ROTS DVD vs. Film

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Science Fiction » alt.fan.starwars » ROTS DVD vs. Film

ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163639]

Mo, 07 November 2005 22:03

Kelly

Does anyone know if there are differences between the Revenge of the Sith
DVD and the one shown in the movies?

Thanks,
Kelly

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163640 ]

Mo, 07 November 2005 22:25

RI Mike

Nope, exactly the same.

On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:03:17 GMT, "Kelly" <kelly [at] shakesbeer.com>
wrote:

>Does anyone know if there are differences between the Revenge of the Sith
>DVD and the one shown in the movies?
>
>Thanks,
>Kelly
>

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163644 ]

Mo, 07 November 2005 23:17

Kelly

What happened? George didn't have time to tinker with it?

"RI Mike" <MikeL5 [at] spamsucks-Home.com> wrote in message
news:kihvm1pnegan8q1q7n8kii4j1g3gi1s9ng [at] 4ax.com...
> Nope, exactly the same.
>
>
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:03:17 GMT, "Kelly" <kelly [at] shakesbeer.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Does anyone know if there are differences between the Revenge of the Sith
>>DVD and the one shown in the movies?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Kelly
>>

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163650 ]

Di, 08 November 2005 00:25

Anybody

In article <kihvm1pnegan8q1q7n8kii4j1g3gi1s9ng [at] 4ax.com>, RI Mike
<MikeL5 [at] spamsucks-Home.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:03:17 GMT, "Kelly" <kelly [at] shakesbeer.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone know if there are differences between the Revenge of the Sith
> >DVD and the one shown in the movies?
>
> Nope, exactly the same.

There's no reported major changes, but I'd say it's still very likely
that there are changes - you might have to check frame-by-frame to find
them though. :-)

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163651 ]

Di, 08 November 2005 00:53

seanocity

Anybody wrote:
> In article <kihvm1pnegan8q1q7n8kii4j1g3gi1s9ng [at] 4ax.com>, RI Mike
> <MikeL5 [at] spamsucks-Home.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:03:17 GMT, "Kelly" <kelly [at] shakesbeer.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Does anyone know if there are differences between the Revenge of the Sith
> > >DVD and the one shown in the movies?
> >
> > Nope, exactly the same.
>
> There's no reported major changes, but I'd say it's still very likely
> that there are changes - you might have to check frame-by-frame to find
> them though. :-)

Y'know........did they change some of the angles in the scene where R2
sprays the Super battle droid with oil? I thought for sure it was seen
all up close on the big screen, but they cut away and show a
farther-away shot in the DVD for part of it.

Also, there's a brief bit with the elevator in the middle of it -
before R2 hits his boosters and burns the droids up - was that always
in there?

Other than that, I can't see anything in the movie that's been
changed....

--
Sean

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163657 ]

Di, 08 November 2005 03:55

RobMac

"Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus" <seanocity [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131407625.103814.243310 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Anybody wrote:
>> In article <kihvm1pnegan8q1q7n8kii4j1g3gi1s9ng [at] 4ax.com>, RI Mike
>> <MikeL5 [at] spamsucks-Home.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:03:17 GMT, "Kelly" <kelly [at] shakesbeer.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Does anyone know if there are differences between the Revenge of the
>> > >Sith
>> > >DVD and the one shown in the movies?
>> >
>> > Nope, exactly the same.
>>
>> There's no reported major changes, but I'd say it's still very likely
>> that there are changes - you might have to check frame-by-frame to find
>> them though. :-)
>
> Y'know........did they change some of the angles in the scene where R2
> sprays the Super battle droid with oil? I thought for sure it was seen
> all up close on the big screen, but they cut away and show a
> farther-away shot in the DVD for part of it.
>

Nope. Exactly the same as in the theater...

> Also, there's a brief bit with the elevator in the middle of it -
> before R2 hits his boosters and burns the droids up - was that always
> in there?
>

Yup. Still exactly the same as in the theater...

> Other than that, I can't see anything in the movie that's been
> changed....
>
> --
> Sean
>
>

The DVD is exactly the same as the theatrical presentation, but now I don't
have to spend $9 each time I want to see it.....
(You're welcome, George)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163663 ]

Di, 08 November 2005 06:44

Anybody

In article <1131407625.103814.243310 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus" <seanocity [at] gmail.com> wrote:

> Anybody wrote:
> > In article <kihvm1pnegan8q1q7n8kii4j1g3gi1s9ng [at] 4ax.com>, RI Mike
> > <MikeL5 [at] spamsucks-Home.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:03:17 GMT, "Kelly" <kelly [at] shakesbeer.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Does anyone know if there are differences between the Revenge of the Sith
> > > >DVD and the one shown in the movies?
> > >
> > > Nope, exactly the same.
> >
> > There's no reported major changes, but I'd say it's still very likely
> > that there are changes - you might have to check frame-by-frame to find
> > them though. :-)
>
> Y'know........did they change some of the angles in the scene where R2
> sprays the Super battle droid with oil? I thought for sure it was seen
> all up close on the big screen, but they cut away and show a
> farther-away shot in the DVD for part of it.
>
> Also, there's a brief bit with the elevator in the middle of it -
> before R2 hits his boosters and burns the droids up - was that always
> in there?
>
> Other than that, I can't see anything in the movie that's been
> changed....

No idea. I've got the DVD, but no DVD player to put it in. :-(

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163670 ]

Di, 08 November 2005 09:47

ry713

I saw a pic somewhere that has Vader (pre-mask) behind Shaak-Ti in the
Jedi temple about to kill her. I didn't see this scene on the DVD.
Anyone know about this?

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163674 ]

Di, 08 November 2005 12:04

Ken Maeda

Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus wrote:
> Y'know........did they change some of the angles in the scene where R2
> sprays the Super battle droid with oil? I thought for sure it was seen
> all up close on the big screen, but they cut away and show a
> farther-away shot in the DVD for part of it.

It looked the same, but when I see the "thrusters igniting oil" scene,
it's hard not to notice how dramatic the camera angles and movements
are. I dunno if it's because Artoo is CGI there, or just because George
was able to do it, but I can't help thinking how we never saw things in
that fashion in the OT. For better or worse, the prequels were a lot
more fluid and dynamic, and less static, than the OT.

> Also, there's a brief bit with the elevator in the middle of it -
> before R2 hits his boosters and burns the droids up - was that always
> in there?

Is that the "loose wire jokes" exchange? That's what the script has.
And I do seem to remember the Artoo/super battle droid hi-jinks being
split into two parts. And I kinda like how briefly George manages to
reaffirm Anakin and Obi-Wan's differing opinions of droids. (Do you
think there will ever be a day when humans and robots can peacefully
coexist?)

But I wish they'd fixed the part where Ewan looks at the piece of the
elevator ceiling fall as hits the ground. Or doesn't look, I should
say.

> Other than that, I can't see anything in the movie that's been
> changed....

Even though I don't have hi-def TV, or use component inputs and all
that jazz, the picture looks awfully darn sharp.

Ken

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163675 ]

Di, 08 November 2005 12:09

Jack Thomas

"Anybody" <anybody [at] anywhere-anytime.com> wrote in message
news:081120051844055026%anybody [at] anywhere-anytime.com...
> In article <1131407625.103814.243310 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus" <seanocity [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anybody wrote:
>> > In article <kihvm1pnegan8q1q7n8kii4j1g3gi1s9ng [at] 4ax.com>, RI Mike
>> > <MikeL5 [at] spamsucks-Home.com> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:03:17 GMT, "Kelly" <kelly [at] shakesbeer.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Does anyone know if there are differences between the Revenge of the
>> > > >Sith
>> > > >DVD and the one shown in the movies?
>> > >
>> > > Nope, exactly the same.
>> >
>> > There's no reported major changes, but I'd say it's still very likely
>> > that there are changes - you might have to check frame-by-frame to find
>> > them though. :-)
>>
>> Y'know........did they change some of the angles in the scene where R2
>> sprays the Super battle droid with oil? I thought for sure it was seen
>> all up close on the big screen, but they cut away and show a
>> farther-away shot in the DVD for part of it.
>>
>> Also, there's a brief bit with the elevator in the middle of it -
>> before R2 hits his boosters and burns the droids up - was that always
>> in there?
>>
>> Other than that, I can't see anything in the movie that's been
>> changed....
>
> No idea. I've got the DVD, but no DVD player to put it in. :-(

Insert it between the cheeks of your arse.

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163677 ]

Di, 08 November 2005 12:16

Ken Maeda

Jack Thomas wrote:
> > No idea. I've got the DVD, but no DVD player to put it in. :-(
>
> Insert it between the cheeks of your arse.

With the way you keep obsessing over the poor guy, it's starting to
sound as if you'd like to do the same thing to him... only with
something else.

Ken

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163682 ]

Di, 08 November 2005 16:42

Ryan Case

Ken Maeda wrote:

> Sean Walsh: Piettus Worshipus wrote:
>
>>Y'know........did they change some of the angles in the scene where R2
>>sprays the Super battle droid with oil? I thought for sure it was seen
>>all up close on the big screen, but they cut away and show a
>>farther-away shot in the DVD for part of it.
>
>
> It looked the same, but when I see the "thrusters igniting oil" scene,
> it's hard not to notice how dramatic the camera angles and movements
> are. I dunno if it's because Artoo is CGI there, or just because George
> was able to do it, but I can't help thinking how we never saw things in
> that fashion in the OT. For better or worse, the prequels were a lot
> more fluid and dynamic, and less static, than the OT.

This is what forced the acting and stories of the OT to be better. There
was too much reliance on effects and visuals in 1-3. Some of that
attention should have been given to dialogs between Hayden and Natalie
so that they didn't sound like they were written by a group of 10th
graders forced to do an anti drug play in front of the class in ten minutes.

>
>
>
>>Also, there's a brief bit with the elevator in the middle of it -
>>before R2 hits his boosters and burns the droids up - was that always
>>in there?
>
>
> Is that the "loose wire jokes" exchange? That's what the script has.
> And I do seem to remember the Artoo/super battle droid hi-jinks being
> split into two parts. And I kinda like how briefly George manages to
> reaffirm Anakin and Obi-Wan's differing opinions of droids. (Do you
> think there will ever be a day when humans and robots can peacefully
> coexist?)
>
> But I wish they'd fixed the part where Ewan looks at the piece of the
> elevator ceiling fall as hits the ground. Or doesn't look, I should
> say.
>
>
>
>>Other than that, I can't see anything in the movie that's been
>>changed....
>
>
> Even though I don't have hi-def TV, or use component inputs and all
> that jazz, the picture looks awfully darn sharp.
>
>
>
> Ken
>

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163690 ]

Di, 08 November 2005 23:36

Ken Maeda

Ryan Case wrote:
> > It looked the same, but when I see the "thrusters igniting oil" scene,
> > it's hard not to notice how dramatic the camera angles and movements
> > are. I dunno if it's because Artoo is CGI there, or just because George
> > was able to do it, but I can't help thinking how we never saw things in
> > that fashion in the OT. For better or worse, the prequels were a lot
> > more fluid and dynamic, and less static, than the OT.
>
> This is what forced the acting and stories of the OT to be better. There
> was too much reliance on effects and visuals in 1-3. Some of that
> attention should have been given to dialogs between Hayden and Natalie
> so that they didn't sound like they were written by a group of 10th
> graders forced to do an anti drug play in front of the class in ten minutes.

As much as I'll agree that the dialogue and delivery could've used a
lot of help, I can't just blame it on George being overdependent on
special effects. I don't think he had the mindset that "the audience
won't realize how weak the writing is because they'll be wowed by the
visuals!" There are plenty of scenes that have nothing but dialogue
while taking place in a very ordinary setting. The only thing technical
about "American Graffiti" was getting the cars to run right. It might
just be that this time the story had a lot more weight and complexity
to it this time, and George bit off more than he could chew.

I would think that he was infinitely more distracted during ANH, since
(the newly established) ILM was trying to go well beyond the state of
effects at the time, and suffered from delays and failures. And he got
sick. And he had a studio he had to appease. I don't see how having to
work with less makes you a better writer or director. More resourceful,
maybe.

There are plenty of non-effects, non-event movies out there that suck
hard, but no one says it's because the director was too distracted
with, or relied too much on, the makeup or lighting.

Ken

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163691 ]

Mi, 09 November 2005 00:23

Ryan Case

Ken Maeda wrote:

Point well made and taken. Allow me to regroup a little though.

> Ryan Case wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>This is what forced the acting and stories of the OT to be better. There
>>was too much reliance on effects and visuals in 1-3. Some of that
>>attention should have been given to dialogs between Hayden and Natalie
>>so that they didn't sound like they were written by a group of 10th
>>graders forced to do an anti drug play in front of the class in ten minutes.
>
>
> As much as I'll agree that the dialogue and delivery could've used a
> lot of help, I can't just blame it on George being overdependent on
> special effects. I don't think he had the mindset that "the audience
> won't realize how weak the writing is because they'll be wowed by the
> visuals!" There are plenty of scenes that have nothing but dialogue
> while taking place in a very ordinary setting. The only thing technical
> about "American Graffiti" was getting the cars to run right. It might
> just be that this time the story had a lot more weight and complexity
> to it this time, and George bit off more than he could chew.

First, I don't hold GL at fault alone in this. I feel that the overall
quality of movie scripts in the last decade has been on a fast decline
while the availability of over the top special effects (and use because
of) on the rapid increase. There are exceptions to this statement, but
imho this has been the trend.

Having re-read what I wrote above I think that "reliance" was prolly not
quite the idea I was trying to convey. I would say that in terms of
quality 1-3 were very lopsided. Some more than others. The effects were
generally quality while much of the dialog and character developments
weren't. So lack of balance between script and affects might be more
what I am trying to say. I completely agree that GL most likely did not
come to the set with some scribled crap lines (in his mind) thinking
that he would save the films with CGI. But there is some "thing" just
missing from them for me, and I keep wanting to go back to the scripts
and deliveries to blame for it.

>
> I would think that he was infinitely more distracted during ANH, since
> (the newly established) ILM was trying to go well beyond the state of
> effects at the time, and suffered from delays and failures. And he got
> sick. And he had a studio he had to appease. I don't see how having to
> work with less makes you a better writer or director. More resourceful,
> maybe.

I dunno if I completely agree with you here. I think that having less
would force some directors/writers to focus more on what they do have at
their disposal. I.E. more scrutiny in regards to delivery and exact
wording. If all you have is a script then you better make sure it is a
good one. And delivered well.

>
> There are plenty of non-effects, non-event movies out there that suck
> hard, but no one says it's because the director was too distracted
> with, or relied too much on, the makeup or lighting.
>
>
>
> Ken
>

I can see that too. I don't want to misrepresent myself here. I don't
think that the most recent three Star Wars films were bad. I have seen
them all mulitple times and will see them all again I am sure. But in my
mind the episode 1-3 films don't come close to doing the franchise justice.

Pleasure having a civilized discussion with you.

Ryan

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163721 ]

Mi, 09 November 2005 06:28

Anybody

In article <6701-4370660D-185 [at] storefull-3353.bay.webtv.net>,
ry713 [at] webtv.net (Ry Zo) wrote:

> I saw a pic somewhere that has Vader (pre-mask) behind Shaak-Ti in the
> Jedi temple about to kill her. I didn't see this scene on the DVD.
> Anyone know about this?

Here's a picture:
http://www.oafe.net/yo/art/sw3st6.jpg

The Shaak Ti death scene evidently changed a few times:

Shaak Ti has avoided the grim reaper several times. She
was originally slated to die at the end of the Clone Wars
cartoon, but that got scrapped. Then she was to have
been captured along with Palpatine, her death at the
hands of General Grievous witnessed by the rescuing Jedi.
But that idea was chopped because the opening was taking
too long, so her death was moved back again, this time to
a meditation room in the Jedi temple, where the
newly-dubbed Darth Vader would have taken her out
mercilessly (thus the included base). But again, the
pacing was all wrong, so the scenes were removed. Did
Shaak Ti survive the Great Jedi Purge and escape into
hiding, or did she meet the same ignominious end as most
of her comrades?

I think the Grievous version is in the DVD's Deleted Scenes. Maybe the
Vader version will appear in the Deleted Scenes of the Prequel Trilogy
boxed set or the Saga boxed set.

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163722 ]

Mi, 09 November 2005 06:47

ry713

Thanks for answering that for me.

Being as her death is not part of the "official film release". Maybe she
did survive afterall? Would be cool if she was on the TV show as one of
the last remaining Jedi. Anyways, thanks again!

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163727 ]

Mi, 09 November 2005 13:17

Jack Thomas

"Ken Maeda" <kmaeda9 [at] att.net> wrote in message
news:1131448597.478809.172230 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jack Thomas wrote:
>> > No idea. I've got the DVD, but no DVD player to put it in. :-(
>>
>> Insert it between the cheeks of your arse.
>
> With the way you keep obsessing over the poor guy, it's starting to
> sound as if you'd like to do the same thing to him... only with
> something else.

Sorry for getting you all short of breath but no, I have no inclination
towards that style of fornication.

He is a delicate little thing who killfiles those of us who disagree with
his opinion.
I happen to be one of those fortunate ones who have had this honour bestowed
upon me.
I just like responding in the way I do to see if he actually reads my
reponses to his twaddle and on the odd occassion he has, despite the
killfile.

You may think I have an obsession and to some extent you are right.
I've been on this newsgroup for a great number of years and have read many a
fanboy rant. I kept a reasonably civil tongue but now that SW is all but
over I feel the need to vent my spleen at some of the wankers that frequent
here.

There are two suckers on here who just can't resist the urge to respond to
my baiting and he is one of them.

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163728 ]

Mi, 09 November 2005 13:25

Jack Thomas

"Jack Thomas" <jackthomas60 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4371e8cc [at] news.eftel.com...
>
> "Ken Maeda" <kmaeda9 [at] att.net> wrote in message
> news:1131448597.478809.172230 [at] o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Jack Thomas wrote:
>>> > No idea. I've got the DVD, but no DVD player to put it in. :-(
>>>
>>> Insert it between the cheeks of your arse.
>>
>> With the way you keep obsessing over the poor guy, it's starting to
>> sound as if you'd like to do the same thing to him... only with
>> something else.
>
> Sorry for getting you all short of breath but no, I have no inclination
> towards that style of fornication.
>
> He is a delicate little thing who killfiles those of us who disagree with
> his opinion.
> I happen to be one of those fortunate ones who have had this honour
> bestowed upon me.
> I just like responding in the way I do to see if he actually reads my
> reponses to his twaddle and on the odd occassion he has, despite the
> killfile.
>
> You may think I have an obsession and to some extent you are right.
> I've been on this newsgroup for a great number of years and have read many
> a fanboy rant. I kept a reasonably civil tongue but now that SW is all but
> over I feel the need to vent my spleen at some of the wankers that
> frequent here.
>
> There are two suckers on here who just can't resist the urge to respond to
> my baiting and he is one of them.

Oh, btw thanks for your concern but it is totally misguided.

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163733 ]

Mi, 09 November 2005 16:05

Ken Maeda

Ryan Case wrote:
> First, I don't hold GL at fault alone in this. I feel that the overall
> quality of movie scripts in the last decade has been on a fast decline
> while the availability of over the top special effects (and use because
> of) on the rapid increase. There are exceptions to this statement, but
> imho this has been the trend.

It's probably a combination of things. The thing that first comes to
mind is a generational bias. Every couple of decades, those on either
side of the medium (actors/producers/etc and the public), deplore the
current state of movies... "It's not as good as they were back in my
day." Same goes for music and sports. And newsgroups.

But the movie industry does crank out tons more movies these days, so
it's easier for things to get watered down. And I guess when big
special-effects movies are all but guaranteed to bring in substantial
profits, the studios are certainly content to just hand the writing
over to ten guys, put in splashy graphics, and watch the crowds pay up.

> Having re-read what I wrote above I think that "reliance" was prolly not
> quite the idea I was trying to convey. I would say that in terms of
> quality 1-3 were very lopsided. Some more than others. The effects were
> generally quality while much of the dialog and character developments
> weren't. So lack of balance between script and affects might be more
> what I am trying to say. I completely agree that GL most likely did not
> come to the set with some scribled crap lines (in his mind) thinking
> that he would save the films with CGI. But there is some "thing" just
> missing from them for me, and I keep wanting to go back to the scripts
> and deliveries to blame for it.

Yeah, like I said earlier, I have no problem putting the blame on
George's writing and directing. But it's just too easy for people to
say he was more interested in how ILM was doing (and even if you didn't
mean to put it that way, a lot of people do). I guess his weaknesses in
the "finer" aspects of moviemaking pretty much just got exploited here.
Then again, it's not like he's in denial about his talents in that
regard, but I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

> I dunno if I completely agree with you here. I think that having less
> would force some directors/writers to focus more on what they do have at
> their disposal. I.E. more scrutiny in regards to delivery and exact
> wording. If all you have is a script then you better make sure it is a
> good one. And delivered well.

Maybe in a small indie drama, or a TV series that's trying to get a
network deal. But I don't think anything would've enlightened George
and made him stay up night after night honing the script and working
overtime with the cast.

But who knows, maybe if he'd had to start all over again, and had to
*sell* the prequels to a studio, these movies would've been far better
(in the hands of other directors and writers). But again, it's not like
George just sat around by the pool when it came time to doing ESB in
the wake of ANH's massive success. It wasn't the creative and financial
freedom that made the prequels subpar.

> I can see that too. I don't want to misrepresent myself here. I don't
> think that the most recent three Star Wars films were bad. I have seen
> them all mulitple times and will see them all again I am sure. But in my
> mind the episode 1-3 films don't come close to doing the franchise justice.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but yeah, they certainly didn't live
up to expectations. And one could say that it's not fair to say that,
but it wasn't really the stories that were a letdown, it was the
execution. As Ebert says, "It's not what a film is about, but how it's
about it."

The prequels did seem to lack the "charm" of the originals, and that
might've been what George was most hard-pressed to duplicate.

> Pleasure having a civilized discussion with you.

Ah, screw you! (kidding).

Ken

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163734 ]

Mi, 09 November 2005 16:48

Ryan Case

Ken Maeda wrote:
> Ryan Case wrote:
>
>>First, I don't hold GL at fault alone in this. I feel that the overall
>>quality of movie scripts in the last decade has been on a fast decline
>>while the availability of over the top special effects (and use because
>>of) on the rapid increase. There are exceptions to this statement, but
>>imho this has been the trend.
>
>
> It's probably a combination of things. The thing that first comes to
> mind is a generational bias. Every couple of decades, those on either
> side of the medium (actors/producers/etc and the public), deplore the
> current state of movies... "It's not as good as they were back in my
> day." Same goes for music and sports. And newsgroups.

I heavily considered mentioning this, but then I sat and tried to
think of movies that were the opposite and found myself thinking of
movies from the last three decades. So I decided that that nullified
that argument in my case.

What I will admit to is a maturity change within myself. I find that I
am less drawn to action movies nowdays and more drawn to cerebral types.
I prefer a movie that makes me think and the special effects are icing
on the cake. The new battlestar gallactica series is a good example of
this INHO.

This may have something to do with my feelings on the prequil vs. the
originals. I was quite young for the originals and therefore more easily
moved?

I also have to qualify my above statements by saying that I will watch
anything with Jet-Li in it. But I know that the story will suck going
into it, so I am not disapointed.

>
> But the movie industry does crank out tons more movies these days, so
> it's easier for things to get watered down. And I guess when big
> special-effects movies are all but guaranteed to bring in substantial
> profits, the studios are certainly content to just hand the writing
> over to ten guys, put in splashy graphics, and watch the crowds pay up.

One of the three jobs that I held down in the begining of my college
career was at one of the local theatres. I got spoiled for movie going
from then on.

Now, because of that, I almost exclusively go to the first showing of
something on Friday afternoon. I usually all but have the house to
myself recently. Only recent exception was War of the Worlds. I went the
latest showing on a Thursday and was the ONLY one there, after having
seen it I understand why.

It may be the times that I am going, but movie attendance seems to be
down as a whole to me. This has to at least be in part to the decline of
the quality of movies. (with obvious exception to Transporter2 LOL).

>
>
>
>>Having re-read what I wrote above I think that "reliance" was prolly not
>>quite the idea I was trying to convey. I would say that in terms of
>>quality 1-3 were very lopsided. Some more than others. The effects were
>>generally quality while much of the dialog and character developments
>>weren't. So lack of balance between script and affects might be more
>>what I am trying to say. I completely agree that GL most likely did not
>>come to the set with some scribled crap lines (in his mind) thinking
>>that he would save the films with CGI. But there is some "thing" just
>>missing from them for me, and I keep wanting to go back to the scripts
>>and deliveries to blame for it.
>
>
> Yeah, like I said earlier, I have no problem putting the blame on
> George's writing and directing. But it's just too easy for people to
> say he was more interested in how ILM was doing (and even if you didn't
> mean to put it that way, a lot of people do). I guess his weaknesses in
> the "finer" aspects of moviemaking pretty much just got exploited here.
> Then again, it's not like he's in denial about his talents in that
> regard, but I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

Yeah, when he has a crew doing as good a job on SE as they did with
the prequels it becomes easy to have a knee jerk reaction and assume
that his attentions were all there. Especially when the dialogs and
deliveries were as painful as they were to watch. I actually find myself
getting disapointed when Padme and Anakin come on screen together.
Before they even open their mouths my emotions are geared up for a let down.

>
>
>
>>I dunno if I completely agree with you here. I think that having less
>>would force some directors/writers to focus more on what they do have at
>>their disposal. I.E. more scrutiny in regards to delivery and exact
>>wording. If all you have is a script then you better make sure it is a
>>good one. And delivered well.
>
>
> Maybe in a small indie drama, or a TV series that's trying to get a
> network deal. But I don't think anything would've enlightened George
> and made him stay up night after night honing the script and working
> overtime with the
>
> But who knows, maybe if he'd had to start all over again, and had to
> *sell* the prequels to a studio, these movies would've been far better
> (in the hands of other directors and writers). But again, it's not like
> George just sat around by the pool when it came time to doing ESB in
> the wake of ANH's massive success. It wasn't the creative and financial
> freedom that made the prequels subpar.

I think he prolly had more fire in his belly back then, money or not. At
least the finished product makes it seem that way. Most indie
directors/writers could prolly be described as having quite a bit of
fire in their bellies too.

>
>
>
>>I can see that too. I don't want to misrepresent myself here. I don't
>>think that the most recent three Star Wars films were bad. I have seen
>>them all mulitple times and will see them all again I am sure. But in my
>>mind the episode 1-3 films don't come close to doing the franchise justice.
>
>
> I don't know if I'd go that far, but yeah, they certainly didn't live
> up to expectations. And one could say that it's not fair to say that,
> but it wasn't really the stories that were a letdown, it was the
> execution. As Ebert says, "It's not what a film is about, but how it's
> about it."
>
> The prequels did seem to lack the "charm" of the originals, and that
> might've been what George was most hard-pressed to duplicate.
>
>
>
>>Pleasure having a civilized discussion with you.
>
>
> Ah, screw you! (kidding).

Didn't you learn anything after your "insert between arse cheeks"
statement? LOL

Ryan
>
>
>
> Ken
>

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #163735 ]

Mi, 09 November 2005 16:49

Ryan Case

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #166220 ]

Sa, 12 November 2005 15:15

j porter

"Ry Zo" <ry713 [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
news:18732-43718D64-1378 [at] storefull-3351.bay.webtv.net...
> Thanks for answering that for me.
>
> Being as her death is not part of the "official film release". Maybe she
> did survive afterall? Would be cool if she was on the TV show as one of
> the last remaining Jedi. Anyways, thanks again!
>
What TV show? Are they going to have one about the Jedi that are in hiding?
I think that there are many hints throughout the movie series that some
others survived, does Lucas confirm that? If so to all of that question
barrage, then that would be awesome!

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #166244 ]

So, 13 November 2005 03:23

Anybody

In article <kOmdf.1799$DL6.734 [at] twister.nyroc.rr.com>, "j porter"
<mporter1 [at] twcny.rr.com> wrote:

> "Ry Zo" <ry713 [at] webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:18732-43718D64-1378 [at] storefull-3351.bay.webtv.net...
> > Thanks for answering that for me.
> >
> > Being as her death is not part of the "official film release". Maybe she
> > did survive afterall? Would be cool if she was on the TV show as one of
> > the last remaining Jedi. Anyways, thanks again!
>
> What TV show? Are they going to have one about the Jedi that are in hiding?
> I think that there are many hints throughout the movie series that some
> others survived, does Lucas confirm that? If so to all of that question
> barrage, then that would be awesome!

There are two currently TV shows in the plans.

The first show has already begun work and I think is due in 2006. This
is a animated show using 3D computer graphics. It is based during the
Clone Wars time period. Best guess is that it'll be something similar
to the Starship Troopers: Roughnecks animated show.

The second show is a live action show currently planned to begin
filming either late next year or in 2007 (don't expect it on your TV
screen until late 2007 or 2008). This show is based in the timeframe
between Episode III and Episode IV and will be about a lesser character
we've already seen in the movies - it will not be based around the
Skywalker family or any of the main movie characters (although one or
two MIGHT show up as guest star roles). The 'best guess' rumour is that
it will be about Boba Fett. The plan is to make 100, hour long
episodes, and if that is succesful other episodes and possibly other TV
shows will be made too.

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #166280 ]

So, 13 November 2005 23:30

atomic

Ry Zo wrote:

> Thanks for answering that for me.
>
> Being as her death is not part of the "official film release". Maybe she
> did survive afterall? Would be cool if she was on the TV show as one of
> the last remaining Jedi. Anyways, thanks again!

I agree - there has to be more Jedi out there - I mean by the end of
ROTS.

The Jedi can't be ALL dead (besides Obi and Yoda I mean).

In ANH Obi says that Vader helped the Emporer hunt down and destroy the
Jedi. This would have taken much longer than just the ones we saw in
ROTS.

Also, the encoded message that Obi changed from the Temple - calling
all the Jedi back.

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #166285 ]

Mo, 14 November 2005 06:50

Darth Mura

Ry Zo wrote:
> Thanks for answering that for me.
>
> Being as her death is not part of the "official film release". Maybe she
> did survive afterall? Would be cool if she was on the TV show as one of
> the last remaining Jedi. Anyways, thanks again!

Or if Mace survived his fall and comes back with a mechanical arm ready
to kick ass on some Sith.

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #166287 ]

Mo, 14 November 2005 08:33

John Duncan Yoyo

On 13 Nov 2005 14:30:54 -0800, "atomic" <stereobahbah [at] optusnet.com.au>
wrote:

>
>Ry Zo wrote:
>
>> Thanks for answering that for me.
>>
>> Being as her death is not part of the "official film release". Maybe she
>> did survive afterall? Would be cool if she was on the TV show as one of
>> the last remaining Jedi. Anyways, thanks again!
>
>I agree - there has to be more Jedi out there - I mean by the end of
>ROTS.
>
>The Jedi can't be ALL dead (besides Obi and Yoda I mean).
>
>In ANH Obi says that Vader helped the Emporer hunt down and destroy the
>Jedi. This would have taken much longer than just the ones we saw in
>ROTS.
>
>Also, the encoded message that Obi changed from the Temple - calling
>all the Jedi back.

According to the Ultimate Visual Guide there are Jedi out there who
dropped out of the order rather than join in the clone war. There is
an example of the Dark Woman who Vader killed after the Jedi Purge.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.

Re: ROTS DVD vs. Film [message #166297 ]

Mo, 14 November 2005 20:54

Anybody

In article <59fgn1did5u3o5a10h884bpp8rkocvivr3 [at] 4ax.com>, John Duncan
Yoyo <john-duncan-yoyo [at] cox.net> wrote:

> On 13 Nov 2005 14:30:54 -0800, "atomic" <stereobahbah [at] optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
> >
> >Ry Zo wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for answering that for me.
> >>
> >> Being as her death is not part of the "official film release". Maybe she
> >> did survive afterall? Would be cool if she was on the TV show as one of
> >> the last remaining Jedi. Anyways, thanks again!
> >
> >I agree - there has to be more Jedi out there - I mean by the end of
> >ROTS.
> >
> >The Jedi can't be ALL dead (besides Obi and Yoda I mean).
> >
> >In ANH Obi says that Vader helped the Emporer hunt down and destroy the
> >Jedi. This would have taken much longer than just the ones we saw in
> >ROTS.
> >
> >Also, the encoded message that Obi changed from the Temple - calling
> >all the Jedi back.
>
> According to the Ultimate Visual Guide there are Jedi out there who
> dropped out of the order rather than join in the clone war. There is
> an example of the Dark Woman who Vader killed after the Jedi Purge.

There will also have been Jedi who were busy with other tasks around
the galaxy that were not connected with the Clone War and so they
nowhere near any clone troopers when the "kill them all" order was
give.

Vorheriges Thema:	Anybody watched Episodes I-VI in order yet?
Nächstes Thema:	Why the Death Star took so long to biuld.

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Do Mai 24 09:32:27 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,04850 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.