Star Wars On Blu-Ray

[Darth Waller]

Speaking of the BluRays... anyone know of good deals on the complete box set? I'm hoping to find a deal as a gift for my mother.

Amazon has it for $80 shipped.

Give her the Harmy set and call it a day.

 

[galactiboy]

Yeah, but sadly I don't know if her player will play them or not. I do plan on including a set of those though

 

[abake]

SO when he's brutally slaughtering the "younglings," what part of goodness in him is present?

Don't be silly, you know it's a figure of speech.
Right?

 

[Darth Waller]

Yeah, but sadly I don't know if her player will play them or not. I do plan on including a set of those though

Good man!

 

[Rorywan]

I hate the blu-rays, but I love having copies of the movies in decent quality HD. I want to watch them all the time, I would rather the unaltered originals, but this is better than nothing!

 

[galactiboy]

Have you gotten a set of the Harmy despecialized editions yet Rorywan? They are pretty damn impressive and certainly fulfilled my need for a non-sucky OT in HD

 

[drbrad1975]

Have you gotten a set of the Harmy despecialized editions yet Rorywan? They are pretty damn impressive and certainly fulfilled my need for a non-sucky OT in HD

I have heard about these and have tried to download them but can't seem to find where. Also, has someone put these on blu-ray disc yet? thanks

 

[bloodgear]

Tehre's a certain paradoxical website that you can search for it.

 

[EdwardNashton1]

I don't know why everyone is complaining about the blu-rays so much. The only thing's I found to be a stupid change was the additions of the CG rock in front of Yoda.

The Obi-Wan Krayt Dragon roar sounds ridiculous, but if you think about it, it actually sounds like Ben imitating something. The previous versions sounded like an actual beat which is not probable.

I originally abhorred the NOOOO at the end of ROTJ, but it has grown on me now. Yes it needs to be adjusted, and it's out of place, but it's better than him standing there speechless like a buffoon. The first "no" should be kept, and the whiny "no" should be cut.


And all of the prequel changes have been great.

 

[agen_kolar]

I don't know why everyone is complaining about the blu-rays so much. The only thing's I found to be a stupid change was the additions of the CG rock in front of Yoda.

The Obi-Wan Krayt Dragon roar sounds ridiculous, but if you think about it, it actually sounds like Ben imitating something. The previous versions sounded like an actual beat which is not probable.

I originally abhorred the NOOOO at the end of ROTJ, but it has grown on me now. Yes it needs to be adjusted, and it's out of place, but it's better than him standing there speechless like a buffoon. The first "no" should be kept, and the whiny "no" should be cut.


And all of the prequel changes have been great.

There's a rock in front of Yoda?! Or do you mean R2-D2?

And I agree, I actually like the first, "No," given by Vader in ROTJ. It sounds menacing and intimidating.

 

[a-dev]

I originally abhorred the NOOOO at the end of ROTJ, but it has grown on me now. Yes it needs to be adjusted, and it's out of place, but it's better than him standing there speechless like a buffoon. The first "no" should be kept, and the whiny "no" should be cut.

I don't remember anyone ever having a problem with Vaders silence in that scene over the past 27 years I think Lucas must have been the only one.

 

[abake]

Didn't bother me either.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

And regarding OT Yoda and PT Yoda... yup... they look the same.

That makes you seem really stupid. Let's see, it's the CG face photoshopped on top of the puppet, the face isn't even in the same pose, of course it looks different. Not to mention the character is 20 years younger. And they're not supposed to look exactly the same anyways. The CG version looks more realistic though--the real CG version, not this crappy photoshop you posted

Calm down mate. I can see where you clearly misunderstand the intent of the graphic, crude as it was. It was two-fold:

1. to show the difference in the faces - the whole character and demeanor is different in any scene and any part of the prequels compared to the performance in ep5 and 6.
2. crappy photoshop is how I view the CG in the prequels.

In any scene in any of the PT movies you won't find any pose or action where the CG version resembles any of the characteristics of the puppet. The puppet is a tangible, physical object operated by people who obviously knew what they were doing - the CG character is not. It looks like a cartoon caricature - similar to a different actor portraying the same role and not even trying to match the original performance (like Marty McFly's girlfriend in Back to the Future 1 and the sequels.) Performance is half the character. But getting back to the CG aspect of it - it still takes a skilled animator to make it more than computer game or cartoon looking characters and settings and environments... and that's what the prequels look like: oversaturated, over-colored video games. With the Star Wars movies I would take the stop motion and puppetry over the CGI - I just don't buy the cg characters, props, environments or any of the segregated action because it was filmed separately and just spliced together with no sense of connection.

A movie however, where I totally buy the CGI is Avatar - I buy the characters, the props, the environments completely, because care was made to actually make it look real and tangible, like real world objects and real environments. Some still feel it's too cartoony and takes them out of the movie experience, but you don't see me beating them over the head because they don't agree with me. They are entitled to their opinion.

Both are dictated by the same so-called facts you mentioned that the CG animators had of tools to work with compared to stop animation and you seem more intent with the technical aspects and speed of getting the work done, rather than the end result and the skill of the animator. You can have the best tools in the world that does everything for you, but if you don't have the people with the right skills who actually KNOW how things look and function in the real world and just speed through the animation to get to the next piece out of hundreds or thousands of pieces of animation, then you get the cartoon phony, rushed version of the effect. So what is the difference between the two - and YES, I do not think that stop motion would have worked in Avatar, models and puppets and people in suits probably could, as those are still expertly used in other movies. To me the difference is the director, the art direction and the animators being able to utilize those facts you mentioned to make it look real - to me, not all. But with Star Wars... the stop motion of the old ones still beat the CG of the new ones.

I'm sure one day that CGI will be indistinguishable with reality in more than 5% of movies as it is today, but it's just not there yet and when the animators go away from the over-lit, over-saturated, over-colored crap animation they do in 96% of movies today and go for the more naturalistic look and actually try blending it better into the real environment... I'm sure I'll have as much enjoyment from it and a sense of watching something real and tangible and not a flat, phony computer image.

 

[TheGent]

the animators go away from the over-lit, over-saturated, over-colored crap animation they do in 96% of movies today

Over-coloured, that's what I thought, too. Just wait for the MemChip(TM) release of SW in 2017, GL will edit that CG to make it look OK.

 

[darthviper107]

So I already explained why the CG is better, I'm not going to repeat myself. It's very obvious you're just nostalgic about the old movies, which is fine, it has a certain style which is nice. It's not technically correct, or realistic. But it's still enjoyable.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

So I already explained why the CG is better, I'm not going to repeat myself. It's very obvious you're just nostalgic about the old movies, which is fine, it has a certain style which is nice. It's not technically correct, or realistic. But it's still enjoyable.

No, you explained how the technical side of CG could be seen as superior and definitely faster to stop motion. That really has no bearing on the end result or whether it looks realistic and believable as that's determined by other factors - the human element for one - as well that are prone to error.

I may be nostalgic about the old movies, but that's mostly to do with the fact that the effects don't really stand out like a sore thumb, which all the special edition cgi effects do. I've always said that Lucas should release the theatrical versions - like other studios and directors do - and then do a proper digitized version of the OT with all the optical effects, puppets and mat-paintings updated instead of that crappy, uneven patch-job he keeps tweaking and tweaking. I can't for the life of believe that he actually thinks that mock-up work is what he really wants. Quit being respectful to some of the old special effects, while being totally disrespectful of others by removing them, and just redo the whole lot and get the real Lucas version out there. That works for all people - those who want the theatrical versions and those who like the Lucas style CG creatures and environments. The hack job he's doing is just disrespectful to the people who slaved to get those movies done. Hell... I may even WATCH and LIKE the ultimate Lucas version... I just like to have the option... like I have with other movies from nearly every other top director, like Spielberg, Cameron, Scott, Jackson and so on.

But maybe we were just talking past each other - may be my fault - but I just find too few cgi effects to look and feel believable.

 

[darthviper107]

The practical FX aren't any more believable, so you really don't make sense. Plus you were saying Avatar looks fine yet the FX in Star Wars doesn't, that doesn't make any sense either, it's just as unbelievable. The only reason you would say that is because there isn't an original version of Avatar with practical FX to compare to.

Again, my point you're an OT elitist and you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

And you seem to be so hot on cgi that you cannot see past that.

I'm also talking about the prequels. I'm not the only one thinking they look phony and that has nothing to do with the older movies. I also think Transformers look phony. Indy 4 look phony. Many other cgi-ridden effects movies look phony, so I usually don't bother with them as they are nothing more than expensive looking cartoons.

If CGI is used appropriately, like I think it was done in Avatar - and again, some even think that one is looking like a cartoon - then perhaps there was a sense to call cgi effects in movies "realistic", but currently, it just isn't in the majority of films.

Good for you that you are so hot about it and find it believable.

 

[FLOSI]

Give her the Harmy set and call it a day.

!!! Great idea, Richard! I'll hook my brother up with a set... he's been wanting them since he saw mine.

 

[chRd]

end of the day, this is still star wars.