We should sue George Lucas. — Page 7

Chewy72 said:

negative1 said:

 

i doubt that if he just restored the films, and released them

without any changes, there would barely have been any interest..

or maybe not as much..

 

later

-1

 

Are you telling me that if Lucas never released the SE in 1997, a whole generation of fans would have missed the boat on what was great about the OT?

 

i'm not telling you anything..

i'm speculating that the renewed interest in the Star Wars trilogy is DUE to the fact

the SE versions came out with great success in revitalizing the interest that had almost

completely died out before that.... are you saying all star wars fans kept up their

interest until 1997?????????????????????????????????? if so, why, when there was

nothing new to look forward to..

 

I don't think you understand what the world 'classics' mean when it comes to a movie sense. Classics live on years and years later, as new generations fall in love with them. The Wizard of Oz was all weekened on TBS/TNT, as it has been since I was growing up, and my nephews and friends kids all love the movie. Did they need to update that movie for it to find a new audience?

The OT would have been just as beloved whether it were released in 1997 or not. Sure it was a great marketing tool to get people talking about SW again, but trust me, kids would have found the movies on.....Home video......Cable TV......and now DVD.

how many people would have gone to see a 'restored' version of the movie in the theater,

it would have been an even more limited run, and maybe just an arthouse showing, who

knows? it was already out on VHS/CED/LASERDISC, so its not like it wasn't available..

and how many people would have bought it just on DVD, if they hadn't seen it in the theaters?

we won't know will we... but apparently there was a HUGE demand after it was shown (SE

versions) in the theaters.... good marketing of course...

I think you need to re-read your original statement, "Without any changes, there would have barely have been any interest." Sorry, but that is as moronic as a statement that I have read on any SW boards, as idiots from TFN say stupid s*** like that.

Or maybe youre a troll, and you've done your job by getting me to respond.....

 

i'll bite....    yeah, sure there would have been the tiny amount of hardcore fans

here, and maybe from the star wars sites... but that's about it.....

what do you think, if miraculously Lucas decides to allow the GOUT, or OOT to be

shown in the theaters again... how many records at the box office would they break?

absolutely none.......................

now show the same movies again in 3-D and at least you can renew the interest

again, and maybe NOT set a box office record, but introduce yet ANOTHER GENERATION

of fans to the movies..

it's all about marketing, and not about art.....sad to say..

later

-1

C3PX said:

Gaffer Tape said:

C3PX said:

rcb said:

since when was jar jar stuck in?

 

Since 2004.

Okay, now, is this really fact?  I thought that was just a fan colloquialism that the screaming gungan at the end of ROTJ was Jar-Jar Binks.  Officially, though, isn't he just a random gungan?

No, I do not believe it has ever been officially stated that it was actually Jar Jar. It was a Gungan who sounds exactly like Jar Jar yelling out "Weeesaaa freeeee" in a very Jar Jar esque manner. So, at the end of the day, does it really make a difference if it was actually Jar Jar, or just another Gungan EXACTLY like him and equally annoying?

 

Haha, thanks for replying.  That gave me a good laugh.  I have to ask, though:  haven't you said you have yet to watch the 2004 editions?

C3PX said:

as for why people revisit things they've done,

why not, it worked in a financial way, and brought

a huge new audience back to the theater that paved

the way for the huge success of the prequels..

It wasn't that the SEs paved the way for the prequels. People had been eagerly awaiting the prequels long before the idea of the SEs were announced. The theatrical rerelease of the original trilogy in 1997 would have been a success regardless of changes. In fact, the TV commercials advertised it as if it were a well loved movie revisiting theaters to be seen on the big screen once again after being confined to tiny television sets for so many years. Why would the ads make the asumption that peopel would be interested in seeing this tired old film on the big screen once again? I knew a lot of people who went to see the films in theaters again and were surprised to see the changes, so obviously they didn't go because of the changes. The changes didn't have to happen, and I even thought they were kind of cool, until we were denied the originals for the sake of the SEs.

 

well you make some good points,

but the SE versions WERE a great idea to try out things that were used later on,

especially from a technology point of view... the use of CG, and compositing were

very good ideas to try out, so WHY NOT try them out with the originals?

besides, most people don't retroactively criticize something after the point,

like we're doing now... you said it yourself, most people didn't mind the changes

then, but only now they don't seem to be needed..

Also the "the changes brought in more dough" argument holds no water in regards to the fresh batch of changes made for the 2004 DVDs, why more changes then? Everybody was eagerly waiting for a DVD release pretty much since the invention of the DVD player, a lot of people didn't care what version they were, they just wanted Star Wars, and a lot of others DIDN'T buy them specifically because they had changes. Even if they had been the 1997s SE I would have been quicker to by them. In fact, I remember I set money aside to go out and buy them the day they were released even though I knew they were only the special editions and not the originals, I was still excited about them. It was when I heard the rumors that they were completely changed once again, including things like Anakin's face and Gungans that I immediately changed my mind about perchasing them. After hearing about how many errors were made in coloring and audio, I realized I made the right choice.

Don't you think a decent quality release should have been a better grab for the hesitant consumer than "oh goody, more changes!"? Can't believe some of you people still defend this crap with such zeal.

well, i don't know the answer to that, because HISTORY has proven the SE releases

were a HUGE success, i don't have hard numbers, but i guess we could do some

research to see how well the new limited editions of star wars (with the originals)

sold compared to the SE versions without them.....

my guess is the limited versions didn't sell as much....

does anyone know? it would be interesting to compare the sales numbers...to

get an idea..

 

i doubt that if he just restored the films, and released them

without any changes, there would barely have been any interest..

or maybe not as much..

 

later

-1

Ah, so that is why there is not a single old movie released on DVD without severe and drastic changes being made to it. Now I get it. I think you are right, I do not think I would have bought that copy of Citizen Kane on DVD had the CG changes no been made to it, effectively changing Rosebud from the name of the sled to the name of a UFO he found crash landed in his backyard as a child. That change vastly improved the film.

Kind of ignorant for someone to come around and say one of the top selling trilogy of movies of all time would have barely had any interest in them had it not been for a bunch of meaningless changes. Complete and utter ignorance...

 

i was actually referring to rereleasing a restored version of the movies in JUST the THEATER,

compared to releasing the SE versions,..... but in the case of most movies with special

effects, sure , why not change things if you have the intent/power to do so (ie. star trek,

blade runner, etc, etc)......

and i stand by my speculation that there would have hardly been any interest in just

watching or buying only the original trilogy by itself, compared to the gimmick of using

the changes made for the SE versions to bring the trilogy up-to-date visually with what

Lucas originally envisioned...

HISTORY has proven that the SE's were a brilliant marketing ploy that succeded on

all financial levels... hard to argue against that.. (but we can try, right?)..

later

-1

Baronlando said:

Come on. Heir to the Empire was the number ONE bestselling book in 1991, the 1995 vhs tapes/lasers were HUGE, plus all the 90s-era toys and comics and games that did big business long before the 1997 rerelease.

it would be nice to quantify what you mean by 'big business', if you want to

be more persuasive....

i'm sure some of the franchise (books/videos/toys) did do well, but nothing compared

to the SE versions of the movies, and prequels -> several hundred million dollars.... *(note, that the re-released versions of the movies made very little money when they came out in theater.... ie: the non-SE versions)...*

think about this.... let's say the SE versions never came out, and the prequels were

cancelled ....

think the Star Wars marketing/goods would be going as strong as it is now? i doubt it..

it's making more now than the originals made combined (check out the stats

at http://www.boxofficemojo.com -> franchises)....

Star Wars had some mindshare before 1997..

but the SE versions put Star Wars back on the Map amongst consumers for

good, and the interest has never waned once since that point in time..

later

-1

negative1 said:

 

but the SE versions put Star Wars back on the Map amongst consumers for

good, and the interest has never waned once since that point in time..

 

later

-1

 

 Negative 1, you keep saying the SE put SW back on the map, in what context?  If you are saying it got the average person talking about SW again, I would agree, but has zero correlation whether a new generation of fans will love the movies.

The Hobbit will be coming out in 2010-2011, by your definition it will put LOTR back on the map.  So, yes people will all be talking about LOTR again alot more then they are now, but in the same respect, new fans will find the LOTR Trilogy in 2008, 2009, because they are great movies.

Now from a marketing view, the SE were a big success, but trust me nobody went to see the new stuff, people went for 2 reason in 1997:

1. Older fans like myself who wanted to see the trilogy one more time and to bring back memories of seeing them as a kid.

2.  Young fans who grew up with them on VHS and young fans who were first being introduced to them, wanting to see them on the big screen for the first time.

Nobody went to them wanting to see the 'CG Jabba' in ANH, or the spruced up effects, people just wanted to see Star Wars again, simply because we loved the movies so much.

Trust me, Lucas could have put out the OOT in 1997 and just said, "The Star Wars Trilogy" is on the big screen one more time, and I guarantee it would have done the same business.

Now lets see how the movies did in theaters in 1997:

Star Wars:  136 million

ESB:  57 million

ROTJ:  45 million

Supposedly ESB is the most beloved by all the diehard SW fans, as that is constantly talked about as the best of the 3 movies.   Why did Star Wars take in more then ESB/ROTJ combined?   Because that is the most appealing of the 3 to a general audience, and that is the movie that started it all.  It had nothing to do with spruced up effects, or new added scenes, it simply was the #1 movie until ET, being put on the big screen again, and everyone wanted to see it.

negative1 said:

besides, most people don't retroactively criticize something after the point,

like we're doing now... you said it yourself, most people didn't mind the changes

then, but only now they don't seem to be needed..

Correction, I believe I said "I" didn't mind the changes, LOTS of people talked about how pointless and stupid they were from the very beginning. And again, get it into your thick little head, this isn't just a bunch of people bitching because they can, you seem to continually say silly and close minded things like "... but only now they don't seem to be needed..." Sure, we think they were not needed, but the BIG DEAL is that BECAUSE of the SE, the OT is thrown away. Name one other movie this has been done to? Just one?

The SE isn't only a director's cut, but now we have a 30 year old movie with 4 year old effects. From a historical standpoint, the situation is a pile of crap. Star Wars was a record breaking history making film, and now we are not even allowed to see it as it was when it made history. Why is this not a problem?

I dunno man, I honestly don't think you can really be this dense. I am pretty sure you are just playing devil's advocate, or that you are just enjoying carrying on these conversations forever just for kicks. Nobody can be told the same things and have the same things explained to them over and over and over and over and over, and still not get it. Nobody is complaining about the SE because the changes were not necessary, the problem lies in the fact that the originals for all practically purposes is not on DVD (unless you count the slightly above youtube quality GOUT, which isn't even watchable let alone enjoyable to watch on most modern TVs. If we had the originals on DVD in some kind of viable quality, then I'd be right there beside you telling the complainers to get over it and just not watch the version they don't like.

@Gaffer, I still have not watched the 2004 SEs, but I have been exposed to the worst of them. I have seen stills of the new Jabba, Luke's color changing blade, Hayden's face pasted over Shaw's, and I think I saw a clip on youtube or somewhere of the new ending sequence to Jedi, and the dub of Boba's voice. But I have yet to actually see all these things in the context of the entire film, or to discover what other fun little surprises lurk between the cracks. And I intend to keep it that way. I am kind of interested in the commentary tracks though, my one and only temptation to watch them...

Baronlando said:

Come on. Heir to the Empire was the number ONE bestselling book in 1991, the 1995 vhs tapes/lasers were HUGE, plus all the 90s-era toys and comics and games that did big business long before the 1997 rerelease.

In a short and concise little post, Baronlando has effectively listed a number of facts that expose -1's bs for exactly what it is, bs. He has no idea what he is talking about, yet he will go on and on and on.

Later.

negative1 said:

you said it yourself, most people didn't mind the changes

then, but only now they don't seem to be needed..

You're really missing the whole point.  It's true I also didn't mind the changes when I first saw them in the theater.  That's because I NEVER DREAMED that they would permanently replace the original, and the Lucas would NEVER restore the original.  Once I found out THAT is what those changes really meant, that they meant that the originals were destroyed, I immediately hated them.  Had I known from the outset that's what they meant, I might have even picketed the local theater.  It's just plain wrong to do that.

I don't mind colorized versions of movies, as long as the original is retained and cared for.

I don't mind "director's cuts", as long as the original is retained and cared for.

I don't mind remakes, as long as the original is retained and cared for.

But don't destroy the original... people will get mad and form forums like this.  And rightly so.  This would be true for any major motion picture, not just SW.

I'd think that someone who bought an original print of STAR WARS would realize the importance of the original original verisons. 

negative1 said:

i'm not telling you anything..

i'm speculating that the renewed interest in the Star Wars trilogy is DUE to the fact

the SE versions came out with great success in revitalizing the interest that had almost

completely died out before that.... are you saying all star wars fans kept up their

interest until 1997?????????????????????????????????? if so, why, when there was

nothing new to look forward to..

how many people would have gone to see a 'restored' version of the movie in the theater,

it would have been an even more limited run, and maybe just an arthouse showing, who

knows? it was already out on VHS/CED/LASERDISC, so its not like it wasn't available..

 

and how many people would have bought it just on DVD, if they hadn't seen it in the theaters?

we won't know will we... but apparently there was a HUGE demand after it was shown (SE

versions) in the theaters.... good marketing of course...   yeah, sure there would have been the tiny amount of hardcore fans

here, and maybe from the star wars sites... but that's about it.....

what do you think, if miraculously Lucas decides to allow the GOUT, or OOT to be

shown in the theaters again... how many records at the box office would they break?

 

absolutely none.......................

 

now show the same movies again in 3-D and at least you can renew the interest

again, and maybe NOT set a box office record, but introduce yet ANOTHER GENERATION

of fans to the movies..

 

it's all about marketing, and not about art.....sad to say..

 

later

-1

 

Ok, well here's something for you. In 1995 my local cinema did a one week classic film season. It was originally supposed to run from Monday until the Friday. I can' t remember all the films that were to be shown but i can remember that ANH was to be shown on the Friday. Each film was to have only 1 showing at 7pm. Now Star Wars received so much interest they decided to give it 2 showings. Tickets sold out in the first couple of days. So they had to put more showings on. again they sold out. in the end they had 5 showings on Friday and added 3 more on the Saturday. all completely sold out. the only film in that week that had packed houses ( and i know because i was dating the assistant manageress at the time). This wasn't a small arthouse cinema either. Now i was able to take my 3 kids to see star wars on the big screen. Even though they had seen it countless times on VHS they still loved seeing it in the cinema.

Now my generation, who had seen Star Wars in 1977 in the cinemas, now had kids and they were taking them to see it. It was evident at the showing i went to see with just how many kids were there. So your argument that only hardcore fans would have gone to see the OT compared to the SE hold no ground based on that. Sure there were the minority that went to see it just to see the changes, but they were probably the same hardcore Star Wars fans that would have gone to see it on the big screen regardless of the changes. Do you really think that the few added changed that were done for the SE is what made Star Wars popular again? Are you sure you lived on this planet in 1997? The buzz wasn't that they were different versions of the films but the fact that Star Wars was getting a wide release showing at the cinema again.

So you think that adding the new shots made it the world wide hit that it became again? Well rubbish. Close encounters, for example, was re-released as a special edition. Its first run in 1978 was successful, its SE release wasn't.  Hell, when i went to see that on its opening day the cinema was almost empty.

My generation were taking their kids, who in turn were going with their friends boosting ticket sales.

It was because it was Star Wars, not because it was a special edition.

Chewy72 said:

negative1 said:

 

but the SE versions put Star Wars back on the Map amongst consumers for

good, and the interest has never waned once since that point in time..

 

later

-1

 

 

Trust me, Lucas could have put out the OOT in 1997 and just said, "The Star Wars Trilogy" is on the big screen one more time, and I guarantee it would have done the same business.

Now lets see how the movies did in theaters in 1997:

Star Wars: 136 million

ESB: 57 million

ROTJ: 45 million

Supposedly ESB is the most beloved by all the diehard SW fans, as that is constantly talked about as the best of the 3 movies. Why did Star Wars take in more then ESB/ROTJ combined? Because that is the most appealing of the 3 to a general audience, and that is the movie that started it all. It had nothing to do with spruced up effects, or new added scenes, it simply was the #1 movie until ET, being put on the big screen again, and everyone wanted to see it.

 

i doubt you could 'guarantee' that re-releasing the movies, they would have the same or more

than the SE versions.... LETS look at HISTORICAL FACT, and not speculate:

======================================

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=starwars.htm

here are the amounts   (gross)   theaters amount opening dates

for the original releases...

=================================================

11     Star Wars (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $15,476,285     1,070     $3,766,803     1,070     8/13/82

12     The Empire Strikes Back (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $13,276,241     1,006     $3,949,478     992     11/19/82

13     Return of the Jedi (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $11,252,123     894     $3,209,056     849     3/29/85

Star Wars was still HUGE at that point in time, and you're telling me that

they would have made more than the SE versions more than a decade later???????????

re-releasing the originals would have been a drop in the bucket, thats why

Lucas was smart in releasing the SE versions to CREATE interest in seeing them again..

once again, nobody seems to acknowlege what a Great idea it was,

or that it was a great test and showcase for the leap in technology that

was to come with the prequels..

look, i know people are all ticked off that they can't get the originals restored in normal

above average quality (duh!)..... but isn't the point of this board to move way beyond

just complaining about it constantly, and actually do something like what adywan has

done?

give the myriads of options (fixing it yourself, fanedits, restorations, g-force GOUT script etc)....

it would be a lot more constructive to act on it, instead of endless complaining, and hoping

that somehow miraculously lucas/lucasfilm/fox will get it into their thick skulls that it needs

to be 'fixed' and re-issued yet again....

yes, lucas made a bad artistic idea to some,

yes lucas ticked off a lot of hardcore fans, i know...

but monetarily, and fanbase-wise, he did the right thing

in creating the SE/the prequels/and the clone wars...

no amount of griping/moaning/complaining will ever change that or history

(barring time travel back, and convincing him NOT to do it)..

later

-1

adywan said:

Do you really think that the few added changed that were done for the SE is what made Star Wars popular again? Are you sure you lived on this planet in 1997?

 

From what I have gathered from -1 comments, he sort of did live on a different planet from you and I, figuratively speaking. He mentioned seeing it as a kid and loving it, then forgetting about it until only recently rediscovering it. I believe his rediscover was post 1997. So he is only looking back on the "historical facts" with box office numbers (which totally do not work that way, with the increased prominence of the cinema from 1977 till present, as well as changes in marketing, when SW was released, the type of licensing and marketing they did with it was pretty much unheard of, today just about everything gets that kind of treatment, the way people way people watch movies and buy related items has changed significantly), comparing box office numbers from the various dates just does tell us much, even while adjusting for inflation, because not only has the value of the currency changed, but so have the culture and the market. 

I don't think -1 experienced the 1997 period as we did. He saw it through the eyes of an outsider who didn't care about Star Wars, and so that is the veil through which he sees it all. Since to him Star Wars died out over that time, he sees it having died out for everyone.

In 1995 a new line of Star Wars figures hit the store shelves. Why is this? What interest should kids have in buying some silly figures? The only decent Star Wars media released around that time to make them interested in figures were a few video games (aimed at older audiences) and a small number of novels (mostly for adults and a few for kids). These figures were not based on the video game characters, not were they based on the books, these new figures were taken directly from the 1977 film. They sold like hotcakes. Why? That was nearly a twenty year old movie, yet ten year olds were rushing to the store and throwing down their hard earned cash (or their parents money) for these toys. If Star Wars was dead, and hardly any interest in it existed, why should these figures have sold? And why should the toy company have quickly expanded their line to include more and more figures, eventually spanning all three films as well as some aspects of the expanded universe, now including numerous ships and playsets, all prior to the 1997 SE, which supposedly revitalized the series. There was also a line of SW micromachines, which came out in 1995 as well, these were also greatly expanded, including a wide range of playsets, again, all before 1997. These things all sold well. Toy lightsabers with sound effects? Pre 1997, sold really well. I was there, I lived it, I saw it. I'd go to the toy store and see the SW figure section practically empty, ask an employee when they would be getting more in, then I would go back on that day to find the shelves packed full of SW things, and wind up nearly empty again a few days later. Before 1997.

Perhaps you did not experience this -1, because you had no interest in these things at that time. You look back and see that sometime around 1997 Star Wars took off again, and assume it must have been the SE.

negative1 said:

HISTORY has proven the SE releases were a HUGE success

So:

TPM did EXTREMELY well in its theatrical run. Therefore HISTORY has proven that it was a success?

That's like saying, I was starving, and then I found a box of moldy old crackers, and it was the BEST MEAL EVAR!

Um...

You guys see that new Star Trek trailer ;)

C3PX said:

adywan said:

Do you really think that the few added changed that were done for the SE is what made Star Wars popular again? Are you sure you lived on this planet in 1997?

 

 

From what I have gathered from -1 comments, he sort of did live on a different planet from you and I, figuratively speaking. He mentioned seeing it as a kid and loving it, then forgetting about it until only recently rediscovering it. I believe his rediscover was post 1997. So he is only looking back on the "historical facts" with box office numbers (which totally do not work that way, with the increased prominence of the cinema from 1977 till present, as well as changes in marketing, when SW was released, the type of licensing and marketing they did with it was pretty much unheard of, today just about everything gets that kind of treatment, the way people way people watch movies and buy related items has changed significantly), comparing box office numbers from the various dates just does tell us much, even while adjusting for inflation, because not only has the value of the currency changed, but so have the culture and the market.

I don't think -1 experienced the 1997 period as we did. He saw it through the eyes of an outsider who didn't care about Star Wars, and so that is the veil through which he sees it all. Since to him Star Wars died out over that time, he sees it having died out for everyone.

 

thanks CP3X, yes, you are correct, i did make some assumptions on viewing the movie,

and during the timeframes you have mentioned...

 

Perhaps you did not experience this -1, because you had no interest in these things at that time. You look back and see that sometime around 1997 Star Wars took off again, and assume it must have been the SE.

 

again you are correct..

i'm sorry if i seemed repetitive, and argumentive... but if knowing my background

helps you understand my viewpoints, then i concede in offering any more observations

at this point...

well done, and i bow to your deductive reasoning..

thanks for the discussions and cordial behaviour... and not being dismissive

without trying to understand my viewpoint..

i wish more discussions on this board were like this..

later

-1

negative1 said:

i doubt you could 'guarantee' that re-releasing the movies, they would have the same or more

than the SE versions.... LETS look at HISTORICAL FACT, and not speculate:

======================================

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=starwars.htm

 

here are the amounts   (gross)   theaters amount opening dates

for the original releases...

=================================================

11     Star Wars (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $15,476,285     1,070     $3,766,803     1,070     8/13/82

12     The Empire Strikes Back (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $13,276,241     1,006     $3,949,478     992     11/19/82

13     Return of the Jedi (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $11,252,123     894     $3,209,056     849     3/29/85

 

Star Wars was still HUGE at that point in time, and you're telling me that

they would have made more than the SE versions more than a decade later???????????

 

re-releasing the originals would have been a drop in the bucket, thats why

Lucas was smart in releasing the SE versions to CREATE interest in seeing them again..

 

 

 

 Now we are talking about 2 different things, what they were called, and why people went to see them in 1997.

Alot of Studios put out endless releases on DVD called:
-Directors Cut

-Extended Edition

-Special Edition

That is a marketing ploy to get peoples interest, so i can't blame Lucas for calling them 'Special Editions' in 1997.  When someone sells something retail, they sell it for $10.99 instead of $11.00, as it seems cheaper to the customer, although it is only a penny.

Now you showed figures from the re-releases in 1982-1985 of the OOT versions, and the reason they did not do huge business, is simply people saw the movies many times in the theater less then 5 years ago at that time.  There was no new audience to bring SW into in 1985, cause essentially my generation who grew up with SW were still kids.

Now fastforward to 1997, it is essentially 14 years after ROTJ, or 12 years after the last re-release, and now you have a whole generation of kids who never saw SW on the big screen.  You also have many nostalgic fans like myself who saw them as a kid, and want to experience that greatness one more time, hopefully appreciating it more as an adult now.  BINGO!!!  You have huge box office numbers. 

Now do you really think people were running to the theaters in 1997 to see CGI Jabba in Star Wars?  Or the new Luke/Biggs scene before the battle of Yavin? 

I have the Trailer for the 1997 SE, and it isn't sold on the changes, although they do mention them at the end.  It starts off by saying, as the screen is configured like a TV, "For a whole generation, SW was only seen this way...."  and then the screen opens up to a movie theater size widescreen with the Star Destroyer at the opening of SW.  It then goes on to say come back to the theater one more time with great characters like Han, Luke, Leia, Darth Vader, Droids, etc.  Then at the end it says, 'and there will be a couple of suprises to,' and you see the opening up of Mos Eisely, and CGI Jabba.

The 1997 Marketing Campaign on the SE was sold as a trip down memory lane, and now it is time to let your kids experience what you experienced in 1977.  So I do agree that 'Special Edition' was a smart marketing move, but trust me, the SE changes were not the reason people went.

Guys, don't knock yourselves out.  -1 has stated previously that Star Wars was just a film that came out in 1977 and is not worthy of being studied by film students, etc.

I still have -1 on my 'ignore' list, but that doesn't also block his quotes in others' posts........

Of course, we know that the success of the Special Editions in 1997 had NOTHING to do with the new CG effects. We realize that an entire generation of people never had the chance to experience the Star Wars Trilogy in a movie theater and THAT is why the Special Editions were successful (coupled with the fact that a bunch of old school SW fans wanted to see them again theatrically and bring their children along for the experience). 

Anyone who thinks that watching a VHS tape on a TV and viewing a 35mm print in a movie theater are comparable experiences has no concept of.........well, anything. LOL.

-1 reminds me of someone who goes to a Corvette enthusiasts' convention, and announces:

"You know, the Corvette wasn't really that big of a deal as sports cars go. Oh and by the way, I just bought a cherry 1967 'vette. But I really don't understand why the rest of you are so into these cars- I mean, it's just a car- just something to get you from point A to point B and plus the '07 'vette is better in so many ways..."

Don't let him get to ya. ;-)