SW blu-rays have changes to the films again

[TheSeeker]

I did like some of the stuff he added. Most notably, I really like the extended scene of Luke and Obi-Wan entering Mos Eisley.

It might have been cool visually, but I really missed the eerie, desolate feel of the place in the original version.

Instead it became just as busy and overcrowded with aliens and little flying doodads as all those OTHER cities we saw in the PT.

It didn't blend in as well as it could have with the rest of the movie but Obi-Wan did describe it as a "hive" which would seem to imply more activity than we saw. They probably just didn't have the money or resources to portray it that way. I'm not saying it's perfect but I liked seeing more of Mos Eisley.

 

[Irishman]

Wake me when they edit out any reference to Darth Vader, Luke, Leia, or Senator Organa applying for adoption in RotS.

P.S. Han shot first dammit!

Agreed! Han needs to shoot first. Having Greedo shoot first is like putting flashlights in the men's hands in ET!

Sacrilege.

 

[Pingfah]

I don't care what he changes, once the original radical changes were made for the re-release it became irrelevant to me what else he did.

I have the originals on DVD, so that will do for me. If they cleaned up the originals to make them suitable for a Blu-ray release without changing anything i'd buy them, otherwise i'm fine with what I have.

 

[Tiberius]

Umm, yes it does. People don't have any grounds to be annoyed by the changes Lucas makes to the SW films because they have no controlling interest(s) in said films.

On a related note, in the next Star trek movie, Spock will be a Romulan, and the Humans are slaves of the Klingons. Meanwhile, the Borg will start a daycare center for the charities run by the Ferengi.

Oh, would that annoy you? Too bad, because you don't have any controlling interests in Trek and the film makers can do whatever they want to.

 

[Pingfah]

Obviously Lucas has the right to make his changes, but that doesn't mean people can't be annoyed by it-- especially when they're the only high-quality versions we're allowed to have now.

Umm, yes it does. People don't have any grounds to be annoyed by the changes Lucas makes to the SW films because they have no controlling interest(s) in said films.

I don't agree, the point he was making is that he is annoyed that he can't see the version of the film in the quality he wants. He's not annoyed about the actual action of Lucas making changes to the films, he's annoyed about the fact that only the new versions are available, meaning he will not be able to see the originals in HD. That's perfectly legitimate, if you care about that sort of thing.

It's no different to Lucas saying the films will be removed from the market completely and never be available again in any form, of course you have grounds to be annoyed by it, even if Lucas also has the right to make that decision.

 

[Pauln6]

On a related note, in the next Star trek movie, Spock will be a Romulan, and the Humans are slaves of the Klingons. Meanwhile, the Borg will start a daycare center for the charities run by the Ferengi.

Cool! Finally some original plotting. I hope they cast Ellen DeGeneres as a Ferengi charity worker. Will Kirk be waking up in the shower...

...with Spock scrubbing his back?

 

[DigificWriter]

I wanted to post this definition last night, but was unable to. The term 'right', in the context in which it's been used here, is defined as follows:

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature

Fans of George Lucas' Star Wars movies are not 'due' anything, even though it seems that a lot of times they seem to think they are.

I would really like to see some disgruntled SW fan take their complaints about the decisions that George Lucas has made with regards to the Star Wars films to a court of law, because I'm almost positive that anyone doing so would be informed that they have absolutely zero legal standing to be making such a complaint.

 

[David cgc]

Stuff that adds something to the movie he genuinely couldn't do, like the scene with Han and Jabba, is all fine and good and can be mostly forgiven for its flaws -the look of Jabba, the odd manipulation of Han as he walks behind Jabba- as it's something.

No, it can't. Han shooting second I can at least ignore: In the DVD version, he lags, what, a frame behind Greedo? His response comes too fast to be provoked by the shot, unless Han actually is a Jedi. It's less "Greedo shoots first" than "Greedo also shoots, more or less simultaneously." That doesn't really damage Han's hard-ass, man of action personality. It's not like Greedo shot, Han dived out of the way, and then from cover, shot Greedo's gun out of his hand.

The Jabba scene? It blows the reveal of the Falcon when Luke sees it (and Luke being our protagonist and viewpoint character, we should probably be introduced to it with him), it blows Jabba's introduction in Return of the Jedi, it's redundant since Jabba and Han have the exact same conversation Han just had with Greedo, and it ruins the pacing. The one saving grace is that it's contained within a chapter stop, so I can just skip it easily when watching the movie.

 

[Pingfah]

I wanted to post this definition last night, but was unable to. The term 'right', in the context in which it's been used here, is defined as follows:

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature

Fans of George Lucas' Star Wars movies are not 'due' anything, even though it seems that a lot of times they seem to think they are.

I would really like to see some disgruntled SW fan take their complaints about the decisions that George Lucas has made with regards to the Star Wars films to a court of law, because I'm almost positive that anyone doing so would be informed that they have absolutely zero legal standing to be making such a complaint.

You are the one presuming that people are referring to legal rights over the property, davejames explained he was talking about his ethical right to be annoyed that he can't obtain something that he wants and you completely ignored his point. Everybody here has acknowledged that Lucas has the legal and ethical right to make whatever changes he wants and are merely annoyed they can't see the version they would prefer to see.

Talk about a strawman.

 

[Pauln6]

Fans of George Lucas' Star Wars movies are not 'due' anything, even though it seems that a lot of times they seem to think they are.

I would really like to see some disgruntled SW fan take their complaints about the decisions that George Lucas has made with regards to the Star Wars films to a court of law, because I'm almost positive that anyone doing so would be informed that they have absolutely zero legal standing to be making such a complaint.

Sounds like somebody seeking to use the law to stifle free speech! I bet you were rooting for the Empire too. Well admittedly when it comes to murdering the annoying younglings I was all for it too. However, I could never endorse an institution that doesn't have an equal opportunities recruitment policy for its officers. They didn't even have a tea lady.

 

[DigificWriter]

I wanted to post this definition last night, but was unable to. The term 'right', in the context in which it's been used here, is defined as follows:

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature

Fans of George Lucas' Star Wars movies are not 'due' anything, even though it seems that a lot of times they seem to think they are.

I would really like to see some disgruntled SW fan take their complaints about the decisions that George Lucas has made with regards to the Star Wars films to a court of law, because I'm almost positive that anyone doing so would be informed that they have absolutely zero legal standing to be making such a complaint.

You are the one presuming that people are referring to legal rights over the property, davejames explained he was talking about his ethical right to be annoyed that he can't obtain something that he wants and you completely ignored his point. Everybody here has acknowledged that Lucas has the legal and ethical right to make whatever changes he wants and are merely annoyed they can't see the version they would prefer to see.

Talk about a strawman.

Fans of George Lucas' Star Wars movies are not 'due' anything, even though it seems that a lot of times they seem to think they are.

I would really like to see some disgruntled SW fan take their complaints about the decisions that George Lucas has made with regards to the Star Wars films to a court of law, because I'm almost positive that anyone doing so would be informed that they have absolutely zero legal standing to be making such a complaint.

Sounds like somebody seeking to use the law to stifle free speech! I bet you were rooting for the Empire too. Well admittedly when it comes to murdering the annoying younglings I was all for it too. However, I could never endorse an institution that doesn't have an equal opportunities recruitment policy for its officers. They didn't even have a tea lady.

I know exactly what's being argued here, and I'm arguing against it. I don't believe that you can justify whining, pissing, and moaning over what Lucas has decided to do - or not do - with regards to the SW films as being part of the constitutional protections of the 'right to free speech', because, in my mind, said whining, pissing, and moaning is akin to a toddler throwing a tantrum because they didn't get a cookie.

Arguing that fans somehow have the 'right' (as defined by the constituional ammendment concerning free speech) to whine, piss, and moan about George Lucas not giving them what they want (as if he somehow owes them anything) is, IMO, like arguing that toddlers shouldn't be punished by their parents for throwing tantrums because they're 'free speech'. It's a ludicrous notion.

Also, I never said that people couldn't whine, piss, and moan about what Lucas has done; I said that I don't understand it and wish it would stop, and then called BS on the idea that it's somehow a 'right'.

 

[Pauln6]

I don't believe that you can justify whining, pissing, and moaning over what Lucas has decided to do - or not do - with regards to the SW films as being part of the constitutional protections of the 'right to free speech', because, in my mind, said whining, pissing, and moaning is akin to a toddler throwing a tantrum because they didn't get a cookie.

Arguing that fans somehow have the 'right' (as defined by the constituional ammendment concerning free speech) to whine, piss, and moan about George Lucas not giving them what they want (as if he somehow owes them anything) is, IMO, like arguing that toddlers shouldn't be punished by their parents for throwing tantrums because they're 'free speech'. It's a ludicrous notion.

Also, I never said that people couldn't whine, piss, and moan about what Lucas has done; I said that I don't understand it and wish it would stop, and then called BS on the idea that it's somehow a 'right'.

I may not agree with that toddler throwing a tantrum because they didn't get a cookie but I will fight to the death for their right to do so. Mind you, they still aren't getting the cookie no matter how much they scream.

Nah - just kidding. I'm not fighting to the death over a cookie. I'll just roll my eyes at the obesity epidemic.

 

[davejames]

Arguing that fans somehow have the 'right' (as defined by the constituional ammendment concerning free speech) to whine, piss, and moan about George Lucas not giving them what they want (as if he somehow owes them anything) is, IMO, like arguing that toddlers shouldn't be punished by their parents for throwing tantrums because they're 'free speech'. It's a ludicrous notion.

Dude, you're taking this "rights" thing WAY too literally. This isn't a court of law here. It's a freakin scifi forum.

 

[Whofan]

A clip of Yoda from TPM-he's been CG'ed:


http://theforce.net/latestnews/story/Bluray_TPM_CGI_Yoda_Clip_Surfaces_140199.asp

So this supports the Digital Bits POV. It's not the exact same clip from the Episode III DVD documentaries. Funny though, the CG Yoda at least in this scene doesn't seem quite as expressive and emotional as the puppet did, even though the puppet did not really resemble the other Yodas.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Yeah, they took the oomph out of him!

 

[Snatcher42]

I just wish Lucas would stop being stingy and do what his mate Francis Ford Coppola did on the Apocalypse Now blu ray (where he included the original 79 theatrical cut, and the 2001 Redux version). I don't mind the changes. As long as the original film is still available. Like with nearly every other major blu ray release.

This. Blade Runner is another perfect example (tweaked final cut + every other previous release in a single box).

 

[davejames]

A clip of Yoda from TPM-he's been CG'ed:


http://theforce.net/latestnews/story/Bluray_TPM_CGI_Yoda_Clip_Surfaces_140199.asp

So this supports the Digital Bits POV. It's not the exact same clip from the Episode III DVD documentaries. Funny though, the CG Yoda at least in this scene doesn't seem quite as expressive and emotional as the puppet did, even though the puppet did not really resemble the other Yodas.

Well that's ONE problem corrected. Now they just got to take care of the other five hundred things that are wrong with that movie.

 

[Samurai8472]

A clip of Yoda from TPM-he's been CG'ed:


http://theforce.net/latestnews/story/Bluray_TPM_CGI_Yoda_Clip_Surfaces_140199.asp

They've been planning a CGI yoda for more than five years judging by this youtube clips date

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wFcM_TXKI0

It was suppose to be on a special edition version of The Phantom Menace

 

[Professor Zoom]

I know exactly what's being argued here, and I'm arguing against it. I don't believe that you can justify whining, pissing, and moaning over what Lucas has decided to do - or not do - with regards to the SW films as being part of the constitutional protections of the 'right to free speech', because, in my mind, said whining, pissing, and moaning is akin to a toddler throwing a tantrum because they didn't get a cookie.

Um. People have the right to express exactly how they feel. Like, that's in the First Amendment. You may not LIKE what people say, and you have the right to say so, but, yeah, people have the right to express how they feel.

Just like Lucas has the right to sell (or not) sell his products as he sees fit. And the fans have the right to NOT buy those things they don't want to.

What you ACTUALLY mean to say: I don't like the whining. You're not going to get anything by whining, so why are you whining.

But, the fact of the matter is, Star Wars is personal for a lot of people. It feels, EMOTIONALLY, just as much theirs as it is Lucas's. Now, they KNOW it's not theirs legally. They are just upset. And, yep, the have the RIGHT to EXPRESS that.

 

[Yoda]

And if DigificWriter is so concerned with the rights of content creators, wtf is up with all the FanFic?