Akwat Kbrana
This user is offline.
Token Linguistics NerdZombie said:
And yeah, I'm willing to bet the OOT is included in that. I'm sure they're sitting on it for long-term investment reasons. Maybe the 50th anniversary, once Lucas is out of the way?
Shame; Frink will surely be long gone by that point. Maybe we could arrange for Ziggy to purchase a copy of the OOT when the time comes and leave it at Frink's graveside...
"Today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office." -President Obama
none
This user is offline.
As more tvs ship with 3D capability, eventually a network will want 3D content and guess what franchise is ready to step in to fill the void. The Clone Wars cartoon in 3D is probably an easy jump for LFL to do as well. Box Office numbers are a dwindling portion of LFLs profits:
TV's Frink
This user is offline.
Likes Lens FlairsAkwat Kbrana said:
Zombie said:
And yeah, I'm willing to bet the OOT is included in that. I'm sure they're sitting on it for long-term investment reasons. Maybe the 50th anniversary, once Lucas is out of the way?
Shame; Frink will surely be long gone by that point. Maybe we could arrange for Ziggy to purchase a copy of the OOT when the time comes and leave it at Frink's graveside...
I might be 70 now but I'm planning on lasting past 100, so don't worry about me.
zombie84
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightI followed a link from that wired page. Did anyone see this? It's brilliant.
The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!
"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."
--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010
SilverWook
This user is online.
I am ready for the trials!Wow, Brian DePalma really had no frame of reference did he? You'd think he never watched anything but Hitchcock movies. ;)
georgec
This user is offline.
Just a simple man^ Nice article, zombie. Only things I disagree with are that the TPM's problems can largely be placed on CGI and that Jar Jar as a character isn't more ridiculous than Chewbacca.
The issues in the prequels ultimately fall on the script. The CGI is marvelous spectacle but it's just a hollow distraction from the writing woes. In ANH, the special effects served the story while also flexing their muscle. Plus, like that writer said, miniatures and models look and feel real, not like pixels.
Jar Jar looks AND acts like a buffoon, but I bet that if written differently he could have been received more positively. Same way that if Chewbacca were written like a mindless oaf (but physically unchanged), he would have been a completely different character and much less endearing.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.” - The Bearded One
zombie84
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightI dont really agree with his criticism of either trilogies, I was more impressed by his dose of reality: the 35th anniversary of Star Wars is really the 15th anniversary of the SE. Star Wars never had a 35th anniversary because it died at age 19.
The Secret History of Star Wars -- now available on Amazon.com!
"When George went back and put new creatures into the original Star Wars, I find that disturbing. It’s a revision of history. That bothers me."
--James Cameron, Entertainment Weekly, April 2010
georgec
This user is offline.
Just a simple manI like to think of it more along the lines of George being a dad and kicking the UOT out of the house at adulthood. But the UOT found a nice home elsewhere. :)
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.” - The Bearded One
negative1
This user is offline.
negative1none said:
As more tvs ship with 3D capability, eventually a network will want 3D content and guess what franchise is ready to step in to fill the void. The Clone Wars cartoon in 3D is probably an easy jump for LFL to do as well. Box Office numbers are a dwindling portion of LFLs profits:
http://www.wired.com/business/2012/05/tell-jabba-ive-got-his-money-star-wars-revenue-throughout-our-galaxy/
yup, mentioned it here, and you replied
in that thread:
---------
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/star-wars-retail-infographic-showing-money-made-off-star-wars/topic/14285/
zombie84 said:
I followed a link from that wired page. Did anyone see this? It's brilliant.
yup, also mentioned it here:
------
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Happy-35th-Star-Wars/post/580197/#TopicPost580197
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Happy-35th-Star-Wars/post/579589/#TopicPost579589
also, contacted the author via email and told him
about these forums and projects.
later
-1
[no GOUT in CED?-> GOUT CED]
Mike O
This user is offline.
Jedi KnightFang Zei said:
Hell, even George himself said this time around that "it would be too expensive" to properly restore and remaster the OOT. I think he knows the excuse that the originals "don't exist anymore" died the moment he put out the GOUT. Not that "it's expensive" is any kind of excuse either, but at least he's not kidding us anymore: it's about money.
What always bugged me about the GOUT was how half-assed it was. If the answer is no, the OOT is never coming out again, then stick to your guns. If the OOT had never been released since 1995, I certainly wouldn't like it, but at least Lucas would have stuck to his principles. Now he just looks like a fool.
I've always maintained that what they should do is release the OOT in a big giant box, fuck you fanboy, you have to buy the SE and the PT too. There is NO PRICE I WILL NOT PAY if the OOT comes out CORRECTLY, remastered and restored properly. But Star Wars isn't a cult property, it's as mainstream as possible, and I reiterate my previous statement that most people will just buy whatever has the brand name on it. The minority don't matter, and clearly Star Wars still clicks with kids, the video games and toys still sell like crazy and they show no signs of slowing down. And unless there's something to put a big enough dent in Star Wars profits to make them think about releasing the OOT, I don't see it happening. And there isn't. I always hoped for a grassroots movement from social media or the idea of that ad in the magazines, but it's all for naught, we're just a drop of water in the ocean.
http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=169370
We must save Gargoyles!
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one."
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
msycamore
This user is offline.
zombie84 said:
I dont really agree with his criticism of either trilogies, I was more impressed by his dose of reality: the 35th anniversary of Star Wars is really the 15th anniversary of the SE. Star Wars never had a 35th anniversary because it died at age 19.
Not even that, even though we try to forget, we all remember this fella:

Not only a weak and completely unnecessary scene but probably one of the worst CGI creations ever put on film. The current Star Wars is actually only a few months old.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
evan1975
This user is offline.
Only a master of evil Darth.It should have been Bib Fortuna that was added instead of Boba Fett.
I didn't like that article's Hamill-bashing. I always felt he's been wrongly maligned. But I suppose that's for another thread.
SilverWook
This user is online.
I am ready for the trials!The sad part is '97 Jabba looks more like this fellow than the original Jedi puppet. ;)

Akwat Kbrana
This user is offline.
Token Linguistics NerdThat looks more like the original Jabba puppet than the '97 DigiJabba does.
"Today I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office." -President Obama
msycamore
This user is offline.
Had the original scene been included in the '77 film, Declan Mulholland would probably just been dubbed by another actor. Would be nice to have the complete original deleted scene in good quality, as Ford's performance in that scene is quite good.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
TV's Frink
This user is offline.
Likes Lens FlairsSilverWook said:
The sad part is '97 Jabba looks more like this fellow than the original Jedi puppet. ;)
He totally wants to butter Jabba's muffin.
Mielr
This user is offline.
Penmanshipevan1975 said:
I didn't like that article's Hamill-bashing. I always felt he's been wrongly maligned. But I suppose that's for another thread.
![]()
R.I.P. "Creamy" 2002(?) - 08/01/2010
SilverWook
This user is online.
I am ready for the trials!They also forgot Mark had a healthy voiceover career before and well after Star Wars. Nobody can touch his Joker!
Not to mention playing Mozart in Amadeus on Broadway.
Bester
This user is offline.
StarkillerHamill is an amazing actor and is hugely under-rated. I can only assume he had a lazy agent in the 80's!
Fan of Gary Kurtz's Star Wars
Mavimao
This user is offline.
Padawan LearnerI also don't understand this Hamill bashing. He managed to take really badly written dialogue ("I was going to the Toshi station to pick up some power converters!") and make it believable - something 2/3rds of the PT cast couldn't manage to do.
What's the internal temperature of a TaunTaun? Luke warm.
msycamore
This user is offline.
I must also agree that what he said in the article was a little too harsh on Hamill's acting ability, but I can sort of see where he's coming from, with the risk of being attacked now, IMO Hamill's performance in Star Wars was kind of mediocre but I definitely don't blame Hamill for it, the lines and the directing is probably the reason for most of it as he delivered a damn solid performance in Empire, truly underrated.
I also think what the writer of the article tried to convey, is that not every single element of that film was completely perfect but it worked beautifully anyway, something Lucas will never understand. The film is just becoming more and more unfinished every time he tinkers with it.
We want you to be aware that we have no plans—now or in the future—to restore the earlier versions.
Sincerely, Lynne Hale publicity@lucasfilm.com
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda
This user is offline.
legendary but little-known Jedi MasterThe more he tinkers with it, the more it exposes the flaws. I've always believed that SW was a great film primarily because of the masterful editing. The more changes, the more it upsets the original editing that turned a mish-mash of potentially corny scenes into a perfectly paced masterpiece.
I remember reading somewhere that the editors chose to edit based on the performances rather than on the original planned timings. That may be why the performances seem so good in the original, and get gradually worse as Lucas re-edits around his ideas, rather than around the performances.
DuracellEnergizer
This user is offline.
Summer of 69erBashing Hamill's acting ability is the "in" thing to do, don'tcha know?

My Heather Langenkamp avatar has decided to go on an extended vacation and may not be back for sometime. Not to worry, though, for she will be back - eventually.
georgec
This user is offline.
Just a simple manThe actors were just doing what they were told.
"Faster. More Intense."
LOL.
“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.” - The Bearded One
evan1975
This user is offline.
Only a master of evil Darth.DuracellEnergizer said:
Bashing Hamill's acting ability is the "in" thing to do, don'tcha know?
It has been for a while. But I'm surprised people are still saying this. The prequels proved that George's writing & directing can make anyone look bad. The young actors (like Hamill, Portman) especially suffered. I imagine George never pulled his "faster/intense" crap on older vets like Guiness.
Criticism of Hamill usually boils down to these two things. Here's what I say whenever I hear them.
1.) "That Tosche station line sucked!"
Well who do you think wrote it? Who do you think commanded his actors to blurt out every line fast and intense? Because what's on screen is the result of that.
2.) "Hamill's career didn't go nowhere after Star Wars! That means he's a bad actor!"
No, and no. He's had a great career as a voice actor. A bad actor would not be able to cut it in that field.
Also, he was typecast as Luke Skywalker and thus lost jobs for it like the movie Amadeus. Lots of actors suffer this prejudice and it has nothing to do with their acting ability.