> The fact that even guys as influential as Spielberg and Tarantino are worried about having their past work censored is the most convincing reason I've seen to own your own data.
No need to even go to censorship, you have people like George Lucas who go out of their way to destroy their previous productions.
I've deliberately sought the DVD edition of the unaltered original trilogy. The editing that makes Greedo shoot first looks cheap. It also doesn't make sense; someone pointing a gun at you is a clear sign of intent, and Han was simply defending himself. Han's decision to shoot first was also in line with his character as the rogue for hire.
Agh, I know the series is still raking in millions. But I can't enjoy the edits because my brain cries 'blasphmeny!'
There was a single run that included the THX LaserDisc version of the original Trilogy on DVD. I own it specifically because it included the original release and it’s the version I shown my kids. https://comic-cons.xyz/star-wars-original-trilogy-unaltered-...
At the time the excuse was that there were no longer any masters for the original trilogy to rescan for rerelease, so the LaserDisc version was the best that could be done.
When TVs were 4:3 and media playback was sending signals to control an electron gun, letterboxing was how you presented a 2.39:1 panavision feature. You’re screwed on resolution, but the framing is correct. HandBrake and other tools recognize and crop the matte giving you back a video in the correct aspect ratio (albeit still interlaced).
Edit: With the exception of getting LaserDisc releases of various vintages, the DVD release is the best, most accessible (excluding rarity) home video release of the original, unedited trilogy. They are not the highest quality, no doubt, but they are the best that was released. It could be argued that the despecialized editions are better for this reason or that, I personally consider them an incredible novelty, rather than a reference release.
When I tried those I found the brightness and colour balance odd in places. I'm told this is because they are optimised to look as close as possible to how they would in a cinema in 1977 (hence the name) so are optimised for viewing via a projector not an LCD TV.
There's a DVD "limited edition" of the trilogy that is 2 discs each, and the "extras" disc has either the original or laserdisc edit. This is good. The downside is that the black levels and audio are obviously dated/untouched. There's just no market for "remastering" without the content changes.
The whole point is that Han Solo is badass. So he doesn't need high bar to shoot. Luke is the crybaby. The original trilogy Han will totally opportunity shoot Grido in the back if he knew he was sent for him and Grido was walking the street. And the only thing he will feel is recoil. And I know blasters don't have any recoil.
Am I the only one who finds the end of Return of the Jedi to be the most horrible edit among all of the edits? I mean... I just want the song from my childhood not the garbage found in the blurays...
That and the insertion of Hayden Christensen. I know they wanted continuity, but it just throws me off every time I see him. It is as if the ghost represents the worst excesses of the prequels seeping through time.
Also don't start me on that 'thing' they have singing in Jabba's palace.
Entertainment media seem to have significantly different use-of-force standards than any real life legal or moral statutes. Maybe because the drama of protracted Mexican standoffs would be undercut if people reacted realistically to having guns pointed at them.
The Greedo scene has been tweaked multiple times. In the most recent version available on Disney+ (confirmed to be Lucas’ work), Greedo exclaims “macklunkey!” just before the shooting starts, which I find hilariously absurd.
In the book Tales from The Mos Eisley Cantina, the other two Rodians in the Cantina at the time of that scene were present to execute Greedo (for a clan rivalry). Solo shooting Greedo let them claim the bounty. Every story in that book centers around the scenes from the film that took place inside the cantina.
Literally the subhed of the article: "Director has criticised the practice of re-editing older films while expressing remorse over removing guns in a later edition of ET"
That was my first thought upon reading the title. However, people learn, grow, and change. I believe his argument will carry more weight with the acknowledgment and duscussion of his own prior decision. It's not hypocrisy; it's a lesson learned.
And he's a director! His job is to experiment and use new tools as they come available, and he's realized he made a mistake.
I have no problem with people making new versions of existing works; the problem I have is destroying the originals; even if destroyed by the author. The existence of copyright itself is a "deal" between society and an individual, we give the individual certain rights and privileges in exchange for certain benefits to society.
Only now has the ability to go back and change things resulted in large-scale destruction of personal copies of that original thing.
He didn't just remaster, he repeatedly altered the films, even changing the sense of some scenes, perhaps most notably and notoriously the stand-off between Han and Greedo. Most of his revisions have been questionable at best, ham-fisted and cringeworthy at worst.
Count me among the purists who think he ruined his good work ;-)
I think the Jabba scene is arguably worse because it simply repeats the same lines we already had in the Greedo scene for no real gain. It also undermines the dramatic reveal of the much-discussed but never-seen Jabba in ROTJ. Plus the unnecessary fan service of Boba Fett literally turning and staring at the camera at the end.
George Lucas has claimed that he cut and spliced the original negative when editing the Special Edition of the original trilogy, so that the master copies of the original films don't physically exist.
I'll make an exception for authors who want to tweak or improve their work.
Sometimes directors have to give into the limitations of their medium -- time, money, meddling producers, etc. If they want to revise it later to meet their original vision, more power to them.
Also entirely possible it was a cash grab; Skywalker Ranch needed a new wing or something.
For a positive example, Ridley Scott has a bunch of edits of Blade Runner. The huge improvement over the narration-riddled theatrical release was huge, and the pathological edits around hints towards Decker's replicant-ness are just kind of fun, in that different people are likely to have different views on the subject depending on which cut they watched.
I didn't follow the Lucasfilm acquisition too closely when it was all going down, but something that has confused me is that Lucas seems like a fairly talented guy with a passion for what he does, so how does it make sense that he actively wants to destroy his legacy?
I'm really doubtful that it's as simple as Lucas one day having a left-wing/progressivism epiphany or some other grand artistic change, sell Lucasfilm to Disney, then participate in the destruction of their IP.
Wasn't he promised "treatments" and general involvement in the latest trilogy, then Disney back-stabbed him last-minute? I vaguely remember some drama about that.
Anyway, long story short, I think that there is more to the story, such as him being promised one thing and another thing happening, etc.
Lucas hasn't shown any real passion or talent since Star Wars IV. Except perhaps for pitching ideas for the Indy films. He thankfully relegated the V and VI to other directors and screenwriters (even for IV, a lot of his contributions were cringe, and rightfully resisted by the rest of the crew). And let's not talk about the prequels (Jar Jar and midichlorians anyone? Not to mention his choice of protagonist).
My take is that he became complacent with the big money rolling in after the first Star Wars, and never had much to show for afterwards or subsequently cared for movies that much. Contrast this with his pal Spielberg who churned out great film after great film, and continued mastering his craft. Lucas is a "director" who made four movies and stooped for two decades when he made it big. That says it all about his "passion" or lack thereof.
Ah, wait. He did found a great passion in the early 80s: merchandise.
Watching the ILM documentary (Light & Magic) the thing that stood out about Lucas is that he hated having his moviemaking decisions set in stone, and it being expensive and hard to change stuff. He pushed to adopt digital compositing technology, digital audio, then digital cameras, and digital sets, because he was so frustrated by the slowness and friction of optical and location work.
I think what comes across in the prequels as this sort of ‘first take’ feel to the performances is a manifestation of his impatience - he wants to get the footage, edit it, get the effects, and see the thing in his head. And the ‘remastering’ he has done is similarly a bit of psychological desire to always feel like he can fix it later.
Waiting five days for Phil Tippett to stop motion ten seconds of tauntaun walking must have driven him crazy.
Underneath, it’s an engineer’s kind of laziness - the sort that drives innovation. I honestly felt after watching that documentary that I am slightly less annoyed by the clunkiness of Attack of the Clones because I actually now can see underneath it the excitement of Lucas to use all the toys he has spent a fortune investing in ILM to build and just make the damn movie.
>He pushed to adopt digital compositing technology, digital audio, then digital cameras, and digital sets, because he was so frustrated by the slowness and friction of optical and location work.
Yes, but he overemphasized those technical aspects (where his care went) over the movie aspects.
It's like the guy who builds an expensive studio, with a huge mixer console, high end microphones, state of the art Pro Tools rig, and then proceeds to record his farts.
I'm not a Star Wars fan, but that's pretty unfair to liken someone recording their farts to a whole movie with a huge crew and cast that each added their own speciality skills to the movie.
As much as you and I might knock Star Wars, it's wildly successful and is still seeing plenty of success in other mediums, so obviously it appeals to someone.
I'll defend Lucas til I die. His expanded universe is why I read so many books as a kid, and the huge number of star wars videogames in the 90s/2000s allowed game designers to tinker with different gameplay ideas with the star wars fans as a safety net. The phantom menace movie had a lot of flaws, yes, but without it we wouldnt have the podracing videogames. disney, comparitively, has released... what, two star wars videogames in 7 years?
What's your point? It still exists. It's only "not canon" if you view it through the angle of the sequel trilogy being canon. People are still free to enjoy the EU within the context of what came before the sequel trilogy, and it still tells the same story it did on release.
That's the neat thing about art, I can choose not to think the post-Disney acquisition cash-cow milking is canon, especially when none of the original storytellers are involved, and it is thus not their vision.
Call it what it is: they retconned to milk the cash cow they bought dry.
I think the argument is that the universe he created is amazing and rightly beloved, but his movie-making skills were troublesome. I also love the SW universe, but mostly for things that did not come directly from Lucas...
>The phantom menace movie had a lot of flaws, yes, but without it we wouldnt have the podracing videogames. disney, comparitively, has released... what, two star wars videogames in 7 years?
If the best you can say about a director is that "without him we wouldn't have as many franchize videogames" then I can rest my case :)
Sorry, you don't get to invoke the "reddit, mate" as if your point was twisted.
These are your literal quoted words, in their entirety:
"I'll defend Lucas til I die. His expanded universe is why I read so many books as a kid, and the huge number of star wars videogames in the 90s/2000s allowed game designers to tinker with different gameplay ideas with the star wars fans as a safety net. The phantom menace movie had a lot of flaws, yes, but without it we wouldnt have the podracing videogames. disney, comparitively, has released... what, two star wars videogames in 7 years?"
Want me to highlight your argument? Here it is...
"The phantom menace movie had a lot of flaws, yes, but without it we wouldnt have the podracing videogames. disney, comparitively, has released... what, two star wars videogames in 7 years?"
Lucas was an EP and writer for all three Indiana Jones films. I think these films hold up better than Star Wars, so I wouldn't say he has any passion or talent since Star Wars. With respect to the three Star Wars films though (and all the garbage that came later), I agree.
They do hold up better, but it's because of Spielberg who did the directing (I can't even imagine the cringe mess Lucas would have made - I'd rather we had a Tom Shelleck Indiana Jones movie, as was considered at one time, than a Lucas-directed one), Phillip Kaufman (who fleshed the story plot) and Lawrence Kasdan (who wrote the screenplay) rather than Lucas.
Lucas contributions were iconic, but not enough to get the movie to the level it is. From some dialogues I've seen between the whole team about the films [1], Lucas was more into throwing high level ideas, not about any core script work. So, the main concept, parts of the character design, and a high level plot summary. The rest had to make a full story, screenplay, and movie out of it.
George Lucas just saw making sci-fi movies as an effort to get reality as close as possible as the images he had in his mind. That meant seeing FX as an approximation, a constant compromise to reach the limits of what is possible to film. Lucasfilm were pioneers in digital FX and 3D for that very reason.
However, that also meant that each new work looked different from the previous, as real and digital FX diverged more and more with each passing year. He tried to rectify this by updating old works with new scenes and new effects. Had he stopped there, I reckon most people would have just plauded the novelty and moved on.
Unfortunately, while doing that, he also took the chance to modify what he saw as plot problems in the original movies - particularly the first, which was shot in isolation as a one-off, since there was no indication it would be as successful as it did (most actors thought it would be a one-and-done piece of trash, just to make a quick buck, particularly Sir Alex McGuinness). He made some dubious choices and the fandom never forgave him for that.
He knew his style of films were over, so he sold the franchise and let Disney take the burn for it.
It's difficult to see this as a political event, where he was outplayed.
He's worked with and against the big cats in Hollywood his whole career, he specifically made career decisions to 'get away' from Hollywood meddling in his work.
He knew what he was doing and this mythical George Lucas character, who is victim and hero in one man, is getting a bit long in the tooth.
When I consider this, I don't think there's any legacy there to ruin. The only thing that made the first movies watchable was gone long before Disney bought it up.
But like many story-spinners, he needs an equally phenomenal editor to sit on him. And it happens time and time again that a story-spinner gets so famous/rich/whatever that they can sit on the editor instead, and then the quality drops.
It's a very rare breed of story-spinner who can sit on themselves, offhand I can think of Tolkien perhaps.
He can spin stories and build worlds very well indeed, but he can't write dialog or direct actors worth a damn. He needs someone else to handle this stuff. His best work was when he came up with the grand vision for something, but someone else handled dialog, scriptwriting, and directing. Basically, the guy was a technical genius but had no eye for the human element.
No need to even go to censorship, you have people like George Lucas who go out of their way to destroy their previous productions.