The Indiana Jones Thread. . .

[Hurin]

I wrote this on my website. However, it also came up in this thread over in the Macross TV/Movies forum. So, I thought I would move it here and say my piece before that thread gets completely Indy-ified.

(Some formatting did not transfer from my website (italics, links)

--------------------------------

I just wandered over to Costco and picked up my Indiana Jones DVD Box Set. Now, let's be clear, I only bought it for one movie: Raiders of the Lost Ark. The other two are steaming piles of. . . something bad.

And, by the way, the title of the movie is: Raiders of the Lost Ark. It is not "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark." Once again, George Lucas (and Spielberg?) have decided: "Ah hell, we really should have put the character's name in the title. Where did I put that eraser?"

Thankfully, unlike the Star Wars Trilogy, Lucas didn't go into the movie itself and digitally change the title. If only he had given the original Star Wars trilogy the same type of respect.

Among the many tendencies that George Lucas and his ilk have, his penchant for retroactively changing things is the most annoying. But what is even worse is that he flat-out lies, claiming that the changes he makes are being done only because they fall in line with his "original vision" or intentions. He was just held back by technology, or a low budget, you see.

Wait, I think I feel that long delayed George Lucas rant coming on. . .

My girlfriend was kind enough to sit through the Star Wars trilogy over the last month or so (small chunks, it goes down easier!).

While we were watching it, I was constantly torn between which version we should watch: The "Special Edition" or the original. Most of the time, we opted for the Special Edition.

While we were watching the opening to Return of the Jedi, Lucas was giving an interview and said something like: "I had always wanted to put a song and dance number into the Jabba's Palace scene. I thought it would be funny because that would be so out of place in a Star Wars movie. But, because of technological limitations, we couldn't do that."

This (paraphrased) quote sums up everything that has gone wrong with George Lucas movies ever since The Empire Strikes Back.

Okay, first, Mr. Genius, if a certain type of scene is admittedly "out of place" in your movie. . . maybe you shouldn't f'ing put it in there!!!. This is so sand-poundingly obvious that it almost hurts me to point it out. If you don't take the formula that led to success in your prior two movies seriously. . . how do you expect your audience to appreciate the movie as part of the trilogy?

Second, you are still limited by technology. Because what you added into those movies, in almost every case, looks like ass. When my very non-picky (she'd have to be to go out with me!) girlfriend looks at the CG characters in the Special Edition and says: "That looks terrible". . . you know you're in trouble.

Third, stop f'ing pretending that all the crap you added to the Special Edition movies was supposed to be there in the first place. . . but you just ran out of time, money, or faced insurmountable technical hurdles. It is so blatantly obvious that you are lying in almost every case that people really should wonder about what is going on in that brain of yours. Do you actually expect us to believe that you "couldn't get the angle right" to have Greedo fire first? Well, with all the technology at your disposal now, you sure as hell didn't get the angle right in the Special Edition! It looks like that blaster fires out its side. . . which of course, probably surprised Greedo. . . which also may explain how he f'ing missed Han from two feet away!

Face it buddy, you created a dark, anti-hero character in Han Solo. Then, you had a child and suddenly blew rainbow-colored smoke up your own ass and decided to "kid-ify" all your movies. . . retroactively.

And this brings us back around to Indiana Jones. Another character that suffered the fate of being under the creative control of George Lucas after he decided to start making movies "for the children."

Indiana Jones starts out as a very dark, shady character. He literally emerges from the shadows in the first movie. He's gritty, cynical, threatening, and mysterious. Throughout Raiders, we're not so sure what to make of him. In fact, the script goes out of its way to point out that Indy isn't so different from his antagonists (Belloq: "We are not so different, you and I. . ."). We see Indy kill almost indiscriminantly. We see him shoot a man armed only with a sword from a distance of about twenty feet. We see him nearly commit suicide in grief while trying to take his arch-nemesis with him. This is an "anti-hero."

But, what happens in the later films?

Well, following the theory that there is a "breaking point" in Lucas produced/directed movies, here's how it breaks down:

Star Wars: A New Hope

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back

-----------------------

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Return of the Jedi

Howard the Duck

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Willow

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones

As you can see, every movie past the dashed line either has kids as major characters, prat-falls and sight-gags, teddy-bears. . . er, I mean, ewoks, or just plain suck (Willow).

But, what is worse, he even went back to the movies above the dashed line and added those factors to the movies that didn't suck! So now, of course, they retroactively suck.

So, back to the Indiana Jones films. We see Indiana Jones go from being a dark, brooding, loner. . . to being saddled with a kid side-kick in Temple of Doom. There, we also see him drop his cynicism as he learns to accept the mystical powers of a glowing rock. Which, by the way, is hard to reconcile with his skepticism in Raiders of the Lost Ark (Temple of Doomis a prequel). Ah, but we wouldn't want to let a little thing like continuity of charcter get in the way of the emergence of a kindler, gentler Indiana Jones.

I could go on about Temple of Doom. But the absolute perfect example of how much George Lucas sucks is provided by the crap-fest: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. So, remember how Indiana Jones is mysterious? Well, in the first ten minutes of Last Crusade, we learn where Indy gets his hat, his whip, the scar on his chin, his fear of snakes, and his motivation for becoming and archeaologist. So much for mystery.

We then spend the next two hours watching Indiana play straight man for the returning cast members from the first film. . . and Sean Connery. The odd part, however, is that every character that returns has apparently undergone a total frontal lobotomy. Marcus Brodey, the rather intelligent, paternal figure from the first film is now portrayed as a bumbling buffoon who likes to quip puns when he's not falling down in the middle of a fire-fight with Nazis. Sallah doesn't fair much better. And, of course, let's not forget that we get to watch our dark brooding anti-hero form the first movie turn into a boy scout as he constantly seeks the approval of his dad, annoyingly portrayed by Sean Connery.

Throw in some poorly done special effects, some lame prat-falls, sight-gags, and you have the perfect movie to totally ruin what was possibly going to be a great trilogy. Last Crusade had a chance to redeem the Indiana Jones character after Temple of Doom. But sadly, as with all Lucas films since Empire, it went the other way.

By the way, if you still think Last Crusade is the best Indiana Jones film, then you're either ten, or you haven't compared Raiders to Crusade since you were ten. Or, you just like bad movies.

George Lucas hasn't made a decent movie in almost two decades. Yet people still revere him as a great filmaker. The man had a wonderful imagination. Unfortunately, as he aged, he lost his touch. . . and now finds himself surrounded by yes-men who don't have the nerve to tell him that all the CG garbage he is adding to his movies looks likes ass and that he should probably concentrate a little more on. . . oh, I don't know, developing a story that doesn't suck and perhaps getting a better performance out of his actors than what could be extracted from a soggy piece of cardboard.

I have never actually confirmed this, but I have always assumed he had a kid, and that his why his movies seemed to be intentionally dumbed down with contrived humor, simplistic characters, and inane plots that would appeal only to children. I have read rumors that during the time between Empire and the Temple of Doom, he not only adopted a child, but his wife left him for another man. Now, if that is true, that is sad. . . and explains quite a bit of what happened to this man's ego, and his need to suddenly tell childrens' stories.

Yet, that does not excuse an artist going back and altering his paintings years after they have been displayed in a museum. All of this would indeed be a moot point if we could count on his earlier work to remain untouched and pristine. However, Lucas has made it clear that the "Special Edition" of the Star Wars Trilogy is now considered canon. There will be no release of the original films on DVD without the added garbage and changes. He has, twenty years after he gave his vision to us, come back and swept it away, leaving us with something different and far less endearing. This, together with the damage he continues to do to his own franchise with each new Star Wars film has been enough to make me give up on Star Wars altogether. I actually sold off the toy collection I had cherished since before I can remember. I now doubt I'll even see the new Star Wars movie in the theaters when it is released. And, of course, should there be a fourth Indiana Jones movie, you can bet that it will suck. . . and suck hard.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: George Lucas needs to stop f'ing with my childhood. He's not the same filmaker he used to be. Indeed, he's not half the filmaker he used to be. I've read that it irks him that people think that he shouldn't be able to alter his own work. Well, I don't think we would mind so much if he still had any talent. And, even then, we'd all let it slide if he wasn't simultaneously forcibly removing our beloved movies from the cultural landscap and replacing them with his warped view of what he always "intended" us to see.

[Uxi]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: George Lucas needs to stop f'ing with my childhood.

It might have been better form if you hadn't gotten your last word in and THEN opened this thread.

You should kidnap George Lucas and make him remake his movies like you want them to be. Or rather how they fit your preconceptions? They are HIS movies. Not yours, not mine. Not collectively owned. His. Thanks to some guy who is/was employed by 20th Century Fox and thought it was a good deal (at least for SW).

I think Lucas is doing ok with success. Wasn't the much vaunted Empire Strikes Back the least prolific, money-wise? And Phantom Menace (with Jar-Jar) the most profitable? Even adjusted for inflation... He's laughing all the way to the bank. Everything below the "dashed line" made boku bucks. Except Howard the Duck.

I didn't like "Jedi Rocks" much myself but it doesn't get under my skin, either. Kinda corny, but that's stock and trade with Star Wars (and Indy) humor IMO. Same thing with Greedo shooting first, the girly Luke scream, etc

I think each Star Wars (and Indy) movie gets better than the one before. Yes, Phantom Menace is better than Empire Strikes Back. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Jk. I like ya man, we just fundamentally disagree on this.

I think u read waaaaay too much into Indiana Jones of the first movie, though. I do agree about the "frontal lobotomies" of the Indiana Jones characters in Last Crusade... at least Brody. But I didn't mind it much.

Edited October 31, 2003 by Uxi

[bsu legato]

I haven't seen this kind of hysterics since some local church-types wanted to keep kids from trick-or-treeting.

Look Hurin, you obviously have some issues here and I don't want to flame you, but this "Lucas raped my childhood" crap is really getting old. I don't know how any inteligent person can expect to quote Harry Knowles and be taken seriously. I'd like to take the time to rebut some of your points, but I'm at work so I'll be brief:

1) Raiders has not been renamed. The cover has the "Indiana Jones And The..." tag on it, but the film itself is intact. Check for yourself if you don't believe me. Furthermore, this is not new. The 1998 remastered VHS set had the same packaging.

2) There are lots of fans who actually like the other two Indy films. If you look around the net you'll find there's some well written defenses of them, in particular temple of Doom, composed by people far better spoken than I am. Personally, I still rate Raiders in top spot, but the other two are still better than most "action" films released today. Can anybody seriously claim that Bad Boys 2 is superior to Last Crusade?

3) well...I've already devoted more time to this thread than it probably deserves. I'll check back with ya after work. <_<

[GobotFool]

Well I certainly do not like Temple of Doom. But the 1st and 3rd I like about the same. Then again I am not a hardcore Indi-fan.

As for SW I hope the original trilogy will be offered on DVD not only the SE, though knowing lucas this will not happen. And if the SE really upsets you that much I probably should not mention the uber SE SW that is rumored to be in the works. Also in breakthrough works hurin you forgot American Graffiti.

Edited October 31, 2003 by GobotFool

[EXO]

I'm not going to go to the whole Lucas thing, because it's all been said before and I'll give you that Marcus Brodie thing even though I don't think it ruined the movie. That scene where he pops up in Egypt(?) after Indy tells them that he would blend in and never be found was hilarious.

But Indy is a brooding loner? Indy is a wordly man able to get resources from all over the world. I doubt any brooding loner would get far in a business like his. In the beginning of Raiders he had tht pilot with him on the first adventure and he didn't exactly hold back Marion when she insisted on accompanying him, so maybe the fact that Shortround was a kid was what bothered you. The fact is: Indy is never alone nor brooding.

I wish they would have made more Indiana Jones movies before now, I'm not sure if the one coming up will be any good or it maybe too late, but the fact that you let the films screw up your childhood is a reflection on you, not the movie...

Speaking of Raiders... Did anyone catch Beloch eat that fly? When Indy popped up on top of some rocks with a bazooka and Beloch says "You're persistance suprises even me, Dr. Jones" There was a fly that crawled to his lower lip and he breathed it in and it never comes back out... WTF???

[bsu legato]

You want reasons why ToD is actually better than most people today give it credit for? From the review of the boxed set, on DVD Journal....

That unimpeachably awesome opening fight over the diamond and antidote, which contains tributes to classic musicals and Hitchcock and just absolutely rocks the house;

Ke Huy Kwan as Short Round, who — despite being handed cute-kid dialogue that includes the lines "Hold onto your potatoes!" and "You call him Doctah Jones, DOLL!" — is quite possibly the most likeable and least obtrusive child sidekick in movie history. Check out the wonderful, genuinely warm give-and-take between Kwan and Ford as they play poker or exchange hats;

That "Nice try, Lao Che!" visual gag;

Harrison Ford's terrific performance — arguably his best as Jones. I love how Indy stars out as a total greedy a-hole, with strong shades of Bogart in Treasure of Sierra Madre, and how there's a distinct character arc as he evolves into a Pied-Piper/holy avenger;

The movie's look — again, the best in the series — with its striking wide-angle close ups of Indy's face and strong use of reds and shadows. Temple of Doom is a manual on how to use color in film, no joke. (As one DVDJ staffer [who, BTW, owns the original July 1984 issue of American Cinematographer devoted to Temple of Doom] put it, "This movie contains Spielberg's busiest frames, and it's all beautiful. It's a pornography of cinematography");

John Williams' score, which is among his very best — expanding richly on the original and adding wonderful themes for Short Round and the slave children;

Vampire bats! Severed thumbs!

The matte paintings of Pankot Palace, which are among the best matte paintings ever;

The sexy, playful, totally '80s, beautifully edited cat-and-mouse sequence where way-horny Indy and Willie are trying to out-wait each other, only to have the flirtation interrupted by a Thuggee assassin. (How can you not love the way that thug steps out of that wall mural?);

The super-icky, super-taut bug-tunnel and death-trap set piece, which is a perfect transition between the palace and the Temple of Doom and which very nearly kicks the ass of the Well of Souls sequence (it certainly makes your skin crawl more) and features that great closing gag where Indy grabs his hat as the door's closing;

The way the movie shifts so abruptly into scenes of human sacrifice and child cruelty. I'm sorry, I just love what a cinema bomb Spielberg and Lucas drop here: Yes, the horror's laid on a bit thick, but come on — how totally cathartic are those last 40 minutes as a result, when Indy snaps out of the Black Sleep of Kali and dishes out the hurt to faceless Thuggee goons?

That little 1940s tip of the hat Indy gives to that cobra statue as he's stealing the stones — a perfect Bogart moment;

Amrish Puri as Mola Ram — by far the scariest and most depraved villain in the series. He's mindlessly scary like Orcs are scary, you know? As one fellow staffer put it, he looks like what Abe Vigoda would look like if he were a sadistic Indian child molester;

The way Indiana Jones doesn't just look drugged when he's in the Black Sleep of Kali, but instead looks like he's really into all the sadism and blood, like he's actually tapped into some dark part of his personality that was there all along;

And, best of all, the movie's final 40 minutes, which are inventive and cathartic and full of righteous fury and pain and thrilling action — it's Lucas and Spielberg working out all their action-geek demons without apology, and God bless 'em for it. I mean, has any movie ever piled one action sequence on top of the next so successfully? That voodoo conveyor-belt fight followed by the mine-car chase followed by the water tunnel followed by the dual-swordsman tango followed by the rope-bridge blowout? With all kinds of semi-perverse shots like the one where both Indy and Short Round are beating the crap out of age-appropriate foes?

[Hurin]

I haven't seen this kind of hysterics since some local church-types wanted to keep kids from trick-or-treeting. 

Look Hurin, you obviously have some issues here and I don't want to flame you, but this "Lucas raped my childhood" crap is really getting old. I don't know how any inteligent person can expect to quote Harry Knowles and be taken seriously. I'd like to take the time to rebut some of your points, but I'm at work so I'll be brief:

1) Raiders has not been renamed. The cover has the "Indiana Jones And The..." tag on it, but the film itself is intact. Check for yourself if you don't believe me. Furthermore, this is not new. The 1998 remastered VHS set had the same packaging.

2) There are lots of fans who actually like the other two Indy films. If you look around the net you'll find there's some well written defenses of them, in particular temple of Doom, composed by people far better spoken than I am. Personally, I still rate Raiders in top spot, but the other two are still better than most "action" films released today. Can anybody seriously claim that Bad Boys 2 is superior to Last Crusade?

3) well...I've already devoted more time to this thread than it probably deserves. I'll check back with ya after work.  <_<

I haven't seen this kind of hysterics since some local church-types wanted to keep kids from trick-or-treeting.

Uh, except we're debating the merits of a few films. . . hardly the same level of importance. I'm not demanding that you stop watching Temple of Doom or Last Crusade (too lazy to italicize).

I have no idea who "Harry Knowles" is. Nor have I used the phrase "raped my childhood," though I have heard others say it.

For the record, I and my friends have been using the phrase: "Lucas needs to stop f'ing with my childhood" ever since the Special Edtions came out. And we were grumbling even when the Zahn novels were released.

Raiders has not been renamed. The cover has the "Indiana Jones And The..." tag on it, but the film itself is intact. Check for yourself if you don't believe me. Furthermore, this is not new. The 1998 remastered VHS set had the same packaging.

This would be a better point if I hadn't already said this in my post:

"Thankfully, unlike the Star Wars Trilogy, Lucas didn't go into the movie itself and digitally change the title. If only he had given the original Star Wars trilogy the same type of respect."

Furthermore, I was pissed about the title change when I saw the 1998 VHS release as well. . . they released it alongside all the Young Indy crap.

Uh, if they change the title on the website, the packaging, and everything else but the actual print of the film. . . wouldn't you consider that a change in the movie's title?

well...I've already devoted more time to this thread than it probably deserves.

Well, thanks for stopping by and gracing this thread with your presence. Especially with all my issues and all. . .

H

P.S. Nobody is making you read this thread or respond. I realize the post is long and is a bit harsh in places (it was posted originally to my own website which has a different audience). . . but it doesn't even really look like you read it entirely before just deciding that I have "issues", that I've been brainwashed by "Harry Knowles", and that none of this is worth any of your precious time. But, thanks for coming by to tell us that.

Edited October 31, 2003 by Hurin

[imode]

You should kidnap George Lucas and make him remake his movies like you want them to be.

Now now, that special privilege is reserved especially for Korean dictators.

*Me dunt no how fer spell wurds!

Edited October 31, 2003 by imode

[Hurin]

You should kidnap George Lucas and make him remake his movies like you want them to be. Or rather how they fit your preconceptions? They are HIS movies. Not yours, not mine. Not collectively owned. His. Thanks to some guy who is/was employed by 20th Century Fox and thought it was a good deal (at least for SW).

I think Lucas is doing ok with success. Wasn't the much vaunted Empire Strikes Back the least prolific, money-wise? And Phantom Menace (with Jar-Jar) the most profitable? Even adjusted for inflation... He's laughing all the way to the bank. Everything below the "dashed line" made boku bucks. Except Howard the Duck.

Should painters come back and alter their paintings 20 years after they have been publicly displayed? Should novelists rewrite the endings to their novels 20 years after they were published? How about if Tolkien rewrites LotR so that Gollum is pushed into the fire by Frodo? Just to settle some moral hangup that Tolkien developed twenty years after first putting the story down on paper.

Lucas owns his films. Obviously, he can do whatever he wants with them. Have I been asking for some type of law to stop him? No. I'm merely expressing my dismay that someone who has so obviously lost his touch has decided to go back and make his older films (which were good) more like his newer films (which are terrible, IMHO).

As for the money he generates being a sign of his brilliance. Professional Wrestling makes a lot of money too. 'Nuff said.

As for Empire being the least profitable. That may be the case (I'm unsure). But it is definitely the most critically acclaimed.

H

Edited October 31, 2003 by Hurin

[Hurin]

It might have been better form if you hadn't gotten your last word in and THEN opened this thread.

Sorry about that. In hindsight that was pretty unclassy of me.

I figured anyone following he discussion would come over here, so there would be no harm done. But, well, I suppose I should have just said: "Let's go over here" and left it at that to be fair.

Sorry!

H

[Hurin]

You want reasons why ToD is actually better than most people today give it credit for? From the review of the boxed set, on DVD Journal....

These are all good points. And, to be honest. . . I may just have to watch the movie again with all these points in mind.

My only quibble would be:

Ke Huy Kwan as Short Round, who — despite being handed cute-kid dialogue that includes the lines "Hold onto your potatoes!" and "You call him Doctah Jones, DOLL!" — is quite possibly the most likeable and least obtrusive child sidekick in movie history.

Please note that this is almost like saying: "The least uncomfortable of conatgious skin diseases."

Short Round suffers from Ewok-syndrome with me. I loved them as a kid. But, as an adult, I can't stand them.

Speaking of Ewoks. The novelization of Return of the Jedi is incredible. It makes the ewoks palletable to adult tastes while delving much more deeply into the pysche of Vader. A must-read for those who can't stomach Jedi on film.

One thing about me guys: I'm a purist in almost all things entertainment-wise. I think the Simpsons has sucked in recent years when compared to its golden age. I think the last several seasons of Cheers was terrible. I prefer Star Trek in its original form. . . are you sensing a pattern here? So, that may be my "issue."

[Hurin]

I don't know how any inteligent person can expect to quote Harry Knowles and be taken seriously.

Problem here is that I wasn't quoting him.

Though I just googled him and now realize who he is ("rotten tomatoes" and "ain't it cool news", apparently). I have visited those sites before. Can't say I was overly impressed.

But, not only did I not quote the "raping" phrase that he apparently made famous, but the different phrase which I used eytemology can easily be explained. It isn't a big stretch of the imagination to come up with "Lucas needs to stop f'ing with my childhood."

For my friends and I, Star Wars was our childhood. Since I was three years old in 1977, the mainstay of my toys and playtime consisted of Star Wars.

So, when the new stuff started coming out. . . and some of it started to fundamentally alter our childhood recollections (all along, we weren't apparently wishing to be spiritual Jedi using the mystical "force". . . we were really just wishing we had a high concentration of parasites in our blood! --This according to George Lucas who apparently decided to retroactively take all the spirituality out of the force because (I'm guessing) it doesn't jive with his political beliefs nowadays). . . From there it wasn't tough to start thinking: "Dude, this crap is fundamentally altering my most cherished childhood memories." And, of course, from there, we started saying this to each other long distance over the phone (as adults!) every time we heard about some new f'ed up thing that Lucas was doing not only in the new movies, but retroactively to the old ones!

I know, you can say: "Grow up dude. It doesn't change a thing. You can still have your memories."

But can you honestly say that if Kawamori brought back Hikaru and Minmay, and Misa. . . and suddenly announced that Minmay and Misa both dumped Hikaru to be with each other. . . that wouldn't color your view on the original series?

Wait a minute. . . that might actually be cool. . . nevermind. . .

H

Edited October 31, 2003 by Hurin

[bsu legato]

I have no idea who "Harry Knowles" is.  Nor have I used the phrase "raped my childhood," though I have heard others say it.

For the record, I and my friends have been using the phrase:  "Lucas needs to stop f'ing with my childhood" ever since the Special Edtions came out.  And we were grumbling even when the Zahn novels were released.

Harry Knowles is the Hollywood hanger-on that runs Ain't It Cool News. He and his synchophants coined that phrase back when Phantom Menace was released. It's since spead from that site, like VD, to infect message boards across the interweb. Thousands of disappointed fanboys, who somehow felt "betrayed" by a fricken movie, have used it as a rallying cry in some stupid crusade to "get back at George." And frankly, I'm sick of it. It's part of the reason that I don't even post at any SW message boards. You may have a different name for it, but it's the same sentiment. And like I said earlier, the horse is dead. Stop beating it.

And why the hate for Tim Zahn? I'm no fan of EU either, but I'm mature enough to seperate Lucas' films from licensed material based on them. I hated Alien 3 and Alien: Ressurection. Does that mean I should burn my copies of the first two movies? Highlander 2, 3,4 and soon-to-be 5 all suck, but I still have a soft spot for the first one.

Raiders has not been renamed. The cover has the "Indiana Jones And The..." tag on it, but the film itself is intact. Check for yourself if you don't believe me. Furthermore, this is not new. The 1998 remastered VHS set had the same packaging.

This would be a better point if I hadn't already said this in my post:

"Thankfully, unlike the Star Wars Trilogy, Lucas didn't go into the movie itself and digitally change the title. If only he had given the original Star Wars trilogy the same type of respect."

Furthermore, I was pissed about the title change when I saw the 1998 VHS release as well. . . they released it alongside all the Young Indy crap.

But it didn't stop you from bringing it up anyway? Jeeze man, 1998 was a long time ago. While we're at it, I should go and find that a$$ that cut me off that spring, while I was comming home from school.

Uh, if they change the title on the website, the packaging, and everything else but the actual print of the film. . . wouldn't you consider that a change in the movie's title?

No, no I wouldn't. The IMDB still lists it as "Raiders of the Lost Ark." The spotty, scratchy and nearly colorless print I watched at the theater a few years ago still was called "Raiders of the Lost Ark." And the film itself, which is what you'd think would be a consumer's main interest when buying the box set, still has the title card "Raiders of the Lost Ark" right after the fade-in from the Paramount logo. Who cares what the box says? Isn't there a saying about a book and it's cover? And even if they had altered the title (which they thankfully didn't) would that somehow alter your enjoyment of the movie? Would the truck chase be any less thrilling? Would Indy getting the stuffing beaten out of him by the big German mechanic be any less fun? Come on, there's bigger issues to worry about.

Which brings me back to my first point. Does it really...really affect you that much? Even if I hated the new SW movies, as one or two of my friends now do, how would that affect my love for the Original Trilogy? My childhood memories of playing with the toys, reading the storybooks, listening to my "Story of Star Wars" LP, nothing short of massive head trauma will erase the joy that those 3 films brought me as a kid. I think some people just need some thicker skin.

I'm not even going to touch the Midichlorian thing. That could be an entire thread to itself.

[GobotFool]

I think I can say I am disapointed with the SE's and the new movies, though I don't really hate them. At 1st I did. but I said to my self. These are movies. Perhaps we can lament over what seems to be the trend of hollywood these days to place glitz over content but it a degree thats how it has always been. As time wears on the bad movies are forgotten, and lost, till most people only remember the good stuff from that era (or what the masses decide was the good stuff).

I think my enjoyment of SW has been soured more by the fanatic community than anything Lucas himself has done. To a degree I am embarrased to say I like SW not because of the movies but because of the followers, the same goes for Star Trek, Transformers, and most other sci-fi fandoms these days. Even the tolken's community can't accept they are getting a wonderful if not perfect adaptation of LOTR's and the run around villifying it, calling everyone who likes it illiterate heathens of below room temperature IQ. Critisize the movies all you want thats your right. that doesn't bother me that much anymore, but stop making statments like, oh you like this! thus you suck. I don't know where the civility has gone in this world, but I really want it back.

Edited November 1, 2003 by GobotFool

[Uxi]

Lucas owns his films. Obviously, he can do whatever he wants with them. Have I been asking for some type of law to stop him? No. I'm merely expressing my dismay that someone who has so obviously lost his touch has decided to go back and make his older films (which were good) more like his newer films (which are terrible, IMHO).

I'm speaking more to the "emotional" ownership of the film. Lucas had alot more invested in the first movie than you or I. He'd be nothing if that had tanked, not the multimedia king he is now.

For your hypotheticals, if the painter/author etc would be justified in redoing their work if they kept legal ownership of the individual pieces. I like that analogy, as it sort of plays directly into my point. Lucas is not confiscating the old VHS and Laserdisc copies of the SW movies. Same with memories. But for people to demand the original versions, as if Lucas owes it to them, is preposterous and smacks of a gigantic amoount of hubris at that, IMO.

Your contention that he's lost his touch is just as ludicrous IMO. The only thing keeping you from seeing it is the enormous amount of nostalgia that's built up for the originals. I love the originals too, and most of the Special Edition overt alterations are questionable, but you let it deep deep under your skin while I'm unfased. And the starfighter battle from ANH is far far better executed. I wish they'd redo the strafing scenes of the Death Star surface, in fact, as well as at least pieces of the trench run with modern special effects.

Mentioning "critical acclaim" in the context of ANY Star Wars movie, outside of the technical and special effects, is an oxymoron. There are NONE that I'm aware of. You speak of fan preferences AFAIK and nothing else. Which are far against Lucas own creative and financial interests.

Anyone wanna debate midichlorians and the Force? :cracking knuckles:

[GobotFool]

SW is a great SF epic, nuff said. I captured my imagination as a young boy, and no matter what the critics say, the original trillogy is fine cinema.

Edited November 1, 2003 by GobotFool

[Hurin]

For your hypotheticals, if the painter/author etc would be justified in redoing their work if they kept legal ownership of the individual pieces. I like that analogy, as it sort of plays directly into my point. Lucas is not confiscating the old VHS and Laserdisc copies of the SW movies. Same with memories. But for people to demand the original versions, as if Lucas owes it to them, is preposterous and smacks of a gigantic amoount of hubris at that, IMO.

By stating, flat-out, that there will be no DVD release of the original movies without the Special Edition material, he is effectively confiscating his movies from future generations. How will you watch it thirty years from now? Do you think VHS players will still be around? Even if you could locate a player, magnetic media deteriorates over time. Laser discs? They suffer from laser rot (my Star Wars "Definitive Collection" already looks terrible).

So, thirty years from now, we'll all be stuck with his "new vision" of those classic films. But, the problem is that they aren't classic any more. And, then again, what if he updates them again? Where does it end?!?

Playing into your point? Hardly. . .

Hubris? It takes a bit of hubris to to accuse another of it.

Your contention that he's lost his touch is just as ludicrous IMO. The only thing keeping you from seeing it is the enormous amount of nostalgia that's built up for the originals.

Funny, my girlfriend had never seen them before. . . and I was careful not to poison her on the Special Edition. But when she saw Greedo fire, Jabba in Episode IV, and all the other CGI characters, she said: "That looks like crap! That just looks so fake!" So, exactly how was nostalgia to blame there?

The man has lost his touch. We'll have to agree to disagree here obviously. But how anyone can possibly think that a man willing to put Jar Jar Binks into a movie hasn't lost some of his original vision is beyond me.

H

[bsu legato]

To a degree I am embarrased to say I like SW not because of the movies but because of the followers, the same goes for Star Trek, Transformers, and most other sci-fi fandoms these days. Even the tolken's community can't accept they are getting a wonderful if not perfect adaptation of LOTR's and the run around villifying it, calling everyone who likes it illiterate heathens of below room temperature IQ. Critisize the movies all you want thats your right. that doesn't bother me that much anymore, but stop making statments like, oh you like this! thus you suck. I don't know where the civility has gone in this world, but I really want it back.

I agree 110% with you! Fans in general are the worst thing to happen to the entire genre. Personally, I blame the internet.

[GobotFool]

To a degree I am embarrased to say I like SW not because of the movies but because of the followers, the same goes for Star Trek, Transformers, and most other sci-fi fandoms these days. Even the tolken's community can't accept they are getting a wonderful if not perfect adaptation of LOTR's and the run around villifying it, calling everyone who likes it illiterate heathens of below room temperature IQ. Critisize the movies all you want thats your right. that doesn't bother me that much anymore, but stop making statments like, oh you like this! thus you suck. I don't know where the civility has gone in this world, but I really want it back.

I agree 110% with you! Fans in general are the worst thing to happen to the entire genre. Personally, I blame the internet.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way.

[bsu legato]

Funny, my girlfriend had never seen them before. . . and I was careful not to poison her on the Special Edition. But when she saw Greedo fire, Jabba in Episode IV, and all the other CGI characters, she said: "That looks like crap! That just looks so fake!" So, exactly how was nostalgia to blame there?

And what would she have thought of the nearly static dogfights at the end of the original ANH? Or the landspeeder with the obvious smear of vaseline to mimic the hover effect? And while we're at it, how did she like the stop-motion walkers and chess pieces, the see-thru snowspeeder shots and the many poorly composited bluescreen shots in Jedi?

It's funny how Tarantino can intentionally use as bad a model shot as is possible (the 747 flyby in Kill Bill) and get nothing but delerious praise, but ILM gets absolutely lambasted when it strives for realism at the limits of SFX technology.

[Hurin]

I haven't seen this kind of hysterics since some local church-types wanted to keep kids from trick-or-treeting.

Look Hurin, you obviously have some issues here

Jeeze man, 1998 was a long time ago. While we're at it, I should go and find that a$$ that cut me off that spring, while I was comming home from school.

Which brings me back to my first point. Does it really...really affect you that much?

BSU_Legato,

So, according to you. . . we just plain shouldn't be discussing this stuff. And, if I have an opinion on it, passionately expressed, I'm just some sort of nut job.

I wish you wouldn't feel it necessary to paint me as some sort of fanatic simply because I have a strong opinion on some movies.

Do these thought keep me up late at night? No. Do I think about it often? No. Do I like asking myself questions and then answering them a little too much? Possibly. . .

But when my friends and I get together and news of any of the upcoming movies is raised, these things occasionaly come up. When someone starts talking about how it would be just fine and dandy to remake SDF Macross, or a sequel starring Hikarua and Misa, it came up. And, to save everyone this agony over there, we're discussing it here.

So, if you think that this shouldn't be debated. . . feel free not to do so. But, well, I don't feel like a freak for having strong opinions on the matter. After all, I thought these forums were here for uh. . . discussing things. If you don't feel like discussing it, or you've heard it all before, you don't have to read it.

I do apologize to everyone for the "If you think Last Crusade is the best. . . you just like bad movies" type-stuff. Again, this post came from my own website and things are a bit harsher in front-page "editorial style." You're trying to get your point across after all. I still mean what I said, but it could definitely be put in more palatable language.

Best Regards,

H

Edit: Removed some postscripts that were so poorly written as to be almost non-sensical. They'll be back.

Edited November 1, 2003 by Hurin

[Hurin]

And what would she have thought of the nearly static dogfights at the end of the original ANH?

She did see them. . . her reaction: "Well, it was 1977." I played them for her afterwards.

I never had a problem with the changes in the dogfights. I have a problem with the fact that the man has no idea where to stop. As I said in my overly long post: Nobody has the guts to tell him that what he's doing looks like ass in many cases. Jabba in the hangar? The "musical number in Jedi: SE.

And while we're at it, how did she like the stop-motion walkers and chess pieces, the see-thru snowspeeder shots

Uh, the walkers are still stop-motion. And she liked them just fine, thanks for asking. The see-through speeder canopy. . . hell, I never even noticed that one until it was pointed out to me during the promos for the Special Edition!

I've never noticed any bad bluescreen shots in Jedi, new or old.

But again, I wouldn't have a problem with fixing obvious technical glitches and improving special effects. But going in and fundamentally altering characters (Let's say that Han isn't the sort of person to fire first, twenty years later) and adding scenes is bad form. . . and it sets a bad precedent. Where does it end?

How about the removal of all guns from E.T.? So now, all the FBI agents are running around point cell phones at people. Pleeease. . .

Did anyone else see the South Park about all of this? It was classic!

H

[GobotFool]

Personally I find the need to use such language very childish. Discussion is one thing. But that is belligerant. So I like a movie you think is bad. Does that mean I only like bad movies or I like all bad movies? No. Making such general remarks are highly rude and offensive. I think you need to rework your ways of thinking into a more balanced perspective of the world and the people that live in it.

[Hurin]

To a degree I am embarrased to say I like SW not because of the movies but because of the followers, the same goes for Star Trek, Transformers, and most other sci-fi fandoms these days. Even the tolken's community can't accept they are getting a wonderful if not perfect adaptation of LOTR's and the run around villifying it, calling everyone who likes it illiterate heathens of below room temperature IQ. Critisize the movies all you want thats your right. that doesn't bother me that much anymore, but stop making statments like, oh you like this! thus you suck. I don't know where the civility has gone in this world, but I really want it back.

I agree 110% with you! Fans in general are the worst thing to happen to the entire genre. Personally, I blame the internet.

Blame the internet? I'm sure your tongue is in your cheek there a bit. But let's look at that:

If I had never heard anyone else on the web decry Greedo firing first, midichlorians, ewoks, or Jar-Jar Binks, I would still think them just as lame. In fact, I know this to be true since I don't normally partake in Star Wars discussion boards and was careful to avoid them prior to each new film so as to avoid spoilers. I walked out of the The Phantom Menace more disappointed and annoyed about the midichlorians than I was about Jar-Jar Binks.

The internet simply gives a venue for that disappointment. . . and many fanboys use it as such. But, who is the bigger fanboy? Those who point out the flaws of the movie and express disappointment with the direction of their most beloved franchise? Or, those who can't bear to hear criticizm of the holy franchise and its beloved creator: Georgie the Magnificent who can do no wrong?

Which also brings up another interesting point: It has been said that nostalgia is causing all the fanboys to hate the new films. In effect, nostalgia for the old films make it impossible for the rabid fanboys to accept anything new added to the tale from a Long Time Ago and a Galaxy Far, Far Away. . .

But, couldn't it be the opposite? Why is it not that some fanboys are letting their nostalgia blind them to just how bad the new films are. . . and how utterly misguided Lucas' direction with the franchise truly is?

Now, again, I won't keep myself awake tonight thinking about this. I gave up on Star Wars a few years ago. . . I sold my childhood collection of toys (for a boatload of money!) a few months ago. But, it came up, and we started discussing it. There is nothing wrong with that. . .

H

[Hurin]

Personally I find the need to use such language very childish. Discussion is one thing. But that is belligerant. So I like a movie you think is bad. Does that mean I only like bad movies or I like all bad movies? No. Making such general remarks are highly rude and offensive. I think you need to rework your ways of thinking into a more balanced perspective of the world and the people that live in it.

So, you don't like apologies very much. . . do you?

Buddy, I don't agree with you about what makes a movie good. Got it? Jeez. . . be more touchy why don't you?

You find this "highly rude and offensive?" We're talking about movies here man. How the hell can you be highly offended by criticizm of your taste in movies?!?

And I need a thicker skin?

H

Adding a bit here: As I said, that post came from a website. . . not a discussion forum. It was not intended to be discussed. It's a strongly worded piece. Should I have posted it here in a discussion forum then? That's a good question. I didn't realize people would take it so personally. We're talking about movies here people. Relax.

As for what you said:

I think you need to rework your ways of thinking into a more balanced perspective of the world and the people that live in it.

Am I not supposed to be offended by this? First, you don't even know me, pal. I write one heated thing and suddenly I'm some pariah who has no balance or perspective in my beliefs? I'd say that what you just wrote is much more offensive than what you claim warranted your response. Especially considering that I was apologizing at the time.

Dude. . . I guess you're perfect and have never written anything insensitive or overly direct. Bully for you. . .

Some of us are fallible. And, more to the point, some of us know how to appropriately accept an apology rather than playing the "holier than thou Saint card."

H

Edited November 1, 2003 by Hurin

[Hurin]

For the record, I believe this is the "highly rude and offensive" paragraph in question:

By the way, if you still think Last Crusade is the best Indiana Jones film, then you're either ten, or you haven't compared Raiders to Crusade since you were ten. Or, you just like bad movies.

Sweet merciful crap! If that is "highly rude and offensive". . . the world must be a very offensive and rude place for you. Constantly assaulting your delicate sensibilities!

I apologized for the overly broad generalizations. . . but now I almost regreat doing that! Generally, when someone presents an apology, he is acknowledging that he did something innappropriate or wrong. Or, he is expressing contrition for the effects of an action that he did not intend.

And, just FYI, the classy thing to do at that point is to accept the apology rather than droning on about how highly offended you are and making gross generalizations about someone you don't even know. . .

H

Edited November 1, 2003 by Hurin

[GobotFool]

Actually Hurin I am gonna apologize to you now. I wrote what I wrote under heated circumstances. I made a broad generalization about you, when I was critisizing broad generalizations. For that I am sorry and honestly very ashamed. I stepped away and let my head cool and said to myself, I was talking about civility and such and I responded in a rather non civil manner.

Is it not odd how we become so heated over such trivial matters, It goes to show how much some of these movies really mean to us. Look hard enough and one will find something that they finds important or meaningful that they are willing to fight over.

Edited November 1, 2003 by GobotFool

[Hurin]

Coolio man. We're good. Again, I apologize too. At this point I am fully regretting posting that piece up there at all. Maybe some day I'll rewrite it (for my website) to be a bit more thoroughly researched and less bombastic and polarizing.

Best Regards,

H

[mikeszekely]

Indiana Jones - After watching all three back to back to back over three nights, I enjoyed "the Last Crusade" the best. Why? Harrison Ford played a brilliant Indy in all three, but Sean Connery was great as Indy's dad. Yes, there may have been more humor ("No ticket!") in Temple and Crusade than in Raiders, but I don't believe that Indy was ever a brooding anti-hero. On the contrary, I feel that all three films were intended to have their comedic moments, and it's those comedic moments that seperate the Indiana Jones movies from other action movies... Indiana Jones isn't simply the tough guy hero who gets the girl... he's the tough guy hero who gets the girl, maybe after his dad did, who sometimes isn't very heroic, and is sometimes damn unlucky. In that sense, Indy's easier to relate to, for most of us. But what's the biggest reason why I think Crusade was better than Raiders? Because I was most entertained when I watched it, and that's all that matters to me.

Star Wars - I remember watching it for the first time, then going out into the yard with a wiffle bat and pretending it was a lightsaber. So you could say it captivated my imagination when I was a kid. So Transformers, but when I got the DVDs, I realized they weren't really as good as I remembered. Come to think of it, I also really liked Ninja Turtles, but I don't here anyone bitching about how the new cartoon isn't the same as the old one. And since then, I've found other stories that I've enjoyed as much or more than Star Wars. Will I get the Star Wars trilogy when it comes out? Probably. Do I already have the Phantom Menace and the Clone Wars? Yep. Would it have been cool to have the original versions of the trilogy? I guess so. Do I really care that the special edition versions have been altered? Not really. Did I like Jar Jar? Definately not. But did I feel like making George Lucas start over again when I saw Phantom? Nope. Why? Because I've got better things to do with life than worship a movie trilogy that began before I was even born.

In short - Lucas can do whatever the hell he wants. If I like it, great, if not, who cares? It's not like there's a shortage of other sci-fi franchises to spend my dollars on.

[GobotFool]

I think I 1st saw starwars when I was 2 years old. I had no idea what was going on but I was captivated by these movies. My parents tried to foist winnie the pooh, and all this disney stuff on me, but I would demand Star Wars. So I guess it would be honest to say I was fed SW from the cradle and it has been a big part of my life since.

I really hope that Lucas Listens to the fans and offers in the DVD set an option to watch it in its original format and as SE. Or he takes a hint redoes SE correctly (I can hope can't I?) and makes SW even better than the original format. SE for everything one good thing it added, it added 1 bad thing, and also took away one good thing. SE could have been great if he didn't mess with the content. Why fix what was not broken? If he really felt the need to add to SW he should have just fixed the occassionally spotty FX like the Vasoline cloud underneath the Landspeeder.

[Isamu Atreides 86]

My favorite Indiana Jones movie was the one where hes president and throws Gary Oldman out of the back of a plane.....

[Uxi]

So, thirty years from now, we'll all be stuck with his "new vision" of those classic films. But, the problem is that they aren't classic any more. And, then again, what if he updates them again? Where does it end?!?

lol. Confiscation from those who don't have it yet? Are you reading what you're typing? You're not making any sense man. My point was that YOU seem to think Lucas owes u personally your own DVD version of the originals and I'm saying he owes you Jack and crap and Jack left town (if you'll excuse the colloquialism... I love Army of Darkness ). Period.

Playing DIRECTLY into my point now.

I think your girlfriend is humoring you. Seriously. The SE have far far better SFX than anything from the '77 Version of Star Wars. Or even the 80 (?) version of ANH. It looks horribly dated now. You're looking at this as classic cinema. But it's pure 50's schlock. And I love it for that. And yes, each movie gets better. Nyuk.

You want to get started on Midichlorians? I tackled this pretty handily maybe a week or two ago. I'll find the link for the thread for you to warm up on as courtesy. :cracking knuckles: Basically... it is your own preconceptions messing them up for you and I will PROVE it.

[Uxi]

Whoah, just saw this in the Toys forum, Hurin. Good advice. I immediately thought of this thread.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people feel entitled to certain Yamato products. Then, when Yamato does what their market research and plans dictate that they do. . . people actually feel like somehow they've been cheated, wronged, or robbed.

Get over yourselves. Yamato is in this to make a buck. It isn't greed. It's just the nature of a free market.

Substitute "LFL" or even "Lucas" for "Yamato."

I've figured it out what's so annoying (to me) about each thread that takes place whenever something new from Yamato is announced. It isn't so much the whining. . . it's how so many people want to "play the victim."

Hmm...

Well I want to postscript saying that I don't intend this with any acrimony. I really like your stuff and think we're even close politically, from a brief browsing of your site. I just think it's silly for you to be so vehement against the newer SW stuff. So no hard feelings.

[Hurin]

Whoah, just saw this in the Toys forum, Hurin. Good advice. I immediately thought of this thread.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people feel entitled to certain Yamato products. Then, when Yamato does what their market research and plans dictate that they do. . . people actually feel like somehow they've been cheated, wronged, or robbed.

Get over yourselves. Yamato is in this to make a buck. It isn't greed. It's just the nature of a free market.

Substitute "LFL" or even "Lucas" for "Yamato."

I've figured it out what's so annoying (to me) about each thread that takes place whenever something new from Yamato is announced. It isn't so much the whining. . . it's how so many people want to "play the victim."

Hmm...

Well I want to postscript saying that I don't intend this with any acrimony. I really like your stuff and think we're even close politically, from a brief browsing of your site. I just think it's silly for you to be so vehement against the newer SW stuff. So no hard feelings.

Hehe. . . I was waiting for someone to bring this up.

Look, we just fundamentally disagree here. But I would like to point out some differences:

These toys people are upset about not having have never existed. Star Wars was Star Wars. It existed in a finished state for twenty years. Because Lucas has announced that it will not ever be released as it once was on modern media, he is essentially confiscating the original movie and witholding it from our posterity. How will my kids watch it? How will they buy it? I'm not sure why you consider this so hysterical or nonsensical. It makes certain sense to me. We won't have VCRs in twenty years. . . much less laserdisc players. And even if we did, the media would have deteriorated and the quality would be so poor (even beyond how bad they look now compared to DVD), that I doubt anyone would suffer through them.

While I see your point and there is a bit of hypocrisy in my views here (cuz I've done my share of whining!). . . I think there is also consistency. I always come down on the side of freedom and choice. When I totally lost respect for Lucas was when he announced that the Special Editon is his "original vision" of how the film should be, and there will be no other versions allowed.

Pardon me, but I remember watching a different vision for twenty years. . . and twenty years from now, I would like to see that vision and show it to my children. While I appreciate the irony of me feeling "entitled" (though I wouldn't use that word) to a DVD release of the original films. . . I think to some extent we are comparing apples and oranges. I feel it is silly to not release the original films considering, they are the original film.

How's this for hysteria? It almost seems like a cover-up to me. "No! No! There was never vaseline under the landspeeder. . . the movie has always been this way! Nothing to see here!"

Hehe. . . how about I go completely off the deep end now: Remember how the Soviets used to airbrush disgraced or purged people out of the Party photographs. . . that's what Lucas is doing to the original films.

Okay. . . even I think that's going a bit far. . . but I thought it was funny.

H

[Nightbat]

Among the many tendencies that George Lucas and his ilk have, his penchant for retroactively changing things is the most annoying. But what is even worse is that he flat-out lies, claiming that the changes he makes are being done only because they fall in line with his "original vision" or intentions. He was just held back by technology, or a low budget, you see.

Wait, I think I feel that long delayed George Lucas rant coming on. . .

While we were watching the opening to Return of the Jedi, Lucas was giving an interview and said something like: "I had always wanted to put a song and dance number into the Jabba's Palace scene. I thought it would be funny because that would be so out of place in a Star Wars movie. But, because of technological limitations, we couldn't do that."

This (paraphrased) quote sums up everything that has gone wrong with George Lucas movies ever since The Empire Strikes Back.

Okay, first, Mr. Genius, if a certain type of scene is admittedly "out of place" in your movie. . . maybe you shouldn't f'ing put it in there!!!. This is so sand-poundingly obvious that it almost hurts me to point it out. If you don't take the formula that led to success in your prior two movies seriously. . . how do you expect your audience to appreciate the movie as part of the trilogy?

Second, you are still limited by technology. Because what you added into those movies, in almost every case, looks like ass. When my very non-picky (she'd have to be to go out with me!) girlfriend looks at the CG characters in the Special Edition and says: "That looks terrible". . . you know you're in trouble.

Third, stop f'ing pretending that all the crap you added to the Special Edition movies was supposed to be there in the first place. . . but you just ran out of time, money, or faced insurmountable technical hurdles. It is so blatantly obvious that you are lying in almost every case that people really should wonder about what is going on in that brain of yours. Do you actually expect us to believe that you "couldn't get the angle right" to have Greedo fire first? Well, with all the technology at your disposal now, you sure as hell didn't get the angle right in the Special Edition! It looks like that blaster fires out its side. . . which of course, probably surprised Greedo. . . which also may explain how he f'ing missed Han from two feet away!

Now this is part of the Rant I agree upon

this would mean the original SW trilogy will be remade 20 years from now since Lucas will have even more technology available to make the movie "Like it should have been from the start"

It's just Bullshit to squeeze more $$$$ out of SW

I've never been a SW "Fan" but what he did to the trilogy is pure and utter crap

as for the new "prequals" I already know how the story ends, so Lucas can shove them up his ...Ear

the rest of it is to each his own