The recent Star Wars DVD release

[xiphias]

So, we picked up the three Star Wars movies, released in "their original form."

A lot has been written on this release, so let me just summarize:

It's not hi-def. They didn't clean up the print, so the film quality is pretty bad. And it's widescreen, but not anamorphic. That means that, on a regular TV like ours, it's got the black bars so it is in the proper aspect ratio, but, on a widescreen TV like our downstairs neighbor's, it still has the black bars. An "anamorphic" DVD can tell whether it's being played on a widescreen or regular TV, and either put in the black bars or not, as appropriate. This one can't.

So, if you've got a really good system, one with hi-resolution, and widescreen, and surround sound, and all that -- this release is not for you.

But for us, it's perfect.

'Cause we've got a crappy TV, and a crappy DVD player, and it's just right.

The important thing?

It's got the RIGHT scrolling words. The ones that DON'T say "EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE" at the top.

When Lis watches "Star Wars", she likes to be able to pretend that all five other movies don't exist. Because Star Wars is a better movie standing alone than as part of a trilogy, and a VASTLY better movie than as "part four of six."

Try watching "Star Wars" sometime while blocking out all knowledge of everything else that you know about the universe. The movie holds together much better. When you allow yourself to think about everything else you know about the Star Wars universe, the movie actually falls completely apart. Because Lucas hadn't made up the rest of the universe when he filmed Star Wars. But, on its own, it's a great film, combining a lot of the fun of Westerns, samurai movies, and pulps all in one.

For me, the grainy quality of the film helps. "Star Wars" just doesn't work for me on a clean print. I don't know why.

But, for all that Lucasfilms apparently was trying to sabotage this DVD release, doing everything wrong, they came up with the release that is perfect for me.

Comments

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

You actually forgot to mention the most crucial detail: in this one, Han shoots first.

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

Which detail is most crucial is a matter of personal taste.

Like xiphias I see Star Wars: The Movie as a completely distinct entity from Star Wars: The Series. Yes, part of the series ("A New Hope") has a striking resemblance to the movie, but that is only on the surface. The substance is completely different (most notably the membership of the Skywalker family).

I like Star War: The Series - even the most recent additions. But I like Star Wars: The Movie a whole lot better.

On the other hand... I care about who shot first (and I prefer Han), but not enough to make a big deal of it.

So for me, the title scroll is the important thing.

Kiralee

[(Anonymous)]

"For me, the grainy quality of the film helps. 'Star Wars' just doesn't work for me on a clean print. I don't know why."

Possibly because it goes better with the cheap budget of the film, and its genetic ancestry as a Saturday morning serial?

You're correct to observe that later developments in the "saga" make aspects of SW problematic, or that at least raise various questions not visible at the time, of course. There's the retroactive incest theme, the question of whether Obi-wan recognized Chewie at the bar. Presumably he did recognize the robots. And so on.

I'm an outlier in liking some of the later revisions, but not others. I like the added and improved visuals, actually. Strongly dislike changing Han/Greedo's shooting. Hated the scream added to Luke's fall at the end of Empire. Am fine with morphing Darth's unmasking to H. Christensen, and the Emperor to wossname.

But, then, I'm one of the rare fen who likes the prequel trilogies, with the exception of the generally bad dialogue, painful romantic scenes, the existence of Jar-Jar, and the whiny Jake Lloyd. But it's visually gorgeous, and I like a lot of the substance, particularly in the later two films.

Please don't hurt me.

-- non-anonymous Gary Farber, who continues to hate LJ for not providing for comments from non-members.
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com
gary_farber at yahoo.com

[(Anonymous)]

you do not have a crappy dvd player unless you bought it yourself

Good thing

[shmuelisms.livejournal.com]

I didn't buy it then. I considered the set as a wedding gift for a friend. :-D

[phantom_wolfboy]

I completely agree that it stands better alone. When I hire new staff, I compare their birthdate to the release of 'Star Wars'. There can be only one.

[ckd]

I bought them, despite everything, for one simple reason.

The extra money was worth not having to go through the hoops to transfer my old LD copy to something else; it's the same transfer as far as I know, but the LD player only has analog audio and composite video out. Even if the source is cruddy, I'd rather not make it worse by using the second-worst[1] output format possible. Now I can toss them in the DVD player, or take them on trips with a laptop.

[1] RF "channel 3" output being worse.