logo Sign In

Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this? — Page 14

Author
Time
Post link
Here's something that I would really like to know....

...what the hell was Lucas thinking when he made the SEs??? Forget the vision thing and all that. Did he ever stop and think about how people would react to what he was doing?

He had to know that what he was doing was going to piss some people off and that they would be vocal about it. And if he knew that, then why go ahead and do it in the first place? Did he think people would just roll over and blindly accept whatever he did?

I just want to know what was going through that melon head of his that he thought he could do this and think it was okay. I think the guy's got some mental issues actually. OCD or something, I don't know what. Some people do go fucking bonkers when they get money and success though. Maybe it's just more subtle with him than with, say a rock star who ODs.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Fans of the first version aren't around because there is no such place to discuss only the 1977 film and its universe.

I beg to differ. There's a few of us scattered around.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84

Fans of the first version aren't around because there is no such place to discuss only the 1977 film and its universe. .



It is funny you mentioned it, cause I started a thread on TFN last year titled, "Star Wars 1977 Fanclub." Its rules were simple, pretend that no other SW sequel/prequel was ever made and pretend it is 1977 and how you perceive the film in THAT context. Darth Vader is just a bad guy, Luke & Leia are not related, The death star blows up and everyone lives happily ever after. It was pretty cool as alot of people started talking about the summer of '77 and how SW was just so great back then.

Then the mods came in and locked it. So I PM them and asked why? They replied, "You don't start any fan clubs without permission!" So then I replied, "OK, tell me what I need to do to get this SW'77 fanclub OK'd?" They replied, "Your wasting your time, no one cares about Star Wars 1977 standing alone, give it up."

They = Strilo, if anyone was wondering.
Author
Time
Post link
TFN should be turned into toilet paper so we can wipe our asses with it.....

I don't have a problem with people who only dig the original SW film. More power to 'em, I think. I'm an OOT fan, but I think it's cool to like just the first film. No one can say I'm intolerable. There's too many jerkoff mods on TFN and SW.com that impede any kind of serious discussion about the merits of just SW or just SW and ESB. I think the mods on those boards are worse than any of the Gomers that are out there. They're the ones who have gotten the fanbase so at each other's throats.
Author
Time
Post link
Man, that pisses me off that they would shut down that thread. Such blatant censorship and bias just frustrate me so.

And, for the most part, I agree with you guys that the SE, not the PT, is the source of nearly all the problems in the SW fanbase. But, in another way, the PT is indirectly responsible. I don't blame it on its own for that, but it has caused its share of problems. First of all, obviously, most of the changes made in '04 were a result of the PT, so the PT, in effect, is responsible for the current form of the SE. Plus, it's the PT that is responsible for this whole "Saga" view of everything. It's why The Empire Strikes Back is now referred to as Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes or just (shudder) Episode V. And it's responsible for the propoganda that the movies should be watched in numerical order rather than release order. I mean, obviously, we can avert that by simply not doing it, but it's still something I find annoying and would be something that fans would argue about. I have a box set of The Chronicles of Narnia from the '70s, which was numbered the way I feel it's supposed to be, the order in which they were written. I always cringe when I walk through bookstores and see the anthologies that start with The Magician's Nephew, which should be the 6th book, not the 1st. At least the movies had enough sense to make The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe first. Whoo, sorry about that, but I just had to get that off my chest as long as I was talking about numbering.

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
Post link
Originally posted by: Anchorhead
Originally posted by: zombie84
Fans of the first version aren't around because there is no such place to discuss only the 1977 film and its universe.

I beg to differ. There's a few of us scattered around.



Yeah, i know you are literally one of the only people left on the star wars internet community of this group. "You my friend are all thats left of their religion..."
More and more i find myself being drawn to this camp though.

CO, i don't think that a release of the OOT, or the non-existence of the SE would do a whole lot to calming the "civil war", as it were--it would silence those who only hang around because they have a battle to fight (ie get the OOT released), and because they really just want to watch the movies and leave the PT guys to discusss whatever they want...but for those that do want to discuss the films, this solves nothing. The problem is, like i said, that the film i discuss is not necessarily the film a PT fan will discuss, as i provided by example earlier. If the OOT is remastered and the SE destroyed--so what? I still want to discuss the films sometimes, even if i have discussed most the obvious points to death already, and the fact is that it the prequels not the SE that creates the schism--the prequels introduce a new re-interpretation. We can ignore the PT and simply not discuss it--but the PT fans can't just ignore the OT because it is the continuation of the PT, its part of their story, and so there will be overlap. This is what inevitably results in hostility--"thats stupid, thats just some PT bullshit added to the film," "no, it just wasn't revealed initially, it makes the film better", etc. The SE was just superficial changes that were fun and/or annoying but the PT is where the story actually began to be reconfigured in substantial and incompatible ways. The only way for the hostility to be qwelled between the two groups of interpreters is if one of the groups dies--either the PT fails to catch on in the end and the second 1977-1983 group of OT fans slowly takes back the series, or the PT continues to gain ground as more younger fans are introduced to this version of the series and us OT fans are slowly replaced by the latest group. Personally i think it could go either way at this point, which is also what drives me to stick around and remind PT fans that they are not the sole inheriters of the series yet.
Author
Time
Post link
Zombie, you are correct at what the PT has done to the OT, or the saga now, and those who love all 6 movies, meaning OT/SE + PT definitely look at the saga WAY differently then OOT fans. But in all honesty, it took me alot of years to adjusting to Darth Vader being Lukes father, and Luke/Leia being siblings, stuff that happened in ESB/ROTJ that at one time I felt sorta tarnished SW '77.

I personally hated the redemption of Darth Vader in ROTJ back in '83, because that was something I thought at the time that just didn't jive with the Original SW movie that I grew to love. And as much as I was an OOT fans growing up as a kid, SW '77 was the King of all movies to me, and ESB/ROTJ were just more stories of my beloved characters, but never lost context of what the story was in 1977.

So you are correct that fans at this point can go either way, and I say to you don't worry, the Darth Vader story crowd will be a niche fanbase. Now that will be a loyal one, but the amount of SW fans who actually love all 6 movies will be very minor because I just find it hard to believe that a majority of people are going to love 6 movies when atleast half of them are average at best.

If the internet was around in the early 80's, I believe the fanbase of SW'77 fans and OT fans would be split, and we would be arguing the same stuff now, but as I said, the difference is SW '77 was never touched back then, so nobody would be arguing about getting SW '77 in proper form as we do now. But I know there would be a huge fanbase of SW '77 fans saying that Darth Vader has no business being Lukes father, let alone Leia's father too.

But I began to change through the years and actually began to like the story ROTJ presented with Vaders redemption. I still think ROTJ is an average movie, but I give kudos to Lucas in ESB & ROTJ for taking the saga in a different direction then an actual retread sequel that most studioe put out, and he tried to keep it fresh with each new movie. I believe Lucas tried the same stuff with the PT, as he tried to keep it fresh too with something new in every story instead of what we always thought, but I think eventually you do it with too many movies, and you eventually alienate people by drastically changing it, and when you look at the first movie from 1977, it is TOO different, and loses its luster from what you fell in love with.

I will contest til the day I die that the PT was not for everyone, whether it was done right or not. I still believe there would be a good amount of OT fans who would never gravitate to the new characters, cause old faithful Luke, Leia, and Han weren't there to save the day as they did in ROTJ. I believe the whole tone of the PT being a bit darker and more grey when it comes to the story and the characters was going to turn people off too, because the OT movies are ultimate feel good movies where everything is in black and white. In some ways I think Lucas was set up for failure from day one, cause a prequel trilogy of 3 movies is really a big roll of the dice.

I read an article where Lucas realized in 1988 that if he made the PT, it could then be the story of Darth Vader, or the character arc, and that is exactly what 1-6 is, a character arc of Anakin Skywalker, but as we know the OT story, especially ANH really doesn't tell that part of his story very well cause it was never about him. So what Lucas ended up doing is really make fans who truly love the character of Darth Vader really happy with the 1-6 order, and everyone else likes parts of the movies now.

So the genius of the SW saga is its biggest flaw, it isn't one continuous story, cause it never was from the start, but you have so many different fans who love certain parts of the movies, like certain parts, and hate other parts. So in one way, we are all SW fans, even Gomertonic, but in another sense, we are so different only because the story has changed so much.
Author
Time
Post link
Well I just watched ROTJ 2006 OOT DVD on my brand new LCD TV, and you guys are right, it sucks to have to zoom it in.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicWell I just watched ROTJ 2006 OOT DVD on my brand new LCD TV, and you guys are right, it sucks to have to zoom it in.


Yeah, but it is the best it has ever looked.

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, at least it's still that.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
In all seriousness, it does look like shit, in fact, compared to my other non-anamorphic movies, the OOT movies are the worst quality I have on DVD, and I have put my hands up in utter frustration.

For anyone that does have an HD Big Screen TV, these movies are so grainy and dull, and for my standards, they are unwatchable. I honestly feel like a sucker now, cause I really thought it would be close to the quality of atleast movies like The Abyss, which is non-anamorphic, but still a respectable transfer.

Thanks George for giving us shit, and you know what I was dumb enough to buy it. ObiWan was right, "I am the fool that followed."
Author
Time
Post link
Well aside from the obvious resolution issue, I like the way it represents the way it looked in theaters as far as having the grain, scratches and image instability. To me part of the point of having this on DVD is to preserve how we used to have to watch it. Unless you were there when it was first unspooled, these issues were present to varying degrees even in the theater.

Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicWell aside from the obvious resolution issue, I like the way it represents the way it looked in theaters as far as having the grain, scratches and image instability. To me part of the point of having this on DVD is to preserve how we used to have to watch it. Unless you were there when it was first unspooled, these issues were present to varying degrees even in the theater.


That is the big fallacy, it never looked like that in the theaters. Theater projection always looks better then home video, cause of the resolution. As we inch closer to HD-DVD, where the resolution is 1080, it looks more and more like you watching it in the theater.

The way I tell if a DVD is great quality is fleshtones, and overhead shots of a terrain. Just look at the flesh tones when you have to zoom the image, there is no definition in their faces, as it is just a dull contrast that resembles nothing that was shown from 77-83. Then you look at parts of Hoth and Tatooine, where they show the snow from when the squad leader is looking for Solo & Luke, it is so damn grainy it is ridiculous. Then look at when C3PO and R2 are walking on Tatooine at the beginning of SW and the whole backround of sand is just pure grain. And don't even get me started on Dagobah, that is so bland looking with no contrast.

The 04 DVDs are vibrant and bring out what was shown in the theaters, except for the friggin Green Lightsaber in ANH!!!!!! Look at Vaders Star Destroyer in the 04 Versions, they have that blue tint that really jumps out at you, and then the OOT version is this dull grey. Trust me, it was a blue tint back in 1980, not the dull grey.

I am sorry but these look like crap, and I really don't know what to do as a SW fan anymore. On a 4 x 3 TV, alot of this stuff we are talking about probably isnt' that noticeable, so a word of warning to all with 32' Regular TV's and you are enjoying the OOT DVD's, "DONT BUY A HD WIDESCREEN TV!!!!!"

Author
Time
Post link
You know there is something charming about an old, grainey, well-worn print of Star Wars--I can't help but admit that the roughness of the GOUT has its own nostalgic charm. Even though this isn't a reflection of how the film looked in 1977--except perhaps by september of 1977 when second-run theaters were recieving second and third-hand prints--had the film been presented in a full-resolution new transfer of this "rough" picture i wouldn't be complaining. In fact, this is what most of us were actually expecting to get--an unrestored but newly transfered version of a print, perhaps somewhat scratchy and grainey, but in otherwise full, anamorphic fidelity.
Author
Time
Post link
Well, a lot of us saw these movies at a nice theater. I demand equal nostalgia stroking! It wasn't some Roger Corman movie, it was booked in some of the best theaters in the country. An unstable grainy scratchy print doesn't represent shit to some of us. A pan and scan VHS tape has some nostalgia value, though.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84

had the film been presented in a full-resolution new transfer of this "rough" picture i wouldn't be complaining. In fact, this is what most of us were actually expecting to get--an unrestored but newly transfered version of a print, perhaps somewhat scratchy and grainey, but in otherwise full, anamorphic fidelity.


That is exactly it Zombie, and that is where this release totally failed. I wouldn't be complaining if the colors didn't jump out like the 04 release, cause sometimes the contrast in the picture is too much where it looks fake. But a rough picture that still had detail instead huge amounts of grain would have been a very nice compromise. Lucasfilm did zero to these movies, and when they say unaltered, he did take it literally.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Well aside from the obvious resolution issue, I like the way it represents the way it looked in theaters as far as having the grain, scratches and image instability. To me part of the point of having this on DVD is to preserve how we used to have to watch it. Unless you were there when it was first unspooled, these issues were present to varying degrees even in the theater.


Agreed with CO, that's total bullshit that it represents the way it looked in theaters. It never had all that grain and crap when it was first projected on screens back then. You don't know what you're talking about, Gomer.

CO is dead-on-balls correct on the Star Destroyers looking blue in the original prints. I had a Betamax bootleg of ESB that was recorded in the theaters during the original run of the film. I watched the living shit out of that bootleg all throughout the 80s and those Star Destroyers were damn blue!!! I have an absolute 100% clear motherfucking memory of that, Gomer. Clueless.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Cable-X1

CO is dead-on-balls correct on the Star Destroyers looking blue in the original prints. I had a Betamax bootleg of ESB that was recorded in the theaters during the original run of the film. I watched the living shit out of that bootleg all throughout the 80s and those Star Destroyers were damn blue!!! I have an absolute 100% clear motherfucking memory of that, Gomer. Clueless.


The whole look of ESB in 1980 is more blue-ish, and it is a flat grey on the OOT DVD's. I think ESB looks the worse of the 3 OOT movies, cause the colors are just so dull the whole movie. Check out the whole look of Hoth on the '04 DVD's, that is the true color of how Kersh shot in 1980, not fucking grey!!!

ROTJ is the most tolerable of the three, probably cause it is the most recent movie, and the movie takes place in either black deathstar scenes, foresty-like Endor scenes, and Jabbas Palace which is very dull to begin with. But just watch as C3pO & R2 start the movie on Tatooine just like they do in SW, Grainy!! Grainy!!! Grainy!!!

If you do notice the fleshtones on ROTJ aren't that bad, especially near the end where I compared the OOT & SE right after the death star blows up, and they are actually pretty similar for some reason? Maybe Lucas touched up the original Ewok Ending with Shaw in it just to throw a bone to the OOT crowd so they wouldn' t have to see Hayden Skystalker.

Author
Time
Post link
I thought in hte past everybody complained about the blue levels (and the color timing in general) in the '04 DVDs. People even posted comparison pictures of Hoth between the GOUT and the '04, where people praised the '06 for actually being able to perceive the color white rather than have blue snow. But that was how it was supposed to be?

And also, I've always been able to clearly see Executor as blue, even on these new DVDs. They really do look great on a 4x3 screen, better than I've ever seen them before, but they look much worse on my computer's Hi-Def monitor.

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
Post link
Does anybody know if the 1997 version, as it was in the theaters, not on home video, was a faithful presentation? (aside from the changes of course). In particular, I seem to remember Jabba's palace looking much more dark/shadowy, which really helped de-muppetize that scene. I've never seen it look like that at home. I know the 2004 dvd has the black cranked up, but this was different. I can't quite explain it.
Author
Time
Post link
Well on home video they always artificially brightened the image at least on VHS. That's the main reason you can really see the matte boxes on home video so easily.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
ESB never looked like it did on the 2004 dvds. If theres anything the 2004 disks aren't useful for, its colour--massive oversaturation and video noise issues, crushed black, and more importantly, a completely new DI with all new colour timing. The films looks slicker and in many ways "better" with the re-timing but they are extremely different than their original releases. ESB's re-colouring is probably the most insidious because it more or less looks the way we remember it but when you compare them they don't look anything alike--the film overall has a blue cast to it now, sort of a "Matrix"-like look; its effective, but its not the way the film originally was. The blue was definitly there for many sequences, having an overall cool colour palette, but the 2004 dvds really exagerate it as a stylistic look. As for Hoth on the GOUT, it is indeed somewhat neutral looking, but it was never really all that blue to begin with in terms of colour timing, at least not at all like it is on the 2004 where it is screaming blue, the way The Matrix or Terminator 2 look.
Author
Time
Post link
This includes the pink, green, and wimpy looking lightsabers, right?
Author
Time
Post link

The whole look of ESB in 1980 is more blue-ish, and it is a flat grey on the OOT DVD's. I think ESB looks the worse of the 3 OOT movies, cause the colors are just so dull the whole movie. Check out the whole look of Hoth on the '04 DVD's, that is the true color of how Kersh shot in 1980, not fucking grey!!!


I'd have to borrow the 04 editions from my Dad to check this out. I remember it being blue....I'm just not sure it was AS BLUE as the 04 DVDs are.

Either way...I have a pretty burned in my head image of how Empire should look. I never realized I had been watching and ORIGINAL theater presentation of ESB until I came to this site and heard everyone talk about such things.

The thing I don't really remember was the official video releases in the 80s....were they accurate with their coloring and such? I bought the trilogy back in 92 and they pretty much matched what I had been watching all along, but my memory is fuzzy..plus I didn't look for such things back then.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Well on home video they always artificially brightened the image at least on VHS. That's the main reason you can really see the matte boxes on home video so easily.


This is true. I remember seeing the matte boxes quite distinctly in the official videos I bought back in 92.