slask

You did here. Now stop being childish and let the others talk.

TV's Frink said:

People who understand the art of the written word call it a "contribution."  You're welcome.

I bet you can also write in perfect Italian without mistakes ;)

Anyway, you got the point. Or at least I hope so.

TV's Frink said:

slask said:

-mistake-

 You could probably just edit most of your posts to say this...

And you could probably try a comedian career instead of adding this "contribute" to the discussion.

SilverWook said:

You can make the argument that Lucas co-directed Jedi, but not Empire.

Fair enough, we weren't arguing about Empire, but for Jedi Marquand was a mere executor.

Yes, you are absolutely right. I'm totally wrong.

Now stop it.

@imperialscum: here we are!

@Frank your Majesty: These are all things you are saying, not me. I didn't call you stupid, I didn't say everyone must agree with my opinion, or must like what I like.
Calm down and just..  ignore me, there's no way we can discuss if you keep on misunderstanding every single comment I write.

-mistake-

SilverWook said:

I'm aware of one small sequence Lucas shot for Empire, as documented in the original making of paperback. (I have not read the more recent book yet.) Lucas helping out behind the camera was out of trying to keep the production on schedule, not from any failings of Kershner.

I would imagine there was a similar situation on the Jedi set.

Shooting second unit does not make one the director of a film.

 I suppose Lucas work was more prominent on Jedi..... 

crissrudd4554 said:

I think true fans know what should be out there and whether a day will come where all fans are satisfied is questionable and probably always will be.

 SW fans will never be satisfied.

Ten years passed and still prequel trilogy is ignored or considered irrelevant by fans.

@Adywan: Well, I'd say Return of the Jedi is a Lucas movie too. Marquand was not a talented director, and while mr. Kershner was experienced enough to make a movie without any interference or support, it is known that Lucas had to shoot some scenes of SW VI himself and edit the movie.

However, most of the additions in Empire for example show what kind of technology/shots Lucas wanted to use. I'm not judging the result (which by the way to me is fine), I'm saying that his reason is understandable...

And technically it's not correct to say that usually we get original versions alongside director's cuts. Most of the time it's the opposite, or at least it's been this way for decades. Many movies were released for home-video in theatrical cuts, and sometimes, maybe after years, we were lucky to get special editions with a new cut included. Now "combos" are spreading more and more, and we see lots of blu-rays with 2 or 3 versions of the same movie, but it's a recent trend.

"If Lucas had just kept them as special editions and not tried to bury the originals, then you can bet the hatred towards those films wouldn't be half as bad as it is now." Which is precisely what i'm saying...   i'm definitely sure not everyone who watched the SE really thinks they suck. Many just love the older versions too much.

Which is, if you think about it, the same exact situation of the prequels.

@Frank your Majesty: spare me these monologues, please. I'm not in love with your oratory as you are.

You and towne32 are buddies? just wondering...    samen level of understanding, same fanboy hate..

finally!

Some good sense here :)

Frank your Majesty said:

Coming to a site called originaltrilogy.com.

Being offended when most people prefer the original trilogy.

Nobody thought that this could happen.

 Who's offended? I like original trilogy too, I bought the 2006 limited dvds and I'm proud of that part of the collection...

What "offends" me are nonsense comments like towne32 ones, who's evidently having a conversation with himself, because he didn't understand a thing of what I said.  And he thinks he's funny too...

FrankT said:

But don't you see? Movies don't change with the times. They can't! You can't just put new stuff on top of a 20-year-old movie and hope people will just roll with it, that's not how it works! (Cleaning up matte lines is an exception, to a degree.)

 Blade Runner changed, and guess what: many people prefer the Final Cut over the theatrical.

In cases like these we're not talking about simple upgrades, we're talking about director's cut. Lucas and Scott couldn't achieve what they wanted back when they shot those movies; producers interference, budget limitations, underdeveloped technology, these are some of the reasons.

If you complain about SW SE, you should hate every director's cut done. The principle at the base of the SE is the same.

I'm not defending every single shot Lucas changed, but many of them were conceived that way from the beginning. He just used renewed technology to fix things he couldn't fix originally (but always wanted to).
I can't see why this raises so much hatred towards him, except for personal tastes. It's his movie, he has the right to change it if he feels the need, just like every other director did when he got the chance to create a new cut for his work.

If you want to grumble for serious things, be honest and just say that it wasn't fair to release special editions only; I agree with that, that's Lucas true mistake (while Scott for example got it right, with the 30th anniversary blu-ray).

Baronlando said:

 Why do you care if anybody notices anything? You've got the movie the way you like it, you can pop it in the player any time you want. What is this compulsion to lecture people like an unwanted Jehovah's Witness on the porch. 

 Ohh, I feel so sorry if I'm the only one who doesn't hate the SE in this TC fanboy group...    I think religious definitions would work for you as well.

towne32 said:

Like I said, you are a fan of 1997 effects, which are outdated. Every single effect needs to be made in the current era, or you too are stuck in the past.

If you think there are no 1997 effects in the 2011 versions, I don't think you are familiar enough with these films to hold an intelligent conversation.

I don't think you can read my comments, therefore I'm sick of repeting myself with someone who clearly doesn't (want to) understand.

Still...  no. 1997 effects were improved, and other changes were made, in 2011.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Because everything has to be constantly updated to stay "modern" and "kewl" so as to measure up to the ever-diminishing standards of whatever age happens to be "modern" and "kewl" at the moment.

I guess by 3415, the OT will have to receive ultraviolet colour grading ('cause we'll have genetically modified ourselves to see ultraviolet light), all the female characters will have to have digital mustaches painted onto their faces ('cause it will be fashionable for women to wear mustaches in the 3400s), and new scenes with Han and Chewie in an interspecies romance will have to be shot and inserted into the existing footage ('cause not only will we have made first contact with aliens by this time, we'll have taken to screwing them as well).

 I didn't say everything has to be updated. But many of those changes work well, and if you're not hyper-nostalgic you can notice that.

towne32 said:

Slask and his TFN comrades are as much stuck in 1997 as we are in 1977, then. Unless you count a Jabba model constructed in ~1999 and a couple seconds of a Dug.

 Nope. I don't like 1997 versions.

fandom's vision is not lazy, it's stuck in time, and that's worse.

FrankT said:

slask said:

Anakin's real look in his 40s is the one we see when Luke removes the helmet. His ghost had an unreal appearence, so Lucas decided to show him as he appeared last time he was by the light side.

A vast oversight on his behalf, because the last time he was alive (on either side) he looked like Sebastian Shaw, and Obi-Wan and Yoda's ghosts look exactly as they did when they died. And don't tell me "he metaphorically died when he turned to the dark side" - again, he looked like Sebastian Shaw when he redeemed himself - see what I'm saying?

 It's not about metaphors. The only ghosts we see in the saga are the ones of light side Jedi. "Old Shaw" was not a Jedi, not anymore.

The trouble with that change in the '04 is Lucas's lazyness. Instead of putting Christensen's head from an unused take on Shaw's body, he could have had him playing the part specifically for that scene. It would have been much better.

doubleofive said:

slask said:

Anakin's real look in his 40s is the one we see when Luke removes the helmet. His ghost had an unreal appearence, so Lucas decided to show him as he appeared last time he was by the light side.

30 years after the fact. Makes sense to me.

/sarcasm

19 years actually.
And yes, it doesn't matter how much time.

Anakin's real look in his 40s is the one we see when Luke removes the helmet. His ghost had an unreal appearence, so Lucas decided to show him as he appeared last time he was by the light side.

oh God..   again, it's perfectly logic that Anakin has that look, he has never aged "that" way you see in the theatrical feature..

Harmy said:

No, we live in a world where the people who worked on the '97 SE read the books. If Corucsant in the '97SE was already a PT reference, then why did they have to alter it in 2004 to make it a PT reference?

 I doubt in '97 the look of the city (better, of the Jedi temple and the Senate) was completed or definitive. They were added to make it more recognizable.

I guess you live in a world where everyone's read SW books. How naive.

I'm leaving, there's no way to find some good sense or logic here.
Let mr. imperialscum teach all of you about wisdom, he did a perfect job with his remarkable objective opinions...................

Imperial capital was not known by the general public, just by sw hardcore fans.

That shot is a prelude to what we would have seen in the PT.

TV's Frink said:

Again, the PT didn't exist in 1997.  If anything, you could say the PT made some references to the 97 SE.  It wouldn't make much sense to say that, but it makes even less sense to say it the other way around.

 What some of you fail to understand is that in 1997 ep. I WAS in production...     why on earth would Lucas include a shot of Coruscant, a city never mentioned in the OT, if not for a link to the prequels??

It's obvious, it was included because within 2 years people would have known Coruscant.

imperialscum said:

Exactly. There are no PT references in 1997 SE.

Also imperial capital city appeared in Dark Forces in 1995.

All that stuff is not canon, so yes, there are PT references.