Star Wars Laserdisc

[Generic Eric]

Are the Laserdisc versions of the Star Wars movies the theater releases?

Nevermind.  I found the list of revisions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases

[lordnacho]

Nevermind.  I found the list of revisions on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases

The wiki needs info about Harmy's Despecialized Edition 

[ChadTower]

I saw a really nice Pioneer laserdisc player at a yard sale a couple of weeks ago.  Late model, CD changer built in.  Took some discipline to walk away from that thing.   

[Gray_Area]

This is timely. Just the other night I was looking at my measly 695mb copy of Star Wars, wondering whether I wanted to go through the ordeal of watching it on my 1080P-capable 50-inch monitor, and wished for an old high-resolution copy. Laser Disc format is a no-no, though.

[Howard_Casto]

I've seen the laserdisc versions.... whatever "benefit" you get by stripping away the recent additions, it doesn't change the fact that the resolution is just terrible. 

[wp34]

I've seen the laserdisc versions.... whatever "benefit" you get by stripping away the recent additions, it doesn't change the fact that the resolution is just terrible.

Well put.

[DaveMMR]

Isn't the half-assed DVD release of the original cuts just the Laserdisc version in a manageable size?

I saw a really nice Pioneer laserdisc player at a yard sale a couple of weeks ago.  Late model, CD changer built in.  Took some discipline to walk away from that thing.   

Those things take up too much room. I have one and can't bring myself to rid myself of it and it hogs the closet. Although, there's still a handful of discs not available on DVD (a lot of music titles particularly), those numbers are dwindling. And with the internet - it's all practically moot anyhow.

[ChadTower]

How many of us remember these movies primarily from cable TV showings and actually prefer them on a 24" CRT?

[TopJimmyCooks]

. . . actually prefer them on a 24" CRT?

PFFT!  19"!

Actually I'm 40 yo and saw at least one of the movies in the theater w/my Dad.  And I'm glad I'm a super late adopter and therefore never had any LD's or betamax, etc. 

[ChadTower]

I think I remember seeing Return of the Jedi in the theater for one of the rereleases.  Other than that I've never seen any of the original three that way.  I used to watch them over and over and over on TBS marathons, though.

[Vigo]

It was the sweet life for me as soon as we got a VHS player/recorder. As a kid, My parents would record Star wars off of TV for me, and I would wear the tapes to death. We pretty much ended up having to re-record the movies off of TV on a yearly basis.

Tossed one of those old VHS tape in a year ago to see how it looked. Video quality was horrid. Completely unwatchable by today's standards. Yet, Star Wars on 4:3 is a bit more natural feeling to me.

[wp34]

How many of us remember these movies primarily from cable TV showings and actually prefer them on a 24" CRT?

Not me.  I special ordered the letterboxed VHS boxed set when it came out sometime in the 90's.  I was fortunate to see them all in the theater and could not stand the pan and scan versions.

[ChadTower]

It was the sweet life for me as soon as we got a VHS player/recorder.

That movie for me was Nightmare on Elm St.  Must have watched it 500 times off that one HBO recorded tape.  I still hear the HBO channel intro music and see the spinning HBO logo in my head if I watch the movie today.

[Howard_Casto]

How many of us remember these movies primarily from cable TV showings and actually prefer them on a 24" CRT?

No one with any sense in their head.  That's like people that say vinyl sounds better than cds.  No it doesn't!  One is crystal clear, purely digital, uncompressed audio and the other is a hunk of scratched plastic distorted and warped via years of running a needle over the thing and even the slightest of temperature changes. 

That's why I made the comment about the laserdiscs.  It doesn't matter if the best scenes are unmolested... one is 480i and the other is 1080p..... watch the 1080p version you sick freaks! 

[nitz]

That's like people that say vinyl sounds better than cds.

Vinyl sounds better than CD Of course the problem is you need high quality pressings in near mint condition, plus an expensive high end turntable to experience that. And even if you manage to have that, it's inconvenient and they're still subject to wear which will degrade the quality over time. So CDs are a good compromise.

Same thing with the CRT vs. LCD debate. CRTs are better for old games, but the inconvenience of it is just not worth it to me since the CRT simulations on LCDs are getting so good.

As for people liking Star Wars on 24" CRT, well, it's not unusual to prefer what we grew up with, even if it's inferior from a technical standpoint.

[whammoed]

I'm very happy with Harmy's despecialized editions on my 60" 1080P flatscreen.
Just sayin'.
I believe he's doing new versions but the originals were plenty satisfying.  The major stupidity that Lucas added was removed and that's really enough for me.  I'm not much of a stickler beyond that.  They just needed to be true to original to the point where no nostalgia is lost.

[Vigo]

  Soapbox time.

As for people liking Star Wars on 24" CRT, well, it's not unusual to prefer what we grew up with, even if it's inferior from a technical standpoint.

That is exactly why I like vinyl. Not because it is a truer to studio sound, but because I like the way that it sounds 'warmer'. It's like the audio version of rose tinted glasses. CDs are not an ideal media though, but mostly because of time constraints (70-80 minutes) and lack of durability. One well placed scratch and you can put your cd out of commission. I also hate the lack of durability of CD lasers. I wish they were standardized and I could pop in a new one as easily as a record needle.

Yeah, vinyl LPs are technically better sound quality than CD, but most players are also not capturing the audio perfectly and capture the physical flaws as well. CDs are 1411kbps, but most people cannot hear a difference in anything greater than 320kbps. I don't think any human could tell the difference between 1411 and analog.

[Ond]

Heh, the CD vs Vinyl debate.  There are some very good technical reasons why vinyl can sound better than CD, in fact some vinyl recordings are truer to studio sound or the way the artist intended them to be heard, not because of the analog nature of vinyl but because the dynamic range of the performance was more accurately represented. If you read up on the differences you'll find audiophiles critical of the tendency of record labels to compress the dynamic range of CDs to the top end of the volume range to compete with each other for loudness.  What does this mean in practical terms, who cares? Well I'm glad I asked that rhetorical question, it means that for music with wide dynamic range (stuff with quiet parts as well as really loud parts) you get greater impact when its reproduced accurately.

Remember the song In the Air Tonight by Phil Collins? It has this lead up to a great drumming part which has impact because on a good system cranked up it punches out by comparison to the section before it.  I tried this test myself with a vinyl and CD version.  The CD version clearly lacked this range with the track more compressed into a narrower volume range.  When CDs were first on the market the labels were less guilty of this.

Sorry for crapping on about it, but that's the main issue I have with them (CDs) anyway. Back on topic  I have the 'Special' edition Star Wars Laser discs I very rarely play them except when I want to see Darth Vader prior to Hayden Christensen.  Watching Star Wars on Blu-Ray is like watching them for the first time again, despite the poxy 'improvements'.

[Vigo]

I'm gonna have to test that dynamic range bit. Been having a lot of trouble lately with some of my mp3 collection volume range. I can't seem to find a natural volume to meet both the quiet and loud parts of music naturally. It is either all to loud or all too quiet. This might explain that problem.

Back on topic  I have the 'Special' edition Star Wars Laser discs I very rarely play them except when I want to see Darth Vader prior to Hayden Christensen.  Watching Star Wars on Blu-Ray is like watching them for the first time again, despite the poxy 'improvements'.

My understanding is that the harmy HD 720p editions are better quality than even the blu-ray. Even though the Blu-ray are 1080p, the source material is still of the same quality. With the color correction and better mixing of sound, Harmy's should be an overall improvement over blue ray. I haven't tried them yet, so I can't confirm. It's all just what I heard.

[Howard_Casto]

There's no sense polluting the thread with this kind of thing, but the "audiophile" typically translates to "hipster" and like with all things, they don't know what they are talking about. 

Vinyl sounds different from cds that is to be sure, but if you want to hear what the artist intended, you should go with a cd. 

Same goes with star wars nerds, the fans are fanatics.... it's right there in the term.  Just go with the regular blu-rays.  Yeah the new vader at the end of empire is lame, but the rest is ok. 

Vigo:  I don't know about the Harmy edition, but the source material was transferred over from the original negatives and converted to pure digital years ago.  They did this so that they could show the films on digital projectors for subsequent releases.  I suppose it's possible that the blurays could use 720p source material, but the fact that there is a pure digital copy 20x that resolution sitting on a shelf somewhere make me doubt it.  It's like the old X-files poster... I think SW fans want to believe that these de-specialized editions are better. 

[Le Chuck]

About the audio, Ond offered insightful examples, Howard naysay'd without backing up his rebuttal with any sort legitimate argument. Poor debating skills Howard. Ten points to Hufflepuff.

[shponglefan]

Same goes with star wars nerds, the fans are fanatics.... it's right there in the term.  Just go with the regular blu-rays.  Yeah the new vader at the end of empire is lame, but the rest is ok.

Nah, all the CG crap from the special editions stands out as a sore thumb.  Why they couldn't just release the original trilogy, digitally remastered & cleaned up but otherwise unmolested I can't figure out (well other than Lucas being a control freak).

Even THX 1138 has the same issue.  And I had never seen the film when younger, so I watched the DVD I was surprised to see blatant CG imagery added.  It's distracting when you're watching a film made in the 70's and then notice effects that postdate it by 30-odd years.

[Vigo]

Vigo:  I don't know about the Harmy edition, but the source material was transferred over from the original negatives and converted to pure digital years ago.  They did this so that they could show the films on digital projectors for subsequent releases.  I suppose it's possible that the blurays could use 720p source material, but the fact that there is a pure digital copy 20x that resolution sitting on a shelf somewhere make me doubt it.  It's like the old X-files poster... I think SW fans want to believe that these de-specialized editions are better.

Well, I know Harmy's edition cobbled together a bunch of sources, and his newest revision used the blu ray as source material for what it could. I think for consistency merging various film sources, it wall all kept 720. I can't say how it looks from personal experience, but I am cautiously optimistic because I haven't heard a bad thing about it from people who watched it. Here is a compare Harmy put up to demo the difference. I can see a very slight degradation of quality in his version, but I really don't know if it would be noticeable at all when in motion. I'd be willing to put up with that slight of degradation simply to get rid of the SE garbage. That stuff just feels like a bad photoshop job and ruins the whole feel of the movie.

[Vigo]

OK, I got a copy of Harmys despecialized, but I believe it is only version 1.0. I did a quick compare of the quality. It is clearly better detail on the Blu Ray than on Harmys. The color tone on Harmys seems to be better though, the blu ray looks a bit dull.

It wasn't until his 2.0 that blu ray footage was used, and there was a 2.1 version made with more even more improvements. I will be hunting down a copy of 2.1 to do a better compare.  I think Harmys of Empire and Jedi are not on blu ray at all right now, so expect them to have the quality level of the picture I posted below.

[DaveMMR]

There's no sense polluting the thread with this kind of thing, but the "audiophile" typically translates to "hipster" and like with all things, they don't know what they are talking about. 

Vinyl sounds different from cds that is to be sure, but if you want to hear what the artist intended, you should go with a cd. 

Sorry, I have to pollute the thread further. Saying a CD is 'how the artist intended' is completely ignoring the whole 'loudness war' debacle that's been ruining CD's by completely eliminating the range of sound. Ond explained it with the "In the Air Tonight". Quiet parts are made louder, and loud parts are muted to avoid clipping. Essentially, the record labels take away any volume control the listener might have had and discard any 'kick.'

Also, there's a difference between 'audiophile' and 'hipster.' An Audiophile will spend quite literally a fortune on turntables, styli, storage, mylar bags, cleaners, speakers, etc. to get the absolute best possible sound out of their records. They don't really do it to impress anyone else but their ears. Hipsters will have a stack of records, store them improperly, play them on a cheap turntable, or better yet, some 1980's Fisher-Price model they found at a yard sale. They'll listen to the violent crackling of a very dirty, dusty record with a crappy needle and say to themselves, "oh how delightfully natural."

(Disclosure: I, like some of my friend, fall between the two extremes. We didn't spend a fortune on equipment but we do pay mind to take care of our collections.)

I'll give you that CD's play flawlessly more often than vinyl. And you may even like the sound of ones and zeros over natural sound, which is fine. But to call people who notice the difference full of crap (paraphrasing) is pretty much highlighting your lack of knowledge on the topic.

Now I'm going to go back and watch my copy of Return of the Jedi on VHS on my 1970's-era tube TV. 

[Gray_Area]

Yeah, Howard's showing his age on that one. Unfortunately, he opened the door, and walked himself right into it.

Every time there's a mention of Star Wars, and a mention of sound fidelity of music, these discussions go off wild and stray.

Straight up, the movie screen is still the best image you're going to get. Even projectors in the 70s. The technology wasn't that sophisticated, but very effective.

I saw every Star Wars movie in the theatre, because I wanted to, and my dad wanted to. (Well, I got free showing to a pre-screening of Jedi.) Yes I watched them any time they came on cable, and even regular TV, though the latter kinda blew because of commercials....except when you wanted to get up for a snack or to pee. Now....I only watch things on my 50" plasma if it's at least 720P and 2.5gb (except for a copy of Batman I got recently that was 1080P but only 1.5 gigs, I was damn impressed.

[Howard_Casto]

There's no sense polluting the thread with this kind of thing, but the "audiophile" typically translates to "hipster" and like with all things, they don't know what they are talking about. 

Vinyl sounds different from cds that is to be sure, but if you want to hear what the artist intended, you should go with a cd. 

Sorry, I have to pollute the thread further. Saying a CD is 'how the artist intended' is completely ignoring the whole 'loudness war' debacle that's been ruining CD's by completely eliminating the range of sound. Ond explained it with the "In the Air Tonight". Quiet parts are made louder, and loud parts are muted to avoid clipping. Essentially, the record labels take away any volume control the listener might have had and discard any 'kick.'

Also, there's a difference between 'audiophile' and 'hipster.' An Audiophile will spend quite literally a fortune on turntables, styli, storage, mylar bags, cleaners, speakers, etc. to get the absolute best possible sound out of their records. They don't really do it to impress anyone else but their ears. Hipsters will have a stack of records, store them improperly, play them on a cheap turntable, or better yet, some 1980's Fisher-Price model they found at a yard sale. They'll listen to the violent crackling of a very dirty, dusty record with a crappy needle and say to themselves, "oh how delightfully natural."

(Disclosure: I, like some of my friend, fall between the two extremes. We didn't spend a fortune on equipment but we do pay mind to take care of our collections.)

I'll give you that CD's play flawlessly more often than vinyl. And you may even like the sound of ones and zeros over natural sound, which is fine. But to call people who notice the difference full of crap (paraphrasing) is pretty much highlighting your lack of knowledge on the topic.

Now I'm going to go back and watch my copy of Return of the Jedi on VHS on my 1970's-era tube TV.

I ignored it because I didn't want to blatantly say that that just isn't the case.  As I said, vinyl sounds different, but it's still an inferior sound.  I'm not lacking in knowledge, I just don't buy into b.s. that some other people do.  Sound is subjective though so I'll play devil's advocate on this one.  Let's say that the range is much better on vinyl (it really isn't except in rare cases where the cd was shoddily remastered... audio normalizing is a GOOD thing).  Fair enough, but with rare exceptions records just aren't made anymore.  Find yourself a record that you want that even though it's 25+ years old is in perfect condition.  Ok now even with an expensive rig, try keeping it in that prefect condition when a needle is physically touching the record to play it.  Oh and heaven forbid you want to listen to something released after the mid-90's because you likely won't be able to find it on vinyl.  So the audio is better on a cd, because it's better in multiple was and only arguably worse in one.  Like I said,  vinyl is inferior.     

And nope the only difference between a hipster and an audiophile is one has more money to invest in their worthlessly dated technology.  If you base a system around vinyl then you are going about it the wrong way.  If you think the range on a cd has been shrunk so be it... get a high level mixer and adjust it back the way to like it... don't resort to using a record though.   

Is perfectly fine if you prefer vinyl, just like it's perfectly fine if you enjoy the laserdisc versions of Star Wars... so long as you don't go around telling people that it's better... it isn't, you prefer the worse version, and again, that's perfectly ok.

 
Gray_Area:  Showing my age?  WTF?  I'm 33.  I agree with you about seeing them in person though.  Film resolution even for older films, is far greater than anything you can watch at home.  That's why they'll frequently remaster a film from the 60's or 70's to bluray and it'll look brand new.  The resolution was always there, it's just home players have been too crappy to take advantage of the source material.

[DaveMMR]

I'm sorry Howard but this...

Fair enough, but with rare exceptions records just aren't made anymore.

...nullifies your arguement.

You're also ignoring the fact that Record Store Day drives a ton of money into small independent businesses.

audio normalizing is a GOOD thing

And furthermore, if you think this is okay:



Or this was overblown: Metallica's "Death Magnetic"

...then maybe you're not the best authority in this matter. 

My arms are killing me from carrying tons (literally) of vinyl when I moved yesterday. I like to think I'm not suffering because I'm trying too hard to be a 37 year old hipster. 

[yotsuya]

I hook up my iPod to an FM modulator and listen to it through a transistor radio. That's how I listened to music growing up. 

[Xiaou2]

[Xiaou2]

I would say that its Howards age thats the problem... its his Ignorance, which is timeless.

 Way back when I was 17, I bought a laserdisc player, a Pioneer surround sound receiver, and some
fairly awesome used speakers that had treble adjustments, real hardwood boxes, and incredible sound
quality.  (12" three ways)

 I purchased many CDs of many different types of music.   One day, I bought a new Van Halen cd,  and the
sound quality was absolute crap.  Muddy and distorted, compared to all the other CDs I own.. as well as
compared to any other music they had produced.

 I started looking for an answer... comparing CDs.  My 'Pebbles' cd, had  "AAD"  on it... but the VH cd had "DDD".
A = Analog.  D = Digital.  IE: Analog recorded, analog mastered, digitally transfered.  Something like that.  I dont have time to look it up.

 Anyways, the difference in quality was Very noticeable... and ticked me off.   It wasnt much longer, that every CD and
remaster CD, was the same or worse.  That was the start of the Loudness wars.

 One thing that people should know.. is that its not just the Volume that compression effects...  but it actually distorts the musical clarity.  The higher frequency things are squashed, and lose their sparkle.  It turns a Rainbow of clear sound, into a brown patch of crap.

 And the problem isnt just the compression.  Its also in the digital recording. 

 Because of the nature of Digital recording... they are often doing things like editing the drums.  Tweaking their timeings so that they are mathematically perfect.  Which ends up making them sound artificial, sterile, robotic, non-emotional nor expressive.  Just really drab and boring.

 In many remasters... they throw in digital recordings into analog material... but the sounds dont match.  So it sounds out of place.  Often, it sounds worse. Sometimes even out of pitch.

 And finally, its all compressed to hell.   The highest highs... and the lowest lows.. are turned into distorted middle blahs.


 Records, are pretty much a direct copy of the master audio track.  There is no sample times.  Its all live, all the time.  While its not a lasting media.. its still superior in output to a cd, and the cd industry.   I dont even own one, but I can tell you that its truth without Egotistical prejudice... due to mere FACTS.

 Now, heres the kicker...  you pick up a DVD, and the sound quality on movie tracks.. are FAR more dynamic than CDs.

 Digital can sound Really good.  But its really up to the sample quality (more samples per sec = greater file size), as well as the equipment you are playing it thru.

 I can verify me Sennheiser HD590 headphones, can reproduce sounds than the standard big name brands that are in department stores can NOT.  Not only that.. but when I tried to play some music on them with, using PCs with modern 'onboard' sound chipsets... I got horrible results.  Yet my well older soundblaster audigy, plays every detail crystal clear.

 As for Speakers...  my Techniques 3ways are decent.  However, Ive come to realize that they, like most Modern made stuff.. is far inferior to many speakers made in the past.

 For example..  I found a pair of old EPI bookshelf speakers, that have inverted tweeters.  The sound is Incredible.  Its almost holographically 3d.   Most speakers have a 'sweet spot'.  A spot where you sit, and it sounds best.  But these EPIs sound good almost anywhere you stand.  The high range is all over the room, to the point where you cant even discern where the speakers are, if you didnt already know.   Equally impressive, was the 8" woofer.  It was laying down punchy, responsive, and undistorted sound.  The bass was heavy and low... even lower at times, than my 12" technique woofers... and FAR more accurate.  Very noticeable.  Very Luscious to the ears.
 
 One reason for this.. is that most modern speakers use Bass - Ports.  A bass port produces a very artificial bass sound.. via a "tuned" tube.   When the speaker runs out of air volume, things get even worse for this type of design.  But the EPIs are 100% airtight & sealed.   This means far truer and accurate sounds are reproduced.  No phoney tuned ports. No running out of compressible air.

 Another reason, is the enclosure.  These things are HEAVY.  They weigh about 2x the mass of my much larger techs. They use real thick wood.. and not cheap thin particle board.   The density and strength of the material, means no distortions and no leaks.

 And then there is Crossover quality.  In many older speakers.. they used very advanced and adjustable crossovers.  The cheaper and lower quality crossovers often cause issues with sound quality.

 Theres more..   but heres the main points:

 Todays speakers are made to be light, cheap, and small.. to maximize profits.
 Todays 'good' speakers will cost thosands of dollars - because cost of labor & materials is much high than when compared to times spanning from the 60s to the 80s.

 Todays electronics are usually made cheaply on purpose, so that they fail in like 5yrs or less.  This is so you have to go and buy new stuff often.   Where as older electronics, could last over 30yrs, without a hiccup.

 


 
 

[shponglefan]

Is perfectly fine if you prefer vinyl, just like it's perfectly fine if you enjoy the laserdisc versions of Star Wars... so long as you don't go around telling people that it's better... it isn't, you prefer the worse version, and again, that's perfectly ok.

If this was a case where the content of the DVD/Blu-ray versions was the same then your statement might make sense.  As the DVD/Blu-ray versions are NOT the same movies, your statement makes no sense.  It's not a case of "better" or "worse".  It's a case of "original*" vs "altered".

Like I said already, the CG crap in the "special edition" Star Wars films stands out like a sore thumb.  It does not make the films better.

[Le Chuck]

Watched ROTJ last night, left the room at the Sarlac pit.  It looks like ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- with that big digital beak poking out of the ground.  Some of the smaller effects don't get on my nerves so much but that one just soured it for me.  The aesthetic of those cgi bits is so out of place with the surroundings that it takes a very enjoyable movie and makes it hard to watch.  I'm getting Harmy's.  Until then I'll stick with my VHS copies.   

[Xiaou2]

Worst part for me, was Jabba's pit band change.  Pretty much turned it off at that point.

[shponglefan]

Watched ROTJ last night, left the room at the Sarlac pit.  It looks like ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- with that big digital beak poking out of the ground.  Some of the smaller effects don't get on my nerves so much but that one just soured it for me.  The aesthetic of those cgi bits is so out of place with the surroundings that it takes a very enjoyable movie and makes it hard to watch.  I'm getting Harmy's.  Until then I'll stick with my VHS copies.   

I just got the Harmy's editions.  Haven't watched them thoroughly, but they seem pretty good overall.  Although in some of the scenes the compositing is pretty obvious.   The sarlacc pit is one example; in the shot of Luke looking over the edge, the center is taken from a low-res source and looks blurry compared to the surrounding edges.  Same issue at the end with Sebastian Shaw as Vadar next to Obi-Wan and Yoda.

Still, it's nice to have as close-to-original treatment as we're going to get, but for modern displays.

[Circo]

I do a weekly podcast on vinyl.  And I'm just gonna say everybody is putting out records these days and it goes up every year.  I could care less about which sounds better, vinyl forces you to be a more patient listener and take in the album.  It also makes for a great social experience. 

[DaveMMR]

I could care less about which sounds better, vinyl forces you to be a more patient listener and take in the album.  It also makes for a great social experience.

This.

Worst part for me, was Jabba's pit band change.  Pretty much turned it off at that point.

Am I the only one that actually misses the original Ewok song at the end of ROTJ? I remember my friend had a copy of the song (on vinyl, natch) and we listened to it constantly. Yeah, it was a little goofy but whatever - was part of my childhood.

[Vigo]

I totally miss the Ewok song at the end of Jedi. ROTJ was the worst when it came to alterations. I probably would put up with everything else no complaints, even greedo shooting first, if they had not utterly destroyed ROTJ, and it got worse with each revision. Eyebrows, Sarlaac pit, the new music in Jabba's palace, changing the ewok music to elevator music, the hayden as a jedi ghost and the lame NOOOOOO!.....it got the brunt of the bad changes.

I am so thankful in retrospect that I didn't see the special edition in the theater. I just too young to see any other the originals in the theater, and the special editions back in the 90's got me super excited. I saw New Hope and empire in the theater and even though there were lame changed, I still thought it was pretty a darn magical experience. Then when Jedi came to the theater, our local theater accidentally order the Portuguese version and ended up not showing the movie because they wouldn't get the correct version for months.

[lordnacho]

Erasing what I was going to post.  Vigo just said it way better.

[Vigo]

Erasing what I was going to post.  Vigo just said it way better.

Great minds think alike.