Bingowings said:
The bottom line is the script sucked. If that worked few people would have cared if some of the FX looked a bit weird.
Exactly. CGI is pretty much the last thing that is potential wrong with PT.
darklordoftech said:
imperialscum said: I just think it is lame.
What's lame about it?
Well seeing how Korriban has been more than firmly established in EU. And Lucas just took the planet as it was and renamed it. It must be awful for anyone who care about official canon. :)
darklordoftech said:
imperialscum said:
I heard that Lucas changed Korriban name to "Moraband" in TCW (I don't watch TCW anymore). I think that kind of actions are just lame.
I thought you don't about canon and what contradicts what.
Well I don't care about it and it certainly doesn't affect me. Nevertheless I just think it is lame.
I heard that Lucas changed Korriban name to "Moraband" in TCW (I don't watch TCW anymore). I think that kind of actions are just lame.
Bingowings said:
Marquand was a safe pair of hands, a journeyman director after Kirsh and his 'artistic' over-budgetness.
When it comes to OT, the "directors" were both hired hands to work with actors. Lucas was pretty much creative director behind them. So either Kershner or Marquand aren't to be judged by their work on Star Wars when it comes to their careers. When it comes to their non Star Wars work, I think Marquand did better films. I don't see why wouldn't it be warranted to name some random house after him.
Bingowings said:
I don't mean to be nasty but Richard Marquand??
Other than being Lucas's directorial prophylactic he didn't do much.
It is not like he was involved only in one film in his entire career.
SilverWook said:
Are you implying Star Wars is poorly photographed?
I was very clear. I was talking about that particular shot which is bad, to say the least.
SilverWook said:
Ben's hovel outwardly looks like an abandoned structure in the original, which makes more sense.
Well it looks exactly what it was. A combination of some abandoned house, bad cinematography and no set design.
SilverWook said:
One could argue he must have had a natural source of water nearby. (The sandpeople must have wells.) A vaporator and smoke coming out of the chimney is way too much advertising for a Jedi supposedly in hiding.
If he wanted to literally hide, he would go on a jungle planet where he could live in a bush.
However on Tatooine he had to became an average nobody. And an average nobody on Tatooine usually farm moisture. A perfect way to blend in and not cause suspicion. He could try to avoid civilisation for the most part but at some point he had to go to local shop and buy grocery. Living like a caveman would cause far more suspicion than being like the rest of the farmers.
TV's Frink said:
To 005, thank you. The rest of you, random thoughts or get out.
005 did not post a random thought. His post explained something very specific that happened to him.
Compared to his post, our random discussion could easily qualify as random thoughts.
LexX said:
Jaitea said:
^ The Ben's SE home scene just looks too busy.....
Exactly. What's Ben cooking there
Well believe it or not... even Jedi must eat. \cite{Yoda1980}
LexX said:
What's with the rocky foreground and then smooth dunes right behind the edge?
Planet landscape can be versatile...
m_s0 said:
imperialscum said:
m_s0 said:
You're missing the point. Making the environment unpleasant to look at conveys its harshness. It doesn't matter whether it was an intentional decision or an accident resulting from the limitations during the actual shoot, or budget restrictions, or whatever else. Tatooine isn't set up as a magical place. Quite the contrary: it's a dump.
No, I am not missing the point. I just don't agree with that point. Most should easily recognise a harsh environment even if it visually nice. I believe these films aren't specifically made for mentally challenged people and there is no need to make everything plain obvious.
I disagree with your (quite bizarre, the way I see it) logic. You're creating a standalone world for the purpose of the movie. Any preconceptions the audience might have going into the movie shouldn't matter one way or the other. If you make a place that is set up as uninviting visually "magical" you create a dissonance that works to the detriment of the process of worldbuilding, works against the narrative of the movie and ultimately undermines the viewer's suspension of disbelief. What you (choose to) show and don't show is of vital importance.
To illustrate my point of view: let's say you're photographer and you're working on an exhibition about poverty and/or hunger in Africa. You go there, you do your thing, you bring back a truckload of photographs of gorgeous vistas, beautiful nature, animals etc. and nothing more. Somebody asks you: where's the poverty and why are all of the photos so nice and pretty? Your reponse (according to your logic): people aren't mentally challenged, they know all about Africa, so there's no need for that nasty stuff. Instead, here's some pretty pictures. Enjoy.I guess Dagobah comes the closest to what you'd call "magical", but even that is due to Yoda and the Force more than to Dagobah itself. Hoth, on the other hand, is diametrically opposed to anything I'd view as "magical".
tl;dr: I completely disagree with almost everything you've written :P
Well I guess we just don't agree on the matter. And your example does not properly encapsulate the given SW situation since in your example there is a complete change of the main topic of photos. In case of Tatooine, the main topic remains the same; Tatooine is physically inhospitable place. The degree of visual pleasantness has no effect on the main topic.
In SW Tatooine is physically desolate and harsh place... i.e. desert. Yet the desert is on many occasions visually beautiful place. So distorting the visual reality (intentionally of unintentionally) to additionally and unnecessarily emphasis the physical inhospitality is just dumb.
Let me put it like this. You have a character who has a very unpleasant personality. Does that mean you have cast someone visually unpleasant (i.e. ugly) to play that character?
DuracellEnergizer said:
I just finished watching the entire Clone Wars microseries (that 2-D series that premiered before the CG version), and all I can say is this:
I liked that one scene where they showed a Jedi weilding a red lightsaber. No, it wasn't a red lightsaber briefly borrowed from a Dark Jedi or Sith -- it was the Jedi's own lightsaber. I don't know who thought to do that, but I commend them regardless -- I love Jedi with red lightsabers, and it's certainly hard to find any in the franchise since AOTC came out.
Yep, that's it -- a Jedi with a red lightsaber is the only thing I liked about the series.
What is with you and darklordoftech and your bizarre lightsabre colour fetish? As far as I am concerned, red colour has been a Sith trademark since May 1977. And there hasn't been any indication that Jedi should use red colour.
They should just stop that nonsense altogether. Academy Awards that is.
DuracellEnergizer said:
Ya know, I've really come to dislike KOTOR. The prequelization of eras outside of the PT began in earnest with this damn video game.
Drew Karpyshyn's a shitty writer, though, who like screwing established continuity over just so he can paint things the way he wants to paint them, so why should I be surprised?
I will be honest here. What KOTOR did was take the decent stuff from PT and made something great out of it. For example, Revan's fall to the dark side is exactly what Anakin's fall should have been.
If the established continuity is not too good, I am actually happy that someone takes it and paint it in a better way. I had never particularly liked stuff like TOTJ until KOTOR and SWTOR presented it in a better way.
I think overall western aspects are minimal in OT. They are present in ANH but they almost completely disappear in ESB and ROTJ.
Warbler said:
very well. I have decided to take back my last move. The only reason I am allowing myself to do this is because I let Ender take a move back earlier in the game. Instead of Ne2, my move is Ne4. Is this ok with you, Ender?
As an official judge of this game, I disallow it.
RicOlie_2 said:
What colour correction? :P
2004 had overall colour tone shifted toward blue. Admittedly I like that. To be honest, 2004 would actually be perfect for me if it wasn't for the stupid ghost scene change and Boba Fett voice change.
m_s0 said:
You're missing the point. Making the environment unpleasant to look at conveys its harshness. It doesn't matter whether it was an intentional decision or an accident resulting from the limitations during the actual shoot, or budget restrictions, or whatever else. Tatooine isn't set up as a magical place. Quite the contrary: it's a dump.
No, I am not missing the point. I just don't agree with that point. Most should easily recognise a harsh environment even if it visually nice. I believe these films aren't specifically made for mentally challenged people and there is no need to make everything plain obvious.
Star Wars is a fantasy and imo it should look magical (in fact it does for the most part). Hoth is a harsh place, even more so than Tatooine, yet the shots in ESB look visually pleasant (at least to me). Dagobah is a harsh place and yet it looks very magical.
skyjedi2005 said:
We would not even have to have a discussion over preferred versions were they all released on blu ray in similar quality.
Well I am sure we would still have such discussions, only they would be in a more relaxed and pleasant manner. Now when I mention that I prefer something from 1997SE, I get the feeling that some OOT fans are replying in a defensive manner - like if I was saying that OOT should not be released in HD. In fact we are in the same situation. I can't watch my favourite versions in HD either. At least OOT is getting some care from fan projects (Harmy etc.).
NeverarGreat said:
As for the change, yes the SE version is prettier. And normally I would say that the prettier shot would be better, but this is Tatooine, and it's not supposed to be nice or magical in most shots. The sky isn't supposed to be bright blue, it's supposed to be rather washed out. Tatooine is intentionally below everyone's standards, including and especially Luke's.
Well this "supposed to" is entirely your assumption. Tatooine is indeed meant to be harsh environment. But harsh does not equal ugly. A lot of desert environments offer some of the most beautiful scenery on Earth. In fact I would argue that in all other episodes Tatooine shots are nice. And arguing that sky in a desert should not be bright blue is very unreasonable.
The reason why half of the Tatooine shots (i.e. from Tunisia) in ANH look unappealing, in my opinion, comes down to two factors. First, they were really unlucky with the weather conditions. Second, they had severe budget limitations.
LexX said:
NeverarGreat said:
imperialscum said:
msycamore said:
imperialscum said:
While I appreciate the original versions and I support the struggle to get them released in HD, I just prefer 1997. I am very sensitive to visual aspects and quite frankly most of the original Tatooine scenes in ANH are unsatisfactory and below my standards.
That's some pretty high standards you got there.
Well a shot like this just doesn't inspire any of the magical feeling I got from 1997 SE counterpart.
Totally agree. "dvdactive" just doesn't convey the same emotions at all.
;)
Your settings are wrong or you're using IE, works fine here.
"Most" of the Tatooine scenes actually are untouched, that's just one shot and it was analyzed to bits quite recently in some thread.
Well a lot of SFX scenes were improved. Here is a link to the website where I got these anyway: http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-one.html
For those who don't see the images... it is the exterior of Ben's house shot.
And of course I remember the thread, it was me who started that discussion anyway. :)
msycamore said:
imperialscum said:
While I appreciate the original versions and I support the struggle to get them released in HD, I just prefer 1997. I am very sensitive to visual aspects and quite frankly most of the original Tatooine scenes in ANH are unsatisfactory and below my standards.
That's some pretty high standards you got there.
Well a shot like this just doesn't inspire any of the magical feeling I got from 1997 SE counterpart.
DuracellEnergizer said:
^That must explain why crap like this
keeps showing up, regardless of the fact that it contradicts stuff like this
It does not contradict anything. The first picture describes the arrival of exiled Jedi on Korriban centuries before the events of the second picture took place. In fact the first picture shows the reason as to why one of the guy on the second picture is half human.
A side note: the second picture is visually crap compared to the first. At least the first feels like it could be something from Star Wars while the second one looks like some from a cheap superhero comic book.
Well there might be another generation in-between. I grew up with 1997 SE. However I did watch the "original" versions shortly after I first saw 1997 OT. While I appreciate the original versions and I support the struggle to get them released in HD, I just prefer 1997. I am very sensitive to visual aspects and quite frankly most of the original Tatooine scenes in ANH are unsatisfactory and below my standards.
On the other hand, I dislike PT as much as most of the older fans. even if we forget about the extremely annoying main character, stupid concepts (clones, droids, midichlorians etc.) and mediocre dialogue, the PT could have never come close to OT. The way I see it, OT really is something special and unique.
