Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by bongozoid

No, Lucas apologists just go off on super-angry rants at everyone that doesn't share their unwavering support/worship of George Lucas.

So what you are saying is, the writer gets the final say? Since when has that happened in the film industry?? I can name numerous instances of writers being unhappy with the way a film turned out but most of the time they kind of move on with their lives... I certainly am yet to see Quentin Tarantino digitally re-make True Romance or Natural Born Killers

If he wasn't happy with the direction of these films, he should have directed them himself.

Uhmmm, I'm pretty sure Entitled fan rants and raves at a much higher clip.
BUT, since neither you, nor I, can tally up every Star Wars rant in existance....

Lucas: Writer, Director...oh yeah, and owner. Hey the guy pushed all the Episode IV money right back into the pot and won big. The Artist wanted to do it His way. It just took him a few decades to do it.
Sorry, I don't find fault in that.
Do I want the Original films on BD? Of course.
Am I going to cry over spilt milk for decades about it? Of course not.

[bongozoid]

Originally Posted by comicgeek

I think it sucks, I really do, but at the end of the day people need to build a bridge over the river of tears and get over it. If you get the edited versions in a set appreciate them for what they are, a work of art. I have seen both versions through out my childhood, edited more so, and I really love them both. When Disney rereleases their films on blu especially the ones from the late 80's to the mid 90's, the opening music cues get ruined. It sucks but it's great we have them on blu. The sense of entitlement over not being able to have something that was seen in theaters way back when is truly disappointing and probably ruins some of the enjoyment for those that don't care and are happy to see such a great series on blu.

I don't want you to take this as a dig at you or anything, but unfortunately that is the attitude that studios rely on; that consumers will just take whatever they are given. It is what stops some releases from actually being complete or done correctly.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by dfeito

rickah88 what are you talking about? Why are you making assumptions about me? I am not a Star Wars fanboy or Entitled Fan. I don't think he raped my childhood. I am a fanatic of film. FILM. Especially culturally significant films. Now maybe this is hard for you to understand, but wanting to see the original version of an oscar winning, milestone film is not entitled. It's historically SANE.

I honestly can't believe anyone in their right mind would think it's entitled to want to see the original version of a movie!! Haha. It's ludicrous!!

PLEASE CALM DOWN ~ I KNOW YOU ARE NEW BUT LET IT BE CIVIL

Originally Posted by comicgeek

I think it sucks, I really do, but at the end of the day people need to build a bridge over the river of tears and get over it. If you get the edited versions in a set appreciate them for what they are, a work of art. I have seen both versions through out my childhood, edited more so, and I really love them both. When Disney rereleases their films on blu especially the ones from the late 80's to the mid 90's, the opening music cues get ruined. It sucks but it's great we have them on blu. The sense of entitlement over not being able to have something that was seen in theaters way back when is truly disappointing and probably ruins some of the enjoyment for those that don't care and are happy to see such a great series on blu.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by octagon

Do you also see the term "didn't" in these signatures?

Over the years, there have been so many...I don't have inclination to keep track. I try to ignore it.
But, in my opinion, sporting a "crying over spilt Star Wars milk" siggie is more of a 'chew toy'.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by bongozoid

You are comparing someone never making the final cut to people being part of a movie for 20 years before having their image/voice removed. Kind of a different plate of spaghetti...

No, it's just a smaller 'plate of spaghetti', and certainly no less important, in the grand scheme of things. Especially, as I stated earlier, to the cast/crew who lost their hard work.

Again, remove Star Wars from the equation, and you'll see my point.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Over the years, there have been so many...I don't have inclination to keep track. I try to ignore it.
But, in my opinion, sporting a "crying over spilt Star Wars milk" siggie is more of a 'chew toy'.

and those losses are just as tragic when you lose theatrical cuts... doesn't matter the film, the theatrical release should ALWAYS be preserved.

[bongozoid]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Uhmmm, I'm pretty sure Entitled fan rants and raves at a much higher clip.
BUT, since neither you, nor I, can tally up every Star Wars rant in existance....

Lucas: Writer, Director...oh yeah, and owner. Hey the guy pushed all the Episode IV money right back into the pot and won big. The Artist wanted to do it His way. It just took him a few decades to do it.
Sorry, I don't find fault in that.
Do I want the Original films on BD? Of course.
Am I going to cry over spilt milk for decades about it? Of course not.

I just find it hilarious that your posts always involve insulting anyone that doesn't just say 'Gosh it is great to have all these Star Wars movies available'. Same goes for a few other so-called 'content' fans. If you are so content, why are you so miserable and aggressive to the other fans? Of which you seem to automatically include me in because I simply don't like the argument that George Lucas is the boss of Star Wars so he can do what he wants.

George Lucas is a world-class ?. I'm pretty sure whether or not I like the prequals has nothing to do with that.

[comicgeek]

Originally Posted by bongozoid

I don't want you to take this as a dig at you or anything, but unfortunately that is the attitude that studios rely on; that consumers will just take whatever they are given. It is what stops some releases from actually being complete or done correctly.

Studios are in it to make money. There was a demand for Star Wars on blu ray back in 2011. Fans were going to buy it edited or unedited. To make the most money, unfortunately the special editions were the best way to do that. The masters were readily available and all that really needed to be done that was time consuming was assemble extras. Don't get me wrong I totally get where the people wanting the theatrical editions are coming from, but I do not buy for a second that they would have made more money from the theatrical editions. The cost of the remaster of the original unedited films would have not been made up for with more sets being sold. A lot of people bought this set (it is the 8th most added to a collection blu). It was not a "we release it this way because we can and no one cares" it was "it's cheap to release this way and enough people appreciate it either way (like myself) and or don't care"

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by comicgeek

Studios are in it to make money. There was a demand for Star Wars on blu ray back in 2011. Fans were going to buy it edited or unedited. To make the most money, unfortunately the special editions were the best way to do that. The masters were readily available and all that really needed to be done that was time consuming was assemble extras. Don't get me wrong I totally get where the people wanting the theatrical editions are coming from, but I do not buy for a second that they would have made more money from the theatrical editions. The cost of the remaster of the original unedited films would have not been made up for with more sets being sold. A lot of people bought this set (it is the 8th most added to a collection blu). It was not a "we release it this way because we can and no one cares" it was "it's cheap to release this way and enough people appreciate it either way (like myself) and or don't care"

no, it was done because George Lucas was embarrassed of the theatrical cuts, he's said it before. he could have restored the original theatriacal cut the same time he did the SE's and it wouldn't have been much work. he was freaking restoring the SAME elements but adding to it. not too hard actaully. many a film historian has said that it makes NO SENSE for him not to do the theatrical restoration along with the SE's creation. the only reason it wasn't done was because of Georgio's ego

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by wormraper

and those losses are just as tragic when you lose theatrical cuts... doesn't matter the film, the theatrical release should ALWAYS be preserved.

I agree 100%. BUT, I believe that rule falls just under another rule: and that the Artist can do whatever they want with their art.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by rickah88

I agree 100%. BUT, I believe that rule falls just under another rule: and that the Artist can do whatever they want with their art.

correct, but fans can ridicule him and act with scorn on revisionist work. it's just as much our right to complain as it is his right to do. no one is free to do what they want without consequences

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by bongozoid

I just find it hilarious that your posts always involve insulting anyone that doesn't just say 'Gosh it is great to have all these Star Wars movies available'. Same goes for a few other so-called 'content' fans. If you are so content, why are you so miserable and aggressive to the other fans? Of which you seem to automatically include me in because I simply don't like the argument that George Lucas is the boss of Star Wars so he can do what he wants.

George Lucas is a world-class ?. I'm pretty sure whether or not I like the prequals has nothing to do with that.

Who am I insulting, exactly?
I see, clearly, you are insulting George Lucas(after just lecturing me about insulting), which I find amusing.

I'm not miserable, nor am I being aggressive. I'm tickled pink with my BD of all 6 Star Wars films, and I can't wait to add #7 in few years.
The fact that after hearing ranting and raving for going on two decades has become beyond tiresome.

His art, His vision. He can do whatever he wants, and has done just that. I fully support him, and I've lived happily ever after.

Edit: I see the Mods edited your post.

[dfeito]

But he's not the artist. Filmmaking is not painting or writing a book. It takes hundreds of people to do it. And yes, it was his story and he was the mastermind behind it. But he didn't write the scripts, or direct the movies, or edit them. If he wants to change them fine, but don't suppress the originals, cause other artists also worked on those: Irvin Keshner was an artist too.

[bongozoid]

Originally Posted by rickah88

I agree 100%. BUT, I believe that rule falls just under another rule: and that the Artist can do whatever they want with their art.

Again, Lucas wasn't the 'artist' - he was the writer.
Who do people hate for the Transformers movies: John Rogers (the writer) or Michael Bay?

Perhaps he should have just written it as a book if he wanted it a certain way?

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by wormraper

correct, but fans can ridicule him and act with scorn on revisionist work. it's just as much our right to complain as it is his right to do. no one is free to do what they want without consequences

Of course Entitled fans can. Just like I can sit here and say it's getting old and tiresome. Almost two decades of complaining.
And that's where we are now.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by dfeito

But he's not the artist. Filmmaking is not painting or writing a book. It takes hundreds of people to do it. And yes, it was his story and he was the mastermind behind it. But he didn't write the scripts, or direct the movies, or edit them. If he wants to change them fine, but don't suppress the originals, cause other artists also worked on those: Irvin Keshner was an artist too.

Originally Posted by bongozoid

Again, Lucas wasn't the 'artist' - he was the writer.
Who do people hate for the Transformers movies: John Rogers (the writer) or Michael Bay?

Perhaps he should have just written it as a book if he wanted it a certain way?

He most certainly was, and is, and will always be The Artist. That's not even open for debate.

[comicgeek]

Originally Posted by dfeito

But he's not the artist. Filmmaking is not painting or writing a book. It takes hundreds of people to do it. And yes, it was his story and he was the mastermind behind it. But he didn't write the scripts, or direct the movies, or edit them. If he wants to change them fine, but don't suppress the originals, cause other artists also worked on those: Irvin Keshner was an artist too.

Books have quite a bit of people on them as well. There is the writer, the editor, the graphics person, potentially an illustrator, someone to write the synopsis, a publicist. Except for paintings maybe nothing in the entertainment industry that I can think of is a one person show. However one sole person often changes the whole thing despite many working on said project. It sucks but that is part of the industry.

[dfeito]

Name me one other movie where this has happened.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Lucas: Writer, Director...oh yeah, and owner.

Owner? Haven't you heard the news?

Originally Posted by rickah88

Over the years, there have been so many...I don't have inclination to keep track. I try to ignore it.
But, in my opinion, sporting a "crying over spilt Star Wars milk" siggie is more of a 'chew toy'.

You try to ignore it?

You brought it up.

Again.

[comicgeek]

Originally Posted by dfeito

Name me one other movie where this has happened.

Movie? Off the top of my head I don't really know if I can think of one, but literature I can think of a few examples.