"The People Vs. George Lucas" documentary... — Page 4

doubleofive said:

Or it'll bring in a bunch of trolls to the site.

Ouch.

doubleofive said:

I was right.  They basically said they stop in the middle of the interview to point out that Ady removed most but not all of the "critters" on the way into Mos Eisley to show how nit-picky he is.  They never mentioned this to him and he has a perfectly good explanation which no one will ever hear but us.

And of ALL 250+ changes Ady made, this is the one they focus on?  At least io9 posted a video showing the GOOD AND JUSTIFIED changes he made.

I'm still eager to see this, but I know I'm not going to like it.

I understand you. But:

1: we don't know if this change is the only one shown in the doc.

2: Adywan is speaking, so I hope he has enough screen time to show the audience he don't make change without thinking about what he's doing.

3: I don't think Alexandre's goal is to explain WHY Adywan did this or did that (if the audience is interested in, they will show here at OT.com) to me his goal is to show how far the fans can go.

It's not just: "we don't like that so we remove it!" it's more than that. I think that's what he wanted to say. And it's an homage to Adywan's work to me.

Two things seem obvious from the interview -

1 They are more interested in turning heads than making any sort of point

2 They don't seem to know Star Wars as well as they think they do.

I guess we'll see soon enough.

vote_for_palpatine said: what do you say to those who would say "But you've got the GOUT."?

Well, besides being a glorified bootleg, the gout's existence doesn't really address the fact that the original version includes unstable film elements that are now physically rotting somewhere. All while there's still no archival-quality presentation of what this thing actually is (or was).

Guys, let's not fly off the handle here. The director makes a good point--we are nit picky. Its not that Adywan didn't like the Mos Eisely critters--its just that he wanted two, instead of five. We're that specific. And that's his point, and he's absolutely correct. We are obsessive in a way that no fan base anywhere approaches, and we are obsessive about minute details that 99.99% of people don't even think about. The documentary isn't propaganda for OT.com or OT-purists, it's a look at the fanbase and it's relationship with Lucas, and examples like these are pretty salient, that we will spend years editing our own version of the film that has instances where we didn't like the three out of the five CG creatures in the corner of the frame. I don't think it's positive or negative to point this out either, this is simply one of the features of note of our fandom.

To be fair, ady doesn't seem pleased...

adywan said:

yeh, i've just seen that interview. I'm not very happy with the example they agve of the "critters". This is something they never asked me about yet use it as an example in the film of how "nit-picky" i am with my edit. If they had bothered asking then i would have given them a logical explanation ( the fact that i had extended that shot so would have had to slow the creatures down, which didn't work and the fact that they look stupid turning around to watch the landspeeder) . It will be interesting to see how they twisted my interview to make me look like some obsessed fan with too much time on his hands. Has anyone seen this movie yet? I'm really starting to wish that i had never been involved with this

It's important to note WHY he only wanted two critters.

The thing that was offputting in that io9 interview, is that the makers chose to highlight this particular trivial adywan amendment in the first place....rather than any of the more obviously appreciated ones that addressed some of the more dubious/controversial SE 'creative choices' that GL made!

Such as making Han shoot Greedo first once again for instance, along with improving the shoddy colour and sound treatment of the 2004 dvd release, never mind fixing numerous continuity and optical mistakes that went untouched before, that many fans would have been delighted to see attended to.

Now THOSE, I would have preferred to have been acknowledged.

At least the site itself (which is a good one), embedded a decent example of adywan's amazing efforts, thankfully.

TV's Frink said:

To be fair, ady doesn't seem pleased...

adywan said:

yeh, i've just seen that interview. I'm not very happy with the example they agve of the "critters". This is something they never asked me about yet use it as an example in the film of how "nit-picky" i am with my edit. If they had bothered asking then i would have given them a logical explanation ( the fact that i had extended that shot so would have had to slow the creatures down, which didn't work and the fact that they look stupid turning around to watch the landspeeder) . It will be interesting to see how they twisted my interview to make me look like some obsessed fan with too much time on his hands. Has anyone seen this movie yet? I'm really starting to wish that i had never been involved with this

It's important to note WHY he only wanted two critters.

Yes, but you are missing the point--the fact that we are willing to subject the films to such scrutiny that leaving two "critters" in is meaningful is itself meaningful. It's not a documentary about Revisted, the point underlined here is that we will re-edit the films and be hyper-specific about specific elements, and that's the real significance of Revisited, that we will spend countless hours to fix things at an almost sub-atomic level.

I don't think he was saying we are bad people, or crazy for doing this. And I'm glad he wasn't putting Adywan on a pedestal of idealism. He's been uncannily neutral about it, because what's more important than whether Adywan's edits improve upon the film is the fact that he is doing them in the first place. It's not about proving to the world that such and such fix is justified for such and such reasons because its inconsistent in a later shot, or whatever. The fact we are doing it in the first place is the real significance, and that's what the filmmaker is drawing attention to, as he should be.

zombie84 said:

 It's not about proving to the world that such and such fix is justified for such and such reasons because its inconsistent in a later shot, or whatever. The fact we are doing it in the first place is the real significance, and that's what the filmmaker is drawing attention to, as he should be.

Exactely my thoughts. But wait and see.

zombie84 said:

It's not about proving to the world that such and such fix is justified for such and such reasons because its inconsistent in a later shot, or whatever. The fact we are doing it in the first place is the real significance, and that's what the filmmaker is drawing attention to, as he should be.

Sure, but 'context' is everything, and whether anyone agrees with every single change in adywan's personal 'Revisited' take, or not, the fact remains that the overall impact of his alternative 'SE' amounts to much, much more than the particular instance highlighted in that interview. 

Guess I just think it comes off as a little dismissive-sounding that out of all the many impressive enhancements done by adywan, that it's the removal of a few 'critters' in that particular shot that was the thing that ended up being emphasised by these guys....rather than his overall, numerous, more-important efforts that made 'Revisited' such a hit in the first place, compared to the current SE.

But at the end of the day, that's me speaking as a huge fan of adywan's undoubted creativity, and only wishing to see his work properly acknowledged.  As others have said, we'll just need to wait and see how it 'comes across' in the actual footage....  I may yet be pleasantly surprised.

Also, I was hoping this particular documentary would take the opportunity to 'encourage' GL to finally release the Original Trilogy in a properly remastered, and respectful way, just as it should have been long ago. 

My own take about the GOUT versions that were belatedly/grudgingly released on dvd, is that they were a very poor product coming from a company that I'd always admired, and that previously prided itself on the highest quality presentation and cutting edge technology possible.  This particular 'laserdisc'-quality presentation would have been welcomed years before....but at the point it was eventually released, it was a very sub-par product compared to far lesser titles being given the gold-star treatment on dvd by then. 

I reckon the enhanced SE's are all well and good, but they are totally different entitys to the smash-hit originals that were originally put together, and should be treated as such.  If GL wishes to retrospectively give the impression that the much-loved originals of my youth (and actual cinematic history) were nothing more than mere 'unfinished works-in-progress' at that point, then that's up to him.  But I certainly don't agree with him.

So it will also be a pleasant surprise if this documentary actually focuses a little on this aspect, rather than being merely another Jar Jar/Prequels bash-fest.  Fingers crossed.

ImperialFighter said:

 

But at the end of the day, that's me speaking as a huge fan of adywan's undoubted creativity, and only wishing to see his work properly acknowledged. 

Well, I think that may be the problem. It's not a promotional piece for Adywan or any of us. I don't think the filmmaker was being dismissive, but his example actually is a good one that illustrates the sub-atomic level we are willing to go to obsess over the films, which I think is the reason he was mentioning Adywan in the first place in that instance.

How does everything end up being about Revisited? Fanedits are not the issue dude!

Well, he's in the movie...

Yes I know, I was agreeing with some of the others who thought it's gonna dilute things (in the doc and in the response to it).

Baronlando said:

How does everything end up being about Revisited? Fanedits are not the issue dude!

Seriously, I'm well aware that there's a bigger picture that will hopefully be put across properly in this documentary, such as the desire for the OOT to be released in a proper, respectful manner in a digital format, before whatever remains of the negatives degrades beyond repair.

Which was the other point I covered in my previous post.  While the adywan thing may end up a negative issue for me if it's handled in a certain way, the point about a decent OOT release being strongly wanted is *the* issue I hope this documentary gets right.

Seriously, I'm well aware that there's a bigger picture that will hopefully be put across properly in this documentary, such as the desire for the OOT to be released in a proper, respectful manner in a digital format, before whatever remains of the negatives degrades beyond repair.

Keep dreaming. You know that the OOT will bite the dust no matter how much you complain. Lucas has willed it.

generalfrevious said:

 

Keep dreaming. You know that the OOT will bite the dust no matter how much you complain. Lucas has willed it.

 I hate to say this, but Lucas won't live forever. A five disc per film, ultimate collection of "Star Wars" would be a huge seller, regardless of the price. Look how many units "Blade Runner" sold of it's ridiculous "Ultimate edition" and it's no where near as big a deal as Star Wars.

TheBoost said:

I hate to say this, but Lucas won't live forever.

Unfortunately LucasBot will.  He's more machine than man now...

you two don't get it. By the time Lucas dies in 2025-2030, the film elements that consist of the OOT will have literally disintegrated, as they likely are now. Film lasts maybe 20 years under the best conditions.

Well, film elements from the 70s at least. But the black and white seperation masters will be around. They are almost as good as the negative. In fact, judging by how damaged parts of the negative are, they might even be better.

Don't worry, there are a ton of film out there that don't have existing negatives. Seen the remastered Criterion edition of Seven Samurai? It looks mighty good, and there's no existing original negative for it. Where there's a will, there's a way.

Okay. Let's hope those exist.

On another note, let's hope this documentary is not a traitor to the cause.