That doesn't prove anything. There are a lot of people in the world. The fact that there's now a documentary called "The People vs George Lucas" would prove otherwise.
Proof that It's only the extremely vocal minority who are disgusted with the changes.
Don't be absurd, that's akin to saying that the movie Skyline is a well loved cinematic classic due to it's worldwide box-office takings of $73,950,941.
The only way to figure out precisely how many sales have been lost by the changes is for George Lucas to release the original on Blu-ray so we can see the difference in profit.
The only way to figure out precisely how many sales have been lost by the changes is for George Lucas to release the original on Blu-ray so we can see the difference in profit.
That's the only way.
Yes. George Lucas should do this. You know... as an experiment.
Just to prove how much better his new versions are, I mean.
Don't be absurd, that's akin to saying that the movie Skyline is a well loved cinematic classic due to it's worldwide box-office takings of $73,950,941.
Except the majority of the people who went to see it hadn't already seen it. I would bet my auntie that 90% of the people who bought the blu-ray set had already seen the series at one point. And most of those would know of (at least some of) the changes. Those who aren't passionate about star wars would've waited for the sets to come down in price.
That doesn't prove anything. There are a lot of people in the world. The fact that there's now a documentary called "The People vs George Lucas" would prove otherwise.
I don't see how the fact there's a lot of people in the world really effects this. They've outsold everything else on blu-ray ever. Sure, population growth can account for some of that, but all other blu-rays have the same population circumstances.
And there's documentaries that say that 2012 will include the end of the world. Does that make it true? Nope. There's documentaries about dwarves living together. Does that make it the norm? Nope. The only reason the People Vs George Lucas even exists is because it raises the question of who films belong to. Plus it shows a small group of people getting irate about something ultimately harmless and inconsequential.
Meh, I just think that it's funny as despite all the people claiming they're going to boycott the thing, it STILL ends up uber popular.
Not me. Because:
a) I don't care about BluRays. DVDs are good enought
b) I already have the movies on DVD
c) Not interested in the changes -> not enough changes to make me buy the movies again
d) still pissed about Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull and I swore never to spend money on anything from Spielberg & Lucas ever again.
Except the majority of the people who went to see it hadn't already seen it. I would bet my auntie that 90% of the people who bought the blu-ray set had already seen the series at one point. And most of those would know of (at least some of) the changes.
I'm not arguing that some of the casual market already knew of the changes made to the saga but it's telling that you didn't claim that the majority of people who purchased the blu-ray knew of the changes prior to purchase. Who's to say that there's not a portion of those you've bought the boxset who were miffed at the changes once they started watching the movies?
However, ultimately this line of conversation is beyond any kind of relevance past mere opinion. The real issue at hand and the point that you and a few others seem to be missing; is that maintaining the original cuts of the movies at the highest possible quality is a part of film preservation. That is to say the preservation of history itself.
George Lucas has demonstrated that he is attempting to phase out the original cuts, as seen with the badly transferred original cut trilogy on DVD and now the complete lack of original cut on Blu-ray. It's not a question of which version you prefer, it's a question of keeping a record of historical accuracy for future generations.
I have the Blade Runner Blu-ray proudly sat upon my shelf and that contains all four versions of the film, transferred to the very highest possible quality. They don't try to force the later edits on you by not including the original (or by only transferring the most recent edit to the highest quality) and more importantly they show the progression of the various cuts for the generations to come.
For the record, I happen to favour the newer edits for both Blade Runner and the Star Wars films (despite a few grievances with some of the changes in the latter). However, this is a matter of opinion and completely irrelevant to the issue that I and others take with George Lucas, a man who once strongly argued for the preservation of film in it's original form.
I have not. Star Wars was a huge part of my childhood and adolescence but quite frankly, I've outgrown it with age. I don't make that comment in order to be snobbish, it's just that my tastes have matured and I now need a perspective a little more complex than a pure black and white view towards morality and the concept that beautiful people are good and ugly people are evil.
Still, I'm sure the kids of today enjoy the prequel movies and I certainly won't deny the appeal of the universe that George Lucas has helped to create and perhaps more importantly, the timeless design of it's various elements (both visual and auditory).
DVD is not good enough. Not if you have a 50" 1080p TV. But I always need to have the latest thing. There's way more detail, image is sharper and better. There is a big difference. I can't stand watching DVDs on a big screen when they're all blurred and show compression artifacts. DVDs are the new VHS, which look even worse.
That said, I don't even have the Star Wars movies on DVD because of the changes. I've just recently acquired Adywan's Star Wars Revisted, though, and I must say it is the definitive version of Star Wars. Can't wait for ESB:R.
I also enjoyed KOTCS. It's not as good as the others (actually, it's better than Temple of Doom) but it's decent enough. The alien thing never bothered me. I don't understand why people get in such a fuss over that.
Meh, I just think that it's funny as despite all the people claiming they're going to boycott the thing, it STILL ends up uber popular.
I don't own the Blu-Rays myself. Not really as a moral concern so much as the films on those discs aren't something I want. I want to see the movie I watched when I was four years old, not something that has been recontextualized and altered. The movies in that set simply are not recognizable as the movies I want to buy anymore. I have no illusions about my opinion being repeated across a large base. I always assumed these sets would sell well, I sort of hoped they'd sell less well than other format debuts for the series, but didn't count on it. As a whole, for properties like Star Wars that are large in the public consciousness, there is an element where the larger audience DOES NOT CARE.
For extremely old legacy properties like Citizen Kane and Fritz Lang's Metropolis, or for cult movies or films with a non-Average Joe audience, the audience is generally cinephiles, and so these properties are affected by the audience's desire for proper treatment. Star Wars, as a cultural icon, is able to sidestep these demands because it has an installed "average joe" base that doesn't give a fuck about the differences, or that is willing to buy despite them.
Not me. Because:
a) I don't care about BluRays. DVDs are good enought
b) I already have the movies on DVD
c) Not interested in the changes -> not enough changes to make me buy the movies again
d) still pissed about Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull and I swore never to spend money on anything from Spielberg & Lucas ever again.
Boy if you have a high-def TV and you're watching regular DVDs you are really missing out on the quality!
Anyway, I pretty much agree with you on the latter points. I liked Indy's return but the movie was poorly executed.
As far as Star Wars goes... I'd rather leave the movies the way they are in my mind, and not support Lucas' foolishness by purchasing his product.
Boy if you have a high-def TV and you're watching regular DVDs you are really missing out on the quality!
That depends. There are actually Blu-Ray releases whose transfers are worse than the DVD counterpart, or for which there is some major trade-off. All things equal, of course the Blu-Ray will have a better picture, but if(for example) they just stamp a WORSE version of the DVD transfer on a Blu-Ray disc with less special features(as is the case with the Gojira Blu-Ray) or ruin the detail gain by slapping heavy automatic digital filters to a higher-definition transfer(as is the case with the Back to the Future Blu-Ray), then you are better off with the DVD copy. Remember: Blu-Ray only has a higher POTENTIAL than DVD, but it is NOT magic. It has more room for more data and a few extra features, but the studios have to do some work to take advantage of the new capabilities. Warner Bros. and Disney tend to be the best at this, especially for their legacy titles. Their Blu-Ray discs are easily reference quality, with Warner's Wizard of Oz and Disney's animated classics(such as Fantasia) showing what really can be done with a proper transfer on the medium.
I don't think the jump from DVD to BD is anywhere close to VHS to DVD. Even with larger screen sizes, we're dealing with a largely similar medium. VHS degraded over time, took up far more space, and couldn't do things like store alternate angles, soft subtitles, alternate audio tracks(including commentary tracks), anamorphic video, or special features. Functionally it's definitely a step up, especially in the realm of lossless sound, getting closer to the full resolution of 35mm film, and a few nifty menu and software features, but it's simply NOT the same kind of massive gains that were evident with the move from VHS. Largely speaking, I don't feel the need to replace ALL my DVDs with the Blu-Ray equivalent. Only really major films that are dear to me, like Fantasia, Wizard of Oz, or Citizen Kane, movies that I love and want to see again and again and whose transfers are top-rate really require the upgrade. In terms of replacements for a film collection, for the most part, I can be happy watching most films on DVD, without the High-Def tax. DVD is just...good enough, most of the time.
heh, if people don't want to put weight on the sales figures, maybe the customer review scores on amazon will convince them? 3.5 stars. Half a star less than the original trilogy DVD set. Which is quite good considering all the fanboy reviews dragging it down from people who didn't even see the set. There's reviews from weeks before they were out! Compare that to the fanboy backlash Spore had (dragging a perfectly good game down to a two star rating) and you'll see how few people really care about the changes.
Heck, look at Play.com's rating. 4.5 from 65 people. I think that's probably because they didn't let fanboys review the thing before it was out. In fact, most people are moaning because of inconsistent sound quality, slow menus and not enough extras. These are reviews from people who've seen the set, not just sporadic clips on the internet.
So you're saying that people have to give more money to George Lucas or further ruin their childhood memories in order for their opinion regarding the changes to Star Wars to be valid?
heh, if people don't want to put weight on the sales figures, maybe the customer review scores on amazon will convince them? 3.5 stars. Half a star less than the original trilogy DVD set.
Where are you getting these numbers?
This set has 3 1/2 stars, but if you actually LOOK at the review selection, reviews for the DVD set that has the laserdisc transfer of the original cuts are mixed in with the reviews for the Original Trilogy Blu-Ray set. This is not something that happened with the "Complete Saga" Blu-Ray set, which has TWO and a half stars.
Just watched A New Hope on Blu-Ray. Thank god for Blockbuster having it to rent. God, there are pluses and minuses to this release. On the pluses, the time between Greedo and Han shooting is almost negligible, the matte lines around the TIE fighters in the scene after the escape from the Death Star are much cleaner than the DVD release, and they removed that stupid grunt that Leia made after Luke grabbed her after Han ran after the stormtroopers that they added in the DVD release. On the minuses, Obi-Wan's new krayt dragon yell is so damn stupid sounding, the Jabba scene STILL looks crappy, and the new rocks they put in front of Artoo when he's hiding from the Sand People is so fake looking it's painful. Not to mention that they STILL didn't fix Obi-Wan's lightsaber sputtering out. At least no more than putting a pale blue glow around it. When a fan like Adywan can fix it, why can't ILM? Oh, and after seeing Adywan's version, I don't know why the scene in Obi-Wan's hut was edited the way it was...
All in all...without the original cuts of the movies, and with just the changes I saw in A New Hope, the Blu-ray set of the saga isn't worth plopping down $100.
So you're saying that people have to give more money to George Lucas or further ruin their childhood memories in order for their opinion regarding the changes to Star Wars to be valid?
No. I'm saying there's a lot of people slamming the things without seeing them in context. That changes a lot. It makes any changes for the worse seem less bad. I'm saying that the vast majority of people don't care about the changes that much.
Personally, I don't see the changes as much worse than any of the changes made in the books and stuff that subtly change the star wars universe.
@Rather Dashing: I was looking at the whole saga set on the UK site.
It's all very well going on about the bad bits, but there are plenty of good bits too. The sound and visuals. The deleted scenes, that sort of thing. Personally, I think this set shouldn't be priced at £65 or whatever. I own all the films, and am happy with them at the state they are in. Sure HD/HQ sound would definately be a huge plus, but I can live with my releases. Heck, I wouldn't even have the DVD versions if I still had a VHS player that worked. I might pick it up if/when it drops below the £20 threshold.
And that's me done playing devil's advocate. I have no more to say on the subject really.
heh, if people don't want to put weight on the sales figures, maybe the customer review scores on amazon will convince them? 3.5 stars. Half a star less than the original trilogy DVD set. Which is quite good considering all the fanboy reviews dragging it down from people who didn't even see the set. There's reviews from weeks before they were out! Compare that to the fanboy backlash Spore had (dragging a perfectly good game down to a two star rating) and you'll see how few people really care about the changes.
Heck, look at Play.com's rating. 4.5 from 65 people. I think that's probably because they didn't let fanboys review the thing before it was out. In fact, most people are moaning because of inconsistent sound quality, slow menus and not enough extras. These are reviews from people who've seen the set, not just sporadic clips on the internet.
Hey, look... The Twilight Saga: Eclipse has 4 out of 5 stars on Amazon...
... you've really got to stop putting weight behind what the masses like or don't like. Haven't you learned by now that most people have poor taste (as subjective as that may be), one look at most of the dross that forms the top ten charts for movies and music ought to have informed you of that.
No. I'm saying there's a lot of people slamming the things without seeing them in context. That changes a lot. It makes any changes for the worse seem less bad. I'm saying that the vast majority of people don't care about the changes that much.
Personally, I don't see the changes as much worse than any of the changes made in the books and stuff that subtly change the star wars universe.
And that's me done playing devil's advocate. I have no more to say on the subject really.
Hmm, fair enough. Though, I noticed that you had no rebuttal to my previous post (post #532, on the previous page). Quite frankly that doesn't surprise me much, seeming as I was spot on with my comments. Hey, what can I say, "modesty" surely isn't my middle name.
So you're saying that people have to give more money to George Lucas or further ruin their childhood memories in order for their opinion regarding the changes to Star Wars to be valid?
Yes. You should not write a review for something you don't at least own.
Buy that thing, watch it and then put it on ebay if you must.
... you've really got to stop putting weight behind what the masses like or don't like. Haven't you learned by now that most people have poor taste (as subjective as that may be), one look at most of the dross that forms the top ten charts for movies and music ought to have informed you of that.
Hmm, fair enough. Though, I noticed that you had no rebuttal to my previous post (post #532, on the previous page). Quite frankly that doesn't surprise me much, seeming as I was spot on with my comments. Hey, what can I say, "modesty" surely isn't my middle name.
Honestly? I don't care what the masses do/don't like. What I wanted to point out that despite all the bad press, and the internet outrage, it's only a relative few who dislike the changes.
Also, I don't agree with "maintaining the originals in the highest possible quality" for history. Surely in, say, 100 years and some film historian decides to see the film how it originally looked, not spruced up in HD with super sound. They'll want to see it how people originally saw it. And for that purpose there's still the original versions out there, in the original form. The HD cuts are for improving the films for the people here and now.
Like it or not, this generation of kids is different from that of the 80's. They want CGI instead of puppets. They want things spelled out for them. They want heroes that are more straight forward. The edits are mainly to cater to them, so they can support star wars so that it goes on for another decade or so.
I disagree with the generalization that all kids want CGI and spruced up graphics. Maybe I'm seeing the world through rose-tinted lenses, but I like to believe that there are kids out there, like myself at a young age, who respect and enjoy classic films, TV shows, books, and music even without its graphical enhancement. Kids who will listen to Stravinsky voluntarily, who can laugh at the humor of the Marx Brothers, gaze in wonderment at the ingenuity of Jules Verne, and appreciate the heart and soul that went into the original versions of the Star Wars movies. After all, I did, why not other kids? It's the height of elitism to assume that kids in the future cannot have an equal respect of culture simply because they were born later.
I don't agree with "maintaining the originals in the highest possible quality" for history. Surely in, say, 100 years and some film historian decides to see the film how it originally looked, not spruced up in HD with super sound. They'll want to see it how people originally saw it. And for that purpose there's still the original versions out there, in the original form.
I genuinely don't think that you're aware of the technicalities of film preservation. In 100 years time, what makes you think that those original prints won't have deteriorated beyond repair?! So no, the "original versions won't be out there, in their original form". That would be akin to me claiming that my VHS copies of the original, unaltered trilogy will be fully functioning well past my own natural death.
With that kind of attitude, there's not going to be an original version for future generations to view in 100 years time. Prints deteriorate over time and it's our responsibility as the keepers of history to future proof this stuff for the next one hundred, one thousand, or however many years.
Lucas is being willfully arrogant by only updating the transfers for the newer cuts, I simply can not understand how you can condone this behaviour. It would cost mere pocket change by Lucas' standards to transfer both cuts to high quality.
Like it or not, this generation of kids is different from that of the 80's. They want CGI instead of puppets. They want things spelled out for them. They want heroes that are more straight forward. The edits are mainly to cater to them, so they can support star wars so that it goes on for another decade or so.
Your argument that the kids of today don't care is not only a generalisation but is also boarding on ludicrous when put forth as a defense. By that reasoning, let's not bother to teach tomorrow's children about anything that they supposedly don't show an interest in. Let's fill their guts with junk food, let them stay up until "whenever" and teach them classes on the how to produce the funniest fart sound; instead of mathematics, science and history.
Why on Earth would I or anyone allow a bunch of children to govern the finer details, or any details, of film preservation. I'm pretty sure that the BFI would take exception to such a suggestion. Speaking of which, you could do far worse than to read the Wikipedia entry on film preservation (which in this case is well written and researched).
In the age of digital television, HDTV and DVD, film preservation and restoration has taken on commercial as well as historical importance, since audiences demand the highest possible picture quality from digital formats. Meanwhile, the dominance of home video and ever present need for television broadcasting content, especially on specialty cable channels, has meant that films have proven a source of long term revenue to a degree that the original artists and studio management before the rise of these media never imagined. Thus media companies have a strong financial incentive to carefully archive and preserve their complete library of films.
It's bad enough that George Lucas is attempting to butcher history but that anyone could support his deranged tactics; well, that I find truly mindblowing and frankly as a lover of the cinematic arts, more than a little disheartening and disturbing.
I am aware of film detrioration (as is any classic doctor who fan)but I think we shall agree to differ on how important it is. Don't get me wrong, I think the original cuts should be on the discs to please everyone, but it's not the end of the world.
Also, what makes you think they haven't taken measures to preserve the films already? They would have had to of digitised it to make some of the changes they did. Especially the CG models. It wouldn't surprise me if the original versions were sitting on a hard-drive somewhere.
I am aware of film detrioration (as is any classic doctor who fan)but I think we shall agree to differ on how important it is. Don't get me wrong, I think the original cuts should be on the discs to please everyone, but it's not the end of the world.
Naturally it's not the end of the world and by that standard neither would it be if all versions of every Star Wars movie ever were destroyed. That wouldn't make it right though, now would it?
I suppose we must agree to differ on the importance of film preservation but I rest easy with the knowledge that the majority of film-makers share my view. Whereas, you have Lucas pitching for your side. All I can say is; thank the heavens I'm not as much of a fan of Lucas' work, as I am say Stanley Kubrick's, Ridley Scott's or the Coen Brothers. Still, that's a selfish statement for myself to make and besides the point.
Also, what makes you think they haven't taken measures to preserve the films already? They would have had to of digitised it to make some of the changes they did. Especially the CG models. It wouldn't surprise me if the original versions were sitting on a hard-drive somewhere.
Who knows?! It might have been helpful if Lucas hadn't poured fuel on the blazing fire by claiming that he destroyed the original prints with the release of the Special Editions. Maybe he was lying but either way, that's a class-A arsehole thing to say. The sooner he hands the I.P. reigns of Star Wars over to someone who can assert a little bit of self-control and level headlines, the better.
It's bad enough that George Lucas is attempting to butcher history but that anyone could support his deranged tactics; well, that I find truly mindblowing and frankly as a lover of the cinematic arts, more than a little disheartening and disturbing.
Davies you live in a world of lies and conditioning. And its all about power, business. That's my opinion. PEACE!
A example I'd use is how Charlie Sheen is seen as a hero in the media and that guy is clearly a ass hole distorted in time and brain wash. He is clearly psychotic with vanity, ego...
The media and entertainment industry LOVE vanity and superficiality.
Source : Own, and personal observations made within self. NO ONE I can think of is more vain than their current icon...and so many people think he is a hero...
...Charlie Sheen is seen as a hero in the media...
Since when?! Clearly you do not view the same media as I. I've always seen him portrayed as bat-shit crazy and having seen extended interviews with him, I'm inclined to agree.
But Davies, you don't buy into it, but lots of people do, and think he is godly, awesome, cool...
Just read the comments, vanity at its worse, vain people love him and it's growing, ultimately vanity is what will sell out the entire human race if we let it . (in my opinion)
i have a feeling, I believe, this is a star wars thread, so let's not get too far into this subject, but I have strong feelings that vanity is what ultimately sells the human soul out to the devil and will royally screw this entire species if we let it.
But Davies, you don't buy into it, but lots of people do, and think he is godly, awesome, cool...
Just read the comments, vanity at its worse, vain people love him and it's growing, ultimately vanity is what will sell out the entire human race if we let it . (in my opinion)
But, but... those examples don't really support what your saying.
If you had stuck with the first one then you'd see that it's not really going down the hero route. There's a lot of questioning of bad behaviour.
The third example seemed a little one sided but it still brought up accusations of anti-semitism and drug abuse.
As for the second example, um Doodo... that's Piers fucking Morgan doing the interviewing! Who gives a flying fuck what that arse nugget thinks! We British unloaded that festering, gormless, moronic turd on legs to you guys because we couldn't stand him. From what I understand, the Americans hate the arse-licking little shit as much as we do now.
Seriously, you can't go using Piers Morgan as an example of anything, unless that example is a case study for pro-abortion of a middle-aged man.
... as for the witless wonders who comment under YouTube videos; you can look up any video with 100k+ views and be guaranteed that there'll be some rectal discharge making ignorant comments (usually racist), even if it's a video of a fluffy kitten!
The moral of the story is; don't pay any credence to small minded idiots. They'll only serve to get you down. Just try and ignore their stupidity, lest it drives you crazy my friend.
But, but... those examples don't really support what your saying.
If you had stuck with the first one then you'd see that it's not really going down the hero route. There's a lot of questioning of bad behaviour.
The third example seemed a little one sided but it still brought up accusations of anti-semitism and drug abuse.
As for the second example, um Doodo... that's Piers fucking Morgan doing the interviewing! Who gives a flying fuck what that arse nugget thinks! We British unloaded that festering, gormless, moronic turd on legs to you guys because we couldn't stand him. From what I understand, the Americans hate the arse-licking little shit as much as we do now.
Seriously, you can't go using Piers Morgan as an example of anything, unless that example is a case study for pro-abortion of a middle-aged man.
... as for the witless wonders who comment under YouTube videos; you can look up any video with 100k+ views and be guaranteed that there'll be some rectal discharge making ignorant comments (usually racist), even if it's a video of a fluffy kitten!
The moral of the story is; don't pay any credence to small minded idiots. They'll only serve to get you down. Just try and ignore their stupidity, lest it drives you crazy my friend.
I still think people have horrible icons and care too much about actors, stars, some even support them. The first example I think really is a example of people cheering on his negative behaviors, yes they are mentioned, but still he is treated like a champion, that star worship is going on.
I have to pay credence to small minded idiots it's one of my focuses, goals in life. But, I don't think they are idiots, I just think vanity has eaten them up.
I'm American:p
"From what I understand, the Americans hate the arse-licking little shit as much as we do now. "
That's a good thing. I never know where we are at because there are so many examples I see of bad things, vain people, I guess I become judgmental and vain myself. Apologies. The fact they humor, laugh at his god complex at any moment in the video , cheer him on because of his vanity is enough to upset me.
Its been over 2 weeks since I was last on this forum.
I was expecting this thread at least to have sunk down a few pages, but yet from the looks of it the fires of passion still burn on.
Comments
Don't be absurd, that's akin to saying that the movie Skyline is a well loved cinematic classic due to it's worldwide box-office takings of $73,950,941.
That's the only way.
Yes. George Lucas should do this. You know... as an experiment.
Just to prove how much better his new versions are, I mean.
Of course. It must be done...FOR SCIENCE!
I don't see how the fact there's a lot of people in the world really effects this. They've outsold everything else on blu-ray ever. Sure, population growth can account for some of that, but all other blu-rays have the same population circumstances.
And there's documentaries that say that 2012 will include the end of the world. Does that make it true? Nope. There's documentaries about dwarves living together. Does that make it the norm? Nope. The only reason the People Vs George Lucas even exists is because it raises the question of who films belong to. Plus it shows a small group of people getting irate about something ultimately harmless and inconsequential.
Meh, I just think that it's funny as despite all the people claiming they're going to boycott the thing, it STILL ends up uber popular.
a) I don't care about BluRays. DVDs are good enought
b) I already have the movies on DVD
c) Not interested in the changes -> not enough changes to make me buy the movies again
d) still pissed about Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull and I swore never to spend money on anything from Spielberg & Lucas ever again.
Even if I did have to watch the first 2 minutes over 30 times because of laptop issues. [/longstoryshort]
I'm not arguing that some of the casual market already knew of the changes made to the saga but it's telling that you didn't claim that the majority of people who purchased the blu-ray knew of the changes prior to purchase. Who's to say that there's not a portion of those you've bought the boxset who were miffed at the changes once they started watching the movies?
However, ultimately this line of conversation is beyond any kind of relevance past mere opinion. The real issue at hand and the point that you and a few others seem to be missing; is that maintaining the original cuts of the movies at the highest possible quality is a part of film preservation. That is to say the preservation of history itself.
George Lucas has demonstrated that he is attempting to phase out the original cuts, as seen with the badly transferred original cut trilogy on DVD and now the complete lack of original cut on Blu-ray. It's not a question of which version you prefer, it's a question of keeping a record of historical accuracy for future generations.
I have the Blade Runner Blu-ray proudly sat upon my shelf and that contains all four versions of the film, transferred to the very highest possible quality. They don't try to force the later edits on you by not including the original (or by only transferring the most recent edit to the highest quality) and more importantly they show the progression of the various cuts for the generations to come.
For the record, I happen to favour the newer edits for both Blade Runner and the Star Wars films (despite a few grievances with some of the changes in the latter). However, this is a matter of opinion and completely irrelevant to the issue that I and others take with George Lucas, a man who once strongly argued for the preservation of film in it's original form.
I have not. Star Wars was a huge part of my childhood and adolescence but quite frankly, I've outgrown it with age. I don't make that comment in order to be snobbish, it's just that my tastes have matured and I now need a perspective a little more complex than a pure black and white view towards morality and the concept that beautiful people are good and ugly people are evil.
Still, I'm sure the kids of today enjoy the prequel movies and I certainly won't deny the appeal of the universe that George Lucas has helped to create and perhaps more importantly, the timeless design of it's various elements (both visual and auditory).
No. It only proves that you should never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
That said, I don't even have the Star Wars movies on DVD because of the changes. I've just recently acquired Adywan's Star Wars Revisted, though, and I must say it is the definitive version of Star Wars. Can't wait for ESB:R.
I also enjoyed KOTCS. It's not as good as the others (actually, it's better than Temple of Doom) but it's decent enough. The alien thing never bothered me. I don't understand why people get in such a fuss over that.
For extremely old legacy properties like Citizen Kane and Fritz Lang's Metropolis, or for cult movies or films with a non-Average Joe audience, the audience is generally cinephiles, and so these properties are affected by the audience's desire for proper treatment. Star Wars, as a cultural icon, is able to sidestep these demands because it has an installed "average joe" base that doesn't give a fuck about the differences, or that is willing to buy despite them.
Boy if you have a high-def TV and you're watching regular DVDs you are really missing out on the quality!
Anyway, I pretty much agree with you on the latter points. I liked Indy's return but the movie was poorly executed.
As far as Star Wars goes... I'd rather leave the movies the way they are in my mind, and not support Lucas' foolishness by purchasing his product.
Perhaps, but I wouldn't think it worth replacing ones entire DVD library just to get slightly better picture.
I don't think the jump from DVD to BD is anywhere close to VHS to DVD. Even with larger screen sizes, we're dealing with a largely similar medium. VHS degraded over time, took up far more space, and couldn't do things like store alternate angles, soft subtitles, alternate audio tracks(including commentary tracks), anamorphic video, or special features. Functionally it's definitely a step up, especially in the realm of lossless sound, getting closer to the full resolution of 35mm film, and a few nifty menu and software features, but it's simply NOT the same kind of massive gains that were evident with the move from VHS. Largely speaking, I don't feel the need to replace ALL my DVDs with the Blu-Ray equivalent. Only really major films that are dear to me, like Fantasia, Wizard of Oz, or Citizen Kane, movies that I love and want to see again and again and whose transfers are top-rate really require the upgrade. In terms of replacements for a film collection, for the most part, I can be happy watching most films on DVD, without the High-Def tax. DVD is just...good enough, most of the time.
Heck, look at Play.com's rating. 4.5 from 65 people. I think that's probably because they didn't let fanboys review the thing before it was out. In fact, most people are moaning because of inconsistent sound quality, slow menus and not enough extras. These are reviews from people who've seen the set, not just sporadic clips on the internet.
This set has 3 1/2 stars, but if you actually LOOK at the review selection, reviews for the DVD set that has the laserdisc transfer of the original cuts are mixed in with the reviews for the Original Trilogy Blu-Ray set. This is not something that happened with the "Complete Saga" Blu-Ray set, which has TWO and a half stars.
Some of the Blu-ray changes are okay.
All in all...without the original cuts of the movies, and with just the changes I saw in A New Hope, the Blu-ray set of the saga isn't worth plopping down $100.
Personally, I don't see the changes as much worse than any of the changes made in the books and stuff that subtly change the star wars universe.
@Rather Dashing: I was looking at the whole saga set on the UK site.
It's all very well going on about the bad bits, but there are plenty of good bits too. The sound and visuals. The deleted scenes, that sort of thing. Personally, I think this set shouldn't be priced at £65 or whatever. I own all the films, and am happy with them at the state they are in. Sure HD/HQ sound would definately be a huge plus, but I can live with my releases. Heck, I wouldn't even have the DVD versions if I still had a VHS player that worked. I might pick it up if/when it drops below the £20 threshold.
And that's me done playing devil's advocate. I have no more to say on the subject really.
Hey, look... The Twilight Saga: Eclipse has 4 out of 5 stars on Amazon...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Twilight-Saga-Eclipse-DVD/dp/B003BYRDQG
... you've really got to stop putting weight behind what the masses like or don't like. Haven't you learned by now that most people have poor taste (as subjective as that may be), one look at most of the dross that forms the top ten charts for movies and music ought to have informed you of that.
Hmm, fair enough. Though, I noticed that you had no rebuttal to my previous post (post #532, on the previous page). Quite frankly that doesn't surprise me much, seeming as I was spot on with my comments. Hey, what can I say, "modesty" surely isn't my middle name.
Yes. You should not write a review for something you don't at least own.
Buy that thing, watch it and then put it on ebay if you must.
Also, I don't agree with "maintaining the originals in the highest possible quality" for history. Surely in, say, 100 years and some film historian decides to see the film how it originally looked, not spruced up in HD with super sound. They'll want to see it how people originally saw it. And for that purpose there's still the original versions out there, in the original form. The HD cuts are for improving the films for the people here and now.
Like it or not, this generation of kids is different from that of the 80's. They want CGI instead of puppets. They want things spelled out for them. They want heroes that are more straight forward. The edits are mainly to cater to them, so they can support star wars so that it goes on for another decade or so.
I genuinely don't think that you're aware of the technicalities of film preservation. In 100 years time, what makes you think that those original prints won't have deteriorated beyond repair?! So no, the "original versions won't be out there, in their original form". That would be akin to me claiming that my VHS copies of the original, unaltered trilogy will be fully functioning well past my own natural death.
With that kind of attitude, there's not going to be an original version for future generations to view in 100 years time. Prints deteriorate over time and it's our responsibility as the keepers of history to future proof this stuff for the next one hundred, one thousand, or however many years.
Lucas is being willfully arrogant by only updating the transfers for the newer cuts, I simply can not understand how you can condone this behaviour. It would cost mere pocket change by Lucas' standards to transfer both cuts to high quality.
Yes and they're also for improving and maintaining the films of the past for the people of tomorrow.
Your argument that the kids of today don't care is not only a generalisation but is also boarding on ludicrous when put forth as a defense. By that reasoning, let's not bother to teach tomorrow's children about anything that they supposedly don't show an interest in. Let's fill their guts with junk food, let them stay up until "whenever" and teach them classes on the how to produce the funniest fart sound; instead of mathematics, science and history.
Why on Earth would I or anyone allow a bunch of children to govern the finer details, or any details, of film preservation. I'm pretty sure that the BFI would take exception to such a suggestion. Speaking of which, you could do far worse than to read the Wikipedia entry on film preservation (which in this case is well written and researched).
It's bad enough that George Lucas is attempting to butcher history but that anyone could support his deranged tactics; well, that I find truly mindblowing and frankly as a lover of the cinematic arts, more than a little disheartening and disturbing.
Also, what makes you think they haven't taken measures to preserve the films already? They would have had to of digitised it to make some of the changes they did. Especially the CG models. It wouldn't surprise me if the original versions were sitting on a hard-drive somewhere.
Naturally it's not the end of the world and by that standard neither would it be if all versions of every Star Wars movie ever were destroyed. That wouldn't make it right though, now would it?
I suppose we must agree to differ on the importance of film preservation but I rest easy with the knowledge that the majority of film-makers share my view. Whereas, you have Lucas pitching for your side. All I can say is; thank the heavens I'm not as much of a fan of Lucas' work, as I am say Stanley Kubrick's, Ridley Scott's or the Coen Brothers. Still, that's a selfish statement for myself to make and besides the point.
Who knows?! It might have been helpful if Lucas hadn't poured fuel on the blazing fire by claiming that he destroyed the original prints with the release of the Special Editions. Maybe he was lying but either way, that's a class-A arsehole thing to say. The sooner he hands the I.P. reigns of Star Wars over to someone who can assert a little bit of self-control and level headlines, the better.
Davies you live in a world of lies and conditioning. And its all about power, business. That's my opinion.
A example I'd use is how Charlie Sheen is seen as a hero in the media and that guy is clearly a ass hole distorted in time and brain wash. He is clearly psychotic with vanity, ego...
The media and entertainment industry LOVE vanity and superficiality.
Source : Own, and personal observations made within self. NO ONE I can think of is more vain than their current icon...and so many people think he is a hero...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USwTolALBM0
Since when?! Clearly you do not view the same media as I. I've always seen him portrayed as bat-shit crazy and having seen extended interviews with him, I'm inclined to agree.
(here he is god...XD)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qKvFzbwQvY
(seems to be going in that direction, didn't watch whole thing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSbeAQ4gd0E&feature=related
(hero)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_dqTS_mXnQ
But Davies, you don't buy into it, but lots of people do, and think he is godly, awesome, cool...
Just read the comments, vanity at its worse, vain people love him and it's growing, ultimately vanity is what will sell out the entire human race if we let it . (in my opinion)
i have a feeling, I believe, this is a star wars thread, so let's not get too far into this subject, but I have strong feelings that vanity is what ultimately sells the human soul out to the devil and will royally screw this entire species if we let it.
But, but... those examples don't really support what your saying.
If you had stuck with the first one then you'd see that it's not really going down the hero route. There's a lot of questioning of bad behaviour.
The third example seemed a little one sided but it still brought up accusations of anti-semitism and drug abuse.
As for the second example, um Doodo... that's Piers fucking Morgan doing the interviewing! Who gives a flying fuck what that arse nugget thinks! We British unloaded that festering, gormless, moronic turd on legs to you guys because we couldn't stand him. From what I understand, the Americans hate the arse-licking little shit as much as we do now.
Seriously, you can't go using Piers Morgan as an example of anything, unless that example is a case study for pro-abortion of a middle-aged man.
... as for the witless wonders who comment under YouTube videos; you can look up any video with 100k+ views and be guaranteed that there'll be some rectal discharge making ignorant comments (usually racist), even if it's a video of a fluffy kitten!
The moral of the story is; don't pay any credence to small minded idiots. They'll only serve to get you down. Just try and ignore their stupidity, lest it drives you crazy my friend.
I still think people have horrible icons and care too much about actors, stars, some even support them. The first example I think really is a example of people cheering on his negative behaviors, yes they are mentioned, but still he is treated like a champion, that star worship is going on.
I have to pay credence to small minded idiots it's one of my focuses, goals in life. But, I don't think they are idiots, I just think vanity has eaten them up.
I'm American:p
"From what I understand, the Americans hate the arse-licking little shit as much as we do now. "
That's a good thing. I never know where we are at because there are so many examples I see of bad things, vain people, I guess I become judgmental and vain myself. Apologies. The fact they humor, laugh at his god complex at any moment in the video , cheer him on because of his vanity is enough to upset me.
Anyways, Star Wars....
Its been over 2 weeks since I was last on this forum.
I was expecting this thread at least to have sunk down a few pages, but yet from the looks of it the fires of passion still burn on.
Well my opinion still stands at least.