DVD Talk
Star Wars: Fans vision vs. Lucas' artistic vision [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Star Wars: Fans vision vs. Lucas' artistic vision


Dr. DVD
09-21-04, 09:30 PM
Which one is more important? There is a debate over at the Jedi Council (where I have spent most of my day off as I watched the DVDs) as to which one is more important to the saga. A lot of people there seem to thing that GL's vision as an artist should trump all. I think there's no need to debate that he does as well.


I was wondering what the rest of you think. Does artistic vision matter more in certain movies than in other movies? While I myself do wish that GL had taken the fans' vision into more consideration, it seems that many people here would stand up for a director like Martin Scorsese to preserve his vision in a movie before they would GL.

In short, it's okay for a director to fight for their vision with certain movies, but not all movies.

necros
09-21-04, 10:06 PM
As far as I'm concerned, it's his movie(s) and he can do whatever the heck he wants to. But, as a fan I think greedo shooting first is gay. Besides, how the hell could he miss Han that close when Han didn't even duck? And I don't care for the scene with Jabba at the spaceport, it looks better in this new version (they had a comparison shot thingy going on dvdtown.com) but it still looks too fakey. And if you're gonna redo some of the effects, why not just redo em all? and what about the computer screens still doing the old atari graphics instead of replacing them with something that kind of matches the "older" technology in the "newer" movies? And, how come Obi Wan doesn't recognize C3P0 or R2D2 when he was clearly around em in parts 1 and 2? He's old but I don't think he's senile.

This is actually my first time seeing any of the original films in like 10 years, I didn't see any of the earlier updated versions yet... Overall I liked the original and I'll watch the other 2 in the next couple of days. It will always be called Star Wars to me too, A New Hope sounds dumb. But so far I really don't mind the changes all that much. I'm just glad to have it on DVD finally.

PopcornTreeCt
09-21-04, 10:13 PM
As an artist, once you create something and release it to the world, it is no longer yours.

Tscott
09-21-04, 10:22 PM
Where's the both option? People wouldn't be quite as upset if they were given a choice of which version to watch when they put in the DVD (like the Alien films) or at least a choice of which version to buy at the store (like The Exorcist).

jaeufraser
09-21-04, 10:24 PM
Well, personally I think when something reaches that level of popularity, you should in ways honor the fans by giving them the originals. I have no issue with him changing the films, but the alternative should be offered. Cause let's be honest, without those originals and the millions of fans, Lucas wouldn't be able to make changes to them anyway.

On the other hand, those are his movies so I'll accept what he does. But, I do think he should release the originals if for no reason than that there's a definite market for them.

Mike Lowrey
09-21-04, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
As an artist, once you create something and release it to the world, it is no longer yours.

Sorry, have to disagree with you on that. An artist signs his name to every piece of art they do, beit a painting or film. That in my opinion allows them to do whatever they want to do to their work.

The problem here with Star Wars is that is a film phenomenon. An icon in film history. If it were any other film, no one would care. I have used the soon-to-be released Daredevil - DC as an example, and the answer I get is either "both versions are available" or "who cares?"

If A New Hope, Empire, and Jedi were shot more recently, even just 15 years ago instead of the 25 that it was, the availabilty of the original prints would be easily available.

coladar
09-21-04, 11:44 PM
I haven't really read many threads involving this topic, since it's a long dead horse at this point. That said, I think calling it the "fan's vision" is an extremely bad way to phrase the option. The fans, for the most part at least, don't seem to have an overwhelming urge to dictate serious changes to the original trilogy. They simply want the original films, untouched by revision, on DVD.

Quite frankly, Lucas can revise the original trilogy a thousand times to meet whatever bizarre vision he sees in his mind. What's the saying... A thousand monkeys on typewriters over a thousand years and one will produce the works of Shakespeare?

Refusing to allow the original films, with whatever flaws they might contain, given the technology of branching and the like that DVD gives is illogical. That isn't fan's dictating a particular vision the films should follow, it's just requesting the vision Lucas had nearly three decades ago. It would be one thing if there were fan's saying "Hey, wouldn't it be awesome to have Vader survive the final battle during ROTJ!" They aren't... At least I hope not.

There isn't a fan's vision. Just the vision Lucas had from 77-83 and the vision Lucas has had since 1997.

Rogue588
09-22-04, 12:03 AM
what Tscott said..

calhoun07
09-22-04, 12:12 AM
I would go with Lucas' version all the way, but I do think fans have SOME influence in his decisions. I know for a fact that he talks about the fan reaction to Boba Fett led him to put that character in the first three episodes more, and he now regrets killing the character off in the movie.

ArchibaldTuttle
09-22-04, 12:44 AM
Why not both, I liked some of the alterations, for instance the visual enhancement stuff, but not the new character, character replacement, and new scene stuff. Most of the dvd stuff I am ok with, the stuff that annoys me the most is in the original SE's.

Jackskeleton
09-22-04, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
As an artist, once you create something and release it to the world, it is no longer yours.

Copyright laws would like to speak to you.

It's his film(s) no matter how much you want to latch onto it as a piece of your childhood, it just isn't yours and as far as I'm concerned the "Fans" don't have any "vision" on this because they never made their own version. Lucas made a couple of different versions of this film and they are all Lucas' artistic vision at a center given time. You may like one over the other, but no way does that make any one of those a "fan vision".

The fans have risen this trilogy above jesus. It could do no wrong and that is why the prequels failed. Besides not being up to stanrds to the originals, that is to say nothing would have made the fans happen other then the second coming stepping out of that theater screen.

For all I'm concerned the fans have no vision on the films. they have one they like over the other. I always find it funny when the folks start bitching about lucas but yet they demand that studios release the "directors cut" of whatever said film is out there. Double standards?

Rogue588
09-22-04, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
The fans have risen this trilogy above jesus. It could do no wrong and that is why the prequels failed. Besides not being up to stanrds to the originals, that is to say nothing would have made the fans happen other then the second coming stepping out of that theater screen.

For all I'm concerned the fans have no vision on the films. they have one they like over the other. I always find it funny when the folks start bitching about lucas but yet they demand that studios release the "directors cut" of whatever said film is out there. Double standards? First of all, I don't think there's a "comparison" to the OT. Though, i'm willing to concede that might be true for some. Think about it this way....if tPM/AOtC weren't related to the OT in any way, shape or form, would you think these were good movies? Would you like Jar-Jar more? Would Hayden & Jake's acting be that much more appealing/sincere/believable? Would the story be more thought out?

And as for the "director's cut" statement...it's not a "double standard". Here's why...

In "today's" Hollywood, every. single. thing. is Focus group'd to DEATH.

A director will NEVER have the final say on their film [unless they've amassed a GREAT amount of cred in the industry -- and sometimes even THEN they don't get it]. On most Director's Cuts, we'll hear the filmmaker say things like "It didn't test well" and "It was cut for time".

And, if I interpreted that recent documentary on A&E correctly [I haven't watched the extended "Director's Cut" on the DVD yet ;)], the OT [and DEFINITELY the PT] was George's ball. At any given time he could've taken it and gone home. Right?

Jackskeleton
09-22-04, 02:31 AM
Sorry, but unless the director is already established he will ALWAYS be in the hands of the Studio. I know I stand behind studio control because guess who is fronting the bill and taking the risk on releasing it? The studio. If the director wants full control and is not well established enough to have his say or walk then he could go about and fund it himself.

Well yeah, fox really did let Lucas run a bit more wild with it though there was times when they were a little worried. His past experience established him to some level for fox to give him that trust. But it was only till Empire that Lucas had complete control over it and well, in that regard all the versions are his directors cut.

lets put it this way, Ridley Scott comes out 20 years after the film is made and proclaims that Decker is a replicant ending years of debate. I enjoyed it better when he wasn't one. Does that mean that the Theater edition is the Jackskeleton Vision? Nope. I enjoyed it more but I wont call it mine. It's still Scott's, but just two different versions. I would like it on dvd, but I have my LD and I think that is what it comes down to. If fans of that version really want to see it they can as it is on some format.

I suggest going out and finding it.

Dr. DVD
09-22-04, 08:02 AM
Jack: Let me see if I've got this straight. You endorse GL's vision, even though, from the posts you've made regarding them in other threads, you think they suck.

No problem there. Showgirls was Paul Verhoeven's vision and he accomplished it. It stunk, but it was his vision! ;)

Josh H
09-22-04, 11:37 AM
It's his story, his characters and his movies. He can do what he wants with them.

The director's vision is always all that matters. If people don't like the director's vision they can just not watch the films.

The Antipodean
09-22-04, 11:49 AM
Lucas's vision all the way. I can't believe this poll is ever close. How sad that all these "fans" think they actually have some claim to influence a creator's vision. Your claim begins and ends when you put your money down to partake in it, that's it.

Kal-El
09-22-04, 11:52 AM
Gee, considering this is DVDTalk and the poll is about Luca$, I wonder what option will win...

Anyway, voted Lucas' vision. In the greater scheme of things, it's HIS movies afterall.

Rogue588
09-22-04, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
Sorry, but unless the director is already established he will ALWAYS be in the hands of the Studio. I know I stand behind studio control because guess who is fronting the bill and taking the risk on releasing it? The studio. If the director wants full control and is not well established enough to have his say or walk then he could go about and fund it himself.

Well yeah, fox really did let Lucas run a bit more wild with it though there was times when they were a little worried. His past experience established him to some level for fox to give him that trust. But it was only till Empire that Lucas had complete control over it and well, in that regard all the versions are his directors cut.:hscratch: Umm...that's what I said...Originally posted by Jackskeleton
lets put it this way, Ridley Scott comes out 20 years after the film is made and proclaims that Decker is a replicant ending years of debate. I enjoyed it better when he wasn't one. Does that mean that the Theater edition is the Jackskeleton Vision? Nope.It becomes the, say it with me, Original Theatrical version. In addition, I see what you were trying to say by using Blade Runner as an example, however, Scott did not write the story...Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
It's his story, his characters and his movies. He can do what he wants with them.

The director's vision is always all that matters. If people don't like the director's vision they can just not watch the films. Believe it or not, Lucas did not direct either Empire nor Jedi. Using that train of thought, Leigh Brackett or Lawrence Kasdan should be able to make Director's Cuts of their own, right...?

nemein
09-22-04, 12:01 PM
And, how come Obi Wan doesn't recognize C3P0 or R2D2 when he was clearly around em in parts 1 and 2? He's old but I don't think he's senile.

That's one of the biggest problems I have... Along w/ the fact if Owen was Luke's uncle why is there no mention that Anakin has a brother? I guess that's the problem though of changing the overall plot 20 years later.

Josh H
09-22-04, 12:26 PM
Owen was just Anakin's step brother, and one he likely only met that one time in AOTC.

Josh H
09-22-04, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Rogue588
Believe it or not, Lucas did not direct either Empire nor Jedi. Using that train of thought, Leigh Brackett or Lawrence Kasdan should be able to make Director's Cuts of their own, right...?

That complicates matters some, but I still say Lucas can do what he wants as they are his characters, his story lines, etc. He just hired others to direct those two films.

Rogue588
09-22-04, 12:40 PM
Complicates? I see no complication. In fact, it's pretty simple to me.

He's basically taking someone else's "work of art" and modifying it without their input [granted, Kershner don't care and Marquand is dead]. Why doesn't he just re-make them if he didn't like 'em? I don't see Stephen King altering Kubrick's "the Shining" [even though he was VERY disappointed with it].

Or...here's a radical thought...release the films the way they were ORIGINALLY made offering the buyer a choice! Don't wanna spend the $$$ to restore 'em? No problem. I'm sure some studio would. And then we could have the Original Theatrical version and Lucas' version to choose from.

Innovative, huh?

Josh H
09-22-04, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Rogue588
Complicates? I see no complication. In fact, it's pretty simple to me.

He's basically taking someone else's "work of art" and modifying it without their input [granted, Kershner don't care and Marquand is dead]. ?

Someone elses work done at Lucas's request, with Lucas's characters and Lucas's storyline. It's Lucas's intellectual property. Kershner and Marquand were bascially contracted laborers. They have no stake to the films IMO.

Zodiac_Speaking
09-22-04, 01:25 PM
I think in 1997, when the SEs hit, it was a fan concern due to "what has he done to our favorite films", but now watching them on DVD (I've only seen ANH and Empire thus far), the changes are subtle-atleast in the first two. I aprrove what he has done, but I wish nobody else tries to do the same.

Jackskeleton
09-22-04, 02:30 PM
Believe it or not, Lucas did not direct either Empire nor Jedi. Using that train of thought, Leigh Brackett or Lawrence Kasdan should be able to make Director's Cuts of their own, right...?

And I've stated this countless times. those two directors were pretty much puppets to lucas will. Hired help since Lucas was in control of all the other aspects. Star Wars is still his baby.

So the "he didn't direct them so he can't make a directors cut" dispute could be tossed out because he may not have been in the directors chair, he had every role possible in creating them. Most importantly the funding. Considering one of them is dead and the other I recall approved of the changes, you can say that it's justified to call them the directors cut.

PixyJunket
09-22-04, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by PopcornTreeCt
As an artist, once you create something and release it to the world, it is no longer yours. Incorrect.

Dr. DVD
09-22-04, 03:30 PM
Since I started this thread I have had the opportunity to listen to some of the commentary on the ESB DVD. Having heard it, I am ready to give GL more credit for it than I previously thought.

All I can say is that Irvin Kershner is probably one of the worst commentary tracks I have ever heard. His technique rivals that of William Friedkin; telling the viewer what is happening on screen and only occasionally giving insight as to how things were accomplished and into the art of filmmaking. I could see some people giving credit to Leigh Bracket and Lawrence Kasdan, but not this guy.

flyboy
09-22-04, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by PixyJunket
Incorrect.

WRONG

Correct!!!!


GL = Jerry Jones(Dallas Cowboys owner).....he bulit Rome and burned it down himself...thats all he has done. Period!

jaeufraser
09-22-04, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
And I've stated this countless times. those two directors were pretty much puppets to lucas will. Hired help since Lucas was in control of all the other aspects. Star Wars is still his baby.

So the "he didn't direct them so he can't make a directors cut" dispute could be tossed out because he may not have been in the directors chair, he had every role possible in creating them. Most importantly the funding. Considering one of them is dead and the other I recall approved of the changes, you can say that it's justified to call them the directors cut.

Right on the money. When it comes to Lucas on Star Wars, those two films were under even more control than a Bruckheimer film. And Bruckheimer don't direct, but you can tell his mark on a good number of his films.

And it's irrelevant about "director's cut" since they are called special editions, not director's cuts.

And while I'd like to see the originals out there, I believe Lucas does have every right to change them, and from a business perspective it is wise not to release the originals.

With the huge market saturation of these discs, the "originals" would do nothign but create customer confusion and ultimately, imo, not increase sales whatsoever. I think many overestimate the number of people who would only buy if it's the original version. I'd imagine that number is small at best, and would be better suited to a release later on if he were to do it all. That's of course a business perspective, though I don't hold ill will for someone using a little business sense.

El-Kabong
09-22-04, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
And I've stated this countless times. those two directors were pretty much puppets to lucas will. Hired help since Lucas was in control of all the other aspects. Star Wars is still his baby.

I would say that Kershner was the more autonomous of the other two directors. It was still George's baby, but he managed to get his own stamp on the film.

Lucas, on the other had, was director in all but name on Jedi.

***EDIT***

Found this on Sci-Fi Wire (http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2004-09/22/12.45.film) - that should put toi rest any thoughts of Kershner not being ok with the ESB:SE

Irvin Kershner, who directed Star Wars: Episode V—The Empire Strikes Back, told SCI FI Wire that he doesn't feel that his vision has been compromised by series creator George Lucas, who enhanced and altered the movie in a 1997 special edition and this week's DVD release. "I saw the special editions, and there were two slight changes, which I was a part of," Kershner said in an interview. "One of them was the addition of the snow monster [on Hoth], and the other one was opening up the windows in Cloud City. The color was enhanced, the sound was enhanced, and the technology was better. I have not seen the DVD, but I'm sure that it's even better. But the story hasn't been changed. The editing hasn't been changed. It's what I ended up doing as a director. That was my film."

Kershner, who spoke at a recent press day for the DVD release of the Star Wars trilogy, said that he had to introduce philosophical content subtly when he initially worked on the film. That subtext was the key to the success of Empire, which is widely considered to be the best Star Wars movie. "I thought of myself as if I was living under communist Russia, ... where the writers and filmmakers always make two films—one for the censor and one for the audience who will understand what they are saying," Kershner said. "I did not think of it as science fiction. To me, it was a fable and a fairy tale. I wanted kids to love it, but I also wanted adults to find levels of meaning. There are many metaphorical concepts in it and many things that are symbolic, but I was more interested in the psychology of the characters. And I think that is what affects people." The director also suggested that there was another factor at play in The Empire Strikes Back's popularity. "People also love Yoda," he said. The Star Wars DVD set is now in stores.

Birrman54
09-22-04, 10:54 PM
honestly, the ONLY change that truly upset me in the new DVDs is Greedo shooting first. To me, it ruins the scene almost completely.

Everything else I can live with, if George thinks they need to be edited for continuity, so be it, but I just can't get past that one change.

birrman54

wm lopez
09-23-04, 01:31 AM
Instead of putting out widescreen & fullscreen dvds, Lucas should have put out original & redone editions.
It would have been intresting which would have sold more.
I know I would have a tough time deciding.

shaggy
09-23-04, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by wm lopez
Instead of putting out widescreen & fullscreen dvds, Lucas should have put out original & redone editions.
It would have been intresting which would have sold more.
I know I would have a tough time deciding.

I'd buy both, but would watch the redone ones more.

Dr. DVD
09-23-04, 09:08 AM
Dead heat now.

Jackskeleton
09-23-04, 03:19 PM
not anymore. :D

Dr. DVD
09-23-04, 03:31 PM
Looks like it still is to me, as of posting time.

Terrell
09-23-04, 06:09 PM
if tPM/AOtC weren't related to the OT in any way, shape or form, would you think these were good movies?

Actually, I think they would get more praise if they didn't have the name Star Wars on them. You can argue it both ways, but this is what I believe. Expectations of these films, especially by fans, were so overblown and ridiculous, that there's no way Lucas could have pleased them all. It's precisely because people expect greatness from everything with the Star Wars name on it, that they can't find any enjoyment in them. Take away all of the baggage of the name Star Wars, well, you can see where I'm going. After all, look at how many subpar films without the baggage of the Star Wars names, get praised. Look no further than Sky Captain, which can easily be criticized in the same areas of Episode I. But it is slammed anywhere near the level Episode I was. Why? Because Episode I was a Star Wars films and Sky Captain wasn't.

Having said that, both got prequels quite a bit more positive reviews than negative reviews, whatever that's worth.

A director will NEVER have the final say on their film

Lucas does!

Believe it or not, Lucas did not direct either Empire nor Jedi.

Actually, according to Irvin Kershner, Lucas did indeed end up directing most of Jedi. Kershner 2nd unit assisstant directed some pickup scenes. It was kept quite at the time, but the actors didn't respond to Marquand very well and he and Lucas ended up not getting along very well.

You can find the interview with Kershner in an issue of Shock Cinema.

Having said that, in the end, it's still Lucas' vision, story, and characters.

Leigh Brackett or Lawrence Kasdan should be able to make Director's Cuts of their own, right...?

Well, considering Leigh Brackett's script was dumped and not used at all, no. As for Lawrence Kasdan, how do you figure? Not his story, characters, or vision. It is Lucas', hence a huge difference.

And, how come Obi Wan doesn't recognize C3P0 or R2D2 when he was clearly around em in parts 1 and 2? He's old but I don't think he's senile.

That can be explained away easily. First of all, what makes you think he doesn't recognize them? The film never says he doesn't recognize them. All he says is "I don't seem to remember owning a droid!" Well, he is correct. He never owned them. There's one argument.

Another argument would be even if he didn't recognize them, how is he supposed to recognize droids that are like toaster ovens in the Star Wars galaxy. We only saw numerous protocol and astromech droids.

But again, he didn't say he recognized them. In fact, it came off like he was being coy with Luke, because he a strange expression.

riley_dude
09-23-04, 06:35 PM
Cause let's be honest, without those originals and the millions of fans, Lucas wouldn't be able to make changes to them anyway.

Exactly and when he has the attitude now, if you want the original versions, go watch the tapes, he's lost site of vision as a filmmaker and that was to make movies for the fans.
That's fine, keep changing them but give the fans the original versions too.

honestly, the ONLY change that truly upset me in the new DVDs is Greedo shooting first. To me, it ruins the scene almost completely.

I agree. He stated in the latest Entertainment Weekly that he didnt want Han to be a cold blooded murderer, so why did he write him like that in the first place?

Terrell
09-23-04, 06:42 PM
The scream added to the Luke fall was a far worse change than the Greedo change, because it altered arguable the most shocking, memorable scenes in movie history. You don't change a scene like that.

mookyman
09-23-04, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Rogue588
I don't see Stephen King altering Kubrick's "the Shining" [even though he was VERY disappointed with it].



That's an interesting example, as Kubrick did recut "The Shining" after it had been released.

Dr. DVD
09-23-04, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Terrell
The scream added to the Luke fall was a far worse change than the Greedo change, because it altered arguable the most shocking, memorable scenes in movie history. You don't change a scene like that.

But he changed it back.

Fans have taken the lead again!

Rivero
09-23-04, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Terrell
After all, look at how many subpar films without the baggage of the Star Wars names, get praised. Look no further than Sky Captain, which can easily be criticized in the same areas of Episode I. But it is slammed anywhere near the level Episode I was. Why? Because Episode I was a Star Wars films and Sky Captain wasn't.

Having said that, both got prequels quite a bit more positive reviews than negative reviews, whatever that's worth.



Sky Captain works for all of the reasons The Phantom Menace does not: briskly paced, likable characters, wonderful atposphere and texture, some terrific imagery, simple story that children can enjoy, as opposed to a plot involving taxation, peace negotiations and political ramblings a la C-SPAN.

As for your second assertion, when all is said and done the consenus on the Star Wars prequels is that both are far more reviled by critics then they are embraced. Sorry.

jaeufraser
09-23-04, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Rivero
Sky Captain works for all of the reasons The Phantom Menace does not: briskly paced, likable characters, wonderful atposphere and texture, some terrific imagery, simple story that children can enjoy, as opposed to a plot involving taxation, peace negotiations and political ramblings a la C-SPAN.

As for your second assertion, when all is said and done the consenus on the Star Wars prequels is that both are far more reviled by critics then they are embraced. Sorry.

Well I think it's just a matter of figuring out why people disliked the movie, and it's hardly just Star Wars dislike. I for one loved Sky Captain, and despise Phantom Menace, a film with an underlying story that was ok, but was marred by lead characters that were quite frankly grating and awful to watch. I can't stand Jake Lloyd or Jar Jar, and can't stand a story that relies on accidents and mistakes as a basis for heroism. That was my problem with the film, and in my opinion was something that was fixed in the sequel. In fact I quite enjoy AOTC, a film that, though the two leads don't give the strongest performance (of course Mark Hamill never did either) is still a rolicking good adventure without the overtly obnoxious leads.

Of course that's all opinion, but I don't think everyone hates it just cause of the Star Wars name and the perceived over expectations.

cruzness
09-23-04, 10:31 PM
As much as I hate to admit it Lucas has the right to do whatever he wants. He was smart enough to push for a deal that gave him artistic control and merchandising control. He used his succes to push the boundaries of technology for filmmaking (to start Lucasfilm, THX, Skywalker Sound, ILM, etc... ) and once he saw the time was right he re-tooled his movies. Should he make the Original Cuts available? not if he doesn't want to. Would he make tons of money if he did? Oh God Yes.

The Cow
09-23-04, 10:34 PM
I've seen the old versions too many times to count. Have them all on various media if I want to see them again.

Show me something new. :up:

If the "fans" have visions, let them go make movies.

Jackskeleton
09-23-04, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Rivero
Sky Captain works for all of the reasons The Phantom Menace does not: briskly paced, likable characters, wonderful atposphere and texture, some terrific imagery, simple story that children can enjoy, as opposed to a plot involving taxation, peace negotiations and political ramblings a la C-SPAN.

As for your second assertion, when all is said and done the consenus on the Star Wars prequels is that both are far more reviled by critics then they are embraced. Sorry.

The Box office take for Sky Captain would like to speak to you.

Rivero
09-24-04, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
The Box office take for Sky Captain would like to speak to you.

Come on, Jack. We all know in the end box office doesn't mean shit.

Jackskeleton
09-24-04, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Rivero
Come on, Jack. We all know in the end box office doesn't mean shit.

it does in making choices on green lighting any future films with the same look, feel and style as this one.

Not going to happen if it isn't worth it for the studio.

Skull
09-24-04, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Birrman54
honestly, the ONLY change that truly upset me in the new DVDs is Greedo shooting first. To me, it ruins the scene almost completely.

Everything else I can live with, if George thinks they need to be edited for continuity, so be it, but I just can't get past that one change.

birrman54
For me, the only change that upset me was in ROTJ with the singing aliens in Jabba's Palace. Man that was a pointless addition. Seriously though, who cares which version he releases. He'll probably release the original & special edition together on HD-DVD. If he doesn't, I'm sure the people that really want the originals on DVD already have them on VHS to watch.

Venom
09-24-04, 02:00 AM
let me first say, i am 28. i saw and quite enjoyed the star wars films as i saw them in the theater.

i was fairly excited to see the first prequel, but (regardless of star wars itself) have grown to be a cynical film fan. the prequel was pretty bad imho, and made worse, unwatchable by jar jar binks. it was then that i realized that jar-jar and crew were the ewoks, i had just grown up. and with that i realized that starwars was pretty stupid.

now on topic, i don't give a shit. not gonna buy it regardless of version. but i know ther are fans, serious fans, and it is becuase of them that starwars is what it is today. lucas should of definitely put out both versions. and from what i kinda know that biggest sin of the new editions is whatshisname shooting first. don't tell me that lucas' buget effecting that scene. that is him totally going weak and discredits most of his reasons.

Rivero
09-24-04, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by Venom
it was then that i realized that jar-jar and crew were the ewoks, i had just grown up. and with that i realized that starwars was pretty stupid.

No. The prequels are pretty stupid. And yes, Jar Jar and the Ewoks are pretty stupid. But we're talking three films that represent Lucas taking a drastic change in tone and disregarding what he had previously established by going out of his way to please the kiddies. The first two Star Wars films are still golden and appeal to children as well as adults. They're great films any way you slice it.

cactusoly
09-24-04, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by The Cow
I've seen the old versions too many times to count. Have them all on various media if I want to see them again.

Show me something new. :up:

If the "fans" have visions, let them go make movies.

yeah what he said.

as was said earlier the majority of critics reviewed both prequels positively, its just that those with negative views yell the loudest as with most things in life.

Dr. DVD
09-26-04, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Jackskeleton
it does in making choices on green lighting any future films with the same look, feel and style as this one.

Not going to happen if it isn't worth it for the studio.

Jack: weren't you someone who enjoyed Sky Captain? While I am sure you still do, I hope you don't let a film's box-office take influence/change your opinion of a movie. I also hope studio people don't let the numbers inlfuence their honest opinion on a movie. I admire someone who can say that the movie failed, but they still think it was a good movie.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0