Sign In


User Group
Join date
Last activity

Post History

Star Wars coming to Blu Ray (UPDATE: August 30 2011, No! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!)

I am just a Star Wars '77 fan, so there is no way I buying this set.  I am annoyed by the changes to the original, but regardless it is still my favorite movie of alltime.

I am wondering do you think anyone will be selling the movies individually on Ebay?  I remember places like Gamestop used to sell used DVD's (people would trade them for store credit), I wonder if they are selling used BluRays, and maybe I can only buy the Original Star Wars there.

I have to say I really feel bad for fans of all 3 OT movies, because I just found out about the NOOOO change, and Lucas has made Jedi even worse then it was in 1983!  The reason I can still enjoy the Original Star Wars (Special Edition) is that there is no Prequel crap in there like Hayden in Jedi.  It annoys me to see Greedo shooting first, and CGI Jabba, but its not enough to ruin the movie.  Now if Lucas got rid of Luke looking at the Binary Sunset, or even touched the medal ceremony at the end, then the movie would be ruined.

But I do respect you guys for not buying this set, or even the OT Boxset.


When did the prequels officially suck?

For me personally, the prequels officially sucked with Episode III right about the turn of Anakin to Darth Vader was where the whole thing fell apart.

I actually was a PT defender for TPM & AOTC, even though I knew they were flawed films.  Of course in 1999 I knew Jar Jar sucked, and Jake Lloyd was annoying, and in 2002, I knew that the romance sucked, those were pretty much a given even among diehard SW fans.

I defended Lucas cause I actually liked where the PT story/Anakin story was going heading into Episode III.  I understood his motivations in Episode II for killing the tuskens, they just killed him mom, so there was a revenge factor a person could sympathize with.  Would I have done that?  Definitely not, but I could understand someone losing a parent and going apeshit/

As the ending montage of AOTC played out on screen, I was juiced for Episode III.  Just look at the last images:  Dooku meets with Palpatine and the Clone Wars have begun.  Yoda, Windu, and Obiwan debating where this is all headed to.  Palpatine watching as the Empire has offically begun its rule and nobody knows it.  And Anakin & Padme are secretly married as he takes her hand with his robotic hand.  Great ending!

Episode III starts off with a bang, and then it all falls apart when Anakin decides to turn to the darkside, in what is one of the DUMBEST plot points ever, and one of the quickest turns to evil in the history of movies!  He has a dream of Padme dying so he then trusts the man who was behind the whole war and the man who was killing all those jedi, and teh man behind the killing of his future wife in Episode II?????   He turns within seconds, and then goes on a killing spree?   Where is the motivation, where is the audience suppose to question to themselves, "Would I do this??"  like I did in Episode II after Anakin killed the tuskens.

The whole second half of ROTS is ridiculous, is a montage of everything Lucas couldn't fit in the first 2 1/2 movies, and it goes from what could have been a good ending, to a greatest hits of ridiculous scenes that ends with Padme losing the will to live after she gave birth to twins?   Are you kidding me, she gave up on Anakin and dies because of him turning, yet she says to Obiwan, "There is still good in him...."

Sorry George, I defended for 2 movies, but Episode III is a joke of a movie, and written so badly it just doesn't make sense.  I feel my opinion is not biased like many because I actually defended George, but this movie ruined the trilogy for me, and it is sad, because it could have better. 

[image] -> _how_lucas_lucasfilm_changed_the_world_
Johnboy3434 said:

Besides, who says he ruined Star Wars to being with?

I can only answer this for myself, as he has ruined the OOT for me, simply because I can't watch the damn movies in any good quality anymore. 

It has nothing to do with the PT, EU, Clone War stuff, simply I cannot watch the OOT on DVD the same way I watch Raiders, Jaws, Superman, Back to the Future, all movies I grew up and loved.  None of my feelings have changed for those movies and they all have inferior sequels, yet they have great quality DVD's.  Now if I want to watch the OOT now, I pop in a grainy, blurry, shitty DVD, the GOUT, that is an insult to any fan who has an HDTV.  

So essentially he may not have ruined SW in a general sense, but he ruined it for fans like me, but isn't that just as bad?


[image] -> _how_lucas_lucasfilm_changed_the_world_

It is amazing to the see the effect George Lucas has had on the Movie industry.  Even OOT purists like myself have never argued that his influence changed movies forever, and that is a testament to him.  

I still say that Lucas/Spielberg created the blockbuster, revolutionized the blockbuster, and perfected the blockbuster from 1975-84 as they ruled the Boxoffice almost every year.  In saying that, I still think the next generation of directors only followed their lead on the technical side and after seeing recent summer blockbuster movies, including the PT & Indy IV, they all forgot about what made Star Wars, Raiders, and Jaws great:  Characters and the Story first, THEN the action and effects.

Top ten films of the '80s.

1.  The Empire Strikes Back - Best Sequel EVER!

2.  Back to the Future - Still love it today.

3.  Raiders of the Lost Ark - Spielberg/Lucas at their peak

4.  Caddyshack - Rodney, Chevy, Knight, and Murray all at their best

5.  Hoosiers - They just don't make great feelgood movies anymore

6.  Field of Dreams - great ending

7.  Ghostbusters - this movie never gets old when I see it on Cable.

8.  Stripes -  so many great one liners.

9.  Stand By Me - Why can't they make serious teenage movies like this anymore?

10. The Terminator - Still a classic, and doesn't need updating on the Special Effects, do you hear me Mr. Lucas?


Hold me like you did by the lake on Naboo... barf

see you auntie,

I agree that good lucks has been around in TV/Movies since their inception.

My point is that the blockbusters today are dominated by 'mimbo's', and guys like Phillip Seymour Hoffman get all the smaller, artsy roles, that usually don't find that audience.  Guys like Pacino got every great hit in the 70's, so did Deniro.  Hackman did The French Connection, and Brando & Hackman both did Superman. 

I look at an actress like Laura Linney, ten times better actress then Julia Roberts, who would get cast in a blockbuster?

I always contest if they made Jaws today, George Clooney would be the Roy Scheider character, as Scheider wouldn't have the looks today to sell the summer blockbuster crowd.

As for Portman, I don't think she is a bad actress, as I don't even think it is fair to judge anything she did in the PT in that respect.  But I have seen most of her movies, and she really doesn't do anything with great range that really wows you. 

To me, what makes a great actor is someone who is able to stretch yourself from your usual role.  DeNiro can play a psycho in Taxidriver, a young Vito Corleone in Godfather II, Jake Lamotta in Raging Bull, and even be funny as hell in Midnight Run.

Guys like Harrison and Clint Eastwood knew they weren't great actors and never really tried to stretch themselves, as they knew their limits.  Ford stuck with Jack Ryan, Dr. Kimble, and Indy, and branched out to roles in Witness, as he was very good in that.  Eastwood was the same way, as always played the same tough guy Dirty Harry character, and both never won an oscar.

Most actors today pretty much play the same role, and really can't expand on anything else.  So we agree that looks have always been important in Hollywood, I just think that they are more important then ever, and that is why you frickin George Clooney winning an Oscar 2 years ago?  Come on, that was laughable.  That means he won as many oscars as Paul Newman did:)

edit: I will say that 3 great actors of this generation that do get cast in Blockbusters are Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe, and Denzel Washington, so I don't want to come off as someone who hates all movies today:)

Hold me like you did by the lake on Naboo... barf
sunday256 said:


Lastly, I disagree about Hayden's acting ability. He was hired primarily for his role in "Life As A House" which I thought he did quite well in.

Before you burn him at the stake at leat check that film out if you haven't and then come back and say he's a terrible actor. And for that matter, we all know Natalie Portman is a better actress than what people say she was in Star Wars. The Professional comes to mind.

Hayden is an average actor at best in Hollywood.  He is the reason why there are so many bad movies these days, because he's gotten this far because of his looks.   As Seinfeld said, "He is a Mimbo!"

Hayden is terrible in Episode II, and terrible in Episode III.  Now I put aside the cheesy stuff because no actor can say that and look good, but what I do is look at his dramatic scenes and they are awful.

-The part where he is holding Shmi when she is dying is cringeworthy, as that scene is terrible.  "Stay with me mom..."  Ouch!

-The part where he confesses to Padme is laughable, "And the women, the children...."  Yikes!  He actually had some good lines in that, and because he is a sub-par actor, couldn't pull it off.

-When he is at Shmi's grave is another terrible scene. 

-The whole turn scene in Episode III is awful, as he just does these stupid facial moves as he gives in to Palpatine.  "I-I-I will dooo ask."  How about quitting so Lucas can hire a new actor!

-The ObiWan/Anakin meeting on Mustafar, when he says, "You will not take her from me!!!"  Ughh!!!  That whole scene could have been great...could have....

Hayden is OK in Life as a house, and he is actually pretty good in Shattered Glass, but that still doesn't make him a great actor.   In fairness to Hayden, there aren't that many great actors out there in Hollywood, and this role demanded a great actor because the part is tragic, and if the actor can't pull the drama off, it comes off as cheesy and laughable.

As for Portman, she is SO overrated too.  Yeah, she was good in the Professional, but she was 13 years old, as her latter works have been OK.  I am not saying she is bad, but she isn't some great actor, cause I don't see any range on her from role to role.  Although she wasn't bad as a stripper in Closer:)

I know it sounds like I am coming down hard on Hayden/Natalie, but young actors usually don't pull off dramatic roles well in Hollywood.  They are both great looking people who made it big time mostly because of their looks.  20-30 years ago, Hollywood wasn't dominated by just 'good' looking people like Brad Pitts and George Clooney's dominate it now.  In the 70's you had actors like Gene Hackman, Robert DeNiro,  Dustin Hoffman, and Meryl Streep dominating Hollywood, and I wouldn't say any of them have looks like Julia Roberts or Brad Pitt.


Rank the Star Wars films

Star Wars - (A+)  My favorite movie of all-time, and should never be lumped in to some 6 movie saga Lucas is trying to do now, because the movie is totally taken out of context by new fans.  The movie has great characters, great drama, great humor, great action, and great music by John Williams.  As much as people bash Lucas on the PT, this one is his baby, and it is one of the alltime greats.

Empire Strikes Back - (A+)  In many ways a better movie then Star Wars, simply because of the budget and the fact that everything is setup so you can go right into the heart of the story.  Because of Kershner, the movie has that edge to it as this is the best acted of the 6 movies, and essentially the most dramatic.  The music again is top notch and new characters like Yoda and Lando already add to the SW lore.  Once Han/Leia arrive on Cloud City, that is probably the best 45 minutes put on screen I have ever seen in a movie.  Oh year, "I am your father."  I guess I don't even need to explain the impact of that statement.

Return of the Jedi -  (B)  The movie has some of the greatest moments of the 6 movies, but it saddles with lulls on Endor in the Ewok village, and Jabbas palace part that goes on too long.  The Throne Room Scenes are as good as it gets in a SW movie, and Luke kicking everyones ass on the Sailbarge is great too.  The Ewoks and kiddy tone hurt the movie, but all in all a pretty good ending to a great trilogy.

Revenge of the Sith - (C+) I call this Return of the Jedi-lite as it has great moments but is really marred by terrible moments.  The opening shot of ObiWan/Anakin going into the huge battle with the drums beating is pure SW.  The Padme/Anakin scene where they stare at each other on Coruscant with that eerie music is a classic scene.  But the whole turn scene is so contrived and doesn't make a lick of sense as Anakin starts going on a killing spree really hurts the movie, let alone the trilogy.  The ending has great moments with Baby Luke at the end and Leia going to Alderran, but again is marred by Vader saying NOOOO!

Attack of the Clones (C)  This movie gets alot of crap, mostly for the romance, which is a fair criticism, but it is only 10 minutes of the movie total, so there is only 10 minutes of shit:)  I do like Obiwan in this movie, and I like when he goes to Kamino to oversee the Clones, as that foreshadowing is very good in the context of the OT.  The Clone Wars are action packed, and the Dooku duel is fun, as this is just a pure action SW movie, and taken in that context, it aint that bad.

The Phantom Menace (D)  The only reason I give it a D, is it is still SW, so I can find some enjoyment to it.  I never liked this one from the day I saw it in 1999, as I hate Jar Jar, I hate Jake Lloyd, I think Padme being monotone is borrrring, and the kiddy tone is worst then Return of the Jedi.  The Lightsaber duel at the end and the Senate scenes are the only worthwhile thing of this movie, oh and Liam Neeson is good too.  Lucas made this TOO much of a setup movie, as Attack of the Clones could have really been Episode I.

All in all, these grades are graded on a SW scale, as if you asked me in a movie sense, I would only say that Star Wars & Empire are the only great movies of the 6, and the rest are only liked by SW fans.

How do you see the PT?

I am going to give you guys a different take on the PT. First, I never expected the PT to be as good as the OT, so I never felt betrayed like many of my friends when they didn't live up. The big reason why I never expected them to be great is I felt it was impossible for Lucas to recapture the magic he had with the OT characters. How could he do it again and make new characters as good as Luke, Leia and Han? That was a lightning in a bottle and the chemistry was second to none in any movie I have ever scene.

As for the PT, I definitely have mixed emotions.  I do like the overall story it tells, and in that respect, it really tells a cool story 1-6 when you look it at in a macro sense.  I think Lucas miscalculated if you look at the 1-6 story as Anakin's, because it is definitely the worst written character of the Prequels. 

What I do to enjoy the PT is look at it in a macro sense, and look at the story 1-6 as the beginning as to how a democratic republic falls to corruption and is taken over by a dictatorship through War and Power, and then how a band of rebels fight back to bring the democracy back and end the destruction of Evil that haunts the galaxy for 20 years.

In that respect, Lucas is telling a pretty cool story, how Palpatine manipulates his way to the top, while getting elected, sort of the same way as Hitler did it.  Then all the characters are players in this macro story and you can follow them to the end as Luke, Leia, Han, and the rebels celebrate after they defeat tyranny. 

All in all, I don't hate the PT, yet I don't love it either, it is just there, cause it is SW, and it has its moments.  I still love the OT simply because they are better and aren't cluttered with Lucas problems that pervade the PT, but if you guys put aside Anakins story, and try to look at the 6 movies in a macro way, it really gives the OT alot more depth to already great trilogy.

We should sue George Lucas.
negative1 said:
i doubt you could 'guarantee' that re-releasing the movies, they would have the same or more

than the SE versions.... LETS look at HISTORICAL FACT, and not speculate:



here are the amounts   (gross)   theaters amount opening dates

for the original releases...


11     Star Wars (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $15,476,285     1,070     $3,766,803     1,070     8/13/82

12     The Empire Strikes Back (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $13,276,241     1,006     $3,949,478     992     11/19/82

13     Return of the Jedi (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $11,252,123     894     $3,209,056     849     3/29/85


Star Wars was still HUGE at that point in time, and you're telling me that

they would have made more than the SE versions more than a decade later???????????


re-releasing the originals would have been a drop in the bucket, thats why

Lucas was smart in releasing the SE versions to CREATE interest in seeing them again..





 Now we are talking about 2 different things, what they were called, and why people went to see them in 1997.

Alot of Studios put out endless releases on DVD called:
-Directors Cut

-Extended Edition

-Special Edition

That is a marketing ploy to get peoples interest, so i can't blame Lucas for calling them 'Special Editions' in 1997.  When someone sells something retail, they sell it for $10.99 instead of $11.00, as it seems cheaper to the customer, although it is only a penny.

Now you showed figures from the re-releases in 1982-1985 of the OOT versions, and the reason they did not do huge business, is simply people saw the movies many times in the theater less then 5 years ago at that time.  There was no new audience to bring SW into in 1985, cause essentially my generation who grew up with SW were still kids.

Now fastforward to 1997, it is essentially 14 years after ROTJ, or 12 years after the last re-release, and now you have a whole generation of kids who never saw SW on the big screen.  You also have many nostalgic fans like myself who saw them as a kid, and want to experience that greatness one more time, hopefully appreciating it more as an adult now.  BINGO!!!  You have huge box office numbers. 

Now do you really think people were running to the theaters in 1997 to see CGI Jabba in Star Wars?  Or the new Luke/Biggs scene before the battle of Yavin? 

I have the Trailer for the 1997 SE, and it isn't sold on the changes, although they do mention them at the end.  It starts off by saying, as the screen is configured like a TV, "For a whole generation, SW was only seen this way...."  and then the screen opens up to a movie theater size widescreen with the Star Destroyer at the opening of SW.  It then goes on to say come back to the theater one more time with great characters like Han, Luke, Leia, Darth Vader, Droids, etc.  Then at the end it says, 'and there will be a couple of suprises to,' and you see the opening up of Mos Eisely, and CGI Jabba.

The 1997 Marketing Campaign on the SE was sold as a trip down memory lane, and now it is time to let your kids experience what you experienced in 1977.  So I do agree that 'Special Edition' was a smart marketing move, but trust me, the SE changes were not the reason people went.


We should sue George Lucas.
negative1 said:


but the SE versions put Star Wars back on the Map amongst consumers for

good, and the interest has never waned once since that point in time..






 Negative 1, you keep saying the SE put SW back on the map, in what context?  If you are saying it got the average person talking about SW again, I would agree, but has zero correlation whether a new generation of fans will love the movies.

The Hobbit will be coming out in 2010-2011, by your definition it will put LOTR back on the map.  So, yes people will all be talking about LOTR again alot more then they are now, but in the same respect, new fans will find the LOTR Trilogy in 2008, 2009, because they are great movies.

Now from a marketing view, the SE were a big success, but trust me nobody went to see the new stuff, people went for 2 reason in 1997:

1. Older fans like myself who wanted to see the trilogy one more time and to bring back memories of seeing them as a kid.

2.  Young fans who grew up with them on VHS and young fans who were first being introduced to them, wanting to see them on the big screen for the first time.

Nobody went to them wanting to see the 'CG Jabba' in ANH, or the spruced up effects, people just wanted to see Star Wars again, simply because we loved the movies so much.

Trust me, Lucas could have put out the OOT in 1997 and just said, "The Star Wars Trilogy" is on the big screen one more time, and I guarantee it would have done the same business.

Now lets see how the movies did in theaters in 1997:

Star Wars:  136 million

ESB:  57 million

ROTJ:  45 million

Supposedly ESB is the most beloved by all the diehard SW fans, as that is constantly talked about as the best of the 3 movies.   Why did Star Wars take in more then ESB/ROTJ combined?   Because that is the most appealing of the 3 to a general audience, and that is the movie that started it all.  It had nothing to do with spruced up effects, or new added scenes, it simply was the #1 movie until ET, being put on the big screen again, and everyone wanted to see it.


We should sue George Lucas.
negative1 said:


i doubt that if he just restored the films, and released them

without any changes, there would barely have been any interest..

or maybe not as much..




Dude, I guess I have to reply to this stupid statement, unless you are just a troll who likes to start trouble.

Are you telling me that if Lucas never released the SE in 1997, a whole generation of fans would have missed the boat on what was great about the OT?

I don't think you understand what the world 'classics' mean when it comes to a movie sense.  Classics live on years and years later, as new generations fall in love with them.  The Wizard of Oz was  all weekened on TBS/TNT, as it has been since I was growing up, and my nephews and friends kids all love the movie.  Did they need to update that movie for it to find a new audience?

The OT would have been just as beloved whether it were released in 1997 or not.  Sure it was a great marketing tool to get people talking about SW again, but trust me, kids would have found the movies on.....Home video......Cable TV......and now DVD.

I think you need to re-read your original statement, "Without any changes, there would have barely have been any interest."  Sorry, but that is as moronic as a statement that I have read on any SW boards, as idiots from TFN say stupid shit like that.

Or maybe youre a troll, and you've done your job by getting me to respond.....


We should sue George Lucas.
Johnboy3434 said:
In your humble opinion, of course. Other people think the added elements aren't intrusive at all. Are you saying they're wrong because they don't agree with you? Isn't that just a tad egocentric?

I thinkwe need to get straight that Lucas is changed the movies years after they were made, whereas most director cuts are scenes left on the cutting floor that filmed in the context of the movie that year it came out.

For instance, T2's extended version and Lord of the Rings extended versions are all scenes that were shot, but because of time constraints from the studio, they had to be taken out of the film.  So when the scenes are restored years later for a 'directors cut' they fit right into the movie cause they were there in the first place.

Most of Lucas's additions are made in 1997 or 2004, which is 20+ years after the films were released, and the context of those scenes are different then the story Lucas was telling from 77-83.  The addition of Hayden in ROTJ is totally different context from Shaw, The Emperor talking to Vader in ESB has a different context then the original scene, Greedo shooting first is a different context then Han shooting first in 1977.

That is what annoys me about Lucas's changes, is that most, not all of the scenes are created in 1997/2004 in the context of the story he is telling now with 6 movies in mind rather then 3 movies at the time, and they look ridiculous in a 20+ year old movie.



We should sue George Lucas.
negative1 said:


I'm still trying to fathom how he appeared in George's. Sticking in Hayden was far worse than sticking in Jar Jar.


 why is it any worse?

anybody that saw the prequels first will 'get it'..

and people that saw the originals will ignore it..

doesn't bother me..



It's worse because it doesnt make any sense.  I am not taking the stance because I saw the OOT first, but the whole point of ROTJ is that it is 'old' Anakin who becomes redeemed.

If Lucas shows young Anakin as a force ghost and saying he died in ROTS when he went to the darkside, then he dismissing the whole moral of the ROTJ story.  In ROTJ, it is 'old' Anakin who is conflicted through the whole movie, it is 'old' Anakin that saves his son and throws the Emperor in the shaft, and it is 'old' Anakin that says to Luke, "Tell your sister, you were right." 

By then having 'young' Anakin appear as a force ghost next to 'old' Kenobi, it contradicts everything that is done in ROTJ, because it says that Vader and Anakin were two different people, when they are the SAME person, that is the point!  Even though there is somebody behind that mask doing evil things for 20 years, there is a small little part of good in him that his son taps into in the movie.

Sorry, Negative 1, it bothers me cause it makes ZERO sense, and that is why Lucas shouldn't be screwing with the originals when it comes to putting new actors in 20 year old movies.


We should sue George Lucas.
Johnboy3434 said:
This is the non-SW fan in me talking here, so don't get too upset: If the fans weren't so insane, there wouldn't have been a rift to begin with. Numerous other films have had major changes made to them years after the fact without their fanbases going ballistic. Most of the people who don't like it simply say "Well, that was unnecessary" and leave it at that. They'd even buy the new versions and deal with the additions (i.e. not start some [honestly] insignificant boycott).


 There is a rift in SW-fandom, because Lucas takes shot at the fans all the time.  If you can name one director who talks against his fanbase, then your argument could be correct.

Remember these quotes by Lucas:

"I am sorry you fell in love with a half completed movie." -George Lucas talking about the Orignal Star Wars and the changes he made in 1997.

"The Original Versions don't exist anymore, the Special Editions are the ones that I only recognize."  George Lucas talking in 2003 after being asked about the Original Versions of the OT.

"We are releasing the Original Versions on DVD now with nothing done to them, we'll see if the fans really want them.  It will all come out in the end." - George Lucas asked by about why he is releasing the OOT now on DVD.

George Lucas has alienated us simply because he refused to put out the OOT movies in any quality that is acceptable to DVD standards, and then saying they don't exist for many years too, which was more of an insult because those are the versions that bought him his Skywalker Ranch.  Many people bitched and complained on the internet about Bladerunner and Superman II: Donnor Cut, and ET (original version) and all of them are out on DVD in Great Quality, yet we have grainy, shitty versions.  The defense rests your honor:)

Bond 22: Quantum of Solace

Wow, they are predicting a 70 million opening for Bond this weekend.  I have to say that I just don't get it, and never really understood the love for Bond Sequel after Bond Sequel.  I understand that people know exactly what they are getting walking into a Bond movie, and that is its appeal, but I think that is why I have never really been a huge fan of them.

For me personally, the only type of films I like have to have an interesting story, something that I don't walk in knowing what exactly is going to happen.  I guess that's why I don't go to the movies much anymore....

State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Vaderisnothayden said:
CO said:

sent me a PM, "Nobody cares about the OOT anymore, the saga is 6 movies, as you will never post here again." 

Question, do we have any idea how numerous OOT fans are? I don't mean actual figures. I mean is there a lot of us? How numerous are we compared to TFN-type fans? How numerous are we compared to older fans who've accepted the SE and don't care about the OOT?

I look at it this way, what do the majority of SW fans prefer?  I still say the OOT.  I have many friends who bought the '04 SE DVD because it was the OT in any form, and they all say to me, "I just put up with the changes, what can you do?"  You'll never going to know on the internet, because it is only a small fraction of the SW fanbase, so what we see posted everyday on SW websites really can't be judged as anything specific.

The bottom line is if you ask the majority of SW fans these questions:

1.  Do you want Han shooting first reinstated?

2.  Do you want the Jabba scene in Star Wars taken out?

3.  Do you want Jedi Rock taken out in ROTJ for the old song?

4.  Do you want the original ending with old man Anakin rather then Hayden?

5.  Do you want Vaders line in ESB, "Bring my shuttle!"  back

The majority of SW fans would say yes to all these questions, so they are the major changes to the OOT that everyone hates.  Now if Lucas did some special effect changes, and didn't take any actors out I believe the OOT vs SE wouldn't exist.

We'll never know, but if Lucas put out on BluRay the OOT in one boxset and the SE in another boxset in the same quality, I still say the OOT would sell more, because the PT/SE fanbase is still a niche fanbase compared to the OOT fans who really never got into the PT movies and dont' have much of a voice anymore, as they probably moved on sometime after ROTJ.


Coppola talks about Sequels & why he did Godfather III

I saw a great interview with Francis Ford Coppola on AMC's Shootout talk show which airs every Sunday at 11AM.

Coppola was first asked about doing sequels, "I am not a fan of sequels, cause essentially it is the same movie, and the studio want's the same movie.  It is OK to keep reproducing a can of Coke on the assembly line, but that is not good for movies, cause each movie should be original.

Coppola was then asked about why he did Godfather III.  "I never wanted to do Godfather II, cause shooting Part 1 was so hard, I never envisioned doing a sequel to it and wanted to be as far away from gangster movies after that.  I did Godfather III because I was having financial problems with my businesses (wines, etc.) and Godfather III came along, and I figured it could bail me out of my bankruptcy in the late 80's."

It is pretty telling and pretty honest for Coppola to say he didn't even want to make Godfather II, or never envisioning a sequel to Godfather I, since the second turned out to be a classic.  Then to pretty much say he did Part III for the money cause he was broke really shows that he knew he didn't have great material and if you watch his expression talking about Part III, you can see he regrets the movie and knows it doesn't hold up as well today. 

Just makes me laugh when Lucas does an interview and how he says he had all 6 episodes planned out in the mid 70's and says it is the fans fault that they didnt' like the Prequels.  Makes me yearn for George Lucas just to be honest and candid in an interview today like Coppola cause it would be interesting to hear his take on his misteps he has made in his career.

OT Special Edition haters
negative1 said:

speaking of special effects..


i watched the special effects of empire....(on laserdisc, and part of the

editdroid 4 disc special..


first they talk a lot about stop frame animation.. that is ridiculously time

consuming... something like spending a few hours a day just to get a few seconds

worth of footage..


they also showed a lot of how the models were used in the blue screen process,

again, several hours a day just to get a few minutes of footage.


i appreciate the artistry and the craftsmenship they had back then, but it seems

WRONG to destroy those beautiful models by exploding them just for a few shots..


i'm sorry, but after imaging all the time it took back then, and then seeing the results

(which were decent for the time)... there's NO WAY they should ever go back to that,

now that they have the digital resources to do it in a lot better fashion, and much

more convincingly...


granted its easy to go overboard, and if done wrong , it will still look fake...


i wonder if they had redone the battle at hoth with CGI, how much better it would

have looked, compared to the jerky stop motion, and the same with the stop-frame

tauntaun.... it would have looked much better now...


anyways, go back and watch the 'making of star wars'.. i like mark hamills commentary..

also in the 'empire' one, he does a pretty good 'yoda'...and ominously he ends by saying

that the special effects should not take the place of good storytelling, characters and plot..




The problem is that CGI just looks fake in the movies today, for me IMO.  I agree that stop motion models is very time consuming, and probably more costly, but that is the reason the OOT movies hold up so well years later, is they still look real.  I look at the golden years for action/scifi movies of the late 70's/early 80's and these movies just hold up so much better then most movies today.  Plus because of the limited technology, the director was forced to focus on a good, interesting story, and good character development, which is pretty much gone from the summer blockbuster today, as they are mostly mindless CGI-fest movies with zero story and ridicolous one dimensional characters.

I always use the analogy of how Jaws was made, and if it was made today, it wouldn't be as good.  Spielberg simply couldn't get the shark to work, so he doesn't even show him in the first hour, which turns out to be genius because the music really messes with the viewer and finally the shark shows up on screen.  The movie has great characters who really drive the story, and I believe if Jaws was made in 2008, it would be a CGI-fest movie with the shark being the star of the movie, and they would probably have George Clooney or some dopey actor as the Roy Scheider character.


which should've came first? PT or OT?

What many new SW fans don't understand about the success of Star Wars '77 is the story and characters was just as much the reason why it was beloved as the ground breaking effects.

Sure everyone was wowed in 1977 by special effects that were never seen on the big screen before, but the movie appealed to the non-sci fi movie fan, and that is why it is so beloved.  The characters were relatable, Han, Luke, and Leia could be anyone of us.  The story was simple, but still holds up today, as it was essentially a good vs evil story.

I think Lucas in his latter years failed to understand as he kept updating the films, is the reason Star Wars '77 is still beloved today by a mainstream audience, rather then just a SciFi Star Trek audience, is the effects were secondary to the great story and great characters, along with a great score.


Y'all better vote for Obama!
ferris209 said:

Another positive is that our days of hearing the constant Bush bashing is coming to an end. But perhaps not, every mistake Obama makes he'll blame on Bush I'm sure. "Well, uh, this economy thing is still bad here in 2012, but, uh, you see, Bush left it this way and I had a lot to clean up. Uh, it's still bad and I need four more years to fix it, and maybe four more after that, becasue Bush sure made a mess!"

The big loser of the night is the late night shows, as they will lose all their material.  Stewart, Colbert, Letterman, and Maher have had a field day on Bush, Palin, McCain, and the republicans for the past few years.

Now what do they do on their shows?  Obama is pres, the dems are the majority, you really can't bash the republicans anymore, cause they have zero power.  All of these guys lean liberal, and it will be interesting to see if they go after their own party the way they did the republicans.  I highly doubt it:)