Star Wars Wars the UOT Strikes Back and OTHER PEZ dispensers

[HylianBowcaster]

Originally Posted by Starpower67

Not really, since Shaw is the same actor that played Vader unmasked, and that is the only way Luke ever saw him. Well before the PT came out how would you even know how old vader was? Was Shaw really over 80? He didn't look that old to me.

Oops, Shaw was born in 1905, making him almost 80.

But the argument that we don't know how old Vader is doesn't really hold up any more because of the PT, I mean if you want to ignore the PT as being existent, as some people seemed to, then that argument would make sense. In addition, Shaw looks very different from the burnt version to his ghost form.

[EddieLarkin]

Originally Posted by HylianBowcaster

The same argument could be said about the original version. With Sebastian Shaw in there Anakin looks way older than he should (Shaw was over 80 years when this was filmed, nearly double the age of Vader). In addition his appearance is more of a "what-if" scenario. It's like saying "what would Anakin look like if he was never burned alive?" It's just as big a change as having Hayden Christensen in there. The most logical choice is to have stumpy-burnt Anakin as a ghost, that way it makes the most sense and no one's happy about it.

Is that really the point though? I couldn't care less if sticking Hayden Christensen in there wrapped up a story plot hole, or any other story related issue. The problem for me is that it makes no historical sense; we have here an actor appearing in a 1983 film even though he was only 2 years old at the time. It's dumb and offensive and makes no sense whatsoever to the few of us who still wish to pretend the prequels don't exist. What the hell am I supposed to tell my kids when they're ready to watch Star Wars and they see Hayden and ask who he is? I'll have to reveal to them the existence of the prequel trilogy, which of course they'll want to watch, and forever taint their Star Wars experience.

[HylianBowcaster]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Is that really the point though? I couldn't care less if sticking Hayden Christensen in there wrapped up a story plot hole, or any other story related issue. The problem for me is that it makes no historical sense; we have here an actor appearing in a 1983 film even though he was only 2 years old at the time. It's dumb and offensive and makes no sense whatsoever to the few of us who still wish to pretend the prequels don't exist. What the hell am I supposed to tell my kids when they're ready to watch Star Wars and they see Hayden and ask who he is? I'll have to reveal to them the existence of the prequel trilogy, which of course they'll want to watch, and forever taint their Star Wars experience.

You obviously aren't open to discussion on this matter so I won't even try.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Is that really the point though? I couldn't care less if sticking Hayden Christensen in there wrapped up a story plot hole, or any other story related issue. The problem for me is that it makes no historical sense; we have here an actor appearing in a 1983 film even though he was only 2 years old at the time. It's dumb and offensive and makes no sense whatsoever to the few of us who still wish to pretend the prequels don't exist. What the hell am I supposed to tell my kids when they're ready to watch Star Wars and they see Hayden and ask who he is? I'll have to reveal to them the existence of the prequel trilogy, which of course they'll want to watch, and forever taint their Star Wars experience.

I do agree with you on the offensive part. Hayden Christensen has no business in ROTJ. I can even deal with Han NOT shooting first if it would mean HC out of Jedi. I would buy the OT set for sure if it were just that one small item.....

[Beast]

It isn't even about cost. So the offers of people to do the work for him mean nothing.

Lucas doesn't WANT to release those inferior cuts. And as the artist, that's his choice. Period. No argument otherwise changes that.

He knows there's a market for them. He knows there's a market for the '97 SE also. But that desire doesn't trump his choice as Creator/Artist.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

Is that really the point though? I couldn't care less if sticking Hayden Christensen in there wrapped up a story plot hole, or any other story related issue. The problem for me is that it makes no historical sense; we have here an actor appearing in a 1983 film even though he was only 2 years old at the time. It's dumb and offensive and makes no sense whatsoever to the few of us who still wish to pretend the prequels don't exist. What the hell am I supposed to tell my kids when they're ready to watch Star Wars and they see Hayden and ask who he is? I'll have to reveal to them the existence of the prequel trilogy, which of course they'll want to watch, and forever taint their Star Wars experience.

It's neither dumb or offensive. Any more offensive than dubbing over an actor's voice. Or a stand-in for CGI.

Sebastian Shaw is still the unmasked Vader. He still recieves credit as Anakin Skywalker. Lucas didn't request his paycheck back.

His apperance as a Force Ghost simply doesn't fit the story. So he was replaced once there was an appropriate actor.

And again, you guys are dragging it off-topic. The topic is the Blu-Ray Release. Not the rant and rave about Lucas thread.

[Jumpman]

It isn't even about cost. So the offers of people to do the work for him mean nothing.

Lucas doesn't WANT to release those inferior cuts. And as the artist, that's his choice. Period. No argument otherwise changes that.

He knows there's a market for them. He knows there's a market for the '97 SE also. But that desire doesn't trump his choice as Creator/Artist.

There really isn't anything more to say after this post, Beast.

That is the issue. He just doesn't want to. We've made it very convoluted when it's pretty simple.

He's just not going to release the theatrical cuts in a pristine manner. In his eyes, they're inferior.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by EddieLarkin

It's dumb and offensive and makes no sense whatsoever to the few of us who still wish to pretend the prequels don't exist.

You just answered your own question right there. Not everyone actually hates the prequels. Your always entitled to your opinion, but so is everyone else.

What the hell am I supposed to tell my kids when they're ready to watch "Star Wars", and they see Hayden and ask who he is?

Tell them the truth: he's a younger version of Anakin, Luke's father.

I'll have to reveal to them the existence of the prequel trilogy, which of course they'll want to watch, and forever taint their Star Wars experience.

It'll only do that if you shove your own disdain for the prequels down their throats. Allow them to make up their own minds.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Beast

It isn't even about cost. So the offers of people to do the work for him mean nothing.

Lucas doesn't WANT to release those inferior cuts. And as the artist, that's his choice. Period. No argument otherwise changes that.

He knows there's a market for them. He knows there's a market for the '97 SE also. But that desire doesn't trump his choice as Creator/Artist.

In your opinion!! Thats not everyones opinion. There are alot of people that would prefer the Original cuts. Do you say this to just to troll! Someone who says that he grew up watching the OT's I cant believe this stuff comes out of your mouth!

[Beast]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

In your opinion!! Thats not everyones opinion. There are alot of people that would prefer the Original cuts. Do you say this to just to troll! Someone who says that he grew up watching the OT's I cant believe this stuff comes out of your mouth!

That's George Lucas' opinion. And when it comes to what is worthy of being released, guess who's opinion is the only one that matters?

And nope. That's also my opinion. There's tons of stuff about the OT that bugged me at the time. Especially how backlot Mos Eisley looked.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by mrpink134

In your opinion!! Thats not everyones opinion. There are alot of people that would prefer the Original cuts. Do you say this to just to troll! Someone who says that he grew up watching the OT's I cant believe this stuff comes out of your mouth!

What part of "in Lucas' eyes, they are inferior" don't you understand? That's the creator's view, and in the end, his is what matters.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

It isn't even about cost. So the offers of people to do the work for him mean nothing.

Lucas doesn't WANT to release those inferior cuts. And as the artist, that's his choice. Period. No argument otherwise changes that.

He knows there's a market for them. He knows there's a market for the '97 SE also. But that desire doesn't trump his choice as Creator/Artist.

There really isn't anything more to say after this post, Beast.

That is the issue. He just doesn't want to. We've made it very convoluted when it's pretty simple.

He's just not going to release the theatrical cuts in a pristine manner. In his eyes, they're inferior.

This is true. However, it points to self-esteem and pride issues that Lucas has. The theatrical cut of Blade Runner is certainly inferior to the final cut yet Ridley Scott wasn't afraid to let the world see it on Blu-ray. I just wish Lucas would own up to the fact that he is embarrassed of the films that put him on the map and that his pride will not allow him to release them. We should never be ashamed of our mistakes as those mistakes are what make us the people we become. We understand the limitations of the times the films were made. We know he did the best he could at the time. We want the OUT in the best possible quality not to judge his limitations, but to appreciate what started it all.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Beast

His apperance as a Force Ghost simply doesn't fit the story.

But Hayden Christensen's appearance fits into a 30-year old film? It is jarring and takes me out of the movie... get your 2002 out of my 1983, George
The guy just can't own up to/accept the fact that the series were not conceived or produced as a cohesive whole.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by 42041

But Hayden Christensen's appearance fits into a 30-year old film? It is jarring and takes me out of the movie... get your 2002 out of my 1983, George
The guy just can't own up to the fact that the series were not conceived or produced as a cohesive whole.

Yep. Because it's one big story. Hence the "Episode Chapters" at the start of every film. It fits it better than the Ghost of Humpty Dumpty.

And they were concieved and produced as a cohesive whole. Just that some aspects changed over time. Happens with any story.

But they fit together regardless of one minor change to the ghost at the end of Return of the Jedi. It's all one big story.

[Ernest Rister]

Can you guys PLEASE move OT discussions to the Pez thread, because I would *like* to contribute to this discussion, but don't want to run afoul of mods.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Beast

Yep. Because it's one big story. Hence the "Episode Chapters" at the start of every film.

Yep, and according to Lucas, he wanted to put the "Episode IV" subtitle on the '77 release, but the unions wouldn't let him. He finally quit the unions, and added the subtitle to the 1981 re-release.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Cook

This is true. However, it points to self-esteem and pride issues that Lucas has. The theatrical cut of Blade Runner is certainly inferior to the final cut yet Ridley Scott wasn't afraid to let the world see it on Blu-ray. I just wish Lucas would own up to the fact that he is embarrassed of the films that put him on the map and that his pride will not allow him to release them. We should never be ashamed of our mistakes as those mistakes are what make us the people we become. We understand the limitations of the times the films were made. We know he did the best he could at the time. We want the OUT in the best possible quality not to judge his limitations, but to appreciate what started it all.

The most impressive 12 million dollar movie ever made (even though 12 million wasn't quite what I would call low-budget in 1977).

That's the version I want to own. Just like I want to own the original versions of all of my favorite landmark movies. Like some of the really big Chaplin films which have only been released on BD in their inferior Chaplin-imposed recuts decades after the fact.

Honestly, the moment a film is locked down in it's final cut and has been released for public consumption (beyond any special type of preview engagement or test audience screening), that's when I stop giving a damn about directors intentions.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Beast

That's George Lucas' opinion. And when it comes to what is worthy of being released, guess who's opinion is the only one that matters?

And nope. That's also my opinion. There's tons of stuff about the OT that bugged me at the time. Especially how backlot Mos Eisley looked.

Wait. You're sitting in a theater in 1977, they get to Mos Eisley and you think 'geez, this kinda sucks...this isn't how I pictured a spaceport on Tattoine at all'?

Seriously? You sure you're not doing your own little mini-retcon here?

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

The most impressive 12 million dollar movie ever made (even though 12 million wasn't quite what I would call low-budget in 1977).

That's the version I want to own. Just like I want to own the original versions of all of my favorite landmark movies. Like some of the really big Chaplin films which have only been released on BD in their inferior Chaplin-imposed recuts decades after the fact.

There's one notable difference between such scenarios: the majority of screenwriters and directors don't own their films outright; Lucas does, and its his call to make...period.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

There's one notable difference between such scenarios: the majority of screenwriters and directors don't own their films outright; Lucas does, and its his call to make...period.

I don't care about the director. I care about the film that was made by a crew of people and released for public consumption. And I'm saying I want that version...period.

And the Chaplin recuts were at the behest of Chaplin himself. So I'm not sure that your comment really adds anything.