STAR WARS: EP V "REVISITED EDITION"ADYWAN - 12GB 1080p MP4 VERSION AVAILABLE NOW — Page 110

Why would he not say it...  wasn't he supposed to be "obsessed with finding young skywalker." He had the whole take overthe galaxy idea  if he could turn Luke to the darkside.

The line fits the plot and delivers a sense of danger to the audience.  I think if there is a gripe about the line is that Vader delivers it so causually, as if he had been talking with all his admirals about young Skywalker earlier that day.

doubleofive said:

mumbles_ said:

doubleofive said:

I've always thought how funny it is immediately after that line.

"Set your course for the Hoth System. GENERAL VEERS! Prepare your men."

The way he spins around to find Veers standing right next to him is funny. If Vader had spun around pointing at Veers thinking he was further away, he would have knocked him right over!

But that just might be me...

no you're not the only one. I still find that part HILARIOUS... it must have been hard for Vader to see him with that helmet. just as much as the automated targeting computers and how close they come to Wedge's face in A New Hope. i always imagine it hitting him in the face. it's the little things...

 

Glad I'm not alone. Since I'm a screenshot fiend, I'll post what we're referring to:

Vader is yelling to set their course for the Hoth system. Vader turns his head to his right...

The shot changes and pans over to revel GENERAL VEERS(!) who is way too close for comfort.

You'd think he'd be visable in the first shot, or at least moving to that position, cause it looks like he was standing there the whole time...

I LOVE that part! It's like the "stormtrooper head bump" of ESB. Please don't take it out... pretty please! It doesn't need fixing! :D

Welcome LV.  I wish Adywan would be brought on board for any future dvd or theatrical releases of the OT or PT. I can only wonder how many STAR WARS fans dont know about his edit.

Yeah, removing the "oops, close talker Vader" thing isn't something I'd suggest either. Removing it will just take out one more fun thing about the Trilogy we all enjoyed (like "fixing" the stormtrooper head bump, which is far less subtle than this).

***

Vader's attitude in his search for Luke, the opening crawl, and his dialog with the Emperor were fine in 1980. You can sense that Vader's underlings are all thinking their boss is a bit crazy, but most of them are too scared of him to object (note Ozzel's near condescending attitude "My Lord, there are so many uncharted settlements,... it may be smugglers...). That's kind of a cool thing, and it extends into ROTJ ("It's an older code sir, but it checks out, I was about to clear them..." and the awkward pause as Vader reaches out with the Force to sense Luke). Perfect. That's the sort of thing Lucas would screw up if he thought of it, so please leave it be!

Adywan's decision to use the ROTJ Emperor (instead of the pickup shots from Episode III that Lucas clumsily inserted in 2004) with the McDiarmond dialog is fine, and actually looks decent. The only way to make it perfect would be to get the actor saying "Luke."

I am totally against anything that would connect ESB's badass Vader with the weak willed, whiny brat that Hayden plays in Episode II and III. No references to Padme, no extra dialog please!

As for all the stuff about recoloring ships.. it's getting way out of hand. I urge you to not modify the color of the Executor. It looked great in 1980 as this big dark badass ship. It isn't just a regular Star Destroyer that's been inflated, no matter what some stupid EU source says (which gets the size wrong anyway). Aligning all the ships so they all look the same and fly the same and are lined up just makes it look more fake. The only ships that ever "flew in formation" were the TIE Fighters. The battles in Star Wars are not like the "ship of the line, age of sail" type battles in Star Trek (the "broadsides" in Episode III's battle of Coruscant nonwithstanding), but would be more akin to a cross between submarine and aircraft carrier/battleship warfare of the 20th century.

Making everything a shade of gray is just as bad as making everything blue like the 2004 editions did. It just turns the movie drab. I have nothing against black and white film, but that was one thing about ANH:R that looked a bit off... having a color element or two floating on a black and white background (I realize ady tried his best with what he had since so much of the color had faded... I would have suggested using overlays from the GOUT to get the colors as good as possible).

But in the end, the colors ought to look like a restored theatrical edition, not modified to meet someone's fanboy expectations of how it should look (expectations that are largely colored by reading too many EU comics and playing too many EU video games).

Hey, at least no body is arguing that the Ion Cannon shot should be blue! (and before you say it, no, that's a TERRIBLE idea!).

There's no need to come up with more work for ady, just to make the project take a long time and remake the film. As so many have said, ESB is already a great movie and doesn't "need" much work on it at all compared to the rest. A proper restoration to undue the damage done in the 2004 edit, and a rollback on the dumber changes made by Lucas in 1997... beyond that, fixing SFX glitches is really all that needs to be done. People are cool with their ideas, but it's like they're going out of their way to see what COULD be changed (not that really needs to be). Just a nitpick there.

Kurgan are you saying don't make this a special, special addition. I agree with you ESB is a badass movie already Adywan will do it justice friends, so don't worry. 

Sluggo -  This is all dependant on 'a certain point of view'.... but here's that 'possibility' about the recent anomaly you noted.  Having now checked on this, it seems it is indeed only the biggest, foreground Stardestroyer in this shot below, that is progressively 'overshadowed' by the 'Executor'.  The other 2 Stardestroyers in the 'distance' seem to be outside of the 'coverage' by the 'Executor's' hull, and are just already 'lit' in a steady 'half-shadow' like the biggest, foreground one is, at the start of the shot.  (This particular shot shows the start, but the foreground Stardestroyer is eventually 'shadowed' all-over, before the shot changes) -   

....the above shot changes to this one below, and I've always looked on the single 'distant' Stardestroyer in the shot below, as being the furthest back 'distant' one that was previously seen in the above shot....meaning that the furthest forward 'distant' Stardestroyer from the above shot, is now somewhere just out of the left of the frame of the shot below -

....and when the above shot then changes to this one below, that the furthest forward 'distant' Stardestroyer (seen in the top shot above), is now seen at this point, outside of the 'coverage' by the 'Executor's' hull -

....so that when the above shot changes to this one below, it now seems that the furthest forward 'distant' Stardestroyer is now 'hidden' on the other side of the 'Exector', with only the furthest back 'distant' one shown in the distance behind the nearest one to us, being 'passed-over' by the 'Executor' -

This is just my own preferred way of accounting for the layout of the shots above, and there are certainly some slight 'positioning issues' with this way of looking at this whole effects sequence. 

However, I'm sure it could be argued that on the second shot from the top, that the single 'distant' Stardestroyer is the furthest forward one, and not the furthest back one....but that would make it seem as if we have gained yet another Stardestroyer in the overall 'Fleet' in the shot third from the top (which happened to be even further forward than the 2 seen in the top shot)....and that there is indeed now one of the top shot's 'distant' Stardestroyers missing in the bottom shot!

Unless Adywan decides differently, I'll look at it in the former way.  What I'd quite like to see though, is a better 'positioning' of the 'passed-over' Stardestroyer in the bottom shot, in relation to the protruding 'centre detail' of the 'Executor's' underbelly hull, as is shown in the shot that precedes it (second from the bottom).  Because in the bottom shot, it seems as if the 'passed-over' Stardestroyer is now further away from that part of the hull, compared to the shot that precedes it....

I hope you could all follow that, and my previous thoughts on it all.  This now concludes all my 'existing Fleet shots' comments (about time some may say....), and I look forward to whatever Adywan chooses to amend, or not amend.  In the meantime, ILM's effects are great, but their 'continuity' is a bit suspect at times....

I miss Ady's posts and update, haven't seen him in here in a while. I wonder if he's still on Hoth in the movie or has jumped around to working on other areas. I also wonder if that Anthony Daniels chin shot in the costume will be fixed(When Han yells "deck officer".

Ya, I miss Ady too. This whole post is basicly like EU Star Wars, without his input, a waste of time.

gavin77 said:

Ya, I miss Ady too. This whole post is basicly like EU Star Wars, without his input, a waste of time.

Oh I wouldn't say that, as I've read a lot of interesting stuff from others here.  I'm sure Adywan will be along again before too long sometime, and hopefully he's well, and concentrating steadily on his edit.