Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by MisterKorman

Nobody cares about alternate versions of films being made. It's the inability to legitimately purchase the original cuts.
If the Final Cut of Blade Runner was the only cut available, you'd see a similar reaction. If the Rogue Cut of X-Men: Days of Future Past replaced the theatrical cut permanently, you'd see a backlash. This is the only time I can think of a high-profile movie (or trilogy, in this case) not having its original cut relatively easily-available.

100% of Time = Director's Vision > Original Cut

Like I said earlier.... It's been 2 decades. Time for these people to get over it. The originals are NEVER coming out. Like ever.

Enjoy what you get or stop complaining. I've seen these complaints on theforce.net message boards as far back at 2002 (during AOTC). It's laughable that they are still going on.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by tyler2tall147

Dumb and Dumber comes to mind. The unrated cut is the only one on Bluray

You can get the theatrical version on digital formats.

[MisterKorman]

Originally Posted by tyler2tall147

Dumb and Dumber comes to mind. The unrated cut is the only one on Bluray

I think that's just as unacceptable, but at least someone who was a fan of the theatrical cut could get it on DVD or digitally, even if that's not ideal.
For SW, there's an awful, almost-unwatchable DVD that's been out-of-print for eleven years.

[MisterKorman]

Originally Posted by WestMan

100% of Time = Director's Vision > Original Cut

1. The director's vision can change over time, as is the case with SW. Do you really think Lucas couldn't have put a rock in front of R2 if he wanted?

2. He only directed one of the films. The directors for the other two had their vision rendered in the theatrical cuts.

[MisterKorman]

Originally Posted by WestMan

100% of Time = Director's Vision > Original Cut

Not with Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan. Not with The Town. Not with The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. Not with Star Wars: A New Hope.

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by MisterKorman

1. The director's vision can change over time, as is the case with SW. Do you really think Lucas couldn't have put a rock in front of R2 if he wanted?

2. He only directed one of the films. The directors for the other two had their vision rendered in the theatrical cuts.

He had people director it for him, but it was still his vision and his creation.

2 decades.... time to accept it.

[MisterKorman]

Originally Posted by WestMan

He had people director it for him, but it was still his vision and his creation.

But it wasn't just his vision and creation with Empire and Jedi, and it seems scummy for him to get the final say in how future generations look at their films.
The case he made against the colorization of classic films could easily be shot back at him in response to how he treated those two films.

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by MisterKorman

But it wasn't just his vision and creation with Empire and Jedi, and it seems scummy for him to get the final say in how future generations look at their films.
The case he made against the colorization of classic films could easily be shot back at him in response to how he treated those two films.

And you have ignored something I have said a few times. It's been 2 decades. Time to move on. It's never changing. Either enjoy what you have or stop complaining.

[cochon]

Originally Posted by WestMan

Kennedy has already stated that she isn't touching the first 6 movies because those are George's. Time to get over it and move on. It's only been 2 decades.

For better or worse.... I always prefer the director's vision. And the Star Wars movies currently being sold on Blu-ray match the director's vision.

Quite right, I have moved on long time ago and I haven't bought them again since the DVD that came with the substandard bonus disc that included the original movie.

So do you prefer the vision the director had in 1977, 1997 or the one he had in 2004?

I remember in the late 90's going to see the cinema re-release of the first one, I literally fell sleep I don't know whether I was just too tired or the movie failed to engage me, never went to see the others.

I am so glad Disney have it's own vision on the series, at least the last two movies I've seen were fairly enjoyable, at least for me, I haven't read a lot of opinions about them.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by WestMan

Either enjoy what you have or stop complaining.

Let's split the difference: I'm going to enjoy what I have and keep complaining.

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by cochon

Quite right, I have moved on long time ago and I haven't bought them again since the DVD that came with the substandard bonus disc that included the original movie.

So do you prefer the vision the director had in 1977, 1997 or the one he had in 2004?

I remember in the late 90's going to see the cinema re-release of the first one, I literally fell sleep I don't know whether I was just too tired or the movie failed to engage me, never went to see the others.

I am so glad Disney have it's own vision on the series, at least the last two movies I've seen were fairly enjoyable, at least for me, I haven't read a lot of opinions about them.

Technology has come a long way since 1977. There were huge limitations on what GL could do back then. The 2004 versions I prefer best. They show his vision the nearest as it should be.

[MisterKorman]

Originally Posted by WestMan

And you have ignored something I have said a few times. It's been 2 decades. Time to move on. It's never changing. Either enjoy what you have or stop complaining.

Why should I accept inferior cuts of the most influential films of the last fifty years? They shouldn't be allowed to just fade away. They're still culturally important.
If they were literally any other set of films, I might be inclined to get where you're coming from, but these films shifted the trajectory of the film industry forever.
Like, I'm only 21. If I didn't hear all those other people complaining when I developed a taste for film, I never would've known to look for the theatrical cuts, so it's not like these people haven't made some kind of positive impact, even if it's a little one.

[El_Fez]

Originally Posted by WestMan

He had people director it for him, but it was still his vision and his creation.

Plus - at least as far as Jedi goes, Richard Marquand was pretty much a hired gun, that Lucas overruled him on a number of decisions (mostly those relating to the way scenes were shot in order to allow later editing).

Kershner was more of a presence on set, Lucas took over in post during Empire. All the visual effect shots were directed by Lucas, at least according to Joe Johnston and Dennis Muren.

Check out Rinzler's "Making of" book - if you can lay your hands on a copy. There's tons of stuff in it about how Lucas ghost directed (or at least very strongly influenced) V and VI.

[MisterKorman]

Originally Posted by El_Fez

Plus - at least as far as Jedi goes, Richard Marquand was pretty much a hired gun, that Lucas overruled him on a number of decisions (mostly those relating to the way scenes were shot in order to allow later editing).

Kershner was more of a presence on set, Lucas took over in post during Empire. All the visual effect shots were directed by Lucas, at least according to Joe Johnston and Dennis Muren.

Check out Rinzler's "Making of" book - if you can lay your hands on a copy. There's tons of stuff in it about how Lucas ghost directed (or at least very strongly influenced) V and VI.

I always thought the stories of Lucas "ghost directing" didn't have anything substantial backing them up, but I'll look into it.
Still, I don't like the idea of attempting to erase such culturally important touchstones of the film industry.

[Geoff D]

According to Rinzler Lucas shot second unit on Jedi so he was always around if ever anyone needed any, ah, "advice" on the main unit. But Marquand did what he was hired to do, shepherding the principal photography through to completion, and once he'd delivered his contractually obligated "director's cut" of the film his responsibility was finished. Lucas took over and brought in his own editor to recut the movie, as well as overseeing post production in general of course. Think of these two movies and Jedi in particular as being more like episodes of TV, being shot by a gun for hire with the "showrunner" being the one who ultimately guides the creative intent.

[drush9999]

In the behind the scenes footage from various documentaries over the years, Lucas is clearly making creative decisions on set.

[svenge]

I'd give Irvin Kershner more credit than what the last few posters have indicated.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by El_Fez

Plus - at least as far as Jedi goes, Richard Marquand was pretty much a hired gun, that Lucas overruled him on a number of decisions (mostly those relating to the way scenes were shot in order to allow later editing).

Kershner was more of a presence on set, Lucas took over in post during Empire. All the visual effect shots were directed by Lucas, at least according to Joe Johnston and Dennis Muren.

Check out Rinzler's "Making of" book - if you can lay your hands on a copy. There's tons of stuff in it about how Lucas ghost directed (or at least very strongly influenced) V and VI.

Indeed. Kevin Feige would be today's version. The "Universe" was overseen by Lucas in every detail. Nothing went through without his approval.

Kersh directed without interference but Lucas was on set once the production moved from Norway to England.

[jjcool]

Originally Posted by 3Maters

Nope thats the Special Edition version! The one I have is this

[Show spoiler]

Dont remember ever seeing that one. I had this one as well:

[Show spoiler]

which wasn't widescreen unfortunately.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by svenge

I'd give Irvin Kershner more credit than what the last few posters have indicated.

That's why I stressed "on Jedi in particular" because Kersh - still a hired gun, make no mistake - was at least able to impart more of his own influence on Empire's principal photography, Lucas was too busy wrestling with the banks (he didn't finance Empire with cash, he had a series of loans basically using his nascent personal empire as collateral) and although he regularly visited the set he couldn't greatly influence the day to day shooting, leaving it to Kurtz to try (and fail) to keep everything in line. Lucas then assumed control in post as what showrunners do, but fortunately he couldn't erase Kersh's fingerprints on the work...whereas Marquand left no impression on his movie to begin with.