Vaderisnothayden

C3PX said:

Which was pretty funny and along the same lines, though it took me a while to get over the fact that Darth Vader has no freaking eye brows in that clip!!! (Yes, I really am that much of a 2004 SE virgin. I heard the eyebrows were removed, but I think this is the first time I actually have seen him without them and it looks freakin weird).

It looks bloody awful. It ruins the sympatheticness of the character in the scene. It's important that he come off as a nice old man, not a spooky-looking no-eyebrows guy. Another piece of horrible bad judgement from Lucas. But the other crime against Sebastian Shaw, replacement with Hayden Christensen later on, is arguably even worse. Why the hell would I want to see Hayden Christensen at the end of Return of the Jedi? And what the hell does he have to do with Anakin Skywalker or Darth Vader? (Crap performances in movies that don't qualify as Star Wars don't count.)

Johnboy3434 said:

Whoa, wait a minute! It's GL's fault that fans of his work are so insane?

We were driven insane by watching CGI Jabba, Jabba's palace SE musical number, invasive ROTJ SE celebration scenes (with added Gungan) and Hayden Skywalker. ;)

skyjedi2005 said:

Vader and Fett and the Mandalores were supposed to hunt down and kill all the jedi.  Lucas ruined the mandalorian backstory.  He also removed the cloned jedi subplot.

 

Fett and the Mandalorians helping to hunt down and kill the Jedi: Where did that bit of story appear?

Cloned Jedi subplot? Where was that? Do you mean the Cbaoth guy? 

skyjedi2005 said:

It all simply happened because the force wanted balance because there were too many jedi in the galaxy and only 2 sith.

I'm not sure that's exactly the imbalance the force wanted to right, meaning I don't know if the force was concerned there were too few Sith to Jedi. Because Anakin's task is repeatedly referred to as balancing the force and destroying the Sith. Despite the EU continuing the Sith post-ROTJ, he's supposed to wipe out the Sith for good, as far as I can tell. So somehow leaving us with one Jedi and more to come and no Sith equals balancing the force. Which I don't get. But basically it sounds like the force figured lots of Jedi and two Sith was too many Sith for balance's sake. Lucas Logic, TM.

Johnboy3434 said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Good Luck on that! Lol. Seriously though I too wish i could get my money back for Indiana Jones IV. The critics in entertainment weekly gave it 3 out of 4 stars on their rating scale 4 of course being the highest. It is the critics job to tell you how awful a movie is. In the past they had lied about how great Revenge of the Sith was as well.

"Lied"? "How awful a movie is"? You do know that art is subjective, right? Are you saying the critics are wrong for not sharing your opinion?

Art is subjective, but only up to a point. Some stuff is just crap. Such as Revenge of the Shit and Attack of the Clones. I was horrified when a bunch of critics decided Revenge was the best of the prequels and that it was not that bad (or was even good -wtf?!). But then critics often come out with dumb opinions. I certainly never trust the critics' views on films. Still, calling Revenge anything but crap is seriously inflammatory. At least a lot of critics seemed to agree that Hayden's performance was crap. He even got Razzies (one for Revenge, one for Clones). Awards being awarded right, for a change.  

I wouldn't give Indy IV 3 out of 4 stars, no way, but I didn't hate it either. I loved seeing Ford back in the role, he's great, and I like Shia LaBeouf and I think he made a good son for Indy. The film lacked spirit and force, though. It lacked the strength of earlier Indy films. And it had this awful washed-out visual look that was suspiciously prequelish.

And what was all that interdimensional alien nonsense, anyway? The big climactic alien encounter and its aftermath were so anticlimactic and useless. If you want to do aliens, ok, do aliens if you have to, but do them right and don't give us a whole load of showy nonsense. I did like the prarie dogs, though, I thought they were cute and funny-looking. Could have done without Ray Winstone's hyper-annoying character, though.

HotRod said:

C3PX said:

rcb said:

i'm sorry, but puppets look to fake in a movie.

 

LOL, and CG doesn't?

 

C'mon man....This guy did look a little ridiculous...Bendy nose an' all.

 

Max Rebo looked ridiculous in the sense that he was a blue elephant, but he looked convincing enough as a live blue elephant.

KillLucas said:
I didn't buy any of the prequels except see them in the theaters

I actually have the prequels on dvd. Even though I think Clones and Revenge are two of the crappiest films ever made. I periodically feel the need to study them to dissect their awfulness, to figure out how they manage to be quite so bad. They're just so awful they have to be studied. I kept renting them out, because I didn't want to own a copy, and the rental copies were in bad condition half the time, so I realized eventually that I needed my own copies. So, to my shame, I got my own copies.

Phantom Menace I actually sort of like. I think it totally fails as a Star Wars movie and insults the franchise, but I think it has its own merits nonetheless, such as Liam Neeson's performance. It's a much more genuine heartfelt film than the other two prequels, even if it's shallow compared to the real Star Wars films.

Basically, the prequels get worse with each new film. Phantom Menace was a big drop from the real Star Wars, Clones was a huge drop from Phantom Menace (I remember being seriously disappointed when I first saw it, because I'd expected something on the level of Phantom Menace and what I saw made Phantom Menace look genius by comparison), and Revenge is a major drop from Clones and a serious contender for Crappiest Film of All Time.

see you auntie said:

C3PX said:

.... I rank it right up there with "giant flee surfing" in my top five reasons why you might want to hide the fact that you like Star Wars.

I think there's an actual discussion topic in that sentence right there. Lol.

Oh and damn you I'd actually forgotten about that scene.

It's in Ep2 Gaffer Tape. It involves a grassy field and Anakin.... surfing. giant. flees. *projectile vomits*

I've never seen that, but the thought of Ep 2's Anakin is enough to make me projectile vomit, no need for fleas.

The OT's puppets did not look fake. Whereas the SE and PT's cgi did look fake. The fakeness of the SE's awful cgi is an important part of what makes the SE unacceptable. You can't believe in those cgi creatures, whereas the puppets are believable. The puppets have a physical reality, whereas the cgi is just computer animation. I don't come to Star Wars to watch animation.

rcb said:

whether you like george or not, he knows SW best.

No, I think the special editions and the prequels prove that that is emphatically not the case.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

Well, Anakin WAS willing to kill a bunch of little kids if it offered him a chance to keep the love he felt he needed.

 

 Which is the bad message of the film -a message of "Love is bad, it makes you kill kiddies."

Or perhaps "If you're willing to kill a bunch of kids rather that let totally natural things like death happen, you really need to work on letting go."

Love didn't drive Anakin to kill those kids. Possessivness, greed, fear, and anger did. You know... the Dark Side.

Yeah, love did make him to kill those kids. Love for Padme made him join the dark side to save her and that led to him killing the kids. Message of the film: Love makes you kill kiddies. Screwed up film.

rcb said:

im srry, but its annoying to see how plain puppets look sometimes.sy nootles is way better off as a cgi character.

Sy Snootles as a cgi character was one of the stand out problems of the special edition mutilation of Star Wars. The cartoonishness of the cgi totally didn't fit the established style and mentality of Star Wars and the film. It was awful. The OT's puppets generally work fine, cgi all too often looks unreal and Star Wars cgi particularly so.

C3PX said:

It is dumb we are having a debate as to which version of Sy Snootles was a better character. Sy is a pretty lame character either way. The CG Sy scene just made the scene all the worse by making it longer than it already was and making it an over the top caricature of the original scene. In its 1997/2004 incarnations, it is the kind of scene that would make one embarrassed to be a Star Wars fan. I rank it right up there with "giant flee surfing" in my top five reasons why you might want to hide the fact that you like Star Wars.

The revised scene was certainly awful.

TheBoost said:

Well, Anakin WAS willing to kill a bunch of little kids if it offered him a chance to keep the love he felt he needed.

 Which is the bad message of the film -a message of "Love is bad, it makes you kill kiddies."

rcb said:

 in the case of star wars though, most puppets should be cgi.

No way, the puppets in Star Wars, in the OT anyway, looked real. The cgi in the PT and SE looks false.

rcb said:

the blue elephant is max reebo and he was a puppet. and sy nootles looked way better in cgi then as a puppet. as a puppet, her lips were pretty attracted to that microphone.

Sy Snootles looked way better as a puppet. The cgi version looked totally like a cartoon.

skyjedi2005 said:

Someone like Stephen King gives no apology over his literary Critcism that Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece and reading the Silmarillion was a bore like reading a dictionary.  I don't agree with his statement but it seems to fall in line with the general opinion of readers. 

Dumb opinion. The Silmarillion is Tolkien's best work, way better than LOTR or the Hobit.

rcb said:

so wat's the opinions here? do you think it would've been better if the prequel trilogy came before the original trilogy? i'm guessing either way it still would've been big and instead of the PT, we'd be bashing the OT. no offense.

That question doesn't work, because the PT and OT are both things of their times. If the PT had been made in 1970s/80s it wouldn't have been anything like what we got 1999-2005. Similarly, if the OT had been made in recent times it would have been a different piece of work.

Also, we don't just bash the PT because it's the newer later thing, we bash it because it betrayed the standards of the original Star Wars. Certain standards were set for Star Wars and certain unspoken rules, and the PT totally went against that.

I'm glad the PT wasn't made first, because who knows what it would have been like. I'm glad we got the old Star Wars we got, because that was great. Now if only we could make sure it got preserved and remained available in future formats.

rcb said:

it was hard to make those expressions with a puppet though. just for kicks, i think it would look weird though, someone should just redo the whole daghobah scene with a cgi yoda.

Nightmarish idea. The expressions on the puppet worked fine.

I'd rather watch realistic puppets than watch unconvincing cartoonish cgi.

Mielr said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think it's important to buy the GOUT to prove there's a demand for the original versions. I bought multiple copies. I even use the revised version disks -when I want to remind myself how bad Lucas's revisions are all I need to do is pop in a disk and find the scene and be revolted. But even I have a hard time going to the scene where they replaced Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen.

 

That same argument was made in '06. I bought multiple sets, too (two sets, to be exact).

I can't watch the SE discs at all. I've heard they make good coasters. ;-)

 

Well maybe that argument has been proven right -the GOUT is now released as non-limited-time-only edition. That's progress. We're certainly not going to convince anyone there's a demand for the old versions if nobody buys the dvds of them when they come out.

AxiaEuxine said:

I love all the fan edits that this site does, but man you guys posts are exhuasting to read....do you like anything?

We don't like people screwing up franchises and there's no reason why we should.

Look close at his facial expression in ROTS. He has this mean self-important look on his face. That's not Yoda as we knew him from the old films.

This new Trek movie is an abomination. No way is that Sylar guy from Heroes Spock. And that fake Kirk... forget it. It's just bullshit. Why can't people have respect for what's gone before in a franchise? If they wanted to make a Trek movie they should have gone back to the period where Nemesis left off and continued on from there. With a whole new cast and storyline if they liked. Ripping off the TOS era is not the answer. I really hope this stupid film flops.

skyjedi2005 said:

If the JJ picture fails star trek is officially finished.  you cannot spend 150- 200 million dollars on a movie and have it be a massive flop and expect a franchise to be reborn out of that.

Better for a franchise to be finished than for somebody to ruin it. It would have been so much better if Lucas had never made the special editions and prequels. A franchise can reach a certain point when you have to say stop or else people go on and ruin it. And Star Wars is a ruined franchise if there ever was one. It looks to me like Star Trek is now going that way. How can you respect a film that tries to claim Heroes's Sylar is Spock?

C3PX said:

Mielr said:

I know most of us here either bought them in '06 or refused to buy them, but I think there are still a few people here who want the GOUT discs but haven't bought them yet.

 

For anyone that hasn't bought them yet, you're still better off buying them seperately, they'd be cheaper and they won't be the crappy slimline cases. You might not be able to find them in stores anymore, but you can still get them brand new from places like amazon.

I was one of the ones who refused to buy the GOUT. I finally got a set a few weeks ago used for three bucks a piece. Even at $9 for the whole set, I feel like I probably could have found a better use for my money. For anyone who still doesn't have them, their best deal would be to find them at some used DVD store.

I think it's important to buy the GOUT to prove there's a demand for the original versions. I bought multiple copies. I even use the revised version disks -when I want to remind myself how bad Lucas's revisions are all I need to do is pop in a disk and find the scene and be revolted. But even I have a hard time going to the scene where they replaced Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen.

I think we should all get paid compensation for having to sit through Hayden Christensen's performances as Anakin. How in god's name could Lucas cast that guy as Anakin? I suppose it comes from the same mindset as brought about the Jabba's palace revised musical number and the 1997 cutsey cgi Jabba. 

Thanks. :)

skyjedi2005 said:

Sourced from the D2 gout master tapes without question.

Without a question it couldn't be done? But you think it could be done some other way?

Though i doubt the guy would he is such a stubborn ass.  Calling Harris now would be like Lucas admitting he was wrong, something that is not allowed in Lucasland.  He is either right or you can hit the road.  So much for absolutes , only the sith remember believe in absolutes,lol.  Call him Darth Lucas and call it a day.

Lol.

The funny thing about that whole Only the Sith talk in absolutes thing is that the Jedi are always talking in absolutes, and saying that only the Sith talk in absolutes is actually talking in absolutes. The Jedi in the prequels are such hypocrites. You're supposed to feel it's a great tragedy when Order 66 comes in and the Jedi are killed off, but it was done so feelinglessly I felt no sorrow and because they were so annoying I found myself siding with the killers. Totally failure of filmmaking.

Most certianly not. There are plenty of prints lying around. Even if the original masters have been cut up and destroyed forever, the fact of the matter is the vast majority of the films are unchanged from the originals to the SE, in other words, most of the film is already restored in its original state with the 1997 versions.

No doubt Lucas as access to plenty of decent copies of these films that could be used to restore the films. Even negative 1 got his hands on some pretty decent 35mm reels of the films and posted lots of scans from them here, they don't look to bad. In the hands of a professional company, these films could be restored in quality even higher than blu-ray with relatively little effort. A certian person's stubborness is all that keeps these from us, and that really sucks.

Thank you. :) It's heartening to hear that. Gives me hope.

A question I'd like to ask is... these prints existing that Lucas doesn't have in his possession, you definitely think there's enough of them around in good enough condition? Would there still be say ten years from now? twenty? And do people other than Lucas legally own them or are they legally Lucas''s property even though Lucas doesn't hold them? (Because if Lucas had legal claim on any prints he'd be free to destroy them if they were handed over to him to make dvds out of.)

Really? I think worldly suffering and attachment are an important part of being a human being.

So is a blu-ray edition of the original versions impossible?