- Post
- #249277
- Topic
- Star Wars HD coming in November! All SIX movies!
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/249277/action/topic#249277
- Time
Obi Jeewhyen
- User Group
- Members
- Join date
- 1-Aug-2006
- Last activity
- 1-Feb-2007
- Posts
- 440
Post History
- Post
- #248698
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248698/action/topic#248698
- Time
However ... the humanoid characters in the Star Wars universe are never presented as having extra-human abilities ... and mere training as a Jedi does not seem feasible to change physiology to a degree that enables a man to jump 100 feet. Unless they do it with the Force (in which case they could simply levitate), they would need entirely different body structures and muscle configurations to make such leaps with the power of their legs.
To me, this is even more absurd than the telekenisis ... which at least is done with the mind or spirit, and no limits have been illustrated in the movies as to how far a Jedi's mind or spirit may be developed. But to simply assume that they have superhuman abilities, or frelling X-Ray vision for that matter, seems FAKE on its face when no explanation is given for why Jedi can defy the existing physics presented quite clearly to the audience.
And the audience is not doing a scientific analysis when they see an improbable Jedi Jump; they are merely using their eyes and minds to instantly assess what looks "right" for familiar humanity in a physical sense.
(If Luke and Obi-Wan are not human for all intents and purposes, that is nowhere indicated in Star Wars.)
- Post
- #248382
- Topic
- What's Original '77 and What's Not?
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248382/action/topic#248382
- Time
Greedo's subtitles not appearing on-screen.
Some might think this a minor point, but the subtitles obscuring part of the image and focusing your attention on the written words distracted audiences from the less-than convincing alien suit that was only two steps beyond a zipper-head.
Whether you buy that or not, it's on the film print in '77, and it's never been on any home release that I know of. This contributes to an unauthentic feeling in that part of the film ... not to mention that folks with 16:9 screens often can't see the subtitles at all.
In the age of 16:9 screens and larger screens becoming commonplace, I think the convention of removing subtitles from the film image and re-entering them in a different, usually much larger, font in the black-bar area should abandoned.
.
- Post
- #248347
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248347/action/topic#248347
- Time
Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle
For me, the PT is not the story that comes before the OOT and that is why it annoys me so much. The characters are different, the story doesn't quite mesh with the OOT, and the PT just doesn't share the look and feel of the OOT. It doesn't convince me as the first three parts of the same story.
For me, the PT is not the story that comes before the OOT and that is why it annoys me so much. The characters are different, the story doesn't quite mesh with the OOT, and the PT just doesn't share the look and feel of the OOT. It doesn't convince me as the first three parts of the same story.
Well, then I hope you (and perhaps others here) won't think ill of me for applying the same emotional response to the O.T. Empire and Jedi are not the story that comes after Star Wars - because that film presents a universe where Luke's father, Anakin, was betrayed and murdered (not in an imaginary sense) by someone entirely different, i.e., Darth Vader ... and Princess Leia is a legitimate love interest for the hero, and not the hero's sister.
The follow-up movie is so completely different in story, and in tone, and in throwing in both retarded childishness and boring maturity (faults thrown at the P.T., but sooooo applicable to The Empire Strikes Back) ... and frankly is different in everything I found enjoyable in Star Wars such that I don't consider it a "continuance" at all ... but rather an offshoot that has almost no continuity with the source.
The same can be said of the prequels. They are an offshoot that doesn't match with the story they claim to be part of. Completely disregarding so-called Star Wars movies as authentically Star Wars comes easier to me, because I've been doing it since 1980.
But I can still enjoy Empire and Jedi to an extent. And I can't even sit through any of the prequels. Heck, I tried to watch my favorite of them just the other night, and I couldn't stand more than half-an-hour of it. Gak!
Anyway, Back to the Future is a series where I happen to like each of the films - and, sacrilige though it might be on this forum, Star Wars is my stand-alone 1977 movie with some mediocre sequels and some craptacular prequels. Hey, but it also inspired some great toys and some cool Burger King glassware!
.
- Post
- #248194
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248194/action/topic#248194
- Time
Originally posted by: CO
but I think many from your side just don't understand that the reason many of us don't love the PT movies is because they are not great movies, plain & simple. I think the debates about all the details we discuss, and there are countless of them from the PT, are just a sideshow or a mask for the real reason we don't love them.
but I think many from your side just don't understand that the reason many of us don't love the PT movies is because they are not great movies, plain & simple. I think the debates about all the details we discuss, and there are countless of them from the PT, are just a sideshow or a mask for the real reason we don't love them.
Precisely. The details don't matter. To me, and many others, the P.T. films are simply NOT GOOD MOVIES. That's all there is to it. It's not one detail or another, it's that they simply suck (not to put too fine a point on it).
It's been nice reading what fans of the P.T. appreciate about it. I'm glad those folks can get those positive things out of the movies, and I even understand that a great many of those things are supposed to be "gotten." But I don't get them, and I know I'm hardly alone in my assessment of the prequels. Still, it's all a matter of personal opinion. And mine is that those films are terrible movies.
.
- Post
- #248142
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248142/action/topic#248142
- Time
As soon as it became a physical power of telekenetic abilities, the Force became hokey to me, and entirely unappealing.
As was pointed out via Superman and Star Trek examples, it also messed up dramatic situations by making Jedi invincible for all intents and purposes. BORING.
Go-Mer, all these caveats you constantly raise - Jedi can't Carrie-move stuff when they're tired is but the latest example - - may be fine when you have time at home to rationalize ... but if it stands out like a sore thumb during a 2-hour movie, then something is wrong with that work of entertainment.
.
- Post
- #248113
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248113/action/topic#248113
- Time
And Scruffy ... yeah, there are martial arts masters who can do the Jedi push. They need an equal force to counter (such as someone running at them to attack) ... but they repel that energy, and the opponent weilding it, without physically touching their opponent. It's frelling amazing. But true.
(I don't know if the "technique" has a name, so I can't exactly google it or anything.)
- Post
- #248110
- Topic
- First Impressions of the OOT ...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248110/action/topic#248110
- Time
Originally posted by: lord3vil
On the other hand, when it's about nothing more than just enjoying the delightfully entertaining fairy-tale that is Star Wars for my own sake and according to my personal tastes, I much prefer the SE version of the battle of Yavin.
On the other hand, when it's about nothing more than just enjoying the delightfully entertaining fairy-tale that is Star Wars for my own sake and according to my personal tastes, I much prefer the SE version of the battle of Yavin.
On the other hand, there is that pesky bit of absent music that Marvolo pointed out above. Grrr, that makes it a toss-up for me. Seeing as how I worship and adore John Williams' score for Star Wars, I think I'd rather see the more clunky original than the better-communicating SE version of the Yavin Death Star Battle.
Clunky and all, but ORIGINAL '77 and not missing any music ... uh, the scales just tipped for me back to the original version.
Whew, I feel so much cleaner now.
.
- Post
- #248078
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248078/action/topic#248078
- Time
For a creature with a lifespan of hundreds of years, how did spry and feisty Yoda in the prequels go to old and creaky Yoda in the O.T. in the span of a mere 20 years?
.
- Post
- #248069
- Topic
- First Impressions of the OOT ...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248069/action/topic#248069
- Time
Anyways, most of the differences were "sweeteners" to explosion sounds or additional droid sounds. The four that stand out to me are:
1) The whooshing sounds of Alderaan asteroid debris as they stream past the Falcon cockpit window.
2) The glass explosion sounds when blaster fire hits any surveillance camera during the shootout in the cellblock.
As has been demonstrated to me by the local experts, those differences are legitimate. The other two (listed below) dialogue bits were not in the 1977 stereo mix, but rather were featured in the '77 mono mix:
a) C3PO's detailed tractor beam speech
b) a Stormtrooper's "Close the blast doors."
So, it turns out there's only two really audible (to me) changes, and a bunch of minor audio changes that I would never notice if they were not pointed out to me (I'll try to find the post about that audio comparison, and link to it). And, as far as I know, there are no visual differences (it being convincingly demonstated to me that the opening crawl is the real deal).
Edited to add : There's a lot of information in this thread which I started to address this very issue. I'm 98% sure the post I'm thinking of is somewhere in there ... but, in any event, the whole thread is about what's '77 and what's not in the new DVD of Star Wars.
- Post
- #248061
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/248061/action/topic#248061
- Time
Originally posted by: Wesyeed
Luke basically used his telekinetic force power to guide his proton torpedoes into the death star didn't he? I always thought the whole jedi telekinetic power always was part of their bag of tricks. Vader uses it on that guy to apply pressure on his throat so he couldn't breathe I think...
Luke basically used his telekinetic force power to guide his proton torpedoes into the death star didn't he? I always thought the whole jedi telekinetic power always was part of their bag of tricks. Vader uses it on that guy to apply pressure on his throat so he couldn't breathe I think...
First - being a great shot does not require telekenesis. Not at all necessary to hit the thermal exhaust port right below the main port.
Second - everyone likes to use the Darth Vader force-choke as an example of telekenesis. It's not. The Imperial general was not an inanimate object. The ability to have remote influence on living things is an extreme, but legitimate martial art that some humans here on earth are capable of. The Jedi "push" when applied to living things (as opposed to battle droids, for example) is simply another way of influencing the Force generated by all living things.
I could even possibly buy that a lightsaber has some "living" energy that Jedi are able to influence. It's when they start throwing around rocks and machinery that it becomes telekenesis, and "expands" upon what was presented in the original Star Wars.
Most people have no problem with this sort of expansion. Personally, I find it ludicrous and believe it denegrates the subtle and elegant version of Force manipulation depicted in the first film.
* * * * * * *
It also creates a problem akin to the Transporter dillema in Star Trek. That was a very neat invention, and solved a great story problem of getting the crew expediently off the spaceship. BUT ... it also proved a dramatic pain in the ass - because it was an instant means of escape from any dangerous situation. The writers were constantly having to come up with ways to disable the transporter. It became silly, fast.
Similarly, if Jedi have the power of telekenesis, what's the point of lightsaber battles? Or blasters or freaking anything? They have ultimate power to move objects at will, no matter the size or mass. It leaves them sorta invulnerable, and is ultimately a dramatic liability. (And I hate it how so many lightsaber battles devolve into throwing rocks and machinery at the opponent. Bleh.)
.
- Post
- #247968
- Topic
- First Impressions of the OOT ...
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247968/action/topic#247968
- Time
Originally posted by: Daniel
May be somebody can answer me this question: How come nobody acknowledges (if not praises) how much better the Battle at Yavin looks in the SE-ANH? I can pretty much understand every complaint except this one. The newer Battle at Yavin looks SO much better than it did in the OOT (and I was there in 1977 being 12 yrs old at the time).
May be somebody can answer me this question: How come nobody acknowledges (if not praises) how much better the Battle at Yavin looks in the SE-ANH? I can pretty much understand every complaint except this one. The newer Battle at Yavin looks SO much better than it did in the OOT (and I was there in 1977 being 12 yrs old at the time).
Oh, I will grant you that. In fact, perhaps now is the time to admit I often watch Star Wars original up to that point in the film, but switch to the SE for the vastly superior Battle of Yavin (and then cringe when the Death Star blows up like something out of Star Trek).
Yeah, I was there in 1977 being 16 yrs old at the time ... and then, as now, it's not merely the lame effects that mar the battle of Yavin, but shots and editing that make murky what is going on. It's not a matter of the SE version looking slicker, it really communicates the action far better than the original.
A true improvement, imo, one of perhaps 3 SE modifications thruout the trilogy that I consider for the better.
Edited to add : I know it's sacrilege to prefer soulless digital over charming models, but I don't often watch Star Wars as an historical exercise. I honestly think the SE version of this one scene has remarkable clarity of action that the original version lacks.
.
- Post
- #247951
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247951/action/topic#247951
- Time
Originally posted by: Tiptup
The fact remains that this concept is artistically jarring from the original, subtle version of the Jedi’s physical prowess.
The fact remains that this concept is artistically jarring from the original, subtle version of the Jedi’s physical prowess.
The argument about Jedi Jumping always reminds me of my problem with force telekenesis. It's one of the things I hated about The Empire Strikes Back - this introduction of a concept I found artistically jarring from the original, subtle version of the Jedi's prowess with The Force.
I haven't met many fans who seem to have minded that manipulating The Force went from an elegant control of invisible energies to an overt telekenetic power more akin to that other movie which was casting at the same time (and from the same group) as Star Wars ... Brian DePalma's Carrie.
True, there was nothing in the original SW that demonstrated Jedi could not use telekenesis ... but, to me at least, the more subtle version of The Force was strongly implied. So if you don't object to telekenesis being introduced, what's the big deal about Jedi being able to jump 50 feet as opposed to 20?
Frankly, I found telekenesis to be so patently absurd that I accepted anything from the Jedi after that ... and wouldn't blink if they had the ability to leap between planets as their preferred mode of galactic transportation. Silly is silly ... and I don't think degrees much matter.
But that's just me.
- Post
- #247901
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247901/action/topic#247901
- Time
Originally posted by: zombie84
Hence, all you need is Star Wars. And yeah--the back story was not necessary. Star Wars became the biggest hit ever made in 1977 without that story, and as Lucas has admitted on many, many occassions--"the back story was never meant to be a movie."
Hence, all you need is Star Wars. And yeah--the back story was not necessary. Star Wars became the biggest hit ever made in 1977 without that story, and as Lucas has admitted on many, many occassions--"the back story was never meant to be a movie."
Oh, I just thought that needed reiterating.
(And to clarify that not only was the Anakin-as-Vader backstory not necessary, it was not even invented yet. That's how 'not needed' it was. Aside from one great moment in The Empire Strikes Back, this piss-poor excuse for a backstory has resulted in nothing but hackery, hokiness, and craptacular retardation for the subsequent quarter-century.)
.
- Post
- #247481
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247481/action/topic#247481
- Time
Carry on.
- Post
- #247468
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247468/action/topic#247468
- Time
But whereas you find that decision brilliant ... I think that storyline blows, is complete weak-sauce, and makes Anakin's turn to the dark side a laughing matter that I couldn't buy into for a heartbeat.
To each his own. I'm glad that worked for some people.
For me, I'm not sure the 'original' version would have fallen flat. Quick ... somebody do a fan edit - restoring the film to its initial plotline - so I can see if I'd like the prequels' grand finale any better.
.
- Post
- #247464
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247464/action/topic#247464
- Time
Oh, how I wish I could see Anakin's pathetic and absurd transformation to Darth Freaking Vader as well-established, genuine and moving. The points made in the P.T.'s favor (RotS's in particular) are interesting to read, but I don't find them convincing in the least.
With all that's been posted between CO and Jumpman this fine morning, this sums it up beautifully for me:
Originally posted by: CO
Lucas had me at the end of AOTC, I was buying the whole story in 2002 about Anakin, but ROTS is so ludricrous and so uncompelling, I turned against the PT after ROTS and the bad turn, not because of Jar Jar.
Lucas had me at the end of AOTC, I was buying the whole story in 2002 about Anakin, but ROTS is so ludricrous and so uncompelling, I turned against the PT after ROTS and the bad turn, not because of Jar Jar.
- Post
- #247376
- Topic
- 2004 DVD crap-o-la
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247376/action/topic#247376
- Time
Ok, um ... Yub Nub rules and that's all there is to it.
(And Jedi Rocks is not just a lame song compared to Lapti Nek, but the music match to the first Rancor Pit victim is just totally lost).
RotJ did indeed get the worst of the SE revisions. It's frelling unwatchable!
(Jedi not being the most watchable Star Wars movie in the first place)
.
- Post
- #247375
- Topic
- Star Wars in 30 Seconds and Re-Enacted by Bunnies
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247375/action/topic#247375
- Time
I hope a lot of folks here got a chance to see that show, Star Wars in 30 Minutes. It was awesome. Ran through the entire O.T. in half an hour, with a cast of like 6 people, all playing multiple roles, and it was absolultely hysterical.
(There was also a 30-minute version of the O.T., done as a 1-man show in the U.K., but I never got to see that one ... stuck as I am in L.A.)
Bunnies were great in the 30-second version tho.
- Post
- #247371
- Topic
- My Legendary Deed
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247371/action/topic#247371
- Time
Gabba gabba, we accept you, we accept you, one of us.
(ok, wrong movie ... but you get the idea)
- Post
- #247363
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247363/action/topic#247363
- Time
* * * * *
Hey, I'm a sucka for romance, too. I totally dug the romance in Episode II. I chaulked up the stilted dialogue and cornball acting of the love story to an homage to filmic styles of the past, like so much of the original Star Wars was.
But as forgiving as I was willing to be, the romance sunk to unfathomable depths of stupidity and vacuousness and absurdity in Revenge of the Sith. And all the meat of the tale that I'd been waiting through six years of two lead-up films for ... was also presented so poorly that I felt robbed, cheated, bent over and used.
It's not a matter of not liking the love story, not liking the poliltics, or even not liking the Anakin story itself ... it's just that it was done piss-poorly.
Phantom Menace may have been a let-down for 16 years in the Star Wars wilderness ... but Return of the Sith was a veritable elevator shaft plummet to hell in how much of a let-down it was for investing as much heart as I did in the new trilogy, hoping it would all turn out well in the end.
Frankly, if the other two films had not been such obvious and slow lead-in teasers for the last movie, not so much would have been riding on that single film's shoulders .... shoulders that I feel could not support the weight of a gnat.
.
- Post
- #247349
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247349/action/topic#247349
- Time
Let me say this rather bluntly .... Star Wars is best when it's joyful, ebullient, fun, humorous, and HAPPY!
The Empire Strikes Back may have had it's darkness, but the world did not fall in love with Star Wars because it was dour, depressing and meloncholy.
Believe it or not, Attack of the Clones is by far my favorite prequel ... it has a jolly tone which I find most StarWarsian. All the other (plentiful) faults aside, the other two prequels are simply too dour in tone ... and the presence of Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and the whinebag who becomes Darth Vader do nothing to make those films StarWarsic to me.
.
- Post
- #247343
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247343/action/topic#247343
- Time
I'll tell you one thing, this conversation has gotten me to the point where I might do the unthinkable ...
... I might Netflix Revenge of the Sith (heheh, it's the only Star Wars not sitting on my shelf) ... and watch the film I swore I'd never subject myself to again!
.
- Post
- #247339
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247339/action/topic#247339
- Time
But, generally speaking, the wizards and such, the noble knights, the villains and kings ... are the background characters who are romanticized via having a hazy definition. The audiences' surrogates, those whom the viewer or reader is destined to identify with, are usually much more common folk or young folk who are thrown into amazing situations, and surrounded by such fantastical characters.
Oftentimes, the romance of the background characters derives precisely from their seeming to have fascinating histories ... but the romance can tend to disappear if those histories are nailed down too precisely.
In any event, simplistic or not, most stories have audience surrogates that are more like ... well, like members of the audience. These are the characters most people identify with.
Nothing wrong with identifying with any of the knights or kings or sorcerors. It's just less common.
(And hence, you are likely an exceptional person!)
.
- Post
- #247312
- Topic
- The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
- Link
- https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/247312/action/topic#247312
- Time
Much as I contend the prequels did well financially because they were technically Star Wars, I don't think many people will want to experience all 6 as a saga, to be watched back-to-back over a week or a marathon weekend. There's only a niche audience for the 'Skywalker Father and Son' saga, and a much bigger Star Wars audience who wouldn't want to waste over 6 hours of poor entertainment to lead them into the 6 hours of glorious fun and adventure.
Further, I don't think anyone who was born before 1999 would, if they were to watch all six films, want to experience the story in its chronological order of fictional events; most will rightly want to watch them in the chronological order of creation, which presents the story to its greatest effect.
Not that there's zero effect from watching it 1 to 6, but the better story effect lies in watching the main story, then the back story.
People are perfectly free to read The Silmarillion before they tackle Lord of the Rings, but they are missing the greater emotional effect of reading the stories in the order they were published.
Lord of the Rings itself provides an even greater example. In Tolkien's novel, events are not told in strict chronology. After the point where the characters split up to pursue separate adventures, the separate threads of the tale leapfrog each other in time. There's a lot of suspense in this design - specifically in having many of the characters - and a good many readers - believing that Frodo is dead. Peter Jackson ditched this well-planned scheme, and laid out his movies in strict chronology. It was a drastic mistake.
A story is not simply the sum of its parts. It's all in how the tale is told. Sometimes messing with the chronology is absolutely vital. Heheh, put the events in Memento in chron order, and you've turned a great movie into a pointless one.
It's arguable whether the reverse chronology is as vital to Star Wars.
I'm arguing it is.
.