milo bloom

And that particular DVD looks like ass, to be blunt.

The bootleg versions out there that are 16x9 are simply the laserdisc transfers digitally buggered with to be 16x9, they're not a true re-transfer from a higher resolution source like a print or negative or something like that.

Terrell

Good post Julie. It certainly nothing to get upset over, considering we have no legitimate information. Sorry, but Digital Bits confirmation doesn't cut. As djtoell pointed out how Digital Bits confirmation isn't very credible.

ThatGuamGuy

Are you still going on about "You guys, seriously, you said you'd buy it and stop complaining if he released it, so stop complaining about his horrible choices! Oh my god, you guys, you're so mean! I can't believe you said you'd stop complaining but you still are!"

Who are you even talking to? Do you have a list of every person who criticized George Lucas and exactly how they worded their complaint?

Those covers suck. Period. Naturally, it won't stop me from buying them, but it sure won't stop me from saying "Anybody else notice those covers are horribly ugly?"

Seriously, I'll ask the question you never answered: What would Lucas have to do for you to consider a complaint "valid"? If the release was fullscreen only, would that do it? If the screen was blocked by a huge picture of George Lucas's bare ass perfectly centered, would your response be "Big deal, you never said you didn't want to see his ass, you can still make out a little bit of picture on the extreme edges"? And, above all, why are you so personally invested in defending Lucas from any and all criticism?

filmfreak

So …it begins

Terrell

Nice quoting out of context. I guess it serves your purpose.

ThatGuamGuy

No, your post confirmed what I've been saying about you for a while in this thread. (Re-read my post as written.)

From the post I was responding to.

You should tell that to the guy who's posting as you in this thread. Seriously, he's kinda misrepresenting you, if this sentence is true.

Not to parse here, but as I recall it was the Lucas-defenders who went on about the wording. Remember, "technically, they're *not* releasing it! It's a special feature!" You agreed with it, if not posted it yourself.

EDIT: Sorry, I meant the other guy posting under your name in this thread.

Wow, you win; to take a joke and get all huffy, "Oh, well, I'm sorry if I take this whole thing a little more seriously than *you*" ... sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I'm just lightly mocking the persona you've created for yourself in this thread, the guy who absolutely can't stand for any criticizing of Lucas at all. No offense intended ... Maybe you should chill out and not park yourself in this thread for the next few weeks, it seems like its taking its toll on you (though I'm glad to see you are now willing to acknowledge that some criticism of Lucas are potentially valid; that's quite a lot of progress from where you were!).

ThatGuamGuy

Other than Lucas's consistent statements that he never wants to spend any more money on those versions, I agree.

Terrell

Well, since nowhere in that post did I say I was going to buy this DVD, you responded inaccurately.

If you're going to quote me, at least quote me accurately, and use the whole quote. I was speaking of a non-anamorphic release as being a legitimate criticism.

You didn't. I was referring to the ""How Dare You Criticize Pope John Paul Lucas? Nay, Saint! Saint Lucas!" brigade" nonsense. I could just as easily turn that around on the "I hate Lucas. He is the devil" brigade. It works both way.

Not true at all. There has been a ton of whining about the originals being dubbed "bonus material".

I'd say it's taking a huge toll on those continually whining about what some filmmaker, they have no control over, choses to do. It's no bother to me. I refuse to get upset over what Lucas does. It's just not that important compared to real life issues. I'm only calling out the unjustified criticisms.

djtoell

No, nor did I claim to. What in the world are you on about? Who are you even talking to? Re-read my post pls thx.

Good for you, then. However, with all the lengthy posts about the covers that I've seen at various forums, none of them simply say that. The rhetoric seems to be on par with just about every other Lucas bitchfest I've seen. It apparently doesn't matter what Lucas does, as it garners the same vociferous complaints each time.



When you use an example that is remotely similar to this one, I'll respond. Your examples are like me telling someone who gets a paper cut to stop crying, and then you come on the scene and act as if I told someone who was just horribly wounded on a battlefield to shut up.

First of all, we're on a DVD message board. Implying that I'm personally invested in a topic because I made a post is absolute nonsense, and you've been here more than long enough to know that. Second, given that your post was about five time as long as the one I made, I think someone is projecting a bit about having a personal investment on this topic. This is especially true given that this is one of at least two bitchfests you've decided to throw down on in the space of a few posts.

Look, everybody's got a right to make themselves look like an ass by publicly whining incessantly about things that aren't remotely worth it. However, that right comes with the prospect of public reaction to said whining. If you're brave enough to complain about pointless things, you should be brave enough to get responses that dare to point this out. If not, then you shouldn't've made the post in the first place.

DJ

tommyp007

Wow, this thread goes on forever......

MarkAtHome

Presuming, as some have said, that The Digital Bits isn't the best of sources, can anyone provide a list of reliable sources that I can access (without knowing a secret handshake or two... ?)? Thanks!

zekeburger1979

Actually, it would be the quadruple-dip.

2004 4-disc set
2005 3-disc set
2006 3 2-disc sets

I consider the Bits to be the best source of DVD news out there. Yes, they have been wrong on a rare ocassion, but they've always informed us of their mistakes and corrected them. No one is perfect.

As for other sites, I recommend DVDActive and DVDFile.

MBoyd

The Digital Bits has many industry contacts including ones inside "The Ranch." I for one believe the article and it pisses me off. I'm going to the gym now and work off some aggression and remind myself that I stopped giving a shit about Star Wars 4 years ago and to not be pissed off.

Terrell

Yeah, so they say. Do you have any idea how many so-called reports out of "The Ranch" have proven inaccurate? Nobody has a clue what Lucas is doing except for a few people inside Lucasfilm, and as often as Lucas changes his mind, it's doubtful they even know. Plus, their inside sources didn't help them on the Back To the Future DVD release. I remember them also inaccurately reporting Lynch was doing a new cut of Dune. Maybe my memory is fuzzy.

Wait for an official statement, then if they're not anamorphic, then you can be angry.

DavidH

Very hard to believe if these are non-anamorphic. It's really too bad widescreen always being anamorphic was not a requirement in the DVD spec.

On any rate, I will definitely pass on these IF this is true. I'm always skeptical about what Digital Bits has to say.

Egon's Ghost

Come on, guys, even if they aren't anamorphic, they must look better than the LDs and definitely VHS! All of my non-anamorphic DVDs look better than those LD rips. I don't have an HDTV, so anamorphic doesn't apply to me, anyway.

filmfreak

That's why you're not upset about it. Lots of people here do have HDTV, not anamorphically enhancing a DVD is a trip back to the stone ages of DVD.

Terrell

If they're indeed not anamorphic, then that is a legit criticism. But I think we should wait before passing judgement.

chanster

Somebody report Terrell to Lucasfilm for owning bootlegs. He is stealing money from his patron saint.

Terrell

Oh Lord, here comes the "Lucas is Satan" member of the community. He also seems to be infatuated with me, which is scary.

chanster

Eh..maybe in your mind.

bboisvert

They did, on 3/29/05:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa101.html

They amended it 2 days later saying it wasn't yet a "done deal".

bboisvert

Which, everyone who owns a 16x9 set will tell you, is the only reason you don't consider this a big deal.

Terrell

Thanks! None of this should be taken as casting aspersions on Bill Hunt. Bill seems to be a cool guy and The Digital Bits is a great site. But when it comes to confirming things from their infamous sources, they have been wrong a number of times.

CertifiedTHX

The Digital Bits is one of my favorite sources of DVD news and information, even with the occasional miss. I agree with zekeburger1979. Everyone makes mistakes. But I believe Bill Hunt does the best he can, and The Bits is my first stop for the latest.

My jaw dropped as I read today's update. If true--and yes, we should treat this as Rumor Mill-worthy until the official word--it does feel like a great "F-U" to the fans. Lucas knows what we want, and he knows, just as we do, that there is no excuse for non-anamorphic transfers. Hasn't been for many years. So if the original theatrical versions are, in fact, presented 4:3 letterboxed, it's likely a calculated sabotage of the product. "See? Told you the fans really didn't care for this."

That said, wasn't the news "confirmed" at one point that the Ghostbusters gift set last year featured a P&S-only version of the first film? That was at DavisDVD, another of my much-loved resources. It was later corrected, but heads banged on brick walls at the seeming stupidity of Sony for planning such an inferior product. Such, I suspect, will be the case here.

--THX