THX-1138: The (Digitally Enhanced) Director's Cut

StefanJ writes "This is either a marvelous Photoshop hoax or something really . . . cool? Sacreligious? Unnecessary? Reportedly, George Lucas has given his first commercially released movie, THX1138, a digital workover, enhancing backgrounds and altering scenes for more eye-appeal. Here are some comparisons of original and altered scenes. For those who haven't seen the film: Without giving too much away, it's about a working stiff living in a repressive underground bomb-shelter society. Emotion-suppressing drugs are mandatory; people shuffle from work to home, pausing to buy consumer goods along the way. (The goods aren't used for anything; you just feed them into a disposal unit after you get home. Making them keeps people busy . . .) If the drugs don't work, you can vent your spleen in a confession booth manned by a really bad A.I. It's really bleak, and sometimes ugly, but worth seeing. I hope the enhancements don't add too much color: The drab, sterile, white-on-white environment of the underground city is an important mood-setter. Consume more; be happy!"

Any Mirrors?

[adavies42]

Anybody mirror this before it died?

Ummmm,

[Gannoc]

Hasn't Mr. "Lets do another trivially improved release of my movie so people cough up another $20 for it" kind of lost his right to make a movie criticizing consumerism?

Or perhaps he's already taking those drugs, which explains his directing on Episode II.

Remastering of Movies

[cualexander]

When does it all end? I mean are we going to digitally enhance everything to death? While we're at it why not go back and redo every movie ever made. It seems like with DVDs these days you can go back and stick 5 hours of extras and 50 extra discs and call it a collectors edition and everyone scrambles to get it. I personally agree with the South Park creators on this one. Remastering is an exercise in futility. As Kyle said, "When an artist creates, whatever they create belongs to society". Thats my philosophy.

Re:So What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to disagree with your assesment of both films. It's just an opinion. I would say it would be more accurate to say that the impact of both films lies less in the action and more in the character development. If you are a fan of what passes for sci-fi these days (action films) you will find little appeal in THX or Silent Running.

Oh please...

[Pedrito]

Why does he waste his time doing this? Especially with movies that weren't particularly good the first time around anyway.

Lucas movies don't suffer from lack of visual appeal. They suffer from poor direction (with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, American Graffiti is the only one that comes to mind). The best Lucas films are the ones where he doesn't direct. He should really stay out of the director's chair and stick with writing and maybe producing.

Having kids does that to a man...

[mactari]

Did you notice that RotJ was being made [imdb.com] right at the same time Lucas and his soon-to-run-of-with-another-man wife adopted a kid [biography.com]? I don't think an explanation of the replacement of Wookies with Ewoks needs to go much farther than that.

Having kids changes your perspective something massive, I suspect. Did you notice how Greedo's blasting was taken out of the original SW in the remakes? How stormtroopers (real people in suits) were replaced with morally easier to kill robots in the new stories? He's gone soft, and the turning point seems to be the time of his first child and divorce. Coincidence? Perhaps -- I don't know the man. But it seems unlikely.

Hopefully with the remake of this apparently fairly hard-core movie, he'll regain his edge, and maybe remake these last three, well, first three, well, most recently released Star Wars movies.

(And hey, don't slam a guy for copying. Every great author's done it as certainly as every one of my apps has a copy of paste of Hello, World in it to thank somewhere. Isn't that part of the reason /.ers as a whole dislike current copyright laws?)

Ironic

[Ih8sG8s]

Ironic that George Lucas would make a movie where consumerism is a sickness in society. This coming from the guy who is an uber IP controls advocate, and an uber market-the-garbage-to-death-and-they-will-buy guy.

Aldous Huxley

[reames]

Does anyone else think this movie sounds like a ripoff of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" ?

Re:sounds like

[cluke]

I would say it sounds more like a satire on capitalism..

"Emotion-suppressing drugs are mandatory; people shuffle from work to home, pausing to buy consumer goods along the way. "

Anti-depressants, wage-slavery, and hyped 'must have' consumer goods that are actually useless. Ring any bells?

Re:So What?

[dbc001]

Please don't mod the parent down just because you disagree. THX 1138 is slow, deliberate, cerebral, and careful; and most movie fans (especially those who prefer the quick pace of modern cinema) will indeed find it boring. Those of us who prefer movies that stimulate the mind over those that stimulate the adrenaline glands and genitals will find THX quite enjoyable. The parent post still makes a valid point: many people (slashdot readers included) will find that THX 1138 doesn't have the kind action that they like.

Re:There are THX fans?

[hackstraw]

From what I understand, THX is decent at best. It's only gained esteem due to his other titles out there.

I've seen it. It was one of the best movies that I hated to watch. It is depressing, but insightful. I highly recommend anyone remotely interested in scifi to watch it. This is a real scifi flick, not a fantasy story like the Star Wars saga. It may have gained esteem from Lucas' other titles, but everyone who knows the movie puts it in its own category.

Re:So What?

[Walrus99]

Actually I did see 2001 and didn't find it boring. For its time it had great, visually entertaining special effects. At the same time it explored the basic question, "What is really out there?" When we meet aliens they won't be LGM's or BEM's but most likely beings who are so advance we won't have a clue to what they are. I think its a good example of a film that is both entertaining and intellectually stimulating.

THX may have had something to say about individuality, but it took a long time to say it. The British TV show "The Prisoner" took on some of the same themes, but in a far more interesting way. If Lucas hadn't made "Star Wars" THX would be long forgotten and no one would even consider a digitally enhanced version.

Re:sounds like

[ConceptJunkie]

You do realize I said the "American Liberal" version of Goebbels. In other words, I was not implying anything other than his propoganda techniques, which are deceptive at best and often outright lies. Moore is a hateful elitest that loathes this country, it's way of life and citizens, and no amount of him saying with puppy dog eyes that he loves America can hide the fact that he bashes this country and its citizens every chance he can get, how can you love something you constantly call "evil". People who complain about the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage (rightly so, IMO) will often gullibly swallow Moore's histrionics without question (Tom Daschle call your office). I think Limbaugh and Savage are at least more honest about who and what they are. Moore does raise some valid points, but he's too busy stroking his own ego, showing us how clever a smart-ass he thinks he is, and wallowing in liberal self-hate to have any credibility.

I would point you this [davekopel.com] as a brief example of how utterly deceptive Moore is.
And it's not limited proponents of opposing ideology. I would direct you liberals Christopher Hitchens, who uses the word "lies" a lot when talking about the content of Moore's movie, or Richard Cohen, who in the Washington Post started taking notes on the movie and gave up because of the sheer "stupidity" of it. His word. The problem with the folks on /., generally being naive, uninformed college-age or near-college-age people (as I once was, but at least I wasn't liberal ;-) is that they fall into that trap of hating Bush so much they will buy anything that supports their point of view. Eight years ago, we saw the same stupidity on the right concerning President Clinton, who despite being an utter sleazeball, did do a significant number of positive things for the country.

In fact, Michael Moore himself clearly targets almost exclusively what Karl Marx called "useful idiots", those easily manipulated, unquestioning folks who will buy any mindless rhetoric. Smarter people who simply agree with him can take him for what he is, but that's not the point of his movie.

If I said "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot", I would probably get a score of 5, but if I say "Michael Moore is a big, fat stupid white man." it will probably get modded a troll. If I criticize President Bush (and there are plenty of things to criticize), everyone thinks I'm smart thoughtful poster, but if I show support for him (which I do... overall I think he's a great President), I'm considered a stupid right-wing nutjob who wants to create an American Taliban.

You can't deny there's a pretty disgusting double standard around here. That's why I prefer the technical stuff. News for nerds, you know.

It's a shame that Disney released a a very positive movie about America last weekend (I can't even recall the name, which shows how much coverage it got), which from what I read, in a completely non-partisan and non-political way, shows inspirational stories that demonstrate what makes this country. It probably made about $47. People would rather watch the cynical, bitter fat guy who hates America. That's sad.