Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Yikes... more OT STAR WARS DVD details have been released and Quint goes on a little rant...

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. No one was more excited than I was to hear about Lucas finally relenting and releasing the original un-fucked with Trilogy on DVD. I bitch a lot about the Special Editions and am very critical of the prequels and as a result I could never bring myself to purchase the SE STAR WARS TRILOGY DVDs that finally hit a while back, despite the gorgeous transfer. I found myself watching the DVDs and getting into the movies, reverting back to my childhood self and then being pulled out of the experience every time some cartoon abortion popped up for no good reason.

I have my laserdisc copies of the original films, so I just held out hope that Lucas would realize how much more money he could make when he released the Original Theatrical versions on a better format.

Now he has and I am thankful, although the more and more I hear about the release the less enthusiastic I'm becoming. Let's start with the DVD covers... they're terrible. Check them out:

When you have someone like Drew Struzan at your disposal... someone who has done brilliant work on the most cheesy STAR WARS novel and did fantastic work on the '97 SE release posters, why go for that Photoshopped crap? Okay, you don't want to spend much money on this new release, don't want to pay for 3 more Struzan paintings... why not use original poster art? claims those above pieces are mimicking the original theatrical campaign, which is rubbish. If you don't want to use the obvious one-sheets, how about the lesser used poster styles for this Limited Edition release? Make it feel special for the fans, especially since this is all about the release of the original theatrical editions afterall? Here's what I'd pick:

But that's all surface stuff. The important stuff is the content. The releases are going to be the 1995 Laserdisc masters and The Digital Bits confirmed today that they won't even be anamorphic widescreen transfers, just the letterboxed transfers, which would mean we're not getting the full theatrical experience. For sound junkies there is no option to listen to a digitally remastered THX soundtrack. We'll get the two-channel stereo. I'm not a stickler on this one. I can't complain on this one. This is how it was originally released and on some films, like JAWS, I prefer the original soundtrack as the 5.1 sound on the first JAWS DVD sounded canned and just wrong.

UPDATE: I was alerted to the fact that all the original STAR WARS films were released as 70mm experiences during their releases, which would mean they did have a 6-channel audio mix originally, so the 2-channel stereo only option on the DVD just became officially ridiculous.

God, I really didn't want this to sound like fanboy whining, but I guess it is going that way, isn't it? I said that if Lucas released the original theatrical versions on DVD by themselves with no extra features whatsoever, I'd pay double to pick them up than I'd spend on a spiffy SE set. I just assumed he'd at least give us an anamorphic transfer for the DVD. As it stands now, the laserdiscs I have now are going to be equal to the quality of the DVDs they're releasing.

Puts me in a bit of a pickle. I'm convinced Lucas is just squeezing this release in while DVD is still going strong and will eventually release a digitally remastered version of the original cuts on whatever the next generation home video will be... blu-ray, HD, whatever. I'm positive of it. However, do I want to take the gamble that this will be the only way to own my favorite Trilogy on DVD (that's not a bootleg, of course)?

Oh, and before I start getting yelled at for wishing for a digitally remastered DVD because then I'd be wanting something more than the theatrical cuts... It's one thing to clean up the original film, it's another thing to have CGI creatures running around. Would you call that brilliant WIZARD OF OZ DVD transfer that came out last Christmas a Special Edition? No, it's just cleaned up and all the original elements were just presented as clear and beautiful as they were photographed to be.

So, this turned into a much longer rant than I intended it to be. What is it about STAR WARS that brings this out in geeks? Sorry about that. Believe it or not, I'm not complaining about the original theatrical editions finally coming to DVD. I'm very happy about that. I just have some problems with the release and felt the need to vent. I'm just getting tired of the way the fans always seem to be getting shafted on the original STAR WARS films. Lucas called the original theatrical versions "work prints" and it seems like he still feels that way. What do you folks think?

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 17, 2006, 6:03 p.m. CST

    Talkback degerates to: "Wah wah, I want my anamorphic!"

    by Tall_Boy

    "And 5.1 sounds! Wah, wah, fucking, wah!" Etc. etc. You're getting the originals now. shut up. Eat it.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:09 p.m. CST

    I second exactly what Tall_Boy said...

    by Edward_nygma

    ...shut up. Eat it.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:10 p.m. CST

    You wanted them untouched! Lucas says F.U.!!!

    by ShiftyEyedDog

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! This is great! All you whining fanboys wanted them unchanged and you got it! Lucas gave you just what you asked for! Oh, wait.... you want them changed, but only in ways you approve of! Stop your bitching. If you dont want it, dont buy it.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:11 p.m. CST

    those were great posters

    by TodayzSpecial

    I agree that they should've gone totally retro with the old posters on the dvd boxed sets. I bet they'll do that with the blu-ray or HD. Are there any extras?

  • May 17, 2006, 6:12 p.m. CST

    Oh Lordy

    by CaptDanielRoe

    I didn't hate the new films desperately, I sort of love them on their own as a standalone. But damned if the originally trilogy doesn't stand as source material for someone to make some new kick ass movies. And that includes as source material not so much the contents of the celluloid, but the world of expectations and spurred fantasies; many unrealized but some recorded as in that marvelous art above. I don't mean swiping the trademarks, obviously. But it's not like they were exactly original to begin with. And you know what, I think Lucas would second what I just wrote.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:13 p.m. CST

    there was so much backlash

    by Monkey Butler

    against the Special Edition DVDs, and so many people actually said they'd prefer just the originals, nothing more. Now you're getting that. You really can't complain. Yes, it's probably just Lucas money-grubbing, but he's been doing that for about 20 years now, and you're actually getting exactly what you asked for, so where's the beef?

  • May 17, 2006, 6:14 p.m. CST

    Those Cover images stink!

    by Christopher_atUC

    I'm shocked that they're putting those crappy Photoshopped image on the cover. Star Wars has a history of excellent artwork, and the posters that were chosen for this article are wonderful examples of that art. It seems they just don't care about the fans anymore, and they have no interest in giving us what we want.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Meat puppets

    by jasper Stillwell

    Like Lucas could give a rats' ass - he has the 'stuff' kiddies and knows he just has to wave it at you to make you snaffle it all up....the Christmas special will be next, you know it, with special CGI inserts and a couple of new songs with the assistance of Kanye West. You know it.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST

    Anamorphic widescreen is NOT changing the films.

    by MrD

    Neither is cleaning them. 5.1 surround? Yes, that IS an alteration, and so I don't mind getting plain old stereo here. The idea should be to showcase the films, not dump them on the audience.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:15 p.m. CST

    yeah, it sounds like he is screwing them up on purpose

    by Rupee88

    The fact that they won't be anamorphic transfers is absurd. He's trying to sabotage these releases as much as possible. The DVD cover art does look really amateurish. Well, I haven't bought any SW DVDs and probably won't buy this one either. I have a bootleg one from the laserdiscs and that will suffice.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST

    actually i agree

    by TheLastBystander

    i'm not the biggest SW fan ever, but I was glad to hear the original releases were coming. However, I don't think it's too much to ask that the prints be restored... I mean technically we're not getting what was there originally, we're getting worn down crappy prints. That's why stuff is remastered, to help recreate the original experience. It's done with almost every big film (from The Towering Inferno to Lawrence of Arabia), and if it ends up these rumors are true, I will not be picking up this set. Simple as that.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST

    It's Too Soon!


    I'm not over the trauma of Jar-Jar Binks. Why must we open these old wounds?

  • May 17, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Again, this is not the originals

    by Quint

    I want the originals. Nothing more, as you guys have said. I want the original mono/stereo soundtrack. I want the matte lines clearly visable. Do you not understand why I'd be upset about the transfer not being anamorphic? The films weren't originally released letterboxed, fellas. They were originally released in anamorphic widescreen. You can act as cynically superior all you want, but you're incorrect if you say we're getting what we asked for and now whining about it.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:18 p.m. CST

    " You know what this needs? More Outer Glow!"

    by Big Bad Clone

    Those are worse than the stuff I saw in a recent Photoshop class.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:19 p.m. CST

    George Lucas raped my wallet!!

    by Sonic Reducer

    I'm holding out for the super double secret midichlorian yoda smackdown editions where Chewie parts his fur to the left. But that's just me.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Why not put out a crappy version?

    by I_Snake_Plissken

    Hey you lemmings, don

  • May 17, 2006, 6:20 p.m. CST

    and i don't own...

    by TheLastBystander

    ... the first special edition release of the dvds. unlike some fans, I like Star Wars a lot, but I don't think they're the greatest movies ever, and I don't feel the need to give Lucas any money for a product that is not up to par. I do have dvd rips tho. Yeah, I'm evil.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:20 p.m. CST

    George Lucas Should Sell Drugs.

    by buster00

    He would be good at it. And he would make more money.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:21 p.m. CST


    by IAmJack'sUserID

    Stupid generic Roman Numeral crap! Where is the awesome logos that we saw 30 years ago! Lucas didn't rape my childhood but he definitely hugged it a little too overly-friendly.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:21 p.m. CST

    good point Quint

    by TheLastBystander

    again I agree. and yes, it's about getting money. thats' ALL IT IS ABOUT. Lucas has made one hit film, and has been riding it forever (Empire technically wasn't his film, American Grafitti was a hit though, and the prequels wouldn't have done well if they weren't STAR WARS. otherwise they are mediocre Sci-Fi.)

  • May 17, 2006, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Why bitch about the DVD covers now?

    by DocPazuzu

    They've been equally horrible since The Phantom Menace came out. These new ones are in the same hideous style. Like the guy said, go online and download any number of cool covers. My LD rip DVDs have the original movie poster art and look great. The spines are designed to go along with the official releases so they really fit in with the others on the shelf.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:22 p.m. CST


    by vinceklortho

    You think they were going to put that poster art on the original trilogy covers? Believe me, I would love to see that as well, but this is just pure nerdy wishing and dreaming. By the way, Empire isn't too bad, special edition, so that keeps me happy. But, on the other hand, me needs Return of the Jedi...ORIGINAL!! The Ewok song is so much better at the end and doesn't have that stupid ass cartoon dancing in it. Anyway, George Lucas could give two shits...otherwise us lowly Star War nerds will cease to exist. We need to bitch continually about Star Wars until the day we day..we shall never be happy. Anyway, I don't know if I want to buy this new set. Maybe I'll ask my Grandma to buy it for me for next Christmas. hahaha, see you later, Granny! You can pay Lucas!

  • May 17, 2006, 6:22 p.m. CST

    Wait Wait Wait....

    by Darth Melkor

    These are NOT anamorphic transfers? So on a widescreen HDTV it'll be in the middle, or stretched out to look like garbage? Lucas just lost my purchase, seriously.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:23 p.m. CST

    and finally

    by TheLastBystander

    if you want to show you disapprove, DON'T BUY THIS. that simple, he keeps milking it because dumbass fans keep buying.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:25 p.m. CST

    I even have...

    by DocPazuzu

    ...LD rip DVDs of the 1997 re-releases with the new Struzan art covers.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:25 p.m. CST

    What The Hell Am I Saying...?

    by buster00

    George Lucas DOES sell drugs.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:28 p.m. CST

    I'm still waiting for...

    by SPlissken

    the 6 different DVD versions of Tucker. And the 9 versions of Willow. Then, their Blu-Ray releases. Can't wait.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:28 p.m. CST

    Please don't flame but

    by quadrupletree

    Can someone explain the difference between anamorphic and letter boxed? Aren't they both "widescreen"?

  • May 17, 2006, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Why no Howard the Duck?

    by jasper Stillwell

    If anything needs a CGI make over it's that. Even John Barry won't talk about it.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:31 p.m. CST

    For those who don't get the anamorphic thing....

    by epitone one of those trailers from the Apple site, at the smallest possible resolution. Then blow it up to full screen. That's what it's like trying to watch a letterboxed DVD on a widescreen set.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:32 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Simply put, in non-anamorphic widescreen the black bars are actually part of the picture, thus using up precious lines of resolution. Anamorphic uses the entire allotment of visual info for the image, meaning that the black bars are the absence of visual information. If you want a better explanation, there's a a special page for it att

  • May 17, 2006, 6:38 p.m. CST

    It's good to have the originals back

    by Crimson Dynamo

    but damn that terrible bluescreen in ROJ drives me crazy

  • May 17, 2006, 6:41 p.m. CST

    i haven't bought a tv in a while...

    by seekshelter

    so this isnt going to affect me.. haha... thats sad..

  • May 17, 2006, 6:41 p.m. CST

    quint's confusing the issue

    by Silver Shamrock

    The originals were not show in letter box, they were shown in their original aspect ratio of 2.35. To reproduce it correctly at home, it HAS TO BE letterboxed because it's wide. The isssue is not "will we get the entire picture" because that answer is yes, we will get the original aspect ratio, as god, nature and the baby jesus intended. What we WON'T get is a picture enhanced for widescreen TV resolution which sucks to no end. You people with small 4:3 sets won't be able to tell a difference.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:45 p.m. CST

    i am a recovering starwars addict.

    by mocky_puppet

    i kicked the habit after it became toxic; that was just before episode ii came out. maybe a little after. i was hooked bad, but i got help. when i read that he was going to release some "semi original" versions, han shooting first, i just turned away and said "no thanks." that was my proudest day. fu, mister film maker. f to the u. and no indy 4 for me, either.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:54 p.m. CST

    So this won't affect me at all

    by quadrupletree

    Thanks for freaking me out Quint. Bring on OT! (Those covers are shit though, I'll make my own :)

  • May 17, 2006, 6:57 p.m. CST


    by Bean_

    How DARE you be passionate about something??? In all honesty dude, don't appologize for the rant, we all have our passions, why can't a movie be one of them? I'm far too young to have seen the originals; I grew up with the Special Editions. I do remember Return of the Jedi being on TV in its original form once when I was about 5... Can't say I prefer it to the SE though. :\

  • May 17, 2006, 6:58 p.m. CST

    WAH! WAH!

    by HK_Cavalier

    I want my supercallafragimorphic, and 11.3 surround aural implant sounnd, or I absolutely won't stop crying.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:03 p.m. CST

    What the hell is Revenge of the Jedi?

    by conniebrean

    Whatever happened to Return of the Jedi?

  • May 17, 2006, 7:06 p.m. CST

    I don't mind SE's, except...

    by SPlissken

    I really don't mind the Special Editions, with 2 huge exceptions. I hate that Han doesn't shoot first. and I hate young Anakin showing up at the end of ROJ. Lucas should make an Extra Special Edition: A fly lands on the wall behind Han, so Greedo shoots it, then Han shoots Greedo. and young Anakin ghost is the crispy limbless Anakin from the end of Ep III. Then, I'll be much happier.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:06 p.m. CST

    dude ...

    by pistolopera

    i'm sorry -- i'm an old school star wars geek too (altho i love the prequels, and also have NO problem with the special edition tweaks), but COME ON!! you WANT the matte lines in there?? dude -- get a friggin LIFE! ... that's like saying, "i can only listen to the beatles on VINYL!" --- do you remember that mr. show sketch where odenkirk played the luddite?? ... what you're on about has NOTHING to do with the brilliance of the star wars saga and everything to do with you fetishizing your childhood. yes, your ideas about the packaging are good (and the ones they're going with ARE pretty terrible), but GEEZ -- you've got your cheesy laserdiscs already, what more do you want?!?

  • May 17, 2006, 7:07 p.m. CST

    i'm torn

    by jigzaw

    I don't have a widescreen tv and won't for a long time, so they would look like normal DVD's, but someday I will have a widescreen t.v. and will be seriously pissed about it. I also don't want to support a lackluster effort. As with any other older movie, a simple anamorphic remaster is totally doable. They're just choosing to go "See? The old ones don't look so great, do they?". It's pure spite, and I'd rather not support it.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:08 p.m. CST


    by HK_Cavalier

    Quint used photoshop to update it and make it more EXTREME for the new generation of SW fans.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:09 p.m. CST

    I like the new RoTJ cover art better anyways

    by Ye Not Guilty

    C'mon, the original one-sheet art sucks, admit it. The only reason it is considered "kewl" is because it uses the original "Revenge" title. Leia is a chain-mail bikini is soooo much better.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:09 p.m. CST


    by quadrupletree

    Revenge of the Jedi was the original title before someone pointed out to Lucas that "revenge" was not something that a Jedi would do, so they changed it to Return of the Jedi but by then they had already printed up posters and shit. If you believe Lucas' side of the story he did it on purpose to catch bootleggers (whatever).

  • May 17, 2006, 7:11 p.m. CST

    nub nub

    by pistolopera

    quint : star wars eric the midget : american idol

  • May 17, 2006, 7:15 p.m. CST

    So, are the League Of A$$holes taking the week off?

    by Son of Batman

    And they call themselves comic fans. Sheesh. What an embarrassment.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:25 p.m. CST

    No sale!

    by Paul T. Ryan

    Anyone think that Lucas's attitude to the original versions of Star Wars is a little like some tyranical father who makes his daughters dress ugly so that no man will want them?

  • May 17, 2006, 7:26 p.m. CST

    It does seem like Lucas trying to make suck on purpose.

    by minderbinder

    I'm surprised he's not just projecting a mono 16mm print and taping it with his camcorder for the transfer. And what's with the 4: a new hope? I thought this transfer was the one without that in the crawl? And have they said anything about pricing on these? I'm leaning more toward just duping these, if they were actually well done I'd be more than happy to pay for them. What else can they fuck up? (and for the record, I'm fine with the matte lines as well)

  • May 17, 2006, 7:34 p.m. CST

    Lucas and cosmetic surgery.

    by Paul T. Ryan

    I already have a DVD rip of the Jedi laserdisc and I think I'll stick with that for now. I also think that if Lucas had been born in the body of a bored LA trophy wife, he'd probably resemble Jocelyn Wildesntein by now...

  • May 17, 2006, 7:34 p.m. CST

    the REAL Lucas re-release I want...

    by mookie2001 TWICE UPON A TIME! The profane PG Version shown on HBO! C'mon, who's with me?

  • May 17, 2006, 7:35 p.m. CST

    George Lucas, I'll make sure to give

    by Jimmie Dimmick

    away a different version of your saga every night of Hanukkah.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:37 p.m. CST

    You OT fanboys will never happy

    by EmPerfectCror

    Lucas gives you what you want, AND YOU STILL BITCH! S.T.F.U!

  • May 17, 2006, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Yep, exactly as I thought.

    by SalvatoreGravano

    Although I have to say I *was* expecting more halos on the covers. Other than that, everything is, er, "normal". But then, we do have the 4-DVDR Dr Gonzo, Editdroid, TR47 et al sets... :)

  • May 17, 2006, 7:40 p.m. CST

    Oh God...

    by quadrupletree

    We're not going to be happy until there is a technology that allows us to each make our own "version" of the movie. Like that branching DVD technology that allows them to have both the directors cut and original version on the same disk. you just dial up what is and isn't acceptable to you and viola your perfect "version" of star wars.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:47 p.m. CST

    to be fair

    by bluebottle

    it is kind of retarded to not release them for anamorphic sets.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:48 p.m. CST

    "Lucas gives you what you want'

    by minderbinder

    Who ever said they wanted shitty encoding on the DVD?? Hell, why not just use one layer of the DVD so we have to flip it halfway through? It's also lame that it's only stereo even though the movies all had surround mixes for the original release.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:56 p.m. CST


    by -sfx-

    What's anamorphic?

  • May 17, 2006, 8:03 p.m. CST

    whats the big deal

    by Darth Kal-El

    i like the SE versions just fine. they enhanced for me what where already the best movies of my childhood.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:03 p.m. CST

    Episode 1 is the best prequel, it needs an SE

    by performingmonkey

    Fuck this release, I'm waiting for the HD-DVD/Blu-ray entire saga EVERYTHING DEFINITIVE INCLUDING MOTHERFUCKING DELETED SCENES release. This should include the classic original trilogy, unraped on 3 discs, and NEW special editions on 3 discs called the FINAL FINAL FUCKING FINAL EDITIONS of ANH, ESB and ROTJ, which feature ALL the sabers PROPERLY fixed, further updates to the CG (make Jabba look better, make the Greedo shooting first shot look more natural, upgrade the Tatooine CG, upgrade the dogfight CG etc.), ADD the following (the Imperial March in a couple of places in ANH, some themes from the prequels, extra stuntwork for the Obi/Vader 'duel', CG many of the remaining model shots in all 3 movies, redo the Hayden shot at the end of ROTJ, CG Luke and Vader doing flips and twirls in ROTJ, CG Emperor pulls out saber and duels Luke, force-throws his chair at Luke, the Emperor at the reactor core when Lando arrives - he blasts an X-Wing with lightning, CG all Ewoks, digitally remove Leia's bikini etc.). Also, the set should include special editions of the three prequels, with CG Yoda in TPM, consistent sabers for all 3 movies, update the Coruscant skyline to be like ROTS, digitally recast Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen with Larry the Cable Guy and Kirsten Dunst.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:06 p.m. CST

    I am done

    by RedScab

    You what I am done with star wars. I am throwing away all my toys, all the DVDs and VHS tapes, all the video games, everything. This really pisses me off the way lucas keeps trying to milk us fans. I say screw him, save your money and support something with some vision like BSG. Lets GO MAVS!!!!!!

  • May 17, 2006, 8:06 p.m. CST

    I don't know what's worse...

    by Be like water

    Having to actually find something to do with the rest of my day now that I'm not hearing all you jokers (I love you all) complain about "Han [not] shooting first", or the fact that these things will be NON-ANAMORPHIC. Alas, we all know Lucas is the spokesperson for "advancing technologies" for the industry -- even though the industry itself hates his guts. You know, it really is astounding to me how He can offer JUST enough to make us buy his shit, but hold back JUST enough to also make those of us without the LATEST, GREATEST TECHNOLOGY feel like ignorant assholes.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:07 p.m. CST

    I want the original art that said "The Star Wars"!

    by pewterschmidt

    And it should have the scene with Biggs Darklighter in it.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:08 p.m. CST

    I have the originals. Here - the reel to reel versions!

    by Orionsangels

    Can't get better than that

  • May 17, 2006, 8:08 p.m. CST

    George youold thieving bastard!

    by jimbubble

    So you get the fans to buy the SE,then the the sorry excuse for prequels,and now you expect people to go out and spend somemore of our hard earned cash just to inflate your ball bag of an egop? Well fuck you big style,and to think we once had some respect for your vision too? Away and spend your money and massage your abnormally over-blown ego you Zionist schill!

  • May 17, 2006, 8:22 p.m. CST

    For pete's sake, how clear was the image in `77?

    by moondoggy2u

    I was 17 when Star Wars debuted in theaters, and there is no way on G-d's green earth that the picture was as clear as the remastered versions you found on laserdisc in the early `90s. You OT fanboys need to get your act together and realize that it was a shitty picture back then with 2 channel stereo sound and you are just begging for picture and sound changes so long as they are the changes/updates you want. The fact is, all movies from before the mid-eighties lose bits of sound, require changes and rescoring/re-recording, etc. Heck, look what happened to Lawrence of Arabia, for crying out loud. And the more successful a movie is, the more wear and tear is put on the original prints, too. As the first poster so eloquently stated, you PT purists got what you wanted: the original film in all its original, shoddy-sounding, worn-out glory. Enjoy the idiotic nostolgia, the 70s kitch. Enjoy it and eat it!

  • May 17, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST

    scuze me, thats OT purists, not PT purists

    by moondoggy2u

    Oh, and whomever feels that the disc covers are horrible need to take a look at those horrifying covers they used for last year's star wars DVD covers. Those things are a true work of horror. Heck, most of them even had their perspective all screwed up. I still dont know why George never used the movie posters for ALL of the dvds, including the PT.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST

    CAN You Hear Me NOW ??!!

    by Lain Of The Net

    I'm a Trekkie. I'm used to being ripped off. One episode per tape, Two episodes per disc, season disc sets made in Mexico. Over priced each and every time. There is only one way to get your way as a fan. Stop buying and move on. I stopped after I spent tons on the TOS tapes and most of NG on disc. When the releases are done properly and at a reasonable price I might continue. I have the tape versions of the first Star Wars trilogy. I have no intention of buying any more until Lord Lucas does it right. That means anamorphic, cleaned up prints, and remastered sound. At some point I am going to have the hardware to watch this stuff right and I don't intend to buy countless versions just because some sad little nerd thinks he can get away with it. That also means you can keep your second disc version for yourself you horrible little man. Listen up Lucas and save a bundle on fan surveys. We know what we liked and when we liked it and we don't pay for it dozens of times. The series as a whole made more sense before you added all the extra cartoon characters. The Republic was diverse but by the time of the Empire humanoid types were the preferred. Like maybe there was an underlying comment about racism running throughout. Maybe unintentional but sometimes the underlying feeling of a work becomes more apparent over time. Sometimes that's what we are responding to - that little message underneath all the gloss. That's what can make films great - meaning something to people way past the expiry date. All Lucas has done with his revisions is to sour his own milk. Thumbs up to mocky_puppet who walked away. You SHOULD be proud.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:26 p.m. CST


    by 900LBGorilla

    Lucas has been a flat out ass on this from day ONE. I also won

  • May 17, 2006, 8:26 p.m. CST

    There's a difference between CGI-ing shit and cleaning

    by zikade zarathos

    Anyone with an OUNCE of common sense can see the UNIVERSE of difference between making the original material look the absolute best it can and changing things to the story/plot/structure/characters. It's like saying that there's no difference between cleaning the Sistine Chapel and grabbing a paint-brush and adding in shit.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:35 p.m. CST

    zikade and gorilla

    by moondoggy2u

    But you guys dont just want the picture cleaned, you want it sharpened and heightened beyond what was shown in the original theaters. And I'd hate to burst anybody's bubble, but the movie was not in surround sound--unless you happened to live in LA, chicago, or NY city. For the majority of americans, it was 2 channel stereo in the theaters. See, the fact is, you guys are all okay with changes in theaters, so long as its the changes that heighten your experience. While it has been done in a rather back-handed fashion, I do support Lucas's decision to release it NON anamorphic and only 2 channel. Why? Like him, I'm sick of all your bitching and moaning and wish very much to see you guys eat the shit you've been spewing for the past decade. So, here you are, enjoy!

  • May 17, 2006, 8:36 p.m. CST

    This isnt passion. This is bullshit.

    by LordEnigma

    After a full season spent reading the ramblings of GG fans. I now get the problem with some of you folks and Lucas. It's not about what Lucas gave you, the SE, or anything else. It's about your fucking hang-ups, about your inability to suspend disbelief, and your inability to get over YOUR OWN SHIT. If some folks around here could have open minds outside of their own little criteria for things. If they could think outside the box. Well, these problems would not be happening. Instead, we get this bullshit, that's nothing more than hot air.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:36 p.m. CST

    thats changes in cinema, not changes in theaters

    by moondoggy2u

  • May 17, 2006, 8:39 p.m. CST


    by hollywoodsummers

    Just so everyone knows I heard from an inside source that they are printing a very small number of these LIMITED EDITION discs. Just like the new Munich 2-disk set that you can't find anywhere now except e-bay going for more than list price. This is just another sick joke by Lucas to get us to fight to the death over his table scraps while he laughs all the way to his grave.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Yeah, the non-anamorphic thing just put me off this.

    by CatVutt

    I don't see the point. The laserdic rips I have are pretty damn good anyway, and really... how many more times can I watch these fucking films at this point. I as big a SW geek as the next goob, but I've these a kajillion times. If I really feel the need to take a look, I'll get it from Netflix, maybe burn a copy since it's non-anamorphic anyway. I won't be losing a whole lot.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Hey it's ghost Tarkin.

    by Archduke_Chocula

  • May 17, 2006, 8:51 p.m. CST

    These versions are a waste of time..

    by ssr12

    The special editions never looked or sounded better. So what that they changed a few things. It looks better you idiots! Anyone who buys a non-anamorphic non 5.1 Star Wars disc is just asking to get ass raped.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:05 p.m. CST

    at the Fredericton Gaiety..

    by Lain Of The Net

    I first saw Star Wars in Fredericton at the old Gaiety Theater. They put in a state of the art sound system in that building which is one reason why it broke records there for the length of play. It wasn't just the visuals that brought them in - it was the sound - and it was glorious. The only time I heard it in 2 channel was when I worked in the dump of a cinema across the river a couple of years later. Wasn't just the big cities for everyone. It had more to do with who was showing it and whose building it was.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:10 p.m. CST

    This is why Star Wars fans are considerd

    by slder78

    more geeky that Star Trek fans. They go apeshit over essentially 10 hours worth of film. You want the clarity of a digitally cleaned up DVD transfer even though a straight transfer would still be a thousand times better than any viewing in any theater in the 70's. 6 channel sound? What theater did you go to where it had 4 discreet surround in '79? Are you saying the stereos we have now won't be able to do prologic? No anamorphic? Ok maybe you have a gripe there, but Jesus it's not like they're gonna pan and scan, and are you really going to miss the 3 cm of sand dune on Tatooine? Lucas owns the Star Wars universe for better or worse. As a fan you can bitch all you want but in the end you either take it or leave it whatever IT may be. You're not entitled to shit, so quit acting like you are.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:11 p.m. CST

    I'm with you, Mookie!

    by JustinSane

    Ralph the All-Purpose Animal and Mum would make short work of Vadar! Bring on that Twice Upon A Time profanity!

  • May 17, 2006, 9:20 p.m. CST

    Quint derides talkbackers as "cynically superior ".

    by Tall_Boy

    Hah, that's a laugh comming from him. Next on AICN at 11 - pots call kettle black.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Fuck you back, George...

    by Laserbrain

    The 90s transfers of the OT were likely mastered at a higher resolution than the domestic Laserdisc format could deliver at the time. An anamorphic transfer probably isn't a wholly unreasonable request. ________And as for all you aesthetically challenged dillweeds who prefer the SEs and their remasters - you are fucking blind as well as tasteless. The special editions were the worst restored films I've ever seen in the cinema. The contrast seemed to have been upped too high, much colour info was lost, it looked like they *added* film grain. The plummeting standards of theatrical presentation have dulled all your senses to what a film should look like, you DVD gen punks.______And these covers are a disgrace. What fuckin mongoloid with a Wacom tablet shit those together? Fucked. Anyway, I guess I'll take em. The PAL versions should look nicer than the NTSC box set did. I guess that's something to be grateful for.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:24 p.m. CST

    George Lucas has been a turd for at least 9 years now.

    by Freakemovie

    That's right.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:27 p.m. CST

    "Revenge of the Jedi"

    by OBSD

    Those of us who are old enough remember that ROTJ was called "Revenge" up until a few months before its release. There's movie posters and trailers and everything. Quint wasn't being "extreme". You're just too young (or too stupid. or both) to remember.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:28 p.m. CST

    You fan boys want some cheese with that wine????

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    Quint get a grip. Better still quit AICN and join Lucas Films and have a real say in the matter. I'm sure George would spare you a second of his time. Same old Star Wars, same old arguments, same old hypocrites. Disgusting..........

  • May 17, 2006, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Quint, love ya, but...

    by DonkeyBalls

    ...let it go. Let's be honest. We want the "original" experience because we want our childhood's back. That's it. The notion that people want the special editions for all the lofty reasons they list (film purity! preserving the original artist's poor matting!) are bullshit, and bitching about the anamorphic version is the same. This article inadvertantly summed up how mercurial fanboys are about Star Wars. Quint first proclaims that he doesn't mind the stereo or mono versions, because that's how they "originally" were, but then when someone mentions that they were actually six-track, then all of a sudden there's a new thing to bitch about. "It's not how it originally was!" Guess what? The only thing that changed was perception. And I am sick of being feeling such a need to get the absolute perfect version to their needs. You know what edition is great? The Special Edition. I don't like Han Solo shooting first. But I don't care. It happens in a millisecond. I don't care about the extra Jabba scene. I can always skip it. I don't care about the Ewok song at the end, because the original song was terrible and the newer one is at least more fitting to end a saga. I don't care about the Jedi Rocks song, but the Jabba stuff was always a silly exercise of Muppetry, and no song effects that either way. The movies in the special edition look fine, sound fine, and are 95% the same as the originals. All of this nitpicking about little details or edits or additions is a complete joke. Where do we draw the line? Quint tried to do that, and then within his own post he had to change where that line was. Get over it, watch the special editions, and spend a little more time using your imagination and enjoying the story and worry less about reliving your own percieved childhood memories (most of which are half bullshit anyway).

  • May 17, 2006, 9:32 p.m. CST


    by Frijole

    ...and everyone else. Here is the reality. You want what you want... and you will fucking GET WHAT YOU FUCKING GET. Everyone is accusing Lucas of double-dipping... That much I can get behind. However, the notion that he could or should release the OT in every IMAGINABLE format (DVD widescreen with no alterations, widescreen with digital cleanups and a sharpened soundtrack, DVD in pan and scan with digital cleanups, DVD widescreen with the GOOD SE changes but not the bad ones etc...)is just fucking asinine. Either be a geek and get the versions that are available and use your wonder twins powers to psychically block out all the HEINOUS alterations while still soaking in the glory of the OT... or DON'T!!! It's really that easy! And by the way... cheesy photoshop job or not, I'll take the hack RoTJ cover with Leia in the gold bikini over the arty farty poster design any day of the week!

  • May 17, 2006, 9:33 p.m. CST

    I'll second that, mongoloidbastard

    by ATARI

  • May 17, 2006, 9:34 p.m. CST

    Oh, and HAN SHOT FIRST!!

    by ATARI

    'nuff said.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Donkeyballs is right, my Padawans. . .

    by krullboy

    And these people bitching are the same ones that hate the Prequels. Coincidence, I think not. Donkeyballs hit the nail on the (Hammer) head. People want to relive their childhoodm through SW. Keeping fishing for Moby Dick all you Ahabs

  • May 17, 2006, 9:45 p.m. CST

    I already have a DVD of the laserdisc versions...

    by Batutta

    I got them from malaysia. You can probably still find them. Not bad quality actually. Non-anamorphic is REAL lame.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:47 p.m. CST


    by SG7

    ...I guess the DVD bootlegs I have made by a skilled fan from the origitnal box set LDs will do just fine. And they;re anamorphic (admitiedly scaled up from letterboxed) and in 5.1 Short story: my bootleg will look as good as this latest ass-raping from geroge. Lol

  • May 17, 2006, 9:49 p.m. CST

    Quint is out of her mind

    by Razorback

    The originals were released as mono and 2 channel. What is with this update about "6-channel audio mix"? Are your sources on crack? Anyway, I knew you little fangirls would start crying about this one. "Waaaahhh!!! Lucas released these versions and didn't do anything to make them the way I wanted them released, wahhhh!" You get what you deserve... and in this case, you are getting too much.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:50 p.m. CST

    No fair Lucas! I wanna time machine to 77!!! Wah!!!

    by Orionsangels

    I want the DVD box to smell like the 70's. I want disco music when i open that DVD case. I want that shitty movie screen from 70's cinema. I want pops and cracks in my star wars. I want pot to fall out of that DVD case. give me old star wars!!! give me genesis kirk!!! ahhh!!!

  • May 17, 2006, 9:56 p.m. CST

    Not Buying

    by Darth Melkor

    If these were anamorphic transfers with 5.1 (you know like EVERY DVD THAT COMES OUT THESE DAYS) I would buy without a doubt. But with the 30th anniversay next year and the 3D release I'm avoiding these cause there will be another Star Wars box set within 2 years I guarantee. I knew something was up with these versions when I saw the original theatrical cuts listed as "BONUS MATERIAL".

  • May 17, 2006, 9:56 p.m. CST

    you know what really pissed me off with SW?

    by Negatif1

    When Revenge of the Sith turned out alright. I was pissed after the CGI that made up the special editions, pissed after Jar-Jar's Great Adventure, and then I just found a way to stop caring. I laughed right through Attack of the Clones - where our heroes fly right on past the Clone Wars so we can see them fight arena monsters and run on a conveyor belt. None of it served a purpose to the script, it only existed so Lucas could reference some obscure movie he grew up with, and in the process, waste everybody's time. He even turned down awesome ILM Clone War animatics to do this. But then he made a decent 3rd entry and I felt like re-editing the whole damn trilogy myself on DVDShrink. At least Ron Howard is consistently bad.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Hey Orionsangels, how about "give me Abba. . .

    by krullboy

    give me 3 TV Channels, give me Sesame Street with the original voice actors, give me Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, give me Mr. Pib, give me 3 piece polyester suits, give me Studio 54, give me pre-HIV consequence free sex, WAAHHHHHH"

  • May 17, 2006, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Overall the SE is better.

    by I Dunno

    Cutting "Bring my shuttle", the silly robots undercutting the drama of the Tatooine scene and "Jedi Rocks" were travesties but...what was my point? Let's just wait for a programmable system where you can pick and choose which SE changes to watch.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:04 p.m. CST

    give me the SW Cantina Remix, give me ESB stickers,

    by Tall_Boy

    give me 70s bush Toshe Station Delted Scene bitches offering free handjobs when I put down my Hard Earned money for this product. Wah wah, motherfucking, wah.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:05 p.m. CST

    Yeah Krullboy, what they're really saying is...

    by Orionsangels

    Give me my youth back!

  • May 17, 2006, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Give me white lightsabers from the 76 trailer

    by Orionsangels

    Give me the first edit of Star Wars that didn't work and no John Williams music. I'm reeeal old school!

  • May 17, 2006, 10:08 p.m. CST

    No Anamorphic? NO $$$$$$!!!!!

    by OgieOglethorpe

    I'll stick with my laserdiscs and my bootlegs.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:08 p.m. CST

    My laserdiscs will do, now

    by Mgmax

    If it's not anamorphic it's hard to see how this is any improvement. I'll pass and wait for one of the next 15 editions to get it right.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:16 p.m. CST

    I think the geek community has sunk to a new low

    by chrth

    We begged and screamed and sacrificed small furry animals to get the originals on DVD ... and now we're getting them, warts and all, and we're still bitching. Un-fucking-believable.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:18 p.m. CST

    DVD's of the laserdisc versions are not the same thing

    by eg4190

    Since laserdisc is an analog format, the video signal still has to be captured and compressed, causing significant degradation. Therefore, even though the masters are the same, the video quality on a bootleg DVD is inferior to the disc which will be released. Hell, the DVD's video quality will still be better than the LD, because there are more lines of resolution and it's digital. Sucks about the anamorphic though. The only explanation is either that Lucas really did destroy the original prints, as has been rumored, or he refused to put up the money for a new transfer. I'm leaning toward the former, and if that's the case, there's never going to be a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD transfer of the originals, ever.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:24 p.m. CST

    gimme gas shortages, a 55 mph speed limit,

    by moondoggy2u

    platform shoes with goldfish, a dvd collection that comes with the soundtrack on an 8-track tape, coke-body musicians, pet rocks, and fat albert. wah, wah, waaaahhhhh!!!

  • May 17, 2006, 10:27 p.m. CST

    A Turd is a Turd

    by SeedyAl

    I like a lot of things from my youth, but Star Wars isn't one of them. Who cares how it's packaged? It's still a corn-studded turd. How can this dreck be so popular?

  • May 17, 2006, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Here's an option:

    by Orbots Commander

    If people aren't satisfied with the DVD's you could, like, not buy them. Nobody is pointing a gun to your head to buy Star Wars DVDs. Trust me, you can live without them.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:30 p.m. CST

    There's no way Lucas wouldn't release this anamorphic!

    by Voice O. Reason

    I can't say I'm surprised by the number of idiots who don't realize why this is a big deal to people who own HD sets. You can't play it in 480p without streching the picture, and if you play it in 480i to keep the correct aspect ratio, you have to blow up the image. You idiots probably own pan & scan DVDs as well.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST

    Call Jim Ward. Seriously.

    by Fatboy Roberts

    Jim Ward, Senior Vice President Lucasfilm Ltd. 5858 Lucas Valley Rd. Nicasio, CA 94946 Phone: 415-662-1800 Fax: 415-448-2495 Also, Quint: The 6 track used for the Star Wars 70mm print actually folds down more faithfully to 2.0 than it would 5.1. There's plenty of explanations on the net, but the fact this thing won't be anamorphic way trumps shitty cover art. Seriously, re-edit your bitchfest with that contact info and have your readers CALL THIS GUY to let him know it's a bad idea.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST

    I think that the original Star Wars is better than...

    by Razorback

    Its special edition. However, the 2004 DVD release of the original trilogy is much better for Empire and Jedi. Sure, some people hate the change at the end, of adding young Anakin (they should redo that so it looks better) but otherwise everything else is better. Better cleaned up video and audio. Better Palpatine in Empire (with better dialogue). Better end music (goodbye Yub-Yub). Even then, the ANH SE 2004 release is pretty good. I just wish they fixed some things and removed that silly Jabba scene.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:33 p.m. CST

    I have to agree with Quint

    by VoodooV

    this edition is NOT what we've been asking for. Its been said from day one. its one thing to clean up the movie...its quite another to add shit in and replace actors. Lucas is giving us the finger on this one...but we should be used to it...He's been giving us the finger ever since the prequels.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:34 p.m. CST

    I guess im the only one who enjoyed the SEs

    by moondoggy2u

    Yeah, I hated jedi rocks, but i loved every other change (from 2004).

  • May 17, 2006, 10:36 p.m. CST

    I feel you Quint

    by Darth Thoth

    There IS a difference between those Special Edition craps and cleaning up the video/ sound for a disc. I share your exacts sentiments as they were my initial reactions too. The bottom line is that George Lucas, as brilliant as he is... as imaginative as he is... and great and influential to my life as he is... I love him to death... but he has a darkside. Make no mistake about it. He is a capitalist slug. He is driven by profit motive. Everything else becomes secondary. Make no mistake we have gotten these discs because it's the last time he'll be able to squeeze a buck out of us with the DVD format. This release isn't for the fans. It's for his wallet! Much like Vader, his mind has become twisted. The Special Editions and the like are aberrations. His constant revisionist obsessing is sad if you ask me. He will never be content and I'm sorry for him. But I love the OT theatrical cuts. As do many. And it's not anal to demand that they be 1) given to us on DVD and 2) given in the highest quality possible. Lucas gave us Star Wars but WE gave him something back in our purchases, following, etc.. It's a two way street therefore we the consumer, the fan, must be respected. I'm happy to get these new releases but I'm not jumping for joy. That ship has passed. I already have my bootlegs and vhs's. I'll pick these new discs up this fall... and that my friends is sad. I admit it. It's real sad. But I love Star Wars. And I want someday to be able to share with my kids the real versions of the OT. But I will also make sure to teach them what it means to be greedy. And how greed can corrupt. And that they never should put money above family, community, craft, art, and everything else that's good. Lest they fall to the Darkside... like Vader... like Luca$. And what sucks is that he was so redeemed to me after Revenge of the Sith. That was a great movie! But now with this cheap selfish and greedy stunt to get more cash from us and say "it's for the fans"... get out of my face George. Just get out!

  • May 17, 2006, 10:37 p.m. CST

    i would like...

    by El Borak

    to be young and happy like i was when i was 8 years old, but guess what? it ain't happening.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:44 p.m. CST

    Lucas is messing with you fangirls

    by Razorback

    He even said that he is using this release as a testbed for how many people are willing to buy the "originals." So, I hope you all DON'T buy these so that you prove his point, that more people like the special editions.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Big deal about the covers....

    by Cotton McKnight

    I am sure some enterprising photoshop guru can create 3 covers that would all make us proud. In this day and age, who cares? In principle it sucks (cause those covers are just crap and it just confirms that this is a way for Lucas to make some money) but we can always fix those ourselves.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:58 p.m. CST

    Now that there will be two versions available...

    by Cotton McKnight

    Is it possible for someone to edit them together so that we get the best of both worlds? We could have all the good stuff from SE, while replacing specific scenes (Han Shoots first). Or would that show too many seams?

  • May 17, 2006, 11 p.m. CST

    You LITERALLY have to buy them over again.

    by Cotton McKnight

    Geeeeeeeez. It sounds like we are just buying the SE again, in exactly the same form, except now it has the "unaltered" movies as a "bonus". That really, truly sucks. It would be nice to have this treated with the proper amount of respect.. maybe a new documentary on the modelmakers, etc. And yeah, classic packaging would be cool too.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Here's what anamorphic is

    by jethroc

    It's a technique used to encode near a High-Definition quality picture onto the DVD so that people who blew the wad on the 52" HD plasma TV can get the HD quality they are accustomed to. If you just have a regular non-HD TV, then you don't notice any difference. By not being anamorphic, it gives the HD TV the sucky picture quality of a regular TV. Look up the technical details on Wikipedia for more info.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:06 p.m. CST


    by moondoggy2u

    It would show too many seams. thats the beauty of it, you see--there would be a VERY noticable difference in picture and sound quality every time you changed versions. As for buying the versions all over again, is there really that much of a difference between the second and third movies to warrant revisiting the original versions? You're only talking about seeing monkey-girl emperor, 2 seconds of Fat anakin, an absance of jedi rocks, and yub yub. I mean, its not that big of a change, really (to me, anyway). That said, I'm just gonna buy episode 4 for posterity and to get a kick out of seeing the HUGE differences between the original and 2004 edition.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:07 p.m. CST

    Don't be a hater! Be a roller skater!

    by RezE11even

    That is all.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:10 p.m. CST

    what really cracks me up

    by moondoggy2u

    Is that you non anamorphic whiners are bitching about a show that will still look better than it did when it was released and are only bitching because you have a fucking HD TV and it will look exactly like it does on normal TV. You guys really make me want to beat the crap out of something...

  • May 17, 2006, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Original Vs. SE

    by LucienPierce

    I grew up with the original films, warts and all. And of course, I loved them. I was never a Star Wars geek mind you, I loved it and I collected a few statues, comics here and there but I couldn't tell you the inner workings of the Millenium Falcon or who that tiny glimpse of an alien in the far right hand corner of frame 2478 in A NEW HOPE is. My connection is to the trilogy as a whole, personally the only thing I don't like in the SE is the addition of the CG Jabba with Han in A NEW HOPE. It sticks out like a sore thumb, other than that I feel that all the touch ups improved the film experience. Particularly the end of ROTJ which now elevates it to almost just as good as EMPIRE IMO. Not to mention the cleaned up compositing, the enhanced explosions and better sound. The thing with Han? Doesn't phase me in the least. It doesn't change my perception of the character at all. The CG dino type creatures, well for me it smoothes out the differences between the first and second trilogy making it an easier transition in terms of visual representation. You won't catch me buying this OT, if I really want to watch them I'll throw in my VHS copies. The next time I buy SW will be on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (Of which I'll only buy when they release a player that plays both) But I guess I understand, while I'm not a diehard SW fanboy I have and will be a diehard fanboy of other stuff...on a side note, is it just me or is AICN the only forum that DOESN'T allow paragraphs or HTML tags? I hate large blocks of text!

  • May 17, 2006, 11:15 p.m. CST

    What's Star Wars? Oh, Dion Brothers fans....

    by Doom II

    Here's the first 2 minutes of the film for those who missed Qfest (myself included)----

  • May 17, 2006, 11:16 p.m. CST

    Lucas spelled backwards is Satan

    by WolfmanNards

    He promised that when the trilogy first came out on dvd, that would be the only version of the films to come out on dvd. So the fans, who prefer the original versions, though disappointed, picked up the special edition dvd's. He LIED Now the original versions are out. I promise you its not because of response to overwhelming demand. It's because he knows some fans will double dip. He knew that if he admitted in the beginning he would come out with both, the true fans would wait. Then he wouldnt make any double dipping profit WHAT A DIPSHIT WHAT A DIPSHIT

  • May 17, 2006, 11:19 p.m. CST

    What the hell is Star Wars?

    by thatpeterguy

    Sounds like some commie bullshit to me.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:28 p.m. CST

    So....that deaf kid got kicked off AMERICAN IDOL

    by zillabeast

    Serves him right.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:57 p.m. CST

    Y'know, barely less than 10% of households have HD TVs

    by Tall_Boy

    Therefore, since I highly doubt that every single person complaining about the transfer has an HD TV, your pointless bitching about an anamorphic is just that... pointless bitching. Wah, wah, wah.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:58 p.m. CST

    Sugar in My Coffee

    by BigSugar

    I'm from the old school. I want the films as they were back in the day. That's all there is to it. I'll say it and mean it; I don't care if he wants to take my pants down and make me cry. APACALYPSE NOW will see its third DVD release this August. SEVEN was relesed twice. The entire Paramount section of FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH has been released twice. I've been fucked over by a fairly good cross section of Hollywood studio ancillary markets, and I'm not the only one here in this rad-bastard situation. The fact of the matter is we need to all stop whining because not one time has anyone held a gun to my head to buy one damn DVD, and I'll bet all the money in my pockets that no one else, including Moriarty hisself, has had a pistol loaded and thumbcocked to his head to spend one dime of his hard-earned cash (I find his indignation hard to take seriously anyway; two words folks, fucking screeners). Bottom line? I want these DVD's and so do all of you. We're going to buy them in record numbers and we all know it. anyone who says any differently has their head so far up their ass, they think think they're seeing the light at the end.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:02 a.m. CST


    by Mr Brownstone

    You fat, stingy son of a bitch.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:08 a.m. CST

    Yeah!!!!!! I've got a square tube television!!!!!!!

    by JDanielP

    Classic. Money well spent. Now I can quit dreamin' of... and droolin' over... those nice, new, huge widescreens. Now who's droolin' over MY television??? (heh,heh) All kidding aside, I feel for you anamorphic-wantin' Star Wars fans whom have one of 'em nice, new, huge widescreens. Let's trade televisions.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:09 a.m. CST

    Woman Got My Devil

    by BigSugar

    By the way, there's also an interesting irony in that the majority of these posts seem intent on bitching and whining about someone bitching and whining. Moriarty wants (like the rest of us who are fans of the originals) to see clean, pristine digital copies of these films. Man, that sounds like a guy whose interested in preserving the integrity of these films. Not screwing the movies into the ground, which I can only guess is what the rest of you want. In that case, shouldn't that argument be that Lucas should never have released the movies in the first place? If he was that dissatisfied with what he created, he probably shouldn't have put it in theatres. At the very least he should've taken his name off of it. Those flicks belong to the fans now,as does every work when it's put out for public consumption. So, for those who think we'll get what we as fanboys deserve, I extend the middle fingers of both my left and right hands. The former, I poke in your eye. The latter is up your narrow ass.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:10 a.m. CST

    Those covers are awful....

    by Undead Neverhood

    Almost as awful as the prequels were. I'm so sick of what Lucas did with star Wars. So sad. It could have been so much more.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:18 a.m. CST

    you know what I'm sick of?

    by moondoggy2u

    Every single goddamn DVD has to have a photoshop covor. Oh, we allk now why the studios select thse kinds of covers--its cheaper than original artowrk. Its sad that VCR, an inferior format, had the better and most original covors. When was the last DVD that didnt have a photoshop artwork and actually had something really nifty?

  • May 18, 2006, 12:19 a.m. CST

    I must be getting sleepy. I spelled the word "covor.."

    by moondoggy2u

    and I did it twice!!!!

  • May 18, 2006, 12:19 a.m. CST

    Why not to buy this shit? Answer below.

    by Xorply

    Because he will release remastered versions in the future. And if not, you will always be able to buy some mint, unopened copies on eBay. Fuck money-hungry Lucas and his minions of pee-ons.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:33 a.m. CST

    guess i keep my chinatown DVDs on the shelf then

    by caipirina

    .. i think those have even better extras :)

  • May 18, 2006, 12:38 a.m. CST

    moondoggy2u, you are a dipshit.

    by one9deuce

    I saw Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi in the theater when they were release, and let me tell you something: NOTHING looks better than a brand new 35 Millimeter Print. Not DVD, not HD-DVD, or HDTV, or Blu-Ray Disc. I want the original theatrical cuts of the Star Wars trilogy on DVD the way they looked in 77, 80, and 83. Anyone calling me a whiner for that is forgetting one thing: every OTHER movie has been released in its original form why not the Star Wars Trilogy? Because George Lucas is a greedy capitalist.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:51 a.m. CST

    All you FUCKERS who think that...

    by ScarranHalfBreed

    ...whining about non-Anamorphic transfer and no extras is fanboy bullshit and throwing all our toys out of the pram are the usual geeky thirteen year old TROLLS that frequent this site. If the discs aren't anamorphic I won't be buying these. It's not a case of "Stop whinging, you're getting the originals now, what are you complaining about?" I don't give a shit about the covers, but I do care about the quality of the films themselves. Does that make me a whiny fanboy? No, I'm passionate about the films is all, I grew up with 'em. I'm beginning to loathe this site - it's turning more and more into a school playground.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:56 a.m. CST

    end of a format

    by justmyluck

    They waited until HD-DVD was here to cash in on standard DVD while they still can with this crap-o-vision/crap-o-sonic OT release, bundled with the "Special Editions" to snatch a retail price that crap-OT alone would never justify. I was going to pre-order two of these sets, obviously that's not going to happen now - sorry George, you sold us the laser transfers already. All Lucasfilm has to do is re-transfer their archived '77/'80'83 prints, digital-dust-bust, put the six track mix as one audio track, the dolby surround mix as the other audio track and slap the '77/'80/'83 first run posters on the covers and sell it for under $50 to the applause of fans' wallets. And you "I want my anamorphic wailers" : its not that these are not anamorphic - which is a PAIN - its that a non-anamorphic transfer its very likely the same transfer from over 10 years ago. This crap-OT release is Lucas' revenge for us not 'embracing' Jar Jar Binks.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:03 a.m. CST

    Yes, it would be nice to have the originals in TOP form

    by JDanielP

    As is, I have them on VHS. And they wasn't cheap when I got 'em! So really, this purchase doesn't make much sense for me. Not even when considering the bright future of HD television.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:13 a.m. CST

    Go over to...

    by Darth Thoth

    The Digital Bits. Bill Hunt has a new must read My Two Cents editorial.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:21 a.m. CST

    The Anamorphic and 2 Channel Stereo thingy!

    by Lezbo Milk

    Ok here is the deal: Making the disks non-anamorphic is a disservice to us customers. I'm not really sure this is true. Why would Lucasfilm and Fox do this? It makes no sense. As far as the two channel stereo thing goes, well that is right on the money. If memory serves me correctly, Star Wars was filmed in Dolby Stereo. As a matter of fact I'm looking at my original '77 one sheet and it says it right on there. If memory serves 70mm has 5 channels of audio but these are compressed into a 2 channel stereo track and then decoded by a Dolby Stereo capable receiver. The receiver takes the info on the two stereo channels and outputs: left/center/right/surround/Low Freq. The surround sound channels are mono (the same sound comes from each speaker). It wasn't until Dolby Digital 5.1 came out that we were able to get the full theater experience. Then of course Digital EX came about and you have 6.1 and 7.1 systems. Anyways, what you will get is an original Dolby Stereo sound out of these DVD's. The opening sceen will still have the sound of the destroyer coming from behind you to the front (it will just be in mono) and you won't get a dedicated channel for your subwoofer (although your system will most likely automatically send any low freq to the sub by default). It won't sound as awsome as a Dolby Digital EX 7.1 THX transfer...but it will be ok and nostalgic. Oh and by the way, when they finally decide on a new DVD format, Lucas will undoubtedly release the ultimate super duper, kick you in the nuts box set with all the originals, SE's and prequels, plus more extras than you could watch in a year. I'm waiting for that, so I can scrap the full shelf of Star Wars DVDs and just have one box set up there.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Yeah but........

    by omegabigfella

    We'll still buy 'em.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:35 a.m. CST

    including this post the word FUCK

    by Mr Brownstone

    has been used 30 times in this talk back so far. AWESOME. Oh yeah and fuck you Lucas. That makes 31.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:45 a.m. CST

    Episode IV???????

    by rpalompo

    When I saw these in the movie theater as a kid there were no Episode # subtitles. First thing that stuck out to me on the dvd covers. If these are supposed to be the original theater experience these subtitles shouldn't be there! And BTW, may the Force be with you.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:51 a.m. CST


    by Black Jesus

    Some of you guys don't seem to understand what anamorphic widescreen is and why it's important to those of us who have 16x9 TV's. Here's the deal: These DVD's will be practically unwatchable on a widescreen TV. This is a big deal and it's very much worth complaining about.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:57 a.m. CST

    It's just a mean spirited move

    by Salander3 has a great overview on anamorphic movies, and they say that the process of transfering a movie onto DVD in anamorphic format is a very simple process. It says, and I quote directly from the digitalbits website, that "Given all of the early foot-dragging by the Hollywood studios toward anamorphic on DVD, you're probably convinced that it must surely be an expensive and time-consuming process. You couldn't be more wrong. All that's required from the perspective of the Hollywood studios, is to request an anamorphic transfer during the telecine stage. I've done some digging, and discovered that this generally costs no more than it does to commission a standard letterbox transfer, as long as the proper film elements are available (extra costs are usually only incurred if the original film elements are in need of restoration)." To release the films in a non-anamorphic format is simply a mean-spirited move by Lucasfilm. It's telling the folks who remember and cherish these original versions of their movies that such memories are pretty worthless, and don't deserve to be treated with respect.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:58 a.m. CST

    WTF does Lucas have to do to appease you whiny fanboi p

    by Grando

  • May 18, 2006, 1:58 a.m. CST


    by Grando

    Come round to all your houses and suck your dicks?

  • May 18, 2006, 2:01 a.m. CST


    by Mr Brownstone

    well said.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:12 a.m. CST

    STAR WARS and EMPIRE posters

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Those two posters are absolutle shit hot, you don't get posters like that anymore...sigh, maybe for the 6 disc saga boxset?

  • May 18, 2006, 2:12 a.m. CST

    Star Wars Recall

    by Crash Crator


  • May 18, 2006, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Fuck that.

    by wash

    No Lucas, you may not have my money this time. Call me when there's a noticeable improvement over my bootlegs.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:28 a.m. CST


    by Fortunesfool

    This is taking the piss. I know the original laserdisc editions weren't anamorphic or widescreen enhanced as they like to call it. But the guy who did my laserdisc bootlegs managed to do an anamorphic transfer to the discs. Why can't George Lucas? Fat pie eating fucker.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:43 a.m. CST

    Oi Lucas! Letterbox isn't widescreen!

    by Reelheed

    if you zoom up a 4:3 picture it goes soft. idiot!

  • May 18, 2006, 2:45 a.m. CST

    by Doc_Strange

  • May 18, 2006, 2:47 a.m. CST

    All I gotta say on this subject is:

    by Doc_Strange


  • May 18, 2006, 2:48 a.m. CST

    Screw It 2006

    by Crash Crator


  • May 18, 2006, 3:25 a.m. CST

    I sold my 2004 box set for this.

    by Rowley Birkin QC

    Aside from the guy who is holding up Blade Runner, has anyone ever shown the DVD consumer more contempt than George Lucas? I'm sure in about 9 months we'll get another message from Jim Ward saying that Lucasfilm "knows what you want, and is working on it", but it conveniently won't be ready until the thirtieth anniversary.

  • May 18, 2006, 3:33 a.m. CST


    by Razorback

    Hell, convince Lucasfilm to never release it. That way, when Lucas is asked "when will we get the OT DVDs" he can say "Well, we tried to give it to the fans and they didn't want them." Bwahahaha! Brilliant. You guys are stupid.

  • May 18, 2006, 3:35 a.m. CST

    Ok, time for my rant now..

    by Gabba-UK

    Some of the comments that are currently being expressed here are are just proof positive that the attitude we absolutely, 100% for certain know in our heart of hearts that film makers REALLY have about 'the fans/geeks' is that we are a bunch of whinging, snot nosed fuck-tards that you have to deal with and placate so for marketing purposes you can say that your film has the support of the fans in order to legitimise your work. And you know what, they are totally correct in that assumption. Many have you have for years wanted to get the original. You finally get them and the bitching begins. Now I agree that the loss of the anamorphic is a deal breaker for many including myself. But its a long time to Sept 12th. A lot can change and I'm sure that if enough of us POLITELY (if you are capable of such a thing and keeping the Lucas raped my childhood comments to a minimum) made our views known either directly to Lucasfilm or via sites such as this or The Digital Bits this would be changed. And if it isn't, protest with your wallet and don't buy them. The Executor boxset version I have is more than enough for me. I agree with Quint that the super deluxe 30th anniversary box set which we all KNOW will come out next year on whatever format will also have the original versions as well. And if the anamorphic isn't on them then we know who's fault it will be. Yours. Because enough of you went out on Sept 12th and got them to make them think you were happy with them. As for the use of the 1997 laserdisc master I have no problem with that as that was a very good transfer. The normal Dolby Surround makes me very happy because I never heard the 6 channel mix that was created because at the time there was most likely less than ten cinema's on the planet that even had the equipment. It would have been a bonus but not an essential feature. I seem to remember Ben Burtt saying that at the release of the film there was something in the region of 10 different sound mixes for the film so the various equipment needs of different cinemas could be catered to. They cant get all of them on the disc so I guess they had to pick the one we were most likely to be familiar with. I guess what I'm trying to say is that reading this talkback, it tells you that everyone has in their own mind a definitive version of the films they would like to see on DVD and ALL of them are different. Nothing Lucasfilm produces is going to please you all. They can only produce something that most people will like. They cannot make you all happy, its just not possible. And I think its time a lot of people here realised that and moved on.

  • May 18, 2006, 3:49 a.m. CST


    by MechaGhost

    Goddamn. Some people need to stop talking. "Anamorphic widescreen merely" in the context of DVD means it's optimized to fill a 16:9 screen. 16:9 is roughly 1.78:1 aspect ratio. So even if it was released 16:9 anamorphic *there would still be black bars on the top and bottom*. A film being *shot* with anamorphic lenses has nothing to do with the DVD release. It has to do with aspect ratios (2.35:1 "scope" vs. 1.85:1 "flat"). If Lucas is presenting the films letterbox but not anamorphic, it just means you'll have to *gasp* watch the films in standard 4:3 mode if you're on a HDTV. But the aspect ratio will be correct. 2.35:1 in "letterbox" is still 2.35:1. Christ... don't talk if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

  • May 18, 2006, 4:17 a.m. CST

    Gabba-UK you are CRAZY

    by Razorback

    You want people to POLITELY ask for something? You are talking about Star Wars FANGIRLS who cry about everything! They are the biggest bitches on the planet. How can they stop being the biggest bunch of bitches on the planet? They can't. So FUCK YOU ALL. I am so happy... these fucktards did exactly as expected and are going to bitch themselves right out of what they want. :)

  • May 18, 2006, 4:25 a.m. CST

    Fffffuuuck!!!! To those saying this isn't a big deal...

    by Regicidal_Maniac

    It IS! If you're happy eating sghit then go off an eat shit and leave the rest of us to make very valid complaints about the fact that Lcas is intentionally shafting his original fans while rewarding suckers and johnny come latelys. It's anamorphic or nothing GL,I'd prefer to see nothing released than this inferior letterboxed shit. Fuck you're an arsehole Lucas, and you fucking cunts who lick his balls need to die.

  • May 18, 2006, 4:28 a.m. CST


    by WestieBestie

    No way. Uh-Uh. You not getting my money this time. I got me the OT SE and they'll do. Now everyone, I want you to go outside and say "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

  • May 18, 2006, 4:35 a.m. CST

    "Hey Quint, Want some ice cream?"

    by satansteve

    "SURE" > "Okay, here you go" < "I WANT CHOCOLATE SYRUP ON IT" > "No problem, there you go" < "I WANT SPRINKLES ON IT" > "Haha, ok" < "IT DOESN&#39;T LOOK RIGHT, TAKE IT AWAY" >>> who gives a shit?

  • May 18, 2006, 4:53 a.m. CST

    Sorry Razorback, I forgot..

    by Gabba-UK

    .. we were dealing with the more zealot Star Wars fans. But as a well mannered Englishman I kind of expect people to be polite. By the way I&#39;m a huge Star Wars fan but one of many that actually has a sense of proportion about how important they are in the grand scheme of life i.e. not very. Buy them if you want them, don&#39;t if you don&#39;t. It&#39;s really not worth the energy to get this worked up about it.

  • May 18, 2006, 5:22 a.m. CST

    I *like* the special editions.

    by ZeroCorpse

    I saw the originals many, many, many times. I own three versions of the originals (widescreen VHS, pan & scan VHS, and pan & scan VCD). I never watch them, because I have grown to like what Lucas was trying to accomplish with the special editions. The SE are nicely remastered and the new scenes are good to have. I prefer seeing the Emperor in ESB looking like he should, and *not* like an old woman with monkey eyes. I prefer seeing the Jabba scene back in ANH. I prefer seeing the cleaned-up Hoth battle, and the obvious blue-screen work polished up. I don&#39;t mind the "Han shoots at the same time as Greedo" scene, although I&#39;d like the old way a *little* more, it doesn&#39;t get my panties in a bunch when I see it. I like the movie fitting with Episodes I, II, and III and making one big saga. I like Jango/Boba Fett having the same voice through the entire six movies. I have nothing to complain about with my Special Edition DVDs. If I complain about anything, it&#39;s my Special Edition VHS that have been collecting dust since the DVDs came out. The changes made to the new DVD versions sort of render the original SE on VHS obsolete. If you don&#39;t love Star Wars enough to just sit back and enjoy the story as it evolves, then just shut up and go back to watching the old ones over and over, and avoid the TV series, and avoid the prequel trilogy, and pretend it&#39;s 1988.

  • May 18, 2006, 5:31 a.m. CST

    Haha, some morons BUY the laserdisc-to-DVDr transfers!

    by JackPumpkinhead

    Hey, idiots, I can also sell you a bridge... uh, I mean, a copy of the 2-DVDr "Star Wars Holiday Special" &#39;special fan edition&#39; that I downloaded in two days. :-D No wonder Lucas is cashing in on it if there are idiots actually willing to PAY for the bootlegs. He could&#39;ve used the original covers though. All the good bootlegs do. :)

  • May 18, 2006, 5:35 a.m. CST

    it&#39;s official....

    by Sicuv Uyall

    Lucas is giving all of you the middle finger!!! Greedy fuck.

  • May 18, 2006, 5:46 a.m. CST

    Exactly Tom Bodet

    by LordEnigma

    He deserves vasoline hiding the wheels of supposedly HOOVERING vehicles. He deserves inanimate Dewbacks. He deserves everything that looks like FX looked before he was born. There has been many ridiculous statements posted on this website. Many by the talkbackers, and some by the contributers (except for Herc). Nevetheless, a guy that has ridden the collective jock of WETA for the last 3 or 4 years, stating ILM effects distract him from HIS CHILDHOOD. Well, I am a grown ass man, and the FX in KONG and LOTR are glaringly distracting. Unlike Quint, however, I do not make it about ME. I suspend disbelief. I check my baggage at the door. FREE YOUR MIND, MAN! FREE YOUR MIND!

  • May 18, 2006, 5:58 a.m. CST

    Quint, whats the bloody difference....?

    by BendersShinyAss

    ...Between Anamorphic widescreen and letterboxed? Seriously, it&#39;s just different era lingo. Isn&#39;t it?

  • May 18, 2006, 6:07 a.m. CST


    by BendersShinyAss

    Thanks pazuzu. I get it now. duh. Actually I must say, I am somewher ein the middle on the prequel trilogy. I like the added Mos eisly stuff. I hate Greedo shooting first (but who doesn&#39;t) I hate that most of the effects weren&#39;t actually re-done. I loath the death star explosion being the same with a ringed shockwave added. In space it&#39;s be cylindrical. is that even a word? I LOVE Empire SE - except for that horrid &#39;alert my stardestroyer to blaa bla blaa&#39;. &#39;Bring my shuttle&#39; had so much more emotion. And In the brand new Empire I truely adore the addition of the true emperor. BUT I FUCKING ANIKIN AT THE END OF JEDI. HATE IT!!! It&#39;s like I&#39;m perfect and everyone else is stupid. how does it feel to be you? I&#39;m going to get a beer.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:10 a.m. CST

    Mechaghost that&#39;s true but the one BIG difference is...

    by half vader

    There&#39;s still a big difference between blowing a 2:35 to 1 movie letterboxed in a 4:3 frame up to fill a 16:9 frame and an &#39;anamorphic&#39; (who was the idiot that came up with that confusing term for DVD) or native 16:9 movie transfer. It&#39;s called resolution and it IS important. The blown-up image is absolutely inferior even though yes they are both original aspect ratio. You obviously understand the differences between film and DVD but go easy on the regular Joes who are complaining about substandard quality but not able to articulate it properly and grabbing for inappropriate technical terms or whatever. When did not knowing what you&#39;re talking about EVER make ANYONE shut up ANYTIME ANYWHERE?

  • May 18, 2006, 6:12 a.m. CST

    stoopid post

    by half vader

    Lucasfilm putting these out non-anamorphic is like releasing them on DVD in 1997 when DVDs were introduced. So it&#39;s sorta like we&#39;ve had them for years just the way we wanted. We just didn&#39;t know it and couldn&#39;t enjoy them all that time. Confused? Yep. Whee!

  • May 18, 2006, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Someone call the waaaahmbulance!

    by Zarles

    Quint, pull the telephone pole-sized stick out of your ass and go outside, for chrissakes. The sun is shining, the birds are singing, and all the girls are wearing less and less every day. Somehow, man, I think you&#39;re going to survive this travesty just fine. Geesh.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:24 a.m. CST

    Oh boo fucking hoo

    by Lone Fox

    You&#39;re going to find something to bitch about, no matter what. If everything was to your satisfaction it&#39;d still be wrong. You&#39;ll be moaning that you&#39;ve aged 30 years since the original release next. I&#39;ve gone pubic! Curse you Lucas! As for the covers... well, they&#39;re better than the SE DVD covers. And they ARE mimicking the original poster campaign. If I could be bothered I&#39;d post a link. But you&#39;d just moan.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:26 a.m. CST

    "I really didn&#39;t want this to sound like fanboy whining

    by Trazadone

    Jesus, what is it with you? Your complaints are just so stupid. "Wah, I don&#39;t like the cover art!" "Wah, the specs aren&#39;t EXACTLY like they were in the theater!" God, who cares? You act as if you&#39;re being screwed out of something so important that it&#39;s going to ruin your viewing experience. Nobody will even notice. It seem that no matter what Lucas releases you&#39;re just going to complain about it. I&#39;m as big a Star Wars fan as anyone and I couldn&#39;t care less about these minor, minor changes. Are you going to be upset if they&#39;re not released with the original scratches on the negative? "Wah, they cleaned up the image, Lucas is ruining my precious childhood memories!" Okay, I guess I went on a rant too, but for crying out loud, your complaints are so baseless.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:28 a.m. CST

    "shitty picture back then with 2 channel stereo"

    by minderbinder

    No it wasn&#39;t. The movies had a 70mm version with surround sound in their first release. And I don&#39;t even care about remastering, but putting them on the DVD&#39;s in an intentionally bad encoding is just stupid. I wonder if Lucas is making an extra effort to make these look worse than the new versions? Or if he even wants them to sell bad? Either way, looks like he&#39;s trying to stack the deck so he can say "I told you so". Asshole.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:30 a.m. CST

    Stoopid me

    by half vader

    Totally went past Pazuzu&#39;s concise and eloquent post way up there and posted before Bender&#39;s so sorry Mechaghost and Paz. Zuh, as Homer would say. _____________________I&#39;d like to know if Quint&#39;s outrageous matte lines statement means he HATES the BEN HUR disc or the other restorations done recently like OZ and Gone with the Wind. Yes it&#39;s a fine line between what constitutes resurrecting something to it&#39;s original (that means neg or interpositive not lowest common denominator release print Moondoggy) glory and stepping over that line by &#39;fixing&#39; things where the technical process failed and it had nothing to do with creativity or artistic intentlike matte line inconsistency and generational & colour loss through duping in a dissolve (the original had a big scratch through it! We must keep it!).________________Yes everyone read digitalbits. Including the restoration stuff.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:34 a.m. CST


    by Trazadone

    "I want the original mono/stereo soundtrack. I want the matte lines clearly visable. Do you not understand why I&#39;d be upset about the transfer not being anamorphic?" I guess I don&#39;t. Basically you want to see an inferior product because you somehow believe that you&#39;re childhood memories will be complete. THANK GOD for the SE&#39;s.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:34 a.m. CST


    by half vader

    Can&#39;t even make a coherent sentence now. Sorry. I&#39;m going.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:38 a.m. CST

    Think of letterboxed as a small image with a huge

    by scrumdiddly

    border around it. The picture itself is less than HALF the size of a true anamorphic transfer. In effect, they&#39;ll be deliberately lowering the resolution. Quint is right that his Laserdiscs will be of better quality...

  • May 18, 2006, 6:59 a.m. CST

    seems to me....

    by BendersShinyAss

    that lucas knows full well that the image quality wont be up to par and thus you will all be forced to enjoy the SE as a result. Personally, I can&#39;t believe how much contempt the man has for the films that made him. the short film &#39;George Lucas in love&#39; seems more pitted in reality than i gave it credit. Oh well, who cares anymore. It&#39;s not like we&#39;ve never seen these movies before. It&#39;s not we&#39;re ever really going to sit down and watch them right through unless we&#39;re with our kids or something. I still have the original VHS limited widescreen release&#39;s - in good condition too. I&#39;m quite content with them. Just once I&#39;d like to see a soft sell of Star Wars. there&#39;s just to much god damn hoohar over them when they come along. Wonder what supershadows up to these days. Man that guy is great for a laugh

  • May 18, 2006, 6:59 a.m. CST

    Ok;ve finally lost it.

    by fxmulder35

    I&#39;d expect this griping from the fanboys. But not you. NONE of you will be happy with ANY way he&#39;d release the OT. There would be SOMETHING for you all to harp on. Geeze already.

  • May 18, 2006, 7 a.m. CST

    I agree with Quint

    by sith-vol

    When I first heard about these, I was ready to plunk down even more hard earned cash to the Lucas Empire.....oh well fuck that. They can keep them. I still have my original VHS tapes so when I need a blast from the past I&#39;ll pull out the trusty VCR from the closet.

  • May 18, 2006, 7:02 a.m. CST

    OK, fxmulder, I&#39;m pretty sure we&#39;ve all explained

    by scrumdiddly

    exactly how we&#39;d like these films released. the original cuts, fully remastered. What&#39;s so hard about that? Give me the keys to Lucasfilm and I&#39;ll bloody well do it!

  • May 18, 2006, 7:04 a.m. CST

    "Alert my shuttle.." doesn&#39;t work

    by Razorback

    That is why it was changed. He says "Alert my shuttle.." and then he WALKS UP TO HIS SHUTTLE. Stupid. So, it was changed to "Alert my star destroyer to prepair for my arrival."

  • May 18, 2006, 7:06 a.m. CST

    "Theywere originally released in anamorphic widescreen"

    by newc0253

    uh, no they weren&#39;t. they were originally released in fixed proportions for the cinema. anamorphic is a construct for your tv set.

  • May 18, 2006, 7:07 a.m. CST


    by Razorback

    Lucas doesn&#39;t have contempt for those movies... he has contempt for FUCKBAGS LIKE YOU who have shit on him for ten years. I have not been this happy about Lucas dicking over you fangirls who bitch and moan about everything he does... so he gives you what you ask for but not exactly... I LOVE IT. FUCK YOU! DIE UNHAPPY! HAHAHAHAHAHA! I love you, Lucas. You have perpetuated the greatest fuck you in movie history to people who only bag on you.

  • May 18, 2006, 7:13 a.m. CST

    Razorback - you calling me a fuckbag?

    by BendersShinyAss

    You&#39;re the one who coesn&#39;t even know that Vador walking to his shuttle is only in the SE. In the original there is no Shuttle. and he doesn&#39;t say &#39;alert my shuttle&#39; he says &#39;bring my shuttle&#39;. I haven&#39;t shit on Lucas at all. In fact, I&#39;m a big fan and i love all the star wars movies - failings and all. But I did learn something here today. Anamorphic transfer and letterboxing are two different things.... and you&#39;re a dickhead.

  • May 18, 2006, 7:14 a.m. CST

    lucas should also buy every fan a time machine...

    by newc0253

    so they can watch the original versions with their original 8-year old eyes, etc.

  • May 18, 2006, 7:18 a.m. CST


    by BendersShinyAss

    I&#39;m not sure what fixed proportions means, but on a 35mm reel of film the image was all squished up skinny like, an anamorphic lens is used to make is all wide and shit. But I believe the 70mm print made it the fixed proportions you&#39;re talking about. How bout that Razorback. What an Assbutt

  • May 18, 2006, 7:19 a.m. CST

    quit whinning!

    by gonzobob

    I remember over ten years ago buying the original movies on VHS. I had&#39;nt seen these movies in a long time and when I watched them again I Realised how Dated the FX were (this was in 1994). fast forward three years later, and Lucas released the special editions. I found the SE&#39;s to be a far more enjoyable experience, and think that the new scenes and FX added to the movies. Add to that, I reckon that these versions stand strong beside the superior visuals of the new trilogy. I don,t know what the fuss is, the SE&#39;s polished the saga and prepared us for episodes 1-3. So all the purists are gonna get what they wanted, so quit complaining, and realise how things have changed since 1977!

  • May 18, 2006, 7:54 a.m. CST

    What the hell, here&#39;s the link

    by Lone Fox _________ Yeah right, NOT mimicking theatrical posters...

  • May 18, 2006, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Anamorphic widescreen...

    by chaos731

    OK. Since clearly many of you don&#39;t get what "anamorphic widescreen" means, and why it&#39;s important (sometimes, at least), here&#39;s the best article I&#39;ve ever read on the subject: "Anamorphic widescreen Anamorphic widescreen is a cinematography and photography technique for capturing a widescreen picture on standard 35mm film. It can also refer to a related technique for maximizing picture quality in DVD video recordings. Anamorphic widescreen in cinematography was first popularized with CinemaScope, which was one of many widescreen formats developed in the 1950s. The need for anamorphic widescreen arose due to an incompatibility between the aspect ratio of the photographic film, and that of the resulting picture. One common widescreen format has an aspect ratio of 2.35 to 1, meaning the picture width is 2.35 times its height. 35mm film has an aspect ratio of 1.37 to 1, which is not as wide (or, conversely, is too tall). If the picture is recorded on film so that its full width fits within the film frame, some film recording area is wasted on portions that will not be visible in the finished film (Figure 1). To make full use of the available film, an anamorphic lens is used during recording; this lens effectively stretches the picture vertically so that it fills the available film area (Figure 2). Since a larger film area is being used to record the same picture, quality is increased. The distortion introduced in the picture must be corrected when the film is played back, so another lens is used during projection that returns the picture to its correct proportions. It may seem that it would be easier to simply use a wider film for recording movies; however, 35mm film was already in widespread use, and it was more economically feasible for film producers and exhibitors to simply attach a special lens to the camera or projector, rather than investing in a new film format, along with the attendant cameras, projectors, and editing equipment. VistaVision and Cinerama were earlier attempts to solve the problem of incompatible aspect ratios, but anamorphic widescreen eventually proved to be more viable. The most common anamorphic widescreen film format in use today is commonly called scope or 2.35:1 (sometimes 2.39:1 or 2.4:1). It uses a 2:1 anamorphic projector lens that expands the image by exactly twice the amount horizontally than vertically. This format is essentially the same as CinemaScope except for minor technical differences. There are artifacts that can occur when using an anamorphic camera lens that do not occur when using an ordinary spherical lens. One is a kind of lens flare that has a long horizontal line usually with a blue tint and is most often visible when there is a bright light, such as from car headlights, in the frame with an otherwise dark scene. This artifact is not always considered to be a problem. It has come to be associated with a certain cinematic look and is in fact sometimes emulated using a special effect in scenes that were not shot using an anamorphic lens. Another characteristic of anamorphic camera lenses is that out-of-focus elements tend to be blurred more vertically. An out-of-focus point of light in the background will appear as a vertical oval rather than a circle. When the camera shifts focus, there is often a noticeable effect where elements appear to stretch vertically when going out of focus. An anamorphic lens will also have a more shallow depth of field compared to a spherical lens for a given aperture. While the anamorphic scope widescreen format is still in use as a camera format, it has been losing popularity in favor of flat formats, mainly Super 35. There are several reasons for this: An anamorphic lens can create artifacts as described above. An anamorphic lens is more expensive than a spherical lens. Because the anamorphic scope camera format does not preserve any of the image above and below the scope frame, it may not transfer as well to more narrow aspect ratios such as 4:3 or 16:9 for full screen television. Film grain is less of an issue because of the availability of higher quality film stocks and digital intermediates. Anamorphic scope as a printed film format, however, is well established as the standard for 2.35:1 widescreen projection. Regardless of the camera formats used in filming, the distributed prints will be in anamorphic widescreen format. This is not likely to soon change because cinemas around the world already have an investment in the equipment to project this format. Other widescreen film formats (commonly 1.85:1 and 1.66:1) are simply cropped in vertical size to produce the widescreen effect, a technique known as masking or hard matte. This can occur either during filming, where part of the picture is masked out in the gate, or in the lab, which can optically create a matte onto the prints. Either method produces a frame similar to that in Figure 1. Many film prints today have no matte, though the film is framed for the intended aspect ratio; this approach is called full frame filming. In these, the film captures additional information that is masked out during projection in the projector gate, known as soft matte process. This approach allows filmmakers the freedom to include the additional picture in a 4:3 transfer of the film and avoid pan and scan, though doing so may introduce areas of the picture that were not intended for viewing, such as microphone booms or other filming accessories that would not have been visible in the widescreen frame. For this reason, often productions will "protect for 4:3" by making certain the frame is clear of these objects, even though that part of the image will not remain visible in the theater. 2.35, 2.39, or 2.4? One common misconception about the anamorphic format concerns the actual number of the aspect ratio itself. Since the anamorphic lenses in virtually all 35mm anamorphic systems provide a 2:1 squeeze, one would logically conclude that a 1.37 full academy gate would lead to a 2.74 aspect ratio if used with anamorphic lenses. However, due to a difference in the camera gate aperture and projection mask sizes for anamorphic films, the image dimensions used for anamorphic film vary from "flat" (spherical) counterparts. To complicate matters, the SMPTE standards for the format have varied over time; to further complicate things, pre-1957 prints took up the optical soundtrack space of the print (instead having magnetic sound on the sides), which made for a 2.55 ratio. The first SMPTE definition for anamorphic projection with an optical sound track down the side (PH22.106-1957), made in December 1957, standardized the aperture to 0.839" by 0.715". The aspect ratio for this aperture, after a 2x unsqueeze, rounds to 2.35. A new definition was created in October 1970 (PH22.106-1971) which made the vertical dimension slightly smaller in order to make splices less noticable (as anamorphic prints use more of the negative frame area than any other modern format) when projected. This new aperture size, 0.838" by 0.700", makes for an unsqueezed ratio of 2.39. The most recent revision, from August 1993 (SMPTE 195-1993), slightly altered the dimensions so as to standardize a common aperture width (0.825") for all formats, anamorphic and flat. At these modern dimensions (0.825" by 0.690"), the unsqueezed ratio remains at 2.39. Anamorphic prints are still often called &#39;Scope or 2.35 by projectionists, cinematographers, and others working in the field, if only by force of habit. 2.39 is in fact what they generally are referring to (unless discussing films using the process between 1958 and 1970), which is itself sometimes rounded up to 2.4. With the exception of certain specialist and archivist areas, generally 2.35 = 2.39 = 2.4 to most professionals, whether they themselves are even aware of the changes or not. To complicate matters even further, 2.35 is often achieved by matting a flat 35mm frame or, slightly less frequently, by using 2-perf (Techniscope) pull-down. Most modern cinematographers use "2.40" to refer to anamorphic whilst "2.35" refers to a matted frame. DVD video A similar anamorphic technique is used to store video on DVD. DVDs using anamorphic widescreen make the most effective use of the available resolution, as well as allowing a film to automatically expand to fit widescreen television sets. Widescreen pictures on DVD are stored in a horizontally squeezed format, in order to maximize the available storage space, and not waste as much on storing the black letterboxing bars. Sources that are close to 16:9 are transferred to DVD taking up the entire 16:9 frame. Sources that are wider than 16:9, such as 2.35:1 video is transferred to DVD with black bars, although the title is still flagged for 16:9 playback, and the bars are not as pronounced as they would be for 4:3 playback. When a DVD is inserted into a player, the player will do one of two things depending on the type of television set in use: If the DVD player is set up to output a widescreen image, the player will signal to the TV that the video is anamorphic, and then sends the video, still horizontally squeezed, to the television, which will stretch it horizontally to fill the screen. The combination of this squeeze-and-stretch restores the video back to its original widescreen aspect ratio, minimizing the loss of quality. If the DVD player is setup to output a letterboxed picture, the DVD player stretches the picture horizontally to restore the correct aspect ratio, and adds letterbox-style "black-bars" before sending the signal to the TV. This technique is not used on all DVD discs; some use the standard letterboxing technique. Those that do use the anamorphic technique typically specify "anamorphic widescreen", "enhanced for 16x9", "enhanced for widescreen televisions" or a similar statement on the packaging, though there is currently no widely accepted standard for such labeling. If a DVD claims to be widescreen, but does not have a label like one of the previous, it may use the standard letterbox technique, resulting in decreased resolution for widescreen pictures. Some DVD packaging explicitly mentions that the lower-quality letterbox technique is used; when viewing such a letterboxed DVD on a widescreen display, it may be necessary to zoom in on the picture in order to utilize the full width of the screen." -from

  • May 18, 2006, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Lone Fox

    by moondoggy2u

    Yeah, we already knew they were photoshoping poses so as to mimic the original art, which leads me to a question: why? Doesnt Lucas own the original poster art copyrights? For that matter, why is EVERY DVD cover photoshop work and not the movie posters? Has it something to do wtih maximizing profits or something, because I cannot recall a single DVD that had cinema poster art rather than photoshop. If anyone has an answer to this, please tell me--I&#39;m very curious.

  • May 18, 2006, 8:10 a.m. CST

    And Im not just talking about Star Wars, either

    by moondoggy2u

  • May 18, 2006, 8:15 a.m. CST

    I actually agree with Quint 100%

    by brycemonkey

    I never bought Star Wars as I *knew* that evil fucker Lucas would do this. Talk aout your used-up hacks... Do some great work 30 years ago, then coast on it for eternity. Keep releasing slightly different versions until real fans have about 20 SW movies... I never bought and will never pay for Star Wars. Fuck. That.

  • May 18, 2006, 8:24 a.m. CST

    I guess I would care more if I bought an HDTV.

    by Orbots Commander

    But I don&#39;t, so &#39;yawn&#39;. Star Wars on my Sony 4:3 will look just fine, thanks. No need to buy an LCD or plasma just yet. This year and next year there will be an introduction of 2, count them, 2 MORE different display technologies, LED and SED. At the end, who knows which one out of all is the best and lasts the longest? So far, LCD picture quality blows, unless you go really high end and spend upwards of $3000. Plasma looks nice but still way too pricey, and still has issues with gaming, etc. Rear projection DLP&#39;s are very nice, but then you need to deal with color wheel rainbows and changing expensive bulbs every couple of years. Nothing has really won me over yet; and these TVs are still WAY too expensive. My magic price range is $600-$800. Once a good quality HDTV by a major brand like Panasonic, Toshiba, or Sony, in a 32 inch to 37 inch size becomes available, I MIGHT be convinced to buy one. It doesn&#39;t help that the majority (about 85%) of content/channels on cable is still in standard defenition.

  • May 18, 2006, 8:26 a.m. CST


    by Floyd_Dylan

    Save your your precious money George, and don&#39;t bother printing the original trilogy on to DVD, because the fans have the same laserdisc rip on pirate which is non anamorphic 2.0 stereo surround, and now thanks to piracy we can get them in anamorphic widescreen. We know it&#39;s illegal but thanks to your narrow mindedness you&#39;ve basically played in to the hands of the pirates who will profit more than you will. If you can&#39;t be asked and spend a little time and money by making them anamorphic, and digitially remaster the picture and sound (still keeping the original soundtrack), then F**K you and your future film/game/TV/DVD productions, if that&#39;s how you want to treat your fans.

  • May 18, 2006, 8:28 a.m. CST

    here&#39;s something a little weird...

    by Jewish_Batman

    On my SE dvd set, in Empire, Yoda doesnt say "feel like what?" Yet, if I turn on subtitles, it has the line. Now it obviously wasn&#39;t cut, and its really pissing me off. Nothing else on any of the dvds is messed so it can&#39;t be from a scratch. And I checked this like 5 times so I didnt just not hear it. I know, I know, its on yours! So what do I have the manufactured anomaly of my favorite movie of all time? And it only affects one line? WHAT THE FUCK!?! Is it my dvd player or could it be a scratch? Its buggin&#39; the shit out of me.

  • May 18, 2006, 8:30 a.m. CST

    I just can&#39;t believe that one of the richest

    by smackfu

  • May 18, 2006, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Widescreen HDTVs?

    by rev_skarekroe

    You people must be made out of money.

  • and punch him in the junk. It&#39;s pretty bizarre that the most powerful guy in the sci-fi industry has a design team that is operating at a lower skill level than the average call center or mcdonalds employee with a copy of photoshop. I&#39;m willing to bet that at least 5 people in this thread alone are capable of putting together a more asthetically pleasing and professional looking set of posters.

  • May 18, 2006, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Agreed smackfu...

    by brycemonkey

    those covers are gay. Brian Singer gay! Han shooting, Han shooting and ohh, Han shooting.

  • May 18, 2006, 8:45 a.m. CST

    I&#39;m with BendersShinyAss...

    by Jewish_Batman

    Your a dick Razorback. You praise Lucas in a really immature manner by calling people who actually put thought and effort into their talkback "fuckbags"... One of the reasons there are OT geeks like us, is because we enjoy looking at every detail of classic films, and love to love good things as much as we love to hate shit. You&#39;ve got a lot of growing up to do buddy, grow some balls.

  • May 18, 2006, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Two Words (actually three)

    by YeahRightUDork

    Netflix + DVD Shrink! Hit the little toad where it counts. If this is the 95 Laserdisc print and I already own the Laserdisc doesn&#39;t that mean......nevermind. He&#39;s not getting another dime from me until High Def transfers. DVD is so 5 years ago!

  • May 18, 2006, 9:11 a.m. CST

    Fans need to support fans...

    by YeahRightUDork These fans deserve a boatload of respect for what they are doing!

  • May 18, 2006, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Jewish_Batman are you kidding me with this complaint?

    by Trazadone

    Jesus, is this so detrimental to your viewing experience that you needed to post about it? I mean, I love Star Wars, but the hyperscrutiny of these films is insane. Who the hell cares about one line of the film not being there. I guess it&#39;s a conspiracy from Lucas so he can release the special "Feel like what?" version next year. God, focus your energy on something that matters.

  • May 18, 2006, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Han&#39;s Poses

    by Lev_Harris

    Han looks the same in all three covers, holding his gun shooting something. Awesome.

  • May 18, 2006, 9:24 a.m. CST

    HDTV, Anamorphic, and Your Stupid Bitching

    by savagexp

    First of all, it doesn&#39;t matter if you have a 16x9 TV set. We should all want these released Anamorphically because it&#39;s the right way to do it. Jesus Christ, you&#39;d think this was 1997 by the way people are bitching about us wanting something that, here in 2006, has become fucking standard. It doesn&#39;t cost any more money to do make the master Anamorphic. This is completely George Lucas giving the fans the finger.............. As for people bitching that some other people have HDTVs: Get A Fucking Job. HDTVs are CHEAP today. I bout mine two years ago for $3000, and today the same set (updated model, natch) costs 1K less. We aren&#39;t saying we&#39;re better than you and we aren&#39;t trying to brag because we have these sets. Quit acting like we are......... Finally -- yes, in the next two years there will be new technology that will make HDTVs even less expensive. And two years after that there will be more new technology. And two years after that. Etc. In the meantime, your missing the joy that is LOST, 24, ESPN and NFL in HD.

  • May 18, 2006, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Spare me your "get a job" arguments, savage

    by moondoggy2u

    The day I spend two weeks&#39; salary on a tv set is the day I start shoveling Lucifer&#39;s driveway. Its a source of endless amusement to me that you early adopters love to flaunt your idiotic and juvenile spending habits.

  • May 18, 2006, 9:35 a.m. CST

    Well put, IndyCollector

    by Trazadone

  • May 18, 2006, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Right on moondoggy.

    by Orbots Commander

    I&#39;m bewildered by people who make an average salary yet think nothing of loading up in credit card debt to buy a discretionary expense, depreciating commodity like a huge screen TV. If you&#39;re doing great financially, then God bless and more power to you. Continued success. But...if you&#39;re just starting out or scraping by and you go into debt for a goddamn TV that you&#39;ll be paying off with minimum payments for the next five years, then you&#39;re the definition of irresposibility.

  • May 18, 2006, 9:48 a.m. CST


    by Lone Fox

    It was more for Quint&#39;s benefit, as he disputes;s claim that they mimic the posters. As for why, each release of the films on the various formats have used different cover art, perhaps Lucas is just trying to give something different each time? I agree though, these &#39;biscuit tin box&#39; designs are pretty amateur, but I can live with it.

  • May 18, 2006, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah Wah

    by LLcruize2

    I knew that the crying would continue and it has. Jezz folks, get a damn life will ya? Shatner had THE quote of the century when he said that to Trek fans and the pissing and moaners here and eleswhere need the same bitch slap to their face.

  • May 18, 2006, 10:02 a.m. CST

    As of this AICN article and talkback

    by moondoggy2u

    Star Wars fans have officially become even geekier and nerdier than Star Trek Fans. I never thought I&#39;d see the day a trekie became more cool than anything. Hell, I never thought Trekie and cool were applicable in the same sentence!! But Star Wars fans have officially proven themselves to be the UBER NERDS! I dont care how old, how married, how rich any of you anamorphic-craving idiots are, you all, every last one of you, need to grow up. I&#39;ve never in my life seen such bitching and moaning from a bunch of film pussies in my life! Even Star Trek fans didnt bitch this much when Kirk fell of the goddamn bridge! Sweet jumping Jesus!!!

  • May 18, 2006, 10:05 a.m. CST

    And the first Star Wars animorph I see on the street

    by moondoggy2u

    is gonna get the shit smacked out of him, too!

  • May 18, 2006, 10:08 a.m. CST

    DVDs also lack extras...

    by CeeWulf

    Seems these new individual DVDs also won&#39;t have any new extras. Seems like it&#39;s pretty obvious now that there will eventually be a super-duper edition featuring the deleted scenes we all know exist.

  • May 18, 2006, 10:20 a.m. CST

    It&#39;s Called a "Compromise"...

    by Damitol

    Lucas does not consider the original releases to be "Star Wars", he points to the 2004 releases as the definitive (at least for now) versions. The reason the 2004s are going to be all bright and shiney in the same boxes as the "workprint" versions is so that should anyone outside of the relativly small group of aging Star Wars purists do a side by side comparison, there is no doubt as to which version they will load up next time. Lucas is throwing you a bone and giving you exactly what you have been begging for, so take a breath and be happy. The only people who care about this are well on thier way into that demographic that no longer matters to movie studios (not a slam, I&#39;m there too), so I say buy them day and date and enjoy the matte lines, the relativly empty establishing shots and Han shooting first. I seriously doubt that Lucas will ever release them again. Not because he&#39;s a dick (which yes, he can be), but because the other 97% of Star Wars fans out there prefer the shiney version - and so does the guy who owns it. "But... but... but I bought all of those tickets, toys and tapes/Laser Disks/DVDs!" Yeah - but he still holds the keys and title. Sorry for the reality check.

  • May 18, 2006, 10:26 a.m. CST

    I will only Buy!

    by casinoskunk

    i own 5 version of the Star Wars Trilogy on VHS. I own One version of the Star Wars Saga on DVD. i will not buy another star wars dvd until george lucas does what WB did with the Matrix trilogy or Fox did with The Planet of the Apes. All 6 films, ALL documentaries, ALL versions of All six films. The "Making of Star Wars" (starring 3p0 and R2), "From Star Wars to Jedi", Deleted Scenes, All Trailers and TV spots,Behind the scenes footage,Star Tours Footage, The Holiday Special, the Ewok Adventures,Clone Wars Cartoons,Complete Merchandise Gallery, The Art of Starwars...EVERYTHING! no price is too steep!

  • May 18, 2006, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Oh Yeah....

    by casinoskunk

    ....Isolated score!

  • May 18, 2006, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Harry, for the love of all that is good....

    by Doctor_Sin

    Please intercede in all this madness. Take Moriarty, go to the Ranch and threaten to assfuck George&#39;s daughters until he relents and lets you both inside to remaster the SW films properly. Only you have the power to prevent this horrific DC-comics style retcon from tearing the fanworld apart.

  • May 18, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    I really didn&#39;t want this to sound like fanboy whining

    by Wee Willie

    Too late, mogambo.

  • May 18, 2006, 10:35 a.m. CST

    lol priceless...

    by DigitalDong

    I&#39;m glad Quint can&#39;t any satisfaction. btw the prequels rule cause its Star Wars. And Han Solo is an object for sub-conscience homosexual yearnings. If you like Han, you probably like him a little too much. Luke rules.

  • May 18, 2006, 10:35 a.m. CST

    No Anamorphic?

    by Vizzini

    I couldn&#39;t care about the cover, I don&#39;t even care about the sound. But letterbox instead of anamorphic? Letterbox widescreen DVD&#39;s just look plain HORRIBLE. The resolution you are left with is so poor. Please, please make &#39;em anamorphic.

  • May 18, 2006, 10:50 a.m. CST

    George Lucas isn&#39;t an artist in fact he a cancer to art

    by IndustryKiller

    even in the flimsiest of terms he can no longer be considered an artist. It is absolutely irrelevant if you like the prequels, your enjoymnent doesn&#39;t make them good films. It could even be argued as the worst trilogy of all time. Terrible acting, writing, editing, mediocre unnecessarily grandiose music, and random unneeded special effects proves this. What Lucas is is a businessman. Quint isn&#39;t telling lucas anything he doesnt know, he understands how awful this DVD release is but he hates the fans and purposely bilks money from them. You wanna do something about it? Steal. Pirate as much Lucasfilm involved product as you possibly can and encourage everyone you know to do so.

  • May 18, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST

    Maybe these discs *can&#39;t* be anamorphic

    by eg4190

    I said the same thing above but nobody acknowledged it. If Lucas has indeed destroyed the master prints for the originals, as has been rumored, then the only master than exists -- and ever will exist -- is the 1995 non-anamorphic laserdic remaster. It may not even be an issue of cheapness or a desire to make the originals look inferior. Lucas may just have gone crazy enough in 1997 to do this.

  • May 18, 2006, 10:53 a.m. CST

    And anyone who say to be happy with what you get

    by IndustryKiller

    What an incredibly asinine statement. I don&#39;t owe Lucas to be satisfied with what I get. Im a consumer so in fact he owes me something....a good fucking product. I&#39;m paying money so I should get my moneys worth and maybe even demand more, that&#39;s the American way. And in fact griping is good it keeps corporations on their toes.

  • May 18, 2006, 11:09 a.m. CST

    I find it hilarious...

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    ...that I get more enjoyment out of my 27" TV and the speakers in that TV than you fucking assholes with $3,000 HDTV&#39;s and surround sound hookups. I wish my biggest problem at the end of the day was figuring out how to make Star Wars look better on my overpriced TV. I hope there&#39;s a special room reserved in Hell for all of you, where Greedo shoots first is shown on an endless loop on VHS.

  • May 18, 2006, 11:11 a.m. CST

    EVERY film these days is released anamorphic...

    by ScarranHalfBreed

    ...(in the UK at least) but not THIS one. Oh no. WHAT is Lucas doing? Just WHAT is he doing? One disappointment after another.

  • May 18, 2006, 11:24 a.m. CST

    The covers are Wal-mart garbage

    by Mister Man

    Yep, Quint, LOVE that original SW retro poster - had it hanging in my room, back in 77. (Or was it for a rerelease? Anyway, some damn cat in my college dorm shredded it for a nest - the cat died.)

  • May 18, 2006, 11:33 a.m. CST

    The people here who are saying it&#39;s not a big deal

    by wash

    ...don&#39;t own a HDTV and therefore are ignorant of the implications. So go ahead, re-buy your fucking DVDs and enjoy them on your 25" Walmart no-brand 4x3 TV.

  • May 18, 2006, 11:45 a.m. CST


    by Kung Fu Hustler

    You&#39;re right, I don&#39;t own an HDTV. I guess I feel I have better things to do with two or three grand than blow it on a fucking TV. I also don&#39;t care if a product is being released that doesn&#39;t cater to your "perfect" requirements. I won&#39;t buy a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc; you won&#39;t buy the Star Wars DVDs. So go ahead, re-buy your fucking DVDs on "next-gen" discs and enjoy them on your 52" name brand TV.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:02 p.m. CST

    What a fun talkback wheeee

    by chrth

    Never had any interest in buying them, glad I sold off my VHS WS. SEs are fine by me.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:06 p.m. CST

    Testify, Quint! Lucas is a lazy, greedy, evil bastard!


    Just one more reason to hate Lucas - and not to give him any more of my money. (Yes, I also resisted buying the SE Trilogy DVD set... or any of the prequels.)

  • May 18, 2006, 12:08 p.m. CST

    KFH - Welcome to the year 2000

    by wash

    Decent HDTVs can be found for $1000-1500 these days. You don&#39;t have to have Blu-Ray or HD-DVD to see a big improvement in resolution - sub $100 DVD players display very impressive pictures. Still, non-anamorphic DVDs look like garbage on HDTV. And if you&#39;re such a luddite, I guess your happy with VHS or your viewmasters or whatever.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Quint -- The Art of Star Wars!!

    by GreatWhiteNoise

    There&#39;s enough McQuarrie & The Gang in that book to fill ten DVD packages (and it contains the original unedited script to boot, complete with early scenes on Tattooine with Biggs, the Docking Bay 94 scene with Jabba that made it into the SE, etc.). If they really wanted to do it right, they&#39;d release a nice honkin&#39;-big multimedia set containing the original anamorphic releases (do what you want to the sound), a complete set of "The Art of..." books, and a bonus CD with the remastered soundtrack and the art from the original double-LP release. (And a nice extra on the DVD would be the original Docking Bay 94 scene with the Jabba that looked so cheesy that Lucas cut it.) My wish list. Alas.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Regarding the SEs...

    by Negatif1

    The real issue is that Lucas muddled with the tone, the mood, the tension, Han&#39;s character arc, and the relevance of plot. I can remember when Jabba&#39;s Palace and the Ice Creature were actually tense scenes. There was tension in Jabba&#39;s Palace originally, it had a feeling of being strangely, distantly foreign - and now it&#39;s a cartoon show. I love a lot about the SEs and the work that was done, but still so much of it has the same nonchalant hatchetwork that defines the prequels.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:19 p.m. CST


    by KingKirby

    Quint - While I realize chaos731 has already posted a (VERY)complete description, can you please show us examples of a single frame from "Star Wars" to show the difference between anamorphic widescreen and letterboxed widescreen, so that I may more fully appreciate your rant? Thanks!

  • May 18, 2006, 12:22 p.m. CST

    George Lucas Making History

    by one9deuce

    Has any filmmaker in the history of cinema done more to destroy his reputation than George Lucas? He was once a visionary, and now he&#39;s a greedy businessman who&#39;s first and last impulse is making money. George Lucas with Star Wars and Jerry Perenchio with Blade Runner are the only two filmmakers around who won&#39;t release original theatrical cuts on DVD because.....well who the hell knows! Somebody give me a good reason not to have original theatrical cuts available. There isn&#39;t one! I also can&#39;t get over how many ignoramuses are on this talkback concerning anamorphic widescreen. Go to and get educated! A non-anamorphic release for a film in 2006 is a big FU to anyone that isn&#39;t ignorant as hell.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Here&#39;s a thought

    by drjohnnyfever

    Fucking Christ this talkback is long... as usual when it comes to Star Wars TBs. Anyway, here&#39;s a thought that someone may have already mentioned, but I&#39;ll say it anyway: two things can happen with this release. 1.) They&#39;re released, but not the way the fans want but everyone buys them up anyway, giving Lucas no incentive to give fans the transfers they want or 2.) the fans decide to stay away, waiting for say the Blu-Ray/HDDVD transfers they figure are coming, therefore "telling" Lucasfilm that, hey, we didn&#39;t really want the untouched OT after all.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:27 p.m. CST


    by Capt. Spaulding

    If it&#39;s not going to look or sound better than my bootlegs....why should I buy this? I offically gave up on Star Wars after Episode III. I rode it to the end, went down with the ship and all that jazz. I kept telling myself after each of the first two prequels, "the next one will be better" and then it wasn&#39;t. I think at this point, Star Wars fans need to either cut their losses and go find something else to geek over OR remain loyal and keep buying DVDs, Blu-Rays, etc. Actually, isn&#39;t this how the rebellion got started? People went one way or the other? You know, now that I think about it, I bought those bootlegs about six or seven months ago, and I still haven&#39;t watched them. I find it kind of sad actually, I used to be this HUGE Star Wars geek. Oh, well....

  • May 18, 2006, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Isn&#39;t Anamorphic more a description of how film is shot

    by modlight

    There may be two definitions, one for Digital one for film, but I always thought that Anamorphic was an explanation for stretching a 35mm film print to 70mm, which still is done today. I am a huge Star Wars fan, but dont know what it was initially shot it, but I would assume that they didn&#39;t have the budget for 70mm film so they probably shot it in 35mm Anamorphic. I could be wrong. So is this anamorphic thingyjust a representation of that initial film explanation. In any case, I&#39;m about to buy a big ass TV right around when this comes out, so if it really does suck on big TV&#39;s, thats a friggin Travesty.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Lucas is a Pusher...

    by modlight

    He knows we need it, and he just gives it to us in the smallest/crappiest amount possible making us hate him more and more, but we keep coming back. He&#39;s a friggin Genius.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Fuck your HDTV&#39;s

    by Lone Fox

    I&#39;ll stick with my crystal clear projector and 16 foot screen thanks. I&#39;ll cry into my pillow at night for the resolution difference.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:49 p.m. CST

    wash, it&#39;s all relative.

    by Orbots Commander

    My particular point isn&#39;t that nobody should be buying HDTVs. If you can spare the cash and don&#39;t mind being a first adopter, go for it. You&#39;re right, ESPN-HD looks great. But most of us are relatively young with little discretionary cash availabe as we&#39;re just getting going in our chosen careers and jobs. The only thing I can spare $1000 or more on is my rent. Buying an HDTV may be something I do years and years down the road after I start making more money or after promotions, etc. But for now, most of us have to live within our means and just enjoy our reliable old CRT TVs.

  • May 18, 2006, 12:57 p.m. CST


    by alucardvsdracula


  • May 18, 2006, 1 p.m. CST


    by Kung Fu Hustler

    It&#39;s not about being a luddite. The main reason DVDs are so popular aren&#39;t because of better picture. VHS tapes are a pain in the ass to have to rewind and fast forward through. I love my DVD player and am glad the format is so popular. But does a better resolution make the movie any better or worse? I don&#39;t think so. I thoroughly enjoyed watching films on VHS, as much as I do on DVD. BTW, $1000-1500 is still a lot of fucking money for a TV when a 32" no name brand does the same fucking job, namely deliver a moving picture to my living room. And finally, I don&#39;t fucking care about Star Wars, but I&#39;m sick of assholes with their sleek new toys acting like we are all poor, stupid jerks because we don&#39;t want to piss our money away on something as frivilous as a TV. Like I said, at the end of the day, I wish my biggest problem was how to make Star Wars look better. Alas, it&#39;s not, so fuck off and enjoy your bitching and moaning over stupid, worthless, pointless bullshit.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:06 p.m. CST

    Yeah fuck you HDTV people! Analog vs HDTV! Bring it on!

    by Orionsangels

    The battle to end all battles!!! Yes hold your ground. Son of geeks, of AICN, my brothers. I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when HDTV fails, when we forsake our Analog signals and break all bonds with our TV sets, but it is not this day. An hour of woes and shattered remote controls, when the age of TV comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you *stand, Geeks of the West!

  • May 18, 2006, 1:10 p.m. CST


    by awmarshall

    Here&#39;s a great site that gives visual examples of letterbox vs anamorphic Obviously, a lot of people feel they will not be affected by this but in the next few years widescreen TVs will become standard. I just purchased the least expensive HDTV I could get and realized a few of my older DVDs had to be replaced (i.e. Young Frankenstein) if I wanted to enjoy better picture quality.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:13 p.m. CST

    For Orion...

    by moondoggy2u


  • May 18, 2006, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Haters unite!

    by brycemonkey

    Lets take this angry mob and storm the castle! Erm, I mean ranch...

  • May 18, 2006, 1:25 p.m. CST

    That 2009 switchover mandated by Congress.

    by Orbots Commander

    One of my uncles works for a local major cable company and knows all about this. In 2009, HDTV in 16:9 format will not be required of networks. The only thing the switch over refers to is the signal switching from analog to digital. Digital is the signal which your tuner picks up; High Definition is the resolution quality. They are mutually exclusive. A digital signal will be more than likely broadcast in regular old standard defenition by the majority of channels. If you have an old CRT, the only thing you&#39;ll need is a $25 analog to digital tuner to pick up over the air signals. If you have satellite or cable TV then you don&#39;t need to spend another thought on it. Your provider&#39;s box converts the signal already.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:29 p.m. CST

    Kung Fu Hustler...

    by Doctor_Sin hereby nominated King of the Universe and you must all bow down. His ownage of the masses shall be delivered with furious wrath.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:47 p.m. CST


    by Kung Fu Hustler herby nominated Darth Sin and will serve as my second-in-command, delivering my furious wrath to the masses with his use of the Dark Side.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:48 p.m. CST


    by HarryBlackPotter

    Why is Han (as pictured in SW - or Ep IV) on the cover of Empire??? Doesn&#39;t Lucas have a fucking clue how to run his fucking art department? Fucking hack.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:51 p.m. CST

    There&#39;s a lot of things I don&#39;t care about...

    by wash

    Funny thing is, I don&#39;t seek out threads on the internet and then proceed to post my opinion about them.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Glad to be with you moondoggy

    by Orionsangels

    Here at the end of all geeks, lol.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:56 p.m. CST

    I heard Lucas is having financial difficulties...

    by Capt. Murphy

    ...HAHAHA, yeah, whatever, unless they start charging $5 million per snack cake, I think he&#39;ll be okay. Lucas is obviously releasing these as a way to milk even more out of his "loyal fanbase" who will buy anything with a picture of a lightsaber on the box. He&#39;s become his own Jabba, a fat, greedy snake who has no shame when it comes to taking as much money as he possibly can for rehash and re-edit. He&#39;s disgusting, and I personally won&#39;t be buying another Star Wars movie on any format ever again. The charm that I remember as a child going to see Star Wars at the drive-in with my parents, walking up right under the screen in total amazement of the final Death Star all overshadowed by the fact that he no longer cares about the art, he only cares about the almighty dollar.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:59 p.m. CST

    moondoggy and Orionsangel win the award for

    by chrth

    Best Hijack of a Star Wars Talkback by LOTR Geeks EVER.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Orbots Commander

    by awmarshall

    That is true...the only requirement will be digital signals and anyone with a set-top convertor box will be able to watch TV as normal. However, most (if not all) of your primetime programs will be in HDTV and widescreen...leaving those with 4:3 TVs having to deal with black bars at the top and bottom for their shows.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:10 p.m. CST

    Touche, wash...

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    ...although I didn&#39;t seek the thread out. I visit AICN regularly and generally peruse the TBs of most topics. That said, you&#39;re right, and I&#39;m done posting about this.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Suck my fat one Georgie-Boy

    by Ecto-1

    Come one, is anyone really surprised by this? George has been shafting the fans - the fans that have made him a millionare - for years, so there&#39;s no reason for him to stop now. He&#39;s putting minimum effort into these releases so he can just go on releasing them again and again. The sad thing is that so many people will buy them. Again. But not me. You can suck my fat one Georgie-boy, cos you ain&#39;t getting my money. Besides, Episodes 4 and 5 are the only good ones. The rest are shite.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Remember, Orionsangel and fellow TV viewers...

    by moondoggy2u

    This is not the end. HDTV is just another path; one that we all must take. The low-res picture of the analog signal will fade, and all turns to silver static, and then you see it...white snow, and beyond: a far better signal, full of digital surprises.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Does this effect how much $ his ex-wife gets?

    by Doctor_Sin

    Marcia edited on all three OT films. I see it as Lucas using some loophole to release the OT - not as main releases but as &#39;bonus features&#39; and there may be something involved in how they get presented. I don&#39;t know. My mind is melting. This TB is &#39;slammin.&#39; Lucas has a beer and cheets on Hulk Hogan.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:50 p.m. CST

    haha moondoggy!

    by Orionsangels

    classic, but i think the joke peaked at your post, lol

  • May 18, 2006, 2:59 p.m. CST

    Han didn&#39;t wear the vest in Empire...

    by REDD

    I know it&#39;s based on the movie poster, which also got it wrong. Now, Lando wore the vest at the end of Empire (but not Han).

  • May 18, 2006, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Totaly agree.

    by lead_sharp

    I&#39;m with Mori and Quint and anyone else who loved the original three. All I want -->ALL<-- I want is the original movies on DvD. Anamorphic, whatever sound was used. I will accept a clean up but no enhancment. No cut scenes. No added shite, no Greedo shooting first, no added Stormtroopers, OH and while we&#39;re at it fix the ending of ROTJ BACK to the original. I also agree on the bloody awful covers, but those can be fixed with a little self creation.

  • May 18, 2006, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Fuck Revenge of the Jedi

    by PwnedByStallone

    It&#39;s RETURN, fucker, and it always will be. Damn I sick of you bastards that whine about how it was originally Revenge. For about 2 minutes. And it was probably the last good decision Lucas ever made. Get over it!

  • May 18, 2006, 3:48 p.m. CST

    some 4:3 sets benefit too

    by half vader

    There are some regular CRTs like my 29" Sony that can take advantage of the extra rez provided by a 16:9 encoded disc. Even if you&#39;ve got an old set that doesn&#39;t, why wouldn&#39;t you want anamorphic? The better quality that you pay no more for will be ready and waiting for you when hell freezes over and you do get a widescreen set. The techno luddites - yes luddites are probably the ones keeping pan and scan so high on the Amazon lists. And will be gobsmacked when they do get a widescreen set (standard or high-def) and wonder why someone put black or grey bars "over" the SIDES of their picture! BTW Good on you Hustler, for admitting. Modlight PLEASE go to the digital bits or read some of the earlier posts about tech explanations of anamorphic for film and anamorphic for DVD.

  • May 18, 2006, 3:58 p.m. CST


    by waylayer

    Even my amateurish college film is anamorphic. If I could do it, I&#39;m sure Lucas could if he really wanted to. This thing isn&#39;t coming out for months, so it might still be possible. **

  • May 18, 2006, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Star Wars?

    by monkeybrow

    Could care less...the ot is a turd-fest....the last three suck huge sweaty balls....the whole steaming pile has be overrated for 30 years

  • May 18, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Lazy, cheap, stupid, and spiteful

    by Harry Weinstein

    That&#39;s what this is, if true. Who in their right mind would upgrade to something that has nothing to offer over the bootlegs that are out there? Why no new 16x9 transfer made with modern film-to-video technology? Why no 6-Track 70MM mix, which would translate on DVD to discrete Dolby Digital 4.1 - two of the six 70mm Dolby tracks are for left and right subwoofer, the others are front left, front center, front right, and mono surround channels. A number of Fox titles have their 70mm mixes represented on DVD, such as BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, SOUND OF MUSIC, and TOWERING INFERNO. If Fox was in charge of these DVDs that&#39;s probably exactly what we&#39;d get. But they aren&#39;t so we get George Lucas being a little bitch-ass about it. If you&#39;re going to do something, do it right. This should have been the definitive bootleg-slaying STAR WARS release - best picture, best sound possible for the dated source materials. As it stands, there&#39;s no reason whatsoever for anyone to upgrade to this crap. The bootleggers actually put more work into their DVDs than Lucasfilm is doing, and Lucas ought to be embarrassed by that.

  • May 18, 2006, 4:37 p.m. CST


    by pd18

    Yo, asshole! what the fuck does George Lucas have to do with Zionism? Oh, I get it, he&#39;s friends with Steven Spielberg. And because Spielberg is Jewish and he&#39;s friends with Lucas, than that obviously means that Uncle George sits on the council. You know which council, right? the one where all the Jews get together and plan the direction of the world, the destruction of freedom and the oppression of all non-Jews. Give me a fuckin&#39; break, you cowardly hate monger! I really love how you veil your true feelings behind a facade of fanboy angst - why don&#39;t you have the balls to be more succinct - you dislike the Jew, the money grubbing, big-nosed, greedy Jew! Well, I&#39;ll tell you what - I&#39;ve found a website where you and others like you can get together and talk about your true feelings. Here&#39;s the link - ready? here it comes - - Have fun you son-of-a-bitch! Oh yeah, FUCK YOU!!!

  • May 18, 2006, 4:39 p.m. CST

    Why the Lucas defenders are missing the point

    by wash

    Here is Lucas&#39;s chance to put out a superior product to the bootleggers, and it looks like he can&#39;t even manage to do that. There is some VERY high quality stuff out there. So the feeling I have (that I&#39;m guessing a lot of us share) is "Why even bother?" (besides the obviou$).

  • May 18, 2006, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Gouging Star Wars Freaks

    by AnamorphicRulez!

    There must be a mistake. The movies have to be anamporphic only a dumb ass idiot wouldn&#39;t release in anamorphic. It would be a travesty if they were not released anamorphic. But who cares he&#39;ll be re-re-re-releasing it about 10 more times. Can&#39;t wait for the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD releases. HD release better not come full frame. Anyone crying about full frame needs to go back in time and watch black and white movies. Your better off waiting for the HD release. Actually you might want to wait for the 3rd HD release. That&#39;s probably when he&#39;ll get it right.

  • May 18, 2006, 5:29 p.m. CST

    This is fucked...

    by Rearden

    Lucas just won&#39;t give in will he. KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!

  • May 18, 2006, 5:48 p.m. CST

    I&#39;m an OT purist..

    by mcflytrap

    ..and I&#39;m fine with what we are getting. I will gladly give Lucas my money for the unaltered DVDs.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:05 p.m. CST

    let&#39;s just hope the digital bits is wrong

    by Anakin Whoopass

    Don&#39;t forget widescreen computers. Non-anamorphic DVDs of widescreen movies have black bars on the top, bottom, left, and right! yes software will let you zoom but the image detail won&#39;t be as good as anamorphic, which as explained earlier, packs more vertical detail into the picture. Personally I&#39;d like it if so-called "full-screen" pan&scan releases were 16x9 crops of wider-screen movies. A lot of TV shows these broadcast in 16x9 letterbox on the non-HD channels so the pan&scan crowd ought to be used to those tiny bars, meanwhile widescreen users would have no bars at all, greater detail, and only moderate cropping of the sides of the original film.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:12 p.m. CST

    The Cover Art Looks Like Ass Because...

    by Incrediburgible

    ....because that&#39;s the only way left for Lucas to get you to buy it yet again down the line... i.e. to get the cool/serious Criterion original movie art treatment. Something with style and gravitas and not this Big Gulp Photoshop hell.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:34 p.m. CST

    The technical ignorance here is overwhelming

    by trench404

    Given that you are all supposedly movie lovers you would think that more than a handful would know what anamorphic dvds are. Guys, YOU DO NOT NEED A HD SET TO APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE IN ANAMORPHIC DVDS. There, I just saved you the 5 minutes of googling it would have taken for you to learn it on your own.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Looks like the bootleggers are back in bidness.

    by geekzapoppin

    Sorry Luc-ASS, if you can&#39;t even be bothered to do a simple anamorphic transfer, then I can&#39;t be bothered to give you any more of my money.

  • May 18, 2006, 7:35 p.m. CST

    The original VHS tapes are STILL the best

    by white owl

    I only bought the SE DVDs in fullscreen to relive my childhood VHS fullscreen memories. And it is exactly that. Childhood memories. NOTHING MORE. I don&#39;t care about anamorphic blueray transfer stereo remaster 12.1 whatever quality editions they try to shit out to us these days. It&#39;s all about reliving the past, and Star Wars was such a monumental phenomenon in one of the most mellow decades.. one of the most inspirational of film decades. That generation is probably the majority whining in this TB about who shoots first and how real the slime looks under Jabba&#39;s armpit. Exagerations(sp?) is all there is left to discuss. I&#39;m so glad that I was born into the VHS era. Because of those tapes my CHILDHOOD will always live on.

  • May 18, 2006, 9:55 p.m. CST


    by Jewish_Batman

    dude... what? how does my post about one of yoda&#39;s lines missing in any way complain? I said I dont think it was cut, and implied it was a technical error, and a strange one that felt like posting. shit. i in no way gave an opinion on the new set coming out or any of that anamorphic stuff, so what are you saying I am complaining about? Tell me, why you hatin&#39;?

  • May 18, 2006, 10:03 p.m. CST

    pd18... well done bro

    by Jewish_Batman

  • May 18, 2006, 10:06 p.m. CST

    The reason why Lucas is not using the original prints.

    by darthbinks1220

    Because meesa stole deem! Oops, my bad. Messa berry, berry bad!

  • May 18, 2006, 10:54 p.m. CST

    Moondoggy - So very very... off...

    by 900LBGorilla

    Your statement is FLAT OUT incorrect. The film in the therates was VERY clean and sharp - film is an excellent medium when it&#39;s new....the problem is that it degrades (as Lucas himself has commented on in great detail in regards to these specific films). So don&#39;t give me the lame reasoning that sharpening a degraded picture is some new technofanled version of the ain&#39;t- its called restoration. Also the film WAS SHOT in surround... so releasing it in 2 channel is just assinine. What pray tell would the reason be for DOWNGRADING what you shot in the 70&#39;s for a DVD release (Well other than to be an asshat)? Not that either of your positions equat to an actual POINT... I mean we want the original film...what the hell do you care that we also want it to look clean? See the reason ""us guys" think SE fans such as you and Lucas should indeed be the ones eating shit (and Lucas can kick it too boot), is becase your ENTIRE POSITION IS ENTIRELY PREDECATED on being an asshat just for the sake of being one... Yeah, we want the original (and only DECENT) version of a film in clean format- WOW what whiners we are- what a WILD and novel IDEA! Again, I say the same thing- lets take all clasics, grab the directors when they are senile or have toked away the last of thier talent, have them then slap some re-imagineered CG scenes in, and then REFUSE to relase the REAL version of the film on anything exept a tape...yup, start supporting THAT moondoggy, and your position will at least be at a start with consistency... you&#39;ll still be wrong as all hell...and it will then be even more obvious.... but at least you&#39;d be consistent... as for the rest of us... we apologize for not thinking Luc@$$ deserves some special god like status in that he alone is above criticism for overtly trying to eliminte a classic (and now half ass caving from that position). ... yeah, we don&#39;t eat shit wen GL pinches it out and puts in in a pretty box- what jerks we are... again as a former Luc@$$ fan I say in all seriousness.... Fuck Lucas..all we are doing is calling him what he willingly and overtly has asshat.

  • May 18, 2006, 11 p.m. CST

    Thanks, George!

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    This is exactly what I have been waiting for, the original trilogy in its unadulterated theatrical form (warts and all). All special effects date as time passes and technology improves. It&#39;s unavoidable. But these films are wonderful representations of filmmaking as it existed circa late 70&#39;s/ early 80&#39;s. Call me a purist, but if you do anything to a film beyond cleaning up scratches and remastering the sound, then it is a different film. Not that there is anything inherently wrong in creating improved special editions, I&#39;d just prefer honesty about the differences. The lack of anamorphic capabilities won&#39;t affect my viewing pleasure, however, I do feel for everyone out there who&#39;s invested in the high end systems and won&#39;t be able to play these DVD&#39;s up to their full capabilities. Nothing sucks quite like having to play an inferior product on a superior system. Sadly, eg4190 may very well be correct in his post above where he wrote that anamorphic versions of these films in their original theatric forms may be impossible if Lucas has in fact recut the negatives.

  • May 18, 2006, 11:23 p.m. CST

    how easy anamorphic is, no matter what the case

    by SK909

    Seriously, how fucking hard would it be to take an original print, put it through telecine and have the image stretched horizontally while transferred to digibeta. Then make the DVD mpeg files off of that. Do you know how easy this is? I FUCKING DID IT WITH OFF THE SHELF PROGRAMS WITH MY OWN 35MM FILM! Granted, the transfer to digi was done at a lab, but the uncompressed files to DVD were done by myself. And my dvd&#39;s are beautiful. They look great when letterboxed on a regular tv and they look even better filling up my 52" widescreen tv. I swear, he could even take the widescreen LD files, stretch that and put it to DVD with a 16:9 flag. It wouldn&#39;t be much different than having your tv stretch it and they can probably use their insanely advanced computer technology to make the image better. I don&#39;t know... if a TBer on here can do it without much fuss and really not that much money, it&#39;s a 10 minute film and the lab costs totalled less than 1500 bucks, then I think George Lucas can swing it.

  • May 18, 2006, 11:24 p.m. CST

    meant stretched vertically

    by SK909

  • May 18, 2006, 11:38 p.m. CST

    Quint, here&#39;s an alternative DVD suggestion.

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    Watch Howard the Dick instead of Star Wars.

  • May 18, 2006, 11:56 p.m. CST

    The new DVD boxes are in line with the prequel boxes.

    by darthbinks1220

    Odd, because this release is about stand-alone OT movies in their original form. Why blend the OT w/ the Prequels. Don&#39;t the SE&#39;s serve that purpose? Guess George is trying to reach younger fans exposed to only Episodes I-III, selling the fact that these are the &#39;real&#39; sequels..... but want do I know? I&#39;m sure Mr. Lucas has his research team, and is a master at milking every last cent from this massive film franchise. Too bad he feels the original prints are &#39;working prints&#39;. They should be treated as sacred by the man. Without them, no Jar Jar.

  • May 19, 2006, 12:10 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah Quint. Darth doesn&#39;t look like a douchebag...

    by jedimast3r

    ...In that fucking camel cloak or whatever the fuck it is for the ESB poster art. Douchebag. You finally got the movies unaltered and now you want to bitch about something, anything. Jesus Christ, this is why I alienated myself from Star Wars fandom since Episode I. Be thankful you&#39;re getting them released at all, you fucking know George doesn&#39;t have to. This is a TV-Show production money campaign, no more, no less - count your blessing and stop the bitching.

  • May 19, 2006, 12:19 a.m. CST

    The release isn&#39;t about the Originals

    by YeahRightUDork

    It&#39;s a re-release of the Special Editions with the BONUS of the Originals thrown in like a special feature. So like most deleted scenes and cut footage, it&#39;s going to look like crap.

  • May 19, 2006, 12:26 a.m. CST


    by moondoggy2u

    Ahh, of course, I&#39;m the one who is the asshat. AFter all, I&#39;m the one who is happy with the special edition, happy with the prequels, happy with the NON anamorphic original transfers, and happy that they will look and sound with the same quality that I, and most people, saw the day it debuted in theaters, and ever single rerelease since. So yeah, I guess cause Im so happy I must be the ass hat, and you, the fanboy who never ceases to bitch and moan, must be the really patient, gentle soul, huh?

  • May 19, 2006, 12:31 a.m. CST

    900lbs gorilla=posterboy for contentment and serenity

    by moondoggy2u

    In bettween petty bitch fests, gimme gimme rants, and shrill cries of "george raped my childhood!" Yup, gorilla is the BUDHA of Fanboys.

  • May 19, 2006, 12:55 a.m. CST

    The crackly monaural simulated drive-in edition

    by BrandLoyalist

    Barely audible, dim picture, with the mirror of a VW Bus overlaid -- that&#39;d take me back. But Quint is right of course; the SE&#39;s are BLASPHEMY!

  • May 19, 2006, 12:56 a.m. CST

    "The films weren&#39;t shot anamorphic anyway..."

    by ScarranHalfBreed

    " the DVDs can&#39;t be anamorphic." Yeah, they can&#39;t possibly be converted to anamorphic when I have three Star Wars DVDs that are anamorphic, albeit with forced and unneeded CGI sequences.

  • May 19, 2006, 1:12 a.m. CST

    Blah Blah Blah

    by Athanatos

    Stop the bitchin. If you don&#39;t like what&#39;s being released then don&#39;t buy the damn things. The simple fact is you cannot please everyone and no matter what version is going to be released you will have a million people complaining. And the saddest thing is half the people complaining now will buy the DVD&#39;s anyway.

  • May 19, 2006, 1:29 a.m. CST


    by Ban This User

    It&#39;s ridiculous enough that anybody would oppose an anamorphic release, but your repeated claim that the original film release had a picture quality equivalent to a non-anamorphic DVD is just insane. Seriously, dude, do you know anything at all about movies? A new 35mm film print will have a better picture quality than ANY DVD, be it non-anamorphic, anamorphic, or even HD/blu-ray. I don&#39;t know why you think the picture was shitty in 1977, but that&#39;s just pure nonsense. Maybe you saw it in a shitty theater with an incompetent projectionist and an old print, but believe me, had you seen a clean, new print in 1977 the picture quality would have exceeded anything you will see in any home media format today. Get a clue.

  • May 19, 2006, 2:27 a.m. CST

    Anamorphic means fuck & all on 90% of our TVs

    by Tall_Boy

    the dude who said anamorphic means something to a standard TV is full of shit. If you don&#39;t have an HD TV, which many, many of you do, than this release is fine. Talkback is full of shit, as usual. I called it wayyyyyy back in post #1.

  • May 19, 2006, 2:55 a.m. CST

    I don&#39;t think HDTV&#39;s are only used by early adopters

    by Lezbo Milk

    or electronics nerds, or the rich. It&#39;s pretty common place now. I mean shit, just walk into a Best Buy, you&#39;d have a hard time buying a regular TV, most of their inventory is now widescreen HD. They&#39;ve got their 4:3 picture tube sets on a short shelf, back in the corner next to the UHF antennas. I&#39;m pretty sure that it&#39;s now company policy, if one of the pimplely faced clerks see&#39;s you trying to put one of those old fossils into a shopping cart, they immediately call security and they come and beat the shit out of you. I&#39;m also told that while you&#39;re being carted out by the paramedics, the Geeksquad nerds are in the back room furiously mastubating to low rez security cam pics of your girlfriends cleavage.

  • May 19, 2006, 3:29 a.m. CST

    Moondoggy fu....dude you&#39;re a dolt.

    by Hot Carl

    Only a dope with zero technical savvy would say the shit you&#39;re saying. Film realy has no resolution, it is a physical medium, an emulsion. Film&#39;s definition is limited only by its grain, and if you want to compare films resolution to digital resolution...there is no comparison. Films resolution is wayyyyyy higher. Standard DVD is at best 720x480. HD resolution runs up to a max of 1920x1080. On a large home theater screen (say 133" diagonal like the one in my set-up) film would look much better than a standard DVD. 720p HD would look very close...only 1080i/p would rival film. At that resolution your naked eye would probably not be able to distinguish 1080 HD from film. I can tell you that non-anamorphic DVD looks pretty mediocre on the 42" LCD TV I use for everyday viewing, and non-anamorphic looks like a big pile of dog shit on my big screen. Anamorpic transfers look pretty nice...but HD looks out of this fucking world. I won&#39;t buy anymore SW on DVD until it comes out on an HD format. And that&#39;s that. However, I still think that Lucas is really blundering by doing a non-anamorphic transfer. If Lucas really has trashed all the originals and only has the LD transfers, we will never, ever, see the originals in HD. It can&#39;t be true, but if it is a loss to the fans of film everywhere.

  • May 19, 2006, 8:03 a.m. CST

    Asking for anamorphic has nothing to do with High Def!

    by LeiaDown&FuckHer

    Reading through this it&#39;s painfully clear that 90% of people have no fucking clue what the hell anamorphic even is, what it means, and why it&#39;s important to, well, a hell of a lot of people actually (whether you know it or not). In fact it&#39;s important to *anyone* with a standard (non high def) widescreen tv! A non anamorphically enhanced film with an aspect ratio of 2:35:1 on a STANDARD (non high def) widescreen tv will basically result in a film image the size of a damn postage stamp, sure, you can zoom in to make it bigger, but every time you do so you lose a degree of image clarity. Non anamorphic is also far more prone to rampant aliasing (the highly distracting jagged shiny edging on certain surfaces and objects) and other annoying digital artifacts. An anamorphically enhanced picture will use the entire width of the widescreen tv set to give you the maximum possible size of picture, with no loss of visual quality. It also focuses everything solely on the picture area, rather than on the whole screen (including the "black bars"), resulting in more image information being able to be dedicated to the actual film frame itself, and thus an increase in actual picture quality and lessening of the liklihood of any major aliasing or digital artifacting issues. So in short anyone who uses anything other than a standard 4:3 (square) tv set or monitor very much needs anamorphic just to get a good, standard image quality these days. That&#39;s why it&#39;s so important. That&#39;s why it&#39;s the bare BASE INDUSTRY STANDARD for 90+% of film releases the past two or three years now, even cheapie dtv movies than no one has even heard of, much less cares about, or releases of long forgotten (and probably best left that way) films from years past. Take a good look through your dvd collections at any films that you have bought that came out in the last couple of years, see how many of them are not 16:9 anamorphic, my bet is you won&#39;t find very many at all. Anything that says 16:9, 16:9 anamorphic or 16:9 Widescreen is anamorphic. That&#39;s all we&#39;re talking about here. That&#39;s all we want. We&#39;re not asking for high def, we&#39;re not asking for an expensive restoration, just for the film to look okay on a STANDARD widescreen tv. That&#39;s it. I&#39;m fine with the sound mix, I don&#39;t care which opening crawl they use, and I&#39;m not asking for any bells and whistles or major restoration work, just for these releases to meet base level industry dvd standards and be anamorphically enhanced for (regular) widescreen tv&#39;s, that&#39;s all. It really isn&#39;t too much to ask for. I mean hell, even crappy student films are usually done in anamorphic these days, that&#39;s how easy it is. As it stands right now, these will be no better than the (better) bootleg laserdisc dvd rips that are already floating around out there. And that&#39;s just a crying shame really.

  • May 19, 2006, 8:21 a.m. CST

    Anamorphic & 5.1

    by Norm3

    I agree, all were getting is the Laserdisc on DVD. I&#39;ll pass if we don&#39;t get Anamorphic & 5.1. They are only being released because DVD is a dying format. I wonder if they will appear on Blueray or HD-DVD maybe when those formats are dying.

  • May 19, 2006, 8:25 a.m. CST


    by screamster

    Why don&#39;t they just clean it up and release it without the CGI bs? Is it that hard to figure out what fans really want?!?!?!

  • May 19, 2006, 8:32 a.m. CST

    Theaters have better than dvd quality

    by moondoggy2u

    Coulda fooled me--cuz nearly every damn movie i had ever seen back then looked about as fuzzy as videotape, and not just at one theater, either. I&#39;m sorry, guys, but even today, most films dont look as clear as they do at home, on the dvd player. YOu guys can site me all the little factoids about lines of resolution, pixels per square inch, blah blah blah, but the fact is, you guys are factoring out human error. Most projectionists show the film slightly fuzzy, making you sit at the back, many show the film where it bleeds slightly past the screens, and I could go on and on. Yes, you guys are right-in theory, a film can be more clear than DVD. But 90 times out of a hundred, it aint. Its almost always a bit more fuzzy, faded, and grainy. The only exception I&#39;ve ever seen to this rule has been in Imax theaters, of course, but every other theater I&#39;ve been to, and I have been to a LOT, has shown me a picture nowhere near as tightly focused as the at home experience on DVD.

  • May 19, 2006, 8:50 a.m. CST

    "And that&#39;s just a crying shame really."

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    Um, actually, it&#39;s not. Not getting your precious DVDs exactly as you would like them is pretty fucking far from a crying shame. If people focused this much rage and anger on things that actually mattered, this country would be in much better shape. Alas, lazy fucking geeks will waste their time and energy posting fatwahs against George Lucas for denying them their "right" to their unaltered trilogy.

  • May 19, 2006, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Oh, and all the "you guys" are my way of saying:

    by moondoggy2u

    Hi, 900lbs gorilla!

  • May 19, 2006, 9:11 a.m. CST

    No, the real problem with this world is...

    by LeiaDown&FuckHer

    assholes like you Kung Fu Hustler that arbitrarily decide that just because something doesn&#39;t matter to you then it just clearly doesn&#39;t matter full stop. To anyone. Or shouldn&#39;t. And where did I say that this was massively important in terms of everything else in the world, all I was talking about is strictly in context of this particular dvd release, on a MOVIE SITE no less, so get off your high horse asshole, or better yet, do the world a favour, fall off and break your fucking neck you pointless egocentric oxygen thief. And by the way, I&#39;m not in "your country" cuntmunch, and at times like this I&#39;m fucking glad of it. So there you go, you were obviously cruising to provoke an OTT response, well consider that mission accomplished asshat.

  • May 19, 2006, 9:44 a.m. CST

    Even in the context of this DVD release...

    by Kung Fu Hustler;s not a crying shame. Sounds to me like this isn&#39;t the product for you. Oh well, don&#39;t buy it. Maybe Lucas will release it on a next-gen format, maybe not. I&#39;m sorry if you disagree, but nothing as trivial as a movie should cause this much angst and rage. I&#39;m willing to bet you won&#39;t find a bigger fan of cinema than myself, but at the end of the day entertainment just can&#39;t be this important. The WORLD would be a better place if people stopped giving a shit about a guy who created something, didn&#39;t like it for whatever reason, and was hell-bent on destroying it, fans be damned. The bottom line is, Lucas doesn&#39;t owe us anything. We chose to make him rich, and I&#39;m sure he appreciates it, but that doesn&#39;t mean he has to go out of his way to make sure each and every one of us can experience SW exactly as we want to.

  • May 19, 2006, 9:46 a.m. CST

    BTW, thanks for proving my point.

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    It makes complete sense that you would wish death on someone who disagrees with you about a Star Wars DVD.

  • May 19, 2006, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Star Wars is overrated!

    by Rant Breath

    Where&#39;s my goddam Howard the Duck dvd? You can&#39;t keep this gem from us forever Lucas!!!

  • May 19, 2006, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Intro: The Gathering Shadow

    by Marduk

    It is a time of uncertainty. The Empire&#39;s ambiguous tariff statutes mandate close reexamination of galactic import quotas. Interim Princess Agoomba has co-chaired a subcommittee to draft amendments to existing trade policies... Meanwhile, regulatory agencies are being heavily lobbied by a consortium of mercantile interest groups and their suppliers to streamline loading restrictions for class C cargo vessels....

  • May 19, 2006, 10:59 a.m. CST

    lol marduk

    by moondoggy2u

  • May 19, 2006, 11:09 a.m. CST

    I&#39;ll keep my DVD bootlegs thank you very much.

    by BilboRing

    I&#39;ll not give Lucas another cent of my money. I was eager to see what he&#39;d do for this DVD release and it sounds like he has done nothing. The DVD bootlegs I have are transfers from the laser disc versions. So they look and sound fine and dandy. I never bought the SE or any of the prequels. Never will. Just shows you how much better Lord of the Rings is!!

  • May 19, 2006, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Hollywood video folks, Hollywood video...

    by LeFlambeur

    Seriously, I&#39;ve stopped buying DVDs a long time ago. With Lucas releasing different editions every year, it&#39;s really cheaper just to rent them once in a while than to go and buy whatever new edition comes out. Or to get them from a library. DVD&#39;s are a con anyway. The profit margins on them are ridiculous.

  • May 19, 2006, 12:31 p.m. CST

    waiting for the 2077 edition

    by skydog

    Where it&#39;s beamed directly into my brain as I die. . .

  • May 19, 2006, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Re: "Anamorphic means fuck & all on 90% of our TVs"

    by trench404

    Tall_Boy: Please, for the love of God, (and movies), stop spreading ridiculous lies and misinformation on this talkback. Read LeiaDown&FuckHer&#39;s post for some good info on this subject. If you still don&#39;t believe it, have a look with your own eyes. Buy the original release of The Thing (which was not anamorphically enhanced) and the re-release (which was), watch them both on a REGULAR DEFINITION set, then come back and apologise for misleading all these nice people.

  • May 19, 2006, 2:23 p.m. CST


    by alucardvsdracula

    If you fuckwads really think there&#39;s no difference between ANAMORPHIC and LETTERBOX then either you have REALLY bad eyesight or are just plain stupid. Now listen very carefully: anamorphic simply means that when you watch a shiney DVD on that "picture making machine" sitting in the corner of your room, the MOVING pictures floating on the screen will miraculously EXPAND so it doesn&#39;t look like you&#39;re watching only HALF the screen with HUGE BLACK BARS. Sorry if that is too technical for you.

  • May 19, 2006, 2:50 p.m. CST


    by thegreenvortex

  • May 19, 2006, 3:31 p.m. CST

    I&#39;ll download ADYWAN&#39;s Original-SE hybrid

    by thegreenvortex

    I saw the OT in theaters. I bought the original VHS, the SE VHS and the SE DVDs. I like ALL of the visual improvements in the special editions and I like the re-included deleted scenes (Biggs, Jabba in ep4). I HATE all the changes that altered the story or characters or the new made-up scenes that were added in. I ESPECIALLY HATE the new songs in ROTJ._____________________________ There&#39;s never going to be an official version to my precise liking, but I&#39;ll bet ADYWAN will put together a nice hybrid: Take the SE version and use the OT footage to restore the egregious changes [1. No "A New Hope". 2. No Praxis effect expolsions. 3. R2 should not taste very good. 4. NO "JEDI ROCKS". 5. Bring back "Yub Nub" 6. Restore the subtitling of Chewbacca&#39;s last howls during Ep4&#39;s medal ceremony [Where&#39;s my medal? Fuckers!]

  • May 19, 2006, 4:35 p.m. CST

    KFH lied

    by wash


  • May 19, 2006, 4:44 p.m. CST


    by wash

    Such a thing already exists - check out ocpmovie&#39;s "Classic" versions. The blending of the old footage is really well done.

  • May 19, 2006, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Kung Fu Hustler

    by LeiaDown&FuckHer

    I&#39;m sorry, I didn&#39;t know I was officially addressing The Biggest Cinema Fan In The World (tm), I&#39;ll be sure to run everything by you from now on just to make sure that it matters before I dare say a single word or have an opinion of my own. I swear, you&#39;ve got a superiority complex bigger than most third world nations. Grow a sense of humour and lighten up, for fuck&#39;s sake.

  • May 19, 2006, 7:18 p.m. CST

    This is horseshit

    by Durendal

    Yeah, we wanted the original trilogy on DVD, but we wanted something better than a goddamn official Laserdisc bootleg, which is all this is. How about a really nice remaster, full anamorphic widescreen, and at least the OPTION of 5.1 surround sound along with the stereo track. Don&#39;t add anything new, just make what&#39;s there look as good as possible. But no, Lucas gives us this utterly effortless version so he can milk the fans for all they&#39;re worth. Fuck that egotistical prick.

  • May 19, 2006, 9:24 p.m. CST

    Dolby Stereo/sound mix

    by zacdilone

    Wasn&#39;t the 6-track Dolby Stereo mix only available on a 70mm print? I know that&#39;s how I saw "Empire," but "Star Wars" wasn&#39;t released 70mm. Hell, most of us saw the original trilogy in mono.

  • May 19, 2006, 9:53 p.m. CST

    To all the HD TV haters...

    by Dataset

    Fuck off you luddite breeders! The reason some of us have 55 inch HD TV&#39;s is because WE LOVE FILM. We love video games and BSG and muthafukin Gilmore Girls. If you&#39;re on this site you must love film too. Because if you don&#39;t, then why are you here? I make very little money myself. But I do have priorities. My passion is film, so I want to have the best at-home viewing I can possibly buy. Sure... it hurt a little when I handed over $2400.00 for my KDF-E55A20 3LCD Sony Grand Wega... but it is for making my life a little more enjoyable. You have to treat yourself sometimes, just like Agent Cooper said. Buy yourself new trucks for your board. Get a $30 really great haircut. I love the fact that my wife and I can have stress-free professional jobs (Optician and Client Relations) that pay, together, just over $65,000 a year. With that meager sum we have cool toys, 2 Honda Accords (2001 and 2005) a film collection to rival Blockbuster (2100 titles and counting) and a kick ass home to put them in. We can jet off to Europe or India or Australia when our vacations come around. We can drive down to Austin on weekends from Dallas just to see some band we like. And we don&#39;t have to be fucking rich rightist fucks to lead a jetset lifestyle. We do it without ANY credit card debt, one mortgage and a car payment. How do we do it? WE DON"T FUCKING BREED! If you want a no-stress job, neat toys, good savings and memories of exotic lands, just get snipped and put 15% of one spouse&#39;s income into an IRA or 401K. You won&#39;t have ungrateful children taking care of your old ass self. You can afford to retire on a cruise ship in the south seas. So quit whining, ditch your uptight jobs and get professions that can&#39;t be outsourced, and DON"T CUM IN HER ! Then maybe you can have nice things too and not be so miserable and poor even though you make 80k a year. And don&#39;t waste too much money on college. I got the BS, BA another BA and an MBA and neither me, my Dr. Wife (psych) nor most of our friends are using our degrees. They&#39;re not worthless, because you really can&#39;t have too much knowledge, but all of our career paths have strayed so far from our education that sometimes we look back and wonder if it was worth the 10 years of paying off our student loans. Most of our coworkers never got even an associate degree, and a couple of mine got their GED. Long post short: No Brat: No poverty. Spend wisely on your passions, because you deserve the best life possible.

  • May 19, 2006, 10:48 p.m. CST


    by Durendal

    That&#39;s all well and good, but you&#39;re gonna get lonely in the later years and probably wish you&#39;d had a kid or two.

  • May 20, 2006, 4:03 a.m. CST


    by moondoggy2u

    Ahh, I remember when i was that young...Assuming that you both are capable of having kids, you wait ten years, and tell me if you dont start to have children. I&#39;ve never seen a married couple who made the decision you both made and didnt change their minds in their early forties. I&#39;m not saying that you two will change your minds, but if you dont, you will have become the first couple I&#39;ve ever met who held true to that vow. I have always found that midlife crisis really take the punch out of "no children vows." No, Im not speaking from personal experience, but from people that I&#39;ve met. Of course, if one of you cannot have children, this would be entirely different. All that aside, isnt it grand that your parents didnt make the same decision you did?

  • May 20, 2006, 5:11 a.m. CST

    Holy Crap moondoggy, I can&#39;t beleive

    by Lezbo Milk

    you&#39;re that old. Some of your previous posts led me to beleive you were a lippy teenager.

  • May 20, 2006, 5:24 a.m. CST

    Jesus, anathema, we don&#39;t need your financial history!

    by Hot Carl

    I especially don&#39;t need to see it considering how sorry it is. A MBA and Doctorate between both of you and the best you can manage is 65k a year combined?! You also forgot to mention the fact that you might enjoy a better lifestyle because you live in Dallas, where a huge house costs about the same as a small cup of coffee in NYC.

  • May 20, 2006, 5:30 a.m. CST

    So anathema1973...

    by Lezbo Milk

    What you&#39;re saying is, both you and your wife were driven, ambitious and hard working enough to get a double major, a Masters, and a Doctorate but arn&#39;t ambitious enough to make more than 32.5k a year each? What the hell dude? Either you&#39;re full of shit or you put the Z in lazy.

  • May 20, 2006, 6:20 a.m. CST

    Ha Ha. At least this thread is turning fun nasty now!

    by half vader

    Rather than stupid/ignorant nasty.

  • May 20, 2006, 7:34 a.m. CST


    by CuervoJones


  • May 20, 2006, 9:11 a.m. CST


    by Stone316

    Ive been a Star Wars fan all my life, and although i prefer the original editions, i also like the special ones. I have the specials in dvd and the original in laserdisc, im not buying them cause ill be waiting for their next release in either blu-ray or hd-dvd (i hope blu-ray). From what ive seen here, a lot of ppl are pissed cause Lucas doesnt stop messing with the films and thats a natural reaction. What most of u probably dont understand (and i dont want to insult any1) is that the Star Wars Saga is a work in progress. If u notice, u will see thats the way Lucas sees it. As long as hes alive, he will never stop making changes and adding new things. I think thats great cause ill be able to have more information about the universe that he created instead of reading it in books, comics or whatever. I cant wait for the Star Wars Series, or the new versions of the saga in dvd. Of course by adding new stuff it pisses a lot of ppl that like the saga just the way it was, but what those ppl actually like is a memory of their childhood and im sorry but if u youre not able to get in touch with that childhood while watching the prequels (especially Ep3), then im sorry to say that ure already to old to begin the training. Star Wars is a roller-coaster ride thru a fantasy universe and we are just observers passing thru that universe. In 40 or 50 years we will be dead (Lucas will be cryogenicly frozen to be woken in a distant future where men are ruled by apes) but the Star Wars Legacy will prevail. Our sons will watch it and their sons and so on.... it will never end! Thank God! I mean Darth-Lucas! See u later dudes!

  • May 20, 2006, 9:33 a.m. CST

    About that 6-channel version

    by Anakin Whoopass

    Actually the existence of a 6-channel mix doesn&#39;t make the lack of 5.1 ridiculous at all because the channels don&#39;t correspond to 5.1. The old 6-channel sound was left, front, right, mono rear, and left and right front subwoofer! Starting from that, you&#39;re no closer to creating a modern 5.1 mix, with separate left and right rear channels, than you are starting from Dolby Surround. I believe it&#39;s also been recounted that the 6-channel mixes were editorially inferior to the Dolby Surround and mono mixes because each mix got creative attention proportionate to the size of the audience that would hear it.

  • May 20, 2006, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Moondoggy-uh yes you actually are an asshat

    by 900LBGorilla

    not that I take any pleasure in that. I don

  • May 20, 2006, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Leighdown and fuck her and Kunfuhypocrite

    by 900LBGorilla

    Especially in regards to Kungfuhypocrite who doesn

  • May 20, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Does Han shoot first? Yes. (That is all that matters)

    by P33KA

  • May 20, 2006, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Leighdown and fuck her

    by 900LBGorilla

    Last post in reference to you shoul have started "Well said Leiadown...well said...(especially in regards to KFH etc.)"

  • May 20, 2006, 11:41 a.m. CST


    by 900LBGorilla

    Movie pictures are fuzzy faded and grainy as a tape? There is really nothing left to say- you are simply clueless. Film is INFINITELY more clear than a DVD

  • May 20, 2006, 12:26 p.m. CST

    "No Brat: No poverty."

    by DocPazuzu

    I wish your parents had been as cold and malignant as you, Anathema1973. I knew you were a total cunt from your earlier anti-semitic rantings and conspiracy theories, but this latest post goes a long way to illustrating even more what a tool you are.

  • May 20, 2006, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Stone you seem very young

    by half vader

    No offence mate but even if Star Wars IS a work in progress the &#39;77 version is STILL an important work of cultural importance in the film medium and shouldn&#39;t be wiped off the face of the earth by trying to destroy or retire every original film element from the public. This is irrespective of whether you like the film or not. Lucas used to be on a board with Spielberg and Scorsese for the restoration and maintaining of important films (original releases of course) so it makes him a hypocrite to say "except for mine". And then there&#39;s his statement fairly recently about the Three Stooges. As for childhood memories, do you know the insidious practice of revisionist history ("those versions don&#39;t exist")? I&#39;m not trying to be patronising, I just REALLY disagree with you, in a friendly way.

  • May 20, 2006, 1:23 p.m. CST

    of course that&#39;s in ref to the film elements and why -

    by half vader

    - supposedly we can&#39;t have an anamorphic DVD transfer according to LFL. Digital bits has yet another post up saying this stuff better than I. I&#39;m posting at 4:30 in the morning again.

  • May 20, 2006, 8:31 p.m. CST


    by one9deuce

    How did George Lucas go from being a great voice for film preservation to the poster child for film destruction/negligence? Did he really destroy the original negatives in creating the special editions? If that is true then George Lucas is nothing short of appalling.

  • May 20, 2006, 8:31 p.m. CST

    I own the laser Discs...

    by Foxxed

    and well, putting aside sound, or Anamorphic widescreen or just letterbox etc..., the picture quality is not that great on the Laser Discs. it does need to be cleaned up. I would be disappointed if the picture quality is the same as the Laser Discs.

  • May 20, 2006, 9:56 p.m. CST


    by Stone316

    I respect your opinion and i was in no way trying to be patronising. I agree with u that the 77 version is an important work of cultural importance and it should be seen and discussed and preserved, but that doesnt change in no way shape or form, the fact that is Darth Lucas choice to tickering with it from time to time. In fact that shows the committement that Lucas has with the Star Wars Saga (lets forget for a while the monetarial and franchise factor and concentrate on the artistic and creative level). When i say that its a work in progress is mainly because 20 years from now we will be analysing the prequels and the revised editions as complements of what was inicially created 30 years ago. It will be analysed as a whole, almost like analysing Homers Iliad and the Odyssey (u cant do 1 without the other). Yes, the originals should be preserved but that doesnt mean we should discard the changes (aside from Greedo shoting first, the nnnooooo line and the Hayden cameo... those were huge mistakes, but i beleive eventually Darth Lucas will delete those) of the SEs that already were heavy influences on the work he was going to show in the prequels. Now, this is the ONLY reason why i defend the work in progress theory, and i would like to believe that was the only motive Lucas has for tinkering, unfortunately we know better and the franchise is worth mui mui mula. As for that quote #those versios dont exist# that is purely marketing strategy and he knows he cant completly destroy or denie his earlier work... we have the proof it exists and ultimately we will make him remember... after all that was the power that was bestowed to the viewer. I understand your opinion and i hope i cleared u a little more about mine... by the way what did he say about the Stooges? Later dude....

  • May 20, 2006, 10:07 p.m. CST


    by VoodooV

    I love my film and HDtv and gaming too..but any TV over 40 inches is just pure and simple over-compensation for small penii. cuz please explain to me how someone who doesn&#39;t have a large HDTV somehow loves cinema and TV less than the insecure weenie that does.

  • May 20, 2006, 10:09 p.m. CST


    by VoodooV

    your TV is over a month old and you still have the model number might have a small penis

  • May 21, 2006, 2:42 a.m. CST

    Some changes were good.

    by Foxxed

    There were quite a few good changes in the rereleases. The picture quality obvious was improved. The planet explosions and X-wings and other ship movements were good as well. It was just something that because of technology they couldn&#39;t have done better. They fixed the matting and stuff. I just didn&#39;t like the big changes. Like the extra Jabba scene, the new song and character in Jedi, and new ending in Jedi, different dialogue in Emperor...etc... Those changes does not improve the picture and therefore are not needed. I am the same with my own creations...sometimes, you don&#39;t know when to stop tinkering and understandably, Lucas was not completely satified with the original because of limitations of time and money and technology.

  • May 21, 2006, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Financial history...

    by Dataset

    See, I used to be a professor for six years (applied optical theory) and made about 25k more than I do now. That was great my first year teaching at a community college, but when the universities came knocking, it all turned to shit. 100+ hours a week wears you down pretty quick. I did it for five years. I was offered tenure at another university 400 miles away and turned it down. My wife&#39;s family is here in Dallas, and everything we know is here. Yes, we lack ambition. Yes, we&#39;re selfish. Yes, we like useless things like art and movies and books and shit. Yes, we value our life experiences more than forming a family. We&#39;re selfish, fucked up mid thirties genXers. Can you think of any better reason for us not to want children? Can you imagine what we would do to some poor kid? At least we know we wouldn&#39;t be good parents. All I&#39;m saying is that those who shouldn&#39;t breed shouldn&#39;t feel like it&#39;s an obligation. I&#39;m used to getting attacked by jealous people worn thin by life. I&#39;m not talking to them. They made their decision. Being a great parent is wonderful. Being a bad parent is unforgivable. And DocPazuzu, shit, you have the memory of a turtle. What was that, like three years ago? Not supporting Israel is not anti-semitism. All theocracy is bad. In the 50&#39;s the way to end an argument was to label someone a communist. In the 60&#39;s, a homosexual. Then came liberal. But those all faded away. Those in unwinnable debates are only left with anti-semite and child molester. Instantly you can discredit someone with that accusation. The British government has been using the pedophile label for those who don&#39;t support the war. Like the guy from Massive Attack and Pete Townsend. Both were arrested for kiddy porn and later all charges were dropped. After the newspapers got their stories and their reputations ruined. So it&#39;s kind of funny being called an anti-semite. It automatically destroys any credibility the accuser has. "well...well...your mommas fat!" Tee-hee. I married a white jewish woman five years ago, so I&#39;ve heard most every insult possible. So I am an anti-semite when she doesn&#39;t replace the toilet paper roll. And she&#39;s a nigg*r lover when she makes love to me. Come on, stop the name calling, Doc. I like your posts on topic. You&#39;re a smart guy. You&#39;ll come around on your own.

  • May 21, 2006, 12:36 p.m. CST

    The Whiplash has begun....

    by Stone316

    and its gonna hurt... go get them anathema1973

  • May 21, 2006, 2:24 p.m. CST

    yes, some changes were good

    by VoodooV

    erase the matte lines, improve the picture and sound quality. sorry, but I think even the lame death star exploding ring thing and the cgi xwings were lame. it all screams fake...especially since it was added in after the fact. If SW was originally shot that way..I wouldn&#39;t care. but having it originally shot one way...then adding more stuff on top of it, even if it really is an improvement just makes it look even more fake than the strings the original starfighter models hung from.

  • May 21, 2006, 2:54 p.m. CST


    by moondoggy2u

    Just out of curiosity, was/is your wife a practicing jew? I was just curious as to how much trouble you received from her family. My wife is jewish and converted to christianity (before I met her), yet still had something of a falling out with her parents when we married. Oh, and to whomever was the poster that said i write like a teenager, I have many facets of my personality and tend to have a different writing style for each. An old habit, I suppose, and has often been a point of confusion on these talkbacks. No harm, no foul, though--you arent the first to exhibit surprise. It might surprise you further when you discover that I am a university professor and highschool teacher.

  • May 21, 2006, 6:21 p.m. CST

    It&#39;ll look fake no matter what

    by Foxxed

    just I guess original fake is better than out of place new element fake. You know what I hated...the extended scene in the cave at the beginning of Empire... Showing less of the monsters leave more to the imagination...showing more just reinforced that it&#39;s a guy in a costume. And jabba is so much better as a puppet even though his mouth can only open and close and not actually form words.

  • May 21, 2006, 7:35 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    It was never a question of his not supporting Israel. He said the country itself -- regardless of policies -- didn&#39;t have a right to exist. An example of Anathema1973&#39;s ideas: "But the French based World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation says that 1,485,292 jews died of all causes in WWII. Now I will be villified because so many have seen FILMS, and FILMS are TRUTH. Go ahead, prove me right. Hypocrites. Denzel Washington played a man who called for terrorist action againt those who oppress non-whites. Malcolm X. But Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. are evil because they fight against the white occupation of their land? The Arab people were there a thousand years before the final stand of the Ottoman Empire between 1517 and 1917. The British rolled in, creating Palestine. Then in 1947, tanks rolled in and the white-supremacist regime took power. There has been nothing but war ever since. Come on people. Zionism=Nazism." ..... In the same talkback (the "Leni Riefenstahl is dead" TB)he started off by giving Leni Riefenstahl the "8-18" salute. Now for those of you who don&#39;t know what that means, "8-8" is a neo-nazi codification of "heil hitler", as "h" is the 8th letter of the alphabet. "8-18" is "H-R", in other words "heil riefenstahl". He didn&#39;t think anyone would catch that, see.

  • May 21, 2006, 7:46 p.m. CST

    See for yourself, YackBacker

    by DocPazuzu

  • May 21, 2006, 8:02 p.m. CST

    One thing I&#39;m curious about...

    by LordVoldemoo

    what the fuck does anathema&#39;s financial history and the question of Palestine have to do with Star Wars? Just curious if anyone could please explain this to me...

  • May 21, 2006, 8:11 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Welcome to talkback.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST

    holy cow, doc--you da man

    by moondoggy2u

    I&#39;m not speaking to this idiot.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:36 p.m. CST

    by Belledonna

  • May 21, 2006, 8:39 p.m. CST

    I hate to say it-But LIFE goes on...

    by Belledonna

    people are starving and dying in this fucked world and in this fucked up &#39;forever war&#39;-our country no longer belongs to us, but rather, the Corporate-State...and you have the nerve to whine such a trival matter as this.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Pete Townshend openly admited to possessing child porn.

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    And he admitted to giving his credit card info to certain websites to purchase the stuff. It was hardly a government conspiracy against him. The charges were dropped because he&#39;s rich and famous.

  • May 21, 2006, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Thanks Doc...

    by LordVoldemoo

    but I&#39;m no NooB, I just typically prefer greener pastures. This TB is a good reminder why... Back on topic, the lack of anamorphic widescreen is ridiculous. I wholeheartedly agree with Quint. I&#39;m a SW fan, and this is the first time films will be released which I wont buy.

  • May 21, 2006, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Doc--I read through that entire Nazi thread

    by moondoggy2u

    And I feel that you deserve a pat on the back--you held your ground in the face of a lot of ignorance that day. Nicely done!

  • May 21, 2006, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Anyone else NOT buying these?

    by gil-galad12

    I for one bought the SEs, am completely satisfied (minus a few gripes) and am not gonna shell out another 50 bucks for the same damn movie...especially when there are better things to spend money on. Let the nostalgia-ridden folks hold on to this one.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:22 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Cheers, but I think you deserve a bigger pat on the back for actually slogging through that armpit of a talkback.

  • May 22, 2006, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Wow DocP, that LeniR/Nazi thread had some putrid posts

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    ...attempting to justify her and the Nazi&#39;s. I always suspected that a number (more than a few, sadly) of the talkbackers around here and several of the AICN moderators had tenuous grips on reality, but that took the cake. The board you linked to stands as a testiment to the insane level of justification that can be, and often is, achieved by employing moral relativism. The only thing they appear to condemn is condemnation itself.

  • May 22, 2006, 10:40 a.m. CST

    DocPazuzu, I get the impression...

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    ...from reading your posts over the years that you regularly catalog and keep links to this kind of stuff on the AICN boards. I know you regularly cut out of control AICN posters down to size by posting links to disturbing things they&#39;ve posted on AICN in the past; however, this is the first time I&#39;ve ever seen an entire AICN board (on the Leni link) go completely insane. Do you have any other choice AICN talkback links you&#39;d care to share?

  • May 22, 2006, 12:17 p.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    Alas, I&#39;m not so anal that I keep links or post catalogs. The only posts I&#39;ve actually cut and saved are ringbearer9&#39;s rantings as I suspected he would be banned and his stuff was just too insane to be lost forever. I wish I had done so with fettastic&#39;s mindboggling posts too, but I never did and now they&#39;re gone. I merely did an AICN search for the Riefenstahl talkback as I recall that one particularly well. If you&#39;re into that type of stuff, you may want to check out the "Bush&#39;s Brain" talkback as well if you can find it.

  • May 22, 2006, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Found it:

    by DocPazuzu

  • May 22, 2006, 1:06 p.m. CST

    The crappy cover art

    by Brendan3

    The cover art for Return of the Jedi shows Han Solo wearing an outfit he didn&#39;t even wear in the film. I&#39;m not being nerdy and nitpickig... just demonstrating how lazy and indifferent the artists are.

  • May 22, 2006, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Ah yes, I remember the "Bush&#39;s Brain" talkback well.

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    I even have a post there myself pointing out that after nearly 150 posts not a single soul had addressed the movie itself. There were loads of talkbacks during the presidential campaign that year which bristled with Left vs Right political debates and diatribes, many of which got way out of hand. At least, though, they involved a good amount of back and forth between both sides of the issues and tended to focus on everyday politics. The Leni talkback was several orders of magnitude worse and considerably more one-sided with one after another after another after another after another after another talkbacker coming on specifically to post justifications for the Nazi&#39;s and for Leni&#39;s part in their atrocities (and to bash anyone who dared speak otherwise, such as yourself). I was curious if that marked an all-time low for the AICN talkbackers, or if their were other talkbacks out there like it that I had missed. I didn&#39;t think you were anal about recording links, just thought from your consistent ability to recall people&#39;s old posts with blazing speed that maybe you had sort of taken up the position of Unofficial Archiver of AICN Absurdities.

  • May 22, 2006, 3:19 p.m. CST

    Lucas is the Man

    by Ingeld

    Joe Jackson - I

  • May 22, 2006, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Hate to change the subject but BLADE RUNNER DVD!!!!!

    by kwisatzhaderach

    In the new issue of Total Film mag here in the UK Ridley Scott confirms the Blade Runner legal issue is resolved and there will be a 25th Anniversary re-issue next year!!! Why isn&#39;t this newsworthy on Aintitcool Harry?

  • May 22, 2006, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Its Time To Get Over It

    by ZombieSolutions

    i&#39;m a huge fan of STAR WARS, and although many of the criticisms made about the SE and the PT are valid, most of it does amount to pathetic fanboy whining. its not perfect, but you love it anyway, right? if not, walk away. who cares that much about something they don&#39;t like? ************* of course, i agree that Lucas should just release the unaltered OT in a respectable fashion; further, you know that he will... eventually; eeking out each last vestige of the eternally 10 yr. olde pop-myth nostalgia with all the Machievellian precision of the DISNEY studios in order to maximize his profit. we all know this, we all more or less expect it, bitching about it at this point has gone beyond tired to just plain sad. if it bugs you that much, resist the urge to consume it. otherwise... whos the more foolish? the fool or the one who follows him?

  • May 23, 2006, 3:38 a.m. CST


    by Whale Jizz

    There&#39;s absolutely no reason for these not to be anamorphic. In fact, I wonder why we&#39;re not getting a seamless branching disc with the original/SE on the same disc? I know there&#39;s little digital critters all over the place in the SE, but there&#39;s still a lot of the original footage present. Why not provide a way for people to view both on the same disc? Regarding the audio, not as big of a deal, but still a very-nice-to-have. There&#39;s just no excuse for this...

  • May 23, 2006, 4:07 p.m. CST


    by NathanH

    Damn, this sucks. I honestly cant wait for Lucas to pass on, so someone younger with a different POV can take the helm and steer the SW franchise in the direction it should be going. Lucas is too close to SW to see the films the way we see them. That is really unfortunate. I am hoping that maybe someone like Spielberg will step in and maybe say something to Lucas about this. I was thrilled with the way Spielberg handled the DVD release of E.T. a few years ago. He included the &#39;improved&#39; version that he re-released into theatres AND the original version of the film that we all remember and love. And the best part? He went the extra mile to clean up the original version, (WITHOUT ALTERING IT), and make it a more than acceptable DVD experience. I think that this is ALL we SW fans were expecting. I would even be happy if the only bonus features were the original previews and each films portion of the &#39;Empire of Dreams&#39; doc. But then others would probably want more, I&#39;m just not big on bonus features.

  • May 23, 2006, 5:02 p.m. CST

    by mckracken

  • May 23, 2006, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Star Wars box Art

    by mckracken

    ehh... they aint all that bad, get over it yah whiners. besides I&#39;m betting that 100% of you own a standard full color printer that can output your own quality DVD dusk jackets using what ever artwork you fine floating around on the net... go for it... I&#39;ve had to do it once already for my copy of Millenium Actress and it turned out cool!

  • May 25, 2006, 10:22 a.m. CST

    Which "originals" are these?

    by DarthKoshi

    The "original" version of STAR WARS did not say "Episode IV: A New Hope" at the start. It did not show Darth Vader correcting his flight path and safely flying away at the end. THAT is the version I want, and I&#39;m willing to bet that&#39;s not the case here (though I haven&#39;t heard for sure). And it&#39;s all because Lucas started messing with the originals as far back as the **second release in 1977/78**!! Gaaaah.

  • May 25, 2006, 9:54 p.m. CST


    by one9deuce

    Darth Vader correcting his flight path was added? Prove it, because I have never heard that. I think it is pretty obvious that George Lucas wanted Darth Vader to survive that encounter.

  • May 27, 2006, 6:27 p.m. CST


    by NathanDetroits

    I could care less about the covers, he could ship blank discs with a ziploc bag as a case for all I care, but no widescreen transfer or 5.1 sound? Fucking lame. Why is there so much halfassing going on lately with mainstream pop culture?

  • May 28, 2006, 8:49 p.m. CST

    Save your money...

    by dcooph

    I don&#39;t care how big of a geek you may or may not be (I&#39;m directing this response to YOU mister geeky), <add reverb effect here> I&#39;m commanding you to save your cash until you&#39;ve gotten a set of IV->VI that you take some pride in. You know - a trilogy that doesn&#39;t strike home a nasty little pang of guilt every time you happen to glance over at your Brand New Stack of Lucas Crap (TM). It&#39;s bad enough that all of my favorite films are released as a new DVD edition with a whole new bag of tricks every 6 months. But to have a new edition ("original" tho it may be) that is actually worse quality-wise is downright thievery. I don&#39;t consider myself a fullblown SW geek - but I AM a geek in other genres, and enough of a sci-fi geek to be certain that this latest cellophane wrapped travesty makes my blood boil. So, alright, maybe Lucas already butchered these films to the point that there is no one discernable "original cut". But for God&#39;s sake, these are GEEKS we&#39;re talking about. I&#39;m pretty sure that they/we are going to notice when the damn transfers aren&#39;t anamorphic and in 5.1 (assuming, of course that Quint&#39;s on his game)! My opinion? Not that anyone asked for it, but wait for the HD version and in the meantime go pick up one of those Criterion Spines. THOSE people know how to present a movie.

  • May 29, 2006, 3:40 a.m. CST

    ATTENTION: Lucasfilm please take notes on the following

    by one9deuce

    Blade Runner DVD release next year with 1982 U.S. theatrical release, 1982 international release, 1992 Director&#39;s Cut, and 2007 Final Cut. Superman: The Movie release next year with 1978 theatrical cut, and 2001 expanded cut. All anamorphic widescreen.

  • May 30, 2006, 8:10 p.m. CST

    AnchorBay and Blue Underground > LucasFilm???

    by Dr. Frankenstein

    Don&#39;t forget the amazing "Dawn of The Dead" set by AB with theatrical, extended and European cuts. I remember when Lucasfilm (and THX for that matter) meant something and now smaller companies like the above are spending more money on tinier films and giving us a product that puts LucasArts to shame. <p> LucasArts have shot THX in the foot for this because afterwards THX isn&#39;t gonna mean shit. All those advertising and branding dollars flushed down the crapper because the end product looks and smells like shit. foolish...

  • June 2, 2006, 3:37 p.m. CST

    this Han shirt

    by Phantasy Menace

    seems appropriate to the topic...