re: Star Wars
 

I get the sense that even though he's made a ton of money, is often cited as an influence within the industry and owns the most important company in the business (ILM, the SFX standard), there's a sort of embarrassed inferiority complex within Lucas about having cut his swath with these silly little space fairy tales. He always talked about doing artistic indie movies, but hasn't done them for reasons that have never been articulated. I think he's just afraid of coming off as nerdy as fans. Not because he's afraid they won't still worship him, but because I think he's self-conscious about how his peers see him.

Gene Roddenberry once quipped, "Sure, I created Star Trek. But that doesn't mean I sleep in Captain Kirk pajamas." Ian Fleming frequently downplayed James Bond's literary value, insisting he never intended to write anything approaching high art. My point is that when you hear a creator distance himself from his work, it's because he wants to be taken seriously. When you hear a creator champion his work, it's because he wants his work to be taken seriously. Lucas doesn't appear to take Star Wars seriously. Maybe there's something to that, because there are a lot of people who have taken it a little too seriously. I mean, how do you go out in public and strut after your glorified toy commercials are touted as "The Holy Trilogy" and still take yourself seriously?

re: Star Wars
 

This is another great post! these movies really are not suppose to be taken so seriously, they are fun space operas that pay homage to the old serialized films of the past that themselves were not meant to be taken so seriously either. I think your post really hits the nail on the head.

re: Star Wars
 

You would do well to read the post below yours about taking the trilogy to seriously.

I also dont need to be lectured to about the historical signifigance of the film either. I am very well aware of its place in film history.

re: Star Wars
 

Yes there is. There's the argument for the historical and social importance of the original cuts, which is why the National Film Registry has a copy of the original cut of Star Wars in its vaults, not the SE.

There's also the argument about original vs. current "intent" for the films. Lucas likes to claim that the SEs are how he always intended the films to be, but this is simply not true. Many of the more grievous changes were ones that could've easily been done back during the original editing (or shooting), while some he's even waffled on. Then there's the changes that are clearly just to make the original trilogy fit with the prequels better.

Finally, there's the point that, as far as directorial intent goes, Lucas was only the director of the first film. For the sequels, Lucas as producer is overriding the original directors' intent for those films, something he himself argued against in front of congress, 23 years ago.

http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeecha...aledition.html
It's clear that, as Lucas has gotten older, his concern for the public interest and our cultural history has waned in favor of constant tweaking of his pasts works, and the past works of others that he owns.

There's a UK DVD Set that contains both the theatrical and director's cut:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Picnic-At-Ha...dp/B0017WVSS8/

re: Star Wars
 

I will say this Lucas has contridicted himself quite a bit over the years, i am not going to reverse course on the comments i said earlier on this page, but it does raise questions about what happens to cause someone to do such 180 degree change in position in less than a decade. Everything he passionately argues against in that speech he ended up doing in the special editions.

thanks for posting this, reading it really does get you to think.

re: Star Wars
 

I can't wait for the new edits to bring more changes and how the apologists will say how they were part of the original, artistic intent but couldn't be done in the last decade and a half. Gonna be fun!

re: Star Wars
 

This all goes back to earlier discussions in this thread about what other possible reasons Lucas has to tamper with the movies and keep changing them. We've speculated on his soured divorce with Marcia, who was a huge influence on the editing and pacing of the OT, as having fueled his desire to align the movies with his "original intent" as a way of separating his work from his wife's. It's a long shot but I think it helps to explain part of Lucas' underlying motivations.

He can't honestly believe that his changes have all served the movies positively. That's why he added the Luke ESB scream then removed it. He hears the fans. That's why Jar Jar had such a reduced role in AOTC and ROTS. He heard the complaints and had to acknowledge them.

SO, what is it about the OT that prevents Lucas from remastering and releasing pre-Special Edition versions, as a result of all the fans who've requested it and would gladly pay big bucks for them? He's demonstrated he listens to fans to some degree, even if it's small. I can only conclude and conjecture that there is something about the OT with which he has a bad, bad association. My unprofessional, slightly informed opinion is that it's bitterness over the divorce with his ex-wife and wanting to make sure he cuts her contributions out of the picture as much as he can. That's not the whole picture or even the biggest part, but it has to be an influence on his decision making.

Repost link: http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html

re: Star Wars
 

Another great read, There is a possibilty that the bitterness could have caused him to do what you suggest in your post. But the divorce took place a full 5 years prior to him going before congress arguing for protection of films as noted in his speech in the other posters post, so that makes it even more puzzling if the reason for making those changes were in part to lingering bitterness over the divorce. again reading that though gives ya something to think about.

re: Star Wars
 

Perhaps the logic is there is no logic?

re: Star Wars
 

I thought of the same thing as I was listening to Richard Donner. Maybe he's a Seinfeld fan, lol.

re: Star Wars
 

I'm a little late to the party, but are the Blu-Rays going to be new edits, yet again? I was under the impression that they were just going to be the 2004 versions.

re: Star Wars
 

We know for a fact that puppet Yoda will be replaced with digital Yoda in The Phantom Menace, and it's largely expected there will be other tweaks, as well. As I and others have said for several years now, it will be very interesting to see how the Prequel Generation responds to their movies going under the knife. So far, they've not experienced this sensation that the OT Generation fans have endured and complained about since 1997.

As for Jay G.'s thorough documentation of Lucas's previous positions, that's a pretty damning case to make. Unfortunately, it still comes down to "I made it, I own it, I can do what I want with it," which is what I really should have posited as his argument instead of "artistic intent."

re: Star Wars
 

There's nothing official, but there's rumors that the whole saga may be subject to final changes. The most notable is the replacement of the Yoda puppet in The Phantom Menace with CGI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda#Voice_and_animation

re: Star Wars
 

The prequel films were already altered for their DVD releases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ce_DVD_Release

I remember people bing miffed that there was no option to view the theatrical cut of Phantom Menace, which had previously been released on VHS and Laserdisc. I don't remember complaints about the changes to AOTC, or the one change to ROTS, but I had largely checked out of Star Wars by that point.

I don't think anyone is begrudging Lucas his ability to further tinker with his films. Certainly other filmmakers have done this, for better or worse (Apocalypse Now Redux, Amadeus Director's Cut, etc). However, nearly every other director has allowed for the theatrical cut to be included with their alternate cuts, or at least co-exist as separate releases. Lucas is alone in denying access to the original theatrical versions of his films, a concept he rallied against back in 1988.

So, sure, he has the legal right to change the works he owns and suppress the originals, but that doesn't mean we have to like it.

re: Star Wars
 

I bet there are more changes. I remember about a month or two before the 2004 DVD release, the internet got hold of the 'Hayden inserted into the Force Ghost Scene' addition in ROTJ. I remember not believing it, thinking it was a joke. When I finally read the DVD review of the set, they mentioned all the changes (Lucas never said anything in the original PR statement). Once I saw the Hayden change in ROTJ, I realized that Lucas had really lost his mind because that is more pointless the Greedo shooting first!

re: Star Wars
 

That's because no one has any great affection or love for the prequels. That and 98% of it is CG anyway, so more tinkering doesn't seem as awful.

Great read. Thanks for the link. Kept me busy waiting at the Dr.'s office today.

re: Star Wars
 

Yep. Lucas himself could probably set the master prints of the prequels on fire and it seems most wouldn't give a shit. :lol:

re: Star Wars
 

I do recall that the reason the changes to AOTC didn't get much flack was that he fixed something that was kinda dumb the first time around. When Padme falls out of that gunship and lands on a sand dune, in the original she's asked by one of the troopers if she's okay, and she gives a perky "yep!" like she's just been shopping at The Gap. For the DVD release, they redubbed her line to more of a groggy "...yeah..." that better reflects falling out of a moving vehicle onto a sand dune.

That's an example of a good fix. Some of the good fixes from the OT: fixing the compositing in the Luke vs the Rancor fight scene, which was overlooked in 97 but finally fixed in 2004. A scene that could use a good fix would be when Han says "I know a few maneuvers", then flies in a straight line. If that had been fixed for the SE's, that would be a little easier to accept.

But slapstick droids? Vader taking the shuttle cab back to the Star Destroyer?

Still, I maintain the opinion that the prequels are one good trip through the editing bay (with Lucas locked out of the room) from being decent B-movies. There's still underlying story issues, but they wouldn't be as much of a chore to watch with better pacing and some more character building deleted scenes put back in.

re: Star Wars
 

I don't think this is the outrage though...fans aren't upset that Lucas fixed the matte shots for the snowspeeders in ESB, they're pissed becuase of the added scenes, changing dialogue (not to mention swapping out actors with other actors) and replacing favorite shots with totally new/altered ones. Had all Lucas done was "repair" work, we'd love him. What he's done is change the whole tone of the movies - and often for no rhyme or reason.

re: Star Wars
 

Here's another Raiders change, pretty subtle though, compared to Star Wars changes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_sFW8grQtU

re: Star Wars
 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Totally agree with this. If Lucas just changes some subtle effects shots (Battle of Yavin comes to mind) or (changing Obiwans Home), fans like me wouldn't have been up in arms about the changes. Sure there would be a fanbase that would demand the originals, but it would be much smaller.

The change that tipped me over the edge was removing Shaw from the Ghost Scene and adding Hayden. That killed any argument for Saga fans to say, "Well, if you don't like the PT, you don't have to watch em!!" Well, now I have to see Hayden Christenson in ROTJ everytime I watch it you stupid idiots!

re: Star Wars
 

And this is likely the same reaction any change would garner. Anything he tweaks to the PT would likely be viewed as an improvement.

re: Star Wars
 

That was one of the changes. Others changes are more subtle and may be questionable in why they were changed, although I don't think any are viewed as damaging the film.

Another factor I think was that the DVD of AOTC was released only 6 months after the theatrical, while the DVD for TPM was released 1 1/2 years after the VHS, and over 2 years after the theatrical, meaning fans had more time to cement a previous version in their minds before the revised release.

If it's familiarity with previous versions that breeds contempt for changes, then any further changes to the prequels in the Blu-rays may spark more outrage than the previous changes did.

I do agree that a lot more fans would be accepting of the altered versions if all that was altered was subtle FX fixes. In fact, the changes in Radiers illustrate this; these changes have existed for about 8 years now, on two separate DVD releases and apparently on HD broadcasts of the film, and there's been very little fuss.

It's the changes that affect character, pacing, and tone that get people upset.

I'm thinking that change was so that the landscape in the FX shot matched the live action footage. However, it's notable that the creator of that clip is still upset about this fairly subtle change.

With multiple angles and seamless branching features on DVD/Blu-ray, there's little reason why multiple versions of most films can't be included on the same disc.

re: Star Wars
 

I would view the digital painting out of Natalie Portman's nipples (which were plainly visible through her white jumpsuit in the theatrical release) as damaging to the film, personally. :)

re: Star Wars
 

FINALLY! A point on which we can all agree!