imperialscum said:
...it is an awful close-up shot that captures nothing but one wall of the house.
while SE additionally relays information about natural environment
Interesting that this comes up in a discussion is about generational differences. I see this as a perfect example of one. All of your arguing is about how improved the visual stimulation is with the SEs. Story doesn't appear to enter into it. Even when the story has been damaged by the SEs, which it has several times. Style over substance.
Newer generations of fans have grown up on video games and seem to need every moment of every frame filled up with some sort of visual stimulation. The PT itself is a product of it's time and even more so in the hands of a director with a clear disconnect with the story. It's all visual stimulation, but no substance. It's no wonder the TFNers are so full of SE gushing. To them, all of that visual downtime they're uncomfortable with has been corrected.
In response to the first sentence of the example above, why in the world is the exact shape of the house or it's adjoining environment so important? We all know what the planet looks like and how sparsely populated it is. Why do we need need every moment of every scene showing us some sort of visual. I certainly don't need scenes created and added twenty years after the fact showing me that unnecessary visual noise.
The biggest difference I see with newer generations, Star Wars or otherwise, is their either inability, or possibly a lack of desire, to let their imaginations fill in the blanks. There are certainly exceptions, but for the most part I see SE changes being lauded regularly because of things like the more colorful, moving, alternate angle of the wipe as they enter a building.
It's ok to let a scene breathe. The audience won't lose interest in the story. In fact, some of the younger generation may discover they actually like it.
The original Ben's house was just a building that they walked up to, went low angle to hide the fact that it was next to the coast, put the boom holding the speeder in the shot, put the matte painting between the camera and the boom to hide the boom, and turned the camera on. It was literally impossible for this shot to look like a cartoon, it was all practical with the exception of the matte painting.
imperialscum said:
For example, (to my knowledge) the new Ben's house shot uses a combination of model and matte painting which is the same technique extensively used in the original versions. So it looks just as "cartoony" as many similar original versions shots.
When I said cartoony crap I was referring to the stuff mostly seen in the 1997 Mos Eisley. The original shot of Ben's hut is nothing visually exciting, I give you that but ultimately it served its purpose. If you are indeed so sensitive to visual aspects in films as you say I simply cannot understand that you find this short transitional shot of Ben's hut in the original film so jarring but at the same time are not being taken out of the film by the pointless additions to Tatooine in the SE.
To me the SE is visually a Frankenstein Monster with every tweak and addition being as subtle as a TV commercial break, often butchering the storytelling and John Williams score in the process. But maybe these things didn't feel so out of place to people who first saw Star Wars this way.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
msycamore said:
imperialscum said:
For example, (to my knowledge) the new Ben's house shot uses a combination of model and matte painting which is the same technique extensively used in the original versions. So it looks just as "cartoony" as many similar original versions shots.
When I said cartoony crap I was referring to the stuff mostly seen in the 1997 Mos Eisley. The original shot of Ben's hut is nothing visually exciting, I give you that but ultimately it served its purpose. If you are indeed so sensitive to visual aspects in films as you say I simply cannot understand that you find this short transitional shot of Ben's hut in the original film so jarring but at the same time are not being taken out of the film by the pointless additions to Tatooine in the SE.
Star Wars is a fantasy and pretty much the main purpose of a fantasy is to generate a world where the audience can escape to. Despite being short, set establishing shots (e.g. Ben's house) and transition shots (e.g. sandcrawler, R2 in the canyon, approach to Mos Eisley) have a crucial role in that. These shots are the small window of opportunity to relay the information about the world to the spectator since the main scenes usually focus on the actors.
And I am not a fan of the CGI creatures added to some of the shots. But I can live with them. The crappy original shot of Ben's house just don't live up to similar scenes in ESB and ROTJ.
真実
Anchorhead said:
imperialscum said:
...it is an awful close-up shot that captures nothing but one wall of the house.
while SE additionally relays information about natural environmentInteresting that this comes up in a discussion is about generational differences. I see this as a perfect example of one. All of your arguing is about how improved the visual stimulation is with the SEs. Story doesn't appear to enter into it. Even when the story has been damaged by the SEs, which it has several times. Style over substance.
Newer generations of fans have grown up on video games and seem to need every moment of every frame filled up with some sort of visual stimulation. The PT itself is a product of it's time and even more so in the hands of a director with a clear disconnect with the story. It's all visual stimulation, but no substance. It's no wonder the TFNers are so full of SE gushing. To them, all of that visual downtime they're uncomfortable with has been corrected.
In response to the first sentence of the example above, why in the world is the exact shape of the house or it's adjoining environment so important? We all know what the planet looks like and how sparsely populated it is. Why do we need need every moment of every scene showing us some sort of visual. I certainly don't need scenes created and added twenty years after the fact showing me that unnecessary visual noise.
The biggest difference I see with newer generations, Star Wars or otherwise, is their either inability, or possibly a lack of desire, to let their imaginations fill in the blanks. There are certainly exceptions, but for the most part I see SE changes being lauded regularly because of things like the more colorful, moving, alternate angle of the wipe as they enter a building.
It's ok to let a scene breathe. The audience won't lose interest in the story. In fact, some of the younger generation may discover they actually like it.
I don't know whether this was directed at me or not. I am a "story before everything" guy. I don't need the shots to be filled with flashing lights, explosions and tons moving stuff. My idea of visual pleasantness is completely different to that. I am completely satisfied with a static and relativity "humble" shot (as I illustrated with Ben's house SE shot), as long as it is visually nice and well shot. Some of the original shots in SW are just ugly and poorly taken. I don't see why I shouldn't demand visual pleasantness on top of substance-wise pleasantness. I got that in ESB and ROTJ.
As for imagination... if the shot shows a lifeless sewer it is possible to imagine there are rats, but it is hard to imagine it is a forest and not the sewer.
真実
You know, it continually amazes me how many so-called 'fans' of Star Wars don't actually seem to like Star Wars that much at all . . .
hairy_hen said:
You know, it continually amazes me how many so-called 'fans' of Star Wars don't actually seem to like Star Wars that much at all . . .
If it helps you, Star Wars is one of my top 3 favourite films of all time. The other two being Empire and Jedi of course.
真実
There are more miniatures and models in each Star Wars prequels than entire OT. The whole "there's too much CGI" is not true. I've seen people comment on TFN saying they prefer the original trilogy but still know there are more models and miniatures in the PT. I love the PT. I think it's more fun and moving than the OT, and are better films.
OBI-WAN37 said:
There are more miniatures and models in each Star Wars prequels than entire OT. The whole "there's too much CGI" is not true. I've seen people comment on TFN saying they prefer the original trilogy but still know there are more models and miniatures in the PT. I love the PT. I think it's more fun and moving than the OT, and are better films.
If you Ban OBI-WAN37 he'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Ryan McAvoy said:
OBI-WAN37 said:
There are more miniatures and models in each Star Wars prequels than entire OT. The whole "there's too much CGI" is not true. I've seen people comment on TFN saying they prefer the original trilogy but still know there are more models and miniatures in the PT. I love the PT. I think it's more fun and moving than the OT, and are better films.
If you Ban OBI-WAN37 he'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
Indeed. I'll be a martyr.
OBI-WAN37 said:
Indeed. I'll be a martyr.
That's one word for it.
Anchorhead said:
OBI-WAN37 said:
Indeed. I'll be a martyr.
That's one word for it.
Yes, and awesome martyr are two words for it.
OBI-WAN37 said:
Anchorhead said:
OBI-WAN37 said:
Indeed. I'll be a martyr.
That's one word for it.
Yes, and awesome martyr are two words for it.
Here's another word for it:
http://www.urbandictionary.com
^ Lol !
OBI-WAN37 said:
There are more miniatures and models in each Star Wars prequels than entire OT.
OT didn't need miniatures, they had live sets.
And in the time of greatest despair, there shall come a savior, and he shall be known as the Son of the Suns.
OBI-WAN37 said:
I love the PT. I think it's more fun and moving than the OT, and are better films.
I hate to break it to you, but you're in a minority, not just here.
In a few years time hopefully when there are better quality SW films around you'll look back on these comments with embarrassment.
J
imperialscum said:
Star Wars is a fantasy and pretty much the main purpose of a fantasy is to generate a world where the audience can escape to. Despite being short, set establishing shots (e.g. Ben's house) and transition shots (e.g. sandcrawler, R2 in the canyon, approach to Mos Eisley) have a crucial role in that. These shots are the small window of opportunity to relay the information about the world to the spectator since the main scenes usually focus on the actors.
And I am not a fan of the CGI creatures added to some of the shots. But I can live with them. The crappy original shot of Ben's house just don't live up to similar scenes in ESB and ROTJ.
I probably knew what "fantasy" was before you were even born so there's no need for lecture. I think we all are aware of what genre Star Wars belong to, and in that regard and up to that point in time Star Wars was pretty much the most brilliantly realized fantasy world ever created on film. It still to this day put a lot of imitators to shame.
I totally get that you don't like that shot of Ben's hut in the original film (I don't believe everyone did back then either) but what I'm trying to understand is how the hell can you find those shots in the original so displeasing and yet at the same time fully endorse those cartoony shots in the 1997 incarnation of Tatooine that to me completely break the "Suspension of disbelief" and find them so visually pleasing? You said that you are sensitive to visual aspects in film and yet... the Special Edition.
imperialscum said:
hairy_hen said:
You know, it continually amazes me how many so-called 'fans' of Star Wars don't actually seem to like Star Wars that much at all . . .
If it helps you, Star Wars is one of my top 3 favourite films of all time. The other two being Empire and Jedi of course.
What hairy_hen was trying to communicate was Star Wars the films not that laughable R&D project in the 90's.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Tyrphanax said:
I'm curious as to what OT.com thinks about the new generation of Star Wars fans
OBI-WAN37 said:
There are more miniatures and models in each Star Wars prequels than entire OT. The whole "there's too much CGI" is not true. I've seen people comment on TFN saying they prefer the original trilogy but still know there are more models and miniatures in the PT. I love the PT. I think it's more fun and moving than the OT, and are better films.
The number of models and/or miniatures used has no bearing on whether or not there's too much CGI in the prequels. Which there totally is. The sets that they bothered to physically construct were only built up to about head height, with everything above filled in with CGI (Liam Neeson's height alone supposedly cost an extra $150,000 in materials for Episode I). CGI ceilings are silly and unnecessary when you're building physical walls.
As the prequels went on, fewer and fewer sets were physically built, replaced with green screens. Until finally, we ended up with shots like this in Episode 3:
Nothing in this shot is real--Temuera Morrison's head was CGI'd onto that CGI armor, and Ewan McGregor was CGI'd onto the CGI Boga. I'm not talking 'He and Temuera Morrison were on a sound stage draped in green fabric and Ewan McGregor was sitting on a green-draped mechanical bull'--the two actors weren't even in the same room to deliver these lines to one another, let alone on a set which bore any resemblance to this. This entire scene was composed inside a computer. I don't care if a sculptor down at ILM had to sculpt a model of the Boga--the fact that it was then CGI'd cancels it out. We never saw that model. There was no animatronic Boga that was used in close-up shots.
Something else Lucas did in Episode 1 was composite two different takes into one shot--if one actor's best take of a shot with two actors on screen together was take 3, and another's was take 5, he would cut and paste actor 1's take 3 onto actor 2's take 5. This would save the cost of having to shoot a Take 6 and hope that both actors performed well (and is the reason films will have multiple cuts during a scene rather than filming everything in one long take). Natalie Portman remarked on how odd it was to see two completely different takes of the same shot at the same time. This experiment ultimately resulted in pasting real heads on CGI bodies and such that we saw in Episode 3--too much.
Sadako said:
Ugh. It hurts just to look at this abominable picture.
I know that one day, I'm going to have to force myself to watch ROTS again (don't ask why -- it's a long story), but I'm certainly not looking forward to it.
You could always wait until Frink finishes his version. ;)
Where were you in '77?
My friend and I just stared at that shot and pointed out everything that was wrong with it while watching Backstroke.
SilverWook said:
You could always wait until Frink finishes his version. ;)
Oh, I'll definately watch his version the first chance I get.
OBI-WAN37 said:
I love the PT. I think it's more fun and moving than the OT, and are better films.
I could be wrong, but you're probably a kid and your views will change of the movies when you get older.
When I was kid, I thought Rocky IV was a better movie then Rocky, because it wasn't as slow and it was cooler with all the MTV type music set to his training in Russia. As I grew up and got older, I realized that I was dead wrong and The Original Rocky is light years better then the sequels, let alone the laughable Rocky IV that I view it as today.
Another example is as a kid I thought Return of the Jedi was a much better movie then Empire Strikes Back. I thought Empire was too dark, too slow in some parts, and didn't like that the bad guys won. As I got older, I realized Empire is one of the greatest movies of this genre, and Jedi is an OK movie at best.
You will change your view towards the Prequels when you get older, trust me. ;-)
OBI-WAN37 strikes me more as a less-than-subtle troll than a naive kid (I could be wrong, though).