logo Sign In

ANH screening with modelmaker Lorne Peterson...WHY ARE THEY SCREENING THE SE?? — Page 4

Author
Time
Point taken, but it doesn't really relate to this thread. Honestly, I'd estimate that at least 60% of the models were done away with, since most of the model work in that movie was in the Battle of Yavin. Yes, I made that up. It's my guess, though.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Mike O
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
A Lorne Petersen quote from 2005:

“It’s almost unimaginable to think of the (original) Star Wars films sitting somewhere and rotting within your own lifetime,” he said.
He sounds thrilled.


Do you have source? If you do, then that is interesting.


To paraphrase a line from Kurosawa: "Do-you-have-a-source?"

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Okay, I was going to ask him how it was different as well, but I wasn't going to geekify my response by adding in Yoda quotes. So thanks for screwing everything up, dweeb. ^_~


I'm so, so sorry, GT.

Sorry everyone! I was wrong to think I could be cool. That's why I don't have my own thread...

( )
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
Yeah, better recognize, snap, snap, snap. =P

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Yeah, better recognize, snap, snap, snap. =P
I do, I do!
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
That doesn't prove our POVs, but it does make one think.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Author
Time
Peterson's opinion is immaterial to the fact he is just going to promote his book.

The book is what will have all the model information/pictures anyone will need if they are an LP fan.



Why hello there
Author
Time
80% is not a "bitter fanboy" exagerration, its a reasonable estimation. If you think thats a ridiculous number, i suggest you actually research what has been updated in the SE; I'm sure the figure is more like 70% or so when you account for the fly-by insert shots that take up a few frames, but its a reasonably accurate number.

And no, this is not about models versus CG, SE versus OOT or any of that stuff--I've noticed that such bitter, pro-Lucas resentment is a reflection of the mindset of the poster who views everything as an attack against LFL. My point was that its ironic and a damned shame that a book that chronicles the breakthrough model work is reinforced by a film that doesn't even contain the pinnacle examples of said modelwork breakthrough, and that it is another example of the Lucasfilm conspiracy to suppress the OOT--these are all facts, not opinion. LFL does not make or lend out OOT prints, only the SE, and it is indeed illogical that the film being screened doesn't even contain most of the shots but CG replacements. Its fucking stupid and i cant see why anyone would be so fucking deluded as to argue otherwise.
Author
Time
Thank you very much, zombie. I couldn't have said it as well myself, which is obviously why I hadn't said it yet. ^_~ But I just wanted to say that's by far the best rebuttal of this whole argument, and I'd like to see anybody come back with something against that.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
But the CGI is scanned from the modelwork. It is itself a representation of the modelwork, in the same way that a photographic image of the modelwork is. Neither are the modelwork itself; both are equally images of the modelwork. [/Gomer impersonation]


.
Author
Time
That was amazing!!

I really thought it was him, for a second!!!
Don't you call me a mindless philosopher...!
Author
Time
It makes perfect sense to show the special edition to promote a book about 70s models. Both "model" and "cgi" have vowels in them. "1997" is the same as "1977" except for only one number.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
But the CGI is scanned from the modelwork. It is itself a representation of the modelwork, in the same way that a photographic image of the modelwork is. Neither are the modelwork itself; both are equally images of the modelwork. [/Gomer impersonation]


.




That actually has merit, if you think about it.
Why hello there
Author
Time
First, Zombie's estimation regarding how much model work has been erased was very fair, JediRandy. Don't be dick and make snide responses simply because you're idol is being threatened. Try and come at the issue when you've actually bothered to make yourself informed.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

From what I can recall, the CG used to replace the models was created by scanning in the original models.

But the original modelwork and filming is more important than the CG from many stanpoints. At the very least, even you cannot deny history, Go-Mer. Having the original version of Star Wars decaying and not being properly respected and preserved, as Lorne Peterson lamented, is a sad thing. While the "bonus disc" release was a step in the right direction, you can't say that the original version of the films is actively being preserved for the world.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Some of the shots, like the original version of the falcon taking off from mos eisley, or the rebels taking off from the battle of Yavin are not fantastic.


Yes they are! How can you say that?! You cannot be a true Star Wars fan and say that as far as I'm concerned. The original versions of those scenes are oozing with drama and style. Their replacements on the other hand are overly shiny and emotionally hollow by comparison.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I just don't get it. Plenty of things that artists came up with for SW was abandoned entirely before the final cut, yet just because you happened to see this stuff released originally, suddenly it's a huge insult to the artist for the director to make artistic decisions?


Yes, and for a number of completely obvious reasons:

1: Because the version of the film that actually made Star Wars popular and famous is the one that contained their artwork! It's an insult to throw away anything attached to that much public sentiment so casually.
2: Because the historical nature of the technical work in the films, which accomplished so much, do not deserve to be ignored or replaced, ever! It's insulting to even suggest otherwise.
3: Because the universe does not revolve around George Lucas, and when he made his first set of "final" choices, the artwork of other people became publically known. It's an insult to publically condemn artwork that was previously deemed acceptable; it's two-faced.
4: Because the new footage isn't as good as the old. It isn't as fun, as captivating, or as moving as the originals. It's insulting for George Lucas not to realize this if you ask me.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
I get the historical preservation angle, I just don't think that because the film was released that any further changes are intended to be, or actually are insults to the original artists involved.

I don't mean to insult the original version, but to me the falcon leaving mos eisley was pretty low quality. With just a small blip moving in a straight line, and the lift off from Yavin was just a bunch of red dots that were hand animated to fly up into the sky.

Even before the changes, I always personally felt that those were shots I had to overlook for the greater sake of the rest of the movie.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
The Millenium Falcon zipping out of docking bay 94 was a good choice to insert CGI. I definitely agree with that. And the CGI they did put in actually looked realistic. Moreso than some of the stuff in the prequels even, IMO.
Why hello there
Author
Time
Though beside the point of this thread's legitimate objection, I actually agree with Go-Mer that the Falcon liftoff and X-Wing liftoff shots are greatly improved in the SE. Ironically, though, it's the widely oooed-and-ah'd shot of the Falcon lifting clear of Docking Bay 97 - - an additional shot - - that messes with John Williams' original score, and the very dramatic moment previously timed perfectly to music of the film's return to outer space after a long stretch on Tatooine.

To which I say: Bah!


And my point is ... even improved special effects do not necessarily improve the film itself. This sequence is - though visually cooler - less dramatically impressive than it was in the original version.


People should leave well enough alone. And if one of the most spectacularly successful and influential motion pictures ever made is not well enough, then nothing is.



.
Author
Time
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Though beside the point of this thread's legitimate objection, I actually agree with Go-Mer that the Falcon liftoff and X-Wing liftoff shots are greatly improved in the SE. Ironically, though, it's the widely oooed-and-ah'd shot of the Falcon lifting clear of Docking Bay 97 - - an additional shot - - that messes with John Williams' original score, and the very dramatic moment previously timed perfectly to music of the film's return to outer space after a long stretch on Tatooine.


I think the score remains relevant even to the additional scenes in the SE. The timing may be a bit altered, but not necessarily for the bad.

(btw: Docking bay 94)
Why hello there
Author
Time
Showing the SE to highlight Lorne Peterson's model work is like showing ROTS to honor David Prowse on his portrayal of Darth Vader.

You know of the rebellion against the Empire?

Author
Time
...or ROTJ (2004) to honor Sebastian Shaw?

...or ESB (2004) to honor Clive Revill?
Author
Time
Originally posted by: THX
...or ROTJ (2004) to honor Sebastian Shaw?

I'll go with this one as the best analogy to the SE screening to honor the model work.

Some of Sebastian Shaw's performance was eliminated. And what remains was tinkered with. Hey, his eyebrow movements were part of his performance.

Clive has nothing left in ESB. And Prowse never participated in ROTS.

On a related note, are there any pics of the chimp and the old woman that were composited (is that a word?) for the Emperor? I mean, before the images were tweaked.

Pink Floyd -- First in Space

Author
Time
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I don't mean to insult the original version, but to me the falcon leaving mos eisley was pretty low quality. With just a small blip moving in a straight line, and the lift off from Yavin was just a bunch of red dots that were hand animated to fly up into the sky.

Even before the changes, I always personally felt that those were shots I had to overlook for the greater sake of the rest of the movie.


I have to overlook the new shots practically. Even from a purely technical standpoint those original shots were decent. There was never a time they didn't work for me.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Originally posted by: auximenies

On a related note, are there any pics of the chimp and the old woman that were composited (is that a word?) for the Emperor? I mean, before the images were tweaked.


There was no chimp or old woman composited in Empire. That was an actual rubber mask.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005