STAR WARS ON BLU-RAY - FALL 2011 (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

 

Originally Posted by SilverWook




It was free. But it was implied that this was flying under the radar...



Â
The guy who puts on revival screenings in my neck of the woods has expressed frustration that he can't even rent the SE's from the studio.

I'd say that situation is different from what was discussed. It "slipped through his fingers". You can BET Lucas would utterly smother any attempt to market a nonofficial Blu-ray of the originals.

 

[MielR]

Originally Posted by RobertR 




So you're saying they didn't ask permission from Lucasfilm beforehand, and charged admission?

I guess you missed the thread in the Theatrical forum:

 

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/302634/senator-theatre-farewell-screenings-of-star-wars-technicolor-ib-print#post_3715437

 

[Edwin-S]

Deleted

 

[Edwin-S]

I changed my mind. It's not worth it.

 

[Brent M]

Good.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S





George Lucas wouldn't know art if it came up and kicked him in the ass. If Lucas was concerned with artistic integrity, he wouldn't have turned his creation into a "money spinner" in the form of an empire of toy sales and plastic landfill in the form of fast food giveaways. Bill Watterson of "Calvin and Hobbes" fame is a guy who respected his art. Lucas is nothing more than a businessman and always has been. The growth of his "Star Wars" empire was and is based on the generation of enormous quantities of revenue through licensing. I'm sure Lucas was thinking how artful it would be to have Darth Vader's likeness on kid's pajamas and cheap plastic cups while a phalanx of his droids were negotiating money making licensing deals. If Lucas tried to use "artistic" considerations as a reason to suppress the original versions of these films, they would be even more hollow and pathetic than his excuse that it costs too much money to restore the films. Even Lucas realizes how ridiculous it would sound to stand on artistic integrity which is why he is attempting to use a financial angle. In fact, his use of a financial angle only proves that he is approaching the whole issue from the point of view of a businessman with a top down mentality, not an artist. The only reason he gets away with his behavior is because he can be entirely assured that, no matter how he disses them, his fanbase will always lap up whatever crap he dishes out and pay him handsomely for it.

I think Lucas respects his art just fine - it's just that I don't think he considers Star Wars "art" in the sense the fans do. He sees THX 1138 and American Graffiti as art, and it shows when he talks about those films (especially the former). Star Wars? He sees it as a technical means to an end, and a commodity. I think he sees the craftsmanship at all the different levels of Star Wars, but he doesn't strike me as someone who sees the nuances of art in Star Wars. At best he has some overarching themes in his mind. Otherwise, they're tech projects and financial security and a way for.... drumroll please.... him to have fun with his toys (those being ILM, Skywalker Sound, etc.).

 

Just listen to the passion he has on the commentary for THX 1138 as compared to when he talks about Star Wars and this becomes crystal clear, IMO.

 

[oscar_merkx]

I think the most interesting fact of Celebration V has to be Gary Kurtz, and then the Blu Ray announcement.

 

 

[oscar_merkx]

I would love to see isolated soundtracks for all 6 films

 

[Ricardo C]

Originally Posted by Greg_S_H Plenty of room in the house!

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Brandon Conway




I think Lucas respects his art just fine - it's just that I don't think he considers Star Wars "art" in the sense the fans do. He sees THX 1138 and American Graffiti as art, and it shows when he talks about those films (especially the former). Star Wars? He sees it as a technical means to an end, and a commodity. I think he sees the craftsmanship at all the different levels of Star Wars, but he doesn't strike me as someone who sees the nuances of art in Star Wars. At best he has some overarching themes in his mind. Otherwise, they're tech projects and financial security and a way for.... drumroll please.... him to have fun with his toys (those being ILM, Skywalker Sound, etc.).

Â
Just listen to the passion he has on the commentary for THX 1138 as compared to when he talks about Star Wars and this becomes crystal clear, IMO.

Still, he went around and made changes to THX 1138 and American Graffiti as well, to the point that none of his movies are available as they were released theatrically. Someone should send him a copy of the Blade Runner Blu-ray, to see how good a restored movie can look. Or Close Encounters, or countless other examples of directors who, in spite of their preference, include the theatrical cut.

And about Lucas' artistry, he's been going on about doing smaller, experimental films since Revenge of the Sith, but he keeps going on milking Star Wars and Indiana Jones. What does that say?

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Brian Borst


And about Lucas' artistry, he's been going on about doing smaller, experimental films since Revenge of the Sith, but he keeps going on milking Star Wars and Indiana Jones. What does that say?

To me, it says nothing more than that he likes those characters and movies or, at worst, that he has no desire to move on from those characters and movies. If he was just in it for the money, he could just let other people do everything with the TV show, collect the checks and still do things that interested him. Plus, he just pledged to eventually give away a big chunk of his fortune away. Yes, cynics, I realize that he could never spend all that money anyway but I think it demonstrates that he's not all that concerned with making more money that he will either never get to spend or that will eventually go to a charity.

 

[RobertR]

 

Originally Posted by TravisR



To me, it says nothing more than that he likes those characters and movies or, at worst, that he has no desire to move on from those characters and movies. If he was just in it for the money, he could just let other people do everything with the TV show, collect the checks and still do things that interested him.

Lucas loves that these properties are reliable cash cows AND loves to maintain control over them. As I said, he likes it both ways. It's ironic that the once-promising young director who wanted to escape the confines of the studio system exhibits behavior indistinguishable from that of the ultraconservative corporate suits he used to despise (mass marketing toys, etc. to the nth degree, emphasis on FX over story, etc. etc.). In fact, he outdoes them all in terms of risk aversion. What other filmmaker (or studio, for that matter) can you name who has an almost 30 year stretch where he's essentially done nothing but sequels?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Yeah, this thread is like a way back machine.

 

Old posters, old arguments, old post counts. Classic.

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

Some of the cynicism in this thread is remarkable. My two cents is that I would prefer to be able to see the original versions, but I am generally okay with his special editions. And I, like millions of others, stood in line for hours to watch the midnight shows of the prequels, and saw them more than once in the theaters. Millions of fans did the same.

 

On George, he has done a heck of alot more than 'nothing but sequels', including serving as executive producer on Pawaqqatsi, The Land Before Time, Tucker - The Man and His Dreams, Labyrinth, and the TV series The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones. Not to mention writing and producing the Indiana Jones Movies, writing Willow, and more. I write this not in defense of George Lucas, but against blanket statements of misinformation. Its one thing to have a personal opinion on the matter, but can we not do so without invoking false arguments.

 

Originally Posted by RobertR

What other filmmaker (or studio, for that matter) can you name who has an almost 30 year stretch where he's essentially done nothing but sequels?

 

As we discuss artistry versus business, who are we to say that his enjoyment of certain worlds he helped created (Indiana Jones, Star Wars) are not where he wants to spend his time and energy. Do we know for sure that he does so mainly for the money? Do we know for certain why he makes the choices that he makes? Of course not. It's okay to wonder why, but to offer conjecture as fact is silly.

 

[RobertR]

 

Originally Posted by Neil Middlemiss


On George, he has done a heck of alot more than 'nothing but sequels', including serving as executive producer on Pawaqqatsi, The Land Before Time, Tucker - The Man and His Dreams, Labyrinth, and the TV series The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones. Not to mention writing and producing the Indiana Jones Movies, writing Willow, and more.

I'll give you the writing of Willow, but "executive producer" doesn't qualify as making a film. In fact, when I pointed out that Lucas is listed as "executive producer" on the turkey Howard the Duck, some people were VERY quick to point out that he had nothing to do with its making. All the Indiana Jones stuff made after the first film fits the "making sequels" mold.

 

 

 

  Do we know for sure that he does so mainly for the money? Do we know for certain why he makes the choices that he makes? Of course not. It's okay to wonder why, but to offer conjecture as fact is silly.  

 

I made no such conjecture. I said that his behavior is indistinguishable from that of ultraconservative corporate suits. That's a fact that requires no speculation or "mind reading".

 

[Steve Christou]

Originally Posted by oscar_merkx /forum/thread/303111/star-wars-on-blu-ray-fall-2011#post_3720213

 

[Yohan Pamudji]

Originally Posted by Neil Middlemiss
Do we know for certain why he makes the choices that he makes? Of course not. It's okay to wonder why, but to offer conjecture as fact is silly.

Actually we do, straight from the mouth of Gary Kurtz who parted ways with Lucas because Lucas wanted to make toys more than he wanted to make a good movie:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2010/08/star-wars-was-born-a-long-time-ago-but-not-all-that-far-far-away-in-1972-filmmakers-george-lucas-and-gary-kurtz-wer.html

(Already posted in this thread, but reposted since it was probably lost in the noise and is relevant to the current discussion)

 

[Yohan Pamudji]

Originally Posted by RobertR

 

It's ironic that the once-promising young director who wanted to escape the confines of the studio system exhibits behavior indistinguishable from that of the ultraconservative corporate suits he used to despise (mass marketing toys, etc. to the nth degree, emphasis on FX over story, etc. etc.). In fact, he outdoes them all in terms of risk aversion.

As upset as I occasionally still get if I stew over what Lucas has done to Star Wars (and now Indy too), this makes me sad. I'm sad for him that in the 70s he was, as you said, a "once-promising young director who wanted to escape the confines of the studio system", but now is exactly what he tried not to be. Hmm... shades of corruption of The Force, anyone? The once-Annakin has turned into the now-Vader I think it was in documentary extras on The Godfather DVDs that I learned about Coppola, Lucas, and their American Zoetrope ideals. It really is a sad story in that sense. Oh well, there's always Jar Jar pajama sales to brighten up one's day!

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Yohan Pamudji

Actually we do, straight from the mouth of Gary Kurtz who parted ways with Lucas because Lucas wanted to make toys more than he wanted to make a good movie:

 

So what other opinions of Gary Kurtz are now fact?

 

[Ricardo C]

 

Originally Posted by Yohan Pamudji

 

He owns his films and the infrastructure he uses to produce them, bows to no one (least of all fanboys), and makes exactly the product he wants to make. How is that not the realization of every indie filmmaker's dream?