Original Trilogy vs. Original Trilogy

[Cerez]

@@NumberWan
 
I actually completely disagree; I prefer the more barren feel/look and even these small visual defects of the original trilogy to the "update". I didn't like the added galaxy celebrational sequence at the end. It felt way too forcably 'squeezed in', and out of line with the rest of the film. Defects add a certain production value/charm to a film, especially when you watch it as a child, and then you rewatch it as an adult. To me there is great value in seeing the 'artist's hand' in an artwork, and when I am rewatching a great film, I am expecting to see those faults too. Patching them up only creates a new set of faults and ruins the original merit of the artwork.
 
Worth noting that animatronics is actually much older than CGI. Whether CGI or animatronics (and practical SFX) looks better on film depends on what applications these technologies are used for and to what extent. Jurassic Park (the first movie) uses a mix of the two technologies, and uses them quite balanced/efficiently, which is why its CG effects have been some of the most resilient in the face of the passage of time in the film industry.

[NumberWan]

@@Cerez

I see what you mean. It's like the postcards from the XIXth century - they have their own charm not just because of the style, but because of the printing technology, which isn't perfect, but that what makes it great.

 

 

However the original unchanged trilogy is still available to fans, and as far as I remember it was even included into certain releases, or not? Anyways, the changes made in 1997 seem to be still somehow reasonable - Lucas said himself back those years in an interview, that when he envisioned Star Wars, a lot of things couldn't be done with the technologies they had. And they don't much regarding the original scenes, only adding rather than changing the picture. By 1997 Lucas felt, that he wanted to make some things he couldn't earlier - like larger panoramic views, deeper background. I am not saying seeing more of the city is better than seeing a tiny street. But I think it's always good to be able to have expanded views of the familiar things, like Mos Eisley. More creatures and quarters, as well as Millennium Falcon leaving the spaceport - I actually like that. The sequence with Jabba, as mentioned above in this thread - well, it is the scene that should have been added, but the Jabba character himself, probably, should have been introduced in a bit different way, without the comic effect with Han stepping on his tail.

 

Of course, the animatronics are much older. But they differ greatly from contemporary "droids", What I mean, is that the animatronics of 1970s was probably the only way to make a convincing character (for starships and other effects they could still use some cinematic tricks other than animatronics). In 1990s the era of CGI began, keeping aside the older technology.

 

For The Force Awakens they reasonably use more animatronics than for the prequels - the time has come for this technology to blossom. More than 100 characters are believed to have come to life through this method in the new film. So the technology developed beyond recognition since 1970s, and whereas Jabba would have been a puppet, controlled by several people in ROTJ, now he can be as alive as any other character through basic remote controlling.

 

As for celebration - here I would disagree. It is spectacular and shows different worlds freed from the Empire. When I watched the film as a child, I didn't have the feeling, that battle of Endor was somehow so significant for the Galaxy. It was - in my opinion - for the characters, for a small group of Rebels, etc. The personal conflict resolved between Vader and Anakin, or between Vader and Luke. Light and Dark.

 

Besides seeing Coruscant in the OT was very-very important to me. Its coming to Star Wars had been postponed since Episode IV, which was supposed to include the Imperial Capital with the Emperor (though a puppet in the hands of such people as Moff Tarkin). Bespin is another de-facto incarnation of early looks of Coruscant. The Death Star II was supposed to be orbiting Coruscant, while the duel between Luke and Vader would take place in the Imperial Palace. I am glad, that it was Endor after all, but still Coruscant had to reenter the Original Trilogy. And I like the EU a lot, so I am glad, that the legendary world eventually made it into the films, where it was supposed to appear.

 

Perhaps I am seeing the Galaxy from the point of view, that it can include lots of different (opposite) things, and they ought to be seen, be it a cantina, a gang base, a tall skyscraper, an elegant office or a mud hut on a swamp.

[DrXann]

People need to live with what we get.I think the unaltered movies are included with the 2004 DVDS.A lot of things in re-released movies are cleaned up and tweaked with better stuff.There's a reason why The Force Awakens was filmed the way it was because they are going for nostalgic imagery combined with our current CGI tech.They need to be careful with this however because even with what their trying to do someone is bound to spot errors in special effects no matter what both in and outside the Star Wars Saga.

[Cerez]

There is always going to be mistakes/errors. There hasn't been a single movie in film history where there hasn't been flaws in the special effects, no matter what technology was used. What makes the big difference is how the special effects are used to tell the story. Excessive use of special effects, a lot of action, and very little story development will feel like the prequel movies, even with the traditional special effects used in the new trilogy.

 

The original trilogy had detailed story development -- that's what really sets it apart. Even though it was directed and written by a number of different people, in the end it came together into a coherent piece with a story that had meaning, and left an impact -- all mistakes included (whether in the updated versions or the original release).

[NumberWan]

@@Cerez

There are people, who would argue the lack of depth in the prequels. I don't agree with them, but in some ways they are right. I am not saying the new films are as good as the OT, which were after all the initial reason, why I loved Star Wars long before The Phantom Menace was released. The prequels are just different in story, and the reason is that we see a different epoch. But as you said - every movie has mistakes and errors.

 

We might see the difference in the way we see one reading Greek and Egyptian mythology. Or comparing Egyptian and Babylonian stories. The first is closer to Sun, while the second is more like Moon. Another example would be Hercules and Gilgamesh

 

Quite often I hear, that Episode I should have shown Anakin at the age of 20 or so, and that Amidala had to be a Jedi rather than a queen, and that they should have flied a ld junky ship with pirates, not with royal guards. While Obi Wan had to participate in battles on swampy planet, to take part in Western-like adventure, rather than sitting in a library in the Jedi Temple and meeting with Prime Minister of Kamino.

 

But that is the way of things, that was a time of the Republic, when decisions of politicians could save millions, but sent the whole Galaxy into disarray, while in the OT we see the true heroes - a band of different people, like princess, a pirate, an old mentor and a farm boy, who would do what the predecessors - a Jedi Knight, a Queen, a Soldier, a true Leader - could not.

 

And I guess, it is the wisest decision to show the Galaxy after some sort of collapse in Episode VII. It looks more like the OT, and for that the director uses the minimum necessary CGI tech, while most effects stay true to the good old ways.

 

Some mistakes are left in the OT, like the one with the trooper, hitting the door on Death Star. Most people don't know of its existence. =)

[Numfast]

Help me, Disney, you‘re my only hope.

https://mobile.twitter.com/empiremagazine/status/645035349006159872?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Lancelot]

When it comes to the Original Trilogy, I don't necessarily prefer one specific version.

In fact, I often enjoy seeing and comparing what has been changed between the theatrical versions

and the special editions. On the other hand, I think some changes were just unnecessary.

 

For example: What's Sebulba (well, I assume that's Sebulba) doing in Jabba's palace? Why is Wicked the only

Ewok who is allowed to blink (with digitally added eyes)? And why, just why, did they change Anakin's face in Episode 6?

That they removed the eyebrows of the unmask Darth Vader is one thing, because it absolutely makes sense when you look at Episode 3.

But the fact that they just added Hayden Christensen's head to Anakin's force ghost just won't make sense to me, no matter if it has been

"established" to the official canon.

 

However, if you want to see the theatrical version (well, a perfect recreation at least) of A New Hope, look out for the Despecialized Edition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXifjbxZDAM

[NumberWan]

@@Lancelot

Back in 1997 when I saw the Special Edition of the Classic Trilogy, I was absolutely thrilled to see the new scenes and added characters. Especially the one with Jabba the Hutt in Episode IV. However It was much later, that I came to the idea, that this meeting near the Millennium Falcon could have been done differently. While seeing Jabba and Boba Fett in Episode IV is somehow a cool thing, I would have made the Hutt more grotesque (even more than in the renovated later version), and wouldn't show the moment with Han Solo walking over his tail.

 

The documentary of 1997 actually showed the people returning to Classic movies to see what they can do then. They reintroduced the scene with Jabba and the "tail thing" was a problem. And while I appraise the cunning here to show Han step onto the tail, it was somehow strange from the point, that Jabba would have hit Han then, and his guards might even want to kill him for this disrespect.

 

George Lucas often said even before that, that when he was making Star Wars he was dissatisfied with what he could do in 1970s: he was limited by dozens of things. It is even more clear, if we look what was happening when Lucas would approach someone with his script before A New Hope: most people found it very foolish and more than that – impossible to show on screen. 20th Century Fox was the only ones eager enough to take the risks.

 

So I guess, those limits of 1970s, which didm't allow G.Lucas to make all he wanted, is one of the reasons, he wanted to change the films much later. Special Edition was somehow a rehearsal prior to the Prequels, and another reason for his later decisions.

 

With the releases of Episode I-III, Lucas was concerned (perhaps the most), by the idea, that the OT and the PT wouldn't be linked to each other by fans and viewers. So he often added details here and there to expand the Galaxy, introducing some elements from Star Wars traditional stuff into both trilogies. Like Luke's land speeder in Episode I or Tatooine classic architecture in Episode I-II, and like Ronto in Episode IV, as well as a Dug Patron in Jabba's Palace in Episode VI.

 

I am not saying that all this was necessary, but Lucas wanted to tie all the movies together even more, so he added some things from prequels (like the new Emperor in Episode V). Anakin Skywalker's face is the most debatable moment so far. But as much as seeing Hayden Christensen is somehow strange in ROTJ, so is to certain extent to see the "clean and old" Anakin by Shaw. Darth Vader was disfigured, damaged and with scars – why would a Force Ghost look differently? It's all debatable again and again.