Star Wars Blu-ray Release Date Set for Sept. 16

[Guest]

@chris_bc_33

you must be retarded or autistic. everything you said was off by one degree. do you even know what the "p" stands for? PROGRESSIVE VIDEO. IT CAN ONLY BE DONE DIGITALLY. sorry, kid.... you're probably some hipster who thinks using tube amps produce the best sound. analog is dead. digital is here to stay. you are grasping onto the past. quit reminiscing and start evolving.

 

[shoelessinsight]

[citation][nom]chris_bc_33[/nom]As for me I'd like to see them release the originals without the revisionist history. The first Star Wars movie had no episode at all, for example. The "Episode IV" garbage was added later. Even the so called episode VI was simply "Star Wars III" back when it was released. If you doubt this I suggest checking for the old Newsweek cover from the 80's before spouting off, and read the George Lucas interview inside while you're at it.[/citation]
Not quite correct. I distinctly remember the original VHS release in the 80's having the episodes IV-VI tags in the introductions. Wikipedia, for what it's worth, confirms that the second two movies were released in theaters as episodes V and VI, with the first Star Wars film having its episode number added later. You are right, however, that media at the time didn't give much attention to the official episode numbers.

From Wikipedia:
"The film series began with Star Wars, released on May 25, 1977. This was followed by two sequels: The Empire Strikes Back, released on May 21, 1980, and Return of the Jedi, released on May 25, 1983. The opening crawl of the sequels disclosed that they were numbered as "Episode V" and "Episode VI" respectively, though the films were generally advertised solely under their subtitles. Though the first film in the series was simply titled Star Wars, it later had the subtitle Episode IV: A New Hope added to distinguish it from its sequels and prequels."

 

[chris_bc_33]

I'm fully aware that the "p" stands for progressive, but in your case it's Pinhead. Progressive in this discussion refers to the apparent visual quality seen by the viewer. Your eyes and your brain aren't seeing anything in digital, so the only thing relevant is how good it looks when you watch it.

The original assertion was that Blu-ray wouldn't yield any higher quality, and the discussion went from there. The 6000 was an estimate by someone earlier as to what film could do. Go do some research on equivalent resolutions in film versus digital and maybe you will learn something.

 

[chris_bc_33]

shoelessinsight - Have you checked out the Newsweek issue I mentioned? I don't know if I trust Wikipedia, and I know there have been many revisions to the VHS/Laservision/DVD versions made available for sale.

Check out www.originaltrilogy.com for some guys that are really into maintaining the original theatrical releases. I just looked at it briefly a few minutes ago.

 

[emergancy exit]

it would be neet to see episode 1-3 on blueray because it was shot at sutch a wide angle upscaled for hdtv there could be even more on both sides that you missed when when the resolutions were only 480p. as for the "they diddint have hdtv back then" argument they diddint have DVDs either. and the VHS's are far from lossless data. you lose so much detail when you go from film to VHS. and when they put it on dvd the first time it was far from lossless i think the data limit was just 3gb back then? the blue rays will have at least 10 times more data on them.

at first i thought the MSRPs were a bit high but then agaain those are just the sugestaid retail price. expect to be able to pick all 6 disks at wallmart or target for under 100 bucks especially during black friday

 

[pirateboy]

george lucas failed epicly making episodes 1, 2 and 3
check out these best star wars reviews ever:
http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/

 

[eberleeeee]

I will just wait until the movies are re-re-re-released in 3D in a few years...

Milk that cow...

 

[magicandy]

[citation][nom]Derrrrr -- Thats You[/nom]@chris_bc_33you must be retarded or autistic. everything you said was off by one degree. do you even know what the "p" stands for? PROGRESSIVE VIDEO. IT CAN ONLY BE DONE DIGITALLY. sorry, kid.... you're probably some hipster who thinks using tube amps produce the best sound. analog is dead. digital is here to stay. you are grasping onto the past. quit reminiscing and start evolving.[/citation]

He didn't say the movies back then were displayed in 6000p, he said that was their digital equivalent in resolution. Older movies obviously didn't have a resolution because they were projected from analog film, but as far as raw detail is concerned a 35mm film is very close to that obscenely high resolution. It's the entire reason why you can make a Blu-ray of an old movie and have it breathe new life into it. The last time people were able to see the movie look this good or better was all the way back then in the theaters.

When TVs upgrade to 4K/2160p resolution (3840x2160 which is the next step already made by many TV manufacturers, albeit still incredibly expensive), they will still be able to re-release old movies and make them look yet even better. Movies even way back in the 60s were made with incredibly high quality, high detail 35mm film that home viewing technologies are now only beginning to even remotely approach.

 

[jn77]

and in other news, the 9 disc set will be $50 12 months after it is released and everyone gets hosed by the first release

 

[mayankleoboy1]

milk it to the death seems to be Lucas' motto

 

[dark_lord69]

[citation][nom]chmils1[/nom]$CDN is worth more than $US, why the f*ck are we paying more? Suck it, Lucas.[/citation]
No, it's not.
US dollars are worth more than CDN dollars. The prices are correct...
If you don't believe me look it up.

 

[Guest]

I just looked it up. US is worth less. American economy is in the dumps and Canada has oil.

 

[Guest]

xe.com
1 USD = 0.963400 CAD
1 CAD = 1.03799 USD

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]mshahin[/nom]To be honest, why would he go this far? Gets annoying how there's a new fer of the classics every year or so. Just leave them how they were, and stop messing them up Plus, since the originals weren't filmed in HD, would blu ray even make a dif?[/citation]
Films on cellulose don't have pixels, so go back to school before making yourself sound dumb.

 

[Stardude82]

I's a trap!

 

[iNiNe5]

[citation][nom]chmils1[/nom]$CDN is worth more than $US, why the f*ck are we paying more? Suck it, Lucas.[/citation]

higher import taxes, airport landing fees, etc..... drives up the costs.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]iNiNe5[/nom]higher import taxes, airport landing fees, etc..... drives up the costs.[/citation]
DVDs and Blurays don't get printed, boxed and shipped by airfreight complete to Europe.
They are transmitted digitally and produced locally for distribution by road and rail, exactly the same as in the USA.

 

[Jarmo]

Does Han Solo... ? Nevermind then, I'll wait.

 

[distanted]

I think the reason some '70s films look so bad on Blu-Ray or SD DVD is because the studios are using a second rate copy of the of the original print, or worse, a one inch master tape that was state-of-the art in 1980. Lucas, on the other hand, pushes the digital envelope to make sure his cash cow- er, artwork, is preserved at the highest quality, using a format known as Ludicrous K.

 

[f-gomes]

[citation][nom]mshahin[/nom]To be honest, why would he go this far? Gets annoying how there's a new fer of the classics every year or so. Just leave them how they were, and stop messing them up Plus, since the originals weren't filmed in HD, would blu ray even make a dif?[/citation]

[citation][nom]mshahin[/nom]To be honest, why would he go this far? Gets annoying how there's a new fer of the classics every year or so. Just leave them how they were, and stop messing them up Plus, since the originals weren't filmed in HD, would blu ray even make a dif?[/citation]

Not filmed in HD? Dude, it was recorded in FILM. 35mm film. The resolution is miles above what you call 'HD'.