CT STAR WARS LEGACY EDITION - RESTORATION OF THE 1977 ORIGINAL STAR WARS

I just ended up buying the VHS tapes off of ebay for about $12. Sure they're not the best quality (better than I expected, though) and a lot of shots are really badly cropped, but it's the best I've got until Lucasfilm decides to throw us a bone.
If they decide to.
If they're even able to.

 

Put them on mobile harddisk or USB and stick them into your tv.

 

Thanks for the advice!

 

Of course, I just thought that was obvious.

 

I think the point he's trying to make is that not all opinions are valid just because "everyone is entitled to their own opinion." Some intrinsically have more value than others because they're coming from a place of experience and knowledge whereas some have less/no value because they're coming from a place of ignorance or a lack of understanding.

 

I don't assume people are making assumptions when positing arguments, therefore I questioned your argument, which has, by your admission, gone from, "Everyone's opinion must be respected," to, "Not everyone's opinion must be respected," which means we're closer to a consensus after all. All that's left now is determining where the line of respect is, the parameters of which I think Pym outlined succinctly.

 

Yes, I fully agree. Whether or not SFX are good is objective. And the SE changes were incredibly well done. So I guess we agree on one thing, anyway, just not on the other

I don't care what movie you pick, someone says the SFX are terrible and that's a "fact." Avatar, even, flawless effects and yet someone sits around and says it sucked in the effects department. It just shows it doesn't matter what you know, you can still be clueless.

You work in the film industry, which is awesome, but so do I. I know what effects look good and which ones don't. The yellow monkey in Lost in Space is a prime example of a terrible effect. The Special Edition effects shots are great examples of awesome effects. I loved them. They totally worked for me.

 

Correct.

 

It's the same as when people claim free speech gives them the right to say anything, it's like they heard it somewhere and just keep repeating it thinking it must be true...

You can't shout fire in a crowded place for no reason, you can't practise hate speech either - there are limits on free speech because with that freedom comes a responsibility.

Regarding respecting others opinions, you absolutely do not have to respect them, merely their right to hold that opinion. You should question and argue against these opinions if you disagree with them though of course it is preferable to do so in a civilised manner.

 

Also, hi Mike! Am I right in thinking Legacy is finished bar transferring it to film/disc etc?

 

Well, anyone is free to love them, but it's not just about the effect itself. It's also about whether the effect fits into the aesthetic of the film. I mean this film was made in the 1970s, and no amount of inserted CGI is going to change that. Most of the effects might be good unto themselves, but the space sequences done with models, and those done with CGI are easy to distinguish, which is the same as saying they don't fit together.

Also going beyond the first film, CGI Jabba may be an oke effect (although hardly a great one), but he's clearly a different creature from the one we see in the third film. Even the color of his eyes isn't the same. If they are meant to be the same character, why do they look so different? In that sense Jabba is a terrible effect, because it introduces an inconsistency in the film series, that wasn't there before.

 

For myself I think they fit in rather close to perfectly to the aesthetic (far more than some of the original VFX did in the first place!) Be it the CGI or matte paintings or model work, live-action and all the things they added to the SE's.

Again for myself I have to decide top pull myself away from the actual storytelling and simply concentrate on trying to pick out what was done with models and what was done in CGI other ways I really don't notice. Looking back I even missed out and some model shots I thought were CGI and CGI shots models.

With all the VFX for the ANH SE optically recomposited in the 90's the more distinct 70's optical compositing is harder to pick out. The real trick I suppose is to say to yourself that if it looks really, really good then it's been added in and if it's kinda dodgy then it's probably model work.

I have to say there is one shot that I really wish they had redone or replaced. I forget the time it appears but for some reason that one shot looks so 70's model-ly to me that for a brief second it distracts me.

Looking at the original version is something I do from time to time but for nostalgia purposes. For storytelling purposes it's the SE. The original, as excellent as it is simply isn't as good in terms of visual storytelling.

What does it matter if it wasn't there before compared to being there in the first place? Jabba wasn't in the movie in the first place anyway.

The Falcon interior in TESB is not the one of ANH. As a child I wondered if it was the same ship or not and if so why was it so different? It looked different it moved differently yet they never explained it. Looking back the Vader of ANH and the one of TESB are so different. Like the Falcon it's like he is a new version based on the same character. So really it comes down to accepting that it's supposed to be the same ship or person even though it looks different.

 

That's turning the world on it's head. It's a 1970s film, which of course has a 1970s aesthetic. The CGI is like painting cowboys on Rembrandt's Night Watch. Some might say it looks good, but to many it's simple logic, that cowboys don't belong in a 17th century painting. Saying whoever added cowboys, should have added indians, is adding insult to injury.

 

"Star Wars movies do not reflect contemporary stylistic techniques. They're more like movies of the 1930s and 40s."
Ben Burtt

Just to be clear he means ALL SIX films. And we all know that they are supposed to be seen as a one whole, both narrative and stylistic.

 

The OT and prequels have very little in common, neither narratively or stylistically.

 

There were plenty of miniatures and similar practical effects in the PT - hence 50-plus page thread devoted to them:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...e-prequels-sets-pictures-models-etc.50017310/

 

Yeah, I'm hugely pro-OOT and pro-practical effects where possible, but the contention that the PT used no miniatures or models, and that "the OT and prequels have very little in common, neither narratively or stylistically" is misinformed. That said, this isn't thread for this, so I for one will leave this sidebar debate to a different thread.

 

yes. this pic is a lame, false meme.

 

Some of the Special Edition changes are, in my opinion, very good. Examples: The updated sandcrawler and the updated Death Star battle. Some of the Special Edition changes are, in my opinion, not very good. Examples: CGI Jabba and Jedi Rocks. I don't hate the Special Edtions. There were a few nice touches. However, my preference is for the unaltered versions.

 

I would dislike the Special Editions a lot less if they weren't the only official, high quality versions available. In fact, I think a lot of people's venom towards them would dissipate significantly were they given the choice about which version they could legally obtain.

 

Absolutely! If there were a choice, there wouldn't be much of a controversy.

 

Just to piggy-back on that point, Star Trek: The Original Series was released on Blu-ray with updated effects. There was next to no controversy, because fans had the option of choosing between the classic effects and the updated effects.

 

The image I posted is a hyperbole. Of course many practical effects were used in the PT, but they have also been heavily criticized for the overuse of CGI, giving the films a cartoon like appearance, especially AOTC. Just look at the scene where Mace, Yoda on his hoverboard, and Obi-Wan are in the Jedi temple, and there are many more like this. These scenes scream CGI, and have stylistically very little in common with the OT. The OT was made in an era, where many SFX shots had to be created on the spot. The PT was made in an era, where everything can be "fixed" during post-production.

What a movie looks and feels like stylistically depends heavily on the circumstances under which they were created. This is why the 1977 Star Wars and it's sequels have a very distinctive look. The SE are GL's attempt to unify the two trilogies stylistically, but since they were made in two different eras, and with very different approaches, even the SE OT looks and feels different from the PT. The consequence is that the SE has become a strange mishmash of 1970s, 1990s, and 2000s, and even 2010s film making. Putting skyscrapers in the old city of Amsterdam or Venice does not make it New York.

 

I for one can't wait for the OOT editions to be released in high quality. I can't wait to see Yavin in its pure, unaltered, awesome state:

 

I know you're just trying to get a rise because that's, like, all you do, but yes, agreed: I can't wait.