Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Geroge Lucas originally wanted his friend Steven Spielberg to direct Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983), but his dispute with the Director's Guild barred him from doing so. He settled for director Richard Marquand instead.

I hadn't heard that one before.

I just know that Spielberg was begging George to let him direct one of the Prequels.

I am glad he didn't.

I had heard that about Spielberg & RotJ. I checked briefly & came up with this, from a site devoted to stars & the parts they didn't get called notstarring.com...

http://www.notstarring.com/actors/spielberg-steven

[Beast]

Originally Posted by octagon

Why was there a debate in the first place?

Ted Turner owned the movies. Where did the public (or its self-appointed spokespeople) get off telling him what he could or couldn't do with them?

Did the public have some sort of say in what happened to those movies?

Because once the door was open of people buying up these movies and altering them, then that leads to people selling product placement in them. Such as putting cans of Coke in Casablanca. Lucas and others weren't speaking out against the artist's rights in regard to their creations.

[OG Pooh]

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.

I'm not ignoring content or context. He said that B&W films need to be preserved for national heritage. IF his concern is truly for that of national heritage, WHY does that stop at B&W films or when the original film maker is involved? National heritage is national heritage and failing to preserve something is failing to preserve it regardless of the reasons or circumstances. He is a hypocrite if it's okay on one hand but not okay for the other. That is the bigger picture that everybody so enamored with GL & everything he does are utterly failing to see.

[Uxi]

It's worth posting again wrt the American writers/director's Guilds, but important to take note that Lucas most likely won't ever get a writer who's part of the WGA, as well as a director in the DGA:

"The Hollywood unions have been taken over by the same lawyers and accountants who took over the studios," Lucas says angrily. "When the Writers Guild was on strike, I couldn't cross the picket line in my function as a director in order to take care of American Graffiti when the studio was chopping it up. I quit the Director's Guild because the union lawyers were locked in a traditional combat with the studio lawyers. The union doesn't care about it's members. It cares about making fancy rules that sound good on paper and are totaly impractical. They said Lucasfilm was a personal credit, not a corporate credit. My name is not George Lucasfilm any more than William Fox's name was Twentieth Century-Fox. On that technicality, they sued me for $250,000. You can pollute half the Great Lakes and not get fined that much. When the DGA threatened to fine Kershner $25,000, we paid his fine. I consider it extortion. The day after I settled with the Director's Guild, the Writers Guild called up. At least their fine didn't go all into the business agents' pockets. Two-thirds went to writers."

http://books.google.com/books?id=P2P7pwHeZSkC&pg=PA139

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

I'm not ignoring content or context. He said that B&W films need to be preserved for national heritage. IF his concern is truly for that of national heritage, WHY does that stop at B&W films or when the original film maker is involved? National heritage is national heritage and failing to preserve something is failing to preserve it regardless of the reasons or circumstances. He is a hypocrite if it's okay on one hand but not okay for the other.

Maybe you don't understand what context means or how it's applied. But you're lacking it when you leave out the colorization being done by third parties who purchased the rights well after the creator's of the content had lost them (or died).

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by indefinentnj

Does anyone remember playing this arcade game:

http://arcade-museum.com/images/118/1181242172216.jpg

Good times back then.good times!

LOL! Oh my dear Lord!

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I remember this

http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/ima.../4127/0804.png

Oh my dear Lord-er!

Originally Posted by Duffy12

[Show spoiler]

.

Originally Posted by Beast

Well, from what I recall Qui-Gon's ghost wouldn't have physically appeared.
But Liam Neeson would have voiced him speaking to Yoda. But then he had his motorcycle accident.

And, now it is speculated that Nesson may have done some voice work for the PT since he lent his voice to The Clone Wars recently.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Maybe you don't understand what context means or how it's applied. But you're lacking it when you leave out the colorization being done by third parties who purchased the rights well after the creator's of the content had lost them (or died).

Exactly. Honestly, is it really that hard for people to understand what the debate was about?

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

It's not like he was sitting around doing nothing the whole time.

He was raising his kids, and building his empire, amongst other things....

I know, I know. I didn't say that he was sat there twiddling his thumbs. But the lack of continuity between the prequels hurts them big time, and for all my "rhetoric" (thanks O_V_N) it's not something that would've taken 20 years to plan out!

Actually, the rate at which Lucas chopped and changed the prequel plots would've rendered any existing storylines moot. That crap about Sido-Dyas/ Sifo-Dyas in Clones is a case in point.

I'd love it if Ewan's fake beard/wig combo in Clones could be tuned up with some CG. Yes, really. It looks SOOOOOOOOOO fake it's not even funny.

[miTfan3]

I know it's really unlikely, but it would be pretty cool if they included the holiday special in the special features. I know it's supposed to be awful but it is a part of the Star Wars saga. If an official release ever happens this could be it.

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by indefinentnj

How do you plan on watching STAR WARS when it is finally released in september??

For me i will be watching it with my significant other and our friends, probably on the weekend what we do is we will watch the movies back to back with refreshments throughout the viewings, me and my partner have a big basement where we set up our reclining chairs and food trays and just kick back and enjoy.

So how will you be celebrating??

Awesome!

I'm hoping to have my new room set up before the BD release, but if not, will be watching at a friends HT.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Beast

Because once the door was open of people buying up these movies and altering them, then that leads to people selling product placement in them. Such as putting cans of Coke in Casablanca. Lucas and others weren't speaking out against the artist's rights in regard to their creations.

You're telling me why people opposed colorization.

Now tell me why it was any of their business in the first place.

Did the public have some sort of stake in these movies?

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by Beast

Exactly. Honestly, is it really that hard for people to understand what the debate was about?

Look, GL says he believes in preserving films for our national heritage. The reality is that it doesn't matter if the films are being altered by the original maker or some studio executive 50 years after the film maker has dropped dead. Nor does it matter if it's adding color to a B&W film or adding a scene not originally in the film... Altering a film is altering a film. Can you comprehend that much? If GL says that films must be preserved for national heratge, then turns around and says they are his films and he can do whatever he pleases with them, he is not actually interested in preserving films for national heritage. Or is he (and other original film makers) excluded from the rules? Either way, he does not live by the principles he preaches. The fact that he puts a little disclaimer in regarding the original film maker only goes to prove that he doesn't truly believe what he's saying, or it would be an across the board statement. He can't preserve the original film for national heritage AND the rights of the original film maker AT THE SAME TIME.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

Look, GL says he believes in preserving films for our national heritage. The reality is that it doesn't matter if the films are being altered by the original maker or some studio executive 50 years after the film maker has dropped dead. Nor does it matter if it's adding color to a B&W film or adding a scene not originally in the film... Altering a film is altering a film. Can you comprehend that much? If GL says that films must be preserved for national heratge, then turns around and says they are his films and he can do whatever he pleases with them. In that case, he is not actually interested in preserving films for national heritage. Or if he is, he (and other original film makers) are excluded from the rules? Either way, he does not live by the principles he preaches. The fact that he puts a little disclaimer in regarding the original film maker only goes to prove that he doesn't truly believe what he's saying, or it would be an across the board statement. He can't preserve the original film for national heritage AND the rights of the original film maker AT THE SAME TIME.

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."

[Bluyoda]

To the arguments above:

Originally Posted by STARKILLER--1138

I'm hoping to have my new room set up before the BD release, but if not, will be watching at a friends HT.

Hey, your HT is pretty sweet as is.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by miTfan3

I know it's really unlikely, but it would be pretty cool if they included the holiday special in the special features. I know it's supposed to be awful but it is a part of the Star Wars saga. If an official release ever happens this could be it.

Didn't George say he'd love to get every existing copy of the Holiday Special and destroy them?

[Beast]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Didn't George say he'd love to get every existing copy of the Holiday Special and destroy them?

I don't think he ever said it directly. But that's pretty much how he feels about it.

I would love the Boba Fett cartoon included at least. The rest is pretty painful. Especially Grandpa Itchy and the Porn Machine.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Didn't George say he'd love to get every existing copy of the Holiday Special and destroy them?

You're not going to argue that the Holiday Special is part of our National Heritage are you?

George is trying to do us a favor!

[JamesKurtovich]

I really wonder why Yoda and Ben went into hiding or hid for as long as they did. We see Leia send R2 to Tatooine to get help but why did they wait so long exactly? Obviously he's lost a lot of ability by that time so you'd think it'd make more sense to take action earlier.

The Emperor would pretty much be powerless against both Yoda and Ben (not to mention all the other Jedi that survived but didn't work together for some reason) and Vader wouldn't even stand a chance.

[OG Pooh]

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."

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.

[JamesKurtovich]

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. The only argument that would hold any water would be debating if/when a particular film actually enters the graces of being part of 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.

I agree with you. We all know why George said it and what is was for. Doesn't mean it cannot be applied to other situations.

We all change. We grow. We get more experience. It's normal to want to improve, but don't try to rewrite history in the process.