Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

That's not true at all. Look at all the games and books that came out between Return of the Jedi and Phantom. Especially Shadows of the Empire, which showed that the franchise could live outside of a movie realm. There were toys for books, there were toys for the games, and then for the special edition movies. Star Wars merchandise was prevalent all through the nineties. I should know, because I was a kid then and I had a ton of it. If you went into a Target or Toys R Us, Star Wars usually had it's own decently sized section. Star Wars was a huge market for toys, and still is.

I said 1997, not 1999.

Nothing gets the merchandising machine oiled like new film product. The SW toy sections of stores was getting smaller and smaller, and you had an entire young generation who only knew the films from their parents' video tapes. The kids that originally bought the toys grew up and moved on to other things, like books and computer games. The toy market was shrinking until the public consciousness was re-awakened with the Special Editions.

I don't buy Kurtz' story as anything else but sour grapes.

[budious]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

SIR, you need to go and watch Episode 6 and him un-freezing, then go and watch him getting frozen in Episode 5 - He goes in in one outfit and comes out in a different one!

Oh God, nobody point this out to Lucas or the 2018 SE will feature Han coming out of freeze in an Tuxedo then proceed to a mic to perform his hit single with the band...

[budious]

Actually I just noticed he appears to be wearing just a white shirt when they move him onto the carbon freeze platform, but when it switches to the close up to tell Leia "I Know" he's wearing a dark vest, then when it cuts back to wide shot, he's wearing just the white shirt again.

Edit: Nevermind, think it's just the lighting on the DVD version casting a shadow over his shoulders. Unless it was already fixed for the SE...

2006 DVD Theatrical Edition


2004 SE HDTV scaled to DVD

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

The weirdest thing to me is that in a saga spanning 6 films and I believe 30 movie years from 1-6, not once do you see someone wearing anything with buttons or zippers. I may be wrong, someone can check.

Luke's Empire Bespin outfit!

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by budious

Actually I just noticed he appears to be wearing just a white shirt when they move him onto the carbon freeze platform, but when it switches to the close up to tell Leia "I Know" he's wearing a dark vest, then when it cuts back to wide shot, he's wearing just the white shirt again.

Edit: Nevermind, think it's just the lighting on the DVD version casting a shadow over his shoulders. Unless it was already fixed for the SE...

2006 DVD Theatrical Edition


2004 SE HDTV scaled to DVD

no, that was lighting...

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by therainberg

Producers obsessed with geeky innovation like resolution thought that that interest would extend over to the average person in the glory days of scope, that making films in 65mm+ resolutions would draw audiences in over 35mm, it never did... 35mm was good enough. The cheaper acceptable format won and it ultimately came down to artistic innovation, the images and stories being told captured in a frame.

That's an over-simplification of what happened. Where I agree with you is that a bad story cannot be saved by technology. But having said that, the fact is that beginning in the late 1960s, the changing tastes of baby boomers, the maturation of rock music and the associated culture, the rise of the independent filmmaker, the increased power held by individual filmmakers as the studios became finance companies instead of production houses and the end of the giant movie palaces as either urban decay or rising real-estate values took their toll, all conspired to eliminate 65mm origination.

In addition, one of the main reasons for 70mm projection was not only improved image quality - it was to get the 6-track magnetic soundtrack. Once Panavision developed the fine-grain 35mm to 70mm blow-up process, most 65mm origination was doomed.

Your implication that 70mm did not draw in audiences is simply wrong. Variety ran an article in 1982 indicating that Star Trek II, for example, booked 20% of its $60-million + gross in only 4% of the theatres - those booking the 70mm version. And the original Star Wars' reputation was derived based on the presentation quality of the 70mm version.

In addition, theatre owners of that age were notoriously both cheap and conservative and did not like adding/changing equipment, which is why 4-track mag sound failed in the 50's - it had nothing to do with audience acceptance. I attended a SMPTE convention when the first prototype digital sound movies were presented and in the original proposed formats, there was not a compatible optical track. One theatre owner stood up and said he would never adopt any format that did not have backwards compatibility regardless of the quality.

Let's look at the films that originated in 65mm beginning from 1968 to 1992: "2001: A Space Odyssey", "War & Peace", "Star!", "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", "Ice Station Zebra", "Mackenna's Gold", "Krakatoa, East of Java", "Hello, Dolly", "Patton", "Airport", "Song of Norway", "Ryan's Daughter" and "The Last Valley". Aside from "2001", which did well, which of those movies would a baby-boomer audience (average age 18 in 1968) want to see? The answer is none. The big studios had no idea what they were doing at that time and when "Easy Rider" came along, a low-budget road movie about a drug dealer, with a rock and roll soundtrack, they were completely befuddled.

Finally, in 1982, "Tron" came along and did quite well. 1983 brought "Brainstorm", but only some segments were filmed in 65mm. 1985 brought "The Black Cauldron", which most considered a children's movie. In 1992, Ron Howard tried to revive the format with "Far and Away", but it wasn't a great movie and the reality was you really couldn't tell the difference between that particular film and a 35mm blowup to 70mm in most theatres, so that pretty much killed 65mm origination. Only "Baraka" (which looked fabulous, but being a travelogue didn't have a lot of commercial prospects), and the 1996 "Hamlet" followed.

But overall, between 1963 and 1997, there were approximately 351 35mm to 70mm blowups (plus the 71 titles that originated in 65mm or other large format processes) in the U.S.

The only reason that ended was because of the advent of digital sound, which began with "Dick Tracy" with the CDS 70mm format in 1990; 1992's "Batman Returns", which was the first Dolby Digital film and 1993's "Jurassic Park", which was the first DTS film.

Technology is extremely important to movie theatres, even if their investors don't always recognize it. If theatres don't stay ahead of what the average person has in their home, we will see tremendous declines in the number of movie theatres over the next 20 years. They'll still exist, but it will be more like legitimate theatre - outside of New York each city will have a small strip with a couple of theatres and/or one multiplex in each suburb.

[worldwide11]

I think the only logical explanation for Han's lack of sartorial diversity is that he wore a single, special polymer-infused vest/shirt/slacks outfit which wicked sweat and odor 24/7 allowing for maximum breathability and zero down time for such mundane activities as washing and drying.

Han, such a badass.

[budious]

Originally Posted by worldwide11

I think the only logical explanation for Han's lack of sartorial diversity is that he wore a single, special polymer-infused vest/shirt/slacks outfit which wicked sweat and odor 24/7 allowing for maximum breathability and zero down time for such mundane activities as washing and drying.

Han, such a badass.

I don't think anything gets Wookie off... and those around you just eventually have to get used to the smell of wet dog.

[worldwide11]

Someone asked earlier about the matte lines in Empire. Well, aside from the obvious ones in the opening scene with probe droids being shot out, you can also see them around the black probe droid after it's landed and floating to the right, and around the snow speeders in their search for luke and han.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by budious

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/...ary-kurtz-wer/

What is particularly interesting to me about the LA Times quote that you posted here is the idea of Leia transitioning from Princess to Queen, and the specific struggles that go with it. I find this interesting as it seems to suggest that she is more of a traditional form of royalty (or at least was originally intended that way at some point), which it what I think most people more or less assumed when originally watching the OT, since we are simply told that she is a Princess.

I've brought this up before, but the idea presented in the Prequels of the position of Queen (at least the Queen of Naboo) being an elected position that someone only holds for a certain amount of time really created a lot of questions about how "royalty" works within the political system, and whether or not all "royal" positions on all planets were election based, or if some of them work in the more traditional blood-line sense that we are used to (obviously Leia would be a bit of a gray area being adopted and all, but the principle would remain the same). It just seems like there was at one point a more simpler plan, and somewhere along the way it became really conveluted.

[iap738]

Originally Posted by Kinetic_Blue

no, that was lighting...

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/a...-part-two.html


Scroll down about half way.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

What is particularly interesting to me about the LA Times quote that you posted here is the idea of Leia transitioning from Princess to Queen, and the specific struggles that go with it. I find this interesting as it seems to suggest that she is more of a traditional form of royalty (or at least was originally intended that way at some point), which it what I think most people more or less assumed when originally watching the OT, since we are simply told that she is a Princess.

I've brought this up before, but the idea presented in the Prequels of the position of Queen (at least the Queen of Naboo) being an elected position that someone only holds for a certain amount of time really created a lot of questions about how "royalty" works within the political system, and whether or not all "royal" positions on all planets were election based, or if some of them work in the more traditional blood-line sense that we are used to (obviously Leia would be a bit of a gray area being adopted and all, but the principle would remain the same). It just seems like there was at one point a more simpler plan, and somewhere along the way it became really conveluted.

The ending of the "Sith" novel identifies Bail Organa as the Prince Consort of Alderaan, which would make Leia a Princess by adoption.

[budious]

Originally Posted by iap738

http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/a...-part-two.html

Scroll down about half way.

Thanks for those comparisons, good to see a detailed list of changes between all four versions.

As for the scene in debata, according to this the darkening on Solo's shirt was original caused by stage lighting but fixed digitally for SE.

[worldwide11]

Kidding aside, I do consider the Han character to be the most problematic of the three principals in rotj. The skywalker twins show considerable depth and evolution in their characters; they are sadder and wiser by the final chapter.

Luke for example, has suffered many losses, finally snapping at the thought of losing his sister. The rebel's triumph is at best bittersweet for Luke. Leia likewise, struggles to comprehend, much less embrace, her burgeoning gifts. And her inability to piece together anything coherent about her mother demonstrates how long she had been grieving without any sense of closure.

Meanwhile, Han is smirking his way through the conclusion of this space soap opera, always ready with a wisecrack or piercing quip. Yes, he looks older and his voice is deeper, but his character shows no evidence of growth. Han's character (ironically much like his outfit) seems frozen in time, as a wise cracking 2 dimensional adolescent prankster.

Perhaps a heroic, glorious death for Han early on in the film would have served the storyline much better, action figurine sales be damned. If so, it would have returned the spot light, and rightly so, to the central characters of the story: luke, leia and anakin.

[RuttedCatfish]

Originally Posted by worldwide11

Kidding aside, I do consider the Han character to be the most problematic of the three principals in rotj. The skywalker twins show considerable depth and evolution in their characters; they are sadder and wiser by the final chapter.

Luke for example, has suffered many losses, finally snapping at the thought of losing his sister. The rebel's triumph is at best bittersweet for Luke. Leia likewise, struggles to comprehend, much less embrace, her burgeoning gifts. And her inability to piece together anything coherent about her mother demonstrates how long she had been grieving without any sense of closure.

Meanwhile, Han is smirking his way through the conclusion of this space soap opera, always ready with a wisecrack or piercing quip. Yes, he looks older and his voice is deeper, but his character shows no evidence of growth. Han's character (ironically much like his outfit) seems frozen in time, as a wise cracking 2 dimensional adolescent prankster.

Perhaps a heroic, glorious death for Han early on in the film would have served the storyline much better, action figurine sales be damned. If so, it would have returned the spot light, and rightly so, to the central characters of the story: luke, leia and anakin.

very interesting take. I have to agree

[aiman04]

I can agree, if Solo dies it would give more impact not just to Return of the Jedi, but to the whole trilogy.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by RuttedCatfish

very interesting take. I have to agree

How? Solo volunteered for the Endor mission. ANH or ESB Han would not have done that.

He was more tender with Leia and seemed resigned to losing her to Luke ("you love him, don't you?") at the end. Not entirely the same guy two films ago.

[al cos.]

Exactly. (I always wished the sandstorm had stayed in, if only because it helps show how Han was humbled both by the near-death experience and the gang risking their neck to save him.)

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

How? Solo volunteered for the Endor mission. ANH or ESB Han would not have done that.

He was more tender with Leia and seemed resigned to losing her to Luke ("you love him, don't you?") at the end. Not entirely the same guy two films ago.

Exactly. His sarcastic smart-ass attitude was toned down quite a bit and he was actually caring about other people than himself. Killing Han early in the third film would have ruined it, in my opinion. Although maybe having him die somewhere near the end could have worked. But the trilogy wouldn't have had as much of a happy ending.

[poke smot]

killing Han Solo off in rotj???? come on people start making sense. the movies are what they are. oh wait a minute, they are what lucas wants them to be and then be again....