logo Sign In

Here's my stance — Page 6

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
why does the OT defy comparison to any other revised work? ...
Close Encounters: Columbia released a "Special Edition" not too long after the film's original 1977 release. I think this was 1980 or so. Correct me if I'm wrong

You are correct about the year. But let's look into a better analogy than Lucas vs. Tolkien ... i.e., Lucas vs. Spielberg.

Something very close to the original 1977 version of Star Wars was just released on DVD. It has audio that is not original in some respects, and it's not up to modern standards of picture quality or animorphic presentation. Lucas has a "special edition" of this film which he prefers and has released the original version in less than optimal condition.

Spielberg has NEVER released the original 1977 version of Close Encounters on any sort of home video. Not VHS, not laserdisc*, and not DVD. (*The Criterion laserdisc that claimed to be 1977 original was not). Spielberg has said he disliked the 1980 "special edition" of CE3K, which was a compromise with Columbia Studios, and that his preferred version is a "directors cut" released in the late 90's. To my knowledge, he has never said he doesn't want the original to exist ... but it simply does not exist. Two very important scenes have not been seen by the public since 1978, when the original went out of theatrical release.

I don't know if the footage has been lost or what. But how can we give Steven Spielberg a pass when we want to hang George Lucas in efigy? Lucas' quote about the original Star Wars and O.T. is repulsive, but his actions in releasing even a substandard version of the O.T. and his 1977 masterpiece are immeasurably better than ZERO release of Spielberg's 1977 masterpiece.


I trust we are comparing apples and apples now, and there will be no more red herrings about books vs. films when it comes to artistic revisionism.

So what about it? Spielberg and Lucas. How come Steven gets no flak, while George should be "hit by a car?"



.


Maybe because at the very least, Spielberg has many a masteroice to his name, whereas Lucas has made since then 1977 of merit. You're absolutely right; Spielberg shouldn't get a pass. But he also doesn't insult the fans and I think that if someone volunteered to restore it like Robert A. Harris did with the OOT, Steve would allow it (thoug I could of course be wrong). Plus, the OT was changed 20 years later and has unprecedented meaning to countless people. Close Encounters was altered shortly after its release, and not that many people saw the original. Do any of these things excuse Speilberg? ABSOLUTELY NOT. But the circumstances are a bit different. I at least understand and respect Speilberg's motive, even if I don't agree with it. Lucas has been undergoing flak for a long time and still turning a blind eye. With Lucas, we can unequivally prove that the OOT can be restored. Maybe the Close Encounters scences really don't exist. Again, THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE HIM. But its easier to see his point of view, and he isn't changing something that someone else directed. Should he be criticized for not making the original available? ABSOLUTELY. Should he release it? ABSOLUTELY. But lets work on Lucas first . CEO3K might get a future release and be fixed. Sure, it'd fight for it. But lets save the OOT too.

“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

Author
Time
Post link
The current Close Encounters disc is just the 97 laserdisc set with a new transfer. I don't know how well it sold. There has to be demand, like any movie. Sony has to want to do it and Spielberg has to supervise it. I don't think he has ever ruled out an "ultimate" set with all the versions. What was different on the criterion laser? I've read conflicting things.
Author
Time
Post link
Oh, hahaha, yeah that's why I just edited out the double-post part.


But, um, it was there, and Gaffer Tape is not a raving lunatic.





(Oh, and I'll cut Spielberg some slack for releasing the original version of E.T. along with his director's cut, but he is on the top of my despised revisionist list for not doing the same with Close Encounters. It boggles my mind. He wrote the film as well as directed it; you'd think he'd treat it with a little more respect. Bah.)


Edited to add: I cannot let the remark pass that Close Encounters was not seen by that many people on its intial release. It may not have been as huge a hit as Star Wars, but it was one of 1977's biggest hit movies - seen by millions.
Author
Time
Post link
You know, I almost added in my last post that somebody would say something about the amount of time in between CE3K's changes and Star Wars's changes. Uncanny.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Oh, hahaha, yeah that's why I just edited out the double-post part.


But, um, it was there, and Gaffer Tape is not a raving lunatic.


Okay, now I'll have to double post and say that, as I was writing that "lunatic" post, I thought it would be funny if you went back and altered that part out, and how similar it would read to the change in The Hobbit, where there is an answer for a mistake that no longer occurs. And you played right into that. ^_~

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
Ugh - Go-Mer - you've gone too far ... even for you.

Presented with direct evidence that Lucas is lying about the title for Star Wars (yes, the fact that "A New Hope" NEVER appeared on ANYTHING prior to the release of the movie is very good evidence) ... you just come out with even more ridiculous bullshit about your hero-god.


I have tried my best to defend your right to offer up contrary opinions, even when you do so in the most annoying, every-other-post manner.


But now I must join the growing chorus who can only chant "Fuck Off" and "Go Away.".
I am sorry but you still haven't explained how the lack of "A NEW HOPE" on that other stuff proves he is lying. Sure if it had A New Hope written on that stuff it would have bolstered his claim, but the lack of it certainly doesn't disprove it.

You guys have it all worked out that Lucas is a pathological liar, but all you guys have is circumstantial evidence (unless I somehow didn't see the direct evidence that was posted). That may be enough for you, but I need proof to accuse someone of lying.

Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: casualimp
I just wanted to apologise for the trolling post. It was immature of me, but was also the first one I have done. I love the OT and was quick to sign the petition when it was still up. In all honesty, I wanted to time to see how quickly Gomer would answer. I'm confident we'll get an OT release to our liking someday, I'm just fearing this board it turning more towards fanatic than fan.


So is that your opinion or isn't it? You're entitled to it, just understand how much the OOT and how important it is for some people. No one is saying that Lucas can't do this, just that we want to watch the original is high quality. Is it our right? Sort of, there are all kinds of arguments. But get a high quality OOT release would solve the whole thing. You pose a good point. I'm not saying that the trilogy is mine. But I do think that the people who want to preserve it have a valid point.

“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

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
What was different on the criterion laser? I've read conflicting things.

The Criterion laserdisc has an effects shot that was added in for the special edition (the shadow of a UFO passing over Neary's truck), and the special edition versions of the first encounter on "Crescendo Summit" and the escape from the military helicopter at the Army Base on Devil's Tower. In addition to these minor gaffes, two entire (though small) scenes are missing.

The first is a scene at the Neary house just before Roy and Ronnie go to the Air Force press conference. The scene reveals that Roy has turned his hobby room into a UFO shrine ... with cut-out articles hung all over the place. He's also built a rather prominent model mountain in the middle of his miniature train layout.

The other scene is the lead-in to the famous Mashed Potatos scene. Roy is at his model train layout, furiously carving grooves into his model mountain. In the prior scene, the audience has seen a topographical map of Devil's Tower ... and the suspense is great as Roy is on to the fact that ridges must be carved, but is oblivous to the main solution .... the flat top that has not been featured in any of his prior mountain visions.

The Studio insisted that Roy's obsession with the mountain visions be practically excised from the film. So these two scenes were cut, as well as an ending of an earlier scene where he sees the shape in a pillow.

But, as the film exists now in all incarnations ... we never know that Roy is building a miniature mountain in his train layout until AFTER we see him sculpting the mashed potatoes at the dinner table. It's still a funny moment, because it's a silly thing to do. But the real joke is completely lost. The actual joke is that Roy can't stop himself from sculpting that mountain. He's compelled, he's obsessed, he's lost it. But if you don't see him do any mountain-sculpting until that point, one of the best jokes in Spielberg's film is lost ... along with two scenes that are very important to Roy's obsession ... the main feature of the film's middle third, that the Studio simply didn't like.

Apparently, they didn't want any humor in the film, as the other hysterical sequence of Roy tearing up the yard for building materials was also cut out of the Special Edition.

Wiser heads subsquently prevailed, and that scene was restored (along with the pillow and many other cuts) ... but the two scenes of Roy sculting his miniature mountain have never been seen again.




P.S. - there's also a Jabba analogy to Spielberg's CE3K revisionism: There still remains in all cuts of Close Encounters the scene of the ship stranded in the desert ... which conveys EXACTLY the same information to the audience that the film's opening did, i.e., airplanes stranded in the desert. If that's not the analog of the Jabba and Greedo scenes in Star Wars, I don't know what is.

Author
Time
Post link
Interesting! Thanks dude. Do you have a bootleg of the true 77 version? (or just a good memory?)
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
For the last time, people, if you're against changes being made in movies (or any type of art) be consistent!

I should mention, by the way, that I'm with Gaffer on this. Once a movie is released in the theater, it should be done. It enters the public domain at that point. I'm against any directors going back and CGIing in new footage, cleaning up shots, editing out mistakes, etc.

I bash on Lucas because he can't seem to stop doing it and he constantly lies about why he keeps doing it.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Ah, I wish I had a bootleg!!!! I've been looking for those scenes for a quarter-century. Nope, it's just that my memory is good ... easy enough for a movie I'd seen dozens of times.


Heheh, in fact ... in November and December of 1978, there was a multiplex on Long Island playing both Star Wars and Close Encounters and I'd sit through a (stolen) double feature of both, like 3 or 4 nights a week. It was 18-year-old fanboy heaven.

It was near the end of the runs for both those films. Star Wars had been in release for a year-and-a-half, and Close Encounters for over a year. Try to picture that happening with any film nowadays. Of course, there was no DVD release coming up, or even a VHS one. But all films did not remain in theaters for over a year. Close Encounters was a huge hit movie, and it was seen in its original form by millions of people.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

But how can we give Steven Spielberg a pass when we want to hang George Lucas in efigy?

I don't give him a pass. In E.T., he edited out the police officers' guns and replaced them with walkie-talkies. That's as bad as some of Lucas' changes. It's also not nearly as realistic as it used to be. If there's ever a time when a being from another planet is messing around with our children - the cops will be armed with guns - not talking to each other on two-way radios. It weakened that scene.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Anchorhead
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen

But how can we give Steven Spielberg a pass when we want to hang George Lucas in efigy?

I don't give him a pass. In E.T., he edited out the police officers' guns and replaced them with walkie-talkies. That's as bad as some of Lucas' changes. It's also not nearly as realistic as it used to be. If there's ever a time when a being from another planet is messing around with our children - the cops will be armed with guns - not talking to each other on two-way radios. It weakened that scene.


Yes, but Spielberg allowed people to watch a high-quality version of the original. That's the difference. Hypocritial, though, after having made Saving Private Ryan.

“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

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Because that's apparently the way it is around here lately. Only George is the devil. Everybody else has "legitimate" reasons or "inoffensive" changes that "actually improve" the movie, while George's changes are horrible and wrong because of our subjective stance and love for Star Wars.

Just wait. Within five minutes, somebody's going to post something in Spielberg's defense about E.T., which is always the same defense. For the last time, people, if you're against changes being made in movies (or any type of art) be consistent! You can't just say one man's changes suck simply because you think they suck. A change is a change is a change, and if you don't like one of them based on that principle, you can't seriously be in favor of others.


Yes, the changes in E.T. sucked. Sucked hard. But Spielberg did give fans an extremely good version of the original on DVD, so in my book, he gets a pass on that one. Close Encounters, I really don't know what to say about, having never seen the film, but if he hasn't ever released the theatrical version, he certainly should.

I don't think that Lucas is the only one at fault for changing his films. Why I think he's worse then all the others is that he does it once every few years, and then feeds us bullshit about "it was always this way" and then releases them on DVD a million fricking times. When he finally did release the original theatrical versions, he did it in a low quality way as a "Fuck you" to OOT fans. Lucas is much worse then Spielberg in my book, even though they both change thier films. Spielberg does respect his fans, and if he ever does release the original version of CE3K, you can bet your ass it'll be high quality.

In the end, yes, changes are changes, but I'm really okay with directors altering thier films, as long as they release the original version in a high quality way, and don't disrespect the fans constantly. It gets ridiculous when directors constantly alter thier films like Lucas and then double dip like crazy. Peter Jackson altered LOTR for DVD with the Extended Edition, but released both versions in high quality and let the public decide which version to watch. In my opinion, his changes (additions) were vast improvments. If the Star Wars special editions had actually enhanced the films, I'd watch those, but yes, I'd still want the original unaltured versions preserved.

I'm not saying that only George is the devil for changing his films, but he is to an extent for the way he treats the films and his fans.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Because that's apparently the way it is around here lately. Only George is the devil. Everybody else has "legitimate" reasons or "inoffensive" changes that "actually improve" the movie, while George's changes are horrible and wrong because of our subjective stance and love for Star Wars.

Just wait. Within five minutes, somebody's going to post something in Spielberg's defense about E.T., which is always the same defense. For the last time, people, if you're against changes being made in movies (or any type of art) be consistent! You can't just say one man's changes suck simply because you think they suck. A change is a change is a change, and if you don't like one of them based on that principle, you can't seriously be in favor of others.


Yes, the changes in E.T. sucked. Sucked hard. But Spielberg did give fans an extremely good version of the original on DVD, so in my book, he gets a pass on that one. Close Encounters, I really don't know what to say about, having never seen the film, but if he hasn't ever released the theatrical version, he certainly should.

I don't think that Lucas is the only one at fault for changing his films. Why I think he's worse then all the others is that he does it once every few years, and then feeds us bullshit about "it was always this way" and then releases them on DVD a million fricking times. When he finally did release the original theatrical versions, he did it in a low quality way as a "Fuck you" to OOT fans. Lucas is much worse then Spielberg in my book, even though they both change thier films. Spielberg does respect his fans, and if he ever does release the original version of CE3K, you can bet your ass it'll be high quality.

In the end, yes, changes are changes, but I'm really okay with directors altering thier films, as long as they release the original version in a high quality way, and don't disrespect the fans constantly. It gets ridiculous when directors constantly alter thier films like Lucas and then double dip like crazy. Peter Jackson altered LOTR for DVD with the Extended Edition, but released both versions in high quality and let the public decide which version to watch. In my opinion, his changes (additions) were vast improvments. If the Star Wars special editions had actually enhanced the films, I'd watch those, but yes, I'd still want the original unaltured versions preserved.

I'm not saying that only George is the devil for changing his films, but he is to an extent for the way he treats the films and his fans.


Well, in some cases, the changes made actually improve something (Blade Runner, pssoibly the Donner Cut, LOTR), to say nothing of the fact that those changes were made from already existing elements and not added later on. But you are 100% correct, if they don't make the original availaible, then they are just as liable fro criticism as George. But as long as I have the original version in high-quality, then I don't care. Once I get a high quality OOT DVD release, what difference does it make? Sure Lucas's changes would be stupid in my mind, but I'd have what wanted.

“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

Author
Time
Post link
And I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I loathe Lucas for his unique brand of revisionism.



But I still maintain that even a substandard version of his famous 1977 film is better than no version at all of somebody else's famous 1977 film.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mike O
Well, in some cases, the changes made actually improve something (Blade Runner, pssoibly the Donner Cut, LOTR), to say nothing of the fact that those changes were made from already existing elements and not added later on.

This is way off topic, but I'd like to mention that I think Blade Runner is a good example of a movie which is better than the written story it is based on. (For those of you who don't know, Blade Runner is based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, a story by Philip K. Dick.)
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth_Evil
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Because that's apparently the way it is around here lately. Only George is the devil. Everybody else has "legitimate" reasons or "inoffensive" changes that "actually improve" the movie, while George's changes are horrible and wrong because of our subjective stance and love for Star Wars.

Just wait. Within five minutes, somebody's going to post something in Spielberg's defense about E.T., which is always the same defense. For the last time, people, if you're against changes being made in movies (or any type of art) be consistent! You can't just say one man's changes suck simply because you think they suck. A change is a change is a change, and if you don't like one of them based on that principle, you can't seriously be in favor of others.


Yes, the changes in E.T. sucked. Sucked hard. But Spielberg did give fans an extremely good version of the original on DVD, so in my book, he gets a pass on that one. Close Encounters, I really don't know what to say about, having never seen the film, but if he hasn't ever released the theatrical version, he certainly should.

I don't think that Lucas is the only one at fault for changing his films. Why I think he's worse then all the others is that he does it once every few years, and then feeds us bullshit about "it was always this way" and then releases them on DVD a million fricking times. When he finally did release the original theatrical versions, he did it in a low quality way as a "Fuck you" to OOT fans. Lucas is much worse then Spielberg in my book, even though they both change thier films. Spielberg does respect his fans, and if he ever does release the original version of CE3K, you can bet your ass it'll be high quality.

In the end, yes, changes are changes, but I'm really okay with directors altering thier films, as long as they release the original version in a high quality way, and don't disrespect the fans constantly. It gets ridiculous when directors constantly alter thier films like Lucas and then double dip like crazy. Peter Jackson altered LOTR for DVD with the Extended Edition, but released both versions in high quality and let the public decide which version to watch. In my opinion, his changes (additions) were vast improvments. If the Star Wars special editions had actually enhanced the films, I'd watch those, but yes, I'd still want the original unaltured versions preserved.

I'm not saying that only George is the devil for changing his films, but he is to an extent for the way he treats the films and his fans.


Well said.

Lucas is the most obsessive filmmaker I've ever seen in my life up to this point. Every time he markets the dvds as the final version he always wanted, it's pure bullshit. That's why I'll never buy another starwars movie from him ever again.

He big in nothing important in good elephant.

"Miss you, I will, Original Trilogy..."

"Your midichlorians are weak, Old man." -Darth Vader 2007 super deluxe extra special dipped in chocolate sauce edition.

http://prequelsstink.ytmnd.com/
Author
Time
Post link
hmmmm, well, my whole point with the CE3K analogy was that the dvd is Spielberg's Director's Cut and does not have any added effects shots from after '77, but it has been a while since I've seen the original version and some people here have very good memories.

Was the original version ever available on vhs? I seem to recall seeing seperate versions, one of them the "special edition," on the vhs rack of a video store way back when. Of course one of them might have been the '97 vhs which is the same as the '01 dvd.
Author
Time
Post link
The original version has never been released for home video, and the Special Edition as well as the Directors Cut feature plenty of effects created after 1977.


So .... I'm sorry if I messed up your point, but you were incorrect about CE3K. Thanks for bringing it up though. It's a much more pointed analogy to Lucas than Tolkien was.
Author
Time
Post link
no problemo

at the very least, there are no changes in the DC that are post-1980, even if they are visual effects changes. After all, the O-OT I grew up on in the early 90's always had "Episode IV A New Hope," so as far as I'm concerned that is the O-OT. I also heard that the "Toschi Station...Power Converters" line was not in one or more of the theatrical releases. Is this true?
Author
Time
Post link
No, that is also not true.


And, with all due respect, what you grew up with hardly makes something the O-O.T. or not. My daughter grew up when the Special Editions were released. Does that make it the O-O.T. as far as she's concerned? Will children born tomorrow consider George's 2008 update the O-O.T?


Your perspective, while valid for yourself, does not make external reality conform to your wishes.

"Episode 4: A New Hope" is not part of the O-O.T.
Author
Time
Post link
They did put that on before showing ESB. Doesn't that count for anything?
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
No Go-Mer, it counts for nothing. It's not original if it was added later. Do you have a problem with the English language as well as your internet social skills?



There are plenty of different "original" versions released nearly simultaneously in 1977. Beru's real voice and Beru's dubbed voice are each original. Close the Blast Doors -or not- are both original. Try to make the precise location appear on the monitor -or not- are both original.


"Episode IV: A New Hope" - added two years later, is NOT ORIGINAL.




Let me know if there's any other words you'd like defined.