Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by miniroll32

It's a really interesting debate. In my perfect world, the Star Wars release would contain the Original film and the 1997 S.E branched on one disc, a second disc for the 2011 version, and a third disc for bonus content.

I live in hope

I've got a soft spot for the '97 versions too, as they're what got me into Star Wars in the first place. * hugs Japanese Laserdisc boxset *

[happydood]

Originally Posted by budious

But Greedo still shoots first... film ruined.

I don't see what's so hard to reconstruct the TC from the altered negatives in a digital world using existing prints as reference. Especially when the fan edit community is already doing it themselves. Lucas just wants to be upstaged by amateurs I suppose.

"Lucas just wants to be upstaged by amateurs." Yes. That must be it. Hate the man or what he's done all you want, but the attitude that he must be an idiot incapable of understanding what he's done wrong or that he's willfully trying to hurt you is just misguided. But "just wants to be upstaged by amateurs." I've gotta admit that's a new one.

[budious]

Originally Posted by happydood

"Lucas just wants to be upstaged by amateurs." Yes. That must be it. Hate the man or what he's done all you want, but the attitude that he must be an idiot incapable of understanding what he's done wrong or that he's willfully trying to hurt you is just misguided. But "just wants to be upstaged by amateurs." I've gotta admit that's a new one.

No, it was just sarcasm, since the same man once gave testimony at a Congressional hearing on film preservation.

http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeecha...aledition.html

[Falaskan]

I would not be surprised if it all came down to his ex-wife.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by budious

No, it was just sarcasm, since the same man once gave testimony at a congressional hearing on film preservation.

...that the rights of the artist not be taken from the artist. Look, I understand where you're coming from. But maybe the reality of the situation is that he has different tastes from you (and admittedly, many, MANY others) and changed his mind about how he saw the movies and had the power and money to do something about it. I prefer the originals, but the man isn't The Devil for doing what he did. I know this is an argument that is as old as the hills, but he's not the only revisionist in history that majorly shifted the tone of a previously established work. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, & Charles Dickens come immediately to mind. You have every right to dislike the work now, but you're looking for a justification that I don't know you're going to find.

[BluBonnet]

I agree with happydood here.

[budious]

So it gives him to the right to take all the prints of the TCs out of circulation, destroy them, alter the negatives, so that someday when the film does fall out of copyright in the distant future there will be nothing left to preserve? This is the primary complaint nowdays of the silent and early b&w eras but it's ok for Lucas to commit the same sins?

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by budious

So it gives him to the right to take all the prints of the TCs out of circulation, destroy them, alter the negatives, so that someday when the film does fall out of copyright in the distant future there will be nothing left to preserve? This is the primary complaint nowdays of the silent and early b&w eras but it's ok for Lucas to commit the same sins?

First of all, I don't agree with the premise that film preservation and the filmmaker making changes to his works, which he legally owns, are the same thing. Not by a long shot.

The changes and/or alterations the Lucas and other filmmakers have complained about in the past were those done by studios or producers, going against the wishes of the filmmaker(s).

Big difference, imho.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by budious

So it gives him to the right to take all the prints of the TCs out of circulation, destroy them, alter the negatives, so that someday when the film does fall out of copyright in the distant future there will be nothing left to preserve? This is the primary complaint nowdays of the silent and early b&w eras but it's ok for Lucas to commit the same sins?

Again, I don't disagree with you and I feel your pain. I prefer the originals, but I'm kind of indifferent to the changes. I think you're looking for satisfaction that you aren't going to get, unfortunately.

[budious]

Originally Posted by happydood

Again, I don't disagree with you and I feel your pain. I prefer the originals, but I'm kind of indifferent to the changes. I think you're looking for satisfaction that you aren't going to get, unfortunately.

The problem is that so many are indifferent to the changes because if they were not and would backup their dissatisfaction with their wallet by not purchasing the OT blu-rays until they are packaged with the TCs (if I have to buy them with the SE so be it) then we'd probably have them in stores by Christmas time. Settling for his vision is the larger problem than I have with him.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by budious

The problem is that so many are indifferent to the changes because if they were not and would backup their dissatisfaction with their wallet by not purchasing the OT blu-rays until they are packaged with the TCs (if I have to buy them with the SE so be it) then we'd probably have them in stores by Christmas time. Settling for his vision is the larger problem than I have with him.

Well, here is where we get into presumptuous territory. I am at heart a Star Wars fan. I mean, the original. I saw it in the theater on its first run many times. The original trilogy, and by virtue of the original trilogy the prequels too, are in my blood. When I say I'm indifferent to the changes, I mean I have other means of seeing the originals and I watch them that way. I simply don't begrudge the artist in this case the right of editing his own work.

I guess really the ultimate issue is that by indifferent, I mean, I see not having the theatrical editions on blu-ray as not a personal affront to you because we're unfortunately not really in solidarity on that part of the issue. People who LOVE the changes aren't wrong or idiots, nor are people who are indifferent to them.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by happydood

Well, here is where we get into presumptuous territory. I am at heart a Star Wars fan. I mean, the original. I saw it in the theater on its first run many times. The original trilogy, and by virtue of the original trilogy the prequels too, are in my blood. When I say I'm indifferent to the changes, I mean I have other means of seeing the originals and I watch them that way. I simply don't begrudge the artist in this case the right of editing his own work.

I guess really the ultimate issue is that by indifferent, I mean, I see not having the theatrical editions on blu-ray as not a personal affront to you because we're unfortunately not really in solidarity on that part of the issue. People who LOVE the changes aren't wrong or idiots, nor are people who are indifferent to them.

Well said.

[Moviefan2k4]

In my opinion, the Blu-Ray versions of the OT are about 90% where I'd like them to be. Some of the newer moments (like the rocks in front of R2D2) aren't necessary, and create a continuity error, but others don't bug me at all. While I agree that "New Hope" looks and sounds fantastic overall, some of the FX still need fixing, and minor matte shots in both "Empire" and "Jedi" do, too.

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by happydood

I simply don't begrudge the artist in this case the right of editing his own work.

I don't either, but I do begrudge the artist taking the original classic versions away from us and basically saying, "I know you love these versions, but I don't anymore, so you're never gonna see them in a quality presentation again, and I really don't give a damn if you're unhappy about that." That's when I have to take issue.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by kamphausd1

I don't either, but I do begrudge the artist taking the original classic versions away from us and basically saying, "I know you love these versions, but I don't anymore, so you're never gonna see them in a quality presentation again, and I really don't give a damn if you're unhappy about that." That's when I have to take issue.

Problem with that logic is... he didn't take them away from anyone. He's just choosing not to offer them on this format.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by Beast

Problem with that logic is... he didn't take them away from anyone. He's just choosing not to offer them on this format.

...and at least for the time being

[kamphausd1]

Originally Posted by Beast

Problem with that logic is... he didn't take them away from anyone. He's just choosing not to offer them on this format.

Beast, I'm not gonna get into another endless debate with you on this matter, because no matter what I say, I just know you're going to keep splitting hairs and dulling out the same straw man defenses over and over and over and over again, so I'm just going to say I strongly believe that by not releasing a movie on each new format that comes along and letting it die out on old obsolete formats that degrade over time does constitute taking it away from people. I know this won't register with you even in the slightest, but I said my peace.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

First of all, I don't agree with the premise that film preservation and the filmmaker making changes to his works, which he legally owns, are the same thing. Not by a long shot.

The changes and/or alterations the Lucas and other filmmakers have complained about in the past were those done by studios or producers, going against the wishes of the filmmaker(s).

Big difference, imho.

The difference gets a lot smaller when you look at the rhetoric he used.

He didn't simply talk about the rights of (in many cases dead) artists. He talked about protecting our film history and our cultural heritage. He said he wanted his kids to be able to see the movies he grew up with.

He's clearly changed his tune with regard to whether the public has a stake in all this.

And even if one takes a narrow, legalistic view he's still not completely consistent. He was testifying in favor of a bill that defined 'artistic authors' as the primary director and primary screenwriter. Not the copyright holder, not the executive producer, not the 'story by' guy, not the crea...sorry, not The Creator...the primary director and the primary screenwriter.

[GDHickey]

Another thing I noticed was that the "new" scenes looked a bit soft,for lack of a better term. You would think that the opposite would be the case.....

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by octagon

And even if one takes a narrow, legalistic view he's still not completely consistent. He was testifying in favor of a bill that defined 'artistic authors' as the primary director and primary screenwriter. Not the copyright holder, not the executive producer, not the 'story by' guy, not the crea...sorry, not The Creator...the primary director and the primary screenwriter.

Last time I checked, Lucas was the primary screenwriter in all six films.