Sci-Fi got a olddie star wars question

K

keithktam

Cadet
back in the time when I was in UK, I bought the original trilogy dvd tin boxset, it contained the latest digitally remaster versions, and the very first time, the original trilogy in its original state. star wars to me is something slightly before my generation, and since I was raised up in the west, I had little knowledge or experience with the most awesome trilogy in this galaxy, but as dvd and internet become available to the masses, I now always dig back to the golden olddies, so to speak. but when i was viewing this original trilogy, i found the effects of the pictures a bit disappointing, big fat black matte line around space craft, and big green one on some other shot like in the Empire Strike Back, when Luke fell down the endless tunnel, Luke looked literally greenish, (very good matte painting background btw), I mean was it like that when you guys first saw the movie on the big screen?? For a movie that was state of the art and ground breaking at their time and with so many people praising about it, I wonder anything wrong in the "translation" there... I know the original star wars footage at some point were beyond repair, and they had to digitally fix it, so therefore this original footage was a surprise cause its hard to come by.

So how was the experience back then?? and did you guy just simply accept these kind of flaws cause that was something no one has seen before??

Keith
 
keithktam said:
back in the time when I was in UK, I bought the original trilogy dvd tin boxset, it contained the latest digitally remaster versions, and the very first time, the original trilogy in its original state. star wars to me is something slightly before my generation, and since I was raised up in the west, I had little knowledge or experience with the most awesome trilogy in this galaxy, but as dvd and internet become available to the masses, I now always dig back to the golden olddies, so to speak. but when i was viewing this original trilogy, i found the effects of the pictures a bit disappointing, big fat black matte line around space craft, and big green one on some other shot like in the Empire Strike Back, when Luke fell down the endless tunnel, Luke looked literally greenish, (very good matte painting background btw), I mean was it like that when you guys first saw the movie on the big screen?? For a movie that was state of the art and ground breaking at their time and with so many people praising about it, I wonder anything wrong in the "translation" there... I know the original star wars footage at some point were beyond repair, and they had to digitally fix it, so therefore this original footage was a surprise cause its hard to come by.

So how was the experience back then?? and did you guy just simply accept these kind of flaws cause that was something no one has seen before??

Keith
Click to expand...

The original Star Wars film was a step change in film viewing. I remember seeing the first space craft speeding overhead being fired upon. It was followed by the Star Destoyer thas seemed to go on forever. There had never been anything like it. No one had ever seen anything that fantastic and real at the same time. There was no CGI or any of the current film making techniques, only careful manipulation of very good model work and new camera methods invented for the film. I'm sure some of the effects were less than seamless but nothing like this had ever been seen before. Nobody seem to notice any of the flaws in the special effects until years later when the ideas had been copied hundreds of times and techniques were smoothed out after years of practice.
 
It wasn't just SFX that 'tarnishes' older films watched today, but the clothes styles, hair styles, even the method/class of acting. The storylines did tend to be quite interesting due to lack of channels, and less time watching television than today, so we looked past what people will sit down with friends to pick apart today (Mystery Science Theatre style)

If you want an old scifi film with a top actor to watch, with a modernish storyline with a background theming of a Western then watch Outland, with Sean Connery Outland (1981) - IMDb You can watch that, get past any slight SFX issues and then think whether modern scifi films have come that far since then. Scifi is, to me, a platform to speak about current social issues or predicaments, as much as Shakespeare set some of his plays in foreign countries whilst really talking about the aristocracy and Royal Court in his own country (to avoid getting executed) Once you become more relaxed, stop picking films to pieces, you may start enjoying films a level better and learn to appreciate older films, find a whole treasure trove to keep boring evenings filled in with.
 
As Steve12553 mentions, part of it pioneering film techniques. Star Wars was an ambitious movie at the time using special-effects techniques that would later be refined in the sequels. Part of it also is filming techniques of the time versus viewing devices today. If you hook up a VCR to a modern flat-screen TV and watch the first VHS release of Star Wars on it then it is going to look horrible. However, that same VCR playing the same VHS tape on an early 80's CRT TV is going to look fine enough that stuff like the matting around ships isn't noticeable.

Fans of genre movies tend to look past any filming flaws and instead care about the story. It is for that reason why shows such as Doctor Who have survived over 50 years. If the original B&W episodes with William Hartnell were to be aired today their film quality would make even the worst of today's b-movies look good.
 
Kevin said:
As Steve12553 mentions, part of it pioneering film techniques. Star Wars was an ambitious movie at the time using special-effects techniques that would later be refined in the sequels. Part of it also is filming techniques of the time versus viewing devices today. If you hook up a VCR to a modern flat-screen TV and watch the first VHS release of Star Wars on it then it is going to look horrible. However, that same VCR playing the same VHS tape on an early 80's CRT TV is going to look fine enough that stuff like the matting around ships isn't noticeable.

Fans of genre movies tend to look past any filming flaws and instead care about the story. It is for that reason why shows such as Doctor Who have survived over 50 years. If the original B&W episodes with William Hartnell were to be aired today their film quality would make even the worst of today's b-movies look good.
Click to expand...

thanks for your opinion on this, by far the best! and i also agree with you on the resolution phenomenon... i have noticed it for a long time ever since we have high def screen on the market!! We have VCD (which is a digital counter part to VHS on cd) and dvd here in Hong Kong, back in those days with my old CRT screen, everything were sharp, cept the curvature of the screen, but i think everybody back then would not complaint. Then one time, i bought a new laptop, it wasn't exactly high def, it was 1280x768, but in a much smaller size screen, 13.5 inch as i recalled, and I did also try that on a real high def TV, the dvd quality dropped significantly, and the VCD turned into mesh of pixels... I always think that newer technologies are better, the logic in me was if the old one can displayed good imagery, then the new one would be better; NO NO NO!!! then i realized and also learned two terms; backward compatibility, and a term called: upscaling.... apparently our "human" technology is not as good as we think, all the while we see new things or improvement every year then, but those two terms lurk in the shadow... just amusing!!
so everybody, if you know you want a decent display to play your old movies, don't throw away your old screen, no matter how big or how old fashion they are, it will be worth it, and CRT screen by far (also the oldest in colour display) the best. if you are talking about video games, then keep your old PC alive as long as possible, I mean the whole thing!!!
 
Back
Top