Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45

Thread: 40th Anniversary of Star Wars

  1. #21
    To emphasize, we all know by "inferior", it's simply referring to the passage of time, and due to the various upgrades the film's received, and so it may "appear" that way to greener viewers. We know it's a milestone, immortal classic. regardless of what version is shown, I would never shun any representation.

  2. #22
    ^^^ Absolutely.

    There’s this prevailing need to align with only one side or another— an us vs them mentality: OT vs Prequel, OOT vs SE, etc.

    Being an outsider looking in at the SW-culture— and admittedly, as someone who finds the strongest component and attraction of SW is the visionary design and SPX and not the storytelling, I do prefer the SE for its aesthetic if I were to sit down and watch these films (which I haven’t done in several years LOL): I can just easily forward and brush off the silly character-makeovers that just do not work no matter how someone tries to justify them.

    Frankly, there’s good and bad in all versions— and that includes the OOT… And there’s good and bad in every SW-series that’s released: I prefer the OT the most if I had to only go with one series/trilogy. But ROTJ is the weakest link with the Endor-part being such a pain to sit through; TPM is the only Prequel I like— as boring and lethargic as the film was; I enjoyed The Clone Wars animated film mostly— thought it was wittier and had more energy than any of the Prequels; Some of the Clone Wars series are really excellent and impressive storytelling that genuinely expanded the Prequel-universe— but most of it are forgettable; TFA is insulting in every fashion while RO came as a great surprise how relevant a story it ultimately turned out. And
    Rebels is pointless and so painfully bland it’s muzak. I imagine SW from now on for me will be a matter of cherry-picking...


    I get that many here are passionate about the original theatrical release back in ’77(?). But is the OOT (whatever that means) version of ANH— I guess that’s the one without the subtitle “ANH” worthy of a theatrical release that a colossal corporation like Disney can profit from? Likely not, otherwise they would ahem green-lighted its theatrical release already.

    (Rather than a theatrical release of ANH, I’d be more interested in a deluxe volume of The Art of Star Wars. Although at this point, I wonder if there would even be any new pieces of concept art that haven’t been documented in book form: Something along the lines of Star Wars Chronicles meets The Art Of would be ideal. I still remember getting the Art of TPM and just how impressed I was with the richness, the vision and the fresh worldbuilding aesthetic it held: That book of concept art and clean layout had more personality than the final film LOL I still would love a deluxe offering of just TPM. But sadly, since TPM is the most despised of all the prequels— even amongst you guys that live SW, I can’t imagine they’d ever even consider investing in such a project.)
    Last edited by farmer; 02-04-2017 at 01:18 PM.

  3. #23
    I think Disney should just embrace the sillyness and weirdness of the 70s origional theatrical release. They could have a LOT of fun with the marketing side of it.

    Throwing away a great opportunity if they don't do something!

    Heck I'm a stockholder, I demand it!
    Last edited by toadmeister; 02-04-2017 at 07:35 PM.

  4. #24
    they should do a feature called "Darth Vader's Eyebrows".

    people get upset over "blinking ewoks" (...!?)

    sheesh.

    --> poor sebastian shaw. dude can't get a break. one day he's rocking full bushy black "Legolas-Style" eyebrows.. and the next day ..BAM! George Lucas goes all 'CGI' on his face like a scene from Pink Floyd The Wall. what up with THAT!?

    (worst part..? nobody even NOTICED! we all noticed when Han Shot First.. we all saw those Animated-Ewok-Eyelids.. but nobody, and I mean NOBODY, noticed Big Black Caterpillars, on Sebastian Vader's Face? (nor the lack thereof?) *sigh*
    "Is there anyone on this ship, who even remotely, looks like Satan?" -- James Kirk, U.S.S. Enterprise.

  5. #25

    just sayin'
    Last edited by Cobalt60; 02-13-2017 at 10:50 AM.
    "Is there anyone on this ship, who even remotely, looks like Satan?" -- James Kirk, U.S.S. Enterprise.

  6. #26
    Just saw on FB that the Original version of Star Wars no longer exists, so we'll likely never see an unaltered BD release.
    Kind of bummed when iI read that. Even if they had to undo the changes, or at last the over the top stuff. It would be nice.
    Looking for:Jedi Temple Guard X2, Hera. BAD R4-X2 & Y5-X2 Have: MU Rogue Captain America, Grim Reaper, WW Hulk. SW:Rebels Stormtroopers from 2-pks X2, IG-RM. 6" Snowtrooper, AT-AT Driver Sale List, Trade List, Non SW trades & Feedback

  7. #27
    Just watched ANH, and now ESb on TBS or their May 4th celebration. I don't know what version/copy they have, but it's much better quality wise that what TNT was airing.
    Looked like it was taken directly from Blue-Ray.
    Looking for:Jedi Temple Guard X2, Hera. BAD R4-X2 & Y5-X2 Have: MU Rogue Captain America, Grim Reaper, WW Hulk. SW:Rebels Stormtroopers from 2-pks X2, IG-RM. 6" Snowtrooper, AT-AT Driver Sale List, Trade List, Non SW trades & Feedback

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterfett View Post
    Just saw on FB that the Original version of Star Wars no longer exists, so we'll likely never see an unaltered BD release.
    Kind of bummed when iI read that. Even if they had to undo the changes, or at last the over the top stuff. It would be nice.
    You believe everything you read on FB?

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

  9. #29


    read it here then:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20141224...gstarwars.html


    "ILM was working on many dozens of new shots, and an even larger amount of enhanced shots, using digital effects to re-do, expand, re-edit and otherwise alter many scenes in the film. When these were completed, they apparently were printed onto film and re-cut into the negative, replacing the original negs... As a result, the negative for Star Wars is filled with CGI-laden modern alterations. When Lucas says that the original version physically does not exist, this is what he really means--the negative is conformed to the Special Edition."

    when they made the SE they physically CUT UP the original negative and inserted 'special edition' scenes into the reel using scotch tape.

    "
    One caveat of this is that each time the negative has a new portion of film cut into it, a frame on either side of it is lost in the process of cementing the new film piece into the reel; if one compares closely the SE to the previous releases, one finds that any new shot is missing a few frames at the head and tail,"

    so.. to answer your question: the original negative does not exist anymore, and more than that, MANY frames were intentionally destroyed by "pasting" the SE scenes into the reel.
    Last edited by Cobalt60; 05-05-2017 at 07:20 AM.
    "Is there anyone on this ship, who even remotely, looks like Satan?" -- James Kirk, U.S.S. Enterprise.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Cobalt60 View Post


    read it here then:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20141224...gstarwars.html


    "ILM was working on many dozens of new shots, and an even larger amount of enhanced shots, using digital effects to re-do, expand, re-edit and otherwise alter many scenes in the film. When these were completed, they apparently were printed onto film and re-cut into the negative, replacing the original negs... As a result, the negative for Star Wars is filled with CGI-laden modern alterations. When Lucas says that the original version physically does not exist, this is what he really means--the negative is conformed to the Special Edition."

    when they made the SE they physically CUT UP the original negative and inserted 'special edition' scenes into the reel using scotch tape.

    "
    One caveat of this is that each time the negative has a new portion of film cut into it, a frame on either side of it is lost in the process of cementing the new film piece into the reel; if one compares closely the SE to the previous releases, one finds that any new shot is missing a few frames at the head and tail,"

    so.. to answer your question: the original negative does not exist anymore, and more than that, MANY frames were intentionally destroyed by "pasting" the SE scenes into the reel.
    Gotcha, the original negative. Thanks for posting that.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •