Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Dynamo of Eternia]

They should team up for an ultimate performance of "It's not easy being green."

Of course with Yoda's speech pattern, he'd probably screw it up. "Being Green, not easy it is." Then Kermit will smack Yoda for messing up the song!

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

They should team up for an ultimate performance of "It's not easy being green."

Of course with Yoda's speech pattern, he'd probably screw it up. "Being Green, not easy it is." Then Kermit will smack Yoda for messing up the song!

Funny that would be.
Then Yoda would just tell him something like: Train this frog, I cannot. No patience has he. Much anger in him, I sense.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by nmycon

How can CG possibly look better than models when it comes to X-Wings or Tie Fighters though? The CG artists are trying to recreate the original model props, but the lighting is never going to be 100% correct with CG.

I know it's not Star Wars, but which one is "real" and which one is CG?

There's no "lighting" to speak of except what the FX artists want you to see, except the fact that many models' paintjobs were gimped by the fact they could not be reflective in any way, so the bluescreen would not reflect and create transparent areas on the model. Plus the limitations of a camera rig and the fact the models aren't really moving.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

I hate how people keep saying the original Yoda looks like a muppet. I mean, I know his movement was a bit limited for its time, but he looks nothing like a muppet.

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

Agreed.


The following examples are reasons that I do not want a CGI Yoda in any form to be added to the OTs in the upcoming Blu-rays.

[Show spoiler]

Replacing him with these would just be...

[Show spoiler]

.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

[Show spoiler]

I know it's not Star Wars, but which one is "real" and which one is CG?

There's no "lighting" to speak of except what the FX artists want you to see, except the fact that many models' paintjobs were gimped by the fact they could not be reflective in any way, so the bluescreen would not reflect and create transparent areas on the model. Plus the limitations of a camera rig and the fact the models aren't really moving.

That's interesting, but in the following images- original top and the CGI replacement bottom. The CGI Falcon has always looked flat at the beginning of the shot, and hopefully they will touch that one up a bit for the Blu-ray release so it will lose that 2D look that it now has.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I know it's not Star Wars, but which one is "real" and which one is CG?

There's no "lighting" to speak of except what the FX artists want you to see, except the fact that many models' paintjobs were gimped by the fact they could not be reflective in any way, so the bluescreen would not reflect and create transparent areas on the model. Plus the limitations of a camera rig and the fact the models aren't really moving.

I'm going to say the top? Very close though

When I was writing that comment, I was thinking of indoor settings. Obviously there is no "correct" lighting in an indoor scene, but perhaps in a hanger of an imperial ship with tie fighters and whatnot... I think it would look better with real models and their reflections in the shiny floor rather than computer generated ships and reflections.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by nmycon

I'm going to say the top? Very close though

When I was writing that comment, I was thinking of indoor settings. Obviously there is no "correct" lighting in an indoor scene, but perhaps in a hanger of an imperial ship with tie fighters and whatnot... I think it would look better with real models and their reflections in the shiny floor rather than computer generated ships and reflections.

Ironic comment since the type of shots you're describing were accomplished in the OT with matte paintings and never with models. Even in ROTJ when the Emperor is first introduced, all the wide shots, including many of the Stormtroopers and Imperial Officers (and all reflections), are part of the painting.

[nmycon]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Ironic comment since the type of shots you're describing were accomplished in the OT with matte paintings and never with models. Even in ROTJ when the Emperor is first introduced, all the wide shots, including many of the Stormtroopers and Imperial Officers (and all reflections), are part of the painting.

Ok bad example... I can't think of one off the top of my head without skimming through one of the movies...

In the above shots of the Millennium Falcon, I think the model shot looks better. The CG one has a faint whitish glow around the entire thing.

I also like the fact that they used prop volcanoes (carved out of some styrofoam-like material) and real liquid "lava." It really helped in the shots where you can see the river of lava flowing, A computer generated scene wouldn't have had the same level of detail, especially the shapes of the rocks and crust and whatnot.

But I guess what it all comes down to is what is more aesthetically pleasing. So while well-done, detailed practical models will always look more realistic, computers are able to create images and scenes that are more fantastical, colourful and fun to look at.

However, there can also be an issue with textures when it comes to CG. The Clone Trooper textures in EP2 are already starting to look dated, as you can see pixelation even on the DVD release (as I mentioned earlier). They could be redone with HD textures, but would Lucas go that far? Who knows? But then there is the fact that this would be the last release of Episodes 2 and 3 worth buying, as they cannot possibly look better than 1080p.

[monkeyjb1988]

Originally Posted by nmycon

Sooner or later (probably later rather than sooner), there will be a better hi-def format. The original trilogy and Phantom Menace will be able to be scanned at 4K resolution (4096 x 1743 at a 2.35:1 AR), a significant upgrade. AOTC and ROTS will only ever have a resolution of 1920 x 817, whereas the "film" films will be able to be scanned at increasingly higher resolutions, revealing more subtle detail (although obviously film will reach a "limit" at which there won't be any real benefit to a higher resolution in terms of detail)

They would also need to re-render the visual effects in TPM, since the film was finished in 2K, but I understand the point. That's one of the downside of digital, I guess. At least we have the RED camera, at 4K. Granted, even that won't do much if we get to 8k, but hey technology evolves. Not going to hold it against 1080p films for being filmed that way.

Originally Posted by NMR1723

This...

I'm more worried about how the CGI will look on Blu-ray than I am the models and puppets used in the OT. We watched the first 25 minutes of TPM the other night and I couldn't believe how fake the CGI looked. I know the DVD is not known for its PQ...but still...Jar Jar and a lot of the green screen work looked VERY dated. I honestly think episodes IV-VI look much better on DVD than a lot of the CGI used in TPM and AOTC. I can only hope that things don't stand out quite as much on BD and look even more dated. I think we're so used to amazing CGI these days...that the old stuff just doesn't cut it. On the other hand...a lot of model and puppet work tends to look really good since they were using actual physical models.

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Agreed - if there is any fault with blu-ray its the fact that nothing can be hidden. Not with 1080p and fairly close viewing distances. The CGI in both SW and LOTR has its moments of "dodginess" and I expect it will be even dodgier with these new releases. Like you said - not a helluva lot we can do.

As for the puppets and models used in the older films - they really can and do look better than CGI in many cases. I also feel that good matte paintings look great too.

Yeah, I was surprised how some CG looked on some Blu-Rays.

Originally Posted by nmycon

I agree blu-ray tends to make these things stand out, but you have to look at it not as distracting, but as a part of the era in which that movie was made.

Up until the early 90's, matte paintings were the norm until CG became convincing enough to use for backgrounds. Just like real models and explosions were composited into the scene, also until the early 90's (I think Blade Runner is one of the last films to use these effects)

The late 80's were the "grainy years" as a lot of studios started turning towards cheaper film stock, resulting in grainier looking films (more for the lower budget movies or lesser known films, like Ghostbusters for example).

Late 90's to 2004 or so was the infancy of CG, from 2005 onwards it's gotten much better, it's hard to tell the difference between a film from 2005 and 2011 based on special effects alone (in most cases)

Blu-ray brings all of these elements to light, but all you can do is accept it as the limitations of the technology during the time the movie was being made. I actually enjoy 70's-80's movies with all their puppets and strings, it's a lot more work making a model out of resin or a puppet out of latex or painting a background than it is to make a model on the computer, especially in terms of backgrounds. You can throw a couple of lights in to a 3D scene for a background, It's amazing how well the lighting is done in some of the paintings, there are some I've never noticed were paintings until it's been pointed out to me (or mentioned during the commentary.)

Yeah, that's one of the great things about models and puppets. Don't get me wrong, it's probably hard to do both CG and models, but I do like models more. I don't know, I think it's the feel or something.

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

I hate how people keep saying the original Yoda looks like a muppet. I mean, I know his movement was a bit limited for its time, but he looks nothing like a muppet.

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

Uh... Kermit looks more realistic.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I know it's not Star Wars, but which one is "real" and which one is CG?

There's no "lighting" to speak of except what the FX artists want you to see, except the fact that many models' paintjobs were gimped by the fact they could not be reflective in any way, so the bluescreen would not reflect and create transparent areas on the model. Plus the limitations of a camera rig and the fact the models aren't really moving.

Truth. There is some awesome CGI, especially in Star Wars, Star Trek, and LOTR. It can also do some things easier than models and puppets. However, let me ask this: Which is less painful to watch, bad models/puppets or bad CGI? For me, bad models and puppets. Somehow, it seems harder to screw up a model or puppet than CG. I tried CG once, and you have to know so much to get even a simple thing on screen. Puppets and models, you only have to sculpt and paint. Granted, not every idiot can make a good puppet/model, just like not every idiot can do a good CG model/animation. It's just my opinion. Some people may prefer CG and good for them. I just like puppets and models. They seem to age better.

[P@t_Mtl]

Completed my month of July Star Wars movies watching last night...

Small side note here before going on, so I watch Star Wars 5 times a year, January, April, July & October. Plus I watch the original versions on the date of their releases in May....Star Wars & Return Of The Jedi 25th May ; The Empire Strikes Back 21st May.

So now back to what I wanted to say. I was completing Revenge Of The Sith last night and it hit on me this may well be the last time I see them on DVD since September 16 is only 2 months away, with the exception of the original versions I still will continue watching every May. I was thinking of some of the scenes I really can't wait to see on Blu-ray. The one I am can't wait the most is the opening of Revenge Of The Sith and that space battle over Coruscant. There is quite a few I am looking forward to but this one seem to be the one that really get's me going.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I know it's not Star Wars, but which one is "real" and which one is CG?

There's no "lighting" to speak of except what the FX artists want you to see, except the fact that many models' paintjobs were gimped by the fact they could not be reflective in any way, so the bluescreen would not reflect and create transparent areas on the model. Plus the limitations of a camera rig and the fact the models aren't really moving.

The bottom shot is the CGI shot. It's also missing the pilot's helmet.

[The Apocalypse]

I think that some are setting themselves up to be disappointed with this Blu-ray release in terms of the CGI and other effects. I hope that isn't the case when it does come out in September, and it'll be great for everyone.

[The Apocalypse]

I'm sure, or I hope, the "further enhancements" and quality of the transfers, will be proportionate to our expectations. We'll see.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by EclipseSSD

I think that some are setting themselves up to be disappointed with this Blu-ray release in terms of the CGI and other effects. I hope that isn't the case when it does come out in September, and it'll be great for everyone.

A lot of people always expect too much but most of the time it's due to constant posting for months before something is release saying how great it will be. After a while I suspect we start to believe even our own lies about how great something will be and then it's just goes down. Things are not so terrible but the expectations were so high that the reaction to it is quite over what it should be.

[The Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

A lot of people always expect too much but most of the time it's due to constant posting for months before something is release saying how great it will be. After a while I suspect we start to believe even our own lies about how great something will be and then it's just goes down. Things are not so terrible but the expectations were so high that the reaction to it is quite over what it should be.

That's true. I'm certainly guilty of it myself, especially for this release, after a long time of not watch a single SW film.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by EclipseSSD

That's true. I'm certainly guilty of it myself, especially for this release, after a long time of not watch a single SW film.

I have seen and heard quite a few of you saying you have not watch Star Wars in sometime since you may no longer have the DVD, I just have no idea how you guys manage this? I need my fix 5 times a year for Star Wars or I might just go nuts

[Lemmy Lugosi]

Check today's Overstock.com deal on the new BD set.

You won't be sorry!

[The Apocalypse]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I have seen and heard quite a few of you saying you have not watch Star Wars in sometime since you may no longer have the DVD, I just have no idea how you guys manage this? I need my fix 5 times a year for Star Wars or I might just go nuts

Oh believe me, there were times when purchasing the DVD sets were very very tempting . But I told myself, "no", this will come out on Blu-ray, and here we are.

[Snowmaker]

Originally Posted by Boris Lugosi

Check today's Overstock.com deal on the new BD set.

You won't be sorry!

Out of stock? How can it be out of stock when its not even released yet?

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Snowmaker

Out of stock? How can it be out of stock when its not even released yet?

The website overstock.com seem to have been hack somehow. They have crazy prices on certain things (example a PS3 for $20) A lot of people have been making purchases since this when live but it's very possible the out of stock mean that they (the website) notice something is very wrong and stopping new orders. It's very possible most orders made in the last few hours will be cancel by them.