Original Star Wars coming!!!!!!!

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 05 May 2006, 14:11

Yi-Long wrote:...or Madonna...
"I'm a kaballa..."
" no... you're a 50 year old ugly slut who's pretending to have matured, by faking to have found God"

I find it hard to beleve some people are religious at all, esspecially Mad one na.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 05 May 2006, 14:37

gasteropod wrote:Haha bless you Grim, of course they'll be anamorphic

In some of the press release/interview stuff doesnt it say they're using old technology from 1993 or something? The 1993 laserdiscs werent anamorphic.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 05 May 2006, 14:46

The 1993 laserdiscs werent anamorphic.

Yeah, but they ain't going to use the laserdiscs themselves as source, are they ?

They will use anamorphic prints (the ones they used to make the LDs).

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 05 May 2006, 14:53

Fair enough, it could mean they use the "restored" (for '93) negatives and make prints from that, or something.
Be interesting when we actually SEE the DVDs.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 May 2006, 17:56

grim_tales wrote:In some of the press release/interview stuff doesnt it say they're using old technology from 1993 or something? The 1993 laserdiscs werent anamorphic.

He he sorry that's funny

LD wasn't the only technology around in 1993. I'm sure they mean some high quality master. Only bootlegs master from LD.

EvaUnit02 wrote:The DTS/DD5.1 remixes on Batman (89) SE are really just discrete versions of the original DD2.0 Surround track

I wonder why WB created those. It's not common for WB to remix soundtracks. I've not heard it yet, so it's not really a proper 5.1 track then?

EvaUnit02 wrote:as is the DD4.1/DTS track on Big Trouble in Little China

I heard that was a bit lame.

romerojpg wrote:Just think how much more cash will be going to the Lucas empire, if he had been honest he would probibly still make all the cash mind you, but at least he would not have been so two faced about it.

If he'd been honest as you put it then a lot less people would've bought the box set instead of the few who care and won't buy this new one.

Ivan Drago wrote:Remember the 1995 video releases where they said it was your last chance to see the originals - "Buy it today or lose it forever" was the slogan. The man's a fool and a liar - and sadly a rich one!

He is allowed to change his mind. I don't remember that slogan, are you sure?

Yi-Long wrote:The boxset here in Holland, with the first 3 movies (the original trilogy) is 30 euro. It was released twice here. One with lousy coverart but a 4th bonusdisc, and then a 2nd time (more recently) only now with gorgeous coverart (on the box), yet no bonusdisc.

They did exactly the same world-wide.

Ah well, the important thing is that a company has listened to the fanbase and will release the version that the fans have been asking/begging for.

At the end of the day exactly.

I'm much more peeved to not get a 5.1 remix. I know they could do a really awesome one but aren't bothering. After hearing it in 5.1 I couldn't go back.

Besides I already own the very same old Laserdiscs with a DD5.1 soundtrack, non-anamorphic and the original cuts (Asian bootleg DVDs though). Who'd want them again

Yi-Long wrote:" no... you're a 50 year old ugly slut who's pretending to have matured, by saying to have found God"

Blimey Madonna ugly OMG. She's definitely MILF IMO. Sure not as good looking as Sharon Stone but ugly no way. She is to muscular though.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 05 May 2006, 17:59

MongDoga

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 May 2006, 18:04

WTF???

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 05 May 2006, 18:37

Madonna = Mong Dog A

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 05 May 2006, 18:59

Batman was another six-track stereo film

And yes, I distintly remember that "buy it today..." line. Either that or I was halucinating at 9 years old!

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 05 May 2006, 21:37

bradavon wrote:Only bootlegs master from LD.

Accusing me for bootlegging? Why you little...!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 May 2006, 21:51

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 06 May 2006, 04:27

Bradavon wrote:I've not heard it yet, so it's not really a proper 5.1 track then?

Not really. It's nowhere near as dynamic as the DTS/DD5.1 tracks on the Batman Returns SE (BR is supposedly one of the very first Dolby Digital films).

Bradavon wrote:
EvaUnit02 wrote:as is the DD4.1/DTS track on Big Trouble in Little China
I heard that was a bit lame.

It is, pretty much being just a discrete version of the original DD2.0 Surround track w/ some added infrequent .LFE usage. Doesn't bother me at all though.

If he'd been honest as you put it then a lot less people would've bought the box set instead of the few who care and won't buy this new one.

Exactly. Lucas maybe insane, but he is still a very shrewd businessman.

He is allowed to change his mind. I don't remember that slogan, are you sure?

I can't remember it either, but have heard it being mentioned several times in threads on various forums when the 2004 boxset was released.

I'm much more peeved to not get a 5.1 remix. I know they could do a really awesome one but aren't bothering.

Cry me a fucking river. Enjoy your shitty Asian bootlegs while the rest of us have decent quality DVDs. They're not even lovingly made bootlegs by fans, like those which are discussed on originaltrilogy.com

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 May 2006, 17:03

It actually sounds like there will be a box set.

dvd talk wrote:Any doubts as to who shot first are put to rest with the Exclusive Han Solo "Han Shot First" Adult T-shirt! Be sure to pre-order yours to celebrate the release of the original Star Wars Trilogy box set later this year!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 May 2006, 21:45

Thanks but your source Grim?

EvaUnit02 wrote:Enjoy your shitty Asian bootlegs while the rest of us have decent quality DVDs.

I've never actually watched them. Why would I I own the 2004 box set. For 2 years before I got hold of the 2004 box set they were definitive though

(well except for the LDs of course but those don't count to me).

They do have some exclusive old school extras though which I'm sure we'll never see again. About 30 minutes worth I think spread over each disc. They're pretty good.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 May 2006, 22:07

The guy said the info was just something he got in an e-mail, from swshop.com (?) or something so not really official at this stage.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 09 May 2006, 19:57

Hey,

Star Wars is £9.99 with a £2 discount here:

http://www3.cd-wow.com/detail_results_2 ... ode=365691

As to the 5.1 v 2.0:

dvd talk wrote:The originals NEVER had a 5.1 mix. The 70mm magnetic six tracks were left, center, right, mono surround, and 2 LFE channels (mono). I researched this for another forum. Forgive the cross post.

The sound crew started with a master 4 track mix (left, right, center, surround)which was matrixed to a 2 track/4 channel mix (Left total/Right total) for 35mm presentations.

They took this same 4 channel mix for the 70mm 6 channel mix, but this is not the equivilent of today's 5.1 split-surround mixes. In 1976, Dolby Discreet 6 channel sound was introduced which consisted of left, mid left, center, mid right, right, mono surround. In 1977, they introduced Dolby "Baby Boom" 6 channel sountrack, which consisted of left, center, right, mono surround, 2 LFE (Low Frequency) channels. This is what Star Wars was released in.

Remember, theatrical 70mm with magnetic 4.1 channel/6 track presentations was preferred over theatrical 35mm 4 channel/2 track optical presentations at the time because optical soundtracks did not have the fidelity of 6 channel magnetic soundtracks, which were only available on 70mm. Since then, 35mm has caught up with 70mm, so it is used less. Home presentations are not going to present a substantial difference in using the 70mm 4.1 channel/6 track over the 35mm 4 channel/2 track mix. Most home systems will decode the original 4 channels from the 2.0 tracks.

In short, 2.0 Dolby Digital is perfectly adequate. We are talking about our desire and demand to have the film as it was in 1977 without subsequent tinkering, it seems a bit much to demand a modern tinkered 5.1 soundtrack.

The last part makes sense to me, if we want to see it EXACTLY how it was in 1977, the sound has to come with the terrortory too.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 10 May 2006, 10:29

...and Grim pwns Brad.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 May 2006, 14:19

Hey,

The cover artwork has landed. Too bad they didnt use the original covers but I think they look pretty good - at least theyre based on the original poster art (AFAIK).

You can see them at:

http://www.theimportforums.com/viewtopi ... &start=105

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 May 2006, 14:23

I have no idea what the original posters look like, but I dont remember them looking like lazy photoshop collage. Also, the golden bars look a bit cheap.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 May 2006, 14:26

Agree not a fan of the golden bar. Sorry I couldnt post the images here, imageshack was being an ass, very slow.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 17 May 2006, 14:33

Yi-Long wrote:I have no idea what the original posters look like, but I dont remember them looking like lazy photoshop collage. Also, the golden bars look a bit cheap.

At least someone agrees with me about the tacky photoshop covers

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 17 May 2006, 14:39

romerojpg wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:I have no idea what the original posters look like, but I dont remember them looking like lazy photoshop collage. Also, the golden bars look a bit cheap.
At least someone agrees with me about the tacky photoshop covers

You and me Romero.... the two of us are known for our good taste...

(...well... at least I am...

)

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 17 May 2006, 14:42

Maybe in food

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 17 May 2006, 14:53

They could be better, but at least we're getting the original films which is the important thing.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 17 May 2006, 15:02

What does PWNED mean? I'm still disappointed. The SE 5.1 remixes are remixes sure but that doesn't stop them from sounding great.

They're not from the original poster art Grim. It's good they've designed new covers instead of reusing the SE ones. I like them, they look really colourful and fresh.

They're already on Image Shack so there's no need to repost them to it.

Do we know these cover arts are official?