Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

And yet, there they are, plain as day and distracting as hell.

This is what I don't get, I'll called it the "rose colored glasses effect". These matte lines, blobs, and other questionable or just plain old bad effects are deemed "okay", yet enhancements like bringing more life to Mos Eisley, making the dog fights more dynamic, and updating the effects to create a more unified visual style are deemed as treacherous and evil. This logic is misinformed at best and delusional at worst.

Why would any right-thinking person want the Original Trilogy altered to match the infinitely-inferior Prequel Trilogy?

As for "treacherous and evil", wouldn't instituting a 1984-style "Memory Hole" for the original film and special effects (as Lucas did from 1997 to when he finally sold Lucasfilm) be qualified as such? Then again facts and logic don't exactly apply to the PT crowd...

Originally Posted by Lentulus Batiatus

I might suggest you enjoy things as they were in the 70's.... meaning you don't get ANY home version of Star Wars because in the 70's they didn't exist.

I wish I could enjoy you and your posting as it was the 70's: non-existant.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by svenge

Why would any right-thinking person want the Original Trilogy altered to match the infinitely-inferior Prequel Trilogy?

As for "treacherous and evil", wouldn't instituting a 1984-style "Memory Hole" for the original film and special effects (as Lucas did from 1997 to when he finally sold Lucasfilm) be qualified as such? Then again facts and logic don't exactly apply to the PT crowd...

You shouldn't expect a proper response when all you do is insult and degrade the people you're talking down to.

[thegrunter]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Crash. Shakespeare in Love. Golden Compass. The Artist. The Greatest Show on Earth. The King's Speech. Gandhi. A Beautiful Mind. Oliver.

One of these things is not like the other ones.

"Shakespeare in Love" damned well deserved that Oscar.

It was a period piece, a romantic comedy, and a backstage theater nerd film. Three "genres" that rarely produce masterpieces, and yet in that one film, all of the pieces that should have fallen apart worked like gangbusters.

Not to mention the fact that the costumes and set decorating are jaw-dropping.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

And yet, there they are, plain as day and distracting as hell.

I wasn't 'distracted' by the effects in Star Wars. I was transfixed by them.

I was distracted by one set of matte lines in Empire (a shuttle launch) and that was only distracting because it was so uncharacteristic.

Jedi was more of a a mixed bag at times. The rancor was a little touch and go but for the most part the effects were very well done.

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

No, it absolutely revolutionized the effects industry, in addition to breathing new life into it. But neither of those makes them flawless or better just because they won awards decades ago or better just because they're the original effects.

Star Wars was innovative but most of those innovations were evolutionary rather revolutionary. Star Wars didn't introduce matte paintings or green screen or composites or miniatures - it refined and improved upon them.

One could argue that using PCs to track the placement of elements in composite shots was more toward the revolutionary side but I dunno.

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Exactly. Your only argument is that it's better because it's the original version, not because it's "better". That defies common sense and simple logic - ignoring the reality of the art in favor of petty nostalgia.

'The reality of the art'? What does that even mean?

You prefer one set of moving pictures to another and that becomes the 'reality of the art'?

You're kidding, right?

[Lentulus Batiatus]

Originally Posted by thegrunter

One of these things is not like the other ones.

"Shakespeare in Love" damned well deserved that Oscar.

It was a period piece, a romantic comedy, and a backstage theater nerd film. Three "genres" that rarely produce masterpieces, and yet in that one film, all of the pieces that should have fallen apart worked like gangbusters.

Not to mention the fact that the costumes and set decorating are jaw-dropping.

WTF are you talking about? Miramax *****d themselves for that Oscar stealing it away from a far more deserving film. Saving Private Ryan was utterly robbed. Just watch Harrison Ford's reading of the card. He's utterly shocked. Miramax bought that Oscar hardcore.

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Crash. Shakespeare in Love. Golden Compass. The Artist. The Greatest Show on Earth. The King's Speech. Gandhi. A Beautiful Mind. Oliver.

Were this the bonus round of the $25,000 Pyramid, my answer would be "Films that are superior to the PT".

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Exactly. Your only argument is that it's better because it's the original version, not because it's "better". That defies common sense and simple logic - ignoring the reality of the art in favor of petty nostalgia.

How in God's name can you even think about using the phrase "reality of the art" when you openly advocate for the repeating seven-year cycle (1997, 2004, and 2011) of unabashed revisionism that Star Wars has undergone? Have you no shame?

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Lentulus Batiatus

Including all plot holes? You know, like the non-existent chapter number and title? Oh snap!

I might suggest you enjoy things as they were in the 70's.... meaning you don't get ANY home version of Star Wars because in the 70's they didn't exist.

I could do this all day

What plot holes? What? And yes there is no such thing as "A New Hope"! It's Star Wars. And you are kinda wrong on that home version. We had lets just say a VHS copy in 1979 and played on our 1979 Hitachi Top Loading VCR that my dad paid 1200.00 dollars for. You know, back in the day when a case of 10 blank TDK tapes were over 100 dollars!

But you are missing the point on it being a time piece! Just like Casablanca is a 40's film....2001 a 60's film. Ok now it's your turn to say (come on lets all sing along) It's George's film he can do what he wants......

[Ernest Rister]

I looked into my magic Crystal 8-Ball...I forsaw next year, and the 4k digital IMAX presentation of the original Star Wars...the film gets to the Greedo scene, Han shoots first, and the audience comes to their feet in cheers and joy. Then laughs, sits back down, and enjoys the rest of the movie. Meanwhile, eight year olds ask their parents, "Where's Jabba?"

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Meanwhile, eight year olds ask their parents, "Where's Jabba?"

In a perfect would, the parent would say: "In Return of the Jedi, where he should've stayed in the first place."

[crazyBLUE]

Gents ~ Calm down ~ That is all I am going to say

[Lentulus Batiatus]

Originally Posted by svenge

Compare that to the PT, which received zero Oscars of any kind and won more Razzies than they got Oscar nominations. I guess that the combination of green-screen and terrible acting just didn't wow the Academy sufficiently...

Do you even read the drivel you type before you post it? Bashing the Prequels yet again with the lame green screen argument. Here's some facts, jack

Phantom Menace was nominated for Best Visual Effects. The winner? The Matrix. No green screen there!

Attack of the Clones was nominated for Best Visual Effects. The winner? Green Screen FILLED Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Revenge of the Sith wasn't nominated. The 3 films that were? War of the Worlds (lots of green screen with the highlight being a massive camera move around and through a moving vehicle), The Chronicles of Narnia (talking Lion anyone?) and the winner..... King Kong. No green screens in that one

All 3 PT films faced MUCH stiffer competition than the OT because of the OT and ILM lost it's only nomination to Denis Muren and ILM. So yeah, the Academy doesn't look with favor at green screen.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Lentulus Batiatus

WTF are you talking about? Miramax *****d themselves for that Oscar stealing it away from a far more deserving film. Saving Private Ryan was utterly robbed. Just watch Harrison Ford's reading of the card. He's utterly shocked. Miramax bought that Oscar hardcore.

Saving Private Ryan was a GREAT film for the first 30 min and after that just a pretty good film. Wait..why am I talking about this? Back to Star Wars.

[JoeBuck]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

No quotes. No naming of sources. No screenshots. No real information.

Yeah, sounds legitimate.

One comment below adds some good weight on this for me:

This isn't such a huge exclusive as other sites have posted pictures of Lucasfilm doing the sound mix for Return of the Jedi, but whatever gets you hits

Unless of course they are doing another altered release for the super-ultra-mega-ruined cut of the film, where James Earl Jones' voice has been replaced with Hayden Christensen's and all puppet effects changed to CGI characters.
Oh, and George Lucas' face super imposed over the death star.

[Lentulus Batiatus]

Originally Posted by Elvis

What plot holes? What? And yes there is no such thing as "A New Hope"! It's Star Wars. And you are kinda wrong on that home version. We had lets just say a VHS copy in 1979 and played on our 1979 Hitachi Top Loading VCR that my dad paid 1200.00 dollars for. You know, back in the day when a case of 10 blank TDK tapes were over 100 dollars!

But you are missing the point on it being a time piece! Just like Casablanca is a 40's film....2001 a 60's film. Ok now it's your turn to say (come on lets all sing along) It's George's film he can do what he wants......

Again with the trolling about plot holes? You just typed one out yourself? Get a clue and get over your pathetic high horse. There are plot holes. The title alone is a GIANT plot hole. How is the second film Episode 5 when the first film is nothing? PLOT HOLE!!!!!!!

And since you were so well-to-do in 1979 to enjoy a VHS machine that's all you should be allowed to use today since that's what you seem to be claiming you want.

[Lentulus Batiatus]

Originally Posted by JoeBuck

One comment below adds some good weight on this for me:



Unless of course they are doing another altered release for the super-ultra-mega-ruined cut of the film, where James Earl Jones' voice has been replaced with Hayden Christensen's and all puppet effects changed to CGI characters.
Oh, and George Lucas' face super imposed over the death star.

Other sites have posted pictures of some people getting a tour at Lucasfilm and being shown RotJ on a screen in a mixing room. Nothing more. Nothing about a new sound mix being worked on or anything of the sort. The source of the pictures even confirms that. But whatever floats your boat.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Lentulus Batiatus

Other sites have posted pictures of some people getting a tour at Lucasfilm and being shown RotJ on a screen in a mixing room. Nothing more. Nothing about a new sound mix being worked on or anything of the sort. The source of the pictures even confirms that. But whatever floats your boat.

So tell me, will you be purchasing the UOT on BD? Do you support a UOT release?

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Lentulus Batiatus

And since you were so well-to-do in 1979 to enjoy a VHS machine that's all you should be allowed to use today since that's what you seem to be claiming you want.

And since you continue to promote the SEs and PT beyond all logic, you should only be allowed to watch it on this:

[Lentulus Batiatus]

Originally Posted by svenge

And since you continue to promote the SEs and PT beyond all logic, you should only be allowed to watch it on this:

Beyond all logic? Or just beyond your pathetic hatred spewed ad nasuem to anyone who'll listen? Seriously man, re-read the trash you write and support and get of your high horse.

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

Gents ~ Calm down ~ That is all I am going to say

I don't think they heard you.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by svenge

And since you continue to promote the SEs and PT beyond all logic, you should only be allowed to watch it on this:

That's a great movie.