re: Star Wars
 

Don't forget how many fans have come along since 1997 that have never seen the original movies on a big screen, or were so young they may not recall much from the experience. It's also worth noting that no one has ever seen these in 3D.

It's all subjective, of course, but I just don't see that kind of gap in the sophistication of the two trilogies.

Let's not overlook that these were released in January, February and March. I distinctly recall the weather being almost Fall-level warm when Star Wars opened. There was snow everywhere when Empire opened. I suspect mine wasn't the only region where February was more of a stay-at-home month. As for Jedi, I think some fans felt that since they'd missed Empire, they'd pass on it, too. I think the excitement sort of wore off after seeing some of the alterations to Star Wars; there was a sense that they didn't live up to the hype. Empire and Jedi had far fewer instances of tampering, but you had to actually see the movies to know this.

Other fans may have never intended to see either of the sequels. My uncle saw Star Wars literally dozens of times during its theatrical release in 1977, and was excited when it was re-released. He has seen, but doesn't even care for, the others and hasn't bothered to see the prequels. I don't know how representative he is of audiences at large, of course.

We're told it takes about a year to convert each film (mentioned in the original article quoted previously in this thread). I was under the impression Lucas already had the original trilogy being prepped for a 3D release years ago; maybe this was another instance of Lucas's brainstorming being presented as a declaration of intent, or maybe I just completely misunderstood the discussion years ago about a planned 3D release.

In any event, given how much of the prequels were shot with digital elements in the first place, it seems much easier to just replace that content with 3D content. The original trilogy, of course, used actual sets, props, models, etc. and would require far more extensive work. I won't be surprised to see a lot of shots completely replaced with new, digitally created versions--especially the space scenes, where actual people aren't really visible anyway.

re: Star Wars
 

I'm not talking box-office success.

re: Star Wars
 

Maybe if enough people stay home for Phantom Menace, they won't do the others. I'm doing my part . . .

I refuse to give George Lucas any money to watch Star Wars in 3D.

re: Star Wars
 

"Each conversion takes at least a year to complete, with Lucas personally overseeing the process to make sure each one is as perfected as possible."

rotfl

re: Star Wars
 

I didn't say anything about sophistication, I said there was a difference in quality.

If anything, the storylines of the prequels are more sophisticated, with political intrigue and subterfuge (which kids love). However, the movies themselves are crappier.

re: Star Wars
 

:lol::lol::lol:

re: Star Wars
 

Yep, an ad featuring the late great Percy Rodriguez's voiceover played that up:

While I have no interest in seeing the Star Wars movies in 3D, the conversion process DOES interest me:

How is it possible to convert a live action film to 3D without it looking like crap?

Or, maybe I should say: IS it possible to covert a live action film to 3D without it looking like crap?

re: Star Wars
 

How do you define "quality" in the context of comparing and contrasting films? I used the term "sophisticated" to refer not just to story elements, but:

• visual effects - far more advanced in the prequels
• dialog - actually pretty even throughout all six films
• stunts - more dynamic in the prequels
• production design - hard to evaluate, since the prequel look is derived from the original features
• costuming - nearly any given item from Queen Amidala's wardrobe outshines everything except Leia's iconic gold bikini
• cinematography - more kinetic in the prequels; aided, of course, by the volume of CGI shots more easily manipulated than models, etc.
• music - like production design, it's hard to evaluate since so many themes were recycled

re: Star Wars
 

Oh boy, this is gonna go over well...

I'll just touch on the first two. I prefer the effects of the originals. Models and such look better to me than the too clean/fake CGI look. And the dialogue of the originals are way better, IMHO, of course...

re: Star Wars
 

The prequels were and are horrible, horrible films. The original trilogy was one of the most influential and significant film series in history, and Lucas, in his hubris, has broken it beyond repair.

re: Star Wars
 

I, for one, welcome this fresh and inspired contribution to the general discourse.

re: Star Wars
 

yeah but that doesn't stop Eps. VI from being flawed as it is. Seriously...why is Han there at all?

re: Star Wars
 

I'll put as much analysis in it as you. ;)

• visual effects - far superior in the original trilogy
• dialog - written and delivered better in the original trilogy
• stunts - more dynamic and related to story in the original trilogy
• production design - far superior in the original trilogy
• costuming - more believable in the original trilogy, less is more
• cinematography - Wide open scenes in the original trilogy have greater power, less is more
• music - way better in the original trilogy

re: Star Wars
 

I compare quality with the terms "better" or "worse". Whether one film is more "sophisticated" than the other in certain areas is only tangentially related to the actual quality of the film. As I pointed out with the storyline example, something can be more "sophisticated" without actually being better.

It's interesting you left off some pretty important factors that people use to judge a film:

• Acting - James Earl Jones is Darth Vader, despite being just a voice over. Add in the stellar performances in Empire, and the original trilogy owns over the wooden perfomances in the prequels (which I mostly blame the director for).
• Story/Pacing - Although I described the plots for the prequels as more "sophisticated", the execution of said plots is overly convoluted with uneven pacing. In contrast, the OT have simpler plots, but are well executed with breakneck pacing.

As for the things you did comment on:

• visual effects - overdone in the prequels. Lucas likes to fill the frame with stuff, which makes it busy and unfocused. The opening starship dogfight in Ep III left me bored, while the Death Star trench battle in Star Wars is tension-packed. The pod race in ep 1 looks like a video game (which it soon was).
• dialog - Empire trumps all others in terms of dialogue, which means OT wins by default. Even then, I think the prequels had more cringe-inducing dialogue in each film than the other two originals combined.
• stunts - Does it count as a "stunt" if it's on a green-screen with wires? The stunts were probably more "dynamic" in the prequels, but I'm not sure if they were as realistic or as interesting.
• production design - gritty and real in the OT, shiny and fake looking in the prequels.
• costuming - I think you're forgetting that in the OT, the aliens and droids count as costuming, versus the CGI creations of the prequels. Plus, the OT has so many iconic outfits, like Leia's "headphone" hairdo, and the aforementioned bikini. I can't even remember any of Amidala's outfits. Also, don't forget Darth Vader's costume, which originated in the OT and beats out any of the other Darth's costumes in the OT.
• cinematography - I don't think being "more dynamic" equates to "better." The shot of Luke staring out at two suns on Tatooine is completely static, yet stays burned in your brain.
• music - As pointed out, the prequels recycled a lot of themes. However, the original sequels did the same, yet added new themes that are instantly recognizable, like the Imperial March and Love Theme in Empire. Aside from Dual of the Fates, which is excellent, I can't think of any other recognizable themes originating from the prequels.

re: Star Wars
 

I agree with some of this, and recognize that some of it is entirely subjective. The one point I have to ask about, though, are the stunts. The most dynamic fight scene in the original trilogy would be either of the two Luke/Vader duels (not counting the imagined one on Dagobah). Don't get me wrong: I love watching them, but next to the two-on-one duels of Qui-Gon & Obi-Wan vs. Darth Maul or Obi-Wan & Anakin vs. Dooku, they're practically static. Which leads me to...

Here's what I'm driving at: How does one actually quantify or define how "good" a movie is? I picked a handful of key departments offhand just to try to explore something beyond an arbitrary "this is great, that sucks" that often really means, "I like this, I don't like that."

I deliberately omitted acting because that's the most common thing most movie fans discuss. But since you bring it up, I readily agree. Although I loved what Liam Neeson did as Qui-Gon, and Christopher Lee as Dooku (though I'm biased as a fan of his anyway). And I think Ewan McGregor was very interesting as Obi-Wan, though Sir Alec Guinness's performance in A New Hope has always been my favorite role in the entire saga. He made not just Obi-Wan, but the entire Star Wars galaxy, fascinating.

I like the point you bring up about how the "manual" (for lack of better term) style of making visual effects and crafting stunts is a much "truer" (again, for lack of better term) form of art, against which their CGI and harness-driven counterparts are--and feel--artificial. I actually agree with this, for what it's worth. I remember watching From "Star Wars" to "Jedi" - The Making of a Saga repeatedly because I was so captivated with how they invented all those amazing elements. When I watch the prequels, I'm conscious that it was all done on green screen and finished with computers; there's nothing fascinating about them.

One specific point I also want to discuss is cinematography. You're definitely right about that iconic shot; it's probably the image synonymous with Star Wars for a lot of us. On the whole, though, I feel like the camera was much more involved with the film in the case of the prequels and more distant in the original trilogy. You're absolutely right that being more dynamic does not equal "better," but that brings us back to my original question: How do we actually define the "quality" of a film?

A final note: I'm spit-balling all this because I find it interesting and I sincerely thank those who've elected to play along so far. I'm not arrogant enough to think I have the answers; I'm humbly looking for the questions.

re: Star Wars
 

If we're just talking fight scenes, the ones in the prequel are better choreographed. However, they're in the middle of crappy films. If I was just watching a clip real of fight scenes, I may pick the prequel ones to watch. However, I'm not going to sit through those films again just to watch the fights.

Also, there's the matter of how the fit into the films themselves. The Obi-Wan vs. Darth Vader fight in Star Wars may not as "dynamic" as the prequel fights, but it's filled with thematic resonance (master vs. fallen apprentice), which makes it compelling to watch. The fights in the prequels by comparison are rote "oh, you're the new bad-guy, let's fight."

So you omitted the factor that you think is in favor of the OT? How convenient ;)

I really found Liam Neeson's performance to be barely there. I mean, I know he's supposed to be zen, but he just seemed sleepy. And Jake Lloyd was unbearable. Again, I blame this largely on the director. Lucas seems to have either lucked out with the original cast for Star Wars, or he forgot how to direct actors in the decades between his directing jobs.

To be fair, I think CGI gets a bad rap sometimes. People often dismiss CGI as all being "easy" for some reason, when in reality it can be as difficult, or more, to do well than other effects work. It is more abstract though, which makes it harder to make compelling in a making of. It's like the difference between watching someone code a program and someone build a house: watching a lot of typing and mouse movements on a PC screen just isn't as visually interesting to watch.

That said, my problem isn't really with the CGI and digital manipulation in the prequels, but its execution. Lucas cuts and pastes different takes from different actors into one scene, but doesn't bother getting good takes to begin with, or worry about the chemistry and interaction between characters. He makes the CGI objects shiny and new, which is easier to do in CGI than grime and wear, making everything look sterile and un-lived-in in the prequels. And he packs the screen with visual information, but doesn't take the time to make sure it's stuff that carries the story forward, instead of just being distractions.

There's something to be said about a little distance though, and holding a shot. That sunset shot, and the opening shot of the Star Destroyer flying over, are powerful because they're static and slightly distant; they show the scale. If the camera was zooming around all over the place during those scenes, the epic sense of scale would be lost.

That said, I don't really hate the cinematography on the prequels. Despite the numerous complaints against them, I really haven't heard an argument against the cinematography. I just don't feel it's leaps-and-bounds better than the OT.

Quality is subjective, so there's no way to objectively quantify or define it. You can break down the film and discuss individual elements, but it ultimately rests on personal opinion. One person's opinion on a film's visuals being "dynamic" may be seen by another as being "overstuffed and unfocused".

re: Star Wars
 

re: Star Wars
 

I was going to say the same thing. The appeal of Star Wars has carried over generations but not the disdain for "the new stuff".

When I try to tell my nephews I don't like the "new ones"....they just don't get it. It's Star Wars to them. Just like Clone Wars is. They see NO delineation.

re: Star Wars
 

George Lucas: Please just go away. We are sick of your stupid, shitty ideas, and you've done enough harm to (what was once) a good thing already.

re: Star Wars
 

My girls (4 & 6) love the original trilogy, but I haven't let them see the new ones. I don't want what you mentioned happening to them. They have asked when they get to see the one with Jar Jar though. :doh:

They have seen a few episodes of the Clone Wars which seem to have higher production values than the prequel trilogy.

re: Star Wars
 

If I could have kept them from it, I would have! :lol: But they ain't MY kids and when they were presented on Spike they watched all 6. And they love them all. Worst of all I fear with the flashier effects and just "newer" feel of the prequels, they like the prequels a little MORE.

For a while I tried to explain to them why I liked some and not others, and they just were not getting it--star wars is just cool to them. And I realized, hey, the kids like it, wtf, let them like it.

MY son however, has seen only the OT. If we flip by the prequels on Spike (they seem to be on every weekend lately!) he may see a lightsaber and say "Dad! Star Wars!". I say, "not really bud. Want to watch Jedi again?"

re: Star Wars
 

Now that they've announced the 3D versions I'm sure at some point he'll announce that was his original vision for them. I am so over these I've taken off my wanted list completely. Not that I wouldn't pick them up at some point but haven't seen them in ages and have no interest in them right now.

re: Star Wars
 

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/04/s...cement-at-ces/

This should be interesting.

re: Star Wars
 

If it's one of those pack-in deals they mentioned I will murder someone.