>>The fans Lucas is really screwing are those that prefer the 1997 SEs.

I don't see it so much as screwing the fans... it's more a clear way to point out the problem with the Lucas approach.

We were told that the whole reason for '97 was that the films were not what he wanted them to be. Current (1970s) tech wouldn't allow it. So he 'finished' them.

Then, a few years later, we get another version with more changes -- the Luke scream (added in '97) was removed, Boba Fett's voice was changed, the Emperor's scene was reshot, Hayden was added, we now have some gungans, etc. These have nothing to do with the problems with '97 technology... they are simply retroactive changes of heart.

And, the one that really cracks me up is the Jabba scene. Completely new CGI vs. '97. Where does it end? He looked at that in '97 and said -- yes, that's what I wanted, put it out to theaters. And just a couple of years later, completely redid it. You can't tell me that in 5-10 years, there won't be other effects that start looking a little dodgy that he's going to want to change out. (Like he is apparently doing to puppet Yoda in Episode I.)


There's NO END to this. All of his talk about the OT being 'unfinished' doesn't really ring true when even his 'finished' 1997 version has changes. And I'm sure more changes are coming.

I'm sure this thread has the Huxley quote in it somewhere buried, but it bears repeating. Aldous Huxley wrote this in a forward to a new edition of Brave New World:

Chronic remorse, as all the moralists are agreed, is a most undesirable sentiment. If you have behaved badly, repent, make what amends you can and address yourself to the task of behaving better next time. On no account brood over your wrongdoing. Rolling in the muck is not the best way of getting clean.

Art also has its morality, and many of the rules of this morality are the same as, or at least analogous to, the rules of ordinary ethics. Remorse, for example, is as undesirable in relation to our bad art as it is in relation to our bad behavior. The badness should be hunted out, acknowledged and, if possible, avoided in the future. To pore over the literary shortcomings of twenty years ago, to attempt to patch a faulty work into the perfection it missed at its first execution, to spend one's middle age in trying to mend the artistic sins committed and bequeathed by that different person who was oneself in youth-all this is surely vain and futile. And that is why this new Brave New World is the same as the old one. Its defects as a work of art are considerable; but in order to correct them I should have to rewrite the book-and in the process of rewriting, as an older, other person, I should probably get rid not only of some of the faults of the story, but also of such merits as it originally possessed. And so, resisting the temptation to wallow in artistic remorse, I prefer to leave both well and ill alone and to think about something else.

Is it possible for bootleggers to digitally remaster these upcoming letterboxed versions so that they are anamorphic, in a way of course in which they don't look interlaced, jagged lines, pixilated, etc?

To be fair, at the time of the '97 SEs it was reported that Lucas had to pare back the changes and "fixes" he wanted to make to the films in order to release all three SE films within the time allotted. It's always been known that the '97 versions were not the "final" versions.

Also, a lot of the 2005 DVD changes were to help the OT fit in with the Prequel Trilogy. In '97 that wasn't a concern, since the prequels didn't exist.

Finally, if you look at the changes that people complain most about the 97 SEs, Greedo shooting first, Luke's scream, those weren't changes made due to limitations in '77 technology. Han shot Greedo first in the O-OT because that's the way Lucas had wanted it at the time. So it's not like arbitrary revisonism is a new thing from Lucas.

My crack about the '97 SEs not being on DVD was mostly a joke, but it also points out that, despite all the quibbles about quality, at least we're getting the original versions on DVD.

Bootleggers have already upconverted laserdisc transfers to anamorphic, but I don't think they look particularly better than what an upconverting DVD player could manage.

There's some fans working on their own "restorations" working from laserdisc transfers. I think at the least that they are de-interlacing the films, as well as removing video glitches film scratches and such. I haven't read of them bothering with upconversion though.

I don't think that quote can be used too often IMO, all the Lucas-apologists in particular would do well to memorize it.

But let me point out another view of this idea: I haven't read Brave New World yet (it's on my bookshelf, I think I'll grab it after I finish the Hannibal Lector "trilogy"), but I would be perfectly alright with the author writing that new version, and publishing it alongside the original version, like a big omnibus with annotations and what-not.

I agree that it can be a slippery slope for George, but I think it would help him keep perspective if he always had the original versions available, at comparable quality, side by side with his latest release du jour.

Agreed. I would welcome (and purchase) a new version of these films on an annual basis, if that's what he wanted to do. No problem. I enjoy the movies and I'm interested in the experiment of trying to 'fix' a film that is 30 years old retroactively. It's intriguing to me.

But not at the expense of the original versions. Those should be available as well, in comparable quality as you said. Those are the films that I love and those are the ones that I want to watch over and over.


It's amazing that something that seems so obvious to me (as both a Star Wars fan and a film buff in general) is lost on Lucas -- the person who created this stuff and has been involved with the film industry for so long. It's clearly an inability to distance himself from the material. Practically everyone worldwide saw these films and fell in love... but all he can do is see the seams on the sides of the puppets.

Huxley was able to look past the 'defects' in his story. He pointed them out and then moved on. I wish Lucas was able to do the same. Then he could focus on these 'avant garde' small art films that he's been talking about for years.

Yea, you're right, boxofficemojo says $260 Million.

Not being a superhero genre fan myself, I sit in stunned amazement of these numbers however you slice 'em. A...quarter...of a...Billion...dollars...

Not to take this too far off topic, but...

Apparently $50 million of that figure accounts for the decade of 'pre-production' that they did. Basically hiring a dozen different directors and screenwriters before Bryan Singer even got involved. So, while that's probably what it says on their books, I'm not sure it's fair to include that in the overall budget.

And, honestly, any movie that makes $300-400 million in international box office (before even counting DVD, cable, T-shirts, action figures, tie-ins with chips and soda companies, etc.) is a hit. I don't care what the budget was. If a movie that makes this starts to be considered 'disappointing'... well, then I think it's time for studios to revisit their expectations and their budgets.

That's silly. A movie the earned $300-400 million wouldn't be considered a hit if it cost $500 million to make. Budget enters into the success of a film, no matter how much it earns.
I think a lot of studios are going to be taking closer looks at their budgets, although let's face it, certain films need big budgets.

From the studio perspective, it wouldn't be a hit. But from the perspective of just about everyone else, it would be.

Let's use a more extreme example: Say a movie cost $1 billion to make. And it made $800 million at the box office. By any reasonable measure, that movie was a hit. At that level of box office, many people went to see it (and likely multiple times, ala Titanic).

Just because the studio seriously overspent on the film doesn't change the fact that it was a 'hit' with audiences.


That's what I'm saying. Some films (especially when you're dealing with extremely high budgets) can be successful without being financially successful. At least that's how I see it...

So, are people selling their current DVD's in prep for this? And if so, are you keeping the box and 4th disc?

I would have given the discs to some relative or another and kept the box and bonus disc had the originals been anamorphic.

Guess I'm keeping the whole thing until the flannelled one does them right.

No, from the perspective of everyone else it'd be very popular or possibly very well made. However, "hit" has a very specific definition regarding films, and the definition is a film that made a profit. That stays the same from everyone's perspective, just like the word "bomb" does.

So you want the original unaltered version of the film, but you'd rather keep the altered versions than buy a sub-standard version of the proper version?

Isn't that sending the wrong message? "I'll buy your new versions, but I'm not going to be buying those original versions." I mean, sans a letter to Lucas, you're re-affirming his beliefs.

A movie is a hit if a lot of people go to see it. It's not the audiences' fault that the studio spent way too much money to make the film...

I did send a letter via email, and of course received the condescending form letter from GL's lackeys.

And I bought the first release of the SEs because I had pretty much accepted the originals would never be released on DVD (officially).

I have no intention of buying a sub-standard product just to play Georgie's little mind games. I let my feelings be known to his company, and I'll wait for him to do it right.

But at the point where the new versions were released wasn't it still said by Lucas
that they would never be released in their original state (something about the film
elements not even existing anymore). If that was the case it's no longer a matter of
supporting one over the other. It's not like there was a choice back then. And while
there is now (to some extent), why support a shoddy release, especially when the
data is skewed to begin with (no simultaneous release to compare sales figures).

Lucas can believe what he wants.

It's also not the audience's fault that your using the term incorrectly. Clerks was a hit film despite earning less than a twentieth of what Waterworld earned, which was a bomb.

There's a variable here that defines whether a film is a hit or a bomb or not, and it's not the number of tickets sold.

You already played his "mind games" when you settled for the SEs. Now your just denying yourself the versions you want to "stick it to the man" who has already gotten money from you.

Maybe I had a moment of weakness when buying the SE's, but as I said I had pretty much accepted we would never see the originals. But I'm certainly not going to compound it by buying these half-ass versions. There's a saying that goes, "If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging." Like Luke on the second Death Star, I've throw my shovel away.

This will be my final post on this, since it is both off-topic and it's pretty clear that we aren't going to agree on this.

But, I'm wondering where you're getting your knowledge that "'hit' has a very specific definition regarding films, and the definition is a film that made a profit." Anything to back that up? Because every single reference I've looked at, including Merriam-Webster, the OED, and the Filmmaker's Dictionary disagree with you.

A few online ones as well:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Hit.
"Having become very popular or acclaimed; - said of entertainment performances; as, a hit song, a hit movie."

http://www.yawiktionary.com/h/1148346323967.html
"song or movie that's very popular"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hit
"A successful or popular venture"

Well I arrived at that definition from the common usage of the word in relation to film. For example my Clerks vs. Waterworld example, which you didn't quote. Clerks was considered a hit while I doubt you'd find many people describe Waterworld that way, despite Waterworld having a much larger box-office.

To me, saying a movie is a hit just because it's popular seems inprecise, since the degree of popularity needed seems to change relative to the film your labeling.

Well, I did find this article that agrees with my use of the term:
http://www.kelwick.karoo.net/TheUshe...sAHitMovie.htm

Also, a reference you cited:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hit
"3: a conspicuous success"
Source: WordNet ® 2.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIT
"in marketing, a success involving (sudden) popularity of and demand for a particular item"

Well, I doubt standard dictionaries are going to hash out the subtle difference between popular and successful, especially since they typically go hand-in-hand. I would like to read the Filmmaker's Dictionary definition, though, if you can provide it.

Could someone please clarify something for me (I've been out of the swing of things for a long time and don't feel like reading 37 pages): Will the upcoming release be available in a collected trilogy box set like the original release or only as 3 separate purchases?

Similarly, has there ever been any mention of putting the 3 prequels together in a box set yet or are they waiting to do all 6 together?

thanks.

^

As far as we know, there's no box yet planned for this (or for the 3 prequels).

I assume we're getting individual releases in September, followed by a more elaborate set of the whole series next year (for the 30th anniversary).