Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[octagon]

Originally Posted by popeflick

People old enough to know the film's name is Star Wars (not A New Hope) and were disappointed when their mail in Boba Fett didn't have the firing missile (as opposed to reading about it years later) are not fans of the prequels by and large. It's a pretty clear line.

I don't know if it's all that clear, really.

I'm more than old enough to know the first film's name (I was in high school when it came out) and for me the wheels started coming off well before the prequels.

Star Wars was amazing, Empire was even better and Jedi? Well, not so much. Didn't like it then and not a whole lot has happened since to make me reconsider (though a half-hour SE consisting of nothing but Luke/Vader/Palpatine might come close).

But I think things pretty much bottomed out with TPM (and even that, train-wreck that it was, had its moments) and more or less righted themselves with Clones and Sith.

Obviously Clones and Sith had their issues but by-and-large the good (and some of the good was very good) made the bad tolerable.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by Beast

That's not true in the least. I know a lot of people who enjoy the Prequels.

And yes, most of us saw the originals in the 70's/80's. And collected the toys and such.

Definitely incorrect. I was probably too young for ANH, but saw TESB and ROTJ as a kid for the original theatric runs... had every toy there was and still like the prequels as much as the OT.

There's no substantial difference between the OT and the PT. Pretty awkward acting and dialogue with increasingly sophisticated SFX with a mish mash of combined inspirations and homages in the overall story. The main difference is the lack of rose-colored glasses for people who can't get past their nostalgia

[tilapiah6]

And there was some good, definitely. Darth Vader's first breath still gives me goosebumps. The last shot in Revenge of the Sith is too.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Definitely incorrect. I was probably too young for ANH, but saw TESB and ROTJ as a kid for the original theatric runs... had every toy there was and still like the prequels as much as the OT.

There's no substantial difference between the OT and the PT. Pretty awkward acting and dialogue with increasingly sophisticated SFX with a mish mash of combined inspirations and homages in the overall story. The main difference is the lack of rose-colored glasses for people who can't get past their nostalgia

There were huge differences. The on location scenes in the original trilogy were awesome because the actors had to overcome those physical barriers presented by the locations. In the shots on Tatooine, they were downright miserable! This gave the originals a level of realism not achievable in a sterile, blue screen environment. The original trilogy also gave us a number of incredibly charming and likable characters, while the prequels gave us precious few characters to care at all about because they were so phony and the dialogue was so wooden.

And the bad looking space fights in the originals gave it a campy feel even if they did look corny.

These are just my opinions though. Everybody's definitely entitled to their own. I was just extremely pissed off about the prequels, and think they could have done a much better job.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

What you just described is exactly what I'd hoped for the PT, and what Lucas promised to deliver, that's for sure. And in a sense, he did.

But you didn't get a feeling that everything was incredibly artificial in the prequel trilogy? I've heard the stories about how it was SUPPOSED to be clean and sterile because it wasn't war-torn locations like in the original trilogy, but it was still extremely unrealistic.

No, it's not. Look at car design, architecture, hell even coffee pots up through a certain period of American History.
There was always some beauty and some care put into the design elements, which made it stand out.
And then you have the emergence of mass production and cookie cutter design aesthetics.
Same thing happened in the Star Wars Universe after the Empire rose to power. It became function over form.
Just like the Clone Troopers everything was churned/stamped out in a mass produced assembly line.

Won't agree with the comment about 2001 either, in regard to looking more realistic.

[Jumpman]

Bingo, Beast...

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Uxi

There's no substantial difference between the OT and the PT.

I do agree that the similarities and parallels far outweight the differences (to the point where virtually any criticism of one can likely be leveled at the other with the only difference being one of degree) but I do think there is one substantial difference.

The narrative is a lot tighter in the OT.

That's not necessarily a slam at the PT, either. There could be a lot of valid explanations for that - they were over ambitious, they had a lot of backstory to fill, it's easier to raise questions than to answer them...so forth and so on.

But I do think it's pretty clearly the case.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

There were huge differences. The on location scenes in the original trilogy were awesome because the actors had to overcome those physical barriers presented by the locations. In the shots on Tatooine, they were downright miserable! This gave the originals a level of realism not achievable in a sterile, blue screen environment.

You do realize they went back to Tunisia and shot there for the Prequels, right?
As well as shooting in numerous other locations, such as Palazzo Reale, Caserta, Italy.

It's not like everything was shot on sets infront of blue or green screens. Yes, a lot was. But so what? Should the original trilogy be decried for advancing Special Effects in it's time. Besides, many of the loctions required it, because it would be impossible to film live.

After all, there's no city covered planet to film on location at. At least not yet.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by octagon

I do agree that the similarities and parallels far outweight the differences (to the point where virtually any criticism of one can likely be leveled at the other with the only difference being one of degree) but I do think there is one substantial difference.

The narrative is a lot tighter in the OT.

That's not necessarily a slam at the PT, either. There could be a lot of valid explanations for that - they were over ambitious, they had a lot of backstory to fill, it's easier to raise questions than to answer them...so forth and so on.

But I do think it's pretty clearly the case.

I agree on the broader aspect. The scope was so much wider in the PT, but in micro the focus is on Anakin for Ep 2-3 just as much as it is on Luke for 4-5-6. Ep1 was different, of course since it had to set the stage for everything. I think Lucas would have been far better suited in not introducing Anakin as a kid, but that ship has done sailed and I understand the reasons he did.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by Beast

You do realize they went back to Tunisia and shot there for the Prequels, right?
As well as shooting in numerous other locations, such as Palazzo Reale, Caserta, Italy.

Beat me to it.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by Beast

No, it's not. Look at car design, architecture, hell even coffee pots up through a certain period of American History.
There was always some beauty and some care put into the design elements, which made it stand out.
And then you have the emergence of mass production and cookie cutter design aesthetics.
Same thing happened in the Star Wars Universe after the Empire rose to power. It became function over form.
Just like the Clone Troopers everything was churned/stamped out in a mass produced assembly line.

Won't agree with the comment about 2001 either, in regard to looking more realistic.

Exactly. All correct. That's why people use that as an excuse to cover up sterile CGI that plagues the majority of the prequels. It's no mystery that the Star Wars universe was a different place, and I don't think anybody debates that.

Originally Posted by Beast

You do realize they went back to Tunisia and shot there for the Prequels, right?
As well as shooting in numerous other locations, such as Palazzo Reale, Caserta, Italy.

It's not like everything was shot on sets infront of blue or green screens. Yes, a lot was. But so what? Should the original trilogy be decried for advancing Special Effects in it's time. Besides, many of the loctions required it, because it would be impossible to film live.

After all, there's no city covered planet to film on location at. At least not yet.

All good points, but that still doesn't change the fact that it all looked fake because Lucas relied so heavily on blue screens. Plenty of movies look great when using blue screens, and in fact the whole Obi Wan/Anakin fight sequence was quite realistic, but the sterile nature of the first two are undeniable, and so is the absolutely atrocious acting. Did the acting not bother you?

[Beast]

Originally Posted by tilapiah6

All good points, but that still doesn't change the fact that it all looked fake because Lucas relied so heavily on blue screens. Plenty of movies look great when using blue screens, and in fact the whole Obi Wan/Anakin fight sequence was quite realistic, but the sterile nature of the first two are undeniable, and so is the absolutely atrocious acting. Did the acting not bother you?

Didn't look fake at all. Any more than cheap sets and cardboard did in OT.

Nope. No more than it does when watching a Shakespearean play. It fits the world being portrayed.

[Jumpman]

John Knoll's "Creating the Worlds of Star Wars 365 days" answers those questions about whether or not Lucas just shot nothing but bluescreen and used computers to do the rest...blows a whole right through that argument of Lucas being lazy.

You won't believe the amount of model work that went into the Prequels.

Prime example. More model work done in Episode I than the ENTIRE ORIGINAL TRILOGY.

The podrace in Episode I has a lot more model work than even I realized...

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

Seems to me that there are 3-4 prequel haters who just kind of dominate all discussion in this thread. It is not, I assure you, the case elsewhere.

Fixed.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No. The prequel trilogy were the only ones natively in 5.1, and even then he had Skywalker/THX and Dolby Labs come up with EX for Episode I.

The OT was remixed for EX on the home video versions and you can be sure it will be 7.1 for Blu-ray. I'm hoping it's TrueHD myself. Even if FOX insists upon DTS-MA, there's plenty of discs out there with both formats, witness Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which had both formats at the behest of Steven Spielberg.

huh? that really didn't answer my question: split stereo surrounds were introduced with the theatrical release of 'Apocalypse Now' - I would have thought that unlike Ep.4, Episodes 5 and 6 would have had stereo surrounds and not the five front/mono surround configurement that 'Star Wars' (A New Hope) in theaters in 1977.

as for Fox and it's committment to DTS, if Lucas enforces Dolby for these releases wont that make the Star Wars bluray discs the first from Fox not to have DTS sound?

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Broken

Fixed.

Okay but I digress.

I love Star Wars.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

Seems to me that there are 3-4 prequel lovers who just kind of dominate all discussion in this thread. It is not, I assure you, the case elsewhere.

Yes, it gets stupider and more vicious out there. Sometimes I wish Lucas would *only* release the prequel trilogy, just to watch the fanboys foam at the mouth.

Originally Posted by Uxi

Fixed.

Each of the prequels made over $300 million in the USA *alone*. A lot of people saw them, and saw them many times. A helluva lot more than fanboy favorites like Serenity or Watchmen.

Yet they pretend everyone agrees with them in their hate for Episodes I, II, & III (& Lucas).

[greg_achen]

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

Seems to me that there are 3-4 prequel lovers who just kind of dominate all discussion in this thread. It is not, I assure you, the case elsewhere.

It's the prequel haters who are a vocal minority. Riiiight. All I know is that the prequels, both theatrically and on home video, have been immensely profitable for Lucasfilm. Unless you expect me to believe that a small minority of prequel lovers account for all the tickets sales and dvd purchases over the years, totalling billions of dollars worth of revenue, something just doesn't add up with your assertion. Most people are Star Wars Saga fans, not unaltered Original Trilogy fans, and I have the numbers to back me up. This is a capitalism, remember. People vote with their pocketbooks.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

huh? that really didn't answer my question: split stereo surrounds were introduced with the theatrical release of 'Apocalypse Now' - I would have thought that unlike Ep.4, Episodes 5 and 6 would have had stereo surrounds and not the five front/mono surround configurement that 'Star Wars' (A New Hope) in theaters in 1977.

70MM prints were still not "normal" and films in the 5.1 configuration even rarer. That Empire & Jedi were still 4.2 70MM wasn't surprising. I don't remember the specifics anymore but only a small amount of films received 5.1 70MM releases before the format was completely supplanted by the digital formats (DD, DTS, SDDS).

Trivia: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was the first LucasFilm (and the first Steven Spielberg film) to have 5.1 70MM release prints...and they were in Dolby SR format...so the analog masters actually had greater dynamic range than 16-bit digital!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Each of the prequels made over $300 in the USA *alone*.

Yegods, that's almost a thousand dollars total.

[Show spoiler]yes, typo/grammar shots are lame but that one was kind of funny