bsu legato Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 I already know how the story ends, so Lucas can shove them up his ...Ear Ooohh..good point. Hey, I also know how LOTR ends, so why doesn't Peter Jack$on get his pudgy, whiskery mug off of Entertainment Tonight and wedge his Kiwi ass onto the first plane back down under. He and WETA can f*ck themselves before I spend another nickle on their many, many DVD releases, toys, swords or any of that other crap. Hey, this is fun.
CoryHolmes Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 (edited) It's funny how Tarantino can intentionally use as bad a model shot as is possible (the 747 flyby in Kill Bill) and get nothing but delerious praise, but ILM gets absolutely lambasted when it strives for realism at the limits of SFX technology. So very true. Ooohh..good point. Hey, I also know how LOTR ends, so why doesn't Peter Jack$on get his pudgy, whiskery mug off of Entertainment Tonight and wedge his Kiwi ass onto the first plane back down under. He and WETA can f*ck themselves before I spend another nickle on their many, many DVD releases, toys, swords or any of that other crap. Hey, this is fun. Also true Edited November 2, 2003 by CoryHolmes
JB0 Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 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. Diffrence: Greedo's gun had to be pointed at, say, the guy 3 tables over, to miss Han at that distance. It just wasn't POSSIBLE for him to miss in the location he was in. ... Not to mention that there wasn't time between the line and Han's shot for him to be reacting to Greedo anyways, it just served to emphasize that Greedo WOUILD have kileld Han, which was never in doubt anyways. And it DID look ugly. The other stuff varies greatly. I actually LIKED the Jabba the Hutt scene. On the other hand, there's no good reason for the Death Star to have a ring in its explosion.
JB0 Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 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. Well, I know someone who just watched Star Wars for the first time a week ago. He downloaded the originals off Kazaa. None of this Greedo shot first crap for him.
Uxi Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 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. The thing is that you seem to think your kids... or even you... have some fundamental entitlement to the movie you remember. You don't. Your kids don't. Jack is chillin at Skywalker Ranch with the Great Plaid One. The pseudo confiscation business is pure hyperbole, if not the antithesis of anything logical.
Jemstone Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 What's all this talk about Star Wars? This is supposed to be an Indy thread. Why must everything that involves Lucas turn into a Star Wars discussion?
Nightbat Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 I already know how the story ends, so Lucas can shove them up his ...Ear Ooohh..good point. Hey, I also know how LOTR ends, so why doesn't Peter Jack$on get his pudgy, whiskery mug off of Entertainment Tonight and wedge his Kiwi ass onto the first plane back down under. He and WETA can f*ck themselves before I spend another nickle on their many, many DVD releases, toys, swords or any of that other crap. Hey, this is fun. Bit late for a reply But since when was there a LOTR prequal? (and No, I have no interest in Mac Zero)
JB0 Posted November 2, 2003 Posted November 2, 2003 What's all this talk about Star Wars? This is supposed to be an Indy thread. Why must everything that involves Lucas turn into a Star Wars discussion? Because George Lucas put Club Obi-Wan into Temple of Doom.
Hurin Posted November 3, 2003 Author Posted November 3, 2003 The thing is that you seem to think your kids... or even you... have some fundamental entitlement to the movie you remember. You don't. Your kids don't. Jack is chillin at Skywalker Ranch with the Great Plaid One. The pseudo confiscation business is pure hyperbole, if not the antithesis of anything logical. Wow. . . glad you're not dismissive or anything. I guess we view movies differently. I view them as art (at least the better ones). I view them as parts of our culture (especially pop culture). Should MichaelAngelo be brought back to life, would he have the right to demolish the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Would it be acceptable for him to smash up the Pieta (not that he didn't already mangle it by writing his name across her sash). Not that I would ever put Lucas and MA in the same class. . . even remotely. But the concept is similar. But, well, why you don't think it's appropriate for someone to point out the shame of losing the originals is beyond me. . . When an artist goes off his rocker, he may have the legal right to go back and mangle his earlier works. . . but that doesn't make it right. . . and I'd damn well expect people to complain about it. Which is what I'm doing. . . H
Uxi Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 Should MichaelAngelo be brought back to life, would he have the right to demolish the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Would it be acceptable for him to smash up the Pieta (not that he didn't already mangle it by writing his name across her sash). If the analogy was being compared to Lucas' jackbooted thugs (former federal agents and police fired for excessive brutality) breaking into peoples homes and smashing their VHS and LD collections, it would be apt. As is, it's not. If Father Time destroys the VHS and LD versions and/or the media become obsolete, that doesn't obligate LFL to produce a version for those who want it, however much they excercise their right to complain about it. I'll be more precise in my point. You're saying Lucas is obligated to paying for the production of a DVD (and/or whatever future format(s) you should desire) of YOUR preferred version of his movies. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, (and it'd be absurd for me to say otherwise), but you're doing more than expressing your distaste of the current versions. Even though I agree with some of the particulars (Greedo shooting first for one), I disagree when you say you're entitled to a specific cut of the movies, even if it's the most popular (NOT that I'm conceding that by any means).
Lightning Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 wasnt Short Round supposed to be a sort of comic relief in "Temple of Doom"?
Hurin Posted November 3, 2003 Author Posted November 3, 2003 I'll be more precise in my point. You're saying Lucas is obligated to paying for the production of a DVD Where? I disagree when you say you're entitled to a specific cut of the movies Again, where? I'm saying that Lucas is a fool and a jerk for not providing them. In no way do I feel he is obligated to do so. And and no point did I say he is. . . so I wonder exactly what you have been reading. . . In my opinion, if he respected his fans of the last twenty years, he'd release the originals along with the Special Edition. I'm sure you'll concede that there are tons of people who would rather own the originals. . . or possibly even both. But, he just wants to eradicate the old stuff and pretend it doesn't exist. H
EXO Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 I gotta agree with Hurin here. I think we give Lucas a lot of credit because, hell... HE'S LUCAS... Whether you like the new stuff or not, his products are a big part of many childhood. And a lot of what we enjoy today would not be possible if it wasn't for the man. But... as for not releasing the originals... say Big West would have went the way of the now defunct Artmic and total control was given to Tatsanuko and HG. Sure those 2 companies would not be obligated to release Macross in it's original form, but where would you side your outcry if they did refuse to release it?
EXO Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 wasnt Short Round supposed to be a sort of comic relief in "Temple of Doom"? Shortround IS a comic relief in TOD, also a way for the younger viewers to relate with the adventure, as long you were over 13 that is.
Hurin Posted November 3, 2003 Author Posted November 3, 2003 wasnt Short Round supposed to be a sort of comic relief in "Temple of Doom"? Shortround IS a comic relief in TOD, also a way for the younger viewers to relate with the adventure, as long you were over 13 that is. also a way for the younger viewers to relate with the adventure Something I always despised in TV and film. It's so condescending to kids. "Hey kids, we know you can't possibly relate to adult problems and situations. . . so here's Orko/Spike/Snarf/Wendy&Marvin&Wondermut/Zan&Jana&Gleek. . ." Even as a young kid, I'd be thinking: "Dude, get rid of Orko. That's just lame." H
Uxi Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 (edited) I'm saying that Lucas is a fool and a jerk for not providing them. In no way do I feel he is obligated to do so. And and no point did I say he is. . . so I wonder exactly what you have been reading. . .In my opinion, if he respected his fans of the last twenty years, he'd release the originals along with the Special Edition. I'm sure you'll concede that there are tons of people who would rather own the originals. . . or possibly even both. But, he just wants to eradicate the old stuff and pretend it doesn't exist. I was reading into your schtick about the "future confiscations." It's possible your questions on asking how your kids would watch the original versions of the movies were rhetorical, but you've appeared to have backed off that line of argument. You completely lambast him and his "vision" (such as it is) when doesn't provide you with what you want. Mentioning "vision" in the context of Star Wars just makes me smile. It's a sci-fantasy action serial in homage to Flash Gordon, et al not a cultural epic (or at least it wasn't intended as one!). Again: 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. And I'll say again: Substitute "LFL" or even "Lucas" for "Yamato." If he didn't have some sort of vision he would do exactly what you said, woudln't he? Or maybe there aren't as many of you as you think there are? Lucas might need some more plaid shirts... why does he refuse to allow the production of your preferred cut? Maybe it's NOT in his best interests after all? EDIT: Oh yeah, the young kid / comedy relief thing. You yourself posted above that you liked Ewoks as a kid (I don't remember what I thought of them as a kid...) but cringe at them as an adult (about the same... at least the cutsey portions... as you said, the novelization is more "realistic" but hardly as PG-friendly). Maybe because Lucas explicitly says he's aiming at least some portion of SW TO kids. For all the obbsessive/compulsive fans that hate Jar-Jar, I know I hear more than a few kids giggle at his anctics (even if I did not). Besides the fact that that sort of corny schlock has been part and parcel of Star Wars since C3P0 and R2D2 in even the '77 cut of the movie. Edited November 3, 2003 by Uxi
EXO Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 (edited) What's all this talk about Star Wars? This is supposed to be an Indy thread. Why must everything that involves Lucas turn into a Star Wars discussion? This thread shoud have been called Let's Beat Lucas's Horse to Death... Oh BTW, if Michaelangelo was alive today, it wouldn't be up to him if he should repaint the Sistine chapel ceiling because he was comissioned by the Vatican, so I'm sure the Pope would have the final say. The same controversy happened a while back when they restored the paintings to it's original state bacause some parts had to be retouched by restoration artists. It seemed sacriligious at the time to let someone else's brush touch Michaelangelo's paintings, but I don't think anyone's bitching about it now. I don't know how that plays into your arguments but that's just the way it went... EDIT: contreversy/controversy - same thing... Edited November 3, 2003 by >EXO<
Uxi Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 Oh yeah... if Big West decided to do a retcon on Macross... oh my, like with DYRL? Move in a movie what? Macross II? Alternate dimension say wha? VF-0? WTF?? But I'm sure there would be no problems with that at all. lol seriously, if they released a new version (maybe imported RT? ) and said they would never release the old one again, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't think Macross is anymore an imperishible icon than Star Wars is. I like them both, but but begin to look dated when compared to the newest thing out. Unless the franchise keeps evolving.
Hurin Posted November 3, 2003 Author Posted November 3, 2003 (edited) I was reading into your schtick about the "future confiscations." Well, I'd posit that you were reading into it wrongly. . . At no point do I say that Lucas is obligated to do anything. That doesn't mean I can't think he's a jerk for releasing them as SE, releasing them together with the Wizard of Oz. . . or not releasing them at all. It's possible your questions on asking how your kids would watch the original versions of the movies were rhetorical, but you've appeared to have backed off that line of argument. How am I backing off? And how does the question of "my kids" enter into Lucas being obligated? I'm becoming more and more lost. Again, I'm saying I would like my kids to see the original releases on decent quality material in 20 years. Lucas disagrees. I disagree with him, vehemently. There is no obligation. And I never said there was. Mentioning "vision" in the context of Star Wars just makes me smile. It's a sci-fantasy action serial in homage to Flash Gordon, et al not a cultural epic (or at least it wasn't intended as one!). It's his word (vision), not mine. And to say that a director or even producer doesn't have a vision of a project that he then labors to put on the screen. . . well, I'm not sure what's so funny about that to you. It's the way it works. Substitute "LFL" or even "Lucas" for "Yamato." Been through this. The key word in my tirade against the Yamato haters is that they feel "entitled" to things that never existed. While I do not feel "entitled" to the original release of Star Wars on DVD, I do feel like choice is nearly always the right decision. Lucas is removing that choice because he wants to pretend that the older ones don't exist. In other words, people feel Yamato is obligated to make the valks they want. . . I don't feel Lucas is obligated to release the originals on DVD and later media. Though I think good taste, loyalty to his films, loyalty to the filmmaking community, loyalty to film history, and concern for what his audience wants should possibly make him feel obligated. But that's a different issue. He doesn't owe anything to me personally. . . And. . . all this plays into the other reasons I positively loathe the man. Which I think I covered rather extensively in my intemperate rant above. The lying ("I always intended Greedo to fire first. . .") gets to me the most though. No, I can't prove he's lying. I don't know for sure what he always intended. But common sense should play a role here. But, really, it all just comes dows to this: I don't even think he should have screwed with his movies that extensively twenty years after the fact. But, as long as we'll have the originals to watch in the future, that's forgivable (though still annoying because it just complicates things). Now, not only are things complicated, but he's dictating which movies we'll be able to watch in the future. And please spare me the "he's not confiscating them" stuff. Tell you what, if you still have a watchable VHS tape of Star Wars in 20-30 years, I'll buy you a coke. But I doubt I'll be doing so. . . Regarding Ewoks. First, they weren't side-kicks, placed alongside the hero to provide a child-like or outsider view of the hero(s). They were simply there to be cute. . . which is a totally different concept. Though, both are designed to appeal to kids. Further, I didn't need ewoks in order to love RotJ when I was a kid. You can make a movie that kids will love, and adults will love as well. Yaknow, like the first two Star Wars?!? Putting obviously kid-centric crap (as Lucas does more and more) into a series of movies not previously known for that is, in my opinion, a bad decision for just the reason you stated. Sure, you love the movie as a kid. . . but it wears off as you get older. The first two movies, which didn't utilize this cheap trick, don't suffer from that problem IMHO. H Edited November 3, 2003 by Hurin
Uxi Posted November 3, 2003 Posted November 3, 2003 I don't feel Lucas is obligated to release the originals on DVD and later media. Though I think good taste, loyalty to his films, loyalty to the filmmaking community, loyalty to film history, and concern for what his audience wants should possibly make him feel obligated. Reading into it wrong? Touche. Still I see progress in first you all but demanding a version cut to your taste, to wanting it for your kids, to wanting it for posterity. *Good taste? Debatable. Beyond the technical and SFX categories, SW is dubious on the "taste" factor anyway on a critical level. *Loyalty to his films? He sure feels he's doing better to them now than he had before. He's a better judge of this in HIS films than you or me. *Filmmaking community? F@ck 'em. Lucas is a well known renegade from the rest of Hollyweird. He hasn't shown much caring for the establishment and vice versa. Mostly because he gives the middle finger to the traditional production methods. *Film history? Noone is pretending the original cut never existed, though IIRC the original masters were being destroyed by age and thus prompted making the Special Editions. Given the extremely anal attitude towards technical presentation quality Lucas is renown for, they're not going to use anything else. Ever. *Concern for what the audience wants? Most of us are getting it. It's just those "playing the victim" who are whining. Lucas doesn't owe a lick of loyalty to any of that, except possibly the fans and the fans dont' seem to be complaining too badly where it counts (ie the bottom line). You're dead wrong on the Ewoks. The whole wookie/ewok thing has been explored in enough different areas it should be common knowledge. You're not setting up a straw man are you? Besides, which as the novelization has the ewoks, so must have earlier scripts but for whatever reasons didn't pan out (I think more of the kid/PG rating thing myself). As far as playing to kids, you may not see it in the first 2, but I do. It's not be as pronounced as in RotJ or TPM, but it's always been there. ANH - Jawas, Droids. TESB- Tauntauns, Yoda, Droids. RotJ - Ewoks, Droids. TPM - Gungans, Droids. AotC - Kid Jedi, Droids. Doesn't look like Ep 3 will have much, though i'm wagering there will be some Jar-Jar, and... of course... the crazy antics of C3P0 and R2D2.
Hurin Posted November 3, 2003 Author Posted November 3, 2003 (edited) Still I see progress in first you all but demanding a version cut to your taste Uh, no, just not cut at all. And I don't recall demanding anything (I'm too tired of all this to go back and check if I did, but if I did, I retract it. . . though really, there would be nothing wrong with strongly requesting it). Again, I'm simply expressing dismay at his decisions, which I don't anticipate being reversed. He's a better judge of this in HIS films than you or me. And that's where we disagree. The man has lost his objectivity. He doesn't see them the same way his fans do. . . at least the same way the purist fanatics (me?) do. Look, for me, it comes down to this: He gave us Han Solo as a guy who wasn't quite a "good guy." He was a rogue, he was a scoundrel. He blew Greedo away. . . Then, twenty years later, he retroactively decides that the character we've had for the last twenty years isn't really the guy who would blow Greedo away like that. So he changes it. Sure, add some special effects. Make it look better. But don't go changing the characters and then tell me he was always intended to have been that way. Lucas grew older, got more "sensitive" and then decided that he didn't want the kiddies thinking it was okay to kill someone like Han kills Greedo. So he had to make it more obviously self-defense. When you start to go in and make those sorts of changes to a twenty year old movie, you've lost your prespective and your objectivity. The films are a reflection of their times. They are also a reflection of Lucas at the time. Apparently, he had no problem with the character of Han Solo until much later. Now, he has gone in and --using his beliefs and values of today-- altered something that is supposed to reflect 1977. Should we go back to all the old movies and remove any other references that now seem unpalatable by our present-day standards. Oh, nevermind, Spielberg has already removed all the guns from ET. Wouldn't want kids to actually believe that guns exist in the world! You're dead wrong on the Ewoks. The whole wookie/ewok thing has been explored in enough different areas it should be common knowledge. My understanding is that they were going to be wookies. Then it was changed to ewoks. Many believe it was done so that kiddies would buy ewok crap? What, again, am I wrong about? You yourself say: It's not be as pronounced as in RotJ or TPM, but it's always been there. Which is, of course, my point. The ewoks go beyond the pale. The other more subtle things from the prior movies are just that. . . subtle. A kid can love them, but they aren't so obviously child-centric as to put off the adults. But very few adults can watch the ewoks now without wanting to wretch. So, I'm not exactly clear where I'm "dead wrong". . . did I say they weren't there in ealier scripts? Lucas can say they were in there to provide a "nature vs technology" theme as much as he wants. But, if that were the case, wookies would have worked just fine. If I'm not mistaken, he said that he went with ewoks because wookies had already been done. . . or something. (edit: Memory flash: He said that wookies had been shown to be too modern to serve the story's purpose. . . which I don't buy. You can take a non-modern person (Chewbacca) off an island with a primitive culture and teach them how to fly a jetliner. But that doesn't mean that, when you return to the island, all of the people he left behind are suddenly flying jetliners.end edit) Sorry, but I believe the ewoks were put in because they are cute. Wretchedly, wretchedly cute. . . and can do things children will love like slinging themselves in the face more easily than wookies. Lucas can spin the reasons behind their introduction into the movie as much as he wants. . . but after the "Greedo always fired first" BS and all his other self-aggrandizing distortions, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe him. But, again, I'm not exactly sure where I'm "dead wrong". . . I said they weren't side-kicks. . . and are there primarily to be cute. They also serve a different role in the narrative than Short-Round. I stand by that. H Edited November 4, 2003 by Hurin
JB0 Posted November 4, 2003 Posted November 4, 2003 *Film history? Noone is pretending the original cut never existed, though IIRC the original masters were being destroyed by age and thus prompted making the Special Editions. Given the extremely anal attitude towards technical presentation quality Lucas is renown for, they're not going to use anything else. Ever. But that's where you're wrong. They did the remaster BEFORE they did the SE edits. I own an original edition remaster box set. The box for that release looks like this, if you want to scrounge one up at a used video store... That's the first movie. The style of the other 2 is similar(Empire features a stormtrooper helmet and the walkers attacking Hoth, and Yoda, and Jedi features Yoda and the Luke/Vader lightsaber duel. All 3 boxes are black.). And just so there's no confusion, it says on the side of the trilogy box that it was digitally remastered, as well as along the bottom of each of the 3 individual tapes. Personally, I am of the opinion that the DVDs will likely have both versions on one disk, because it's well within the technical capabilities of the media and because inclusion of hte original version is a highly-requested feature.
Uxi Posted November 4, 2003 Posted November 4, 2003 *Film history? Noone is pretending the original cut never existed, though IIRC the original masters were being destroyed by age and thus prompted making the Special Editions. Given the extremely anal attitude towards technical presentation quality Lucas is renown for, they're not going to use anything else. Ever. But that's where you're wrong. They did the remaster BEFORE they did the SE edits. I own an original edition remaster box set. I have that set too. :-) Also the Widescreen VHS of the Special Editions. And bootleg burn of the Chinese Laserdisc SE (probably best 40 bucks i ever spent). And Ep 1 & 2, of course. They also clearly say that it's the LAST TIME they'd ever be available in that cut. I'm glad LFL is sticking to their guns. Seriously, I had read or seen somewhere that the process of making the special editions destroyed the master or something like that. It's possible it's bum scoop. I'd be happy if the Great Plaid One just kept it locked in his fault but I don't see any reason why he'd lie. Not like public opinion has sway over him... wasn't there a comment he made about not being a public company and he could do what he wanted?
Uxi Posted November 4, 2003 Posted November 4, 2003 He's a better judge of this in HIS films than you or me. And that's where we disagree. The man has lost his objectivity. He doesn't see them the same way his fans do. . . at least the same way the purist fanatics (me?) do. <snip> You're dead wrong on the Ewoks. The whole wookie/ewok thing has been explored in enough different areas it should be common knowledge. My understanding is that they were going to be wookies. Then it was changed to ewoks. Many believe it was done so that kiddies would buy ewok crap? What, again, am I wrong about? You yourself say: <snip> edit:[/b] Memory flash: He said that wookies had been shown to be too modern to serve the story's purpose. . . which I don't buy. You can take a non-modern person (Chewbacca) off an island with a primitive culture and teach them how to fly a jetliner. But that doesn't mean that, when you return to the island, all of the people he left behind are suddenly flying jetliners.end edit) Sorry, but I believe the ewoks were put in because they are cute. Wretchedly, wretchedly cute. . . and can do things children will love like slinging themselves in the face more easily than wookies. Lucas can spin the reasons behind their introduction into the movie as much as he wants. . . but after the "Greedo always fired first" BS and all his other self-aggrandizing distortions, I'm sorry, but I just don't believe him. You don't need objectivity to know if you're being loyal to YOUR property. His only concern about his movie is what he wants. He doesn't care what you or I say about it. You don't get more objective than that. The complete absence of (any meaningful) outside concerns. You know I agree with you on Greedo (and with Spielberg and ET), but it's tying your panties in a wad. Hopefully it will change it back in the "Ueber-Ultimate Edition" but if he doesn't, I'm not gonna shed a bloody tear about it, much less "play the victim." His motivation to lie about his original vision escapes me. Your motivation for wanting it to be a lie is quite clear, OTOH. Especially when you proudly wear the label purist fanatic, you just make me all the more likely to not take you the slightest bit seriously on the issue. "Sell Ewok crap." Not aware of a significant amount of "Ewok crap" out there. The usual action figures, etc but no more than any other figure. That's where I'm saying you're wrong. Your hypothesis (WAG?) could have been the motivation for the Ewok... cartoon? Show? Droids? maybe but not RotJ. The change was for the same reason Planet of the Apes was changed from modern to primitive. It would have been a budget buster. Well I'll bet LFL could have afforded it, but would have cut the margin big time. Especially when the background wasn't as important for the story (as it WAS just background). But by showing your mind is closed before you even bothered to look for any evidence shows me you conclude and then rationalize instead of the other way around. A closed mind coupled with your self-proclaimed fanaticism would make you dangerous if this was a serious subject. I'd question my willingness to continue with this thread if I wasn't having fun.
JB0 Posted November 4, 2003 Posted November 4, 2003 (edited) They also clearly say that it's the LAST TIME they'd ever be available in that cut. I'm glad LFL is sticking to their guns. Last time on video. I read that to mean VHS tapes. Seriously, I had read or seen somewhere that the process of making the special editions destroyed the master or something like that. It's possible it's bum scoop. I find that very hard to believe. Especially since the work should've all been done on computer. I'd be happy if the Great Plaid One just kept it locked in his fault but I don't see any reason why he'd lie. Not like public opinion has sway over him... wasn't there a comment he made about not being a public company and he could do what he wanted? Dunno. I THINK that there was active solicitation of special features ideas for the DVDs on the StarWars.com forums(may've been a fan-created thread). I KNOW "Han shoots first" was by far the most requested feature. As in like 75%. If I'd been there more than a week, I might could offer more detail. Edited November 4, 2003 by JB0
Hurin Posted November 4, 2003 Author Posted November 4, 2003 (edited) His only concern about his movie is what he wants. He doesn't care what you or I say about it. First, if you don't see anything wrong with him only caring about he wants (if that is indeed the case), then I can't help you. Why you seem to think it's laudable that he doesn't take the fans wishes into his consideration is beyond me. You don't get more objective than that. The complete absence of (any meaningful) outside concerns. Uh, I think you have that a bit backwards, my friend. Being objective is taking into account all outside concerns. Only being concerned with your own view is being subjective. Especially when you proudly wear the label purist fanatic, you just make me all the more likely to not take you the slightest bit seriously on the issue. Uh, was the question mark and the smiley face there not enough to indicate that I was kidding around and trying to be sef-effacing. Wow. . . this thing is deteriorating rapidly. "Sell Ewok crap." Not aware of a significant amount of "Ewok crap" out there. The usual action figures, etc but no more than any other figure. That's where I'm saying you're wrong. Your hypothesis (WAG?) could have been the motivation for the Ewok... cartoon? Show? Droids? maybe but not RotJ. Uh, what happened to you? Up until now, you've made fairly good points. . . but this just makes no sense. First, there were immediately Ewok plush dolls available. . . including baby ewoks (I know, I had them). Plus the action figures. . . and T-Shirts. But exactly why can't I say that merchandising was one of if not the major motivation in replacing the wookies with ewoks!?! Just how would Lucas have created an Ewok cartoon or made the TV movies without first introducing the ewoks in the movie. Your point makes no sense. Are you seriously saying that Lucas was incapable of planning far enough ahead to put Ewoks in him movie, and then spin off a cartoon series and TV movies to merchandise them?!? How the heck could Lucas introduce the ewoks and get that ball rolling if not in RotJ? The change was for the same reason Planet of the Apes was changed from modern to primitive. It would have been a budget buster. Well I'll bet LFL could have afforded it, but would have cut the margin big time. Especially when the background wasn't as important for the story (as it WAS just background). Again, It's not even clear what the heck you're talking about here. So, I have to guess. Changing wookies into ewoks was done to save the budget?!? Uh. . . okay, but that directly contradicts what Lucas himself has said. . . I have a distinct recollection of an interview in "From Star Wars to Jedi: The Making of a Saga" which is what I am referring to in that "memory flash" above. He clearly states that it was done because he felt wookies had been shown to be too technologically inclined. . . and he wanted to show the technological empire brought down by nature. So, either you're wrong, or Lucas is lying. . . and from your comments above, you seem to doubt Lucas lies about this sort of thing. But by showing your mind is closed before you even bothered to look for any evidence shows me you conclude and then rationalize insted of the other way around. A closed mind coupled with your self-proclaimed fanaticism would make you dangerous if this was a serious subject. I'd question my willingness to continue with this thread if I wasn't having fun. Ooookay. . . I think we're done here. . . Looking for evidence? First of all, yet again you're not even clear about what evidence I'm even supposed to be finding. But, hey. . . did it occur to you that I'm not about to start wasting even more of my time looking for evidence in an argument as informal and pointless as this? We're talking about movies here. But, of course, you didn't consider this but rather decided it was time to take things to the gutter. . . I must just be "closed minded" and bring this same level of "close-mindedness" to every argument in which I engage no matter the content. You say quite clearly that I'm closed-minded. . . but are kind enough to say that I'm not quite dangerous as long as we are only talking about movies. How nice of you. Uh. . . way to leap to conclusions and then use them to make personal attacks there bud. Quite open-minded of you. . . especially the part about tying in a joke I made. Very classy. Though, again, I'm guessing because your post is not at all clear, I think you might be referring to the "Lucas had kids" thesis that is all the way back in the first post. As I've said before, the post that started all this was originally published to my own website. . . and was written quickly, spontaneously, and without the benefit of having time to footnote everything according to Strunk & White's Elements of Style. Please note that I state very clearly that all of this is a theory. However, I fail to see why this is a big deal to you. . . I layed out a theory to try to explain the phenomena I have been seeing in Lucas' movies. . . how is that closed-minded? Even if my theory is proven wrong. . . does that mean the pattern that prompted the formation of the theory is incorrect? No, it just means that it is time to try a new theory to explain the pattern. Uh. . .that's how theories work. That's closed-minded? I openly declare that I don't have all the facts. Don't know how much more open I could be. Rationalizing? No. . . theorizing. . . very different things. . . The change was for the same reason Planet of the Apes was changed from modern to primitive. If I were to play your game, I could just say: "Hey, where is your evidence for this?!? Hmmm, you obviously are just the type of person to come to a conclusion and rationalize it later." But, of course, I wouldn't. . . And then of course, you bring out the fanatic comment again. Wow. . . I just don't know what to say. . . if you didn't see that as self-depricating humor, I don't think there's any point in having any more fun with you. . . cuz it ain't fun when someone can't see obvious humor when it is right in front of them. . . but rather uses it in a rather lame attempt to discredit the very person who posted it! I really can't explain this last post of yours. . . have you been drinking? Either way, this last one was almost wholey without merit. . . from getting the meaning of the word "objective" completely backwards. . . to not being at all clear in what you are referring to with your rather vague assertions. . . to taking something I said obviously in jest and then mounting a personal attack with those words. . . twice. Don't know what else to say other than, it was fun. . . but that ending was disappointing. H Edited November 4, 2003 by Hurin
Hurin Posted November 4, 2003 Author Posted November 4, 2003 (edited) Seriously, I had read or seen somewhere that the process of making the special editions destroyed the master or something like that. It's possible it's bum scoop. Oooo! Oooo! Where's your evidence! I think you're just coming to conclusions and then rationalizing after the fact! For those humor-challenged among us: That smiley face designates that I'm kidding around. Sadly, this disclaimer now seems necessary. Seriously though. . . that's ludicrous. What about transferring the original prints into digital format would destroy them? After all, they're just being scanned. This smacks of fanboy conspiracy theories. H Edited November 4, 2003 by Hurin
JB0 Posted November 4, 2003 Posted November 4, 2003 Seriously, I had read or seen somewhere that the process of making the special editions destroyed the master or something like that. It's possible it's bum scoop. Oooo! Oooo! Where's your evidence! I think you're just coming to conclusions and then rationalizing after the fact! For those humor-challenged among us: That smiley face designates that I'm kidding around. Sadly, this disclaimer now seems necessary. Seriously though. . . that's ludicrous. What about transferring the original prints into digital format would destroy them? After all, they're just being scanned. This smacks of fanboy conspiracy theories. H Would you believe the scanner was attacked by ewoks during the remastering process?
mikeszekely Posted November 4, 2003 Posted November 4, 2003 His only concern about his movie is what he wants. He doesn't care what you or I say about it. First, if you don't see anything wrong with him only caring about he wants (if that is indeed the case), then I can't help you. Why you seem to think it's laudable that he doesn't take the fans wishes into his consideration is beyond me. I sure as hell don't see anything wrong with an artist caring about only what he wants. When I was in college, I took a clase on writing fiction. Often, the assignment was to write a short story. That's it, no rules, no topics, not boundaries, just write a short story. And yet, for an assignment with no rules or boundaries, I constantly had the teacher (a pompous fellow who acted as if he truly believed himself to be an expert, simply because he was lucky enough to get one of his cheap horror schlock books published as an obscure paperback under a pseudonym) coming back to me and telling me that I should re-write parts of my stories to take into consideration any number of groups who may have found something to complain about (for example, I shouldn't have any kidnapped girls in my story, because I might offend feminists... or victims of kidnappings). He kept telling me to consider my target audience. Well, feminists and victims of kidnappings probably weren't my target audience, but thing I always thought is that I was telling a story because I had a story in my head. I wasn't telling a story to make John Smith happy. And I certainly saw no reason to alter the story that I wanted to tell just to make it more palatable to Mr. Smith. If Lucas thinks the SE versions are the versions that truly tell the story the way he wants, props to him for doing it that way, even some people are going to gripe. On the other hand, if he changed them to make them appeal to a larger crowd, then sure, he may have compromised artistic integrity in favor profit. Which is the case is for you guys to decided, as I personally don't care. What I do care about, though, is an artist's right to create the art the way he or she wants, being forced to compromise his or her original vision for the sake of mass-market appeal.
Hurin Posted November 4, 2003 Author Posted November 4, 2003 (edited) Uh, that's all fine and good. . . but would you feel the same way if your book had formed a large fan community. . . and then you arbitrarily went back and changed the book twenty years later and then said: "There, everything that happened before wasn't really what happened. Oh, and the old one is no longer for sale. Deal with it." You may be within your rights. . . but you'd also be a jerk in a lot of people's eyes. The point is that you already told the story once. And while you may retain "legal" control of the story, that story is now very much a part of the public consciousness. . . in some ways, after twenty years, they own it too (again, not in any legally binding sense). To not take that into account is bad form, IMHO. Obviously, some disagree. . . but that's the way I see it. H Edited November 4, 2003 by Hurin
Uxi Posted November 4, 2003 Posted November 4, 2003 (edited) His only concern about his movie is what he wants. He doesn't care what you or I say about it. First, if you don't see anything wrong with him only caring about he wants (if that is indeed the case), then I can't help you. Why you seem to think it's laudable that he doesn't take the fans wishes into his consideration is beyond me. IMO, he is taking his fans wishes into considerations by making his movies without effect from those "playing the victim," which is precisely what I think you're doing. Me and countless others are more than satisfied, as the bottom line shows. Course, I'm a casual fan and not a fanatic. mikeszekely articulated my point pretty well rather than the precise splitting over hairs over the definition of objective. As far as fanatics, I also had a smiley in there and specificially said I'm having fun with this, at that. You're the one who claimed that label, even if it was in jest (I actually DID miss any hint of sarcasm, so apologize for that), and YOU are the one who showed your mind was closed. At least now you've done some research. Don't you feel better, now? I'm not aware of an inordinate amount of Ewok crap. I've seen Clone troopers in 12" and 3 3/4" action figures and on t-shirts. Try again? You had baby ewoks? I admit I could be wrong about the technology thing. Just a theory of mine, but it seems to fit the facts, and doesn't necessarily contradict Lucas' statement, either. I don't see a developed Wookiee city with flying cars and such fitting into the budget as well as the Ewok gliders and such. Especially when that background is incidental. But in any case, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either Lucas' version is right (and I'm wrong) or it's wrong in which case mine is just as valid as yours. I'm much more inclined to believe Lucas' version than yours (that it's purely meant for marketing... baby ewoks... )... and maybe even mine. Why should he lie about the Ewoks? I've never mentioned Lucas' kids. You were the one to mention your hypothetical kids in the context they woudln't be able to watch the original cut of the movies. And I said they have no need or fundamental right to. Remember? None of this is a big deal. Just a movie and I'm just a casual fan. Unlike those to whom it was integral to their childhood and the SE mess with their childhoods. (wink means sarcasm, not personal attack) Personal attacks? Don't be so defensive... or are you "playing the victim" again? Edited November 4, 2003 by Uxi
Hurin Posted November 4, 2003 Author Posted November 4, 2003 (edited) splitting over hairs over the definition of objective. Uh, it's not splitting hairs to say that you have the definition completely backwards. How convenient for you that getting something so basically wrong is just "splitting hairs." At least now you've done some research. Don't you feel better, now? Uh, actually, I haven't. Not one lick. Other than typing that reviewer's name into google, reading the words "ain't it cool news" and then clicking close. Which brings up an interesting point. . . I'm going on my knowledge of Star Wars from back in the old days. Whereas you constantly say stuff like: "This should be common knowledge. . ." or "Everyone has debated this to death." Wouldn't the fact that you apparently keep so up to speed on this make you the fanatic who spends all of his time reading (and posting) about this stuff? Turnabout is fair play, bud. As far as fanatics, I also had a smiley in there and specificially said I'm having fun with this, at that. Again, convenient. There is no smiley the first time. . . the smiley the second time isn't smiling, but rather expressing shock. And, finally, you say you are having fun debating this only because we're talking about movies. Otherwise, I'd be dangerous. So, either write more clearly or stand by what you write. . . I'm not aware of an inordinate amount of Ewok crap. I've seen Clone troopers in 12" and 3 3/4" action figures and on t-shirts. Try again? You had baby ewoks? Try again? Okay: Ewok Plush Dolls (at least 3 or 4 different ones) Ewok T-Shirts Ewok costumes Ewok TV movies (Two. Funny, I haven't seen any "Jawa Adventure" movies) Ewok bed sheets Ewok umbrella Ewok Cartoon Ewok Cartoon merchandise (Repeat all of above). . . Also, keep in mind that it does not dismiss my argument to say: "Well, there were stormtrooper bed sheets too." Yes, there were. But that doesn't change the fact that it is totally believable that Lucas and his pals thought to themselves: "Ewok Star Wars bedsheets will sell like hotcakes to kids!" I admit I could be wrong about the technology thing. Just a theory of mine, but it seems to fit the facts, and doesn't necessarily contradict Lucas' statement, either. I don't see a developed Wookiee city with flying cars and such fitting into the budget as well as the Ewok gliders and such. Well, again, Lucas says that it was the "technology thing". . . so you can take him at his word or not. But, I'm suprised that a "fanatic" as apparently up-to-speed on all Star Wars debates as you ("The whole wookie/ewok thing has been explored in enough different areas it should be common knowledge.") did not know about this comment from Lucas. Interesting how I went from being ignorant and "dead wrong" to being a fanatic who has done research and that now you may be wrong. What I don't understand is this last bit: But in any case, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either Lucas' version is right (and I'm wrong) or it's wrong in which case mine is just as valid as yours. I'm much more inclined to believe Lucas' version than yours (that it's purely meant for marketing... baby ewoks... )... and maybe even mine. Why should he lie about the Ewoks? That is indecipherable. I'd need to diagram those sentences to make any sense of it. But all I know is that Lucas was under no budgetary constraints for RotJ (he has stated such: "Since I was funding them, the sky was the limit and we could finally do whatever we wanted." (paraphrasing). Further, as I pointed out, having Chewie being able to fly a ship doesn't necessarily mean that all wookies are living in a modern environment. . . so Lucas' assertion on the face of it starts to look shakey. It seems pretty obvious to me, he wanted to put something wretchedly cute in there for the kids. This fits the pattern of his movies becoming more kid-oriented (culminating in Jar-Jar which you actually somehow compare to Threepio). . . and I don't think it is a stretch to point out that he probably had his eye out for merchandising opportunities (which, as everyone knows, is where he has made the lion's share of his money!). Why should he lie? Because he (IMHO) cherishes the myth about him being a visionary genius of filmmaking. Indeed he perpetuates the supporting stories wherever he can (and some are quite dubious). It doesn't make you much like a visionary to say: "I changed it to ewoks because kids will adore them and want to buy ewok crap." Dude, were you a kid at the time? . . . I can't tell you how many ewok backpacks the girls would wear. . . and how many kids were ewoks for Halloween (wearing Lucasfilm licensed masks). A little aside here: Besides the fact that that sort of corny schlock has been part and parcel of Star Wars since C3P0 and R2D2 in even the '77 cut of the movie. I never really addressed this as much as I would like: It is a matter of degrees. Yes, 3PO and R2 provide some comic relief. . . sublte comic relief. Compare that to Jar-Jar. . . and the difference is tremendous. It is that trend/pattern than I am decrying. And, that trend does trace its way through the Indiana Jones films as well (hey, we're talking about them again! Briefly ). To say that there was comedy in the first movie so all the comedy in the later ones is just more of the same. . . well, that's just simplistic. Compare 3PO crying about everyone being crushed in the trash compactor in ANH, and his freakin' Three Stooges impersonation during the factory scene in AotC (old phrase: "Puns are the lowest form of comedy"). But, I really should only need to say one thing to get this point across: Jar-Jar. Maybe because Lucas explicitly says he's aiming at least some portion of SW TO kids. For all the obbsessive/compulsive fans that hate Jar-Jar, I know I hear more than a few kids giggle at his anctics (even if I did not). When Lucas first started making Star Wars movies, he was a young man and still had young man's tastes (fast cars, cool fights, etc.). Then he started making movies "for the kids" and you see the pattern I describe above (and in the original post). I've never mentioned Lucas' kids. You were the one to mention your hypothetical kids in the context they woudln't be able to watch the original cut of the movies. And I said they have no need or fundamental right to. Remember? None of this is a big deal. Okay, so you weren't referring to that. . . which brings me back to the point of. . . what were you referring to?!? Look, it's becoming painfully apparent now that this isn't going anywhere. . . you're not making any effort anymore to put any cogent thoughts together. Instead, you're (admittedly) just posting stuff to "have fun" with me. So. . . as I said. . . we're done here. None of this is a big deal. Just a movie and I'm just a casual fan. Considering you say stuff like: "You want to get started on Midichlorians? I tackled this pretty handily maybe a week or two ago." . . . if you're a "casual fan", then I must just be "vaguely aware" of these new-fangled Star Wars movies. It is interesting that you speak as an authority on all these arguments, and speak about them often (and apparently in different places), and then dismiss everyone else as "fanatics" while you are just a "casual fan." I haven't been to a Star Wars-oriented website in ages. . . whereas you seem like a true fanboy who visits them and engages in debates often. So, which is it? And, if you're no fanatic. . . how can I be one? Oh, wait, I'm sure that, simply by disagreeing with you, I'm a fanatic. . . Personal attacks? Don't be so defensive... or are you "playing the victim" again? Hey man, you're the one who has started posting about how I must be "closed-minded" and "dangerous" in other contexts. Meanwhile, your posts have gotten more and more nonsensical and chaotic. It's not "playing the victim" to point out that you are no longer addressing my arguments but are rather trying to discredit the writer (via shadey means I might add). If you can't address the substance and must instead attack the writer. . . we're done here. H Edited November 4, 2003 by Hurin
bsu legato Posted November 4, 2003 Posted November 4, 2003 When Lucas first started making Star Wars movies, he was a young man and still had young man's tastes (fast cars, cool fights, etc.). Then he started making movies "for the kids" and you see the pattern I describe above (and in the original post). Ummm....Hurin, Star Wars was always for kids. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way, but that was Lucas' intention all the way back in '77.
Recommended Posts