they are using the LD masters - there's no believing - it's a fact."

"LFL is going so bargain-basement with this, that they are not working with their usual partners. They have gone with cheaper vendors on many levels for this release."

[hr]

While this maybe bad news to some, it is real news. I plan to buy the OUT DVD set... after I find the loweset price possible.

I will be really dissipointed if the video ( if they are going to be as cheap as possible ) winds up being interlaced.

It's a great observation that Lucasfilm is competing with themselves with this release. From a business standpoint, it's flaweless. But it brings up another thought ...

What's the motivation to develop/release the "Archival Editions" within the next 5-6 years?

And when they do, what's the motivation to make them the "balls all out, end all, be all" editions? There's a lot that's been talked about and in theory what you could do with them. For example, Lucas has talked about bonus features including cuts of the movies without FX. In the "could" category, high def cleanup restoration of the OUT versions.

Why would they bother doing any of this?

Not actually. It's a Pearl Jam reference from their song Sometimes.

As for the rest of your post, your point isn't lost, it's just that it's really not too much to ask for LFL to use what has become standard technology for these DVD's. I'm happy to have the OUT either way but anamorphic widescreen would've been the preferred resolution for most of us, I think.

$$