a8e3b37c   
   Duggy  wrote:   
   > So when you said "Hardly a preservation" you were speaking   
   > jibberish again?   
      
   Not at all.  Many people claim that the DVD is a preservation.   
   You seem to understand that it isn't.  So we don't disagree there.   
      
   > So you're complaining about something that but you don't know if it is   
   > or isn't happening.   
      
   True.  Perhaps we agree there too?   
      
   > More you just love complaining, right?   
      
   Not at all.  In fact, during our discussion, I haven't made a single   
   personal attack on you.  In fact I've agreed with you several times.   
   By contrast, you seem to enjoy attacking me personally on everything I say,   
   even on things we agree on.   
      
   > OK, is this about DVD/BluRay releases or the theatrical film?  Because   
   > no disc is theatre quality.   
      
   I never said that a DVD/BluRay release was theater quality.   
   We agree there too.   
      
   > I was a member of a local film group who regularly show hard to find   
   > films.  Almost every film that is more than 5 years old is "being   
   > suppressed".  That is they have been withdrawn from 35mm release.   
   > And the ones that are 3 or 4 years old are pretty crap to watch.   
      
   Ah, but there's a difference.  In those films, did the copyright holder   
   openly claim that he/she wanted those films to cease to exist, and   
   for people to forget them after the home videos had deteriorated?   
   And, would you characterize Star Wars as a "hard to find" film?   
   How many AFI-Top-100 films are hard to find?  How many modern day   
   films that were nominated for 10 academy awards, winning 7, are   
   now "hard to find"?   
      
   > Just because you don't understand the film industry, doesn't mean   
   > there's a conspiracy against you.   
      
   I never said there was a "conspiracy", and certainly not against me.   
   George has been very clear in his actions and his words.  I suppose   
   that claiming he has a preserved version that he is suppressing could be   
   interpreted as claiming a "conspiracy".  But I think of "conspiracy" as a   
   little more complicated than just lying about something for expediency.   
   Oh, I went ahead and changed the thread title accordingly.   
      
   > Of course not.  The Special Edition DVD projected on the big screen   
   > isn't the theatrical experience.  BluRay on a big screen isn't.   
      
   That's true.  But George DOES allow theatrical presentation of the   
   Special Edition.  He doesn't allow it of the original films.   
   NOR does he allow a decent release of the original films.   
   BOTH are unfortunate, don't you think?   
      
   > You're speaking jibberish again.   
      
   I could be wrong, but it seems like you are trying desperately to   
   manufacture confusion about a topic that you understand completely.   
   I haven't decided if you are a troll, or if you actually think GL has   
   handled the films in a normal, acceptable manner.  Probably the latter.   
   If that's the case, then there is something we definitely do disagree on.   
      
   > No, you're deliberately misusing the words to pretend that George   
   > Lucas is out to get you.   
      
   Nonsense.  I never said that even once.   
      
   > OK, make up your mind.  In a single post you're jumping from "I   
   > believe that it has been preserved, and that the properly preserved   
   > version is being suppressed" to giving "evidence that they are not   
   > being preserved".   
      
   I never said that either.  I was asking whether YOU considered George's   
   statements to be evidence that they weren't being preserved.  I have   
   no way of knowing whether his statements in this regard are true   
   or not... but either way it's bad news.   
      
   > Original film elements are destroyed in most restorations.  You're   
   > acting like he set out to destroy them as some sort of deliberate   
   > attack on you.   
      
   Again you put words in my mouth.  He doesn't even know me.   
   Regarding the film elements, do you consider the SE a "restoration"?   
   Since you are very particular about words, I'm curious as to your   
   definition of restoration and whether the SE constitutes a valid one.   
      
   > I'm sure he has the resources to clean up the originals.  But why?   
   > There's a minimal market for it.  A limited release still on the   
   > shelves 4 years later?  Yeah, it'd worth him spending millions and   
   > time restoring it.   
      
   Then you agree that it hasn't been restored?  I thought from what you   
   wrote in the previous paragraph that the SE was a restoration!?  Hmm, now   
   I'M confused!   
      
   But back to reality, the actual cost at restoring SW has been estimated   
   at closer to $100,000, since much of the restoration is probably already   
   done.  Besides, Robert Harris, the man who restored Lawrence of Arabia   
   and Godfather, has offered to restore it for free.  It would cost GL next   
   to nothing and he would likely make a killing off of it.  The only   
   reason he doesn't do it is because he doesn't want to see it restored.   
   And that is not a conspiracy, because he has been pretty clear about that.   
   That is his right, but it is sad, and not at all normal in the industry.   
      
   > Honestly, see someone about your persecution complex.   
      
   Are the personal attacks necessary to bolster your argument?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)