logo Sign In

Censorship of the original films — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Of course you can do it, you can do whatever you want with your version. But then it will never be anything except that, your version.

But you have the chance to do something important, something with a historical purpose. Something greater. To preserve film history. That's a cause that is more "noble", shall we say, than editing someone else's work. The original Star Wars movies are great, and have a place in history. But these edits are just some things that some guys made on their PC's.

To quote Belloq in Raiders of the Lost Ark (defying Indy to blow up the ark):

"We are simply passing through history. This, this *is* history."

See, the OT is the Ark and we have no right to screw with it.

How do you like that, I used Lucas's own words (possibly) against him, yet again.
Author
Time
Post link
Not too shabby there.

That was actually in my signature on TF.n. LOL

"See, the OT is the Ark and we have no right to screw with it."

What we don't have the right to is distributing copies of it, even for free on MySpleen. I suppose this means we should stop that as well, or does your reasoning stop there?

"But then it will never be anything except that, your version.:

To be far - to my knowledge, the Gonzo and TR47 versions don't have such changes, and yet they are still referred to by the names of their makers (or distributor, in TR47's case.)

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Hello

Picasso - All prints of paintings done by Picasso are edits. Every poster or "museum quality" copy is a cleaned up version of the original. Colour-correction, despeckle, and etc were done to make it look better because artifacts were introduced during the duplication procedure. Lest we not forget that restoration is also done to the originals for the sake of perserving them. En total, however, I do not feel that Picasso is a fitting example for this argument because ...

if I control a Picasso I can


...as far as I know, no person on this board has an original print, or even a duplicate of the original film print. We do not control a Lucas, and have no ability to alter a Lucas. We each have in possession a copy or two or three of a mass-produced reproduction. Barring inflated prices on eBay, these mass-produced reproductions are worthless in the grand scheme of the art & film world.

All in all, I think it is safe to assume that none of us control anything of substatial value that would facilitate or deny a Star Wars film archival project of import.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: DanielB
Firstly, all were made from original material. None of the material was digitally tampered with. The one exception to this is the title crawl on ANH which was replaced with something new. However since it was replaced BEFORE the entire trilogy was complete and shown theatrically I'm willing to forgive this.
The only reason the material wasn't digitally altered was because at the time it wasn't economical to do so. Had today's digital technology been as cheap and available to do back then, there is no doubt it would have been done that way. To go even further, had today's digital technology been available back in the 80's, we wouldn't even be talking about this since Original Trilogy preservation and digital transfering wouldn't even be an issue. This web site wouldn't even exist.
Zion, here it is. If you're saying I can't ask you to release your restoration unaltered - then it is hypercritical of you to ask Lucas to do so. I don't care what you say. If Lucas owned a Picasso (yes, I'm going to keep using Picasso) and refused to release prints of it - how do you think the art community would react to you and MebeJedi editing your prints of the painting and then distributing it?

I do not have an original, and prints aren't exactly hard to come by now are they? I am creating something for myself, it's only by chance that you people on this web site get to read about my progress anyway. And besides you, it doesn't look like the community has much of a problem with what I am doing.

Now if I WAS in posession of an original celluloid print of these films, do you honestly think I would release only an altered version of it? Well maybe you do, but the answer would be no. Having something of such prominence would demand it be preserved in an unaltered state. I clearly am not in such a position.
Please see sense.

My Projects:
[Holiday Special Hybrid DVD v2]
[X0 Project]
[Backstroke of the West DVD]
[ROTS Theatrical DVD]

Author
Time
Post link
@consumer_x:

What if the original Picasso was destroyed in a museum fire?

Then wouldn't the truest reproduction be the most important thing to preserve?

I can make this comparison because, as far as GL has indicated, the OT prints are locked away, never to be released again. The LD's are the truest reproductions of how the movies were.

The rest of your argument agrees with this. All the reproductions are made in the pursuit of creating a true copy. It doesn't involve making any changes to the piece. Just clean-ups.


@MBJ: true about the rights to distribute it, but that's a different argument. You didn't really make a point against my Ark thingy.

Yes the other versions are named by their creators, but that's only to us. To the general public, or the "world" they are still the original movies that have been transferred (to varying degrees of success). Edited versions could not be viewed by the "world" as representations of the original films.

@Zion:

That's a terrible argument. If digital technology had existed in 1934 then surely King Kong would have been done digitally. Therefore we should edit King Kong and replace it with the digital version from Peter Jackson's new version....
As cliche as this sounds, that is the exact reason Lucas gave for his 1997 SE's.
Author
Time
Post link
"Picasso - All prints of paintings done by Picasso are edits."

Didn't Picasso paint over the paintings he didn't like, or was that someone else?

"What if the original Picasso was destroyed in a museum fire?
Then wouldn't the truest reproduction be the most important thing to preserve?"

No offense, but we are nowhere near that scenario.

"@MBJ: true about the rights to distribute it, but that's a different argument. You didn't really make a point against my Ark thingy."

Then let me be more blunt, I have the right to do whatever I want with my transfer on my computer. Please point out where your or DanielB's beliefs affect that in any way. Otherwise, this "no right to change it" really doesn't exist except in a legal aspect. You may wish we didn't have the right to change it otherwise, but that doesn't make it real.

"Yes the other versions are named by their creators, but that's only to us. To the general public, or the "world" they are still the original movies that have been transferred (to varying degrees of success). Edited versions could not be viewed by the "world" as representations of the original films."

That reasoning hasn't stopped the SW DVD's from breaking sale records.

"That's a terrible argument. If digital technology had existed in 1934 then surely King Kong would have been done digitally. Therefore we should edit King Kong and replace it with the digital version from Peter Jackson's new version....
As cliche as this sounds, that is the exact reason Lucas gave for his 1997 SE's."

Just because it can, doesn't mean it should or would. Spielburg doesn't want digital cameras, and many directors/effects shops still prefer models and physical effects over CG. Not everyone is Lucas.

Then again, the technology Lucas used at the time was groundbreaking and highly experimental. He even built computers to control the cameras! Nonetheless, I don't see anyone here complaining about that!

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Zion:

Your augment is mute. You are asking Lucas to release his work unaltered. Let's - for augments sake - say "his work" refers to an important artistic painting, such as a Picasso. We're not talking about filters run over it to improve the quality of the photo-shot (because, let's face it when photographing painting for printing you do need to run scratch and dust removal templates - but that's hardly the scope of what I'm talking about here, which is deliberate change such as physically painting over Picasso's work).

Lucas won't release his work that he controls unedited. He has physically painted over the original Picasso painting. While it could be cleaned and restored back to its previous state, since Lucas controls it that is how it now is. He's changed a few details that bothered him. Now let's say that limited unaltered prints were available before Lucas got his brush to it, and that they are hard to come by. One of them is in your possession and you have the ability to produce 3rd generation prints from them. The artistic community is rallying to have the original preserved and released. They make a petition. It says "We want Lucas to release the Picasso work in his control unaltered to the artistic community for historical reasons". You sign the petition.

Then, instead of producing 3rd-generation uncensored prints, you decide that there is a couple of things about the painting that bother you. For instance, Picasso drew the floor in and shadows on three out of the four figures, so you add the fourth shadow. And that is how you are going to release your prints. This, Zion, is more-or-less what you are doing with the star wars trilogy. You're expecting Lucas to do something you will not do.

MeBeJedi:

There are plenty of artists that would re-use their canvases, what's your point? So what if Picasso might have painted over something he didn't like (if he did re use canvases, I don't know), it's not like he painted over someone else’s work, or even his own work that had become historically important.

-edit-

Oh and by the way, you do not have the right to "do whatever I want with my transfer on my computer". It is illegal. It is not your right, and that you believe it is your right does not make it so.
Author
Time
Post link
I don't consider it hypocritical to correct nearly FOUR frames of lightsaber effects.

It's not like he's really *changing* anything. ANd it certainly isn't "censorship" like you make it out to be.
Don't want it? Then don't see it.
There are multiple other LD conversions to choose from.

My stance on revising fan edits.

Author
Time
Post link
"Oh and by the way, you do not have the right to "do whatever I want with my transfer on my computer". It is illegal. It is not your right, and that you believe it is your right does not make it so"

First of all, that's something Lucas would say.

Secondly, guess what - I did it ! What are you going to do? Tell Lucas on me? LOL!

BTW, any transfer that anyone makes, with or without changes, is illegal. Are you going to tell TR47 and Gonzo to remove their versions from the Internet as well? LOL!

"There are multiple other LD conversions to choose from."

Agreed. I've not done anything to affect TR47's and Gonzo's versions, though it's beginning to sound like Daniel's throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this issue. Talk about being hypocritical - he continues to remind me how illegal it is to make changes, and keeps ignoring how illegal it to put these transfers on the 'Net. And if he sells them, like TR47, that's an even bigger no-no! If you want to make a real point, then please be consistent regarding the "legality" of these transfers as a whole. When you decide to tell Lucas on us, tell him I said "hi", okay?

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Okay, this whole Picasso thing is really ridiculous. Your analogy of adding a new shadow is something that would throw off the entire composition and balance of the piece. It's something that would be readily noticeable and change the entire context and overall effect of the picture plane. Changing five frames of light saber effects out of thousands more in a two hour movie is more akin to changing a single brushstroke, if it's comparable at all. Also, as much as I like Star Wars and think it's an important movie and piece of history, any comparison between a thirty year old motion picture with a plethora of original unaltered copies floating around in various formats and a one-of-a-kind piece of artwork from an established master is way off base.

In short: MeBeJedi and Zion aren't taking a palette knife to Guernica, they're making a light saber effect consistent between a span of a few dozen frames of film.

There is a great difference.
Author
Time
Post link
DanielB, can i polietly request that you drop the whole picasso analogy because as far as helping your argument its doing the complete opposite. Even people that agree with you disagree with you on this analogy.

second, Title crawl argument. So what it was replaced before the entire trilogy was complete, it was still a change to the true original version. Using that argument i can argue that all the changes in the 2004 DVD's are acceptable because they were done before the 6 movie storyline was complete.

thirdly. if my memory serves me correctly Zion stated that he did not sign the petition (if i am mistaken on this my apologies) but even if he did, he is working to clean up any imperfections on the film that it suffered from age and dirt, and finish stuff (and very few minor things, like rotoscoping all the sabers) that lucas would have done had Fox not cut him short as far as production time goes.

Also, is removing sand grains from the tatooine scenes inappropriate, because obviously by filming in a desert lucas intended the sand particles to get on the film and cause damage to the film over time...so fixing that is obviously 'censoring' the original work

The censorship argument... you said, and i quote "And no, censorship is not stoping something from being seen, but rather controlling what is being seen. You can ban something - that isn't strickly speaking censorship. But if you say "yes, you can show this so long as it's like THIS" - that is censorship. "

where is this happening here...how are they controlling what is being shown....did they ever say you have to watch my version and any other bootlegs (and the official releases for that matter) no longer exists. Nope, dont beleive they did. So they arent controlling how anything is viewed. They are only offering an additional version to what already exists, kinda the opposite of censorship dont you think? But from what you said, I guess Lucas IS censoring the original movies, because he is making sure that future generations dont get to see the original version and only get to see his new digitized version (and as far as the existing copies, ok, but its limited, not everyone has them, I had to track down a version of them because my brother had the set, but now that we are grown and on our own, he has the set, so i needed to get my own if i wanted the original, plus lucas knows the VHS copies, and even the laserdisc copies wont last as long as the new dvd versions he released.

if you really are the pure preservationist that you make yourself out to be, than nothing short a direct copy of the original theatrical release should make you happy, and as was established in some other thread, even these prints varied from one another as far as sound mixes. Yeah, you also said how these changes were all from original material and none were digitally tampered with, but thats cause the tech to do so didnt exist (as was stated earlier). So I ask you, is physically cleaning the dirt off the films (which i dont think is even really possible to do without causing more harm) acceptable whereas digitally cleaning it off not. And as for color. So if Leia's dress has a yellowish, or bluish tint to it because of the age of the film is it wrong to restore that to the white that it was when Carrie Fisher was actually wearing the dress? What about color differences cause because of the capturing on film process itself...it can be argued that the picture isnt a true representation so wouldnt any variations that may occur due to that process be considered 'censorship' because it is altering the true color of the dress she wore. not to mention those damn color blind people...how dare their eyes censor the film by removing color or even worse switching two colors. I say lock them all up...there all evil

-Darth Simon

p.s. sorry for the long thread, and none of this is meant as a personal attack at anyone, on anyside of this argument.
Why Anakin really turned to the dark side:
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin

0100111001101001011011100110101001100001

*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
Author
Time
Post link
Then let me be more blunt, I have the right to do whatever I want with my transfer on my computer. Please point out where your or DanielB's beliefs affect that in any way

Take this example: in 10 years or so you decide to show Star Wars to some kids who have never seen it before. What version do you show them? The LD's have all rotted away by now. GL never did release the OT on DVD. So do you show them the Special Editions, and say, "kids, this is Star Wars", or do you show them a direct transfer like TR47's set, or do you show them your edited versions?

If you show them your edits (or GL's SE's for that matter) and say "this is Star Wars", you have showed them a lie. You have denied film history and shown them something that has no meaning. And you have changed their perception of the films. You have altered the way the next generation views the films.

There has always been fun to be had in going through the films and spotting all the dodgy effects shots. But these kids will have no such fun because you went through and airbrushed them all out. To me the films are more endearing because of the bad effects. They are a part of film legend by now.

The reason it can actually be offensive that you are doing this to the films, is every time you make a copy, you spread this version and may influence someone's perception of the films. Some kid in the future may find your version on DVD and to him or her this is what Star Wars will be. People may not know what you have done to them, and think they are direct transfers. So you are changing film history and that is why our beliefs affect what you are doing.
Author
Time
Post link
" than nothing short a direct copy of the original theatrical release should make you happy"

In that same vein, Daniel needs to get an LD player, since the video and audio is uncompressed and undigitized. The LD's are the last, best copy of the original films, bar none. Digitally converting the video to MPEG creates quite a few changes on its own (color, artifacts, brightness, etc.) and therefore should be unacceptable to DanielB even without any changes.


....that is, if he wants to be consistent about this whole thing. Of course, if he chooses to be hypocritical about this as well....

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
One could argue for one's own perception of what the movie should seem to be to oneself, for one, when I saw the OOT, it was always in 4:3 pan/scan (except for the opening rollup and credits of ANH, which were letterboxed). I actually never saw Star Wars in any other format until the SE (and then, only once, until I downloaded Dr. Gonzo's caps). The OOT I remember is in 4:3, not 2.35:1. We may not all remember the same OOT, but the differences are minimal - unlike the differences from the 1997 and 2004 versions.

To me, fixing existing effect shots is well and good - making new effect shots is bad. And I don't care so much if I can only see Star Wars in 4:3, because until a few months ago, I had only seen ANHSE once, and ROTJSE once, in any other format.

Moll.

"Right now the coffees are doing their final work." (Airi, Masked Rider Den-o episode 1)

Author
Time
Post link
That's a very interesting question skeg. Let's think about this for a moment. If I show these kids the SE's, I could say, "this is Star Wars circa 1997." If I show them the official DVD's, I could say, "this is Lucas' definitive version of Star Wars." If I show them a bootleg transfer, I could say, "this is Star Wars circa 1993 and though it is the closest thing to the original theatrical version there are so many minute changes to both the video and the audio that you can't really call them the originals. By the way, I'm sorry I'm denying you kids a chance to witness film history because these movies have been changed every single time they've been released. I made these DVD's by transfering them from laserdisc, and back then I decided to fix a few frames of- Hey, are you kids listening? Hey! Wake up!"

Honestly, a kid viewing Star Wars for the first time isn't going to give a crap about film history. And if they are, then they should be able to understand why there are so many versions of Star Wars.

Zion:

Your augment is mute. You are asking Lucas to release his work unaltered....This, Zion, is more-or-less what you are doing with the star wars trilogy. You're expecting Lucas to do something you will not do.


Get your facts straight. I haven't asked Lucas to do anything. I haven't signed the petition. As a matter of fact, I'm not even going to "release" my version of the films. Sure, they are going to make their way to people's DVD players via torrent sites and the inevitability of them ending up on Ebay. But it's not like I'm going to be selling them out of the back of my car, or "marketing" them as George Lucas' originals. In fact, I will be noting any changes I have made on the dvd itself. I'm even going to add a subtitle track that describes the differences between the original and my version.

Again, I'm sorry if smoothing out a couple of lightsaber shots offends you, but you really have no business at all telling me what to do with my own work. A few years from now, my dvd's will be just one of many transfers done by many different people. Hell, an official realease may even be out by then. But don't assume for a second that I'm going to make people believe that my transfer of ANH is unaltered.

My Projects:
[Holiday Special Hybrid DVD v2]
[X0 Project]
[Backstroke of the West DVD]
[ROTS Theatrical DVD]

Author
Time
Post link
S64, i continue to agree with you. Zion the differences between the 1993 versions and the theatrical versions is all based on original material - not new stuff. Lucas didn't shoot new shots, or make new effects, or digitally edit anything. It's like taking the old picasso out of the 1977 frame and sitting it in a new 1993 one that shows slightly more of the left and right boarders - you're just seeing a little more of the original painting.

To put it another way, in 7 years time you will still think of yourself as being the same person, although every single molecule in your body will be different to the ones currently there. The molecules that currently make up your body will all be discarded and scattered everywhere.

And MeBeJedi - you claimed it was your right. You're the one who made that claim, deal with it. DarthS, small changes made using the original material and nothing else do not tend to bother me. It's just looking at the same thing in a different way.
Author
Time
Post link
That's a good idea of yours Zion about the subtitle track. I think it is a fair compromise if you guys mention it somewhere on your discs that changes were made and what they were. Maybe you could just do a menu screen that explains it. That way there will be no misconception that these are straight transfers. Because the wider they get distributed the more chance there is that someone will get the wrong idea about them.

See I'm a reasonable guy and I think that is a fair compromise.

The other option would be to make a seamless branching disc with both versions on it. I can help you out with how to do this in Maestro. The extra space taken on the disc would be extremely small because (I gather) you are only making at most a few seconds of changes. It's really not much extra work at all.
Author
Time
Post link
"deal with it."

I think it's quite clear in this thread who can and who cannot "deal with it".

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I fully support the efforts of MeBeJedi, Zion, Moth3r, etc. I believe that it is fully within their rights as owners of the original trilogy in any form, to adjust the movies as they see fit. Why would should anyone try to tell them that what they are doing is wrong? Perhaps the people that would tell them that are the same type of people that George Lucas has been trying to keep his movies away from since their inception. He wanted to make his moveis his way. He fought the system and won. Now it seems that we are being told that the only way we can enjoy the original trilogy is if we watch it the way the George intended. Well I have just one question about that, what way is that?

George said in 1997 that the Special Editions were the Star Wars that he had always envisioned. Okay, then what about 2004 DVDs? What about all of the various changes made to the films since the theaterical release? What about all of the future changes he might make in the future? Will that make the newest incarnations of these films null and void?

Which version of the film are we petioning for? The original unaltered theaterical release? The first version with "A New Hope" attached? The first version that includes C3P0s line about the tractor beam? How are defining original? Even if George does release the original films on DVD, what version will it be? There will still be people complaining that it wasn't the version that they wanted.

How can anyone here be mad about someone making their various edits and cleanups to a film that has never been the same since it hit theaters? If you want a completely unaltered theaterical release version of the movies, go talk to Lucas. He is the person you should be mad at. Really, if you want a copy of them like that then you should invest the kind of time and money into editing them that the rest of the people here have. It is probably the only way you'll ever get what you want.

Let's keep in mind what brings us all here in the first place. A love of Star Wars. Would anyone really spend the kind of time and effort restoring, editing, and preserving these films if they didn't really care about it? Bottom line, Star Wars is supposed to be fun. When people come in here critizing other people's hard work because they don't like it, it makes you wonder if all of the effort was worth it. Well, it is obviously worth to the people who are on these boards sharing their work with us. It is a labor of love for them. I can't fathom why anyone would be as rude to complain about this, when they are doing it foremost for themselves anyway. If you don't like it, fine! Either do it yourself or find somewhere else to whine about not getting your way.

The argument is not about film history or even about serious preservation. Lucas has the original film. Even if it was about film history we shouldn't have to hold it in our hands to preserve it. Let's be honest. It is about having Star Wars the way that we want it. That's fine. But unless Lucas releases the original theaterical print, and box of goodies with all the elements that he has added to it since, there is no way that everyone will be happy. If he did then we could all have the version that we want; the kit provided would allow us to add or moit elements we want or dont' want. Wouldn't that be great? The only arguing then would be over whose version is the best. Wait, I think we already have a little of that going on .

I look it at as a fan film project. The only difference is the source material. So, can't we all just be happy that there are those of us here that are not willing to shutup and just accept what Lucas is offering? If we can't, then so be it. But let's remember that this whole issue springs out of people's love of Star Wars, and if we try to censor the way they edit their home-brewed copies, then in fact we are censoring their love of Star Wars. No one is being hurt here, except maybe someone's ego, so don't censor the way that someone else expresses their love for something. Anything. That would simply be fascism.
Author
Time
Post link
I believe that it is fully within their rights as owners of the original trilogy in any form, to adjust the movies as they see fit. Why would should anyone try to tell them that what they are doing is wrong?

You are confusing the arguments. Forget legal rights for a second. What we are arguing is the morality of making the changes. People here have different morals/ethics/values whatever, about this. That is what the debate is about.

Which version of the film are we petioning for? etc...


This argument is lame. Any of those versions are better than someones hack job. Or Lucas's SE hack job. If you can't see the difference I can't help you. And why shouldn't we whine about it in the thread that was created especially for just that?

Would anyone really spend the kind of time and effort restoring, editing, and preserving these films if they didn't really care about it?


If people here love Star Wars so much, why change it?

Editing the films in fact shows contempt for the films, not love. Think about it.
Author
Time
Post link
I LOVE Star Wars, not only are the movies entertaining but talking about them is to.

I am thankful for the different versions I have now and can't wait to see the hard work, time & effort that others have put into them. By the way, thanks eveyone, you know who you are.

I have 3 different sets of Laser Discs, they have differences. I watched them in theaters years ago when they came out, several times each film and I remember seeing some differences in those in different viewings, so what is the original? What ever you see it as. If you don't like what see DON'T WATCH IT!!!!

4 or 5 frames of Light Saber corrections is NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but when you criticize someone for something they are doing that you could do as well, is not right. In other words if you want a different version THEN MAKE IT. No time or money, then don't criticize someone elses work.

“Good… Bad… I’m the guy with the gun.”

Author
Time
Post link
As I said, personally, the version I grew up with was the OOT, in the 1985 audio mix, pan and scan. THIS is the version I like best because it's the one I grew up with! Is it any less the OOT than the 1995 Faces widescreen laser (with a different sound mix)? You could argue that no it's not, or yes it is (since it's cropped for TV).

It is this version I would most like to see again, I think, since on a tiny screen (13") it's easier to see 4:3 stuff than 2.35:1.

Moll.

"Right now the coffees are doing their final work." (Airi, Masked Rider Den-o episode 1)

Author
Time
Post link
This argument is lame. Any of those versions are better than someones hack job. Or Lucas's SE hack job. If you can't see the difference I can't help you. And why shouldn't we whine about it in the thread that was created especially for just that?

First of all, let me apologize accusing anyone of whining. I was up much too late last night when I wrote that, and today when I posted it I didn't edit it at all. Like I said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It was rude of me to call it whining.

Secondly, my point is simply that with so many different versions of the film out there, what is the official original trilogy? This question goes beyond this thread and argument to the objective of this entire site. I want to know how to establish what the original trilogy is and how that decision is reached.

Honestly, I like something about all of them. I grew up never having seen Star Wars in the theater. The first time I saw it was on tv, and edited for running time. Years later when I finally bought Star Wars for myself, watching the faces set was like watching the Special Edition. I had never seen many of those scenes before, and in a way I felt like the Star Wars I grew up with had been taken away. I just wanted a sharper picture and no commercials. I had no idea that there was so much missing on tv.

Now I have seen many of the various versions. To this day I still like some of the editing choices that were made in the tv broadcasts. Those tv versions that I have on vhs from the late 80s are falling apart though. I'll never be able to watch Star Wars that way again unless I edit the movies myself. So, would that be censorship?

If people here love Star Wars so much, why change it? Editing the films in fact shows contempt for the films, not love. Think about it.


If editing the films shows contempt, then Lucas must not love Star Wars at all. I think that George is misguided, and too paranoid over the wrong things. But, they are his films to do with as he pleases, so what can I do about it? If you want to put forth the reasons why one of the various DVD authors on this site should make a copy that reverts Star Wars back to its theaterical form, then go for it. If you want to wrok out a special request for such a thing, do it. I just don't like seeing those same people being told what they are doing is wrong when they have as much right to enjoy Star Wars the way that they want as you do wanting an untouched transfer from the original print.

I'm not trying to pick on anyone inparticular here, just expressing an opinion.
Author
Time
Post link
I would define original as anything made up using only the available original sound and picture material. You can do pretty much anything with it, I see it as all part of the original painting, and that some inevitably gets covered depending on the frame you choose and how it's positioned. I know that's an incredibly loose definition, but by crikey it will do. Anything made up of 100% unaltered original material will do fine. I know the one thing you can argue over is the "A New Hope" crawl - but then it may well have been an original element anyway. So long as the material was made prior to the theatrical release, I consider it original material.

Lucas can have a few minor differences, IF he's using the original material. That I'm fine with. Ergo I'm fine with all the versions up to 1993. If he was to make more changes that differed significantly from the theatrical versions, then I'd call that a directors cut, and yes he should also release a theatrical print. However that definition does not fit the 1997 or 2004 versions for the simple reason that they all use newly created material. For this reason they are completely separate movies. They are not a different cut of the original movies, they can't be because they couldn't have been cut together that way in 1977, 80 or 83. A different cut of a movie is basically a cut that could have been put together at the time of the original release, using all the material available.

Simple right? An Original Empire Strikes Back movie is one that uses exclusively material that was created PRE-1980, including material not exclusively created for it - so long as the material was intended for use in the film. Anything else is not a true Original Empire Strikes Back movie. If it contains material created after 1980 then it is a new movie that simply uses some older material. Zion (and thankyou Zion for at least having the sense to advertise the fact on the discs they are not original) is using original material, and newly created 2004 material that he is creating for the release; ergo it is not an original Star Wars movie.

MeBeJedi I just spent the better part of an hour deleting spyware shit that my 12-year-old brother infected the PC with. You seem to be the kind of person that would claim it is your right to put in an EULA "we will put some invasive software on your PC" - without actually saying it like that, and making it seem more normal, and then use bait-software to infect people with invasive software that earns you revenue. That of course is not your right, and it is a completely illegal contract under Australian law. To explain this to you so you'd actually understand would take hours, so I'll give you the basic picture.

Let's say that you are hospitalised. The doctor comes up to you with a document for you to sign. I don't know medical terminology, but the doctor might say "This document basically says you agree to a surpovilliar tretrycardia, and that you understand this basic operation is going to take place under the effect of a local anaesthetic". You sign it in good faith and wake up 7 hours later to see your leg missing. You didn't know you agreed to have your leg cut off - that would be an illegal contract (meaning in the High Court of Australia you would successfully win your case against the hospital). This is because although you signed the document, and although the name of the operation was used - the doctor had failed to explain to you what it meant. You cannot sign something you don't understand and be legally binded to it.

Although, as I said explaining the full scope of this would take hours, it basically means that as far as I am concerned EULA's are not legal documents unless it can be proven they are read, understood and agreed to. If you install a software that you understand is all you are installing, and it ends up instaling more software - that is illegal.

It's like when you walk into a shop and there's a sign that says "It is a condition of entry into this store that all bags be presented upon leaving". That sign is not a legal document, even when you read it and understand it. If you walk into the shop without agreeing to it, then you cannot be binded to it. They can say to you on your way in "by entering this store, do you agree to present your bags upon leaving?" And if you say "yes, i do" - then, and only then would it actually be a legal document. The shop does not have a legal right to look into your possessions. Neither does police, unless they have grounds to suspect you of a crime.

Another example might be that there is a sign saying "we are not responsible for motor vehicle theft or damage incurred to your vehicle while parking in this carpark". While it is technically legal, the scope to which it implies is not. For instance, if the on-duty parking-box boy spots someone smash a car window, hot wire the car and leave - and does nothing, then you do have legal grounds to sue the operators of the carpark. If he didn't see it, well you'd be out of luck there - unless you can prove that 1. you didn't read the sign and 2. you had reasonable grounds to believe that your car would be looked after. This might apply if you drove to a hotel, and let one of the hotel's employees park your car (just as an example I can think of).

As you can see I'm all for personal rights. I'm not capitalistic, I do not believe in censorship - in the government controlling the media etc - and I do believe that film history is important and will become more important in the years to come.
Author
Time
Post link
Crikey, I just found out about declawing. Now I know how capatalistic America really is.