Anyone who has been a LOTR fan has known for at least a solid year prior to the release of FOTR that PJ would be releasing two different versions, a theatrical and an extended, I for one think the theatrical caters to the movie going crowd and the EE to the book reading crowd, he had the daunting task of adapting the most read book since the bible and has found a very amicable solution.
On the other hand George Lucas made a phenomenon from his own imagination, marketed and sold it to us as children, saturated pop culture with it and milked every last dime he could out of us. At my school it wasn't "have you seen Star Wars?" it was "Have you seen Star Wars more than 8 times?" and if you hadn't you were outcast. Then he proceeds to take away the very thing he made so vital to our childhoods, and like pavlovs dogs, we still come running every time he rings the dinner bell! I don't believe he "owes" us anything, but I do believe it to be sadistic and manipulative to hold this over the fans heads and watch us beg. (believe me, I'm a die hard fan, and I'm begging) He has nothing to lose by releasing a bare bones original trilogy from the THX masters he has already made. As a matter of fact it could only mean an additional 100 million or so for him. He could release tham at MSRP of 150 bucks and I'd buy them, I just want the Star Wars I grew up with, so I can reminisce.

Exactly my thoughts, as well. Thanks, ZackR.

I pretty much agree with a lot of the general sentiment here. It's Lucas's vision, but once he releases that vision to the public and requests we pay for it, it becomes bigger than that. Sure, he can do with it what he pleases, but IMO he has an obligation to make sure the original theatrical versions are preserved. This is a question of who owns art, and at this point, Star Wars is a piece of American history that should preserved through the formats.

Probably one of the reasons this gets people so frustrated is because Lucas is a bit of a hack. He's written some of the worst dialogue in motion picture history, and he doesn't seem to possess the ability to direct human actors. So many of his scenes look like they were shot in one take just so there'd be more time to spend on the background effects, especially in his recent efforts. I don't say this to start an argument over Lucas's talents, but I do think many people feel this way, so the thought of him going in and screwing with our childhood memories isn't particularly appealing, especially when we don't have faith that he'll even improve the final product.

In the end, it's his baby ... but it's our memories. Each time he changes it, I care less about it. It's his right to change away and IMO diminish the whole with each edit, but as a responsible artist, I think he owes it to the filmwatching community and those of us who help build his empire with our collective inner child to make sure the original continues to live on.

das

I don't know . . . we are treading dangerously close to the "let's-sue-McDonald's-because-they- make-those-tasty-Big-Macs-and-so-I-had-to-eat-them-and-now-I'm-fat-and-unhealthy" type of argument here.Really??? Hmmmm . . . funny I didn't pick up on that . . .

Re: His Movies - There is a repeated chant of, "they're his movies, they're his movies..". On a very technical level that is true. However you can't discount the part that the public played in this phenomenon. Without the fans, there would be no sequels... there would be no other films. Lucas owes PART of his success to the public's acceptance of his work. Although there is no "legal" recognition of this relationship, it still exists. He should respect that.

Re: Director's intent - There is a huge difference between Lucas' revisionistic memory and what Terry Gilliam went through with Brazil. Gilliam fought to get his vision released and that effort is well known and well documented.

Lucas had no such struggle. At the time of the OT releases, he never said that he needed Greedo to shoot first but that studio execs forced him to omit that...or that the SFX technology at the time prevented that. He never said that he needed/wanted Jabba in ANH...etc, etc. It was ONLY when he devised the concept of releasing SE versions to theatres did this stuff come up. It is quite reasonable to question Lucas' "original intent".

THAT is the difference. On the one hand, a director's vision of his film is compromised at the time of release vs. a director who wants to continue to make revisions to his original work because his vision for it changes.

Re: Double-Dipping - There are a few different definitions floating around, but the one that I use is "a study re-releasing a disc without informing the public at the time of the first disc's release that a subsequent release would be forthcoming."

It's all about whether or not the consumer is armed with the information to make the decision for themselves.

By that definition, LOTR is not "double-dipping". Consumers knew what the deal was going to be and they could decide what they want to do. Buy the Theatrical, wait a bit and buy the EE, or wait even longer for a Trilogy boxset.

----

Hasn't this been posted a week ago? I mean every week, there is this topic.

See, now THIS is what I find so interesting (and, in all honesty, is what really made me start the thread to begin with) . . . we know that the movies aren't great movies as movies go, but somehow they have transended normal movie status in spite of that. Star Wars has a rabidly loyal fan following and I am still trying to figure out why we are so protective of the films (notice I said we . . . I'm in this as well).

The more we talk about it, the more I am thinking that the "youth" factor plays a huge part in it. As I mentioned earlier, it seems that the less critical eye of a child allowed us to be fully immersed in the whole Star Wars world and not get mired some of the sub-par details of the films. What I am kind of curious to see is will the new generation of Star Wars fans, who are being introduced the Episodes 1-3 in their childhood, go through a similar experience (my initial thought is "No", because these moves do not stand out from their peers [i.e., new subject matter, special effects, epic style, etc.] to the same degree that Episodes 4-5 did).

Although my nephew seems to be as unperturbed about Jar-Jar as I was at the annoying habits of C3PO when I was his age, so you never know. It will be interesting to see . . .

Doubtful.

I'd venture to guess that only 3% of the people buying DVDs read about future releases online.

On the subject of it being our film as much as his. Well, we all might have been apart of the star wars scene that made it what it is, but can the same be said for anything else that is public work of art? lets see, does an art work become the right of anyone? does everyone share in the cost of restroation? I can't say I helped pay for any restrotation of any works of art. did those who did help pay with tickets and so forth, do they have the right to tell the artist (if alive) how to restore it?

Now for the matter of LOTR's giving us more then enough advance notice about the EE. In the last format, Lucas gave us a good LONG warning that it would be the last time that we would see the Original trilogy released on VHS. at that time DVD was a pipe dream, so I don't believe that he was just saying that it's gone till the next format comes along. I believe that marketing campagin came out at the same time as the last OT VHS box set was hitting the shelves. Let me tell you, it sold. Many believed it was just a marketing ad to try to sell more copies. I had my wide screen version even though I already had the LD's and so on.

So Lucas as well, gave us an advance warning. if you didn't take it and thought it was a marketing ad then tough on you.



Now I agree with you on that. I see a lot of directors cuts now a days and have to wonder what made it so much a directors cut? Talks about DareDevil DC, Resident Evil DC and others when they are not in the same situation as say Scott in Blade Runner or Giliam on brazil. the studio handed him the dough to make the feature and it was a big hit. there was no "censorship" in any sense except for the limitations that Lucas had on himself with his equipment. Though, we always say we want to see the Directors intended vision. those deleted scenes, much like the ones that were added back to the EE's are the same type of material. It might not be as deep, but I personally found the whole Hutt thing to add a bit more to Han's character. Not to mention that the fett shot was placed in there just for the fans.



You can call it anything you want, but by the typical standard.. it's when you release the film and then re-release it. Sure the EE was slightly different, but still it's the same plot point. Hobbit needs to take the ring from point A to point C. forces are working against him blah blah blah. it's not an entirely different film. it's just a re-release where they were nice enough to include the deleted scenes into the film instead of in a "deleted scenes" section. but still same movie. released twice = double dipping. Don't care if you knew about it way in advance, it's still considered double dipping. Bank robber calls ahead to a bank and tells him he is going to rob it. doesn't change the fact that once he robs it the bank is considered Robbed even though the bank robber does it slightly different then what he told the person on the phone.

again, we might like to think that it's our film, but it's not. we just pay to see it. You can still pay to see the Original Trilogy as you remember it as a kid, but to demand the luxary of it to be placed on DVD when it's on so many formats already is a bit much. We get mad because he re-releases the films so much and yet we are getting mad because He's not going to do that anymore. Make up your minds folks.


and one more thing. Folks bashing the Dialoug or lucas writing. Have you've never seen the original? Blue milk and I wont even begin to spout off all the cheesy lines that are litered on screen. the film in itself is a campy piece. just face it. it's not a great film nor does it claim to be filled with compelling lines. the lines are as B-film as they come. The characters are as flat as they come. everything about this film screams out cheese. if it wasn't for the whole childhood factor I'm sure we wouldn't have thought twice of just ripping it a new one. I'm a fan of the films, but even I admit that it has some pretty bad lines in it from the start.

Greedo shoots first?! Whoa!

I own both versions of the VHS OT, but have never opened the revised version. Why? Wasn't all that interested in the "upgrades", especially after hearing how they didn't "look right". Will I buy the DVDs if they contain ONLY the revisionist version? Probably, but with great grudginess!

The comparison between Lucas changing the OT and Donner changing Superman for DVD is different, in my opinion. What Donner did was edit back in scenes that had been filmed at the time, but were cut for time constrainsts or whatever studio red tape he was battling. Lucas added in stuff that was never part of the original film. Now, whether Lucas really had these thoughts in mind at the time is speculation, but I'm thinkin' that Star Wars was a one-shot movie when it came out and he only came up with the multiple trilogy idea after it became so popular (IMHO).

As stated by many, I would prefer that the Original Trilogy be released as Spielberg did E.T. But it sounds like we have no hope to not have "A New Hope".

Give us the original theatrical release, Lucas! I don't care how horrible the technology was back then. It's a piece of history for both our childhood and technology wise! We get to see how special effects, acting, and so on were done back in the 80's and how we managed to got away with it. To be honest I don't care for the type of CGI implemented in recent movies these days. They're really terrible. Take for example, the Hulk movie... very bad indeed. Even some scenes from Spiderman and the Matrix Reloaded looked pretty aweful.

>>I didn't realize that was the way PJ felt. Out of curiosity, if he preferred the theatrical version, does anyone know why he recut the movie with the new footage in, instead of just offering the standard "deleted scenes"?

It's true that Lucas is the owner, architect and grand pooh bah of the STAR WARS franchise, and that as such he can do with it as he pleases.

BUT -- STAR WARS is also a key pivot-point (for better or worse, depending on your perspective) in the history of American film and also a significant 20th century pop cultural touchstone.

If Lucas has any regard for his legacy, he should restore and issue the original version of the film (which is on by the National Film Registry, by the way) and offer it in its in its 1977 form, if only for its value as a historical document.

And I suspect that he will -- a few years AFTER we've all already coughed up the money for the box set, which only contain the "Special Edition" versions.

It's actually an entirely new vision of the film with new score, new music cues, hundreds of new edits, entirely geared towards readers of the books.
This is wrong, Peter Jackson, being a lover of action films, loves the action filled theatrical cut of LOTR, but understanding the books fan base, knew while shooting he would need two different versions of the film to make as many fans as possible happy. There is also the factor that they had no idea the EE would be so popular, it was originally inteded as a gift set for die hard fans, a chritmas present sort of thing and as I remember sold out so fast that retailers heads were spinning.

??? I was saying that Lucas was arguably the greatest marketeer towards children we have ever known and he knows that he had millions of 8 year olds clamouring for his lunchboxes. To then tell that whole generation once they have grown up and have kids of their own that they can not watch the film they loved as children in the availible format (today I get rid of my VCR for good, being replaced by a TIVO) I'd say that is sadistic and cruel behavior, so while he doesn't OWE it to us, he is pretty sick and twisted for sitting in his ranch house on high and watching us all squirm.

(sigh) PJ never said he preferred the theatrical version. What he said is that he didn't consider the Extended Edition to be a "director's cut."

The reason he said this is because he knew from the get-go, before a foot of footage had been shot, that he *had* to deliver a film of 3 hours or less for the theatrical version. It was in his contract with New Line.

He also knew he'd probably get a chance to put together a longer cut for the DVD, so he planned accordingly.

End result: two different cuts, made for two entirely different purposes. Neither cut is more "real" than the other, and both have the approval of the director.

What my point was is that you are making him sound like a drug lord sitting in his hacienda evily chuckling as he watches the Star Wars addicts, that he so meticulously schemed to create, writhe in the pains of withdrawal.

- He made a movie . . . people liked it . . . a lot . . .

- He marketed it . . . they liked it even more . . .

- He made more movies . . . they became hooked and, in some cases, fanatical . . .

No grand scheme to enslave the minds of the world.

My point with the Big Mac reference was that there was a guy who sued McDonalds because he was eating Big Macs every day for something like 30+ years and, what-do-ya-know . . . he was fat and unhealthy. He wanted to blame McDonalds because the made fattening foods, rather that accepting that it was his unhealthy level of consumption of their products and not the products themselves that got him in the bad position that he found himself in. The comparison . . . Lucas made a film . . . if there are people that are "squirming" because he wants to change his movie, it's not his fault . . . it just might be that, because they are taking the movie a little too seriously, they are causing themselves to "squirm" at the thought of the change.

Again . . . disclaimer . . . I love and appreciate the Star Wars movies (all of them) and the Star Wars universe . . . please don't kill me and feed me to a Bantha.

I think a number of factors play into how we, in seeming contradiction, embrace some director's cuts and scorn others:

- Many director's cuts include scenes that were filmed and storyboarded, but then cut due to time, to meet some studio dictated rating, or to appease a studio marketing weenie (sorry, I think that's the technical term )

- Other times the changes are cleaning up special effects, adding special effects, or cleaning up shots which time or technology did not permit be done originally.

These two types of changes seem to be more tolerated than the next type:

- In the some cases changes are made to make the film more acceptable (PC) at the time of re-issue.

- Other cases the film is changed to keep consumers happy, due to variations in technology and viewer expectations. (P&S, new audio tracks, etc.)

- And in other cases, changes are (seemingly) arbitrary and effect the development of the story or characters.

It seems these types of changes are the "intolerable" ones, they appear to deviate from the original vision or intent, changing the experience either to suit the whim of a director or to appease the portion of the market that does not view film as art.

But, beyond that I think there is a substantial element of human emotion. If we've come to love a movie in a particular way we hate to see it changed. Changes to a more recent movie do not have to fight feelings that have had years to set in.

We seem to be more firmly attached to movies we saw at a younger age, too.

If a movie is has changes of the "acceptable" sort it can more easily overcome the sentiment factor. Movies with "unacceptable" changes have a harder time.

A lot of this accounts for the difference in opinion on Star Wars, E.T., LOTR, Blade Runner, Highlander, etc. Star Wars and E.T. made arbitrary changes or changes catering to political whims, they were never storyboarded or envisioned that way and in the original filmings Greedo could have shot first or the agents could have carried walkie-talkies, but they didn't. On the otherhand, LOTR, Blade Runner, and Highlander all filmed the additional scenes, they were originally storyboarded that way and due to time constraints, ratings constraints, or studio intervention the director's were forced to excise footage that was part of their original vision and intent...

If Lucas is a hack, then why are you getting angry over a trilogy he made? Why has he been nominated twice as Best Director? Why have two of his films been nominated for Best Picture? Why have two of his trilogies that he created, gone on to become monumental movies in the history of film? If Lucas is a hack, why have so many millions spent so much money and anger clamoring for the likes of Indy and Star Wars on DVD? If Lucas is a hack, why has he become a multi-billionaire at making and creating films? I don't think I need to go on.

das, you and I both know if Lucas was a hack, you wouldn't give a good g*ddamn about the original Star Wars trilogy, or any of his other films either. Neither would anyone else.

Oh Lord, I've heard it all now. It's this kind of silly nonsense that makes Star Wars fans so pathetic. If you think a multi-billionaire business and family man like Lucas is sitting back and laughing at people like you squirm, then you're pretty pathetic. Lucas hasn't given you or any other whining fanboy a second thought. He's too busy to worry about you, me, or any other fan.

Talemyn, that's BS and you know it. Bad movies don't stand the test of time the way the original trilogy has. They don't affect the film industry, popular culture, and an entire generation of people the way the Star Wars trilogy. They don't get great reviews. They aren't nominated for umpteen Oscars. They certainly don't cause this much of an uproar from so many people. As I said before, can you tell me why so many are angry over not getting a group of bad films?


chanster is right. We have one of these threads a week, and it's bordering on ridiculous. But we all know bad movies receive this much attention.

To be fair das Monkey only said Lucas was a bit of a hack.

Sad to see this thread finally degrade into name calling, when it was staying so amicable, but let me actually respond as though you weren't turning this into juvinile mud-slinging, by saying if you think Lucas doesn't give his fans a second thought, you are sadly mistaken, he wouldn't have filled episode 1 with so many cute fuzzy marketable alien characters if he didn't want fans to buy the toys made from them...
I also believe Lucas isn't a great DIRECTOR, that doesn't mean his characters, or universe he created aren't the most engaging sci-fi/fantasy since Tolkein, it just means he is not as talented in the directors chair, it just means he is no Ridley Scott, Just as Tolkein was no Hemingway in terms of writing quality, but had an amazing imagination that will capture minds for many decades, if not centuries, to come.
Believing that the academy nominates best pictures based only upon thier artistic merit is just plain foolish, alot of politics goes on in Hollywood...

• Quoth Terrell •<HR SIZE=1>I don't think I need to go on.<HR SIZE=1>

Certainly not, if you're not going to address what I actually said. I said he's a bit of a hack and clarified that he writes poor dialogue and doesn't direct human actors well. I stand by that statement. That leaves plenty of other areas in which he is very skilled, but I don't need to state the obvious to those who aren't just looking to rant in my general direction.

While you're preparing another post, please find where I got angry about this. I just posted some thoughts about the subject in a very calm and specific manner and was able to do so without resorting to attacking other members.

If you want to discuss what I actually posted in a reasonble manner, I'm all for it. If you want to blow my comments out of proportion and just fight about this because you're mad over the LSU loss , we can stop now.

das

At some point, you have to accept that a movie has become a 'classic' and shouldn't be messed with (at least, not in such a way that the original edition disappears forever).

The example I always use is KING KONG. Say that the director of the original King Kong was still alive (he isn't, but work with me here...). In the late 1990s, he says "Man, this new CGI is awesome. We could fix all of the jerky motion of the stop-motion Kong, remove the fingerprints in the fur, and make it look much more realistic". Then he does it.

Is that acceptable to anyone? Even if he works really, really hard to match up the shots, keep the film stock looking consistent, etc.? At some point, the filmmaker has to let his art speak for itself. Technology will always allow for things to be done 'better'... 10 years from now, there may be even more improvements. That doesn't mean that everyone should be running back into the vaults to add color, CGI, and 6.1 sound to every film ever made.


I fully support Lucas's efforts to constantly 'improve' his films (even though I only like about 50% of the changes in the SE). And I understand his desire to get them all to the point where the six films flow seamlessly (in terms of both plot and special effects). That's fine.

But to do so in such a way that you pretend that the original films (you know, the ones that won Oscars, AFI awards, and earned meeelions of dollars) were essential workprints is obscene. Those editions should always be available to the public. I sure don't want to be stuck watching my laserdiscs forever.

New vision, but same film. Where's El Kaboom to back me up on this statement? You may add a few new scenes and in doing so you will of course have to add new music cues and supply new edits. Both films are geared towards the readers of the books but the EE is just an added bonus with those added. it's still the same film with just expansions. some of which bring out more story, others of which would be considered by some as unneeded filler. Like any film. Do you think that the added scenes from Star Wars didn't need new edits? New music cues?(I'm sure you needed a cue for that awful ROTJ music number ), and was geared for the fans who have seen the trilogy millions of times to see it in a whole new light. the only problem was the fans didn't accept it. Much like the body doesn't accept a new body appart to be stitched on. Easily could be summed up with the phrase "the road to hell was paved with good intentions".




Any quotes on this one. My intial quote was all I could find, but I do recall that he expanded on it to say that both are worthy films, but that the theater cut by no means is less superior or should be viewed as anything more then just the theater cut. And considering that the fact remains that people want to see the theater cut of what they saw in star wars instead of the "directors vision", it was brought up because of the contridictions.


I'm glad the thread hasn't morphed into a "$TAR WAR$ SUCKS!!! LOTR RULES!!!" thread yet. lets keep it that way

I don't understand why Lucas is making this an issue.. the movies should be released in the original and Special Edition versions...

I also don't get why this is a problem for him... the guy owns Lucasfilms, which is a business, there is a demand for a certain product..SELL IT! It's that simple.

We all should be on the same side of the fence with regards to this issue... Movies like King Kong and Star Wars are monumental films, they changed the way films were made. The originals should be made available to the people that really enjoyed them in their original forms.


OFF TOPIC

The things I hate about the Special Editions

1. Luke's ****ing scream in Empire!
2. The stupid ass beak on the sarlacc pit (WTF WAS THAT!?!)
3. Greedo shooting first.
4. Han stepping on Jabba's ****ing tail.


Everything else I can tolerate....I think : )

I've seen posted here many times that "Lucas doesn't owe the fans anything."
Setting aside the fact that Lucas wouldn't be in the position he's in right now without his fans, what about the people who worked on the OT? Does he owe anything to the effects team who did the (at the time) groundbreaking SFX? I think it's a slap in the face to all his collaborators (and let's face it, for all of our talk of the 'director's vision', filmmaking is a collaborative art form) to say that these Oscar-winning effects are now substandard and need to be changed.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.