The Difference Between the Trilogies

Discussion in 'Star Wars' started by MattyK, Aug 12, 2009.

  1.  
    MattyK

    MattyK Ugistered Reser

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2009
    Messages:
    105
    Last week I started watching the Star Wars movies starting at Episode I. Today I watched Episodes III and IV back to back (IV being the original version, not the special edition). Obviously I'd previously noticed a visual difference but it was only today that I realised what a difference the special effects and computer graphics in the original trilogy make. They're terrible!

    The fact that things were actually built; sets, props, robots, it makes all the difference. Obviously in the seventies they didn't have much of a choice, they had to build it and thank heavens that was the case. I know it looks dated now but it still looks so much better because it's real.

    This is also the first time since the special editions were released that I've actually gone back and watched the original theatrical version and that makes all the difference too. Much better without all the added CGI creatures, touched up colours, new backgrounds and noises. Maybe someone should go through the new trilogy with some sort of "seventies filter" and see if they can drag out some good films!
  2.  
    Rodders

    Rodders |-O-| (-O-) |-O-|

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,749
    I haven't yet watched all six back to back, but i plan to soon.

    I cannot comment about the differences between the trilogy, but i did think that the CGI effects in the speacial editions nearky ruined the original trilogy for me. I'll be able to post more in a while once i have watched them all. But for now (speaking as having watched them one at a time) i never really had a problem with the CGI in the prequel trilogy anyway.
  3.  
    Huttman

    Huttman only differs in your mind

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    483
    A lot more of the new trilogy was 'built' than most people realize. Also, back in the 70's, most of the backgrounds were matte paintings, no different than digital paintings except that digital moves with the camera's perspective. The original movies advanced fx a great deal for the motion picture making process, nothing had really ever been seen on the screen before, and the amount of effects were staggering. The new movies also advanced film making technology, but probably not as much since movies like Jurrasic Park already established CG creatures could look quite real. There is a certain nostalgia to puppets that I like very much, but I'm not opposed to CG either. I enjoy each of the films for their creativity, artistic style, story, humor, music, and now nostalgia also. Both trilogies mirror each other in so many ways, just the 'style' is noticably different, especially since they were in different eras. One more thing, there were a lot of alien masks made for the prequels, too.
  4.  
    ghost8772

    ghost8772 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    361
    Actually CG seems to have declined from the time of JP and Mighty Joe Young, when I saw Jurassic Park, I couldn't tell the dinosaurs were added by computer. the subtler add-ins in the original trilogy were good, but the aliens they CG'ed looked too shiny and new, and obviously fake.

Share This Page