If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   10 things you probably didn't know about Star Wars: Return of the Jedi   (io9.com) divider line 104
    More: Obvious, Return of the Jedi, Star Wars, Jedi, Anthony Daniels, David Prowse, Ian McDiarmid, Ralph McQuarrie, Billy Dee Williams  
•       •       •

15022 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Sep 2013 at 10:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-26 10:17:41 PM  

bhcompy: karmachameleon: For the longest time, I thought that they could hardly have done worse. Then 1999 and The Phantom Menace rolled around, and boy was I wrong.

It wasn't a bad movie.  It actually had plenty of good moments. It just wasn't a very good movie. Could hardly have done worse would seem a bit hyperbolic, even without the prequels to compare them to


You're right, it's not bad, it's just not good.  At the time that seemed a big disappointment.  I never imagined it could sink to the depths of the prequel trilogy.  In hindsight, Jedi seems like a masterpiece in comparison, and it would have been fine with me if they'd just left it there.
 
2013-09-26 10:22:30 PM  

peterthx: American Decency Association:

That first shot is nothing but a beautiful f*cking set.

Beautiful f*cking sets are a dying race.

I have nothing inherently against green screen.  Sci-fi especially would be very hard without digital effects, but the ease with which something is done cheapens the final product.

What's the difference though if the audience can't tell?

Sets are made of wood or paint on glass or pixels. If they look real it's good enough.


You're right.  Too bad most of the digital sets used in the prequels don't look real.
 
2013-09-26 10:26:55 PM  
peterthx: blue_2501: [upload.wikimedia.org image 440x229]

That this extended music number never existed in the original.  You know, because an entire generation cannot see the originals, and they wouldn't know.

So much stupid BS butthurt with the added scenes.

FIFY


Use of the word "butthurt" is a cop-out dismissal.  No thought involved.  Making significant changes to seminal films isn't an activity to be taken lightly or encouraged.  It violates the integrity of the original work, to put it simply.  Going further to actually withhold the originals from distribution simply borders on malevolence, and reveals a deep disrespect both for the original work and the audience that loves it.  In my opinion, George Lucas entered truly dark territory as a filmmaker by going down this path, a path you'll note is more or less unprecedented in all the rest of the film world.  If you disagree, so be it, but make a cogent argument supporting your position rather than throwing a cliched word around as if it actually means something.
 
2013-09-27 01:20:43 AM  

karmachameleon: You're right.  Too bad most of the digital sets used in the prequels don't look real.


You do realize a lot of the sets were real with extensions, along with models. There is very little actual CG-rendered locations. People who think such-and-such is CG in the prequels always get it wrong.

Use of the word "butthurt" is a cop-out dismissal.  No thought involved.

Because the biatching and arguments are over 15 years old now. The thoughts pro-and-con have been argued to death, except certain people are still biatching on the internet. Get over it.
It's not a terrorist attack, or the loss of loved ones or your life savings. It's a movie. Move on.
 
Displayed 4 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report