Poll: ROTJ Celebration Themes - 1983 or 1997? — Page 2

I always thought the ideal music would have been the version of Leia's theme from the end credits of new hope.

C3PX said:

When I first saw the SE in 1997, I remember the new ending really hit me. It just felt so right. The music was happy, but sad at the same time. Which to me, fit the whole idea of the end of a huge battle where many friends were lost, a bittersweet moment.

Since then, I have come to dislike the SE greatly, and don't want to have anything to do with it, expect for that one scene. I still felt the music was a vast improvement over Yub Nub. 

However... just now I watched that youtube clip of the 2004 ending, and was blown away by how amazingly, mind boggling awful it was. Then I went back and checked out the 1997 version, and thought it was brilliant. Other than the obvious changes, I can't pin down a difference between the two, but the 1997 version just really works for me while the 2004 irks the crap out of me. Just rewatched the 83 version too, and still feel Yub Nub is total shit (except when Craig Kilborn* sings it, then it is the shit!). 

So, B for me.

Also, is it just me, or is the appearance of Naboo just one too many planets? I think we need a shot of Hoth, with two or three wampas feeding on a tauntaun carcass, blood smeared all over their faces, followed by a shot of Alderan's debree field. Hope these scenes get included in the SE 3.0, I think they'll add a much needed sense of completeness to the ending of ROTJ.

 

 

*Craig Kilborn version found here ---> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/03/yub_nub.html

Incidentally, the link also includes an English translation of Yub Nub, something I had no idea existed. Pretty crazy stuff. Some really weird stuff happened to my brain while reading them. Now that I know the words to the song, I realize how unbelieveable powerful it is, and see why it is necessary that this remains the true ending to the Star Wars trilogy. In fact, realizing I have gone my entire life without ever reading these lyrics, and not knowing them by heart, I no longer feel worthy to call myself a Star Wars fan, and will therefore be leaving ot.com forever. Farewell guys.

Well, we will miss you, C3. 

I agree about the 97 version.  No way I'd vote for the 04 version.

Even as a kid I never liked song A that much. And it's a little whatever to end the whole saga.

As much as I'd like to have the OUT in good quality DVD or blueRay with song A, my vote still goes for B when comes the question "what is your fav?".

C3PX said:

Incidentally, the link also includes an English translation of Yub Nub, something I had no idea existed. Pretty crazy stuff. Some really weird stuff happened to my brain while reading them. Now that I know the words to the song, I realize how unbelieveable powerful it is, and see why it is necessary that this remains the true ending to the Star Wars trilogy. In fact, realizing I have gone my entire life without ever reading these lyrics, and not knowing them by heart, I no longer feel worthy to call myself a Star Wars fan, and will therefore be leaving ot.com forever. Farewell guys.

I felt the same when Someone told me that EWOK is in fact WOOKIEE's opposite word.

You see I'm still alive, hope it will help!

"Free-dom! We got freeeee-dom!

Celebrate the looooooove!"

lol, .... I don't think the world is ready to know. We must keep it secret, at all cost.

Akwat Kbrana said:

A. 1983

Moreover, as has been pointed out many times before, the multi-planet celebration sequence - while visually impressive and fun to watch (apart from the Naboo & Gungan part, that is) - ultimately makes no sense. Really, George? The Death Star just blew up mere minutes ago, and planets all across the galaxy are simultaneously setting off fireworks and rejoicing en mass? Really?? You're implying that the whole conflict is over instantly? Just based on the fact that one battlestation was destroyed and one despot was killed? Really??

Except the conflict being over instantly was implied by the ending of the original ROTJ and was in the novelization ("The empire was dead. Long live the alliance.") The SE introduced nothing new there, just made it all the more clear.

You guys are trying to read ROTJ as a realistic adult film that makes a priority out of logic. It wasn't that. It was a kids' fairytale with a happily ever after ending that implied the conflict was over. I think you want ROTJ to be that realistic adult film, so you can't accept that it wasn't and thus won't let yourself see the message the fairytale ending gave. No offense, but I think you guys are over-fixating on logic because you are in denial about being fans of a kids' thing. I've seen this sort of attitude before, in fans of the original Doctor Who show, who tried to compensate for the fact that they were fans of a kids' show.

And it's irrelavant that the novelization can be considered EU. It was the most important companion to the film. They wouldn't have put in that "The empire was dead" unless that as Lucasfilm's view. The novelization was the thing that everybody read along with the film and it was spelling out what was seen on the screen. And yes that line was poetic, but I see nothing to imply that it didn't also mean what it said. Star Wars back then was the sort of thing that gave you what it said on the tin ("can" in Ameri-speak). It was straight up. If they said the empire was dead they meant the empire was dead.

I think zombie84 (the writer of The Secret History of Star Wars) says it well in his post on the subject:

zombie84 said:

I agree--logically, the ROTJ ending makes no sense; yet emotionally, it was always quite obvious to me that the message conveyed was that the Empire was defeated, and good guys won. I mean you practically could have had

"And they lived happily ever after"

when the iris closes on the final shot. Thats the point--thats the message you get. They can't live happily ever after if ROTJ just amounts to a strategic victory, the message throughout the entire movie, emotionally, is that "this is the final battle--it gets decided tonight", which is why all the sacrifice and basically putting your eggs in one basket approach (ie send the entire Alliance in a last-ditch battle to destroy the death star). 

Personally, i never considered that there was the Empire out there, and I never knew anyone that did either--the film says "the good guys won, the Empire is defeated." Certainly that is what Lucas was trying to convey, and I think it largely worked, even if it doesn't work in a real-life setting, but then Star Wars has always been full of logical holes like this. While we are contemplating why the Rebels are celebrating what is only a strategic victory, we might also be contemplating how they can be celebrating on a planet that should be having nuclear winter.

Back before Zahn's trilogy took a revisionist take and kept the empire going after ROTJ, the EU treated the empire as mostly over after ROTJ. The Marvel comics spelled out that the galaxy was free after ROTJ. On the set of ESB Lucas said that in the next film the empire would be finally defeated. When Lucas put in the celebrations at the end of ROTS the implication there that the empire was over was not part of his SE revisionism. He was just making clearer what he'd already implied in the original film. Maybe it was a reaction to the way the 90s EU took a revisionist take.

The line "the empire was dead. Long live the alliance" is a rather poorly thought out line too, considering you wouldn't need the Rebel Alliance to live long, since their purpose was served.

Not true. You might expect that after the empire fell the alliance would try to set up a new government (like in the EU). That's what that line is implying. The alliance that was rebels is the new power in the galaxy, replacing the empire -that's the implication. Notice they didn't say "Rebel alliance", just "alliance", as in they were no longer rebels. And if the line was poorly thought out, so was much in ROTJ, so why should the novelization be different from the film in that? But poorly thought out or not, it very clearly said that the empire was DEAD. And I see no reason to think that meant anything other than what it sounded like.

Akwat Kbrana said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

You guys are trying to read ROTJ as a realistic adult film that makes a priority out of logic. It wasn't that. It was a kids' fairytale with a happily ever after ending that implied the conflict was over. I think you want ROTJ to be that realistic adult film, so you can't accept that it wasn't and thus won't let yourself see the message the fairytale ending gave.

And it's irrelavant that the novelization can be considered EU. It was the most important companion to the film. They wouldn't have put in that "The empire was dead" unless that as Lucasfilm's view. The novelization was the thing that everybody read along with the film and it was spelling out what was seen on the screen. And yes that line was poetic, but I see nothing to imply that it didn't also mean what it said. Star Wars back then was the sort of thing that gave you what it said on the can. It was straight up. If they said the empire was dead they meant the empire was dead.

I think zombie84 (the writer of The Secret History of Star Wars) says it well in his post on the subject:

zombie84 said:

I agree--logically, the ROTJ ending makes no sense; yet emotionally, it was always quite obvious to me that the message conveyed was that the Empire was defeated, and good guys won. I mean you practically could have had

"And they lived happily ever after"

when the iris closes on the final shot. Thats the point--thats the message you get. They can't live happily ever after if ROTJ just amounts to a strategic victory, the message throughout the entire movie, emotionally, is that "this is the final battle--it gets decided tonight", which is why all the sacrifice and basically putting your eggs in one basket approach (ie send the entire Alliance in a last-ditch battle to destroy the death star). 

Personally, i never considered that there was the Empire out there, and I never knew anyone that did either--the film says "the good guys won, the Empire is defeated." Certainly that is what Lucas was trying to convey, and I think it largely worked, even if it doesn't work in a real-life setting, but then Star Wars has always been full of logical holes like this. While we are contemplating why the Rebels are celebrating what is only a strategic victory, we might also be contemplating how they can be celebrating on a planet that should be having nuclear winter.

 

Let me get this straight: you're arguing that since ROTJ wasn't intended "as a realistic adult film that makes a priority out of logic," therefore we should be illogical when watching it?! I guess you're welcome to check your brain at the door if you wish, but I still put a big premium on suspension of disbelief, so I'd prefer to keep mine functioning whilst watching, "fairy tale ending implied" or not. (If there was some explicit mention of everyone in the Empire simultaneously deciding to just give up and lay down their arms en masse, then I wouldn't have any ground to stand on, granted. But it seems to me that you're making a pretty big leap in logic based on something that is allegedly implied in the film's composition.)

I'm saying that you shouldn't expect the story to work by logic. If the film's emotional message says one thing and logic says another, then don't let logic prevent you from seeing the message. Don't expect the story to automatically follow logic. Don't assume that if logic says the story goes a certain way then that means the story goes that way. Not when the story's emotional message implies something different. If the film's story went by logic, the rescue of Han wouldn't have gone the way it did and the ewoks wouldn't have been so good at offing armored stormtroopers with sticks and stones and there would have been no celebration at the end because the ewoks would be getting bombarded by debris from the death star and wiped out.

And it is mistaken to assume that not forcing the film to go by logic means checking your brain at the door. There are ways of thinking and being perceptive other than using logic. Like being sensitive to emotional messages. No offense meant, but you are failing at that latter form of thinking. The emotional message at the end of the film says loud and clear that the conflict is over and the empire is dead. Focusing too heavily on one type of thinking can blind you to other kinds.

Also, I suggest you read the end of my previous post, because I edited in some stuff there while you were posting, starting after the zombie84 quote. 

It's never shown that the imperials have any loyalty to a cause or something. It's a typical dictatorship, it's all fear of Vader, The Emperor and Death Stars, which is over. In lots of countries dictators get killed and everybody who wasn't a friend or relative goes right along with the new guys. It was never a religious regime of sworn fanatics or anything, the imperials are all just weasels and bureaucrats who don't want to get choked to death. The rebels weren't outside invaders, it was just a government and still is. The senators were only kicked out 5 years earlier.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

You guys are trying to read ROTJ as a realistic adult film that makes a priority out of logic. It wasn't that. It was a kids' fairytale with a happily ever after ending that implied the conflict was over. I think you want ROTJ to be that realistic adult film, so you can't accept that it wasn't and thus won't let yourself see the message the fairytale ending gave. No offense, but I think you guys are in denial about being fans of a kids' thing. I've seen this sort of attitude before, in fans of the original Doctor Who show, who tried to compensate for the fact that they were fans of a kids' show.

C3PX said:

And by cold hard evidence, I do not mean things like, "it is an illogical fantasy story, and instantly ending the Empire is illogical, therefore that was the original intention".

 

No offense, but that is just a really, really lousy argument. You can take my word for it, I am not in denial about being a fan of some kids movie. That isn't even an issue here. Stop trying to psycho analyze us to prove your point. 

It is a fantasy story, which allows for some degree of illogical things to take place. That doesn't by default require that all logic be thrown out the window. Again, I see nothing in the original ROTJ that indicates the Empire was completely finished after the battle of Endor.

And while the post of Zombie's you quoted has some excellent points, I must respectfully disagree with it. I see no reason why the "Happily Ever After" ending is incompatible with there still being more of the enemy out there. The Hobbit has a very "And they all lived happily ever after" sort of ending to it, and yet we'd be dumb to think that once the dragon was defeated, and the hoards of orcs were beat back, that it had to mean they were all gone for good in order to have the happy ending that it had. And yes, The Hobbit is very much a children's book, I am aware of that, and I am not in any sort of denial on that front.

 

Actually, at the end of the Hobbit the dragon WAS gone for good. The dragon was DEAD. As such the conflct was over. The dwarves were happily ensconced in their regained kingdom and Bilbo had no more conflict to be occupied in. There was peace. Yes there were still goblins in Middle Earth, but goblins were not the major foe of The Hobbit the way the empire was the major foe of the OT. They were a side enemy, like Jabba was in the OT, except that while Jabba had a personal conflict with the main characters, there was no special personal conflict with the goblins of Middle Earth in general. The major foe of the book was gone for good at the end (dead) and old dwarven realm was set to be restored. Just as the empire was gone at the end of ROTJ and the door was opened for the rebuilding of the republic. There were sure to be troublemakers and crime lords left in the Star Wars universe like there were  goblins left in Middle Earth in The Hobbit, but there was no immediate need to fight them, just as there was no immediate need to fight goblins after the end of The Hobbit. But if the empire was still around as you think there would have been an immediate need to fight them.

No there couldn't be a happily ever after ending in ROTJ if the empire was still fighting. If the empire was still there would be a good chance of the main characters being killed off in the fight after ROTJ. A happily ever after ending requires the major conflict to be over. Like the conflict with the dragon was over in The Hobbit.

My argument is hardly lousy. All you have to do is open yourself up to seeing the emotional message at the end of ROTJ. You shouldn't need something to be spelled out on the screen to see it. By insisting on the story following logic you are refusing to accept that the story could follow another path and thus not letting yourself pick up on the emotional communication of the end of the film. Not until I came to this board did I find anybody who thought the empire didn't fall at the end of ROTJ. Zombie84 similarly says everybody he knew (back then at least) thought the empire ended.

I'm sorry if my psychoanalyzing you bothers you. I found it hard to avoid doing that, seeing as you seemed to be so clearly going down the path I described. But I didn't do it to prove my point. My point rests on emotional message of the end of ROTJ, which (no offense) you are shutting yourself off from reading. Backed up by the evidence of Lucas's statement on the set of ESB (showing that his intention back then matched the intention expressed by the celebrations in the SE) plus the novelization showing that the Lucasfilm view back then matched the message I get from the end of ROTJ plus the 80s EU writers clearly getting the same message. All clues that the SE message was not in fact a revisionist take.

No offense, but that is just a really, really lousy argument. You can take my word for it, I am not in denial about being a fan of some kids movie. That isn't even an issue here. Stop trying to psycho analyze us to prove your point. 

You may not be in denial about it being a kid's movie, but you do seem unwilling to acknowledge that it works by the rules of a kids fairytale.

It is a fantasy story, which allows for some degree of illogical things to take place. That doesn't by default require that all logic be thrown out the window.

No, it is not just a fantasy story. It is a KID'S fantasy story, of the fairytale sort, and thus things don't necessarily have to follow logic. That means that you can't say the story goes a certain way just because logic dictates that it should. Logic is not the primary power in the story. Thus when the film's ending gives an emotional message about the empire's fall that is at odds with logic, we go by that emotional message rather than saying "the story has to folow logic therefore the what emotional message says should be ignored." 

C3PX said:

Also, what is this, "emotional message" of which you speak? What makes you so positive the emotional message is what you believe it to be? I suppose the emotional message you speak of would be the Rebel's partying it up like it was 1999 on Endor with their teddy bear pals. I have a hard time taking any emotional message that prattles on about celebrating the love and what not seriously, but I still feel the celebration is more than warranted considering they just blew up the Imperial superweapon and killed both the Empires two highest leaders, as well as a whole slew of the Imperial Navy's best and brightest. I'd be partying it up if I were in their shoes as well. Who cares if the Empire is still out there, the day is won in a very big way.

The specific tone of the celebration and the way everybody acted at the end implied more than celebration over a victory. It implied celebration of the end of the war and that the conflict was over.

I'll also remind you of what you said at the end of our original debate about this:

Vaderisnohayden, this conversation is not worth wasting so much time on. We could go on forever. Obviously I am wrong. I was very young when ROTJ came out, and I obviously misunderstood it, and honestly, who can blame me since it was an unfinished version of the film I grew up with. George's original vision all along was to shows the entire galaxy celebrating the end of the Empire, but it simply wasn't possibly due to technology limitation of the eighties.

I get where you are coming from, and understand what you are saying. I concede that you are right, I am sure that was George's original intention to have the Empire be 100% finished at that point, the story is just a hell of a lot more interesting to me if this isn't the case. Just as Star Wars is a lot more interesting to you if Hayden is not Darth Vader.

C3PX said:

This is either the third or fourth thread this debate has made it into up until now. It is kind of a pointless debate, I see no sign of either side swaying in the least. However, I will tell you that if you'd like to convince us, we are going to need some cold hard evidence of your claim that it is implied in the 1983 version of the film. And by cold hard evidence, I do not mean things like, "it is an illogical fantasy story, and instantly ending the Empire is illogical, therefore that was the original intention" or "clearly they are celebrating as hard as they are because they won the entire war, had it just been a mere battle they won, it would be a much smaller party..."

You are not going to be convinced as long as you refuse to accept ROTJ as what it was and refuse to accept that it works by other rules than the logic you try to force it to fit to. And I'm not even trying to convince you. I'm merely explaining my view. Have whatever view you like. I am just expressing and defend my view.

I do not mean things like, "it is an illogical fantasy story, and instantly ending the Empire is illogical, therefore that was the original intention"

If that's what you think my view is then no wonder you don't agree. I don't say the empire was over just because it would be illogical and an illogical ending would fit and therefore that must be the intention. The point is that the film doesn't make logic a priority therfore you cannot say the story must go a certain way just because it is logical. It's only if the story follows logic that the empire has to be not over. Whereas if you recognize that the story does not follow logic then you can go by the emotional implication of the film's ending. I also pointed out various clues, like Lucas declaring on the set of ESB that the conflict would be over in the next film and Lucasfilm in 1983 clearly taking the view that the conflict was over in ROTJ and the EU before Zahn following that same view. What have you on your side? The 90s EU, which disagreed with previous stuff and was clearly a revisionist take. And logic, which clearly does not rule in ROTJ.

As for cold hard evidence, the emotional message of the ending, taken in the context of what ROTJ is and how it works, is indeed cold hard evidence if you're sensitive to emotional things. People are naturally sensitive to emotional things, but when focusing on logic people have a bad tendency of distrusting emotion and shutting down their emotional sensitivity.

I'm a Yub Yub man.

Partly it's nostalgia, partly it's that the song is just so damn happy, and partly it's me hating Andean pipes and the cut-aways of the celebrations.

I like your new icon, TheBoost.

C3PX said:

When I first saw the SE in 1997, I remember the new ending really hit me. It just felt so right. The music was happy, but sad at the same time. Which to me, fit the whole idea of the end of a huge battle where many friends were lost, a bittersweet moment.

Since then, I have come to dislike the SE greatly, and don't want to have anything to do with it, expect for that one scene. I still felt the music was a vast improvement over Yub Nub. 

However... just now I watched that youtube clip of the 2004 ending, and was blown away by how amazingly, mind boggling awful it was. Then I went back and checked out the 1997 version, and thought it was brilliant. Other than the obvious changes, I can't pin down a difference between the two, but the 1997 version just really works for me while the 2004 irks the crap out of me. Just rewatched the 83 version too, and still feel Yub Nub is total shit (except when Craig Kilborn* sings it, then it is the shit!). 

So, B for me.

Also, is it just me, or is the appearance of Naboo just one too many planets? I think we need a shot of Hoth, with two or three wampas feeding on a tauntaun carcass, blood smeared all over their faces, followed by a shot of Alderan's debree field. Hope these scenes get included in the SE 3.0, I think they'll add a much needed sense of completeness to the ending of ROTJ.

 

 

*Craig Kilborn version found here ---> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/03/yub_nub.html

Incidentally, the link also includes an English translation of Yub Nub, something I had no idea existed. Pretty crazy stuff. Some really weird stuff happened to my brain while reading them. Now that I know the words to the song, I realize how unbelieveable powerful it is, and see why it is necessary that this remains the true ending to the Star Wars trilogy. In fact, realizing I have gone my entire life without ever reading these lyrics, and not knowing them by heart, I no longer feel worthy to call myself a Star Wars fan, and will therefore be leaving ot.com forever. Farewell guys.

 i feel the exact same way when i see that ending. That special edition shot was the best thing they added. The

music was perfect and i always feel the emotion as the song carries on. i'm not sure wat the difference is btween

the '97 and the '04 is.