Star Wars Movies Coming to Blu-ray

Tools    





In a way, I can understand George Lucas for doing this. It's his movie and he feels it's unfinished. Once the man dies, he'll no longer be able to add improvements to the film. He likes technology and what it can do for films. If I was a filmmaker and I made something as enormous and popular as Star Wars, as time went by and I was getting older, I'd probably get all nervous and start messing around with my original work, too. These films will live on longer than he does and in the grand scheme of things, his time on Earth is limited. Nothing else he ever does is going to be as successful as Star Wars.

In the future, someone will be able to restore the original versions exactly as they were shown in theatres and George Lucas will be dead and won't be overtaking the movies anymore, adding and changing things. At the same time, we'll still have the altered versions that George changed later in his life. All will be appreciated and studied and the originals may still be considered the best, but the final versions of the Star Wars movies -- however they end up once George is gone -- will probably remain as the definitive movies. The master works.

I think it's kinda revolutionary that George sees movies as works in progress. He's obsessive -- but many people throughout history have been obsessive. This kind of thing is really something to be expected. It'll probably only add to his legend and to his eternal fame. And let's face it -- all of us who grew up with the original versions of these films are gonna die out with time. New people will be born and experience the changes Lucas made and many will probably prefer them. The original versions of these movies will be history.



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



I think it's kinda revolutionary that George sees movies as works in progress.
No no no no really? Revolutionary? Have you never heard of music? Composers, aeons ago and today, rewrite all the time, except in their case they usually do make improvements unlike this all-life crisis of a situation.



No no no no really? Revolutionary? Have you never heard of music? Composers, aeons ago and today, rewrite all the time, except in their case they usually do make improvements unlike this all-life crisis of a situation.
Well, that's music - that's why this is revolutionary - now it's happening to movies.

People scream that George Lucas is wrecking Star Wars but I seriously believe that's only because of personal feelings and standards set forth by those original versions of the films. The fact is that most people I've known hate drastic changes to movies -- but it's usually just because they are used to the originals and loved them and knew them that way.

I think that in the future these standards and feelings for the altered Star Wars films might change. I don't exactly agree that films should be messed with and certainly changes can be made that are bad, but I think that with time, alterations could be seen as improvements. The blinking Ewoks look kind of cute. I also like the "No" coming from Darth Vader. You might fall in love with the silent Vader, but Lucas might have looked back on it with regret. In his mind - and we should appreciate that mind - it might have needed a "Nooooo!" Not all thoughts and realizations about things come immediately. Sometimes stuff takes time.



I'm against changes that don't make sense. George Lucas's changes don't make sense.

Why in the f*** do Ewoks need CG eyes? Will I believe they're more real and try to adopt one? No.

I have a well reasoned argument AGAINST most of the changes Lucas made yet all we have from the man is "I couldn't do it before."
__________________
"Self-complacency is pleasure accompanied by the idea of oneself as cause." -Baruch Spinoza



Why in the f*** do Ewoks need CG eyes? Will I believe they're more real and try to adopt one? No.
Eyes are important. Eyes are "windows of the soul" as many people say. Eyes are usually the first thing people look at and like when they find someone attractive -- so they say, anyway. Eyes make people feel more real, more human. I suppose by having blinking Ewoks, they look less like people in a puppet costume.

You might want to adopt one now. Explore your feelings.



Your defense is still shallow. His changes only take away, there's no way of looking around that. If eyes are so important then why does the blinking look so damn fake?



__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."



Your defense is still shallow. His changes only take away, there's no way of looking around that. If eyes are so important then why does the blinking look so damn fake?
I think it looks real for what it is. They're Ewok eyes. The only funny thing is how it looks up at the camera for a split second to blink -- as if it's saying, "OOOOOOOOOohhhhhhhhhhhh! Look what I can do now! I CANZ BLINK!"

And why not blink? Can't the poor, damn Ewok naturally moisturize its eyes?!

I'm telling ya -- if those things had blinked in the original version, more people would have liked them. Blinking adds cuteness.



It's like anime girls. Everyone likes them because of their big eyes.



And why not blink? Can't the poor, damn Ewok naturally moisturize its eyes?!
And why can't its eyes just be self moisturizing? Not every creature in the universe is a humanoid.

I'm telling ya -- if those things had blinked in the original version, more people would have liked them. Blinking adds cuteness. It's like anime girls. Everyone likes them because of their big eyes.
Well. They're humans. Also, I'm pretty sure most people love Ewoks as it is because they're already adorable. Fake blinking just reminds me how fake their fakeness is faked.



And why can't its eyes just be self moisturizing? Not every creature in the universe is a humanoid.
Oh, come on. Nobody, except you, is gonna look at the Ewoks not blinking and think - OH MY GOD. Self moisturizng eyes! Self moisturizing eyes! *speechless* It has self moisturizing eyes! That thing has SELF MOISTURIZING EYES! SELF MOISTURIZING EYES! In the name of God. SELF MOISTURIZING EYES! It's a one of a kind!

People can now look at those things and think, it blinks like I do. Kids will see them as more of a blinking role model. Blink-182, the band, will probably make the Ewok its mascot.

Why can't the Ewok just be a self moisturizing creature? Cause it's nothing more than a little person inside a furry costume. I think it's even played by Warwick Davis, who also played this guy:



Originally Posted by wintertriangles
Well. They're humans. Also, I'm pretty sure most people love them as it is because they're already adorable. Fake blinking just reminds me how fake their fakeness is faked.
It'll remind you of that but not everybody. I look at those things and can already tell they're fake just by the costume. I think the blinking eyes make them look a little more real, actually. There's something mystical about it. Magical. And yet real.

And nobody's gonna look at the non-blinking eyes and think their eyes self moisturize. They're just gonna think they're fake eyes glued into a prop head.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
I think it's kinda revolutionary that George sees movies as works in progress.
This is the most vile, obscene thing I have ever read.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
There you go.



I have a hard time believing you say these things with any real conviction
Well, I really do have conviction. Look, if it was movies that I loved a lot and the director started messing with them... yeah, I'd be pissed. But I'm thinking about the director's own personal point of view. If we can embrace what the filmmaker brought us originally, maybe we should be open to what he does later on to the same material. I think of the filmmaker as being an artist, like Michelangelo. How would the great artists of the past have handled movies if they were filmmakers? Surely someone's gonna want to keep fixing up their films.

Movies are so bound by a time schedule and a release date and for the business of making money. But think of a movie with a much longer timespan until it is completely finished. With DVD releases, George Lucas has found a loophole in the system -- he's discovered a way to keep the excitement of the movie going and he gets to revise his work. He sells his revisions through the angle of the new DVD releases annoucing the changes. This way, he keeps himself exciting - or at least talked about. And he'll always have his large group of fans that love Star Wars. Nobody's gonna turn their backs now -- unless he does something extreme like reshooting the entire movie series again with new actors. But he's a good artist -- he's not gonna be that stupid.

Star Wars is a work of art first and foremost. All movies are. So why not revise if you have the balls to do it? Can you imagine if somebody went back and turned a really horrible movie - something we all hate - into something wonderful? And I don't mean by doing a remake -- I mean by tweaking a lot of things here and there. Could that be possible? I say it might.

Could Georgie be ruining Star Wars? Absolutely. But give it some consideration and truly see if it is ruined. It would actually be interesting to see Star Wars lose its appeal because George Lucas tweaked it too much and ruined it -- I doubt that will happen, but what if? The terrible thing is that Star Wars still has the box office success to fall back on. It will always be historical that way, no matter what becomes of the movies. It will always be historical for having been a phenomenon.

And with that, I don't know what else to say....



I think of the filmmaker as being an artist...
Yeah, but is it acceptable for an artist to go and change their work years after it's done?



Yeah, but is it acceptable for an artist to go and change their work years after it's done?
Well, I'm not an art major, but hasn't this ever been done before? Surely it must have.

Why is it not acceptable? The only true reason I can see for it to not be acceptable is if everything art-related is judged as if in some kind of contest with a time limit. Now, I don't mind if it's judged - I don't mind if it's a contest - but a time limit idea is fleeting. Sure, the Academy Awards are every year - a 1976 film cannot compete for Best Picture in 2012 - I suppose. I wonder if it could if it was revised and re-released? Probably not. Probably wouldn't pick up a nomination, at least. Would be interesting, though, if something like that ever did happen.

I'm chaotic. I'm random. I'm a big, open minded thinker. I'm just trying to see how things could be changed around and made sumptuous, appetizing, appealing, inventive and out of the box.

I think it can be acceptable to change a movie. Yeah, you might piss off the actors that starred in it, but so what? It's your movie. It might also belong to the public's hearts, but what have I been saying? All those hearts are gonna stop beating one day anyway. New hearts will be around and they might love and accept the new version of the film. Yeah, there might be historical records of all of us hating the revised film, but so what? Words are words. Talk is cheap.

Art is powerful. Revised art can be powerful - more powerful than the original. Don't look away from revised art -- it's not sunlight. It won't hurt you. Look at it. Give it a chance. Give it a kiss. It's here to stay. Accept it like family. That is, if you feel you can. It's understandable if you can't, but maybe it has gifts to give you.

A blinking Ewok wants your love. A blinking Ewok blinks for you. Don't cover your eyes -- BLINK BACK!!! Blink black, dammit, blink back!



And chew.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I'm not sure what 1976 has to do with this last post. But please don't respond. It's embarrassing... again. But all the poor suckers here love you, so do what you want, you little charmer.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I'm not sure what 1976 has to do with this last post. But please don't respond. It's embarrassing... again. But all the poor suckers here love you, so do what you want, you little charmer.
I'm not sure what you mean by, "It's embarrassing... again." I certainly don't feel embarrassed. I also wouldn't call the people here "poor suckers."