Star Wars Trilogy DVD set

Col. Bob said:
Call me a humourless killjoy, but I just don't think that making fun of the deaths of six million innocent people is funny.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not funny.

(It's hil-ar-i-ous)
 
I just saw the first two Star Wars movies on the DVD's. I don't know why no one noticed before, but in the first one (the one everyone calls episode 4), when R2D2 and C3PO were purchased from the Jawas by Uncle Owen, they're all going back after meeting Luke for the first time, C3PO says to R2, "Why I stick my neck out for you" or some such, right after that he says "Isn't that the guy from Wing Commander?"
 
And how's the Ep. IV thing??? I didn't catch the flubs... And I have no 2channel english audio option in my edition.
 
I didn't know about all these changes - controversial or otherwise - I just bought the DVDs. :)

I haven't read all of this thread so I'm sorry if I'm repeating stuff, but one positive change I noted was that Darth Vader's lightsabre is now actually correctly coloured red in the scene after he kills Obi-Wan, before it was left white. And I'm sure the part where the stormtrooper bumps his helmet on the door has a sound effect attached to it now - I laughed so hard when I heard that!

I haven't had time to watch Episode 6 yet, but I was a little miffed by the changes to the Emperor scene (in Empire). But I'm not too bothered, I can understand the need for continuity. But the weird twinkle bells in the music as the Executor pulls from the asteroid belt was a bit odd, I thought.
 
Wedge009 said:
I haven't had time to watch Episode 6 yet, but I was a little miffed by the changes to the Emperor scene (in Empire). But I'm not too bothered, I can understand the need for continuity.
Click to expand...
It's a funny thing, but while I still haven't seen this new edition, I already like this change (though, as always, I reserve the right to change my mind ;)). I mean, basically they've replaced a guy that appeared only in the last film and only for a grand total of five seconds, with someone who's appeared in two other SW films. It simply makes perfect sense to have Hayden Christiansen there instead of Shaw.
 
No, it really doesn't.

Just take a look at Hayden's face at the end of ROTJ. Thats a smarmy glare of arrogance. Not to mention - Vader died redeeming himself at an older age, not Hayden's.
 
I suppose I don't mind the Anakin ghost switch. But it seems a bit at odds with Obi-Wan remaining as Sir Alec Guiness (as opposed to Ewan McGregor) - yes, I know Obi-Wan didn't turn to the Dark Side.
 
Hayden Christianson is a pretty good actor in non-Star Wars movies.

But in these films is down-right awful. It's like he's reading off a hot dog ingredient label.
 
LeHah said:
Not to mention - Vader died redeeming himself at an older age, not Hayden's.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but if age mattered in determining his appearance, then other physical changes - like, say, burns and such - would matter too. It seems to me that these Jedi ghosts look the way they want to look, not the way they looked the day they died (because if they did, Vader would look like he did in the Death Star scene). And Anakin couldn't possibly want to look like the ordinary version of Sebastian Shaw, because he's never actually looked like that in life - he could either go for the Christianson version or the burnt-up Shaw version.

(argh, why am I arguing Star Wars canon anyway? I like Star Wars, but not that much :()
 
I was really mad, I thought the original man who played Anakin in the end did a fine job, it certainly made more sense. What has George Lucas been thinking lately?
 
dextorboot said:
That's about how good the writing's been for Episodes 1 and 2.
Click to expand...

Any actor worth his salt can bring life to the worst of lines - as proven by the likes of Ewan McGreggor, Ian McDiarmid and Liam Neeson in the prequels.
 
Ok. Having finally bought and watched the SW DVDs, I thought I might revisit this thread and post a few comments.

I must admit it was all kind of an unpleasant surprise. No, no, no, not the changes. The changes, in so far as I even noticed them, were good - I really have no major complaints about them. I mean the movies themselves - when you remember a movie that you watched as a kid (and I haven't watched the SW films, especially ep. 4, too many times since then), your memories are usually better than the movie really deserves. This was very much the case with Star Wars. Don't get me wrong - I definitely still enjoyed the whole thing. But I'd like to take this opportunity to have a potshot at the "the prequels are nothing compared to the originals" crowd. No, not true at all. The prequels are exactly on par with the originals. They have the same basic level of writing quality, and the acting quality is just as... err, variable. So, you think Christianson does a poor job in Episode 2, LeHah? Maybe so, but compared to Hamill in Ep. 4, his is the acting of a true master :p.
 
Theres a major difference between what was expected from Hamill and Christienson.

Hamill has acknowledged its not a type of movie where you go "Oh man" and then mull around and sulk and get introspective - you get up and go "Gee golly, lets get going!" and theres a lot of energy involved. He's suppose to be the quintisential whiney youth - he's archtypal to which he plays it to a tee.

The thing is with Hayden - he's suppose to be this angsty grunge-rock vibe gone horribly wrong - but he can't pull it off. I'm not saying that he's a bad actor - I saw "Life As A House" which he wasn't bad in - but he's really bad in these movies and so is Portman. Hayden is about as angry and threatening as a Good Charloette song.

Yes, the scripts aren't so hot, so blame Lucas - but I've pointed out three actors that still make the dialouge alive. They're just a pair of actors outside of their acting spectrum. At least Hamill got standing ovations while on Broadway while in "The Elephant Man" and "Amadeus".
 
LeHah said:
The thing is with Hayden - he's suppose to be this angsty grunge-rock vibe gone horribly wrong - but he can't pull it off. I'm not saying that he's a bad actor - I saw "Life As A House" which he wasn't bad in - but he's really bad in these movies and so is Portman. Hayden is about as angry and threatening as a Good Charloette song.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In Life As A House he basically played the same part, minus the force powers, and he was able to pull it off. I still think in this one it has more to do with the way the character is written. I'm not saying he's a stellar actor that should be able to do what McGregor and the others were able to do, but if he's done the same thing before this shouldn't be much of a stretch, but it is. The majority of this blame goes to Lucas.

Same excuse for Portman. I've seen just about every other movie she's done and these are by far her worst movies.
 
Portman isn't what one would call a good actress. Pretty, yes - but her talents run about as thin as a stream of urine down a cold brick wall.
 
Sebastian Shaw was not removed entirely from the ghost scene in ROTJ.. it's still his body! Check the last few comparison pictures on this page. The posture, the clothes, down to every single fold, are exactly the same. All they did was lower the neckline and put Hayden's head there instead of Sebastian's LOL

The problem I have with this scene is Luke's going to look at that guy and be like "who the heck is that smirking hippie?"

The emperor scene in ESB may make sense from a continuity perspective, but it just ruins the film for someone seeing it for the first time (if such a person exists). I mean, it was a suprise, a big shocker when Vader tells Luke "No, I am your father." That is a moment where the audience is like whoa, sorta like that moment where everyone says "you mean Bruce Willis was dead?" Now, everyone gets clued in earlier. This isn't that big a deal since everyone has already seen and and already knows, but purely from a flow perspective, it makes the movie a bit worse, as it takes the wind out of the surprise.
 
I don't see how the Emperor scenes would ruin the "father" subplot considering

A.) Everyone knows who Vader is by this point just like everyone knows Clark Kent is Superman.

B.) Theres been prequels in the make since 1997. Boy, nope, no clues in there.

C.) Nothing is said in the new conversation to state any type of heredity between the two characters. Just "the son of Skywalker" - which could just mean that Vader is chasing down the son of a former slain enemy (but we all know otherwise).
 
I think what MamiyaOtaru meant was if you had only watched Episode IV and V and didn't know anything about the Star Wars Universe, then the new scene with the Emperor would have lessened the dramatic impact of the scene where Vader tells Luke he is his father. Picture the first time you saw Empire Strikes Back, before the special editions and the prequels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top