Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Star Wars Prequels Entertainment

Why Star Wars Should be Left o the Fans 425

Posted by samzenpus
from the don't-make-us-shoot-first dept.
Aguazul writes "The BBC has an interesting take on George Lucas's meddling with our memories: 'Fans of Star Wars are not happy. Someone has been tampering with their movie history.' They speculate on who really owns a piece of art. Even the artist doesn't really know what he's created, and a work doesn't become 'something' until given value by an audience: 'the artist is merely the medium for his or her work.' Many people contributed to the Star Wars trilogy. Is Lucas' over-inflated idea of his own importance in the process the reason he is stopping people seeing the unmodified originals?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Star Wars Should be Left o the Fans

Comments Filter:
  • by Crookdotter (1297179) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @05:37PM (#37435876)
    Noooooooo!!!!!!!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18, 2011 @06:06PM (#37436074)

      I dont mind him messing with it. In fact the tweaks are somewhat interesting.

      However, why does he just not release the originals? I mean a directors cut thrown in with the originals and *NO* one would have bitched at all. Instead we just see the tweaked versions.

      I honestly like the way they did Raiders. That was decently done. I guess he wanted people to remember some commercial he did in the 90s and not call him a liar I guess.

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by Truekaiser (724672)

        Because as soon as he edits it he throws out the older version considering the edited one the 'canon' and the older one his imperfect vision due to technology limitations at the time.

        • by St.Creed (853824)

          Which is something akin to creating a new version of Casablanca with an ending that has better appreciation by current sample audiences. Brrrr...

          • by Truekaiser (724672) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @06:48PM (#37436298)

            It's what he did in the late 90's when he released the special editions of the 4,5,and 6. I full support the idea of the star-wars franchise universe taken out of his hands and in it's place give him a box of crayons to play.

          • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday September 18, 2011 @09:21PM (#37437132) Journal

            Exactly! For an example of catering to the sample audience look at I Am legend, which I'll admit wasn't a great version of that story to start with (The Vincent Price version #1, Heston #2, Legend #3 in my book) but look what they did.

            In the original ending the doctor figures out that they are not animals, and are simply trying to rescue their brethren from HIM who he realizes is being the giant douche. Instead of this ending that made it more like the book and hence the name "I Am Legend" because he IS the monster, instead because the audience didn't like that they replaced it with a Michael Bay style "blow shit up real good" ending which made no fucking sense, and totally threw away all they had been building up towards, such as the "monsters" laying traps for him when they were supposed to be mindless, etc.

            While I thought Lucas with his Greedo shot first horseshit was rightly called out for being moronic and changing the character for no reason on the flip side if you let modern audiences design the movies it is gonna be a Michael Bay bomb fest, and all movies will be "Smart ass good guy falls for bimbette and blows shit up REAL good". Frankly we have enough Michael bay tripe in this world, do we REALLY want to be catering to those that keep buying that dreck?

        • But how is it any different from a new version of a computer program that has more efficient algorithms and fewer security vulnerabilities?
          • .. that's like comparing a story in a book to the mechanical process of projecting images on a screen in such a way to make the illusion of motion.
            a more apt analogy is rewriting Romeo and Juliet to have them live and then going to all the libraries and throwing out the older copies to replace them with that one because it has a more positive feel to the current right's holder.

          • But how is it any different from a new version of a computer program that has more efficient algorithms and fewer security vulnerabilities?

            "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Whether or not you like a film is a subjective decision - you cannot prove that one film/book/poem is better than another: we all have our own opinions. Hence any change to a work of art is bound to have those that like it and those who do not.

          • Re:Update Manager (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Artifakt (700173) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @08:42PM (#37436928)

            You could compare using a CGI Yoda in some portions that were originally puppet Yoda to your example, but what about such decisions as not having Han shoot first? That's different, in that there was no change in technology at all, 'just' a change in the character. What new technology allowed Lucas to capture Greedo shooting first when it somehow couldn't be done that way originally? If you're going to compare this to a program, what about rewriting, say, an Ultima game so that which decisions lead to which endings is different?

        • by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @08:25PM (#37436838)

          If that was a reason anyone could accept, Metropolis would have gotten a makeover years ago and the old one would have been destroyed.

          The charm and a lot of the value those original versions of Star Wars had was due to the limitations and how they managed to work around them. The first scene (ya know, where Leia's ship gets badgered by a Star Destroyer) was awesome at the time, I remember how the theater went wild at the very first scene of the movie just from it being so awesome. Today, of course it isn't as impressive anymore, we're used to such scenes by now. But that's not what made the movie a classic. What did was that in its time it had the maybe best and certainly some of the most impressive special effects. Giving them a makeover does of course improve them, but it also cheapens them. Today, this is something every second movie will show. And I'm not talking about the "old" special effects, I'm talking about the remakes.

          Yes, the redos make the movie look less impressive. Not more. Less. It becomes yet another space opera movie. The special effects introduced later are nothing special anymore, they're a staple of the industry. What made them impressive was that they could pull them off in that time without the aid of perfect CGI, with a lot of work and detailed models. That's what made it special and great.

          Take any Anderson TV show (talking about their real, not puppet, shows, namely Space 1999 and UFO). By today's standards, of course the special effects look dated and, at best, cute. What makes both shows a classic and made them develop a cult following was that they put a LOT of work into it to make it believable with the limited means of the times.

          Just like with Star Wars. Star Wars produced today would simply be yet another SciFi movie. The same special effects as anyone, and let's be blunt, the story is nothing special, it's an average fantasy story that's been transported into a SciFi setting, which has been done before and since. Today, with the "augmented" effects, it would probably drown in the rest of the genre. And, well, the second trilogy shows that quite well.

          What makes Star Wars the classic it is, is, that it was ahead of its time, that it set a standard few productions could meet for years to come. And in this standard it should be preserved. Yes, it looks dated. Of course it does, it's more than a quarter century old. But "augmenting" it cheapens the achievement, it cheapens the experience. There is of course nothing wrong with giving the movie a makeover and offering that augmented versions additionally, but the original one should be preserved.

          To close the circle, do you think anyone would remember Metropolis today if it had been redone and remodeled every decade to update the technology? I mean, it's not like that movie has such a great story either.

          • by mug funky (910186) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @08:44PM (#37436938)

            to say nothing of the poor buggers that did those stunning model shots, only to find no remaining example of their work to show their grandchildren.

            i bet Lucas even removed their names from the credits.

            • That's another thing.

              I do robotics as a hobby, and some of my work has actually been used as a prop. Nothing remotely Star Wars, but still something I'm kinda proud of. To think that my work would eventually be replaced by CGI is disheartening.

              Think of the detail in the original Star Wars models, that's something you don't slap together over night. I really look up to those people, they were very creative and very careful in their work, you could see in the original movies that these were works of love, not

      • by interval1066 (668936) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @07:53PM (#37436656) Homepage Journal
        He learned from Star Wars to have a completely filled-in mythology rather than patchwork in extensions to the story. I think the success of Star Wars caught him and the studio by surprise. Its pretty obvious that he had to patch most of the subplots. For example I can tell from the first film that Princess Leia's home Planet was Organa, had always been Organa, and her father was waiting for her on Organa before Tarkin blew it all to hell, and he WAS NOT Vader. I know; she would have referred to him as her father and not her step father, but still, I'm not speaking to familial references, but plots and story lines and what seems reasonable and logical. Lucas had no intention of tying Vader and Leia together until AFTER Episode V was in the word processor (maybe typewriter still then). I think the connection between Luke, Leia, and Vader is a stretch so thin it pretty much snaps by the time Revenge comes out, and the numbering of all six films (begins with 4 and ends with 3?) is ridiculous. Brilliant if you're making one film, really kind of a mess if you had planned on six (or was it 9?) films all along.
        As further evidence of this the tie-in using Shmi Skywalker and Cliegg Lars is pretty obviously forced- wedged in like a wrench in a cheesecake but was necessary to get "Aniken" (young Darth) tied up in Luke's & Leia's lives. As we have some idea of just how vast the universe is happenstance like that, (planned or not) is just ridiculous.
        I'm not a hater, just sayin' Y'all can argue if you want; but there's only one man who knows the truth and he ain't gonna talk.
        To show I'm not a hater I think the casting of Ewan McGregor as the young Kenobi was brilliant. He did a very good job.
    • See, Darth Vader changed as shown in this one minute and six seconds YouTube video [youtube.com]. ;)

  • >> Even the artist doesn't really know what he's created, and a work doesn't become 'something' until given value by an audience: 'the artist is merely the medium for his or her work.'

    the writers, producers, costume designers, actors, etc are really irrelevant in the creative process. no, its the
    talentless consumer thats really the creative wellspring of artistic work

    • Well, at the end of the day, yes. Whether it's one guy sitting in his apartment with an easel or a piano, or a team of hundreds, at the end of the day art's intention is to be consumed by, well, the talentless consumer (if you wish to take that extreme a position).

      A similar thing happened in the late 1980s when Frank Zappa went to remix a lot of the old Mothers of Invention records, and due to deterioration in the original masters, he re-recorded those takes, and the differences were sufficient that a lot

      • by billcopc (196330)

        As many have pointed out, if someone is so strongly partial to the original Zappa recordings, they can find those records. No one is forcing them to destroy their originals and replace them with the new and allegedly inferior mix.

        As a (crappy) musician, I've experienced that myself, where I collaborated with a good friend on a track, and after a few more (dozen) listens, decided his contribution sucked, so I created an alternate version that was more in line with my tastes. I didn't delete the old one, in

        • by jmauro (32523) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @06:38PM (#37436234)

          No one is forcing them to destroy their originals and replace them with the new and allegedly inferior mix.

          This is what I don't understand about the Star Wars complainers. If they stop buying the new copies and just keep watching the old ones, he'll stop making changes. He's only releasing a new edition every year or two because everyone and their cousin goes out and buys it.

          • I think most complainers want an HD version of the old movies. Now they have to choose between Laserdisc rips of the old version or Blueray copies of the new.

        • by St.Creed (853824)

          Two things:

          - (minor) the copyright on the old Star Wars movies will run out before the copyright on the new ones. He may want to play it safe there.
          - (major) I guess he feels no-one in their right mind would buy the new versions, given a choice.

          • And by the time the copyright expires on the first Star Wars film, everyone who had seen it in the theater will be long dead, as will everyone who even saw the third movie in the theater.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      the writers, producers, costume designers, actors, etc are really irrelevant in the creative process. no, its the
      talentless consumer thats really the creative wellspring of artistic work

      It's not hard to find sci-fi with better writing, better costumes, better acting, better music, etc.
      Without the support of the fanbase the movie falls into obscurity and everyone invovled becomes unimportant.
      The fans paid for it to be what it is today and George Lucas gladly took their money and shat in their faces.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The ultimate goal of a creative person should be to let others engage in the same creative process he/she is in. Creating is not just showing that something can be done (or written down in a certain way), but also showing how something can be done, so that others can improve upon it. If this aspect is missing, the artist has failed, and has just created a dead piece of work.

    • by hedwards (940851) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @06:10PM (#37436092)

      Actually, the thing there is that it's only been in the last few hundred years that artists were willing to start taking credit for work they produced. Prior to about the 19th century, it was God or a muse that did the work, the artist just put down on paper or however else the results.

      The consumer is where the works ultimately go, if they're not able to soak into the consumer then there isn't really much art going on. Personally, I find it annoying, but ultimately have to accept that it's not what I make of my work that ultimately matters, it's what the viewer makes of it. Sometimes it's pretty amazing and other times it's pretty depressing.

      As far as Star Wars goes, I've been saying for years that George needs to recognize that at this point the fans own the work, and that he really needs to rerelease the original versions, perhaps rescan and remastered, but from the original materials with the highest fidelity in mind. It's arrogant of him to not recognize that he managed to bottle lightning and to leave it as is.

      • by matunos (1587263)

        I don't know if they took credit or not, but they sure took money for their works.

      • by Oligonicella (659917) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @07:22PM (#37436496)
        Prior to 1800 artists didn't attribute themselves as being the piece's wellspring? Please. That's a fantasy and a slim one. It's ludicrous to thing an artist didn't recognize the time and talent he imbued the piece with. "It just flowed" is what you tell the mark.

        Church's used to put out notices when they wanted to commission art. The church usually had a theme they wanted and they solicited ideas. Artists were supposed to show up with their rough drafts and the church would pick what they wanted.
        Titian used to show up with a finished painting. The church almost always bought it. Pissed off the other guys. You think he did that because he was "muse inspired"? If so, it was the muse of economics.
        • by hedwards (940851)

          I'm not sure where to begin. Of course they did it for money, even in the current era you have to have money to pay for food and clothing somehow. I'm not sure how you could misread my post to suggest that that is not the case.

          But, it was much viewed much more the way that a lot of people view photography now. The artist had training with the tools necessary to take down the inspiration. The word plagiarism, for instance, didn't even enter the English lexicon until the early part of the 19th century and an

          • by Artifakt (700173)

            Right, there's a big difference between an artist saying "My talent and hard work took these ideas to the level of a finished creation.", and "I'm so much a self made man, I invented a time machine and an alphabet so i could teach my elementary school teachers what to teach me." . A little recognition that none of us see farther except by standing on the shoulders of giants is necessary.

      • But the 19th century was also when literacy started to become really widespread. The reason "God" got a lot of credit for the works was that most literate people either worked for the church or the state, there was no way they could really make a living otherwise. So they obviously credited their works to their "employer"
      • Most of the time I let things go, but your post is particularly infuriating, because of the sheer amount of nonsense it contains.
        Prior to the 19th century, it was not God or a muse who did the work, however, there was certainly much more work created in the name of someone. If artists had been unwilling to take credit for their work, then we would have never known who wrote Bach's works, as an example. While Bach certainly signed some of his manuscripts with Soli Deo gloria (Glory to God Alone), he also had

      • Your claim about God and creativity is roughly correct. God was the creator; it was the role of artists to reflect the majesty of God's creation. See M.H. Abrams The Mirror and the Lamp. The development of the idea of authorship was partly a response to the upheavals of the industrial revolution. I have attempted to explain this in a video about the invention of the author [youtube.com]. The video description includes references for further reading.

        To address the larger point, audiences are significant contributo

    • Maybe you or the average geek can't be expected to know this, but this idea is not at at all new. The concept that an author is not the authority on his/her own work has been common, even accepted, in literary analysis for decades. It's sometimes called the 'intentional fallacy'. Calling the author a 'medium' is just the article's way of making an old idea seem new and sexy.

      But even if you wouldn't go as far as saying that the interpretor sets the meaning, maybe we could all agree that going back and modi

      • that may be true, but that doesn't necessarily imply that every random reader/listener/watcher is
        more* authoritative

      • by vux984 (928602) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @06:39PM (#37436248)

        But even if you wouldn't go as far as saying that the interpretor sets the meaning, maybe we could all agree that going back and modifying a work that you've made is a shitty thing to do if that work already holds meaning for millions of people. As is pointed out in TFA, this is exactly what Lucas did that started this debate

        The problem isn't that Lucas keeps going back and re-imagining / revising things. The public has no problem with a directors cut, director's recut, special edition directors re-re-cut...ad nauseum. Its lucas' ip and he's free and welcome to remaster it as much and as often as he likes.

        The public however strongly objects to arrogantly being denied what they want.

        Me, i want the the THX edition in HD. That is all. No extra scenes. Just a remaster of the original. There is a big market for that. People would be happy to tolerate Lucas indulging in as many editions and remakes and recuts alternate endings, inserted scenes, cgi replacing actors as he likes, if only he'd satisfy the demand for this ONE thing.

      • The concept that an author is not the authority on his/her own work has been common, even accepted, in literary analysis for decades.

        So how many more decades will it take for legal analysis to warm up to this concept?

      • "The concept that an author is not the authority on his/her own work has been common, even accepted, in literary analysis for decades."

        Wow. Who would have thought that literary geeks (who actually create no literature) would seek to elevate themselves above the creators of the literature they are geeks about.

        Waaaiiiitt, a second. This sounds familiar.
    • by rolfwind (528248)

      the writers, producers, costume designers, actors, etc are really irrelevant in the creative process. no, its the
      talentless consumer thats really the creative wellspring of artistic work

      Well, consumers do drive what is put out there. They are the source of demand, and much of the reason companies supply anything is to feed perceived demand. But that's rather like saying the professor owns the problem (he assigned you) and you own the solution (you handed in). If the professor never gave you the problem,

  • by dcollins (135727) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @05:47PM (#37435942) Homepage

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

    I think that's a reasonable and praiseworthy understanding of what art, and copyright ownership, should be for. The time of creator-control should be "limited" to something like 14 or 28 years (one generation), as was originally intended. Afterward, it belongs to the world.

    • by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Sunday September 18, 2011 @06:27PM (#37436172)

      I think in our modern age 14 years is unreasonable and even 28 years is downright insane.

      Let's say we never changed it from the maximum 28 years. This year we would see the following films entering the public domain (examples are the top ten grossing films in 1983 [wikipedia.org]): Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, Terms of Endearment, Flashdance, Trading Places, Wargames, Octopussy, Sudden Impact, Staying Alive, Mr. Mom, Risky Business.

      Nostalgia factors aside, I wouldn't exactly call those "culturally relevant" to the modern age - things move way, way faster now. Sure, in the late 1700s a book written 28 years prior would probably still be quite popular and very relevant to the times.. but the times changed faster and faster.

      Something like 1 year would be more fair to all parties in my opinion, at least on an item-by-item basis. Don't most movies, games, music albums, etc. make the vast majority of their money in the first few months? Sequels wouldn't be affected because they would be filed under a new copyright.

  • by Daetrin (576516) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @05:48PM (#37435952)
    Rob Bricken of Topless Robot found someone else who agrees that artists should stop trying to meddle with their art after releasing it... George Lucas from 1988. [toplessrobot.com] He gave a speech to Congress about the issue in which he said, among other things,

    "The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests."

    and

    "Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18, 2011 @05:49PM (#37435954)

    It is morally right that the creator of a work should have complete control over it for all time immemorial. You don't see people messing with The Iliad -- it exists today in exactly the same format that Homer wrote it down, and the changes that he penciled in to later editions have been faithfully reproduced. The same is true with the plays of Shakespeare, which are always performed with exactly the same script and stage directions that the Bard himself took to the copyright office before the original performances. And music also has never been altered after composition -- the composers intent is always honored by the performer, and the audience would demand no less.

    I don't see any reason we should give Lucas any less than the complete and total control over his creations enjoyed by Homer, Shakespeare, and Bach. To afford him anything else would be tragic.

    • All the copies of shakespeare existing were heavily messed with by early theater owners. Scene order was messed with until scenes didn't make sense - characters saying things that the learn about in a later scene, scenes added to use a theatre's special effects -all sorts of changes, leading to arguments in scholarly circles to this day.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I don't see any reason we should give Lucas any less than the complete and total control over his creations enjoyed by Homer, Shakespeare, and Bach. To afford him anything else would be tragic.

      Lucas was ONE of the artists, and it's clear from his later tinkering that his vision of characters such as Han Solo is NOT what ended up on film. So that sad douchey fatsack is wiping out the beloved movies (the combined vision of Lucas, co-writers, actors, etc...) to replace them with his vision, loved seemingly only by himself and his sycophants. It is not one mans creation so why should he get to destroy it? He could release his vision and a clean copy of the original edit but he would rather destroy

    • by pulse2600 (625694)

      You don't see people messing with The Iliad

      I'll see your Iliad and raise you an "Odyssey"

      O Brother, Where Art Thou? - Starring George Clooney [imdb.com]

  • ... even worse then the author. Most people are mediocre, there are all stars among the fans but knowing who they are isn't something you know until after they've produced something and there's been a reaction.

    • by Ironchew (1069966)

      Indeed, you touched on an important catch-22 of trusting the fanbase.

      The Star Wars prequels were written and filmed long after much of the "Star Wars expanded universe" had been established. This in itself didn't contribute to the terribleness of the prequels; Lucas had fan expectations in mind when he wrote the prequels, though. Darth Vader and the Jedi in general were given way too much importance, the dialogue scenes were sloppy and only served to connect the different settings to the plot, and the trilo

  • by ZipK (1051658) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @05:59PM (#37436020)
    The music was in MONO for God's sake. And the cars run on gasoline and tires - they should fly! And that part where the cops in Jerry's Cherry get the transmission pulled out of their car, it should be a great deal more AWESOME with fireballs and stuff! There is so much that Lucas could fix in his own childhood by reworking American Graffiti, why does he keep tinkering with Star Wars?
    • by owlnation (858981)

      There is so much that Lucas could fix in his own childhood by reworking American Graffiti, why does he keep tinkering with Star Wars?

      That's because people don't have American Graffiti conventions, and don't make as much fuss about it, thus generating him even more money. If people just stopped buying his new versions of Star Wars he'd have to stop reworking them, and likely eventually have to release the originals.

      Thus, it's pretty easy to get him to stop doing this. Just stop buying anything but the o

      • by ZipK (1051658)

        That's because people don't have American Graffiti conventions, and don't make as much fuss about it, thus generating him even more money.

        Graffiti Summer [visitmodesto.com] and the upcoming Petaluma Salute [americangraffiti.net] suggest there's money to be squeezed out of American Graffiti.

  • I think the real question isn't what someone is allowed to do to their own art, but what happens to our collective memories? I wold love to share my childhood memories with my grand kids, and for the most part I can... But thanks to Mr. Lucas one of the biggest influences of my childhood has been lost forever. Out of respect for all of us who have made him rich beyond any of our individual dreams he should allow the theatrical releases to issued on BluRay as well. It isn't my place to tell someone how to ma
  • by farnsworth (558449) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @06:01PM (#37436040)
    There is an exellent [secrethist...arwars.com] article outlining what Lucas has done to the original negative. tl;dr: in the 90's Lucas restored the negative of the original release, and then subsequently nearly completely butchered it while at the same time destroying all copies of the theatrical release (except privately owned vhs and laserdisks, of course). At this point the only thing that exists is a 1080p scan of the film. All of the restored negative does still exist, though. It's just not assembled into something that could produce anything. It is possible to re-assemble that restoration, which by all accounts is stunning.
  • There's a problem here: you won't even get agreement from people in answering the question, "What is art?" If you can't get people to agree on what it is, then you won't get agreement from people on the question of "Who owns art?"

    It's such a complicated topic where people won't even agree on the basics, so it's hard to come to complex conclusions. One general point that I hope we can reach a consensus on: there's value in preserving art in the original form, even if only as an artifact or cultural snapsh

  • If the IT world put as much effort into reforming the system as they have bitching about Star Wars we'd get regular raises periodically instead of having to re-interview every 2 years to keep our old jobs.
  • A lot of the changes seem to be the type that he and his collaborators (he did have them) could have argued about during the original filming. Now that he has complete control over the property, he can "re-win" all of these.

  • It's a vast overstatement that "artists are merely a medium for his or her work". But it's true that artwork is a medium of communication between people, only one of whom is the artist. Without someone to perceive the art, the art might as well not exist. The art's effect is created by the beholder in their own mind. More educated and sensitive minds make more of the art they experience. More cultivated audiences recognize better art and give it more value. The most popular art, especially after generations

  • This topic has been getting a lot of attention recently. The guys at Red Letter Media [redlettermedia.com] just interviewed the director of the movie The People vs. George Lucas [wikipedia.org] which examines the question in detail.

  • I want a string of movies based off of Asimov's stories. "The Naked Sun" and "The End of Eternity" come to mind as candidates.

  • And neither does George Lucas. He does all of his masturbation to please himself and no one else.

  • "Is Lucas' over-inflated idea of his own importance in the process the reason he is stopping people seeing the unmodified originals?"

    How in hell is he stopping me from viewing the originals? No one came and took them from me.
  • Lucas also tried to rid the world of the Star Wars Christmas Special, arguably the worst thing my eyes have ever seen and lo and behold it won't go away. I'm sure the Streisand Effect will keep the originals alive.

    Not that they are worth keeping alive...

  • by guidryp (702488) on Sunday September 18, 2011 @07:19PM (#37436478)

    Greedo seems to be the poster child for complaints, but the Original Star Wars (1977) is ruined pretty much start to finish for me. There is so much ridiculously out of place tacked on CGI it makes me gag.

    IMO, what was done to the the original 1977 Star Wars, is as bad as taking "Jason and the Argonauts" and replacing the stop motion work of Ray Harryhausen, with CGI.

    He has taken a historically significant special effects movie and added a bunch of lame CGI on top and turned it into a running joke.

    For myself, I am only interested in having even a decent DVD copy of just the original 1977 movie (the old DVD box set version is not DVD quality).

    I have no interest in anything else Lucas has done.

  • by msobkow (48369)

    Is Lucas' over-inflated idea of his own importance in the process the reason he is stopping people seeing the unmodified originals?

    It's the rabid fanatics who have an over-inflated idea of their own importance.

    They are consumers. Numbers. Statistics. Buyers.

    Not creators or artists.

    So STFU, get out of Mom's basement, and get a life already.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (2) Thank you for your generous donation, Mr. Wirth.

Working...