 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 15, 2011 - 1:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
nuts_score
(Member)
|
Steve-y Spielberg on post-alterations...
"[George Lucas's Star Wars alteration is] a little hot topic, isn't it? (laughter) Let me put it this way. George does what he does cause there is only one George Lucas and thank god for that. He's the greatest person I've ever worked with as a filmmaker and collaborator, he is a conceptual genius, he puts together these amazing stories and he is great at what he does. And my feeling is he can do whatever he wants with his movies because those are his movies. We wouldn't have been raised with Star Wars or Indiana Jones had it not been for George, so what he does with his films is great. Speaking for myself, you know, I tried this once and I lived to regret it. Not because of fan outrage, but simply because I was disappointed in myself. I was overly sensitive to some of the criticism ET got from parent groups when it was first released in '82 having to do with Eliot saying "Penis Breath" or the guns...and then there were certain brilliant, but rough around the edges close ups of ET that I always felt, if technology ever evolves to the point where I can do some facial enhancement for ET, I'd like to. So I did an ET pass for like the third release of the movie and it was okay for a while, but then I realized that what I had done was I had robbed the people who loved ET of their memories of ET. And I regretted that. (massive applause) And the only contrition that I could possibly do because I felt bad about that was, the only contrition that I really performed was when ET came out on DVD for the first time, I asked Universal, I didn't ask Universal, I said you're gonna do this, when you release this on DVD you have to come out for the same price of one DVD, you have to put two movies in the box and one movie will be the 1982 version and the other will be the digitally enhanced version. I'd like to ask you this, let's do a little poll here, cause I know we're coming out with the blu-ray of ET, if I just came out with one ET on blu-ray, 1982, would anyone object to that? (loud NO from the audience). Okay then, so be it. (huge applause)"
http://allthingsfangirl.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-scene-raiders-of-lost-ark-30th.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GEEKS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading through the reviews of the BD Box Set on Amazon, I just laughed and laughed and laughed...
I don't think I'll have time to get through all of them (there's more than twelve hundred now, and counting), but this one had just the right amount of (presumably) unintended irony:
"Your review is too brief and superficial. George Lucas should have learned from the the mistakes he made on the DVD releases. George Lucas has proven what all history teachers say: 'Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.' It is easy to see how George Lucas has become blinded by his own arrogance. George Lucas should put the original movies on Blu-ray 100% intact with one exception: REMOVE ALL OCCURRENCES OF JAR JAR BINKS."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 17, 2011 - 8:57 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MikeP
(Member)
|
Most of the more vicious "Lucas apologists" (for want of a better phrase) can't discern the difference between reasonable critical evaluation and outright irrational hatred.
Here's what the stupids don't get: academic criticism is a *game*, not a science. Here is how the game works: in any single situation ever it is possible to use your tiny human brain to break apart any piece of art. Anyone can come up with pretty words to explain why every movie or book or painting in the universe has some terrible flaw.
I have to disagree LeHah
One review of the Blu-Ray reviews had a paragraph that sums it up for me
"And, most notoriously of all, Darth Vader now shouts "No. Noooooo!" just before he stops the Emperor from torturing Luke to death in Jedi. This is probably the most disturbing of all because, like Greedo shooting first, it doesn't just alter the look or sound of the film, but fundamentally modifies a big character moment into something less poignant, less subtle and ultimately less effective."
You are right when you say that George can tinker with these films as much as he likes. However, I feel that the backlash from this tinkering is not so much from rabid "fan-boys" as those who are disappointed in the result that his changes make to character development.
Cheers
Rick
Yeah these are the only 2 revisions that bothered me. All the spiffy new special effects I liked , thought they were just fine. But Greedo/ Vader ... yes they change the character moments and in the case of "noooooooo" really it is poor drama.
But hey, I'll watch it anyway. It's only a movie and I have the original on DVD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As opposed to the ROTJ Radio Drama, which has something similar and was made back in 1996.
You have to admit that the radio drama, without the benefit of the no-dialogue shots of Vader, and the "What could he be thinking now? What is he about to do?" questions they raise in the audience, is a slightly different situation, and the "My son!" there is justified for a different reason: it's a different medium.
It also seems to derive from a different motivation, if you want to read too much into it (like the rest of us obsessives), because the sudden familial sympathy isn't evoked in quite the same way by the cut-&-pasted "Nooooo." Instead, it reminds us of another "Nooooo" in another movie, which many of us found laughable to begin with.
If Vader had instead said "My son!" in the new Blu-ray, that might even have seemed more of an improvement from a dramatic standpoint, though no less an unnecessary one. I remain convinced that the real power of the scene, which Lucas seems to have missed (on THIS Blu-ray release, anyway) is the ambiguity of those silent shots of Vader, and the suspense and wonderment they evoke as the audience witnesses and realizes his change of heart visually (as opposed to reading a telegraphed "Nooooo" message).
. . . And yes, I just spent another ten minutes composing a post about a two-second shot in a movie I wasn't all that impressed with when I first saw it almost three decades ago: more evidence of the true genius of George Lucas, Marketing Master.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 18, 2011 - 3:56 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Rick15
(Member)
|
And, most notoriously of all, Darth Vader now shouts "No. Noooooo!" just before he stops the Emperor from torturing Luke to death in Jedi. This is probably the most disturbing of all because, like Greedo shooting first, it doesn't just alter the look or sound of the film, but fundamentally modifies a big character moment into something less poignant, less subtle and ultimately less effective
As opposed to the ROTJ Radio Drama, which has something similar and was made back in 1996.
Yes, I see where all the indignation comes from now.
Whatever.
Funnily enough, I grew up on the Star Wars & Empire Strikes Back radio dramas. This was a time before movies were readily available in the home and was a great way for me to re-live the movies as a kid. I taped each episode off the radio and wore out each cassette tape listening to them.
ROTJ never made it to broadcast in Australia so I never got to hear it, therefore I have not heard the moment you are referring to.
I ain't here to pick a fight with you (and going by the smiley on your post, you are in the same frame of mind) BUT I have to point out that the radio dramas were made for an audience who could not see what was happening. They HAD to expand dialogue to give the listener a mental picture of what a character was feeling.
I remember some of the unnecessarily clunky exposition describing scenes in the radio drama that would be completely out of place in the movies.....'cos we could SEE what was happening.
Different experiences for different media.
Cheers
EDIT: oops just went back and read the posts after yours and see that I have just repeated the same argument that has previously been put forward. Note to self....read following posts before replying to an earlier one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
