re: Star Wars
 

I remember hearing he wanted to do a voice over for ROTS but scheduling never panned out.

re: Star Wars
 

I'm torn. Sounds like a decent addition at first, but it borders on explaining too much (midichlorians anyone?).

re: Star Wars
 

Do midichlorians really explain too much? I never understood the hate for them. Midichlorians are not the force they are merely a vessel that allows organic material to use the force. They explain why living creatures and not robots can use it. They also give an idea of force potential but do not guarantee force ability. They are necessary for life, about as crucial as blood is in many life forms.

That Qui-Gon scene doesn't explain much that isn't known. The idea of compassion is something the PT dealt with and it was one of QG's major hangups with the Jedi. The lack of compassion is one of the many things that led to the fall of the Jedi. If anything it might be redundant, but I don't like that Yoda is only seen telling Obi-Wan about Qui-Gon.

re: Star Wars
 

Sorry but I respectfully disagree. If they were simply doing what you said they would have left the date sit as we will notify when the date of release is availble like they still have on several titles i have had on pre order for awhile.

re: Star Wars
 

They are about as lame as trying to scientifically prove how much a soul weighs.

re: Star Wars
 

Midiclorians are a perfect example of why the PT shouldn't have been made, because sometimes more information isn't necessarily better for a particular subject.

The great thing about the OT is there is alot of stuff that is very vague, and each viewer can interpret anything they way they see it. Lucas didn't need to give Vader, Luke or the Emperor a 'midiclorian number' to show how powerful they were, as the viewer was able to figure it out. For instance, we all see how powerful Luke had become by Return of Jedi compared to Star Wars and Empire. And we could see that the Emperor was probably the most powerful by him electrocuting Luke at the end of Jedi.

The PT has other examples of explaining something that the viewer didn't need more information on: Lucas should have left out Chewbacca, as now we all know they have 'good relations' with Yoda. He should have left out Boba Fett, as his character was mystery in the OT. Thank God Han Solo doesn't appear in the PT as a kid or something, as Lucas probably would have made him the nephew of Count Dooku or QuiGon!

re: Star Wars
 

yes, the current deluxe edition (DVD) contains both the US theatrical versioin and the director's cut. Universal even commissioned a hidef transfer of the US version which HDNet Movies aired awhile back, so when and if the movie is released on bluray both cuts of the film would and should be included.

re: Star Wars
 

I always found that ironic. He supposedly supports film preservation, yet out of the six he's directed, the only film that has seen the original theatrical version released on DVD is Star Wars, and only in a non-anamorphic laserdisc port.

I would be upset about that. I am strongly of the opinion that nowadays, films should get a "definitive" release when they are released on the video market. Meaning that if there's more than one cut of the film, they should all be made available. Ridley Scott seems to understand this. The Blade Runner set is a perfect example of how to treat a classic film with numerous versions. While not quite as consistent about it, Spielberg seems to as well, based on Close Encounters's Blu-Ray release, along with the fact that he was the one pushing for the original theatrical cut of E.T. to be included in the 2-Disc SE, not just the box set (which was Universal's original plan).

Hell, I'm actually annoyed at Jackson's insistence of releasing the LOTR films in multiple sets rather than one giant, comprehensive box set (it looks like we may FINALLY get that when the Hobbit films are released, but even then, I won't hold my breath).

Granted, I don't hate the prequels or the Special Editions like some people do; I can enjoy them for what they are (although I will always maintain that the original theatrical cuts of the original trilogy will always be ranked much higher), and I'll certainly grab the Blu-Ray set, but saying that they're better than colorizing old films, while that may be true, is a backhanded compliment.

I agree. It seems like it would be cool to watch at first, but the scene between Yoda and Obi-Wan at the end of the movie already explains what we need to know. Qui-Gonn has reached a new level as a Jedi, and has become even more powerful. Obi-Wan and Yoda will now attempt to learn how to achieve what he had in death, and we see the successful results in the original films. That's all that's needed. It seems like that scene would just be beating us over the head with exposition that's either not needed at all, or something that the audience can figure out for themselves.

Again, I would say that the midichlorians would fall under the category of exposition that's not needed at all. The nature of the Force was never explained in the original films, and it didn't need to be. It still worked, even though we were never told or shown the mechanics of how or why the Force could be used by certain individuals. The issue isn't that they used midichlorians to explain it, the issue is that it was explained at all. Any explanation for it would have come across as corny.

re: Star Wars
 

No, I WON'T buy this. With money being as tight as it is, when I buy a blu-ray it will often be the last time that I get a movie. So, I want the real, true version of a movie, the version that I saw in the theater. The people that saw the true version of Star Wars in the theater will not buy this abomination. The people that saw the original versions on VHS in the early 80s will not buy this abomination. The only people that will buy this crap are kids that grew up on flashy, overdone special effects that are only there to cover up the fact that there isn't really any story.

re: Star Wars
 

Huh? The whole OT was released in those limited edition DVDs, all in non-anamorphic laserdisc ports. And while I remember that TPM had a few things added for DVD, I don't remember AOTC or ROTS having anything changed.

re: Star Wars
 

I was only referring to the films Lucas himself directed, which excludes Empire or Jedi. The six films that he has directed are THX 1138, American Graffiti, Star Wars, The Phantom Menace, Attack Of The Clones, and Revenge Of The Sith. THX 1138 is only available in a Director's Cut which features numerous CGI embellishments. American Graffiti is also a director's cut, adding in a couple of minutes of scenes that were originally cut (and while looking it up to double check, he apparently did alter one shot digitally, changing a cloudy sky to an orange sunset). AOTC's DVD is a release of the Digital Theatrical version, which had some differences from the widespread theatrical release that most people saw in theaters. And admittedly, ROTS's changes are just minor editorial changes that most hardcore fans probably wouldn't even notice. Just mainly snipping a second or two off a scene, or changing a wipe to a straight cut. I'll grant you that it's not nearly along the same lines as what he's done to his other films; I'll concede that it's pretty much negligible in comparison. However, it's been stated that he's doing further alterations to the prequels as well, so we still won't even get the theatrical version of the prequels on Blu-Ray, and these are the ones that were made with the technology to "showcase his vision" in the first place.

My overall point is that, even if it's a change as minor as snipping a second off of a shot, Lucas can't help but tinker with his work.

re: Star Wars
 

AOTC was presented in two different versions theatrically. One version for standard projectors and one for digital. The digital version was the one that was released on DVD. Changes can be viewed here:
http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/a...part-four.html
ROTS just had an optical wipe switched.

re: Star Wars
 

And they are also rereleasing them in 3D?

re: Star Wars
 

They can't offer Release Date Delivery without a release date either, yet another reason to just play it safe with the latest possible guess and then move it up when necessary.

Again, all we officially know is "September" and Amazon.com is playing it safe by guessing the last of the 4 Tuesday of the month.

re: Star Wars
 

Is there nothing that can't be argued about with Star Wars, including the release date of the blu ray set.

Ridiculous.

re: Star Wars
 

Yeah, wtf. It's a matter of weeks. Who cares.

re: Star Wars
 

The theatrical digital version only changed one shot (the hand shot at the end). All of the other changes were made for the dvd release so there are technically 3 versions so far. I'm sure the Blu Ray will be a 4th version.

re: Star Wars
 

Oh yeah. I never got a chance to see the digital version.

Actually there's been 4 versions so far. You're forgetting the IMAX version ;)

re: Star Wars
 

And it was essentially pan-and-scan. I really don't think we want to go there.

re: Star Wars
 

That's basically my whole point, you have people in here going "OMG Amazon sez its comin out on the 27th lulz" and all I've pointed out is that:

A) no official release date is announced

B) there are perfectly good reasons why Amazon would guess a placeholder date

C) we could even get it earlier.

On the other hand you have this "I respectfully disagree" dork who is stubbornly clinging to this tentative date like it's gospel for no reason I can recognize. I dunno, maybe he already ordered a case of Doritos, a case of Mountain Dew and some pizzas from Pizza Hut to be delivered that week so he won't have to leave the house.

re: Star Wars
 

Curious if there'll be more deleted scenes for the prequels. I was looking at the prequel dvd bonus discs, and the extras are decent - trailers, docs, etc. I didn't like any of TPM deleted scenes (really hated the greedo scuffle). AOTC and ROTS have some OK deleted scenes, but hate the AOTC padme before the senate and ROTS Shaak TI and Grievous.



Anyone see the news about Lucas thinking the world would end in 2012? Yeah, sure, we know he was just kidding.

re: Star Wars
 

Midichlorians weren't just about exposition though. They are about symbiosis which was a major theme of the film.

We learn nothing of the nature of the force thanks to midichlorians. All we learn is that they are necessary. Which could be the same as saying, which I've mentioned before, human blood is necessary. Without blood a human cannot live and therefor cannot use the force. They explain about as much this quote from Obi-Wan: "The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together." All midichlorians do is give a name to one component, one of those living things.

The midichlorians don't even explain force power, they only suggest it. The Jedi are pretty easy to dismiss Anakin in TPM in spite of knowing his count is greater than Yoda's. Anakin even shows frustration with his own abilities because he feels he should be stronger. I don't think Anakin of the prequels would've been much of a match for Yoda.

The impression I get from midichlorians is that they are there to show non-Jedi the force potential of an individual. A mother has a baby. The Jedi seem eager to identify force potential and train beings at an incredibly early age. The fastest and easiest way to tell a parent is to check the child's count. Jedi can feel that potential, they don't need it, but the regular people who don't interact much with Jedi can't understand that.

I just have a hard time finding much issue with midichlorians. I feel people really exaggerate their influence.

re: Star Wars
 

Except for Gen. Grievous, of course. D'oh! Plot hole...

re: Star Wars
 

I was never given to understand that Grievous was a user of the Force. Lightsabers, yes, but not the Force. And even if he were supposed to be Force-sensitive, that could be explained away by the fact his robot body still housed his organic components.

Regarding the larger issue of midichlorians, the issue really becomes that they introduce a physiological aspect to religion. Can you imagine being told you don't have the right blood cell count to be a Catholic? It's really rather bizarre, and wholly unnecessary as the litmus test for being taken in as a Jedi still comes down to a given individual being "special." Why define that so clearly?

The argument I would make if I were defending it is that the prequel Jedi were meant to be seen as misguided and arrogant. The emphasis on this kind of screening process could be taken as merely a pretext for exclusionary practices. We know Yoda and Mace Windu resisted Anakin; perhaps other council members went along more from the habit of denying x amount of applicants to maintain their own prestige?

But then I get into the largest problem I have with the prequels: Lucas raises interesting questions in the three movies, but outsources the answers to non-canonical Expanded Universe works and our own abilities to fill in the gaps for ourselves.

re: Star Wars
 

Grievous wasn't completely robot though. He had a heart (of gold?)