Im not a Mandella Tard but C3P0 DID NOT HAVE A SILVER LEG

[link to www.google.ie (secure)]

[link to www.blueharvest.net]

Im no tard.
It was Berenstein Bears.

I should remember one of the most complex words i had to deal with as a child. Spelling champ, all around genius. This dimension is unstable to say the least.

I don't know if it's Mandela, but I remember him having a silver leg in that very first opening scene in ANH. It stands out cuz he walks by the other 3PO unit that is all silver. But I never remember seeing it again until it was pointed out recently that he had it all along. Could be my own faulty assumptions, IDK.

You must realize, when a change happens its because two universes collided: which one of you was left and which ceased to be? Or do you become both? Regardless, you have the memories of people from both dimensions conflicting in one.

Welcome to the now, this is introductory multiverse and qua tum mechanics.

Last Edited by Ipiphini on 09/17/2016 03:15 PM

I just asked my brother, who was heavy into Star Wars back when it first came out. He says the leg was always silver (at least from episode IV), just that it wasn't always obvious on film due to the lighting.

Then I asked why weren't all the toys that way. He says nowadays, like with the pricier toys and with knee joints (meaning, the figure wasn't just cast in one piece or cast in one color to save manufacturing costs), they do show the silver leg.

I do know the colors and such on the original films were off (or, at least one film's colors have faded). There's apparently a whole debate about the color of Han Solo's coat on Hoth. In film stills it looks blue-ish, while the actual costume is brown. So I could believe that due to lighting and film stock/film color processing, a silver leg and a gold body may not look super distinguishable in all scenes. As far as lighting for film goes, I would think the high reflectivity of the costume would affect how it looks on film.

In the multi-verse quantum world all things exist simultaneously...so that's a load of crap.

Timeline switch.

Now that I think about it, I don't know how color processing is done for 35mm movies, but I have done black and white still photography film processing. I could see there being tiny variations in processing among various reels (and I'm assuming all reels would use the same film stock, but I don't know how films get made, on the technical level). And then of course there would be light meter readings taken on-set, but exposure settings would be different between outdoors/indoors, etc. Processing would take into account exposure settings, but there could still be tiny variations in the resulting colors. And then once all the film from various reels and settings is processed and chopped up and then spliced back together, I could see there being tiny variations in how noticeable a highly reflective silver leg is in relation to a highly reflective gold body, especially from shot to shot.

If it weren't such a shiny costume, it probably would've been more obvious.

Call I do, bullshit.

Not to mention, I don't know how many below-knee but close-up views we actually do get of him. It would have to mainly be like mid-range establishing shots.

The technical qualities of the film stock itself would also make a difference. Like some film stock does warmer colors better, or whatever. The costume's color difference may have been too subtle to always actually capture well on film.

And when you shoot film, you take readings of things like the darkest object in the scene, and the lightest object in the scene (I think skin tones are supposed to fall mid-range). And then everything else falls in-between. So you're making exposure settings based on a range, so the settings are going to be slightly different, scene to scene. It should be very close, but it won't always be an absolute match. So scene to scene won't be an absolute, absolute match. So you might notice the silver leg more in one scene, if you're watching closely, than another.

I don't know, combine all of that together, and I think it can have another reasonable explanation besides CERN or whatever.

but who cares really? star wars was just a cheap ripoff of star trek!

Ok, one more comment and then I'll shut up about it.

What gets shown in theaters is also a few generations removed from the edited reels. Meaning, the image is a little degraded. Then, if you saw it in a theater with a crappy projection system, it's degraded even more. Versus if you saw a newer re-release on DVD with remastered color or whatever, something that went straight to digital off the master and then got color-tweaked to correct for the fading of 70s film stock.

.....that's very strange

For real, there is no way that muther fucker had a silver leg.

Mandela effect threads = steaming pile of horse $hit

He absolutely had a silver lower leg, it always bothered me as a kid to have both legs gold on the Kenner figure. I remember using acetone (finger nail polish remover) and rubbing the gold off of his right lower leg to match the movie.

You mandela tards are really reaching for shit now.