Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Topless Robot)   The cover for the upcoming Star Wars Blu-Ray boxed set is...well, it's f*cking awful is what it is   (toplessrobot.com) divider line
    More: Fail, Blu-ray, Star Wars, box sets, Tatooine, Darth Vader  
•       •       •

18181 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 May 2011 at 2:58 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



179 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2011-05-16 4:22:17 PM  
Great effects, not so great story.
I would have been happy with the one first film.
Merchandising, ewoks, jar-jar etc. bleh.
 
2011-05-16 4:24:57 PM  

Lunchlady: Let me know when they re-release this version:

Just give me a Blu-ray with THX versions of the originals. That's all we want. I don't even need DVD menus, just go straight to the crawl.

/Leonard Maltin optional


That box set is the only reason I still own a VCR. They get dragged out every Thanksgiving right after the Macy's parade. Just enough time to watch New Hope and Empire before turkey, then Return right after dinner.
 
2011-05-16 4:26:04 PM  

frepnog: FirstNationalBastard: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: LaurenAguilera: The English Major: I'm glad I spent the $30 on the Best Buy tin that came out back in '03 or '04 which included the "original" DVDs as a "bonus." Somehow, I think that's the only way we'll see the non-bastardized versions on DVD.

BUT THESE ARE BLU RAY!

GUARANTEED TO BE BETTER THAN THE DVDs EVEN THOUGH THE RECORDING TECHNOLOGY WASN'T AVAILABLE WHEN THEY WERE FILMED!

Sorry. I think buying old movies on blu-ray is kind of... a waste of monies. That is simply my opinion.

You don't know how film and blu-ray transfers work, do you? Film still provides the best resolution, and blu-ray is one step closer to being on par with film. So yeah, it's better than a standard DVD.

And as long as the original film elements are in good condition, no matter how old the film is, it can be scanned to create a digital version that is closer to how it looks on film, and looks better than any previous home video version.

The only time this doesn't apply is if something was shot on videotape. Most videotape is locked at 480i, and will never look any better than it already does. That's why Star Trek: TOS is out on bluray, while TNG and DS9 aren't.

um. ST:TNG was shot on 35mm. it CAN be remastered, they just haven't done it yet because alot of the EFFECTS were done in D-1 video. It's coming, it is just going to take forever to remaster the actual episodes and then re-composite the effects.


The rumor mill has been recently buzzing that this will happen soon, but I'm skeptical about how good the quality will be because of the costs. The only way I see Paramount spending a lot is if they see HD versions with new effects as a way to remarket the series for networks looking to buy something in HD for their syndication lineup.
 
2011-05-16 4:29:17 PM  

Guyv: It has a subdued totality to it, I like it in that it has a very encompassing feel to it. I'd like luke to be a bit less transparent, at first the only thing that made me realize it was him was that it had to be him since it wasn't Darth, thought maybe it was the teenage/adult anakin for a minute.

But what do I know, I just like sweeping landscapes, so I'm biased.

/V, IV, III, VI, II, I
//Meh, ewoks
.


THIS. THIS. *THIS*.
 
2011-05-16 4:29:34 PM  

MugzyBrown: LaurenAguilera: GUARANTEED TO BE BETTER THAN THE DVDs EVEN THOUGH THE RECORDING TECHNOLOGY WASN'T AVAILABLE WHEN THEY WERE FILMED!

Technically film is higher resolution than any digital format.


No, but yes.
 
2011-05-16 4:32:07 PM  
I'll buy it.

You'll get over it.

(Saw Empire and Jedi in theater...the first time.)
 
2011-05-16 4:32:34 PM  
jonesandbones.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-16 4:33:59 PM  

LaurenAguilera:
Sorry. I think buying old movies on blu-ray is kind of... a waste of monies. That is simply my opinion.


My Blu-Ray Criterion copies of M, Metropolis, and Modern Times would disagree with you
 
2011-05-16 4:37:08 PM  

jj325: My Blu-Ray Criterion copies of M, Metropolis, and Modern Times would disagree with you


isn't the Complete Metropolis by Kino ?

anyways, there are other amazing looking classics not only from Criterion.

Dr Strangelove, Bonnie and Clyde, North By Northwest, the Sting (Hd-DVD still has some use!), etc...
 
2011-05-16 4:38:17 PM  
I tolerated having Godfather 3 in with the real Godfather movies in a DVD box set years ago, similar thinking will not be in effect for this collection.
 
2011-05-16 4:38:51 PM  
So what subby is saying is that the cover is as bad as the contents?
 
2011-05-16 4:48:13 PM  

Wellon Dowd: In the production meetings I argued for this shot but George shot it down.


I was at that meeting, and if I remember correctly, Han shot first.
 
2011-05-16 4:50:02 PM  

Leader O'Cola: jj325: My Blu-Ray Criterion copies of M, Metropolis, and Modern Times would disagree with you

isn't the Complete Metropolis by Kino ?

anyways, there are other amazing looking classics not only from Criterion.

Dr Strangelove, Bonnie and Clyde, North By Northwest, the Sting (Hd-DVD still has some use!), etc...


LOL I bet I look when I get home. Could be Kino.
 
2011-05-16 5:01:31 PM  

HawgWild: What's wrong with it?

That's what the two trilogies were about! Anakin and Luke!

You haters need to get over yourselves ...


It perfectly captures the Star Wars franchise. Luke represents the original unaltered trilogy, the movies so many of us grew up with. It's back is to us, walking away from us, fading, soon to be gone forever. It is a ghost. One that will exist only in memory.

Anakin, the Jake Lloyd Anakin no less, represents the Star Wars of the Special Editions and prequels. The Star Wars of "Yippee!", Jabba the Oaf in Part IV, Jar Jar Binks and "hold me like you did by the lake of Naboo". It's walking towards in, in focus, coming closer. This is the Star Wars that remains. This is the only Star Wars that Lucas is letting us have. For better or worse, this is what we have to call Star Wars.

So, yeah, the cover art pretty much nails it.
 
2011-05-16 5:14:54 PM  

NeoCortex42: HawgWild: Lord_Dubu: I can't get used to the way the blu-ray demos on HD tvs play in stores. That hyper-speed frames per second look gives it a cheap video look to me.

That's the response rate, I believe. I bought a 1080p 60Hz HDTV because the 120Hz just looked too strange ...

There's a setting in most of those TVs to fix the effect. My folks have a 120Hz set and the picture drove me nuts at first. The setting effects how the in-between frames are determined, since the source is not 120Hz. The option that looks like crap is when it tries to interpolate between consecutive frames. The option that looks more natural is to just use frame-doubling.

120Hz is good for film though, since it's an even multiple of 24fps.


This pretty much sums up why digital television is stupid.
 
2011-05-16 5:20:44 PM  
Why do people still buy movies? Just stream it again.
 
2011-05-16 5:30:04 PM  
This must be some new definition of "f*cking awful" I was previously unaware of.
 
2011-05-16 5:31:17 PM  
LaurenAguilera:
MugzyBrown: LaurenAguilera: GUARANTEED TO BE BETTER THAN THE DVDs EVEN THOUGH THE RECORDING TECHNOLOGY WASN'T AVAILABLE WHEN THEY WERE FILMED!

Technically film is higher resolution than any digital format.

I'm just saying, I don't see the point. *shrug* That's all, kids.


I, too, have strong opinions on subjects I don't fully comprehend that I nonetheless choose to post on Internet forums.

/Damn you, neutrons!
 
2011-05-16 5:57:37 PM  
Somebody needs to do a George Lucas trollface.
 
2011-05-16 5:58:45 PM  
And all I want, and still waiting for, is the Indiana Jones Trilogy on blu-ray.
 
2011-05-16 6:04:25 PM  

apeiron242: Why do people still buy movies? Just stream it again.


because streaming quality sucks ?
 
2011-05-16 6:20:22 PM  
For the last time...ANYTHING after Jedi is not Star Wars.

/including, and especially, the non-TR CGI edits
//Tie Fighter, Timothy Zahn, and a few animated works aside...maybe
 
2011-05-16 6:34:05 PM  

apeiron242: Why do people still buy movies? Just stream it again.


Not everything is available for streaming.
 
2011-05-16 6:35:06 PM  
Seriously - leading with little Anakin? Lame. Shows that Lucas is still focused on the prequels at the cost of the movies people actually LIKED.
 
2011-05-16 6:43:18 PM  
LaurenAguilera: BUT THESE ARE BLU RAY!

GUARANTEED TO BE BETTER THAN THE DVDs EVEN THOUGH THE RECORDING TECHNOLOGY WASN'T AVAILABLE WHEN THEY WERE FILMED!

Sorry. I think buying old movies on blu-ray is kind of... a waste of monies. That is simply my opinion.

Oh, you...you're good. I really can't tell if you're trolling or not!

Assuming you're not, you just showed that your opinion is from a position of having absolutely no farking clue about which you are speaking. Therefore, it's a valueless opinion and would have been best kept to yourself.

Reminds me of my retail days. "Sorry, the CD you want came from Sony and has been recalled."

"Recalled? Why?"

"They put a rootkit on their CDs. Layman's terms, it secretly installs nasty stuff on your computer if you put it in your optical drive."

"Well, good. People deserve that if they're going to pirate music."

"They're not necessarily pirating. They're using their computers to listen or ripping it for their iPods..."

"So they're pirating. They deserve to have their computers messed up."

*sigh*
 
2011-05-16 6:45:45 PM  

MooseMuffin: HawgWild: What's wrong with it?

First, the box's cover includes young Anakin.
Second, the box's contents include the prequels.


This.
 
2011-05-16 6:48:33 PM  

apeiron242: Why do people still buy movies? Just stream it again.


Because movie companies believe I should pay to repeatedly stream things? Because internet service providers believe I should pay for that bandwidth?
 
2011-05-16 6:57:04 PM  

gunga galunga:
It perfectly captures the Star Wars franchise. Luke represents the original unaltered trilogy, the movies so many of us grew up with. It's back is to us, walking away from us, fading, soon to be gone forever. It is a ghost. One that will exist only in memory.

Anakin, the Jake Lloyd Anakin no less, represents the Star Wars of the Special Editions and prequels. The Star Wars of "Yippee!", Jabba the Oaf in Part IV, Jar Jar Binks and "hold me like you did by the lake of Naboo". It's walking towards in, in focus, coming closer. This is the Star Wars that remains. This is the only Star Wars that Lucas is letting us have. For better or worse, this is what we have to call Star Wars.

So, yeah, the cover art pretty much nails it.


And that's all, folks. Thread's over. Last one out turn off the lights.

/one newsletter subscription, please
 
2011-05-16 7:02:36 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: ... And as long as the original film elements are in good condition, no matter how old the film is, it can be scanned to create a digital version that is closer to how it looks on film, and looks better than any previous home video version...


That's the problem in this case, I think... Back in the 90s, when the SEs were being conceived, the original negative was found to be quite deteriorated. Here's a long, fascinating, and very technical account of the painful restoration process:

Saving Star Wars: The Special Edition Restoration Process and its Changing Physicality (new window)

After reading the articule, I wonder about two things: one, if the Blu Ray versions will be any good. Two: if we'll ever see again an original version that looks anything like the theater release... :(
 
2011-05-16 7:29:26 PM  
images.wikia.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-16 7:29:29 PM  
Actually, the stories of the original prints (camera negatives, really) of A New Hope being badly damaged over time are true. Primarily, everything shot in Tunisia (Tattoine).

Chatted with a Lucasfilm archivist years ago at a film archivist workshop that quietly confirmed that the Tattoine sequences, having a very light, sandy color palette meant that the emulsion layers on the physical film were quite thin for those scenes. Although kept in optimal archival conditions, those emulsion layers were so thin and washed out that Lucasfilm panicked about whether they would really be able to get high quality, high resolution transfers for future DVD / Blu-ray releases.

So yes, original prints / negatives do exist. But apparently those scenes shot in Tunisia looked like garbage.

Also, why not just have the damn droids on the Blu-ray box set cover? They travelled through the entire saga, and everyone seems to still like them.
 
2011-05-16 7:33:39 PM  

Mugato: That was bad ass.


Yeah, but it was before everyone found out what a terrible actor Jake Lloyd was.

/And about Jar Jar
 
2011-05-16 7:42:56 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Mugato: That was bad ass.

Yeah, but it was before everyone found out what a terrible actor Jake Lloyd was.

/And about Jar Jar


Kid was still better than Christensen.
 
2011-05-16 7:45:48 PM  
i55.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2011-05-16 7:53:29 PM  

cmunic8r99: images.wikia.com


I bashed my nose so hard against my laptop it (my nose) started bleeding when I cracked up at the very last line of that movie.
 
2011-05-16 8:00:55 PM  

The English Major: Somehow, I think that's the only way we'll see the non-bastardized versions on DVD.


ColSanders: I don't care if it had goatse as cover art, if the set included the original theatrical versions of the first three films I'd buy it.


Lunchlady: Just give me a Blu-ray with THX versions of the originals. That's all we want. I don't even need DVD menus, just go straight to the crawl.


shower_in_my_socks: All I want is a Blu-Ray set of the original trilogy without the crappy 90's CGI. MAYBE a little remastering of the audio/video to clean it up a little.

This is what every hardcore fan of Star Wars -- the ones who championed these films and Lucas from the very beginning -- wants to have


NeoCortex42: At this point, I'd probably be happy just getting a decent anamorphic widescreen release on DVD. the original versions as released on the previous DVD sets look horrible. They're thrown in just as extras and it shows.


fearmongert: That box set is the only reason I still own a VCR.


It's hard to believe people still haven't heard of Adywan's Star Wars: Revisited (new window).

Slide show of major changes (new window).

This is what the 2004 DVDs should have been.
 
2011-05-16 8:12:10 PM  
Fark that noise. I'd rather have had Jar Jar Binks on the cover than that kid.

Hayden Christensen and Luke? I'd have been OK with that. But not that farking kid.
 
2011-05-16 8:15:18 PM  
If Lucas does it right, you'll have the option of latest and greatest remastered version, or original theatrical version all on the same set.

Who am I kidding?
 
2011-05-16 8:52:39 PM  

MugzyBrown: LaurenAguilera: GUARANTEED TO BE BETTER THAN THE DVDs EVEN THOUGH THE RECORDING TECHNOLOGY WASN'T AVAILABLE WHEN THEY WERE FILMED!

Technically film is higher resolution than any digital format.


Those Silver halides are very tiny.
 
2011-05-16 9:10:30 PM  
AHHH HA HA HA

Wow, dude sure did get a lot of bites with that film quality jibe. Too bad he's right. 35mm film has superior visual quality... in fantasy land.

In reality - that 40-year-old strip of plastic has suffered irreparable damage and now features faded color, warping, scratches and so on. To say nothing of the muddy soundtrack with nonexistent highs and lows.

And the equipment used to record it is vastly inferior to what was being used at the end of film's lifetime.
 
2011-05-16 9:28:35 PM  
In regards to the conversations about 35mm film and digitalization..


I watched a remastered version of It's a Wonderful Life.

The quality of the picture was so stunning on our 55" 1080p, that the 'soap opera' effect came through and revealed how cheap some of the sets were.
 
2011-05-16 9:46:08 PM  

I Like Bread: AHHH HA HA HA

Wow, dude sure did get a lot of bites with that film quality jibe. Too bad he's right. 35mm film has superior visual quality... in fantasy land.

In reality - that 40-year-old strip of plastic has suffered irreparable damage and now features faded color, warping, scratches and so on. To say nothing of the muddy soundtrack with nonexistent highs and lows.

And the equipment used to record it is vastly inferior to what was being used at the end of film's lifetime.


I see you've seen Goodfellas on Blu-Ray as well...

/Seriously. It's just bad.
//That film-grain is SUPER CLEAR!
 
2011-05-16 9:47:22 PM  

NutWrench: The only way I would buy that set is with the Red Letter Media (new window) commentary.


static.rifftrax.comView Full Size


Without having investigated your link, let me just one up you.
 
2011-05-16 9:53:50 PM  

Kuroshin: I Like Bread: AHHH HA HA HA

Wow, dude sure did get a lot of bites with that film quality jibe. Too bad he's right. 35mm film has superior visual quality... in fantasy land.

In reality - that 40-year-old strip of plastic has suffered irreparable damage and now features faded color, warping, scratches and so on. To say nothing of the muddy soundtrack with nonexistent highs and lows.

And the equipment used to record it is vastly inferior to what was being used at the end of film's lifetime.

I see you've seen Goodfellas on Blu-Ray as well...

/Seriously. It's just bad.
//That film-grain is SUPER CLEAR!


The people doing the clean-up work on these films for bluray release are sometimes very stupid people.

Check out the Patton bluray, where they scrubbed every bit of grain from the film because seemingly, youngsters today don't know that film grain existed, and think it's dirt.
 
2011-05-16 9:59:03 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Kuroshin: I Like Bread: AHHH HA HA HA

Wow, dude sure did get a lot of bites with that film quality jibe. Too bad he's right. 35mm film has superior visual quality... in fantasy land.

In reality - that 40-year-old strip of plastic has suffered irreparable damage and now features faded color, warping, scratches and so on. To say nothing of the muddy soundtrack with nonexistent highs and lows.

And the equipment used to record it is vastly inferior to what was being used at the end of film's lifetime.

I see you've seen Goodfellas on Blu-Ray as well...

/Seriously. It's just bad.
//That film-grain is SUPER CLEAR!

The people doing the clean-up work on these films for bluray release are sometimes very stupid people.

Check out the Patton bluray, where they scrubbed every bit of grain from the film because seemingly, youngsters today don't know that film grain existed, and think it's dirt.



these types of tards obviously haven't seen Black Swan, etc....
 
2011-05-16 10:05:00 PM  
If you want to see good restorations of a couple old films, check out the restorations of Wizard of Oz or Gone With the Wind. Those both look amazing now. Way better than you would ever expect films that old to be able to look.
 
2011-05-16 10:09:56 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Kuroshin: I Like Bread: AHHH HA HA HA

Wow, dude sure did get a lot of bites with that film quality jibe. Too bad he's right. 35mm film has superior visual quality... in fantasy land.

In reality - that 40-year-old strip of plastic has suffered irreparable damage and now features faded color, warping, scratches and so on. To say nothing of the muddy soundtrack with nonexistent highs and lows.

And the equipment used to record it is vastly inferior to what was being used at the end of film's lifetime.

I see you've seen Goodfellas on Blu-Ray as well...

/Seriously. It's just bad.
//That film-grain is SUPER CLEAR!

The people doing the clean-up work on these films for bluray release are sometimes very stupid people.

Check out the Patton bluray, where they scrubbed every bit of grain from the film because seemingly, youngsters today don't know that film grain existed, and think it's dirt.


Patton's not really in my wheel house. Got any other oldies worth checking out? I've already seen Goodfellas, A Clockwork Orange, Dawn of the Dead and The Godfather on BRD. All of them did look sharper, but in a bad way. Yes, I understand that older films have artifacts. My position is that those artifacts detract enough from the overall picture that there is an upper limit to the clarity worth seeking in film conversions. When 30% of the image is grain and flaws, the other 70% doesn't benefit much from being crystal clear (because remember, the grain and flaws are spread across the entire image like a filter). The lower fidelity of DVD and the processing effect of upscaling served to actually wash out those natural film artifacts. You trade a bit of sharpness for better overall visual clarity (think along the lines of FSAA).

Movies that were filmed with modern equipment are much better served by BRD. No film grain or natural flaws to deal with. If I'm going to watch an old, grainy movie, I don't miss the sharpness and I certainly do not wish to pay the price premium for a BRD edition.

Of course, Star Wars has been retouched by some of the finest hands in the business, so a BRD release is probably going to look like any modern film recorded using RED cameras. Most others, though...

/I watch the movies for the story, not the graphics
 
2011-05-16 10:14:07 PM  
Oh, and yes, it is my opinion that watching a perfectly clear, yet grainy movie isn't worth paying the premium. I know that there are people for whom the grain is actually part of the experience. They can buy those BRD conversions and be happy. I'll take the cleaner (yet fuzzier) DVD.

Just different tastes.

/most certainly NOT a film geek
//more into electronics
///less "Comic Book Guy" and more "Powerlabs Guy"
 
2011-05-16 10:14:53 PM  

Kuroshin:

Patton's not really in my wheel house. Got any other oldies worth checking out? I've already seen Goodfellas, A Clockwork Orange, Dawn of the Dead and The Godfather on BRD. All of them did look sharper, but in a bad way. Yes, I understand that older films have artifacts. My position is that those artifacts detract enough from the overall picture that there is an upper limit to the clarity worth seeking in film conversions. When 30% of the image is grain and flaws, the other 70% doesn't benefit much from being crystal clear (because remember, the grain and flaws are spread across the entire image like a filter). The lower fidelity of DVD and the processing effect of upscaling served to actually wash out those natural film artifacts. You trade a bit of sharpness for better overall visual clarity (think along the lines of FSAA).


Citizen Kane.

It isn't on Bluray yet, just regular DVD. And the reason is probably because the original negatives were junked or lost over the years, and Paramount had to do major reconstruction on the film. However, when they did their reconstruction, they scrubbed it clean... so clean that they wound up removing rain from one scene, believing it was dirt and grain.
 
2011-05-16 10:17:15 PM  
smh.

film grain is NOT a flaw.
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.