I think his reasoning was that they wouldn't have been a convincing threat otherwise which I think is pretty dumb considering the nature of the story he's telling.
It's kind of funny that at the same time he thought using Ewoks the way he did was totally fine, but I guess it makes sense in a weird way.
pablumatic said:
Original Trilogy purist here.
That purist depicted on the left isn't entirely pure. Han shooting first implies Greedo shot second. Han shot. Period.
The logic of that statement works for me. The implication is that Han shot Greedo before Greedo was able to shoot Han, therefore of the two Han was the one to shoot first. That doesn't rule out the fact that he was also the only one of the two to fire a shot.
Possibly. I suppose it all comes down to the fact that I've got trouble picturing Han Solo in a movie along the lines of those Star Trek reboots.
Tobar said:
m_s0 said:
The beard diverts attention from the rest of his face and from the fact that he's getting really old, and it makes you almost forget that he'll be needing a walker by the time Ep VIII gets released ;)
Always with the walker jokes. Just because you're old doesn't automatically make you a weak feeble push over. Look at Bill Shatner:
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?
Don't treat that walker quip too seriously, but the thing is the guy is 70, he looks his age, and because of that he won't be able to convincingly pull off some of the things he would've been able to pull off thirty years ago.
Plus, if Han Solo is going to be a significant part of the new Star Wars movie... I'll put it this way: I think it's highly unlikely it's going to be a slow plot and character-driven drama as opposed to a hyperactive action movie, and we've all seen that Crystal Skull abomination. I don't want Ford's character to be relegated to the corner during every action scene, and I don't want a dodgy stand-in (be it a real person or a CGI model) jumping all over the place either.
I have little faith in the project, I know.
DuracellEnergizer said:
I won't be convinced until the OOT gets a proper rerelease and the EU abandons the use of PT-styled Sith.
Agreed about the OOT, but I couldn't care less about the EU. Unless you consider this new trilogy part of EU, I suppose.
SilverWook said:
The beard befits an old scoundrel. ;)
The beard diverts attention from the rest of his face and from the fact that he's getting really old, and it makes you almost forget that he'll be needing a walker by the time Ep VIII gets released ;) Seriously though, I like this look for an older Han Solo. Clean-shaven he looks like grandpa, but this is fine.
imperialscum said:
As I said so many times... CGI is not any kind of problem.
It is a problem, just not the main one.
skyjedi2005 said:
It will be something insipidly stupid like Rise of the Force, or Return of the Sith.
Revengeance of the Dark Side
imperialscum said:
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.
My point exactly.
In case of Tatooine, the main topic remains the same;
It doesn't remain the same, because it doesn't convey the message. Which is why the example does properly encapsulate the situation.
Tatooine is physically inhospitable place.
It is what it's set up as. The pretty SE shots don't set it up as an inhospitable place.
The degree of visual pleasantness has no effect on the main topic.
The degree of visual pleasantness has a huge effect here :)
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.
I've already addressed this. Preconceptions don't matter. I disagree, in other words.
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?
Huh? In the case of an environment all you have are the visuals cues. In the case of a character you've got much more to work with, not just the way the character looks. It's not analogous.
It's like all of those parts in the PT where Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker talk about however many times they've saved each other's lives to give the viewer the impression they're bros, yet all you see is how they really don't seem to like each other. Or how Anakin Skywalker is supposed to be the good guy who turns to the dark side when he's clearly written as a bad guy with no arc. It doesn't work, needless to say. No matter how much you talk up how harsh a place Tatooine is (while showing the exact opposite thing - yes, I'm not conceding: it is important) you won't convey this message. Preconceptions I've already talked about.
Long story short: I'd say making Tatooine pretty is like creating a character who is supposed to be one thing - let's say a bad guy for the sake of argument - but who doesn't display any traits or doesn't do anything (the personality thing you mentioned) which would make him seem like he's the bad guy.
We will never agree on this :P
I must be pretty lucky to hit that 5 minute period almost every single time I'm trying to access the forums then.
But yeah, not much has changed if it has at all.
Have you considered Google Drive?
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
KilroyMcFadden said:
ratpack1961 said:
Mos Eisley is the biggest reason I prefer the Original Untouched Trilogy to the SEs. What made ep. 4 so special was the lived in believability of the environments. It came from the European comic books Lucas was into (he has a copy of the book Valerian in his office which is a great Heavy Metal-esqe comic).
The original Mos Eisley looks run down, not alot of people, and overall dumpy. Its a very used looking Space Port. The special edition version is populated with CG characters that our eyes know are completely unreal. It takes us out of the scene and reality of the movie completely.
The dewback scene, which comes earlier, is similar. The Dewbacks in the background of the OUT are not moving but our eyes can't make them out that well so it looks real. The CG dewbacks are obviously animated so the reality of the situation is lost.
I agree this this wholeheartedly. I feel the same way about Ben's hovel. The ranch house that he now seems to own in the SE is not in line with the dirty unwashed desert dweller's robes he is wearing when we first meet him. The original hut reminds me of the dwellings you would find in spaghetti westerns of the 60's and is in every respect the dwelling in which I would expect to find a desert hermit. Additionally, Ben is said to live at the edge of the dune sea, a geographic feature that is not visable in SE version, but is _definitively_ implied in the bleak, sandblasted windowless hut of the OOT.
I'm amazed this needs explaining 'round these parts.
imperialscum said:
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.
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. Making Tatooine "magical" and easy on the eyes is basically the exact same thing as making Luke scream as he's supposed to be falling to his voluntary death in ESB. It shows that whoever made these changes didn't understand the scenes he was changing and the implications of these changes. The same goes for, say, Greedo trying to shoot Han.
Baronlando said:
I think its progress just having something official and purely promotional even acknowledge the existence of an original version.
Unless by "original version" they just meant the 1997 SE ;)
SilverWook said:
Interesting, but still a long way from the general public being able to watch it again.
There just was a public screening of the original THX 1138 in the UK, and the robot policemen didn't show up to confiscate the print, so perhaps things are changing.
Yup, baby steps.
Fang Zei said:
digitalfreaknyc said:
He talks about how it was an original print that was in fantastic condition.
But .... But ..... I thought "original prints are in poor condition." ;)
What are you talking about? The original prints don't exist anymore, haven't you heard?
Bingowings said:
I had all the figures. doubles for characters like the sand people and the Imperial guard and dozens of imperial troops.
I had the X-Wing and all the die-casts, I had the large Luke figure. I used to set them up in scenes like Jabba's Palace or the Death Star docking bay.
You can probably tell by the past tense here that it didn't end well.
My mum gave them to my toy killer cousins.
Take your revenge and tell her how much some of these are worth nowadays.
Bingowings said:
Last I saw of Boba Fett he was flying out of their bedroom window with a firework strapped to his back :-(
Savages.
SilverWook said:
Is one or both of them named Sid? ;)
Seriously though, I always thought toy destroying kids have issues I can't even fathom.
A huge part of the problem are probably parenting issues. I never destroyed my toys because I was made aware that a) these things cost money and that doesn't grow on trees; b) I'm not getting another one if I destroy a toy; c) if I got something cool (and basically a toy = something cool) it didn't even cross my mind to break it. A good parent will teach you to behave, be appreciative of what you have and to be responsible for your stuff (not to mention actions). A shitty (or just inexperienced and/or utterly clueless) parent will indulge a kid's every whim without even considering the consequences.
DuracellEnergizer said:
Well, I admit I'm biased -- I hate modern mainstream superhero comics.
I haven't read a lot of modern superhero comics, but judging by what I've read I'm not a fan either, at least when it comes to the DC and Marvel stuff. I haven't checked out Grant Morrison's work for DC and Marvel, though, and I'm curious about that. We'll see.
mverta said:
To me, the quality of a restoration is always measured as the delta between a source and its presentation. "It looks good," is an arbitrary statement. The question is, "Does it look like it did?" Surely the Blade Runner restoration is very nice, minus the usual, unavoidable compression artifacts inherent in the medium. I mean, you can't get around that, anymore than an audio CD is simply no match for the studio masters. So from a "just watching it" standpoint, I love it. From a restoration standpoint? I have no idea - let's see the negative :)
_Mike
If you're talking about the original negative then it probably doesn't look like the Final Cut, mainly because it's not just a restoration and there's some very obvious changes present that are supposed to reflect the director's original vision (here's this argument again, heh). Like the blue-green tint, to name one example. It's a bit of a complex case and I was wondering how you feel about it considering what you're doing (and, more importantly, won't be doing) with Star Wars.
DuracellEnergizer said:
I'm not a fan of Nolan's movies, but I agree that any attempt to make a Batman movie set in the comics' universe would really, really, really suck.
Realistically: yeah, probably. I wouldn't go as far as to say that "any" attempt would suck, though. It's not impossible, it's just incredibly unlikely to happen, all things considered.
mverta said:
Yep, way ahead of you. :)
This is almost too good to be true :) I'm really glad to hear (or see, I suppose) that.
I'm curious about one more thing, though it's not related to Star Wars: have you seen the Blade Runner restoration? What did you think of it quality-wise?
Thanks for showing this again. I missed the very beginning because I didn't expect this to happen at all (not to mention as soon as it did), but the rest was pretty enlightening and not boring at all. Worth watching, no question about it.
I'm kind of hoping the entire process is being documented in some way. Not just because it is incredibly fascinating (it is to me, but I may be insane), but mainly for its historical significance. The stories about obtaining the sources, making deals and all that alone would've been worthy of a book (or something to that effect) if this operation ever reaches a point where revealing those crunchy details will be possible. I hope it does. Anyway, have you considered that?
Speaking of hope, it would've been pretty funny if Disney released the OOT to get the hype-machine rolling before VII. Maybe if I just repeat this enough it'll come true.
lucasdroid said:
I watched last night. I was a little disappointed. A lot of talk and no show.
Yeah, it would've been a great finale (or a good opener, honestly), but alas.
I was there for the whole 2 hours. Had you not had to sleep, you would have too. Mike was candid, he shared some stories as well as talked about and showed some examples of how things work with his process.
Sounds pretty neat. Too bad I had to skip it. I assume there's no chance of a recording being made available in the near future? I'd settle for a one-time re-broadcast or something along those lines.
NeverarGreat said:
The show was great, lots of information!
Any way to find that information now? It was the middle of the night for me and, unfortunately, I couldn't afford to be awake.
Assuming the above isn't just code for "mverta showed everyone his big R2D2" which I deem entirely possible after reading the last few pages of this thread.
Bingowings said:
Benedict Cumberbatch has to do the voice ;-D
Of Jar Jar? Definitely. Perfect fit.
Or even watching the restoration of your choice and pausing from time to time.
