Re: What changed?

FunkyM wrote:
夜クローラー wrote:
FunkyM wrote:
夜クローラー wrote:
FunkyM wrote:
夜クローラー wrote:
Setzer wrote:
Krusty wrote:
http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/release/video/f20060825/index.html

Third paragraph down, click on "starting the tour here."

Just amazing the details they changed.
Funky thoughts: A lot of the small changes that most semi-normal people
might not notice were actually improvements, but most of the big
changes were just funkin stupid.
Yeah, I have no problem with digitally improving legitimate errors/defects,
like the lighting changes done to improve scenes that were originally filmed
day-to-night. Cleaning up the film is okay with me. It's when they
flat-out change the movie that bugs me, even the minor matte stuff. For
instance, where I'm at now in the slideshow...there's no need to create a
new model for Obi-Wan's hut and use a matte painting. It's absolutely
pointless and is just a creator who cannot stop fucking around with a
product people love.

Leave it alone, Lucas. Cleaning up = okay, changing = not okay.

--
Setzer


The thing is, I really don't have a problem with the Special Editions,
because 1997-98 is really when I got into Star Wars, having no real
understanding of the trilogy before then (sorry, but if you saw a movie
*once* when you were 5-10 years old you won't remember *** about it a
decade later). As a result, I have no real attachment to the original
versions and I don't get up in arms about the changes. I don't even know
what some of the changes are.
FunkyM doesn't really have a problem with them either, it's more along
the lines of a few things sticking out and FunkyM thinking, "Okay, so
they changed that, eh? That seemed kind of annoying and unnecessary..."
rather than screaming, "GODDAMMIT, HOW DARE LUCAS RUIN MY FAVOURITE
CHILDHOOD MOVIES!!"

To be honest a lot of the stuff they improved was good, like the
colours and the backgrounds and all that ***. FunkyM just doesn't like
a lot of the extra, unnecessary CGI crap. Some of it was okay, but most
of it looked shitty. CGI still looks really shitty 9/10 times anyway,
especially when there's too much of it. Hollywood way overuses CGI now,
either because they can or because it's so easy for shitty movie makers
to use it as a crutch instead of making an effort to get things looking
good.

CGI for the sake of it is really dumb, but I really don't get the
detractors (I'll namedrop C The Shocker for kicks) who seem to think
putting CGI in movies is "easy".
Depends what you mean by easy. FunkyM's complaint is that a lot of
times it seems like movie makers settle for shitty CGI because it's
cheaper and easier than doing things other ways even though they would
probably look better another way or they just use way too much because
they have a huge budget and they're bored or something and want to show
everybody how l33t they are.

Oh, if they can do it live-action then I'm all for it. But what gets me
is the way some people bitch at CGI and refuse to admit in many cases it
was the best and most efficient way to do it, and in some cases it was
the *only* way.

Yeah but again, if it's a choice between shitty looking CGI and not
doing it at all, maybe they should keep the second option open. Bad CGI
= today's version of stop motion claymation from those 1960's Sinbad
movies... but as much as those ruled, making them today wouldn't fly.

"Oh, I'll just press the magical red CGI button and my computer will
make half of the movie for me!"

Uh, no it won't.
C'mon, did C the Shocker really say that? That sounds more like robby,
dude.

Nah, looking back on it C's exact comment was "CGI itself is lame. It's
only for little geeks who live in fantasyland.". I just bit him for it
because I thought it was a dumb thing to say
(http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.pro-wrestling.wwf/msg/6f36ad938e027560).

The incident that really springs to mind was when I was hanging out with
some friends from highschool (at a point when I could still stand to be
around them) and the trailer for the first X-Men movie comes on:

"This isn't a film..."
"Why!?"
"It's all computer generated."

I mean, what did he want them to do? Find a guy who shoots red beams out
of his eyes and cast him? And these were the same people whose opinion
of Toy Story was "Disney cheated by doing it all on the computer". Retards.

FunkyM's never eeeeeeever heard anybody complain about a computer
animated film being computer animated. Are you sure those just weren't
geeks who were hardcore into traditional animation?


Nah, they'd actually refuse to watch certain stuff because animation is "for kids". I didn't really embrace the geek until college.

--
NiGHTS [mWo]
In the event of turbulence due to snakes eating the pilots, hug your knees and pray for a swift death

nights22.livejournal.com
www.last.fm/user/nights22
www.myspace.com/nightsintodreams
.