I think technology is the issue. When they made Star Wars, Empire, and Return the special effects tech was garbage (clunky, expensive, and time consuming) so they had to rely on good story telling and practical effects, as the special effects tech has gotten better the story telling seems to rely on the tech as opposed to overcoming the tech (this is all movies/shows not just this franchise). Iirc the death star was a bunch of models of battle ships and other things pasted together, not sure if they did fly-by-wire (Red Dwarf was really good at this practical effect) for the space battles. As an aside, we also tend to like the ones we grew up watching, I’m in the original trilogy is the best (pushin 50), but to those that were my age for the prequels think the prequels are the better series, not sure about the sequels.
Are you kidding? Star Wars had amazing special effects for its day. Yeah, they look clunky now. But you know what? The special effects in Wizard of Oz looked clunky in the 1970s.
As for good story telling…what? This is Star Wars we’re talking about, not Fine Art. It’s pretty much a reshooting of The Hidden Fortress … in space!
It’s a fun movie, but damn do people lionize it far beyond what it ever actually was.
When they made Star Wars, Empire, and Return the special effects tech was garbage (clunky, expensive, and time consuming) so they had to rely on good story telling and practical effects
I’m curious, have you watched the original trilogy with the original practical effects, and not the crappy CGI that George added later?
Ok, I am being misunderstood. The “practical effects” were amazing by the standards of the day, and are now basically a thing of the past. The ingenuity was second to none, but the light sabers, blaster bolts etc “special effects” were not the best. And yes I did see that atrocity and hate that I can’t find copies without the added crap. If George had waited another 5 or 10 years it could have been better. My main point, and it goes beyond star wars, is much of cinema and TV rely on CGI special effects and the writers hope that will get them over the line.
Clunky = takes a lot of space, expensive = self explanatory, time consuming = getting models to behave properly
Ah, thanks for clarifying. That’s an interesting position. I never found the light sabers or blaster bolts in the original trilogy to look that bad. And the practical effects, models, and sets, certainly look superior to the CGI sets in the prequels.
If George had waited another 5 or 10 years it could have been better.
I’m not so sure about this. I think that the limitations George had at the time ended up being part of what made the original trilogy so good. If George had access to better special effects, would we still have gotten scenes like these?
spoiler
Or would we have gotten this instead?
spoiler
George being able to do “whatever he wants” does not necessarily lead to the best movie.
and hate that I can’t find copies without the added crap
Search up “Harmy despecialized” and “4k77”. There are many other Star Wars fans who feel the way you do, and they have taken matters into their own hands :)
I think technology is the issue. When they made Star Wars, Empire, and Return the special effects tech was garbage (clunky, expensive, and time consuming) so they had to rely on good story telling and practical effects, as the special effects tech has gotten better the story telling seems to rely on the tech as opposed to overcoming the tech (this is all movies/shows not just this franchise). Iirc the death star was a bunch of models of battle ships and other things pasted together, not sure if they did fly-by-wire (Red Dwarf was really good at this practical effect) for the space battles. As an aside, we also tend to like the ones we grew up watching, I’m in the original trilogy is the best (pushin 50), but to those that were my age for the prequels think the prequels are the better series, not sure about the sequels.
Are you kidding? Star Wars had amazing special effects for its day. Yeah, they look clunky now. But you know what? The special effects in Wizard of Oz looked clunky in the 1970s.
As for good story telling…what? This is Star Wars we’re talking about, not Fine Art. It’s pretty much a reshooting of The Hidden Fortress … in space!
It’s a fun movie, but damn do people lionize it far beyond what it ever actually was.
I’m curious, have you watched the original trilogy with the original practical effects, and not the crappy CGI that George added later?
Ok, I am being misunderstood. The “practical effects” were amazing by the standards of the day, and are now basically a thing of the past. The ingenuity was second to none, but the light sabers, blaster bolts etc “special effects” were not the best. And yes I did see that atrocity and hate that I can’t find copies without the added crap. If George had waited another 5 or 10 years it could have been better. My main point, and it goes beyond star wars, is much of cinema and TV rely on CGI special effects and the writers hope that will get them over the line.
Clunky = takes a lot of space, expensive = self explanatory, time consuming = getting models to behave properly
Ah, thanks for clarifying. That’s an interesting position. I never found the light sabers or blaster bolts in the original trilogy to look that bad. And the practical effects, models, and sets, certainly look superior to the CGI sets in the prequels.
I’m not so sure about this. I think that the limitations George had at the time ended up being part of what made the original trilogy so good. If George had access to better special effects, would we still have gotten scenes like these?
spoiler
Or would we have gotten this instead?
spoiler
George being able to do “whatever he wants” does not necessarily lead to the best movie.
Search up “Harmy despecialized” and “4k77”. There are many other Star Wars fans who feel the way you do, and they have taken matters into their own hands :)