Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Star Wars Coming To Blu-ray In September

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the start-saving-your-credits dept.

Movies 419

wiredog writes "A bundle of all six movies will sell for $139.99, while sets of the original three films, and the three prequels, will go for $69.99 apiece. Obsessive types can pre-order them on Amazon now. Han shot first!"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Finally.. (4, Funny)

xTK-421x (531992) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790790)

I can be at my post in *HD*!

The Right Way (5, Funny)

SethThresher (1958152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790798)

In this edition, obi wan shoots first.

Re:The Right Way (3, Funny)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790846)

When I read the headline "Starwars Coming..." I think the entire galaxy shot first.

Re:The Right Way (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790946)

No, in this version Han will shoot first, but all his blaster will do is shoot out a little flag that says "ZAP" on it.

Re:The Right Way (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34790994)

No, in this version Han reaches for his blaster, and finds a walkie-talkie in the holster.

Re:The Right Way (3)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790962)

It would be nice to be able to have the option to watch the originals in an unperverted format, I would consider forking over $140 if that is an option, if that's not an option it's not worth the upgrade from the DVDs.

Re:The Right Way (3, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791012)

No. That will be later on a different BluRay edition so you can but it again.

Re:The Right Way (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791248)

No. That will be later on a different BluRay edition so you can but it again.

quite Freudian there.

Actually, it's Greedo who shoots first. Again. (4, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791544)

It was hand-waved months ago, when they first made the announcement.

http://geektyrant.com/news/2010/8/14/george-lucas-star-wars-blu-ray-coming-in-2011-and-watch-a-de.html [geektyrant.com]

Lucas also went on to explain that the original trilogy films included on the Blu-Ray release will be the remastered special editions.

        Releasing the originals is kind of an oxymoron because the quality of the original is not very good. You have to go through and do a whole restoration on it, and you have to do that digitally. It’s a very, very expensive process to do it. So when we did the transfer to digital, we only transferred really the upgraded version.

In other words, no ORIGINAL original trilogy, cause that would mean some "people" would actually have to be "hired" to do some "work" on those and they would presumably require to be "paid" in return.

But have no fear. Few years down the road, and Lucas will have his slaves do that for free.
Or for more actual coffee in their coffee and an additional bathroom brake.
Cause nothing is too good for his slaves if it will help sell everyone yet another "very, very expensive" set of plastic discs.

Which Verson??? (5, Funny)

bstory (89087) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790828)

Can I see the original theater version or do I have to watch parodies of the original?

Re:Which Verson??? (3, Insightful)

Servaas (1050156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790878)

Well you don't have to -anything- to be frank. But you can't complain about parodies if you keep buying the crap over and over. Yes Lucas is a douche, but on the other hand why not take easy money from suckers?

Burglar's logic (0)

John Guilt (464909) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791054)

'If they're dumb enough to leave their window unlocked, then they _deserve_ to be stolen-from.' '[...] why not [....]' ---Because, as Mr Nixon once observed in a different context, 'That would be wrong.' '

Re:Burglar's logic (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791224)

It's hardly stealing if people are handing over the money willingly.

On the other hand I am a little annoyed at this. I got fed up of waiting for the original Star Wars on blu-ray and just bought the DVDs last year. The last version I bought was the VHS "Special Edition" with the case that made farty noises when you put the lid back on.

I think this is one of those things where I'll be happy with the DVD for now though. Old live action films aren't usually worth getting on blu-ray. If I were inclined to buy Episodes 1-3 (which I'm not.. well, maybe 3, it was okay), I'd get the blu-rays though.

Re:Which Verson??? (1)

kenrblan (1388237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790914)

Maybe the original theatrical releases will be part of the "special features" on the Blu-ray release. In any case, I don't plan to buy it. George Lucas already has enough of my money.

Re:Which Verson??? (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791406)

The last time Emperor Lucas included the theatrical version, he did a nice little underhanded (and spiteful) trick. The Special Edition versions were anamorphic DVD's. The theatrical versions were non-anamorphic widescreen (which, for those who don't understand the distinction, look like shit on widescreen TV's).

Re:Which Verson??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34790996)

Which version of the original theater version? You do realize there were like 5 of them, right? Not to mention that the VHS and LD versions, usually touted also as being the "original" versions, also had discrepancies in things like the audio mix, etc.

Re:Which Verson??? (1)

delinear (991444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791442)

Blu-Ray is big enough that they could have all the variations (most of them will be the same anyway, they'd just need to have the differences on the disk and let you stream your chosen flavour together), but of course that would be a one-time sale so it'll never happen.

Re:Which Verson??? (2)

necro81 (917438) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791120)

One would think that, this being Blu-Ray with prodigious storage abilities, you would be able to choose the version from some on-screen menu. Include or remove scenes (do we want to see Han and Jabba chit-chat in Episode IV?), swap in different version of the same scene (han shot first! death star explosion with or without shockwave), even change the soundtrack (super-echo before swinging across the abyss or no?) - it's all pretty straightforward from a technical standpoint.

Whether the Emperor...uhhh...George Lucas will permit it is another question.

No, NOT Star Wars (3, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790886)

The original theatrical releases will NOT be included, only the heavily edited "Special Editions" from the 90's (no doubt with even *more* edits from Lucas piled on, as if he didn't fuck them up enough already).

Re:No, NOT Star Wars (4, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791160)

I was really looking forward to seeing Han shoot Jar Jar first. I've been waiting for that version forever.

Re:No, NOT Star Wars (3, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791286)

...with even *more* edits

I would not mind seeing Jabba go Hentai on Leia. Come on George, do it for the fans!

Re:No, NOT Star Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791342)

-1 eww

Re:No, NOT Star Wars (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791372)

"Heavily edited" now means special effects retouched, and a deleted scene or two restored? You're smoking some fine crack there.

Re:No, NOT Star Wars (4, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791474)

You obviously haven't seen them, or you would know that they did a *lot* more than just some "retouches." Entire sequences on Cloud City and Tatooine are now unwatchable because of all the distracting CGI shit in the background. And it isn't even *good* CGI (you would think they could have at least sprang for some decent work).

So This Will Be the ... (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790898)

Fifth time I've paid for a license to three of these movies.

If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS, Netbook HDD, PS3, etc in whatever the latest resolution is. I've cumulatively shelled out hundreds of dollars (with inflation adjustments) for these three movies and yet I'm continually paying for them in the latest format. I bet if they figured out a way to approve lifetime licenses to this media, a lot more people would feel okay buying a copyright. Right now, I'm 28 years old and I've been nickel and dimed since age 12. Also, for those who didn't like the sequels, there appears to be a cheaper subset for $45 of the original three [amazon.com] .

I'm sad that there isn't BD-Live for these in the Amazon description, I'd love to listen to fan commentary and possibly add my own. Has anyone had good/bad experiences with BD-Live commentaries? I was hoping that'd be used to do MST3K versions of popular movies or add insight to movies like Donnie Darko or Lost maybe. Unfortunately, having only received my PS3 this last holiday I've discovered that very very few movies are BD-Live.

Re:So This Will Be the ... (5, Insightful)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790940)

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

Re:So This Will Be the ... (5, Funny)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791360)

"Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"

Re:So This Will Be the ... (0)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791122)

If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS, Netbook HDD, PS3, etc in whatever the latest resolution is. I've cumulatively shelled out hundreds of dollars (with inflation adjustments) for these three movies and yet I'm continually paying for them in the latest format.

The same reason you'd have to pay a second time to see a movie in theatre again, is it not?

Its because you keep paying for them in the latest format, supposedly your money goes towards the people updating the formats, producing the physical media, and so on and so forth.

I suppose you can just decide not to respect copyright till it reforms? Meh, its your choice. I don't have anything insightful to say. And no, I have not experienced BD-Live, my room mate has a PS3 but has never once tried to use that feature.

Re:So This Will Be the ... (1)

yorugua (697900) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791450)

>> The same reason you'd have to pay a second time to see a movie in theatre again, is it not?

No, I' guess there are different things if I'm using a theater: I'll be using again things such as HVAC, electricity, the seat, the guy that opens the door and proyects the movie. I should be able to get a discount if copyright stands. Otherwise, the copyright thing is just mumbo jumbo. I guess a format that wanted to charge every time I saw a movie died for a reason.

In any way the original poster is saying that the upgrade should be free, but if I own the right to see a movie at home in VHS or DVD, then the "price" should be cheaper for the upgrade as there is a portion of the product that I already own. Otherwise, oh $DEITY, I'd be forced to think that all those "download" trials based on copyright laws are just a big lie and all about people trying to make an easy buck on a corrupted law system!

Re:So This Will Be the ... (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791226)

so, since you multiply-paid for the set, that means to balance things out, a few of us will have to, uhhh, 'download'.

just to balance things out.

I'll ACK when I've done my part.

DS and DS Lite r 4 games, not movies (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791292)

If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS

Because Nintendo made the DS and DS Lite for games, not movies. Homebrew is piracy according to Nintendo, even though I disagree with Nintendo's stance. Otherwise, it wouldn't have successfully sued distributors of R4 and R4i style microSD adapters in multiple countries.

I've discovered that very very few movies are BD-Live.

That's because BD-Live is an ongoing cost center: the publisher has to keep servers running.

Re:So This Will Be the ... (0)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791294)

If I'm going to respect copyright, tell me why I don't deserve to have these movies on my Nintendo DS, Netbook HDD, PS3, etc in whatever the latest resolution is

For the same reason you don't deserve to get a free leather-bound, gold-edged anniversary edition of all of Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy novels just because you bought the original books way back.

Re:So This Will Be the ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791470)

And the same reason you deserve to bittorrent the 720p HDTV rips that have been available for 18 months.

Re:So This Will Be the ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791560)

He specifically mentioned "license" for the movies. Value-adding to a movie is NOT part of his argument. Also, you buy a book, not a license to a book. Again, not part of his argument. A book example would be to buy a book and be able to download it for your e-reader. But again, I'm not sure this is a "license" so that example is probably off too.

Re:So This Will Be the ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791440)

Actually, you do have the right to have them on any of those devices without re-buying them, due to fair use. The only thing is you have to figure out how to do that without breaking the DRM scheme (and without getting them from some other source). The copyright cabal outsmarted us all on that one.

Re:So This Will Be the ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791508)

Fifth time I've paid for a license to three of these movies.

Why? The movies weren't that good (and before the inevitable nerd rage trying to peg me as a Star Trek fan that franchise sucks equally). Do you really have nothing better to spend your money on?

Does the Well Have a Bottom? Apparently, No. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34790904)

Pony up, suckers.

oh good (5, Funny)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790906)

I was beginning to think Lucas stopped liking money.

Re:oh good (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791070)

Now why do you think he made a character called "Greed"-o and made him green? I mean, c'mon, it's a self-portrait!

Re:oh good (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791162)

He acts more like the Emperor these days. Too bad someone couldn't have tossed him down a shaft before he raped Indiana Jones with a crystal skull.

Han Shot First (1)

DigitalSorceress (156609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790910)

Han Shot First!

Also, not giving another dime to Lucas ... EVAR ... if I can possibly avoid it.

The Ewocs were rubbish, but JarJar was unforgivable.

Re:Han Shot First (1)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791494)

The Ewocs were rubbish, but JarJar was unforgivable.

They would make great targets for a Doom 3 mod.

Who cares? What about the Original Editions? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790912)

All I have is a grainy copy from the 1980s analog LaserDisc (better than VHS but not as clean as DVD). I want to see the ORIGINALS released in high-def, not these idiotic bastard-ripped, CGI-damaged special editions.

Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? (5, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790978)

There is a bundle of all 3 Star Wars movies available on DVD that comes with two disks for each movie: the crap version and the original theatrical release. I picked it up at Costco a couple of weeks ago. It isn't Blu Ray, but it's a lot better quality than an analog Laser Disc copy. Here it is on Amazon [amazon.com] (not a referral link).

I think those DVDs were covered here on Slashdot a couple of years ago. Again, not Blu-ray (and hence not high def), but the best quality purists among us are going to get of the original releases for the foreseeable future.

Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791134)

Yes that's what I was talking about. - The Original Edition DVD is a copy of the 1988 analog Laserdisc. Literally. George Lucas claimed the laserdisc was the only copy of the OE that still existed.

Unlike some people here, I've not bought Star Wars multiple times (and therefore saved money). I bought 3 of them on VHS which I later sold on ebay to recoup my money. Then I bought the Laserdisc-to-DVD from Lucas. And that's it. (Yes I'm a cheapass.)

Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791036)

Everyone keeps asking for this, and yet... Of course, it could be on the next "Super Special Original Edition" just in time for next Christmas!

Re:Who cares? What about the Original Editions? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791060)

At this point, Lucas seems just as embarrassed by the Original Editions as he is by the Star Wars Holiday Special, and seems bent on suppressing them all similarly. Apparently we didn't realize it at the time, but the versions we saw in the theaters in '77, '80, and '83 were just beta, and not intended for release. Just like with certain software, now you'll have to either deal with old versions of the beta, the current official 2.X release, or just do without.

ive bought them several times (1)

Revek (133289) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790924)

Enough I will not buy them again. Old movies are still old. When they all start i know how they are going to end.

Re:ive bought them several times (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791018)

It's the blu-ray release. You obviously don't want decent transfers. How are you VHS copies compared to DVD?

Once these come out, Lusas will make another billion and then start talking about going back and doing 3D versions.

Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791072)

In the 3D version, Han shoots you first!

BluRay? Why? (0)

fussy_radical (1867676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790930)

I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.
 
I ask why because
1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert
2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35
 
My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.

Re:BluRay? Why? (3, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791008)

Upconverting can't magically add more detail. There is a very noticeable difference between a blu-ray and upconverted DVD. And honestly, now that blu-ray players are under $100, and movies tend to be around $20, the price issue isn't that important anymore.

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791298)

but the long wait at the start, the forced commecials and the draconian DRM are complete show-stoppers.

not to mention that if you rip them to your NAS, the industry has now just DOSd your storage system with extra data bits that you can't even see or resolve on the tv and definitely 100% guaranteed that your audio system isn't up to 'linear track 24bit' standards. ie, they force you to take 40-50gb for a movie when its just not reasonable. reduced down to 10gig or so and that's more reasonable (like dvd9 sizing).

most people don't rip 1:1 copies of their BD but I rip all my DVDs' to my NAS.

BD is simply a pig that I do not want. uprez'd dvd on a widescreen is very nearly the same with none of the down-sides of BD (and no money going to sony, lets not forget that nice side-effect of NOT buying BD).

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791510)

Upscaling's a funny old business. My (1st gen US 60gig) PS3 upscales PS2 games and does a pretty decent job of it. Certainly, on a dull afternoon, I got my TV to display Final Fantasy X running on:

a) a PS2
b) the PS3, with upscaling to 720p
c) ePSXe2 via my laptop (with HDTV adapter), with upscaling to 720p

Of the three, b) looked by far the best. The worst was a), which looked very blurry and muddy on a 38 inch HDTV. Meanwhile, c) just looked odd, with a very sterile and angular look. I think the point I took from this is that upscaling techniques can vary significantly in terms of quality.

That said, I agree entirely that Blu-Ray movie footage looks noticably better than decently-upscaled DVD footage, and that there is a whole wealth of extra detail visible on the Blu-Ray. Just like how a game developed to be run in 720p, with appropriately sized textures, will look better than an upscaled standard-def game.

I've personally bought a small number of movies that I like a lot on Blu-Ray when I already own them on DVD. I bought the shiny Alien box set for the first two movies (and partly for the third, which I don't completely hate). I can't, however, see myself picking up the Star Wars set; those movies have just been abused too much over the years.

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791026)

Go to your friend's Bluray Player and click "zoom" on the picture. It brings-up details in the movie you can't see on DVD or Upconverting DVD. (Zooming on dvd just shows a blur of MPEG2 artifacts.)

>>>2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35

This past Christmas I saw Bluray players for almost as cheap ($50), so might as well buy the better player. BD players also upconvert your current collection.

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791228)

Go to your friend's Bluray Player and click "zoom" on the picture. It brings-up details in the movie you can't see on DVD

Yeah, but if you watch the movie at normal size, as I tend to do, it not such a big deal. Sometimes you do want to slomo and zoom for a gratuitous nipple slip, say, but otherwise I'll just wait till my old player dies before upgrading.

Not to say that I can't tell the difference; just that it's a small factor in my enjoyment of a movie.

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

BESTouff (531293) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791232)

Go to your friend's Bluray Player and click "zoom" on the picture. It brings-up details in the movie you can't see on DVD or Upconverting DVD. (Zooming on dvd just shows a blur of MPEG2 artifacts.)

Oh yes ! Because I like very much stopping and zooming on movies. In fact I always do that each 5mn, so I can watch details, *that* is really much more entertaining - even if my GF disagrees.

Thanks you for proving it's bullshit.

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791350)

every disc and bd player you buy makes fat old sony corp richer.

don't you guys remember - sony is a bad guy! how soon we forget about all the evils sony has done.

for the past 5 or more years (maybe even 10) I've had sony on my do-not-buy list. many reasons but mostly they are enemies of what we typically want. if we want it, they oppose (drm issues, rootkits, supporting hollywood laws, removing fair use, inventing useless proprietary/expensive solutions and the list goes on and on).

I DO NOT BUY SONY.

you should not, either, if you've done your research.

(and bd == sony in case you didn't get that)

Re:BluRay? Why? (2)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791048)

I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.

I ask why because
1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert
2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35

My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.

Up converting will never give the same quality as a source image in the correct format.

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791056)

I chuckle because optical media is dead.

US broadband still sucks (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791354)

Please watch your tense. Optical media will be dead as soon as the broadband situation in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand improves. Right now, a lot of households in the anglosphere are stuck with low-cap satellite being the only remotely broadband Internet connection they can get. Good luck downloading a high-definition movie at 5 GB per month. Until then, optical media is not dead.

Re:BluRay? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791062)

If you can't tell the difference between a Blu-ray and an upconverted DVD, then you are blind.

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791444)

or maybe you don't VALUE the higher res on video since that contributes maybe 5% to the actual movie watching experience.

you guys always forget this: content matters more.

ever hear your favorite song on a portable 1-spkr radio? well, bad analogy: no one here is old enough to remember before earbuds and stereo. but suppose that you heard an old 1970's mono FM radio playing your favorite song. does it matter so much that its not on the best playback equipment? you still like that song and your mind connects any missing dots and the experience is nearly the same as the hifi version. for sure not THE same but nearly the same to your mind.

you guys are getting swindled thinking that higher res visuals are going to make crappy movies at least watchable. ain't going to happen. if the movie sucks, it will suck in high res. if it was great, it won't matter if its 4:3 and from a VHS copy.

so, its not that we can't TELL, its that we look way beyond the trivia and see into the content.

the storytellers art is not what the storyteller looks like when he's telling the tale; its the story that he tells that matters.

upres'd drm-free dvd's win over native-res'd drm-laden bd.

Re:BluRay? Why? (2)

chronosan (1109639) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791076)

Upconverting just makes the DVD format not look like absolute trash on larger screens. It does not add any increased definition, just blurs it nicely.

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791082)

Software can't go back and add the original light back to the image, it does a decent job, but there's a pretty noticable increase in quality [flickr.com] from upconverted DVD to Blu-Ray.
Top image is HD, bottom image is upconverted.

Re:BluRay? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791492)

If anyone is interested in more comparison shots you can go to AVS Forum. [avsforum.com] The user Xylon there posts comparisons between upconverted DVD and Blu Ray, often even comparison between releases in different regions of both of them.
Usually there is a clearly visible difference. There are of course a few bad apples. The "Traffic" HD-DVD actually was the standard definition DVD source upconverted and some of the early Blu Ray releases suffered from issues as well (overfiltered and MPEG2 compressed). They seem to have gotten the hang of it now and quality is clearly better in my opinion.

Re:BluRay? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791096)

I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.

I ask why because
1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert
2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35

My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.

Ummm, because upconverting standard DVD != Blu-Ray quality? It's not even close on a larger TV. Upconverting does nothing for the sound quality either, which is generally far superior on Blu-Ray (again, if you have equipment that can take advantage of it).

Re:BluRay? Why? (2)

RedK (112790) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791182)

- Blu-ray players still play DVD discs.
- Blu-ray players are also upconverting DVD players.
- Unconverted DVDs have nothing on Blu-ray discs.

At 100$ for a decent Blu-ray player, you'd have to be dumb not to buy one. I chuckle when people think they saved 65$ by buying a rubbish Chinese DVD player.

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

DeepHurtn! (773713) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791540)

You say "you'd have to be dumb" as if your choice of consumer electronics makes you smart? Really?

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791338)

I still chuckle when someone tells me they just bought a bluray player.

I ask why because
1. powerdvd (and it's equivalents) will upconvert
2. you can buy a upconvert dvd player for $35

My tinfoil hat tells me that they just want us to buy the same shit in a different format.

Well, Yes, of course they just want you to buy the same crap again.
That said, things really do look better when they're less compressed, assuming your display is capable of showing the higher resolution images. In spite of the impression people may get from movies and TV, you can't just "expand" an image and have the same quality as one created at a higher resolution, no matter how much smoothing trickery you use.

My take is that the only justification for having a 1080p display is that you're going to display native 1080p content on it. So having the 1080p display without a good 1080p source is what makes me chuckle. On the other hand, it is equally silly to use a 1080p source if your display isn't 1080p.

Re:BluRay? Why? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791554)

If you had a decent TV, you would know why. But, you're right that it won't make any difference on your 27" Sanyo.

Why? (1)

Sky Cry (872584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790934)

Every new technology gives yet another opportunity to milk the crazy fans, who are willing to buy anything with words "Star Wars" on it...

Why?

yet another version (1)

OrangeMonkey11 (1553753) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790936)

So is this version still going to have the new actors replacing the original actors at the end to Return of the Jedi

So you save 1 cent (4, Informative)

Racemaniac (1099281) | more than 3 years ago | (#34790938)

by buying the two boxes separately?

Re:So you save 1 cent (1)

ZJ AJ (1555443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791030)

Or you save $70 by not being forced to buy the prequels to get the (bastardized) classic ones. Your call.

Re:So you save 1 cent (2)

jittles (1613415) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791032)

Just wait 6 months and you can buy the digitally remastered Blu-Ray version. Another 6 months after that and you can buy the digitally remastered Blu-Ray version with NEW previously never seen before, add no value to the movie, scenes!

Indeed... (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791046)

My guess is that you save on postage when buying the 6-in-1 bundle online as most shops (Amazon definitely) charge per shipment AND per item postage.

Re:Indeed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791152)

Amazon Prime here, and I can wait my two days. A penny saved, then.

Then again, these are insanely expensive enough to have free shipping likely for any reasonable retailer. Without free shipping, it'd be in for a penny or in for a pound... or however much shipping costs.

Also... (2)

denzacar (181829) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791348)

Just checked on amazon.

Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Episodes I-VI) [Blu-ray] [amazon.com] comes with 9 discs - for $89.99.

Star Wars: The Original Trilogy (Episodes IV - VI) [Blu-ray] [amazon.com] and Star Wars: The Prequel Trilogy (Episodes I - III) [Blu-ray] [amazon.com] are both 3 disc sets for $44.99 each.

So, you get 3 extra discs in the complete set for 1 cent more, and you save on the shipping if you don't want or don't qualify for the FREE_Super_Saver_ShippingTM.

Re:Indeed... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791530)

Unless you're REALLY in a hurry and can't wait a few days, shipping is already included with all media purchases from Amazon anyways (at least over $25, which these would definitely qualify for).

Re:So you save 1 cent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791112)

Yep.. That's a general trend for buying larger packs these days and people don't notice.

It's like how at movie theaters or fast food joints they don't always show individual item prices so you don't see that the 'combo' saves you nothing

Re:So you save 1 cent (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791572)

It's like how at movie theaters or fast food joints they don't always show individual item prices so you don't see that the 'combo' saves you nothing

Either saves you nothing, or at places like Taco Bell costs MORE than my normal order.

I typically always get the small drinks at a fast food place. They all have free refills anyways and I'm not likely to go back more than once for a refill - if that. Taco Bell combos all include their large drinks - which are much bigger than any amount of soda I'd actually want. If you order the combos piecemeal with the large drinks then it's a wash - but if you order separately and get the small drink instead of large, then you actually save a decent amount on the total.

Re:So you save 1 cent (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791246)

"A penny saved is a penny earned." -Jedi Franklin

Not for me! (4, Funny)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791058)

Unless it includes the most excellent Star Wars Christmas Special it isn't complete.

Dead horse (1)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791100)

At what point does a franchise transition from beating a dead horse to beating the pulp that remains of the horse to hitting the ground where it used to be because the thing's turned to dust?

Re:Dead horse (4, Funny)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791272)

Imagine if you will a dead horse that deposited millions of dollars into your bank account every time you beat it.

Re:Dead horse (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791430)

You've just entered...the Scary Door.

I don't like "Star Wars" (0)

John Guilt (464909) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791150)

There are nice visuals---I like the worn-looking tech in the first two (release order) movies, which I saw---but I've never been a fan of knights of any stripe.
I prefer science fiction to heroic fantasy.
But from what I've heard, wouldn't it make more sense to charge $140 for the first three released, and $80 for all six?
(And, yes, Jaws was never my speed---I figured that either it would leave me cold, which would make it a waste of money, or it would scare me, which I don't like---sometimes I think I'm much simpler than many people...I hate roller-coasters.)

Releasing moves in the updated format (2)

slaxative (1867220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791202)

I see an awful lot of complaints regarding rereleasing Star Wars in a new format. This is incredibly common. Its not like George Lucas is the only person releasing their movie again in a new format.

Re:Releasing moves in the updated format (1)

Xphile101361 (1017774) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791404)

Yeah, but ./ doesn't care about those other movies

That's no moon! (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791220)

Its a UPS truck bearing Star Wars bundles!

Better never than late (1)

Fractal Dice (696349) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791234)

Does this mean we're a year away from the next-gen successor to Blu-ray coming out?

Blu-ray not just for Clone Wars any more! (1)

ewg (158266) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791266)

Nice to see the films joining Clone Wars on Blu-ray, currently the only Star Wars content available in that format.

FUCK YOU George Lucas, FUCK YOU (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791274)

and FUCK YOU CmdrTaco for being such a worthless, shit fountain of a consumer whore.

The summary doesn't even mention what version of Star Wars it is.

Oh... and don't forget that the 3D-bastard-version will be available right after this...

Star Wars is dead.

I would pay... (2)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791316)

I would pay as much as $0 for all 6 movies, or I would pay up to $40 for episodes 4-6 and would accept as low as $40 in payment to take episodes 1-3.

$69.99+$69.99=$139.98 (1)

Robert Bowles (2733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791382)

Hmmm, buy separately and save a penny. Sounds like the groundwork for a new economic policy...

I don't want the hole bundle (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791388)

How much for just Episode 1?

so how's the TV show coming? (1)

spidercoz (947220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791454)

is it dead yet?

Uh oh! (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34791514)

Someone better invent a new format fast, else how am I going to pay for Star Wars again next year? (That's after the Blu-ray Remastered and Blu-ray Collectors' editions, of course).

Never leave you window open (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34791520)

Or copies of episodes 1-3 might join your collection or worse, the thief will swap your 4-6 for his 1-3.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?