logo Sign In

It's Official: George Lucas hates his fans :P — Page 10

Author
Time

Can we stop bashing the LOTR movies for a moment and go back to GL?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

On the flip side, I saw a promo on AMC for E.T.'s 30th anniversary, and the walkie talkies are gone! The last couple times I've seen it on tv, it was the 2002 verison.

 

 

Really? Do you know which network was showing it? I haven't seen the 2002 version in quite a long time. The version that HBO has been showing in HD for the last few years is the 1982 version.

Author
Time

It's going to be on AMC this week.

I only have basic cable, so I didn't know the original version had been airing all this time. Wonder if there will be complaints if the '02 version isn't on the Blu Ray?

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

generalfrevious said:

Can we stop bashing the LOTR movies for a moment and go back to GL?

The LOTR films raped my adulthood.

Since they're like poetry, what with the rhyming and all, I find that I only need to watch three out of the six films.

Author
Time

Not very funny...

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

No kidding. Rape is a pretty serious matter and one shouldn't just use the word lightly.

Author
Time

That's not the response we were looking for.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time

You young people with your misappropriation of words...

Rape has a wider meaning than the crime of forced sexual violation.

It means to maliciously spoil (as in 'the rape of the environment').

That is where the term in it's legal context comes from.

While we are at it not every piece of music is a song.

Words are important they mean things.

If someone said, "Lucas has spoiled my memories of these films" they would be saying almost the same thing.

The use of the term should be attacked because it's unimaginative not because some people have a limited understanding of the functional application of a word.

Play around with the language a little, come up with something that expresses your actual personal feelings on the matter.

If rape is really the right word use it by all means but clarify it by giving more detail as to why you feel that way and what you mean so that your intensions are not misconstrued.

Personally my childhood was not raped by Lucas.

It was enhanced by Lucas.

My teenaged and adult years have been contaminated by some of his decisions but I wouldn't be here without that grit in the oyster shell and if I could meet him I'd kind of thank him for that if I could find the right words.

Author
Time

That phrase has been twisted into a automatic putdown or dismissal of any rational arguments over the years though.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

Bingowings said:



thecolorsblend said:As imperfect as they may be at times, I'd rather watch the prequels than the boring as piss LOTR. Any time.


Exactly the sort of nonsense I would expect to read from someone with such a silly avatar.


Hey, don't go knocking silly avatars!

Author
Time

Monolithium said:

generalfrevious said:

Can we stop bashing the LOTR movies for a moment and go back to GL?

The LOTR films raped my adulthood.

At least you can still read the books and ignore the films. It's not like Peter Jackson has hoarded all copies of Tolkein's works and told people his version of LOTR was the real version, and made it illegal to read the books.

Author
Time

In anticipation of the sort of nonsense that is inevitably going to be flung at Jackson for film versions of The Hobbit, we have to remember that after Lord Of The Rings Tolkien himself made special edititon style changes to of the text of The Hobbit and made more in anticipation of The Silmarillion.

Those changed versions became the default versions and you have to be lucky enough to get early editions or get your hands on The Annotated Hobbit by Douglas Anderson or John Rateliff's The History Of The Hobbit to read the original material.

Author
Time

I've seen "The Hobbit Defense" trotted out a couple times elsewhere to justify the SE changes George has made.

What was the early print run of The Hobbit in the 30's? More people likely saw Star Wars between 1977 and 1997 by a mile.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

I've seen "The Hobbit Defense" trotted out a couple times elsewhere to justify the SE changes George has made.

What was the early print run of The Hobbit in the 30's? More people likely saw Star Wars between 1977 and 1997 by a mile.

That seems likely. There is going to be less outrage if we never knew any better. That is the danger of the OT not being released - newer fans never knowing any better nor caring.

Additionally, reading is a far different experience from watching a movie. The latter fares far worse from additions, subtractions, and alterations. generalfrevious makes a good point. "Editions" are updated versions. Some try to maintain the original, others don't. Made me think of the 20th Anniversary edition (20th?! that can't be right...) of Zahn's Heir to the Empire. It's full of fun annotations. But the original text exists and can always be reprinted without losing its original form.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SilverWook said:

I've seen "The Hobbit Defense" trotted out a couple times elsewhere to justify the SE changes George has made.

Along with every other instance of any person anywhere changing anything. Such weirdo logic, a completely separate person does something so after that anything sort of like it becomes okay. Magic!

 

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

SilverWook said:

I've seen "The Hobbit Defense" trotted out a couple times elsewhere to justify the SE changes George has made.

What was the early print run of The Hobbit in the 30's? More people likely saw Star Wars between 1977 and 1997 by a mile.

That seems likely. There is going to be less outrage if we never knew any better. That is the danger of the OT not being released - newer fans never knowing any better nor caring.

I think that is George's intent.

He's going all Eternal Sunshine on our memories of the UOT.

“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”

Author
Time

Yeah, it kind of bothers me that the Hobbit is only available in an edited form. BUT--and this is a big but--the original text is available in the annotated book. Since text is text, it's 100% perfect quality as the original; furthermore, it IS possible to buy ample second-hand copies of the original, again in the highest quality possible because text is text. And also, if LOTR fans were so inclined, one could easily just edit together all the original annotations in the currently-published special book; a kind of fan presentation like how we stitch together sources here. All the resources are there. Since, as far as I am aware, no Tolkien fan has done this, amid all the millions of fans and dozens of Tolkien website and communities, I must conclude that either no one cares enough to do that, or the annotated version or original second-hand copies suffice for the minority interested in the original text.

A situation completely different from the OOT, where only badly-degraded copies are available. It would be like if the original Hobbit had only been published in a photocopy packet with much of the text hard to read and no modern annotated version. Luckily Hobbit fans are fortunate to have the original text, in its original quality, plus older original copies. When Lucas puts all the OOT footage on Blu-Ray in HD as deleted scenes, I would happily shut up and get to work stitching them together into a preservation edit.

Author
Time

SilverWook said:

I've seen "The Hobbit Defense" trotted out a couple times elsewhere to justify the SE changes George has made.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EByb1iH4Uko/TZcmgdKyLuI/AAAAAAAAJLc/sN9Jk00NP_0/s1600/chewbacca_defense.jpg

Author
Time

Georges retirement from making big blockbuster type movies is not because of the fan base or starwars. It was because of his latest movie project "RED TAILS"  He spent 28 years trying to get it developed, and no studio would pick it up. George ultimately had to fund it himself for the most part ( 58 million ). He also couldn't get the any studio execs to screen the movie, and although I haven't seen RED TAILS, I heard it sucked major ass. Story was mainly non existent, and character development was in very poor taste, and a dishonor to the real men the story is about ( The Tuskegee Airmen ). I also heard some critics call the movie racist, and the dog fights where badly envisioned  from what I have heard. I don't know what kind of planes The Tuskegee Airmen where flying in WW2, but George had them flying as fast as the German jet's we're,  and maneuvering like a X-wing fighter.

Venerable member of the “Red Eye” Knights

Author
Time

As has been discussed before, the real guys saw the movie, and were happy with it. I seriously doubt they hesitate to blast the film otherwise.

I haven't seen the movie with my own eyes, so I can't comment on it's quality or accuracy.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

zombie84 said:

Yeah, it kind of bothers me that the Hobbit is only available in an edited form. BUT--and this is a big but--the original text is available in the annotated book. Since text is text, it's 100% perfect quality as the original; furthermore, it IS possible to buy ample second-hand copies of the original, again in the highest quality possible because text is text. And also, if LOTR fans were so inclined, one could easily just edit together all the original annotations in the currently-published special book; a kind of fan presentation like how we stitch together sources here. All the resources are there. Since, as far as I am aware, no Tolkien fan has done this, amid all the millions of fans and dozens of Tolkien website and communities, I must conclude that either no one cares enough to do that, or the annotated version or original second-hand copies suffice for the minority interested in the original text.

A situation completely different from the OOT, where only badly-degraded copies are available. It would be like if the original Hobbit had only been published in a photocopy packet with much of the text hard to read and no modern annotated version. Luckily Hobbit fans are fortunate to have the original text, in its original quality, plus older original copies. When Lucas puts all the OOT footage on Blu-Ray in HD as deleted scenes, I would happily shut up and get to work stitching them together into a preservation edit.

That's the thing, restoring text, especially in an age where it literally be stored pretty much anywhere digitally forever, is different from restoring a film.

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.”

Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death