If that were the case, then how do you explain CGI and greenscreen (bluescreen hasn't been around for quite a while) showing us a much more used universe in the films that followed TPM?
Did we have IMAX in 1983?
Return Of The Jedi got plenty of criticism at the time from reviewers. The Empire Strikes Back got knocked, too. And A New Hope - or Star Wars as it was then - got mauled. That's what worries me sometimes in the things that I read; at some point, some of us ceased to be fans and became critics :(
We watched it as a family yesterday and it's always a scene that astounds me.
Anakin Starkiller was originally the father of the twins in one of many original drafts. It's funny how some fans pull up on Lucas's constant revisions to his story before settling on one version - do these people honestly think that when they pick up a book in a bookshop that the copy they are holding is the first draft of that story?
Cleopatra said:
My opinion may not matter much, but I realize that a lot of people on here grew up with the original trilogy. I grew up with the prequel trilogy. TPM came out when I was in 6th grade. I went to see it. I LOVED it.
I was already a huge Star Wars fan. I still have my original pre-1997 VHS trilogy which I watched over and over as a kid. In fact, ANH is barely playable because I saw it so many times. As a kid growing up with the prequel trilogies, the OT started making less sense. Who the heck was that guy playing the Emperor in ESB?! Why does technology look so much more advanced earlier in the timeline?! Etc.
Then the DVDs came out. (I was unaware of the SE VHSs until afterward). I LOVED most of the changes. The new CGI elements were cool and helped link the two trilogies together.
Then Attack of the Clones came out. O.. M.. G.. Terrible movie. So bad, I did not even see ROTS til it came out on DVD. I just hated it. And then it hit me. The prequels started sucking because they LOOKED so different. Lucas really should have made the sets look more like 70's sci-fi rather than 21st century sci-fi. SW takes place in another galaxy, not on Earth. Who cares if it doesn't match up with our timeline? Yet he didn't.
In the end, that's what killed the PT. The Phantom Menace still remains my favorite of the prequels because of the nostalgia. Most of you probably love the OT because of the nostalgia. Kids growing up now may love all 6 movies with all of their alterations because it will be nostalgic for them.
In truth, that nostalgic value alone should never have been tampered with. Instead of trying to make the OT match the PT, Lucas should have put some thought into the movies and made the PT look more outdated. Maybe not the special effects, but certainly the sets. It would have "made sense" for everybody. Instead, we get 6 movies that he will never be happy with because no one thought of the awkward clash between 70's and 21st century sets.
I'm glad Peter Jackson thinks differently. He recently signed up to direct the 2 Hobbit movies after all. I'm sure that he will make them reminiscent of LOTR rather than create new creatures and themes and then try to sneak them into LOTR.
Well, as we all now know, Jackson - and del Torro - will not be directing The Hobbit so it's a moot point.
The reason, though, that the prequels look so differently to the originals is that we're seeing The Republic in its prime - well in TPM we are; watch AOTC and see the scuff marks all over the floor in The Jedi Temple; see how refugees now have to travel from planet to planet to find work - this is the beginning of the recession. Come ROTS and Palpatine is ploughing all the money into the war effort. So, naturally, we start to move towards the look and feel of A New Hope, were martial law is crushing the people and everything has a delapidated look to it.
skyjedi2005 said:
Easterhay said:
Obi-Wan is lying to Luke about his father wanting him to have the lightsabre. Perfectly understandable in the context of what we know now. And isn't the way Alec Guinnes paused before replying to the question "How did my father die?" just perfect? It's as though Lucas had told him the backstory on the quiet.
I call bullshit on this. When star wars was written darth vader was not Lukes father and Obi Wan indeed told the truth. Empire was the first of many retcons to the saga. In the original backstory kenobi had two pupils Skywalker and Vader.
You may call what you want, pottymouth, but if this is what you believe then you don't know half of what you think you do.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
Easterhay said:
Obi-Wan is lying to Luke about his father wanting him to have the lightsabre. Perfectly understandable in the context of what we know now. And isn't the way Alec Guinnes paused before replying to the question "How did my father die?" just perfect? It's as though Lucas had told him the backstory on the quiet.
This is a joke, right?
You'll know when I'm joking.
Watch A New Hope. Watch Alec Guinness's reaction to Luke's question. It's eerie that, although there was no way Alec could've known the backstory, his reaction is exactly the one that someone would give if they were about to lie.
We would always wonder, though, what happened before episode four. What was The Clone Wars? What made Anakin turn? Who was Luke and Leia's mother? We would always wonder...
Bingowings said:
Easterhay said:
Well, for one, your reply, bingowings was so predictable it doesn't warrant a reply. Other than this: over half a man's wealth is over half a man's wealth. It is academic how much wealth that man has.
The Widow's Mite is clearly something you have no agreement with.
Half of not much is clearly a greater sacrifice than half of quite a lot.
It's generous of Lucas to give what he does compared with many of the money hoarders in the industry but it is more generous to give the same proportion when you have much less to start with.
I don't hate Lucas, I don't even dislike him, without Lucas none of us would be on this forum for one thing but I do hate pettiness and stamping out Prowse's claims for residual payments and pulling stunts like banning the guy from conventions is petty for a company and a man as wealthy as Lucasfilm and Lucas.
As is not releasing a restored OT with every box set release of the films.
We can all be pious and worthy when we're outside of the fence, though. In my country, for example, in the late seventies the rich were taxed about eighty-to-ninety percent of their earnings because the country was in recession. Ergo, they left the country and it took a capitalist prime minister to entice them back. If you've come from nothing, and someone says "Give me more than half of what you earn" you say "No". You've earned your wealth - and yes, those of us who work in the arts do get paid a lot, but the fact is we go without whilst we make a name for ourselves for a long time. So, really, the big bucks that we end up earning is a kind of payback.
Now, Lucas is an independent filmmaker. He fronted the cash to realise his vision. So if he's a wealthy man, good luck to him. And he's giving over half back to fund education now. That's a massive commitment. You and I will never know that kind of money. Ever. So cut him some slack, yes?
If Prowse is legitimately owed money then of course he should be paid back. But he should also know when to shut up. And he's made some ill-advised comments, that have been well circulated, that prove that he doesn't know when to shut up.
adywan said:
Easterhay said:
That doesn't mean a thing. Lucas is a multi-billionaire (soon to be "merely" a billionaire); is he known for a "Hollywood lifestyle"? No.
Maybe Prowse doesn't hang out in Hollywood simply because he's quite a curmudgeon and doesn't get on with people?
And yes, bingowings, "really". What, he turns up at conventions to sign photos of himself as The Green Cross Code Man? He's known as the man who played Darth Vader. And he exploits that to the very end. That's his perogative. But to publicly diss Lucas and then be so vocal with his negativity, he shouldn't really be surprised to have such a public snubbing from Lucas.
Anyway, what's the money that Lucas owes him?
Well actually when i first met Dave Prowse was when he was doing the Green Cross code promotional tour early 80s. He was the one of the most genuine and nicest person i had ever met. He was dressed as the green cross code man and signing autographs (free). My Dad started talking to him mentioning how much of a huge star wars fan i was. Dave said that he was just about to go for his break and would we like to come back to his trailer and he will sign a Darth Vader picture for me (again for free). Now this was his own time when he was on a break. He chatted to us for ages, posed for photos and signed autographs for me and my brother. He was just about to start work on ROTJ and i asked him what it was going to be about and he said that he couldn't tell me anything. But he invited my whole family down to London for the day and treat us all to a meal and he will see if we could meet the cast. He gave us both his home address and his gym address so we could contact him. Now there was no ego with this guy at all. Unfortunately George Lucas put a stop to it, even though we wouldn't have been near the sets. He didn't give any reason apart from the security that surrounded the film. He couldn't apologise enough, but i completely understood that it was beyond his control. We conversed for the next couple of years but not once did he say anything bad against George Lucas. I saw the piece in the paper about the leaked information and asked him about it. Now his name was cleared but he did say that he wasn't enjoying the filming but said no more. He asked me to send my autograph book and that he would get the casts autographs at the premier as he wouldn't see them until then.
But he then wasn't invited to the Premier.
I really think that Jedi was the turning of GL. He has snubbed DP ever since and the reason he was banned from C5 was because GL himself was going to be there.Even though the reporter gave the true identity of the leak he just didn't back down and treated DP like crap.
Everytime i have met him since he has been the same person, even when he was so ill he couldn't walk, but came to the event because he didn't want to let the fans down.
Now he had always signed his Vader pics as "Dave Prowse is Darth Vader", the same as other actors did around that time , including non star wars. It seems this way of signing an autograph has been twisted to make it mean something it is not. Now if he had signed the pics as " Dave Prowse IS Darth Vader" then that would be different.
Now Anthony Daniels on the other hand is the most egotistical and arrogant ass i have ever met. He was at Memorabilia a few years ago and we went with my daughters young sister, who was about 8 at the time. She was memorised that she was seeing C-3P0 and she took her camera along with her. Now i had met him a couple of years before and queued for a couple of hours to get his autograph and i asked him if i could get a picture taken with him and he agreed. Now the person that was taking the picture forgot to put the flash on and it didn't take (this was one of his PAs by the way) I said the flash didn't go off and can she take another one, but AD just said "oh that'll do. If you want another picture you'll have to buy another autograph". I couldn't belive it.
Now going back to the next time he was there, we couldn't afford an autograph but i got her to a good spot where she could take a picture of him that the queue didn't block sight of him. He looked over and spotted her trying to take a picture, he turned his back and signalled over to one of his PAs but continued to have his back turned to us. Next thing we know the PA came over and put her hand in front of the camera and said that he won't have any pictures taken of him unless we buy an autograph. Well screw that. She was so upset. That's no way to treat a little kid. But here's a guy that was talking to one of the fans about episode 2 and really slagging off GL because he had got strapped into a puppet harness for days to film "naked" 3P0 only to have the scenes cut from the film and have to re-film it in the grey costume.
Even when DP was asked about the snubbing by GL in "Bring Back Star Wars" he was very gracious about it and not once slagged off GL
I think it's a case of if GL falls out with you he holds a grudge for life.
Thanks for a really illuminating post. Maybe I can relate to GL because, I too, hold a grudge for life! Not an attractive quality, I'll give you that.
All I know is, everything I've read from David Prowse regarding the prequels is negative. Now, if I'd created something new, something that I was proud of - as Lucas must surely be about the prequels - and all I heard was negativity from someone to whom I'd given a licence to make money then I'd be a bit hacked off, too.
For what it's worth, I've always disliked Anthony Daniels. I don't think there's one person more up their own backside than he is. The way he behaved towards Kenny Baker - who's a lovely guy - was appalling and smacks of a sense of inflated worth.
Maybe I've been uduly harsh on David Prowse, and for that I apologise. I just get sick of the constant sour grapes.
Maybe it's an age thing? Ergo, the effect Star Wars has on us is dependant on age? We get blinkered as we get older; I know a fan, same age as me, who is part of what I tend to call ESB fans (ie, when it boils down to it, that's the only film they really like - although this fella actually thought ROTS was a good film - we all like the dark stuff I guess) who said he didn't enjoy TPM because he'd moved on to films by Tarantino by then. Personally, I think Tarantino is a talentless hack who rips off the films of others and thinks no-one will notice.
Seriously, though, Smith isn't the first to compare Star Wars to Shakespearean tragedy. I actually thought the tragedy of the romance in AOTC was very Shakespearean - go on, shoot me down in flames! And Jar Jar (I may as well go all out here) is a modern day Falstaff, no?
JW Rinzler is a great writer but this book has got some living up to do. Alan Arnold's long out-of-print Once Upon A Galaxy: A Journal Of The Making Of The Empire Strikes Back (which has uncontestable proof that yes, Star Wars was always intended to be a nine-part saga and a hilarious on-set sequence involving the shoot in the carbon freezing chamber where David Prowse, with hysterically bad timing, tries to get Irving Kershner to read his book on fitness whilst Kersh is trying to juggle about eight balls at once. Prowse is lucky he didn't end up in the carbon freeze himself that day.) has always been, for me, the definitive insight into the making of this film.
I'm not being hostile. Disagreement doesn't have to be hostile. I do see hostility here, towards Lucas, but none from me, I assure you.
As a first generation fan, I have witnessed the changing attitudes in the original fans over the years towards Return Of The Jedi has been in perfect tandem with the critical re-evaluation of the films. I think I was first aware of this circa 1997 where all of a sudden, all these articles were being written about Return Of The Jedi having an opening sequence akin to The Muppet Show and that the Ewoks were a travesty. Next thing I know, all those twenty-something fans were saying the same thing.
Now, back in 1983, everyone I knew (myself included) positively raved about Return Of The Jedi. The sequence in Jabba's palace was like the Canina scene in A New Hope writ large; the space battle at the end was breathtaking; the scenes between Vader, Luke and The Emperor were dramatic and nail-biting; all the loose ends were tied up and - get this - not one single person complained about the Ewoks.
Now, this was in Britain, where we are notoriously cynical. So, if we Brits bought into Return Of The Jedi, I fail to see how this was any different across the pond.
So, I ask, who amongst the original fans (don't even bother posting a reply if you didn't see the films first time round - this is for the grown ups only!) genuinely thought Return Of The Jedi to be a let-down when first released? And, if so, why? Be honest now.
Well, for one, your reply, bingowings was so predictable it doesn't warrant a reply. Other than this: over half a man's wealth is over half a man's wealth. It is academic how much wealth that man has.
Murry Sparkles, who is the arbiter of what charities a man gives his money to? It should be enough that a man is charitable (in the real world, it is enough; on this forum - where the unmitigated hatred towards a man no-one here has met, or is ever likely to meet, is hysterical - it doesn't seem to meet approval).
Chewtobacca said:
Bingowings said:
I wish he had given up Star Wars to other people after ESB and had concentrated on other things.
That is more or less how I feel. He should have left ROTJ - and any potential prequels - in the hands of Kurtz and others.
But if Kurtz is to be believed, he would've gone with the downbeat ending to the film. We'd already had that with ESB. The story has to have a celebratory ending, like it or not, otherwise it's sending out completely the wrong message.
Having enjoyed the Star Wars films, every single one of them, I wouldn't have wanted anyone else to have creative control over them.
Lucas is giving over half of his wealth to charity.
Your play...
That doesn't mean a thing. Lucas is a multi-billionaire (soon to be "merely" a billionaire); is he known for a "Hollywood lifestyle"? No.
Maybe Prowse doesn't hang out in Hollywood simply because he's quite a curmudgeon and doesn't get on with people?
And yes, bingowings, "really". What, he turns up at conventions to sign photos of himself as The Green Cross Code Man? He's known as the man who played Darth Vader. And he exploits that to the very end. That's his perogative. But to publicly diss Lucas and then be so vocal with his negativity, he shouldn't really be surprised to have such a public snubbing from Lucas.
Anyway, what's the money that Lucas owes him?
zombie84 said:
He also says "Luke" a bunch of times in ESB, but not in ROTJ, which may be where they got the Luke line from.
Not true. Vader says "Luke, help me take this mask off."
Ever since reading the novelisation of the book, back in 1983, I've wondered how this scene played out. Great to finally see it. It would be a great addition to the film; I'd sooner see it re-inserted than as part of the bonus disc.
Chewtobacca said:
SilverWook said:
Thanks for exhuming that vile and ugly old phrase from the past, Sunday. We can have civil discussions and disagreements on this board without it.
I entirely agree. The phrase is so extreme and unnecessary, and I find it more than a little disturbing.
Don't shoot the messenger. Sunday was only quoting some sad and lonely fanboy who really needed to get a proper perspective on life.
I fully agree that those of us who are allowed to download these revisions already own the original soundtracks. How, though, do we make this clear?
As well as the 1997 special editions of the soundtracks (plus the respective prequel soundtracks) I have the Anthology box set and have managed to acquire, though various sites like TehParadox and RickSays, some of the expanded editions (including the staggering Optimum edtion of ESB) and would be happy to answer any questions confirming this to be the case!
Oh, I think he's had plenty of money off the back of Lucas.
TheHelmetDork said:
Gaffer Tape said:But it still doesn't explain why he's in Dagobah. The scene just shows him landing there.
Search for solitude might be a reason..dunno.
Watch the film. Yoda says that he is going into exile.
To answer the question where the SE versions needed? Of course not.
Look, we watch films like Jason And The Argonauts these days and we acknowledge that with today's technology certain effects would be more convincing. But those people did the best with what they had at the time - indeed, they excelled with what they had at the time. Exactly the same with Star Wars.
I think when an artist has created something, it should be taken away from them. Because the true artist is never truly happy with what they create. They are always striving to better themselves; it's what keeps them trying, and it's what makes them better than so many mediocre artists who are happy to churn out substandard product.
1Shouta said:
Reaction to certain scenes:
A New Hope:
"Your father wanted you to have this when you were old enough": Anakin didn't even know he had a son...
Jabba/Han scene: I imagined Han's boss to be a bit...different
Luke's falcon training: Isn't he supposed to have a blue lightsaber?
Obi-Wan vs Darth Vader: Wonder why Obi-Wan calls him, "Darth"...
Empire Strikes Back:
Luke & Leia kiss: Wait, didn't Padme name her babies Luke & Leia?
Yoda's appearance: Did...is Yoda on drugs or something? And his voice got...heavier
Cloud City entrance: I seriously doubt that this scene was in the original version...
Vader/Emperor scene: Palpatine looks exactly the same as he did in Episode III. Don't people age?
"I am your father": I already suspected this in either one of the movies since it's probably the most heard quote
Return Of The Jedi:
Jabba's appearance: *just realizes that Episode I had Jabba* Alright, Episode IV CG Jabba officially sucks. This is much better.
Leia says she remembers her mother: BULL. SHIT.
Palpatine's appearance: He looks like he lost weight compared to Episode III & V...
Unmasking scene: If Anakin was burned, why does he only have burn marks on the side of his cheek?
Anakin/Obi-Wan/Yoda final scene: Why is Anakin just looking around everywhere?
My dad's reaction to the final scene: Who's that guy on the left?
Now typing this out helps me see why the PT kinda ruined the OT.
Obi-Wan is lying to Luke about his father wanting him to have the lightsabre. Perfectly understandable in the context of what we know now. And isn't the way Alec Guinnes paused before replying to the question "How did my father die?" just perfect? It's as though Lucas had told him the backstory on the quiet.
Whatever you think you see in Ian's performance in ESB, he is actually wearing different makeup than what he wears in ROTS. Believe me, I originally thought it was the same but it really isn't.
And those burn marks on Anakin's head in the unmasking? The entire back of his head is burned; totally consistent with what we see in ROTS.
For me, far from ruining it, the PT actually enriches and deepens the OT.
Continuity errors abound in Star Wars. Like bad dialogue, we shouldn't be selective when we pick them out for scrutiny and criticism.
The scene itself is fine in my opinion. Jabba has a townhouse in Mos Eisley, so it's not as though he's trekked all the way from his palace (admittedly, this is an EU factoid and not clear from the film). As for Han being in a rush, yes he is, but when he enters the hangar and sees Jabba and his men there, what's he supposed to do?
Although the scene goes over the same ground, plotwise, it just reinforces the severity of Han's faux pas in dumping the shipment, and how urgently Jabba needs paying off.
Still, there was always something about not seeing Jabba until Return Of The Jedi. Having him just being referred to by name in both of the films gave him a build-up which he didn't fail to live up to in that glorious rescue-of-Han sequence.