Revisionism: the director can alter his work... and I can hate it!

[Grubert]

Can we please leave the undertones and tangents aside, please?

I'm sure nobody meant to be insensitive.

Back to topic...

BTW talking about Lucas' revisionism, there are other things that annoyed me more than Greedo. Namely, the inflated celebration at the end of Return of the Jedi (Jar Jar Binks included). Ugh.

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by Grubert

BTW talking about Lucas' revisionism, there are other things that annoyed me more than Greedo. Namely, the inflated celebration at the end of Return of the Jedi (Jar Jar Binks included). Ugh.

wait...am i reading that as lucas inserted jar jar binks into the SE of return of the jedi??

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Sussudio

wait...am i reading that as lucas inserted jar jar binks into the SE of return of the jedi??

Yep, but it's blink-and-you'll-miss-it. There is a new montage showing celebration on various Rebel Alliance planets. When it goes over Naboo, you can make out a Gungan shouting, "Wesa Free!" in a voice very similar to that of our beloved "urban" alien.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Grubert

Can we please leave the undertones and tangents aside, please?

I'm sure nobody meant to be insensitive.

Back to topic...

BTW talking about Lucas' revisionism, there are other things that annoyed me more than Greedo. Namely, the inflated celebration at the end of Return of the Jedi (Jar Jar Binks included). Ugh.

Therein lies the basis of my point.

If we take what they originally made {Star Wars, E.T. et al} and apply it with the lens that they're using on it today. If they HAD made those changes all those years ago when they were actually filming {if they had the technology etc.} would we truly hold these movies as close to our hearts and with such passion at defending the original versions that we do now?

An example I point to is Indy 4, if they had made Indy 4 {or some other piece of crap equivalent} first, would we really love the Indy franchise as much as we all do?

Logan

[anomynous]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum

He's referring to E.T. How could Watchmen be revised already? The theatrical cut isn't even out. LOL!!

Because they edited out guns for walkie-talkies in the trailer

[uziel5000]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Therein lies the basis of my point.

If we take what they originally made {Star Wars, E.T. et al} and apply it with the lens that they're using on it today. If they HAD made those changes all those years ago when they were actually filming {if they had the technology etc.} would we truly hold these movies as close to our hearts and with such passion at defending the original versions that we do now?

An example I point to is Indy 4, if they had made Indy 4 {or some other piece of crap equivalent} first, would we really love the Indy franchise as much as we all do?

Logan

That is an EXCELLENT point. But let mention this:

Taking into account what you just said, lets say Lucas shot Star Wars in 1977 with the scenes we now know(and love?) in the Special Edition. The movie simply came out that way. Greedo shot first, Jabba made it to the final cut etc...

Looking back and trying to analyze this (no pun intended) as objectively as I can, I would have to say the film would've been a success and it would still be loved by millions of people. Star Wars was an technical achievement in filmaking at the time and everyone wanted to see it. I dont think those scenes would've changed anything. The changes made don't really affect the plot or the flow of the film. We talk about it now because we love the film and it changes stuff we have come to love so obviously there are gonna be mixed feelings. But if the film came out like that from the get go we would have loved it just the same.

On the other hand...

If Indy 4 would've been the first Indy film, how would that change our perception? That is a very good question. We probably wouldn't be talking about Indy films today. As much as I like Spielberg, I'm the first to say that the comercial success of Indy 4 completely rode on the reputation of the previous 3 films. So if it would've been the first Indy film, they probably would not have greenlighted the others. In the best case scenario, they would've looked for someone else to direct a sequel if the script would have been as strong as what we know as Raiders of the Lost Ark.


Two very different paths forming from one very good question.

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

Therein lies the basis of my point.

If we take what they originally made {Star Wars, E.T. et al} and apply it with the lens that they're using on it today. If they HAD made those changes all those years ago when they were actually filming {if they had the technology etc.} would we truly hold these movies as close to our hearts and with such passion at defending the original versions that we do now?

If the Gungan/Naboo celebration were seen at the end of Jedi in 1983, nobody would have blinked an eye. Jar Jar would have been just another background alien like those of Jabba's palace or the cantina.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by bferr1

If the Gungan/Naboo celebration were seen at the end of Jedi in 1983, nobody would have blinked an eye. Jar Jar would have been just another background alien like those of Jabba's palace or the cantina.

Exactly, people want to care now because they know Jar Jar and they want to hate him and Lucas for everything and I don't get it.

I don't see why people look at the original Star Wars with such "rose glasses" as if they are the ultimate expression of pure art. Look no one as seen the first 3 Star Wars as much as me, I love Star Wars and I can see just how cheesie the first 3 movies are. Little robots making little stupid noises, one liners that seem to have been written by a 5 year old, monsters burping after eating little monsters, little furry bears destroying the best legions in the galaxy....it's full of these moments, no different then the prequels. Yet everyone just ignore this and bash the prequels and complaint that Lucas as change. Seriously I don't see how he's change, he is doing stuff the same way with the sole exception that he as now more money and he as the technology to make it bigger then before.

It's the same for the Indy movies, little one liners, a kid being funny, a whiny lounge singer, a university teacher who's never been out in the world, a goofy museum caretaker....where is the difference with Indy 4? You have the same impossible and goofy cheesie elements in all 4 movies. But once again everyone keep's looking at the first 3 with "rose glasses" as if they are perfect.

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Exactly, people want to care now because they know Jar Jar and they want to hate him and Lucas for everything and I don't get it.

I don't see why people look at the original Star Wars with such "rose glasses" as if they are the ultimate expression of pure art. Look no one as seen the first 3 Star Wars as much as me, I love Star Wars and I can see just how cheesie the first 3 movies are. Little robots making little stupid noises, one liners that seem to have been written by a 5 year old, monsters burping after eating little monsters, little furry bears destroying the best legions in the galaxy....it's full of these moments, no different then the prequels. Yet everyone just ignore this and bash the prequels and complaint that Lucas as change. Seriously I don't see how he's change, he is doing stuff the same way with the sole exception that he as now more money and he as the technology to make it bigger then before.

It's fashionable to bash, harder to take a personal stand. I bet most of the people who bash the Prequels actually have the DVDs sitting on their shelves.

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

It's the same for the Indy movies, little one liners, a kid being funny, a whiny lounge singer, a university teacher who's never been out in the world, a goofy museum caretaker....where is the difference with Indy 4? You have the same impossible and goofy cheesie elements in all 4 movies. But once again everyone keep's looking at the first 3 with "rose glasses" as if they are perfect.

And, yeah, I didn't mind most of Indy IV-- except for, you know, the climax of the film. And as for the whole "nuke the fridge" backlash, Temple had Indy and company jump out of an airplane in an inflatable raft, slide down a mountainside, go over a cliff edge, and splash down in the rapids-- with everyone surviving. And later, during the mine car chase, Indy's mine car leaps over a gap in the tracks, landing perfectly on the other side and continuing on its way. In Raiders, Indy hitches a ride on a Nazi sub-- on the outside. Thank God it never submerged! But no one ever mentions those things.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by bferr1

And, yeah, I didn't mind most of Indy IV-- except for, you know, the climax of the film. And as for the whole "nuke the fridge" backlash, Temple had Indy and company jump out of an airplane in an inflatable raft, slide down a mountainside, go over a cliff edge, and splash down in the rapids-- with everyone surviving. And later, during the mine car chase, Indy's mine car leaps over a gap in the tracks, landing perfectly on the other side and continuing on its way. In Raiders, Indy hitches a ride on a Nazi sub-- on the outside. Thank God it never submerged! But no one ever mentions those things.

I know I always tell this to everyone complaining about Indy 4 and they always tell me "it''s not the same". How is it not the same? No one seem to be able to explain it too me, "it's not the same" as if that alone explain everything.

What I use is this, ok what about this scene from Raiders (the most beloved Indy movie) where Indy chase down a truck on a horse, dash down a hill, run's along the truck with the horse (because seriously the driver cannot go faster) jump into the cab, fight the first guy driving the truck then shake's off the other soldiers trying to reach the front of the truck, finaly the officer make's it in, push Indy out ot the front window, tries to smash Indy against the car in front (oh yeah suddendly the truck can go faster) Indy goes under the truck (going much faster now it seem) make's his way under the truck hanging to the hot metal, manage to hang his whip and then get drag behind the truck, goes back in, dash in front in seconds, fight of the driver and push him outside, crush him under the truck and all the while doing all this with a bullet wound in the arm. What do I get as a response "yeah stuff like that can happen"

[bferr1]

Like I said, it's fashionable to bash.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by bferr1

If the Gungan/Naboo celebration were seen at the end of Jedi in 1983, nobody would have blinked an eye. Jar Jar would have been just another background alien like those of Jabba's palace or the cantina.

I disagree. Firstly, what we saw in 1983 was a more intimate, personal, planet-limited celebration. Of course, at the time there was no Naboo, but he could have added victory celebrations on Tatooine, Endor, even Hoth. And he didn't. So no he wants something galaxy-wide and larger than life, totally changing the focus of the coda.

And had he added Naboo/Jar Jar out of the blue, without any setup, most people would have gone WTF?

It'd be like re-editing Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to add Marion pushing a baby in a stroller over the end credits -wink, wink-.

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by Grubert

And had he added Naboo/Jar Jar out of the blue, without any setup, most people would have gone WTF?

Perhaps, but then the Prequels would have brought it all together, and people would have been like "Ah-ha!"

Hang on! Time out (for me). It seems that this thread has veered off-topic again, and for my part I apologize.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by bferr1

And, yeah, I didn't mind most of Indy IV-- except for, you know, the climax of the film. And as for the whole "nuke the fridge" backlash, Temple had Indy and company jump out of an airplane in an inflatable raft, slide down a mountainside, go over a cliff edge, and splash down in the rapids-- with everyone surviving. And later, during the mine car chase, Indy's mine car leaps over a gap in the tracks, landing perfectly on the other side and continuing on its way. In Raiders, Indy hitches a ride on a Nazi sub-- on the outside. Thank God it never submerged! But no one ever mentions those things.

There's a slight difference between physics altered for effects. And CGI nonsense put in there that isn't even remotely physically possible.

Jumping out of a plane on an inflatable raft, IS possible, unlikely but possible. Getting nuked and surviving flying through the air in a lead lined fridge. You do the math.

Logan

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Grubert

I disagree. Firstly, what we saw in 1983 was a more intimate, personal, planet-limited celebration. Of course, at the time there was no Naboo, but he could have added victory celebrations on Tatooine, Endor, even Hoth. And he didn't. So no he wants something galaxy-wide and larger than life, totally changing the focus of the coda.

And had he added Naboo/Jar Jar out of the blue, without any setup, most people would have gone WTF?

I'm actually of the opinion that the victory celebrations at the end of Jedi were a little pre-mature.

Sure have a victory celebration on the planet in which you killed the Emperor. That makes sense.

But just because you kill the emperor, that means that the Empire itself is toast? Not in any revolution I've ever seen/heard of.

The next guy in line would suddenly get a promotion and well, the Empire would come after whoever killed the emperor... starting with the mindless dolts who started celebrating at the announcement of his death. *LOL*

Logan

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

I'm actually of the opinion that the victory celebrations at the end of Jedi were a little pre-mature.

Sure have a victory celebration on the planet in which you killed the Emperor. That makes sense.

But just because you kill the emperor, that means that the Empire itself is toast? Not in any revolution I've ever seen/heard of.

The next guy in line would suddenly get a promotion and well, the Empire would come after whoever killed the emperor... starting with the mindless dolts who started celebrating at the announcement of his death. *LOL*

Logan

Think Hitler.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by bferr1

Think Hitler.

Bull$#!+

To compare the two is lunacy at best. Hilter wasn't taken down by the President of the U.S. in a one-on-one fight only to have Hitler's chief adviser throw him down a mine shaft just before Hitler delivered the death blow.

All kidding aside:

The Imperial forces weren't all concentrated in one area, they were spread out around the galaxy. The Rebel forces defeated some {but likely not ALL} of the Imperial forces, and who did the Emperor leave in charge on Couriscant while he was away? A bobblehead? Unlikely.

Logan

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by bferr1

Well, there was a point, actually. There has been a 5-hour workprint of this film available on bootlegged video for years, fueling the notion that there was a lot more to Apocalypse than we were allowed to see-- one of the great "What ifs?" in recent cinema. (It's the same kind of myth surrounding David Lynch's Dune, by the way.) The Redux obviously is a way to quell that demand with an official product rather than a shoddy bootleg, and that's about it.

I mean that there's no point to the actual extra content featured in the movie. It doesn't add anything to the story, except excess blubber. We get it; vietnam was a messed up place.
I'm sure any talented director that has legions of fanboys will be pressured into releasing extra footage or directors cuts of their favorite films. It doesn't mean they should, simply because they can. So basically, the point of the Redux cut was to appease fanboys and make some extra cash. Brilliant.

[Riff Magnum]

Originally Posted by Riff Magnum View Post
He's referring to E.T. How could Watchmen be revised already? The theatrical cut isn't even out. LOL!!

Because they edited out guns for walkie-talkies in the trailer


So, you're saying that in the original Watchmen trailer some of the characters are holding guns and now they're holding walkie talkies? Are you sure you're not holding something?