Star Wars Episodes 7, 8, and 9 (contains spoilers) thoughts and wishlists

[Duke87]

The prequels look like the the remastered original trilogy, rather than what people loved.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect movies made circa 2000 to have special effects similar to those made using circa 1980 technology.

As for the original trilogy being remastered, well... there will forever be a generational divide on this matter. It was the first trailer for Episode I that really catalyzed my interest in Star Wars. By this point the special editions already existed, so all the remastered stuff is normal to me while the original versions of the movies look like unfinished rough drafts.

Thus, I never really got all the hubub about the modernization being so horrible, but then, I was not old enough to have any previously established conceptions for it to betray.

That said, after seeing The Force Awakens, I couldn't help but think "ah, this must be what all the older fans felt like when The Phantom Menace came out". So maybe now I sorta get it.

[Pete from Boston]

When nine hundred years old you are, appreciate the look and tone of the new movie you will.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this: the people George Lucas basically said it was beneath him to "pander to" have merchandise-hungry kids they want to indoctrinate in the cult of Luke Skywalker, and this new movie does just that.  "Prequels" has gone from a bad word to forgotten among those with the target offspring.

[Rothman]

As for the original trilogy being remastered, well... there will forever be a generational divide on this matter. It was the first trailer for Episode I that really catalyzed my interest in Star Wars. By this point the special editions already existed, so all the remastered stuff is normal to me while the original versions of the movies look like unfinished rough drafts.

What a sad world you live in.

[empirestate]

The prequels look like the the remastered original trilogy, rather than what people loved.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect movies made circa 2000 to have special effects similar to those made using circa 1980 technology.

It wasn't at the time, but today it's coming very much back into vogue. In the early aughts, CGI effects were still on the ascent, since they'd only been shown to be viable technology for about a decade, starting with films like Jurassic Park (1993) and Toy Story (1995) which proved they could actually carry major elements of the story rather than being used only for specialty shots.

As the millennium changed, the trend progressed past (some would say) the point where CGI was supporting the story and entered a realm where it was creating whole new story possibilities–but this was typically because it was being used to create worlds and situations and rules of physics that were no longer recognizable to us mortals. Those young enough to have grown up only on this kind of storytelling didn't mind (I'm told younger kids actually like all the new Transformers movies), but those of us who expect our stories to be somehow realistic did. And yes, that even applies to those stories that take place in a galaxy far, far away.

So, cue the resurgence of practical special effects, the kind pioneered by and for the original Star Wars films, where what you see in the film is in some sense actually there, even if it's just a model or a painting or a stunt performer. This is why and how Episode 7 returns to the look of the original trilogy, and yes, it is largely for the benefit of us, the older (?) generation. I would expect to see some amount of more "modern" effects techniques used in the spinoff films, if not in the remaining core episodes.

[Pete from Boston]

As for the original trilogy being remastered, well... there will forever be a generational divide on this matter. It was the first trailer for Episode I that really catalyzed my interest in Star Wars. By this point the special editions already existed, so all the remastered stuff is normal to me while the original versions of the movies look like unfinished rough drafts.

What a sad world you live in.

I have my personal problems with the editorial decisions made by George Lucas at that time, but those aside, my biggest complaint was that he was using technology that just didn't look right in the movie he was putting it in. I believe the word "Colorforms" got used a lot to describe the look of the cartoonish CGI pasted onto a 25-year-old film.

(For those too young to know, Colorforms was a toy with pieces of vinyl one stuck onto a glossy cardboard background to create various pictographic scenes.)

[formulanone]

As for the original trilogy being remastered, well... there will forever be a generational divide on this matter. It was the first trailer for Episode I that really catalyzed my interest in Star Wars. By this point the special editions already existed, so all the remastered stuff is normal to me while the original versions of the movies look like unfinished rough drafts.

What a sad world you live in.

Wait for it...they're the same damn movies. I don't care who shot first, the Internet cares.

I kind of prefer the remastered versions a little, but having watched them side-by-side (well, a few days apart), it's just a few minor details which have nothing to do with the plot. So why add them? Eh, I guess I just enjoyed going the theaters all over again as a twenty-something, so I hold no grudge for a few tweaks.

The most noticeable difference is that the original Episode VI showed the same damn pink blaster fire filling the entire screen eleventy-billion times which was reason enough for some refining.

[english si]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect movies made circa 2000 to have special effects similar to those made using circa 1980 technology.

While, obviously, Jurassic Park was ahead of its time in effects (CGI looking almost as good as the actual puppets they had*), Jurassic World manages the feel despite being 22 years later and using state of the art Fx.

And, more blatantly, if Episode VII can capture the cinematographic feel of c.1980 films then why couldn't Episode I-III?

You'd have thought that given the strong negative response to the remastered editions of the original trilogy, that Lucas would have realised that the feel of the originals is part of what they loved and the fans don't want CGI aliens plastered in every free space. Instead Lucas doubles down with green screen and wipes galore.

In Episode I, Jar Jar bumps into Obi Wan and Qui Jon in some woods - filmed on location in some woods where I have spent a reasonable amount of time (when I was a toddler I lived right next to them, did several scouting camps there and even more hikes, etc), but I wouldn't have considered that those woods (which are of a sort that I'm even more familiar with than that specific location, because every wood around here is like that) were real, let alone ones local to me, because they look fake despite being filmed in a real location.

Sure, the originals look cheap and tacky (esp IV) and the remastered versions fix that (though probably go too far, though nowhere near as far as the prequels), but the prequels look cheap and tacky in a totally different way.

*See also Toy Story: neither early 90s film looks old hat today as there's serious quality in the CGI, unlike all the CGI done 5-10 years later in the Star Wars prequels! It isn't like Lucas couldn't have got the best CGI animators, so why is it so rubbish-looking?

[Pete from Boston]

You'd have thought that given the strong negative response to the remastered editions of the original trilogy, that Lucas would have realised that the feel of the originals is part of what they loved and the fans don't want CGI aliens plastered in every free space. Instead Lucas doubles down with green screen and wipes galore.

Lucas and others devoted a lot of time and attention to how he feels he's the visionary here and he's not in this to do what anyone else wants.  That seems do be a big part of why he's not involved anymore.  The one interview I've read with him since the new one reeks of sour grapes.

*See also Toy Story: neither early 90s film looks old hat today as there's serious quality in the CGI, unlike all the CGI done 5-10 years later in the Star Wars prequels! It isn't like Lucas couldn't have got the best CGI animators, so why is it so rubbish-looking?

I would guess that when your movie is all cartoon, it's easy to keep the look and feel consistent.  When you're putting the CGI up against analogue effects and real items, the challenge to make things look seamless (particularly twenty years ago) would be greater.  Still, this doesn't explain Jabba basically becoming Grimace.

[english si]

I would guess that when your movie is all cartoon, it's easy to keep the look and feel consistent.

Sure, but Toy Story looks better than almost every CGI cartoon from the 00s, and I also talk about 1993's Jurassic Park here, where most of it isn't CGI

When you're putting the CGI up against analogue effects and real items, the challenge to make things look seamless (particularly twenty years ago) would be greater.

Jurassic Park pulled it off...

[formulanone]

*See also Toy Story: neither early 90s film looks old hat today as there's serious quality in the CGI, unlike all the CGI done 5-10 years later in the Star Wars prequels! It isn't like Lucas couldn't have got the best CGI animators, so why is it so rubbish-looking?

I don't think it's "rubbish looking", it's just too damn shiny because the effects went a bit overboard. But then again, I've never had the itch to see Jurassic Park a second time.

The timeframe for Episodes I-III were supposed to go backwards in the span of time; thus, it seemed out of place to have things look more modern than the grungy, worn-out, textured feeling of Episodes IV-VI. I think there's scenes back on Tatooine which were done nicely, and some of the brainless battle droids looked like they'd been in a few prior sorties, but the look of all those gleaming, hospital-clean spaceships and sparkling rooms were totally out of place. That said, it wasn't the effects that bugged me, it's just that three movies weren't really needed to explain what we largely knew what was going to happen, and there's just mucky plot writing which seemed written by committee which disappointed.

I liked how practical effects were back in play for Episode VII. But to be fair, I think too many non-human characters that looked like extras from The Dark Crystal weren't going to cut it with audiences in 1999. (This isn't a knock on The Dark Crystal, which was also quite awesome for its time.)

[Duke87]

You'd have thought that given the strong negative response to the remastered editions of the original trilogy, that Lucas would have realised that the feel of the originals is part of what they loved and the fans don't want CGI aliens plastered in every free space. Instead Lucas doubles down with green screen and wipes galore.

Lucas and others devoted a lot of time and attention to how he feels he's the visionary here and he's not in this to do what anyone else wants.  That seems do be a big part of why he's not involved anymore.  The one interview I've read with him since the new one reeks of sour grapes.

Which makes sense. When we draw fictitious maps or highway signs, we draw them the way we want them, not the way that makes them the most popular. George Lucas was treating Star Wars the same way, doing it the way he wanted. Can't blame the man for quitting when this got him boatloads of criticism.

The timeframe for Episodes I-III were supposed to go backwards in the span of time; thus, it seemed out of place to have things look more modern than the grungy, worn-out, textured feeling of Episodes IV-VI.

This I have to disagree on - it makes perfect sense when you consider the overall plot. Things were nicer in the prequel era. After a huge war and the rise of a tyrannical and oppressive regime, quality of life in the galaxy had legitimately gone downhill and so of course everything looks more grungy and worn out. Kind of like how lots of American cities looked a lot dirtier and more run down in the 1980s than they did in the 1950s, because of higher crime and lower economic strength.

[Revive 755]

I take it Luke taking a shot to his right hand in the early half of Episode 6 is not counting?

You'll remember that he left his instruction when Yoda told him he wasn't done.

Isn't it mentioned near the end of Episode 7 that Kylo Ren needs more training from Snoke though?  Also, Yoda states in Episode 6, shortly after Luke is shot in the hand, that Luke does not requiring any more training.

[US 41]

After rewatching the Star Wars movies I think changing the end of ROTJ was kind of stupid. They should have just left it alone. It doesn't really make sense that Anakin is still young, while Obi Wan and Yoda are old, especially since the old Anakin dies a Jedi. To add to this Luke would recognize his father as his old self, I'm not too sure he'd recognize the younger version of his father. Also it was better when Vader said nothing, rather than him saying No Nooooo when saving Luke from Sidious. Hopefully Disney will release the original episode 6 to DVD and Blu Ray. And if Anakin, Obi Wan, and/or Yoda appear as force ghosts in later episodes I hope they will reappear as their old selves rather than their young selves. IMO the hybrid dark/good Anakin idea was dumb. Anakin gave up his evil ways right before he died. If he returns as a ghost it should only be as his good self.

[Duke87]

And if Anakin, Obi Wan, and/or Yoda appear as force ghosts in later episodes I hope they will reappear as their old selves rather than their young selves.

Well, Sebastian Shaw and Alec Guinness are both dead, so that won't be happening for Anakin or Obi-Wan.

I do agree, though, that Hayden Christensen's post hoc shoehorning into the end of Return of the Jedi is odd and makes no particular sense.

[US 41]

And if Anakin, Obi Wan, and/or Yoda appear as force ghosts in later episodes I hope they will reappear as their old selves rather than their young selves.

Well, Sebastian Shaw and Alec Guinness are both dead, so that won't be happening for Anakin or Obi-Wan.

I do agree, though, that Hayden Christensen's post hoc shoehorning into the end of Return of the Jedi is odd and makes no particular sense.

They'd be way too old at this point anyways even if they were still alive. I just hope they use an older normal Anakin if he reappears. It seems likely that he will reappear at some point sense Kylo Ren is his grandson. They were thinking of putting Anakin's ghost in the movie with him looking like this.



To me anyways I would much rather see a normal looking Hayden Christensen or someone older that they can make look pretty close to Shaw. "You already have Luke" pretty much sums up that Anakin left behind his dark ways and was saved at the end of ROTJ. I don't really like the idea of him with a dark and light side. I'd rather see him try to talk some sense into Kylo or a scene of him talking to Luke.

[empirestate]

And if Anakin, Obi Wan, and/or Yoda appear as force ghosts in later episodes I hope they will reappear as their old selves rather than their young selves.

Well, Sebastian Shaw and Alec Guinness are both dead, so that won't be happening for Anakin or Obi-Wan.

I do agree, though, that Hayden Christensen's post hoc shoehorning into the end of Return of the Jedi is odd and makes no particular sense.

Makes total sense. Hayden Christensen is the spirit of young Anakin, who died in the battle on Mustafar when he became Darth Vader. Darth Vader died, redeemed, after the battle with Luke and Emperor Palpatine; the redeemed Vader's ghost was reincarnated in Rey, which you can tell from her music.