Does anybody else think that digital effects should be used in the empire strikes back and return of the jedi to make yodas facial expressions look more realistic, similar to what spielberg did with E.T.'s face in his special edition
I dunno, I think that if George was gonna do that along with a few other fixes i.e. Palpatine in ESB and all the saber blades then he should have done it in the Special Edition. I dont know why he didnt redo those things, the Special Edition seems incomplete that way. Well, he might rerelease them again on dvd with some extra stuff like T2 did with the Extreme dvd. Anyways I think Yoda looks fine in all the movies.
The next thing he needs to fix is the Rancor. I don't know the technical name, but those black lines? :(
yeah there were a lot of things that were not fixed in the SE that could be fixed for the DVD release which i think would be a good idea
I wouldn't complain about a lightsaber improvement, but I would hate it if he changed Yoda. I don't think he would. ILM had a hard enough time making the digital Yoda look like the puppet. I don't think they'll turn around and make the puppet look real. The puppet is what people know as yoda. They can't change it.
For the love of god and all that is sacred... LEAVE THE ORIGINAL THREE ALONE!!! They've been butchered enough!!! My childhood memories have been destroyed enough!!! Will someone PLEASE stop the insanity!!! :(
:rolleyes:
The originals really need fixing, I mean...it's unnatural, watching Episode 1 (bad Yoda puppet), then Ep2 (Realistic CGI Yoda), then Episode V and VI (bad Yoda puppet).
Personally, I say fix the stuff. Get the lightsabers up to par, improve Yoda, get rid of the Rancor lines...heck, CGI the Rancor, too. Episodes 4-6 need to look about as good as the prequels, otherwise...in the not-so-distant future...who'll watch them?
yeah it will be interesting when in the future young kids watch them all in order and are like, man 4-6 suck
you guys are nuts. 4-6 are better because the story is much better. there's more passion, a better intrigue in the love between han and leia than between annie and padme... more character developement. the only thing "better" about 1-3 is that they can look more astheitcly (sp?) pleasing to YOUR eye. Just because they are 20 - 30 years old doesnt make them bad. You and a lot of other people have a different opinion of what makes a movie "suck."
well i just believe that when younger kids watch these movies which we think are all great they will be upset because they think the last three look like crap
*cough*cough*
Not only kids are interested and like Star Wars you know!
Hell when I was younger(ok I'm 16 so I can't get a lot younger but whatever) when I was a few years younger, I used to like big movies with women with big boobs and big explosions , car crashes, etc. I thought black and white movies sucked because they were in black and white. But after seeing a few and getting more mature I actually like these old classics now.
Star Wars is a saga for all ages not for the little kids who only think that boobs define what a women is and the greatest special effects are what makes a movie cool. Get over it.
Yes.
The bad movies are the new ones, in both story telling and effects.
Why?
Too much CGI, and not enough models, or real locations so that the actors had something real to relate to.
Why was Star Wars a hit in the first place?
Because it had a good story, and it looked real. People looked at the effects and spacecrafts and thought this is how you fly in space. Hell, if you ask me, the space scenes in the original movies are still as good as any CGI space scene to date. In fact I think it's even better in the Special Edition with it's current work.
It could not been polished any further than it has already been polished, without losing the credibility of looking real.
CGI does not look real, I'm sorry, not in Star Wars anyways.
Yes, you can do great things with it, like adding scenery that does not exist on earth, but it should be done in moderation. A combination of real life locations and CGI backdrops is a good combination, and adds to the realisme that you see in the foreground. Plus, it gives the actors something to react to, instead of thin air, which again gives better preformance from them.
CGI should never completelly substitute good, realistic models and/or real scenery, it should be added in conjunction with good, realistic models and/or scenery. Like they did with the OT, where they digitally knocked down some of the walls in Cloud City, and opened a view out over the city. That is good use of CGI, combined with real enviroments.
On their own, they are on par.
Together, they are dynamite.
If Lucas touches the original trilogy again I swear I will hunt that man down.
It's bad enough that Greedo shoots first now. :fist:
Oh, I don't know, he can change one more thing in my view. :)
The fact that every officer in RotJ is either a Captain or Commander according to the rank insignias they are wearing is just ridiculous. :D
And yes, must not forget the blunder about Greedo shooting first. :headbump
i agree completely in that he went REALLY overboard in the CGI...
the most annoying to me are the Coruscant. Those daytime shots with 800 ships flying in the air are so bad it's not funny. Mostly the wide shots though. I don't know how detailed they did a lot of the work. But it looks cheesy. To me, the BEST recent example of mixing really sets, models and close ups are Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies. If you own the extended version you should look at the 2 production discs. AMAZING stuff. The amount of detail snd artwork is sick. And there's a lot of mixing models and CGI.
They're two different franchises with two different tones. The kind of direction and cinematography in LotR wouldn't fit in the SW universe and vice versa.
I think Peter Jackson's directing style is far too melodramatic. He milks everything he thinks might get a reaction from the audience. Boromir, Gandalf and Haldir's deaths--even Frodo's getting stabbed by the Troll.
Lucas is much more to my taste.
So when a main character dies it's not a big deal? It's a movie. It's supposed to be dramatic. And how was Gandalf's death dramatic? He falls. And that's how they died in the books... save for Haldir since the Elves weren't even at Helm's Deep in the book.
Yes, the death of a main character is dramatic, but what Jackson is doing is obvious milking.
Gandalf falls, like in the book, true--but in the movie, he catches the ledge and hangs on for at least ten seconds while we get a muted score and soundtrack, plenty of close-ups of the grieving Fellowship--who, BTW, don't even attempt to come to his rescue... except for Frodo, who is held back. So, he's hanging there for a while, says "Fly you fools" and LETS GO. And then he falls. In the book, his foot is caught by the Balrog's whip, he's dragged off the bridge and yells "Fly you fools" on the way down. Oh, and after all that milking, we get another few minutes of the grieving Fellowship outside of Moria.
And Boromir's death... his actual death was well done. But the scene when he was trying to protect the Halflings... no. In the book, he fought like a madman and took 11 arrows before he stopped.
Compare that to the movie when he fights a few Orcs, gets shot, falls. Do the Orcs swarm him and cut him down? No, they ignore him while he recovers, gets up, kills a few more. Then he gets shot again. Again he falls, again the Orcs don't finish him. And he gets up again! Fights sommore, and gets shot again... and falls again! And all through this, we've got a most undramatic muted score, muted sound. The drama of his heroic, superhuman struggle go hold back the Orcs while being peppered by almost a DOZEN ARROWS is sacrificed for a long, drawn-out death scene. This Boromir is a wimp compared to the one in the book. Milked.
Deaths of main characters are dramatic without being milked for five mnutes. Jango's death was dramatic and all you saw was Mace running at him, slicing his head off then a quick shot of Boba! It does more for me than all the milk in the midwest!