Greedo shooting first and George Lucas. (1 Viewer)

[Carlo_M]

Yes, Jeff, we all know whose name is in Lucasfilm.

But you know what, let's put the burden of proof on the other side for a moment.

In nearly every writing class I've ever taken, and every author and screenwriter I've ever spoken to, changes are made to a story to improve the storytelling, or the story. Or, to put it in the reverse: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Let's have the reasons how changing the Greedo scene IMPROVES the story. Or the Luke scream.

IMPROVES.

The side who are unhappy with the changes have adequately explained our reason for not liking it. Now let's have the reasons why the changes should have been made.

Or should they? And I'm not accepting "it's his movie" as an answer for improvement.

Otherwise, my question still stands--if it doesn't improve your movie, why change it?

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Reading the posts about Tolkien's changes to the Lord of the Rings, I get the distinct sense that revisionist history is okay, as long as the fans approve of it.

Anyway, concerning the two changes in question--Greedo shooting first and Luke's scream--I honestly can't answer your question truthfully. To be honest, they don't improve the story any. However, they don't detract from it either. No matter which version you watch, the outcomes are still the same as are the story and character archs. No matter which version you watch, Han is still a mercenary who only looks out for himself and has no connections with anyone. Just because Greedo got a shot in first doesn't change that aspect of his character, which happens to be the part that matters most. As for Luke's scream, I think it's a nice way of underscoring the fact that he has hit his lowest point. The scream vocalizes the fact that Luke has completely lost control of the situation and is spiraling out of control.

While I'm fairly neutral in regards to those two scenes I do believe that the other changes made in the Special Editions did indeed improve the movies. Being a glass is half-full kind of guy, that tips the balance in favor of the SEs over the originals. Why are they better? I say because the changes are merely cosmetic in nature, and those changes add to the atmosphere, broaden the scope, and clarify incidents that may not have been perfectly clear in the original versions. For instance, the scene in which Han and Chewie chase down a squad of Stormtroopers in A New Hope makes much more sense now that they run into several hundred other Stormtroopers and not just a blank wall.

And you can't deny that Mos Eisley appeared to be nothing more than just a dirty little town in the middle of the dessert in the originals, rather than the bustling spaceport we see in the Special Editions.

And I seriously do not see how anyone could say that the end battle in A New Hope plays better than the new version, in which the spacecraft fly with a new-found sense of freedom and speed, adding to the danger and overall excitement of the sequence.

However, I think the biggest reason that the SEs are better than the originals has to do with the fact that they will allow the originals to tie in better with the Prequels visually. I really want Star Wars to work as a big, six-part saga and to do that I think that it is necessary to bring the OT up to date in the special effects department. When I finally have all six episodes on DVD and can watch them in sequence, I want that jump from Episode III to Episode IV to be as seemless as possible. I don't want to suddenly feel like I'm watching a completely different set of movies.

 

[Brad_W]

In the end, Lucas wanted to add a scene in Star Wars, had fun doing it, and went on to add/change the rest of the trilogy.
[Carl Childer's voice]Reckon I's like to keep it simple, uh huh.[/Carl Childer's voice]

 

[mark_d]

I'm with J.Fo.

Again, being glass-half-full (when it comes to Star Wars, anyway) I gave an alternative view in a previous post as to how the Greedo shooting first incident could work.

I do think the success of Star Wars is over analysed. It didn't become a phenomenon because of any of it's story traits - it's just an old fashioned western.

It's big because of the visuals, the setting. We were successfully taken to somewhere completely new. That opening shot, the droids, Stormtroopers, Darth Vader, the Millenium Falcon, hover cars, bars full of wierd and wonderful creatures, lightsabers. A space station the size of a small moon that can destroy entire planets. In '77 that was fucking unbelievable. We were there. Simple(!) as that.

I think two films since have blown away audiences for a similar reason.

1. Jurassic Park: Simple monster movie, but there's frickin dinosaurs up there on the screen. We were there.

2. Titanic: Another love story weepie, nothing new here, but we get to live through a maritime disaster. We were there.

I've gone off on a tangent now. What does this have to do with Greedo shooting first? I guess I'm saying, in the grand scheme of things, that the success of the film has little to do with details at this level. If Greedo had shot first originally I don't think that would have affected the success of the movie one bit. The changes do not decrease the amount of enjoyment I get from the franchise. For some reason, the changes I like improve the movie (the Death Star battle is more exciting), and I can disregard those that I'm less enamoured with.

Now, where was I? Oh yes, I was wishing May would hurry up and get here...

Mark

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

I guess what the people who agree with me are saying is "Look, we like the Special Editions. We think the changes made in them make the movies better for a variety of reasons. The changes we don't agree with don't bother us enough to ruin the movies for us. Can we just please get on with our lives?"

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Jeff (and defenders of the crown),

Hey, I understand where you are coming from. The point many of us (the ones who are against character-affecting scenes) are making has to do with the future of Star Wars.

Do you remember it as a movie? I don't. I remember it as an EVENT, a colossus of fun and excitement, with a heart beneath it's incredible visuals.

When Lucas alters it, TO MANY OF THE FANS he is seen to be demeaning the series. He is taking a myth, and making it a movie. A plain, old space movie. I will NEVER see these 6 films as a series. They are two trilogies. The first one is a classic. The jury is out on the second, BUT IT WILL NEVER EQUAL THE ORIGINAL. Frankly, the way George is going, this series will be a Trivial Pursuit answer in 60 years, when the original fans don't care anymore, and the new ones never really did, because their intro is the prequels. To many new fans, it's a thrill-ride movie. It was a lot more than that to me, and that's why these changes hurt.

I can only hope the story is the center of AOTC...it looks like it might be. It has great actors, and incredible potential. Time will tell.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Richard Kim]

When Lucas alters it, TO MANY OF THE FANS he is seen to be demeaning the series.

Let's say that Lucas made all the changes to the OT except for the objectional ones (Greedo in ANH, Luke screaming, Vader's line in ESB). Would this still be the case?

 

[RobertR]

Let's say that Lucas made all the changes to the OT except for the objectional ones

Well, I'd say it becomes something of a tautology: I have no objection to non-objectionable changes.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

For the above question, I can only answer for myself. I did not mind the COSMETIC changes. They enhanced the visuals. I did not enjoy the ones that changed the characters - because the story was affected. I would gladly trade the new cosmetic changes for the original Han scene, or Luke scene, or Jabba's Palace scene.

I also do not suscribe to the theory that these are HIS movies, to change as he will. Well, actually I guess I do. Legally, they are his. But the phenomenon is ours, not his. And to not respect our views (good and bad) shows contempt. But who cares...they are just movies, right?

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Gruson]

How come there have been no complaints about Han facing the platoon of stromtroopers or the CGI in Mos Eisly and the Battle of Yavin in ANH, the new Wampa footage and the added shots of Cloud City in ESB, or the galactic celebration ending in ROTJ? Could it be that fans actually liked these changes?

I have complained about these changes. I hate them all.

The worst change to me is Vader's "Bring my Shuttle" being changed.

I almost had a heart attack because TESB is butchered so much at the end (Luke screaming, Vader's line, John Williams' fast tempo music being interrupted by showing those stupid shuttle sequences, etc.)

The new song/performance in Jabba's palace was TERRIBLE. It did not belong in a Star Wars movie.

I did enjoy most of Episode 1, even though it only felt like Star Wars at times.

Oh well, call me a purist. I am so glad I have the true trilogy on LD.

 

[Carlo_M]

You're trying to cloud the issue:

1. No one has said Tolkien did revisionist history. They were CORRECTIONS of inconsistencies because of type-setting and writing the LoTR. No one has even given an instance where the character in any Tolkien book was changes. They were mostly cosmetic changes, like Elfs to Elves, Dwarfs to Dwarves, etc.

2. None of us who dislike the SEs have ever expressed problems in the cosmetic changes (cleaning up the SEs, adding new CGI - although it doesn't match well, the additional troopers in SW - although how they could ALL miss Han is another question).

3. You still haven't mentioned how changing the Greedo scene and Luke's scream actually IMPROVES the SE versions over the OT. The added CGI and cleaning up of SE effects can be said improve the OT because of the superior technology, hence why I haven't mentioned them.

What other impetus is there to make a change your movie if it doens't make it better?

 

[Carlo_M]

Add: I think it's interesting that Lucas himself hasn't come out to explain those two changes. He's mentioned the new CGI effects, the cleaned up special effects, and the added Jabba scene.

 

[mark_d]

What other impetus is there to make a change your movie if it doens't make it better?

You've then got to define "better", and I don't think that's possible as it's all down to personal taste.

Some people think the addition of the stormtroopers in the Han chase is an improvement, I think it's one of the bad decisions. I'm sure Lucas thought all the changes he made were improvements or necessary clarifications at the time. Who knows what he feels now that he's had some time to live with them.

On balance I prefer the SEs, and I don't mind him tinkering as it gives me another excuse to enter his universe. If he keeps on and on at them perhaps I'll end up wishing that he'd never started down the revisionist road, but then again I may feel they get better and better.

Like most others, I would like to see the originals released on DVD for posterity. I'd buy them, but I don't know that I'd ever watch them.

Mark

 

[Coressel]

Concerning ESB, I honestly had thought Luke's scream had always been there and didn't really notice that anything was different in the final scenes.

 

[Carlo_M]

I understand that "better" is subjective. But I have yet to hear one explanation as to how those changes *could* be better. Even if I don't agree with that thinking, at least present the idea. What could Lucas have been thinking about when he decided to change those scenes.

re: the scream, I haven't bought into the "always been there but inaudible" theory. I've owned 3 different VHS versions and the LD version and still don't hear it on any of them. Plus it sounds really out of place when he does it.

 

[Coressel]

If it sounds so out of place, then why didn't it sound that way to me? Granted, I hadn't seen the film in years until 1997, so I couldn't remember if had been there before or not. I'm not saying it was there before, just that it didn't sound wrong to me.

 

[mark_d]

I can't possibly tell you why Lucas thought it might be "better" to make the changes, but I'm sure he didn't say to himself that these movies were just too good, so he had to bring them down somehow. There's the "too cold blooded" argument. Maybe Lucas never saw Han how many people saw him and just thought he'd clarify his intentions - this would explain why some feel it's a character change and some (like myself) do not.

The scream, well I don't know.

re: the scream, I haven't bought into the "always been there but inaudible" theory. I've owned 3 different VHS versions and the LD version and still don't hear it on any of them. Plus it sounds really out of place when he does it.

I'm pretty sure it's the Emperor's scream out of ROTJ. I don't recall there being a scream originally. It is certainly out of place.

Of all the changes, this, and "Bring my shuttle", leave me baffled. I see motive behind most changes, but not these. Having said that, they don't bother me much. It all still weighs in SE's favour for me.

Mark

 

[Carlo_M]

Mark,

Bring My Shuttle really bothers me as well. It is such a well delivered line, you could tell all the emotions Vader was feeling at the time with that line, the way J.E. Jones says it.

At least Lucas tried to explain that one by saying the newer line "better prepares you for the new shuttle sequence" that he put in. Of course, I think the ORIGINAL line does it as well, but still conveys that emotion of him seeing his son apparently commit suicide rather than join his father.

I think you won't hear the Pro-SE side comment on the other change like Greedo's scene because they would have to admit that the only reason to change that scene is to change Han's character. This would be effectively admitting that 1) Lucas made the change for that reason, and 2) since it was important enough for Lucas to make that change, it nullifies the "it doesn't change Han's character" argument.

I for one, agree with you. Lucas did not want Han to appear cold-blooded (thus CHANGING his character). And perhaps the other creative forces at work with him at the time (his wife, producer, actors) thought it worked fine as is and he had a change of heart later. It's his right to do so (the "it's his movie argument") but then it legitimizes our right to critique that decision.

As for the scream in ESB not sounding out of place, I went to see the SEs with a group of about 8 people on opening day back when they were released to theaters. As soon as the scream was heard, most of us (I'd say at least 5 of the 8) looked at each other like "what the hell?" So it may not have sounded out of place to some people, but it definitely struck us as odd and new. We even went back home after the movie and cued up the VHS to try and hear it...it wasn't there.

 

[Carlo_M]

For the record:

I have no problem with people who like the SEs. That's fine. That's your decision. I like anchovies on my pizza.

But don't try to put down the people who do have a problem with the SEs with "you're overreacting," or "it doesn't make any difference" or "you're a bunch of Trekkie types for saying this" type of arguments.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

As for the scream...

As for Luke's scream, I think it's a nice way of underscoring the fact that he has hit his lowest point. The scream vocalizes the fact that Luke has completely lost control of the situation and is spiraling out of control.

Believe it or not, a nobody reviewer at EW summed up this change the best (not an exact quote):
"Another jarring change was Luke's girly scream. How do we know he wasn't about to step up and join his father, but just slipped and fell??"
The quote is meant as a joke, but (IMO) Luke's silent fall means he'd rather die than turn to the Dark Side and betray his friends. His scream means he fell. It's a BIG change, and the first example is much more in keeping with the Luke who has grown so much in the two films (ANH and ESB).
My opinion ,
Chuck