re: Star Wars
 

That and Star Wars from 1977 until 1995 remained largely unchanged. We're shareholders, so to speak. It's a shared experience and it's part of each and every one of us. And it's been taken away.

It's not George's to change and destroy the original.

re: Star Wars
 

I've always used the example of the release of "Let It Be...Naked." Paul states that he feels it is the definitive version of that album and feels Spector completely fucked up their vision of it with the original release.

Now imagine Paul and the other Beatles agreeing to completely remove the original "Let It Be" and only sell the "naked" version as the only version available after so many grew up loving and knowing the original. It's unfathomable. Same goes with the original Star Wars trilogy.

How is that so hard to see for people like Amity?

re: Star Wars
 

Out of my friends who are SW fans, (We are all in our late 30's), many will buy this BluRay set come September, but ALL of my friends prefer the OOT over the SE. They love SW too much to 'cut their nose to spite their face' that many others do. So every response from my friends who are buying this set, "Yeah, I wish I they had the OOT instead of the SE, but I can put up with the SE because I love SW so much."

That is why a SW Boxset will always sell, because there are enough older fans who love the movies and 'put up' with the SE.

re: Star Wars
 

Then I submit they don't "love the movies" if they're willing to accept the line that there is no OOT ;)

re: Star Wars
 

Actually the first 3D release is next year 2012. And I cant wait to see it up there on the big screen.

i never said the die hards were criticzing those of us who are happy with the special editions, I said they cant believe or understand that most of us are quite allright and happy with the special editions.
there is a big difference.

re: Star Wars
 

Lucas's argument is simple. The current versions reflect his artistic intent. It's funny to me that elsewhere on this site, fans are adamant that they revere "director's cuts" over theatrical releases, but when it comes to Star Wars, artistic intent means nothing. It's as though fans feel because they've slept on Han Solo bedsheets and took a C-3PO lunch box to school that they're entitled to pass judgment on what Lucas does with the movies he made and owns.

re: Star Wars
 

I agree with you.

re: Star Wars
 

Has there even been another director that refused to release the theatrical versions of his films? I can't name one.

re: Star Wars
 

You really believe that?

re: Star Wars
 

I no longer value the concept of a director's artistic intent being sacrosanct.
I'm intelligent enough to assess changes and revisionism on an individual basis and accept or reject them on their own merits.

Coppola can keep Redux, Friedkin can keep TVYNS, and Lucas can keep his special editions where a driving forward momentum in the climax is retarded so that we can now see inessential shots of spacecraft taking off and landing- or see silly CG slapstick a-tonally sandwiched between sequences where the situations are tense and serious. These things seriously impair and impede my enjoyment of the show. They pull me out- just like Ridley Scott going back and color grading his classic films to be more in the Michael Bay school of teal & orange school of artifice, kills my enjoyment of his work now.

It was different when the Star Wars films were some of the very few well crafted, big budget fantasy films out there. Now there is a whole slew of content like that available, that I just don't feel the need to indulge in material that is so intermittently annoying/frustrating now.
If/when I buy the last three films on Bd, it will be to have what is essentially extended trailers for the two films I still love, but can no longer watch in a half-way decent way.

re: Star Wars
 

"Most of us" is a debatable position. Certainly the Blu-ray sets will sell fine, and there's at least some people who are fine with the SEs, or may even prefer them. However, it's hard to say how many purchasers will be genuine fans of the SEs, and how many are begrudgingly buying them because they're the only versions available. Or how many are completely indifferent to, or possibly even oblivious of, the different versions.

Correction: The current versions reflect his current artistic intent, not the intent of George Lucas back in 1977. If he had originally intended for Greedo to shoot first and miss, he certainly could've shot the film that way.

I'm reminded of Terry Gilliam, when asked about going back and making director's cuts of his films, particularly the "Final Director's Cut" of Brazil, said that he wouldn't want to do too much re-editing because for all intents and purposes, he's now a different person from the one that made those films. Changes he made now would not accurately reflect what he had intended the film to be when he was making it, even if he thought they did.

The difference is that in almost every other case, the director's cut is a result of the theatrical cut being against the director's wishes at the time, whether the director was straight-up locked out of the editing room, or simply conceding to studio demands due to not having final cut. This didn't happen to Lucas. He submitted his final cut for Star Wars, and as producer for the two sequels, had final say over their cuts as well. For better or worse, the films as they were originally released were want Lucas intended them to be at that time.

Also, while I appreciate director's cuts and many times prefer them to the theatrical cuts, I have come to see the value of making the theatrical cuts available. Even if the director hates the cut, it's how the film was originally seen, and may have been the only way it was seen for years or even decades. If someone prefers that cut, then they should be able to view it. This is why people were upset when only the "Director's Cut" of Blade Runner was available on DVD for years until the "Final Cut" set was released. Or the uproar that happened when the theatrical cut of 40-Year Old Virgin was originally only released in 4:3, not in OAR.

And, as has been pointed out, almost every other director beside Lucas seems to see the value in the theatrical cuts of their films, since they allow them to be made available, often on the same release as their preferred cut.

re: Star Wars
 

I was lumping together all "studio mistakes" such as edited vs unrated, incorrect aspect ratios, missing extras, etc. But is this really the only example of the original theatricals being unavailable and other versions being offered?

It bothers me a bit, but not enough to not buy the DVDs a few years back. I'll buy the blus only if he releases the originals properly, my DVDs will do just fine until/if then.

re: Star Wars
 

I bought the original trilogy on DVD when it was first released and I think I watched them once.

re: Star Wars
 

Technically speaking, Raiders of the Lost Ark is only available on DVD in an altered version; they digitally removed two FX flubs from the film that clearly weren't intended to be in the finished film. However, since these two changes are subtle and probably completely unnoticed by the majority of the public, there hasn't been a huge outcry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiders...Ark#Home_video

Edit: D'oh, fixed link

re: Star Wars
 

What does that have to do with early upgrades on Sprint? -wink-

re: Star Wars
 

doh.... I clicked it as well.. must be the wrong link...

re: Star Wars
 

It's fine that you enjoy the special editions and believe them to be superior to the original versions.

Would you enjoy them less if the unaltered versions were available as well?

The issue isn't that the films have been changed, the issue is that there is an agenda on Lucasfilm's part to suppress the original versions of these films.

Whether you or George Lucas like it or not, the Star Wars movies are historically significant films. The 1977 version of "Star Wars" changed many things about the movie industry. It had revolutionary special effects and art direction. It was unlike anything that had been seen before.

And it is very sad that this version of the movie has been suppressed by its creator and replaced with a version that changes many of the things that made this a historically significant movie in the first place.

re: Star Wars
 

I disagree with you and I will give you an example:

1980 ESB: Luke does not scream when he falls in Cloud City after the Vader revelation.

1997 ESB/SE: Luke DOES scream when he falls in Cloud City after the Vader revelation.

2004 ESB/DVD: Luke does not scream when he falls in Cloud City after the Vader revelation.

If he wanted to exert his artistic intent, why did he change it in 1997 and then change it back in 2004? That isn't artistic intent, it is called tampering. ;)

re: Star Wars
 

Does this mean that with the technology available in 1980 they couldn't dub a scream over Luke's fall in post?

Also makes me wonder if Lucas put the scream in himself, or if he was just letting the special effects guys do whatever they wanted to.

re: Star Wars
 

What I believe doesn't matter. It's his argument, and there's no meaningful counter to that position. You can argue that what he's been doing is inane, nonsensical, contradictory, lame, etc. In a critical discussion about the nature of Lucas's work, those are all valid positions to take. But they are not sufficient when insisting that the creator/owner of these films has an obligation to produce and release a specific version of his work.

re: Star Wars
 

Off the top of my head:

The Criterion edition of Picnic at Hanging Rock is a director's cut by Peter Weir and the original theatrical version is not available on DVD. I don't think it's ever been released on any video format.

re: Star Wars
 

:thumbsup:

re: Star Wars
 

:up::up:

re: Star Wars
 

I find it sort of amusing whenever anyone ever talks about "artistic intent" on Lucas' part because he doesn't seem to project much passion or even enthusiasm about the Star Wars universe he created.

I'll watch the supplementary features on the DVDs, and it seems to strange to hear him talk about "laser swords" and "ray guns" like he's your ninety year old grandmother who's never seen the fucking movies. He also tends to call all Rodians "Greedos," like he's only seen the action figures. Can you imagine J.R.R. Tolkien calling elves "Legolases?"

Or in the documentaries he'll just wander into a room with a bunch of graphic designers and look at a wall of concept art and say I like that one and that one and that one like he's picking what to have for lunch off of a Chinese restaurant's take-out menu.

So all of the constant tinkering and suppression of the movies seems really strange, as he rarely comes off as someone who cares much about the movies.

re: Star Wars
 

I think the worst thing about the scream was it was just re-used - it's the Emperor's scream as he falls to his death in ROTJ! I mean how lazy can you get?