George Lucas fucking with Star wars again.

[Atmos Duality]

We're years past Lucas raping Star Wars beyond repair.
I mean..have you SEEN THE CHRISTMAS SPECIAL?? WHAT THE FUCK?

In all seriousness, this meddling is just Lucas doing shit because he's bored. If he honestly gave a fuck about the artistic merit of his work (rather than its lucrative merchandising potential) he would have done the prequels far far differently.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

This is just hilarious, i wonder how the hell such a cool universe can originate from and still have a person like george lucas at the helm.

 

[Asita]

We're years past Lucas raping Star Wars beyond repair.
I mean..have you SEEN THE CHRISTMAS SPECIAL?? WHAT THE FUCK?

In all seriousness, this meddling is just Lucas doing shit because he's bored. If he honestly gave a fuck about the artistic merit of his work (rather than its lucrative merchandising potential) he would have done the prequels far far differently.

In fairness to the man, Lucas had no direct involvement with the Holiday Special and has gone on record saying he'd like to see every copy of it destroyed ("If I had the time and a sledgehammer, I would track down every copy of that show and smash it.")

 

[PrinceofPersia]

Ughhhhh, I really hope these are fake, particularly the second clip. You honestly expect me to believe a creature that looks like this

has such a wussy cry? The original version actually sounded like an intimidating roar. I'm talking about the "original" original version here, as in the one that hit theaters in 1977 (God this is becoming confusing). Sadly I can't find a good sample on Youtube, so you kids are going to have to trust me on this one.

Closest thing I could find for the original Krayt Dragon call is this at 00:15 seconds:

 

[glyn]

www.redlettermedia.com

It's so funny, this link always gets posted at least ten times in any Star Wars thread.

It's always easier to agree with people bashing something than actually coming up with ideas yourself.

No, it's easier to put a link to someone who's said what I think rather than fill this thread up with what would effectively be a transcript.

How is he taking their money off of them? He's offering them a product, which they have all the right in the world to just say "no thx, do not want" to.
The people rageing already knows that it's minor changes, that they won't like.

"the idiotic, the young and the obsessive compulsive"
You've never seen a kid screaming in a toy shop/supermarket?
You've never seen the pictures of people with OC houses filled with every version of floppy hatted Luke?

Take this example.
Apple puts out a new iPhone. It coems in the color white, nothing else. People love it.
Then later, they make a new version of the same phone, but it's now in black.
It does in no way change the white phone people have, they just offer a slightly different version of it to people.
Would you be willing to rage, because of it? Would you consider them to be "wielding their power and influence over the idiotic, the young and the obsessive compulsive of the world and taking their money off them"?

Thanks for making the point for me there. People hanker after the black version as it's newer, even if the only difference is different coloured. This is the same thing and yes I do rage against it. Same with Nintendo's new colour scheme, football strip changes, and any other things which are changed fundamentally as a money grabbing exercise.

 

[floppylobster]

=

 

[Manji187]

It's official....George Lucas' hobby is trolling the fans. I wonder what he'll change next.

 

[teisjm]

www.redlettermedia.com

It's so funny, this link always gets posted at least ten times in any Star Wars thread.

It's always easier to agree with people bashing something than actually coming up with ideas yourself.

No, it's easier to put a link to someone who's said what I think rather than fill this thread up with what would effectively be a transcript.

How is he taking their money off of them? He's offering them a product, which they have all the right in the world to just say "no thx, do not want" to.
The people rageing already knows that it's minor changes, that they won't like.

"the idiotic, the young and the obsessive compulsive"
You've never seen a kid screaming in a toy shop/supermarket?
You've never seen the pictures of people with OC houses filled with every version of floppy hatted Luke?

Take this example.
Apple puts out a new iPhone. It coems in the color white, nothing else. People love it.
Then later, they make a new version of the same phone, but it's now in black.
It does in no way change the white phone people have, they just offer a slightly different version of it to people.
Would you be willing to rage, because of it? Would you consider them to be "wielding their power and influence over the idiotic, the young and the obsessive compulsive of the world and taking their money off them"?

Thanks for making the point for me there. People hanker after the black version as it's newer, even if the only difference is different coloured. This is the same thing and yes I do rage against it. Same with Nintendo's new colour scheme, football strip changes, and any other things which are changed fundamentally as a money grabbing exercise.

First of all, if I misunedrstand you, then i appologize, as i'm not completely sure whetehr we agree or disagree, i'm gonna respond like we disagree.

But are you actually defending the people who are the very reason this market exist, by demonising the people giving them what they want? So the producers of goods, be it films, ipods or footballs should limit the choices of color/whateever for the sane majority to choose from, in order to protect the obsessive?
Offering people a choice, not forcing anyone, is now bad, because some people are too messed up to decline it, it's not heroin we're talking about here?

To me, it seems kinda like banning video-games because some people becomes so "addicted" (Read: compelled) by them, that they abandon their work/studies and social life.

 

[glyn]

First of all, if I misunedrstand you, then i appologize, as i'm not completely sure whetehr we agree or disagree, i'm gonna respond like we disagree.

But are you actually defending the people who are the very reason this market exist, by demonising the people giving them what they want? So the producers of goods, be it films, ipods or footballs should limit the choices of color/whateever for the sane majority to choose from, in order to protect the obsessive?
Offering people a choice, not forcing anyone, is now bad, because some people are too messed up to decline it, it's not heroin we're talking about here?

To me, it seems kinda like banning video-games because some people becomes so "addicted" (Read: compelled) by them, that they abandon their work/studies and social life.

Don't worry, we disagree ;-)
It's not about the number of options available. Take cars for example, the new Ford Focus is available in say 7 colours. Fine, they're not trying to sell you a new car and they won't add a "pink" option in 3 months time. When Ford released the orange Focus (can't remember it's model number) they also changed the engine, suspension, interior, etc. so you'd be getting a different product.

Compare this to say a Manchester United shirt which is released new, every year and has a slightly wider stripe one year and different coloured stitching on the collar the next.

Or star wars merchandise. When they release the same figure (the exact same moulded, painted lump of plastic) on a red lightsabre background card, then a green, then a blue, then an 80s style, then an 80s style with a slightly different photo on the card, then, then, then...

This isn't innovation or creativity or freedom of choice, it's just lazy moneygrabbing. Feeding on other's weaknesses and character traits is wrong. You're not a heroin dealer (I assume ;-)) you wouldn't try to profit from someone else, which is exactly what this is. Lucas, United, directors, whoever should have a moral element to their decision making rather than a profit-centric one.

United release a new shirt every year to make money, not to give fans a choice, there's only one choice, this year's model. Humanity's herd instinct means that even those who aren't in the "the idiotic, the young and the obsessive compulsive" bracket will go into debt if need be so they can buy it.

Companies should exercise morallity when wielding their power. True this is unlikely to happen, but I can dream can't I ???

 

[teisjm]

First of all, if I misunedrstand you, then i appologize, as i'm not completely sure whetehr we agree or disagree, i'm gonna respond like we disagree.

But are you actually defending the people who are the very reason this market exist, by demonising the people giving them what they want? So the producers of goods, be it films, ipods or footballs should limit the choices of color/whateever for the sane majority to choose from, in order to protect the obsessive?
Offering people a choice, not forcing anyone, is now bad, because some people are too messed up to decline it, it's not heroin we're talking about here?

To me, it seems kinda like banning video-games because some people becomes so "addicted" (Read: compelled) by them, that they abandon their work/studies and social life.

Don't worry, we disagree ;-)
It's not about the number of options available. Take cars for example, the new Ford Focus is available in say 7 colours. Fine, they're not trying to sell you a new car and they won't add a "pink" option in 3 months time. When Ford released the orange Focus (can't remember it's model number) they also changed the engine, suspension, interior, etc. so you'd be getting a different product.

Compare this to say a Manchester United shirt which is released new, every year and has a slightly wider stripe one year and different coloured stitching on the collar the next.

Or star wars merchandise. When they release the same figure (the exact same moulded, painted lump of plastic) on a red lightsabre background card, then a green, then a blue, then an 80s style, then an 80s style with a slightly different photo on the card, then, then, then...

This isn't innovation or creativity or freedom of choice, it's just lazy moneygrabbing. Feeding on other's weaknesses and character traits is wrong. You're not a heroin dealer (I assume ;-)) you wouldn't try to profit from someone else, which is exactly what this is. Lucas, United, directors, whoever should have a moral element to their decision making rather than a profit-centric one.

United release a new shirt every year to make money, not to give fans a choice, there's only one choice, this year's model. Humanity's herd instinct means that even those who aren't in the "the idiotic, the young and the obsessive compulsive" bracket will go into debt if need be so they can buy it.

Companies should exercise morallity when wielding their power. True this is unlikely to happen, but I can dream can't I ???

Maybe i just have too much faith in humanity, but i honestly don't think people with compulsive behavior problems make up that big a part of the inteded costumers.
When they release a new something with different colours, i think they cater primarily to all the people who doens't have one yet.
If people have obsessive behavior on a level that makes it a problem, and makes them seem like victims of whatever industry they're obsessed about, i don't think you should attack the industry, but attack the core of the problem, the obsessive behavior itself.
You can't limit what you create, because a few unlucky people are too messed up, to realise that they don't need every version of an item. They should be helped otherwise, by someone capable of helping them with their problem.
Again, i will repeat myself, you shouldn't limit the game industry, to releasing only a few games a year, so the people for whoom gameing is a problem don't waste more money, they should be helped with their problem.

On a side-note, if i had to take a guess, i don't even think lucas is doing it to squeeze money out of obsessive, people.
If you create something, it'll only take so much time, before you notice things you would've done otherwise, it's a natural thing about art.
I had a teacher at the end of my last semester (3D graphics school) tell us, that if we made a movie/model/picture/animation etc. and could keep watching it months after it was made, without noticing flaws, we had a problem, cause that would mean we hadn't learned anything.
George lucas has the funds to keep going back and fix those things, and considering the magnitude of sar wars, i wouldn't be supprised if he himself was so obsessed with them, that he would waste money "fixing" them.

If he had wanted to squeeze money out of people, re-releasing the un-altered originals in HD would probably have been more than enough, if not more effective, since anyone with a "OMG MUST OWN" obsession, would still get them, cause they're new,and now in HD and all the people rageing about it would've also gotten it, instead of dismissing it due to the changes.

 

[glyn]

Maybe i just have too much faith in humanity, but i honestly don't think people with compulsive behavior problems make up that big a part of the inteded costumers.

It's not that they're making stuff only for those small groups, they're making stuff based on abusing/utilising the compulsive behaviour in all humans.

When they release a new something with different colours, i think they cater primarily to all the people who doens't have one yet.

That's wonderfully niave of you

All good writers/artists/whatever have someone in an editing/oversight role who say "yup that's enough"

Da Vinci carried the Mona Lisa round with him and it took his death to make him stop messing round with it. And look at the result (which I did last week on holiday as it happens a murky, dark picture of a woman.

In 1977 GL had editors who helped to make the film better and producers, backers and whatnot who said when it was done. Nobody now has any influence over him to make him stop doing stuff that makes no sense to anyone but him (e.g. Hayden Christiansen not Sebastian Shaw as anakin at the end of ROTJ)

No single individual at Pixar, Aardman, etc. has sole control or influence over the product, no matter who had the initial idea.

Again, i will repeat myself, you shouldn't limit the game industry, to releasing only a few games a year, so the people for whoom gameing is a problem don't waste more money, they should be helped with their problem.

Maybe the games industry should limit itself to producing fewer games so that the quality of those games that are produced are higher. I've got a few games I like that I play often and many, many others that I've bought, played a few times and then either gather dust or get traded in for others.

I really wish I'd have spent the time playing Halo 2 and 3 playing the first Halo or something else I enjoyed equally as much rather than a rehash of ideas what not.

 

[teisjm]

Maybe i just have too much faith in humanity, but i honestly don't think people with compulsive behavior problems make up that big a part of the inteded costumers.

It's not that they're making stuff only for those small groups, they're making stuff based on abusing/utilising the compulsive behaviour in all humans.

When they release a new something with different colours, i think they cater primarily to all the people who doens't have one yet.

That's wonderfully niave of you

All good writers/artists/whatever have someone in an editing/oversight role who say "yup that's enough"

Da Vinci carried the Mona Lisa round with him and it took his death to make him stop messing round with it. And look at the result (which I did last week on holiday as it happens a murky, dark picture of a woman.

In 1977 GL had editors who helped to make the film better and producers, backers and whatnot who said when it was done. Nobody now has any influence over him to make him stop doing stuff that makes no sense to anyone but him (e.g. Hayden Christiansen not Sebastian Shaw as anakin at the end of ROTJ)

No single individual at Pixar, Aardman, etc. has sole control or influence over the product, no matter who had the initial idea.

Again, i will repeat myself, you shouldn't limit the game industry, to releasing only a few games a year, so the people for whoom gameing is a problem don't waste more money, they should be helped with their problem.

Maybe the games industry should limit itself to producing fewer games so that the quality of those games that are produced are higher. I've got a few games I like that I play often and many, many others that I've bought, played a few times and then either gather dust or get traded in for others.

I really wish I'd have spent the time playing Halo 2 and 3 playing the first Halo or something else I enjoyed equally as much rather than a rehash of ideas what not.

On a totally serious note, how big a part of the consumers do you consider obsessed enough, to be unable to make a sound descision?
I'm well aware that marketing to fools who will buy stuff for reasons i consider stupid is profitable (shove a well-known fashin-brand-tag on a piece of clothing, and it'll sell for over twice as much as otherwise) But i don't think the majority of them, can be described as mentally obsessed to a degree, that moves the responsibility of how they spend theyr money from them, to the producers of luxury goods.
I know you'll find a lot more lack of monetary responsibility in younger people, but they are not considered economically responsible (at least not where i live) and can't take loans, or endebt themselves i that way.

Also, i repeat myself again: The HD remake in itself would be enough to bring the obsessed to the store, even without the make-over, simply because of 1080p.

Okay, so it sucks for you, that you spend money on a game you already had (sortof) and would've done otherwise in hindsight, but do you honestly blame the game companies for that?
What about the thousinds or millions of people, who doesn't regret getting getting halo 2/3? Should they hav ebeen cheated for somethign they enjoy, in order to protect people who regrett their purchase later?
Not a fanboy post, doesn't own an Xbox, doesn't play Halo, but this could apply to any game, personally i like and in no way regrett buying and playing several zelda games, despite all of them more or beeing about like getting the master sword, the bow etc. and defeating ganon.

 

[acsoundwave]

Also, i repeat myself again: The HD remake in itself would be enough to bring the obsessed to the store, even without the make-over, simply because of 1080p.

Of course, the overall complaints about Lucas' changes to the original trilogy boils down to this: all the fans of Star Wars OT want is the unaltered OT in 1080p. They want a silent morally-conflicted Darth Vader throwing Emperor Palpatine to his doom.

 

[zarathustra2k1]

"The second disc of this release contains the movie as it was released in 1977; however it's non-anamorphic, which means that it won't display properly on a widescreen television.

Star Wars creator George Lucas, who doesn't mind tinkering with his own classics for special edition re-releases said, "I am very concerned about our national heritage, and I am very concerned that the films that I watched when I was young and the films that I watched throughout my life are preserved, so that my children can see them."

Does he know the definition of "hypocrite"?

Lynne Hale of Lucasfilm said,"...since these movies (as originally released) do not represent George's artistic vision, we could not put the extraordinary time and resources into this project as we did with the Special Editions. The 1993 Laserdisc masters represented the best source for providing the original versions as DVD bonus material. Although these are non-anamorphic versions, they do preserve the original widescreen composition of the movies."

Believe it or not, George Lucas was not the only person involved in the making of these movies. Ask Ralph McQuarrie, John Dykstra, Gary Kurtz, Rick Baker, or Marcia Lucas. Star Wars (what Lucas now calls A New Hope) is a great movie that represents some of the best filmmaking of the 1970's. What Lucas is doing is completely disrespectful to all of those people that were involved in the process of making those films. He's completely disregarding their work and dishonoring their memory.

By the way, last weekend I watched the "2004 version" and I didn't think it held up. The scene where Luke and Ben enter Mos Eisley looks too busy and too cartoon-like, in other words, like CGI. The new scene with Jabba: it's redundant. It's a almost a word-for-word retread of the Greedo scene.


Lynne Hale of Lucasfilm also said, "We want you to be aware that we have no plans - now or in the future - to restore the earlier versions.

We hope you will understand our decision and, again, want to let you know how much we appreciate your interest and enthusiasm."


Okay Lynne Hale and George Lucas, I want you to be aware that I have no plans - now or in the future - to purchase your poor quality versions of the original movies. Furthermore, I and my family will NEVER spend another dime on any of your future movies.

Lucasfilm is a multi-billion dollar company and it's not willing to spend an extra hundred grand to make it's product better and it's fans happy with an anamorphic print?

Well Lucasfilm, we hope you will understand our decision and, again, want to let you know how much we don't appreciate your lack of interest and enthusiasm. "

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The "Limited Edition" packages containing both the originals and the 2004 versions were still available in stores last time I checked.

That's the 1993 remix of the original. The glass shattering when Han shoots out the camera of the detention block gives it away - as well as "New Hope" on the crawl.

Strange, because my crawl most definitely says "STAR WARS" and nothing else.

That reminds me... my Episode V and VI Limited Edition DVDs are still unopened....

Strange, because my crawl most definitely says "STAR WARS" and nothing else.

Hmm...odd...do you still have the enhanced "thump" of the Stormtroopers head and the camera explosion?

It's the '93 version, but with the original title crawl spliced back in. The only difference between the '93 version and the theatrical version is that the '93 version has a remixed sound track, so it's not too big of a deal -- especially since there were a full three sound tracks in theaters (Dolby Stereo, 7 [6?] stripe Mag Stereo, and Mono -- and the Mono one was actually supposed to be the final version).

Edit: And there was a fourth soundtrack in circulation at the time, which was made for a VHS release in the 80's -- that version is the reason so many people remember C3P0's line about shutting down the tractor beam reactor, which was in the Special Edition and (I think; I'm not sure) the mono soundtrack, but wasn't in the '93 soundtrack or the theatrical Dolby Stereo mix.

OT: Argh, if Lucas had done this right, I would have bought a flipping Blu-Ray player just for these movies. As it is, I'm seriously considering a Laserdisc player instead. Way to go, Lucas.

 

[Sexy Devil]

Makes me so glad the DVD's I bought a couple years ago have the Original Theatrical Release on Disc 2.

Wow, never noticed they were on the second disc. Thanks for pointing that out to me.