The Original Star Wars Trilogy

[Inui Takumi]

I posed this question on Facebook and thought I'd ask here too.

Let me come right out and say this straight up, I haven't seen the original Star Wars trilogy. I tried watching A New Hope like a decade ago and couldnt get into it. It was sort of one of those things that I never had any interest in, despite everyone having seen them. yeah, I'm taking a few hit points off of my Geek card.

But I got a question to pose for you guys. I always hear people rag on how the re-releases of the trilogy are blasphemy and horrible because of the changes Lucas made to them and the CGI added. My question is basically do the changes really effect my viewing of it? I mean, CGI is not really a problem for me. Come on, I watch Tokusatsu after all and not all of it is great CGI. But I want to know if the story is drastically changed because of it. Cuz if it isnt, I dont mind watching the remastered versions.

 

[Bolt]

As far as enhancing or detracting from the original versions of the movies, it's pretty much tantamount to pissing in the ocean.

 

[tigerblood]

I couldn't agree more.

SW is my top favorite franchise, so I'm a bit biased, but what Lucas added was his vision that couldn't have been accomplished in 77.

I think that the difference between the 2 trilogies offers the viewer a thematic shift.

Eps I-III show a sprawling universe with all the color and vibrance of the vegas strip taken to the extreme. It is the Story of the chosen one who is effectively the lynch pin to the fate of the entire Republic.

Eps IV-VI show a sparsely populated desert planet, a desolate ice planet, and finally a teeming jungle. The landscapes are less important in the second half of the saga because the story is Vader's story. It is a story of redemption. In love conquering hate and fear.

 

[KingRanger]

I couldn't agree more.

SW is my top favorite franchise, so I'm a bit biased, but what Lucas added was his vision that couldn't have been accomplished in 77.

I think that the difference between the 2 trilogies offers the viewer a thematic shift.

Eps I-III show a sprawling universe with all the color and vibrance of the vegas strip taken to the extreme. It is the Story of the chosen one who is effectively the lynch pin to the fate of the entire Republic.

Eps IV-VI show a sparsely populated desert planet, a desolate ice planet, and finally a teeming jungle. The landscapes are less important in the second half of the saga because the story is Vader's story. It is a story of redemption. In love conquering hate and fear.

Except 1-3 are damn boring. Episode 1 is just a snooze fest. Episode 2 has that god awful forced romance that just is groan worthy, and episode 3 well... The final battle is the ONLY thing needed from all those movies. The only good thing to come from those prequels was the CGI Clone wars series.

The ORIGINAL movies were amazing. So they only had a few locations? So what? Do you judge movies only based on where the story takes place? I sure as hell don't. I think the original movies were far superior. What Lucas added was just fluff.

The updated Original movies with the extra stuff are just meh. What is added seems tacked on and meh.

 

[Mr G]

I'm a pretty major geek but Star Wars isn't one of my things. I enjoy the original triology but that is about it. IMO, it doesn't make any difference whether you watch the remastered versions or not. Like King mentioned, it's just fluff. You'll be good to go with whichever version you decide to watch. :thumbs:

 

[Jacky392000]

Episode III was the only Star Wars movie I didn't enjoy, except the final part when Anakin was resurrected as Darth Vader. I still remember how the entire cinema was so quiet, until he broke the silence with his signature Vader-breathing. that scene was just breath taking (no pun intended).

regarding the remasters, I wasn't quite impressed when they replaced Sebastian Shaw's Anakin with Hayden's Anakin in the final movie. they should have stopped at the part where they added the other planets celebrating their freedom from the Empire's rule.

 

[tigerblood]

The only good thing to come from those prequels was the CGI Clone wars series.

The ORIGINAL movies were amazing. So they only had a few locations? So what? Do you judge movies only based on where the story takes place? I sure as hell don't. I think the original movies were far superior. What Lucas added was just fluff.

I love Clone Wars, it is better at times than I-III.

My point is that the few locations of the OT, put into context of the PT, give a beautiful thematic shift. While I-III is the inferior trilogy I feel that it serves to enhance the ORIGINAL amazing movies.

BTW, are you the KingRanger of the Tv-N subs for KR 555? If you are, Thank you. I am enjoying that show.

 

[VengeanceGOD]

Let me see if I can explain this without getting into fanboy rage.

Here's the changes Lucas made, and why they're bad.

1) THE CHANGE: CG EFFECTS
WHY IT'S BAD: The original model effects, if you look at them today, still hold up. The spaceships still look like spaceships, and everything just has a since of realism to it. The effects from 1997, while amazing then, are already dated and give the film an unrealistic, cartoony look. Kids looking at it today will be pulled out into saying "Oh, it's an old movie," instead of "Oh man, this is a great story!"

2) THE CHANGE: ADDED SEQUENCES
WHY IT'S BAD: The added Jabba the Hutt sequence isn't so bad, it actually adds some background to Han Solo's character and introduces a major villain. The problem is that that info was already given two seconds ago in the Greedo scene, which, combined with the problems with Jabba's CG effect (see above) and the fact that you suddenly have to believe Jabba gained around ten thousand pounds in two years to be as big as he is in Jedi...it's not that great.

The other sequences he adds all add time in places where the film doesn't need it. There are two huge song and dance sequences added that really take away from the atmosphere of Jabba's Palace and the Mos Eisley Cantina, giving it more of a cutesy kid film feel. And there's other places, like an intro to Mos Eisley itself that stretches the establishing shot and prevents us from getting into the action.

3) THE CHANGE: HAN SHOOTS SECOND
WHY IT'S BAD: This is the big one, the one people sort of rally around whenever we talk about why the changes take away from the original trilogy. Han Solo, when you first meet him, is a mysterious, mercenary character. While he's funny, we're never really, truly sure what side he's on until he saves Luke, and the Greedo scene is a big part of that. The revelation that Han Solo has a heart of gold underneath it all is an important one to the character, and part of the reason why he's so loved today, and to have him only fire in self defense gives it away early.

 

[chronoxiong]

I think the fans that criticize Lucas on the original trilogy were for those added scenes and special effects that he fixed/added. I don't mind many of the changes as I thought they do add to the world that Lucas wants to show us. Many of us still believe that he didn't think about all this when he first created Star Wars back in the 70s. I for one, don't really care as he did a great job of trying to connect all the dots. The one issue I do have with the remastered DVDs were the insertion of Hayden Christensen at the end of RoTJ. I thought it was forced and no way in hell would Luke recognize him. But again, Lucas' explanation for it does kinda makes sense. I also wished he fixed Vader's lightsaber too because it looks pink at times. Anyways, I can't wait for the Blu-Rays to come out soon!

 

[Cosmic Humour]

My problem with the changes are more of a historical documentation thing. These movies are culturally important and impactful. Even if you don't like the Star Wars films, go to the sci-fi section of a bookstore or a toy store and try and tell me they haven't changed the shape of film and American culture forever. You could even argue Star Wars is what kicked off stuff like Transformers and He-man.

The problem with fiddling with it for me is that the original films were created in a fascinating space of history and what made them amazing, aside from a beautifully executed story, was the conditions and scenes it was created in. Part of the beauty is the garage-budget creativity they had to have to make these films. Going and using millions of dollars to put in computer-generated robots cheapens the film and, like a lot of modern film spectacle, distracts from the actual film itself.