I find 'A New Hope' hard to watch nowadays

[Campe]

The way they got the plans doesn’t jibe with Rogue One. But I still love it.

 

[fireproof78]

The way they got the plans doesn’t jibe with Rogue One. But I still love it.

Well, Kyle Katarn should have been Rogue One too

 

[Campe]

Well, Kyle Katarn should have been Rogue One too

Kyle Katarn. Talk about a Mary Sue!

 

[fireproof78]

Kyle Katarn. Talk about a Mary Sue!

Extremely so!

 

[Smellmet]

I love the detail of Yavin battle.. like when the battle is about to begin, Wedge says "Look at the Size of that thing" which is what you'd expect a character to say in these types of films.. happening in ID4 as well.. but as soon as Wedge says it, base tells him "cut the chatter Red Two".

I wish there were details like that in the new films.

The yavin battle focused much more on the individual pilots, probably partially due to budgetary constraints, but it had the effect of ramping up the stakes and tension. Pretty much every SW dogfight after this and ESB focused more on spectacle and numbers, which is no bad thing but just an observation. I love the yavin battle, it's just such a classic sequence, but my personal favourites are the DS2 battle and Rogue one.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

There is a roughness to this film, that I think is one of it's charms.. like you can tell they just barely finished it.

 

[JD]

JJ Abrams asked Lucasfilm about doing a new release of the original theatrical versions of the original trilogy, and they said no. Apparently it still goes back to Lucas not wanting the original versions to be released again.

 

[Smellmet]

There is a roughness to this film, that I think is one of it's charms.. like you can tell they just barely finished it.

I have watched it again this afternoon, even after 200 plus viewings, I still never tire of this movie. It is just magical from start to finish. As excellent as ESB is (and it really is and betters ANH in several areas) I just can't award it top spot over this, but it's VERY close.

The perceived 'roughness' you speak of is one of the films best aspects, it's fairly raw in places and as a result it just adds to the film's atmosphere with the 'lived in' look. No other SW film feels quite as believable a setting as this one. People slate the tatooine bits as slow - pfft - they are excellent - grounded and realistic. Just the visuals on the twin suns alone (let alone the music) blew me away when I was a kid, it looked 100 percent real and still does now.

The film was made by the seat of it's pants, but it was pulled off spectacularly well. A stone cold masterpiece.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I have watched it again this afternoon, even after 200 plus viewings, I still never tire of this movie. It is just magical from start to finish. As excellent as ESB is (and it really is and betters ANH in several areas) I just can't award it top spot over this, but it's VERY close.

The perceived 'roughness' you speak of is one of the films best aspects, it's fairly raw in places and as a result it just adds to the film's atmosphere with the 'lived in' look. No other SW film feels quite as believable a setting as this one. People slate the tatooine bits as slow - pfft - they are excellent - grounded and realistic. Just the visuals on the twin suns alone (let alone the music) blew me away when I was a kid, it looked 100 percent real and still does now.

The film was made by the seat of it's pants, but it was pulled off spectacularly well. A stone cold masterpiece.

I totally agree. And those slow scenes on Tatooine, filmed in what feels like a real home where the background can be just out of focus if it needs to be, is one of the main reasons that film feels the most real. You have articulated very well what I've beem thinking about for years. The film is incredible verisimilitude.. even the shade of blue on artoo-detoo just is perfect if it had been any different it would take you out of the film. Every single camera angle every single shot just accentuates how real this world feels

 

[fireproof78]

JJ Abrams asked Lucasfilm about doing a new release of the original theatrical versions of the original trilogy, and they said no. Apparently it still goes back to Lucas not wanting the original versions to be released again.

No surprise there. He regards the originals rather poorly and does not have the love that many others do for it.

They are incredible movies, especially ANH. I'll never tire of that one. But, I cannot fault Lucas in the slightest and fully respect his choice.

 

[J.T.B.]

I'll never tire of that one. But, I cannot fault Lucas in the slightest and fully respect his choice.

I'll fault him, his position is absurd. He put out a movie that made history, then wants to erase it from history. But even he can't stop it, eventually the original will take its proper place. The more time that goes by, the more value the original will hold. People will want to see the movie that changed filmmaking in 1977, in the same way as has happened with every other historic "lost" film. The special editions will be a footnote.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Luckily I've procured a couple of versions of the movies I can live with. I suppose maybe Lucas was deeply disturbed that people would see Jabba's palace with Lapti Nek instead of Jedi Rocks and cartoony CGI close-ups but I like what I grew up with. I can understand fixing some FX flaws but I think the movie will always be a part of its time no matter how much polish is applied. Who'da thunk he'd still be tweaking the Greedo scene, though?

I'm probably too close to the material, it being a part of my childhood and all, to be truly objective but I can't imagine seeing Star Wars as a bad film even if one was luke warm to it. That said, I was never able to get my nephew to really take a shine to it so maybe its appeal isn't forever timeless.

He was however impressed seeing Scarlett Johanssen as Princess Leia

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Racer_X]

I've been reading old Starlogs on Internet Archive, and back in issue 25 from 1979 they interview Ray Bradbury. I find this text very interesting. I wish George Lucas would understand this perspective:

Bradbury was 26 when he began The Martian Chronicles stories, and 29 when they were completed — years before NASA sent out the first Martian probes. Would he have changed the stories if he were aware of the scientific knowledge to be gathered in the years ahead?

Without hesitation, he answers that he would not have altered a word. As if talking about someone else, he says, "I have to respect the young man who wrote it, don't I?"​

 

[fireproof78]

I'll fault him, his position is absurd. He put out a movie that made history, then wants to erase it from history. But even he can't stop it, eventually the original will take its proper place. The more time that goes by, the more value the original will hold. People will want to see the movie that changed filmmaking in 1977, in the same way as has happened with every other historic "lost" film. The special editions will be a footnote.

Proper place? It's not some lost arthouse film that we can never see again. Star Wars already has its proper place in history.

What's absurd is the flagrant disregard for Lucas and his feelings regarding his art.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Art is, first and foremost, about honesty. The special editions are dishonest. Lucas's "feelings" are perpetuating a lie.

 

[thribs]

I get what you mean but I still think it's a good movie. Add scene 38 to it and you've got an even better one.

 

[thribs]

Kyle Katarn. Talk about a Mary Sue!

Yeah but he's awesome.
He doesn't really appear a lot in the novels which is a shame. He could have been a fun one to go into more detail in.

 

[fireproof78]

Art is, first and foremost, about honesty. The special editions are dishonest. Lucas's "feelings" are perpetuating a lie.

Lucas's feelings also matter. He made the art available and we were entertained by it. There is no further obligation.

 

[Campe]

Yeah but he's awesome.
He doesn't really appear a lot in the novels which is a shame. He could have been a fun one to go into more detail in.

*shrugs* Meh.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Lucas's feelings also matter. He made the art available and we were entertained by it. There is no further obligation.

they are his films hhe can add whatever he wants.
and I worship the guy but in this particular case tweking the films is fine on its own but is dishonest wehn you make the original versions difficult to acquire in an acceptible format. It was the originals that were the source of the innovations is pushing technology forward.. the originals that won oscars etc.

It's particularly hypocritical when he said the following back in 1988:

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I’ve come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.


People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as “when life begins” or “when it should be appropriately terminated,” but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.

These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with “fresher faces,” or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor’s lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new “original” negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.

I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.


I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.

The public’s interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.

There are those who say American law is sufficient. That’s an outrage! It’s not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of “The Maltese Falcon?” Why are films cut up and butchered?

Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. 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.

I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art–as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities.