Lucas Promises Star Wars on Blu-Ray in 2011

Several readers have written with word that George Lucas has announced a 2011 release date for the Star Wars series — all six films — on Blu-Ray. Engadget (linked) has an explanation of what to expect, and includes a video of a deleted scene that the Blu-Ray version will include. They warn that this might be a disappointment to anyone who (correctly) believes that Han shot first.

Comments

Memories

[Anonymous Coward]

See your childhood memories die in brilliant digital picture!

Re:Memories

[Impeesa]

I was absentmindedly browsing the front page while doing something else on the other screen, and still had the summary for this Ask Slashdot in my mind when I started reading the comments for this story. Boy, did you ever look like an asshole for a second there!

Re:Memories

[auLucifer]

Is this time for the tag "andnothingofvaluewasgained"?

Re:Memories

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno about childhood memories, but only a fool would pay money for that crap -- especially the last 3.

Re:Memories

[mcgrew]

I was 25 when Star Wars Episode IV (the first one filmed) was released, you insensitive clod!

I just replaced my DVD of that movie, and was surprised that it included the theatrical version where Greedo didn't shoot at all along with the digitized one where Solo sits there calmly while Greedo shoots four inches away from his head.

I guess I can throw thet tape of it out now.

Six films?

[dangitman]

That's impossible - only three Star Wars films were ever made.

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

These aren't the prequels you're looking for...

Re:Six films?

[TinBromide]

Maybe there were three direct to video releases of the quality seen in the star wars holiday special.

Re:Six films?

[DarkKnightRadick]

Finally, someone got modded up for a truly insightful comment! lol (:

Re:Six films?

[Diamon]

ANH, TESB, ROTJ, Ewoks: The Battle for Endor, The Ewok Adventure & The Star Wars Holiday Special.

Re:Six films?

[martin-boundary]

What about the fourth fan made episode? The Phantom something or other, I forget? It was a pretty good amateur effort.

Re:Six films?

[Hes Nikke]

I think you're forgetting about the Star Wars Holiday Special, Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure and Ewoks: The Battle for Endor.

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's impossible - only three Star Wars films were ever made.

A highly relevant clip from Spaced.

Re:Six films?

[Matrix14]

Eh, idunno. I think Revenge of the Sith is at least as good as Return of the Jedi. Purists may burn me alive, I guess.

Re:Six films?

[Abstrackt]

These aren't the prequels you're looking for...

No, no they weren't.

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

RotS was way better than the other prequels, but ultimately it was just mindless action scenes. It carried none of the suspense of the originals.

Re:Six films?

[interkin3tic]

There were the three movies, then a short special involving yoda flying around (bit of a long lead-up) called episode 2, and then a long, semi-funny gag reel (for instance, Darth crying when he finds out he's darth vader) called episode 3. I also vaguely recall a long, crappy commercial for the original series called episode 1.

Re:Six films?

[Pokey.Clyde]

Plus 5 Insightful? Really? FFS...

Re:Six films?

[ChunderDownunder]

Haha, life imitating art? Now we know how Pegg got the gig as Scotty.

Re:Six films?

[commodore64_love]

That's okay. I've still got my DVD copies of the original unaltered trilogy. And the digital quality is certainly better than my old analog laserdiscs. BTW is that Harlan Ellison on stage? I thought he considered Star Wars to be "brainless pap" unworthy of being called science fiction, so I'm surprised to see him there. (shrug)
.

>>>>>only three Star Wars films were ever made.

No come on! I thought the one where Anakin Skywalker catches fire was pretty awesome. ;-) But seriously I like what an anonymous coward said further below:

Episode 4 & 1 - rather dull and boring with a whiney guy.
Episode 5 & 2 - a bit better written with some motivation thrown in for the chars this time.
Episode 6 & 3 - a giant effects fest.

"It was truly a rinse and repeat." - AC. Also the first 70s-era trilogy is not really any better than the new trilogy when you look at it critically, instead of through rose-colored glasses.

Re:Six films?

[Superdarion]

Wrong.

I'm not a big fan of Starwars, but comparing the first trilogy to the second and saying that they're equally bad is just stupid.

Maybe if you just look at it superficially you could arrive at that conclusion, mostly because... well... George Lucas was involved in both and that can only be a bad thing.

BUT if you look closely enough, you'll see MANY details in the first trilogy that makes it great. The characters are real and deep, with good motivation to what they do. The storyline is solid with only a few loopholes here and there. The storytelling is somewhat spectacular even from the first scene of A New Hope, in which it is made quite clear that there is this small vessel being chased and shot at by a large, empire-owned starship, to the last, when you see Luke's struggle against the dark side's not. They don't just tell you the stuff, like in the new trilogy.

Damn, even the Jedis are somewhat more impressive. In the second trilogy all you see them do is push stuff around and do coreographed battles with their shinny swords. Take away their sword and they become as useless as C3PO. In the first trilogy, the sword is only a part of the whole Jedi mysticism. You don't see luke jumping around in circles and being all show-offy. His ass-kickery is much more sophisticated than pure swordsmanship.

And then you see the second trilogy, with shallow, senseless jedis who do ridiculous things just for the sake of a badly thought plot. Everything in the second trilogy is forced in in order to sell toys and appeal to fanboys.

And damn is that Jar Jar Bings annoying!

Don't think for a second that I'm a fanboy. I was born in 1984, so I wasn't even alive when the first trilogy started. By the time the second one begun, I hadn't even fully watched the first. So I actually saw episode 1 first, then the first trilogy, then re-watched episode 1 and then saw the rest of the new ones.

Re:Six films?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Also the first 70s-era trilogy is not really any better than the new trilogy when you look at it critically...

False.

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's okay. I've still got my DVD copies of the original unaltered trilogy

Wow, that's pretty amazing. You have a version of SW on DVD which they stopped selling well before DVD's were invented.

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see luke jumping around in circles and being all show-offy.

The hell you don't, you see him do it in his duel with Vader in the carbonite chamber in ep 5 (forward flip) and again in ep 6 in the Emperor's chamber (forward flip). In both cases he should have been cut down in short order, but wasn't- a choreographical error that was corrected in the prequels in ep 3 when Anakin tries the same thing against Kenobi.

Lucas used an idealized version of sport fencing for his saber 'combat' in the originals, which is why they look like a couple of old people poking at each other with their canes. Thankfully he went with actual fighting techniques and combat-useful styles in the prequels. The sword-play and combat are pretty much the only thing which was done better in the prequels. Unfortunately most of the time the plot which resulted in those combats was thin, so it mostly just ended up being some gratuitous fighting.

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm at a friends and drunk and too lazy to log in, but I've always avoided these star wars arguments. People who weren't ever fans say you're just seeing a movie of your youth through nastalgia glassess, and that is true to a certain extent; but I was a kid who saw the first star wars at the age of 7 in its first release and it was magic.

Yes I was seven, but sequels were a relatively recent phenomenon and even me as a child saw that usually the follow-up wasn't as good as the original. Well, in 1980 Empire landed and to me as a 10 year old boy, it was the theatrical force of the summer.

I wonder as an adult how these deals were worked out but in my city of Toronto, which was/is a fairly modern city, that summer it was only at the University theatre. The biggest blocksummer of the summer, and it's at one theatre! As a kid, it made it feel like an event. You wanted to see Empire, you were seeing it there and lining up for 3 hours and liking it.

The first really big theatrical sequel, and it delivered in spades. Funny, the only person who has complained in hindsight was lucas himself saying it was too serious and too slow.

But the point of my post was people saying stuff like original trilogy vs the second. .. Well, even though star wars is dear to my heart and maybe I'll never be to fully take off my nostalgia glasses, but at 13, return of the jedi killed a part of my childhood. As much as a movie can do that anyways. And yes, maybe I was coming of age, but my older broher who loved empire in its initial relaese, hated return as well. It was like it was over, but not satisfying at all, a bitter taste in your mouth.

I can say ewoks and not a fitting ending and whatever, but from my perspective I went through that 'it's done feeling and somehow, like many of us, I believed the magic was going to be recaptured in the new trilogy.

Hey, Fuck George and all that for many a thing, but maybe he couldn't have lived up to the hype no matter what, but regardless, he could have gave us something better on many counts.

But the one thing I'll say in defence of ep1, is the darth maul scene is fantastic; as a kid as an adult, it doesn't matter. Even not liking the new tril. to this day, that scene is still fantastic.

And if you go back and watch the ep 1 trailer, it seemed like it was going to deliver...

Sadly, as an adult, usually only the trailer can give you that feeling but it never comes through.

Oh well, I still have hope for tron.

Re:Six films?

[Ardeaem]

That's okay. I've still got my DVD copies of the original unaltered trilogy

Wow, that's pretty amazing. You have a version of SW on DVD which they stopped selling well before DVD's were invented.

Wow, that's pretty amazing. You've never heard of DVD burners.

Re:Six films?

[JacksonG]

Actually they did a release of the special editions a number of years back that had the original theatrical prints

IT's still available from some places such as http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Episode-IV-Widescreen/dp/B000FQJAIW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1281865521&sr=8-1

J

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

So damn correct, the first starwars triology tells us the story with the details.
One of those very important details is when Han shoots first. This scene was obviously added to the movie to introduce Han Solo, tell the audience what kind of person he is and the history he has with Jabba. When this scene was changed the entire sub-story where Han gradually changes from being a scoundrel to a hero changed.
It's funny how just a little detail in one scene can change the feeling of a large part of a movie.
Now, if they only could release a new version of The Predator with the first scene of the spaceship in the beginning removed. That movie would benefit so much from it if there were no hints of extraterestrial beings until halfway through it.

Re:Six films?

[Joce640k]

The first two were OK but when the Ewoks appeared it was clear where this was going...

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what happens when you give one person total control over a project. Without criticism and insight from talented coworkers, many important things falls apart. If you watch the documentaries for these movies, you can plainly see that everyone is afraid to criticise Lucas and that he's surrounded by yes-men. One guy is actually face-palming behind him at the first in-house screening, but he still doesn't say anything.

Re:Six films?

[GarrettZilla]

SW, TESB, ROTJ, Ewoks: The Battle for Endor, The Ewok Adventure & The Star Wars Holiday Special.

FTFY

Re:Six films?

[brunes69]

You may not have been alive when the first trilogy started, but you can tell from your comments you watched it as a kid.

Anyone who *never* watched Star Wars as a kid, and watches it for the first time as an adult (such as I), instantly reconigzes how incredibly cheeze of a film it is.

The acting is incredibly week, the story is not well told at all. It's basically just a vehicle to wrap a bunch of swashbuckling sword fights in with space battles, and throw some kid-friendly fuzzy comic relief in to boot.

Re:Six films?

[commodore64_love]

>>>comparing the first trilogy to the second and saying that they're equally bad is just stupid.

I didn't say that. I said "the original is not really any better than the new trilogy". In some aspects it's better, but in others it makes you want to press the fast forward button. I think most of the first hour (desert) is dull. The first "Wars" movie I ever saw the whole way through was Empire Strikes Back, because on the first one I kept falling asleep. (I was a kid - it was shown late - I got bored and slept.)

IMHO there are only two things wrong with the Prequel Trilogy is length:

(1) Lucas put too many scenes into these movies..... he did the same thing with the original trilogy with all those extra scenes in the special editions. They slow down the plot to a snail's pace and ruin the OT. Length kills audience attention. IMHO if the prequels were all shortened to the same length as the original films (i.e. subtract 20 minutes of scenes), they'd play a lot better.

(2) The prequel shows a civilized society much like ours. It's about as interesting as watching the president discuss his Afghan strategy. Or the first season of Star Trek TNG (zzzz). That civilized routine naturally makes it less interesting to watch, and that's not really Lucas' fault. Even if you got a brilliant writer in there, i doubt he could make that sterile Republic society interesting.

Re:Six films?

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>That's okay. I've still got my DVD copies of the original unaltered trilogy
>>
>>Wow, that's pretty amazing. You have a version of SW on DVD which they stopped selling well before DVD's were invented.

Dear smart-assed anonymous coward:

Sometime around 2004 Lucas released the Special Edition on DVD, and he included the original, unaltered movies as bonus DVDs. I sold the SE on ebay and kept the bonus discs for myself. THAT's what I was talking about when I said, "Well at least I still got my DVD copies of the original".

Re:Six films?

[Quiet_Desperation]

That's impossible - only three Star Wars films were ever made.

-- ... and then they built the supercollider.

I just enjoyed that combination of post and sig file.

Re:Six films?

[blair1q]

I was born in 1984, so I wasn't even alive when the first trilogy started.

None of us were:

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. In my mind the bad 70's and 80's movies were never created.

Re:Six films?

[Culture20]

Jar Jar Bings

you must have watched the special edition version where he was replaced with Miss Chanandler Bong.

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's a shame.

I always wanted to know what happened to the poor kids of Darth Vader after their mother died.

Re:Six films?

[lennier]

Anyone who *never* watched Star Wars as a kid, and watches it for the first time as an adult (such as I), instantly reconigzes how incredibly cheeze of a film it is.

Nope.

I'd seen the merchandise around age 7, but never watched the movies.

I was 25 when I first actually watched Star Wars, and the binary sunset scene just blew me away. Somehow it seemed to capture a whole generational sense of aching desperation to get out of suburbia and do something interesting with my life.

Empire had the duel, and Jedi, not much except for the unmasking scene.

But the thing about Star Wars is that 1) since Lucas back then knew he couldn't write, he cribbed shamelessly from iconic cinema, so it's really a distillation of every Western, Samurai, WW2 and sci-fi story ever, and 2) he had really really good set designers / FX experts who borrowed techniques from 2001 and imagery from NASA.

Star Wars was only four years after the last Apollo - so 'real space' was hot in everyone's minds, and the 2001/NASA look was very different from the Buck Rogers cheesy spacecraft look. Whoever designed the look of Star Wars knew that, and made things which looked 'real': chunky, functional, metallic. Bright whites, crisp lines, a reused aesthetic.

The TIE fighters look like satellites, not rockets. The scene where the escape pod is ejected looks exactly like a Saturn V first-stage ejection. The Jawa Sand Crawler's giant treads are identical to the Saturn crawler system. The Stormtrooper suits look like astronaut suits via Nazi Art Deco. Vader's suit controls borrow from John Glenn and the way astronauts with all those handheld life support packs looked like actual cyborgs -- just as much as from ancient Japan. Both of which seemed new and exotic to the West at the time.

The beeping droids came along just as microprocessors were talking off and kitset computers were in the news. They symbolised the new way of seeing computers, not as big central systems (though the Death Star computer walls still have that IBM System/360 look) but as personal companions. Compare with, say, HAL, or Hewey and Dewey from Silent Running, and it's such a different vibe: none of the oppressiveness of the Big System, but a belief in personal freedom via technology. And the droids also had that functional, don't-much-care-about-aesthetics look which real machines have.

Look at, say, 1979's The Space Movie and take a close look at all that old space footage. You'll see how Star Wars brought in visual inspiration which hadn't been seen in a comic-book cheesy space movie before.

The way everything mixed together into a space-age fairytale cinematic dreamspace just make it work, and most of those inspirations weren't from Lucas but his scriptwriting and visual design team.

The prequels utterly failed to do this process; I don't even know if they could have, now. We have too much ironic distance from Apollo and too much familiarity with space hardware now. Perhaps we can't see those images with new eyes. But the prequels didn't even try; they looked to the 1930s serials for inspiration, and to the first trilogy, and to 'coolness', not to NASA and the Altair 8800 and the Graflex Flash Gun and other real technology.

Re:Six films?

[lennier]

A postscript:

2001 did the 'look' of space brilliantly, and has never yet really been equalled except by actual documentaries. It also captured a really impersonal, soulless 'feel' which was what many people in the 1960s-70s were afraid Apollo-era big technology would produce. The people in 2001 - and in many other SF movies of the era - were tiny insects dwarfed by the huge systems they had created. This was the era of the frightening, bland, technological-socialist future.

Star Wars carried through that realistic look. But it also reintroduced the idea of romance both to space and to cinema. It made it okay to dream, and to pretend that individuals could change the world. Above all, it was fun. It was a nostalgic rock-n-roll rebel take on the techno-future. It said, 'yes there will be robots, but people will still be people and emotions will still matter and there'll be space to follow your heart'.

Is this a silly, childish thing to believe? Perhaps. The future isn't likely to be like Star Wars; the physics doesn't work, for one thing, and neither does the politics. But on the other hand, the big centrally-planned grim tech-socialist future imagined by the downbeat SF of the 1970s - Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes, Blakes 7, even Lucas' own THX-1138, hasn't happened either.

And so far in the 1990s-2000s, we haven't managed to come up with an equally optimistic dream of the future. (Except perhaps Pixar's animation.) We got lots of X-Files, Aliens, Terminator, Matrix, Blade Runner, Dark Knight, but they're all oppressive futures we really don't want to live in.

I agree that Star Wars is mined out and I'd like to see a new vision of the future which is both romantic and plausible, but I'm not sure what that will look like or who will do it.

Re:Six films?

[sznupi]

The first really big theatrical sequel

"The Godfather Part II" would like to have a word with you...

(and of course we can't forget Planet of the Apes "series", basically a decade earlier ;) )

Re:Six films?

[AmiMoJo]

All true. Anyone in any doubt should look at the way the destruction of an entire planet is juxtaposed with R2D2 falling over.

The reason Empire is the best is because it has some genuine emotion, where as the other two are mostly just cheese.

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies, lies, and more lies. But coming from Troll64, that is to be expected.

The 2004 DVD release did not contain the unaltered versions, but instead contained versions that had been altered even more than the 1997 special editions. Now, somewhere in 2006-2008, there was a DVD release that contained the original versions as bonus material, however even that version still contained some alterations. Though it sounds like the only change there is the subtitles for alien languages were moved to an actual subtitle track.

Re:Six films?

[mcgrew]

Anyone who *never* watched Star Wars as a kid, and watches it for the first time as an adult (such as I), instantly reconigzes how incredibly cheeze of a film it is.

I watched EPIV in the theater at age 25, and IMO EP V was the worst. I hated those stupid little bear suits. OTOH EP III is my favorite episode.

It's basically just a vehicle to wrap a bunch of swashbuckling sword fights in with space battles, and throw some kid-friendly fuzzy comic relief in to boot.

All six, especially IV, had the "swashbuckling sword battles" and space battles. The "car" chases were great. If you want a compelling story line that tugs your heartstrings, sci-fi isn't where to look, go see a Sandra Bullock chick flick instead. Most sci-fi movies are action movies.

As to Jar Jar, he was a stroke of artistic genius. Of course you hate Jar Jar. Everybody hates Jar Jar. He was designed to be hated. Any thing not real that can universally provoke the kind of reaction that Jar Jar provokes is high art. Jar Jar Binks was an unmitigated artistic success.

Yes, I hate Jar Jar too. I'm supposed to, but I realise the fact that I'm supposed to and see that Lucas succeeded wildly with his character.

Re:Six films?

[mcgrew]

Maybe if you just look at it superficially you could arrive at that conclusion, mostly because... well... George Lucas was involved in both and that can only be a bad thing.

Then why did he get an Academy Award for director and film editing in EPIV?

Take away their sword and they become as useless as C3PO.

"You don't want to sell me any death sticks."
"I don't want to sell you any death sticks."
You must not have noticed that both Anekin and ObiWan quite often had their swords lost or broken and still managed to come through? Even when they were both to be executed by animal ingestion along with the Senator of Naboo they overcame the vicious animals as well as the armed robots and sentients?

And then you see the second trilogy, with shallow, senseless jedis who do ridiculous things just for the sake of a badly thought plot.

Such as?

Everything in the second trilogy is forced in in order to sell toys and appeal to fanboys.

Such as?

And damn is that Jar Jar Bings annoying!

Binks was a work of art. Of course you hate him. I hate him. Everybody hates him. You're supposed to hate him! Jar Jar was a complete and unmitigated artistic success; look at the strong reaction he provoked in you!

Re:Six films?

[DarthVain]

I know if I was a trooper I would be questioning the use of "armor" that seems particularly vulnerable to small sticks and rocks as wielded by little teddy bears.

Re:Six films?

[Muad'Dave]

... motivation thrown in for the chars...

Was I the only one that read that as "Chairs" and thought of Ballmer?

Re:Six films?

[Tetsujin]

I was born in 1984, so I wasn't even alive when the first trilogy started.

None of us were:

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

Hey, there were people alive "A long time ago"... And some of them are still alive today. My grandma, for instance.

Re:Six films?

[commodore64_love]

I see. You are judging Star Wars based upon 1977.

I am judging it based upon the present (2010), ignoring the special effects (which are dated but not Lucas' fault), and focusing on its story, dialogue, and themes and how they compare to other science fiction universes like Foundation or Man Who Sold the Moon or Babylon 5 or Star Trek or Stargate. It's on the bottom of the pile. It's pulp.

And that's why I rate it as slightly better than the early 2000s prequel trilogy, but not really any different. Both share the same lack of depth. Both are ultimately unsatisfying for the intellect.

Re:Six films?

[commodore64_love]

>>>the big centrally-planned grim tech-socialist future imagined by the downbeat SF of the 1970s - Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes

Those things were offset by daily reruns of the optimistic Star Trek. Yeah I know you're thinking, 'But that's a 60s show' which is true but most of Trek's fans didn't discover it until the 1970s (including me). It was one of those shows that nobody watched originally, but then fell in love with during the 6 or 7 o'clock reruns.

Re:Six films?

[commodore64_love]

>>>If you want a compelling story line that tugs your heartstrings, sci-fi isn't where to look

Obviously you've never seen Babylon 5, which has literally had me in tears, or vice-versa on the edge of my seat wondering if the station would blow up. Some of the better episodes of Deep Space Nine also pulled on your heartstrings, like the episode where Captain Sisko died and his son had to grow-up without a father. A couple Twilight Zone and Outer Limits episodes also fit the bill.

Your sentence demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the genre.

Re:Six films?

[mcgrew]

I never cared for babylon 5, it just didn't hold my interest. I have all the DS9s on VHS (I may be missing one or two episodes).

Re:Six films?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is Nazi "Art" and there is Art Deco. But I don't think there is such a thing as Nazi Art Deco.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The story is over. It told the birth of Anakin Skywalker. It told the fall of the Jedi. It told the tale of Luke Skywalker bringing peace to the galaxy. There is no episode 7,8,9.

This is just a silly cash grab and a non-story

Indiana jones

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the original IJ trilogy mentioned ??

Re:Indiana jones

[Nimey]

You say "original" as though there were any other movies.

george lucas can kiss my ass.. We need ORIGINAL

[freeballer]

George. Get the hint. Even if you aren't happy with your creation years ago - WE ARE
I will not buy anything without original footage, with solo shooting.
I'll keep my "original" trilogy dvd set until format is dead or he gets some balls
and give us what we all want - Choice of either or, or both

Re:george lucas can kiss my ass.. We need ORIGINAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Original (unmodified version) shouldn't even be copyrighted anymore. It's absurd that something made 33 years ago can still be controlled. Most /.'ers probably weren't even alive then.

Re:george lucas can kiss my ass.. We need ORIGINAL

[grub]

Most /.'ers probably weren't even alive then.

I was in Baghdad when you were in dad's bag!
.

Re:george lucas can kiss my ass.. We need ORIGINAL

[lorg]

Grub! I am your father!

Re:george lucas can kiss my ass.. We need ORIGINAL

[freeballer]

well I wasn't that old when first one came out. I still watched it everytime it showed on ASN/ATV/CTV when it ran, until the special editions came out.

Re:george lucas can kiss my ass.. We need ORIGINAL

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point. Every time they release it they make a few changes and BINGO! the copyright clock resets to zero. It's likely that contemporary media will be unplayable in a century, so unless someone hangs on to an old rip there will never be a public domain version of Star Wars.

Re:george lucas can kiss my ass.. We need ORIGINAL

[Anonymous Coward]

It was only half of him, you dimwit, and no one can tell which parts of which half.

Signed: Someone with the other half.

Re:george lucas can kiss my ass.. We need ORIGINAL

[MtViewGuy]

If I remember correctly, Lucas' former wife Marcia Griffin has to be compensated BIG TIME big time if Lucasfilm releases any home video version of the original cut version of Episodes IV to VI because she substantially did the editing work on these three films. That's why the DVD releases of the original versions that came out a few years ago was still in its pre-1997 version that came out on Laserdisc; the current video release version is based on the 2004 release that does not have her editing credits.

As such, when the Blu-ray editions arrive in 2011, they will be based on:

1) For Episodes I, II and III, the digital version shown in theaters with digital projectors.

2) For Episodes IV, V and VI, the 2004 DVD release (plus any additional changes to compensate for continuity errors noted by some viewers of this edition).

It will be very interesting to see what audio encoding they use on the Blu-ray releases. Lucasfilm has a preference for Dolby-encoded soundtracks, but 20th Century Fox nowadays pretty much releases new Blu-ray titles encoded with DTS-HD Master Audio (the current de facto standard for Blu-ray discs); I think the Star Wars films will be released with DTS-HD Master Audio tracks not only because of the de facto usage, but also because DTS-HD Master Audio tracks can be decoded by older receivers in standard DTS 5.1/6.1 surround sound mode.

Re:george lucas can kiss my ass.. We need ORIGINAL

[OrangeCatholic]

You should get your wife a copyright because "copyrights are forever."

Make sure to spend 2 months salary.

Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought an 'extra scenes' edition of the Original Three, which was gathering dust in my closet. A girl I rented out to said that she really wanted to watch Star Wars because, you know, "it's boy territory but she really wanted to see what it was all about". So I popped in film 1.

It turns out that the 'extra scenes' all came at the start of the movie - when R2D2 and C3P0 have just landed and are wandering around in the desert.

And they wander and wander and wander and wander.

Eternity is two robots and sand.

There is nothing but sand.

And robots.

For about half an hour.

She fell asleep and didn't want to see the rest. Epic fail.

Re:Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Epic fail

Yes, but in a way you probably haven't even realized, yet.

Re:Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol you got cock blocked by George Lucus how do you feel?

Re:Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[masmullin]

A girl I rented out

How much?

Re:Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[__aasqbs9791]

Sounds like you found nerd ruffies. Could be the starter scene to a CSI: SVU episode.

Re:Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[Anonymous Coward]

How much?

The price goes up if your mom is home.

Re:Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[countertrolling]

Eternity is two robots and sand.

There is nothing but sand.

And robots

For about six years.... Epic fail.

Yeah? Tell that to these guys

Re:Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[brentrad]

I've come to a realization recently - as much as the temptation is to show people new to any series the "best" version, the extended version that tells the whole story, etc. - just show them the shorter version. If they get bored, you'll lose them forever.

Re:Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[roc97007]

And from where?

Re:Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[masmullin]

thats ok, my mom will get me a sammich afterwards.

Re:Too bad the original series extra scenes suck

[Anonymous Coward]

It turns out that the 'extra scenes' all came at the start of the movie - when R2D2 and C3P0 have just landed and are wandering around in the desert.

And they wander and wander and wander and wander.

Sounds like his Kurosawa-crush made him go too far trying to emulate "The Hidden Fortress". Problem is, even if he can copy some of the cinematography, two robots, one of which can't speak, are not as interesting as showing the depths of two bandits' degradation.

Just another instance of "George Lucas can't write worth shit."

All sorts of wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

A New Hope wasn't released in 1976, it didn't come out until ~1997. Star Wars didn't even come out until 1977, making 2011 the 35th anniversary of fuck-all. I guess once Lucas started fictionalizing the history of these movies, he took to it so much that even facts don't matter to him any longer. Too bad he'll never repent for the later years of his life; he'll never see another dime from me, either.

Re:All sorts of wrong

[flimflammer]

What the hell are you rambling on about?

Re:All sorts of wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot. That is all.

Re:All sorts of wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really unable to comprehend the following facts?

• The original movie was called Star Wars. That's it: it was called "Star Wars". No fucking "A New Hope" involved when it was made.
• A New Hope wasn't used until the 90s, and the earliest reference I found to it was in 1997. I grant that it may have been used in 1996.
• George Lucas started to add details to the storyline as though they were original to the original trilogy, except he was pulling shit out of his ass.
• George Lucas refuses to release the original, better movies in favor his newer versions that are generally acknowledged as condescending and less interesting. I will therefore never purchase or rent anything from him again.

Any questions?

Re:All sorts of wrong

[kimvette]

Wrong. It was referred to as "A New hope" in the 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope

"The film was originally released as Star Wars, without Episode IV or the subtitle A New Hope. The 1980 sequel, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, featured an episode number and subtitle in the opening crawl. When the original film was re-released in 1981, Episode IV: A New Hope was added above the original opening crawl. Although Lucas claims that only six films were ever planned, representatives of Lucasfilm discussed plans for nine or twelve possible films in early interviews.[66] The film was re-released theatrically in 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, and with additional scenes and enhanced special effects in 1997. CBS was host to the film's world broadcast premiere in 1984."

Re:All sorts of wrong

[Silvrmane]

You know, I saw Star Wars the year it came out. I remember it pretty clearly because "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" dominated the box office that year, and stayed in the big "Famous Players" theater downtown for MONTHS. So when Star Wars finally came to town, it went to the drive-in because Butch was still firmly ensconced at the nice indoor theatre. (I bet the assholes who set that up never factored in that if you were taking a girl to the movies you might want to see a different one from time to time. I ended up taking the same girl to Butch about 3 times.) Anyway... I clearly remember the movie starting with at least "Episode 4" at the top of the opening crawl, because we chuckled when we saw it. Star Wars was meant to emulate those old Flash Gordon serials (with the corny wipes and so on) and calling the first one "Episode 4" was to give you the sense that you were picking up a story already in progress, just like when the serials used to run.

Re:All sorts of wrong

[PCM2]

You might remember it, but you'd be rewriting your own memories. Sorry, this is just one of those things that people have convinced themselves of. I was there, too. I watched it seven times in the theater. The original Star Wars had no "Episode IV" in the title crawl. In fact, if I remember correctly, the DVD of the 1977 cut of the film that was released a while back doesn't have the "Episode IV" either, so maybe we can finally put this urban legend to bed.

Re:All sorts of wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I saw Star Wars the year it came out. I remember it pretty clearly because "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" dominated the box office that year, and stayed in the big "Famous Players" theater downtown for MONTHS. So when Star Wars finally came to town, it went to the drive-in because Butch was still firmly ensconced at the nice indoor theatre. (I bet the assholes who set that up never factored in that if you were taking a girl to the movies you might want to see a different one from time to time. I ended up taking the same girl to Butch about 3 times.) Anyway... I clearly remember the movie starting with at least "Episode 4" at the top of the opening crawl, because we chuckled when we saw it. Star Wars was meant to emulate those old Flash Gordon serials (with the corny wipes and so on) and calling the first one "Episode 4" was to give you the sense that you were picking up a story already in progress, just like when the serials used to run.

You saw the 2nd release. I skipped school in 7th grade to stand in line to see the 1st showing and The scroller text did not have "Episode 4". After all this time I don't even think it had "A New Hope" either. It also had a bit with Luke going to town to visit his buddies and they tried to get him to join the rebellion and Luke was like, all whiny and stuff and was like I can't. I have to help out on the farm, wah wah wah. Then he went home and found out R2 was missing. It wasn't that good a scene really but it was in my opinion pretty pivotal as it set up Luke's buddies and why he was gone when R2 ran off. anyways. It was at the theater about oh I don't remember like 3 months straight. Then it went away and came back like a month later for another 6 month or so run. I saw it like 14 times during those runs. So much so that I knew most of the words by the time it went away for good. There where a few things changed and though none pop to my mind now [hell this was like what 150 years ago now?] I distinctly remember going WTF Episode 4? and the missing Luke jaunt to town. I was in the official fan club and so we already knew Lucas planned on more films but it was still really odd how it went away for a while then came back and was different.

Re:All sorts of wrong

[DinDaddy]

All true, but the 35th anniversary of 1977 is 2012, not 2011 when these BDs are being released.

Yet Another Star Wars Re-Release?

[CodeBuster]

What a surprise, Lucas decides to re-release the star wars films yet again just to milk the franchise for even more profit, one last time...yeah right. If he must do this then perhaps he would be kind enough to edit Jar Jar out this time? Or maybe a young Han Solo could show up and "shoot him first"?

Re:Yet Another Star Wars Re-Release?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up you twat. Star Wars has no HD release. People that enjoy (some of) the films would like them in superior quality to the DVD releases. You'll be surprised to learn that you are not the center of the universe, and other people have their own opinions. Now fuck off to your normal Apple gay fan(lady)boy crap, eh?

yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

the originals are better

How Blade Runner

[jjohnson]

Seriously, how many different versions will the fanbois pay money for? No matter how you feel about Greedo shooting first, doesn't owning four different box sets already make dumping $150 on another seem as silly as rebuilding your basement into the Emperor's Throne Room?

Re:How Blade Runner

[TinBromide]

... as silly as rebuilding your basement into the Emperor's Throne Room?

Wait, so my faithful recreation downstairs is... Silly? :*-(

Re:How Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, how many different versions will the fanbois pay money for?

Assuming 8Gig each thats about $1.50 worth of my monthly broadband bill to bittorrent them.

Re:How Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

rebuilding your parent's basement into the Emperor's Throne Room?

Fixed

Re:How Blade Runner

[choprboy]

... as silly as rebuilding your basement into the Emperor's Throne Room?

Of course it is silly... Every knows you build the Detention Center and Waste Reclamation Compactor in the basement. The Emperor's Throne Room goes upstairs in the kitchen.

Re:How Blade Runner

[phreakincool]

I LOLed! Awesome!

Re:How Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

... as silly as rebuilding your basement into the Emperor's Throne Room?

Wait, so my faithful recreation downstairs is... Silly? :*-(

... as silly as rebuilding your basement into the Emperor's Throne Room?

Wait, so my faithful recreation downstairs is... Silly? :*-(

Well, duh. Everyone knows the Emperor's throne room is supposed to have a view. Upstairs would have been much more appropriate.

Re:How Blade Runner

[wardred]

Man, now I gotta MOVE. I'll have to arrange to pay rent for that leaky attic space. :-b Won't have to worry 'bout fumigation, the place just reeks of moth balls, but I'll have to find a way to convince mom it's better that she move her boxes down the basement than having me do it...

This whole thing making me exhausted just thinking about it. Thanks!

Re:How Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

... as silly as rebuilding your basement into the Emperor's Throne Room?

Of course it is silly... Every knows you build the Detention Center and Waste Reclamation Compactor in the basement. The Emperor's Throne Room goes upstairs in the kitchen^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbathroom.

FTFY

Re:How Blade Runner

[aliquis]

Seriously, how many different versions will the fanbois pay money for?

12 aug 2010: Video Quality Matters Less If You Enjoy the Show

So yeah... Clearly Star Wars benefits by a huge amount of getting better sound and video quality.

Re:How Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, how many different versions will the fanbois pay money for?

None.

I have the original trilogy on VHS and DVD, but both were Christmas gifts.

If other people want to give George money, I'll accept the gifts, but he got enough out of me when I went to the theatre.

Re:How Blade Runner

[PachmanP]

...as silly as rebuilding your basement into the Emperor's Throne Room?

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Re:How Blade Runner

[Iron Condor]

Seriously, how many different versions will the fanbois pay money for?

Other way 'round: as long as fanbois keep buying yet-another-version after the other, I sure can't fault Lucas for milking them.

Re:How Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh bugger! I built the throne room in the toilet!!!

Re:How Blade Runner

[toppings]

That's your uncle talking.

Re:How Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with building my basement into the emporors throne room? Jk

Re:How Blade Runner

[sco08y]

Seriously, how many different versions will the fanbois pay money for?

Not sure, but I doubt even the most hardcore Star Wars nerd comes even remotely close to a typical Beatles fan.

Re:How Blade Runner

[daveime]

The difference being the original Beatles songs were toneless crap ... and all the editing was done in people's heads pretending that they'd all been masterpieces like John Lennon's 70's stuff.

Re:How Blade Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

What? The kitchen? That's nuts!

You build the duplicate of the Cell Block and Landing Bay (i.e. garage) on the main floor, and put the Emperor's Throne Room on the second floor (or, if you don't have a second floor, on the roof). That way you can lord over the surrounding neighborhood as you rotate in your chair, and get a good view of the Rebel Fleet through the windows, should they be foolish enough to attack your fully operational battle station.

Sheesh. The kitchen.

Oh, and just to be sure you don't make any other ridiculous mistakes, NO you do NOT make the Emperor's Throne Room 100% accurate by building it with a deep shaft that has dangerously low "safety" railings all around it. That's how "accidents" happen. Either don't build the shaft or make those railings higher. The whole original design was a frickin death trap.

Re:How Blade Runner

[vandelais]

What if George Lucas was his uncle, you insensitive clod!

Re:How Blade Runner

[DarthVain]

Pretty sure the Emperor's Throne Room is in the bathroom, but whatever.

Re:How Blade Runner

[CeruleanDragon]

I would think that the "Emperor's Throne Room" would logically be the bathroom.

Too bad I don't care anymore

[grasshoppa]

I mean, a couple years ago? Maybe. Now? No. So what's changed? Well, I've gotten older, there are better movies out there that I'd spend my money on, and frankly, I'm tired of producers yanking our chains with new versions every couple years.

So no. I will not be buying this, as I suspect will be the general refrain from his target base.

Re:Too bad I don't care anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

"producers yanking our chains with new versions every couple years."

Sounds like MS-Windows business model.

Re:Too bad I don't care anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously if you want a good Space Drama, buy the Lexx boxed set. I don't know about anyone else, but I saw the 2nd and 3rd movies around '00 and really wanted to watch Lexx when it was on Sci Fi, and just recently rediscovered it when it showed up on Hulu. And you know what? It's the best damn show around. You can see where Farscape took their ideas from (Seriously, ripped off in the same way as Simba for the Lion King).

And you know what the best part was? It had a real beginning and end. Some of the filling might be tacky, but even so it was a lot more enjoyable at 30+ hours than Star Wars was at 12.

Additionally there's only one boxed set, none of this 'director's reinterpretation' crap.

And bonus: There's BOOBIES!

Re:Too bad I don't care anymore

[Beardydog]

It's cheesy, and tacky to the point that it borders on soft-porn, but it's some of the most original sci-fi out there, and it lasted for quite awhile in its various forms. I couldn't stand the bland, soap-operish characters in Farscape. If I wanted to want boring sci-fi with an aimless, meandering plot, I'd watch DS9. I still love the cornball battle song.

Re:Too bad I don't care anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Age is funny.

When I was younger (and single, and childless...) I not only loved movies - was utterly devoted to them - but actually made some. Got paid for it and everything.

Now at 44 and with a wife and two pre-teen children I haven't watched a movie in almost a year, and recently gave away my extensive DVD collection because it took up space I needed for "family" stuff.

The magic has gone.

Re:Too bad I don't care anymore

[TheRaven64]

You can see where Farscape took their ideas from

Both Farscape and Lexx were heavily inspired by Blake's 7 - the character of Stan is very similar to Vila and the Lexx fills a very similar role to the Liberator in their respective settings - but it's not clear how much the Farscape got from Lexx.

Young Han?

[Das Auge]

Oh God, don't tell me he's making a Star Wars Babies movie?!

Re:Young Han?

[ehrichweiss]

You know you wouldn't be *that* surprised if he did though....admit it.

Re:Young Han?

[Iron Condor]

http://io9.com/5496171/george-lucas-wants-to-make-jedi-babies-kids-series

Re:Young Han?

[imakemusic]

Can't we just put him out of our misery?

Boooo

[grub]

As I commented on Engadget:

Originals == Buy.
Special Edition == 1080p MKV DTS torrent.

That and the decent Laserdisc rips of the originals will have to do, I guess.

Re:Boooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear grub (slashdot ID 11606):

This sounds very interesting to me, thanks for the tip. I might have some questions for you about the torrenting, though. Do you have a link to your Engadget post? It's ok if not, I'm sure I can find it. Thanks, I'll be in touch.

Sincerely,
Special Agent Cooper Ramirez
FBI

Re:Boooo

[brentrad]

Agreed. All of the movies have been available in HD for over 5 years now.

And if you want the original laserdisc non-special edition versions of the originals - also available for ages now.

Re:Boooo

[grub]

Dear FBI Special Agent Ramirez,

I am not an American nor is thinking about piracy a crime.

Regards,
grub (slashdot ID 11606)

Re:Boooo

[zoloto]

I've been looking for the LD rips of the originals on and off over the years. Any suggestions of where to look?

Re:Boooo

[Anonymous Coward]

TPB.
filler filler filler filler

Re:Boooo

[Anonymous Coward]

*chuckle* Keep telling yourself those things if it makes you feel better. I'm watching you, grub. Watching and waiting. One of these days, you're going to slip up, and then I'll be all over you like flies on shit. You're going down, grub. It's only a matter of time.

Ramierz

Re:Boooo

[cblguy2]

I have the original 3 on laserdisc (and, indeed, I do have a working laserdisc player). Never thought of how to rip them though. I also have them on VHS, and the DVD box set. Uggh. I feel dirty.

Re:Boooo

[NiceGeek]

I don't think grub has much to fear from an agent who can't consistently spell his last name correctly

Re:Boooo

[chichilalescu]

Sir, I think you're misunderestimating the power of the US FBI.

Re:Boooo

[Pikoro]

If I had a LD player I'd rip mine. I've got the Definitive Collection Box (Original versions, not SE) signed by Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca for those who don't know). One of these days if I pick up a LD player...

Re:Boooo

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Special Agent Copper Ramirez,
Included here are the information you have requested.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/14/george-lucas-officially-announces-star-wars-on-blu-ray-in-2011/2
grub Posted Aug 14th 2010 7:13PM HIGHEST RANKED
@RikF Yep, only the originals are what I'd pay for.

Originals == buy.
Special Editions == 1080p MKV DTS torrents

Profile is on http://www.engadget.com/profile/3738459/

Please let me and my family go now. None of us are terrurist.

Sincerely,
Detainee 0063783045

Re:Boooo

[drinkypoo]

The hardcore go to their local flea market and buy a laserdisc player so they can play the original LDs. I personally got my set at Streetlight. Got T1 and T2 on LD there, too, but had to settle for T3 on DVD :p

Re:Boooo

[BatGnat]

Dear FBI Special Agent Ramirez I have already bought it four times, do I need to buy it a 5th? It is only an incremental upgrade....Aren't they free....?

Culturally relevant?

[cgenman]

Call me crazy, but is Star Wars even culturally relevant anymore? It feels like Disco at this point.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Low Ranked Craig]

OK, you're crazy.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

A good way to gauge that is to ask a 5-10 year old what they think about star wars, disco died, but lucas recreates star wars every 5 - 10 years to keep it relevant.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[kg8484]

The opening crawl begins with "A long time ago," so the more the movie ages the more authentic it gets. Furthermore, Lucus made a good business decision targeting the new movies to children. Adults have already seen the original 3 movies and probably already own them on whatever medium and most will not upgrade. However, by getting a new generation of consumers, he extends the amount of time people watch the movies. Maybe in 10 or 20 years he'll make the last 3 to get another generation interested. Even by themselves, the original movies are classics and will be required viewing by anyone who isn't culturally retarded.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[bigstrat2003]

Depends on one's definition of "culturally relevant". They're good movies, but will never be viewed in the same category as something like Casablanca. Then again, there are a hell of a lot of people today who haven't seen that movie and have no interest in doing so, so there's a legitimate argument that even the movies which are considered classics are not culturally relevant any more.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Abcd1234]

Given an entire generation (the boomers) was wowed by it, and then their kids exposed to it, thus comprising many *many* millions of people, I think its safe to say the answer is 'yes'.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[farnsworth]

Call me crazy, but is Star Wars even culturally relevant anymore? It feels like Disco at this point.

It is very much so, at least around here. Talk to virtually any 5-10 year old boy, and he will be very familiar with Star Wars. My own children went though a period of being fans, so I witnessed first-hand that it is still very appealing to young minds. It is such an elementary human story, put on in a very engaging production. I suspect that it will culturally relevant for generations.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like disco.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me crazy, but is Star Wars even culturally relevant anymore? It feels like Disco at this point.

As opposed to the more recent creations like the car and telephone? There's this attitude these days that if it isn't trendy then it passe and something from your grandparents generation. Films made in the 30s and 40s can just as easily be culturally relevant. Books written 200 years ago can be as well. Even the work of Homer dealt with the human condition and is culturally relevant. I think you are confusing culturally relevant with what's hot today. Culture is multi-generational and has nothing to do with being trendy.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly the first 3 were just as targeted. We look at them thru rose colored glasses at this point. Dont watch them for e few years come back and watch them anew. You will see the first one is rather dull and boring with a whiney guy. The second one is a bit better written with some motivation thrown in for the chars this time. The third was a giant effects fest. Sound familiar?

The problem the newer 3 have is pacing. Trim out about 30 mins out of each movie and they would be much better. Lucas is an old school 70s director. Pacing is slow and deliberate. Not what is currently in fashion of moving the the plot along at a fairly good clip. Probably the biggest eye opener of this effect is watching the extras on Ace Ventura. The director said 'I could loose a half hour of this movie and still tell the same story but jim was just too funny not to show all of this'. Many movies get all caught up on themselves and keep telling the same point over and over. A 30 min pod race in the middle of the movie did NOTHING to advance the plot. Next time you watch it, skip it. You will find the movie is much better. The second one was such a snooze fest I do not know if it could be edited to make it better. The only thing it did was make the motivations in the 3rd one better. That one probably wouldnt need much lost out of it.

But overall they are targeted to 8-15 year olds. Just like the previous set. It was truly a rinse and repeat.

Probably the worst thing that ever happened to Lucas was that he got rich. Which removed some of his real creativity. What would we have seen from him if he had actually had to work at his craft. For example I would say his equal of Steven Spielberg really worked at what he had to do. He kept up the relentless pace of making whatever he did better than what he worked on before. Lucas got lazy and fell back onto merchandising (hence the basic re-re-release of star wars on blu ray which is the same as the dvd set).

But considering what will come out on bluray is almost exactly the same as what is currently on DVD. Hmm, guess I will wait some more (and trust me I am not shy about buying dvds or bluray). I do however tend not to rebuy things. At this point I am only slightly mildly interested in re-buying this. I already own the thing 3 times over. I would only be interested in the originals in decent enough quality to merit bluray or dvd. This is your basic shovel of what they already have. They scanned it high quality ages ago. Now it is just a bluray reencode and small menu tweak. Yawnski

Re:Culturally relevant?

[SiggyTheViking]

Get out. Get out now.
And leave your geek card at the door.
AND stay off my lawn while you leave!

Re:Culturally relevant?

[mhelander]

Right, but what answer do you expect to the question "is Disco really culturally relevant anymore" from alt.fan.disco? That is, you're not crazy for asking, it's asking that question _here_ that makes you crazy.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[domatic]

But overall they are targeted to 8-15 year olds. Just like the previous set. It was truly a rinse and repeat.

I see this repeated over and over again. It really isn't so. It was the first set of movies I ever saw where adults (unaccompanied by children in many cases) saw them three or four times. Prior to the video rental store, it wasn't uncommon to see a really bitchen movie several times to burn it in your brain because it would be who knows how long until you see it again.

At the time old, young, and in-between were literally lined up around the block to see these movies. The way movies are made, promoted, and the advent of the PG-13 rating have changed the typical audience and the way they are consumed. The Ewoks in Return of the Jedi were truly the start of aiming Star Wars at solely at young kids. It got the laser like focus on kiddies you're thinking about with the prequels. Understand also I speak of the un "enhanced" versions of the originals. Han shooting second really IS kiddieization.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[brentrad]

I agree about the target, most of us saw the movies as kids and loved them. If they had been targeted at adults, they likely wouldn't have been as popular.

But I think the real problem with the newer three was 1) dialogue and 2) story (although you're right, they could have been a lot shorter and not missed much.) And what else do you have if you don't have good dialogue and story? A big special-effects fest. Honestly, the dialogue in #2 was so god-awful for most of the first half, my wife left and never finished watching it. Bummer really, because some of the action in end third of the movie were actually pretty good. The third movie was pretty good though, I thought.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[_Sprocket_]

Honestly the first 3 were just as targeted. We look at them thru rose colored glasses at this point. Dont watch them for e few years come back and watch them anew.

Been there, done that. And I don't buy it. I enjoy those first three movies still today. Part of it is, admitedly, nostalgia. But I do like the movies themselves.

I've gone back to watch old TV shows I liked as a kid for nostalgia's sake as well. The A-Team. Hogan's Heroes. Buck Rogers. I cringe a bit when I watch them. Now I understand why my father would roll his eyes when I eagerly popped down in the beanbag to watch a show. I still get why I liked them back when I was a kid. But I suppose my expectations have changed and the old shows just didn't age along with me. I have found that while I am a sucker for nostalgia, it does not rule my view.

A 30 min pod race in the middle of the movie did NOTHING to advance the plot. Next time you watch it, skip it. You will find the movie is much better.

Oddly enough - I find that the movie would have been better if it were nothing but the pod racing and the final light-saber battle. Granted - it's not much of a movie at that point.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[pauljlucas]

They're good movies, but will never be viewed in the same category as something like Casablanca.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Brian_Ellenberger]

Call me crazy, but is Star Wars even culturally relevant anymore? It feels like Disco at this point.

Ask your average boy who is 4-8 years old how relevant Star Wars is. I teach pre-K Sunday School, and I can tell you that Star Wars is extremely popular, especially the prequel/Clone Wars stuff. It is weird to get kids whose favorite character is "Obi-Wan". For more details on the how relevant Star Wars is there is a great article by Emily Bazelon called Why does Star Wars still take over the minds of small boys? http://www.slate.com/id/2215160

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always assumed cultural relevance meant that something has affected human culture in some way. Under that assumption, a movie's classicness ability has no said relevance to culture, and a movie like Casablanca can be described as uninfluential in all respects. On the other hand, Star Wars could possibly be noted as the most culturally relevant series of all time, even being used as the nickname for a spaceborn intercontinental ballistic missile defense platform.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're good movies,

Not really, no.

I hardly need to argue that point for the newer three.

As for the original three, they are bad movies made just about bearable by (a) Harrison Ford and/or (b) being 15 or under.

Outside of nerd circles this is obvious. Inside nerd circles this is obscured by (somewhat ironically) the very same mindset that the very same nerds loudly decry in the smuggest possible terms whenever they observe it in anybody else: such as fans of sports teams, Bieber, American Idol, or whatever else. Namely, it's something people have in common. Drivel, but because it's shared drivel, it provides a platform for conversation, in-jokes, feelings of group identification and so on.

The actual quality of what is in common is irrelevant, only that it is in common. But once something becomes key to a tribal identity, it's impossible to get people to analyse it objectively, and because nobody likes to admit they base their tribal identification upon childish drivel, they will come up all sorts of long-winded justifications for why it is not.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Wars is as culturally relevant as something like the rocky horror picture show is..

A cult film that makes weirdos dress up like weirdos.

The rest of us kinda got sick of the movie series after the hundredth re-re-re-re-re-release in special ultra mega directors cut digitally enhanced extra footage super bonus pack.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[aztektum]

They make $. Some would argue that's all the culture we're interested these days.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Been there, done that. And I don't buy it. I enjoy those first three movies still today. Part of it is, admitedly, nostalgia. But I do like the movies themselves.

Not me. Empire Strikes Back is still decent, but the first one has an incredibly slow pace with poor dialogue, while the third one is too long with poor dialogue. There are lots of other sci-fi stories I'd sooner watch like the original Trek episodes (first season) or Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5 or Stargate SG1. They often have a level of intelligence in their stories that is lacking in the Star Wars pulp.

As for the claims that the original trilogy attracted adults, I did a quick google for the old 1977 crowds and they all look 30 or younger. The films appealed mainly to the young people, just like today's movie do. (The favored demo is 35 or younger.)

Re:Culturally relevant?

[pgmrdlm]

The A-Team. Hogan's Heroes. Buck Rogers. I cringe a bit when I watch them.

Lol, I bought the dvd set of the Hogan's Heroes shows. Some being in black and white. Funny, I still like them. Not sure I could watch old episodes of F Troop though. Now, Gilligan's Island. Hell yea.

I wont even go into the old cartoons I search for and love to watch. And I mean some of them being from the 40's.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sup, Trekkie.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, billions of people dying, grisly dismemberment, torture, people being eaten alive... Definitely targeted at kids.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, Disco's comeback is long overdue.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[_Sprocket_]

I don't know if I'd go so far as buy episodes of Hogan's Heroes, but I have watched a few episodes and enjoyed them. It's not that there's zero entertainment in these old works. It's just that the flaws are more apparent then when I was a kid.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[TheGratefulNet]

Talk to virtually any 5-10 year old boy

fine.

but how does that explain all THIS commentary, on this forum? people here are certainly older than 5-10 yrs old (at least physically).

I have zero problem with kids (truly kids) being into SW. I think its a bit odd that 20 and 30somethings are so into it.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[_Sprocket_]

As for the claims that the original trilogy attracted adults, I did a quick google for the old 1977 crowds and they all look 30 or younger. The films appealed mainly to the young people, just like today's movie do. (The favored demo is 35 or younger.)

What exactly is your definition of "adult"? :P

Don't get me wrong - I do see the flaws in the films. But I find that they've aged far better than the "rose colored glasses" dismissal allows.

But hey - to each their own.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[TheGratefulNet]

Many movies get all caught up on themselves and keep telling the same point over and over.

I think I see your point; but the movie still insists upon itself.

(oops, wrong cinemistake!)

Re:Culturally relevant?

[wardred]

Star Wars set the bar for Sci-Fi movies, action, and special effects movies for 20 years at least, in story, acting, and special effects. It can be argued if that was the bar we should've measured things against, as opposed to more cerebral efforts - ala 2001, but it was the bar. To some, it still is, and that's not just your nerdy geeky set either.

The story of the first three was good. Nothing bookwormisghly great, but certainly not bad, and better than just about any sci-fi movie of its time. Some of the literary greats could use a little bit of...I don't know, movement. Maybe actually talk to that guy you're pining over for chapters... There's only so many pages of court backbiting or noble gossip I'm willing to put up with, even from the "greats". Star Wars wasn't a great when compared to literary movies, but it certainly still is when compared to Sci-Fi or Fantasy.

The dialog was certainly campy, and I don't know if anyone other than Harrison Ford could've pulled off some of the lines as well as he did, but he did do it, and audiences loved it. Not just the geeky 15 year old set. Simply put, it was a fun movie!

If that wasn't enough, it was the movie that pulled us into the era of modern special effects. For its day it was revolutionary. Many will bemoan that transition, and certainly Hollywood has done less with more effects - see the prequels - because of these movies, but that doesn't mean Star Wars wasn't the movie that raised the visual bar for certain classes of movies. Heck, a lot of the modern CGI looks flat and stale compared to the models from the original 3.

Sure, held against today's movies Star Wars isn't the visual bonanza it was back when. Its pace was about perfect given the genre. It's story is still better than most of the action, sci-fi, or fantasy movies we're getting today. Or romances. Or..well, let's face it. There just aren't that many great movies out there. Dozens of okay movies, but revolutionary or groundbreaking in one fashion or another? That doesn't often happen, and just shrugging that off in a movie? It might not be the movie for you, but it certainly influenced cinematography for a couple generations of "summer blockbuster" movie makers. Not many movies can claim to hold an audiences attention beyond the release of the next film one is looking forward to seeing. The original trilogy held the attention span of several generations of movie goers.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen.

Ol' Georgie milking the franchise, yet again.....

but what a STUPID IDIOT... announcing them so far ahead of time, will hurt sales of existing product between now and then as people wait.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[mpsmps]

Call me crazy, but is Star Wars even culturally relevant anymore?

Just Lego Star Wars, which is awesome

Re:Culturally relevant?

[kimvette]

I love Hogan's Heroes, but I hate the day-for-night scenes. Even when I watched afternoon reruns when I was five, the day-for-night technique bugged me. "It's night, but I see shadows."

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is disco no longer culturally relevant?

Re:Culturally relevant?

[uncanny]

Who's up for going to the Casablanca convention?

Re:Culturally relevant?

[ZigiSamblak]

Difference between Spielberg and Lucas: Spielberg can direct realistic personalities, Lucas can't.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[bwintx]

Then don't ever watch the 1963 movie P.T. 109, in which you could clearly see sunlight glistening on the water in many of the underexposed "night" scenes. Even if one tried for entertainment's sake to accept the old "Ah, they mean for you to think it's moonlight" mindset, the background shots of the sky made that difficult if not impossible. It's a shame because, otherwise, it wasn't a half-bad flick (for its genre) IMHO.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[mqduck]

They're good movies, but will never be viewed in the same category as something like Casablanca.

That depends on what the categories are. Roger Ebert puts both films in his list of "Great Movies", which I think qualifies as a category.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but so is Cars, Monsters Inc etc and would we call them culturally relevant? I'm not sure they'll move the world...

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Anonymous Coward]

Casablanca sucked. I don't know why some people try to use it as some measure of film quality. The story was crap, the cinematography was crap, the actors were crap and the entire film was generally lifeless garbage.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I did a quick google for the old 1977 crowds and they all look 30 or younger. The films appealed mainly to the young people, just like today's movie do.

30 year-olds have children and thus run out of time and money. By time they can go out again they've realized that most movies are just as enjoyable, if not more, on DVD or streaming.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[OrangeCatholic]

>Han shooting second really IS kiddieization.

True, but...

>It got the laser like focus on kiddies you're thinking about with the prequels.

Reconcile this with the guy who said the prequels were too slow because Lucas is an old-school 70's director.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[hachete]

Your analysis is spot on.

ESB is better because it was written by Leigh Bracket and Lawrence Kasdan, who have both been involved with adult *movies*. I tend to regard Star Wars as television for film. It pretends to have a majestic sweep, but it feels phoney.

By the time we get to VI, we're into toys and preview screenings big time. There is no hope after that.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[DinDaddy]

I'm being followed by a moonshadow.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[oh_my_080980980]

You're an idiot.

The prequels suck. Lousy acting. Horrible script. Plot made no sense.

Basically you were watching a bad Twilight Movie.

How do you know that the original series: Star Wars (not a freakin' New Hope), Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi was better than the new movies? Have someone who hasn't seen them before sit down and watch them!

Guess what, they like the originals! In fact they are mighty impressed with originals after watching those god awful movies.

Seriously if you liked the 3rd prequel you need a lobotomy that or you are prepubescent girl that had the screaming thigh sweets for Hayden Christensen. Yeah brilliant acting, "I hate you." Wow awesome script writing and emoting.

Moron.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[DinDaddy]

Phew. For a second, was worried I might be odd, being in my forties.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Chowderbags]

Why does Star Wars still take over the minds of small boys?

Lightsabers, laser guns, explosions, aliens, and magical powers. Oh, and Leia in a metal bikini didn't hurt either.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Tetsujin]

A good way to gauge that is to ask a 5-10 year old what they think about star wars

You know, I have to unilaterally reject this idea. I'm not a kid any more, but as far as I'm concerned, my opinion of Star Wars is at least as valid as anyone else's.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Tetsujin]

Honestly the first 3 were just as targeted. We look at them through rose colored glasses at this point. Don't watch them for e few years come back and watch them anew. You will see the first one is rather dull and boring with a whiny guy. The second one is a bit better written with some motivation thrown in for the chars this time. The third was a giant effects fest. Sound familiar?

I can't really agree with your assessment, or your attempt to directly correlate them with the prequels. I still enjoy the original trilogy. I don't think the first film was dull at all, and Luke was just whiny enough that we could see him start to grow the hell up... I think "Jedi" is pretty weak - and a lot of people blame the Ewoks - I just think there was too much going on... To have the whole sequence on Tatooine and then follow up with Endor and the Death Star - the movie was overloaded, I think.

The prequels - I'm open to giving them another chance, but I'm not motivated enough to actually buy them. But my impression of the prequels the first time around was they were telling parts of the story that needn't be told - and in fact, shouldn't be told, because doing so undermines the rest of the story... And there were various plot points - particularly Anakin turning evil - that were never explained to my satisfaction. Plus, while Jedi are cool, watching nothing but Jedi is actually kind of boring. Sometimes it's more fun to see more ordinary people instead... People who actually have to take cover when faced with a barrage of blaster fire...

Personally I can't say that I have a real problem with any of the Star Wars films due to them being targeted at kids... There were other issues there with the prequels.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[Tetsujin]

Basically you were watching a bad Twilight Movie.

So, a Twilight movie, then.

Re:Culturally relevant?

[mcgrew]

Call me crazy, but is Star Wars even culturally relevant anymore? It feels like Disco at this point.

Are the Beatles culturally relevant any more? The answer is "of course" to both questions. Disco was always crap; it was corporate bullshit force-fed to the masses. Everybody and their dog hated the abomination that was disco except the morons who had to be like everybody else. While the "cool wannabes" were listening to the Bee Gees, the rest of us were listening to Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.

They're replaced disco with Hip-Hop, which is just disco for a new century. But Star Wars??? Jesus,man, what are you doing on a nerd site? Besides trolling, I mean?

Re:Culturally relevant?

[mcgrew]

They're good movies, Not really, no.

Your opinion is worthless, especially since you're AC. Whether a movie is good or bad is a matter of personal opinion, but if you'll check out the wikipedia page you'll see that they are FUCKING ACADEMY AWARD WINNERS. I think that trumps an anonomys troll's "they really weren't good movies".

As for the original three, they are bad movies made just about bearable by (a) Harrison Ford and/or (b) being 15 or under.

I first saw EP IV in the theater at age 25 with my 25 year old friend and his 25 year old wife. We all liked it, son. My friend Amy (she's pushing 40) just saw them (all six) for the first time and she loved them, too.

So shove your "childish drivel" flamebait up your ass, kid. And get the fuck off my lawn. And take those morons who modded you "insightful" with you.

So... what's he going to change this time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he said that the 2004 DVDs would be the final versions, but he couldn't even resist changing some things on the prequel DVDs compared to the theatrical versions.

Maybe he can add a squeeze toy whistle when Han steps on Jabba's tail?

Obligatory Penny Arcade reference

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/9/22/

Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade reference

[Anonymous Coward]

best peny-arcad...never mind.

First?

[iceborer]

In this version Han shoots first and last!

Re:First?

[nacturation]

In this version Han shoots first and last!

Few people realize that Han Solo was using a quantum blaster. Upon the first viewing of the state of the shots fired, it appeared that Han shot first. In reality, the quantum state had a 50% chance of Han shooting first, and a 50% chance of Greedo shooting first. When Lucas remastered the movie, the observation of the quantum state rendered it as Greedo shooting first. So there was actually no change made to the movie.

Re:First?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, according to stardestroyer.net the part of the blaster you see on screen isn't the "real" part of the shot. There's an invisible portion in front of it that actually deals the damage.

Put this ball gag in your mouth, Luke.

[PopeRatzo]

I still have horrible nightmares after the trauma that Lucas and Speilberg put Indiana Jones through.

Now Lucas is going to rape Luke Skywalker.

Dear god, I'm going to need counseling.

Re:Put this ball gag in your mouth, Luke.

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but it sounds like you already need some counseling.

Star Wars

[bigstrat2003]

Star Wars: the great social experiment proving that, 13 years later, nerds will still be whining about a re-release that they can completely ignore.

Lucas says ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucas told the New York Times that only the special editions will be included, since restoring the original versions in high enough quality would cost too much.

You know, I'm kind of thinking that these special editions will cost too much, even if they are free.

Re:Lucas says ...

[brentrad]

Lucas told the New York Times that only the special editions will be included, since restoring the original versions in high enough quality would cost too much.

Bullshit. He's gotta know that restoring and releasing the original unmolested versions would net him another several hundred million in profit. He just doesn't like the original versions.

Re:Lucas says ...

[91degrees]

No, that's fine. Just get rid of some of the crap in Mos Eisley, make Han shoot first again, redub Fett's accent (seriously, George - accents aren't hereditary), put the original Aniken at the end of RotJ and I think we'll be okay.

I can live with windows in Cloud City. I think I prefer them. The non-transparent Snowspeeders wee a definite improvement. There's a lot of subtle stuff like that that I actually quite like.

Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

The films largely are the same from their 70's/80's versions and the 90's enhanced versions. It's not like in the middle of A New Hope that Obi Wan decides to stop with this whole turning off the tractor beam business and start selling Amway to the storm troopers.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[Ironhandx]

You do not yet understand the true power of the nerd rage young padawan.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[PNutts]

It's not like in the middle of A New Hope that Obi Wan decides to stop with this whole turning off the tractor beam business and start selling Amway to the storm troopers.

"These are not the phytonutrients you're looking for."

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[SilverJets]

You're right they are largely the same. But he went and fiddled with something that didn't need to be fiddled with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's a good motto. One George should have pounded into his head.

Having Greedo shoot first lessens the "scallywag swashbuckler" that is Han. But worse than that. Absolutely worse than that was the scene George added of Han meeting Jabba near the Falcon on Tatooine. Originally filmed with a fat guy in a fur coat as Jabba, the scene was cut because it didn't represent what George was going for visually. The technology didn't exist at the time to do what he wanted. When the technology became available we got the Jabba that George envisioned. So now he goes and adds the scene back in. But the fat guy in the fur coat is replaced with a CGI Jabba. Ok, not so bad we (the fans) get an extra scene that was cut from the original release. But Han walks behind Jabba. No problem for the fat guy in the fur coat. Big problem for the CGI Jabba since CGI Jabba has a tail. And this is where I throw up in my mouth every time I see the scene. We get a jiggling, stilted shot of Han walking up and over Jabba's tail. Watch the scene. Then watch it again. It is HORRIBLE. How the hell could something that craptastic come out of ILM? Who gave that scene the OK? And were they fired for it later? No? Why not? A five year old with their dad's home computer and a video camera could produce a better scene.

You know what the sad part is? Instead of that crappy stilted shot of Han walking over Jabba's tail all George had to do was leave it alone. Have Han walk behind Jabba and forget about the tail. No one would have been any the wiser. And if someone did complain it is easily explained by saying Jabba had his tail curled around him or Han stepped over it or it was a younger Jabba (obviously it was since it was thinner and smaller than the Jabba we already knew) so the tail was shorter. Anything could have been said to explain it away. But the scene we got shows that George doesn't care. It is all marketing and money to him and fans be damned.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Why not? It's his movie, not yours. Sure, you're not going to buy it, but, don't act like you were kicked in the ass and had your wallet stolen over the whole ordeal.

Besides, it's not like this didn't happen before. For instance, J.R.R. Tolkien "fiddled" with The Hobbit so it fit in better with the Lord of the Rings story and copies of the original The Hobbit aren't on sale anymore.

As far as Han losing his edge because Greedo shoots first, meh. It's not like Lucas axed him storming his way through the Death Star or fighting his way off of Jabba's Sail Barge, or evading the Imperial Fleet by blending in with the trash. Him not shooting first isn't a big deal.

If you're looking at Han during the restored Docking Bay 94 scene, you're not focused on what was the added zinger of the scene, which was Jabba's facial expression, which I found and still find hilarious.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[roc97007]

Too bad. That would be worth seeing.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[kimvette]

You're right they are largely the same. But he went and fiddled with something that didn't need to be fiddled with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's a good motto. One George should have pounded into his head.

Wasn't it George Lucas who was very outspoken against the colorization of The Three Stooges shorts for the DVD release a few years ago? Isn't he the one who was outraged and said that great works of art should be left untouched and be preserved in their original form - and this was DESPITE the fact that BOTH the colorized AND as-shot B&W versions would be available side on the DVD?

He is a frigging hypocrite.

George, give us the original release on Blu-Ray please, alongside the molested version. And, please give us the deleted scenes that appeared in the "storybook" and novelized versions. Then, everybody wins. Thanks.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

He would only be a hypocrite if he did the special edition treatment to films that weren't his.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[jmorris42]

> George, give us the original release on Blu-Ray please, alongside the molested version.

Amen. I own the last VHS box set edition and the bootleg laserdisc rips burned onto TDK armor plated scratchproof blanks. I didn't buy[1] the official DVDs because the one edition the included an original version print it was basically a DVD-9 version of the laserdisc print. Basic two channel sound with old Dolby matrixed surround and not anamorphic. Not enough value since I have no intention of ever playing the 'special edition' version. And if the BD is 'special' only then George can keep the damned things.

[1] I'm not some uberpirate that wouldn't buy anyway. For example I have all forty ST:TOS original issue DVDs on the shelf, all six B5 box sets + Crusade, and so on.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[NeutronCowboy]

But he went and fiddled with something that didn't need to be fiddled with.

It's interesting that he seems to be doing that to all his old movies, and the effect is always the same: it's bad, boring and pointless. What's worse, I can tell when something's been digitally altered when I haven't even seen the original. Case in point: THX 1138. Good movie, but there were a couple of scenes where the background was distracting from what was going on in the foreground, or the entire scene was completely pointless and irrelevant to the overall story. And every time, it involved graphics and special effects that just weren't possible in 1971.

Lucas seems to have been a director who did better when he was subjected to technical limits to his imagination. Because right now, everytime he touches a movie, the special effects are seem to be the reason for the movie, rather than the other way around.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll allow you people 'different than'; I mean that's a lost battle now. But 'the same from'? Really? Get out. And close the door behind you.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[noodler]

"It's not like in the middle of A New Hope that Obi Wan decides to stop with this whole turning off the tractor beam business and start selling Amway to the storm troopers."

Shhh!!.
Don't give the man any ideas now...

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the original, Greedo never fired at all. For Han to shoot the hired muscle in order to get out from under the mafia pressure (presumably long enough to get the money that said mafia wants) is an important part of developing his image as ruthlessly self-interested mercenary and makes his return to save Luke from the pursuing TIE fighters more poignant.

I rather enjoyed not knowing exactly what "Jabba" or "the Huts" were until ROTJ. In fact, based on what I saw in ROTJ, I would say Jabba is approximately immobile, and for him to show up at the docking bay, moments after his scout has tracked Han down, seriously damages the presentation of the massive monster. To do that just for a sight gag is exactly what old-timers are sad about: Lucas has damaged the development of key characters for the purpose of shiny, funny, and explodey.

Of course, current film fashion generally emphasizes action over character or plot, you young folks may not appreciate the difference. You young folks may not even recognize deeper "Character" or "Plot" when they're presented (in the same way that us old(er) folks have difficulty appreciating "Character" when presented in movies like 12 Angry Men or Judgment at Nuremberg.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? It's his movie, not yours.

No, it isn't.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[BobMcD]

I do apologize for coming to this so late, but you've missed the only salient point about 'who shot first'...

As far as Han losing his edge because Greedo shoots first, meh. It's not like Lucas axed him storming his way through the Death Star or fighting his way off of Jabba's Sail Barge, or evading the Imperial Fleet by blending in with the trash. Him not shooting first isn't a big deal.

Han's story in the first film is that of the scoundrel swept into a war. He starts off as a hardened criminal with questionable judgement, prone to rash action. The middle of the film is full of his protests in the form of 'what about my money' and the like. The final scenes show him, money in hand, turning around and risking everything because he had a change of heart.

Him storming through the Death Star is absolutely irrelevant to the story of who this character was.

Imagine the Hobbit opening with Gandalf visiting the home of 'Bilbo the stalwart veteran of dwarven wars'. In this context you can start to see the change that Lucas wrought with that simple 'fix' of Greedo forcing Han to shoot him. Much like this would have made Bilbo's story 'Been there, Done that', it made Han's doubt in the end pathetically shallow, rather than symptomatic of his transformation.

You can still 'meh' that if you'd like, but Star Wars before 'Greedo shot first' was a wild and dangerous place. Afterwards it was a spaghetti western. That's enough of a loss to mourn, in my book.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I'll still 'meh' at it.

It still feels like the quote, "If space were this happening I wouldn't have left home" from 3rd Rock from the Sun still rings true.

Re:Sometimes, I don't understand nerd outrage.

[Anonymous Coward]

George, give us the original release on Blu-Ray please, alongside the molested version.

Oh, sorry! I've been sitting on the original version and pushing my new visions for more than a decade now through hate and death threats, and firmly reiterated over and over again that the old version will never ever ever ever be released, but I didn't realise YOU felt so strongly about it.

My bad, kimvette, I'll put the guys working on it right now.

Love,
George

Why?

[Smooth and Shiny]

Why? So he can change scenes and add shit that wasn't there in order to justify the later movies?

Just happen I have the original trilogy on VHS, untouched by Lucas' stupid "well, I really wanted it to play out this way" hands.

Re:Why?

[S-100]

And I have the laserdisc version, also uncontaminated by a second-guessing director.

Re:damn..

[Anonymous Coward]

You're horrible at trolling. You could have at least make an off-hand comment about Geordi LaForge or William Riker.

Stars Wars special edition on Blu-Ray

[Anonymous Coward]

Now with:

75% more scenes with TOO MUCH CRAP going on.
33% more plot holes.
More characters that you couldn't give a flying fu-

And much more.

Re:Stars Wars special edition on Blu-Ray

[General Wesc]

75% more scenes with TOO MUCH CRAP going on.

'Fuck you, Rick Berman! You ruined this too?'

I never noticed until someone said something

[Anonymous Coward]

Gonna be completely honest here. I was young when the first Star Wars came out and watched it. When the Special Edition came out, I was older and enjoyed it also. Not until a few years later did I hear the words "Han shot first!" or something to similar effect. I always wondered what the hell people were talking about until I looked on the Internet one day and someone pointed out the scene in question. That's right, I never noticed that Han DIDN'T shoot first in the Special Edition. For that matter, I never even noticed in the original when I was younger that Han DID shoot first. I never noticed... or really cared. All that mattered to me is that Han blasted Greedo in the cantina. To this day I still don't really care and find it one of the more sillier things fanboys complain about. I mean, I see people's logic as to why but to me Han had his blaster out. He's gonna kill a bitch in that scene. The exact moment, if he does it before or after Greedo attempts to shoot, for the most part seems irrelevant to me. Feel free to call me a troll or whatever and point out the fallacy in establishing Han's character. That scene doesn't ruin Han's badassness for me or the movie for that matter. I still thoroughly enjoy it and Han's character.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[naff89]

Well, completely ignoring any effect the scene has on Han's character development, I think most people get outraged because it doesn't make sense that Jabba would send a bounty hunter that can't shoot someone sitting across the table from him. Because it makes so little sense on its own, the only purpose it serves is to change Han's character from the original. Frankly, I'm not sure that Han would have survived so long if he waited until getting shot at before shooting. So it's really the inanity of the change that I think people take issue with.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[Jedi Strke]

I actually LIKE Greedo shooting first in Episode IV. It's more consistent with Han's character through the rest of the classic trilogy.

What I have never forgiven Lucas for is editing Sebastian Shaw out of the final scene of Return of the Jedi. Having Hayden Christiansen show up destroys the ENTIRE arc of Anakin not being completely destroyed. I really think this is a far, far more serious change than Han/Greedo shooting first. But I guess it's just me.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[tompaulco]

I find Han shooting first to be consistent with Han's character at the beginning of the trilogy. He was just in this thing for the money. Later, his character changes. With Greedo shooting first, it makes Han's character inconsistent with him being in it for the money, and also detracts from his character changing to become more compassionate to the rebel cause in the later parts of the trilogy. That and the aforementioned fact that he would be dead already if he waited to get shot at before shooting,
Not that I really care. The most important thing is that you don't lay something down and then change it.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[AJWM]

I actually LIKE Greedo shooting first in Episode IV. It's more consistent with Han's character through the rest of the classic trilogy.

Arguably it isn't, because Solo is always shown as more of an act first, think later kind of guy. But if it is, then it denies his character the opportunity to show growth through the story arc.

And FWIW, in the novelization he shoots first.

(Mind, if we're going to get picky, the original isn't "Episode IV" or even "A New Hope", but just "Star Wars". The "Ep IV" came on the re-release when "Empire" was in production.)

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[Zelgadiss]

It's important in the sense that it establishes Han Solo as a rogue-ish sort of character, one who is "morally flexible".

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[cgenman]

To be fair, the special edition in the theater had Han shooting first in an atrociously butchered photoshop job. It's bad now, but the first version in the theater looked like a high-school student screwing around in flash.

I do think the problem is that Han is supposed to undergo a character arc from a scoundrel willing to kill for his own benefit, to a scoundrel that is willing to die for his friends. Making Greedo shoot first flattens a big part of that character arch. In the original version, it's not even clear that Greedo is going to shoot. Han just doesn't want to go with him to face up to Jabba / his mistakes, and he's willing to kill because of that. Of course, it has also become symbolic of the problem that Lucas just doesn't know how to write a decent character arc. And that he needs to stop changing things with the original series as he does so without delicacy and with a tendency to make them worse.

And, again, lots of outrage originally stems from the embarassingly bad effect the first time 'round. Thankfully, they cleaned it up a little for the disk releases.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to call me a troll or whatever and point out the fallacy in establishing Han's character. That scene doesn't ruin Han's badassness for me or the movie for that matter. I still thoroughly enjoy it and Han's character.

LOL. That just proves they ruined it. Han isn't a badass. He's a scoundrel.

Obi wan was the badass.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[cti]

What I have never forgiven Lucas for is editing Sebastian Shaw out of the final scene of Return of the Jedi. Having Hayden Christiansen show up destroys the ENTIRE arc of Anakin not being completely destroyed. I really think this is a far, far more serious change than Han/Greedo shooting first. But I guess it's just me.

i had no idea that this had happened. i was really hoping to sit out of this discussion and not get upset about star wars like a big nerd, but that is just pathetic.

here is is on youtube if, like me you hadnt seen this till today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1LulT30Qkc

yoda and obiwan appear as they did when they died, why not anakin? why make this change? because you can?
what a joke. what a fat moron.
i guess this is one reason to keep a vcr around somewhere.

HD is cool for some stuff ( I recently bought/saw my first ever movie on bluray, the matirx, and was pleased), but i think a movie with lots of hokey rubber masks and dated haircuts is prolly better off looking a little softer. im sure they'll work some digital magic to smooth over this crap, but this is again just changing something that was perfectly fine to begin with, and future generations get a distorted version of the film and of history....(maybe im getting carried away, but the idea of "modernizing" and "updating" art of any kind for re-release - even star wars).

i understand that everyone wants to make money(so we get this garbage thrown at us now), but hopefully, one day, someone will find it commercially viable to sell the original editions again on an easier to consume format than vhs.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[fermion]

From a plot persepective it may of little consequence, but 'Hans shooting first' is important because it provides character development, something that is important for a well written work. We know that Obi-Wan made a huge mistake, paid for it by living in exile, and gave his life so that the twins, he had to know who they were, could escape and fix the mistake.

Hans is introduced as an amoral smuggler with little regard for life. All he wants is cash. He hangs out the bar not as a person who has to due to his chosen profession, but as a person who enjoys the life. There is no question that he is going to shoot first, because to do otherwise would be to acknowledge the needs of others. Obi-wan sees this in his character which is why he offers a small fee up front, to tweak his interest, with a large fee at completion. The thought that goes into this not only insures that Hans will not space them as soon as they leave the planet, but will continue on to the rebel base instead of doing the logical thing and abandoning them at the death star. There is a reason that Harrison Ford has a career. He was able to pull off a very complex character.

By the end of the movie the Force and Luke had changes Hans from a self centered opportunist to a person willing to acknowledge that the universe was greater than himself. He was willing to risk his life for something that would not benefit him. Of course it is hard to believe that such a huge transformation could occur in a person, but that is why Star Wars is a fairy tale. Unfortunately, like all fairy tales, it has been cleaned up to suite a wider audience to gain more profit. In effect, Star Wars, and many of Lucases project, has taken the opposite trajectory of Hans Solo. Rather than progressing from amoral to enlightened, Star Wars started out as a rather gruff view of the Transformative power of Faith, to an amoral tool of profit.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[AdamHaun]

I wasn't bothered much when the special editions first came out, but I recently watched laserdisc rips of the original versions and I think the critics have a point. Comparing ANH and ESB to ROTJ, the biggest difference was that ROTJ became more of a creature/effects show and the movie suffered because of it. In particular, note the overly-long opening section in Jabba's palace, most of which does little to help the plot or pacing. The prequels were even worse, with writing and characterization taking a backseat to computer animation.

It was surprising to realize that Star Wars (ANH) is actually a *good movie*. I can understand people being unhappy with changes that have only made it worse. Think about it -- what in the special editions actually made the movie itself better?

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[The Wooden Badger]

What are you talking about? The scene doesn't even make sense with Greedo shooting at all. He is there to bring in Han to collect the bounty. He either is going to take the money from Han or bring in Han to get the money from Jabba. He is no good to Greedo dead. There is no reason to think that Greedo would shoot unless he is first shot at. It just fits with the dialogue for Han to shoot when he does. It makes no sense that Greedo would just arbitrarily shoot at that moment. Never mind the fact that a guy with a gun already trained on his target for a few minutes is going to miss a point blank shot. Throw in how Lucas tried to make Han look like he nods to one side to avoid getting shot before returning fire. The reworked scene is an amazing display of idiocy on the part of Lucas and anyone involved who wouldn't show he had a pair by saying "this is just stupid." In the original it makes sense, it flows, and it shows Han being Han at a very early point in the narrative. In the retarded edition (hey, special is used in place of retarded a fair amount. It really fits here.) the Greedo scene makes no sense, the flow is fubared, Han is still Han, but he has this artificial nobility now. To top it all off the scene looks horrible with the wrong guy shooting and the other guy dodging. The effect is quite jarring if you are really familiar with the original. Makes me think of the part in the 70 minute Episode I evisceration where the guy referring to the opening scene of the original says something to the effect of "This scene is so perfect (or maybe genius) that I'm convinced Lucas had nothing to do with it." He puts his stink on things over and over again. He just can't leave crap alone. The result is the guy that should be delivering a masterpiece special edition with fixes and tweaks is upstaged by a fan working with off the shelf stuff at home in Star Wars Revisited.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[Anonymous Coward]

To this day I still don't really care and find it one of the more sillier things fanboys complain about.

I'm not a fanboy, I "liked" the movies as a kid, now, 30, they mean even less to me but even I can understand why people who do love the movies would throw a fit over it. If you seriously don't understand what the big deal is you fail to understand the character of Han Solo. He isn't the type of person who "waits" until someone draws, thats why people liked him.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is this 'Hans' you keep referring to? Or did you maybe watch the German version?

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[Anonymous Coward]

What's laughable about the Greedo shoots first revision is that he is shown as missing at that close of a range (or did they mean that to be a warning shot?) then Han shoots in defense from under the table. Then there's the whole useless filler scene with Han talking to Jabba, sorry but even if that was supposed to be there from the start it is just a filler scene that adds nothing from the original version.

Contrast that with Han shoots first, Greedo may have had his blaster drawn but he never fires a shot before Han fires his shot. Therefore, Han clearly fires in offense.

Either way, a small part of the overall film, but a big overall difference in character portrayal nevertheless. The bigger issue, I guess, is whether a director is allowed to make revisions to their original film when they release it as a new edition. (I'll note that on the 2-disc version, the special edition version shows Greedo shoots first and the 1977 version shows Han shoots first.)

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[Jedi Strke]

Oh, see that's where it gets worse. The commentary makes it clear that Lucas contends Anakin does appear as he did when he died ... on Mustafar in Episode III. Not on the second Death Star after saving Luke and claiming Luke had saved him as well. I don't mind Greedo shooting first; I'll suspend my disbelief for Midi-chlorians; I'll accept Jar-Jar Binks is part of Star Wars; but I will not accept Hayden Christiansen in Episode IV.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[Trogre]

Not quite:

Han: "Over my dead body"
Greedo: "Chee pow kibowww nikessska [That's the idea]"

Filtering through all the bad dialogue, it's quite plausible that Greedo was set up to dispense with Han. If so, then it's clear that Jabba wanted at least one of them dead, though not necessarily Han :)

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[mcgrew]

The thing that ruined the scene for me was that in the original, Greedo didn't shoot at all; Han had a blaster hidden in his lap and just blew Greedo away. The doctored version has Greedo shooting what appears to be a laser at Solo's head, misses by maybe four inches and Solo doesn't even blink. It was worse than a western shot in the 1940s.

It doesn't matter who shot first, what matters is that the "Greedo shot first" version was just cheesy.

Re:I never noticed until someone said something

[Phibrizo]

You said the scene *looks* horrible ? Well, i don't know about other versions, but the french one is awful. A real massacre. Each time Grandpa Lucas "improve" his movies, he must find new actors for the french voices, so there are now several different voice for each actor who has the misfortune to appear in different versions. The prize goes to the empire strikes back, with no less than 2 voices for Palpatine, and 3 or 4 vader! The episode IV is not far behind, with two different voices for Han, so that not only he does not shoot first, but he does it with another voice. In French, the scene doesn't only looks horrible, it sounds horrible too... If Lucas had a bit of pride he would re dubbing all his films. But no. I guess we, froggies, should consider ourselves lucky, and that it would probably be "too expensive". He also said that it is why he didn't remastered the original version. What a joke! That said, I guess I will buy probably the blu-ray versions, because the DVD are crappy on my HDTV. However, this is not what I am asking for. Rather than continually improve old movies, he should create new ones. I want movies on the old republic!

Reboot?

[Anonymous Coward]

And after they've milked all they can from the current incarnation, they will slaughter it with a "franchise reboot" and milk that pig all over again...

Spoiler alert

[hey!]

Jar-Jar shoots Greedo.

Re:Spoiler alert

[trajanus22]

No, he just talks him to death.

Re:Spoiler alert

[Nimey]

No - Vader force-strangles Jar-Jar for two hours. That's the entire movie.

Re:Spoiler alert

[capebretonsux]

No. Greedo was cool.

Jar-Jar shoots George Lucas in added cameo scene.
Jar-Jar shoots young Anakin.
Jar-Jar shoots adolescent Anakin.
Jar-Jar shoots self.

Re:Spoiler alert

[Tridus]

I'd pay to see that.

Re:Spoiler alert

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Sneak preview!

Re:Spoiler alert

[Nimey]

That was wonderful.

Re:Spoiler alert

[Smooth and Shiny]

You and a lot of other people. Not me though...

Re:Spoiler alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd buy Tfor a dollar.

Oh crap sorry, wrong movie.

Re:Spoiler alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Jar-Jar shoots Greedo in the BACK.

Re:Spoiler alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I would pay $200 for a blu-ray 3D downloadable content director's cut commentary special edition version of that.

Re:Spoiler alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Where, oh where can I buy that one?

Re:Spoiler alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd watch that.

Re:Spoiler alert

[Anonymous Coward]

Works for me.

Re:Spoiler alert

[icsx]

I wish!

Re:Spoiler alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I would pay to see that movie. If only because Jar-Jar could no longer speak.

Sadly, however, he would miraculously survive and go on to be the first mute saviour of the galaxy. *sigh*

Re:Spoiler alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I would totally buy that!

Responses so far are sad

[RazorSharp]

As a huge Star Wars geek, I've hated almost any discussion of the films I've been involved in since the prequels came out. I liked the prequels, especially Episode III, which is by far Lucas' best film. Just because you have fond childhood memories of the originals doesn't mean the prequels suck. Why is it that everyone acts as if the original three Star Wars films were perfect? They can be scrutinized just as much as the prequels have been. How is it that Darth Vader didn't sense Han coming up behind him when he was about to shoot down Luke in Episode IV? What happened to the force? What happened to Vader being the best pilot in the galaxy? Why didn't Obi-Wan kill Vader rather than sacrificing himself? He claimed that in death he would be more powerful, but his ghost did the same thing he did in life: guide Luke. We later learn that Luke never has the power to take on the Emperor himself, so wouldn't it have been better to eliminate Vader and then team up with Yoda and Luke and go after the Emperor? And for those who complain about Jar-Jar, I have one word: Ewoks. The entire series is riddled with plot-holes and silliness, but that's okay with me because IT'S A SILLY SCI-FI ADVENTURE. People are able to disregard that fact because, as a child, it was so much more. But as much as everyone wanted to revert back to that childhood mindset when they went to see the prequels, they couldn't, because like it or not they'd matured and the silliness of it all became apparent.

I feel the same way about Indiana Jones. How is the Crystal Skull any more silly than Temple of Doom? And the Holy Grail one was just absurd on every level. If you want to watch a serious Lucas film, watch THX-1138.

Concerning Star Wars, I'll always view the prequels as better, despite my fond childhood memories of the originals. The originals were so black and white, good vs. evil. The only intellectually intriguing moments was when Vader turned on the Emperor, and that lasted like 5 minutes. Episode III gave a deeper meaning to the entire series. A balance between good and evil can never be achieved when one group (Sith or Jedi) is in power. In the end, their allegiance is to an absolute adherence to their ideals, not to what they know in their heart to be right. Compromising men are the only effective governors, men like Han Solo or Lando Calrissian. Men who have vices but have a good heart. But Han and Lando are just presented as bumbling adventurers, it's not until the prequels that their greater significance is realized. It's not until the prequels until we are told that "the Jedi aren't all that," a message that many fans probably didn't want to here.

All this directly ties into politics: we want our politicians to be Jedis. To be free of vice, absolute to their ideals, and courageous. But setting such impossible standards is what makes politics as a whole so dishonest. It's what makes distinguishing between a Sith and Jedi nearly impossible. So we never understand the motives of our politicians because they're so cold an calculating, whether for good or for bad.

Maybe that's not the best explanation of the prequel's theme but that's also what makes them so good: there are so many different angles one can view them from. With the originals, it's black and white. The final declarative message clearly deals with paternity, something like, "nothing can destroy a father's love for his son." I just find the prequel haters to be so ungrateful. Lucas not only made the films, but he added elements that went beyond the simple adventurism. If you didn't like the end product, don't hate on Lucas for it, it's HIS saga, not yours.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[taxman_10m]

FYI, not everyone who saw it at the theater in 1977 was a child.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Jeremy Erwin]

Episode III was so bad that I didn't even bother watching episodes 4,5, and 6.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[ntdesign]

Sorry, but TL;DR version? Your comment is longer than TFA, and I barely read that.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

. . .Episode III, which is by far Lucas' best film.

Yeah, no. Unless you are talking about films Lucas wrote and directed. The Empire Strikes Back is the best and it was written by Lawrence Kasdan (directed by Irving Kershner) who also wrote the best Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark).

Concerning IJ4: did you not see the CG ants and Mutt what's his nuts getting wapped in the nuts while standing on two jeeps? Or the guy from Disturbia (same as Mutt what's his nuts I don't remember his name) swinging from tree to tree (in CG of course)? What is as absurd as those scenes in Temple of Doom? Indy riding an elephant? I'm not saying they didn't do absurd things, but at least they didn't present the image that the film was co-developed by Cartoon Network.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[oogoliegoogolie]

George? Is that you??

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Assmasher]

<ObiWan>That's no star wars geek...</Obiwan>

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what made the original 3 better? Harrison Ford and Catie Fisher (and I probably misspelled her name). You are right - they're silly sci-fi action films. And you know what? Those two actors realized that and ran with it. You can tell that they're just having fun with a lot of it and not taking it that seriously. The prequels take themselves FAR too seriously, and they suffer for it immensely.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

And not everyone who watched the originals were alive to see it. I didn't watch them all until circa 2005 when I was 20. And I think the originals blow away the crappy prequels. It's not even an honest comparison, as the originals can't even be rated in the same league.

But what do I know? I also listen to rock/metal music from the '70s, '80s, and early '90s; and I abhor most anything else.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[synthesizerpatel]

Wow, George Lucas posts to slashdot?

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the whole "lets suspend people over lava, and they don't get hurt until they burst into flames" thing? Or the "mind control liquid" thing? Or the "rip someone's heart out with my hand" thing? Or the "jump out of a plane on a life raft" thing? And what exactly was that glowing stone again? And if we're complaining about fake insects, we've got that in Temple of Doom as well (well, plastic instead of CG).

Re:Responses so far are sad

[DoofusOfDeath]

A balance between good and evil can never be achieved when one group (Sith or Jedi) is in power.

Why on earth would someone want to balance good and evil?

Re:Responses so far are sad

[ShieldW0lf]

The first (second?) trilogy was intended to present the idea that those who have passion for life and a connection to humanity are evil, while those who have no passion and no attachment to humanity are morally superior.

The second (first?) trilogy was intended to present the idea that violent psychopaths are really just humans who failed to live up to the ideals of detachment, and that we should have some compassion for them.

The reality is, those who have no passion for life or attachment to the rest of humanity are the dangerous psychopaths, and not the shining heros they are presented to be in the series. The movie presents black as white and white as black for reasons that can never be proven to be this way or that, but still have more in common with those who drop propaganda on peoples heads from helicopters than they do with someone who wishes to make a buck telling an entertaining story.

Don't let the propaganda fool you. The Jedi are among us... and they must be stopped.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[TheGratefulNet]

dude.

its JUST a movie.

really. that's all.

its NOT a philosphy. its a money-making endeavor with a storybook theme and great effects.

but its JUST a movie.

seriously.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[roc97007]

> Just because you have fond childhood memories of the originals doesn't mean the prequels suck.

That's absolutely true. I totally agree. Fond memories of the originals do not mean the prequels suck.

The prequels suck entirely on their own. They're too crowded, too noisy, ineptly paced, badly directed, and have some of the worst dialog in modern cinema. Lucas managed to squeeze bad performances out of good actors, and atrocious performances out of mediocre actors. (Kind of a Stanley Kubrick in reverse...)

The prequels were tragic, unintentional camp and Lucas still doesn't get the joke. If you watch the behind-the-scenes footage for Phantom Menace, there was a time when you could see Lucas was starting to come to the realization that he can no longer tell a coherent story. But he decided to bluff his way through it, and he still is.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[RazorSharp]

Because the whole idea of "the Force" is based off eastern religions, so "good" and "evil" are more akin to "yin" and "yang." One of the things I like about the prequels are that the Sith aren't just evil for the sake of being evil. Palpatine believed the Jedi to be just as evil as they believed him to be. One thing that is clear in all six films is that Palpatine is a Hitler-like figure, but the prequels demonstrate how such a man rises to power and what motivates him. In the original three he's more like Dr. Evil. In the prequels he's more of a student of Machiavelli.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Moridineas]

Concerning Star Wars, I'll always view the prequels as better, despite my fond childhood memories of the originals. The originals were so black and white, good vs. evil

That's a very interesting interpretation. I think a lot of people (myself included) would disagree with you. Think about the main thing people in this article are complaining about--Han vs Greedo. Who shot first? Originally it was of course Han. Han was a smuggler! A criminal! A liar, a braggart, and a killer. But he was also a good guy--a true hero! Show me one character in the prequels who has 1/2 as much complexity?

I'm not particularly a Star Wars fan though I do respect and like the originals, but the prequels did not do it for me. I do think 3 was the best of them, but that's not saying a ton.

How is it that Darth Vader didn't sense Han coming up behind him when he was about to shoot down Luke in Episode IV? What happened to the force? What happened to Vader being the best pilot in the galaxy? Why didn't Obi-Wan kill Vader rather than sacrificing himself?

Because in the original Star Wars universe the force (excuse me, a high midichlorian count) wasn't a super all-powerful thing that made its users gods? Because Luke--being Vader's son--was perhaps an even better pilot! Because Obi-Wan knew his time was past and that Luke was the one who could challenge the Empire? These are all things to argue about, but again, what kind of questions like these can one raise about the prequels? Remember how upsetting Obi-Wan's death was? Did you feel that way about Qui-Gon? I sure as heck didn't.

It's not until the prequels until we are told that "the Jedi aren't all that," a message that many fans probably didn't want to here.

Is that really the message that comes across? I mean, everyone seems pretty happy and prosperous before the Emperor takes over. Things obviously go down hill after (storm troopers everywhere, deathstars to control the populace, etc). Isn't the lesson of the story that the Jedi DID do a really good job of keeping the peace?

I feel the same way about Indiana Jones. How is the Crystal Skull any more silly than Temple of Doom?

I enjoyed Crystal Skull with the exception of the last 20 minutes. I know Lucas has said they wanted to transition the series from the WW2 era to a more scifi / 1950s camp era, but blegh. It to me just felt so incredibly out of place. I mean you've got a series that's camp, humorous and doesn't take itself to seriously. You've got an archaeologist, mystical relics, cults, nazis, etc. And then aliens. Wtf?

Maybe that's not the best explanation of the prequel's theme but that's also what makes them so good: there are so many different angles one can view them from. With the originals, it's black and white. The final declarative message clearly deals with paternity, something like, "nothing can destroy a father's love for his son." I just find the prequel haters to be so ungrateful. Lucas not only made the films, but he added elements that went beyond the simple adventurism. If you didn't like the end product, don't hate on Lucas for it, it's HIS saga, not yours.

Well, speaking for myself only, I think it's absolutely silly to expect people to be grateful to a movie director? Again speaking for myself, the reason I dislike the prequel (and strongly dislike parts of them) is:

1) Horrible acting (imho due to horrible writing and green screens)
2) Horrible writing
3) Special effects / cute overload
4) Hayden + Natalie = bleeeeeeh

I actually started laughing in the theater when Anakin/Darth said: "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy" or the line about "but from MY POINT OF VIEW, it's the JEDI that are evil!"

How hamfisted. Poorly written, poorly acted. Anakin came across to me like a spoiled brat teenager, nothing more. I found his fall particularly impossible to believe.

Lastly, I alway

Re:Responses so far are sad

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Is that really the message that comes across? I mean, everyone seems pretty happy and prosperous before the Emperor takes over. Things obviously go down hill after (storm troopers everywhere, deathstars to control the populace, etc). Isn't the lesson of the story that the Jedi DID do a really good job of keeping the peace?

I got this impression that life was a bureaucratic nightmare. I'm a liberal but even I know shit going too far. Which is natural given the sheer size and scope of the whole place.

I can't imagine doing business in the old republic either. I'm guessing there were more have nots than haves too.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[slaingod]

You obviously haven't seen the RedLetterMedia reviews then, which explain in excruciatingly funny detail why the prequels are so awful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfBhi6qqFLA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI

Re:Responses so far are sad

[wahay]

Thank you. I liked them all too. It makes me sad that so many are consumed with hate.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Mathness]

If you want to watch a serious Lucas film, watch THX-1138.

Great film, just don't grab the DVD release which (as usual) got raped by Lucas and his CG pals. :(

Re:Responses so far are sad

[chichilalescu]

I agree with you, except for the part about episode III. There are a bunch of forgivable mistakes in episodes I and II, and they could have made episode III into something that fixed them. For me, Anakin's turn to the darkside was not believable, and the memory of Leia talking to Luke about her real mother was there with me throughout the entire movie (only to ruin the ending).
Anyway, you'll get a lot of people to shout at you, so I wanted to let you know you're not alone.

PS: I like both Jar Jar and the ewoks. And speaking of ewoks, anyone remember Chewbacca's Tarzan yell? why are you complaining about the prequels then?

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that convinced me to buy the original trilogy on DVD was that they included a second disc with the original screenplay on it. I wouldn't have bought it otherwise

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong.

Lucas's own words show that "Bringing balance to the force" means "get rid of the evil guys". It's not about "balance" as in "good and evil must be in balance", but "good is good and evil is evil and the evil must be gone so things can be good".

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

None of the star wars films would have been good if they were made today, but the first three films were ahead of their time, and therefore they were worth watching 30 years ago.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

That is about the only part of the new trilogy that I liked. I would buy a special shortened version that focuses on palpatine. The conversion of the republic to the empire was interesting and believable. The conversion of Anakin to Darth Vader was not, and that killed the prequels for me.

I can agree with almost everything you said. There are lots of things people complain about that aren't that bad or that important. I couldn't care less about the midichlorians. I can tolerate that senseless pod race and the Gungans and the long action scenes. I think the comedy in the original trilogy was better and less forced, but it's not that important to trash a movie for. But I just can't look past this fucking stupid Anakin character. It started off quite good with the influence that Palpatine has on him. But the final change is so sudden and drastic that it breaks my suspension of disbelieve.

What I would have liked to see is Anakin doing the wrong stuff but with the right intensions. Like the conversion of the republic to the empire. But what we got is Anakin going batshit insane and doing all the wrong stuff for little reason at all.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[kindbud]

Just because you have fond childhood memories of the originals doesn't mean the prequels suck.

You're right. They suck because Lucas made terrible films. Crapping on our childhood memories was just a bonus for him.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

The originals were so black and white, good vs. evil.

Indeed, a trade dispute makes a much better story.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

That's stupid even by your standards.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[DrugCheese]

One of the things I like about the prequels are that the Sith aren't just evil for the sake of being evil. Palpatine believed the Jedi to be just as evil as they believed him to be.

Palpatine knew he was evil. He was a master of deception and was sowing seeds of confusion into Anakins mind. Never once did Darth Sidious think he was on the 'good' side.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[jewishbaconzombies]

Learn basic film: http://www.redlettermedia.com/phantom_menace.html

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

They showed a lot of what the Emperor and Empire were about in TIE Fighter. For the Jedi and Sith, go play KOTOR and KOTOR 2 for far more depth than the films ever touched upon.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

"Palpatine believed the Jedi to be just as evil as they believed him to be."

That's not what saw, I saw Palpatine saying what he had to say just to bend Anakin to the dark side.
I don't believe for a second that Palpatine was stupid enough to believe his own bullshit. (As Hitler was.)

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the history, the good stuff if ep 4,5 were not by George. Then George made enough $ to go it alone, and came up with ewoks.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[bill_mcgonigle]

its NOT a philosphy. its a money-making endeavor with a storybook theme

Read up on the history of human religions. Millions of people have been slaughtered on these grounds.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[jollyreaper]

Palpatine knew he was evil. He was a master of deception and was sowing seeds of confusion into Anakins mind. Never once did Darth Sidious think he was on the 'good' side.

My preferred take is that Palpy gained his Dark Side powers and decided to conquer the galaxy because he thought he could do it better. The thirst for power and domination became overwhelming and took over the simple, brutal efficiency that his defining character. With Vader, he should have grown disgusted with the corruption and waste of the Old Republic and felt that the people could no longer be trusted to act in their own best interest, that a strong hand was needed to keep order. He would see Palpy as being exactly on the same level as he, motivated for the same reason, but only through time realize that Palpy is in it for Palpy. But he goes along with it because he still feels the bitterness towards the rest of the galaxy and contempt for the weak-minded fools he terrifies.

Discovering he has a son sparks in him the thought of rebellion. His attempt at recruiting Luke in TESB is genuine. The Emperor's whole "strike me down" ploy in ROTJ is just trying to get Luke's goat, he doesn't really think he's going to die. Telling him to kill Vader is genuine because Luke would make an even more powerful apprentice. Vader's conflict finally boils over when he realizes his only son is about to die. Up to this point he thought that Luke could still be turned and safe in the Emperor's keeping.

Vader's heel/face turn isn't so much becoming a fluffy bunny of light but realizing blood is thicker than water. He can be fine with blowing up an entire planet and force-choking imperial officers but he still has enough humanity left in him to want his son to live. That's the only thing left he realizes he cannot, will not sacrifice.

Making him out to be a fluffy bunny at that point is taking things a little far. Lucas said that the Emperor was not intended to be a force user, was originally meant to be an ineffective figurehead manipulated by his advisors. He later realized that if he wanted a heel/face turn, he needed a greater evil for Vader to turn away from. Vader has to be doing wrong for what may have seemed like the right reasons so long ago whereas the Emperor is black as sin, no nuance.

Given the disorganized bunch of feckless idiots the Expanded Universe presents the New Republic leadership as being, there's actually a pretty good argument for the Empire as being the lesser of two evils. When you've got Hitler breathing down your neck, will you throw in with Stalin? If you're Russian you will.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Chowderbags]

As it was put in Team America:

Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate -- and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

Re:Responses so far are sad

[mcgrew]

I couldn't agree more, EP III was my favirite as well, and those cheesy Ewoks made EP V my least favorite. And you explained why these guys look at the original trilogy with such high regard -- they were kids when they first saw it. I was 25 when EP IV was in the theaters, so I didn't see it the same way later generations did.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[mcgrew]

The prequels suck entirely on their own.

Yet all managed to be nominated for Academy Awards.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[roc97007]

Yes, they did. Phantom Menace got three nominations, two for sound and one for visual effects, and the other two got one each, for visual effects and makeup. I'm a little amazed that II got one for visual effects when III did not, as I thought there was way too much motion blur and too many effects that didn't work in II, and III had some scenes that were breathtaking. But I'm not on the committee.

None of the prequels won in any category. In contrast, the original Star Wars won seven awards.

Now let's go back to what I said. "They're too crowded, too noisy, ineptly paced, badly directed, and have some of the worst dialog in modern cinema."

A film can be crowded and noisy and still get nominated for effects and sound. (I would submit that a film nominated for those awards might be crowded and noisy almost by definition.) Lucasfilms does quality work in this area -- ask anyone.

As to being ineptly paced, badly directed, and chock full o' bad performances, apparently the Oscar board agreed, as none of the prequels got nominations in any of these areas.

In another thread, I opined that Lucas has not had an original thought in a quarter century. The pattern of nominations and awards for the six films would seem to prove that.

Re:Responses so far are sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Yin and Yang are more akin to Masculine and Feminine... Good/Bad Right/Wrong are not eastern concepts as much as they are Christian concepts. Good/Bad Right/Wrong are judgements, and judgements are to be avoided... Whatever 'is' is neither good nor bad, it just 'is'.

Why too!

[S-100]

These movies have been on HD television for years. Sure, a nice BD transfer would look better, but not enough to get gouged again buying yet again what has been seen ad nauseum for decades. Episode 4 was on this afternoon on some no-name HD channel (Spike or something), with commercials and everything. The movies just aren't anything that special any more.

And if we have Lucas meddling with plot and effects as he's done in the past, the BD version will be even more of a waste. Star Wars is a cinematic legacy,so who wants to see a bastardized version? Look what he did to THX-1138.

I PROMISE

[ehrichweiss]

...to not buy that, either.

Re:I PROMISE

[Anonymous Coward]

Several readers have written with word that George Lucas has announced a 2011 release date for the Star Wars series — all six films — on Blu-Ray.

Wait, there were six Star Wars films!?

Re:I PROMISE

[TimTucker]

Wait, there were six Star Wars films!?

Of course! (Assuming you could the trilogy plus the "special edition" versions of the trilogy as separate films).

Re:I PROMISE

[Scarletdown]

Wait, there were six Star Wars films!?

A New Hope
The Holiday Special
The Empire Strikes Back
Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure
Ewoks: The Battle for Endor
Return of the Jedi

Yep. Six movies.

almost completely depreciated

[Anonymous Coward]

If others are like me, I will be upgrading the quality of my star wars mkvs 6 months after this release. The value of this release has declined to 10 minutes of my time and 20 hours of bandwidth.

It's good that Lucas is releasing it soon, in a few years it won't even be worth that.

Re:almost completely depreciated

[neminem]

You probably torrented Vista, too. I mean, I could imagine torrenting it solely on the basis of enjoying the thought of piracy against such crap, but really, "upgrading the quality"? Like Vista, I'd say "upgrading the quality" should go the other direction. (And really, I'm unlikely even to torrent it, it's *not* worth a few hours of my bandwidth.)

Lucas' Best Film???

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped reading when you called Episode III Lucas' best film. It was utterly awful. The idea that Darth Vader, was such a whiny little b!7ch made it unwatchable.

Re:Lucas' Best Film???

[Anonymous Coward]

good thing, he later said the prequels were better than the originals. my head asplode!

In other news...

[denzacar]

Lucas will not show common courtesy this time either.

Re:In other news...

[Moryath]

So we get to see our childhood raped in 1080p this time, huh?

more unpaid adds here

[Anonymous Coward]

./ -tters like "free" commercial advertisments.

Re:more unpaid adds here

[Anonymous Coward]

./ -tters like "free" commercial advertisments.

Dot-slashtters?

Screw it

[marco.antonio.costa]

but if you can stand living in a world where Greedo shot first

I can't.

Re:Screw it

[MartinSchou]

Well, if you live in the land of the free, you're only a first shot away from fixing that problem ...

LD conversion?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess my black box SE laser disks are still worth keeping they are the only remaining version I have of the original movies untouched by lameness, and the only reason I still have LD player. I did try to rip the laser disks a few times, but the converted movies were pretty crappy. I am more savy thinking I could upscale them and retune the colors, burn them to blue ray disks, so I have them incase my player breaks. Anyone done this? I already have the newer versions of the DVDs. I know the analog to digital conversion is sketchy but anyone who has done this and gotten great results please respond back, I would love to learn more before I make the attempt this time or point me at a good site. Including the equipment used, I can see lucas arts from my house, and want to walk over and yell at them for skull fucking us on the originals. G.L. lazy old fuck.

Thanks for the help anyone!

he should release that as a movie.

[Anonymous Coward]

And then it would out perform Titanic, ET, and Gone With the Wind combined!

Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Sycraft-fu]

If you liked the prequels that's fine but we are also entitled to our opinions. I thought they sucked. 3 was marginally ok, 1 was just incredibad. If you want some specifics:

1) The acting. Just bad, bad, bad. This was probably partially the bad writing, partially directing, partially the fact that they were almost always on complete green screens. The combination just adds up to an extremely unconvincing performance from most of the actors. Also some were just flat out bad actors for the roles. The child Anikan was -horrible-. Anikan is supposed to be some hardened, badass slave kid and we get a kid who plays him as a happy go lucky middle class white boy.

2) The writing. As I said the writing is very poor. The dialogue is really bad. Most of it does not feel natural and appropriate, it feels forced. The love scene dialogue in #2 is one of the very worst of all. There's plenty of non-dialogue related badness though, such as the space fight scene at the end of #1 where Anikan is just "playing" effectively and yet kicking ass. Rather than show him as extremely competent with supernatural talents, as you'd expect given the backstory, he is presented as a bumbling kid that happens to be lucky and manages to do what is needed by accident.

3) The story. It was a shitty story arc. You had some just flat out retarded shit like the miticholrians, but over all the story was just bad. In particular the final part of Anikan's conversion to Vader was trite, forced, unbelievable, and poorly developed. It was a massively rushed conclusion that seemed stuck on to a meandering story to try and make it connect to the later films.

I could go on, but I really don't need to because someone already did an excellent and extremely lengthy (and funny) analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI There's one on EP2 as well.

"don't hate on Lucas for it, it's HIS saga, not yours."

Oh please, of all the cop out lines this is the worst "You can't criticize this because you didn't make it!" That is the same as saying "You can't criticize the government because you aren't the president!" Fuck you, it was MY time and MY money I sure as hell can criticize and I can can refuse to spend more on it. You can get down on your knees and blow Lucas and worship everything he does but you cannot demand I do the same. I get to have my own opinions and my opinion is that the prequels suck.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll have to watch it again. I totally missed this "Anikan" character.

Oh wait - did you just write a thousand words of drivel and not even bother to spell Anakin correctly?

Also, it's "midichlorians". Kind of undercuts your credibility as a Star Wars fan, doesn't it?

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

You ARE entitled to have your own opinion, but a lot of the opinions out there tend to be based on preconceptions or misconceptions.

The reason why Episodes I-III did well was simply because the movies did what they were SUPPOSED to do. They may not have done what you specifically wanted, or how you wanted it, but clearly Lucas and everyone else involved was satisfied with their ability to follow the envisioned story.

You, and many others, make the assumption that Episodes I-III should have been at the same awe-inspiring level as Episodes IV-VI. In some ways they were, but obviously there just wasn't the ability to grab viewers attention with something they had never ever seen before (such as realistic spacecraft or an exploding planet). What people need to realize is that Lucas DID NOT set out to make Episodes I-III at the same "level" as their sequels. Instead, what he did was make a film that captured the attention of a younger generation that grew up with a wholly different view of what movies were supposed to be and are therefore influenced differently (even if the result is the same).

In many ways Episodes I-III are set up to be classic adventures (much like Indiana Jones was, though it had a very "theme park ride" feel to it). The Star Wars prequels mixed the adventure element in with the standard philosophic fare about the Force, justice, and honor that people expected. And they did it well. Lucas likely dumbed down the dialogue for Episodes I-III so that, like the "adventure" aspect, it would be understood by a wider audience (to ensnare a younger generation in the Star Wars saga).

So in reality your opinion is completely subjective based on what you EXPECTED and not what the movie actually was. The parent post is correct: if you wanted into that movie expecting to see Episode IV instead of Episode I, then your expectations were misplaced. Lucas wanted to craft a story that appealed to the audience in a different way. At no point in time did he promise to write the prequels as "hard sci-fi." He's pretty clearly going for the "space opera" mixed with "adventure" genre.

Addendum:
Child-Anakin was NOT supposed to be "some hardened, badass slave kid." Anakin was ridiculously strong in the Force and highly motivated because of it. How many slaves in the real world become billionaires or Presidents without some profound luck and resilience? Anakin was the outlier because of his strength. In the Star Wars stories, much like in Asimov's Foundation Series, it is ALWAYS the outlier acting to create the most change. Anakin goes against the slave system and wins. He pilots the Naboo starfighter against all odds and saves the day. Luke was the same way, but you see the greater conflict within him. He's too old, there is too much doubt and not enough belief. Anakin was the opposite, he was pure and open-minded. He believed he could fall in love with a princess and save his mother. This development was designed to make his transformation into Vader all the more powerful. If you missed it, it's because you were expecting Episode IV. They are not the same movies, why have the same expectations?

There are a lot of reasons to dislike the movies (you even hit on a few, like the overuse of green screens for "flat" scenes), but a lot of people miss why the movies ARE good. Stop expecting one movie to follow in the exact footsteps of the others.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Huntr]

I agree with a lot of that. Probably my biggest peeve is Lucas' tin ear for dialogue. I almost threw up when Obi Wan said to Anakin in AotC, "Good call, my young padawan." WTF is that?

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[failedlogic]

The think I kind of like about the originals is its supposed to be futuristic but the people are straight out of the 70s and 80s kind of like the 'older' Star Trek movies. Movies from that era had a feel good, entertaining feeling to it. There's less emphasis on special effects and what ones there are, now that I'm older, I've realized how genius and improvised they are (I was about 10 when SW IV was released. Heck, I wish they had filmed the new movie in the same way rather than all computer generated. That shiny ship Padmé flies in looks horrible - the XWing and Falcon and the Bounty hunter one were way cooler.

The special effects in I - III make the technology in the earlier "Star Wars universe" look more advanced than in IV - VI

There's many other things to the originals but this to me is just the most memorable thing I like about the originals.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[RazorSharp]

You have some good points.

1. Concerning the acting, I agree, Jake Lloyd wasn't very good. But I liked Hayden Christensen's performance. I heard a lot of people criticize him of acting too much like an arrogant, immature prick, but I felt like that was Anikan's character. I never understood why people expected Anikan to be likeable. His acting seemed genuine. Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman did a great job as well.

2/3. Concerning the writing: The plotting was better and, like I said, I found the Anikan/Vader transformation to be quite believable. Before the prequels came out I sincerely doubted Lucas' ability to pull that one off. The Emperor used Anikan's selfishness against him, but he used it in a way that most people could understand: he was selfishly clinging on to any hope to save the mother of his children. The dialogue didn't impress me but it wasn't impressive in the originals so nothing was different there.

On your final point, you're right that no work is beyond criticism, but that's not what I was getting at. I meant that people who damn Lucas as the man who ruined their childhood memories, shouldn't. He didn't ruin Star Wars, he finished it. Too many fans act as if Star Wars is a thing that exists outside Lucas and they seem to refuse to acknowledge that it's a world he created. Everyone had their own vision of what the prequels would contain before they were released. The most bizarre thing about the prequels is how everyone was so disappointed that what they imagined wasn't what Lucas imagined. People forgot that it was his dream, not theirs. Of course, that doesn't take away your right to be critical, and my original word choice unfortunately conveyed that idea.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy nerdrage...

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Puff_Of_Hot_Air]

I liked Hayden Christensen's performance

I hate to break it to you, but Hayden Christensen is a crap actor. His performance was crap; not because he wasn't likeable, but because his acting was as convincing as a marionette. I'm sorry, but this is one of those "everyone thinks they have great taste" examples. You're not the single "enlightened" one, who somehow managed to see the "true film". The prequels sucked ass, Lucas is long past his prime.

Deal.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Hammer79]

I agree that much of the acting in the prequel was bad; Jake Lloyd as kid Anikan and Natalie Portman as Padmé stuck out as the worst. I do think though that the reason for the vanilla dialog was to make it easier to translate and dub the movie for international audiences. The more colorful dialog from Harrison Ford in the original series probably was somewhat lost in translation. The romance in the second film between Anikan and Padmé just came off as cliché. There were also large plot holes. With the advanced technology of Star Wars, one would think that the doctors would have detected that Padmé was pregnant with twins a lot sooner than when she went into labor. Also, the 'She died of a broken heart' line was just way too corny.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Anikan WTF?

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[imakemusic]

I never understood why people expected Anikan to be likeable.

Maybe because he wasn't supposed to be a dick from the start but was supposed to have been a normal jedi turned by the power of the dark side into a monster. Maybe it's just me but I didn't get the impression that it was the dark side that turned him. Sure, he was an innocent little kid in episode 1 (and by the end was Darth Vader) but as soon as Hayden Christyouractingiswooden took over he just seemed like an arrogant prick who wanted power, consequences be damned.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

When I watched the originals (when I was small) I always imaginged that "Luke's dad Annakin" was going to be, you know, "dad age". i.e. not some kid, or angsty teenager, but someone who at least looks and behaves like a man, and whose moral compromising by the emperor might carry some sort of dramatic weight.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

Anakin was the opposite, he was pure and open-minded. He believed he could fall in love with a princess and save his mother.

If he actually gave a shit about her he'd have bought her freedom during the several years between Episode I and Episode II, rather than leaving her to the Sandpeople and only then deciding she was worth going apeshit over.

That was the most wholly-unbelievable part of the entire story arc. "Look, Mace, I know we Jedi aren't supposed to have attachments outside the Academy, but do you think the Academy could chip in a few credits to buy my Mom out of, you know, slavery?" A simple phone call could have spared the Galaxy countless years of Imperial misery, but Anakin, unlike ET, never "phoned home".

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[walllaby]

1. It's not just a problem with acting. Hayden Christensen is a perfectly capable actor, but when coupled with George Lucas' stunted writing/directing and an army of Yes-Men, it's near-impossible to pull off a convincing scene. And Anakin was never meant to be a huge dick, he was supposed to be a tragic figure who fell from grace. The way Lucas wrote it, we as an audience never could connect with him to begin with. And you say Natalie Portman did a great job? Did you even WATCH the scene in episode 2 where she delivers the most unprepared, unconvincing "I love you" of cinematography ever? I'm not going to say that Han and Leia's relationship was the epitome of love stories, but at least it occurred naturally over the course of three films.

2. We must have been watching different movies. Anakin's fall to the dark side was as contrived as any other part of the prequels. The scene where Anakin bows to the Emperor? What motivation did he have for doing so? The lack of visuals of Palpatine training Anakin in between the second and third movies also provided little credence to the two's relationship.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[PrecambrianRabbit]

I always imaginged that "Luke's dad Annakin" was going to be, you know, "dad age".

This is an interesting comment, because what is "dad age," anyways? To children, parents seem incalculably old, wise, and experienced. Parents, on the other hand, remember well being angst-ridden teenagers themselves, and that it wasn't so long ago.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[Chowderbags]

he was selfishly clinging on to any hope to save the mother of his children

And then he choked her. Makes total sense.

People forgot that it was his dream, not theirs.

Is the Odyssey only the dream of Homer? Or do some ideas become cultural touchstones that belong to everyone? Should we say that Homer's vision (no pun intended) of the Odyssey is the only applicable one, or do we each create our own ideas of what it could be? Does "O Brother Where Art Thou" cheapen the Odyssey, or does it make for a just as interesting telling?

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[mcgrew]

Anikan is supposed to be some hardened, badass slave kid and we get a kid who plays him as a happy go lucky middle class white boy.

I've never met any slave kids, but I have known kids that grew up on the wrong side of the tracks*, and many of them were exactly like Skywalker.

Fuck you, it was MY time and MY money I sure as hell can criticize and I can can refuse to spend more on it.

I agree with you there, whether the criticism is positive or negative.

*Actually my own kids grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, and the kids were all kids -- some good, some bad.

Re:Sorry, but many of us disagree

[mcgrew]

Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman did a great job as well.

They're all pissed off because there were no hot grits. Or beowolf clusters.

While we're on that subject...

[denzacar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZnsOZsA7_4

On the contrary...

[je ne sais quoi]

Why is it that everyone acts as if the original three Star Wars films were perfect?

On the contrary, Episodes I, II and III made me realize how bad episodes IV, V and VI actually were. It was truly an "emperor has no clothes" moment after digesting the "midochlorians" in Episode I after it was very clear from the original movies that the "Force was a mystical energy field that binds us all together" not some bacterial infection. After seeing how contrived and a complete farce the prequels were, I realized that Lucas never had any idea about the plot, he was just making it up as he went along. From Darth Vader being Luke's father to Leia being Luke's sister, to C3-PO being built by Anakin: the whole thing might as well of been a soap opera in space. Anything that could be done to continue milking the franchise was done. While, I do still have copies of Star Wars and even watch them occasionally, I longer consider ANY of the movies actually good.

Re:On the contrary...

[Artifakt]

Watch "A New Hope", for the scene where Obi-Wan tells Luke he knew Luke's father in the Clone Wars. That's a classic throw away line. The writer thinks, "Where could they know each other from? I know, they were in the army together. Hey, it's SF, do they even have an army? Well, space navy or whatever... Anyhoo, they were in the war together. That oughtta fit with the title. We got this new rebellion, and now I should mention older wars so Star Wars makes more sense. Vietnam? No it's space, so they were in a spacy sounding war together. Hey, how about 'Clone Wars'?"
        At that point. Lucas has no idea who or what the clones were clones of, which side the clones fought on, or anything else about the Clone Wars, just that they give the film a feel that fits his title. Later, when he writes sequels, prequels, and Christmas specials, he goes back to look for hooks that can anchor them into the same universe, and decides to make this one of his hooks.
        That's not bad writing. It's also not good writing in and of itself. A half way competent writer normally asks some questions that don't follow from the basic plot ("OK, so Agent Clarice eventually stops Lecter, but what makes her succeed when others have failed? She's more committed. Why is she more committed? She really empathises with victims. I'd better write a scene to emphasise that." The writer looks for chances to fit that scene in, and a month later, realises he hasn't written a scene where Lecter tries his special mind screwing powers on Clarice yet, and realises he could probably combine the two. A week after that, the writer realises what the title of his work should be.). These days, college writing courses will teach people to add detail or individual touches to any line that comes out as cliched as "They met in the war" does in the short form. Lots of writers have learned, if you do this, you also automatically create hooks you can go back to if you want a sequel or whatever. Once it's clear that Kirk and Spock went through the academy together, a prequel about those days becomes an easier option. If the original throw away line says the academy is in Frisco, there's a setting for the new story, already picked. (Remember, for Trek, it was part of the basic rules not to show Trek era Earth, so references to where the academy was were never expected to be all that important until that rule was changed. In that case, the throw away nature of the line is more obvious than most.)

Re:On the contrary...

[Anonymous Coward]

One problem with that theory. When Star War came out it was Episode IV. Not 'A New Hope', but it very expressly said 'Episode IV' and in 1977 we all sat there wondering how we missed the first three if this one was so good.

But, Lucas originally had three series of trilogies he was going to make (the plots for Episode VII - IX are out there on the net).

He already had plans for the clone wars as the very plot of the last three movies revolved around Luke and Darth having been cloned and becoming the joint Emperors (as the Emperor had already fore seen in Episode VI). There was already talk of the prequels containing something about the 'clone wars' back when the original trilogy had come out, so it isn't a throw away line at all.

Re:On the contrary...

[jjohnson]

Wrong. The very first copies of Star Wars shown in theatres didn't have "Episode IV" on them. That was added shortly after first release as an homage to earlier Flash Gordon serials, to imply a longer continuity in the story. Lucas never had a nine episode story arc plotted out, as one can see by how much Star Wars itself changed in the immediate run-up to production--if it was part of a larger story arc, the changes they made would have completely scrodded the framing narrative. Likewise, Empire Strikes Back underwent massive story revisions in pre-production, and the detail about Vader being Luke's father and Leia's sister wasn't even settled when they started filming. And as the Gary Kurtz interview floating around now shows, ROTJ also got massively changed.

Treatments of Episodes VII-IX that are "out there on the net" are all bogus. Lucas was making it up as he went along. Deal with it.

Re:On the contrary...

[jollyreaper]

Watch "A New Hope", for the scene where Obi-Wan tells Luke he knew Luke's father in the Clone Wars. That's a classic throw away line. The writer thinks, "Where could they know each other from? I know, they were in the army together. Hey, it's SF, do they even have an army? Well, space navy or whatever... Anyhoo, they were in the war together. That oughtta fit with the title. We got this new rebellion, and now I should mention older wars so Star Wars makes more sense. Vietnam? No it's space, so they were in a spacy sounding war together. Hey, how about 'Clone Wars'?"
                At that point. Lucas has no idea who or what the clones were clones of, which side the clones fought on, or anything else about the Clone Wars, just that they give the film a feel that fits his title. Later, when he writes sequels, prequels, and Christmas specials, he goes back to look for hooks that can anchor them into the same universe, and decides to make this one of his hooks.

I have crappy ears and so it sounded to me like he said "Colonial Wars." I was surprised as hell when I found out he really said "Clone War." That sounded damn cheesy to teenage me and even cheesier now. Colonial Wars fits with the setting. You've got the core worlds setting up colonies rimward, demanding tribute, securing the frontiers of the Republic. And later that Republic falls. Yeah, that fits.

And you're so right about the hooks Lucas uses not making any sense. The whole Vader/Anakin thing falls apart in the prequels. Luke keeping his father's name and hiding with his uncle on his father's homeworld? Stormtroopers being clones when they most obviously weren't in the existing movies?

Those hooks you mention, the first rule of using them is not contradicting anything that's been previously established. If Kirk and Spock met at the academy, don't have a flashback to them meeting on the USS Constellation for the first time!

Unless there's Leia metal bikini "oops" footage

[assemblerex]

I have no intention of buying this.

Is Blu-Ray even relevant anymore?

[darkjohnson]

I've not bought a DVD in years and have no interest to invest in Blu-Ray especially with the dust collecting on the movies I DID buy on DVD. The only way I'll have a Blu player is if it comes with my next Laptop (and I don't have a choice). The first words that came to mind when I saw this headline was "Who cares - how did this article get approved?" Good luck George, maybe do a Laser Disc release while you're at it.

Re:Is Blu-Ray even relevant anymore?

[jazzmans]

there was a version released on dvd that was the ORIGINAL, un-fucked with films. they were on the bonus disk of each film.

usb for Empire is 2454326383
usb for Return is 2454326393
don't have Star Wars in front of me, but I'd assume based on the above that its 2454326373

These are the ORIGINAL releases, for instance, star wars does NOT have the episode IV on the crawler. in empire, all the cloud city shots are dark and claustraphobic. Again, they are on the bonus disks. Not the first disk of each movie.

the special editions of the first trilogy (IV V VI) suck ass compared to the original versions, lucas fucked everything from his pacing to the cinematography (fuck spelling) by adding all those stupid unnecessary digital images/scenes. But don't take my word for it, go find the originals I referenced, and watch the originals and the SE back to back.
I, like others won't ever buy the blu-ray, as I've got the original versions on dvd (well, ripped to my media player actually)

and, 1 2 and 3 sucked donkey balls. The youtube commentary/breakdown referenced earlier is fucking perfect.

jaz

Re:Is Blu-Ray even relevant anymore?

[16K Ram Pack]

I bought those for the originals and re-watched the SE. You watch and every moment of them begs the question "what are you adding here, George?". This isn't like the restoration of Spartacus where the "snails and oysters" scene adds quite a lot about 2 of the characters. The Jabba scene is just horrible, and takes away his menace.

I bought a pricey box set

[gagol]

on VHS around 1998 when it was advertised limited edition, LAST CHANCE TO BUY THE ORIGINAL STAR WARS. I am pissed off for the forth time. They remastered, then added scenes, then DVD release, then THIS! What is the worst thing, a (was) friend of mine managed to lose my copies. Not that I have a VHS anymore but...

You mean two

[NotSoHeavyD3]

StarWars and the Empire Strikes Back of course.

What timing...

[EmagGeek]

I just gave all of my Star Wars tapes and DVDs to Good Will because I never watch them anymore and have ZERO interest in them. I'm certainly not going to waste money on these...

Episode 1: Special Edition

[WarpedCore]

It's incredibly likely that they're going to include the redone version of Episode 1 with the digital puppet of Yoda rather than that goofy thing they had in the original version. Unfortunately, we'll still have Jar Jar. It'll be interesting to see how they touched up, corrected, or redid anything in the box set though.

hohum

[BigBadBus]

Douglas Adams once said, after he had provided yet another version of The Hitch-Hikers Guide To The Galaxy (radio series, book, TV series, several abandoned movie scripts, stage version, LP etc.) that he was in danger of becoming his own word processor. Now Lucas has realised that he doesn't need to make new films, he just re-releases old ones, he's fallen into the Douglas Adams trap: he is his own video editor.

New footage

[lyinhart]

I just love how the audience in the video goes nuts about one dinky little, heretofore unseen lightsaber scene. That's almost as bad as the crowd at that Windows 7 tech demo clapping as someone demonstrated the revolutionary "new" feature of snapping two windows to each half the screen.

Anyway, some insight by former Star Wars producer Gary Kurtz is the real news for the exiled Star Wars fans who aren't drinking Lucas's Kool-Aid.

I stopped caring

[ITBurnout]

when the first trilogy ended with dancing teddy bears.

Han shot first

[Hamsterdan]

1- Han shot first, not after, not at the same time. First as in *I'm a smuggler and a tough guy*
2- Remove Jar-Jar
3- Remove midi chlorians
4- remove Darth Vader's *NOOOOOOOOO* at the end of ROTS
5- remove the walkie-talkies and put back the guns (sorry, wrong movie :)

Re:Han shot first

[Anonymous Coward]

4- remove Darth Vader's *NOOOOOOOOO* at the end of ROTS

DO NOT WANT ! :)

Re:Han shot first

[bill_mcgonigle]

6. Indiana Jones in a refrigerator. Goddamn aliens.

reality sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

If only you could force choke someone over the net....or at all. lol. Lucas you fat fuck. Eat 10 bags of dicks. Stop....just stop.

(disclaimer for over vigilant american douche-bags...it's not a threat if the method does not exist. ;p)

It's dead. Get over it.

[Animats]

It's time to consign Star [Trek|Wars|Gate|Craft] to the bargain bin and move forward. Not that what's in the pipeline looks good. Coming up, "Skyline" (yet another alien invasion), "Independence Day 2 and 3" (still more alien invasion), "Battle-Los Angeles (alien invasion, again) another Planet of the Apes movie (why?), and "Oblivion" (yet another post-apocalyptic movie)

"The Adjustment Bureau", another Philip K. Dick movie, has potential. "Iron Sky" (Nazis in Space!) could be the next Sky Captain. Those are the high points.

"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" is better than you might expect.

Re:It's dead. Get over it.

[blair1q]

Get Netflix.

Get Star Trek on Blu-Ray.

Bliss out.

Not Next Generation or the other add-ons. The original. You'll cream your jeans at what you find on just the first disc. And it just gets smoother and more soulful from there.

Re:It's dead. Get over it.

[mcgrew]

It's time to consign Star [Trek|Wars|Gate|Craft] to the bargain bin and move forward. Not that what's in the pipeline looks good.

Yeah, this two year old Lexus sucks, it's old. lets trade it for a new Kia!

I am so done with Star Wars

[roc97007]

Lucas will try to jerk us around some more but there really isn't anything more of value to see. Ever since Episode One Lucas seems to be nursing a grudge against his fans. "You don't like JarJar? Well prepare to see a lot more of him!" Now "you still think Han should have shot first? Well we're splicing in additional scenes showing he didn't!" Maybe even since Return of the Jedi, when geeks who were supposed to be praising him as a god instead got a little too snarky about certain spear-wielding teddy bears. (A show of hands: Who saw "Ewoks: The battle of Endor"? Yeah. Have your eyes stopped bleeding yet?)

Fer crissake, skim Lucas' imdb entry, and try to pick out anything he's written or directed in the last quarter century that wasn't a shameless, heartless, lifeless rip-off of Star Wars or Indiana Jones. The guy hasn't had a fresh idea since the early '80's.

Give it a rest. Everyone, please just give it a rest. Let Lucas pee in his own sandbox on his own dime. You know the added clarity of Blu-ray will not make up for the additional liberties he's going to take with your childhood memories. Let us demonstrate that collective geekhood can say no to Star Wars. For God's sake, let it go. Find another up-and-coming director to patronize, one who isn't yet barn-sour and can still produce a fresh idea.

MLP

[General Wesc]

http://abstrusegoose.com/92

Get the LD rip

[ArchieBunker]

A few years ago the LaserDisc rips of the Starwars movies were available on bittorrent. Although it looks like most of the torrents are no longer seeded.

Re:Get the LD rip

[freeballer]

yeah thats part of the problem with torrent. I downloaded a while back to re-watch, but deleted them. I refused to open my "limited editions" because I knew lucas would never re-release the originals again after VHS.

Maybee I'll look that up again. If quality is good its probably best way to remember them as they were when I was younger

Re:Get the LD rip

[freeballer]

(downloaded) - dvdrips of "special editions", not laser rips. I could never get seeds either

Re:Get the LD rip

[91degrees]

They did release official DVDs of the original editions. I believe these were from the same masters as the laserdiscs.

Re:Get the LD rip

[Anonymous Coward]

They're on rapidshare: katzforums.com

Note: I'm not affiliated in anyway with katzforums

This is the kind of nerdgasm that we find amusing

[axl917]

Thanks, bro.

Ob

[Hognoxious]

Maybe It'd be fun to sit down and watch them back to back. Anyone know how many parsecs that would take?

Dear George

[blair1q]

Fuck you.

Purists?

[ABasketOfPups]

I think they'd say yes, they're equally bad. Jedi was pretty hideous compared to the first two, except for the special effects.

What is Star Trek?

[SmallFurryCreature]

No that isn't a typo. What is Star Trek?

Is it Kirk? Is it Janeway? Is it Picard? Is it Archer?

The question depends on who you ask. The soap lovers probably thought DS9 was the bomb, they LOVED the long story arcs. To the old timers, that was the beginning of the end, when Star Trek became a soap.

What is Star Trek depends on who you are. You see to SOME people, unworthy people, the conversion of Darth Vader was all the drama they ever wanted.

There is a certain amount of outrage about Twilight and its sparkly vampires. So what do the haters trod out? Buffy... Buffy as the example of true vampires... the mind boggles.

But people get very defensive about this, after all if I say Buffy sucked, then anyone who liked it by association also sucks. People don't want to hear their favorite entertainment is drivel.

This is not saying that the prequels were meant for young kids, because that is just another cop out. Old people liked the original movies well enough. But it is saying that those who liked the prequels simply have different expectations. If you look at the movies honestly then you notice they are fundamentally different. They have to be.

Jedi's: In the prequel they are a massive force, original there is one last master remaining. Prequels are a cop movie, original is a master teaches student movie, Lord of the Rings, the karate kid type.

The empire: Original faceless baddy who slowly turns human as he is replaced by an even worse baddy. The prequels, scheming person seeking to overthrow the good guess but remaining unknown... this is actually the biggest failing of the prequels. We are following the wrong guys. In hero movies, the heroes win. They don't in the prequels and yet we barely know anything about the villain. In the art of story telling, this is a major no-no. The unknown villain only works if he is defeated anyway. The turning of Anakin in part 3 is so bad because we don't know anything about what he is being turned into. If you want to make a movie about someone selling his sole to the devil, you got to explain the devil. Else it is just seems silly. You can't expect us to care about a heroine addict throwing his life away if you don't explain heroine. Show the desire, to explain the temptation.

The battles: One against many in the originals, many against many in the prequels. We can forgive the half dozen escaping from the deathstar because hero movies don't have to make sense. But we expect more from a war movie. Tactics. Strategy. It is why Pearl Harbour sucked so much compared to Tora! Tora! Tora! We need MORE from the bigger story.

Kids and women: The original had only a SINGLE adult female. The prequels had a kid, young jedi's, young females... that is just asking for trouble. Neither kids nor young (child) women are interesting. Think about it, recall the best movie/tv moments and ask, how many had kids or women? Especially the light entertainment stuff that Star Wars most definitely is.

George Lucas made a mistake with the prequels. He should have been able to clean-up with it. It was the perfect IP. Attractive to pretty much the entire planet. The prequels did okay but they should have blown the box office records apart. The originals did, for YEARS, no DECADES they were at the absolute top. Nobody else came close. The prequels? Just another box office hit. When Titanic does better then Star Wars, you know you got a problem.

The mistakes are plenty, he removed the grime from the universe. Gave us unintresting leads and didn't bother to give us an insight into their motivations. But worsed of all, he made an anti-hero story. Lets be honest. That is HARD. Lord of the Rings (the movies) BARELY get away with the snivelling Bilbo but at least he redeems himself in the end... well sorta... be honest how many would pay for a Lotr movie with the hobbits cut out? Anakin just never becomes known enough to feel/understand WHY the darkside is so appealing and that is because Palpatine himself is never explored. He is just

Re:What is Star Trek?

[AK Marc]

The turning of Anakin in part 3 is so bad because we don't know anything about what he is being turned into. If you want to make a movie about someone selling his sole to the devil, you got to explain the devil. Else it is just seems silly.

Now that it's old enough, I want to see some 20 something that saw the movies in episode order. I want to know what they though. Vader at the end of III was still just a whiny Anakin in a suit. I wasn't afraid of him. I didn't see him as the Vader that's in IV. There's a massive unexplained gap. Where did it go? Did anyone else notice? Or was it because I saw them in the order they were made?

Re:What is Star Trek?

[JeffAtl]

Kids and women: The original had only a SINGLE adult female. The prequels had a kid, young jedi's, young females... that is just asking for trouble. Neither kids nor young (child) women are interesting. Think about it, recall the best movie/tv moments and ask, how many had kids or women? Especially the light entertainment stuff that Star Wars most definitely is

The Phoebe Cates swimming pool scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High would certainly qualify.

I agree with your point though about kids though. Even as a kid, I hated movies or shows with kids - or at least how they are they always portrayed. The problem with women characters usually comes when the writer or director has no real experience with mainstream women in the real world, so they end up being written in a totally bizarre fashion. The love scenes and dialogue with Anakin and Padme are a great example of this.

Re:What is Star Trek?

[RazorSharp]

Your post was quite interesting and reminded me of something I forgot to post in the original: Episode III is George Lucas' Hamlet. Hamlet is Shakespeare's most controversial play among critics, and you'll notice that many of its failures are reflected in Anikan: the tragic figure isn't easy to relate to, he's somewhat of a whiny bitch, and he's not quick to act unless it's at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.

Hamlet has even more questionable content that doesn't relate to Star Wars. For example, there's the distinct possibility that Hamlet is just insane and never saw any ghost. It's easy to wonder whether Rosencrantz and Guildenstern really deserved to die for just carrying out a royal assignment and Hamlet driving Ophelia insane didn't seem necessary at all.

But I like Hamlet because the monologues are dammed good. That's how I feel about Star Wars. I can pick it apart for hours pointing out plot-holes and inconsistencies and all around silliness, but at the end of the day it has great characters, a deep storyline, and lightsabres. For all of Lucas' shortcomings, I can't be anything but appreciative. The same can be said about Shakespeare and Hamlet.

I guess my biggest gripe with those who are super critical of the prequels is this: what did you expect?

One thing I disagree with is your assertion that the prequels should have set more records in theaters. When the originals came out no sci-fi movie came close to the originality, special effects, and grand scale. It was an example of untapped potential in movie making. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm pretty sure none of the prequels won a best special effects Oscar. When the prequels came out I knew people who didn't go see them because they didn't like Star Wars. They had to watch at least one of the original movies to come to that conclusion.

Avatar, for example, set all kinds of records. This probably had a lot to do with the implementation of 3D and IMAX theaters. Sure, other movies had done so in the past, just like Star Wars wasn't the first sci-fi film, but Avatar was the first film to do 3D right in the same fashion as Star Wars was the first to do sci-fi right.

Re:What is Star Trek?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a certain amount of outrage about Twilight and its sparkly vampires. So what do the haters trod out? Buffy... Buffy as the example of true vampires... the mind boggles.

If you've watched an episode of Buffy, and all you've seen are fights with vampires, I'm not surprised you think the show sucks. However, it's also obvious you had preconceptions before you started watching, and never gave it a chance.

I have never in my entire life seen a movie, TV series, or read a novel, which dealt with complex issues at a level as deep as Buffy. They dealt with the evils of capitalism, the effect of grief, abusive relationships, religion, teenager issues (of course), and many other things. You don't watch Buffy for the crappy fight scenes between SMG's body double and random vampires. You watch it for the social commentary presented in an extremely entertaining way.

Another TIE Fighter game.

[ScottCooperDotNet]

C'mon, you'd open your wallet for another TIE Fighter game.

Re:Another TIE Fighter game.

[TheRaven64]

Possibly. I think I enjoyed X-Wing Alliance a lot more than any of the prequel films. They also acknowledge the existence of some of the expanded universe stuff (it's somewhat depressing that the books by Timothy Zahn are much better than anything Lucas has done with the Star Wars universe). For example, in one mission you have to fly into an Imperial base posing as a freighter. If you scan the other freighters' IDs, you'll see Wild Karde and a few others mentioned in some of the books.

Re:Another TIE Fighter game.

[soupforare]

We'll see Han shoot first again well before we'll see another TIE fighter.

Han shot second, the movie isn't distributedas GPL

[backslashdot]

It's George Lucas' movie. He's the author isn't he? Make your own fork of the movie if you like. Though the movie isn't GPL.

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[qubezz]

The film's original negative was in bad condition in 1997 (color fading badly) when they took it out of the can for the creation of the special edition, and they actually spliced in restorations, and inter-prints that were better quality that the damaged original, along with the new optical composites from the camera negatives, and the 'special edition enhancements' into the original negative of the film to create a new 'original negative'. After the SE film release, all prints of the original film still in circulation (always owned by the studio) were recalled and probably destroyed. There is no more Star Wars-The Original Version.

In 2004, to do a DVD release, they digitally scanned the film and did digital restoration to make a 1080p restored master (no, not 2k or 4k or even 8k, 1080p is the new digital master) with scratches and dirt digitally removed, along with the color being re-timed badly. This 1080p version is now the canon, It has been show as the HD version on tv and printed on film for further cinematic releases, and the Blu-ray will probably get a hardly-fixed version of this digital transfer. You will not see Star Wars again in the original version: the original movie no longer exists (a very awesome long article about the quality and treatment of the original Star Wars negatives.)

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[Deus.1.01]

Fuck that shit...i got and old VHS cassete and i just digg out my old player....

All the clear sound and image in the world cant stand in the way for the joy a good masterpiece like this gives me.

Emperor's "slugs"?

[ryan_fung]

Any chance that they will fix the Emperor's "slugs"? I find that to be the most irritating thing in the movies and really hurt the enjoyment. I can even stand Greedo and Jar Jar.

'The "Emperor's slugs," also called the "Emperor's black spot," refers to a solid black area on the edge of Emperor Palpatine's hood in Return of the Jedi. The dark spot is actually a bit of hand-drawn animation. Although no definitive answer exists, Pablo Hidalgo learned from someone at LFL that the spot was likely added because the "particular low angle revealed a rather strange fold in the Emperor's temple that drew attention away from his eyes."[98]'
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Palpatine

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[bhartman34]

The most disturbing thing to me wasn't the shiny newness of the DVD version. Rather, it was the actual changes made to the story and the scenes between the old version and the new one. Adding Hayden Christensen into scenes where the original had Sebastian Shaw just made me cringe.

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[Shoe Puppet]

You will not see Star Wars again in the original version: the original movie no longer exists (a very awesome long article about the quality and treatment of the original Star Wars negatives.)

Not officially, but it certainly isn't lost completely:

Because this was supposed to supplant the original, all prints in circulation of the original were recalled (studios control all rented prints--none are sold privately, though a black market exists), and possibly destroyed (studio print masters are, of course, kept).

or, even simpler:

Of course, it would be very easy to simply put the original pieces back and conform it to the original version, or use the separation masters and IPs, or simply scan the old pieces for a digital restoration, but I digress.

How many ways are there to sell the same thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he will release it on Blue Ray if he thinks there are enough fools to buy it. The release will be full of the usual PR marketing bumf but essentially you will be buying the same old tat you bought each decade since the films were first released.

How many ways are there to sell the same thing to the same people?

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[Jeremy Erwin]

Very interesting article, thanks.

Fan Cut of Star Wars

[hound3000]

When do get the edition where all the shots are tagged, and the viewer is invited to re-cut the movie with the ability to add deleted scenes, delete added scenes, and generally try to prove what the fans have been saying since 1997, that they can cut together the ultimate version of Star Wars. They can release the version which gets the most votes on the next-next Star Wars release. I have seen more packaging for this series than any other, sooner or later, whoever holds the franchise rights will do this. George Lucas won't be running the show forever.

You don’t want to read the forums where Star Wars fans divide up into Sith vs. Jedi camps on allegations of vote-rigging the winning cut.

Re:Han shot second, the movie isn't distributedas

[blair1q]

I'll wait for the torrent.

Idiots Abound

[WED Fan]

Poor addled little Sparky, if you carefully check the history of "Star Wars", the title "A New Hope" was added to the 1981 re-release, after "Empire". So, more than a decade before your claim. Those of us around at the time remember it when it was re-released.

Why so much hate

[guacamole]

I don't understand why there is so much whinning about Lucas milking the Star Wars franchise. Blueray is the new format that's meant to replace DVD. Pretty much every old movie that's worth watching will be re-released on Blueray, just like 70s and 80s movies were rereleased on DVD. If you don't like it, then just move on and don't buy it.

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[qubezz]

As a source for a blu-ray, theatre prints (also consider they've been used a lot) and the intra-positive prints made of the film also seem to not be practical:

[Searching for a good quality copy,] Lucas had screened some prints in 1994 but none of them were presentable. "By the summer of '94 George said, 'I'm worried about the negative because every print we get is bad,'" Rick McCallum remembers. "That's when we got really scared about the presentation of this film."

What they found when they opened up the cans of film in late 1994 [13] was horrifying--the original negatives had been severely deteriorated.

So the only practical way to get a HD+ quality version of the original film is to go back and find not just the segments of film that were replaced in the original negative with the 'special edition' content, but one would ideally digitally scan in the original camera negatives of effects shots and digitally re-composite them (this was redone in 1997 at high expense, but it was still done optically with just better equipment than was used in 1977). Many layers were composited to make the space scenes - one negative for the background, one for the moving ships, one for the laser effects, etc, causing the effects shots to not only be very grainy, but also to have multiple black matte outlines around objects from the optical printing process that would be very noticeable and ridiculous-looking on HD with our modern sensibilities. Basically one would be re-doing all the effects shots, basically remaking the movie to get the original presentation up to digital standards for 1080p and beyond.

All this doesn't matter anyway: since Lucas owns all three films (he got Star Wars ownership back from Fox around 1998, probably as part of Fox's payoff to Lucas to distribute his new prequels), he was able to give the finger to the fans and say his new revised version is the 'version he intended' and will be the only version from now on. Seeing the original film in HD/bluray/2k+ might only happen after he's dead.

Please don't...

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoiler alert: the deleted scene was young Anakin fisting Jar Jar Binks.

A villain needs to be noble

[SmallFurryCreature]

This might sound odd, but a real villain is FAR more constrained in what he can or cannot do, then the hero.

Darth Vader does not go about killing kids. That is pathetic. You got two kinds of villains, the intresting bond type and the nazi type. Nobody likes the nazi type. The Bond villain who kills 006, well, 006 had a shot, now it is time for the prime time hero to show the villain his place, but we don't hate him since he is not mean, just evil. Intresting evil.

Killing kids ain't intresting, it is despicable. Darth Vader the unstoppable right hand of the emperor who even his own troops face kills a captured soldier but at least a soldier. He doesn't stomp into the ships kindern garden and starts slaughtering them. It is the same reason the ewoks are so hated. Because to many they made the already bumbling imperial soldiers look even worse. Granted Lucas might have meant it as a clever stab at future tech vs human spirit (remember an old proper sci-fi story that follow a super powerful race in battle armour withstanding countless attacks, only to be killed by wooden spear thrown by a monkey like race) but the public saw teddy bears killing of this army of terror.

Villains are very hard to do. You constantly walk the line between making them intresting and making them to nasty. Take "Mulan". When they pick up the little childs doll, showing the devastated village, the movie hits a sour note. This is NOT FUNNY. The witch in Snowwhite might be scarier, but the huns in Mulan are to nasty.

So with Anakin. He is no longer the 2 meter tall black force of darkness, but a child killer. Your no longer rooting for the hero because he is the hero, you are rooting for the hero because the bad guy must die. And knowing all that there is to know about Anakin, seeing him redeemed looses all meaning. For some things, there is no redemption. You wouldn't accept a WW2 movie with a hitler cyring for mercy in the bunker at the end would you?

There is a reason the faceless horror, the unexplored horror is so common. Because making evil evil but acceptable is bloody hard. You don't do it by getting a kid who people never cared about going insane in a kinder garden.

Re:A villain needs to be noble

[RazorSharp]

I think one of the big problems a lot of people had with the prequels is that they wanted to root for Anikan the whole time but Lucas didn't give them the opportunity. They wanted to feel like his turn to the dark side was justified. When I was a kid I knew all sorts of people whose favorite Star Wars character was Darth Vader, and they were the ones who hated the prequels the most. As much as Vader was Palpatine's lackey in the originals, it was far worse in the prequels. Like you pointed out, he was willing to kill children (Jedi children, but children all the same).

But unlike you, I never viewed Anikan/Vader as fully evil. I viewed him as weak. In Return of the Jedi Luke constantly begs him to fight against the emperor but Vader always has some cowardly excuse ("You don't know the power of the dark side, blah blah blah"). Being a weak, cowardly fool can be evil, but not what you call "Nazi evil."

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[MakinBacon]

Adding Hayden Christensen into scenes where the original had Sebastian Shaw just made me cringe.

Personally, that's the one change I actually approve of. Obi-wan's justification for telling Luke that Vader killed his father was that he considers Darth Vader to be Anakin's alter ego (as opposed to being the same person). Since this is Anakin's ghost and not Vader's ghost, it should appear as Anakin did in Episode 3 (this is what he looked like when he "died") if Obi-wan is correct in believing that they are essentially two separate people in the same body.

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[bhartman34]

I can certainly understand how it's justifiable from a plot standpoint. I assume that the original idea wasn't to have Anakin turn to the dark side so young. But doesn't that just sort of expose a plot hole in the prequels? I mean, it's my understanding that Shaw wasn't on this mortal coil for the prequel movies, but they could've found someone of the same approximate age and done a little bit of CGI on him, couldn't they? The problem, as I see it, is that the prequels didn't span enough time. He went from Jedi to evil in the space of his teenage years. Part of good writing is continuity, and the prequels just were not well-written, from that standpoint, IMHO.

New colour

[Samah]

In the case of the prequels, wouldn't this be just changing the colour from hangover-brown to blue?

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[Kvasio]

the original movie no longer exists

Thanks. Now we have a scapegoat to be blamed: KODAK made crappy negative that faded in just five years.

Thanks Kodak, you won't see me buying your negatives ever.

Theatrical versions wanted!

[jbarr]

I saw all 6 movies in a movie theater as they were released, and after seeing the newer "editions", I really crave the theatrical versions that I originally saw. Are they politically incorrect? Possibly. Do they look cheesier? sure. But it's what was released, and it is what millions experienced as "real" Star Wars. George Lucas would make lots more money if he would just release the original, theatrical versions. Market them as retro--whatever. Just stop rewriting history!

Re:Theatrical versions wanted!

[jbarr]

As a follow-on, does it make sense that younger generations might actually be interested in seeing just what made Star Wars so popular by being able to see the "original" version?

Fun with sigs

[mcgrew]

That's impossible - only three Star Wars films were ever made.
-- ... and then they built the supercollider.

So the LHC was responsible for Jar Jar's existance? Those bastards!

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[mcgrew]

After the SE film release, all prints of the original film still in circulation (always owned by the studio) were recalled and probably destroyed. There is no more Star Wars-The Original Version.

I had a boatload of tapes and DVDs stolen a year or two ago, and just replaced EPIV. I was happy to discover that there is a theatrical release version to it in addition to the screwed up "Greedo shot first" version.

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[DinDaddy]

After the SE film release, all prints of the original film still in circulation (always owned by the studio) were recalled and probably destroyed. There is no more Star Wars-The Original Version.

Nope. He did not get them all.

One was even shown a couple of weeks ago. In a state far far away (from me).

http://www.bigscreen.com/journal.php?id=1961

Re: a 1080p childhood-rape version only

[DinDaddy]

So which one is the hairless white burned up guy who saved Luke's life by hurling the emperor to his death?

Stormtrooper armor vs. rocks

[Tetsujin]

I know if I was a trooper I would be questioning the use of "armor" that seems particularly vulnerable to small sticks and rocks as wielded by little teddy bears.

Actually, if you look at body armor, physical impact has always been one of the tougher things to defend against. You can armor your body and head, and that can keep you from getting cut by a sword (or, with modern armor, it can stop bullets) but to do this it spreads the impact out... You still take the hit, it just doesn't go through you. This is the basis of weapons like maces and war hammers: deliver a powerful impact that, even if the armor isn't dented by it, will still hurt the person inside.

Re:Stormtrooper armor vs. rocks

[DarthVain]

True, but they didn't do much against blasters, let alone lightsabers... So what exactly were they defending against! :)

Re:Stormtrooper armor vs. rocks

[Tetsujin]

True, but they didn't do much against blasters, let alone lightsabers... So what exactly were they defending against! :)

Very few things at all defend against lightsabers... But, of course, after the clone wars, there's very few Jedi left so it's not much of a concern.

'Course that still leaves the question of blasters. When Stormtroopers are shot and fall, it's not like you see any medical teams coming to their rescue, and they don't get up, either... So even if you assume the armor is minimizing but not negating the hit, it still seems like the troopers are actually getting killed...

<shrug> I don't have a rationalization for that. :)

Re:Stormtrooper armor vs. rocks

[DarthVain]

However this being a PG movie for kids and no blood, I am sure they could justify it that the Armor DID protect them, and they were only knocked unconscious by the trauma, with the armor will repair them automatically, or something like that. Not one trooper was killed in the making of 3 movies. The trooper's certainly couldn't kill anyone because they couldn't hit the inside of a barn wall with a blaster. So everyone lives. Except Greedo, but he shot first so its OK now right?

Oh and the Emperor was killed, but he was a very bad man.

And Porkins... but who cares about him, lets face it, he was livin' on borrowed time anyway!

oh yeah I guess everyone on Alderann died also. Hippies.

I dunno, Star Wars is messed up man.

Re:Stormtrooper armor vs. rocks

[Tetsujin]

However this being a PG movie for kids and no blood

Ponda Baba notwithstanding...

Poor guy, things were really looking up for him, too, and then Obi Wan had to go and chop off his drawing arm...

I think I'm gonna be evil today.

[Tetsujin]

Eh, idunno. I think Revenge of the Sith is at least as good as Return of the Jedi. Purists may burn me alive, I guess.

My biggest problem with "Revenge of the Sith" was that this movie, due to its place in the story, needed to somehow convince me that Anakin would turn evil. I don't think they pulled it off. Palpatine had a way to get his attention (the promise of saving Padme) but how Anakin went from "Okay, I'm listening" to "Sure, slaughtering a room full of children sounds like a pretty good idea to me." wasn't really explored satisfactorily. Anakin was played as generally an OK guy up until that point... Sand people notwithstanding...

Re:Basement Throne Room

[Tetsujin]

Seriously, how many different versions will the fanbois pay money for? No matter how you feel about Greedo shooting first, doesn't owning four different box sets already make dumping $150 on another seem as silly as rebuilding your basement into the Emperor's Throne Room?

The problem with your basement plan is that often the basement is below the level of the drain... This complicates the process of setting up the plumbing for any kind of Throne Room in the basement.

Open Letter

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear George,

So it's come to this again? How much can you re-touch and re-tweak your works? I don't claim to fully understand it, but it seems like you're mad that everyone loves your old movies so much that you feel that you can't possibly live up to them the way they were. Maybe you're right. It doesn't matter. Do you think Leonardo gave up art after making the Mona Lisa? If you feel like you can't expand on the works that you've already made, try making something new. It might fail. It might succeed. Maybe you will even equal or surpass your old works and create another beautiful world of fiction. Let the past go, you've succeeded there, maybe even more than your wildest dreams at the time. And that's great. But we want new worlds, new ideas, a new explosion of culture. Don't be afraid to take risks, to expose yourself to real criticism, to revolutionize another genre. We know that you've done it in the past, and we want to see it done again.

-Anonymous Coward