homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Fun and Games, and Reviews   » Star Wars IV,V,VI DVD changes & review (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Star Wars IV,V,VI DVD changes & review
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 21, 2004 16:59      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
I may be wrong, but wasn't it Lucas who was bitching about how wrong it is to colourizing The Three Stooges?

Yep, sure was. Deserved the ironic tag for sure.

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 21, 2004 18:24      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by csk:
quote:
Originally posted by Cap'n Vic:
I may be wrong, but wasn't it Lucas who was bitching about how wrong it is to colourizing The Three Stooges?

Yep, sure was. Deserved the ironic tag for sure.
To be fair to Mr Lucas, I believe his objection was that it (colourising the stooges) wasn't how the original artists intended their work to be shown. As the 'original artist' he would argue that it's his perogative to 'improve' on the original.

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 21, 2004 18:33      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
To be fair to Mr Lucas, I believe his objection was that it (colourising the stooges) wasn't how the original artists intended their work to be shown. As the 'original artist' he would argue that it's his perogative to 'improve' on the original.

Umm, I'm not so sure.

quote:

George Lucas, a longtime foe of "colorized" movies, has sharply criticized Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment's decision to release two Three Stooges DVDs today (Tuesday) that will allow viewers to watch them in either their original black-and-white or digitally colored versions. In an interview with the Associated Press, Lucas
said, that the Stooges' slapstick comedy belongs in a black-and-white universe. "Would color distract from their comedy and make it not as
funny anymore?" Lucas said. "Maybe just the fact that they're in black and white makes it funny, because their humor is dated. But by putting
it in black and white, it puts it in a context where you can appreciate it for what it was. But you try to make it in full living color and try to compare it to a Jim Carrey movie, then it's hard for young people to understand. ... It's not fair to the artist."

There's a hint of "fairness to the artist", but it seems more a case of "that's the way it was, why change it?" in his emphasis.

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
GVCarroll
Geek-in-Training
Member # 1346

Member Rated:
3
Icon 9 posted September 22, 2004 16:51      Profile for GVCarroll     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by GVCarroll:
... But I mean if something like whether Han shoots first or not affects how much you like a movie it's time to take a step back, geek or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it does make a difference to Han's character and his transformation throughout the trilogy.

True. I never really got why it needed to be altered in the first place. The dialogue between the two makes it pretty clear that Han is a soon-to-be dead man, I always thought that him shooting Greedo was self-defense.

I mean if someone's coming at you bare-fisted, that's one thing, they're probably not going to kill you if they strike first (I can only assume it's possible). If you shoot them, that's cold-blooded murder, but if they're about to pop a cap (or a laser) in your ass, that's different. I say shoot first and ask questions later.

Posts: 30 | From: Maine | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
csk

Member # 1941

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 22, 2004 18:13      Profile for csk     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And now, for a link to another relevant comic (This comic contains strong language, and thus may be unsuitable for some viewers)

--------------------
6 weeks to go!

Posts: 4455 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
GVCarroll
Geek-in-Training
Member # 1346

Member Rated:
3
Icon 10 posted September 22, 2004 20:23      Profile for GVCarroll     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well I like cats so... fine with me. [Smile]
Posts: 30 | From: Maine | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
TMBWITW,PB

Member # 1734

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 22, 2004 20:34      Profile for TMBWITW,PB     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And lets not forget this deleted scene [Wink]

--------------------
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."
óMiss Piggy

Posts: 4010 | From: my couch | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 22, 2004 21:28      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TMBWITW,PB:
And lets not forget this deleted scene [Wink]

Peebs, thank you for reminding me about C-A-D! It's been ages since I looked at it much, and I'm laughing my ass off.

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9332 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
spungo
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 1089

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 03:24      Profile for spungo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Am I the only one here that thinks Star Wars is pants? Granted, the first movie was ground-breaking: I was there in '77 lining up 'round the block like everyone else. 'Empire' was good when it came out 'cos it was so dark... and Hoth seemed like, well, Canada to me. But the third one with its muppets just bored me... ditto all the new ones.

I think a Russ Meyer DVD set would be far more enjoyable. [Smile]

Posts: 6529 | From: Noba Scoba | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Famous Druid

Gold Hearted SuperFan!
Member # 1769

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 04:44      Profile for The Famous Druid     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by spungo:
Am I the only one here that thinks Star Wars is pants?

<Deep-menacing-voice>
I find your lack of faith disturbing
</Deep-menacing-voice>

Actually, no I don't.
You've pretty much summed up my thoughts on the Star Wars hype.

I remember when the Ewoks first appeared on the screen, they were so fscking silly I couldn't restrain myself, I started singing
<sings>
If you go down to the woods today, you're in for a big surprise .....
....todays the day the teddy-bears have their picnic
</sings>

This did not go down will with the Jedi Faithful [Wink]

--------------------
If you watch 'The History Of NASA' backwards, it's about a space agency that has no manned spaceflight capability, then does low-orbit flights, then lands on the Moon.

Posts: 10680 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
GVCarroll
Geek-in-Training
Member # 1346

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 11:42      Profile for GVCarroll     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by spungo:
Am I the only one here that thinks Star Wars is pants?

Well I admit I'm a fan but I understand why people don't care for it or just flat-out hate it. I generally don't care for all the obsessing about every little detail of it. It's fun up to a point and then it's time to move on.

And a huge chunk of my being a fan of the series is knowingly rooted in nostagia, seeing as it was my first film at age 6. So you know, it's kind of like a touchstone more that something I hold up as being a great film series.

Frankly if it were missing the mythological influences and recognizable 'big' themes it would just be another sci-fi flick to me. Same with LotR, it's really the subtext that I get a charge out of as an adult. If sci-fi or fantasy doesn't have that element I could really care less, I'm not a genre fan.

The prequels have been dissapointing in that respect, they seem more relentlessly focused on effects rather than story. Just because you can do anything you want doesn't mean the story is going to tell itself, if anything it means you need to exercise some restraint. Lucas doesn't seem to have that gene.

Plus they really just had a good rapport with the first cast, that helps those films through their weak points. I don't get that from the new cast. Ewan's really my favorite of all of them, Ithink he's doing a fine job. I like Natalie a lot too in general, but I just don't think she's into SW. If you're going to dive into something like this you can't just treat it as another acting gig. Either you're on stage thinking "holy shit I'm in freaking Star Wars!" or not and it shows.

Posts: 30 | From: Maine | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 11:50      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm wif spungo and the druid on this...maybe it is a generational thing. We three, are around the same age, I think. I was in grade 6 or 7 when I saw the first one, I had to travel 2 hours to Halifax to see it and all my buddies had to wait almost a year 'til it rolled into our hometown. It was pretty cool. After 'Empire' I lost interest, or maybe I got distracted because all the girls at school were getting 'bumps in their sweaters'

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibo
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1959

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 23, 2004 12:39      Profile for Bibo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the people that don't have a problem with the changes I ask.

How would people feel if CGI was added to The Wizard of Oz to create more flying monkeys or make the cowardly lion not look like a man in a costume but a real lion to reflect the book? Also make the Tin Man & scarecrow CGI and not look like men in costumes. It would change the whole dynamic of the film and make no sense in the end when she said they were all there with her. And this would not go over well with even more people than Star Wars changes have. My 8 year old nieces love the wizard of oz as old as it is.

Or how about replace all of the guns in the Godfather movies with walkie talkies [Razz] (to be fair at lest ET included both versions with the DVD)

So many classic films could get butchered it Lucas keeps this trend going.

There just have not been many films that have captivated such a large fanbase. Think about big summer movies that have come out in the past 15 years, I can't think of any that captivated so many people that we will be dying for the anniversary editions in 15 years. LOTRs is about the only one that comes to mind.

Posts: 1641 | From: Grand Rapids, MI | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Twinkle Toes
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1208

Member Rated:
4
Icon 4 posted September 24, 2004 13:05      Profile for Twinkle Toes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I totally agree with Bibo on this. For me it's not nostalgia-based, only for the fact that movies were just better back then. If someone changed the zombies in Evil Dead to look more realistic, I would bust my bubble. I don't think I can deal with the retouched Star Wars DVD trilogy. George Lucas fails to realizes how much these movies have affected people. "These are my movies, I can do anything I want to them." What a jerk. He doesn't even care if he's appealing to the public anymore.

You now, my problem with all of these computer-generated movies coming out nowadays is the fact that they have to be *so dependent* of machines to do the work for them. It makes them seem incompetent in my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by GVCarroll:

Ewan's really my favorite of all of them, Ithink he's doing a fine job. I like Natalie a lot too in general, but I just don't think she's into SW. If you're going to dive into something like this you can't just treat it as another acting gig. Either you're on stage thinking "holy shit I'm in freaking Star Wars!" or not and it shows.

I think the actors would seem a lot more into it if they could actually see the characters and the setting as it would be, not blue/green screens. I would feel rediculous if I were an actor and in their position. They're not saying "holy shit, I'm in Star Wars!" because the setting isn't the same as it was in the first trilogy.

quote:
Originally posted by TFD:

I remember when the Ewoks first appeared on the screen, they were so fscking silly I couldn't restrain myself, I started singing
<sings>
If you go down to the woods today, you're in for a big surprise .....
....todays the day the teddy-bears have their picnic
</sings>

[weep] Ah! How... how could you?? [weep]

--------------------
Mmmmrreow!

Posts: 1617 | From: a membrane near you! | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
macmcseboy

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1232

Member Rated:
4
Icon 4 posted September 24, 2004 13:28      Profile for macmcseboy     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think people have forgotten what George does....

He make movies HE wants to see. If the public just happens to like it so much the better.

Star Wars is an unfinished saga. iv v vi were not his COMPLETE vision and had to settle with what he could do at the time.

BTW.... I should post the pix of the ranch's front lawn and the ilm buildings.... Note I will not post addresses or locations so don't ask.

--------------------
Live long and prosper.

Posts: 1139 | From: Victoria BC... | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cap'n Vic

Member # 1477

Icon 1 posted September 24, 2004 14:28      Profile for Cap'n Vic     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by macmcseboy:
I think people have forgotten what George does....

He make movies HE wants to see. If the public just happens to like it so much the better.

Star Wars is an unfinished saga. iv v vi were not his COMPLETE vision and had to settle with what he could do at the time.


So....he is going to keep releasing 'versions' and raking in the cash until he dies? [Roll Eyes]

Who keeps buying this shit?

--------------------
(!) (T) = 8-D

Posts: 5471 | From: One of the drones from sector 7G | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
GVCarroll
Geek-in-Training
Member # 1346

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted September 24, 2004 15:12      Profile for GVCarroll     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the actors would seem a lot more into it if they could actually see the characters and the setting as it would be, not blue/green screens. I would feel rediculous if I were an actor and in their position. They're not saying "holy shit, I'm in Star Wars!" because the setting isn't the same as it was in the first trilogy.
Really? They seem just as not into it on practical sets as on the blue-screened ones. Apparently they had more to work with than the actors on Sky Captain from what I've read of it. And it is really the purest form of acting when you think about it. Imagining things that aren't there isn't such a stretch from imagining yourself as someone else in a different time or place on any other movie.

As far as the setting, well, it's a pre-cival war state of affairs, so of course it's going to look more polished and less opressive than the OT. It's still SW though.*shrug*

Posts: 30 | From: Maine | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Twinkle Toes
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1208

Member Rated:
4
Icon 3 posted September 26, 2004 00:34      Profile for Twinkle Toes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GVCarroll:
Really? They seem just as not into it on practical sets as on the blue-screened ones.

Well I've seen very little behind-the-scenes stuff so I don't exactly know how they compare. It just seems more reasonable to me that the screens would affect their acting. Personally I think they're sucky actors anyway...

quote:
Apparently they had more to work with than the actors on Sky Captain from what I've read of it.
Yes, that's true.

quote:
And it is really the purest form of acting when you think about it. Imagining things that aren't there isn't such a stretch from imagining yourself as someone else in a different time or place on any other movie.
Well I can agree that it's the purest form, but I still believe the quality of acting is greatly affected. It's like when people are 'fake-laughing' or giving you a forced smile - you can always tell.

I dunno if I can agree with your second statement. When you imagine yourself as someone else, you have a set character profile that you can control. When you imagine things , you don't have control over them and your natural reaction towards them is a bit harder to replicate.

--------------------
Mmmmrreow!

Posts: 1617 | From: a membrane near you! | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
GVCarroll
Geek-in-Training
Member # 1346

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted September 26, 2004 10:55      Profile for GVCarroll     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well I've seen very little behind-the-scenes stuff so I don't exactly know how they compare. It just seems more reasonable to me that the screens would affect their acting.
I'm not an actor-type, I'm more of a director-personality but yes I would expect that it would have a generally negative impact on acting quality.

You can sort of tell scenes with heavy bluescreen and those without just based on context, not having seen behind the scenes stuff.

Like in AotC all the arena confrontation was heavy-bluescreen obviously, but the scene where Hayden and Nat are by the fireside getting all lovey-dovey was probably pretty much a practical set, and people tend to point to that scene as being one of the most irritating in that episode, so my only point was to wonder if bluescreen acting can really be totally blamed for handicapping actors.

That said, I'm sure looking at an X on the wall and having someone yell, "Look scared! Now dodge left! Duck! Run!" is not easy or brings out the best performances.

quote:
Well I can agree that it's the purest form, but I still believe the quality of acting is greatly affected. It's like when people are 'fake-laughing' or giving you a forced smile - you can always tell.
Well I have to disagree, I mean, that's their job right? Might seem hard to you and me but that's presumably why they're getting paid absurd amounts of cash. Same with athletics, if they can't bring it, then why are they getting paid so much?

Actors have to cry on cue and do all sorts of odd things in front of the camera, so I think it's reasonable to expect that they do it well regardless of circumstance (within reason). There's plenty of convincing love scenes and usually they're with someone they don't know well and camera's are up in their faces and there's tons of distractions, so blue screen in theory should be less mortifying than other actor tasks.

quote:
I dunno if I can agree with your second statement. When you imagine yourself as someone else, you have a set character profile that you can control. When you imagine things , you don't have control over them and your natural reaction towards them is a bit harder to replicate.
Yeah, well we're sensory beings if nothing else, right? So I can get your point. If I were a director I'd do everything in my power to give actors some kind of stimuli to react to. Even if it's a blue ball on a wire against a blue screen that flies across stage, it's something for your eyes to track. You can concentrate less on the physical mechanics of acting and get more into an emotional response.

I'm probably contradicting myself a little here but my point is that although I agree blue screen acting is no doubt difficult, it's still kind of a new thing and I think the next generation of actors that grow up with it will take to it handily. I just disagree when people are willing to put all their chips on one reason for why they think X's acting is bad in SW. Maybe the dialogue just sucks or there's not suffcient connection between actor and director or actor and actor or actor and story to bring out a good performance. *shrug*

Natalie's not her best in stuff like this, Garden State is more her kind of film. Hayden did a nice job in Shattered Glass and Ewan's been great in a number of other flicks, so I dunno. I don't have a problem with them as actors at all. I think there's other factors at work.

Posts: 30 | From: Maine | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
GVCarroll
Geek-in-Training
Member # 1346

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted September 26, 2004 11:17      Profile for GVCarroll     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It would change the whole dynamic of the film and make no sense
Having just finished watching all the DVDs last night I can say that I'm not too upset with the new changes. I'm kind of in a weird space of wanting to see and hear them as before but on the other hand the logic of the changes makes sense, so it's hard to pin Lucas for doing random stuff for the hell of it.

Boba's voice is now the actor who played Jango, and it's a little distracting at first, because I kind of miss the tone and inflections of the original actor, but in the context of the story, Boba is after all Jango's clone son, so he's going to sound exactly the same.

As far as Hayden at the end of RotJ as the ghostly Anakin, Lucas says in the commentary that when Jedi die and 'join the force' they appear as they were at the time of their death. Obi-Wan and Yoda both died as Jedi when they were old. Since there's such a big point earlier with Obi-Wan saying the good man, Anakin, 'died' when he became Vader, it makes more sense that he appears at the end as a young man. So I can accept that change more now. I don't get why he's looking down when he first appears though. Is he checking to make sure his fly isn't open or what?

In the context of the story it's also kind of a nice way for Luke to see his father as he was when he was young and true to himself, instead of his last impression being this beaten pale crusty old dude.

The Rancor sequence looks SO MUCH better, I'm really happy about that. So does Jabba in ANH and the speeder approach to Mos Eisley. The addition of Naboo at the end of RotJ is fine because it really is a pivitol planet now that the prequels have come out. The "Weesa free!" I could do without though.

The change of actor of the Emperor in ESB is fine too, the added dialogue actually makes it more clear that Vader is discovering that Luke is his son at that point, whereas before you kind of had to assume he came to that realization off-screen between ANH and ESB. The fact that he knew was never really evident until he said so to Luke later on Cloud City, you sort of wondered if he was going after him because he was still pissed Luke blew up the Death Star, which is kind of a weak motivation for going to such lengths to find him when you think about it.

All in all i'm fine with the changes at this point. I think Lucas is really teetering on the edge of going to far now though, so he should just stop there.

Posts: 30 | From: Maine | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bibo
BlabberMouth, the Next Generation
Member # 1959

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted September 26, 2004 22:12      Profile for Bibo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People keep commenting on how much better Jabba looks in ANH compared to the 1997 version. Ugg but he was not in the original 1977 version! (Yes I know they filmed the scene with a real actor, but the scene was not used in the final, er un finished, er whatever Lucas is calling the orig. release).

Also about how much better the Greedo shoots 1st looks compared to the 1997 version [shake head]

Posts: 1641 | From: Grand Rapids, MI | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
TMBWITW,PB

Member # 1734

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 26, 2004 22:26      Profile for TMBWITW,PB     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think the Greedo shot does look better than it did in '97. The way Han moved his head aside was so choppy and awkward. [shake head] And if he had to keep in that scene with Jabba I'm glad that he at least cleaned it up. It just looked ugly in '97.

Most of the changes I don't really mind, but the addition of Hayden Christensen does bother me. Okay, I'll buy that Anikan "died" when he became Darth Vader and that is why you see him as a young man instead of Sebastian Shaw. But what if someone is watching Return of the Jedi for the first time and hasn't seen Episode II? They get to the climax of the movie and think it's awesome and then for the denoument some goofy kid is hanging out with Obi Wan and Yoda. Who is that gimboid?

Granted, the likelihood of someone buying the set that hasn't watched the newer Star Wars films is small, but I still think that the original trilogy should be internally consistent. (The "new" trilogy blew consistency when it didn't have Yoda as Obi Wan Kenobi's teacher.) It can't be consistent when no one sees hide nor hair of Hayden Christensen until two minutes before the end of the last movie.

--------------------
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."
óMiss Piggy

Posts: 4010 | From: my couch | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
GVCarroll
Geek-in-Training
Member # 1346

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 10:23      Profile for GVCarroll     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't think the Greedo shot does look better than it did in '97. The way Han moved his head aside was so choppy and awkward.
I agree. I was kind of hoping the part where he walks over Jabba's tail would be a little more graceful too, and it is compared to the '97 version, but it still looks like an edit. Maybe that's because know it's an edit and I'm looking for it. It sort of the same deal in Ep. II when Kenobi hugs Dex, I know that's a CGI edit too and it sticks out because it just doesn't seem natural enough to me.

quote:
Granted, the likelihood of someone buying the set that hasn't watched the newer Star Wars films is small, but I still think that the original trilogy should be internally consistent.
I can see that. One of the things that I always liked about ANH was that it stood on its own as a film. Even though they've since spun off from it, you can watch it alone knowing nothing about SW and still enjoy it. That's maybe largly a matter of circumstance, since it was the first film made, if not the first in the series.

quote:
It can't be consistent when no one sees hide nor hair of Hayden Christensen until two minutes before the end of the last movie.
It's hard to say what someone might think in that situation, since we've all obviously seen them more than a few times and it's hard to be objective, but one could argue that the pairing of Vader's death/redemption and his ghostly appearance are close enough together in the timespace of RotJ that a newbie viewer might make the logical jump to conclude that it's the younger Anakin.

As far as Yoda not instructing Obi-Wan in the films, it could be assumed it happens off-screen, since it makes a point of saying that Yoda at least trains all the young Jedi. It's not strictly consistant in the films, but then a lot of what Obi-Wan relates to Luke about his father and the Clone Wars in the OT is summarized and not exactly a 1-to-1 match with what's going on in the prequels.

But that's a lot like real life isn't it? For the most part if we're relating some long-past event to someone for the first time we leave all sorts of details out and creatively edit what actually happened for the sake of brevity. What we're saying is basically the truth, it's not lying, but it's condensed in such a way that it's logical without including every little detail.

Besides, when Kenobi talks about Yoda instructing him, Luke was close to becoming a Jedi popsicle, so he had to be brief and clear in the space of a few sentances. Otherwise...

"You will go to the Degobah system, and learn from the Jedi master Yoda who instructed me..."

"Ben...!"

"Well, actually, he didn't instruct me directly, at least not as an adult. That was Qui-Gon, but that's another story..."

*Luke passes out*

"Qui-Gon was kind of a shady Jedi, he didn't fade away when he died like most masters do... But the important thing is you see Yoda... He can be kind of a hard-ass sometimes but he's the bomb, yo..."

*Han Solo rides through Obi-Wan's ghost*

"Damn! I was talking here! How rude! Anyway, when Yoda steals the tiny lamp, let him have it. Poor bastard lost his lightsaber and it kind of reminds him of it, so just let him indulge..."

*screen wipe starts to fade across, but Kenobi stops it with Jedi powers*

"Hey, Lucas, I'm talking here, how dare you wipe the screen over my dialogue! I'm the only seasoned actor in this silly mess of a project! I want some damn respect!!!!"

:-)

Posts: 30 | From: Maine | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Xanthine

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 736

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 10:47      Profile for Xanthine     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bibo:
People keep commenting on how much better Jabba looks in ANH compared to the 1997 version. Ugg but he was not in the original 1977 version! (Yes I know they filmed the scene with a real actor, but the scene was not used in the final, er un finished, er whatever Lucas is calling the orig. release).

I had a debate with my boss about the very existence of that scene. I think it's completely unnnecessary and adds nothing. It just repeats the whole deal with Greedo, and, IMHO, weakens Jabba. Before he was this giant menace who never leaves his couch because he's so powerful he can just have his henchmen do the dirty work for him. Han doesn't need an actual encounter with the beast to know he's got a price on his head. He knows, and he's scared, and you can see as the trilogy progresses that the longer he goes with that price on him the more nervous he gets. Having him face off with Jabba at the beginning and get away just makes Jabba seem weak and also makes you wonder why Han is still afraid in Episode V.

My boss, OTOH, feels the opposite. I never thought I'd be a purist about anything, but, dammit, I don't like the addition of Jabba and I really don't like how Greedo now shoots first.

--------------------
And it's one, two, three / On the wrong side of the lee / What were you meant for? / What were you meant for?
- The Decemberists

Posts: 7670 | From: the lab | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
GVCarroll
Geek-in-Training
Member # 1346

Member Rated:
3
Icon 1 posted September 27, 2004 13:04      Profile for GVCarroll     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually surprised we haven't seen even more additions. For example, ANH is now the only film in the series that doesn't have an appearance by the Emporer. Can we expect something like this in the future, perhaps?

Edited from a version I found on the net. (Yes, I'm very bored today)

- - - - - - -

INTERIOR: DEATH STAR -- CONFERENCE ROOM.

Eight Imperial senators and generals sit around a black conference table. Imperial stormtroopers stand guard around the room. Commander Tagge, a young, slimy-looking general, is speaking.

TAGGE: Until this battle station is fully operational we are vulnerable. The Rebel Alliance is too well equipped. They're more dangerous than you realize.

The bitter Admiral Motti twists nervously in his chair.

MOTTI: Dangerous to your starfleet, Commander, not to this battle station!

TAGGE: The Rebellion will continue to gain a support in the Imperial Senate as long as....

Suddenly all heads turn as Commander Tagge's speech is cut short and the Grand Moff Tarkin, governor of the Imperial outland regions, enters. He is followed by his powerful ally, The Sith Lord, Darth Vader. All of the generals stand and bow before the thin, evil-looking governor as he takes his at the head of the table. The Dark Lord stands behind him.

TARKIN: The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. [*DELETED DIALOGUE I've just received word that*] The Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.

A small holgram of the Emperor appears in the center of the conference table.

TAGGE: That's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?

EMPEROR: The regional governors now have direct control over territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station.

TAGGE: And what of the Rebellion? If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical readout of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, that they might find a weakness and exploit it.

VADER: The plans you refer to will soon be back in our hands.

MOTTI: Any attack made by the Rebels against this station would be a useless gesture, no matter what technical data they've obtained. This station is now the ultimate power in the universe. I suggest we use it!

VADER: Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

MOTTI: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebel's hidden fort...

Suddenly Motti chokes and starts to turn blue under Vader's spell.

VADER: I find your lack of faith disturbing.

EMPEROR: This bickering is pointless. Vader, release him.

VADER: As you wish.

TARKIN: Lord Vader will provide us with the location of the Rebel fortress by the time this station is operational.

EMPEROR: We will then crush the Rebellion with one swift stroke.

- - - - - - -

I can hear the collective terror of a thousand SW geeks crying out, "DON'T GIVE HIM ANY IDEAS!"

;-)

Posts: 30 | From: Maine | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

© 2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam