george lucas 1983 vs 2005

9 Responses to george lucas 1983 vs 2005

1. j_bryon (UID# 112) 0  0

   

   September 25, 2009 at 7:06 pm

   Now compare the quality of the visual and sound effects between 1983 and 2005.

   Reply
   • tiki-god (UID# 1) 0  0

     

     September 25, 2009 at 10:23 pm

     pretty sure you’d get the same comparison. 1983 was awesome, 2005 was shit.

     Reply
2. nyoki (UID# 3444) 0  0

   

   September 25, 2009 at 11:20 pm

   Repoast.
   www.myconfinedspace.com/2009/07/18/lucas-studio-then-and-now/

   Reply
3. bstaples (UID# 6783) 0  0

   September 26, 2009 at 12:51 pm

   OH NO IT’S TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT
   RUN DAMN YOU RUN

   Reply
   • bejamus (UID# 403) 0  0

     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.

     Reply
   • tyger42 (UID# 4564) 0  0

     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.

     Reply
4. bstaples (UID# 6783) 0  0

   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.

   Reply
   • tyger42 (UID# 4564) 0  0

     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…

     Reply
5. p41n90d (UID# 7735) 0  0

   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”

   Reply