That's the thing, he's changing his own work, where as a studio is changing the Stooges.

Maybe it's just the way the article is written, but it seems to me from the way it reads that these might be comments Lucas made 20 years ago when testifying.

Well we already knew that one since he raped all you babies childhoods. :o

No, his comments are recent. He's specifically talking about the Stooges and he references Jim Carrey.

Oops, I missed the Carrey bit.

What about discussing Lucas’s point?

Granted, he's a hypocrite. But what about the merits (if any) of colourization? Let me scandalize you all by saying that I am not dead set against it, having seen at least two examples of it being done in a very commendable way.

The first one is a 1996 TV video copy of Clouzot's "Wages of Fear" (Le salaire de la peur), which was colourized for the RTF (Radio-Télévision française) under the direction of the deceased director's daughter, who was with him on location when Clouzot shot his film in Central America in the fifties, and which was shown on both the French Ontario TFO station and on the French Radio-Canada. (This version is not available on commercial video in any region.) The result is stupendous: most of the colours are blue for the sky, pink for the flesh tones, white for the pants and wife-beaters of the protagonists, male Mexican garb and street scenes, yellow for the sand, grey for the rocks and the mud, green for the sparse vegetation, brown for the petroleum patch and red for the fire. Then there are the "village" scenes, which must have taken up 90 % of the colourization budget because of the very intricately coloured peasant dresses, drapes and table cloths.

The general effect if of an extended 50's EC comic book story come to life and it's very interesting.

The other one is the Ted Turner-sponsored colourized "King Kong" which is so unrealistic, I think it is a work of art in its own right if only because it adds yet another level of unreality to a fantasy that is so much part of our collective unconscious, we probably dream about it in living colour (although most of us would never admit it).

I would very much like to own that one. But what are the odds it will ever come out on DVD?

Yet, if it ever was exhibited in a museum billed as "a personal interpretation of the myth of King Kong by one of America's foremost pop artists as a brazen exploration of the relationship between black and white and colour, the past and the present, the mythical and the real", it would certainly fill theatre halls for years to come.

You know, Lucas's point is that they are bastardizing the work, changing it from its original form, not that they aren't the original filmmakers. I really doubt that if the guy who directed some of the Three Stooges decided to go back and colorize it, Lucas would be supporting him fully.

So, I really don't think that is Lucas's point, nor is it really relevant. What the point is is that Lucas considers going back and colorizing something to be a bastardization of the original (even in a DVD set that includes the original black and white ones).

But truthfully he does the same type of things to his films, but doesn't offer the originals. I'm not a Lucas hater, but assuming these quotes come from him, they really seem pretty clueless about what he's doing himself.

Puppets are such an understatement, a better term would be respected writers whom lucas has much to learn from.

A valid viewpoint to be sure and one I'm not entirely opposed to either. The crux of it all is the presentation. Selling it as an improvement leads to anger and resentment from critical and public communities. Selling it as an art piece diminishes it's commercial viability.

I agree with you if the source is available or at least acknowledged by the new version. Many hold Van Sant's Psycho in contempt but I view the film as an interesting, if not entirely successful, view into the mechanics of a master filmmaker's methods.

who went along with the program and gave the go ahead for any changes.. not that he had to bother asking.

Terrell,
i understand how someone can have this point of view- i really do.
but where i come down on the opposite side is - these weren't soley products of George Lucas.
he wasn't toiling away in a garret making these masterpieces on his own- everything filtered thru his singular vision- he was employing hundreds and hundreds of craftsmen, technicians and artists in their own right who were just as responisble for making these films artistic and commercial benchmarks.
going by the Lucas model, Sony has every right to manipulate and degrade and molest the work in their catalog.

i actually could not believe this was an actual quote from this guy-i was wondering why the hell in the world would Lucas be roused to ire by ...The Three Stooges!?
but then i realized how much of Jedi, and the SE of ANH (as well as some of the prequels) contain lame, out of place slapstick (especially the entrance to Mos Eisley which is very out of place in context of the films events and tone at that point) and it seems entirely possible now.

looking at his work, it seems obvious that Lucas is a clearly a fan of slapstick of this sort- and while i'm not disparaging TTS or fans of their work, or even slapstick in general- in the context of adding material to finished films that are cultural landmarks 20 years after the fact, i find the addition of slapstick elements to be quite grating- especially when they are as artlessly utilized as they were in the SE of ANH

Man, what a racist. Colored stooges should be given the same rights as white stooges. And I think women should maybe get to vote, but let's not push it.

Thats BS...changing is changing. He has no right to tamper with history, at least not without giving everyone the choice of having both versions.

If any of you actually believe that this was his "original" vision then you fooling yourself. He said the same garbo back in 97 so he would not need to be changing them again to fit the prequels. He is flying by the seat of his pants. He has no respect for film history and should STFU about anyone else tampering with other films.

Especially since the big complaint people have isn't that he's changing them, it's that he's replacing them without offereing the originals to the public. Hardly comparable to a company changing something they own, but on the same disc offering the original black and whites.

well and concisely put.

if these comments are in fact the real deal, seems like Lucas is getting a pass on most of the forums i look at.
over on HTF, for instance they are on about the 15th page of debating whether the ROTJ rips are legit or WIPs and i only saw one or two posts about this.

the comments are galling, for precisely the reason you mentioned- ulimately the alterations represent not an alternative vision (which would be fine) but a subversion of the original, historical documents resulting in a lack of choice for the consumer/fan.

I have no respect for people that care about film history. Film=entertainment, end of story for me. I have no use for this film history, artsy fartsty intellectual crap when it comes to movies.

As for as him having no right to change them, there his movies he can do with them what he wants. The originals are available, just not on legal DVDs, there are good quality bootlegs and laserdiscs as well as VHS out there, so people do have some choice.

funny Josh, but thats the same argument my 60 year old aunt makes when they don't offer her favorite movie "without those stupid black bars".
Film isn't art/history to her either...you seem to have a lot in common.

Consider the feeling reciprocated.

I have nothing to say here. This post speaks for itself.


:walks away:

Whoa. This statement makes me feel like that Indian who is looking over a field of trash and crying.

Without a doubt, do you think there was much he was directly involved with. How many hours do think he was away from the set?

This isn't exactly true, the originals are available to anyone who wants them, just not on DVD. I personally think he should release the originals just to make everyone happy. However, if he were releasing both, i would still be more excited for the new ones. I can see the old ones any time. I'm looking forward to the new ones. I hope he makes even more changes down the road. They are fun, some are good, some are bad, but they are entertaining. I completely understand people wanting the originals and also prefering them. I just don't understand how the changes effect how you feel about the originals. I loved Dawn of the Dead 2004, but it has zero effect on my love for the original Dawn of the dead. They are completely different movies. Same with version Star Wars Trilogy 3.0

What he is doing is destroying film history...I could care less what he does with his films as long as the ORIGINALS are preserved and offered as a choice in any current meduim. He owes that not only to film history but to a whole generation of fans.

If he wants to destroy his movies and bring them down to the level of these prequels....let him, just provide the films that history will remember as well.

I am so tired of hearing..."they are available, just not on DVD". Do you think that it would have been that much trouble or cost to add the originals in the upcoming DVD sets? NO!! He is trying to FORCE his revisnonist hisotry down our throats!

And all you younger generation of fans who call the older generation a bunch of whiners about changes...have no concept and could never appreciate the OT like we do unless you saw them brand new in the theater as they came out.

GL just needs to STFU about anyone making any changes to film period!

My grain of arsenic: I never could stand Episodes IV, V and VI, even though (or maybe because) I saw the first one in a tiny multiplex with bad sound and in the worst conditions possible*when it came out. (I was an adult saddled with my 8 year-old French unilingual nephew to whom I had to translate every syllable of that jejune script.)

*This was when theatre owners had the sacred principle of giving the customer as little comfort, sound and visual stimuli as the law and the market would allow.

I think any change to those three films is an improvement, both to their visual aspect and their wobbly storyline. I say this even after having seen the original version laserdiscs in the best possible home theatre conditions.

I think they pale compared to Episodes I and II in every respect.

Having said this, yes, GL is an ******* and he should certainly STFU about colourization. I also wish this thread could come up with some positive feedback on the process itself.

At any rate, GL is not the only hypocrite (that word again!) out there. I notice that some of the same critics who cry "Rape!" at the thought of colourizing those immortal "Three Stooges" episodes are also in absolute awe at the magnificent (artificial) colour restoration of the missing colour footage of the silent "Phantom of the Opera" (1925), for instance (the Image/Milestone DVD edition).