logo Sign In

Hey guys, Remember when Star wars had writing like this? — Page 6

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
When Lucas hires and pays for all the talent that "helped" him realize his vision, then it's his "work" to edit in any way he sees fit.

It's too bad Marquand isn't still around, but from most accounts he had very little to do with ROTJ.


It's his in a legal sense only, which is what I was saying. The work that everyone else did during pre-production, production and post-production is their's, not his. According to you, Marquand had little to do with ROTJ. Maybe Lucas should've thought of that before he blatantly gave him the director's credit when Lucas himself was producing the movie. Talk about re-negging on a decision...
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
Look, I like the jagoff prequels, but this is Original Trilogy.com I just want a copy of it that looks as good as Cannonball Run 2. For the love of fuck, Gomer, Randy, Internet Police, can you leave me alone? Please? I'm begging you.


Honestly, how long can you talk about aspect ratios and subtitles being in the wrong place? It's got to get old sometime, isn't a little back-and-forth a bit more interesting?
"Among many things I have to be thankful for are you, the fans. I know that some of you haven't liked every single thing that I've done with the saga, and that you have a strong sense of ownership over all things Star Wars. But take that passion and devotion and channel it into a creative project of your own."
-George Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediRandy
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
Look, I like the jagoff prequels, but this is Original Trilogy.com I just want a copy of it that looks as good as Cannonball Run 2. For the love of fuck, Gomer, Randy, Internet Police, can you leave me alone? Please? I'm begging you.


Honestly, how long can you talk about aspect ratios and subtitles being in the wrong place? It's got to get old sometime, isn't a little back-and-forth a bit more interesting?


Point taken, Randy, but you can't tell me that the treatment the OOT is recieving is fair. As long as you're for a remastering of the OOT, something that did not happen for the 9/12 release, then you have a place here. I'd think the same would go for everyone else on these boards.
Author
Time
Post link
Back and forth is one thing. Argument for the sake of it is another.


Is there really any argument that it would be better for the O.T. to be meticulously restored by current technological standards, and then released anamorphically on DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray? Even accepting that the September release is "ok," would not a pristine release up to 2006 par be "better?" Is there any argument about that?


Ok, further then ... is there any argument that, for historical purposes if nothing else, it would be "better" for Star Wars '77 to be available exactly as it was presented theatrically in 1977? Accepting that later sound-tweaks and subtitles for TV are "ok," would not a full restoration to '77 condition be "better?"


Can we agree on those two items, or is someone going to actually argue that those two things would be worse?


* * * * *

And much as I hate to open the worm can, Go-Mer: can you point me to information about Marquand having little to do with directing Return of the Jedi?
Author
Time
Post link
Did you see Empire of Dreams? I think that's where they talked about how the cast and crew refused to listen to Marquand, and that Lucas ended up doing more than he was originally planning on doing.

Still even if Marquand was as integral to ROTJ as Kershner was to ESB, the fact still remains that Lucas employed all of these people to make his vision into a reality. They helped him hone his idea, but it was still his idea, and in the end, Lucas still commisioned those people to make that for him.

So he owns it in any way you could imagine. The work of the artists he employed belongs to him, and as such he can edit it into his movie in any way he sees fit.

I know a lot of you think that because a lot of us really enjoyed it that it belongs to us now, but that's just not the case.

All we did was enjoy it. Lucas is the guy who made it all happen.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
All we know is during the final month, which was the Crescent City portion (Endor exteriors) Marquand was sort of pushed aside with Lucas and David Tomblin grabbing the shots to get the thing done on time because Marquand was too slow. That may be why that material is visually the dullest in 6 movies. Also, Lucas directed the Vader unmasking on a closed set. Other than that, Frank Oz has stated that Marquand WAS the director, but with a deeply involved producer over his shoulder. You know, like EVERY movie. Yoda's death scene was Marquand's idea (Yoda was already dead in the script and appeared to Luke as a ghost), and Leia and Lando infiltrating the palace in disquise was also Marquand's idea. Lucas also referred to "Richard blocking the duel" while he scrambled to re-write Vader's dialogue, meaning Marquand directed the throne room scene, which is a pretty damn good scene. He also cast Ian McDiarmid, so his contribution ain't nothing.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Did you see Empire of Dreams?


Yes, so Lucas had to be on the set supervising things. This is a lot different than what you said about Marquand having little to do with the movie. Lucas even says on the audio commentary that he was very impressed by Marquand's directorial skills and that he had a very good time working with him.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
So he owns it in any way you could imagine.


This is not that slippery of a slope to walk, Gomer. Lucas's legal ownership of the movies in no way entitles him to alter them and treat them the way he has. Once a movie is released, it is finished. If we're talking about scenes that were shot, finished in every way, even included in the original edit of the movie, but were not included in the theatrical release, that's still a much different situation than Lucas and the SE's and nowhere near as bad.

The special effects added for the SE do scream "20 years later" in regards to the original effects. You still don't seem to realize that, prove to me otherwise.

The way in which the original theatrical vesions have been treated are unjust to our culture. You still don't seem to get that either, prove to me otherwise.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
So he owns it in any way you could imagine.


This is not that slippery of a slope to walk, Gomer. Lucas's legal ownership of the movies in no way entitles him to alter them and treat them the way he has. Once a movie is released, it is finished. If we're talking about scenes that were shot, finished in every way, even included in the original edit of the movie, but were not included in the theatrical release, that's still a much different situation than Lucas and the SE's and nowhere near as bad.

The special effects added for the SE do scream "20 years later" in regards to the original effects. You still don't seem to realize that, prove to me otherwise.

The way in which the original theatrical vesions have been treated are unjust to our culture. You still don't seem to get that either, prove to me otherwise.


Wrong... it's released because the studio says it to be released, not because it's "finished".... it's finished when the person who created it says it's finished... whenever that is, be it the next day or 30 years later.
"Among many things I have to be thankful for are you, the fans. I know that some of you haven't liked every single thing that I've done with the saga, and that you have a strong sense of ownership over all things Star Wars. But take that passion and devotion and channel it into a creative project of your own."
-George Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
All we know is during the final month, which was the Crescent City portion (Endor exteriors) Marquand was sort of pushed aside with Lucas and David Tomblin grabbing the shots to get the thing done on time because Marquand was too slow. That may be why that material is visually the dullest in 6 movies. Also, Lucas directed the Vader unmasking on a closed set. Other than that, Frank Oz has stated that Marquand WAS the director, but with a deeply involved producer over his shoulder. You know, like EVERY movie. Yoda's death scene was Marquand's idea (Yoda was already dead in the script and appeared to Luke as a ghost), and Leia and Lando infiltrating the palace in disquise was also Marquand's idea. Lucas also referred to "Richard blocking the duel" while he scrambled to re-write Vader's dialogue, meaning Marquand directed the throne room scene, which is a pretty damn good scene. He also cast Ian McDiarmid, so his contribution ain't nothing.
Very interesting. I did not know all this.

Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
So he owns it in any way you could imagine.

No, Go-Mer, we've been over this. There's a legitimate and persistant school of thought about public art which holds that it's owned by the public. Many artists ascribe to this school of thought, as well as much of the public. The law of any particular land goes back and forth on this ... sometimes agreeing that public art is publically owned, and sometimes (as currently) holding that public art is title-holder owned.


Yes, Lucas holds title to the Star Wars films. He has exclusive legal rights to use them as toilet paper if he so chooses. But that's hardly owning it any way imaginable.


Another very popular way to imagine ownership of a movie is to ascribe it to the director as the prime filmmaker, and not the producer as the title holder. There are many ways to legitimately imagine ownership of the films by persons other than George Lucas. If you choose not to imagine it any of those ways, that's your perrogative. But don't be so brazen as to broadly state that your way of imagining must be everyone's way.


It's not, Go-Mer.

Author
Time
Post link
Well there is a school of thought subscribed to by people who didn't work on the film who would say that because the film was well loved that it now belongs to them, but I don't know how legimate that is.

We owned whatever it was be bought. If we bought a ticket to a screening we saw a screening, if we buy it on DVD, we get to keep that DVD.

It doesn't give us any say in how the director chooses to further finish his own films.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediRandy
Wrong... it's released because the studio says it to be released, not because it's "finished".... it's finished when the person who created it says it's finished... whenever that is, be it the next day or 30 years later.


First of all, your argument doesn't really apply to the Star Wars movies. Maybe the original film from 1977, but in that case Lucas was still the director and knew the special effects we see in the SE were not even remotely possible at the time. The motion control system developed by John Dykstra was revolutionary, and those extra six months the production was afforded to complete special effects with said motion control system turned into a small miracle. What does Lucas do? He treats it like it means nothing by replacing many of the shots with cgi, barely half-decent cgi for 1997, I might add.

As for the sequels, guess what? Lucas had complete control in every sense over those productions. No one said he "had" to release them in 1980 and 1983, respectively. Did he advertise those movies as "must see half-finished movies?" No, he simply claimed that the movies he knew everyone was dying to see during that time were merely half finished, it just didn't occur to him to tell anyone until 2004.

No self-respecting artist publicly exhibits their work for the first time and then comes back to it year's later claiming that it was "half-finished," and I mean no artist.

So please don't spew that hogwash about "the studio saying it was finished." If that were true than what would you call what millions of people saw back on May 21st, 1980?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
We owned whatever it was be bought. If we bought a ticket to a screening we saw a screening, if we buy it on DVD, we get to keep that DVD.


The only reason I even wanted the 2004 dvd was because of all the extra features and the digital restoration of the movies, not the content of the SE's themselves. Also, Lucas plainly stated that the original versions no longer exist. He lied.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
Originally posted by: JediRandy
Wrong... it's released because the studio says it to be released, not because it's "finished".... it's finished when the person who created it says it's finished... whenever that is, be it the next day or 30 years later.


First of all, your argument doesn't really apply to the Star Wars movies. Maybe the original film from 1977, but in that case Lucas was still the director and knew the special effects we see in the SE were not even remotely possible at the time. The motion control system developed by John Dykstra was revolutionary, and those extra six months the production was afforded to complete special effects with said motion control system turned into a small miracle. What does Lucas do? He treats it like it means nothing by replacing many of the shots with cgi, barely half-decent cgi for 1997, I might add.

As for the sequels, guess what? Lucas had complete control in every sense over those productions. No one said he "had" to release them in 1980 and 1983, respectively. Did he advertise those movies as "must see half-finished movies?" No, he simply claimed that the movies he knew everyone was dying to see during that time were merely half finished, it just didn't occur to him to tell anyone until 2004.

No self-respecting artist publicly exhibits their work for the first time and then comes back to it year's later claiming that it was "half-finished," and I mean no artist.

So please don't spew that hogwash about "the studio saying it was finished." If that were true than what would you call what millions of people saw back on May 21st, 1980?


So just because it was seen publically makes it "finished"? The second that movie played on a screen its done and no longer available to be worked on further? Bullshit. Your arguement is the same crap that people drop when they act like the movies are "theirs".

Furthermore, ESB and ROTJ (and the PT) are distributed by Fox.... Fox is paying for that and still give a solid date that they want/need the movie for distrobution... GL funding the making of the films means nothing to Fox. Fox is still putting money into the movies.

"Among many things I have to be thankful for are you, the fans. I know that some of you haven't liked every single thing that I've done with the saga, and that you have a strong sense of ownership over all things Star Wars. But take that passion and devotion and channel it into a creative project of your own."
-George Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
JediRandy and Go-Mer, would either of you agree that the original, theatrical versions of the original trilogy deserve the respect of a dedicated release? Is a small, substandard-quality "bonus features" disc all that they should ever deserve in your minds? (Since that's what the "creator" wants them to deserve?)

Plus, as Obi pointed out, if George has the complete ethical right to decide when his movies are finished, and what the public adores has no comparable value to that right, then I take it that you wouldn't mind if George used the Star Wars films as a butt wipe and began to enforce that version as the official Star Wars? He "created" the films according to you and, according to your argument, you should love a crap-smeared version if that's what the creator wants you to enjoy. There's no bad move he can make in your minds, even if he were insane, right?


Originally posted by: auximenies

I think you missed my point. I came at them (or, TPM actually) with a biased position. I was planning on enjoying TPM because it was a SW film and I was looking forward to it very much. The difference between me and you was that it didn't take me multiple viewings to realize that I didn't like it. But our points are the same, and contrary to Gomer's assertion. We weren't pre-disposed to disliking TPM. We were pre-disposed to liking it.

Ahh, I see. Sorry about the misunderstanding.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

If he hadn't done his job properly, then nobody would have enjoyed it.


Yes, because if a person enjoys something, that automatically must mean that they are enjoying a "proper" job? That's illogical.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I guess some people were better at meeting him half way than others. He spent almost a decade constantlly working on the prequels, and you guys dismiss them in a few viewings.

It seems to me like Lucas put way more effort into entertaining us than a lot of us put into being entertained.


Yeah, George worked really, really hard on the prequels . . . sure.

Sorry, but I think it can effectively be argued that George did not put as much effort into the prequels. What he mostly had was a plethora of vague, contradictory ideas and an army of artists who were forced to be totally submissive to that lack of energy and vision.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
JediRandy and Go-Mer, would either of you agree that the original, theatrical versions of the original trilogy deserve the respect of a dedicated release? Is a small, substandard-quality "bonus features" disc all that they should ever deserve in your minds? (Since that's what the "creator" wants them to deserve?)

Plus, as Obi pointed out, if George has the complete ethical right to decide when his movies are finished, and what the public adores has no comparable value to that right, then I take it that you wouldn't mind if George used the Star Wars films as a butt wipe and began to enforce that version as the official Star Wars? He "created" the films according to you and, according to your argument, you should love a crap-smeared version if that's what the creator wants you to enjoy. There's no bad move he can make in your minds, even if he were insane, right?


Sure, there should be an "up to date" set available.... I do there that what is available now should be enough to at least quell the Luca$ is a baby-eater, but instead it took it a step further... so who knows.

As for your butt-wiping analogy... way to take is as far as possible to prove your "point"… well played. And save the "there's no bad movie he can make" line.... it's as tired and played out as aspect ratios.




Sorry, but I think it can effectively be argued that George did not put as much effort into the prequels. What he mostly had was a plethora of vague, contradictory ideas and an army of artists who were forced to be totally submissive to that lack of energy and vision.


I can be effectively argued but never effectively proven... think what you want but just because you didn't enjoy the movies doesn't confirm your conspiracy theory.
"Among many things I have to be thankful for are you, the fans. I know that some of you haven't liked every single thing that I've done with the saga, and that you have a strong sense of ownership over all things Star Wars. But take that passion and devotion and channel it into a creative project of your own."
-George Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
I do hope and pray for everyone's sake that Lucas can whip up a newly restored version.

I'm just saying it's up to Lucas to decide.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediRandy
So just because it was seen publically makes it "finished"? The second that movie played on a screen its done and no longer available to be worked on further? Bullshit. Your arguement is the same crap that people drop when they act like the movies are "theirs".

Furthermore, ESB and ROTJ (and the PT) are distributed by Fox.... Fox is paying for that and still give a solid date that they want/need the movie for distrobution... GL funding the making of the films means nothing to Fox. Fox is still putting money into the movies.


I'm not arguing this point at all. What I am saying is that Lucas, because 20th Century Fox signed off all rights to any possible sequels to him, chose to produce the sequels that he did with every intention of getting Fox to release them when it did. Nobody was holding a gun to Lucas's head saying that he even had to make any more movies in the first place. He could've done whatever he wanted for the rest of his career and no one would be able to make another Star Wars movie except with his blessing.

If he's going to speak out on a movie company altering a production by The Three Stooges just because that movie company owns the rights to it, he should practice what he preaches and stop being such a hypocrite.
Author
Time
Post link
He is only against people other than the creators altering the 3 Stooges.

If they were around and wanted to colorize it themselves, he wouldn't have any problem with it.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
Originally posted by: JediRandy
So just because it was seen publically makes it "finished"? The second that movie played on a screen its done and no longer available to be worked on further? Bullshit. Your arguement is the same crap that people drop when they act like the movies are "theirs".

Furthermore, ESB and ROTJ (and the PT) are distributed by Fox.... Fox is paying for that and still give a solid date that they want/need the movie for distrobution... GL funding the making of the films means nothing to Fox. Fox is still putting money into the movies.


I'm not arguing this point at all. What I am saying is that Lucas, because 20th Century Fox signed off all rights to any possible sequels to him, chose to produce the sequels that he did with every intention of getting Fox to release them when it did. Nobody was holding a gun to Lucas's head saying that he even had to make any more movies in the first place. He could've done whatever he wanted for the rest of his career and no one would be able to make another Star Wars movie except with his blessing.

If he's going to speak out on a movie company altering a production by The Three Stooges just because that movie company owns the rights to it, he should practice what he preaches and stop being such a hypocrite.


He’s speaking out against the movie COMPANY posthumously altering the 3 Stooges material… last I checked Luca$ isn’t dead (contrary to some fans wishes) and Fox isn’t inserting Jar Jar into the cantina scene.

COLOSSAL difference…if the 3 stooges were alive and wanted to reshoot a scene, I'm betting GL wouldn't give a shit....


That's the difference you can't seem to grasp.
"Among many things I have to be thankful for are you, the fans. I know that some of you haven't liked every single thing that I've done with the saga, and that you have a strong sense of ownership over all things Star Wars. But take that passion and devotion and channel it into a creative project of your own."
-George Lucas
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
We owned whatever it was be bought. If we bought a ticket to a screening we saw a screening, if we buy it on DVD, we get to keep that DVD.


The only reason I even wanted the 2004 dvd was because of all the extra features and the digital restoration of the movies, not the content of the SE's themselves. Also, Lucas plainly stated that the original versions no longer exist. He lied.
Lucas said they no longer exist to "him". Not that they don't exist. It's a subtle difference, one that means Lucas wasn't lying in this instance.

Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
He is only against people other than the creator's altering the 3 Stooges.

If they were around and wanted to colorize it themselves, he wouldn't have any problem with it.

Oh, you mean just like we're against Lucas for altering the originals just because he produced them and directed one of them? Your argument is null anyway, Gomer, and here's why. Whenever someone works on a movie in any capacity, they expect to be recognized for their work that ends up on screen. When Lucas in his infinite wisdom replaced Latpi Nek with Jedi Rocks, he also removed Annie Arbogast from the credits because her work had now been erased. In an even sloppier move, he deleted Clive Revill from The Empire Strikes Back and neglected to alter the end credits to reflect this. At least he had the sense to stamp "1997" and "2004" on the special edition and dvd releases, respectively. That way, people watching it in the future will know that it is not the original movies they are watching, but an alteration of the originals. This is why it's more important than ever that we get a truly archival release with both the original and altered versions both in good quality.

I really hope those rumors about Lucas altering the movies just so his ex-wife wouldn't get any more royalties aren't true, because if they are it means George really is the bad guy a lot of us have made him out to be.

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
He’s speaking out against the movie COMPANY posthumously altering the 3 Stooges material… last I checked Luca$ isn’t dead (contrary to some fans wishes) and Fox isn’t inserting Jar Jar into the cantina scene.

COLOSSAL difference…if the 3 stooges were alive and wanted to reshoot a scene, I'm betting GL wouldn't give a shit....


That's the difference you can't seem to grasp.


The difference you can't seem to grasp is that, first of all, the three stooges would want their work to be remembered, oh I dunno, as it actually was when they made it and everyone saw it and fell in love with it!!!! They would be self-respecting and not stoop to the level that GL has. How is GL not posthumously altering, for example, Richard Marquand's work? Did he just sit down and make the entire trilogy all by himself? He is the COMPANY!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JediRandy

He’s speaking out against the movie COMPANY posthumously altering the 3 Stooges material… last I checked Luca$ isn’t dead (contrary to some fans wishes) and Fox isn’t inserting Jar Jar into the cantina scene.

COLOSSAL difference…if the 3 stooges were alive and wanted to reshoot a scene, I'm betting GL wouldn't give a shit....


That's the difference you can't seem to grasp.


Interesting interpretation, although it doesn't seem to match the actual quote, where he says that he is upset with the possibility of his children not being able to enjoy the same version of a film as he did. Don't believe he specified under what circumstances, but to have such specific guidelines seems contradictory to the purpose of the original statement, doesn't it?

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: Gaffer Tape
Originally posted by: JediRandy

He’s speaking out against the movie COMPANY posthumously altering the 3 Stooges material… last I checked Luca$ isn’t dead (contrary to some fans wishes) and Fox isn’t inserting Jar Jar into the cantina scene.

COLOSSAL difference…if the 3 stooges were alive and wanted to reshoot a scene, I'm betting GL wouldn't give a shit....


That's the difference you can't seem to grasp.


Interesting interpretation, although it doesn't seem to match the actual quote, where he says that he is upset with the possibility of his children not being able to enjoy the same version of a film as he did. Don't believe he specified under what circumstances, but to have such specific guidelines seems contradictory to the purpose of the original statement, doesn't it?


Link?



"Among many things I have to be thankful for are you, the fans. I know that some of you haven't liked every single thing that I've done with the saga, and that you have a strong sense of ownership over all things Star Wars. But take that passion and devotion and channel it into a creative project of your own."
-George Lucas