Some thoughts on the Star Wars DVD's

[Lexmark3200]

Hmm, curious...I'll have to look into it. I hadn't noticed anything reversed in the music, but wasn't listening for it. And if they can repair these dialogue nuances, even better.
I've heard many re-mastered DVD's with similar problems though, I just attributed it to age and the limits of modern studios...It's not nearly as bad as some movies, and you I only noticed it when the voices would all of a sudden return to normal.

I don't consider myself a Star Wars nut per se, I like just about any sci-fi movie (except maybe Battlefield Earth, Wing Commander, and anything Tim Burton touches).

Anyhoo, thanks for the tip Lex!!!

No problemo....figured I would point out that there were concerns about the audio on this Episode IV (which I think sounds silly --- just call it STAR WARS like they used to!) disc.

I know what you mean about remastered material; my "Predator Collector's Edition" is like this, where the audio, while loud and fresh sounding in DTS mode, just sounds uneven in quality and has continuous dialogue and effects dropouts; like machine gun fire would fill the front soundstage and then get lost somwhere in the two front channels and get very odd-sounding; its weird, but its there.

[Dusty Chalk]

The thing that bugged me about Episodes 1 and 2 was that the "action" sequences -- the pod race, the underwater creatures, the war with those fighter thingies and the bubbles, the part where they're rescuing the Natalie Portman character in the arena -- is that they felt like a video game. And when I played the video game (yes, I did), they (the movie scenes) felt like a setup for the video game. Whereas in the older movies, they felt like action sequences conducive to a storyline within a movie -- "oh, dear, they're in trouble, I hope they get away", "they're at war, look at all those X-wing fighters!", etc. It just felt smoother, like it was a natural extension of the plot in an action movie. In the newer films, they just felt gratuitous.

And WRT Greedo shooting and missing -- how can you miss at such close range? That's ridiculous.

[kexodusc]

The thing that bugged me about Episodes 1 and 2 was that the "action" sequences -- the pod race, the underwater creatures, the war with those fighter thingies and the bubbles, the part where they're rescuing the Natalie Portman character in the arena -- is that they felt like a video game. And when I played the video game (yes, I did), they (the movie scenes) felt like a setup for the video game. Whereas in the older movies, they felt like action sequences conducive to a storyline within a movie -- "oh, dear, they're in trouble, I hope they get away", "they're at war, look at all those X-wing fighters!", etc. It just felt smoother, like it was a natural extension of the plot in an action movie. In the newer films, they just felt gratuitous.

And WRT Greedo shooting and missing -- how can you miss at such close range? That's ridiculous.

That's interesting Dusty...there were a few scenes in Ep. 2 with Yoda that didn't quite look real enough for me, but for the most part I really think the goofy costumes and archaic special effects of the originals were improved.(though I do love a good muppet from time to time). I try not to judge movies by the effects, but it is hard. I have a feeling the Matrix would have been brutal in 1986.

I think in all, what I've come to realize it that the new Star Wars movies aren't so bad, but rather, the old ones weren't as good as I always remembered. As such, they were on an impossible pedestal that no movie could ever reach for many fans and critics. If the originals they were released today, they would be the new ones. Back in the 70's though, if it wasn't Disney, it wasn't made for kids (which is who Lucas said all along the story was mostly geared for). As such, they were revolutionary.
By 4, 5, and 6 movies, only a devoted fan will still appreciate a genre. Don't think I could sit through Tolkein's Silmarillion without drawing unfair comparisons either.

[Lexmark3200]

That's interesting Dusty...there were a few scenes in Ep. 2 with Yoda that didn't quite look real enough for me, but for the most part I really think the goofy costumes and archaic special effects of the originals were improved.(though I do love a good muppet from time to time). I try not to judge movies by the effects, but it is hard. I have a feeling the Matrix would have been brutal in 1986.

I think in all, what I've come to realize it that the new Star Wars movies aren't so bad, but rather, the old ones weren't as good as I always remembered. As such, they were on an impossible pedestal that no movie could ever reach for many fans and critics. If the originals they were released today, they would be the new ones. Back in the 70's though, if it wasn't Disney, it wasn't made for kids (which is who Lucas said all along the story was mostly geared for). As such, they were revolutionary.
By 4, 5, and 6 movies, only a devoted fan will still appreciate a genre. Don't think I could sit through Tolkein's Silmarillion without drawing unfair comparisons either.

I think the best that can be said here is that as we get older (I am at the ripe ole number of 31), most every single film we remember from our youth just doesnt have the same impact at all; this seems to be happening with every single older film I sit down with, some of which I paid a lot of money to have on DVD. I used to be a big fan, as a kid, of the "Airport" disaster films, as cheesy as they were, and watching them on DVD in the collection Universal put together of all of them, they just didnt "do it" for me like they used to; in fact, they seemed rather silly. Seems like a waste of money for the DVD box set now in hindsight.

I recently purchased "Police Academy 2" on DVD, after pondering whether or not to buy the entire Police Academy Collection set of all the films, because I was a fan of this series as a kid, too...watching part 2 the other night, all the gags and comedy just didnt seem to grab me or make me laugh anymore....it was downright stupid. This is happening with many films and collections I am buying on DVD; they just dont have the impact they used to have. Boy am I glad I didnt spend 60 bucks on that Police Academy collection...

And thats probably what is going to stop me, ultimately, from getting this Star Wars box set....sure, I own Episode II by itself, but I can watch that simply for the impact it gives me on my home theater....I think the original film trilogy just wont play back for me with the same magic it had when I was a kid. I dont even own Episode I (not anything really to do with whats being discussed here), but Im looking forward to III, where Anakin finally has to become Vader. Should be interesting.

Ultimately, it seems like certain films have a feel to them almost as if they ONLY belong being watched in the time they were created in; like, for me, Police Academy films only seemed to be funny when I was younger and me and my cousin used to watch the infamous shower scene with Mauzer when his hands get stuck to his head over and over and over on my VHS copy of part 2; now, that stuff doesnt seem entertaining or funny anymore.

But then, there are older films that just stand the test of time and you can pretty much enjoy them at any age, at any point in your life. I find this with the original "Exorcist", "Jurassic Park", "JFK", "GoodFellas", "Scarface" and films like that.You never really sit down with films like The Exorcist and GoodFellas and say "I just dont get this....this is so not entertaining...." because you are entertained by these films almost each time they are taken off the shelf. Although, I have to admit to watching Scarface just one too many times and thinking, when I first bought this new Anniversary DVD, "yeah, this film was cool the first 100 times I watched it....and now...well...."

[kexodusc]

I think you really hit the nail there, Lex...
There are some movies that just lose their impact, and then there are those that I've grown into...The Godfathers weren't something I really appreciated until I was 20 or so. ET comes to mind as being a huge, huge letdown now when I watch it...hard to remember what all the fuss was about.
Same with Batman...I remember Batman as being the first huge corporate movie that sold goofy cups and toys at McDonald's etc...now I just hate it.

Scarface suffers from Star Wars likey symptoms too...it was a bit groundbreaking at the time, but there've been so many similar and arguably better movies along those lines that it's lost a little something...Thank god for all those legendary one-liners though...

[Lexmark3200]

I think you really hit the nail there, Lex...
There are some movies that just lose their impact, and then there are those that I've grown into...The Godfathers weren't something I really appreciated until I was 20 or so. ET comes to mind as being a huge, huge letdown now when I watch it...hard to remember what all the fuss was about.
Same with Batman...I remember Batman as being the first huge corporate movie that sold goofy cups and toys at McDonald's etc...now I just hate it.

Scarface suffers from Star Wars likey symptoms too...it was a bit groundbreaking at the time, but there've been so many similar and arguably better movies along those lines that it's lost a little something...Thank god for all those legendary one-liners though...

Agreed, totally. Scarface has some classic one liners..."Who you callin' a spic, you white piece of bread?"

[Woochifer]

I think you really hit the nail there, Lex...
There are some movies that just lose their impact, and then there are those that I've grown into...The Godfathers weren't something I really appreciated until I was 20 or so. ET comes to mind as being a huge, huge letdown now when I watch it...hard to remember what all the fuss was about.
Same with Batman...I remember Batman as being the first huge corporate movie that sold goofy cups and toys at McDonald's etc...now I just hate it.

Scarface suffers from Star Wars likey symptoms too...it was a bit groundbreaking at the time, but there've been so many similar and arguably better movies along those lines that it's lost a little something...Thank god for all those legendary one-liners though...

Well, I think that's how a lot of it works out. "Singin' In The Rain" was a flop when it initially came out, and "American In Paris" got the big box office and won Best Picture. In the contemporary revisionist thinking, "Singin' In The Rain" is now typically regarded among the greatest musicals ever, while "American In Paris" has slipped in stature.

It's funny how revisionist thinking goes. I think Star Wars will always be regarded as a fun movie, though more people are now apt to pick on its flaws. Nowadays, a lot of people say that "Empire Strikes Back" is better than the original "Star Wars". But, within the trilogy, I think that "Empire Strikes Back" is the weakest as a standalone movie simply because it has no backstory and no resolution. Within the context of the completed trilogy, an argument can be made that it's the strongest movie in the series in regard to character and thematic development. I remember when Empire came out, a lot of people did not like it at all because it left so many unresolved plot threads at the conclusion. Now, I see a lot of reviewers taking shots at "Return of the Jedi", but that film was needed in order to put Empire in the correct context.

I haven't seen Batman in years, but I have a different recollection of the whole groundswell of hype that led up to its release. Sure, the merchandising tie-ins were a bit much, but more so than just about any other movie up to that point, that movie had a lot of buzz and people targeting the release date on their calendar. In a way though, that movie had to have that entire campaign tied to it because beforehand most the public's perception of Batman was shaped by the 1960s TV series. (The movie was molded by Frank Miller's Dark Knight graphic novel from 1986, which was the darker vision of Batman) If Warner did not market it the way that they did, nobody would have known how different the Tim Burton film was from the BIFF POW WHAM Adam West version. Personally, I liked the movie, but it has not held up well through repeated viewing.

Scarface is another strange little phenomenon. The one-liners in that movie are so memorable that they overwhelm the rest of the movie. I enjoy the movie in bits and pieces, but not sitting through the whole thing. Scarface also didn't do too well at the box office when it first came out, and it was lambasted by reviewers initially. But, it was very influential and eventually championed by people who saw it on TV and video.

[eqm]

[QUOTE=kexodusc]
Same with Batman...I remember Batman as being the first huge corporate movie that sold goofy cups and toys at McDonald's etc...now I just hate it.QUOTE]

I had some pretty cool "Dukes of Hazzard" kid's meal boxes from hardee's (carl's jr.) back in the day....even had some stickers on the inside to decorate the plastic car/burger box.

[dean_martin]

[QUOTE=eqm]

Same with Batman...I remember Batman as being the first huge corporate movie that sold goofy cups and toys at McDonald's etc...now I just hate it.QUOTE]

I had some pretty cool "Dukes of Hazzard" kid's meal boxes from hardee's (carl's jr.) back in the day....even had some stickers on the inside to decorate the plastic car/burger box.

Hey, what do you think of a Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson "Dukes of Hazzard"?

As for the Natalie Portman debate. I thought her acting was sooooo lifeless and boring in Eps I & II. I thought her acting was much better in "The Professional."

[Lexmark3200]

The thing that bugged me about Episodes 1 and 2 was that the "action" sequences -- the pod race, the underwater creatures, the war with those fighter thingies and the bubbles, the part where they're rescuing the Natalie Portman character in the arena -- is that they felt like a video game. And when I played the video game (yes, I did), they (the movie scenes) felt like a setup for the video game. Whereas in the older movies, they felt like action sequences conducive to a storyline within a movie -- "oh, dear, they're in trouble, I hope they get away", "they're at war, look at all those X-wing fighters!", etc. It just felt smoother, like it was a natural extension of the plot in an action movie. In the newer films, they just felt gratuitous.

And WRT Greedo shooting and missing -- how can you miss at such close range? That's ridiculous.

Natalie Portman was simply eye candy for these prequels, as is every half-naked chick that is being cast in films to satisfy the cravings of the male section of this new generation; I mean, she is a great looking piece of ass, dont get me wrong, but shots of her in Episode II with her shirt half-ripped to show her perfect flat stomach, I mean come on.....is that REALLY what Star Wars is all about? It was simply eye candy, no more, no less. I dont even consider the prequels --- Episodes I and II --- Science Fiction; they are more like direct-digital transfers for pure eye candy for our home theater displays --- they are showpieces for the digital age, not really ultimate sci fi storytelling at its finest or most classic.

Now, dont get me wrong --- I use Attack Of The Clones as much as the next guy to show off my theater; the Dolby EX track is amazing (especially in the bass department) and the soundstage is rich if a bit soft in the score....I just think Portman's role in all of it was simple window dressing; since when does the Star Wars world involve real hot chicks with sexy bodies and belly shirts, as we horny males are subjected to each day at our local shopping malls?

[Dusty Chalk]

I just think Portman's role in all of it was simple window dressing; since when does the Star Wars world involve real hot chicks with sexy bodies and belly shirts, as we horny males are subjected to each day at our local shopping malls?

Actually, since the first episode, in which Princess Leia (Carry Fischer/Fisher/?sp) went braless.

And in regards to the rest of the discussion as to how the movies aged -- I am going to sound like a hipocrite, but I'm just defending a concept, not the movies -- it's not really a fair comparison. To see a movie for the first time is nothing like seeing it for the second. "Luke...I am your father." can only punch you in the gut and shock you once, after that, it's just echos of the original sympathy that you felt for Luke.

Also, WRT f/x -- it was cutting edge at the time -- sort of like the Matrix was when it came out. And yes, the story is kind of simple, but again, what's wrong with a simple story line if it's a classic -- good vs. evil, hot young stud falls for princess, risks life, wins. The ones where there are lots of twists and turns have their own problems -- they only work a few times, themselves. I mean, how many times can you watch Blood Simple...alright, bad example, I can watch that one repeatedly, too. But how about Body Double...alright, another bad example...okay, here's one: how many times can you watch Dead Man's Curve? Heh-heh.

I do agree that movies aren't as good as we remember them being. I used to cite Kentucky Fried Movie as the funniest movie ever, and list them in lists, based solely on my memory of it. Then I rewatched it. OMG, it was so juvenile, gutter humour, the works. I immediately scratched it off my "favourites" list. It's still funny, mind you, just not as funny as I remember it being. Yup, geezin' sucks.

WARNING: SCARFACE SPOILER FOLLOWS

Scarface is still an intense movie, I haven't seen any movie where a character went out with a bang the way Stallone's did. So I have to completely disagree that it's not as good a movie as it used to be.

[Lexmark3200]

Actually, since the first episode, in which Princess Leia (Carry Fischer/Fisher/?sp) went braless.

And in regards to the rest of the discussion as to how the movies aged -- I am going to sound like a hipocrite, but I'm just defending a concept, not the movies -- it's not really a fair comparison. To see a movie for the first time is nothing like seeing it for the second. "Luke...I am your father." can only punch you in the gut and shock you once, after that, it's just echos of the original sympathy that you felt for Luke.

Also, WRT f/x -- it was cutting edge at the time -- sort of like the Matrix was when it came out. And yes, the story is kind of simple, but again, what's wrong with a simple story line if it's a classic -- good vs. evil, hot young stud falls for princess, risks life, wins. The ones where there are lots of twists and turns have their own problems -- they only work a few times, themselves. I mean, how many times can you watch Blood Simple...alright, bad example, I can watch that one repeatedly, too. But how about Body Double...alright, another bad example...okay, here's one: how many times can you watch Dead Man's Curve? Heh-heh.

I do agree that movies aren't as good as we remember them being. I used to cite Kentucky Fried Movie as the funniest movie ever, and list them in lists, based solely on my memory of it. Then I rewatched it. OMG, it was so juvenile, gutter humour, the works. I immediately scratched it off my "favourites" list. It's still funny, mind you, just not as funny as I remember it being. Yup, geezin' sucks.

WARNING: SCARFACE SPOILER FOLLOWS

Scarface is still an intense movie, I haven't seen any movie where a character went out with a bang the way Stallone's did. So I have to completely disagree that it's not as good a movie as it used to be.

Sure, Carrie Fisher may have gone braless, but I still contend this shouldnt be the essence of sci fi (although those ultra short skirts of the female officers in the original Star Trek would have you thinking otherwise, too); my point is that by the time Episodes I and II came around, it became pure teenage horny-satisfying skin shows on the part of Portman; this chick just SEEMS too sexy for a Star Wars plot, understand? I mean, its just ridiculous....she just HAD to have her top ripped in half so we see her perfect stomach at the end of Attack of the Clones? That just HAPPENED to rip just in that spot so we can see her abs? This was nothing but for WINDOW DRESSING and eye candy. Like every other film released today featuring, and relating to, really hot chicks.

What are you talking about with regard to Scarface and Stallone? Do you mean Pacino? Stallone wasnt even in Scarface....and ask any self respecting fan, like I have been since the film was released in 83/84.....AFTER 200 times watching it, it loses the magic....NOT COMPLETELY, but that loss is there. The film STILL belongs in the list of the best films of all time, without question.

Yeah, getting old does suck.....seems so many films now are just stupid that used to entertain the **** out of me as a kid....Porkys, Police Academy, Stewardess School....there are even horror and thriller films that just dont excite me anymore since Im older; I bought them for my collection but often wonder, after watching them under a scruitinizing eye, what the hell was so appealing about them after all. Its kinda depressing.

[eisforelectronic]

I tend to agree with the thought that in reality nothing has changed but our perceptions. Ep I and II were not better or worse than the original trilogy, they were the same. The prequels seem to affect young children the same way the originals affected us at that age, therefore my assumption must be that these movies simply have not evolved. I think if there were a way to forget 20+ years of expectation and and other life experience, we could all simply enjoy a 6 part sci-fi epic. Don't you wonder what it would be like to be a kid again and actually watch the whole thing in order without any preconceived notions?

[kexodusc]

I tend to agree with the thought that in reality nothing has changed but our perceptions. Ep I and II were not better or worse than the original trilogy, they were the same. The prequels seem to affect young children the same way the originals affected us at that age, therefore my assumption must be that these movies simply have not evolved. I think if there were a way to forget 20+ years of expectation and and other life experience, we could all simply enjoy a 6 part sci-fi epic. Don't you wonder what it would be like to be a kid again and actually watch the whole thing in order without any preconceived notions?

Well said, esforelectronic...That's what I'm coming to realize. There a few boring scenes in all 5 movies and there's a really long one in EP I, but all in all find them all pretty close to each other. The only thing that's changed is me, and my tastes over time.

As for Natalie Portman being eye candy...WTF??? She's not bad looking, but I'd hardly consider Amidala the T n' A appeal of Star Wars...
To be honest, I don't think there is any window dressing, eye candy, sex appeal, etc...

Geez, the Harry Potter movies have more T n' A than Star Wars...except ROTJ, Carrie Fisher was something else!

[Dusty Chalk]

Sure, Carrie Fisher may have gone braless, but I still contend this shouldnt be the essence of sci fi

And I agree with the criticism that I think you're overstating the importance of her bare midriff. I don't think that was the essence of the movie, neither. Perhaps you're just a dirty old man, easily distracted by visible flesh? Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm a dirtier, older man.

What are you talking about with regard to Scarface and Stallone? Do you mean Pacino?

Um...yeah...they all look the same to me.

Don't flame me for the statement -- I say it with tongue firmly in cheek -- I can't believe I said Stallone -- one of them can act, the other can't.

[Lexmark3200]

And I agree with the criticism that I think you're overstating the importance of her bare midriff. I don't think that was the essence of the movie, neither. Perhaps you're just a dirty old man, easily distracted by visible flesh? Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm a dirtier, older man.Um...yeah...they all look the same to me.

Don't flame me for the statement -- I say it with tongue firmly in cheek -- I can't believe I said Stallone -- one of them can act, the other can't.

I never said her midriff was the essence of the film; I was asking "is that what Star Wars should really be about?" And I am stating that her bare midriff and tight ab showings were completely unnecessary in that film; completely. It is to 100 percent cater to the younger generation that would watch the prequels and have watched the prequels; again, completely unnecessary. Im distrated by visible flesh? Well, who wouldnt be with that unnecessary flashing bout continuoulsy exploding in our faces? It was ridiculously unnecessary because, again, we are living in an MTV age of showing naked flesh everywhere. Toni Braxton didnt help by going to all those awards ceremonies with see through dresses on; I think thats what started it. Leaving nothing to the immagination.

Not gonna flame you on that Scarface issue, but.....Stallone and Pacino really dont "look alike"; I dont know if you are a diehard Scarface fan, as there are LEGIONS of them out there, but fans would never confuse these two guys' work.