Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[stvn1974]

Disney should hold a contest where whoever names their newborn Maclunkey wins a season pass to Star Wars Galaxy Edge.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

My biggest gripe with the PT comes from the look of Episode II & III. They look so incredibly fake. The actors are so lost and bad, they aren't interacting with their environment because there simply is none. It looks like literally everything was done 100% in the computer. These two films looks like a very long cut scene from a PS2 game. Especially Episode II. Episode I at least looks and feels like a real movie.

Hyperbole central, this post is.

More models and miniatures were used in ROTS alone than the entire OT. It's pretty obvious if you don't go in with the mindset of "EVERYTHING IS CGI OMFG WUT DIS SUX!"

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by Galactus123

Someone on Resetera forum has posted screenshots of the Disney+ versions:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/the...#post-26442170

https://www.resetera.com/threads/the...#post-26501723

The colors are much better.

I like the colors on the older version. ESB is the one that suffers the most from these new retooling. The colors are just off on that whole movie. Hoth practically looks black and white and the Carbonite chamber is a total mess. Blu-ray's for the win.

Plus, DTS-HD MA audio. I'll take lossless over Disneyfied Atmos.

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Hyperbole central, this post is.

More models and miniatures were used in ROTS alone than the entire OT. It's pretty obvious if you don't go in with the mindset of "EVERYTHING IS CGI OMFG WUT DIS SUX!"

I doesn't matter if the films were 100% miniatures and models, the films look like bad video games.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

I doesn't matter if the films were 100% miniatures and models, the films look like bad video games.

And a lot of the original trilogy looks like a bad Atari game. Who cares. Effects age. Why is this even a discussion? Oh, you know what, that movie King Kong from the 30's, man that ape looks sooooo fake! What a crap movie!

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

And a lot of the original trilogy looks like a bad Atari game. Who cares. Effects age. Why is this even a discussion? Oh, you know what, that movie King Kong from the 30's, man that ape looks sooooo fake! What a crap movie!

Are you serious.


The link above also has a huge spoiler for The Mandalorian...kind of pissed.

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

And a lot of the original trilogy looks like a bad Atari game. Who cares. Effects age. Why is this even a discussion? Oh, you know what, that movie King Kong from the 30's, man that ape looks sooooo fake! What a crap movie!

It looks still more realistic than crazy hopping CGI Yoda because the ape animatronic was actually there on set.

[Bobbyjoe766]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

It looks still more realistic than crazy hopping CGI Yoda because the ape animatronic was actually there on set.

The huge, full-size head & shoulders bust built for King Kong (1933), was employed effectively for crunching up the natives - along with the giant foot, used for grinding others beneath it.

[bobbyh64]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Hyperbole central, this post is.

More models and miniatures were used in ROTS alone than the entire OT. It's pretty obvious if you don't go in with the mindset of "EVERYTHING IS CGI OMFG WUT DIS SUX!"

Apples and oranges. While ROTS might’ve had more models and miniatures than the entire OT, the OT had no CGI and therefore looks more real than the PT. All those shots in the OT that show spaceships, planets, etc. look more realistic than the CGI planets and ships in the OT, along with all the other CGI crammed into them. I’m not knocking the PT as the films were a good test and helped to move filmmaking forward, but I don’t see how anyone could think that the PT overall looks better than the OT.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by creasybear

and a lot of the original trilogy looks like a bad atari game. Who cares. Effects age. Why is this even a discussion? Oh, you know what, that movie king kong from the 30's, man that ape looks sooooo fake! What a crap movie!

lol

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

It looks still more realistic than crazy hopping CGI Yoda because the ape animatronic was actually there on set.

The reason why practical effects are better, is because you can appreciate the artistry that went into them, even though it's clearly fake. Because of the enormity of imagine and, creativity that it visibly took to create that, gives a feeling of magic. Like King Kong did in 33, and still does today. That magic lasts forever.

CGI in live action only really works as an auxiliary to practical. It's why the likes of LOTR still holds up today, heck even 90s CGI like Titanic, or dare I even say The Postman.

But maybe CGI will become more respectable one day, who knows.

[HeavyHitter]

Which star destroyer do you prefer?
EP II.jpg
ImperialstarDestroyer.jpg

[HarcourtMudd]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Which star destroyer do you prefer?
Attachment 231624
Attachment 231625

That would be the second one, no question...

[rickah88]

Glad I like both CGI and practical effects. Didn’t know one had to choose.

[Scottishguy]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Glad I like both CGI and practical effects. Didn’t know one had to choose.

You do

[Gold Ranger]

Wait? What?
The original trilogy had NO CGI?
Im pretty sure it had at least a little bit.

[BladeRunner2007]

Originally Posted by Gold Ranger

Wait? What?
The original trilogy had NO CGI?
Im pretty sure it had at least a little bit.

The original unaltered theatrical cuts didn't use any CGI. Only the atrocious special editions do.

[The Fallen Deity]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

I like the colors on the older version. ESB is the one that suffers the most from these new retooling. The colors are just off on that whole movie. Hoth practically looks black and white and the Carbonite chamber is a total mess. Blu-ray's for the win.

Plus, DTS-HD MA audio. I'll take lossless over Disneyfied Atmos.

The colour timing is atrocious on the 2004/2011 transfers. Oversaturated, extremely revisionist and sloppily done.

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by BladeRunner2007

The original unaltered theatrical cuts didn't use any CGI. Only the atrocious special editions do.

Lies!
Computer screens, x-wing, death star plans, and Falcon Turret screens were computer images.

[ProjectB]

How are the new Dolby Atmos mixes? They obviously aren’t lossless, but how do they compare to the 6.1 tracks that have been around for a while?