Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by Darth Eddie, Dec 3, 2013.
Nobody can speak for every fan.
If you included the whole quote you would know I was being sarcastic in response to the earlier quote.
And I understood the sarcasm. Doesn't deny what I wrote.
Because only what Lucas wants goes?
That's the way it is, but my point was that nobody can speak for the whole fandom.
I wasn't! I was telling the one guy the reason that people on this thread were using for why the movies were changed.
And that our opinions don't matter at all.
The thing I find funny is this: If Lucas is truly this, "artist," who is so dissatisfied with his films, why doesn't he just go out and make new films that he WILL be happy with? Y'know instead of ruining beloved movies in a petty, childish manner.
For one thing, he's not "ruining" anything when the original films still exist. Their availability is another thing, but that's an entirely different issue.
Why would he do that when he could just tinker with what he has? Not to mention that I don't believe he's as dissatisfied as he was back then.
That would need to be true in the first place. How does doing what he wants with what's his can be considered petty or childish? Using ad hominem just because you disagree with someone is very immature.
According to Lucas himself the original negatives were destroyed. So yes, "ruining".
Maybe a slight bit off topic, but I think some films from the '70-'80s era are better (at least partially) because of the limits of technology at that time. It forced people to make a better story instead of focusing so much on the visuals.
How is it petty and childish? He's been adamant since he first saw what ILM had completed while he was busy shooting the film, that he was not satisfied with how things were looking. And even after the film was done in 77, it was still not good enough. Seeing matte lines, the blob of Vaseline under the speeder, the fake look of the droids and aliens. All these things bothered him. He's not going to spend his money remaking something that he already did once, when he can spend less money on finishing what he started. If he had the resources that he has now, back then, it wouldn't be an issue.
Never understood that argument.
Technological limitations forced people to limit their imagination. That's it.
With technology available, they can just focus on the story because the visuals are nothing to worry about.
Not to mention that the visuals are secondary when you're writing the story. The story is written on paper with simple letters and visually not very impressive.
Today's technology affords filmmakers the ability to do almost anything, assuming there is the budget to achieve it. I'm not sure I agree that the visuals aren't something a writer would worry about, especially if you're writing your own film. I don't think many filmmakers would go to the lengths of writing a story/concept without some regard of what is do-able. Not just effects-wise, but $$$-wise too. There are some examples of where limitations made a better result than what was on paper. The barrel chase in Jaws being a good one- we don't see the shark rearing up and roaring nearly as much as the script required, the way Spielberg worked the barrels into the movie made the shark extremely more menacing. Another example is Ghostbusters where the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was supposed to walk out of the Hudson and into Manhattan. Richard Edlund didn't have the means to make that happen so the scene begins with distant screams and the characters see the top of his head bobbing up and down as he lumbers through the buildings before a great reveal as he passes Columbus Circle. These moments of necessary creativity wouldn't have happened if they stuck to the page and had the $ to do so.
I'm extremely grateful that Spielberg or Reitman didn't follow GL's example and re-do those scenes with modern technology. Obviously they weren't what was originally intended, but they are beloved as-is. I think Spielberg learned this after tinkering with E.T.- an exercise he said he'd never do again.
Look at Avatar. Visually stunning film but weak/basic story.
The OT lightsaber duels were vastly different from the PT lightsaber duels. Didn't Lucas say that if the technology was there that the OT duels would have been more similar to the PT duels? OT duels beat the PT duels in emotions while PT wins in flashiness.
Take Jaws, for example. The shark is hardly seen until Brody, Hooper and Quint are well out into their trip to kill it, which I think added to the suspense of the movie. If Spielberg made the same movie today, you probably would have seen the shark a lot more. IMHO, I think that movie turned out better in 1975 than it would have in 2005.
I think both duels have emotion if we get down to it, me I think both trilogies imo have the perfect choreography to tell the right story in the duels
The duel on Tatooine between Qui-Gon and Maul, the moment of duel between Obi-Wan and Maul after Qui-Gon was defeated, parts of the duel between Anakin and Dooku in ROTS, Anakin and Obi-Wan and Yoda and the Emperor were really the only moments of emotion I felt that were comparable to the OT duels.
That pretty much most of the duel , besides I think vader vs luke in rotj really ups the scale than all the duels combined, there is anticipation and a bit of tension in TESB, but nothing on the scale of ROTJ.
Some of them but not all of them. The duel between Vader and Obi-Wan and both duels between Vader and Luke are amazing.
When Luke and Vader crash their sabers against one another on the stairs in ROTJ is one of my most favorite moments. Luke going berserk later on was well done as well.
I like when the people struggle their blades against one another and not just a thousand blows against each other. I don't think that would have happened if the OT was made later. At least it was done in the TOR cinematic trailers.
I appreciate both because they too tell a story I look at both styles, Both quite elegant and classy in their own right like typical star wars, took elements what worked and got inspiration from fine swordplay we see in films of Hollywood and Hong Kong. whether it was struggling their sabers in the OT like Luke vs Vader in ROTJ or the frequent chaotic hellish clash we see in ROTS between Obi Wan and Vader, visually they were stunning and bought me into the mood. IMHO Star Wars has been blessed with both Bob Anderson and Nick Gaillard and I hope the next choreographer takes note from both sword play while recreating their own (please please let that be Yoo Wing Ping)
One of my favorite people when it comes to discussing the creative process, Mark Rosewater (the lead designer for the card game Magic: the Gathering) has talked over and over about how "restrictions breed creativity", whether it comes to card design or anything else. It's practically his catch phrase at this point. So while I may hold CGI luddites in open contempt - whether they're talking about Star Wars or anything else - I definitely agree that technological advancements may have actually hurt film-making to a certain degree.
Well, this is another business. I might agree with you that restriction had - in some cases, at least - a beneficial effect on the way specific scenes were films - in terms of camera angles, how much is revealed etc.
I still disagree, though, that restrictions forced them to focus more on the story. That's what I don't see. Especially since the writer isn't even the same person as the director a lot of times.
I understand his point of view as an artist. I went back and made changes to some pieces I've done (for the better even though some disagreed). With that said, I love the OT and did not believe most of the additions were necessary for Empire and Jedi. They were fine the way they were. Now, the original Star Wars? Yes, some of the additions were improvements while others were just foolish and out of place.
I agree that a great story and great effects would be the best of both worlds. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. I suppose what I really should have said originally is what I said with the Jaws example. I think a lack of advanced SFX kinda indirectly made some films better years ago. Star Wars (especially considering some of the changes in the Special Editions that were made when those advancements came around, which I don't like and don't seem to be very popular among fans in general) is arguably among them.