SW blu-rays have changes to the films again

[Mach5]

Ebert is not a fan of scifi. He doesn't get scifi.

Which is fine, because Star Wars most certainly isn't scifi (which Lucas himself pointed out many times). It's like LOTR set in space, instead of Middle Earth (but without the Tolkienesque "holier-than-Pope" atmosphere).

Star Wars is fantasy, a mythical "hero's journey" fairy tale. It was always corny and campy, childish and fun, and it was never supposed to be anything more than a pop-corn blockbuster, let alone "quality cinema".

Original trilogy wouldn't withstand thorough dissection any more than the prequels could, though it still had those key ingredients that seem to have eluded Lucas second time around.

I argue that analysing Star Wars is stupid and pointless. These movies are meant to be enjoyed, not contemplated upon.

 

[Guartho]

It's in that 108 page thing that you're not about to read.

Sorry. I'm not going to devote hours of my life on some guy's mental breakdown and inability to deal with criticism leveled at something he enjoys.

I read about 25 cherry-picked pages. His criticisms of Plinkett are actually quite plinkett-esque. He even does his own round of "Star Trek First Contact Guy" interrupting the review only ST:FC Guy is the dumb one. Read a few pages of it in your head in Plinkett's voice and you'll swear it was written by Mirror Universe Plinkett. He's just as arrogant, just as obsessed, but he's only about half as funny and he happens to not kill people.

 

[Whofan]

You know, I think part of the problem with the prequels that in addition to bad characters, there's really no 'hero' ship like the Falcon (and yes, I know the Falcon makes cameos in the trilogy, but that's not really my point). The closest we get is the Queen's starship from TPM and that's not even in the next two films as it's replaced by new ships. The Expanded Universe partially rectifies this with Clone Wars's "Twilight" and Anakin's Pod-race colored starfighter, but that's EU...

 

[Mach5]

You know, I think part of the problem with the prequels that in addition to bad characters, there's really no 'hero' ship like the Falcon (and yes, I know the Falcon makes cameos in the trilogy, but that's not really my point). The closest we get is the Queen's starship from TPM and that's not even in the next two films as it's replaced by new ships. The Expanded Universe partially rectifies this with Clone Wars's "Twilight" and Anakin's Pod-race colored starfighter, but that's EU...

I think that's a really really minor issue, but still, having a "hero ship" would have been nice. Ships in PT were all nice, but ultimately, they were just vehicles, whereas Falcon had soul. It was practically a character of its own.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I think that's a really really minor issue, but still, having a "hero ship" would have been nice. Ships in PT were all nice, but ultimately, they were just vehicles, whereas Falcon had soul. It was practically a character of its own.

It's all connected to the Han Solo character, though. The Falcon is just the perfect spaceship for him, the logical extension of the character. It's interesting to look at the original trilogy and to realize that, if you cut Harrison Ford and Han Solo of the movies, they would look and feel very similar to the prequel trilogy.

 

[The Old Mixer]

The bigger problem with the prequels is the lack of a central hero character...Anakin is the most central character, and he's portrayed unlikeably, with his fate preordained by the OT.

 

[Mach5]

if you cut Harrison Ford and Han Solo of the movies, they would look and feel very similar to the prequel trilogy.

Very true. PT desperately lacked a character like Han, charismatic, strong headed, independent, likable / charming...

Also, Han had a strong arc, he evolved from being a greedy, egotistical criminal into a brave, heroic warrior, fighting for a cause and his friends, and not just for himself.

None of the PT characters appeared to have evolved at all, except for Anakin, who actually devolved.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I would say that it might be a little closer at least to the PT trilogy if it didn't have Han but you still had a lot of other aspects, like a great villain, a great yet simple story and a solid hero in the OT that would have still placed it above the PT, so I don't agree with the Mirrorball Man.

That said, Han adds a lot. More to the point, it's the unique chemistry of all the OT characters together, as George just didn't cast each character alone, he cast them as to how they interacted with each other, which was why Ford went from just reading Solo's lines to the other actors during tests to actually getting the part when they realized that he interacted well with them. This is what people refer to as the magic of cinema, when the result - the chemistry of all the elements - is greater than those parts. This magic didn't happen with TPM.

 

[Dream]

The PT was just a bunch of politicians and Jedi hanging out together.

In the OT Luke, Han, and Leia were actually good friends.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Which is fine, because Star Wars most certainly isn't scifi (which Lucas himself pointed out many times). It's like LOTR set in space, instead of Middle Earth (but without the Tolkienesque "holier-than-Pope" atmosphere).

Whether it is scifi is debatable. Lucas can say whatever he wants, but if a movie has aliens and spaceships, it's scifi. Either way, Ebert has been known to give certain big blockbusters a pass despite having lackluster stories and characters. He loved Minority Report, for example.

Star Wars is fantasy, a mythical "hero's journey" fairy tale. It was always corny and campy, childish and fun, and it was never supposed to be anything more than a pop-corn blockbuster, let alone "quality cinema".

Except the first two were not that way at all. Yes, they had a certain B movie quality, but both were pretty dark and violent. Neither are what I would call childish.

I argue that analysing Star Wars is stupid and pointless. These movies are meant to be enjoyed, not contemplated upon.

Except when they are only enjoyable in a superficial way. Lucas doesn't seem to understand what people require to really enjoy a film is fun characters they care about. I could watch people I don't know or care about do stuff and have epic light saber battles and be entertained, like the prequels, but I will still be bothered by how much more the films could have been with only a little extra effort.

That is something that Lucas, and Hollywood in particular doesn't seem to get. They are willing to blow hundreds of millions on state of the art effects and action, but won't spend a fraction of that on a good writer.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

The PT was just a bunch of politicians and Jedi hanging out together.

In the OT Luke, Han, and Leia were actually good friends.

That is one of the many failings of the PT. If Han told Luke he loved him as a brother by the end of Jedi, we'd believe it. When Obi Wan tells Anakin this, we are like "what? Why do you love him? When was this ever shown on screen?"

 

[Guartho]

I would've loved a PT with Obi-Wan and Anakin in a Han/Luke relationship. Obi-wan can't be Han obviously in that as a Jedi we'd have to cut out the everyman for himself aspects, but a young Jedi Knight who was described in the OT as thinking he can train someone "just as well as Yoda" can definitely be charming and just a touch arrogant. Qui-Gon's willingness to disobey the council would've also worked well as an Obi-wan character trait.

Anakin progresses through life in much the same way as Luke. But in the end he makes the wrong choice and gives himself to the Dark Side. This massive betrayal shakes Obi-wan to the core and is responsible for shaping him from a talented and arrogant young Jedi Master into the reserved, introspective Obi-wan of the OT.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

I would've loved a PT with Obi-Wan and Anakin in a Han/Luke relationship. Obi-wan can't be Han obviously in that as a Jedi we'd have to cut out the everyman for himself aspects, but a young Jedi Knight who was described in the OT as thinking he can train someone "just as well as Yoda" can definitely be charming and just a touch arrogant. Qui-Gon's willingness to disobey the council would've also worked well as an Obi-wan character trait.

That is what I imagined Obi Wan was supposed to be like as a young Jedi.

In Empire, he even says he was reckless in his youth, comparing himself to Luke. Granted, we see him doing things like jumping out windows at flying droids and jumping into a pit of droids to confront Grievous - but these aren't reckless so much as stupid. Further, nobody ever accuses Obi Wan of being reckless in these films, so I get the impression we aren't supposed to see him as such.

In Jedi, Obi Wan expresses regret over his failure to train Anakin adequately, which led to his fall to the dark side. This would have been interesting to see on film. Instead, Anakin is presented as always having been bad, or at least corrupt, and we don't see any hint that it was in any way Obi Wan's fault that Anakin became Vader. The only way, in fact, that Obi Wan could have prevented this would be to constantly be behind Anakin's back ready to kill him at a moment's notice.

The prequels present Anakin's fall as something that destined to happen no matter what, where the originals described it as the failure of imperfect human beings.

 

[Mach5]

[Whether it is scifi is debatable. Lucas can say whatever he wants, but if a movie has aliens and spaceships, it's scifi.

Except that they're not exactly "aliens" in the literal sense of the word. They're just not human. Just as dwarfs, elves, and goblins aren't human.

BTW, movies about the Apollo program have spaceships too, does that make them sci-fi as well?

Either way, Ebert has been known to give certain big blockbusters a pass despite having lackluster stories and characters. He loved Minority Report, for example.

He's weird like that. He actually gave "Kingdom of heaven" 4/4 stars. I barely managed to sit through that movie, and would have never get passed the first hour, had I watched it at home, and not in the theater.

Except when they are only enjoyable in a superficial way. Lucas doesn't seem to understand what people require to really enjoy a film is fun characters they care about. I could watch people I don't know or care about do stuff and have epic light saber battles and be entertained, like the prequels, but I will still be bothered by how much more the films could have been with only a little extra effort.

No argument here.

That is something that Lucas, and Hollywood in particular doesn't seem to get. They are willing to blow hundreds of millions on state of the art effects and action, but won't spend a fraction of that on a good writer.

Except that some studios occasionally get punished for that. Monster budget movies do tend to fail from time to time, just not the ones made by Lucas. Take a plastic bag, fill it with dog shit, stamp a label "STAR WARS" on it, and it's gonna sell like crazy.

From what I've seen so far, these blu-rays are selling like crazy too. So how the hell is Lucas supposed to get the message, when no one (of any importance) never even bothers sending it? Critical bashing? Internet nerd rage? Lucas could give a fuck. Fact remains, each an every one of his "blasphemous atrocities" ends up being a complete success, and until that changes, The People don't stand a chance against George Lucas.

 

[Saxman1]

Re: Full list of Star Wars blu-ray deleted scenes

sorry but i'll be passing on these. Money is tight this year. And i have all 6 movies on standard dvd. So long as i can pop in the movies every now and then, i'll live. I could care less about the extra crap.

THIS! We have the boxed DVD set of TOT plus the later DVD two disc sets with the original theatrical releases made from the laser discs. That's enough $ in George's pockets. We will probably be getting TCW Season 3 though, when it comes out as the entire famiy enjoys it. Unfortunately, we also have the prequels on DVD, too, so forget it.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Except that they're not exactly "aliens" in the literal sense of the word. They're just not human. Just as dwarfs, elves, and goblins aren't human.

Chewbacca is an alien. Yoda is an alien. Granted, nobody in Star Wars is from Earth, but that isn't a requirement for a film to be considered scifi. Since there is no set in stone definition of scifi, Lucas can say and think whatever he wants - but I prefer the definition I read once that "science fiction is fiction that occurs in a world or universe that could not exist without a fundamental change in the way we currently view the universe".

That would seem to fit Star Wars.

BTW, movies about the Apollo program have spaceships too, does that make them sci-fi as well?

If it is set in the future and speculates as to what future Apollo programs will be like, then yes. Otherwise it's historical drama.

He's weird like that. He actually gave "Kingdom of heaven" 4/4 stars.

From what I've seen so far, these blu-rays are selling like crazy too. So how the hell is Lucas supposed to get the message, when no one (of any importance) never even bothers sending it?

None of us know how well they are selling. While I have no doubt they are selling well and are quite worth the effort Lucas put into them, we will never know as I don't think Lucas releases sales figures for Star Wars.

As for when he gets the message, it is likely he never will. Or if he does, it would take a consistent and steady stream of crap for Star Wars to start to fail. Lucas was smart in making sure he doesn't milk his franchise dry. There are only six movies, so people who love Star Wars, even ones who aren't hot about the prequels will likely buy them.

But if the video game market is any indication, Star Wars is hardly a sure fire success. There have been countless low quality SW games through the 90's and early 2000's that quite deservedly failed. LucasArts got wise and limited the number of games, and made sure the ones released were at least of passable quality. Hopefully we will never see another Force Commander or Star Wars Online.

 

[Mach5]

Since there is no set in stone definition of scifi, Lucas can say and think whatever he wants - but I prefer the definition I read once that "science fiction is fiction that occurs in a world or universe that could not exist without a fundamental change in the way we currently view the universe".

To me, in order for something to qualify as scifi, it needs to have a premise that is conceivable in real life, at least at a most minimal level. That most certainly doesn't seem to fit Star Wars.

If it is set in the future and speculates as to what future Apollo programs will be like, then yes. Otherwise it's historical drama.

You kinda made my point for me here. Spaceships are not necessarily a part of scifi criteria.

He's weird like that. He actually gave "Kingdom of heaven" 4/4 stars.

That was my exact reaction as well.

None of us know how well they are selling.

http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=5241210#post5241210

 

[TremblingBluStar]

To me, in order for something to qualify as scifi, it needs to have a premise that is conceivable in real life, at least at a most minimal level. That most certainly doesn't seem to fit Star Wars.

In that case, almost nothing qualifies. Star Trek is no more likely to happen than Star Wars.

You kinda made my point for me here. Spaceships are not necessarily a part of scifi criteria.

I didn't say they were. I said SW has aliens and space ships. If there was a film about the Apollo astronauts where the run into a ship full of Wookies, it would be scifi.

 

[Shazam!]

If there was a film about the Apollo astronauts where the run into a ship full of Wookies, it would be scifi.

That would be a comedy

 

[Mach5]

In that case, almost nothing qualifies.

"20 000 leagues under the sea" is basically sci fi. There are hundreds of different "Nautiluses" sailing across the oceans nowadays.

Star Trek is no more likely to happen than Star Wars.

"Conceivable" and "likely" aren't exactly synonyms.