Ryan-SWI

Alderaan said:

Ryan-SWI said:

Frink likes to pop up to make fun of people who have different opinions all the time, you get used to it after a while, no big deal.

You’re allowed to have a different opinion. Everyone else on the site is also allowed to mock you for having those terrible hot takes too.

That’s fine, but it’s also why you get actual trolls here and why it’s become such a toxic environment for new people to the site, which drives them away. Also another reason why I usually stick to Preservations.

HP. Lovecraft said:

TV’s Frink said:
JEDIT: Leaving aside the PT, it looks like the rest of your rankings were put in a blender.

Seriously, tho Frinks what is even the point of discussing these films if people are not allowed to have any other opinion then

ESB 1
SW 2
ROTJ3
TFA 4
RO 5
TPM 6
ROTS7
AOTC8.
Also, comments like these are why we get trolls.

Frink likes to pop up to make fun of people who have different opinions all the time, you get used to it after a while, no big deal. Though it would be nice to have an actual discussion for once, I come here mainly for the Preservation section anyway.

TV’s Frink said:

Ryan-SWI said:

I’ll give you interesting characters for R1, but TFA’s characters are about as deep as a puddle.

This is literally the first time I’ve seen someone express this opinion, even here where every single opinion possible is expressed.

Do you hang out anywhere other than OT?.. TFA being a disappointment to a lot of people isn’t news. I’m sure the people who just wanted fan-service were more than happy and more power to them, but I want more from a Star Wars film than [Insert Iconic Trade Mark Visual Here #72479], over an interesting story or characters.

TV’s Frink said:

Ryan-SWI said:

Prefacing by saying I’m not baiting or trolling, and I’m not a child, before someone inevitably screams at me for being wrong about my opinion as usual.

I would accuse you of these things but my brain has locked up after reading your rankings.

JEDIT: Leaving aside the PT, it looks like the rest of your rankings were put in a blender.

And there’s Frink.

Prefacing by saying I’m not baiting or trolling, and I’m not a child, before someone inevitably screams at me for being wrong about my opinion as usual. I’m more than happy to discus why my ranking is as it is, and truthfully I love most of the Star Wars films, but I’m not really interested in arguing as neither side will convince the other (:

1. Revenge of the Sith
2. Attack of the Clones
3. The Phantom Menace
4. A New Hope
5. Rogue One
6. The Empire Strikes Back
7. Return of the Jedi
8. The Force Awakens

RLM also glossed over most of TFA’s most controversial faults and ignored things they complained about endlessly in their Ep. I - III reviews, so I don’t really hold what they have to say in high regard.
I thought Rogue One was very good all things considered, not without its faults but I was pleasantly surprised by it.

Tyrphanax said:

Oh, it isn’t of course. There is a reason we have effects-driven blockbusters today and its in large part thanks to George Lucas.

My point is more that PT gets its rightful bad rap from being just plain bad films moreso than effects in my mind, and I think most here would agree on that point (I would still argue that there is an over-reliance on CGI in the PT, moreso than the Sequel Trilogy or most of the Marvel movies, or at least that it’s used more judiciously, or at least that it’s more forgivable because the movies are better, but that could all be disputed).

The effects used in the PT are very dated at this point (when at the time of release they were very impressive), and I imagine it’ll be the same looking back on Rogue One or Captain America: Civil War seventeen years from now (I remember when the Nintendo 64 looked “lifelike” to me), but the difference is that Rogue One and Civil War will still be decent movies. Going back to the PT today is not only seeing dated CGI, but compounding that on top of the atrocious writing and acting.

I don’t disagree at all for the most part on the technical aspects of the films, I was more referring to the common jab of the prequels being bad films because CGI, without any elaboration. I’m not saying that’s the case here obviously, it was more of a general statement.

Could you elaborate on why you think Rogue One is a decent film, yet Revenge of the Sith isn’t?
Despite ROTS being my favourite Star Wars film I’m not ignorant to its objective flaws, and taking a step back R1 and ROTS have similar issues with effects, characters, plot structure, etc.

I really enjoyed Rogue One but the film is far from being without faults, and I honestly have no doubt that had the film come out in the early 2000s it would be lumped in with those “crap prequel films.” A lot of the complaints levelled at the prequels are glaringly apparent in R1, so why is it excused?
The most hypocritical response I’ve seen is the same people calling the ROTS space battle a “pointless video game cut-scene”, but the Rogue One space battle is brilliant… Why? It has the same plot significance as ROTS and almost the entire thing was created on a computer.
It seems more and more apparent among fans that everything Star Wars is perfectly fine as long as it’s attached to the hip of the OT, any deviation and it’s automatically a huge pile of crap.

Kellythatsit said:

I really can’t believe that people are defending the prequels as decent watchable movies on this thread. I’m even more incredulous that the same tend to then tear down tfa and r1 as poor movies.

And I can’t believe anyone would call TFA anything other than a fan film, but here we are.
Different people have different opinions, it isn’t too shocking.
I also loved Rogue One by the way, never called it a poor movie.

Tyrphanax said:

Yes, the miniatures in the PT is something that’s well-known. It’s just that they piled so much CGI on top of them that they might as well be CG themselves… and doesn’t really effect the many, many scenes where actors had nothing to interact with or look at but green or blue.

I’m not disagreeing, but how is that any different than just about every Marvel movie, or blockbuster in general made in the past five years? If we’re only talking about effects, isn’t it a bit asinine to complain endlessly about Prequel blue screening and then pay it no mind in just about every other modern film? You could argue it looks better now, but if it didn’t look better a decade later I’d be worried.

Plenty of the OT’s effects look rubbish by today’s standards (ROTJ sail barge scene springs to mind), but they’re hardly a case for blue screen being bad, as they shouldn’t be.

Going back to effects, barring The Phantom Menace, actual, physical sets seemed so few and far between. Watching the Behind The Scenes stuff for the PT is usually just looking at a blue or green wall and floor with actors in front of it. At least TFA and RO seem to have had a lot more physical sets and locations to me.

Believe it or not, TPM had extensive physical work done on it. Coruscant is a big one, they constructed the majority of the buildings as miniatures, George just threw CGI on them afterwards for whatever reason nobody is sure of. There’s a big thread on TheForce from a few years back I think, but I’m not eager to go searching through that site for it again.

I’m not really here to argue about the PT, I already said earlier it’s pretty pointless. The horse has been beaten so much it’s not even a horse anymore.
If we’re on the topic anyway, find the writing and the characters in the PT significantly more interesting than those in the OT; maybe not as well executed, but more interesting nonetheless, but I’m not trying to convince anyone so I don’t really care to argue the case.

I was more or less just pointing out that effects mean squat, they’re a tool like any other in filmmaking, and “bad/good CGI” should not be the be-all-end-all of a film’s quality.

Frank your Majesty said:

Nobody says that. TFA’s story is excused by something the prequels completely lacked: interesting characters.

Rey the characterless wide-eye-wonder or Finn the emotionless comic? 😉

I’ll give you interesting characters for R1, but TFA’s characters are about as deep as a puddle.

Haarspalter said:

• rigid blue screen cinematography
• 85% CGI Effects vs 15% Practical Effects

Yep. Like TFA and R1 by the way…

Lucas way of filming is rigid (it has always been; the guy is an editor, not a director), not the tools he developed. The “back to practical” trend of TFA/R1 is a marketing joke. Most of Disney’s new movies are CGI/blue-green screens filmmaking with a few props on set just for marketing purposes… And practical effects of the PT are great (Trade federation actors for example).

Didn’t you know? It doesn’t matter that TFA’s story sucks because of the effects they used.
But the Prequels don’t get that pass because of the effects they used.
Also, cool X-Wing’s 'n OT fan-service stuff. A+
The hypocrisy among Star Wars fans isn’t glaring at all.

ROTS A+
ANH A+
TPM A+
AOTC A
ESB A
ROTJ A

The Clone Wars (movie) D
Rogue One C+
TFA D

Honestly the TFA soundtrack has maybe two memorable tracks and the rest are just “homages” to earlier iconic tracks or instantly forgettable. No idea what happened with the TFA soundtrack, though I’d say it has to do with JJ’s rapid pacing style, which is not something that was in previous Star Wars films and gave John Williams a lot more breathing room in the past.
In saying that it’s not a bad soundtrack, I’m just comparing it to the other films in the series.

“Originaltrilogy” may not be the best place for an unbiased discussion, believe it or not.
For what it’s worth ROTS is my favourite Star Wars film, but again, “Originaltrilogy”, so I’m not opening up that box.

Maybe I’m missing something but the use of “original” seems a bit misleading.
I’ve read all the linked articles including Edward’s interview, and nowhere does it specifically state it’s the OOT version of the film, just a lot of speculation and guesswork. The articles jump between referring to the film as “the original Star Wars” and “A New Hope,” so I don’t think they’re alluding to an OOT version as much as they are specifying which film it is.
Unless I’ve overlooked something I’m willing to bet it’s the 2011 version remastered in 4K.

Either way we’re not going to know anything until we receive official word.

yaboykevin01 said:

I like the idea of the Jabba scene in A New Hope. I don’t think it detracts too much from the rest of the film, and it adds a little backstory to Han and Chewie. However, I’m glad it wasn’t included in the 1977 release. With the limited technology of the time, Jabba could have turned out looking a whole lot worse than what we saw in 1997 (shudder), and a silly-looking Jabba could have made the movie look like a stupid, low-budget, science fiction exploitation movie.

I think the idea is fine, but I also think it detracts from his appearance in ROTJ and adds absolutely nothing to the narrative of ANH. We don’t need the Jabba scene to know Han is in hot water, and it just makes Jabba look like “that fat slug that got stepped on” when you see him again in ROTJ.
Obviously we don’t see Jabba as the aforementioned, but to someone watching it in chronological order for the first time it’d cheapen his character and reveal. His small cameo in TPM isn’t necessary, but at least he doesn’t let someone he put a bounty on stomp on his tail.
It’s alright as a bonus deleted scene or something, but not an actual addition to the finished product.

But, y’know, that’s just my opinion.

towne32 said:

Indeed. It seems like it’s simply a mistake in this case. Adding and removing Luke/The Emperor’s scream from ESB is a much better example of his indecisiveness.

The fact that he literally just sped up and looped the Emperor’s scream for that addition makes it one of the most unintentionally hilarious moments in the trilogy, well in 1997 anyway.

Density said:

I just can’t understand the mentality behind making that kind of change. George really thought it was worth changing a wipe to a cut for the DVD, and then changed it back for the Blu-ray. What the actual fuck? Did he honestly think that there is anyone, anywhere on the face of the entire planet who would care about this? Did he really think it added to or took away anything from the film at all? True insanity. I honestly believe he has a legitimate obsessive-compulsive disorder or something, there is no other explanation.

Uhg, there is another explanation, believe it or not George isn’t some big old crazed meanie out to get you.
This was covered around the time the BD was released in 2011; the removal of the wipe was most likely an accident, minor things like this happen extremely often when prepping a film for home video release. Believe it or not Star Wars isn’t some special case for films not getting proper theatrical releases on home video, most films have very minor altercations before releases either intentionally or accidentally, Star Wars just gets more heat for it because of the history it has with the extensive changes.

I’ve worked on several films that have had minor edits done to them between screenings and release, and it’s usually just small tweaks to certain technical aspects or something might just go weird in the rendering and exporting process and nobody picks up on it. Obviously it’s nice to have something as big as Star Wars have an actual theatrical release and I understand that as well as anyone else around here, but minor things like the wipe removal in ROTS are actually very common practice for just about every film when making the transition between theatres and home video.

I’m not trying to excuse George’s weird behaviour when it comes to altering his films, but putting him on blast for something that was more than likely a simple mistake or in his/the editor’s mind a minor “fix”, is just silly.

I’ve seen a few pop-ups of 35mm AOTC here and there, usually for around that price.
I wouldn’t be much help actually preserving it as that’s not exactly in my skillset, but I too would be more than willing to donate towards buying a print if someone were willing to work on it.
How the film was released almost 15 years ago and the only theatrical version we have is a rubbish camrip is beyond me.

skoal said:

Are the full-screen LDs of Terminator, Terminator 2, and Terminator 2 Special Edition open-matte?

I believe I recall the former being open matte, not sure about the Special Edition though.

I am glad that months later we can all finally agree a BB-8 chirp is missing, at least from one of the mixes.
Thank God. I was almost convinced I was going insane.

darthrush said:

Out of the 5 times I saw it I remember no line.

How many times you saw it in the cinema and your experience has been proven to be a pointless claim many times, not just with TFA. I saw it around 9 times and know what I heard, but that alone means nothing because you need proof to back it up.

The source isn’t foreign, it’s English.
There are two different audio tracks, though nobody has been able to pinpoint where the two tracks come from.
We’ve already been through this with the old BB-8 discussion that for some reason was dismissed as “nothing.”
Obviously it isn’t nothing, there were clearly two audio tracks floating around during the theatrical run which had obvious (and most importantly, multiple) differences between the two.
This isn’t just a “Luke shot twice” scenario. There is actual proof that there are audio discrepancies, hard evidence is the polar opposite of anecdotal.

The biggest problem we’re having is the fact that there are two audio sources.
Someone makes a claim, then another person runs to their cam copy and “debunks” it. The only way to debunk it is to look at both versions, but for some reason this hasn’t been properly discussed yet. Hopefully with the new light being shun upon this “deleted line”, people will start to take more notice.

I’m not linking/showing anything because we haven’t been told when that’s allowed yet.
When it is, I’ll be blowing up this thread with everything I’ve found in the past month.

Though as far as I can tell, all the differences between the theatrical and BD release have to do with the audio, I’m yet to find any different imagery, or lack-thereof.

schorman13 said:

Well, she has a line there in the CAM bootleg version, so…

Seconded. There are two different main cam sources with different audio tracks with differences between the two that I’ve noticed. She does say a line in one of them.

Lord Haseo said:

And before you say anything The God Father 2 had multiple flashbacks so let’s not even.

Who’s that directed at?

imperialscum said:

In general, prequel to any film is inherently doomed to fail as it competes with an imagination of every person that saw the original film.

The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly and The Godfather 2 say hi.

imperialscum said:

There is a huge difference between a few seconds appearance (which I don’t mind) and a prequel being entirely about the character…

If by “a few seconds” you mean three whole movies, then sure… A few seconds…

I probably will skip it. Nevertheless, I can give my opinion on this.

You can, but you can’t give an informed opinion on the entire film if you don’t see it, just make educated guesses at best.

um ok