Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

How many did Jacksons LOTR 3 movies win? Case closed

Shakespeare in Love got Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan.

Case closed.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by popeflick

And sorry, but releasing a crappy blu ray of their historical crown jewel is a major strike against them and their current abilities, that should be simple stuff.

Yeah, and Steven Spielberg is a terrible director and Tom Hanks a lousy actor because The Terminal kind of stunk.

Lucas is at least right about the Dark Side. Your hatred blinds you.

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yeah, and Steven Spielberg is a terrible director and Tom Hanks a lousy actor because The Terminal kind of stunk.

Lucas is at least right about the Dark Side. Your hatred blinds you.

...and instead of accepting it is an opinion (apparently shared by others) you instead deflect and change the topic. Well done.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by popeflick

...and instead of accepting it is an opinion (apparently shared by others) you instead deflect and change the topic. Well done.

'Scuse me but YOU are the one judging the output of an entire FX studio by a Blu-ray set you're not even sure how involved they were in creating.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

How many did Jacksons LOTR 3 movies win? Case closed

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Shakespeare in Love got Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan.

Case closed.

I don't think this thread should continue until someone figures out how this single case was closed twice.

[Aquel]

Originally Posted by popeflick

If you've sat through the lousy QC garbage known as the Original Blu Ray trilogy you'd understand what I'm getting at: they're phoning it in!

Jackson: his FX in the LOTR were better than anything Lucas did during the PT, and they came out at the same time.

Cars2 has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but John Carter will have FX that are better than ILM's. Besides, if Oscars are the barometer you want to set when was the last time ILM was even nominated? At least a decade?

I'm talking live action special effects. You are talking about animated movies like Tin Tin and Cars2. MAJOR disconnect.

Because those Elephants, trampling of horses by them and those predator things in The Two Towers are still the pinnacle of SFX of course.

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

'Scuse me but YOU are the one judging the output of an entire FX studio by a Blu-ray set you're not even sure how involved they were in creating.

Do tell. Where did i say that and was it he only example? Of course not.

And saying they're no longer at the top of their game isn't the same thing as saying WETA is always perfect which is all the guy above me has as well.


Stick with the force quotes.

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by popeflick

Do tell. Where did i say that and was it he only example? Of course not.

And saying they're no longer at the top of their game isn't the same thing as saying WETA is always perfect which is all the guy above me has as well.


Stick with the force quotes.

WETA is probably the best effects house out there right now (in my opinion). Their work on Rise of Planet of the Apes was jaw droppingly good.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Jay444

WETA is probably the best effects house out there right now (in my opinion). Their work on Rise of Planet of the Apes was jaw droppingly good.

The ILM stuff in Transformers was equally as amazing. The robots are right there.... as if they were....right there.

CG works best when some of the CG objects are in the forefront and the background isnt littered with crap. This is why it doesnt work well in some scenes of the SW prequels. When the backgrounds AND a lot of the foreground are CG, the image gets flat and fake looking.

Memo to film makers - use CG for a few objects but stick with models, miniatures, and matte paintings for backgrounds and landscapes. Or, just ante up and shoot on location.

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

The ILM stuff in Transformers was equally as amazing. The robots are right there.... as if they were....right there.

CG works best when some of the CG objects are in the forefront and the background isnt littered with crap. This is why it doesnt work well in some scenes of the SW prequels. When the backgrounds AND a lot of the foreground are CG, the image gets flat and fake looking.

Memo to film makers - use CG for a few objects but stick with models, miniatures, and matte paintings for backgrounds and landscapes. Or, just ante up and shoot on location.

Agreed!

[Dynamo of Eternia]

I blame Lucas more so than I blame ILM for any issues with the updates. ILM likely was just following Lucas's instructions.

Also, going back to that big list of issues that I made a few posts ago, really the only one that I look at and feel that ILM should have been able to do a better job on at the time the change was made was when they updated the CGI Jabba for the 2004 DVD release, as that still should have looked a lot better than it did (even though it was an improvement over the 1997 version).

As I said earlier, some of the more dodgy looking changes, such has the choppy movements of Han walking around Jabba and Han dodging Greedo's blast, originated in the 1997 release, during a time when those things were very experimental. As far as I can tell, those effects haven't been updated since 1997 (Han walking around Jabba and lifting up off the ground is a separate effect from the CGI Jabba, himself). And the fault there lies with Lucas. ILM is going to change/fix/update what Lucas tells them and pays them to. Most of the other changes really aren't the result of bad special effects work... Ian as the Emperor in TESB looks fine from a special effects standpoint... but the issue is how much he looks just like the character in ROTS and not how he looks in ROTJ. They did a fine job of splicing Hayden's head on the existing Anakin body at the end of ROTJ, but specific footage for that scene should have been shot instead of random stock footage of Hayden that wasn't meant for that scene.

The Rocks in front of R2 in ANH on Blu-Ray look fine as far as CGI rocks go. It just creates more of a continuity issue with both how he got back there, and where do the rocks go a little while later after he comes out of there but the place where he was hiding is still in the background minus the added rocks. But even that continuity error might not be ILM's fault in that they may have had specific instructions to only update the specific shots that the CGI rocks were added to.

And while the size of the door at Jabba's palace in ROTJ on Blu-Ray is highly questionable for such a small opening, again, this would have been Lucas's instructions, and the end result looks fine as far as oversized doors go.

[bdmckinl]

Hello all:

I've read and enjoyed this thread for many moons, and I've watched and enjoyed Star Wars movies and documentaries for many moons as well. This morning it occurred to me that perhaps the perspective I myself have formulated over the years about the latter might help with some of the wounds and sense of betrayal many of you have experienced towards George Lucas, and communicate so well in this forum.

As a clinical psychologist who specializes in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and who also manages OCD in himself, George Lucas exhibits a myriad of signs of this disorder in his interviews, interactions with others, and choices within the Star Wars universe - for example, persevering on what are clearly unpleasant thoughts for him (perceived imperfections and grudges in decades-old work, the reactions of fans) and engaging in many compulsions of (what clinicians would describe as) the, 'Just Right' variety - requiring everything to be ordered, arranged and/or changed to fit an internal, idiosyncratic (and not necessarily logical) definition of 'perfection'. A good example of this would be his insistence that the original Star Wars be renamed "Episode IV" so that the title can 'look' consistent with all the others.

Now, I don't pretend to believe this is some brilliant theory that no one else has ever postulated, nor to suggest that someone can be diagnosed by someone whose never even met the man or anyone he knows. I only decided finally to post because I wondered if my perspectives (both professional and personal) on OCD might help some people wrap their heads around some of the past 'choices' Mr. Lucas has made which seem on the surface to be personal and disrespectful.

Think of the obsessions in OCD as being an 'itch' (in this situation, a cognitive itch), and the compulsions as being the 'scratch' (an action which relieves the mental tension). We all know that, when we scratch an itch, while that technically is a choice it is nevertheless a 'choice' we give in to under ever-increasing internal pressure to do so. In the case of something like poison ivy or the chicken pox, making that 'choice' to scratch the itch invariably leads to a negative outcome that is actually against our best interests. Yet we feel forever helplessly trapped between two unpalatable scenarios - either suffer through the unrelenting 'itch', or relent yourself and suffer through the negative consequences of 'scratching'.

For years I've been of the opinion that no one has wanted George Lucas to leave Star Wars alone more than George Lucas. I believe that the very condition that made Star Wars so wildly successful (OCD drive and perfectionism has been a source of great achievement for many in history) has become the man's prison. His unpalatable choice has become either betraying his ideals (e.g to not alter film, ala the Turner situation) and incurring the wrath of legions of fans he clearly cares about, or subjecting himself to a never-ending itch he may not know how to endure. From this perspective, it makes sense that he tries (perhaps more and more in vain) to explain to fans why 'he' did what 'he' did. It's like a victim of abuse making excuses for the abuser, and by explaining away the sometimes-damaging 'choices' his OCD makes (to himself as well) he can foster within himself the illusion of control over oneself we all need to be able to live with ourselves. The man's got to be able to sleep at night.

Now of course there is treatment for OCD (and a very effective treatment at that); however, one has to be motivated to engage in it. If, for whatever reason, it is less bothersome (at least at first) to merely scratch the itch than it is to learn to eliminate the itch altogether, the person will likely not participate in treatment and may not even have good insight into his/her condition. Unfortunately, in the case of OCD, continuing to 'scratch the itch' only strengthens the itch and weakens the person scratching it. Over time the individual with OCD (and those around him/her) becomes more and more a victim of the OCD and more and more at its mercy.

In some ways, then, George Lucas reminds me of Howard Hughes - my thought is that both of these men, by being so successful and eventually so wealthy, fashioned for themselves a life where they could have and pay for anything they (or, more accurately, their OCD) wanted. Thus sealing their fate. In essence, I agree with those who have posted here in the past that George Lucas needs someone to say no to him. I would only slightly alter that to say that George Lucas needs someone to help him to say no to his OCD...

I really feel for George Lucas, and by saying that I'm not saying I think everything the man does is the right choice - for his fan base, OR for him. I think George is in a very big and unpleasant hole he never wanted to be in in the first place and he doesn't know how to get out of it. Moreover, I think that George and his fans actually have a common enemy - the OCD which plagues him (and, by extension, us). Finally, I suspect that those close to him know these things about him - accounting for, for example, the clear empathy a Steven Spielberg has when discussing his maligned and misunderstood friend.

[beanham22]

Originally Posted by Aquel

Because those Elephants, trampling of horses by them and those predator things in The Two Towers are still the pinnacle of SFX of course.

They still looked better than anything in AotC. Still the best looking CG character in the prequels was Grevious compare him with Gollum. Hell, Compare Avatar Weta with Avatars ILM, The ILM scenes have a cartoony sheen to them.

WETA is worlds better at SFX than the current ILM but would WETA exist if not for ILM? WETA has owes a lot to ILM for its success imo. Still we are talking about #1 and #2 in the SFX department.

Also PeterTHX its your opinion that LotR is boring. However the majority believes that it blows the prequels out of the water and some even think it blows the original Trilogy out of the water. 20ish Oscars or not LotR did far better critcally and did better at the box office than The Prequel Trilogy.

[jrmac2000]

I wonder if Lucas is tuning up for episode 7 and these re releases are a build up to it? Any thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by Aquel

Because those Elephants, trampling of horses by them and those predator things in The Two Towers are still the pinnacle of SFX of course.

Yes this is correct. And it still looks convincing to me. Smartass.

[popeflick]

Originally Posted by Petyr_Baelish

Yes this is correct. And it still looks convincing to me. Smart one.

I'll happily point out I never said the LOTR trilogy was devoid of cringe-worthy moments. But I guess you guys all think every single shot of the prequels are majesty in action and wholly and fully believable. Good for you.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by beanham22

They still looked better than anything in AotC. Still the best looking CG character in the prequels was Grevious compare him with Gollum. Hell, Compare Avatar Weta with Avatars ILM, The ILM scenes have a cartoony sheen to them.

WETA is worlds better at SFX than the current ILM but would WETA exist if not for ILM? WETA has owes a lot to ILM for its success imo. Still we are talking about #1 and #2 in the SFX department.

Also PeterTHX its your opinion that LotR is boring. However the majority believes that it blows the prequels out of the water and some even think it blows the original Trilogy out of the water. 20ish Oscars or not LotR did far better critcally and did better at the box office than The Prequel Trilogy.

While I agree with you for the most part, it plays into my point that shooting on location and then using CG for some objects ends up looking great versus the whole damn scene being that way.

So, it is the methods that ILM had to use which cause the prequels to being dodgy at times, not the technical aptitude.

What I mean is: If LOTR had decided to go all blu-screen instead of shooting on location, then LOTR would have also looked just as cartoony an flat as anything ILM did. And, if ILM had done the CG in LOTR with the same backdrop to work with, I suspect they would have looked just as good.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Originally Posted by popeflick

I'll happily point out I never said the LOTR trilogy was devoid of cringe-worthy moments. But I guess you guys all think every single shot of the prequels are majesty in action and wholly and fully believable. Good for you.

No no no. I was defending the lord of the rings. Not star wars. I was responding to the star wars fanboys sarcastic remark. The lord of the rings special effects tower star wars by far.

[Petyr_Baelish]

Weta is honestly superior to ILM. It is a lot more difficult to make an ape look real than a shiny giant robot.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by bdmckinl

I really feel for George Lucas, and by saying that I'm not saying I think everything the man does is the right choice - for his fan base, OR for him. I think George is in a very big and unpleasant hole he never wanted to be in in the first place and he doesn't know how to get out of it. Moreover, I think that George and his fans actually have a common enemy - the OCD which plagues him (and, by extension, us). Finally, I suspect that those close to him know these things about him - accounting for, for example, the clear empathy a Steven Spielberg has when discussing his maligned and misunderstood friend.

He has also clearly lost it in a new interview where he says emphatically that Greedo NEVER shot first, that it was just confusion on the part of the viewer since the scene was shot in closeups... even though the script has Han shooting first and George has been seen in photos wearing a "Han shoots first" shirt. I guess (incorrectly) blaming the viewer is his psychological way of taking all the blame off himself, which reveals a major mental problem.

After this really does deserve all the backlash he gets from fans. He is doing nothing but embarrassing himself at this point.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hea...Heat+Vision%29