OT Special Edition haters — Page 2

AxiaEuxine said:

Okay, if Im wrong on this then I apologise but it really wasnt the focus of my point.

I'm pleasantly surprised and impressed at how easily you could admit you were wrong (a lot of people have a problem with that).  However, I don't think I missed the point of your post, or at least a point of your post.  While you'll never be able to convince me that the SEs are superior or that Lucas was correct in doing so, and I'll never be able to convince you of the opposite, another point you focused on was what those of us not in your shoes should do.  Not only did it come across as elitist but was also just inaccurate.  I have a hard time believing you were really serious when you said a 20 year old VHS on a mono television is comparable to the way it was originally released in theatres.  Even today's HD doesn't compare to the quality of actual film.  DVDs don't come close, so of course an old tape wouldn't.  And, as I already pointed out, the mono mix came later as well.  So, yes, it is a big slap in the face of fans to be told something like that.

If Im wrong Im wrong, it was right there in print in the DEFENITIVE making of Star Wars book, so I admit it. About me going on about the quality of film from over 30 years ago...well I do tend to user hyperbole. In my honest opinion I like the changes in the SE, I have a Star wars blog on my website where I go into greater detail as to why if you are interested in reading it.

AxiaEuxine said:

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

AxiaEuxine said:

The quality of the playback on those old VCRs and the contiuing degrading quality of your VHS tapes should be pretty close to the quality you experienced in a theater in 77.

Let me guess... you weren't there, were you?

Wrong sir/madam, Im in my late 30's and I WAS there, Ive been a fan ever since they first hit the scene.

Then I am perplexed how you could possibly conclude that the original projection of this film in 70mm could be the same quality as an old VHS tape.  You must have seen it in a horrendously lousy theater.  The fact is, even the best blu-ray can't compare with a good projection of a new print.  In fact, the best blu-ray transfers are careful telecines of 70mm prints.

That is why people on this forum believe that the film should be restored properly - and preserved - in its original academy-award winning form, as is virtually every other major motion picture.  Then, if Lucas or anyone else wants to make fan edits like the SE, cool no problem. But refusing to preserve a window into 1977 Americana is an artistic tragedy.

I have stated that I am subject to hyperbole. I am simply tired of people bashing various aspects of Star Wars AND Lucas who is a genius in my book since 1997. I was over exageratting the quality of film in the late 70's to make a point which unfortuantly has become the focus of this debate.

AxiaEuxine said:

I was over exageratting the quality of film in the late 70's to make a point which unfortuantly has become the focus of this debate.

Then lets look at the remainder of your "point".  You say that we "hate" the SE. That's not true.  There are people on this forum doing restorations of the 1997 SE.  We aren't the ones trying to eliminate films from history - that would be GL.  HE is the one that has made it clear that HE destroyed the original 1977 film, and that he will never release it. WE do not hate either film. We hate that GL will not preserve the film in its original form.  You might not care about preserving a piece of history - but don't begrudge those that are.

It might be fair to say that some of us "resent" the SE.  We love the original Star Wars, and the SE is a reminder that we may never get to see it again, at least not in its original glory.  I can't think of another major motion picture that the producer actively refuses to preserve, and even proudly claims he has destroyed.

If the OT was preserved, I would be more inclined to enjoy the SE for what it is, a rather cool edit of a great motion picture.

Puggo, I couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo!

AxiaEuxine said:

I am simply tired of people bashing various aspects of Star Wars AND Lucas who is a genius in my book since 1997.

Odd, I would say that Lucas stopped being a genius in 1997. But to each their own.

The one thing i guess that i could say positively about the 1997 special edition was the X-wing and Tie fighter dogfights at the end were made to be Less static.  They tried to make the ships twist and roll realistically and not be seen as following a pre determined motion control track.  Similar things have been done with CGI on Star Trek remastred original series where they Get the Enterprise to actually move in space and not look like a static object moving on a string in front of a backdrop.

They get the movement right with the cgi but i prefer the old Style Models.  Perhaps modern day moviemaking needs to use a bit of both approaches.  I know of one visual effects artist who actually tries to make his effects look like the old models.  He worked on the directors cut of star trek the motion picture.  Darren Dochterman i believe his name is.  He is now doing the cgi effects on the fan production called Phase II formerly known as the New Voyages.

I don't know I think i actaully prefer the newer look of edenfx done on enterprise for the in a mirror darkly.  Fans get all kinds of cgi effects to look at.

Star Wars fans don't have any fan productions as far as i know trying to emulate the Look of the oot and do it all with models and or cgi to look like models.  Seems Like only trek fans are doing it.

Maybe the best star wars fan films are Probably Troops.  gets the oot look. 

All the rest seem to be prequel trilogy wannabe films produced by the tfn crowd.

speaking of special effects..

i watched the special effects of empire....(on laserdisc, and part of the

editdroid 4 disc special..

first they talk a lot about stop frame animation.. that is ridiculously time

consuming... something like spending a few hours a day just to get a few seconds

worth of footage..

they also showed a lot of how the models were used in the blue screen process,

again, several hours a day just to get a few minutes of footage.

i appreciate the artistry and the craftsmenship they had back then, but it seems

WRONG to destroy those beautiful models by exploding them just for a few shots..

i'm sorry, but after imaging all the time it took back then, and then seeing the results

(which were decent for the time)... there's NO WAY they should ever go back to that,

now that they have the digital resources to do it in a lot better fashion, and much

more convincingly...

granted its easy to go overboard, and if done wrong , it will still look fake...

i wonder if they had redone the battle at hoth with CGI, how much better it would

have looked, compared to the jerky stop motion, and the same with the stop-frame

tauntaun.... it would have looked much better now...

anyways, go back and watch the 'making of star wars'.. i like mark hamills commentary..

also in the 'empire' one, he does a pretty good 'yoda'...and ominously he ends by saying

that the special effects should not take the place of good storytelling, characters and plot..

later

-1

negative1 said:

speaking of special effects..

 

i watched the special effects of empire....(on laserdisc, and part of the

editdroid 4 disc special..

 

first they talk a lot about stop frame animation.. that is ridiculously time

consuming... something like spending a few hours a day just to get a few seconds

worth of footage..

 

they also showed a lot of how the models were used in the blue screen process,

again, several hours a day just to get a few minutes of footage.

 

i appreciate the artistry and the craftsmenship they had back then, but it seems

WRONG to destroy those beautiful models by exploding them just for a few shots..

 

i'm sorry, but after imaging all the time it took back then, and then seeing the results

(which were decent for the time)... there's NO WAY they should ever go back to that,

now that they have the digital resources to do it in a lot better fashion, and much

more convincingly...

 

granted its easy to go overboard, and if done wrong , it will still look fake...

 

i wonder if they had redone the battle at hoth with CGI, how much better it would

have looked, compared to the jerky stop motion, and the same with the stop-frame

tauntaun.... it would have looked much better now...

 

anyways, go back and watch the 'making of star wars'.. i like mark hamills commentary..

also in the 'empire' one, he does a pretty good 'yoda'...and ominously he ends by saying

that the special effects should not take the place of good storytelling, characters and plot..

 

later

-1

The problem is that CGI just looks fake in the movies today, for me IMO.  I agree that stop motion models is very time consuming, and probably more costly, but that is the reason the OOT movies hold up so well years later, is they still look real.  I look at the golden years for action/scifi movies of the late 70's/early 80's and these movies just hold up so much better then most movies today.  Plus because of the limited technology, the director was forced to focus on a good, interesting story, and good character development, which is pretty much gone from the summer blockbuster today, as they are mostly mindless CGI-fest movies with zero story and ridicolous one dimensional characters.

I always use the analogy of how Jaws was made, and if it was made today, it wouldn't be as good.  Spielberg simply couldn't get the shark to work, so he doesn't even show him in the first hour, which turns out to be genius because the music really messes with the viewer and finally the shark shows up on screen.  The movie has great characters who really drive the story, and I believe if Jaws was made in 2008, it would be a CGI-fest movie with the shark being the star of the movie, and they would probably have George Clooney or some dopey actor as the Roy Scheider character.

Chewy72 said:

The problem is that CGI just looks fake in the movies today, for me IMO.  I agree that stop motion models is very time consuming, and probably more costly, but that is the reason the OOT movies hold up so well years later, is they still look real.  I look at the golden years for action/scifi movies of the late 70's/early 80's and these movies just hold up so much better then most movies today. 

 

well, when CG is used correctly, it doesn't look 'fake' to me... besides, the problem is most of

the objects aren't real to begin with in the first place (spaceships, aliens, etc)... so how can

we know what looks 'fake'.. it's subjective mostly..

i don't THINK the special effects hold up that well at all, especially the stuff done in the 70's

and 80's, because now we're much more prone to analyze it, and see all the defects and problems..

(ie..look at fanedits, the SE, etc).....          

ALL special effects can take someone out of a movie...look at the landspeeder effects of the

original vs now.. the tauntan, the AT-AT's walking, etc.... all look jerky, and you can tell they

don't have the smooth motion that can be created now.. .even the spaceships look 'stiff'

and limited in their movements..

they've got a ways to go in creating a reasonable balance in between models, and CG,

but it's more of a taste of artistry than technical ability.... given enough time, and rendering,

with the right artwork, you can see the difference..... it just comes down to us believing it..

I always use the analogy of how Jaws was made, and if it was made today, it wouldn't be as good.  Spielberg simply couldn't get the shark to work, so he doesn't even show him in the first hour, which turns out to be genius because the music really messes with the viewer and finally the shark shows up on screen.  The movie has great characters who really drive the story, and I believe if Jaws was made in 2008, it would be a CGI-fest movie with the shark being the star of the movie, and they would probably have George Clooney or some dopey actor as the Roy Scheider character.

i don't know if you've seen 'deep blue sea', but of course they used CG sharks in that movie,

and it wasn't half bad.. of course the plot was basically just a sub-jaws-alien-jurassic park type, so it

was predicatable..

jaws copied a lot of movie traits (ie. the thing, any movie with a creature stalking people),

and of course alien copied it.... so i don't think i'll give credit to speilberg for being creative

for the pacing of the plot.......................i do give him credit for putting it all together though..

the problem with remaking those types of movie today, is that most people would be

too impatient to wait for it (ie. the monster in cloverfield).....and hence wouldn't care as much

for that kind of story anyways..... what would be the point? people have already been exposed

to it way too many times to be intrigued by that plot gimmick.....

those days are long gone..(kinda sad though)..

later

-1

To me personally the worse Case scenario is with CGI is what i would call the "george lucas syndrome"  not using cgi in believable or realistic ways or adding to the creators palette of creative tools, it equals overall lazyness and actually allows that.  The story suffers because you spend way to much of your budget building up these cg sets and environments, characters and spaceships and don't focus on the most important part the actors, the story or the human element.  All they are showing is the amount of money they spent and the efforts spent on it.  The effects should be used to help propel the story forward.  I hate movies that are all special effects and zero plot, after all A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing.

will said:

IMHO CGI are too intangible.  The lighting is off or something.  As for stop-motion, I find it charming.  I wouldn't dismiss a painting because I can see the brushstrokes.  The SE often suffers from too much background stuff.  Every scene what chok-a-block full of whirling droids and bumbling aliens.  At some point it stops being a living universe and starts becoming a needless distraction.  And I don't know how someone who balks at the AT-ATs in ESB because they look fake, can even stand to watch the Jabba scene in ANH:SE.

 my point was, it's ALL FAKE,

how fake you prefer it, is a matter of choice..

i prefer CG, because i've always been into computer graphics for ages..

that's why the jabba scene, and the prequels don't bother me at all.. i like looking

at all the details/objects etc..

old-school puppets/stop-motion just looks clunky and stands out like a sore thumb

to me now.... not that i can't appreciate the work that goes into it, its just not cost effective

and ineffecient use of time nowadays with better alternatives..

later

-1

Well, you did hit the nail on the head by saying that they are all fake.  A special effect is just a special effect.  But it's not as simple as that, either, and it's especially not as simple to say that CG trumps any other form of special effects.  I don't hate CG.  I understand that it's a necessary form of special effects, and it's coming along nicely.  However, that doesn't mean that other methods are suddenly obsolete.  Models are fake because they aren't actually what they're representing, but they do take up physical space, so they are real from that perspective.  Take a look at Back to the Future Part III (I think you've mentioned that you hate this movie, but bear with me anyway).  For the climax, they built a scale model of the train and plunged it into the ravine.  Granted, CG technology was at its infancy then, but even now, do you think a superior shot could have been achieved through just making a computer generated environment and a computer generated train?  Comparable, maybe, but not as real.  For another example, look at Serenity.  Through the TV series and the movie, the ship had been entirely CG.  But in the climax of the movie when the ship crashes, they built a model for those shots alone instead of doing it with computers because they needed something more real that could actually take damage and be pulled apart.  So I guess what I'm trying to say is that both models and CG have their appropriate uses.  But a lot of us here feel we have to overzealously hold on to models and puppets because we're being constantly told by people like you that those methods are completely obsolete and that CG is the only way to go.  CG doesn't need an advocate.  Models do.

adywan said:

i can remember back to pre-'97 when the first rumours about the SE started floating around. It was a time when we had all grown up and a new generation had only ever seen it on VHS or on the TV. i, along with many of my friends, were really excited about being able to Star Wars again on the big screen, even though it would be a different version. We didn't care about this at all. I was able to take my 3 daughters to the cinema to experience what i had experienced when i was a kid. They loved it and so did i. there were some additions i didn't like, Greedo shooting first for instance, but they were minor niggles. Star Wars fandom hit a high again and no one i knew hated the SE trilogy at the time. A whole new generation became Star Wars fans. The VHS box set came out (i didn't have a laserdisc player back then) and it sat along side my OUT box set. I could happily watch both versions without any problem and the quality was the same.

But years later things turned sour.

The day GL said that the SE were now the definitive versions and that the OUT doesn't exist in his mind became the turning point for the hatred of the SE to begin. Minor niggles became hated additions.

Then we were told that the OUT would never be released ever again and only ever the SE. The hatred again grew among fans. Then the insult of the 2004 DVD set: terrible colouring, additions that were far worse than anything (apart from Han not being the only one to shoot, thus changing his character) that was added in '97, screwed up soundtracks that they tried to tell us that we were all wrong in that all the screw ups were a creative decision, but to top it all, the SE was now available with a high quality format (colouring aside) but the OUT was nowhere to be seen. Where was the high quality transfer the version that won all the awards and revolutionised the FX industry deserved? nowhere to be seen. Then the 30th anniversary was all but ignored

Now the SE was no longer the fun alternative to our beloved trilogy but something that became thrust down our throats as the only version  DVD quality, or higher, that was restored and we would ever be allowed to see.  Then the insult to top all insults happened: the GOUT. What a great way to thank all the loyal Star Wars fans that have been there from the start. I think not.

What happened to the company that always pushed for the best image & sound quality possible, setting industry standards? The Lucasfilm that existed pre '97 would never have released such a sub-standard product as the GOUT.

My point is this: If GL had acknowledged the fact that OUT is a masterpiece that should be preserved in the highest quality alongside the SE, with the SE just being a fun alternative experience, had released both versions in the same high quality and never said that the SE is the only version we are allowed to see, would there be the hatred for the SE that exists now? i would have to say no. You would either like the SE or not, but at least you could watch the OUT on your large screen TVs with great picture quality and chose to ignore the SE if you wish.

Way to go George. You locked yourself away in your little bubble surrounding yourself with "yes" men and lost touch of all reality. How can you ignore the things that gave you what you have today: the Fans and the OUT. Look what you accomplished with such a limited budget. You should be proud of that and not be ashamed that a few FX shots didn't look perfect or that you couldn't do a few things back then (i'm ignoring any additions to ESB or ROTJ here). It was a masterpiece with all its flaws. they didn't bother us back then and they don't bother us now.

With the Blu-Ray releases of movies like Close Encounters & Blade Runner on Blu-ray with all the different versions with the same high  quality transfer now available wouldn't this be the time to just thanks the fans for what they have given you and give us what we want?

So would anyone else not hate the SE as much as they do now if GL hadn't buried the OUT and told us that the SE will be the only version that will exsist from now on?

This is exactly some of the things I felt. I was one of those people who first experienced the film on the big screen in 1997. I like both the OT and the 1997 versions. I like to go back and forth. I don't approve of every 97 change, but it is understandable. Why the 2004 SEs had to be the "definitive version" I will never know. this has caused a hatred for any version of the SE. Now the 97 SE is never acknowleged at all. if we had all three versions in a good, well preserved format-peace would finally exist in the galaxy.

Star Wars exists now only in our memories and for as long as our widescreen letterboxed VHS tapes and laserdiscs can last.

Thanks, George.

GOUT (metabolic CGritis) is a digitalization disease hallmarked by elevated levels of lucas tinkering (hyperprequelization) in the Star Wars Universe.

What if we could hire the Blade Runner DVD project team for Star Wars? Do you think they would be interested? More importantly, would George let them?  This would probably be the only way that we'd ever get modern transfers of all three versions of all three films. (Not that I really care about the 04 versions.) Can you imagine it? A Blade Runner style briefcase set for the Trilogy? Pipe dreams, I know.

R2-918 said:

I recently bought four Star Wars Trilogy DVD Box Sets (The 2006 OOT DVDs that were re-released last November) I now have four DVDs each of the original versions of the films, I gave the 2004 versions to my friend. I just don't think we'll ever see the OOT released on Blu-ray thats why I bought so many of these OOT DVDs. I know they don't look as clean or sharp as the 04' versions and thier not anamorphic but then again they certainly look better then any past VHS release and from what I've read they look better then any previous LD release.

Four?  You know DVD's don't wear out, right? ;-)