timdiggerm

Harmy said:

I see your point none but if we start demanding the "original" version of the end credits, while the other one was also made in 77 and is pretty much the same and definitely doesn't effectively change the film in any way, we would be totally playing into the cards of those who claim we are lunatics.

I actually believe that if there were two different versions during the original theatrical run, the most true original is the one that was most widely seen.

I agree with both points wholeheartedly. It's a thing to note, but not care about in terms of that hypothetical future release.

To be fair, I'm not sure there's ever been a community so focused on the differences as to bother with the credits. Not that the credits aren't a part of the film, but they are the part people find the least interesting/important. So I'm not surprised no one's documented this before...

but I'm glad it's happened.

Harmy said:

I see that Tolkien and Lucas could shake hands, altering their earlier works to account for inconsistencies with their newer works. Sneaky little hobbitses!!!

This is actually really common practice in the world of books.

Well. Never....mind.

You just keep saying things that I've only ever seen on reddit.com, and it confuses the heck out of me.

Never mind....

TV's Frink said:

tl;dr either way.

;-)

True.

I have long assumed you're a redditor.

Just so you know, Danny, the accepted practice is to switch in and out of quotes

Something someone said

My response.

I never knew Bossk had avid fans!

Try to think about how Vader would have to be holding his sabre for the 2004 version to make sense.

Can someone explain the glow thing? Is it just the missing sabre blade?

Oh, just black shoes. TOMS, if that matters, but they're just black.

As for accuracy, see http://www.rarebricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/lego-jango-fett.jpg for a reference. Both sides of the torso taper the whole way.

Those are pretty great, although I do think the minifig torso is a little more tapered than you're showing it to be.

Also, if you can do one of me... I look like my picture? Light-brown/tan pants, red shirt with the coca-cola logo in Arabic, perhaps?

It's just not sexy enough.

danny_boy said:

theprequelsrule said:

danny_boy said:

What would I have done to Jedi?

 

Nothing.

 

It is fine as is.

Agreed. This thread is unworthy of OOT fans.

Indeed!

I find it hypocritical that fans here curse Lucas for changing the OT,yet have no problems with introducing hypothetical changes of their own!

A lot of people here aren't so much upset with the changes existing as they are with the changes being the only version available.

I watched the whole thing and I missed it too - It's kinda subtle... which a good thing, I think.

What seems like the normal fun and silliness to us looks flaming to them. What looks like a really great and serious RP board to them looks pretty silly to us.

We're from different internet-cultures.

To be fair, the anti-GL vitriol around here does get ridiculous. But only sometimes.

As for the RP boards, it's because this site is full of old fogeys, and that collides poorly with innocent youths with fandom aspirations.

Fate Foretold said:

.

 

Incredible.

Ohmygodmycursor

And in the past, people used whale-oil lamps. Things change.

I'd say it's a mix. I'd say the one that really got me was when the lady walks into the bus-stop panel. I would have never guessed that it was entirely greenscreen.

This quote is undeniably true

theprequelsrule said:

acting without any sort of frame of reference (i.e. against a blank green screen instead of on an actual set) does not encourage good performances by your actors. As CGI gets cheaper we can expect less and less use of actual sets.

but I wonder if actors aren't getting better and better at it? Or directors?

You're going to hate this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clnozSXyF4k

kilik64 said:

Who is tim and why are his "bits" interesting?

I am not sure what to say.

Tobar said:

Er...I thought that was an animatronic raptor and the CATG was imprinted in the ceiling tiles....

I think you just defeated theprequelsrule.

canofhumdingers said:

CATG?

http://www.eeggs.com/items/3371.html

Harmy said:

Yeah, I think CGI can be a great tool when in right hands. Jurassic Park is a great example of that, because they used it with moderation and more importantly in combination with animatronics, where that worked better.

Except the damn CATG shadows on the raptors in that one scene. Super-distracting.

theprequelsrule said:

Yes, but that is the point. Jabba is fucking fat! We don't expect him to move. It becomes part of the character, part of the storytelling. Jabba is a decadent, self-indulgent, lecherous crimelord so it makes sense that he is huge and can't move - a result of his disgusting lifestyle (insert cheap George Lucas joke here). Jabba should never have been depicted as moving; EVER.

It achieves Suspension Of Disbelief. You know, the opposite of that iguana-thing that Kenobi rides in ROTS.

Oh, I agree the Iguana-Thing is pretty awful. However, I maintain that just because CGI enables bad decisions doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Just because Jabba shouldn't move doesn't mean that he can't be CGI. Perhaps Lucas, the concept artists and the animators need to learn what is believable. That's not the same as not using CGI.