Jedi Council Forums - Is the redone trilogy better then the original?

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
battlewars Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 3/30/05 10:01pm Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	here, here neobaggins!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Loco_for_Lucas Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 3/30/05 10:17pm Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	...Ummm they changed the Emperor's head for a pretty good reason considering the fact that Ian McDiarmid had played Palpatine in every film EXCEPT ESB. It was purely for continuity reasons. And it works, IMO. As for the dialogue, it didn't change anything. It just heightens the fact that Vader is trying to get Luke to turn without the Emperor knowing of it. Thing is, unless he looks like he does in ROTJ, which he doesn't, the change is pointless. Instead of having an eerie presence in the hologram, one that's disjointed and scary looking, you have a bored windbag talking too much.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Loco_for_Lucas Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 3/30/05 10:19pm Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	So what do you guys do with your Comicbooks, tradingcards, records, CDs, DVDs, photo albums, home videos, artwork, and tapings of your favorite shows? 99% of those things arnt going to change or start getting any newer, why do you keep them around? Surely they suck now by the current "logic" provided here. Exactly! Let's burn the Mona Lisa now that we scanned the image and can Photoshop it all we want! Who needs it? It's old and made with antiquated technology. It's not new and flashy. It's boring. So what if time and effort went into it. It doesn't keep out attention like digital scans on a screen does!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
NeoBaggins Registered: Oct '03	Date Posted: 3/30/05 10:31pm Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	Preech on my brother, preach on. Never have I ever seen such defiance to integrity. But I do understand one thing about this sad situation. People are simply thinking its OK to discard the original works because its creator supports and acts on it. To them, it is completely logical. -----signature----- You hear that? That's the sound of inevitability. You hear that? That's the A train. You hear that? That's the sound of a thousand terrible things heading this way.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
inkswamp Registered: Oct '04	Date Posted: 3/30/05 10:51pm Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	Restoration does not alter content. Actually it does, just not in an overt, immediately obvious way. I have never seen the Star Wars films as sharp and vibrantly colored as they are in the DVD release. And that's to say nothing of the sound quality. I've seen all the films in the theaters multiple times and they looked and sounded nothing like the DVD versions. Restoration certainly does alter the content. It restores the quality of a degraded film. Not in this case. In this case, the films looks far superior to anything I saw in the theater and I saw ESB and ROTJ in their first release. The DVDs look and sound remarkably better than anything I saw in the theater. You cannot compare the film restoration process with replacing dialogue, visual effects shots, and inserting new footage into an old film. Why can't you compare them? They are the same thing. If the argument is that what was presented in the theater originally is the superior experience, then you cannot logically say that "restoration" is okay, especially in this instance where restoration goes well beyond the quality of what was presented in the first place. -----signature----- LAME COMEBACK #1 - Lucas should have done it my way or it's wrong LAME COMEBACK #2 - I can't think metaphorically so it's a PLOT HOLE LAME COMEBACK #3 - Complex interpretations confuse me LAME COMEBACK #4 - Lucas must spoon-feed me every detail
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
jangoisadrunk Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 3/30/05 11:01pm Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	I just don't understand what the debate is over. No one likes Star Wars just because Han shot first, Jabba wasn't in ANH, Luke didn't scream on the way down, the sarlacc was just a toothy rubber hole in the ground, the obviously faked FX looked more real, there were only 3 stormtroppers on Tatooine, Boba Fett sounded American, and/or Palpatine was played by a monkey-woman with a guy's voice. No one cares if the President changes the Consitution, that's just the basis of our government. But god forbid some eccentric dude in a flannel shirt touches up the special effects on movies he made when he still dropped acid. That's someone's CHILDHOOD BEING RAPED! What would people say if he changed something that actually affected the story-arc? What if he comped in a 6 foot tall green alien with gills over Harrison Ford and called HIM Han Solo? I imagine there would be riots, mass suicides, and lots of overzealous people with control issues doing unspeakable things to defenseless DVDs. Maybe we should all go to SW Ranch and get LFL to customize each movie to suit our own needs. I, personally, always thought Leia was not curvy enough. I want my copy to include Pamela Anderson in the role of Leia. Vader's lightsaber should be black to match his armor, and it should be twice as long as everone elses'--since he's twice as cool as everyone else, and I want Andy Serkis to play Yoda, who should be taller. Replace all the Ewoks with Gungans, the Gungans with Wookies, and the Wookies with Ithorians-god I love Ithorians....the hippies of the SW universe. Is this world so bad that we've forgotten how to like our favorite movies? It's not for me yet. -----signature----- Help me Prometheus, I can't barbecue my wings!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
NeoBaggins Registered: Oct '03	Date Posted: 3/31/05 12:22am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	Ironically the argument isnt about FORGETTING how to enjoy your favorite movies, but REMEMBERING how you enjoyed them. "Why can't you compare them? They are the same thing. If the argument is that what was presented in the theater originally is the superior experience, then you cannot logically say that "restoration" is okay, especially in this instance where restoration goes well beyond the quality of what was presented in the first place." Nice try, no cookie. Old album, remastered. Same favorite songs, sound preserved. Lyrics are not changed. But I admire the desperate case of restoration equels alteration. You know darn well its not the same thing. Restoration makes the films we love remain vibrant. The films need nothing else to enhance them. In the opening Destroyer chase of ANH the scene cannot be seperated from a 2005 film from the 1977 film that it is. No CGI needed. No painfully forced dialog changes needed. No adding of elements that make the films mismatched and choppy needed. Same film, clearer picture. -----signature----- You hear that? That's the sound of inevitability. You hear that? That's the A train. You hear that? That's the sound of a thousand terrible things heading this way.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
opiebreakout Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 3/31/05 12:27am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	What it really comes down to is if YOU like the new changes...opinions really. I like the new lines and scenes really, no big deal. All of you on both sides have to calm down and stop acting like what you say is the bottom line truth.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tyranus_the_Hutt Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 12:32am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	Is the redone trilogy better then the original? I don't know that, for me, it is a matter of which is "better", just that the Originals and the Special Editions are different - not different enough, however, to alter my appreciation or enjoyment of the films. Lucas is, like many artists, a stubborn man who personifies obsessive perfectionism; this fact does not either justify nor does it serve as an indictment of his decision to constantly "tweak" the films - it is an observation. "Art is never finished, it is merely abandoned" - such was Arthur C. Clarke's frequent insight to a very different sort of obsessive perfectionist, Stanley Kubrick, on the set of "2001: A Space Odyssey"; in other words, when is enough enough? It is a reasonable statement to make, but one which is possibly meaningless to the author of a specific work. Therefore, regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with that individual's decision, I am obligated to at least respect that the person responsible did so out of his own volition; alterations are not, therefore, concocted on a whim by the likes of a Ted Turner, who may have financial or ownership license of a film, but is not its creative author. Should Lucas make the O-OT available on DVD? Of course; ideally, we would have a boxed set which includes all existing versions of the "Star Wars" films. I won't be offended if he chooses otherwise, though, as it is his decision, right or wrong, as owner of said property and franchise, to do so. The bottom line, though, is that Lucas has been fiddling with these pictures since they initially appeared; the "Episode IV" title at the beginning of the opening crawl was added after "Star Wars" had been released in theaters, perhaps for the movie's primary re-issue (in 1978?). Blame 20th Century Fox for having given Lucas creative and merchandising control over an entity for a fraction of his director's fee. Considering the fact that this apparent oversight has cost Fox billions of dollars, I'm sure that they resent it also. That last post was very nicely articulated, jangoisadrunk. Your comments touched on some fundamental and precarious matters which, despite their validity, are likely to draw the ire of others. Beware. -----signature----- "The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can retain interest as it conveys emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle." - Stanley Kubrick
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
inkswamp Registered: Oct '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 12:35am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	But I admire the desperate case of restoration equels alteration. Let's see, the argument goes that making changes to the films as they were originally presented degrades the films. Restoration work that makes them look better than they were originally presented is okay. You don't see the contradiction there? -----signature----- LAME COMEBACK #1 - Lucas should have done it my way or it's wrong LAME COMEBACK #2 - I can't think metaphorically so it's a PLOT HOLE LAME COMEBACK #3 - Complex interpretations confuse me LAME COMEBACK #4 - Lucas must spoon-feed me every detail
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
RogueScribner Title: Webmaster Or lando FL FanForce Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 12:44am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original? - Date Edited: 3/31/05 12:48am (1 edits total) Edited By: RogueScribner
	Why can't you compare them? They are the same thing. If the argument is that what was presented in the theater originally is the superior experience, then you cannot logically say that "restoration" is okay, especially in this instance where restoration goes well beyond the quality of what was presented in the first place. They are not the same thing. Removing scratches from a film negative, eliminating matte lines, and making sure colors are vibrant instead of muddy is not akin to replacing dialogue, inserting new scenes, and inserting new visual effects shots that seriously look out of place in a quarter century old film. Making a few cosmetic changes to present the film in its best possible format is not the same as altering the actual content of the film. A pristine looking Star Wars is still Star Wars. The special editions alter the script by replacing and inserting scenes and dialogue. The special editions may be similar to what audiences saw a quarter century ago, but it's not the same. The films are different. If you cannot see how these two processes are dissimilar, then there's no point in my continuing this discussion. Nothing I say will ever convince you otherwise. Pressure washing a house and giving it a new coat of paint that matches the color it originally had is not the same thing as painting it a different color and adding a new room to the back of the house. No one cares if the President changes the Consitution, that's just the basis of our government. But god forbid some eccentric dude in a flannel shirt touches up the special effects on movies he made when he still dropped acid. That's someone's CHILDHOOD BEING RAPED! Anyone ever notice how the first mention of a childhood being raped by Lucas always comes from people who could care less about the O-OT and wish those of us who do care would shut up about it already? I have never made such a claim and no one else here has either; not in the year or so I've been perusing these boards. Is it necessary to paint us in such a negative light to make your argument? L8r -----signature----- "I find your lack of faith disturbing." - http://www.orlandosystem.com - "You can't take the sky from me . . . ."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
CommanderJamesBond Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 3/31/05 12:44am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	I think the 1997 Special Editions are better than the Originals. Sure, there's the whole "Greedo Shoots First" fiasco, but apart from that, the changes are good. The DVD Editions, in my opinion, are the worst of all the editions. Jabba the Hutt looks incredibly bad now in ANH. Bobba Fett's voice, while it makes sense to change it seeing as he is now Jango's clone, but really he doesn't sound as cool now. The true Emperor face is a good change but I see no reason for the dialogue to be changed. And I highly dislike the last words heard in the Star Wars Saga being Jar Jar Jr.'s "Wesa free!" The Anakin ghost is what I truly hate. I thought it was highly disrespectful for Lucas to add PT Anakin seeing as Sebastian Shaw is dead. It also makes absolutely no sense because when Anakin died he was Sebastian Shaw not Hayden Christiensen. And remember all of the above is just my opinion. -----signature----- "The Force is with you young CommanderJamesBond. But you are not a 00 Agent yet." Member of FIGS
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
NeoBaggins Registered: Oct '03	Date Posted: 3/31/05 12:59am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original? - Date Edited: 3/31/05 1:08am (2 edits total) Edited By: NeoBaggins
	Its a contradiction to anyone who claims they like the original versions in their deteriorating state yet say the restoration is ok. Films have ALWAYS been restored to preserve their picture. You argue that since the restoration of the box-set is a greater than normal that it somehow equels changing the story and feel of the film. Thats absurd. Movies and music have been remastered and touched-up before the SE was even thought of. A scratched up and faded version of the film isnt an artistic property of the movies. Its a product of what happens to film. If an artist could choose for his painting to stay just as crisp and vibrant as when he painted it, it wouldnt be a diservice to the piece of art itself. It is the content that counts and being able to SEE it. That is why it is created in the first place. To be seen. Restoration has already been accepted when older films were transfered to DVD. I dont remember anyone complaining about STAR WARS being on laserdic. That was cool. Painting beards and glasses on it is not. Oh, and what Roguescribner said. Had I read that first I wouldnt have even posted. I couldnt have said it better. -----signature----- You hear that? That's the sound of inevitability. You hear that? That's the A train. You hear that? That's the sound of a thousand terrible things heading this way.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
jangoisadrunk Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 3/31/05 1:45am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	***Anyone ever notice how the first mention of a childhood being raped by Lucas always comes from people who could care less about the O-OT and wish those of us who do care would shut up about it already? I have never made such a claim and no one else here has either; not in the year or so I've been perusing these boards. Is it necessary to paint us in such a negative light to make your argument?*** Uh...I don't really think anyone thinks GL raped their childhood (although, that very claim was on the boards in just the last week-I did, however, take it out of context). I was being outrageous for melodramatic effect. My original point still stands though. People get bent out of shape over cosmetic changes. I don't hate my wife if she changes her hairstyle or were to use hair extensions. I don't hate SW it GL changes FX, or extends/adds scenes. Film is still a relatively new medium (less than 100 years old). Maybe when people have been making movies as long as people have been sculpting or painting, the retouching of a film will become an accepted practice. George is an FX innovator. In 100 years I predict that will be his main contribution to film. Maybe he is just too far ahead of the times. puts on flame retardant suit -----signature----- Help me Prometheus, I can't barbecue my wings!
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
NeoBaggins Registered: Oct '03	Date Posted: 3/31/05 1:58am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original? - Date Edited: 3/31/05 2:00am (1 edits total) Edited By: NeoBaggins
	A guy paints a picture of a Lady and the painting is great and the world comes to love and adore it. Years later the artist wants to present an alteration to the famous painting. He paints a black-eye and Micky-mouse hat on the Lady. The people who have known and loved the picture the way it had been for years, understandably do not like it. New people, younger people, catch wind of the picture for the first time at this state and love it. The black-eyed Micky-mouse hat Lady is pretty much the only way they know the painting and cant possibly understand what the big deal is with the original fans of it. Since they have no history with the original painting they have little respect and attatchment to it. They await the artist to add a beard and another black-eye. This artist is cool, he keeps doing stuff to his painting. Hes silly and fun!! The original fans of the painting just wished the artist would have just made it possible for them to choose wich version of the picture they enjoyed. Then the artist insults his original supporters by telling them "Shes always had a beard and black-eyes." -----signature----- You hear that? That's the sound of inevitability. You hear that? That's the A train. You hear that? That's the sound of a thousand terrible things heading this way.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 - Previous | Next | Reload