There is a very little chance that the new films will tamper the post-ROTJ EU I like the most (i.e. JK2 and JKA). That is because JK2 and JKA doesn't tamper with big-time characters like Luke, Han, Liea, etc.
As for EU sources that used big-time characters in order to try to increase their popularity they will pay the price now.
I don't care about official canon but I think that discarding old books as non-canon and labelling new books as canon is a hypocritical favouritism. If they wanted to be fair, they should just label any kind of EU non-canon.
Jaitea said:
Goodbye Wookieepedia.....
......what will I do without you
J
Why goodbye? A large percentage of articles don't have anything to do with canon. They just rely information concerning a specific source.
This basically doesn't change the current state.
At this point I must stress that there nothing about this look that give you the reason to call it PT-era Sith. Three out of four PT Sith were not bald, had no tattoos and none of them was abnormally pale.
Pale face, yellow eyes, baldness and red lightsabre all came from OT.
TheBoost said:
imperialscum said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
I would have preferred that look for Bane over the stupid bald Alice Cooper look he's currently saddled with.
That's only a helmet... he could still be bald underneath it. :D
Alice Cooper is bald?
Of course... he is bald, pale, has facial tattoos and uses red lightsabre.
DuracellEnergizer said:
I would have preferred that look for Bane over the stupid bald Alice Cooper look he's currently saddled with.
That's only a helmet... he could still be bald underneath it. :D
ATMachine said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
An old lady and a Mon Cal pilot would have added nicely to that "The Rebellion is an equal opportunities employer" thing.
IMO, the old lady adds more to that "The Rebellion is underfunded and undermanned" thing.
Maybe that's precisely why it didn't make the final cut. There's a quote in The Making of ROTJ (I'll find it later) where someone asked GL if the uniforms and sets for the Rebel fleet shouldn't be more beaten up and distressed. Lucas answered that the Rebels actually had superior equipment compared to the Empire, and that's why they ended up winning the civil war.
Go figure.
Well rebellion got enormous support after Death Star was destroyed. They started to design and build ships and fighters (secretly). That way rebels had completely new ships by the time of ROTJ (which could be designed based on the weaknesses of the existing imperial ships).
canofhumdingers said:
That new Jedi guy sounds awesome. Very Kyle Katarn, who happens to be one of my favorite non-film Star Wars characters ever. So that's awesome!
He is an obvious rip-off of Kyle... a very bad one if I may add.
Tobar said:
The man is 83 years old and still going strong. Harrison is a whole 12 years younger than this man and you're already ready to relegate Han Solo to the old folks home?
People are different though. Some are fit and healthy in their 80' while others are already a wreck in their 60'. I am not saying Harrison doesn't look well... just saying that you can't just generalise.
generalfrevious said:
About the debate wether Lucas destroyed the original negatives for the special editions; I think that it could have happened. Most film makers would restore the negative before adding the special effects digitally. But since Lucas is dumb enough to make Yoda fight in the prequels, he surely must be stupid enough to splice the negatives of the originals for the special editions. Let's face it: years from now the original trilogy will be on Wikipedia's article on lost films.
Altering original negatives seems highly unlikely, despite the possible stupidity of the person doing it because:
1. It is much easier to apply any kind of changes to digital scan on a computer than directly to the film stock.
2. It is impossible to apply CGI physically on a film stock lol.
3. Even if you apply physical changes to film stock you don't do it on the only copy of it, in case any mistakes or accidents occur.
I am convinced both original film stock (or copies of it) and scanned unaltered digital version of it exist. The only other scenario is that Lucas explicitly ordered to destroy/delete them.
darklordoftech said:
imperialscum said:
Well to me it seems a bit ridiculous to have a 60 years old grandpa fighting around as bounty hunter.
1. Obi-Wan's age didn't seem to be a problem.
2. Boba could always get himself cloned.
1. Obi-Wan was a force user therefore his age-impaired body ability was partially compensated by the force. Still he was rather "clumsy".
2. Oh please... no more cloning crap. And I never understood why would anyone clone himself? If you clone yourself that doesn't mean you will live on in the new body... However cybernetics could work but I think a mercenary like him would be able to retire and enjoy by then.
Well to me it seems a bit ridiculous to have a 60 years old grandpa fighting around as bounty hunter.
darklordoftech said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
Why not make the Hutt Empire the main adversary of the ST? It'd be interesting to see the Hutts invade the fragmented Empire/burgeoning New Republic and try to take control of their worlds. Frankly, it'd also be cool to see armies made up of Hutts who like this
This is a brilliant idea, duracell! I cannot put into words how much I love this idea!
You two have a strange sense of taste. This looks utterly ridiculous to me.
I think Empire as an enemy is completely out of scope for EP7. After 30 years even the imperial remnant would die off.
DuracellEnergizer said:
I won't be convinced until the OOT gets a proper rerelease and the EU abandons the use of PT-styled Sith.
I don't really see a difference between OT Sith and PT Sith.
I hate the unknown regions as described by some EU (ridiculous size etc.).
SWTOR kinda fixed it. It reduced the size dramatically and made it more or less known and normally accessible.
I am a common-sense type of fan. I don't limit my self to some area of SW (i.e. OT, PT, EU). If I find something enjoyable then it is part of my personal canon. If something sucks I ignore it.
Tack said:
I agree that these are some good things for him to choose. A bad director can crush any good personality or performance. They got some good people for these films, yet somehow were able to fail to elicit any sort of good performance from them.
Well if the screenplay is bad then acting and directing cannot prevent film from ending up bad.
I don't know whether it was a deliberate change or just different scanning setup. I mean I am not an expert of digitalisation process but the fact is that different conditions will most definitely produce different colours. Or alternatively, the digitalised footage was post-proccesed by shifting the overall hue.
As I said, film stock is far from perfect. The director might have set the lighting of the set the way he wanted but the colours captured on the film stock did not reflect the reality as perceived by the human eye. In fact, looking at the two screenshot you provided, I would easily concluded that the Blu-Ray colours look way more natural. But that's subjective of course.
There is another interesting thing. It seems humans are very poor at memorising the actual overall hue of the footage seen. If I did not make the explicit comparison between let's say DVD and Blu-Ray shots, i.e. only using my memory of DVD version as a reference when watching Blu-Ray version, I could have never noticed the difference in the colours.
Mike O said:
imperialscum said:
Mike O said:
I actually love that blue/green tone. That was the only good thing about 2004 release of OT.
Like it or dislike it, it's not how the film looked for 25 years prior to its Blu-ray release, and that, IMO, is not OK.
In digital form the colours of course do not degrade over time.
On the other hand, film stock have never looked the same over 25 years since it is constantly changing (degrading) the colours. At the time they scanned for DVD the colours were different from ones that were originally captured on set. Not to mention if they scanned a copy of the original footage. And even further, films stock could not have captured the exact colours that were percieved by the director's eyes at the time he setup the scene. So if the director thought that were not the colours he perceived at the time, I don't see why not try to reproduce them the way he wanted them.
Yes, and the type of film stock upon which Aliens was shot was difficult and discontinued thereafter. That's not the point. Did the film look exactly the same over the course of those 25 years? Maybe not. But over the course of time, it still had a very specific color palette which millions of fans came to know the film looked like. For the Blu release, Cameron specifically changed the look of the film to a way which it hadn't looked before. It's also a color-timing issue he applied to T1, and the teal and orange is currently trendy, so I question his "originally" comment anyway. It's NOT the way either of those films looked for decades. Cameron can pull a Lucas and say that's how he always intended them to look, but he's still changing something, and revising something, from how it's been known to look for decades. Obviously, how acceptable that is going to very from viewer to viewer, but it is significantly different. Maybe it is what he originally intended, but it's not film I came to love. Everyone looks like they have psoriasis on the new release. That screenshot alone clearly shows that it's completely different from the way it used to look. Unless of course Prometheus II: Deus Ex Machina reveals that the xenomorphs carried a pathogen or something.
My point is that over the course of 25 years fans did not experience relatively similar colour palette. Film stock degradation aside, just the difference between colours reproduced by the projection and the one on the film stock is considerable. I think projection is a bad technique and that's the reason why I rarely go to film theatres. If we go further, there is a huge colour difference between a modern LED screen and old CTR screen (there is even a considerable difference between my new LED and my old LCD). The actual difference between the instances I mentioned above can be as big as the difference between two screenshots you posted.
Mike O said:
I actually love that blue/green tone. That was the only good thing about 2004 release of OT.
Like it or dislike it, it's not how the film looked for 25 years prior to its Blu-ray release, and that, IMO, is not OK.
In digital form the colours of course do not degrade over time.
On the other hand, film stock have never looked the same over 25 years since it is constantly changing (degrading) the colours. At the time they scanned for DVD the colours were different from ones that were originally captured on set. Not to mention if they scanned a copy of the original footage. And even further, films stock could not have captured the exact colours that were percieved by the director's eyes at the time he setup the scene. So if the director thought that were not the colours he perceived at the time, I don't see why not try to reproduce them the way he wanted them.
DuracellEnergizer said:
The problem I have with Grevious weilding blue and green lightsabers is that it only serves to remind me of how those are the only two colours Jedi get to use in these crappy movies.
I always laugh when I see your posts about lightsabre colours. :D
Mike O said:
Apparently Cameron thinks those are the colors he always intended to use in 1986.
I actually love that blue/green tone. That was the only good thing about 2004 release of OT.
TheBoost said:
Am I missing any?
Perhaps Disciples of Ragnos from JKA, though those weren't technically Sith.
