georgec

Right - because that's the only thing he wanted to change...

Seems like we're going around in circles. Some people are saying the technology was irrelevant to the changes Lucas, others are saying he used the Special Editions as a test for the prequels, etc.

It's all not that important, but I find the different opinions fascinating. So, if you look at the example of Greedo shooting first, why would Lucas change that? The original scene established Han as the ultimate badass renegade. 20 years later Lucas makes Greedo shoot first, which changes how we are introduced to the character of Han. One asks why would he change this? We don't know. But it's fun to speculate.

fumanstan

It's not wrong of you, I imagine most people feel that way and don't care a whole lot about all the changes and are happy with what we're getting on Blu-ray.

Jay G.

No, but the changes that most offend fans are not ones that were caused by technical limitations at the time.

Those two opinions are not mutually exclusive. It could be that Lucas was never really hampered by technology in the intervening years if he really wanted to make changes, but when handed a bunch of money by Fox to make a Special Edition, he went back and made changes, using new technology that they wanted to test out for possible use in the prequels.

We don't have to speculate. He's said why he changed that.

http://scifi.about.com/od/starwars/a...shot-first.htm

yoshimi

Lucas changes Han from shooting Gredo first because he doesn't see how you can redeem somebody who kills people in cold blood yet Anakin kills children and the entire Star Wars saga is supposedly about his redemption. I think Lucas talks out of his ass most of the time and has no idea what he is doing. He just made the shit up as he went a long and most of it doesn't make any sense.

Doctorossi

Besides, Han never did kill Greedo in cold blood in the original version, anyway. We, the audience, were shown that Greedo was about to blast him and only didn't because Han was quicker. Han knew it because he's not a complete idiot.

georgec

See below

Jay G.

I didn't say that his reasoning made sense, just that it exists.

Travis McClain

You know, if you think about Lucas not understanding how Han Solo could become a redeemable character in the context of Marcia Lucas being the one to insist that Han's coming to the rescue at the end is what made the picture work, I think I can understand how it is that Lucas didn't make more of an effort to make Han Solo heroic. It seems to me that Luke Skywalker was always Lucas's hero, and the popularity of Han Solo was almost accidental. Had it not been for Marcia Lucas, Han may have been relegated to a one-off supporting character. Remember, he's nowhere to be found in Splinter of the Mind's Eye, which was allegedly the go-to story idea for a sequel in case Star Wars didn't make enough money to fund a proper follow-up.

georgec

And I never said his reasoning didn't exist. I said that it's possible he had multiple, complex reasons for making the changes.

Jay G.

It's possible, but unless you can read his mind, we'll have to go with what he's said are the reasons for the various changes.

georgec

Or we can compare those statements and reality and see that they are not mutually inclusive.

Josh-da-man

Yeah, that bugs the hell out of me, too.

At some point, Lucas gets this bug up his ass that the whole Star Wars saga is about the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Like he watched "The Godfather" movies one night and got the bright idea that Anakin Skywalker was the Michael Corleone of outer space. Which pretty much misses the point of The Godfather, as the Godfather saga is about how Michael Corleone went from being a good, decent man into an asshole that poisoned everything good he had going for him. Of course, I doubt Lucas understands his own movies, so it shouldn't be surprising that he didn't pick up on the themes of the Godfather.

In the original trilogy, Darth Vader was a mass murderer and henchman for a genocidal Empire. But he turns on the Emperor at the end, when the wrath of the Empire is directed at someone he cares about, and now, all of a sudden he's this great guy? The same dick who stood around with his thumb up his ass while Tarkin killed billions on Alderaan?

And then, in the prequel trilogy, Anakin is about the most unsympathetic character ever put on film. At his best, he's a whiny, entitled, narcissistic asshole. Then he kills some children. Then he sticks his head so far up his ass that he sides with a power-mad, fascist politician and turns on friends, kills some more children, and ultimately murders his pregnant wife -- who was so far out his league it was pathetic. (Padme sure could pick'em, couldn't she?)

But, you know, we have to change the scene where Han Solo blows away a mercenary who's waving a gun in his face, but Darth Vader gets plastered all over pizza boxes and bedsheets.

georgec

Buuuut Lucas said he changed it so that Han wouldn't be a murderer! And if he said it then it must be true! Facts and analysis be damned!

I love Star Wars as much as the next guy, but nothing is perfect. Lucas states some hollow intention of improving the story/characters and fanboys can't seem to look beyond that.

Lucas' primary objective is profit. I don't blame him for that at all. Any person would try to market Star Wars and build an empire he did given the opportunity.

Exhibit A of this: http://movies.ign.com/articles/111/1112107p1.html

The prequels are proof that when Lucas has complete creative control, the story and characters just aren't strong enough to really grip audiences like in the OT. But Lucas makes some passing comment about wanting to improve Han's character and it nullifies the extremely negative response many people had to the Special Editions and prequels.

Jay G.

I think you're under the misimpression that I think Lucas's comment properly defends the change. It doesn't. I personally hate the change, for many of the reasons already given.

However, Lucas has commented in why he made the change, so we don't need to "speculate" on why he did it. Is his reasoning flawed and contradictory? Sure, but to quote Walt Whitman, "do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." People do/say contradictory, hypocritical things. The fact that he "redeemed" Vader doesn't mean that he didn't think Han shooting first (and only Han shooting) was a moral mistake that needed to be fixed.

mcnabb

Whenever Lucas talks about the Saga being the 'The Tragedy of Darth Vader' that is when I lose interest, and think the whole story of Episodes I - VI are pretty ridiculous. Think about it, he is telling us to root for a little kid who turns into a whiny unlikeable teenager, then he turns evil and slaughters thousands of jedi (including kids), for the stupidest reason (some guy who has lied to him for 10 years says he has the power to save people), then he saves his son from the Emperor, and we are suppose to feel something for that character at the end of the movie as he sits there next to Yoda and Obiwan as a force ghost? Shouldn't there be a cut off of how many people you kill in cold blood that you then can't become a force ghost

I liked it when it was 3 movies about Luke, Leia, and Han fighting good vs evil

georgec

I think the general story arc is fine but the execution (dialogue, subtle character relationships, etc.) had faults.

Red Letter Media's reviews are actually pretty spot on in the sense that the prequels didn't have an emotional core/character.

Lucas has a great imagination and sense of wonder/mythology, but as discussed in this thread his attention to dialogue and character development wasn't so large. That's where the help of co-writers, editors, etc. improved the original trilogy. When Lucas had complete control and nobody to question him, the writing suffered.

elkkthunder

wonder when we will see official art for these sets

Solid Snake

so what you're saying is....that the general story sucked?

georgec

Ha, well I think trying to establish Vader as a decent kid who loses his mother, develops an emotional attachment to someone else, is subtly groomed by a "dark lord," and gives into temptation to save his lady, thereby leading to his downfall, could have worked. But the last 1/3 of Revenge of the Sith should have basically been stretched out among episodes 2 and 3. Anakin's turn was too rushed and nearly everything that preceded it was boring and ineffective in helping the audience develop bonds with the characters.

The reason it wasn't that way was to ensure the continued expanded universe and merchandising. Just like Yogurt in Spaceballs said, "Merchandising! Merchandising! Merchandising!"

pinata242

It's ok, we've all been there. You're in the denial/apologetic stages now. You'll come to terms with it on your own time.

mcnabb

I went through that stage in 2005 right after Episode III. I defended Episode I and II to my friends even though they sucked, but my reasoning was, "Episode III will answer all the questions, it will be as great as ESB because of all the plot points, and will make Episode I & II a better movie." Wow was I wrong!

I walked out of Episode III and felt like I was duped as it was another crap-fest. The turn was the WORST single moment of the PT, because it is so unbelievable and so quick, and then he goes and kills children 5 seconds after that. Padme losing the will to live? The laughable scene of Vaders construction? And Obiwan just giving over Luke to Owen and Beru like it was a loaf of bread?

I remember watching the OT over the summer of '05 again, and finally came to terms that the PT sucked, and I was just being naive all those years because I wanted them to be great.

Thats what makes me laugh about the gushers who call people like me bashers. I was once a gusher and for years and years accepted average quality just because I thought Episode III would be the crown jewel. I WANTED to love these movies, and never wanted to hate them. But like Rocky V, Superman III & IV, and Jurassic Park II & III, the PT were just as bad movies as the ones I named and I gave them alot more leeway because it was my beloved Star Wars.

Gizmo

I don't give that much of a shit either. It would be nice to have the option to the watching the unmolested OT, but the SE's are better then no Star Wars on Blu-ray.

Paul_SD

The 'point' was when Lucas realized SW was dominating his life on earth and destroying his marriage. He scrapped the original, more mature (and open ended) resolution of the ep 4-6 arc, and decided to wrap the whole story up with a simple minded, unsophisticated, FAO Schwartz merchandising friendly, bow.
And He got exactly what he wanted- a divorce from the demands of a SW universe for a good number of years (until he needed the easy money he could squeeze out of millions of undemanding rubes)- and none of the 6-14 yr olds at the time were any wiser. In fact they ate it up. My one friend who was about 7 at the time, still feels that seeing that film on the big screen was one of the best movie going experiences he's had to this day.

TerryAlexFan

Geez, a whole lot of jibber jabber and not much news.

Philzilla

Welcome to any Star Wars thread, anywhere!