http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44491069/ns/today-entertainment/
QuoteOh Nooooo! Vader's 'Jedi' yell
Remember at the end of "Revenge of the Sith," when we finally see the completion of Anakin Skywalker's turn to the Dark Side, and he becomes Darth Vader? Then you probably recall how that incredible scene, something "Star Wars" fans had been waiting to see for years, was undercut by Vader's instantly infamous "NOOOOOOOO!"
Guess what Lucas decided to add to the climactic moment in "Jedi" when Vader saves Luke from the Emperor? Uh-huh. The Sith Lord now also says 'NOOOOOO!' before he gives Palpatine the shaft and tosses him over the rail.
The Internet nearly cracked in half when news of this change leaked. Either Lucas likes the continuity of having Vader bellow the same silly thing in the end film of both trilogies, or he just wanted to get under the skin of the segment of the fan base annoyed with all his tweaks. Mission accomplished, George.
:argh!:
Eh, doesn't matter I suppose. I don't have Blu-Ray, AND this package has the 1997 version of IV-VI, not the original theatrical versions. So I'm not wasting my money on this shit anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkPKZhXth7M
He's from, like, Modesto. There's something about being a native of the Central Valley that makes people crazy.
Lucas is a supercunt motherfucker. He makes me shit eyeballs out of both my dicks.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 16, 2011, 09:33:57 PM
He's from, like, Modesto. There's something about being a native of the Central Valley that makes people crazy.
Ha. I didn't know that...somehow. Should've.
Damn. Explains A LOT. I mean...A LOT.
Quote from: Nigel on September 17, 2011, 03:18:58 AM
Lucas is a supercunt motherfucker. He makes me shit eyeballs out of both my dicks.
Ha. I didn't know that...somehow. Should've.
Damn. Explains A LOT. I mean...A LOT.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 17, 2011, 04:06:08 AM
Quote from: Nigel on September 17, 2011, 03:18:58 AM
Lucas is a supercunt motherfucker. He makes me shit eyeballs out of both my dicks.
Ha. I didn't know that...somehow. Should've.
Damn. Explains A LOT. I mean...A LOT.
Trip. Be a good boy or I'll come over there and whoop you.
ETA: nm. I now C wut u did thar.
I'm slow. And old.
Okay but your reply was much funnier in reply to Nigel!
I work with what I got on hand, man. Be reasonable.
There is a reason why producers and directors have different job roles.
George Lucas is a good reminder of why this is.
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on September 17, 2011, 08:48:44 AM
There is a reason why producers and directors have different job roles.
George Lucas is a good reminder of why this is.
And writers.
Lucas: FABULOUS Producer, okay director, fucking awful writer. Minus the first, add Rick McCallum, and you get Jar Jar Binks.
Ha. I didn't know that...somehow. Should've.
Damn. Explains A LOT. I mean...A LOT.
Ah, but you see, if there is a new version, the geeks will buy it...
What Lucas IS good at is marketing.
I'm not buying it.
1: I don't have a Blu-Ray player
2: I can quote all 6 movies whenever I want, in all 3 versions out PRIOR to this release. I'm getting sick of it.
3: I got hit on by so many men this weekend because of my Star Wars tattoos, too. This has nothing to do with this thread.
Although i'm not saying that these recent changes he made were for the better, i gotta say that i support the notion of film makers revising their works as an evolutionary process. When he added the CGI stuff into ep 4-6, i thought it was mostly good enhancement, myself.
I also like the idea of other parties layering onto existing pieces in an evolutionary way, but i wouldn't imagine that Lucas would be too fond of that...
The notion that the films should not be 'adulterated' from the form that people saw them in as children seems kind of silly to me.
The problem is that he changed scenes with some of his "enhancements". I mean, having a little ring around the planet/Death Star explosions, okay, I can deal with that. Bigger and glossier explosions aren't a big deal.
But the bit with Greedo shooting first, was pretty awful. It felt like he was making Han Solo PC. It was fine the way it was. He entered the story as a ruthless, self-centered smuggler who evolved into this hero, swashbuckler. It was okay for us to see him shoot first when we first meet him. He didn't have to make that change.
The other thing that annoyed me was changing the celebration at the end of Jedi. Though I suppose it should've served as a warning that the new, prequels were going to be CGI orgies of lameness.
Also the bit where the puppet singer in Jabba's palace was replaced with CGI, along with a new, hipper song to sing. Just seemed unnecessary. Yoda was obviously a puppet, Jabba was obviously a puppet, that blue thing that played the piano was obviously a puppet, it's okay Lucas, really. We can deal with puppets.
But above all, as someone who grew up with these movies, and who had parents who lined Lucas pockets with lots of dough to buy all of the toys, etc. for him to then develop this attitude where he seemingly looks down upon the original creations AND wants to cut off fans from being able to get those original version, it just rubs me the wrong way a little. I want to share with my boy the original McCoy, not the CGI love-fests. Luckily I still have the VHS originals and a VHS player that still works.
/soapbox
I'm sure that by the time the original films are unrecognizable, the Free Market / George Lucas will satisfy your demands with a "classic" version... and it'll be like a hundred twenty bucks for the trilogy. :lol:
don't get me wrong. some of the 'enhancements' were pretty horrible imo. all of the ones that you mentioned, i agree with you.
I just like the idea of a work being evolved over time. sure, sometimes i might not like it, and sometimes i will. but it just seems to be a lovely idea that is an untapped potential.
If the original artist decides that he wants to change his creation from what i thought was great as it was into something that i now think sucks, then i would certainly express that i think he screwed it up, but what i'm unable to get behind is the notion that Lucas is somehow taking something from us.
Of course, i was under the impression that they still had DVDs available of the original versions, and it seems stupid not to offer them. I would imagine that you could DL them off the torrents, if you'd like. That would kill two birds with one stone, no?
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 06:51:15 PM
I'm sure that by the time the original films are unrecognizable, the Free Market / George Lucas will satisfy your demands with a "classic" version... and it'll be like a hundred twenty bucks for the trilogy. :lol:
He released an original untouched trilogy boxset a couple years ago.
oh ... what are people up in arms about again? :?
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 07:33:41 PM
oh ... what are people up in arms about again? :?
Star Wars fans hate Star Wars. That's all.
I think it's pretty lame to go back years later and alter your art to suit your own aged/evolved vision of it. It's artistically false. Remake it, sure; but revising it is a lie.
what does artistically false mean?
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 07:39:52 PM
what does artistically false mean?
"Make minor changes to sell the same product AGAIN."
Quote from: Iptuous on September 19, 2011, 07:01:03 PM
don't get me wrong. some of the 'enhancements' were pretty horrible imo. all of the ones that you mentioned, i agree with you.
I just like the idea of a work being evolved over time. sure, sometimes i might not like it, and sometimes i will. but it just seems to be a lovely idea that is an untapped potential.
If the original artist decides that he wants to change his creation from what i thought was great as it was into something that i now think sucks, then i would certainly express that i think he screwed it up, but what i'm unable to get behind is the notion that Lucas is somehow taking something from us.
Eh, a bit of an overstatement really. Obviously as the creator of the art he's able to do whatever he wants to with his art. I'm just exercising my end of the exchange by expressing my displeasure. I don't expect him to do anything about it. Just voicing why I wouldn't be arsed to spend the money on the new set. I'm an unapologetic, and noisy, purist.
QuoteOf course, i was under the impression that they still had DVDs available of the original versions, and it seems stupid not to offer them. I would imagine that you could DL them off the torrents, if you'd like. That would kill two birds with one stone, no?
That would be news to me. I didn't think the original ever made it to DVD, only the versions with the touch-ups. And I don't really do the torrent thing, it doesn't jive with my sensibilities.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 19, 2011, 07:39:52 PM
what does artistically false mean?
A slap in the face to the creative self that made the original work. A betrayal of that self and that vision as it stood at the time. A revision of history and self.
what if that self is a jerk?
I frequently revise old "finished work".. I owe my old self nothing. If anything, that sucker owes me some gas money for dragging his boney ass along for the ride.
I can't get behind the idea that the original star wars (or any artistic creation) was somehow sacred and that lucas is being a bad artist by rereleasing them all the frigging time. It's not like the old art was destroyed by the modern adaptation -- as suu said, you can still get the original boxed set if you feel that strongly about it.
But I agree with Dok that he's probably just doing it to make a buck and stroke the fanboy machine.
If it's sitting in your house and has never been presented to anyone else, reworking an old piece of art seems less traitorous than taking it, post-release, and changing it in critical ways that diminish the reflection of what you were and what it was when you made it.
And hate your younger self if you want, but as both a maker and appreciator of art, seeing the changes in people's artistic expression over the years is something that I find beautiful. I would never revise a 20-year-old poem, though I might write a new one based on it. But the old one is an accurate reflection of who and where I was 20 years ago, and it would require me to hate that 20-year-old self to simply write over her expression.
Quote from: Nigel on September 19, 2011, 08:32:12 PM
[...]seems less traitorous than taking it, post-release, and changing it in critical ways that diminish the reflection of what you were and what it was when you made it.
what if you take the world work, post-release, and change it in critical ways that
enhance the quality or expression of who you are
now?see I think the word "traitor" here is way too strong. It's not like 2011 George Lucas stabbed 1977 George Lucas in the back and stole his IP. They're the same dude. The only people who feel betrayed are the Star Wars fans who expect the version they watched as a kid to be frozen in carbonite.
QuoteBut the old one is an accurate reflection of who and where I was 20 years ago, and it would require me to hate that 20-year-old self to simply write over her expression.
I don't think it's mandatory for you hate your old self in order to want to update an artistic work for new audiences.
Personal flashback/tangent:I recall having a gut HURK reaction when they announced the new Transformers movie in 2007. That was my favorite toy as a kid! I had a good twenty minutes of gnashing IS NOTHING SACRED over and over again. It slowly occurred to me that I was getting defensive about the commercialization of a toy commercial. :lol:
A remake is a new artistic vision. Altering the original is just... an alteration of the original version. An erasing, a covering-up of something that was real when it was made. That's why I don't like it, and see it as a betrayal.
Keeping the original available lessens the treachery, but it's still a treachery IMO.
I don't necessarily look at it as a betrayal, more stubbornness. Because it seems to be there is a big enough demand out there from folks our age and older who still want to enjoy the original version. And as long as we have the VHS copies and working VHS players, we're all set. If it is on DVD, that's fine, though eventually that technology is going to be antiquated. The attitude I get from Lucas concerning the originals is that he's pretty much done with it. That means in the not too distant future it will be impossible to view old Star Wars on new video technology. In the end, I just think his stubbornness is stupid. I don't really feel betrayed by it, because he obviously is under no obligation to produce what he doesn't want to produce.
I just don't get why he is so stubborn in the face of the obvious large amount of admiration and love for the originals.
So what if some piece of artwork was made that, although complete, in its own right, is intended by the artist to be updated and improved upon?
is that artistically false?
if not, why is it artistically false for someone to reserve the right to do so even if it's not stated as such from the beginning?
I apologize for introducing pointless art angst wankery into this thread.
:?
i'm enjoying the discussion...
Quote from: Iptuous on September 19, 2011, 09:32:29 PM
:?
i'm enjoying the discussion...
I'm bowing out because this is exactly the kind of discussion I hate more than anything other than colonialism and human sacrifice.
Lets just recall, Lucas did not create the Star Wars trilogy entirely on his own.
Yes, he may have "ownership" to do what he does, in a legal sense, but I'm fairly sure Spielberg may have an opinion on his hard work and vision for the series being dicked around with by Lucas. As one example.
Good point.
Some of it might have been bad choices, but come on the original Klingons looked so silly, how's that not an improvement? Just didn't like the bit where they sent the Borg back in time to kill Sarah Jones' son, the old ones couldn't even walk stairs!
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 19, 2011, 10:33:30 PM
Some of it might have been bad choices, but come on the original Klingons looked so silly, how's that not an improvement? Just didn't like the bit where they sent the Borg back in time to kill Sarah Jones' son, the old ones couldn't even walk stairs!
:lulz:
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 19, 2011, 10:33:30 PM
Some of it might have been bad choices, but come on the original Klingons looked so silly, how's that not an improvement? Just didn't like the bit where they sent the Borg back in time to kill Sarah Jones' son, the old ones couldn't even walk stairs!
:argh!:
:lulz: