Puphlicus Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 I noticed some confusion among members here on a few matters. I'll keep this post brief. First off this DVD release is absolutely a limited release - not only is it limited edition, it's been sent out in limited runs. That means retailers are only allowed to buy a "quota" given to them from Fox. ~ paragraph omitted. we don't encourage bootlegging Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Mybe so, but the DVD set can be found everywhere. My grocery store is selling them, for crying out loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 i believe what he means is that they will only be out for a limited time, and of course your grocery store sells them, they wouldn't wanna miss out on the exta buck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puphlicus Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 What I mean is they're not only a limited release, but it's sent to retailers in limited runs. That effectively means EzyDVD was only allowed to buy a certain quota - 10,000 maybe (I believe that is about their quota too). Once they've sold-out (or nearly sold their quota) they'll ask Fox for more, and they'll be given a second quota. As for bootlegs, I'm a bit disappointed Lynk Former chose to edit my message, but allows the other ones talking about bootlegs on eBay to remain. I was trying to help people out by showing them there is an alternative to eBay prices - pay less than half and you do get better quality. I have 3 different sets, currently, two of the best available sets, and a third inferior one. I'm following development on new sets that are currently being created at the forums I linked to - which I won't link to now because it was edited before and I wouldn't want to "break the same rule again" What we see on eBay is generally people selling DrGonzo's version (anamorphic NTSC, "stereo", commentary track, chapter selections - identical to the chapter markers on the definitive edition laser discs, easter eggs and a supplemental material disc that is not always included by those who duplicate and eBay them). It's a good set, one of the best - but it's not the best. For a start it's a lot blurrier than TR-47's which hasn't been stretched and is non-anamorphic (same as the source material), it only has dolby digital stereo sound from the matrixed prologic track; rather than a PCM of it (4 channel surround sound). I guess you could argue "you can't expect all that from bootlegs anyway". But then that poses the question as to the purpose of the bootleg. In my mind it is to preserve the film as best a is possible, from the source material (in this case laserdiscs). To the mods: Bootlegging something that hasn't been commercially available for 9 years, is hardly the same a pirating something available today. George Lucas release movies this year, but he did not release the original star wars trilogy. Let me explain. In the movie "Red Dragon" there is 1 scene from "Silence of the Lambs" that was used in it (because it couldn't be filmed for Red Dragon). Everything else is new content. Does this make the movie "Silence of the Lambs" because one scene from "Silence of the Lambs" was used in it? Of course not! Does it make it "Manhunter" the original 1986 movie? No, it's a remake. Same thing with the Star Was Trilogy 2004 Special Edition. It is to the original trilogy as much of a remake as Red Dragon, or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The fact that it has certain scenes in it from another movie, doesn't change the fundamental fact that they are completely different, separate movies. Apples to Oranges as Lucas himself would say. I know you're probably thinking "but 80% of the movie is the same". I have seen the movies. 80% is not the same at all. For a start they have completely new soundtracks. There are so many changes I couldn't begin to explain them all. For a scene to be "new" in my mind, it either has to be non-original sound and/or picture. I'd say at least 50% of the sound in the trilogy has been altered. Add to that the special effects, colour level manipulation, digital alterations and alike - and I'd say your movie about 30% "original". The other 70% has changed. So this release has unoriginal content in them in them for at least 70% of the time. Ergo, they may as well be remakes, they are completely different movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Cleaning up the quality of the film hardly constitutes a remake! Especially when they hardly reshoot anything! If it were a "new film" as you suggest, they would have to mostly go back and start over. They may have altered a lot of it, but those changes were not taking out the old and replaceing them, so even if 70% of it is changed, at least 90% of it is not new! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puphlicus Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 Cleaning the film is not altering it. That was undertaken by an Australian company and they did their job well. So well in fact Lucas was surprised they managed to finish on time; but the cells were in such bad shape that they'd still be working on them if Lucas had let them. Colour boosting is altering the material. We're not talking about just casually adjusting the contrast and colour levels, but actually going and changing certain parts of the colour. Even the opening crawls are new (in every movie since the special edition). Changing the audio is hugely changing the movie. Replacing actors with new ones is new material, inserting special effects is new material - and you probably have no idea just how many new effects are in the movies. Greedo, Shaw (Anakin), Stormtroopers, Space Shots, Aliens, Locations... here I'll show you some screenshots... Spot the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 The point is though, that they are still of the exact same thing. It is still the same model, they did not go out and rebuild it to shoot it again. They may have changed a large numer of cells, but they changed them only slightly (percentage wise). Changing the actors, that part I will concede, but it is not sufficient for me to accept the claims you are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puphlicus Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 Look at the screenshots I posted again. It's clear that only one very small part of it may be the same. The star field is different. The floor and all the walls are different. The hatch is different. And the model is not the same. Look at the height thickness, and the black round spots, etc. Look at the pilot part - and plenty of other details of the model are completely different and prove it to be replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Shok_tinoktin is correct in saying this was not a new movie, or a rebuilding of the old one, i think the best way to describe it overall is an enhancement, of both the visual and audio materials, not different, just improved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Originally posted by Puphlicus Look at the screenshots I posted again. It's clear that only one very small part of it may be the same. The star field is different. The floor and all the walls are different. The hatch is different. And the model is not the same. Look at the height thickness, and the black round spots, etc. Look at the pilot part - and plenty of other details of the model are completely different and prove it to be replaced. I did look at your screenshots again. What I saw was, the Millenium Falcon, two rows of 5 stormtroopers each running up to it. Some form of deep pit. A big opening in the background. You see where I'm going with this. It may be a little easier on the eyes, but it is still the same set, the same ship, the same ten guys in suits, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 they simply added stars and a little more detail to some things, tis all, everything else is the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Regardless of your feelings on bootlegging, the rules are such that we don't encourage the practice. What people do on their own time with a search engine or through people they know is none of our affair. Certainly buying laserdiscs or vhs tapes off ebay or some movie store and then mastering your own custom dvd cuts is not illegal (shouldn't be, anyway) and that's perfectly fine to talk about here. Just don't post sites that bootleg stuff and don't try to shill it here and you should be okay. The bottom line is we don't want to get in trouble with Lucas for promoting something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Originally posted by Puphlicus Cleaning the film is not altering it. That was undertaken by an Australian company and they did their job well. So well in fact Lucas was surprised they managed to finish on time; but the cells were in such bad shape that they'd still be working on them if Lucas had let them. Colour boosting is altering the material. We're not talking about just casually adjusting the contrast and colour levels, but actually going and changing certain parts of the colour. Even the opening crawls are new (in every movie since the special edition). Changing the audio is hugely changing the movie. Replacing actors with new ones is new material, inserting special effects is new material - and you probably have no idea just how many new effects are in the movies. Greedo, Shaw (Anakin), Stormtroopers, Space Shots, Aliens, Locations... here I'll show you some screenshots... Spot the difference. Okay there are obviously differences there. The righthand wall is different (not just the lights added) and the reflections it casts on the floor. The lefthand upper section is different (new lights for example). The inside of that elevator shaft is different. On the ground there is a new "arrow stripe" on the ground under the Falcon (right side). The rest is pretty much just cleaned up and brightened. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll have to add that to my list of DVD changes when I get a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 but would you consider it to be a remade movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Me? I wouldn't consider it a re-made movie, just an edited version, like a new cut of the same movie. Example, there are numerous movies with "director's cuts" that have new or modified scenes that drastically change character motivations, actions, history, flow and story narrative. A movie like ET that has a couple of digital changes made to it, likewise. While few movies have the level of changes made to them that Star Wars has had, I'd still class it in the same category. I wouldn't put it on par of the shot-for-shot remake of Psycho, or the remake of King Kong. Are the LOTR Extended DVD Editions, "the same movies"? Back to Star Wars DVD: Despite some cosmetic changes to certain scenes and a few soundtrack modifications, it's still the same movie, just a different cut. I mean Lucas was tweaking the movies all the way back in the 80's, adding a new title to Star Wars, added one or two scenes and changing/adding new dialouge (dubbing over Beru's lines one of the most radical examples). I too would like the originals (cleaned up visually and aurally, but with no CGI changes or added/changed scenes) on DVD, but like I've said before, it's Lucas's stubbornness that's keeping that from happening. Hopefully he'll change his mind. If you want to see what I mean by how much a "new cut" can change a film, take a look at a couple of DVD's (I realize these won't be popular choices): This is Spinal Tap (on the DVD there is a really long, about as long as the regular movie series of alternate takes of scenes including some deleted stuff, very different). Highlander: Endgame (the DVD itself is a different cut of the movie than what some of us were unlucky enough to see in theaters, and there is a third alternate cut in raw form on the DVD as a "bonus" insight into the process of creating the film). So no, it's not the same movie, but it's not a full remake either. Some would say that removing the film grain is a major blasphemy and ruins the entire film. I'd ask you, if you have a colorized version of a black & white movie, would you consider that a remake or an edited version? Because in that case you have 100% of the visual film changed from what it was originally. I agree, colorization is a travesty (intersting process, but I want the originals in all cases) of course. In another case we have Silent Movies. Silent movies aren't really silent, they just lack spoken dialouge (well, for the most part, the first "talkie" the Jazz Singer has only snippets of dialouge in connection with songs, the majority of the film is still done in Silent style with those dialouge text plates in between lip movement with no words coming out and a music score). Silent Films originally were shown on a screen with the audience watching while a live music performance was going on. This usually was a person playing an organ, piano or other music. Sometimes they had instruments ready to make sound effects (not unlike foley editors or radio). While many films had pre-created packets for theaters to use with pre-arranged sheet music, etc, some theaters had stuff that was impromptu for the evening, meaning every performance would be unique. Nowadays we are used to getting the VHS tape, DVD or whatnot and that's it. So silent movies that have been put on DVD are being restored (played at the proper speed, cleaned up if possible and with added tints as the originals had) but the question is of the soundtracks. Usually these are re-created, sometimes with music from the period, othertimes with modern music that is just geared towards the "feeling" of the picture. But this does change drastically from what the original experience must have been like. I agree that the originals should be preserved, but I also admit that the lines between what constitute the original and what constitutes "too much change" is being blurred by technology and changing venues of these forms of entertainment. For the first time the Star Wars Trilogy has been "made" for DVD, rather than for the theaters. Remember the Special Editions were in theaters first. Nobody has seen the 2004 Editions outside of a DVD playing TV, portable player or computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Btw, are you sure about all this "limited" stuff? Because I've seen it marketed like that in UK ads and such, but here in the US there's no indication given (at least not to the customers). Most DVD's they sell them pretty much forever unless the distributor goes bankrupt or a new edition is coming out. Could this mean that Lucas has a new version planned already? And I don't mean the rumored HD-DVD/Blu-Ray "30th Anniversary" set in 2007. Because if there is only one Star Wars DVD set (note the format) then there is only one Star Wars DVD set. Why stop selling it after a couple of years? I can still buy DVD's from 1997 made by other companies, after all... unless they've been replaced by new editions, in which case they are super hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 Originally posted by Puphlicus In the movie "Red Dragon" there is 1 scene from "Silence of the Lambs" that was used in it (because it couldn't be filmed for Red Dragon). Everything else is new content. Does this make the movie "Silence of the Lambs" because one scene from "Silence of the Lambs" was used in it? Of course not! Does it make it "Manhunter" the original 1986 movie? No, it's a remake. red dragon is a prequel, an entirely different movie, NOT a remake. A remake is the same movie, reshot, with new actors. the OT DVD's are not remakes, but rather remasters. also, laserdiscs are still for sale at many stores. and we don't support the selling of LD rips, this is bootlegging which is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puphlicus Posted October 13, 2004 Author Share Posted October 13, 2004 Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin I did look at your screenshots again. What I saw was, the Millenium Falcon, two rows of 5 stormtroopers each running up to it. Some form of deep pit. A big opening in the background. You see where I'm going with this. It may be a little easier on the eyes, but it is still the same set, the same ship, the same ten guys in suits, etc. Alright, here it is in a later shot, this time you will more clearly see that the Millennium Falcon has indeed been replaced. In fact lines have been added to the opening (the border) in this shot too (Leia is looking through some sort of concrete hole). The only part of the shot I showed earlier that may be the same is the stormtropers, everything else has been digitally replaced. Originally posted by Kurgan Certainly buying laserdiscs or vhs tapes off ebay or some movie store and then mastering your own custom dvd cuts is not illegal (shouldn't be, anyway) and that's perfectly fine to talk about here. Just don't post sites that bootleg stuff and don't try to shill it here and you should be okay. Yes it is illegal, both here in Australia and there in the US. In fact if my memory serves me correctly you yanks aren't even entitled to back up software anymore. And yes I'm sure about it being limited. Lucas will stop production soon, probably before Christmas. Since it's been so successful he can afford to do it. It will keep demand up. Originally posted by InsaneSith red dragon is a prequel, an entirely different movie, NOT a remake. Red Dragon is the second movie made based on the book Red Dragon by Thomas Harris. Ergo it is a remake, and an incredibly poor one when compared to the original movie (Manhunter). Though it can be argued Manhunter has "less in common with the book" - I find that it held the spirit of the book together better. They both changed the ending, (so did the other two movies Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal). Manhunter isn't as dumbed-down as Red Dragon is either. And Cox's portrayal of Lecter is way closer to Harris' character than Hopkins'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 the point is still, the Falcon is still in the exact same spot, the cell is set up the exact same way. It is by no reasonable definition a remake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 interesting that the stormtroopers have moved, although, i presume the excuse for that is different frames... :rollseyes" seriously though, people have a point when they say visually enhanced is not a remake, but a remastering. In fact, movies that are now put on dvd from original film say "digitally remastered", not "this is a new movie" On the front of the DVD box set box(the outmost box that holds the other boxes) it says in the bottom right hand corner "digitally mastered-- for superior sound and picture quality" i think that said it all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 lol, "Superior Sound" Yeah, sorry, while I like alot of the enhancements done to the DVD versions (especially toning down the responce time of Han's blaster bolt - which killed Greedo - considerably (if you don't know it, I don't think you will notice the head bob Han makes as easily as you did back in the re-release in -97), although I would have prefered the original gunning-him-down-without-any-hesitation version ) the sound on this DVD version, atleast in ANH, - and it's especially noticable in the opening scene - does not have the same punch as it used to be. There's not the same large roar from the Tantive passing infront of the camera with the Devastator in hot pursuit, and the first turbo laser hit is a fart in comparisson to what it used to be. In short, the opening scene has lost some of it's awe factor (but it's still awe inspiring to see the Devastator just keep going and going and going ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 plus some of the dialogue sounds very unnatural, it has kind of a wierd effect to it. Still, the quality of the DVD overall is astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 it seemed like the yoda/obiwan scene on dagobah, when luke leaves, like the spotlight was brightened, also there were parts that looked completely digitized. on the bright side, the eiopes and other CG things seemed more integrated and real than in SE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shok_Tinoktin Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Isn't that getting a little off topic, considering there are other threads for discussing the DVD changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 we got off topic a long time ago when bootlegs were brought up, it went downhill from there, and the title of this thread in very generic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.