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

[Aaron Silverman]

Good points about the references. Of course, the more I think about it, the less interesting that Vietnam analogy is.

 

[johnSM]

Interesting some of this talk about Lucas and the toning down of perceived violence in Star Wars (had never heard the Ewok trading card knife erasure story before - intriguing!).

 

He seems like two different people sometimes. In the Special Edition of Star Wars, he trimmed out the shots of laserblasts hitting Imperial's in the chest. I never thought that was disturbing as a kid in the slightest. I DID find the charred skeletal remains of Luke's Aunt and Uncle disturbing however. Which he left in... I was also pretty freaked out by the Wampa losing an arm, and Luke's amputation by his DAD in Empire when I saw it as a kid back in 1980. In the SE of Empire he also UPPED the gore slightly in the Wampa scene...

 

He also left in the shot of the bloody arm stump in the Cantina.

 

Fast forward to the prequals (arghhhhh!). He treats the first film like a cartoon almost with some of the most juvenile humour ever to 'grace' a sci-fi action film. Fast forward to the third film, and he has no problems with showing Anakin having one arm, and two legs sliced off by a lightsabre. If that's not bad enough, the FRESHLY severed stumps (which are probably - y'know - just a wee bit painful at that point I should imagine!) then catch fire from the heat of the nearby lava (something that didn't happen when they were on the floaty platform things... but I digress!). I was stunned that this was all shown pretty graphically.

 

Don't forget the thankfully not-shown, but fully stated fact that Anakin also SLAUGHTERS CHILDREN with a lightsabre too.......

 

How can one reconcile the Lucas that removes laser-hits to chests, who neuters Han's character by having Greedo shoot first, who inserts 'cute' muppety type aliens in Jedi and the prequals, and yet allows Mannequin to be severely injured like this, and to be a killer of children?

 

To quote from the South Park episode, The Chewbacca Maneuver sketch.... "this makes NO SENSE!!!!!!"

 

 

[cafink]

I have also never heard of the Ewok knife thing. Interesting. For the curious, I found these pictures of the before-and-after:

 

http://wwww.comiccollectorlive.com/LiveData/Issue.aspx?id=a5eaec92-c6e7-4e86-8900-7677c0100c85

http://www.uncollectibles.net/star-wars-galaxy-4-jim-starlin-autograph-card-266-p-1779.html

 

[Worth]

I was hoping to see the first film in its original form as part of Cinematheque Ontario's "Essential 100" program, but it seems that Lucasfilm has refused permission to screen it:

 

http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiffbelllightbox/2010/201008140046574

 

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by johnSM
 

How can one reconcile the Lucas that removes laser-hits to chests, who neuters Han's character by having Greedo shoot first, who inserts 'cute' muppety type aliens in Jedi and the prequals, and yet allows Mannequin to be severely injured like this, and to be a killer of children?

I don't think there's really any thing to reconcile. The movies just have different levels of violence (and Revenge Of The Sith's PG-13 rating reflects that).

 

[Nick Martin]

Originally Posted by TravisR



I don't think there's really any thing to reconcile. The movies just have different levels of violence (and Revenge Of The Sith's PG-13 rating reflects that).

Attack of the Clones didn't have a PG-13 rating and it showed Anakin getting his arm cut off. Phantom Menace showed Qui-Gon impaled by a lightsaber, and Maul get literally sliced in half.

 

Not PG-13 either.

 

Of course they all have different levels of violence, and it of course still makes no sense to show that but cut out brief laser blasts from the original Star Wars and everything else mentioned.

 

Besides, there's little chance that anyone who watched the originals didn't watch all three prequels, or for first-time viewers who watched the prequels first chances are they didn't skip over Sith due to its violence and jump ahead. After all it is "one big continuous story", right?

 

Of course that's what we're supposed to think of it as, anyway.

 

[cafink]

It's one thing for two distinct movies to "just have different levels of violence." It's another for a director to go out of his way to edit extremely mild violence out of one film, then turn around and include graphic violence in its sequel (or prequel or whatever). I agree with John; it's weird and hard to understand.

 

Personally, I've always thought Attack of the Clones' "guy's decapitated head rolls right in front of his young child" scene to be the most disturbing. But yes, Revenge of the Sith had some pretty nasty stuff, too.

 

[Nick Martin]

Originally Posted by cafink

 

 

Personally, I've always thought Attack of the Clones' "guy's decapitated head rolls right in front of his young child" scene to be the most disturbing. But yes, Revenge of the Sith had some pretty nasty stuff, too.

Wow, I didn't even remember that one. Like I said before I haven't seen them since 2005.

 

[Pete-D]

 

I don't need to see Ewoks gutting/stabbing Stormtroopers.
 

I just want a solid, coherent story with good characters. The rest of the stuff (special effects, action sequences) take care of itself ... that's where Star Wars fell of the tracks.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin




Attack of the Clones didn't have a PG-13 rating and it showed Anakin getting his arm cut off. Phantom Menace showed Qui-Gon impaled by a lightsaber, and Maul get literally sliced in half.

 

Not PG-13 either.

 

Of course they all have different levels of violence, and it of course still makes no sense to show that but cut out brief laser blasts from the original Star Wars and everything else mentioned.

 

 

Yes, all the movies have violent acts (Luke blows up a space station that must kill hundreds of thousands of people) but Revenge Of The Sith has a massacre in the Jedi Temple, Palpatine kills many of the Jedi council members from the other two movies and the main hero gets his limbs cut off, burns up and becomes Darth Vader. I'm not saying that they went from Davey And Goliath to a Saw movie but there is a difference in the amount of onscreen violence between the first 5 movies and ROTS and the rating reflects that.

 

Since you brought it up and so my views aren't twisted around, I certainly don't think they should edit a few frames from Star Wars to curb the violence.

 

[Nick Martin]

Originally Posted by TravisR /forum/thread/303111/star-wars-on-blu-ray-fall-2011/240#post_3725665

 

[johnSM]

 

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin /forum/thread/303111/star-wars-on-blu-ray-fall-2011/240#post_3725671

Not to mention the fact he could EASILY have shot that scene with Greedo firing first BACK THEN, in the 70s, if he'd really wanted. Back then he obviously wanted Solo to be a rather mercenary character (compare that to the character in Jedi...). He knew that 1997 change looked pants/didn't play well because they quietly went back and re-tried it for the 2004 DVD. Ditto Jabba too of course... So much for the interviews in '97 where he said the films are now the way he wanted them...

 

The films have just been dumbed down as time went on. Until Sith, when I get the impression he suddenly wanted to appeal to all age groups once again (rather than just the kiddies) and suddenly upped the violence quota. He seems to have an almost schizophrenic attitude towards all the films. I genuinely think his tinkering of ALL the films is verging on clinical OCD. I actually feel sorry for the guy since he's obviously never happy with the way things turn out, judging by the constant need to tinker/revise as/when new technology or whims dictate. I'd love to see him making some more experimental films again - like he said he would after the prequals were done - but that looks like a bit of a pipe dream these days.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Nicholas Martin

...but the more obvious things like the Greedo issue and how it changed Solo's personality or whatever...I suppose so.

Not that Greedo shooting first is a good or needed change but I never saw that as changing Han's character. Whether he shoots first or second, he's still pretty badass in that scene. Before 1997, I never thought "Man, Han is so cool because he shoots Greedo before he shoots him.", I always thought "Man, Han is so cool because he verbally disarms Greedo so much that he has enough time to shoot him."

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by johnSM
 

I genuinely think his tinkering of ALL the films is verging on clinical OCD. I actually feel sorry for the guy since he's obviously never happy with the way things turn out, judging by the constant need to tinker/revise as/when new technology or whims dictate.

And sadly, it's not just limited to Star Wars. I'll be passing on the blu-ray of THX 1138 next week because of Lucas' obsessive need to add CG "enhancements" to that film as well.

 

I'm just grateful that Spielberg directed the Indiana Jones films. Even though one or two shots were altered, God knows what they'd look like now if Lucas had sole control over them.

 

[Bryan X]

While I'd prefer the Han/Greedo scene to be put back to its original form, I can't say the change in and of itself bothers me so much. Like Nicholas said, it just looks goofy. Same thing with the Jabba scene. I prefer not having that scene in the movie, but if they are going to put it in, make it look good. It just looks ridiuculous. Han stepping on Jabba's tail and Jabba's eyes bugging out is just plain dumb. Any fearsomeness that Jabba commanded disapears right at that moment. There's got to be some way to edit that scene so Han doesn't step on Jabba's tail.

 

If you're going to make changes like this (and I prefer not), atleast make it look like you put some effort into it.

 

[johnSM]

 

Originally Posted by Worth





And sadly, it's not just limited to Star Wars. I'll be passing on the blu-ray of THX 1138 next week because of Lucas' obsessive need to add CG "enhancements" to that film as well.

 

I'm just grateful that Spielberg directed the Indiana Jones films. Even though one or two shots were altered, God knows what they'd look like now if Lucas had sole control over them.

I actually have to go against the grain here and say I prefer this version of THX (CGI critters aside!). Buuutttttttt I think it rather an unfortunate decision not to include the original, so younger students of film and film history can see the film in its historical context too. Thankfully I still have the original UK laserdisc of THX which I ported across to DVD a while back, but many people shouldn't have to go to those lengths to see the original. WHAT has George got to lose by including both versions of that and Star Wars, is the question I keep asking myself? Look how beautifully done the Blade Runner and Close Encounters sets where done. Keeping both film camps happy he gets more units sold. He's happy with his tinkered with versions, and the public are happy with whatever version they choose to watch. It's a 100% win-win.

 

[johnSM]

Originally Posted by Bryan X

If you're going to make changes like this (and I prefer not), atleast make it look like you put some effort into it.

Well said! The fact that he said he was happy with the 1997 editions, and then changed his mind went and had the Jabba scene redone again in 2004 speaks volumes. And as you said it still doesn't look right at all! George just doesn't appear to value character in his characters - slap stick comedy should be left for those sort of films, or characters that warrant it.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Bryan X

While I'd prefer the Han/Greedo scene to be put back to its original form, I can't say the change in and of itself bothers me so much. Like Nicholas said, it just looks goofy. Same thing with the Jabba scene.

Yeah, Han's oddly moving head and the CG Jabba probably aren't on ILM's highlight reel. That being said, I can live with the effects but the thing that bothers me about the Jabba scene is that it repeats all the information that the audience just got from the Greedo scene. It's fun to see Jabba earlier than Return Of The Jedi but the scene is just redundant.

 

[Greg_S_H]

I don't know why he's so hellbent on the Jabba scene anyway. I was just reading something where he admitted it was cut for several reasons, one of which being that it was redundant after the Greedo scene. No kidding. And, for those watching in release order, Jabba's a little more impressive when you get your first glimpse of him in Jedi. You're left wondering for two films, and then there he is. I guess the SEs don't change that, though, since most people are going to forget that garbage scene five minutes after they see it.
 

Edit: mine and Travis's posts were coincidentally both done at 4:49, but think of his as the Greedo scene and mine as Jabba.

 

[johnSM]

Originally Posted by TravisR



Yeah, Han's oddly moving head and the CG Jabba probably aren't on ILM's highlight reel. That being said, I can live with the effects but the thing that bothers me about the Jabba scene is that it repeats all the information that the audience just got from the Greedo scene. It's fun to see Jabba earlier than Return Of The Jedi but the scene is just redundant.

He should have just left it as a bonus deleted scene and left it at that. Or deleted some of the (now redundant) conversation with Greedo to match the original script at a time when the jabba scene was still in it.