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.
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.