I think the problem with Star Wars is that I always saw it as a great film trilogy. I'm not talking in a childhood memory kinda way I'm talking those are some of the best movies ever made way. Lucas goes back and re-dos the special effects? That's not what the movies were about. And its a shame that's all that the new movies focus on. Its a real shame that everyone I talk to doesn't get that.

they are still imployed for the most part by him and get a fat pay check from their work. I've learned from working in this industry that you do you job and you do it good. You shouldn't expect this work to be something you hold as your own because you are doing it as a team for the greater good and under the command of the "general". in this case it's Lucas. a solider doesn't go against his commander in chief. So those workers did the job they were paid to do. Many of them moved on and worked and still work with lucas on projects through Lucas various companies. they have reaped their reward. I'm sure they don't mind the change.

Thanks for fielding this one Jack . . . now I can focus on Replying to Terrell . . .

imployed.. hee hee, Always funny to see your mistakes when you type quickly. Oh if only I could go back and alter that mistake in my post.. while I'm at it I could put in a new dance number and some cheesy blue screen effects of some city in the clouds..

You reworded my statment and the wording was very important. I said that the movies were "not that great", I did not say that they were "bad" . . . HUGE difference. The definition that I guess I use for a great movie is one that excels in a vast majority of the areas of film . . . these include: acting, cinematography, writing, directing, editing, character development, story, plot (those last two are not the same thing), special effects, music, etc. Episodes 4-6 all had very strong performances in many of these areas: cinematography, editing, character development, story, plot, special effects, music . . . (these varied somewhat depending on the episode). However, they were weaker in three of the major (or at least, most obvious) ones: directing, writing (specifically centering around the dialog), and acting. In fact, there were parts of the movie in which the acting was downright abyssmal (e.g., Mark Hamill can pull off the "whiney boy" act as a boy in Episode 4, but when you're supposed to have trained to become a Jedi and are leading the Rebel forces and still can't muster anthing but "whiney boy", that's bad acting). Some movies which I think fall under "great": Apocalypse Now, Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, to name a few . . .

Being only a good movie (read "not great") doesn't disqualify you from making a huge impact and developing a loyal following . . . I am a DIE HARD Monty Python and the Holy Grail fan, but I can admit that, as a movie, it is not "great". What it does have is an exceptional ability to entertain (much as Star Wars does), but there is soooo much more involved in being a "great" movie than merely entertaining. Good grief . . . I can be very entertained by watching "Starship Troopers", but that is one of the most poorly written, acted, and directed movies to come out in years.

Honestly, my thoughts about this have grown out of numerous conversations with other fans who have told me that a major reason that they didn't think that Episodes 1 & 2 didn't meet the standards of Star Wars because the acting was bad. I just can't figure out what cast they were watching when they saw 4-6.

Please do . . . I'd like to see your "vision" the way it was originally intended.

• Quoth talemyn •<HR SIZE=1>Honestly, my thoughts about this have grown out of numerous conversations with other fans who have told me that a major reason that they didn't think that Episodes 1 & 2 didn't meet the standards of Star Wars because the acting was bad. I just can't figure out what cast they were watching when they saw 4-6. <HR SIZE=1>

Two words: Han Solo

As someone who loves 4-6 and didn't particularly enjoy 1 and 2, I've watched them repeatedly, trying to figure out what makes the first installment endearing and the second group annoying. While there are numerous factors (including the fact that I think the flow of the story is much better in 4-6 and the action more engaging), one major piece IMO is Han. Han keeps everything together and brings the "fun" to the story. Ewan is amazing as Obi-Wan, and he brings some light-heartedness at times, but it's just not the same. Han adds that undefineable quality that can turn the entire mood of a movie. Without him, I don't think it works nearly as well.

Also, with 4-6, I am caught up in the story, like I'm being taken on a fun ride -- sometimes dark, sometimes cheesy, but fun nonetheless, like Lucas himself is having fun making this stuff. With 1-2, I get more of a pretentious "look at me" feel from the action. It's just not as engaging. It sure looks cool, but I don't feel it.

das

I still don't get what's wrong with providing the "Classic" films in their original versions for people that want them...

I mean guys...these movies set a bench mark in their "unfinished" forms (as Lucas likes to put it) and touched the hearts of many children in the 70s & 80s like no other group of films. Fast forward to the present day and these same children *at heart : )* want these films...So just sell them the original ****ing films!

If Lucas feels the need to satisfy himself by tossing in extra CGI to supposedly improve these films...then by all means do it, put on a funny hat in your ILM studio and hack away, but give them what they want..

it's really that simple!

I agree with you somewhat das... I think the prequel films are really bad and something drastic would be needed to improve them.

I will say that the biggest problem with the prequels is that they lack a Han Solo and most of all Darth Vader. This guy (DV) could be the single reason why Star Wars is so popular. HAIL TO JAMES EARL JONES!! LOL

I'd have to disagree with this sentiment. I feel that the two DVD releases of each of the LOTR films are complimentary and are basically one large DVD set that you can buy in two portions instead of as one huge 6-disc set. All the extras are different and exclusive to each set and it's not the typical "upgrading" where the earlier disc becomes obsolete. It's a huge 6-disc set, released in two parts for fans who may not want to buy a 6-disc version.

I know some fans feel the theatrical versions become somewhat useless after the EE comes out, but I also disagree on this. I'm one who prefers the original theatrical version of FOTR over the EE (and I HAVE read the books) and that DVD also contains the trailers and other extras that are not on the EE. But I also have the EE for it's exclusive extras and for refernce as far as the longer cut goes. To me, they are both part of the same package and I plan on buying both versions of all three films - I would have bought a 6-disc set if that was how they released them, but I have no problem buying a 2-disc set and then a 4-disc set instead. The majority of general DVD or movie fans would probably just be happy with the theatrical version so why should they have to pay an extra $30 on top of that to get a longer and different version of the film they may not care about? Check the rental walls at Blockbuster - they probably carry 200 copies of the theatrical versions, but maybe only a couple of the EE upon it's release (I'm just guessing on this, though - I NEVER go into BB). Most people will rent or buy the theatrical and that's it. New Line should be applauded for offering the option to buy just a portion of the set if you don't want to dish out $60+ for a 6-disc set. Trust me, I've had to double-dip on a BUNCH of titles in the past - and every one of those times, I've sold off the original version because they basically DID become obsolete - no extras that aren't on the new one, worse transfer of the film, bare-bones, etc. This is not the case with the LOTR films. I do understand some fans of the EE's saying that they will skip the theatrical versions, but isn't that also nice that New Line isn't forcing THEM to pay an extra $20+ for a 6-disc set with the theatrical version they don't want? Maybe if New Line released both versions simultaneously on the exact same streetdate, this would not be an issue at all, but from what I understand, the EE versions haven't been finished in time to do it this way. I'm sorry, in this case, I just don't see doule-dipping at all.

As far as STAR WARS goes, I gave up completely on that series last weekend when I watched Episode 2 on Cinemax (ya, I know it's not the optimum way to watch it, but there was no way I was going to shell out money to see it theatrically or even rent it after suffering through the wretched Episoide 1). I don't know if I would call Lucas a "hack", but I must say that he doesn't seem to care much about staging any of the human scenes to build any type of dramatic impact or emotional punch. Everyone just stands around talking in extended long-shot takes. I felt like I was watching a film of a bad student play. And then, when the CGI action would start up every few minutes, I felt like I was watching a bad cartoon on Saturday morning TV. I couln't believe how truly embarrassing it all was. I think that's part of the outcry against Lucas for what he's now doing with the original trilogy. The original trilogy may not be perfect, it may have some bad dialog and inept acting, etc. - but at least they had a heart and soul. These new films have no soul, they're created in a computer with some human actors (I'm not sure they were human - they were so stiff they may have been robots) thrown in here and there to make you THINK you're not watching a cartoon. And Lucas now wants to turn his original trilogy INTO the same thing as what these new films are. It's kind of sad that he's so clueless and misguided these days that he thinks what he's creating now is "good". Oh well - he can do anything he wants with his films - that's true. I think he should release the orignal versions of the films to preserve history and as a nice gesture to the fans, but he probably won't. And he isn't obligated to in any way. I think what makes this case so infuriating to SW fans may be that Lucas seems to be doing all of this for HIMSELF and not for the fans and his audience. He simply doesn't care about movie history, his fans, and millions of other moviegoers who made him a mega-billionaire over the years. He just cares about his little secluded empire and how many neat effects he can create in his computer. So obviously, the fans feel snubbed, betrayed, and no one gets the versions of the movies they really want. But George likes the new ones, so I guess that's all that matters. I'm actually interested to see if Lucas will ever do anything "NEW" away from his "Star Wars" empire or if he will just keep tinkering over and over again with his SW babies until the day he dies.

I would agree with that.

Having read this discussion forum and then seeing the Star Wars Trilogy 5 Star Collection up on Ebay, I know that it must be some Hong Kong fake release, however on the Ebay auction it claims to be WideScreen Anamorphic, Dual Layer with DD 5.1 and DTS sound. Is this some rip from laser disk or a legitimate version that has been leaked? Has anyone ever seen the quality for this 5 star release? I thought only Fox movies did 5 Star Collection releases?

These are bootlegs.

Excellent point.

As for myself. I recently watched the original trilogy and found myself cringing at some of the older obvious special effects. So I am quite happy with the improvements that were made in the SEs. If there were only 2 things about the SEs that I didnt like it would be Han shooting first and the "scream" from Luke in Empire. Other than that I have no complaints and will buy whatever version is released.

Do you have first-hand knowledge of this? Have you spoken with each and every one of these individuals?

Don’t get me wrong. You may be quite correct that most of these folks approve of the special editions, but without interviewing everyone that worked on the film, such a statement is awfully presumptuous.

Still, as a film fan and movie buff, I would prefer to see the hard work of these individuals honored by a DVD release of the original films, regardless of whatever “Hollywood hierarchy” has been imposed in the workplace.

I will also chime-in here with my usual mantra: There is a difference between a “director’s cut” where newly produced scenes are added to a film, and a “director’s cut” that employs scenes that were filmed at the time the movie was originally made. I would have no objection to Lucas releasing a version of the film containing additional scenes that were filmed prior to movie’s original release in 1977.

I can't see how any of them could be upset with the changes from a "it's my work" point of view. I'm sure there might be some who share the same loyalty to the orginal version that many of the fans seem to, but, otherwise, it's the equivalent of saying that any one of a group of sub-contractor's who worked together on a house are going to get upset if the owner remodels or adds a new room. It just doesn't seem likely to me.Now it's been a while since I've looked into this, but I thought the most (if not all) of the "brand new" footage that was added was planned for the original release, but couldn't be done appropriately because the technology just wasn't there. Example: They obviously did not reshoot the scene with Jabba for the SE . . . Harrison Ford is not nearly old enough in that scene for it to be true . . . they used original footage and upgraded technology.

Please correct me if I am wrong . . . I honestly can't recall well enough to be sure.

It is interesting that you bring up that scene as an example, because despite what Lucas has said, I don’t believe for minute that the infamous “Jabba” scene was filmed with the intent to add a creature special effect later.

Consider the following: The scene was originally filmed with an actor in costume. Given the special effects technology of the 1970s, just how were they planning to “replace” this costumed actor with some kind of creature effect? This was difficult enough to do even given modern-day computer technology. And why would they allow Ford to walk around the actor? It would seem that this would only complicate the process, as it did for the CGI artists, and especially so in the 1970s. Given the special effects techniques of the time, it would have made a hell of a lot more sense to film the scene with Ford playing to no one, if it was really the intent to add a creature effect later.

No. I don’t buy it. That scene was never filmed with the intent to add special effects to it. Now, perhaps Lucas removed the scene because he later decided that he wanted Jabba to be a creature of some sort and it was better to just drop that part of the film, but given the way the original Jabba scene was filmed in the 70s, you can’t convince me that the original intent was to “insert” a creature.

Hmmm . . . that was not the understanding that I got from his explaination. I was under the impression that the scene was shot and planned to be used as it was, but was cut because they were not able to make it as Lucas really wanted it to be. With the emergence of technology that allowed for the character to be effectively replaced by a creature that looked like the Jabba that was eventually used, Lucas took the oportunity to re-insert the scene as he wanted it originally.

That was my understanding, at least.

I can't believe I waited so long to give my opinion on this trilogy!

I've always loved the Star Wars films since I was a kid. I grew up on it, and have never outgrown it!

I can't say that I am biased towards either the original versions or the Special Editions, of these films. I am very greatful that the Special Edition Star Wars films were made, as it gave me a chance to see them in all their glory on the big screen for the first time, since I was born in 1982. I always made sure I had my tickets purchased ahead of time, and for 'Empire Strikes Back', it was pretty rough as I got pretty sick after I bought my ticket. But I STILL went to go see it anyway!

So even though I grew up on the originals, and got treated by seeing these films on the big screen by the Special Editions, I have to say I'd be very torn to even try and decide which version I would love to own. I'm partial to both and don't mind either! I mean, if we got the Special Editions I'm sure I'll say 'Boy, wish I could watch the older versions too for comparison', as I'm sure I'd say the same thing about the Special Edition, if we were to get the originals instead. So I'll be quite pleased with either.

To me it even kind of makes sense, whether Lucas did the special edition to complete 'his vision', which is perfectly logical as when he did make them a long time ago, he didn't have the budget or technology to make things 'look' better, OR, another popular opinion, if he made the special editions just for the money and to get us ready for Episode I. George Lucas made the original trilogy for us, because he wasn't sure how the film(s) would do. It's another story based on episode I-III, which is what Episode IV claims to be: A New Beginning. If I was Lucas myself, I am sure if I had the time and ambition and the money, I wouldn't want to end up leaving such a physical difference between the two trilogies. For the late seventies, everything was as 'high tech' looking as it could be for what they could do in films and for the budget as well. They're in a universe with spaceships and monsters and armies and etc etc.... and to have episodes I-III look way much more high tech than episode IV-VI, would be a little weird probably for the generation that didn't begin to be born until after the Special Edition films comes out. So we see more of those beasts and we see a little more technology and we see in the background a more technological look at Cloud City. Makes sense to me.

But I also respect the arguments for the people who hold true to the original films. They are what started it all! They are what made Star Wars a house hold name! They are what gave birth to one of the greatest multi-film epics EVER. And for die hards who can't stand to see things differently than what they originally fell in love with, I totally hear ya. But once again, I am partial to both and either argument doesn't bother me.

But I can pretty much guarantee you that Lucas will not make the 'original' trilogy available on DVD for quite a long time, as he did take time and money to give the original trilogy 'new life' so to speak. But great thread guys and I know I haven't really offered anything NEW to this thread but that's what we're all here to do, offer opinions!

Just to add to this debate, there are lots of fanboy movie buffs that think that Jackson can do no wrong and that Lucas is wrong every step he takes. I think they are both brilliant filmmakers. Let's see if Jackson's next picture is as widely accepted.

I for one like the SEs of Star Wars. I like almost all the stuff that was added and the FX were cleaned up magnificently. But Greedo DID shoot first dammit! I completely agree that Lucas give us both theatrical and SE cuts. Speilberg did the right thing with ET, IMHO.

More troublesome to me is the "there are not a whole lot of 'making of' materials for the original films. That is crap. There were numerous TV specials that could be added to the DVD and they also should include all the well-documented deleted scenes from all three films.

Plus . . . they could add some of the somewhat related stuff like the Star Wars Holiday Special (with Molla, Itchy, and Lumpy) , the Ewok Adventure, and fan films like Troops . . . there are just so many options!

Edit: Oooh . . . and the "Star Wars Cantina" song (the one to the tune of "Copacabana")!

O.K. Now that would certainly make more sense.

Keep in mind, however, that I was simply referencing the comments Lucas made in the documentary that can be seen at the beginning of the Star Wars: The Special Edition VHS tape. There, he makes a comment that is something to the effect of (and I am paraphrasing), “We put this actor to stand in for whatever creature we wanted to add later.” He then went on to talk about how supposedly he originally envisioned Jabba as a furry creature like Chewbacca.

Perhaps then, he misspoke, or simply remembers incorrectly…?

Okay . . . to clarify this, I decided it was time to break out the special edition of Episode 4 and listen for myself. &nbsp

The following are some comments based on the interviews at the beginning of the movie (the quotes have the "Um"'s and "Uh"'s and such removed     )

In the beginning, Lucas states that the main inspiration for the re-release was for the 20th anniversary of the first film. He then goes on to add:

Lucas: "I had an alterior motive, that I'd been thinking about for a long time . . . actually since the films were finished . . . which is, there were various things, especially in the original film, that I wasn't satisfied with: special effects shots that never really were finished, scenes that I had wanted to include, that couldn't have be included for some reason . . . mostly money and time . . . and I really wanted to fix the film and have it be completed."

Later, comes the following comment from Rick McCallum (a producer for the Episode 4 special edition):

McCallum: "The essence of the storytelling had to be sacrificed for the limits of technology. George had very specific shots that he wanted to be able to achieve, but it was extremely difficult to do that with models on wires, so, although for us in 1977, when we first saw it, it was still powerful and it was still big, he never got, visually, the dynamic shots that he actually wanted to get, so we've redone those."

In regards to the "Jabba" scene, Lucas comments that it "was a scene that had been cut out due to time and money constraints" and that, after finishing the third film, he "really wanted to be able to connect the first film to the third film, the way it was meant to be". He does say that there was an actor used to stand in for whatever creature was to be put in later (and that the original idea was, indeed, something furry like Chewbacca), but in the context of the conversation, it truely did sound like the "replacement" was originally intended to occur during the making of the first film, but was dropped because it was going to take too long and cost too much.

On a final note, in regards to all of the changes that were made to the whole thing, Lucas closes out the interview with the following:

Lucas: "At some point, a famous filmmaker said , 'Films are never completed, they're only abandoned.' And rather than living with my abandoned movie, I really wanted to go back and complete it."

So there it is . . . straight from the Lucas's mouth.  

P.S. - As a result of this whole process, I was also able to get to listen to Luke say "But I was going into Tashi Station to pick up some power converters." . . . nothing like a fine whine . . .

Many of those who originally worked on the film stayed on with lucas and are important pieces of his business. Most of those who worked on the originals helped out with the S.E in some way or another. I can't say for certain that they don't mind, but frankly, they are hired hands. Why is it that you don't see a "sound re-recording mixer Edition" of any film? or a "Second A.D. Edition" ? Because they are not the director. the director has final say. that original work is still there. You can find it on LD, VHS and many other different formats. the arguement here is that Lucas wants to release the Special Editions of the film only on dvd. Just think of how many films are not on dvd yet. The Original Cut of Blade Runner is not on dvd and I would certainly love it more then the S.E. of the film. But you realize that the director has choosen to put out the directors cut only on dvd. I still can find the theater print on VHS, LD and in a nice Criterion collection LD, might I add. is there reason why I should complain? No. that's the way it goes. so let it be.

A few side observations . . .

I continued to watch the SE of Episode 4 (after watching the pre-movie interview for the post two above this one) for the first time in quite a while, and had three observations:

1) I actually enjoyed watching it more after having seen Episodes 1 & 2. There were a lot of great details and tie-ins in between them that I never would have caught if it hadn't been for the new episodes. It really improved my "viewing pleasure" a suprising amount.

2) Wedge looks like Edward Norton.

3) Princess Leia looks really good in the awards ceremony scene . . . not "leather-bikini-at-Jabbas-place" good, but very nice, nonetheless. I can't believe that I never noticed before . . .