Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by binarymelon

I've been wondering lately if Lucas would have received as much flack if he had called the SEs Director's Cuts instead.

Hm. Maybe for some people.

By the time I decided to express my discontent with SW, it was 2004 and I had bought the DVD's (first time ever buying Star Wars for me!). I knew that the SE's were released in that nice 1997 VHS package but I guess I didn't watch the whole thing because I didn't realize the changes were so apparent until I sat down to watch my DVD's.. and by that time, they had removed the Special Edition label.

Honestly, it's the big changes that ruined the experience for me. If they were done tastefully, then I don't think they'd be much of a problem for me even if Lucas still refused to release the originals.

I wanted to return the DVD's so that I could find a good copy of the trilogy but then I found out that it's basically Lucas's personal mission (and his fan club) to keep that from happening.

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I do agree that Greedo shooting first just change the dynamic of that scene, and therefore the dynamic of how Han's character is set up.

Is it quick? Yes. It's a very, very brief part of the overall movie. But, it's still a relatively major part of establishing his character. Communication, explanation, and character development doesn's always have to be a long drawn out thing, and doesn't always have to be done verbally (so, in other words, it does NOT require the movie to stop and for things to be explained at people, as Beast so often puts it ). So, while it doesn't ENTIRELY change Han's character.. it does change a very important part of his set up.


Having said that, the thing that bugs me most about that scene isn't the fact that Greedo shoots first (though I'm still not thrilled with that). It's that EXTREMELY CRAPPY effect/edit they did where Han does that weird little twitch to 'dodge' Greedo's blast. It's something they added in because Harison Ford never made an actual motion like that during filmming. And it just looks unnatural, crappy, and just plain out of place. It almost looks like a jump cut.

Something like this really calls into questions Lucas's decisions as an "artist". If this (as the Lucas defenders like to argue) is such an inconsequential, minor change, that in no way, shape, or form, changes the dynamic of Han's character or the story in any way... then why would Lucas choose to go out of his way to create such a crappy looking shot and leave it in there for 2 revisions now (the only difference being that the time between blasts in the 2004 edition is much shorter than the 1997 edition, but the crappy twitch is present in both) just to change something that supposedly doesn't effect the story or character at all, what so ever?

I thought he was using modern digital technology to improve his movies and hide the problems with the original special effects... not to create a new 'special effect' that looks 10 times worse than the absolute worst effects of the UOT.

So, it's really not a fair arguement to say that this scene "doesn't matter" when the "artist" is choosing a much more crappily-composed shot just to make this specific change.

I agree with you that it does mess with the character. I was using it as an example to: What if there was a change in TPM where Anakin kills Sebulba. Would that, for PT fans, be just like Greedo shooting first in ANH for OT fans? That was the basic argument I was trying to present. A 'minor' change that does not effect the overall story, but changes the character a bit. Would the PT fans be upset if such a change were to occur? Oh, and to accomplish Anakin killing Sebulba there would have to be some crappy edit of Anakin yelling: "That is sooo WIZARD!" as he jerks his pod racer into Sebulba's forcing him to crash and turned into a lil red smear on the tatoine rocks..lol

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Jay444

I agree with you that it does mess with the character. I was using it as an example to: What if there was a change in TPM where Anakin kills Sebulba. Would that, for PT fans, be just like Greedo shooting first in ANH for OT fans? That was the basic argument I was trying to present. A 'minor' change that does not effect the overall story, but changes the character a bit. Would the PT fans be upset if such a change were to occur? Oh, and to accomplish Anakin killing Sebulba there would have to be some crappy edit of Anakin yelling: "That is sooo WIZARD!" as he jerks his pod racer into Sebulba's forcing him to crash and turned into a lil red smear on the tatoine rocks..lol

Oh, I know the point you were making. I just ended up using your post as a spring board to convey my thoughts on the Greedo issue.

I think even more so than taking this specific example of yours, the PT fans should just imagine a negative change to their favorite parts of the PT and imagine how they would react. There HAS to be a point where the blind praise for Lucas comes to a stop.

Artistic rights are all well and good, but pretty much no other filmmkaer that I can think of has such a dedicated group of fans declaring them as being infalible and above citicism simply because its "that artist's story and he/she can do what they want with it." That fine, it's his story, but like all other films and filmmakers, both his films and he as the artist making the films are just as subject to criticism and scrutiny as everyone else.

[al cos.]

He's not an artist to these guys anymore, he's L. Ron Hubbard.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

There HAS to be a point where the blind praise for Lucas comes to a stop.

Artistic rights are all well and good, but pretty much no other filmmkaer that I can think of has such a dedicated group of fans declaring them as being infalible and above citicism simply because its "that artist's story and he/she can do what they want with it." That fine, it's his story, but like all other films and filmmakers, both his films and he as the artist making the films are just as subject to criticism and scrutiny as everyone else.

And here's the funniest part - what do you call somebody who doesn't think Lucas is infallible?

Why, a fanboy, of course.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by octagon

And here's the funniest part - what do you call somebody who doesn't think Lucas is infallible?

Why, a fanboy, of course.

[tilapiah6]

Originally Posted by al cos.

He's not an artist to these guys anymore, he's L. Ron Hubbard.

+1

Sent from my HTC Incredible using Tapatalk Pro.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

There HAS to be a point where the blind praise for Lucas comes to a stop.

Artistic rights are all well and good, but pretty much no other filmmkaer that I can think of has such a dedicated group of fans declaring them as being infalible and above citicism simply because its "that artist's story and he/she can do what they want with it." That fine, it's his story, but like all other films and filmmakers, both his films and he as the artist making the films are just as subject to criticism and scrutiny as everyone else.

No blind praise here. I have noted before there's aspects of the films (changes or otherwise), that I don't particularly care for. But they're not my movies. Buying a ticket or some merchandise doesn't give me controlling shares in the movie. And none of the things are massive enough to detract from my enjoyment of the films. Lucas is the creator and the artist. So it gives him carte blanche to make whatever changes or tweaks to the films that he feels is necessary to satisfy himself as the artist. And I'll happily support that right. Whether it's George Lucas, or someone I don't care for like Christopher Nolan.

[Lope de Aguirre]

Originally Posted by Lope de Aguirre

I prefer the DC of ST1 and the Final Cut of Blade Runner but the SEs of "Star Wars" are going to far for my tastes.

I forgot to mention that I also prefer the Theatrical version of "Donnie Darko" over the "Director's Cut" by far - so the "Star Wars" OT isn't the only film where I prefer the original cut over the Director's prefered version.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

And if someone was 27 in 1977, that makes them 60 or 61 now, which gives them a pretty good chance of being alive, considering that life expectancy is about 80 these days. Unless you think that at SEs have had such an impact that they've eroded the lifespan of those who were forced to watch them.

Originally Posted by binarymelon

I'm sure there's probably a study out there that proves complaining and stressing about unimportant shit reduces your life expectancy.

I think this thread is starting to take a toll on my health for one. Everyone's got their serious caps on. Can we just go back to dick and fart jokes for a few hours?

[Gold Ranger]

Originally Posted by chip75

I think this thread is starting to take a toll on my health for one. Everyone's got their serious caps on. Can we just go back to dick and fart jokes for a few hours?

Thats what the Clerks thread is for....

[Shaft Windu]

Originally Posted by Beast

No blind praise here. I have noted before there's aspects of the films (changes or otherwise), that I don't particularly care for. But they're not my movies. Buying a ticket or some merchandise doesn't give me controlling shares in the movie. And none of the things are massive enough to detract from my enjoyment of the films. Lucas is the creator and the artist. So it gives him carte blanche to make whatever changes or tweaks to the films that he feels is necessary to satisfy himself as the artist. And I'll happily support that right. Whether it's George Lucas, or someone I don't care for like Christopher Nolan.

I agree... you just lost me by "I don't care for Christopher Nolan" ;-) The man is a genius!

[fgomike]

Originally Posted by chip75

I think this thread is starting to take a toll on my health for one. Everyone's got their serious caps on. Can we just go back to dick and fart jokes for a few hours?

How bout poodoo jokes?

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by al cos.

He specifically said he wanted to invoke Once Upon a Time in the West to Gil Taylor and John Barry when they were doing the tatooine stuff in north africa.

Originally Posted by dawgdaze37

Han's entrance in the reinserted Jabba scene looks like a direct homage to Leone.

Yes!


Everytime that scene starts...that's the very first thing that enters into my mind, and also that first shot is the only thing that I like about that scene.


.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Beast

No blind praise here. I have noted before there's aspects of the films (changes or otherwise), that I don't particularly care for. But they're not my movies. Buying a ticket or some merchandise doesn't give me controlling shares in the movie. And none of the things are massive enough to detract from my enjoyment of the films. Lucas is the creator and the artist. So it gives him carte blanche to make whatever changes or tweaks to the films that he feels is necessary to satisfy himself as the artist. And I'll happily support that right. Whether it's George Lucas, or someone I don't care for like Christopher Nolan.

Here's the problem with your arugement....

What ACTUALLY gives Lucas the right to do what he does isn't the fact that he's "the artist" who created Star Wars, but rather the fact that he OWNS the movies. It's an abstract, symbolic concept versus a legal one. And most filmmakers don't own their films... the studios do. So unless the filmmaker either owns the film or has a legal stipulation via their contract with the studio for a certain level of control over all future home video releases, etc, then technically the artist has no legal right either. Nolan doesn't own Batman, for example... WB does.

The reason that I bring this up is that you and a few others here who keep standing behind this "buying a ticket or merchandise only entitles you to that one viewing of the film or that piece of merchandise and nothing more" arguement are technically making an arguement of the legalities of the transaction. And therefore, it's a very hypocritical stance to take.

Those of us who feel differently aren't speaking of legal entitlements. It's also more of an abstract, symbolic idea that a film, once released, "belongs" to the public. No, we don't have legal ownership over it... we don't have the right to sell it or make money off of it for ourselves. But I stand behind the idea that once a film is released, it should be made continually available (not that it can't ever go 'out of print', but whether it's something along the lines of Disney's vault system or whatever... the movie should be released and re-released appropriately in each new format, etc). And each version should continue to exist.... in the case of Star Wars, this includes the 1997 versions, even though the UOT is more of a priority IMO. Yes, we will have to repurchase the movie(s) in question each time, but they should be made available.

I'm of the mind frame that once a piece of art like a movie, TV show, song, etc. is "put out there", it shouldn't be "taken away" (and even though no one is coming and taking away our existing copies, I do see complete discontinuation of making something available as "taking it away"). Since these forms of art and entertainment are dependent upon duplication and replication for them to exist and thrive, there's no reason why an original version can't or shouldn't exist along side and updated editions. It's not as if we are talking about a single painting that in order for the artist to make improvements to it, the original work has to be sacrificed.

If the artist has a conflicted relationship with the movie in question... oh well, too bad, so sad. They should have thought about that before releasing it. If you put something out there and the take it away, get ready for people to react. And the more people that work touches, and the more popular it is, the more of a backlash you will get for taking it away. Hence all of the grief directed at Lucas.

Getting back to my point, you are saying that the abtract, symbolic concept of the Artists Rights should trump any and all legal constructs, apparently including that of legal ownership (because while in Lucas's case he owns the films making this a moot point, we are discussing this larger concept as a whole here, including in the cases of those works where the 'artist' doesn't actually own the work). But then you follow that up by citing a legal concept (that of each individual transaction doesn't entitle you to future transactions) to defend your view point. With all due respect, that is hypocracy.

Artistic rights for the most part won't hold up in a court of law. The only time that they ever do is when the artist created an original work from scratch and at no point ever sold it to anyone else (thus more or less making the artist the legal owner... though this can still be sketchy if the artist never copyrighted the material and somebody else ripped them off or something).


You can go ahead and have your point of view on this. That is fine. But you can't sit there and state that one symbolic abstract concept trumps all legal constructs and then use legal constucts as an arguement against other people's symbolic abstract concept arguements.

And since there is no definitive higherarchy of which symbolic abstract concept is more important than another, it all boils down to a matter of opinion. But I do feel that there is a selfishness and a wrongness in the artist creating a work in a particular manner, having the masses fall in love with it, and then taking it away and replacing it with an alternate version when both versions easily can and should exist simultaneously side by side.

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

I agree... you just lost me by "I don't care for Christopher Nolan" ;-) The man is a genius!

That's usually about the time where he loses most people who otherwise agree with him.

[bytor_one]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

I agree... you just lost me by "I don't care for Christopher Nolan" ;-) The man is a genius!

Opinions. One man's trash is anothers treasure. I dont LOVE any of his movies. I LIKE Batman Begins, TDK is just ok for me, I LIKE Prestige, hated Inception.

If you love them, thats cool. Just like how some people think the star wars prequels are some of the worst trash out there, but then there are others that do actually like them.

[chip75]

Opinions are a lot like *******s. Everyone has one. There are a lot of them running amok on this thread. They all stink. *******s I mean, no wait I meant opinions, no wait....

You get the idea.

I'll be happy if the stuff changed from the UOT's is presented as restored deleted or extended scenes. I think that would be okay and George Lucas could explain why they were changed or excised. The deleted scenes for the PT had something similar and they were interesting.

Update: my poetic point has been censored....

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

That is easy to answer. Because he does not wish or want to do it, it's really that simple.

As a customer if you have a problem with that, do not buy the products he is selling.

Lol How many times have we answered this question already?

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

There will be no multiple versions of the movies on Blu-Ray - period! But there is still the strong possibility that a documentation of the changes will be featured in a Visual Commentary to the 6 movies for historic reasons. Would that satisfy the haters?

Any interesting concept. Although I agree with the reply below:

Originally Posted by Beast

Nothing would satisfy them. Even if he did release the original versions, they'd just find something else to complain about.

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

See, now that is just rude. While I responded "no" to the question, many people WOULD BE satisfied if proper transfers of the UOT were made available.

No way. These people have been complaining for so long, they don't even remember what life is like without it. Therefore, they would just keep on going regardless. Take my word for it.

Originally Posted by Jay444

Interesting. A few quick questions for you though:

Is the Sebulba being killed by Ananking change a "Greedo shooting first moment" for you? Do you see how such a minor change might make a few people upset? Yes, Greedo shoots first. But Han Solo shoots first throughout the rest of the series. In defense of the fictional Sebulba change, Anakin destoys the droid control ship at the end of TPM. Killing more flesh and blood characters than anyone else in the same film (entire Nemoidan crew) and in the rest of the PT he is always first to try and kill his enemies.

Additionally, I am not buying Lucas does not make changes for the sake of making changes agrument. Exactly WHAT does the probe droid being hit over the head by the worker droid in a ANH add to the film? Or the 8 rats running away from Mos Esley? Or Boba Fett nodding to the audience in the Jabba scense. I am curious why you think these additions were necessary if not to, oh.. I dunno, sell toys or something...

I mean zero disrespect btw.

Han and Greedo were shooting at each other already. Only the order was changed, and it lasts about 0,01 sec..

Anakin and Sebulba never had such a confrontation, so your point is pointless.

To answer your questions:

1.It shows there are humanoid droids on Tatooine.

2. What rats? The little animals with the tails? They are scared. VERY important story point.

3. Maybe their was a hot chick operating the camera?

Originally Posted by binarymelon

I'm sure there's probably a study out there that proves complaining and stressing about unimportant shit reduces your life expectancy.

I am sure these guys just don't care. If they got cancer for all the bit4%ing they'd still go on and on and on.

[Jay444]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Han and Greedo were shooting at each other already. Only the order was changed, and it lasts about 0,01 sec..

Anakin and Sebulba never had such a confrontation, so your point is pointless.

To answer your questions:

1.It shows there are humanoid droids on Tatooine.

2. What rats? The little animals with the tails? They are scared. VERY important story point.

3. Maybe their was a hot chick operating the camera?

There was a confrontation between Sebulba and Anakin in the pod race at the very end where Sebulba losses control immediately following ramming Anakin. So, they did have a simular confrontation and clearly liked each about as much as Greedo and Solo. Anyway, I was using it more or less as an example for a change that might not sit well with PT fans. Obviously, its a change most would hate no? So welcome to my world of Greedo and Solo.

1. Yes, I had NO IDEA there were humaniod droids on Tatooine. I never got that idea from the few seen in the Jawa Sand Crawler or the several seen walking around Mos Eisley. So adding the extra one hitting a probe droid on the head was a AMAZING SUPER AWESOME addition.

2. I know you are joking, and realize it was a pointless addition.

3. see above.

I still respect your opinion, even though we disagree.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Jay444

...So adding the extra one hitting a probe droid on the head was a AMAZING SUPER AWESOME addition.

Ugh!!!!! I really HATE that goofy scene. I now have to turn my head for a couple of seconds when it starts to keep from throwing up. That along with some of the other additions mentioned previously were obviously inserted into the film for his six year old kid at the time. I have to wonder why he didn't CGI a scene with 3PO stepping in some doody also for continuity. Maybe he will either remove or restore some of those scenes back into the upcoming BD set since he has grown up by now.

We can only hope.


.