george lucas 1983 vs 2005
(3 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...
Add to favorites 
Processing your request, Please wait....
Leave a comment ?
(3 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...Add to favorites 
September 25, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Now compare the quality of the visual and sound effects between 1983 and 2005.
September 25, 2009 at 10:23 pm
pretty sure you’d get the same comparison. 1983 was awesome, 2005 was shit.
September 25, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Repoast.
www.myconfinedspace.com/2009/07/18/lucas-studio-then-and-now/
September 26, 2009 at 12:51 pm
OH NO IT’S TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT
RUN DAMN YOU RUN
September 26, 2009 at 1:19 pm
No, it’s awful and unrealistic looking. Someone once made the comment that when he went to go see the movies, he started looking for his Xbox controller because it looks more like a video game any more than a movie.
September 26, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Technological advancement isn’t always a good thing. Especially when it’s not well used. Combine that with the writing going to shit, and, well… Lucas is dead to me.
September 26, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Writing? Absolutely, oh god, yes.
But i’d rather what we have now than puppets and models. It was awesome…for it’s time…we can move forward.
September 26, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I liked the puppets. They may have looked artificial, but they looked more “there” than the CGI aliens that looked shoehorned into it. Practically felt like I was watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit…
September 26, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Yea the acting pretty much sucked, Lucas should have stretched the movies, especially in III
Longer movies could have saved his so called “reputation”