Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[al cos.]

Originally Posted by Beast

But Liam Neeson would have voiced him speaking to Yoda. But then he had his motorcycle accident.DVD.

I saw Ben Burtt on a panel and he said the scene was in a rough cut with a temp voice and then cut before Neeson was even approached. The movie had a pretty major re-structuring.

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

To the arguments above:

Couldn't agree more! In the end, what does it matter. Is it going to stop those who take issue with that from buying his product? No. What does it make these handful of people who have issue with this, yet support him by buying his product?

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Hey, your HT is pretty sweet as is.

Thank you Blu! We just bought a new home, and will be moving at the end of the month. It's bigger, well, bigger for everyone else. My new room will be about half the size of my current one. It's been a struggle trying to figure out how everything will fit, but I think ultimately it will look better. Here is a pic of the room from a "model" home:

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Beast

No. Because the debate was about people OTHER THAN the creator altering the films.
It's kinda sad how so many people ignore the context of that issue. Just to slam Lucas.

The problem is that Lucas said-


"Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."

That was in regard to the public interest in already released movies(Our cultural history), not apples or fire hydrants, but culturally significant flims. So it is not taken out of context.


He chose his words very poorly and ends up looking like a hypocrite.

.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Yes, here is the whole thing-

.

For the umpteenth time, Lucas was referring to films that were altered by someone other than the original creator. In that case, he was referring specifically to Ted Turner colorizing old MGM and UA films. But in fairness to Turner, in the process of colorizing films, he was also preserving the originals, so he actually performed a valuable service. Turner Broadcasting (now owned by Time Warner) rarely now programs any colorized versions of films and when they do, it's usually paired with a broadcast of the non-colorized version.

This is obviously quite different than Lucas tinkering with his own films.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

The problem is that Lucas said-


"Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."

That was in regard to the public interest in already released movies(Our cultural history), not apples or fire hydrants, but culturally significant flims. So it is not taken out of context.


He chose his words very poorly and ends up looking like a hypocrite.

.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

lol

The passion in this thread is such a testament to the awesome that is Star Wars.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

I hate to tell you, but I am not part of the anti-Lucas crowd. I'm part of the call it as I see it crowd.

The problem is that the context of what GL said (in this particular case) makes no sense. Like I said, one cannot preserve a film for national heritage AND the rights of a film maker simultaneously as they are contradictory. Preserving a film means leaving it as is (except for upkeep/maintenance). Allowing it to be altered (even by the original film maker) means not preserving it. I'm not trying to sound argumentative, but can't you see the problem with that? The only argument that would hold any water would be debating if/when a particular film actually entered the graces of being a true part of our (or any) national heritage. In Star Wars' case, that was long before any changes were made.

Very well said!

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Star Wars Special Edition Changes HD

Awesome link. Thank you.

[Scooter1836]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

I hate to tell you, but I am not part of the anti-Lucas crowd. I'm part of the call it as I see it crowd.

The problem is that the context of what GL said (in this particular case) makes no sense. Like I said, one cannot preserve a film for national heritage AND the rights of a film maker simultaneously as they are contradictory. Preserving a film means leaving it as is (except for upkeep/maintenance). Allowing it to be altered (even by the original film maker) means not preserving it. I'm not trying to sound argumentative, but can't you see the problem with that? The only argument that would hold any water would be debating if/when a particular film actually entered the graces of being a true part of our (or any) national heritage. In Star Wars' case, that was long before any changes were made.

In all honesty, I believe a film maker does have the right to change his/her film as he/she sees fit. But if that same film maker is going to start preaching about the importance of the preservation of films, he/she needs to put his/her money where the mouth is, make it an across the board statement & live by what they would have others live by.

Of course I'm playing Devil's Advocate, as the way around this would be preserving the original film, while altering only future copies, leaving an original for national heritage purposes. Again, my issue is that it appears (by what GL has said) that he doesn't fully believe in the base of this particular principle or it would be across the board.

Well said. But one fact seems to elude people in this thread. Altered versions of films are sold all the time, but they are classified as special editions or directors cut.

When talking about the preservation of the original trilogy what seems to be escaping people is that GL is simply choosing not to make those avalable for mass sales at this time. My suspicion is that the OT in it's theatrical form is in fact preseverd. Just because GL and Fox are not choosing to sell them to the general public for viewing at home does not mean they are not preserved.

Fans in general can take issue that that they cannot purchase the OT in it's theactrical form, but that does not mean that the films are not preserved.

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by Beast

Again. Only if you take his statements entirely out of the context of what they were referring to.

Which the anti-Lucas crowd loves to do. Obsess over what was said, and ignore the context it was in.

And across the board statements? In reality there is no such things. To crib from Obi-Wan: "Ohly a Sith deals in absolutes."

Oh good lord. As I said yesterday Beast, absolutely nothing seems to be able to get through to you. You're so blinded by the fact that Lucas is the original mastermind behind the franchise that you believe he can never do any wrong and are willing to defend him to the death.

And of course, you've completely missed the point by several miles as usual. It doesn't matter if Lucas was speaking out against classic films being altered by people who weren't the original creators. He said in his statement that our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten and that it would be a great loss to our society. By saying that, he basically admitted that films belong to the audience and society once they're released. Why in God's name is it so difficult for you to grasp that? Oh wait right, the kool-aid, almost forgot. Never mind.

Funny thing is, earlier when the article about Lucas protesting the colorizing of films was posted, I predicted you would defend it by saying he was talking about films being altered by people who don't own them, and sure enough, I was right on the money.

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by Scooter1836

Well said. But one fact seems to elude people in this thread. Altered versions of films are sold all the time, but they are classified as special editions or directors cut.

When talking about the preservation of the original trilogy what seems to be escaping people is that GL is simply choosing not to make those avalable for mass sales at this time. My suspicion is that the OT in it's theatrical form is in fact preseverd. Just because GL and Fox are not choosing to sell them to the general public for viewing at home does not mean they are not preserved.

Fans in general can take issue that that they cannot purchase the OT in it's theactrical form, but that does not mean that the films are not preserved.

Bingo!

[Beast]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

Oh good lord. As I said yesterday Beast, absolutely nothing seems to be able to get through to you. You're so blinded by the fact that Lucas is the original mastermind behind the franchise that you believe he can never do any wrong and are willing to defend him to the death.

Wrongo. Since I don't agree with every choice he's made either. But I'll defend his right to make those choices.
I'm not like some, placing the original films on a pedestal and viewing them through rose colored glasses.

And of course, you've completely missed the point by several miles as usual. It doesn't matter if Lucas was speaking out against classic films being altered by people who weren't the original creators. He said in his statement that our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten and that it would be a great loss to our society. By saying that, he basically admitted that films belong to the audience and society once they're released. Why in God's name is it so difficult for you to grasp that? Oh wait right, the kool-aid, almost forgot. Never mind.

No kool-aid required. I'm just not ignoring the context of the statement unlike some. Simple as that.

Funny thing is, earlier when the article about Lucas protesting the colorizing of films was posted, I predicted you would defend it by saying he was talking about films being altered by people who don't own them, and sure enough, I was right on the money.

No prediction required. I have been pointing out the logic fault of ignoring the context of that quote for many many moons.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I think that is the most relevant thing I've seen on here in a while.
I was almost crying, literally! Thanks

[JamesKurtovich]

Haha. Thought those were funny.



^ LMAO

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by Beast

Wrongo. Since I don't agree with every choice he's made either. But I'll defend his right to make those choices.
I'm not like some, placing the original films on a pedestal and viewing them through rose colored glasses.

Huh? What's that? You actually disagree with some of Lucas' choices? Well I'd be very interested in hearing what some of those are.

Originally Posted by Beast

No kool-aid required. I'm just not ignoring the context of the statement unlike some. Simple as that.

Like I just explained, you seem to be the one ignoring the context of the statement.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Haha. Thought those were funny.

You changed your avatar! Nice! Was the old one the bottom half of Dave Grohl's face?

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

^ LMAO

AWESOME!

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Even though I've been actively involved in these back and forth arguments, I do have to admit that is pretty funny.

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Haha. Thought those were funny.



^ LMAO

Heh, those are pretty good too.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by frogmort

You changed your avatar! Nice! Was the old one the bottom half of Dave Grohl's face?

Nope, my face. Thanks.

I just found this page full of awesome rare Star Wars pics. Check 'em out! http://izismile.com/2010/08/31/star_..._113_pics.html