Sign In

General Star Wars Random Thoughts Thread — Page 439

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

IIRC, the bombers were flying pretty low over the dreadnought, (which is why they were so vulnerable to enemy fire) so the gravity or magnetic field of the dreadnought could come into play keeping the bombs going to way they’re supposed to go. The bombs actually resemble magnetic sea mines.


That is an interesting and acceptable idea and would have worked in the movie if it had been communicated to the audience.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Valheru_84 said:

Hey, you’re the one that wanted to invent a plot hole in the OT to complain about TLJ/ST critics and then compared it to the bomb scene in TLJ.

Im not mad and you’re essentially calling me nitpicky and thick headed simply for taking issue with a scene that in its most basic sense doesnt stack up logically, just like the slug cave scene doesn’t. If people want to argue the point then a debate will ensue as it is right now.

Regardless of how either side might interpret the bomb scene after analysis, the basic portrayal just doesn’t work anyway because you instantly refer to your own understanding of gravity and go “how is that working?” and start searching for answers, at which point the movie doesnt offer up anything conclusively satisfying and so it becomes a plot hole for those of us that can’t accept on the movie’s own merits what it is showing us. If it’s enough for you, fine. But for us it’s not, there’s too much wrong with it to ignore through a usually pretty understanding suspension of disbelief.

You’re always good for a laugh, I’ll give you that. Thanks for proving my point.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

This feels like one of those conversations where we’ll reread it a year from now and ask ourselves why we spent so much time and energy arguing about something so inconsequential.
(Not judging, I’ve had a lot of those.)

Author
Time

I’m a fan of the recurring TLJ/ST debates, when there’s a relevant topic being discussed. This issue some take with the bombs is just so minor and insignificant that it’s a bit insane that so many people talk about it as much as they do and at the lengths they do.

Author
Time

TNT is really running the hell out of the movies since last weekend. TFA was on again today. Weird see a Star Wars film on tv at 3 in the morning sometimes. I’d use it for background noise to fall asleep if they weren’t the SE’s. 😉

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Valheru_84 said:

SilverWook said:

IIRC, the bombers were flying pretty low over the dreadnought, (which is why they were so vulnerable to enemy fire) so the gravity or magnetic field of the dreadnought could come into play keeping the bombs going to way they’re supposed to go. The bombs actually resemble magnetic sea mines.


That is an interesting and acceptable idea and would have worked in the movie if it had been communicated to the audience.

I don’t know how you would clue the audience into such a thing without getting into Trek technobabble territory.

Sir! The rebel scum are dropping Magnobombs™!

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

TNT is really running the hell out of the movies since last weekend. TFA was on again today. Weird see a Star Wars film on tv at 3 in the morning sometimes. I’d use it for background noise to fall asleep if they weren’t the SE’s. 😉

Honestly I’ve seen all the movies so many times it can be hard for me not to fall asleep watching them!

Author
Time

Omni said:

This issue some take with the bombs is just so minor and insignificant that it’s a bit insane that so many people talk about it as much as they do and at the lengths they do.

Pretty much.

Author
Time

TESB is a product of its time, so I think doing a nitpicks tit-for-tat with the current films is kind of silly. I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced. But you wouldn’t deliberately make a modern sequel with cheap effects and a slow plot and say “hey, it was good enough for the original Star Wars”!

Author
Time

Are you saying all the state of the art 1990’s CGI Lucas pasted in still won’t impress today’s jaded youth? 😛

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

Author
Time

ZkinandBonez said:

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

I’m not saying everyone was/is bothered by it, but the perception obviously changed as the films and the technology evolved. In its day Star Wars felt the way something like Infinity War might feel today - just huge and fast and mind blowing. Now of course it seems so much simpler.

Author
Time

I really love Rey’s speeder in The Force Awakens.

Author
Time

That was pretty neat 😃

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here?
And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Author
Time

Shopping Maul said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

I’m not saying everyone was/is bothered by it, but the perception obviously changed as the films and the technology evolved. In its day Star Wars felt the way something like Infinity War might feel today - just huge and fast and mind blowing. Now of course it seems so much simpler.

My two boys (ages 3 and 5) thought Star Wars was pretty huge and fast and mind blowing when I showed them 4K77 in February. Certainly quite far from simple.

Author
Time

Every time I show the original film to any of my friends the reaction is the same: “pretty cool, but slow and several effects look dated”.

canofhumdingers said:

Shopping Maul said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

I’m not saying everyone was/is bothered by it, but the perception obviously changed as the films and the technology evolved. In its day Star Wars felt the way something like Infinity War might feel today - just huge and fast and mind blowing. Now of course it seems so much simpler.

My two boys (ages 3 and 5) thought Star Wars was pretty huge and fast and mind blowing when I showed them 4K77 in February. Certainly quite far from simple.

Maybe it’s because at such an early age they’d seen nothing as mind blowing as Star Wars yet?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Which is a silly complaint. Every FX laden movie is going to look dated eventually, except 2001: A Space Odyssey of course. 😉

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Omni said:

Every time I show the original film to any of my friends the reaction is the same: “pretty cool, but slow and several effects look dated”.

canofhumdingers said:

Shopping Maul said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

I’m not saying everyone was/is bothered by it, but the perception obviously changed as the films and the technology evolved. In its day Star Wars felt the way something like Infinity War might feel today - just huge and fast and mind blowing. Now of course it seems so much simpler.

My two boys (ages 3 and 5) thought Star Wars was pretty huge and fast and mind blowing when I showed them 4K77 in February. Certainly quite far from simple.

Maybe it’s because at such an early age they’d seen nothing as mind blowing as Star Wars yet?

Are you showing them the special editions?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Omni said:

Every time I show the original film to any of my friends the reaction is the same: “pretty cool, but slow and several effects look dated”.

SilverWook said:

Which is a silly complaint. Every FX laden movie is going to look dated eventually, except 2001: A Space Odyssey of course. 😉

Compared to how many tend to react I’d that’s a fairly reasonable reaction. Unfortunately too many people just outright dismiss old films because some elements of them are dated.

Though just out of curiosity Omni, which version did you show them? And if you don’t mind me asking, how old (roughly) are you and your friends?

Even though I pointed out earlier that my friends didn’t react negatively to the FX in the OT, I’m sure most of them only saw the SE versions. I think I was the only exception. Of course the Indy films never had SE’s and were just as popular, but then again they weren’t as FX heavy as SW. I’m curious if there could be some kid of generational thing going on. I don’t really know exactly what kids have been watching in the last decade or so, but old cartoons were pretty commonly broadcasted right alongside newer cartoons when I was a kid in the 90’s and early 2000’s. So we were at the very least somewhat exposed to older things on a pretty regular basis. I’ve been getting the impression that it’s not so common anymore. Also the post CGI-era kids might just have a harder time adjusting to the overall look of old effects, while my generation grew up during the transition so both techniques seemed normal to us.

canofhumdingers said:

Shopping Maul said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

I’m not saying everyone was/is bothered by it, but the perception obviously changed as the films and the technology evolved. In its day Star Wars felt the way something like Infinity War might feel today - just huge and fast and mind blowing. Now of course it seems so much simpler.

My two boys (ages 3 and 5) thought Star Wars was pretty huge and fast and mind blowing when I showed them 4K77 in February. Certainly quite far from simple.

Maybe it’s because at such an early age they’d seen nothing as mind blowing as Star Wars yet?

I’ve always found it interesting how much of a difference there is between people who were shown old films when they were kids compared to those who weren’t. They usually have an entirely different relationship with movies and entertainment in general.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ZkinandBonez said:

Omni said:

Every time I show the original film to any of my friends the reaction is the same: “pretty cool, but slow and several effects look dated”.

SilverWook said:

Which is a silly complaint. Every FX laden movie is going to look dated eventually, except 2001: A Space Odyssey of course. 😉

Compared to how many tend to react I’d that’s a fairly reasonable reaction. Unfortunately too many people just outright dismiss old films because some elements of them are dated.

Though just out of curiosity Omni, which version did you show them? And if you don’t mind me asking, how old (roughly) are you and your friends?

Roughly 20, so we’re all kind of from the post-CGI era. I’d always show them the DeEd until the release of 4K77, which became the standard. Most of the complaints were surrounding some stuff looking weird in the Death Star Attack and half a dozen Falcon shots that looked unnatural.

TESB got no such complaints whenever I showed anyone the film, albeit that didn’t even happen half as many times as me showing someone Star Wars. For TESB I’d use the DeEd 2.0 until Revisited, but I’m thinking only OUT so I’m disregarding the times I showed people Adywan’s version.

canofhumdingers said:

Shopping Maul said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

I’m not saying everyone was/is bothered by it, but the perception obviously changed as the films and the technology evolved. In its day Star Wars felt the way something like Infinity War might feel today - just huge and fast and mind blowing. Now of course it seems so much simpler.

My two boys (ages 3 and 5) thought Star Wars was pretty huge and fast and mind blowing when I showed them 4K77 in February. Certainly quite far from simple.

Maybe it’s because at such an early age they’d seen nothing as mind blowing as Star Wars yet?

I’ve always found it interesting how much of a difference there is between people who were shown old films when they were kids compared to those who weren’t. They usually have an entirely different relationship with movies and entertainment in general.

And yeah, I totally agree with that! My folks showed me tons of old movies when I was little and I think that’s made me much more susceptible to enjoying stuff with that old feel. Worth noticing that one of the friends I showed Star Wars to said she didn’t really enjoy watching old movies in general because ‘they tend to look bad and be slow’. Can’t argue with her on either but you get the idea.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ZkinandBonez said:

Omni said:

Every time I show the original film to any of my friends the reaction is the same: “pretty cool, but slow and several effects look dated”.

SilverWook said:

Which is a silly complaint. Every FX laden movie is going to look dated eventually, except 2001: A Space Odyssey of course. 😉

Compared to how many tend to react I’d that’s a fairly reasonable reaction. Unfortunately too many people just outright dismiss old films because some elements of them are dated.

Though just out of curiosity Omni, which version did you show them? And if you don’t mind me asking, how old (roughly) are you and your friends?

Even though I pointed out earlier that my friends didn’t react negatively to the FX in the OT, I’m sure most of them only saw the SE versions. I think I was the only exception. Of course the Indy films never had SE’s and were just as popular, but then again they weren’t as FX heavy as SW. I’m curious if there could be some kid of generational thing going on. I don’t really know exactly what kids have been watching in the last decade or so, but old cartoons were pretty commonly broadcasted right alongside newer cartoons when I was a kid in the 90’s and early 2000’s. So we were at the very least somewhat exposed to older things on a pretty regular basis. I’ve been getting the impression that it’s not so common anymore. Also the post CGI-era kids might just have a harder time adjusting to the overall look of old effects, while my generation grew up during the transition so both techniques seemed normal to us.

canofhumdingers said:

Shopping Maul said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

I’m not saying everyone was/is bothered by it, but the perception obviously changed as the films and the technology evolved. In its day Star Wars felt the way something like Infinity War might feel today - just huge and fast and mind blowing. Now of course it seems so much simpler.

My two boys (ages 3 and 5) thought Star Wars was pretty huge and fast and mind blowing when I showed them 4K77 in February. Certainly quite far from simple.

Maybe it’s because at such an early age they’d seen nothing as mind blowing as Star Wars yet?

I’ve always found it interesting how much of a difference there is between people who were shown old films when they were kids compared to those who weren’t. They usually have an entirely different relationship with movies and entertainment in general.

In the '70’s, it was mostly old movies on tv. The Home video market was still a few years away, and unless you had something like HBO, recent movies didn’t air until about three years after they were in theaters. Since infomercials took over the airwaves, stations rarely run old movies anymore. There’s so much competing for eyeballs now, it’s no wonder old movies get short shrift.

I’d like to believe today’s technically savvy kids know bad CGI when they see it.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Omni said:

Every time I show the original film to any of my friends the reaction is the same: “pretty cool, but slow and several effects look dated”.

SilverWook said:

Which is a silly complaint. Every FX laden movie is going to look dated eventually, except 2001: A Space Odyssey of course. 😉

Compared to how many tend to react I’d that’s a fairly reasonable reaction. Unfortunately too many people just outright dismiss old films because some elements of them are dated.

Though just out of curiosity Omni, which version did you show them? And if you don’t mind me asking, how old (roughly) are you and your friends?

Even though I pointed out earlier that my friends didn’t react negatively to the FX in the OT, I’m sure most of them only saw the SE versions. I think I was the only exception. Of course the Indy films never had SE’s and were just as popular, but then again they weren’t as FX heavy as SW. I’m curious if there could be some kid of generational thing going on. I don’t really know exactly what kids have been watching in the last decade or so, but old cartoons were pretty commonly broadcasted right alongside newer cartoons when I was a kid in the 90’s and early 2000’s. So we were at the very least somewhat exposed to older things on a pretty regular basis. I’ve been getting the impression that it’s not so common anymore. Also the post CGI-era kids might just have a harder time adjusting to the overall look of old effects, while my generation grew up during the transition so both techniques seemed normal to us.

canofhumdingers said:

Shopping Maul said:

ZkinandBonez said:

Shopping Maul said:

I remember when ANH was perceived as a SPFX milestone with breakneck pacing. Of course these days, especially to kids, it seems cheap and slow paced.

Really? It didn’t bother me or any of my friends when we were kids during the release of the PT movies. There were plenty of modern films to compete with, yet as far as we were concerned the OT was as good as it gets. (Ditto on the orig. Indy movies.)

I’m not saying everyone was/is bothered by it, but the perception obviously changed as the films and the technology evolved. In its day Star Wars felt the way something like Infinity War might feel today - just huge and fast and mind blowing. Now of course it seems so much simpler.

My two boys (ages 3 and 5) thought Star Wars was pretty huge and fast and mind blowing when I showed them 4K77 in February. Certainly quite far from simple.

Maybe it’s because at such an early age they’d seen nothing as mind blowing as Star Wars yet?

I’ve always found it interesting how much of a difference there is between people who were shown old films when they were kids compared to those who weren’t. They usually have an entirely different relationship with movies and entertainment in general.

In the '70’s, it was mostly old movies on tv. The Home video market was still a few years away, and unless you had something like HBO, recent movies didn’t air until about three years after they were in theaters. Since infomercials took over the airwaves, stations rarely run old movies anymore. There’s so much competing for eyeballs now, it’s no wonder old movies get short shrift.

Yeah, it’s a real shame that young people aren’t exposed to old stuff as much as before. I don’t know how they handled this in the US, but I remember when Scandinavian Cartoon Network split into two separate channel, one for new programs and one dedicated entirely to old cartoons. I remember thinking at that time that a big shift had just happened in terms of how the next generation would respond to films and TV.

Omni said:

Roughly 20, so we’re all kind of from the post-CGI era. I’d always show them the DeEd until the release of 4K77, which became the standard. Most of the complaints were surrounding some stuff looking weird in the Death Star Attack and half a dozen Falcon shots that looked unnatural.

TESB got no such complaints whenever I showed anyone the film, albeit that didn’t even happen half as many times as me showing someone Star Wars. For TESB I’d use the DeEd 2.0 until Revisited, but I’m thinking only OUT so I’m disregarding the times I showed people Adywan’s version.

And yeah, I totally agree with that! My folks showed me tons of old movies when I was little and I think that’s made me much more susceptible to enjoying stuff with that old feel. Worth noticing that one of the friends I showed Star Wars to said she didn’t really enjoy watching old movies in general because ‘they tend to look bad and be slow’. Can’t argue with her on either but you get the idea.

It really is just a matter of habit, so I’d say that people like us where quite lucky. Seeing old movies and TV doesn’t just give you more stuff to enjoy, I think it makes you much more aware and critical of how they are actually made. I’d say it both makes you appreciate the new stuff more, while at the same time being more critical of it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:
I’d like to believe today’s technically savvy kids know bad CGI when they see it.

Hopefully.

Though I’ve literally heard teenagers complain about the CGI in 2008’s Iron Man the same way some people complain about films that are genuinely old. I think sometimes people just complain because they know a film is old (or at least old by their standards). I’ve even seen YT comment where someone complained about bad miniature effects when the scene in question actually contained a real location.

I’ve always been kind of confused about how many people react to CGI. I feel like a lot of kids these days are so used to Hollywood being able to do pretty much anything that they just assume everything is fake. Its almost like they don’t know how to respond to something “real”. They’ve always had CG so in a sense that fake digital look is just what unreal things (like aliens or spaceships) are supposed to look like in their minds.

Author
Time

ZkinandBonez said:

Its almost like they don’t know how to respond to something “real”. They’ve always had CG so in a sense that fake digital look is just what unreal things (like aliens or spaceships) are supposed to look like in their minds.

It’s not just aliens n’ spaceships. People really think that revised Obi-Wan/Vader duel making the rounds looks “real”.
Crazy.

Ray’s Lounge
Biggs in ANH edit idea
ROTJ opening edit idea

Author
Time

It certainly doesn’t look like something that was shot in 1976. 😉

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?