Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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.)
Who is John Cabal?
> 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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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.
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
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
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.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC