Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Beast

No, I get the point entirely. I just disagree with the point. The original inferior "workprint" cuts have been retired.

They should have remained entirely retired after the "Final Time On Home Video" VHS release.

Frankly they should never be restored or released again. Because they don't satisfy his artistic vision of the films.

Well then there isn't much to say to that. Except he sure took a long time to finish those "workprint" versions. I guess he was waiting for Hayden to age sufficiently

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by motorheadache95

The problem is refusing to remaster and preserve the original versions from '77, '80, and '83. Its really as simple as that.

This is the sense of entitlement that I find interesting. Why do you feel he owes it to you and others to produce something he's obviously not satisfied with?

Back in the 90's this was a non-issue because you had the option of either version on VHS or Laserdisc-- no problem so far. It was once DVD came around and now especially with Blu-Ray that this became a problem, as only the further enhanced/color altered Special Editions were released properly on DVD. Same now here with the Blu-Ray. Is it really unreasonable that people want the unaltered trilogy in remaster high definition to watch on a big screen? Those non-anamorphic laserdisc masters from 1993 don't really cut it anymore. I really don't think it is much to ask.

Yes, it's unreasonable to expect him to cater to a subset of fans at his own expense and almost certainly diminished return on investment when he's obviously not satisfied with those original cuts. Maybe if the groups with such desires were willing to pool their resources and undercut the "cost" argument, you'd only be left with creative/artistic difference of opinion, but the "right" to refuse to do so would still be with him even if it didn't involve a likely financial hit to pony up resources for something he obviously has no inclination for.

[Mahatma]

Not trying to start a flamewar,or any other war,but have anyone a theory why Lucas had Greedo shoot first in the DVD version?Political correctness?Just find it strange.Doesn't really detract anything for me,just think it's odd. . . .

[Monolithium]

You know its funny.

With copies on VHS/Laserdisc/DVD, the fans who love the original versions are actually satisfied. While special edition fans have no idea when, or if, they will ever get the definitive version of Star Wars.

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by Uxi

This is the sense of entitlement that I find interesting. Why do you feel he owes it to you and others to produce something he's obviously not satisfied with?



Yes, it's unreasonable to expect him to cater to a subset of fans at his own expense and almost certainly diminished return on investment when he's obviously not satisfied with those original cuts. Maybe if the groups with such desires were willing to pool their resources and undercut the "cost" argument, you'd only be left with creative/artistic difference of opinion, but the "right" to refuse to do so would still be with him even if it didn't involve a likely financial hit to pony up resources for something he obviously has no inclination for.

Look, I don't really want to reignite any debates about who has the right to do what, artist ownership and all that other controversial stuff this trilogy brings up.

However, I think you're wrong on the financial aspect. I think it has been pointed out by Robert Harris among others that obtaining and remastering a film print of the originals would not be costly, and I'm willing to bet would make it's money back and then some. Think about it-- he could sell these separately as a supplement to the Ultimate 6 film set, or include them in a future double dip to get people to buy the set again (which many already believe to be a likely scenario).

The bottom line that Lucas is the only one who pulls this crap. Look at the Blade Runner set, look at the E.T. DVD set, look at Close Encounters of the Third Kind set. Even if it is his right not to release the originals, that doesn't make it any less a disservice to the fans who made him rich off of these movies in the first place. Lets be realistic here-- those movies aren't "rough cuts" they were the damn films for nearly TWENTY YEARS before the Special Editions.

[johnns]

I think that although Lucas temporarily turned the directing of the Star Wars films over to more capable hands, he's still been the primary shot-caller all along. So I'm not really in the camp that feels Kershner's or Marquand's visions are being comprimised with these updated versions of Empire and Jedi. But I do think Lucas should give the people that have supported the series what they want. He does have a right to change the movies and that's probably part of the reason he doesn't care if people want him to or not (the other part being that he knows there will be plenty who disagree with his decisions but will purchase the films with every new release anyway.) So I say to those who really want the true originals on blu-ray: don't buy this upcoming release; if it sells less units than expected you might just get what you want.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Beast

I find it funny how people whine and complain about Lucas changing his movies...

Yet freely support the illegal butchering of the films by fanboys who have no right.

Maybe its because that some people can actually like multiple versions (GASP!) of a type of artwork. Kinda like a studio recording and a live version of a song.

Originally Posted by Uxi

This is the sense of entitlement that I find interesting. Why do you feel he owes it to you and others to produce something he's obviously not satisfied with?



Yes, it's unreasonable to expect him to cater to a subset of fans at his own expense and almost certainly diminished return on investment when he's obviously not satisfied with those original cuts. Maybe if the groups with such desires were willing to pool their resources and undercut the "cost" argument, you'd only be left with creative/artistic difference of opinion, but the "right" to refuse to do so would still be with him even if it didn't involve a likely financial hit to pony up resources for something he obviously has no inclination for.

It was a FINISHED FILM way back in 1977, and is in 'The National Film Registry' as a culturally and historic film from that year.

National Film Registry

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Not trying to start a flamewar,or any other war,but have anyone a theory why Lucas had Greedo shoot first in the DVD version?Political correctness?Just find it strange.Doesn't really detract anything for me,just think it's odd. . . .

Well, he also removed some of those squib shots that the Imperial Officers took on the Death Star, so I believe that he was trying to make the film less violent for his three kids that he was raising at the time, which also explains the general tone of the prequels too (Jar-Jar).

So I am betting that he will remove that bloody stump from the cantina fight and cauterize it for this upcoming release like it should have been anyway because it was caused by a lightsaber.

BTW, I read somewhere that the reason Lucas added the blood to that scene was because he was afraid that the film would end up with a 'G' rating, thus driving away the older audience and then possibly failing at the box office.

.

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by Uxi

the "right" to refuse to do so would still be with him even if it didn't involve a likely financial hit.

Financial hit? Uh, no. But don't take my word for it, look it up, the going rates and everything else involved is freely available, just add it up.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Spike Killer

Live version of the song? Are we talking about a professional live recording of the song...

Yes. That is correct.

.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Maybe its because that some people can actually like multiple versions (GASP!) of a type of artwork. Kinda like a studio recording and a live version of a song.

No. Cause this is fanboys illegally butchering a movie that they do not own.

It was a FINISHED FILM way back in 1977, and is in 'The National Film Registry' as a culturally and historic film from that year.

National Film Registry

I frankly don't care what the NFR has to say on the matter. It's not their movie either.
But they have their old copy on file, just as many of you have your old VHS, LDs, and DVDs of the old cuts.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Yes. That is correct.

.

But that's not what it is. It's fanboys slicing up and re-editing a movie that they don't have any right to.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Beast

But that's not what it is. It's fanboys slicing up and re-editing a movie that they don't have any right to.

The point was that they can like more that one version of a film regardless of if it is a fan edit or not. And if it is illegal, why hasn't George done anything about it?

.

[Monolithium]

How can it be illegal to alter something that you own? I'm pretty sure I own all the DVDs and Blu-rays that I have legally purchased over the years.

[Beast]

But they do share. You can download illegal fan edits if you know where to look for them.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Maybe its because that some people can actually like multiple versions (GASP!) of a type of artwork. Kinda like a studio recording and a live version of a song.






It was a FINISHED FILM way back in 1977, and is in 'The National Film Registry' as a culturally and historic film from that year.

National Film Registry

Well, he also removed some of those squib shots that the Imperial Officers took on the Death Star, so I believe that he was trying to make the film less violent for his three kids that he was raising at the time, which also explains the general tone of the prequels too (Jar-Jar).

So I am betting that he will remove that bloody stump from the cantina fight and cauterize it for this upcoming release like it should have been anyway because it was caused by a lightsaber.

BTW, I read somewhere that the reason Lucas added the blood to that scene was because he was afraid that the film would end up with a 'G' rating, thus driving away the older audience and then possibly failing at the box office.

.

It's always the dollars!

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Spike Killer

You can download anything you want if you know where to look.

I'm not saying the act of downloading fan edit is legal, but let's look at the big picture. I think if the owner of said web site where you can download the fan-edits were to institute a gentleman's rule that requires the downloader to own a commercial copy of the copyrighted material, I think it might work. After all, the people who would search for and download a fan-edit of a movie are probably already fans of the series and are enthusiast enough to watch how other people would edit the movie. I don't think the practice should be "officially" encouraged, but I don't see any real harm in allowing fans of the film to share their love of the film expressed in their own edit. There are much bigger fish to fry then those fans.

No. There's no "okay" when it comes to illegal fan edits and bootlegs.

Thinking it's okay in any way, shape, or form to download any kind of bootleg is frankly astonishing.

They're not showing their love of the film. They're butchering a film without the approval or consent of the creator.

And it's amusing that it's the same people crying because Lucas, the creator, dares to change his own films.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

It's always the dollars!

Yeah, but that really made sense in why he did that as EVERYBODY including himself did not believe that it would do well(for instance just watch the top Sci-Fi movie the previous year "Logan's Run"), and that was why Alan Dean Foster wrote Splinter of the Mind's Eye, as that would have most likely been its only sequel, not The Empire Strikes Back.

But as they say, "the rest is cinematic history".


.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

BTW, I read somewhere that the reason Lucas added the blood to that scene was because he was afraid that the film would end up with a 'G' rating, thus driving away the older audience and then possibly failing at the box office.

This is true, but it wasn't Lucas, it was Fox. Star Wars was screened for the MPAA and initially received a G rating, prompting the studio to ask for possible changes that could earn the film a PG. The solution was the insert of the severed arm and the blood in the Cantina. Lucas really wasn't in a position to fight over it, and went along to get along and complete the movie. Don't blame Lucas for that.

The original cut of Top Gun, believe it or not, also earned a G, and so Tom and Kelly were brought back for a nudity-free sex scene, and several instances of profanity were added off-screen (i.e. "Maverick! You p***y!")

Such is the biz.

[Beast]

Which of course brings us to Revenge of the Sith...

The film Lucas didn't want to hold anything back on, and fully expected a harder rating. Hence the PG-13.

Also why it's probably the Star Wars film I have watched the least. Even though it's great. It's just strangely depressing to watch everyone die.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

This is true, but it wasn't Lucas, it was Fox. Star Wars was screened for the MPAA and initially received a G rating, prompting the studio to ask for possible changes that could earn the film a PG. The solution was the insert of the severed arm and the blood in the Cantina. Lucas really wasn't in a position to fight over it, and went along to get along and complete the movie. Don't blame Lucas for that.

The original cut of Top Gun, believe it or not, also earned a G, and so Tom and Kelly were brought back for a nudity-free sex scene, and several instances of profanity were added off-screen (i.e. "Maverick! You p***y!")

Such is the biz.

Thanks for clearing that up Ernest.

Now that makes me really believe that Lucas WILL change that in the upcoming release.

.