Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[ChainsawJedi]

Originally Posted by Obi-Wan Kenobi

There's been some talk about TPM feeling the most like the OT Star Wars films, and people saying in response saying, yeah, it feels like that because it was the only prequel film shot on film. But it isn't just that George shot II and III digitally, it was also the lack of real world location shooting. By the time RotS rolled around, it was all blue and green screen shooting with no real location shooting. Which is why It surprises me that even many people that generally hate the prequels, like RotS best, and consider it a great connection to ANH.

It's the 21st century. We shoot on digital these days. Fact is, George Lucas was pushing for digital filmmaking as early as 1982, regarding the use of film stock as archaic and clumsy.

I simply can't connect with the thinking of some fans that Star Wars films have to be made on film and not digitally simply because that's the way they were made back in nineteen-oh-spit. I'm more into the fact that every time Lucas helmed a new Star Wars film, he broke new barriers and pushed his crew to achieve something that had never been achieved before.

He caused a revolution in film and now all people want to do is go back to the way things used to be. Bewildering.

I didn't know those fans preferred ROTS because it was the closest link to ANH, though. I just presumed they liked it because it was dark and a dark prequel film was what they'd all been hankering for ever since the prequels were first announced.

[ChainsawJedi]

Originally Posted by Jakdonark

There was a video on YouTube shortly before TFA came out that had an a voice over from Abrams, I think from comic con, talking about how much on location shooting they were doing, and using practical effects and aliens, but showing video from location shooting for Phantom Menace (Tatooine, Naboo) and green screen shots for TFA, and physical aliens from the prequels contrasted with cg shots from TFA. Ironic.

Yes, there was a lot of misinformation leading up to the release of TFA. The committe who made that movie spent a lot of time and effort in trying to minimise the kind of backlash from those fans who rejected the prequels for use of CGI, digital filming etc. And the film ended up being a hit. They gave the people what they wanted. There is something called "the shallowness of effect", though, and it will be interesting to see how these new films are viewed in, say, forty or fity years' time.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ChainsawJedi

No, I think they actually got Hayden in and filmed him with the express intention that this would replace the ghost at the end of ROTJ. I stress, I think. My source would be J.W. Rinzler's Making Of book - I know for certain it mentions in that same book how they got Ian McDiarmid in to purposely shoot his scene for TESB to replace the old woman with the monkey eyes (!).

The wider image of him looking out at Luke may be legit but the close-up where he fades in, no freakin' way. Obviously it's supposed to be him looking across at Obi-Wan before looking at Luke, but the way he smirks and suddenly composes himself as he turns looks like someone told him a smutty joke just before they called 'action', it's astonishingly tacky. Hell, if that's not an outtake then that just underlines how much of a crackpot Lucas is.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The wider image of him looking out at Luke may be legit but the close-up where he fades in, no freakin' way. Obviously it's supposed to be him looking across at Obi-Wan before looking at Luke, but the way he smirks and suddenly composes himself as he turns looks like someone told him a smutty joke just before they called 'action', it's astonishingly tacky. Hell, if that's not an outtake then that just underlines how much of a crackpot Lucas is.

And it's just Hayden's head composited on top of Shaw's body...was it really more expensive to get Hayden in costume than it was to remove Shaw's head and put Hayden's head on top of Shaw's body? Apparently.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

And it's just Hayden's head composited on top of Shaw's body...was it really more expensive to get Hayden in costume than it was to remove Shaw's head and put Hayden's head on top of Shaw's body? Apparently.

That's just disturbing. It sounds like something out of Frankenstein.

[Jakdonark]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

That's just disturbing. It sounds like something out of Frankenstein.

Have you seen rogue one yet?

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by Jakdonark

Have you seen rogue one yet?

Yup. I'm still on the fence about what they did in that film. It's cool that they can do that but at the same time it's pretty disturbing.

[Geoff D]

You can keep trying but the bait will not be taken, I've seen your type far too many times over the years. Sorry 'bout dat.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by The Fallen Deity

That's just disturbing. It sounds like something out of Frankenstein.

It's also a bit telling about the way Lucas directs actors. Trust me, there are people in this industry who do not work well with actors because they view actors as a line item on the budget, part of the cog in the machine grinding out the movie, just another union to deal with, just another annoying pain in the butt. I've heard this point blank -- on a project, when I asked why I wasn't receiving feedback and opinions or direction, the guy shot back, "Because I shouldn't have to." So I'm on my own. That happens.

Instead of Lucas putting Hayden in some robes and getting a performance out of him, he took an outtake where Hayden was smiling and turning his head, and pasted it onto Sebastian Shaw's body. That tells me a lot.

[Geoff D]

Spot on, Lucas has always regarded the actual shoot - with those darned troublesome human beings - as being an absolute grind. That's not to say that movie productions are sweetness and light because they're not, they're murder, but Lucas holds a particular distaste for the process (he wanted to be an animator initially) and that distaste is patently obvious in the way he directs people.

[HGN2001]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...that distaste is patently obvious in the way he directs people.

Sometimes I need to get my head around some of the things that "fans" say regarding STAR WARS and its sequels/prequels/special editions.

So Lucas doesn't direct people well, according to the above post - and I'm not picking on any one poster - it's just that Geoff D.'s is handy.

Does that go for the entire original STAR WARS movie? If so, what attracted you to the movie in the first place. Any director who doesn't direct people well, probably makes crappy movies, so why is this thread as long as it is. He must have done something right for so many people to be so interested in discussing the situation and telling him how he got it all wrong.

I'm not a big defender of the special editions. I too prefer the originals and am happy I have the DVDs that provided them (admittedly in non-anamorphic format), but at least they are watchable.

I know the answer - release the originals on Blu-ray or some other super high-def format, as they were, and you'll all give it a rest and go away.

[Geoff D]

No, it's a fair question and I had that in the back of my mind when typing the above. Lucas has never, ever been what we'd call "an actor's director" and yet the performances in THX, Graffiti and Star Wars are far more lively and vital than the cold, detached, borderline-tranquillised turns seen throughout the prequels. Is it that the chronic over-reliance on greenscreen and the turgid, emotionally-constipated writing conspired to create an artistic vacuum that not even talent like McGregor and Portman could fill? Sure.

But without spunky actors delivering spunky performances in spite of the dross on the page ("you can type this shit..." etc etc) Lucas' directorial style was badly exposed for what it was, not having been helped by more than two decades in the wilderness so this wasn't even the lean, hungry "faster, more intense" kid of yore, but the middle-aged "I'll fix it in the computer" overlord of his own personal empire. I do believe that he FINALLY got some of his mojo back on Revenge of the Sith which is one of my favourite SW movies, but by then it was too late to rescue the PT as a whole.

[Mighty Max]

My biggest issue with Vader being Luke's father is this...
Episode 4... Luke: "You fought in the Clone Wars?"
The way he makes it sound is that it was a really long time ago and was a legendary war. Hell, the way he says it, it almost has a mystical sense about it.

Then Vader is revealed to be Anakin. Then Anakin is shown and he doesn't really look all that old. Mostly cause the make-up.

And along with this, we learn Vader was only a bad guy for about 17 years prior to episode 4.

While I get making Vader Luke's father, it also shrunk the universe that seemed so open just a single movie before!

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by Mighty Max

While I get making Vader Luke's father, it also shrunk the universe that seemed so open just a single movie before!

This is a problem that the Star Wars universe (at least cinematically) has always struggled with and -- barring some unforeseen, unlikely "newness" in eps 8 and 9 -- will continue to struggle with. (How many times have we fans played a variation of the "Who's kid is Rey" game? It's practically a foregone conclusion.)

Having said that, I didn't feel that "shrinking universe syndrome" became a problem until ROTJ. The Vader revelation at the end of ESB was so unexpected, such a kick in the trousers, and it came on the heels of one of the most rocking, universe-expanding adventures evah, that it brought the saga back to the more personal realm quite nicely in the closing moments, and set up the central conflict of the following film.

In ROTJ, family ties are a convenient solution to a messy problem (which is a phrase that nicely sums up that entire venture, tbh). The brother/sister scene is beautifully scored by Williams, and there are isolated moments of good acting, but all I remember thinking was, "Phew, now Luke can get on with kicking the Emperor's ass and Leia and Han can ride off into the sunset."

[steel_breeze]

Originally Posted by Mighty Max

My biggest issue with Vader being Luke's father is this...
Episode 4... Luke: "You fought in the Clone Wars?"
The way he makes it sound is that it was a really long time ago and was a legendary war. Hell, the way he says it, it almost has a mystical sense about it.

Then Vader is revealed to be Anakin. Then Anakin is shown and he doesn't really look all that old. Mostly cause the make-up.

And along with this, we learn Vader was only a bad guy for about 17 years prior to episode 4.

While I get making Vader Luke's father, it also shrunk the universe that seemed so open just a single movie before!

Yeah, the "shrinking universe" idea is a problem I've always had with STAR WARS sequels. The original '77 flick is this huge universe where no one is related to anyone else, and when we hear of things like the Imperial Senate and the Clone Wars, we have to (gasp) imagine them. Then, starting with EMPIRE -- even though it's a fantastic flick -- the universe starts to implode. First, Vader is Luke's father... I didn't love that, even in 1980 when I was nine... then in ROTJ Leia is Luke's sister... ???... always hated that... but then it turns out in TPM that young Anakin built C-3PO... WTF... worse than mitichlorians, in my book... then we learn that only about six characters had any significant participation in the events of the STAR WARS universe, and the whole Saga is contained within a period of 37 years. Kinda crazy.

I think that's why so many people are digging ROGUE ONE... finally some other characters that have an impact. But oddly, now that I have fully drunk the STAR WARS Kool-Aid (in just the last couple years) and have embraced the prequels, ROGUE ONE feels oddly out of step to me, even though it's EXACTLY the prequel I would have wanted back in '99. Go figure.

Anyhoo... to this day, I have two modes of STAR WARS: on the one hand, I love to watch the original '77 flick (DeSpecialized) on its own, pretending that NONE of the others exist. Or I fully buy into the Episode Order of 1 - 7, including all of Lucas' 2011 "final versions".

[WhySoBlu?]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

In ROTJ, family ties are a convenient solution to a messy problem (which is a phrase that nicely sums up that entire venture, tbh). The brother/sister scene is beautifully scored by Williams, and there are isolated moments of good acting, but all I remember thinking was, "Phew, now Luke can get on with kicking the Emperor's ass and Leia and Han can ride off into the sunset."

We would have been better off with them bringing in another love interest for Luke, imo. Better to use that "trope of convenience" rather than retroactively making the relationship in the first two films an incestuous love triangle.

I can only imagine the awkward conversations that were caused by watching the movies in episode order. I mean - you go from watching them get named and separated to reuniting as teens and immediately entering a love triangle with an older scoundrel.

"Daddy, why is Luke kissing his twin sister like you kiss Mommy?"

[ElvisForever]

Originally Posted by HGN2001

Sometimes I need to get my head around some of the things that "fans" say regarding STAR WARS and its sequels/prequels/special editions.

So Lucas doesn't direct people well, according to the above post - and I'm not picking on any one poster - it's just that Geoff D.'s is handy.

Does that go for the entire original STAR WARS movie? If so, what attracted you to the movie in the first place. Any director who doesn't direct people well, probably makes crappy movies, so why is this thread as long as it is. He must have done something right for so many people to be so interested in discussing the situation and telling him how he got it all wrong.

I'm not a big defender of the special editions. I too prefer the originals and am happy I have the DVDs that provided them (admittedly in non-anamorphic format), but at least they are watchable.

I know the answer - release the originals on Blu-ray or some other super high-def format, as they were, and you'll all give it a rest and go away.

Totally agree.

A lot of them I actually do question.

I hope against all hope they are released officially so some of the so called fans will finally shut up.

Why spend so much time on something you dislike?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by ElvisForever

Totally agree.

A lot of them I actually do question.

I hope against all hope they are released officially so some of the so called fans will finally shut up.

Why spend so much time on something you dislike?

I've been fighting, pissing, whining, and moaning about what happened to The Black Cauldron since I was 14 years old. This is a true story - I'm on the Starship Troopers f/x shoot, Pete's the DP, who just got an Oscar nod for Nightmare Before Christmas...entire time I'm wanting to ask him questions about Cauldron, because Tim Burton did some concept art for the film before moving on. I had to mentally nail that impulse to the floor.

Why spend time on something you dislike? So you understand what happened, and don't make the same mistakes. It's that simple. It's not just the arts, that's life.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by steel_breeze

Yeah, the "shrinking universe" idea is a problem I've always had with STAR WARS sequels. The original '77 flick is this huge universe where no one is related to anyone else, and when we hear of things like the Imperial Senate and the Clone Wars, we have to (gasp) imagine them. Then, starting with EMPIRE -- even though it's a fantastic flick -- the universe starts to implode. First, Vader is Luke's father... I didn't love that, even in 1980 when I was nine... then in ROTJ Leia is Luke's sister... ???... always hated that... but then it turns out in TPM that young Anakin built C-3PO... WTF... worse than mitichlorians, in my book... then we learn that only about six characters had any significant participation in the events of the STAR WARS universe, and the whole Saga is contained within a period of 37 years. Kinda crazy.

I think that's why so many people are digging ROGUE ONE... finally some other characters that have an impact. But oddly, now that I have fully drunk the STAR WARS Kool-Aid (in just the last couple years) and have embraced the prequels, ROGUE ONE feels oddly out of step to me, even though it's EXACTLY the prequel I would have wanted back in '99. Go figure.

Anyhoo... to this day, I have two modes of STAR WARS: on the one hand, I love to watch the original '77 flick (DeSpecialized) on its own, pretending that NONE of the others exist. Or I fully buy into the Episode Order of 1 - 7, including all of Lucas' 2011 "final versions".

To this day I still tune out Anakin making Threepio, as even though the franchise already had form for such incestuous revelations it feels beyond forced. Just make Threepio one of Padme's courtiers and keep the reveal of Artoo the same, there's no reason why an astro-droid would be hanging around in such company until he did something as conspicuous as saving the ship, he's basically the equivalent of a stoker in the coal-fired engine rooms of old.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by ChainsawJedi

You mentioned "over-reliance on CGI". You do know that there's more practical effects in The Phantom Menace than in any of the original films, don't you?

And how many CGI shots are in The Phantom Menace compared to the original movies?