Star Wars Wars the UOT Strikes Back and OTHER PEZ dispensers

[Rizor]

Originally Posted by adywan

Hopefully this will end the speculation. You can clearly see that in fact only the head was replaced. (watch it in HD)

YouTube - ‪Return of the Jedi - Alternate Anakins‬‏

Thanks for posting this.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

God I hope Lucas would not destroy ART like that. Ummm errr.....nevermind. I don't really think George would change the puppet in TESB.

But would he enhance it, like E.T.?

Hrmmm.....

[Gilrod]

Originally Posted by adywan

Hopefully this will end the speculation. You can clearly see that in fact only the head was replaced. (watch it in HD)

YouTube - ‪Return of the Jedi - Alternate Anakins‬‏

I believe that the footage is actually from a camera test of Anakin's ROTS makeup (with long hair and scar) test shot on the Padme apartment set. I remember reading about it and seeing footage on the Official Star Wars site back in 2003 during the Hyperspace coverage.

[IndyMLVC]

Just 'bout sums it up...

[NYorker]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

Just 'bout sums it up...

Nicely done, but maybe you should send it to GL with the caption, "These aren't the edition we're looking for...

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Nicely done, but maybe you should send it to GL with the caption, "These aren't the edition we're looking for...

Dang...saw that and choked on my coffee. You have to admit no matter which side of the SW fence you land on or even if you straddle that fence that pic is pretty funny!

On another note can we please stop calling the OT sequels. They are not sequels as they were filmed and released first. You have prequels to a series that already existed. It's almost as bad as calling something that existed for over 20 years and released several times "workprint" editions.

I do think that the pictures for the discs in the set that we have seen are bogus though.

[Shaft Windu]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

On another note can we please stop calling the OT sequels. They are not sequels as they were filmed and released first. You have prequels to a series that already existed. It's almost as bad as calling something that existed for over 20 years and released several times "workprint" editions.

No can do! To call Episodes 1-3 "Prequels" and Episodes 4-6 "Original Trilogy" makes it seem that the older movies are the main attraction and the newer ones just inferior attachements that can be ignored... "The Empire Strikes Back" is a Sequel to "A New Hope" and "A New Hope" is the Sequel to "Revenge Of the Sith" and so on. The order in which the movies have been released should not be the label by which they are referred to in my opinion.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

No can do! To call Episodes 1-3 "Prequels" and Episodes 4-6 "Original Trilogy" makes it seem that the older movies are the main attraction and the newer ones just inferior attachements that can be ignored...

No... To call Episodes 1-3 Prequels and to call Episodes 4-6 The Original Trilogy simply references the factual reality of the order in which they were made and released.

While I do generally consider the prequels infereior to the OT, this wording has nothing to do with that. It's the same wording that I would use even if the prequels had turned out in a manner that I liked as much or even better than the OT.

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

No can do! To call Episodes 1-3 "Prequels" and Episodes 4-6 "Original Trilogy" makes it seem that the older movies are the main attraction and the newer ones just inferior attachements that can be ignored... "The Empire Strikes Back" is a Sequel to "A New Hope" and "A New Hope" is the Sequel to "Revenge Of the Sith" and so on. The order in which the movies have been released should not be the label by which they are referred to in my opinion.

Shaft, I mean no offense in what I am about to say with regards to the PT films but the historical facts are this:

Star Wars (1977) in it's original incarnation is considered by most (Not just Star Wars fans) to be one of the greatest films of all time. It does not attain such lofty status as #13 on the AFI list without being considered a great film by most. Also, the Empire Strikes Back in it's original incarnation is considered by most to be one of the greatest films of an entire decade (and a lot consider it the best of the original films). Both have been requested and taken their place in the National Film Registry as well as film history.

Now are the PT deserving of the same treatment? Who knows how history will regard them over the years. Maybe some of them will attain lofty status as well or maybe they will just languish as a footnote to a classic trilogy, only time will tell.

But to reduce these great classics to calling them sequels or workprints in my opinion is just wrong. They are not seen through rose colored glasses..they are seen just as we see The Godfather I and II or Gone with the Wind etc etc.. the are great classics.

[Cook]

The amount petty squabbling in this thread is of epic proportions. As far as which film I watch the most, it used to ESB. After that it became ANH. The rest of the films I watch off and on. I watched them so much growing up that I came very close to burning my self out. Usually how I pick a film to watch is that I go sit in front of my collection and look for one that jumps out at me. Star Wars got to the point where every time I looked at them on the shelf it was like the whole film ran through my head. That kind of takes the enjoyment out of watching one of them when you pretty much know them by heart. So I would say I don't watch them much at all anymore. They are still some of my favorite films, but there really is no point in me watching them. They are burnt into my memory word for word and scene for scene. I can even hum the music while thinking about the lines and scenes in my head. I miss when they were new.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Shaft, I mean no offense in what I am about to say with regards to the PT films but the historical facts are this:

Star Wars (1977) in it's original incarnation is considered by most (Not just Star Wars fans) to be one of the greatest films of all time. It does not attain such lofty status as #13 on the AFI list without being considered a great film by most. Also, the Empire Strikes Back in it's original incarnation is considered by most to be one of the greatest films of an entire decade (and a lot consider it the best of the original films). Both have been requested and taken their place in the National Film Registry as well as film history.

Now are the PT deserving of the same treatment? Who knows how history will regard them over the years. Maybe some of them will attain lofty status as well or maybe they will just languish as a footnote to a classic trilogy, only time will tell.

But to reduce these great classics to calling them sequels or workprints in my opinion is just wrong. They are not seen through rose colored glasses..they are seen just as we see The Godfather I and II or Gone with the Wind etc etc.. the are great classics.

Well said, Cowboy. I agree. A New Hope is the best movie ever IMO and no other film has meant more to me as a film viewer. As for the prequels? I enjoy them and Im glad they exist. Are they flawed? Sure. Are they more flawed than the originals? I believe so but that aint stopping me from loving all of it.

I dont believe years from now the prequels will attain such a lofty status. Revenge of the Sith might get up there due to it being the best of the three and has the most happening in it. But, no way the prequels ever reach the status of the originals.

[Shaft Windu]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Shaft, I mean no offense in what I am about to say with regards to the PT films but the historical facts are this:

Star Wars (1977) in it's original incarnation is considered by most (Not just Star Wars fans) to be one of the greatest films of all time. It does not attain such lofty status as #13 on the AFI list without being considered a great film by most. Also, the Empire Strikes Back in it's original incarnation is considered by most to be one of the greatest films of an entire decade (and a lot consider it the best of the original films). Both have been requested and taken their place in the National Film Registry as well as film history.

Now are the PT deserving of the same treatment? Who knows how history will regard them over the years. Maybe some of them will attain lofty status as well or maybe they will just languish as a footnote to a classic trilogy, only time will tell.

But to reduce these great classics to calling them sequels or workprints in my opinion is just wrong. They are not seen through rose colored glasses..they are seen just as we see The Godfather I and II or Gone with the Wind etc etc.. the are great classics.

That's the difference between us. Language is a powerful tool and if you constantly degrade Episodes 1-3 as "Prequels" or "Footnotes" they won't get the space to breathe and blossom that the older movies had in their time. The old Trilogy benefitted from the lack of competition in cinemas - In the 2000s Star Wars had to compete against tons of appealing Blockbusters and "A New Hope" was something new back then, so it blew everyone away. Episode 1 is now 12 years old and a classic movie in its own right. A whole generation grew up with these movies and they are as dear to them as the old movies are to you. How would you have liked it if in 77 your parents had constantly told you that the movies didn't deserve to be enjoyed and that the franchise really belonged to them and not you. What if you had to constantly defend yourself for liking the movies. That's really subjective and not fair to the saga as a whole. So, 'til a better term comes along it's "Prequels" and "Sequels" for me!

[shelldweller]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Shaft, I mean no offense in what I am about to say with regards to the PT films but the historical facts are this:

Star Wars (1977) in it's original incarnation is considered by most (Not just Star Wars fans) to be one of the greatest films of all time. It does not attain such lofty status as #13 on the AFI list without being considered a great film by most. Also, the Empire Strikes Back in it's original incarnation is considered by most to be one of the greatest films of an entire decade (and a lot consider it the best of the original films). Both have been requested and taken their place in the National Film Registry as well as film history.

Now are the PT deserving of the same treatment? Who knows how history will regard them over the years. Maybe some of them will attain lofty status as well or maybe they will just languish as a footnote to a classic trilogy, only time will tell.

But to reduce these great classics to calling them sequels or workprints in my opinion is just wrong. They are not seen through rose colored glasses..they are seen just as we see The Godfather I and II or Gone with the Wind etc etc.. the are great classics.

If The Phantom Menace came out in 1977 it would be considered one of the greatest films of all time today. A New Hope holds the special status because it was the first of the series and opened up the Saga which Star Wars is today. A New Hope and The Empire strikes back are great movies in no matter what incarnation... that goes for all six of them. Time will tell but it is more likely that the OOT will be considered just a footnote once the complete Saga is out for this and future generations to enjoy.

Let´s get to the facts. A New Hope is the 4th Episode in a larger six part Saga that is Star Wars. It´s really not that important when they came out. They are out now and if people could put their nostalgia aside they could enjoy and understand what Star Wars was all about in the first place.

Besides, it is 2011 and you (or anyone) could never possibly experience Star Wars the way it was experienced in 1977. You can not ignore over 30 years of movie history. Times change!

[Chordata]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

That's the difference between us. Language is a powerful tool and if you constantly degrade Episodes 1-3 as "Prequels" or "Footnotes" they won't get the space to breathe and blossom that the older movies had in their time. The old Trilogy benefitted from the lack of competition in cinemas - In the 2000s Star Wars had to compete against tons of appealing Blockbusters and "A New Hope" was something new back then, so it blew everyone away. Episode 1 is now 12 years old and a classic movie in its own right. A whole generation grew up with these movies and they are as dear to them as the old movies are to you. How would you have liked it if in 77 your parents had constantly told you that the movies didn't deserve to be enjoyed and that the franchise really belonged to them and not you. What if you had to constantly defend yourself for liking the movies. That's really subjective and not fair to the saga as a whole. So, 'til a better term comes along it's "Prequels" and "Sequels" for me!

1-3 are technically prequels. 4-6 are not technically sequels. It all depends on which work came first. It is not subjective.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

That's the difference between us. Language is a powerful tool and if you constantly degrade Episodes 1-3 as "Prequels" or "Footnotes" they won't get the space to breathe and blossom that the older movies had in their time. The old Trilogy benefitted from the lack of competition in cinemas - In the 2000s Star Wars had to compete against tons of appealing Blockbusters and "A New Hope" was something new back then, so it blew everyone away. Episode 1 is now 12 years old and a classic movie in its own right. A whole generation grew up with these movies and they are as dear to them as the old movies are to you. How would you have liked it if in 77 your parents had constantly told you that the movies didn't deserve to be enjoyed and that the franchise really belonged to them and not you. What if you had to constantly defend yourself for liking the movies. That's really subjective and not fair to the saga as a whole. So, 'til a better term comes along it's "Prequels" and "Sequels" for me!

The problem here is that YOU are interpreting the term "Prequels" to mean "Footnotes". While there are many here that don't care as much for the prequels as the OT, we are not referring to them as "prequels" as some kind of derogatory term... we are calling them prequels because they are movies that were made and release after the original films, but chronilogically take place before them.

If someone refers to X-Men First Class (which has gotten a lot of positive feedback) as a prequel to the X-Men movie that came out in 2000, does that mean that First Class is being treated as a "footnote" or otherwise looked down upon? No. It's simply referred to a prequel because THAT'S WHAT IT FRIGGIN' IS!

The term "Prequel Trilogy" is even used on the official DVD box set:




So, unless you are accusing George Lucas of using deregatory terms to describe his own work, the term Prequel does not mean "footnote".

[chip75]

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a prequel. The Godfather Part II was both a prequel and a sequel. Beauty and The Beast: The Enchanted Christmas was a midquel like Bambi 2 (and episodes of The Clone Wars). They're just terms to decribe the chronology of the story.

[whaleman]

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

That's the difference between us. Language is a powerful tool and if you constantly degrade Episodes 1-3 as "Prequels" or "Footnotes" they won't get the space to breathe and blossom that the older movies had in their time. The old Trilogy benefitted from the lack of competition in cinemas - In the 2000s Star Wars had to compete against tons of appealing Blockbusters and "A New Hope" was something new back then, so it blew everyone away. Episode 1 is now 12 years old and a classic movie in its own right. A whole generation grew up with these movies and they are as dear to them as the old movies are to you. How would you have liked it if in 77 your parents had constantly told you that the movies didn't deserve to be enjoyed and that the franchise really belonged to them and not you. What if you had to constantly defend yourself for liking the movies. That's really subjective and not fair to the saga as a whole. So, 'til a better term comes along it's "Prequels" and "Sequels" for me!

So if the PT is a prequel - what is it a prequel to? Certainly not the OT since as you put it they themselves are "sequels". It's hard to have a prequel and a sequel if there is nothing in between.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

George Lucas testifying in court (presided over the honorable Judge Reinhold):

YouTube - ‪Clerks: The Animated Series, the Defense calls...‬‏

[Shaft Windu]

Originally Posted by whaleman

So if the PT is a prequel - what is it a prequel to? Certainly not the OT since as you put it they themselves are "sequels". It's hard to have a prequel and a sequel if there is nothing in between.

Okay, okay you're right of course. A Sequel OR a Prequel needs something that it is a Sequel or Prequel to. I'm still looking for the right terms that don't put one trilogy in the shadow of the other... "Original trilogy" suggests it is the only relevant trilogy or that it should be watched first or something... And "Prequels" suggests that it is just an attachement - at least in the way it is used by the "haters" (another controversial term). I think they should be watched on equal grounds and should be freshly viewed in sequence 1-6.
As you have seen The "Prequel Trilogy" and "Original Trilogy" terminology has been dropped for the Bluray-release. It's more of a Vol. 1 (E 1-3) and Vol. 2 (E 4-6) kind of thing.

Here is a fun-interview of Lucas on the different generations of "fans" and the backlash. He seems pretty nice and laid back about the issue to me. Enjoy!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...xrs=share_copy

[Cowboy]

Originally Posted by shelldweller

If The Phantom Menace came out in 1977 it would be considered one of the greatest films of all time today. A New Hope holds the special status because it was the first of the series and opened up the Saga which Star Wars is today. A New Hope and The Empire strikes back are great movies in no matter what incarnation... that goes for all six of them. Time will tell but it is more likely that the OOT will be considered just a footnote once the complete Saga is out for this and future generations to enjoy.

Let´s get to the facts. A New Hope is the 4th Episode in a larger six part Saga that is Star Wars. It´s really not that important when they came out. They are out now and if people could put their nostalgia aside they could enjoy and understand what Star Wars was all about in the first place.

Besides, it is 2011 and you (or anyone) could never possibly experience Star Wars the way it was experienced in 1977. You can not ignore over 30 years of movie history. Times change!

Ok let me try to clairfy my post. What I was trying to say was that Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back are considered great films that stand on their own merits outside of the "Star Wars" universe. By you saying that if TPM had come out in 1977 it would be considered great today. Maybe it would have, maybe not...but that is neither here nor there in this discussion.

Now as a fan of films (not just Star Wars) I can say you are most definitely wrong, "when" a film is released is almost as important as the film itself. Being the "first" in a series has no bearing on why Star Wars is great. It was great because it was a really good story that was very inventive that was properly edited and yes had an unheard of 350 special effects at the time(way more than any other film in its day), but the special effects only enhanced the story it never became the story. And lastly you have heard the old addage "right place at the right time" and it was. It was not because it was the first, it could haved sucked and never be held in the light it is today.

I sense in some of the posts that there is some sort of anamosity that the PT are not looked upon (currently) like the originals or that because some of us regard our SW expierance as 4,5 and 6. George Lucas can do his best to fit them together but the bottom line is he can never erase the fact that SW and TESB (on their own) are considered two of the greatest films of the 35 years or so. He can never erase twenty years of what was, the fans or how these films are and have been judged by history. Their is a reason the national film registry wanted these two films in their original state.

I am not sure where you are going with your last paragraph or what you are trying to convey; I can answer if it is explained better. I did see each of these films on opening day; in fact I have seen all six on opening day when they were released.

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

That's the difference between us. Language is a powerful tool and if you constantly degrade Episodes 1-3 as "Prequels" or "Footnotes" they won't get the space to breathe and blossom that the older movies had in their time.

I said history will decide if they are great or footnotes.

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

The old Trilogy benefitted from the lack of competition in cinemas - In the 2000s Star Wars had to compete against tons of appealing Blockbusters and "A New Hope" was something new back then, so it blew everyone away.

Again like said in my post to shelldweller "timing" can be just as important as the film itself. I have my own belief that the LOTR films were to this generation what Star Wars 4.5.6 were to my generation moreso than the PT. That is the snese I got talking to younger people than myself and seeing that thier seemd to be more "magic" around LOTR than SW I,II and III.

Originally Posted by Shaft Windu

Episode 1 is now 12 years old and a classic movie in its own right. A whole generation grew up with these movies and they are as dear to them as the old movies are to you.

Is the movie seen in the same light as the OT? Its not old Star Wars fans like myself that are the reason these films are held in higher regard. Its the movie commuinty and film fans that feel this way currently.