logo Sign In

Where do I go from here as a SW fan? — Page 4

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Wookie Wedgie
I think that he is just not the best public speaker, and with the way the media tends to present things out of context, he is largely just misunderstood.


OOOH!!! So, that's why the PT's don't make any sense and we have to fabricate and spin half the stuff that's in it to make it work plot-wise. Nobody, not the actors, not the special effects guys, understood him. Got it.

No wonder we don't get his 'vision.' He just wasn't able to completely convey it properly due to the inability to speak eloquently. This would be why the dialogue sucks, too. We just didn't read Lucas' mind...haha.
Seriously, you don't understand the prequels?

I can undertsand that not everone liked them, but they were pretty straight forward.

Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Ugh, I turn my back and this thread gets two pages longer.

Not a single post has mentioned the interpositives. Why could Lucas not simply have used the interpositives to make an anamorphic transfer?
Author
Time
Post link
Interpositives? I don't think I've heard about these yet.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Go-Mer, you are a fucking RETARD, plain and simple.

There is no such thing as UPDATING a negative without destroying the original negative. Learn to speak and understand the English Language.


What did Lucas do with the scenes removed from the Star Wars negative for the special edition? Were they destroyed or weren't they?


If, at his command, the negative of the original Star Wars no longer exists, it is - by frelling definition in English - destroyed.
Author
Time
Post link
I thought he permanantly altered them to make the SE.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Are you reading what you write? "Permanently altered" is different from destroyed? How so?

Don't give me any crap about many individual scenes and shots remaining. The original negative - if permantently altered - no longer exists.


And yeah, despite the fact that we non-filmmakers have every right to opine about filmmaking - as members of the public to whom all public art belongs in perpetuity - - I gave the contrasting opinion of another filmmaker and not simply my own.

Don't diss Nick Meyers' single-person filmmaker opinion by claiming that George Lucas' single-person filmmaker opinion is somehow better or more correct. They are simply two differing viewpoints from filmmakers - one of which I happen to agree with, and the other of which I find abhorent, insane, insecure, and psychotic.


And yes - destroying the negatives of The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind, Vertigo, Singin' in the Rain, Lawrence of Arabia, or Star Wars would be crimes ... absolute evil, villainous crimes against art history. I take that stance quite seriously. Are you claiming otherwise? If I come into legal ownership of Forbidden Planet, is it ok for me to destroy the negative? What the fuck are you on about?




.
Author
Time
Post link
I'm just saying what Lucas did wasn't a crime. He was well within his rights to do what he did.

It's not like we all don't already have a billion copies of the O-OT already. Now we can even get it on DVD.

I don't know about you, but I will be able to watch the O-OT until the day I die. And if I want to, I can leave them for someone else after I've gone.

To me, no harm no foul.

The negatives may not exist as they originally were, but they do still exist as the basis for the SE version.

I think it's pretty funny you act like Lucas wouldn't be able to talk about the opinion of film makers, yet you feel you can do that as long as you quote a film maker.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Argh, this quoting is becoming a mess...

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I don't deny the business side of Lucas, I just think that his idea of good business is to make the best product he can. I realise the non Anamorphic release isn't the best he could have done. To him the SE version was the best he could do. Then why did he put the OOT in it in the first place, from this point of view? Inferior films in shoddy quality. What about his "artistic vision"(tm) ? Well, having the original versions seemed to be really important to us.

Yeah, but what about his artistic vision then?


Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I just also understand where Lucas is coming from. I don't think it's about disrespecting the people who don't agree with him as much as he is respecting his own vision for it with a determined passion. Yeah, he is respecting his own vision so much, like changing the movies over and over again in each new release, always claiming that these have ALWAYS been his visions. Well I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. I don't think he is really trying to claim that he had the whole vision for the SW saga from the very beginning. I think he means to say that most of the things he did to change the classic trilogy were the result of things he couldn't originally do exactly the way he had hoped he could do it. Also each release has represented his "definative" vision "at the time" I think there was part of him that thought that he might only go so far with it, but then as he went he decided to go even further.

Like I said, if George Lucas does something, which might be a clear hint that he is just fooling around, the die hard fans will do the thinking and arguing for him to cover up his ass.


Originally posted by: Vigo
Honestly, you don´t believe this crap yourself, do you? Yes, I think Lucas has by and large been pretty honest about all of this. I think that he is just not the best public speaker, and with the way the media tends to present things out of context, he is largely just misunderstood.

Glad he has someone like you, who clears everything up for him.


Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Nobody could talk him out of making SW in the first place, and a lot of people thought he was crazy to do it in the first place. Why would he suddenly come to the conclusion that his detractors are right now? I think it is a bit selfish to not give a crap about the people who prefer the originals, but I honesty don't see many of those people giving a crap about what he wants either. You are right. With one small little mistake: Star Wars is not art. It´s a franchise, a product. A franchise is supposed to make money. And it only makes money, if it pleases the customers, i.e. the price is right according to the product´s value. Everything else is wishful thinking. You said it yourself, GL won´t be pissing money away for a non-profitable OOT restauration. So i won´t be pissing away my money for him. Simple. I think that art and business can both mutually exist if the artist is also the businessman. Lucas' artistic sensibilities are preserved in the SE version and whatever version is coming next year.

Sorry, but this is no art. This is commercially driven rubbish. Popcorn and Hamburger for the senses. Star Wars was never meant to be anything different. It´s space opera. This whole nonsense about his "artistic vision" came up when he tried to justify the changes made to the original movies, and market the new cgi effects in the special edition, to test if the time and technology was right for the prequel trilogy.

You were starting ok, but now, this arguments clearly becomes ridiculous.


For him to re-release the older versions, that's purely a consumer demand issue for him. If that can't be done without losing money, then he doesn't see the business sense in doing it. Artistically, he didn't want to re-release it at all.

What you are basically saying is the followoing:

- Releasing the old movies is a business decision from Lucas
- Constantly altering the old trilogy in order to sell the same old movies over and over again is now an "artistic decision"???

Sorry, now you are being REALLY ridiculous.


Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I know some of you have no problem with his changes as long as the original is provided along side of it, but by and large there is a lot of crap being flung in Lucas general direction over all of this. While I can relate to the hard feelings over his suppression of the O-OT and now his lackluster presentation of the O-OT, I think that there is a lot of disrespect given to him beyond that, putting down his artistic vision to the point where you might get the idea that SW was great despite Lucas. Well, if such a lot of disrespect is given to his artistic vision, doesn´t it occur to you that perhaps he might have screwed up the last few years, artistically? (Not monetary, all prequel Star Wars films did very well at the boxoffice). Why are these issues like "Han shoots first!!" so popular? Is everyone an ignorant bastard, who is incapable of seeing Lucas "artistic vision" behind it?
I think what happens is people get attatched to things. I can relate to the way a lot of people fell in love with the originals, and would just prefer to remember them that way. I don't think there is anything wrong with being disappointed in the changes, and I think there is nothing wrong with asking Lucas to reconsider his stance on releasing the originals. The thing is, not everyone cares about who shot first. Not everyone cares about the switch to Hayden Ghost in ROTJ. Some people actually think that's just fine. I for one think that by and large, Lucas hasn't really altered the classic trilogy. I think all the changes are mostly cosmetic, and don't alter the storyline or characters in any signifigant way. So yeah a lot of people weren't impressed, but that doesn't mean his artistic vision for these films is "wrong" it just means you don't like it.


And I never said something different. Of course, he may do whatever he likes to his movies. He may even burn the original negatives, and call this artistic self expression.

I only care for the original movies, and judge the decision he makes from this point of view. Who I don´t get is the fans, who are constantly trying to justify his decisions. I mean, shouldn´t a STAR WARS fan be concerned that the original movies are properly preserved for the future? Where is the logic to defend Lucas, whose "artistic vision" is clearly destroying the movies people grew up with? Destroying the original negatives. Preventing public viewings of original 35mm copies of the OOT.


Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I'm not pointing fingers here, but surely you have to admit there have been a lot of insults sent his way.
Well, so what? What is YOUR concern about this? This guy is a big boy, with loads of money and who doesn´t care about his fanbase. You certainly don´t have to jump for him into the bushes, defending him from everyone who is so mean to him to put him VERBALLY down.
The only reason I really speak out about this is because I think that if we want him to care more about us, we have to be reasonable about it. If all we do is cry out that Lucas is a cold hearted businessman with no artistic intent in the first place, well I don't see why he -should- care more than he has.


Well, I say what I think, and his actions clearly back this theory up. Why should he actually care more, if everyone is rubbing his balls?

Again, the misconception that he actually released the OOT to please fans. They did it to clear the inventory and dry up the bootleg market. He said himself that he doesn´t care. Period.


Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
The worst he did was not produce the versions everyone wanted to have on DVD.
The worst thing he did was destroying the original negative of the original Star Wars films. For every Star Wars fan, this should be unforgivable.
And yet somehow a lot of us do.


Well, this says a lot about the affection these "fans" pretend to have for those films.



Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
You don't see him putting down all the ways we might have done it differently.
He doesn´t need to, since he is in the position to get his way, no matter what everyone else thinks.Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
He doesn't say that the people who disagree with him are not artistically competant.
Again, he doesn´t need to.
My question is why do we need to do that in reverse? What does that gain for us? What purpose does that serve?


To be honest, for me, it serves my purpose of practicising the english language. And I like discussing with PEOPLE. To challenge my view against other views, and gain a higher state of consciousness. This is my "artistic vision".


Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
The way I see it, he is stubborn about his vision, but gracious about the diversity of opinions out there.
Yes, of course we can all be so thankful that he so "gracious" about the diversity of opinions. Sorry, this is almost like hearing someone talking, who is not a fan but a member of a cult.
That's okay. I feel the same way about people who demonize Lucas.


Well, a demon implies negative emotions towards his fans or other people. I don´t think he has them. I don´t think he has any particular positive emotions towards his fans either. Like I said, Lucasfilm is a company, and clearly acts as such. Maximize profits. Selling the same stuff over and over again most efficiently. Going as far as permanently destroying the original movies. This is no art, this is fast food for the masses.
Author
Time
Post link
Just for the record, Mr. Meyer did not claim to be speaking for all filmmakers. Mr. Lucas emphatically was.



Goodbye, Go-Mer. You are a tool.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I'm just saying what Lucas did wasn't a crime. He was well within his rights to do what he did.

Yes, he had legally the right to destroy the original movies.


It's not like we all don't already have a billion copies of the O-OT already. Now we can even get it on DVD.


But these are not the original movies! A low resolution video copy is hardly a substitute for the original negative masters!!!! If these are destroyed, the movie is basically destroyed. It´s gone!


I don't know about you, but I will be able to watch the O-OT until the day I die. And if I want to, I can leave them for someone else after I've gone.


Argh, such ignorance....


To me, no harm no foul.


Yeah, only that the original negative is lost forever. That you will NEVER be able to restore them in original quality on modern formats. Only these low resolution DVD´s are left from these visual masterpieces. Yeah, definately no harm, no foul..........


The negatives may not exist as they originally were, but they do still exist as the basis for the SE version.


Yeah, with SE scenes cut in where the original scenes were originally. There is no basis for the original version anymore.

Look at the comparison pages HOW much was chaged. The special effects, even if there is still model work, was recomposited using the computer. Nothing left anymore of the original work. This is desastrous. It´s like tearing parts out of a book and rewrite them to rewrite history.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
Well I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. I don't think he is really trying to claim that he had the whole vision for the SW saga from the very beginning. I think he means to say that most of the things he did to change the classic trilogy were the result of things he couldn't originally do exactly the way he had hoped he could do it. Also each release has represented his "definative" vision "at the time" I think there was part of him that thought that he might only go so far with it, but then as he went he decided to go even further.


So what you're saying is that the day they shot the Han/Greedo shooting scene, there was no way they could make Greedo shoot first? Despite all the westerns that came out before Star Wars, it just wasn't possible to have a shoot out like that in a Sci-Fi movie? Well, I'm so glad we have computers now so we can make two people have a fast paced shoot out. Where would we be without those computers?

I suppose there was also no way to shoot that same scene multiple times in order to get different takes so they could decide which one to use in post? Man, again I say thank goodness for those computers.

Stop drinking the kool-aid for a moment and think about what you're saying.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
According to Lucas, he had time and money to do 3 squib setups for that shot. Each one went off with bad timing. He said in one shot Greedo shot way before Han, in another Han shot way before greedo, and in the one they used, they both went off at about the same time, but you couldn't really tell that. He didn't have time or money to do more setups, so he decided to live with that and try to make it clear through the dialogue that "the idea" was to kill Han.

Didn't Tolkein rewrite his works for future editions? Did he also re-publish his previous works along side his new editions each time?

I don't see the difference here with what Lucas has done.

If this is all just "commercially driven rubbish" then why are any of you trying to preserve it for the sake of "artistic history"?
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
According to Lucas, he had time and money to do 3 squib setups for that shot. Each one went off with bad timing. He said in one shot Greedo shot way before Han, in another Han shot way before greedo, and in the one they used, they both went off at about the same time, but you couldn't really tell that. He didn't have time or money to do more setups, so he decided to live with that and try to make it clear through the dialogue that "the idea" was to kill Han.

Yes, he did the best possible in the original version to make the best out of the shot footage. What you can see now in the SE, this faked cgi dodge by HAN, is probably far worse than any mistimed take of the original footage.

Every director has to cope with this fact, that you sometimes can not get what you want during shooting. Did it make the movie any worse? No. The scene worked perfectly in the original version. Sometimes, it is the limitations that drive people to excellency. Many real artists will confirm this.


Didn't Tolkein rewrite his works for future editions? Did he also re-publish his previous works along side his new editions each time?

I don't see the difference here with what Lucas has done.


I´m no Tolkien expert, so I cannot comment on this.


If this is all just "commercially driven rubbish" then why are any of you trying to preserve it for the sake of "artistic history"?


No, what is done now to these films is commercially driven rubbish. Tell me, what artistic is about treating these movies basically as a commerical product, revising it every time it is going to be released, always adding gimmicks which are just there just to get tiny bits of new pieces for your money? If it´s really artistically driven, then I pity Lucas. Real artists know when they have to let go of their work, and they acknowledge that once you have it released, it becomes part of culture, part of the people who explore it. IF it would be for the art, then Lucas would be one hell of an uncertain artists, really not knowing what he wants to do. But luckily, I don´t think that any artistic ambitions are involved in the constant alteration of these classics. It´s the permanent answer to the question of the consumers "Hell, why am I gonna supposed to pay AGAIN for these old movies?".

Preservation is about preserving history. Not destroying original material. Star Wars is a 70´s movie, it looks and feels like a 70´s movie. And you know what? There is nothing bad about it! Nicolas Meyer said that every decade has its own way of making a movie. You see it in subtleties like camera work, acting, everything, the impact is always present. Once you temper with these works OVER 20 YEARS LATER, you create a hybrid, a fake Zombie. CGI does not belong in a movie from 1977 (unless of course it is 70´s cgi, like the impressive gouraud shaded computer face of Peter Fonda in Future World). IF Lucas had the technology of today back then, 3 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MOVIES would have come out in 1977,80,83. Not just movies with cgi where you could put cgi in now, it would have influenced THE WHOLE creative process. The story would probably be different, with the writers knowing what could be done with cgi. The acting would be different, because they would have acted on green screen sets, instead of real locations. And this is one important point, which most people don´t understand today: these limitations were what made these movies great. What motivated everyone behind the camera to improvise, and make the best out of what was available. You can NEVER recreate this atmosphere, nor can you predict how these movies would have looked if the technology would have been different back then. This is the reason the original trilogy will NEVER, EVER fit together with the prequel trilogy, unless Lucas decides to remake them completely. I really vote for that: remake Episode IV-VI and let the originals be what they are. They are movies from 1977, 1980 and 1983. And as such, those movies HAVE TO BE preserved correctly, because they are part of motion picture history. Even the SE and SESE has to be preserved. They are documents of the late 20th, early 21st century cgi revisionism hype.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Vigo
[
Yeah, like those Blade Runner fans, which will get next year on DVD AND HD-DVD a special edition set, containing:

1) The original 1982 cinema cut, which hast been available on video for almost TWO decades
2) The 1992 Director´s cut
3) The new Final Cut, which will be Ridley Scott´s definitive version.

Or like those ET fans, who can have BOTH the original and 20th anniversary edition IN THE SAME QUALITY on DVD.

Yes, it´s so hard to please the fans. But then again, Blade Runner was such a financial succesful movie contrary to the Star Wars franchise....



Touche!

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Vigo
you sometimes can not get what you want during shooting. Did it make the movie any worse? No. The scene worked perfectly in the original version. Sometimes, it is the limitations that drive people to excellency. Many real artists will confirm this.

Ergo, the end of King Kong, not to mention the end of Casablanca. Not that these were accidents happening on shooting day, but they were written and inserted into the films at the last moment, with production well underway.

Not only will real artists confirm that accidental or even unwanted things often work out artistically best, great artists will know this to be the case and not frantically resist or stupidly second-guess.





Edited to add:

Oh, and huzzah for everything Vigo also wrote in his last post, vis-a-vis the feel of certain movie periods, and how every element is effected and constrained by and expressive of that historical period.



As for Tolkien, yes it was a dickwad move of his to change The Hobbit to fit with the later-written The Lord of the Rings. He get no pass from me. I don't believe he ever went back and burned his original manuscript, but I don't really know.


.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: grifter
Originally posted by: Vigo
[
Yeah, like those Blade Runner fans, which will get next year on DVD AND HD-DVD a special edition set, containing:

1) The original 1982 cinema cut, which hast been available on video for almost TWO decades
2) The 1992 Director´s cut
3) The new Final Cut, which will be Ridley Scott´s definitive version.

Or like those ET fans, who can have BOTH the original and 20th anniversary edition IN THE SAME QUALITY on DVD.

Yes, it´s so hard to please the fans. But then again, Blade Runner was such a financial succesful movie contrary to the Star Wars franchise....



Touche!


This is even more impressive when you consider that Ridley Scott REALLY HATES the original release of Blade Runner, with the voice over. But he acknowledges that there are people out there who like the original release more. With this new HD transfer, it is properly preserved, along with the 1992 and the new cut which is released nex year. With this strategy, he has STOPPED the bitching among Blade Runner fans, between those who prefer the 1992 version, and those who prefer the 1982 version, which felt betrayed that the oroginal version wasnt available on DVD and on Home Video for a long time. Ridley loves his fans.

The same with Legend, also directed by Ridley Scott. On the Ultimate edition, you get both the American Cut and the DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT Director´s cut with completely differnet score in ONE DVD package. You can´t go wrong if you do this! Again, a highly commercial succesful film contrary to the Star Wars franchise...

Take Terminator 2. Both longer version and theatrical release in one package, same picture quality. Makes use of Seamles Branching. In the case of T2, it is the theatrical version which is preferred by the director, but he admits that the added scenes of the extended version explain and show more, which is something die-hard fans really love (he admits it in the audio commentary)

Alien. Both versions available. Same quality.

Aliens. Both versions available. Same quality.

Robocop, the same.

(....)

All examples of how the fan base and DVD buyers are treated with respect by giving them WHAT THEY WANT in great quality. And don´t you dare to say that Ridley Scott is no artist. Ridley is one of the most artistically driven hollywood directors still there. The visuals and stories of his films speak for themselves. He has absolutely no problem to have on the one hand, his "artistic vision" and on the other hand, the theatrical original films distributed side by side in the same package. Why is this so hard for Lucasfilm what seems to be so easy for other major studios, with films not as close as commercially succesful???

This is why this whole OOT release, and this yadyadayada GL fans are making about it, that we should be grateful that we have gotten the movies, no matter how bad they look, since they don´t confirm to GL highly "artistic vision" (tm) anymore, this is why it is SO UTTERLY RIDICULOUS! I am so glad I like movies in general, and that I am not a hardcore Star Wars fan. This way, I can really appreciate all the other great DVD releases which have come out over the time now. AS much as I am disheartened by the OOT release, I am REALLY HAPPY that Blade Runner is finally coming completely remastered in HD in a mega DVD pack next year. What will Star Wars fans get next year? The same movies again on DVD. Those DVD versions which should have come out in the first place. And most probably without the original movies. With HD versions coming when DVD has sold off. DISGUSTING!

And i know that if it weren´t for the fan preservation efforts here, the OOT wouldn´t have been released at all to this day. Despite the fact that shortly after the release of the 97SE, Star Wars fans began to object to the changed made to these movies. This is just pathetic.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Vigo
Argh, this quoting is becoming a mess... Yeah, I'm going to try and cut some of the fat out of this one...
Originally posted by: Vigo
...why did he put the OOT in it in the first place, from this point of view? Inferior films in shoddy quality. What about his "artistic vision"(tm) ?
Well, having the original versions seemed to be really important to us. Yeah, but what about his artistic vision then? I see this as two issues. For him, the latest and greatest version he has made is his "artistic vision". The originals are versions that -we- would like to see preserved.

Are you asking why he would release still yet "unfinished" versions in 2004? In that case the reason according to him is that his advisors were telling him that if he waited until he was "ready" there might not be a DVD market to release to anyway. I think that, combined with the daily request from fans to at least release what he has even if it isn't "finished" caused him to reconsider waiting until he was done.
Originally posted by: Vigo
Like I said, if George Lucas does something, which might be a clear hint that he is just fooling around, the die hard fans will do the thinking and arguing for him to cover up his ass. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "just fooling around". You mean if Lucas does something that shows that he doesn't really take any of this seriously, people like me will still come in and defend him? I'm sure you are right. If Lucas really doesn't care about this saga, then I am unable to see that, as a result, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
Originally posted by: Vigo
Honestly, you don’t believe this crap yourself, do you?
Yes, I think Lucas has by and large been pretty honest about all of this. I think that he is just not the best public speaker, and with the way the media tends to present things out of context, he is largely just misunderstood. Glad he has someone like you, who clears everything up for him. Well the man has brought me a lifetime of joy. Sticking up for him when I think he's being misunderstood is the least I could do in return.
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-TonicI think that art and business can both mutually exist if the artist is also the businessman. Lucas' artistic sensibilities are preserved in the SE version and whatever version is coming next year. Sorry, but this is no art. This is commercially driven rubbish. Popcorn and Hamburger for the senses. Star Wars was never meant to be anything different. It´s space opera. This whole nonsense about his "artistic vision" came up when he tried to justify the changes made to the original movies, and market the new cgi effects in the special edition, to test if the time and technology was right for the prequel trilogy. You were starting ok, but now, this arguments clearly becomes ridiculous. Wait a minute, I asked you why you were trying to preserve something that you considered to be "commercially driven rubbish", and you said that it was really only true of the newer stuff? I think that's getting a little ridiculous. I think it's fairly obvious that the entire saga, from start to finish was meant to be a commercial endeavor. What makes the new stuff any less artistic than the things he did originally?
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
For him to re-release the older versions, that's purely a consumer demand issue for him. If that can't be done without losing money, then he doesn't see the business sense in doing it. Artistically, he didn't want to re-release it at all. What you are basically saying is the following:

- Releasing the old movies is a business decision from Lucas.
- Constantly altering the old trilogy in order to sell the same old movies over and over again is now an "artistic decision"???

Sorry, now you are being REALLY ridiculous. Lucas keeps altering them to satisfy his artistic tastes. The only interest he would have in re-releasing the originals is to meet consumer demand for them.
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic So yeah a lot of people weren't impressed, but that doesn't mean his artistic vision for these films is "wrong" it just means you don't like it. And I never said something different. Of course, he may do whatever he likes to his movies. He may even burn the original negatives, and call this artistic self expression. I only care for the original movies, and judge the decision he makes from this point of view. Who I don’t get is the fans, who are constantly trying to justify his decisions. I mean, shouldn’t a STAR WARS fan be concerned that the original movies are properly preserved for the future? Where is the logic to defend Lucas, whose "artistic vision" is clearly destroying the movies people grew up with? Destroying the original negatives. Preventing public viewings of original 35mm copies of the OOT. I only speak for myself when I say I appreciate the way Lucas is tweaking and to me he is improving them. For me it's not about the special effects as much as it's about the story. To me what he's done not only hasn't harmed the original films, it's actually made them better. He said that if he didn't do the restoration when he did, there would never have been -any- Star Wars. What you call "destroying the original print" I call saving it's life. To me it's not all that big of a deal if Lucas wants to make Greedo shoot first, or if he wants to put Hayden in as the ghost in ROTJ. To me, it still represents the same thing: The good man who was Luke's father.
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I'm not pointing fingers here, but surely you have to admit there have been a lot of insults sent his way.
Well, so what? What is YOUR concern about this? This guy is a big boy, with loads of money and who doesn’t care about his fanbase. You certainly don’t have to jump for him into the bushes, defending him from everyone who is so mean to him to put him VERBALLY down. The only reason I really speak out about this is because I think that if we want him to care more about us, we have to be reasonable about it. If all we do is cry out that Lucas is a cold hearted businessman with no artistic intent in the first place, well I don't see why he -should- care more than he has.
Well, I say what I think, and his actions clearly back this theory up. Why should he actually care more, if everyone is rubbing his balls?
If the people who are asking him to make this happen do it in a nice way, he is much more likely to look at our sad puppy dog eyes and cave in. If he sees us all foaming at the mouth and growling like Cujo, then he is more likely to just slam the door shut and say "screw those negative bastards", they can preserve their own O-OT for all I care.Originally posted by: VigoAgain, the misconception that he actually released the OOT to please fans. They did it to clear the inventory and dry up the bootleg market. He said himself that he doesn’t care. Period.
It wasn't "just" to give us what we wanted, but in the end, it was what we asked for.Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
The worst he did was not produce the versions everyone wanted to have on DVD.
The worst thing he did was destroying the original negative of the original Star Wars films. For every Star Wars fan, this should be unforgivable.And yet somehow a lot of us do.
Well, this says a lot about the affection these "fans" pretend to have for those films.
Yeah, I love these films so much that sticking a CG Jabba in ANH, or making Greedo shoot first, or putting Hayden into ROTJ wasn't enough to change that.
Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
You don't see him putting down all the ways we might have done it differently.
He doesn’t need to, since he is in the position to get his way, no matter what everyone else thinks.Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
He doesn't say that the people who disagree with him are not artistically competent.
Again, he doesn’t need to.
My question is why do we need to do that in reverse? What does that gain for us? What purpose does that serve?To be honest, for me, it serves my purpose of practicising the english language. And I like discussing with PEOPLE. To challenge my view against other views, and gain a higher state of consciousness. This is my "artistic vision".
I can respect that, it's pretty much why I'm here too. Although I speak english, practice is always good.Originally posted by: Vigo
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
The way I see it, he is stubborn about his vision, but gracious about the diversity of opinions out there.
Yes, of course we can all be so thankful that he so "gracious" about the diversity of opinions. Sorry, this is almost like hearing someone talking, who is not a fan but a member of a cult.That's okay. I feel the same way about people who demonize Lucas.
Well, a demon implies negative emotions towards his fans or other people. I don’t think he has them. I don’t think he has any particular positive emotions towards his fans either. Like I said, Lucasfilm is a company, and clearly acts as such. Maximize profits. Selling the same stuff over and over again most efficiently. Going as far as permanently destroying the original movies. This is no art, this is fast food for the masses.
Wouldn't fast food be more like "your way right away"? If this was just fast food to him he would have released the originals on DVD when DVD first came out. He wouldn't have waited until 2004 to put the classic trilogy on DVD.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
@Go-Mer-Tronic

I´m tired now (Well, its 11pm now here). Everything which I have to say about the original movies, the special editions, etc. I did in the last answer to you. Read it carefully, since it answers a lot of your questions you are giving to me in your last post above this post.

It all comes down to the fact that we both don´t know GL personally. I wrote about what I think his motivation is, you wrote your interpretation about the situation.

The only thing I see is that these movies deserve a far better treatment than treating them as "waste" products from the past. The only thing I can do is to compare this situation with how other movies, far less popular than Star Wars are treated. By Director´s which also claim to have an "artistic vision". And I am pretty confident in my opinion that everything which you and other GL supporters are constantly citing, becomes rididulous in this context. Learn about the film preservation like I did, since it´s a fascinating subject which really interests me, and you´ll see that most claims about the OOT being very costly to restore properly is just marketing talk by Lucasfilm. Read the Star Wars thread at www.hometheaterforum.com/htf in the DVD section. Read the first pages where Robert Harris, who restored a lot of films in his career, is very confident that the OOT could be restored to its original state without investing tons of money. If you don´t know Robert Harris, Google and you´ll see what I mean. There is no technical reason why the OOT couldn´t be restored again, it could have been done for this DVD release, and Lucasfilm would still have made a nice profit. They easily would have won the heart of ALL fans. No bad press and outcry about this no-effort.

In the end, for me, the evidence supporting the theory that Lucas has long gone stopped listening to his fans, and is trying to get as much $ out as possible from his franchise, by constantly revising his films, is much more obvious than your claims about "artistic vision". Real artists don´t behave like that. And this is the problem when you are a die-hard Star Wars fan instead of being a film fan in general: your lack of perspective on those matters. You can only see everything in GL own context. You believe him blindly. You even start to fill out these huge logic gaps for him created by him and his ridiculous argumentation.

This huge fan preservation community isn´t there for no reason. This loud critical tone against the prequel trilogy isn´t there for no reason. When do you start to open your eyes and realize that a lot of things have gone wrong in the past? Can you allow yourself to be critical?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
He didn't destroy the original negatives, he merely improved them in his opinion, and if you still want to watch the originals he has just re-released them on DVD.

They aren't gone, they just aren't good enough everyone (even though this is as good as it has -ever- looked on home video to date).


I haven't laughed this hard at a forum post since a user on the Startrek.com boards tried to convince me that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was going to buy Enterprise from Paramount. The last line alone is gold. I want to go back to the 80's now.
Author
Time
Post link
Something which I COULDN´T let pass uncommented:


I only speak for myself when I say I appreciate the way Lucas is tweaking and to me he is improving them. For me it's not about the special effects as much as it's about the story. To me what he's done not only hasn't harmed the original films, it's actually made them better. He said that if he didn't do the restoration when he did, there would never have been -any- Star Wars. What you call "destroying the original print" I call saving it's life. To me it's not all that big of a deal if Lucas wants to make Greedo shoot first, or if he wants to put Hayden in as the ghost in ROTJ. To me, it still represents the same thing: The good man who was Luke's father.


Again, cutting up the negative, and replace large parts of it with newly created material made 20 years later is NO preservation, it is the destruction of the original. He could have done the same restauration without this butchering. You can´t save something by throwing it away and replacing it with something different.

EVERY film restauration expert and movie fan will shake his / her head about your comment you just made. Ever heard of euphemism?

Acoording to your logic, burning the whole negative and remaking EPIV-VI with the same story, but totally different actors would be no problem, since essentially, it still would represent the same thing. Well, I personally think of Hayden´s character and acting performance in the PT when I watch GL newly revised "artistic vision" (tm). Too bad I´m actually paying too much attention to the performance and actors of films, even if they are being replaced suddenly with every new film release, instead of just going with the story...

You are clearly no film preservationist. And this is an understatement. You are clearly the ANTI-FILM-PRESERVATIONIST.
Author
Time
Post link
And Go-Mer, though I'm sure the Han and Jabba scene from the 1977 cutting-room floor doesn't ruin Star Wars for you, do you not find the inclusion to be redundant and therefore negatively affecting the pacing?

If not ... do you or do you not agree with the Screenwriting 101 precept that two scenes presenting identical information are to be avoided, and such scenes within minutes of screen time of each other are to be avoided at all costs?


What I posted earlier about King Kong and Casablanca is applicable to scenes, like the Han & Jabba scene, which - contrary to the director's intent - ended up on the cutting room floor ... to the director's regret and the film's improvement.



Few people claim the SE's (of whichever vintage) ruined Star Wars, but many (me among them) claim they are inferior to the original ... and many (me among claim) claim that supressing the originals (OMG to the point of "permanently altering" the negative) is an abuse of cinema history ... and I might add a vile performance of stewardship.


.
Author
Time
Post link
Well, my interest in getting Lucas to release a higher quality version of the O-OT is to allow as many SW fans to be as happy as possible.

I personally don't mind Star Wars being left the way Lucas would like it to be left when he's gone.

To me it's his art and as such I have no problem with him deciding how to best preserve it for future generations.
Your focus determines your reality.