It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Star Wars A New Hope revisited(25 posts)(25 posts)
(25 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 19, 2011
avatar
Virama: Or it was simply Russel Crowe.

Seriously, when I heard he was the star of the movie I had qualms. They were confirmed. Russel was simply the worst pick ever for ROBIN freaking HOOD!

/sad panda
avatar
crazy_dave: 5) After years of changes. The story is barely recognizable. The original dialogue non-existent. Film flops as it is just yet another Robin Hood. Original writers blamed for a bad script/ho-hum story. Original script cannot be re-made because according to who holds it ... it has been made.
poor writers :(
Posted January 19, 2011
avatar
romulus16: poor writers :(
Indeed ... one shudders to think how many video games have been ruined by a similar process. Though I think they tend to be ruined by production companies running concepts out the door before they are fully realized and certainly not bug-free.
Posted January 19, 2011
avatar
romulus16: poor writers :(
Wow. Just wow.

THIS.
Posted January 19, 2011
avatar
romulus16: poor writers :(
avatar
Virama: Wow. Just wow.

THIS.
One wonders how many of the really bad movies - especially the ones with multiple (4 or 5 writers) had this happen to them - i.e. where the fantastic spec script that could've been brilliant is gone and now can never be made since it was "made". From the writer of the article this seems common and I can believe it.
Post edited January 19, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted January 19, 2011
avatar
Leifern: I'm with SingingVelvet on this. The original, non-letterbox, NON-STEREO trillogy are really hard to come by these days (I've had no luck anyway). The BluRay-box should be THE TRILOGY, untampered with, as they were shown in the movie theatres. This is the least Lucas could do for IT'S fans before he remakes the entire trillogy with new actors (Shia LaBeuf, anyone?), new, more annoying, comic relief-characters (Jar-Jar's son, anyone) and generally A WHOLE LOT MORE SHIT ON THE SCREEN!
avatar
crazy_dave: The original movie was letterbox ... I mean it was a movie, they were "widescreen" when they were shown in theatres too ;). If you see it non-letterboxed, then movie's been cropped and you're getting something edited and less pure.

Other than that I pretty much agree. I don't mind the new special edition ones, they're still great, but I wish they would release both - like GOG with broken sword :) - I have the widescreen VHS originals and DVD of the special edition, but a friend of mine said he has a DVD set with both original and re-release. I'm not sure how ... Lucasfilm must have released a copy I didn't know about.

Blade Runner on the other hand has only improved. You know ... Ridley Scott seems to have bad luck with producers. Kingdom of Heaven directors cut is actually a really good movie. Cut down like it was for the theaters, I felt it was fairly unimpressive. Apparently the producers thought the full movie would be too long. However, Ridley Scott apparently butchered a really great script for Robin Hood (i.e. the finished product bears no resemblance to script the writers originally wrote that was supposedly fantastic) ... so I guess it does work both ways sometimes.
I just put a pic here for the region 4 latest release dvd art slip for a new hope that has the original edition on it.... its under disk 2 on the back and i labeled it with a ugly big red arrow :D http://i.cubeupload.com/HZcvCg.jpg
Posted January 19, 2011
avatar
crazy_dave: Upon re-reading maybe you've misunderstood what letterbox is? A letterbox version does not use the 4:3 aspect ratio. Letterbox is the original screen movie where the TV is 4:3 and thus the movie appears to have black bars on the top and bottom. Thus the letterbox or widescreen version has the original 16:10 (or higher) aspect ratio of the movie. Non-letterbox (or the misleadingly named "fullscreen") is showing it in the 4:3 cropped state.
Yes, i think I've probably misunderstood. :P
So letterbox is the way to go? In that case, thanks for clearing up a 15 year old misunderstanding. :)

I was meaning referring to 4:3, cropped for TV-ratio-thingy and stereo sound, as being the only versions of the original trilogy that I've found.

avatar
crazy_dave: The story of the movie goes like this:
This is the most depressing thing I've read all week.. :(
avatar
romulus16: I just put a pic here for the region 4 latest release dvd art slip for a new hope that has the original edition on it.... its under disk 2 on the back and i labeled it with a ugly big red arrow :D http://i.cubeupload.com/HZcvCg.jpg
This is the version my friend has. He was really psyched about it when he bought is, but says it really is in 4:3 and with stereo sound. Could be he's mistaken though..?
Post edited January 19, 2011 by Leifern
Posted January 19, 2011
I did know about this, but I kind of prefer the original stuff as well. The same guy released a color-corrected but I believe otherwise mostly untouched episode V in HD. That release seems to me (although I'm really not the biggest fan in the world so I could be wrong) the absolute 100% definitive version of V. It's absolutely pathetic that it's coming from a fan instead of the upcoming Blu-ray release. I'm still a bit shaky on the details though, it's kind of hard to find information about the release I'm talking about...

This is one of those instances where I say that piracy is the only correct answer, and that any company involved in the production of the Blu-ray release can fuck off.
Posted January 19, 2011
avatar
romulus16: I just put a pic here for the region 4 latest release dvd art slip for a new hope that has the original edition on it.... its under disk 2 on the back and i labeled it with a ugly big red arrow :D http://i.cubeupload.com/HZcvCg.jpg
Huh that's cool - the digitally remastered version is letterboxed for a 16:9 screen while the original is letterboxed for a 4:3 screen - my how times changed :). Widescreen HDTV's are still not quite wide enough for movies, but you still have to change the letterbox for them! Cool, wish I had that version.
avatar
Leifern: Yes, i think I've probably misunderstood. :P
So letterbox is the way to go? In that case, thanks for clearing up a 15 year old misunderstanding. :)

I was meaning referring to 4:3, cropped for TV-ratio-thingy and stereo sound, as being the only versions of the original trilogy that I've found.
Gotcha ... yup I totally agree 4:3 cropped is bad - for any movie, but especially something Cinematic with a capital C. All the recent releases of Star Wards should be letterboxed, both those are likely to be the special edition version.

avatar
Leifern: This is the most depressing thing I've read all week.. :(
yeah ... I felt pretty frustrated for the writers when I read that article.


avatar
Leifern: This is the version my friend has. He was really psyched about it when he bought is, but says it really is in 4:3 and with stereo sound. Could be he's mistaken though..?
I think the wording is confusing: It says letterbox for 4:3 TVs for the original version. Even todays widescreen HDTVs are only 16:9. The movie is 2.3:1. So they still require letterboxing. However, the letterboxing on the original version was made for a 4:3 TV screen. Both version retain the original 2.3:1 aspect ratio of the movie with no cropping, but what the original version is meant to be played on is different - it is meant for 4:3 screens. I'm not sure what a 16:9 screen would do trying to play a 2.3:1 movie letterboxed for a 4:3 screen. Either have black bars on the sides and the tops or zoom in as much as possible without cropping would be my guess. However, if the box lies and they did not retain the original 2.3:1 aspect ratio for the original version, that would be just awful.
Post edited January 19, 2011 by crazy_dave
Posted January 19, 2011
avatar
romulus16: I just put a pic here for the region 4 latest release dvd art slip for a new hope that has the original edition on it.... its under disk 2 on the back and i labeled it with a ugly big red arrow :D http://i.cubeupload.com/HZcvCg.jpg
avatar
crazy_dave: Huh that's cool - the digitally remastered version is letterboxed for a 16:9 screen while the original is letterboxed for a 4:3 screen - my how times changed :). Widescreen HDTV's are still not quite wide enough for movies, but you still have to change the letterbox for them! Cool, wish I had that version.
avatar
Leifern: Yes, i think I've probably misunderstood. :P
So letterbox is the way to go? In that case, thanks for clearing up a 15 year old misunderstanding. :)

I was meaning referring to 4:3, cropped for TV-ratio-thingy and stereo sound, as being the only versions of the original trilogy that I've found.
avatar
crazy_dave: Gotcha ... yup I totally agree 4:3 cropped is bad - for any movie, but especially something Cinematic with a capital C. All the recent releases of Star Wards should be letterboxed, both those are likely to be the special edition version.

avatar
Leifern: This is the most depressing thing I've read all week.. :(
avatar
crazy_dave: yeah ... I felt pretty frustrated for the writers when I read that article.


avatar
Leifern: This is the version my friend has. He was really psyched about it when he bought is, but says it really is in 4:3 and with stereo sound. Could be he's mistaken though..?
avatar
crazy_dave: I think the wording is confusing: It says letterbox for 4:3 TVs for the original version. Even todays widescreen HDTVs are only 16:9. The movie is 2.3:1. So they still require letterboxing. However, the letterboxing on the original version was made for a 4:3 TV screen. Both version retain the original 2.3:1 aspect ratio of the movie with no cropping, but what the original version is meant to be played on is different - it is meant for 4:3 screens. I'm not sure what a 16:9 screen would do trying to play a 2.3:1 movie letterboxed for a 4:3 screen. Either have black bars on the sides and the tops or zoom in as much as possible without cropping would be my guess. However, if the box lies and they did not retain the original 2.3:1 aspect ratio for the original version, that would be just awful.
Well here is a part from an ign article
"Sometimes it hurts to be a Star Wars fan. Every time George Lucas announces he has no intention of providing the original theatrical cuts of Star Wars on Blu-ray, it's like hearing millions of voices cry out and suddenly be silenced. Lucas finally yielded to fan pressure and included the classic versions on the previous DVD releases. Unfortunately, he neglected to optimize the video for DVD or even provide them in anamorphic widescreen. What is this, 1996?"
Posted January 19, 2011
avatar
romulus16: Well here is a part from an ign article
"Sometimes it hurts to be a Star Wars fan. Every time George Lucas announces he has no intention of providing the original theatrical cuts of Star Wars on Blu-ray, it's like hearing millions of voices cry out and suddenly be silenced. Lucas finally yielded to fan pressure and included the classic versions on the previous DVD releases. Unfortunately, he neglected to optimize the video for DVD or even provide them in anamorphic widescreen. What is this, 1996?"
Ah I see ... anamorphic widescreen is different from classic letterbox widescreen though the effect is the same letterboxing effect in the end. So it probably is still widescreen just not anamorphic widescreen. What anamorphic widescreen allows is for the DVD player to create the widescreen letterbox on the fly so it can fit the new higher aspect ratio 16:9 TV screens. So the 4:3 letterbox version still is that, widescreen letterbox, but it will play with black bars on the top and probably on the sides too on new 16:9 HDTVs. That's my guess. Probably why his friend was less than impressed.
Post edited January 19, 2011 by crazy_dave
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Star Wars A New Hope revisited(25 posts)(25 posts)
(25 posts)