Subject:
|
Re: Original Star Wars trilogy on DVD
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Feb 2004 03:39:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1070 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.starwars, Allan Bedford wrote:
>
> > He can digitally 'correct' the films until they are nothing but CG characters
> > talking to CG characters again CG backgrounds and so on and so on. He can edit
> > the real actors right out of every scene for all I care. But he needs to
> > remember what made those films so good in the first place... the story. It
> > wasn't bad special effects that made those films inadequate. It was the great
> > story and the lasting entertainment value that made them special from the
> > beginning. He then needs to realize the value of putting out the original
> > theatrical releases for those of us who have already paid for his ability to
> > tinker around at will the way that he does now. He needs to remember how he was
> > one of the biggest opponents of colorization back in the 80's. Going back and
> > updating old films... seemed like a good idea to Ted Turner. Seemed like a bad
> > idea at the time to George Lucas. Too bad money can't buy you common sense.
>
> And I'm sure Lucas would advance this as the counter: Ted Turner wasn't the
> director/writer/producer/visionary who made the films he colorized. Turner was
> stomping on somebody else's vision. Lucas is modifying his own work,
If my old memory core serves me correctly, Lucas (and Spielberg) argued that the
directors of the old black and white movies did the best with what they had at
the time. (and yes, they also made the 'vision' argument as well) So in
George's mind the old technology argument is o.k. so long as you're just talking
about color vs. b&w. Otherwise, it's o.k. to use new technology to fix things
you couldn't before.... except color. ;)
But it's really this fact that bothers me. The only reason George has the
option to play around like this is that we've all paid him to do so. I saw
Episode IV about 6 or 7 times in the theater alone. I would like the
opportunity to pay him (again) to see that same version at home. On principle
alone he doesn't own these films anymore. He didn't buy all the tickets
purchased back in the 70's... we did. If we'd never paid a dime for the chance
to see the films back then we would have no argument. But we did. And many
people paid much more than I did... seeing them again and again and again. So
thanks to George that investment is worthless today. He can play around with
them all he wants... honestly, that's his right. But where is his sense of
gratitude to the millions of fans who bought him the luxary of doing so?
> The other view is why mess with a classic? Yes, the change in technology is
> very apparent from the old series to the new, but if it was such an issue then
> why wait 20+ years to get on with it? Do I need 20 digital skeletons instead of
> the hand-animated seven in Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts? That is the
> one scene that inspired most of the special effects people working today.
Exactly. What was so wrong with it in the first place? It was mostly thanks to
Star Wars that I headed off to film school for my first year of college. It
never occured to me that the film was broken in anyway. Maybe I should have
gone to dental school.
> I haven't cared for a number of "special editions" or Director's Indecisions
> Specials. Try and figure out what in the world is going on in Blade Runner if
> you haven't seen the orginal with Ford's voice-over
I agree. I like the voice-over version. I know why the studio wanted it.
If you want more on that film, be sure to read the book. It will reassure you
that reality is a very slippery illusion. :)
> (and I think that is the
> only version out on DVD and I simply won't buy it).
This year is supposed to see the release (one year late) of the 3 disk 20th
anniversary edition. It probably won't have the voice-over edition either, but
for reasons different than what George is doing.
> At least with the Lord of the Rings the special editions were planned for from
> the word go rather than some as some retroactive revisionism.
Because Jackson is a fan of both DVD Special Editions.... and his fans. Peter
is the new George. Please pass that around. :)
> Having said all that, the Special Edition of Star Wars didn't bother me, though
> I haven't seen the revised 2nd and 3rd films (ignoring revised numbering). My
> son won't know the difference anyway. :-)
But it's too bad you can't share a part of your past with him... in a quality
format. To me, that's the thing George is really missing. He's forgetting why
these films were important to us.
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Original Star Wars trilogy on DVD
|
| In lugnet.starwars, Allan Bedford wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) In my mind, the only 'directors version' that was by far superior than the original (besides the mentioned LOTR--but again was planned from the get go as pointed out) was.. (wait for (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-04, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Original Star Wars trilogy on DVD
|
| (...) And I'm sure Lucas would advance this as the counter: Ted Turner wasn't the director/writer/prod.../visionary who made the films he colorized. Turner was stomping on somebody else's vision. Lucas is modifying his own work, The other view is (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-04, to lugnet.starwars)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
