Death Star Laser stock footage?


This bothered me since I was a small child, but isn't it absolutely crazy that they used the exact same footage of the death star technicians from the first movie again? I think they flipped a shot or colored it slightly differently but it's the exact same shot. That seems insanely cheap for such a big-budget movie, and for such iconic shots.

Return of the Jedi was my favorite movie as a kid (and the first or second movie I saw in the theater too) but as an adult it really just doesn't work for a litany of reasons. For one, it's absurd how all the main characters are thrown together for their mission to Endor. Why would you put a supposedly very important PRINCESS intentionally on a high risk mission to some enemy moon, along with two bumbling droids ill-suited to the forest environment? Why was Luke's plan to rescue Han at the beginning so convoluted and relied upon so many contrivances to pull off? It also bothers me how much Luke's character changed in this movie now that he's a powerful Jedi. He essentially has little arc anymore now and never comes off as vulnerable until the final 20 minutes of movie. Lastly, they really took away the menace of Darth Vader with the dumb dialog scene when he captures Luke, making him whine like he's a victim of circumstance rather than be the badass that he was in the first two movies.

Still I'll take it over the prequels and Disney movies, but just by a small margin. It boasts some of the best special effects in the history of film as that ending space battle is just legendary. It's just a shame that they cheaped out in a few places and got lazy with the script and characters.

reply

You have to remember this was released to theaters before the original movie had been shown on TV/cable or released on VHS video cassettes. The average viewer just wouldn't remember the exact details of the original scenes, and there was no way to instantly re-view and compare the two scenes the way viewers today can. No matter how high profile/budget the movie/TV show was, in those days almost EVERYBODY reused existing footage whenever they could because they just assumed, "No one will ever notice/find out". So they saved a few bucks on those scenes to give us the big battle at the end.

reply

Thats still no excuse

reply

Yes it is.

reply

they are the technician's twin brothers in rotj

reply

I wasn't aware of this. It would be interesting if Disney did a movie based on these twins lives and how they both became Death Star technicians. It probably would be one of the better Disney Star Wars films

reply

this is why you should be in charge.

reply

Yea and I would add a plot twist like these twins were the brothers of Han Solo

reply

The one thing it would have been nice if they did actually change, was the Super star destroyer crashing into DS2. It would have been nice to do some fancy CGI work rather than the plastic model with a flame thrower coming out of the surface

reply

Nope, replacing solid objects with CGI is retarded.

reply

Not solid, But the explosion

reply

What Tt said. not the actual plastic model as it dives in (plastic model? what?), but they could have created some "breaking up" CGI (think the two SD's colliding before it crashes into the shield gate in Rogue One), which if you merge real & CG, could look decent. or at least as decent as the start of Episode 3. Tbh there are some fan films on youtube now which show that even budget productions can produce good effects. producing 10-20 seconds of a crash isn't out of the question (see X-Wing fan film on youtube).

reply

It's true that CG isn't always completely awful. Most of the effects in Rogue One (outside of the terrible Uncanny Valley Peter Cushing - though I found the attempt fascinating) and Rise of Skywalker (as awful as the movie was) were actually pretty good. The planet explosion in Rise of Skywalker was actually much better and more realistic than the 1997 Star Wars CG update which I thought looked terrible then, and looks even more terrible now. I'll actually take the 1977 planet explosion over the 1997 one, as you get an actual sense of power and dynamism from the practical explosion (jump cut and all) that you don't get from the CG one.

But generally the best effects these days are when practical and CG are composited together in a decent way - kind of like that how that movie DOOMSDAY did very well the time.

ROTJ suffered the most from the 1997 meddling of all the original Star Wars movies, but it's odd that they didn't touch the super star destroyer much at all. Today I think they could do a much better job updating all the effects if someone really wanted to, but I think Lucas is fairly satisfied with all his meddling and Disney still hasn't made a profit overall from buying the franchise, so doing an extensive (and expensive) update on the effects yet again would be akin to squeezing blood from a turnip.

reply

I need to say, the main problem I had with the planet destroying Star destroyer, is that....a planet is....biiiig. a Star destroyer is....about 2 miles long, maximum? that's about the same size as some of London. so we're saying an object smaller than London, managed to destroy....a planet. I'm trying to work out the power requirements involved in that, and I can't. The energy beam that actually comes out of the Sd planet cannon in Ep 9 is one of the weediest laser-planet-destroyer-blowing-up-exploder things I've ever seen

I have other problems with Episode 9, including the fact that DS2 in the sea looked about 2km wide. DS2 itself was about 200km wide (in Rogue One you see a Star destroyer floating in front of the dish area of DS1 as it's constructed, and it's minute). the total width of DS2 in the sea, looks about the same as the length of a Star Destroyer. my other ishoo with Ep 9 is you see a wall of ships appear at the end. and what do they do? any huge skirmishes or epic mellee's? nope. nothing. you see a few ships apparently cruise off to destroy a few planet guns....and that's it

But yeah, combining real and CG can lead to very effective scenes, because obviously the eye is looking for computer generated hints, and if some of it is real (the objects you are concentrating on), that's enough for you to perceive that the CG content which you aren't concentrating on is....'more real'

reply

Bingo

reply

why would they not do that?

it would save a lot of money

you have to remember these were independent films,

self financed by George

reply