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.
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.
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.
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.