Or a tribute.
What in Star Wars isn`t? Even the scene transition wipes!
Edited by RodianCloneSimon Peg Ranks the Star Wars Movies
Maby he's only seen the re-edited versions?
Maybe I'm probably the oldest guy here and saw E4 in the theatres in 1977 when I was 14
Well then maby his memory is fading 
Snappy, good sir, snappy!
I just rewatched the original 1970's video cut today, mostly because the discussion on effects sparked my interest and I had to see how 'bad' it was for myself. then I went and watched a bit of episode 1 and I have to say that an actor dressed up or a proper model simply looks more 'real' to me. There's something about the texture of an actual prop that most CGI cannot properly duplicate, especially if the camera work itself is top notch, which in A New Hope, it was. Most CGI is simply too...clean. You can't really get the level of detail with a completely computer generated image as you can by actually putting a costume through a couple of environmental effects.
Snappy, good sir, snappy!
I just rewatched the original 1970's video cut today, mostly because the discussion on effects sparked my interest and I had to see how 'bad' it was for myself. then I went and watched a bit of episode 1 and I have to say that an actor dressed up or a proper model simply looks more 'real' to me. There's something about the texture of an actual prop that most CGI cannot properly duplicate, especially if the camera work itself is top notch, which in A New Hope, it was. Most CGI is simply too...clean. You can't really get the level of detail with a completely computer generated image as you can by actually putting a costume through a couple of environmental effects.
Fully agreed.
I watched the 77 theatrical release (have it on DVD) a few weeks ago, and re-watched the cantina scenes from the new versions on youtube (in HD, so don't complain) in a "this is what they changed" type video. It just showed the scenes and such that was changed, with some text added before the scene, so it wouldn't interfere with the scenes.
And I must say that the 77 version looks more real and authentic to me. CGI usually doesn't cut it much for me.
Snappy, good sir, snappy!
I just rewatched the original 1970's video cut today, mostly because the discussion on effects sparked my interest and I had to see how 'bad' it was for myself. then I went and watched a bit of episode 1 and I have to say that an actor dressed up or a proper model simply looks more 'real' to me. There's something about the texture of an actual prop that most CGI cannot properly duplicate, especially if the camera work itself is top notch, which in A New Hope, it was. Most CGI is simply too...clean. You can't really get the level of detail with a completely computer generated image as you can by actually putting a costume through a couple of environmental effects.
And if the CG is really, really good, one little thing might put you off, because you leave all your suspension of disbelief behind. If you read a book or see a play, your imagination and suspension of disbelief takes over, so you can "believe" and get involved with the story.
I liked how the original Jurasic Park, the Hellboy movies, Guardians of the Galaxy and many other great movies did it, mixing models, practical effects and cg in a way that seemed real and organic. The trick is not to overuse the cg in a way that makes your eyes get accustomed to it. The norwegian movie Trolljegeren(the Trollhunter) did it in another way, they have great 3d-effects for the huge trolls, but it is also used with night vision, darkness and other environmental effects that blends perfectly with the effects and makes it all look very real and believable, even if this is a found footage and creature feature spoof.
*CGI= computer generated images. CG= Computer graphics.. Same thing.
Edited by RodianCloneA suprisingly insightful article from Cracked: Why modern CGI effects look so terrible
A suprisingly insightful article from Cracked: Why modern CGI effects look so terrible
That was an awesome read!
I'm gonna save that one 
Okay, this one isn't for you guys - I'm posting it because I'm at work and want to read it at home, and I'm too lazy to open my mail reader.
Good read, but I'm afraid to say if the authour is correct, then all it truly signifies is that the prequels are a case example of why creating a film by formula is a bad idea.
A suprisingly insightful article from Cracked: Why modern CGI effects look so terrible
That was an awesome read!
I'm gonna save that one
I haven't seen (and don't intend to) most of the modern films they mention (T. Genisys, J. World, etc), but I really liked that 3rd point about 'They Forget the Camera Needs to Exist'.
This is a big one for me. I think back to that shot in Alien Resurrection (an ultimate low for that series) where the camera goes down that guy's throat. Might as well have had a narrator come on and say, "buckle up, folks: Special Effects time!".
Lord of the Rings, much as I like it, was occasionally guilty of this as well. Shots of the massing at Isengard come to mind. I was like, "dudes, calm down. Helicopters don't fly that fast." 
George Lucas, interestingly, is not guilty of this one. The only shot I can think of in the PT (Crashing ship flying right up to the camera in RotS) is a shot that Spielberg storyboarded, and in the commentary, Lucas even seems a bit embarrassed by it.
I agree... It is more a "look what we can do! The sky is the limit!" While, it turns out, we need some limits in order to ground it in reality.
Okay, I had a chance to at least read some of the above - if you hate Phantom Menace, think that it's a poorly written movie, you might want to check out that link. The mirroring of TPM and Jedi was surprising. I'd never noticed all those details before (and some of them are forehead slappingly obvious) and I'd never noticed how Attack of the Clones was an inverted Empire.
Okay, I had a chance to at least read some of the above - if you hate Phantom Menace, think that it's a poorly written movie, you might want to check out that link. The mirroring of TPM and Jedi was surprising. I'd never noticed all those details before (and some of them are forehead slappingly obvious) and I'd never noticed how Attack of the Clones was an inverted Empire.
Wow, that is pretty interesting. I was reading with interest, but unsure it wasn't just some wishful thinking, until I was sold by the timing of key scenes, and C3P0's eyeball.
I wonder how much of this Filoni knows, and where it might help take Rebels. And I wonder if Abrams knows...given the marketing job so far, probably not, or he's not interested.
Maybe because, no matter how inventive and bizarre this ring theory is (and I believe it is indeed purposefully done) it doesn't make the prequels any better movies than they are...
Ring masturbation... Sure, there is good and clever art in that, and it has its qualities. That doesn`t help when the focus isn`t on the story being told and the characters in that story. Still, it`s cool, and there are interesting things in the PT for sure!
Okay, I had a chance to at least read some of the above - if you hate Phantom Menace, think that it's a poorly written movie, you might want to check out that link. The mirroring of TPM and Jedi was surprising. I'd never noticed all those details before (and some of them are forehead slappingly obvious) and I'd never noticed how Attack of the Clones was an inverted Empire.
Very interesting article. I've only read up to the end of TPM, and I'm not entirely convinced it's not the cinematic equivalent of seeing the face of Jesus in a slice of toast, but I can't wait to read more!
Okay, I had a chance to at least read some of the above - if you hate Phantom Menace, think that it's a poorly written movie, you might want to check out that link. The mirroring of TPM and Jedi was surprising. I'd never noticed all those details before (and some of them are forehead slappingly obvious) and I'd never noticed how Attack of the Clones was an inverted Empire.
Very interesting article. I've only read up to the end of TPM, and I'm not entirely convinced it's not the cinematic equivalent of seeing the face of Jesus in a slice of toast, but I can't wait to read more!
I think there's a bit of that later on, but the exact timing of certain scenes, the numerous "opposite view" and "opposite lighting" shots and a whole bunch of other things says he's got something going here. I really like the Yin-Yang thing, the subtle timing of its appearance in the sky, that it's chapter 25/50, etc. It's pretty compelling.
Very interesting article. I've only read up to the end of TPM, and I'm not entirely convinced it's not the cinematic equivalent of seeing the face of Jesus in a slice of toast, but I can't wait to read more!
I would say that it's probably a little of both. There's the natural function of the brain to see patterns that aren't necessarily there, and then - okay, everyone like to give Lucas stick for making terrible movies, but there's no denying that the man knows themes and structure and the psychology of stories and myths. There's way too many coincidences and parallels and mirrored scene compositions for it to be just random happenstance.
Very interesting article. I've only read up to the end of TPM, and I'm not entirely convinced it's not the cinematic equivalent of seeing the face of Jesus in a slice of toast, but I can't wait to read more!
I would say that it's probably a little of both. There's the natural function of the brain to see patterns that aren't necessarily there, and then - okay, everyone like to give Lucas stick for making terrible movies, but there's no denying that the man knows themes and structure and the psychology of stories and myths. There's way too many coincidences and parallels and mirrored scene compositions for it to be just random happenstance.
Having finally been able to read the whole thing, I have to say I'm fully on board with this Ring Theory business. As you say, there's just too many things lining up for it to all be coincidence. The kicker for me was that it finally explains why the camera tilts (not pans) up after the crawl in AotC, which from the first time I saw it seemed wildly out of character from what I know of Lucas's style.
It certainly makes one watch the PT a little closer, and makes me feel that Lucas was right in many ways to end his (cinematic) involvement in the universe - what once seemed like "it's my ball and I'm goin' home!" now seems more like, "the circle is now complete."
(and yes, whafrog, that yin-yang in the sky blew my mind, too...)
Very interesting article. I've only read up to the end of TPM, and I'm not entirely convinced it's not the cinematic equivalent of seeing the face of Jesus in a slice of toast, but I can't wait to read more!
I would say that it's probably a little of both. There's the natural function of the brain to see patterns that aren't necessarily there, and then - okay, everyone like to give Lucas stick for making terrible movies, but there's no denying that the man knows themes and structure and the psychology of stories and myths. There's way too many coincidences and parallels and mirrored scene compositions for it to be just random happenstance.
Having finally been able to read the whole thing, I have to say I'm fully on board with this Ring Theory business. As you say, there's just too many things lining up for it to all be coincidence. The kicker for me was that it finally explains why the camera tilts (not pans) up after the crawl in AotC, which from the first time I saw it seemed wildly out of character from what I know of Lucas's style.
It certainly makes one watch the PT a little closer, and makes me feel that Lucas was right in many ways to end his (cinematic) involvement in the universe - what once seemed like "it's my ball and I'm goin' home!" now seems more like, "the circle is now complete."
(and yes, whafrog, that yin-yang in the sky blew my mind, too...)
Meh... just shows he put more importance on the visual thematics than the actual story.
True...and yet not, because it's still oddly profound. The exploration of the nature of the Cosmic Force-Living Force / Yin Yang / Dao etc is embodied in the structure of the movies themselves. That's pretty cool. It's possible it contributes to the setting's depth and richness and capacity...more so than any other fictional setting, with the possible exception of Lord of the Rings.
Okay, this one isn't for you guys - I'm posting it because I'm at work and want to read it at home, and I'm too lazy to open my mail reader.
Seems like post hoc wishful thinking drivel to me...
Okay, this one isn't for you guys - I'm posting it because I'm at work and want to read it at home, and I'm too lazy to open my mail reader.
Seems like post hoc wishful thinking drivel to me...
I dunno, I got through about half of it, and it was pretty intriguing. It does line things up really nicely, and even if it's not true that Lucas wanted to compose a Ring, it points to a lot of artful mirroring/foreshadowing decisions made in the films that really are too neat to be coincidental.
Okay, this one isn't for you guys - I'm posting it because I'm at work and want to read it at home, and I'm too lazy to open my mail reader.
Seems like post hoc wishful thinking drivel to me...
I'd liken it to a Dream Theater cover...performed by the Shaggs.
I really like that ring-theory stuff.
I guess I never had as much faith in Georges abilities like some of the fanboys and -girls out there and because of that - and the fact that I don't hate the Prequels - I never really lost all of my faith in him because of the Prequels, this theory implies that he's a much better storyteller than I thought.
Well, anyway, just for the hell of it, I'll add my own movie ranking list.
1. Episode V
Because in my opinion this movie is the only one WITHOUT a mayor drawback.
The only really annoying thing about it is the generel presence of 3PO.
2. Episode II, III and VI
Those are all overall really good stories imo.
I really like that investigation Kenobi does and the Geonosis battle, I even don't hate Yodas fight in Ep II. So if we'd never have seen that awkward wannabe romance on Naboo with brilliant dialogues like 'I hate sand', I might have ranked Ep II as my number one.
Ep III has General Grievous, who to me is just a cheap immitation of future Darth Vader (who I don't even really like) with and just seems to be there to occupy Kenobi, while Skywalker turns to Vader.
Then there's the 'fight'scene between the Cancellor and the Jedi Masters, which is kind of ridiculous.
Oh, and Padme's pregnant, which is neccessary for the plot, but I don'tlike pregnant women or babies in movies.
Ep VI has Vader unneccessarily choking dudes (which I forgot to add to Ep V) the general presence of 3PO and the most horrible monsters George has ever unleashed upon us .. Ewoks
I think they are the worst thing in all of Star Wars and I hate those freaking flintstone tipped spear wielding abominations with all my heart.
3. Episode I and IV
I can't really tell you what I don't like about Ep I (except Jar Jar, of course, though he doesn't bug me asmuch as the Ewoks or even 3PO in the OT), but there's just not enough to really, really like, except of course Anakins dorky podracer helmet and I really like Darth Maul, even if I don'tcare for double-bladed lightsabers.
And Ep IV .. well, it's the origin of everything else, so it can't be that bad, can it? Well, it just isn't that good either .. the space battle was disappointing, just like the lightsaber duel, and the most scenes I like about the characters involved take place in Episode V and VI. So, to me, it's just .. boring for the most part and annoying every time 3PO opens his mouth and Vader chokes someone.