Just finished watching Star Wars..

[Nardpuncher]

I've always found A New Hope dated, but Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi hold up remarkably well.

I noticed that too. It seems like there's 10 years between the making of Star Wars and Empire, but only 1 between Empire and Jedi...if you know what I mean.

 

[RandyS]

That's pretty much the essence of the "uncanny valley" effect. I admit I had wondered how long it would be before that began applying to movie CGI.

No, that's not even remotely what I'm talking about. I'm just being nostalgic for the days when you could see the flaws but were called upon to suspend your disbelief voluntarily, to use your own imagination to convince yourself that the guy in an obvious rubber suit attacking obvious toy buildings is really a terrifying giant monster wreaking havoc across Tokyo, or whatever. It evokes that capacity to imagine, to project your own mental images onto something that only roughly resembles them, that we're all born with and have as children, but that society conditions us to abandon as we get older. These days, nobody wants to use their imaginations; they insist that the images they get onscreen be utterly convincing so they don't have to make any mental effort at all. But I enjoy the childlike sense of play involved in seeing something that's obviously fake but choosing to pretend it's real. And I enjoy being able to see the mechanics of how an illusion is created.

I share these concerns. One thing about modern audiences that irritates me- and I'm quickly going to clarify that this is not in any way an attack on PKerr's comments- is how they sneer and laugh at any special effect that is not seamless, perfect, and so presumably cost truckloads of money to produce. I can't count the number of times I've heard a viewing partner comment dissmissively "that loooks fake", to which I usually reply "that's because it is...". It's yet another reason why I find books preferrable to film. With most books, I play them as films inside my head as I go through, and it's very entertaining and stimulating.

I have found this to be true in the younger audience members. I have a friend who is 25, and won't watch TOS (Star Trek), or TNG simply because "They're SOOOOOO old.", and while he will watch Star Wars, he always prefers the SE's to the originals. Once I got him to look at the OT without all the changes, and all he could say was "thank God they made changes, this old stuff is stupid".

I love his reaction when I try to get him to look Star Trek. He (ironically) says "Why should I watch something made in the past?"

I agree with your comment abot books being better than movies though.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

No, that's not even remotely what I'm talking about. I'm just being nostalgic for the days when you could see the flaws but were called upon to suspend your disbelief voluntarily, to use your own imagination to convince yourself that the guy in an obvious rubber suit attacking obvious toy buildings is really a terrifying giant monster wreaking havoc across Tokyo, or whatever. It evokes that capacity to imagine, to project your own mental images onto something that only roughly resembles them, that we're all born with and have as children, but that society conditions us to abandon as we get older. These days, nobody wants to use their imaginations; they insist that the images they get onscreen be utterly convincing so they don't have to make any mental effort at all. But I enjoy the childlike sense of play involved in seeing something that's obviously fake but choosing to pretend it's real. And I enjoy being able to see the mechanics of how an illusion is created.

I share these concerns. One thing about modern audiences that irritates me- and I'm quickly going to clarify that this is not in any way an attack on PKerr's comments- is how they sneer and laugh at any special effect that is not seamless, perfect, and so presumably cost truckloads of money to produce. I can't count the number of times I've heard a viewing partner comment dissmissively "that loooks fake", to which I usually reply "that's because it is...". It's yet another reason why I find books preferrable to film. With most books, I play them as films inside my head as I go through, and it's very entertaining and stimulating.

I have found this to be true in the younger audience members. I have a friend who is 25, and won't watch TOS (Star Trek), or TNG simply because "They're SOOOOOO old.", and while he will watch Star Wars, he always prefers the SE's to the originals. Once I got him to look at the OT without all the changes, and all he could say was "thank God they made changes, this old stuff is stupid".

I love his reaction when I try to get him to look Star Trek. He (ironically) says "Why should I watch something made in the past?"

I agree with your comment abot books being better than movies though.

Well, I'm 19, so my peers usually are the younger audience members. Pity me!

 

[PKerr]

Just finished the original trilogy and the other two do hold up much better.

I never really got into the debate over the added scenes as honestly it never really bothered me.

About the only thing that makes me cringe is the way they placed Hayden Christensen into the final footage, that never, EVER worked for me.

I know they did it to tie the first three into the second three but I never cared for the second three.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Just finished the original trilogy and the other two do hold up much better.

I never really got into the debate over the added scenes as honestly it never really bothered me.

About the only thing that makes me cringe is the way they placed Hayden Christensen into the final footage, that never, EVER worked for me.

I know they did it to tie the first three into the second three but I never cared for the second three.

While not particularly interested in "Star Wars", I was a little annoyed that the prequal three do not in fact match up at all well with the original trilogy. The connections simply don't work for me, and there are too many oddities in how things in the original trilogy are explained. They're like two different stories entirely, or perhaps more accurately halves of two different drafts of a story.

 

[Christopher]

About the only thing that makes me cringe is the way they placed Hayden Christensen into the final footage, that never, EVER worked for me.

The thing that makes me cringe is the way they placed Hayden Christensen in Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. That never worked for me either.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I miss vector graphics.

 

[Tulin]

And sometimes I wonder if special effects have become too perfect. The charm of old special effects was that they didn't do all the work for you; they suggested an image as best they could, but it was up to your own imagination to take it the rest of the way.

That's pretty much the essence of the "uncanny valley" effect. I admit I had wondered how long it would be before that began applying to movie CGI.

No, that's not even remotely what I'm talking about. I'm just being nostalgic for the days when you could see the flaws but were called upon to suspend your disbelief voluntarily, to use your own imagination to convince yourself that the guy in an obvious rubber suit attacking obvious toy buildings is really a terrifying giant monster wreaking havoc across Tokyo, or whatever. It evokes that capacity to imagine, to project your own mental images onto something that only roughly resembles them, that we're all born with and have as children, but that society conditions us to abandon as we get older. These days, nobody wants to use their imaginations; they insist that the images they get onscreen be utterly convincing so they don't have to make any mental effort at all. But I enjoy the childlike sense of play involved in seeing something that's obviously fake but choosing to pretend it's real. And I enjoy being able to see the mechanics of how an illusion is created.

HEAR, HEAR!!!

I second this WHOLEHEARTEDLY!!!!

Christopher, I think there is a basic disconnect between the generation that saw SW as adolescents and Gen Y who were playing with Transformers in kindergarten in the mid to late '80's. You just cannot explain to a younger person what it was like to watch something like what you described and to be COMPLETELY caught up in it and enjoy it....again, for all the reasons you detailed above.

There is a rampant, nasty cynicsm in younger people today that wants to hate and deride anything that isn't, as you said, photo realistic, in terms on special effects. They have been spoiled but, unfortunately for them, never got to appreciate the journey to get there.

I also agree that I have ZERO interest in watching yet another DVD feature showing some long haired CGI artist talking about wire frames and the new program that makes fur ripple or whatever.

BOR-RING.

Give me real models, anamatronic Gizmos and actual, on-set practical effects because THAT is REAL.

 

[Trubinator]

I find the original trilogy to look quite fine so long as we're talking about the special edition.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I've always found A New Hope dated, but Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi hold up remarkably well.

The Imperial Walkers in Empire are probably the best stop motion photography I've seen in movies (realistic looking motion blur and no strobe effect).

 

[WHF]

This is the first time I've watched it in true high def ...

Just out curiosity Pkerr, which version are you watching? Disk one with the enhanced effects, or the original version on disk 2? I don't remember, but I think the boxes around the TIE fighters were fixed for the special edition. I have both, but it's been a while since I watched either.

The Trilogy Box set that came out a few years back.
The Silver one with the 3 movies and the bonus DVD.

...does not compute...

 

[TheBrew]

Give me real models, anamatronic Gizmos and actual, on-set practical effects because THAT is REAL.

Nope, still fake.

 

[coolghoul]

And sometimes I wonder if special effects have become too perfect. The charm of old special effects was that they didn't do all the work for you; they suggested an image as best they could, but it was up to your own imagination to take it the rest of the way.

That's pretty much the essence of the "uncanny valley" effect. I admit I had wondered how long it would be before that began applying to movie CGI.

No, that's not even remotely what I'm talking about. I'm just being nostalgic for the days when you could see the flaws but were called upon to suspend your disbelief voluntarily, to use your own imagination to convince yourself that the guy in an obvious rubber suit attacking obvious toy buildings is really a terrifying giant monster wreaking havoc across Tokyo, or whatever. It evokes that capacity to imagine, to project your own mental images onto something that only roughly resembles them, that we're all born with and have as children, but that society conditions us to abandon as we get older. These days, nobody wants to use their imaginations; they insist that the images they get onscreen be utterly convincing so they don't have to make any mental effort at all. But I enjoy the childlike sense of play involved in seeing something that's obviously fake but choosing to pretend it's real. And I enjoy being able to see the mechanics of how an illusion is created.

Luddite!



Seriously tho' - I only agree somewhat with the sentiments. eg. I lament the fact that more people amongst by nephew's/neice's generation don't read books (the wordy kind - not graphic novels) where you do need to exercise imagination and setup the mental picture. I also occasionally moan about how they are unwilling to watch a movie just cos it's black and white or old or done before they were born. However, I don't go so far as to wish for continued "lame-o" effects. The weird purple edges that you can see when something is superimposed in front of the screen - I don't "wish" for that to continue into the modern day. So, if the "cleaned-up" digital effects let the young generation more readily accept Star Wars then I am ok with GL's efforts in that direction. It's the absolutely silly and unnecessary Jabba the Hut addition to ANH that gets my goat. Completely ruins my respect for Jabba from RotJ - after all, that's the guy who can resist JMTs, who refuses bounty just cos he likes the coolth of having Han as a wall decoration and (last but certainly not least) also comes up with the awesome idea of Leia in a metal bikini in chains!

Edit: Heck I would even welcome them reading comic graphic novels but nooooo - the few that don't think it silly read manga all the way...

 

[Christopher]

I don't mind that there have been improvements in FX technology. I just wish that people wouldn't devalue the FX work of the past. I mean, even President Obama disses the original Star Trek's effects work, but that was revolutionary, state-of-the-art stuff for its time, garnering three consecutive Emmy nominations.

I wish people would look at it more like art. When it comes to art appreciation, you don't criticize Ancient Egyptian art because they didn't have the ability to depict perspective as realistically as later artists, or dismiss painting because it isn't as 3-dimensional as sculpture. You appreciate the particular qualities of each style of art and the skill and imagination that went into it. I think it's silly to argue over whether miniatures or CGI are "better." They both have advantages and weaknesses when it comes to realism. But I wish people wouldn't look at special effects at being purely a functional technique to approximate realism. I wish they'd enjoy special effects as an art form, where realism isn't as important as imagination and where distinct visual styles and techniques can be appreciated on their own merits rather than judged for their relative accuracy.

 

[coolghoul]

^ That sentiment I completely agree with.

My nephew/nieces laugh at Jason and the Argonauts - I remember being completely taken up with it when I was their age and saw it for the first time. Hours of imaginary pleasure ... epic story... harpies... Scylla and Charybdis... the Hydra... I wish they would get beyond the "those things move so jerky" or even "oh what weird colors" to appreciate what the people did with that technology at that time to create an engaging movie.

 

[sidious618]

I don't mind that there have been improvements in FX technology. I just wish that people wouldn't devalue the FX work of the past. I mean, even President Obama disses the original Star Trek's effects work, but that was revolutionary, state-of-the-art stuff for its time, garnering three consecutive Emmy nominations.

It really wasn't. Everyone I've talked to that was a kid at that time said it looked silly and cheap. I've no problem with bad special effects but let's not go saying they were the greatest thing ever.

 

[Christopher]

I don't mind that there have been improvements in FX technology. I just wish that people wouldn't devalue the FX work of the past. I mean, even President Obama disses the original Star Trek's effects work, but that was revolutionary, state-of-the-art stuff for its time, garnering three consecutive Emmy nominations.

It really wasn't. Everyone I've talked to that was a kid at that time said it looked silly and cheap.

Maybe they're seeing it through their present-day filters. Or maybe they're claiming to think that because it's fashionable to mock old VFX and they'd be embarrassed to admit they didn't always hate them. I don't remember hearing any such attitudes expressed until the '90s or so. I have a copy of a 1967 American Cinematographer article describing TOS's effects as "spectacular." The contemporary mainstream media coverage I have access to (mainly TV Guide articles reprinted in a 25th-anniversary magazine I have) don't praise the effects, but neither do they contain any of the "cardboard sets and cheesy effects" boilerplate that's obligatory these days in any mainstream discussion of TOS. Because at the time, by 1960s television standards, TOS's effects were groundbreaking. They did get three consecutive Emmy nominations -- that's a fact. Plus it was cited in a 1967 study as the number one reason why people were buying color television sets that year -- so clearly people were impressed enough by its visuals to be willing to spend money to see them in all their Technicolor glory.

I mean, come on, show me anything else from 1966-9 television that looked as good. What was its competition? Just the Irwin Allen shows like Lost in Space and Land of the Giants, and those looked a lot cheesier. The only place you'd get better VFX was in feature films, and there weren't that many big-budget space movies to compare it to either, at least until 2001 came along.

So if your friends genuinely did believe back in the 1960s that TOS's effects looked silly and cheap, then they must've had impossibly high standards. I think it's more likely that they've adopted that opinion in retrospect.

 

[Kelthaz]

My nephew/nieces laugh at Jason and the Argonauts - I remember being completely taken up with it when I was their age and saw it for the first time. Hours of imaginary pleasure ... epic story... harpies... Scylla and Charybdis... the Hydra... I wish they would get beyond the "those things move so jerky" or even "oh what weird colors" to appreciate what the people did with that technology at that time to create an engaging movie.

I laugh at the movie too. I saw it a few months ago for the first time and was very disappointed. It was a poorly written movie with great special effects. The Transformers of its day I suppose.

 

[Peter the Younger]

My guilt pleasures were the old Sinbad movies. The quality was all over the place in those films, and they kept recasting the lead. Watching a marathon of them one Saturday morning I couldn't stop laughing.

 

[FordSVT]

I think it's good that it looks dated. Lucas and the Star Wars franchise ended up getting too full of themselves. The charm of the original movie is that it wasn't some sort of ultra-expensive mega-blockbuster, but more of a rough-and-ready operation, a playful and somewhat cheesy homage to the cheesy, low-budget adventure serials of the '30s and '40s. It managed to pull together some of the top FX artists in the industry and spawn the beginning of a visual-FX revolution, but even so, it was a pioneering effort without the slickness of today. I like the idea that the seams are showing, that it isn't all perfect and modern. I wish the rest of the franchise had stayed truer to its relatively humble beginnings.

And sometimes I wonder if special effects have become too perfect. The charm of old special effects was that they didn't do all the work for you; they suggested an image as best they could, but it was up to your own imagination to take it the rest of the way.

Watch for them to touch up a lot of stuff in the 3D version. Many of those "charming" details will not remain, of that I am almost positive.