DVD Review *** Official HTF REVIEW & Discussion Thread: Star Wars Trilogy, pt. 1 (1 Viewer)

[Robert Anthony]

The problem is, reading the threads--they ARE intended to replace the originals. Post after post of fans claiming that THESE are the versions they're screening for people. On a site called originaltrilogy.com home of the largest petition to bring the originals home, a large number of it's members can't wait for these edits so they can permanently replace the copies of the originals they're supposedly fighting so hard to get on DVD.

The difference is that the fans don't MIND the originals being replaced as long as the people permanently replacing them are other fans. But when it's the creator of the series attempting to replace them, suddenly there's problems. It seems to seriously come down to an issue over control, and that's about it. There's a significant number of fans who honestly believe these movies are theirs, and that the creator himself has no say in what is done with them, and don't like the creator messing with them, but are perfectly fine with the REAL owners, the fans, doing whatever they want to them, regardless of the quality of the changes.

You've gotta admit, there's a giant split when people screaming for the original theatrical versions of a movie are gleefully taking someone else's work, editing it to their own liking and replacing the original with it, and then telling people to shut up if they don't like their movie.

that's right. "Their" movie.

As far as the bluescreen comment goes: It's not as if all that original model and optical effects work is gone, not even close. A majority of it is still there, and the names are still in the credits.

And I don't like "The Grey Album." Mash Up's are corny, and I'm glad it's a fad that faded out. I like a proper remix, or a cover, but I never liked mash ups. and The Black Album was mediocre already, throwing a Beatles classic underneath it did no favors to either Jay Z or The Beatles. It simply didn't fit either artist.

I wish the originals were released, just as much as any petition signing fan. I just have problems with a lot of the arguments people give in order to get them out.

 

[Nick T Robot]

off topic and Edited to include more info, I didn't want to reply with more off topic chat:

There already were three big "The Black Albums"

Metallica's "Metallica" and Spinal Tap's "Smell the Glove" (in real life the Movie Soundtrack for "This is Spinal Tap") and Prince's 1994 "Black Album"

And there was a nice mix of Metallica and the Beatles: Beatallica

And they already have a grey album. The music is free to download very funny:

 

[Rob Gardiner]

quote:The problem is, reading the threads--they (Phantom Edits) ARE intended to replace the originals.

Would it make any difference to you if I told you I disagree with this completely?

That's why I post here, the home of film buffs, rather than on the fanboy sites. I agree that the fans you describe sound amazingly hypocritical. I am not one of them.

My argument boils down to this: It is "wrong" (not legally, but philosophically) for anyone to withhold a beloved work of art. If the person doing the withholding is the original artist, that is unfortunate.

While I don't wish to confuse the philosophical rights or artist's rights with legal rights or copyright, I will point out that Lucas is able to withhold the original trilogy because he owns the copyrights to the films. The original purpose of copyright was to allow the artist to be the only one to profit from a work for a limited time, therefore allowing the artist to make a living and encouraging the artist to create further works. Copyright was intended to be both limited and temporary. The original intention behind the concept of copyright was that all works eventually enter the public domain.


[OFF-TOPIC]
Nick,

You forgot the BIG one, the "real" BLACK ALBUM, by PRINCE, released in 1994 but recorded a decade earlier.
[/OFF-TOPIC]

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

quote:Re: The Big Sleep. I am not familiar with this film or the situation re: multiple versions. This is exactly the type of discussion I was hoping my question would generate: thoughtful, nuanced examination of the issues, illustrated with examples from film history.

Short version is that they finished the film and a lot of people didn't like it because there was nothing going on between Bogart and Bacall. It played some previews and (I think) toured for the troops. Then Hawks reshot about 20 minutes of it, some re-written and some just with different emphasis. The change to the film is astoundingly positive, giving it an electric charge that it was lacking before.



A few years ago, the pre-release version was re-assembled. It is available on DVD (the disc contains both versions of the film).



With Star Wars, there's a difference between protecting the originals and making them available. The originals are protected, they're just not easily available.



How does the Library of Congress work, in regards to protecting films -- do they just hold onto them, or can people watch them? For instance, if you go to the National Film Board of Canada's offices, you can sit in a cubicle and watch all kinds of archived materials.



Not to take anything away from the rights or vision of the artist (because I do believe that the films are Lucas' and he can release or hide any version he chooses to -- he worked hard to be able to do that and I wouldn't take that away from him, regardless of my agreeing or disagreeing with his creative decisions), but I do feel that often the best creativity comes from our limitations.



For example, I am working on a series of photographs to illustrate a short novel. Because I have no budget at all for set construction, I am limited to found locations where I can shoot for free and where I can set up my lights and equipment. As a result, the images are often closer to the actors than I had originally imagined, because there's not all that much around them that fits as the written location. The result is a more claustrophobic feeling to the photographs which was not intentional from the outset, but that fits the mood of the piece perfectly. Had I a higher budget, I'd have never found this.



Star Wars does certainly celebrate its limits in wonderful and creative ways.

 

[Robert Anthony]

I was so blown away when I heard Warners was finally releasing that. I was just starting to realize Prince was more than the weird made-up guy my sisters loved back in 1984. So I started digging in the back catalog, and realizing the man was a Funk GOD. And had just found out about the whole "black album/lovesexy" ordeal--and then a couple weeks later, Warners releases it.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

I want to thank everyone who has responded to my posts in the last couple of pages. I tried to bring up this issue before, from my new-and-interesting angle (analogy to CHAPLIN and GANCE) but this is the first time thoughtful discussion has been the result.



Aaron,

quote:...I do feel that often the best creativity comes from our limitations.

I agree with this 100%. STAR WARS is an amazing piece of work not only because it is exciting and moving, but also because it was made in 1976, on a budget of only $13 million, with the equivalent of stone knives and bear-skins! Now, Lucas has put an extra $10 million into it in '97, and several million more into it last year, probably doubling the total budget. Is the film twice as good now?

quote:With Star Wars, there's a difference between protecting the originals and making them available. The originals are protected, they're just not easily available.

I don't think it's any strecth to say that the majority of members of this forum want their favorite films to be both 1) preserved in the highest quality possible, and 2) available to the widest audience possible. Ricardo has always reminded us that we still have our laserdiscs, and I'm happy to have the 77 and 80 versions of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, the 79 version of STAR TREK, and many other films (that have yet to see the light of day on DVD in any form) "preserved" in this manner. (At least for myself and my friends and family, until the discs rot or my player dies.) However, I sympathize with those who don't have easy access to an LD player.

I think (hope?) we can all agree that both high-quality preservation and wide availability are important, especially for classic films that are loved by a huge audience. Sure, we have the LDs, but when was the last time the membership of this forum was satisfied with decade-old transfers on obsolete formats?

And a pristine copy of the original Star Wars sitting in a vault somewhere won't do my nephew Yohann any good when he turns five and is old enough to watch the trilogy for the first time.

 

[Chris:L]

I have a quick question... is the Empire Of Dreams documentary the same documentary they released on Video Casette long ago? Just wondering.

 

[Robert Anthony]

nope, it's all new. You're probably thinking of either "From Star Wars to Jedi" or "SPFX: The making of Empire Strikes Back." or something along those lines. "Empire of Dreams" was made specifically for the DVD.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Chris, Empire of Dreams is totally new. And totally good. Worth buying all by itself.

 

[Ricardo C]

ok these guys are killing me...



I will never again complain about the level of the discusion here.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Robert Anthony,

quote:The only reason I brought that example up was to debate the assertion made by a poster that fans don't think that way. That examples of "I bought this stuff, the movies are ours now" are straw man arguments. Looking at that website disproves that pretty easily.

I agree with you that there are some very silly people on those other websites. I'm familiar with ot.com but whenever I take a peek at postings on AICN or TF.N or the IMDB message boards or Usenet, I thank Ron & Parker for creating this oasis in what is otherwise the gutter known as the Internet.

quote:Would it make a difference if I told you that the main heart of your argument (it is philosophically "wrong" that a beloved work of art is withheld from a public who adores it) is a statement I heartily agree with?

I think most people agree with that.

That is very reassuring. I'm hoping that Lucas himself is a Charlie Chaplin fan, and that the Gold Rush analogy hadn't occurred to him, and that when someone brings it up, it will convince him to reconsider.

quote:The split simply comes in people's recognition of how much this work of art is really "withheld" and how much of it is still present in the new version that is being promoted all over the place.

Opinions on this issue range all over the map: from, "the Special Editions are so much better" to "they are a travesty of a mockery of a sham." Personally, I think the majority of the changes slightly distract the viewer or detract from the film. The only change that IMO improves the film is the establishment of Biggs before the Death Star battle. The Greedo scene looks silly mainly becasue of Han's rubber-necking defensive move, the changed musical numbers in JEDI are embarassing (both of them), and worst of all, the Jabba scene in Star Wars not only looks poor (even in the improved 04 version) but destroys the mystery behind the character that was built up over 2 films before the big reveal in JEDI. I agree these changes are overall pretty minor, and I had a great time watching the 3 films for the first time in years (as evidenced by my posts last Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights) but the main issue is that the films worked just fine the way they were and deserve to be preserved (and made available) in that form.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Ricardo,

Thanks for that link. Now I have to go wash my hands.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

quote:You're probably thinking of either "From Star Wars to Jedi" or "SPFX: The making of Empire Strikes Back."

As fantastic as Empire of Dreams is (and it absolutely is), I was really disappointed when I heard that neither of these old features would be included. There's just something about those old-school behind-the-scenes specials that I really love.

quote:ok these guys are killing me... I will never again complain about the level of the discusion here.

Haha, yeah. As a true-blue Star Wars freakazoid, I've dug through some of the other sites in the past. Sheesh. There's a lot of knowledge and insight on those message boards...but I don't see a whole lot of LOVE for the movies. As loud as this thread has gotten, it's nothing compared to some of the other SW forums out there.


You'd think that every SW fan in the world considers themself the ONLY one. To me it's a simple equation: I would very much like to see the OT on DVD, but life's too damn short to make this sort of stink. I watched ESB last night and lemme tell you: the GOOD side of this new DVD vastly outweighs the bad. And by vastly I mean astronomically, massively and very, very largely.


I can appreciate the disppointment I'm reading, but c'mon people. Accept the fact that Lucas hates the "archive editions", express your displeasure at these actions if you like, and move on.


Plus, as I was watching the first SW a few nights ago, it dawned on me: if this DVD release contained two versions of each film - the fully-retouched SEs and the untouched originals...I'd have to say I'd probably watch the newer versions more often. Go watch the trailers on the bonus disc and tell me that you'd rather watch that for 120 minutes...


But yeah, the option to choose still would have been nice. As it stands, I'm more than happy with this set.


(Anyone have any idea why Lucas would change the "It's a good thing you don't taste very good!" line? That's one bit of dialogue that I always liked as a kid and its alteration stung me just a little.)

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

quote:(Anyone have any idea why Lucas would change the "It's a good thing you don't taste very good!" line? That's one bit of dialogue that I always liked as a kid and its alteration stung me just a little.)

It's an old dialogue variation, dating back (I think) to the original 70mm mix. I belive it's "You're lucky to get out of there" in the '97 SE, too.

 

[Grant H]

I guess we're fortunate THX and Lucafilm are somewhat independent of each other these days. Otherwise, THX couldn't be very concerned with the situation as Ron says they are since the situation is nothing but a "deliberate creative decision" according to Lucasfilm.

Like I said in the Glitch thread, I don't think it would hurt to mail Fox too just because they might lean on Lucasfilm a little too. "I just got a call from Fox Home Video. They're sick of the bags of mail they're getting. They want us to issue another statement." has to mean more than "I just got a call from Grant Hilderbrandt, some guy who posts on the Home Theater Forum while he DJ's.". It's somebody's job to read mail, afterall, so I'm not going to feel bad about sending them mail related to a product they distributed which I bought. I want to mail Lucasfilm, Fox, AND THX.

I still need a mailing address for THX though.

 

[Grant H]

THX

Headquarters
1600 Los Gamos Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
TEL 415-492-3900
FAX 415-492-3988

Digital Works (?)
120 South Victory Boulevard, First Floor
Burbank, CA 91502
TEL 818-729-7100
FAX 818-729-7150

Not so sure which one would be appropriate.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Grant,

quote:I don't think it would hurt to mail Fox too just because they might lean on Lucasfilm a little too.

I agree with this 100%. Fox put their name and logo on the box, they made oodles of money from the DVDs, and their reputation is (partially) on the line. I think they should share some of the responsibility for any errors in the set, even if it was not technically a Fox employee who made the error. Even if Fox is not in a position to fix the mistakes, they are in a position to send the complaints up the food chain. Also, complain to the retailer you bought it from as well (politely, of course!) for the same reason: they can pass the complaints up the food chain to those who make the ultimate decisions.

quote:They're sick of the bags of mail they're getting.

I envision a "Miracle on 34th Street"-esque situation. Representatives from Fox file into George Lucas's office, pouring out giant bags full of letters onto his desk, until he finally relents.

 

[Nick T Robot]

quote:ok these guys are killing me...

I'm going to start an online petition against any Class Action lawsuit directed toward Lucasfilm for this DVD release on the grounds that it would be "so lame"

 

[Grant H]

quote:Question, I know Lucasfilm said they went back to the original negatives for the high def video transfer. Does anybody know if they were able to go back to the o negs of the sections of STAR WARS that were replaced by the 1985 Interpositive. I was just wondering if Lowry was able to save those sections which couldn't be saved in 97.

There it is again. I don't know if I've ever seen the "negatives" spiel from an official source, but it's been stated Lowry just worked on scans of the '97 SE handed to them in digital form by Lucasfilm. No negatives touched. I don't doubt the negatives being touched has been in the press, but it would seem someone just has their facts mixed up. That, or there are two very different stories out there.

 

[Grant H]

quote:I envision a "Miracle on 34th Street"-esque situation. Representatives from Fox file into George Lucas's office, pouring out giant bags full of letters onto his desk, until he finally relents.

I picture that too, but I fear that realistically it would be a pouch of like 20 letters. Maybe 100 would at least be enough to register.