I like the Special Editions ..... minus some scenes

Author: electrictroy
Date: 4-May-2005, 4:31 AM

Author: electrictroy
Time: 4-May-2005 4:31 AM
Post link

I like the added footage of Harrison Ford stepping on Jabba's tail (which was supposed to be there from the start, but was not doable with 1977 technology). I like the crystal clarity of the new CGI ships (which look better than models with black matting squares around them). I like the new ending showing Emperor Palpatine's statue being toppled (which shows the galactic scale of this war).

Overall, the "fixed" version is better than the original (just as Dicken's "director's cut" of Tale of Two Cities is better than the original newspaper version).

.....

What I *don't* like:
- the new Jedi scene with "Zoot Snooty" or whatever singing that stupid song..... it detracts from the somber & serious mood
- the missing "Yub-Yub" song at the end

If Lucas would get off his "I'm a god" pedestal, listen to the fans, admit that those scenes were a mistake, and delete them from the Trilogy, I'd be perfectly happy with the SE.

troy

Author: Darth Simon
Time: 4-May-2005 4:47 AM
Post link

harrison ford stepping on Jabba's tail was never supposed to be in the movie from the start. First off, just because a scene was filmed doesnt mean its gonna make it to the final version of a film, there are probably dozens of scenes for every movie that never make it pass the cutting room floor. Heck, even all the deleted scenes we get to see on dvds now a days probably isnt all inclusive of the scenes that were filmed but never made it. Some of the scenes dont even get finished (by finished i mean polished up, look at the deleted scenes in highlander: end game, they dont have the same polished look that the rest of the movie does)

second, when the scene was filmed what Jabba looked like wasnt established/the concept was different than what we know now. When lucas filmed it there was a human actor playing Jabba's role. Then 20 years later when he decided to reinclude this footage he had to add Jabba in using computers. Because of the way Han Solo interected with the human actor when Jabba was put in place the whole Han walking behind Jabba didnt work hence we get the wonderful Han stepping on one of the galaxies most ruthless gansters tail...heh, yeah, fett would have fried him right then and their.

third, the whole scene was cut with good reason. The Han/Greedo scene establishes the exact same plot points but additionally (at least in the original version) establishes Han's smuggler/rogue character traits when he pre-emptively blasts greedo.

dont get me wrong, im not trying to trash your opinion, your welcome to like the movies for what you like (some people get overly touchy so just making sure you know im not attacking you)

I agree with the removing of Yub Nub as a bad change, ive actually never really noticed the statue probably cause i was too upset by the removal of Yub Nub (thats one of my fav songs in the trilogy)

As far as the 'fixed' version being better, i think that is by far a matter of opinion, one which many on this board will disagree with. Mainly because it breaks more than it fixes. Besides, if it aint broke, dont fix it. and there was nothing wrong with the OT.

also, while i was typing this i realized something. If all these bounty hunters are out looking for Han at the beginning of the OT, what the heck is Fett doing hanging around Jabba instead of being out looking for Han to collect the bounty?

-Darth Simon

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: greencapt
Time: 4-May-2005 5:08 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Simon
also, while i was typing this i realized something. If all these bounty hunters are out looking for Han at the beginning of the OT, what the heck is Fett doing hanging around Jabba instead of being out looking for Han to collect the bounty?

The scene makes entirely no sense and, in my opinion, was a good omission from SW in the first place. Tail-stepping SE stuff aside, Solo doesn't demonstrate enough reasoning to have talked himself out of being fired immediately by Jabba OR Fett or any of the other folks standing around. Hell, a real-life loan shark would have impounded the ship or taken Chewie as collateral or *something*.

But like you said DS, we all have different views and opinions. No one moreso than George Lucas... lol.

Author: Jedikev
Time: 4-May-2005 8:31 AM
Post link

That 1997 Jabba scene sucked.

"A Jedi can feel the force flow through him".

Author: electrictroy
Time: 4-May-2005 9:16 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Simonharrison ford stepping on Jabba's tail was never supposed to be in the movie from the start.

Nit-picky much? Okay, not "stepping", but Ford WAS talking to Jabba. The original plan was to use a Puppet of Jabba, but it didn't look right, so Lucas dropped the scene. NOT because he didn't like the scene, but because he was limited by technology.

I'm glad he used modern technology to finally do that Ford-Jabba scene, the way he originally wanted.

Also, what do you mean the original didn't need fixing? I already pointed out the black matting squares around all the ships. Even in the 1980s when I was a kid, I thought that looked dumb. That's at least ONE thing that needed to be fixed.

troy

Author: Bossk
Time: 4-May-2005 11:50 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy
Also, what do you mean the original didn't need fixing? I already pointed out the black matting squares around all the ships. Even in the 1980s when I was a kid, I thought that looked dumb. That's at least ONE thing that needed to be fixed.

troy

Color me crazy, but I dig on those squares. It marks the limitations of the available technology, yes. But it reminds you of all that Lucas had to overcome in making those movies. That was how he had to make it look like something was flying and it was great. Nobody had ever bothered to make something so realistic before.

I get a strange sense of comfort seeing those squares around the TIE Fighters as they attack the Falcon.

"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com

Author: Trooperman
Time: 4-May-2005 12:03 PM
Post link

Quote
Overall, the "fixed" version is better than the original

You've got guts posting that on this particular site

You see, there are many things that GL did that he did not originally "envision", in spite of what he tells us. Look at Han vs. Greedo; a completely stupid change, and he wants us to think that he didn't have the technology to make Greedo fire a blaster? What a bunch of balony. The original events were ALWAYS in the script.

Episode II: Shroud of the Dark Side

“Back when we made Star Wars, we just couldn’t make Palpatine as evil as we intended. Now, thanks to the miracles of technology, it is finally possible. Finally, I’ve created the movies that I originally imagined.” -George Lucas on the 2007 Extra Extra Special HD-DVD Edition

Author: electrictroy
Time: 4-May-2005 12:33 PM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Color me crazy, but I dig on those squares. It marks the limitations of the available technology, yes. But it reminds you of all that Lucas had to overcome in making those movies. That was how he had to make it look like something was flying and it was great. Nobody had ever bothered to make something so realistic before.

Well I have two thoughts on that:

(1) 2001 made in 1969 was more realistic (there are no sounds in space!).

(2) Although I enjoy playing old 8-bit games like Super Mario, given a choice, I'd rather play the 16-bit versions. Same Game. Better Looks.
The same applies to Star Wars. Why settle for the primitive model technology & black squares around the ships, when you can have the same movie, but with better looks & no squares?

Nostalgia is nice.
Progress is better.

My only objections are when Lucas actually *changed the scene* like deleting the Yub-Yub Song I disagree with that. But where he left the scene intact, merely enhanced with CGI, I think it's good.

troy

Author: Darth Simon
Time: 4-May-2005 12:49 PM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Simonharrison ford stepping on Jabba's tail was never supposed to be in the movie from the start.
Nit-picky much? Okay, not "stepping", but Ford WAS talking to Jabba. The original plan was to use a Puppet of Jabba, but it didn't look right, so Lucas dropped the scene. NOT because he didn't like the scene, but because he was limited by technology.

I'm glad he used modern technology to finally do that Ford-Jabba scene, the way he originally wanted.

i could be wrong, but from my recollection of interviews ive seen from when the SE came out they hadnt designed jabba and/or the plans for him werent as he appeared in Jedi.

Have you watched the commentaries on the deleted scenes for the PT? Lucas himself states that he cut scenes from them that he liked. I never said he cut it from the film cause he didnt like it, obviously you have an insight into Lucas' thought process that I 'unfortunatly' dont have. So i cant comment why exactly the scene was dropped. If i were to speculate as to why it would be because it was redundant and not as good as the Han/Greedo scene. Why he changed his mind may be related to comments people have made as to his relationship with his ex-wife and her involvment with editing SW but again thats only speculation.

and no, i wasnt really being nit picking because you said you liked the footage of han stepping on jabba's tail. That singles out a 3 second clip of a scene. Read your statement again, it sounds like your saying the scene was cut because Lucas' couldnt make Han step on Jabba's tail (which is kinda funny now that i think about it)

Bossk is correct, their is nothing 'wrong' with the black boxes around the tie fighters. the film was not broken and did therefore not need fixing. Many of the changes are more jarring/out of place than the black lines around the tie fighers. Besides, thats part of the movies appeal, the fact of what it accomplished special effects wise back in the late 70's early 80's

Also, personally I dont care if this new version is how Lucas 'originally' intended the film to be. The fact is that even if he did remember every single little thing he wished he could have done and didnt he's changed alot in the time period between now and then (as everyone changes over time, your thoughts and outlooks on life are affected by experience, fact) so he could never recreate the film today the way he would have back then if he had access to today's technology.

also, as far as fixing a film goes. There are very few films that have no bloopers what so ever (if there are even any), and directors arent always 100% happy with the film as it gets released. Yes Directors cuts are made (original versions are usually still available) but how many movies have gone back and redone scenes after it was released to remove bloopers because the filme was 'broken' and it would be better without the bloopers. LOTR is the only other one i can think of, and that was minor compared to SW (the removal of the car that drives by in the distant background during one scene).
-Darth Simon

Author: Red2
Time: 4-May-2005 1:27 PM
Post link

Only doing clean up work of the films worked for the Indiana Jones trilogy DVD. Why add additional scenes that detract from the pacing of the original films? Taking out the matte lines around ships is different from adding in whole scenes that slow down the pace of the movie. I borrowed the 2004 DVDs to compare with the OT and there were plenty of effects clean up shots that improved the films (the Rancor scene for example), but in my opinion adding additional scenes or changing effects in some scenes actually made the scenes worse. I'm also in the over 30 crowd (32 actually) so I guess growing up with the films has made me more biased toward the originals.

Author: electrictroy
Time: 5-May-2005 2:53 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Simon
Have you watched the commentaries on the deleted scenes for the PT? Lucas himself states that he cut scenes from them that he liked. I never said he cut it from the film cause he didnt like it, obviously you have an insight into Lucas' thought process that I 'unfortunatly' dont have.

All I know is what Lucas said in an interview, and he said he wanted the Han-Jabba scene in the first movie, but couldn't make it work, due to limited technology.

If that's not true, I'd have to conclude Lucas is lying, and I'm not prepared to make that leap. ;-)

troy

Author: Bossk
Time: 5-May-2005 4:56 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy
(1) 2001 made in 1969 was more realistic (there are no sounds in space!).

If you're looking for realism, then why are you watching Star Wars?

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy
(2) Although I enjoy playing old 8-bit games like Super Mario, given a choice, I'd rather play the 16-bit versions. Same Game. Better Looks.
The same applies to Star Wars. Why settle for the primitive model technology & black squares around the ships, when you can have the same movie, but with better looks & no squares?

Because it is what I grew up with. It is what is recognized by film organizations the world over as being the "mold breaker" in terms of scifi effects. Not the 1997 version. The 1977 version of Star Wars won an Oscar for its contributions to the art of film making. The 1997 version didn't win anything and likely wouldn't even if it was the first version of the film but released 20 years later. Other films had done the same thing and done it better. There was nothing special about the SE whatsoever.

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy
Nostalgia is nice.
Progress is better.

Purely subjective. Don't expect everyone to buy into your opinion.

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy
My only objections are when Lucas actually *changed the scene* like deleting the Yub-Yub Song I disagree with that. But where he left the scene intact, merely enhanced with CGI, I think it's good.

And guess what, to get your beloved "progress" you need to contend with Lucas' changes. Now you must make a decision... is progress worth putting up with GL's progressivist bullshit? I don't think so. I'll take my cel squares, thank you very much.

Author: Darth Simon
Time: 5-May-2005 6:03 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy

(1) 2001 made in 1969 was more realistic (there are no sounds in space!).

now that would be an exciting space battle. Like lucas said in an interview (baby hum's 3rd release i think it was)...when you create a universe you get to make up the rules. In his universe there is sound in space. He made that choice and now he has to keep consitant with it.

plus, like he said, i like the sound of the tie fighters zipping by.

Quote

(2) Although I enjoy playing old 8-bit games like Super Mario, given a choice, I'd rather play the 16-bit versions. Same Game. Better Looks.
The same applies to Star Wars. Why settle for the primitive model technology & black squares around the ships, when you can have the same movie, but with better looks & no squares?

Nostalgia is nice.
Progress is better.

i like my hi quality 8 bit games. despite what the video game companies tell you graphics dont make a game good, its the story and gameplay.

Quote

My only objections are when Lucas actually *changed the scene* like deleting the Yub-Yub Song I disagree with that. But where he left the scene intact, merely enhanced with CGI, I think it's good.

Wont get any arguement from me on the first part of that statement.

but let me ask you something, if you object to the Yub Nub deleting because its a change in the scene. Wouldnt stuff like the intro to mos eisley be a change...or is that a CGI enhancement? Where does the line get drawn? Also, you said you dislike the missing Yub Nub song, but what about the rest of the changes to that scene, ie the celebrations in other cities, you said you liked these, or at least the toppling Emperor statue. What makes these more obvious visual changes acceptable but not an audio change, especially since there have been over time many different audio mixes of the star wars movies causing people to remember different lines of dialogue. Again, you have to draw a line somewhere, and as Bossk said, if fixing up the (by today's standards) 'low-quality' special effects means changes to the rest of the film than ill take the 'low quality' special effects.

and how is adding in cgi different than 'changing a scene'. when you get down to it, it isnt, add or subtract, the end result is something new. if you think about it, what makes 'changing a scene' different then changing the movie.

Quote

All I know is what Lucas said in an interview, and he said he wanted the Han-Jabba scene in the first movie, but couldn't make it work, due to limited technology.

an interview where he was probably promoting/hyping the SE's. What do you want him to say, "Yeah, i wanted to test out this CGI Jabba for a movie im gonna make in 2 years when i give the world the prequals they've been waiting 20 years to see so i figured id just revive this scene that we couldnt make work because it didnt flow right with the movie, i mean now that i have this great CGI technology that ought to change the flow/redundency issues we had with the scene."

'couldnt make work' can mean many things (not that that's even necessarily his exact wording). It doesnt necessarily have to be related to the ability of special effects at the time. you also only addressed a small part of my post there. what about the fact that ive seen interviews that have said that Jabba as we know him wasnt designed yet? was that because in '77 they didnt have the technology to think up a giant slug? guess that was only available when ROTJ came out in '83.

Quote

If that's not true, I'd have to conclude Lucas is lying, and I'm not prepared to make that leap. ;-)

because lucas has never given us any reason to think he might be lying. i mean, when has lucas ever contradicted himself in an interview

-Darth Simon

Author: electrictroy
Time: 5-May-2005 8:32 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: Bossk
Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroyOriginally posted by Bossk: "Star Wars was great. Nobody had ever bothered to make something so realistic before."

(1) 2001 made in 1969 was more realistic (there are no sounds in space!).
If you're looking for realism, then why are you watching Star Wars?

Strawman Argument. I didn't say I was looking for realism. Please don't put words in my mouth. YOU were the one who falsely claimed Star Wars was realistic, not me.

Quote
Quote
Nostalgia is nice. Progress is better. I like to play Super Mario, with upgraded 16-bit graphics. Same game. Better looks.Purely subjective. Don't expect everyone to buy into your opinion.
Yes it is MY opinion. So why don't you let me have it, instead of verbally beating me, and trying to force me to change it?

troy :-)

Author: Bossk
Time: 5-May-2005 8:44 AM
Post link

Okay, I'll grant you that I said "realistic"... true. In my head, I was shooting more for motion and the explosions and the blasts and all that. I wasn't aiming for scientific integrity. I was just comparing what Lucas did to what had been done before him.

As for opinions being crammed down others' throats... you're the one that said "Nostalgia is nice. Progress is better." That's an opinion that you are offering up as gospel truth and trying to tell me that what I said was wrong. That my belief in the originals being better is nostalgia, but the SEs are better because they are "progress." Now who's trying to "verbally beat" somebody? You're the one that started the attack. I'm just defending my opinion which, apparently, I'm not allowed to have.

Author: electrictroy
Time: 5-May-2005 8:56 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Simonyou object to the Yub Nub deleting because its a change in the scene. Wouldnt stuff like the intro to mos eisley be a change...or is that a CGI enhancement? Where does the line get drawn? Also, you said you dislike the missing Yub Nub song, but what about the rest of the changes to that scene, ie the celebrations in other cities, you said you liked these, or at least the toppling Emperor statue. What makes these more obvious visual changes acceptable but not an audio change

(1) Cleaning - Replacing models with CGI is equivalent to cleaning up the movie & erasing the squares from around the models. Same scene, but now it looks real, instead of fake.

(2) Audio - I have no more desire to hear the original "flat" 2-channel stereo than I want to see fake-looking models w/ black squares around them. Go ahead and remix it for 5.1 surround.

(3) Subtraction - I hate subtraction. I don't like that Lucas took away songs that are burned into my skull (yub-nub & the original song in Jabba's Lair). It's like giving candy to a kid, and then taking it away. MEAN, and the part of the SE I don't like.

(4) Changes - The added creatures wandering through Mos Eisley don't change the flow of the scene. We still have Luke & Obi-Wan asking for directions, same as always. The good stuff is still there.

(5) Adding - The toppling emperor's statue and parties on distant worlds are added scenes. We still see Luke, Leia, et cetera celebrating their victory, same as always. The good stuff is still there.

NOW I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU:
Ever read the books Tale of Two Cities or Oliver Twist or David Copperfield? Those are *not* the original versions. The original versions were published in newspapers for daily reading, and the books versions are "special editions" with re-worked story and re-writing. Do you think Charles Dickens' "special editions" of his books are as wrong as George Lucas' re-working of Star Wars?

Should Dickens' have left his books "as is" without changes, as originally published in the newspaper?

Why is it okay for book authors to make changes (Dickens/Twain/Bronte all made changes), but unacceptable for another author (Lucas)? Why the double standard?

troy

Author: electrictroy
Time: 5-May-2005 9:01 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: BosskAs for opinions being crammed down others' throats... you're the one that said "Nostalgia is nice. Progress is better." That's an opinion that you are offering up as gospel truth and trying to tell me that what I said was wrong.

Strawman argument (again). There you go, putting words into my mouth. I didn't say you were wrong. I was sharing my perspective (I liked old 8-bit games with upgraded 16-bit graphics... as long as the gameplay remains the same) in order to explain the subject of this thread - "I like the Special Editions ..... minus some scenes."

I didn't expect or require you to agree with me.

Also, anything under the words "Troy Heagy" is my opinion, not "gospel truth". That should have been obvious, without my telling you.

Friends?

Troy :-)

Author: Bossk
Time: 5-May-2005 9:38 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy
Quote
Originally posted by: BosskAs for opinions being crammed down others' throats... you're the one that said "Nostalgia is nice. Progress is better." That's an opinion that you are offering up as gospel truth and trying to tell me that what I said was wrong.
Strawman argument (again). There you go, putting words into my mouth. I didn't say you were wrong. I was sharing my perspective (I liked old 8-bit games with upgraded 16-bit graphics... as long as the gameplay remains the same) in order to explain the subject of this thread - "I like the Special Editions ..... minus some scenes."

I didn't expect or require you to agree with me.

Also, anything under the words "Troy Heagy" is my opinion, not "gospel truth". That should have been obvious, without my telling you.

Friends?

Troy :-)

It sounded like you were shooting for complete accordance with your thoughts. That was just my perception as a reader. But, as we all know, the written word is one of the worst ways to try to convey a message when you can't simultaneously convey inflection, sarcasm, etc.

Yep, let's end it.

Friends.

Author: greencapt
Time: 5-May-2005 11:08 AM
Post link

The logic and/or lack thereof in some of these posts just boggles my mind at times. Er... in my opinion.

Author: ricarleite
Time: 5-May-2005 2:45 PM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy

(1) 2001 made in 1969 was more realistic (there are no sounds in space!).

Actually 2001 was filmed between 1965 and 1968 (for every minute of film, there are almost 2 hours of film shot by Kubrick that didn't make the final film). And it was released in 1968.

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering

Author: electrictroy
Time: 5-May-2005 8:28 PM
Post link

Thanks for the correction on the date, but it doesn't change my point:

The statement "Star Wars was great. Nobody had ever bothered to make something so realistic before," is incorrect. 2001 was more realistic, and debuted 9 years earlier.

troy

Author: Bossk
Time: 9-May-2005 5:18 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy
Thanks for the correction on the date, but it doesn't change my point:

The statement "Star Wars was great. Nobody had ever bothered to make something so realistic before," is incorrect. 2001 was more realistic, and debuted 9 years earlier.

troy

But, as I said, I was using the term "realistic" to mean the fluidity of movement and the realistic look of the ships in space. Nobody had done that before. I should have been clearer about that, but I wasn't.

Author: Warbler
Time: 9-May-2005 11:51 AM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy

NOW I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU:
Ever read the books Tale of Two Cities or Oliver Twist or David Copperfield? Those are *not* the original versions. The original versions were published in newspapers for daily reading, and the books versions are "special editions" with re-worked story and re-writing. Do you think Charles Dickens' "special editions" of his books are as wrong as George Lucas' re-working of Star Wars?

Should Dickens' have left his books "as is" without changes, as originally published in the newspaper?

Why is it okay for book authors to make changes (Dickens/Twain/Bronte all made changes), but unacceptable for another author (Lucas)? Why the double standard?

troy

After Dickens published the stories in book form, did he pretend that the original newspaper version no longer existed? Also was the newspaper version the offical version for twenty years and then called only half done? Were the newspaper versions ever put in book form? Back in the day, when Dickens made the changes was there a petition signed by thousands of his fans asking that he put the original newspaper versions in book form? And if so, did he refuse?

I don't ask Lucas not to make his changes. I merely want him to give me the choice of which version I watch.

Author: Darth Simon
Time: 9-May-2005 12:37 PM
Post link

Quote
Originally posted by: electrictroy
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Simonyou object to the Yub Nub deleting because its a change in the scene. Wouldnt stuff like the intro to mos eisley be a change...or is that a CGI enhancement? Where does the line get drawn? Also, you said you dislike the missing Yub Nub song, but what about the rest of the changes to that scene, ie the celebrations in other cities, you said you liked these, or at least the toppling Emperor statue. What makes these more obvious visual changes acceptable but not an audio change
(1) Cleaning - Replacing models with CGI is equivalent to cleaning up the movie & erasing the squares from around the models. Same scene, but now it looks real, instead of fake.

i disagree, replacing is not the same as cleaning up. removing the matte lines around the tie fighters and removing the whole tie figher matte lines and all and replacing it with a digital tie fighter is to completely different things. plus cgi doesnt always make it look more real, many people find the unnatural brightness of cgi to look less real than real life models.

Quote
(2) Audio - I have no more desire to hear the original "flat" 2-channel stereo than I want to see fake-looking models w/ black squares around them. Go ahead and remix it for 5.1 surround.

thats you, i actually would like to hear the 'flat' 2 channel stereo, if only to see what it was like. the beauty of dvds is that both of those options could be on the disc too. because, yes i do like my 5.1 sound. so a remixed version of the sound would be great. but a remixed version that is still accurate to the original...not one that changes voices, rescores music, adds sound effects, drowns out the sound in certain parts, or reverses audio channels. I know there have been many different sound mixes of the movies, and everyone has the one that they first heard and consider to be the real sound mix. and it may be impossible to include all of those, but despite what you say there are problems with the current 5.1 sound mix. Im not saying i have anything against an all new sound mix, but include the original theatrical sound mix(es) because thats how the movie originally was. Would i like him to include the sound mix i remember? absolutely, do i realize that so does everyone else so this is very expensive/time consuming/maybe not possible to do? yes the theatrical mixes and a new 5.1 mix would be fine and doable.

Quote
(3) Subtraction - I hate subtraction. I don't like that Lucas took away songs that are burned into my skull (yub-nub & the original song in Jabba's Lair). It's like giving candy to a kid, and then taking it away. MEAN, and the part of the SE I don't like.

i can argue that removing the old special effects is the same thing, many people get enjoyment out of the 'at the time state of the art' special effects. why is it ok to take that away from them but not ok to remove Yup-Nub or Lapti Nek

Quote
(4) Changes - The added creatures wandering through Mos Eisley don't change the flow of the scene. We still have Luke & Obi-Wan asking for directions, same as always. The good stuff is still there.

as well as new stuff that wasnt part of the original movie, that does distract some people from the flow of the scene if only because its new and jarring and they can see its obvious cgi-ness

Quote
(5) Adding - The toppling emperor's statue and parties on distant worlds are added scenes. We still see Luke, Leia, et cetera celebrating their victory, same as always. The good stuff is still there.
Quote

but its not the same, because now its just some global celebration of the whole galaxy as apposed to the SMALL band of rebels who made a major victory. we connected with those characters...not some unknown/faceless 'extras' on a planet we never saw (except now with the PT) that would not have necessarily gotten word of the victory, let alone been able to open celebrate as there would still be stormtroopers loyal to the Empire.

Quote
NOW I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU:
Ever read the books Tale of Two Cities or Oliver Twist or David Copperfield? Those are *not* the original versions. The original versions were published in newspapers for daily reading, and the books versions are "special editions" with re-worked story and re-writing. Do you think Charles Dickens' "special editions" of his books are as wrong as George Lucas' re-working of Star Wars?

Should Dickens' have left his books "as is" without changes, as originally published in the newspaper?

Why is it okay for book authors to make changes (Dickens/Twain/Bronte all made changes), but unacceptable for another author (Lucas)? Why the double standard?

troy

first off, nice use of bold, really emphasises the personal level of the arguement

have i read those books? no

do i think its wrong? depends, can i still go and read the original prints somewhere. if so no, its not wrong.

should he have left his books unchanged? yes and no, its his work, he can make changes, but yes, he should leave the originally published versions available for a) historical reasons b) people that may not like the changes he made because whether he likes it or not people will become attached to those original versions and reject his new versions even if there is no logical basis and the new versions really are with out a doubt, unarguably better...if only for the reason that thats not how they remember it.

why is it ok for books and not movies? where did i say that. looks like someone is putting words in my mouth...what did you call this? strawman arguement? it was you that was overusing this word in another thread wasnt it? (if not my apologies)

why the double standard? again, dont see the double standard as i didnt say it was ok for authors to do the same. and personally i dont have a problem with it as long as the other versions are available.

plus not all of Lucas' changes are reworked. Because of the medium he is presenting his work on changing an actor be it just their voice, or the actual replacement of that actor is more than a rewriting. Did Dickens' changes include changing the physical description of characters or areas? I dont know because as I said i havent read the books you mentioned. If they did though, were the changes because of plot points he made to better the story, or just cause he felt like giving joe shmoe blond hair instead of black.

Honestly, I think if all Lucas did was clean up the film and remove errors/matte lines and the like, there would be a lot less complaints about the changes. Yes im sure some people would still complain but I think some people would have been fine with it.

Plus, Lucas hides behind his 'I couldnt accomplish this with the technology available at the time' arguement which you have yourself quoted in defense of certain scenes (Jabba in ANH). But did technology prevent Greedo from shooting first? or using a younger actor at the end of jedi? or including the scenes from other planets? Better yet, did technology limit the actual story that Lucas could write for the novel versions, becase as we know there are 'scenes' in the novel that arent in the movies. But their are scenes in the SE's that arent in the novels. So if he really wanted to show the different planets back when he first made the story, he could have done so in the book, which, to my recollection, he didnt.

-Darth Simon

Author: Warbler
Time: 9-May-2005 12:50 PM
Post link

I agree with Darth Simon 100%.