Which version/release of the Star Wars movies do you watch and why? — Page 4

-- OT
GOUT. It's just the best option that I've got ready access to. Besides, I've got little or no use for fan edits and such nonsense. If other people like them, whatever, but I personally believe "fan editors" should invest their creative energies in their own projects rather than (often badly) hacking someone else's.

I guess I'll spin certain scenes from the 2004 edition once in a while (mostly the Bespin stuff in ESB) but the most credibility I can afford them is a curiosity. GOUT remains definitive in my book... sad as that may be.

-- PT
2001/2002/2005 DVD's. The choices are limited here. Technically, the original theatrical cuts have never been released on DVD (although ROTS is pretty close). I'd love to have them in good quality but that seems even less likely than getting the OT as there's no outcry among any segment of the fanbase for these.

For the original trilogy, it would be Harmy's Despecialised version since it still remains to be the best quality for the OUT yet. At times I will watch Adywan's Revisited edit for A New Hope for the incredible things he has done to it and intend on watching Empire Strikes Back whenever he finishes it. I've now gone to a point where I find the entire Special Editions unwatchable, so I refuse to buy another set of the originals until the OUT is ever released which'll unlikely happen.

For the prequel trilogy, I've gone back to the original cuts surprisingly after buying the Blu-ray set. For the last few years I did watch ADigitalMan's and Magnoliafan's fan-edits which were great but I sort of drifted away. I still have a soft spot for the original cuts, though at times I still rolled my eyes at some of the stuff like Yoda vs. Dooku, whenever midichlorians are mentioned and Jar Jar is being annoying. Now that I have watched the Blu-ray set (twice including the archival commentary), I do miss the creepy Yoda puppet, despite the digital one looking more like the others.

thecolorsblend said:

-- OT
GOUT. It's just the best option that I've got ready access to. Besides, I've got little or no use for fan edits and such nonsense. 

-- PT
2001/2002/2005 DVD's. The choices are limited here. 

The choices are only limited if you allow yourself to be limited by blindly condemning fan efforts. For example this:

The Phantom Menace -Theatrical Version - NTSC DVD- ADYWAN

It was created by a fan, yes, but it is a perfect theatrical presentation on DVD including the original DD 5.1 from Laserdics, which is said to be vastly superior to the DVD mix. Even the PQ is better, because it is sourced from HD broadcast and colour corrected to be closer to theatrical colours than the official DVD.

My Despecialized Editions (links in my sig) are similar to this, although some of the less obvious changes (only those that you probably wouldn't ever notice) are left in.

Oh, and ROTS is the theatrical cut on BD.

Harmy said:

thecolorsblend said:

-- OT
GOUT. It's just the best option that I've got ready access to. Besides, I've got little or no use for fan edits and such nonsense. 

The choices are only limited if you allow yourself to be limited by blindly condemning fan efforts.

 

In defense of thecolorsblend, the existence of "fan preservations" as a subset of "fan edits" is counterintuitive to many, and certainly unknown to most (even members of this forum may simply never check that part of the forum).  I'm a relatively recent member of this forum and the existence of fan preservations was a major, world-shaking revelation for me.

The whole idea that fans, using (mostly) home video releases, could create a better-quality product than studios who actually have access to film masters and tons of expensive equipment seemingly defies logic.  That's why "the GOUT is as good as it gets" is such an entrenched opinion.  Not to mention that fan edits are almost entirely used to modify films to the whims of the fan and are often dismissed outright without realizing that there can be other motivations.  So yes, there's some blindness here, but I can understand where it comes from.

I'd also recommend dark_jedi's preservations in addition to Harmy's.  Right now DJ makes my favorite SW and ROTJ, and Harmy makes my favorite ESB.  Although Harmy is well on his way to making my favorite SW too.

CatBus said:

The whole idea that fans, using (mostly) home video releases, could create a better-quality product than studios who actually have access to film masters and tons of expensive equipment seemingly defies logic.  

Have you watched Adywan's Revisited fan edit?  This fan edit alone shows how one person can create a professional-looking edit using affordable home technology and software.

I would suggest that someone new to the Star Wars movies would never suspect that ANH:R isn't the officially released movie.

Harmy said:

thecolorsblend said:

-- OT
GOUT. It's just the best option that I've got ready access to. Besides, I've got little or no use for fan edits and such nonsense. 

-- PT
2001/2002/2005 DVD's. The choices are limited here. 

The choices are only limited if you allow yourself to be limited by blindly condemning fan efforts. For example this:

The Phantom Menace -Theatrical Version - NTSC DVD- ADYWAN

It was created by a fan, yes, but it is a perfect theatrical presentation on DVD including the original DD 5.1 from Laserdics, which is said to be vastly superior to the DVD mix. Even the PQ is better, because it is sourced from HD broadcast and colour corrected to be closer to theatrical colours than the official DVD.

My Despecialized Editions (links in my sig) are similar to this, although some of the less obvious changes (only those that you probably wouldn't ever notice) are left in.

Oh, and ROTS is the theatrical cut on BD.

There's a distinction to be made between a "fan edit" which changes a bunch of stuff that maybe not everyone thinks needed to be changed and a "fan preservation" that mostly attempt to protect the theatrical cuts in the best quality possible. One of those is an agenda I can readily get behind. The other is something that Lucas gets criticized for up one side and down the other but, somehow, fan editors get a free pass on.

And hey, some fan edits can look amazing. Many of them are (intentionally or not) an indictment of how poorly executed a lot of official LFL releases are. The Darth Editous ANH comes to mind here. I just have problems with anybody tampering with a filmmaker's vision irrespective of their motive.

And yes, the cut of ROTS on DVD (I don't know about the BRD set because I refuse to buy it) is mostly the theatrical version... but dammit, a wipe was altered. It's a small thing but there it is.

Yeah, on BD that wipe is back to how it was in theatres.

Also, the simple reason faneditors get away with what GL doesn't is that they don't make anyone watch their edit, you can choose to watch it if you want but if you want to watch the film the way its creators made it, you can, I fail to see how there can be any argument there.

Regarding fan edits, I feel much the same way about Star Wars as I do about endangered animals (let's say a cute one like a Panda).  Fan preservations, we can all probably agree, actually save the pandas.  That's all good.  I feel the same way about Lucas as I do about someone who not only plans to hunt down and kill every last panda, but to grind them up and turn them into hamburgers that don't even taste good, and sell them at a premium as "Panda Burgers".  And you don't even want to know how he recycles them and sells them back to you again a little bit later (and tasting a little worse), but let's just say the plumbing in his restaurant's bathroom isn't exactly up-to-code.

...er, where was I...

Oh yeah, fan edits.  Fan edits are like a guy who knows a lot about pandas, loves them, and has a ton of resources that could be put toward saving them.  But instead he flies to China, takes a picture of a Panda about to get shot by Lucas, and puts a LOLCATS caption on it.  The fact that I don't have to watch it is beside the point. There's just something disrespectful about it, like laughing at a funeral.

Maybe I'd feel better about fan edits once I don't actually think the films are in danger anymore.  I certainly don't care one way or another about fan edits of other films, so that's probably true.

Harmy said:

Yeah, on BD that wipe is back to how it was in theatres.

Also, the simple reason faneditors get away with what GL doesn't is that they don't make anyone watch their edit, you can choose to watch it if you want but if you want to watch the film the way its creators made it, you can, I fail to see how there can be any argument there.

Hey, not trying to pick a fight here. But fan editors take a director's vision, carve it up and usually make at best a lateral change in terms of improvement overall. I'm not saying there aren't good concepts out there. I heard about one fan edit that did a Godfather Saga thing with the movies by intercutting the six films among each other. Maybe these editors do genuinely improve the material in some cases. Maybe the director in question truly lacked in the "vision" department. All the same, I just don't think they have any moral right to alter that vision, irrespective of their talents, their legit improvements, the availability of the real cuts or anything else. That, and I think their creative energies would probably be better served in developing their own creations rather than cutting up someone else's.

thecolorsblend said:

 

Harmy said:

Yeah, on BD that wipe is back to how it was in theatres.

Also, the simple reason faneditors get away with what GL doesn't is that they don't make anyone watch their edit, you can choose to watch it if you want but if you want to watch the film the way its creators made it, you can, I fail to see how there can be any argument there.

Hey, not trying to pick a fight here. But fan editors take a director's vision, carve it up and usually make at best a lateral change in terms of improvement overall. I'm not saying there aren't good concepts out there. I heard about one fan edit that did a Godfather Saga thing with the movies by intercutting the six films among each other. Maybe these editors do genuinely improve the material in some cases. Maybe the director in question truly lacked in the "vision" department. All the same, I just don't think they have any moral right to alter that vision, irrespective of their talents, their legit improvements, the availability of the real cuts or anything else. That, and I think their creative energies would probably be better served in developing their own creations rather than cutting up someone else's.

 

Well said.

Agree 100%.

A fan editor never recruited and directed the actors,liased with the art,special effects and production crews and consulted and collaborated with the musical composer.

A fan editor never concieved of the ideas and scenarios that are encapsulated in the scripts.

Lucas did and continues to do all of the above for better or for worse.

Well, you see, in the movie business, there's this job called "editor." And such a person takes what the director and all the others shot, very often without having anything to do with the process up to that point and cuts it into a coherent film, because that is their art. And, while of course the situation with fan editors is a bit different, I still don't see any harm with someone making their preferred cut of a movie, since they're only editing a copy of the film and it has no bearing whatsoever on the version preferred by the original creator. It's like if I bought a printed replica of a famous painting, I don't see why I couldn't make a photocopy of it and paint a few extra things on that copy before hanging it on my wall. And if my friend happens to like it, why not make a copy for him? In fact, many artists have done similar things, taking a photo or a copy of a famous piece of art and changing it, so that it became a new, different piece of art.

Harmy said:

Well, you see, in the movie business, there's this job called "editor." And such a person takes what the director and all the others shot, very often without having anything to do with the process up to that point and cuts it into a coherent film, because that is their art. And, while of course the situation with fan editors is a bit different, I still don't see any harm with someone making their preferred cut of a movie, since they're only editing a copy of the film and it has no bearing whatsoever on the version preferred by the original creator. It's like if I bought a printed replica of a famous painting, I don't see why I couldn't make a photocopy of it and paint a few extra things on that copy before hanging it on my wall. And if my friend happens to like it, why not make a copy for him? In fact, many artists have done similar things, taking a photo or a copy of a famous piece of art and changing it, so that it became a new, different piece of art.

Even the editing fell under Lucas's jurisdiction---he may not have been involved directly on a day to day basis but everything that Marcia,Hirsch and Chew produced went through him for final approval in 77'.

And Lucas was a pretty shit hot editor himself back in his student days.

He also had the audacity to fire Jimpson whose initial edit(parts of which we have been able to see) was cumbersome at best-----a risk for sure given the studio pressures and time constraints that Lucas  was already under in the fall of 76'.

How did George Lucas and Gary Kurtz ‘direct’ you? Did they have specific requests or guidelines?

Paul Hirsch:
Gary was not involved in aesthetic editorial decisions. George basically let me do my thing with each scene, and then would give me notes. And he consulted very closely with Marcia of course. And then at a certain point, he decided he preferred working with just one editor, and chose me to finish the film. I was the only editor on the picture over the last 5 months, during which they re-shot the Cantina sequence; R2 in the canyon, captured by the Jawas; some of the land-speeder shots; as well as the gearing-up of the planet-destroying weapon on the Death Star. It was during this period that we completed the blue-screen shots and I watched the space sequences come to life as the backgrounds were filled in.

http://starwarsinterviews1.blogspot.com/2010/07/paul-hirsch-editor-star-wars.html

Fan editors experience no such comparitive pressure when they sit in the comfort of their own homes behind computer screens with only themselves to act  as judge, jury and executioner----on someone else's piece of work.

I wasn't talking about STAR WARS at all, I was talking about fan edits and editors in general. And even so, I said fanediting was a bit different, but still, the editor of the film "never recruited and directed the actors,liased with the art,special effects and production crews and consulted and collaborated with the musical composer or concieved of the ideas and scenarios that are encapsulated in the scripts."

And that's what I was answering to and saying, that editing is a whole separate art from these things you mentioned before. And I do see your point about a fan editor not having the same right to re-edit a film, as its original creator - that's also why a fan editor can't release his/her creation as any kind of official release, while the original creator can.

And the rest of my post still stands.

Harmy said:

I wasn't talking about STAR WARS at all, I was talking about fan edits and editors in general. And even so, I said fanediting was a bit different, but still, the editor of the film "never recruited and directed the actors,liased with the art,special effects and production crews and consulted and collaborated with the musical composer or concieved of the ideas and scenarios that are encapsulated in the scripts."

And that's what I was answering to and saying, that editing is a whole separate art from these things you mentioned before. And I do see your point about a fan editor not having the same right to re-edit a film, as its original creator - that's also why a fan editor can't release his/her creation as any kind of official release, while the original creator can.

And the rest of my post still stands.

Do editors even in Hollywood operate completely independently of the director? To my knowledge, there's still interaction with the director. The editors may give, they may take, they may be allowed to assemble their own cut of scenes or even the entire film for the director's review and approval or whatever else but I honestly don't think a Hollywood editor is free to just do whatever the hell he wants.

Again, what does that have to do with your "never recruited and directed the actors,liased with the art,special effects and production crews and consulted and collaborated with the musical composer or concieved of the ideas and scenarios that are encapsulated in the scripts." argument, which it was in response to?

I'm not the one who said that.

Ooops, sorry. Well, the point still stands, just switch the word "your" with Danny Boy's.

trimboNZ said (in the ESB:R thread):

Recently I sat down with my seven year old son and introduced him to Star Wars.  ANH seemed the right place to start and as for which version, well there was no contest.

My next dilemma is whether to wait for this edit to be completed before showing him ESB.

 

Having just read this, I must apologise to thecolorsblend and acknowledge that there is something to what he says. In light of this post, fanedits don't seem altogether as harmless as I'd have liked to think. The post shows that some people may actually be exposed to a fanedit of a film before they saw the original and there's definitely something wrong and disturbing about that.

Although I must say that STAR WARS and specifically Revisited is a bit of a special case, since Ady's version is is actually closer to the original cut than the official Special Edition, so I definitely think it's preferable for first time viewers to be shown Revisited than the Special Edition.

none said:

Should I feel wronged and disturbed as I saw 'West Side Story' before reading 'Romeo and Juliet'?

Yes.

If I was exposed to L.H.O.O.Q. before the Mona Lisa, is this transferred wrongness and disturbitude make me a degenerate? 

No.

Harmy said:

none said:

Should I feel wronged and disturbed as I saw 'West Side Story' before reading 'Romeo and Juliet'?

Yes.

This isn't a tenable position. Stories are retold, recycled, combined, etc, over and over and over. T.H. White's "The Once And Future King" was the first Arthurian story I ever read, and it's still the only. I haven't read the older versions of King Arthur...and that is okay, at least for now. I've never read the entire "The Odyssey", but I've seen "O Brother Where Art Thou". etc etc

Fan edits aren't a "retelling" in that same sense though.  They're an edit of a largely intact, existing story.  They're more like a bowdlerized edition of Romeo and Juliet than West Side Story.  And frankly reading a bowdlerized version of Romeo and Juliet before reading the original is something I CAN place a moral value on.

And I enjoyed having the opportunity to use the word "bowdlerized", thank you.

This whole debate makes no sense to me, because it assumes that the director is the one in charge of the final product.  In the case of Star Wars, that's accurate.  But look at the Superman movies: clearly, the producers ran the show on those, and basically had total creative control once they fired Richard Donner.  Almost all of the things that happened to Superman II after Donner's firing - jettisoning all the Marlon Brando scenes, reshooting footage to play up the comedic angles, inserting stupid gags in the climactic fight - were ordered by the producers, not the replacement director.  So what's the moral imperative of watching the theatrical Superman II first, since it bears little resemblance to the creative vision of the director?

I mention Superman II because it's the perfect example of a creative vision being torn to shreds by bean-counters.  That the film even works at all is a testament to how strong the material really was.  But the sad reality is that there is no "definitive" version of Superman II.  Instead, we have two competing, incomplete documents, with two different directors editing and revising each other's footage.  The Donner Cut, especially, treats Lester's footage like the fanedits treat SW prequel footage - by tiptoeing around the goofy crap and trying to isolate the dramatic core.  But it's not all in Donner's favor - there are many moments when Lester's editing, or reshoots, or usage of different takes, works quite a bit better.  The ideal "final cut" would be a savvier blend of the different footage, without regard to director's egos, producer's insecurities, or an unwillingness to pay certain actors.  But this "final cut" has not been provided - who will provide it, if not the fanedits?  (please note that I have yet to encounter a fanedit that actually does a good job of this, but I know it is possible).