ANYTHING other than this.

What celebs would you guys sleep with?

Emma Watson, hecks yes.

:cool:

We're in 100% agreement that George Lucas owns everything Star Wars and can eff with it however he sees fit. Personally, as a filmmaker, I question his ethics in doing so, especially because of his vehement stance against the colorization of classic movies. If he really believes in the sanctity of an artist's vision, then why disrespect the work of the directors he hired?

I know. You'll say he hired them to take orders. I'll say they made the majority of the creative decisions, and still "own" their respective films in a deeper way than Lucas.

You say potato i say potato, let's call the whole thing off

C'mon. I'll buy you a Coke.

It is a shame, especially as Oblivion pointed out Lucas really vented about this very subject before Congress back in '88(savestarwars.com). All I can say about that is: People change their minds!
I know I don't think the same, or hold many of the same beliefs I did back in '88 when I was in high school.
Anyway, as I said earlier: this topic will always be a lightning rod.
For Indy's sake I hope the Purist/Revisionist battle doesn't continue, but I fear it might. I guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

So you were there then? My mistake.:rolleyes:

Spielberg has said, on many occasions, that the best thing to come from Temple of Doom is that he met his wife. Seems straightforward to me :shrug:

I wasn't there for the Civil War but I know that Lincoln wasn't assassinated before it started. It's called an "official account." :rolleyes:

Good, don't let any actual facts get in the way there.

Spielberg flip-flopped too, I just happen to agree with his new philosophy: that a film should be a time capsule from its release. I'm confident Steve will trump George on Indy.

Hi. My name is Alex. Not only do I like Temple of Doom, I also like Kate Capshaw in Temple of Doom. You see, there are some of us out there ;)

This statement makes the presumption that there is something to trump. There is no evidence that Lucas wants to make any changes to the films beyond what was already changed for the DVD release.

Senor Spielbergo has made several very public statements that he met her on this film.
i suppose it could be a matter of what the definition of "met" is........

I wasn't kidding around. I prefer Temple of Doom to Last Crusade, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I like Kate Capshaw in it. She's kinda supposed to be annoying, right?

You seriously need to read the book on Steve Jobs. He was THE visionary at Apple. He thought all the major ideas up and made his minions make it happen, and when it wasn't to his liking he made them keep working on it....

I didn't start the topic, so why jump on me? Besides, it's relevant to the extent that speculation is occurring regarding whether or not the Indy films will be altered. I'm not gonna shut up just because some guy on the internet calls my post "nonsense." haha


Certainly, Lucas can do whatever he wants. If he wants to destroy the original film elements for Star Wars and replace them with a computer animation of a monkey playing scrabble against a giraffe (yes, this is the weirdest example I could come up with ;)), and call that Star Wars, he's completely within his legal rights. But I'll never call it Star Wars, and I won't buy it, and I reserve the right to say that I think the man's integrity disappeared around the same time as his chin. haha

As for Blade Runner, one of the seven cuts was the TV Cut, which was just the Theatrical Cut, edited for television...its inclusion would be pretty pointless. So the only existing cut of Blade Runner that isn't included (that wouldn't be silly to include) would be the San Diego sneak preview cut, which was largely identical to the Theatrical Cut, but with three very brief additions. And this version was only screened once. Including it may have been nice, for absolute completion's sake, but this is a cut that hardly anyone saw...it's not really any fan's preference. Besides, I don't think anyone's really clamoring for the rough cuts of Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi...just the theatrical cuts. ;)


For Indy's sake, I hope Spielberg's newfound "No more alterations to my films" conviction will win out over Lucas's "I'm never happy with anything the way it is" mindset.

Again, I'm not a total purist...people can make whatever changes they want to their work. But denying the fans who gave him his success - the original fans who went to their local theaters to see those movies over and over again until they made millions and millions of dollars - the ability to relive those fond memories with their children...I just think that's bullshit. I totally agree that he has the right to make changes. But preserve the original, as well...because it's part of our "cultural heritage," as he once put it.

Perhaps you could save us both some time & quote the page that states Jobs made every single decision at Apple. Thanks!

Yet SS has made changes, which is the crux of this debate. If you start trying to put a gauge as to what changes are acceptable...well then you're just quibbling over semantics. A good benchmark for the legitimacy of that statement will be when Jaws is released in August. I will hold my judgment until then.

To sum up:

Star Wars = Purist/Revisionist battle until the end of time and/or IF the OT's are made available in a format better than dvd.

Blade Runner = You used it, initially, as a completist example...I just mentioned it wasn't totally 100% complete.

Indy = I'm not entirely sold on SS's "no changes" statement, but then again I'm (for the most part) okay with that...so we'll see what happens. I do agree that this is a nice discussion(so far) and is worthwhile for BOTH the Indy films AND Jaws. The latter, as I mentioned perviously, could be an early indicator of Mr. Spielberg's backing up his own statement.

If He F****d With Jaws {:baseballbat:starts muttering under breath}