|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by BuckNaked2k
(Post 10841709)
Imagine....
I'm all for including multiple cuts of the movies (I actually love when thats done and will frequently watch all the different versions) but guess what? I'm not George Lucas. And again, the people complaining are a drop in the bucket and the complainers who will actually refuse to buy the Blu-ray sets are a smaller group still and I'm sure Lucas is very happy with the balance he's struck re: presenting the movies as he wants them presented and releasing a product that will appeal to consumers. It would be one thing if mankind in general collectively boycotted altered "Star Wars" releases or if the OOT releases of '06 set sales charts ablaze (and don't even try to say your average consumer even understands the concept of a non-anamorphic transfer) but neither is the case. People want the Special Edition, the Director's Cut, the Extended Edition, the Unrated Version etc. Try as they might the haters of post-'97 Lucas have not been successful in destroying his Empire. |
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by Living Dead
(Post 10841637)
Lucas is pretty much all about the money, but he won't offer a product that would sell like crazy. I mean sure, he'll make millions with the OT on Blu, but he'd make even more by giving old school fans the version they desire. The number of people who refuse to buy the new set will be greatly outnumbered by those who do, but we will still cost Lucas money.
To me, this is proof that Lucas will never release the original versions in a restored presentation. He's already rich beyond most people's dreams, so in his warped mind, changing the history of the films is more important than maximizing profit. In a hundred years, when all of us who saw the originals are long dead, the bastardized versions that are out there now will be the accepted norm. And God only knows what other unnecessary crap Lucas will add into the films during the rest of his lifetime. Whatever version exists on the day he dies, that will be the version future generations will know... and that's pretty damn depressing. I'll stick with my bootlegs... apparently forever. What you've posted above is simply foolish 'mesearch' on how many people will not buy the new Blu vs. those that will. Yes, there are people on this board and several others that will bitch, but you're talking about a small percentage of the fan base for such a release. You're highly over-estimating the general public's distaste for the current versions of the Original Trilogy. If the release of a blu-ray disc movie is that depressing, you should seek the help of a medical professional right now.
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 10841738)
It would be one thing if mankind in general collectively boycotted altered "Star Wars" releases or if the OOT releases of '06 set sales charts ablaze (and don't even try to say your average consumer even understands the concept of a non-anamorphic transfer) but neither is the case. People want the Special Edition, the Director's Cut, the Extended Edition, the Unrated Version etc.
|
re: Star Wars
It is actually about respect of film, and art, in the form the artist decided to release to the public. Lets not confuse artist with copyright owner for a second, because often in film, they are two separate things. No one here has any delusions of destroying anything. Doesn't mean the opinion can't be expressed, and gasp, a valid opinion held by some may not always change things.
First off, Lucas wasn't the only artist involved in Star Wars. So, as copyright owner, he has altered the works of other artists to fit his agenda. A lot of people won Academy Awards for work that has been destroyed. If you care about film, you should care about the lack of a good copy available to view it today. Because, eventually those DVDs are going to be obsolete, or not available, and then it is gone. So yeah, this generation has a crappy version if they want to see the original and then it would probably disappear. Second, comparing a re-release of 2006 DVD with a 2004 DVD is idiotic. I don't even know what the sales figures are for the two are, but given that the same movie was released two years prior, there wasn't a way to do a real comparison. The 2004 version is always to going to destroy subsequent re-releases, including the Blu-Rays. The only way these movies are going to get released in a home viewing context is when Lucasfilm, the corporate entity designed to maximize profits, and owner of the copyright is divorced from Lucas, the revisionist artist. Steven Spielberg: When people ask me which E.T. they should look at, I always tell them to look at the original 1982 E.T. If you notice, when we did put out E.T. we put out two E.T.s. We put out the digitally enhanced version with the additional scenes and for no extra money, in the same package, we put out the original ‘82 version. I always tell people to go back to the ’82 version. Quint: Having the option is the big deal for me. Using the Star Wars example, I don’t think there’d be an outcry if we could watch a nice transfer of the original versions. We’d be like, “George can do what he wants and I’ll watch it… but you know maybe the fans would like the option of watching the movie they fell in love with, too.” Steven Spielberg: Yeah. And I think the other good thing is that they understand when they see a movie and they suddenly see something that obviously could have been done much better today and could have been corrected in the DVD/Blu-Ray transfer, they really appreciate seeing the strings attached. If somebody put out George Pal’s War of the Worlds and took the strings off the machines I’d be very upset. When that machine crashes in downtown Hollywood, and you see the strings going from taut to slack, that’s the thing that allows me to both understand this movie is scaring the hell out of me and at the same time this movie is a creation of the human race. That little taut-to-slack moment of those wires on that wingtip makes the original George Pal War of the Worlds work for me. It embraces my fears and it also alleviates them in the same breath. |
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 10841738)
Imagine if people didn't have a false sense of entitlement in regards to copyrighted material.
The creator of a work has a lot of say over how that work should be initially presented, but once it's out in the world, it becomes part of our culture, and then part of our cultural history. This is why the Library of Congress has a copy of the original Star Wars as part of its film collection; to preserve an important part of our culture. It's what George Lucas himself has argued for in the past. http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeecha...aledition.html A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history. People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart... In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten... The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.
Originally Posted by Guru Askew
(Post 10841738)
And again, the people complaining are a drop in the bucket
Try as they might the haters of post-'97 Lucas have not been successful in destroying his Empire. |
re: Star Wars
Two good points recently made:
1) Lucas was not the only artist who worked on these films. I hope those of you who recognize this will remember this point the next time I'm left all by my lonesome challenging the auteur theory. 2) The OOT crowd--while not necessarily quantified--is surely larger than the niche audiences who get the releases they want. This, to me, is actually evidence that Lucas is not just about the money. He really believes these changes better represent his "vision" (whatever that term actually means in this context, I've questioned since the early 90s). I wonder what the George Lucas who made THX 1138 would say about all this. The broader--and far more interesting--subject raised is the relationship of commercial art to culture. On the one hand, we know better than to place things like Star Wars on a pedestal and yet we keep doing it. At their core, these kinds of things are still art capable of all the kinds of impact that any form of art has ever been able to make. They inspire us, they challenge us to question ourselves and our world, they reassure us of our values, they allow us to remember what it's like to laugh and to find a reprieve from our own lives through the escapism of the medium. And yet, I think we forfeit some of our claim to that purity when we invest ourselves so deeply in what is clearly the property of someone else. We can debate whether U.S. copyright law is currently in keeping with the spirit and intent upon which it was established (I'm of the mind it is not), but when we discuss this we must also recognize the impact of technology on art. Would Lucas continue to tinker with these films if there wasn't a home video format to ensure purchases? Would he bother if the only way to present these iterations was to schedule a new theatrical release each time? The marriage of commerce and art has always been dubious, and never more than now. We're accustomed to not just viewing, hearing or reading art, but to possess it in some form. That makes us buyers as well as aficionados, and it would be disingenuous to accuse our artists of being merchants without confessing our own complicity. |
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by MinLShaw
(Post 10842661)
Lucas was not the only artist who worked on these films. I hope those of you who recognize this will remember this point the next time I'm left all by my lonesome challenging the auteur theory.
|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by Doctorossi
(Post 10842694)
The authority of a director to make final executive decisions (as someone has to) in the production of a movie does not the auteur theory make. For every film, there must be a final authority, regardless of who it is and regardless of the number of artists who have contributed options for that authority's disposal which may or may not become a part of the end product. This fact has almost nothing to do with the auteur theory concept.
Won't somebody think of the poor caterer? |
re: Star Wars
I miss John Lennon. :(
|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
(Post 10842904)
I miss John Lennon. :(
Ya, what if Yoko Ono came out and said everyone was now to refer to John Lennon as Yoko Lennon because that was his parents original intention in naming him but they didnt have the technology to use that name when he was born. Imagine. |
re: Star Wars
|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by Deadman31
(Post 10843174)
Ya, what if Yoko Ono came out and said everyone was now to refer to John Lennon as Yoko Lennon because that was his parents original intention in naming him but they didnt have the technology to use that name when he was born. Imagine.
|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by lordzeppelin
(Post 10841779)
Look, I'm not trying to defend Lucas or anything here, but do you know the guy personally? How can you say he's all about the money?
What you've posted above is simply foolish 'mesearch' on how many people will not buy the new Blu vs. those that will. Yes, there are people on this board and several others that will bitch, but you're talking about a small percentage of the fan base for such a release. You're highly over-estimating the general public's distaste for the current versions of the Original Trilogy. If the release of a blu-ray disc movie is that depressing, you should seek the help of a medical professional right now. I am fully aware that the number of people buying the BD's will greatly outnumber the people who don't buy it, and I said as much in my post. What I DID say was that there is an audience out there that wants the originals, even if it is small, and Lucas still refuses to give them the product they want. So since I would usually believe him to be about the money, in this case it's the altering of the films that's more important to him, not the money. Also, it's not necessarily the release of the Blu Ray set that I find depressing, it's the erasure of important film history... as I also said in my post. |
re: Star Wars
Whoa, way too many pages. Will this set finally include anamorphic versions of the the theatrical cuts?
|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by chanster
(Post 10840499)
I wonder who could be mysterious figure with R2 and C-3PO could be. Doesn't make sense. No mystery, but thats par for the course in the brave new world of the prequels, where idiotic mysteries were par for the course.
As presented in the movie, the cloaked Luke works because he arrives separately from the droids. |
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by Living Dead
(Post 10843861)
Do any of the 1500 or so people in this thread know Lucas personally? No, but that doesn't stop people from offering opinions and conjectures. By your own logic, how can you know he's NOT about the money, since I doubt you now him personally either?
I am fully aware that the number of people buying the BD's will greatly outnumber the people who don't buy it, and I said as much in my post. What I DID say was that there is an audience out there that wants the originals, even if it is small, and Lucas still refuses to give them the product they want. So since I would usually believe him to be about the money, in this case it's the altering of the films that's more important to him, not the money. Also, it's not necessarily the release of the Blu Ray set that I find depressing, it's the erasure of important film history... as I also said in my post. How do you know Lucas wont release the OOT in the next BluRay set? Remember Lucas held back the Deleted Scenes in the 2004 DVD, because he knew they would be a great selling point somewhere down the line. And you forget that Lucas released the OOT in 2006 (now it was anamorphic, but many fans didn't have an HDTV at that time, so it did sell). Trust me, Lucas is ALL about the money, because if he put everything out in this set, then he has no selling point for the next super duper deluxed ultra mega boxset in 2015 or 2016 or 2017. The OOT is a great selling point for the next boxset. Just think if Lucas never did the Special Editions, as he has TWO fanbases now clamoring for the movies. As much as I can't stand the guy, he is a marketing genius to get fans to keep buying the same movies over and over. |
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by lordzeppelin
(Post 10841779)
Look, I'm not trying to defend Lucas or anything here, but do you know the guy personally? How can you say he's all about the money?
Did ‘Star Wars’ become a toy story? Producer Gary Kurtz looks back “I could see where things were headed,” Kurtz said. “The toy business began to drive the [Lucasfilm] empire. It’s a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It’s natural to make decisions that protect the toy business, but that’s not the best thing for making quality films.” He added: “The first film and ‘Empire’ were about story and character, but I could see that George’s priorities were changing.” |
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by daniel18
(Post 10843875)
Whoa, way too many pages. Will this set finally include anamorphic versions of the the theatrical cuts?
this might have been answered, but I'm far too lazy to go back some twenty pages to find out, is the 'Empire of Dreams' documentary getting included? |
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by mcnabb
(Post 10843908)
How do you know Lucas wont release the OOT in the next BluRay set? Remember Lucas held back the Deleted Scenes in the 2004 DVD, because he knew they would be a great selling point somewhere down the line. And you forget that Lucas released the OOT in 2006 (now it was anamorphic, but many fans didn't have an HDTV at that time, so it did sell).
Trust me, Lucas is ALL about the money, because if he put everything out in this set, then he has no selling point for the next super duper deluxed ultra mega boxset in 2015 or 2016 or 2017. The OOT is a great selling point for the next boxset. Just think if Lucas never did the Special Editions, as he has TWO fanbases now clamoring for the movies. As much as I can't stand the guy, he is a marketing genius to get fans to keep buying the same movies over and over. He probably WILL release them again later on, but I seriously doubt they will ever be restored or receive the lavish treatment of his special editions. How long should we realistically expect the man to hold off on releasing something before we just eventually assume he's not going to do it? People have been saying "He's holding out for the next set!" for over a decade. This is my opinion. I don't know George Lucas personally, as was recently pointed out, so what I'm saying may eventually be proved incorrect. |
re: Star Wars
Hope this new HD transfer makes Luke's lightsaber on the Millennium Falcon even greener. That would be awesome.
|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by Living Dead
(Post 10844071)
He probably WILL release them again later on, but I seriously doubt they will ever be restored
|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by yoshimi
(Post 10844097)
Hope this new HD transfer makes Luke's lightsaber on the Millennium Falcon even greener. That would be awesome.
|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by Spottedfeather
(Post 10844123)
Why would they make the lightsaber he has on the Falcon green ? Luke's original saber was blue.
|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by Doctorossi
(Post 10844135)
To better match the upcoming production of The Hobbit- duh!
|
re: Star Wars
Originally Posted by Giles
(Post 10844069)
this might have been answered, but I'm far too lazy to go back some twenty pages to find out, is the 'Empire of Dreams' documentary getting included?
|
re: Star Wars
I was thinking about this before I laid my head down to bed last night... Star Wars AND Empire Strikes Back are in the Library of Congress Film Archive. That's the original version, right? lol.
WHAT VERSION WILL I HAVE AFTER THE APOCALYPSE. IS THAT WHAT IT'S GONNA TAKE?! :lol: :lol: I'm still buying this, btw. I'd want to have the Special Editions along with the Original Version in HD anyways. The SEs of Empire/Jedi don't even bother me. Empire is essentially just a spit shine compared to the other two. I appreciated how they cleaned up the original effects in the last 2 films (not completely replacing them like ANH) As far as the docs, I have them on my HTPC anyways. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.