Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by Star Wars age 9, Dec 4, 2012.
Not sure why that matters, though, since it's not the best we have now.
Oh God. Did someone really say that ALIEN looks terrible now?
I just watched an Alien marathon (Prometheus, Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Alien Resurrection) with a bunch of my hardcore movie buff friends. I am the youngest in this group (late 20s) who are mostly in their late 30s & early 40s, yet we spent half of Alien laughing about how old it looks. And these are people who GREW UP with it! I'll stress here that ALIENS still looks fantastic.
I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic here. If you ARE serious, I agree with you. Because I hate stop-motion to my very core!
Have to agree about the OOT being dated in regards to the technology/effects.
Also, not to get too off-topic, but I am also a huge fan of the Alien franchise & also re-watched all of four of the films this year (around the time the excellent Prometheus was released), and though I agree have to agree that the technology in Alien (1979) has not aged that well, it's still an amazing film.
Also agree that Aliens (1986) still looks great - for some reason that hasn't aged nearly as much, and I can easily see this movie (or a close approximation) being made today & looking very similar to the original film. However, I'm biased towards Aliens anyway since it's one of my top-ten favorite films of all time...
This is sorta my point. Alien/Aliens and the Star Wars OT are all FANTASTIC films, but in their original state (except for Aliens and maybe ROTJ) they are technologically poor. That's why it was such a good idea for Lucus to continually update the OT in is SE (and the same with TPM, replacing puppet Yoda with CGI). This is what has kept the franchise up to date and continually hooking new young viewers.
Still can't bring myself to buy the BluRays.
To each his own I suppose, and I have to respect that. At some point in my life they'll re-release a more faithful restoration. At some point.
This guy's use of term "claymation" to describe the original film says quite a bit. There's nothing in any of these movies that looks like a California Raisins commercial or an episode of Gumby.
This is the problem with the Special Editions being done in 1997: people suddenly felt like movies (all movies) needed to be upgraded, that STAR WARS was outdated and defective. Not so at all. Even in 1997, the visuals of all three films outshone most of what else was out there that used space, stop-motion, mattes, and the same techniques. Lucasfilm didn't Most of what you see on screen when you watch your beloved post-OOT (or whatever you want to call them) versions is what was there all along; it's just the transfer media that looks subpar. Not even the most apathetic millennial doofus born post-Jurassic Park for whom stuff like Footloose remakes are made can look at scenes like Wedge's skimming along the Death Star's surface before entering it in ROTJ and call it inferior and outdated, or the speeder bike chase.
I hate how over the past couple of decades people have gotten so pseudo-tech savvy to the point of not caring about content and drama but just specifications.
The look of Tron isn't "laughable" either. That's just the style of the movie (same goes with The Last Starfighter), with far more creativity to get the look accomplished than most of what comes out now.
Prometheus has nice colors, but that's it. When I want an Alien fix, Alien and Aliens come to mind and go in the player.
Also, just because some of us prefer the pre-Special Edition film, doesn't mean we fall under the "raped my childhood" overexaggeraters.
The blu-ray makes the exteriors of the Nostromo look less than top-notch, particularly compared to ANH. But it's still wonderfully claustrophic and gross.
That doesn't mean that there's any need whatsoever to upgrade these films, let alone any justification for anyone to disparage them for retaining the visual technology under which they were created. The flaws themselves are cinematic history, they represent the standards of the time, and in the case of the OOT, just what was considered far beyond the standard.
The OT is a perfect example of how the ability (and initial intention) to simply touch up a few old special effects, such as matte lines & transparency, can lead to the content itself being distorted & constantly tweaked to the point where the films really aren't the same anymore.
Ab-so-@#$%ing-lutely. The AV trainspotters are a truly miserable breed, you have to wonder if they actually pay attention to the stories, dialogue, editing & acting of the films they're picking to pieces for having a virtually imperceptible (but UNACCEPTABLE!!!) blue tint.
(That said, the official DVD release of the OOT really is unacceptable - the OP himself illustrated the point beautifully)
I 100% agree.
First I think that the effects in Alien have overall held up very well and far better than many newer films with loads of CGI.
Second I hold Alien as a far better film than Alien3, Alien Resurection or even Prometheus. Prometheus was quite good but had alot of plot holes and totally stupid character actions.
Third, the compulsion to update effects in order to make the films seem "new" I find a pointless waste of time aside for how it might hurt the actual film.
Why? Because there are things beyond the effects which "date" a film. Hairstyles is one, pace and editing is another, newer films have a more frantic pace and quicker cuts. Music is possible, slang or speech style as well.
Also actors "date" a film in a way. If you are altering effects in order to make the film seem "new" then you might also replace older actors with more current big stars. "Who is this Sean Connery guy? I have never heard of him. Put Justin Bieber in the film instead."
Bottomline, a film made in the 70's is going to be recognized as such no matter how much you "update" the effects.
Take the "Three Musketeers", there have been films made in 50's, in the 70's in the 90's and one quite recently.
Even if you knew nothing about when the films were made it would not be very hard to see which of these films were made in which decade.
In closing, I find the idea behind "updating" effects in order for the film to seem "new" isn't very positive about the intended audience. It suggests the filmmakers think that the audience is so shallow and superficial that they won't watch films that are more than ten years old and they think you are stupid and won't be aware that the film is that old if the effects are "new".
Afterall that was sort of the reasoning behind Ted Turner and his drive to add color to old films in order to make them seem new so young people might watch them. Many in Hollywood objected against this, among them Lucas himself.
A good film can survive poor effects but great effects won't save a poor one.
Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark.
You know what?
After reading all of this [can't believe I'm about to say it...] I think the original films should be remade.
Yes, leave the old ones alone. And make some new awful versions. But leave the old ones alone.
And then, THEN, we'll see which ones are better.
Off topic - but the 50s one (with Gene Kelly) was the best. 2nd best would have to be the 90s one with Kiefer Sutherland (combined with The Man in the Iron Mask - you know the one ). The 70s one (with Michael York) was absolutely horrible! But nothing destroyed the story as much as the 2011 one.
He's probably talking about the little holographic creatures on the Falcon's game board.
As someone born well before the original Footloose, I'm here to tell you that the speeder bike scene looks dated, despite still being entertaining and nostalgic.
Return of the Jedi was released TWENTY-NINE YEARS AGO. As Samuel Vimes pointed out above, films are always going to date, to a certain extent, and anyone so utterly superficial and shallow to have a problem with films not looking brand-new is going to find something to object to.
Well I very much disagree about the 70's and 90's version, I haven't seen the newest one.
I found the 90's one to be really bad. First it deviates a lot from the book and never ina good or meaningfull way.
O'Donnel as D'Artagnan doesn't work at all, Sheen and Sutherland are ok but nothing more, Platt is somewhat amusing but can't save the movie. The Musketeers in the older film do a far better job with their characters, esp Reed as Athos. The Cardinal has been totally destroyed as a character, first that he wants to be King and second he is evil for the sake of evil. Hestons character was far more menacing without having to act evil and creepy the whole time. Also his Richelieu showed inteligence and his actions were in a sense patriotic. For the Queen to have an affair with the Prime Minister of England was a danger to France and he wanted to do something about it.
Yes the 70's version has at times far too much slapstick but it is at least funny some of the time. I didn't laugh very much in the 90's version.
The 90's version also has really stupid things like having ninjas in 17th France, don't think there were many of those around then.
In closing, the 70's version is good and entertaining even in this day, the 90's version I found awfull the one time I saw it and I have zero desire to see it again.
Bye for now.
I had no problem with O'Donnell as D'Artagnan. The entire 70s one was destroyed by the mere presence of Michael York. I haven't seen a Musketeers film where I liked any of the other 3 (Well, except Jeremy Irons as Aramis in Man in the Iron Mask)
Here we agree.
Way WAY to much slapstick. No actual humor at all.
I don't remember that! But if you're right, that's just AWFUL!
In closing, the 90's version is good and entertaining even in this day, the 70's version I found awful the one time I saw it and I have zero desire to see it again.
And once again, Michael York ruined it! Gene Kelly is still the best!
I still want a Musketeers film series or TV series where they cover all five books, mostly stick to the books, have no actors with strong American accents, and have Liam Neeson play Athos
Well we just simply disagree and since this is off-topic I suggest we leave it at that.
BTW. They made a follow up on the three/four musketeers movies in the 80's called "The return of the Musketeers" which dealt with one of the sequel books, I think "Twenty years after".
Bye for now.
Agree to disagree is best. Still friends!
Yeah, they made The Three Musketeers which cover half of the 1st book, then The Four Musketeers which covered the 2nd half of the first book, then The Return of the Musketeers which covered selected portions of the second book (my favorite book)
There are two issues:
(1) the quality of the pre-SE films themselves
(2) the abysmal quality of the LaserDisc master used for the bonus discs for the 2004 DVD release... Not only is the master bad but it is analog and not even anamorphic, and was marginal by LaserDisc standards at the time the master was made. If I'm not mistaken it was the 1992 "faces" LaserDiscs. Film transfer has come a long way in 20 years.
People complained about the latter. All they wanted (and many still want) is a modern release of the unaltered films with a modern telecine transfer. But George claims the films don't exist. But they MUST exist as the films were first cleaned up and THEN altered as part of the 1997 SE.
Oddly enough, I suspect that even the CG Jabba and most of the Special Edition aliens were textured to look like claymation characters so that it could fit in with the original films. Lucas even held back so much of the prequels' vibrant look so that it could match dullness the OT. Which was the wise decision, if you ask me. Like it or not, the current versions of the films DO feel like one continuous 12-hour movie, and a lot of that has to do with freeing the OT from the limitations of stopmotion, muppets, and other old movie tricks.
So the insinuation that anyone who thinks the scene looks dated must be an "apathetic millennial doofus", or worse, is both off-base and insulting. It's a manifestation of the commonly touted belief system which insists that only kids like the PT and that all old-timers must hold every conceivable aspect of the OT in awed reverence.
Not quite. People can like the Prequels and like and appreciate the OT just as it was, if they have a sensibility to appreciate craft beyond the newest, or become engrossed in a movie regardless of the technical details printed on the Blu Ray case. "Not even the most apathetic millennial doofus" was used to describe not all but some visual effects critics.