George Lucas's "Tinkering" with the films

[Rodders]

I've not liked a single change that Lucas has made to the OT. I am interested to see how he's going to tinker with the impending Blue Ray release and the 3D version. (Bearing in mind that we'll probably see the 3D effort at the Cinema as well as on DVD release.)

 

[Cayal]

I'm curious, do you tinker with projects that are "done" but still in your possession? Or once you've sold something would you ask for it back to alter things that have been bothering you, even if the person you sold the painting to likes it the way it is? If you had a painting that made you world famous and was put into the Louvre, would you have the temerity to 20-30 years later demand to have it back so that you could change a few things for the viewing public?

I understand, to an extent, the artistic desire to tinker. But it is nearly impossible for anyone creating something to have the final work come out exactly as they envision it in his or her head, so once you open the door to tinkering, it will never end. For proof I offer you the fact that Lucas made changes initially for the theater re-releases in 94, then again when it went to dvd, then again when they did another version of the dvd, and I rather suspect there will be changes again in bluray. Is he REALLY altering the work to get what he wants? It seems to me he didn't make the changes to get the movies the way he originally wanted, he made them because it wasn't as perfect as in his mind and he's hopelessly trying to get that by fiddling with CGI backgrounds and pointless harmonizing with the prequels. I don't believe the changes he made bring it any closer to what he truly wanted in spirit... he just found a cheap way to put more people on the street and in backgrounds than he could originally. And there is no way anyone can convince me that the altered music at various points is the music he wanted in 1977 but somehow couldn't get.

I'm sorry, but that explanation doesn't hold water with me. I understand where the drive comes from, but I think the hardest thing for any artist is to know when to say enough is enough and just stop. Just look at Chinese Democracy the Guns'n'Roses album... there's no way anyone can tell me that album truly NEEDED the 10+ years of tinkering it got... and that is what separates great, courageous artists from egomaniacal techies. Lucas has a great imagination, but in execution, he's always been something of a failure. The originals succeeded because his imagination shined brightly through the flaws in execution. In painting over the details, he obscured that inspired feel.

As far as I am concerned, Star Wars is his, not ours. He can do what he wishes and reaped the benefits or lack of.

 

[Dave]

I'm curious, do you tinker with projects that are "done" but still in your possession? Or once you've sold something would you ask for it back to alter things that have been bothering you, even if the person you sold the painting to likes it the way it is? If you had a painting that made you world famous and was put into the Louvre, would you have the temerity to 20-30 years later demand to have it back so that you could change a few things for the viewing public?

I don't think you are comparing like with like here.

Firstly, I have the original series on VHS and George Lucas has never asked for me to give it back to him so that he could alter it.

Secondly, artists do paint different versions and make replicas of paintings. How many Sunflowers did Van Gogh paint?

 

[soulsinging]

As far as I am concerned, Star Wars is his, not ours. He can do what he wishes and reaped the benefits or lack of.

I don't think I ever said he couldn't. My point was that I don't think his edits have in any way improved the work and have in many ways worsened it, and I also think that the whole "it's bringing it closer to his original artistic vision" thing is bunk. It's not. It's just him endlessly circling his artistic vision from the same distance, because no matter what changes he makes they will never be satisfactory because he is pursuing an impossible ideal in his mind.

My clincher is always this... Jabba's Palace and the song the band plays was completely different in the newer versions. That song could have been written just as easily in 1983 as it was a decade or so later. So it's not like he had some music in mind and couldn't get it, he's just changing it for the sake of changing it... because CGI allowed him to have a Tazmanian Devil whirling around the place instead of the original puppets and costumed actors.

 

[soulsinging]

I don't think you are comparing like with like here.

Firstly, I have the original series on VHS and George Lucas has never asked for me to give it back to him so that he could alter it.

Secondly, artists do paint different versions and make replicas of paintings. How many Sunflowers did Van Gogh paint?

But as VHS has been rendered obsolete he has told everyone that nobody may view the original film, they can only see his altered version (thankfully he caved with the crappy dvd copy that he wouldn't even allow to be presented anamorphic... the most passive-aggressive FU I ever heard of). It's like a painting that has aged and needs restoration (time concerns aside for the sake of example) but the painter said it cannot be restored for the modern public unless he is allowed to paint over it as he pleases. Is it his right? Sure. Is it a smart thing to do? No.

Replicas are by definition exact copies. As to painting other sunflowers, Lucas did that by making other movies set in the SW universe. The mediums are not perfectly comparable, I was only using them because the person I quoted mentioned painting. I wasn't trying to create a perfect analogy. My point is simply that any artist in any medium has a vision in their mind of what they want, but it is impossible for any outward work to perfectly reflect that vision due to the limits of human nature. Artists are perfectionists and obsessive about their work. No amount of tinkering will ever be enough. Every musician can listen to a song they recorded and think of something to change (that's why musicians have producers to tell them no), every painter can think of one more stroke to add, every writer can think of one more sentence to alter, and every director can think of one more scene that needs editing. To me, a good artist is one that knows when to abandon the pursuit of an unattainable perfection and let the work stand. Lucas does not. And what he is doing is destroying the spirit of the original work by taking a film about space that already requires a certain sort of suspension of disbelief and ruining its integrity through a jarring juxtaposition of old and new technology that takes the viewer out of the film. And the CGI he added ALREADY looks more dated than the original did!

Furthermore, he flat out altered characters... Han shoots first and that is crucial to his entire character as a tough rogue who finds redemption through the rebellion and his love for Leia. Changing that isn't tinkering, it completely alters a new viewer's initial perception of who the character is (not to mention it looks completely ridiculous and fake onscreen). And don't get me started on asinine changes in Vader's dialogue or CGI changes to the Emperor.

Sure it's his right, but I thought we were discussing the wisdom and merits of him choosing to do it, not his right to do so. I was only talking about asking for a painting back to see how an artist feels. I like to think that if I got a novel published and it became a huge hit that millions loved, I would be grateful and do all in my power to preserve the integrity of the work I had produced that touched so many... not constantly rewriting it to get it "better" and annoying everyone that had found some merit in it to begin with.

It may seem I'm taking this too seriously but it's just cos I watched the updated version of New Hope the other night and it was so terrible I canceled my planned marathon in favor of Stargate.

 

[Dave]

But as VHS has been rendered obsolete he has told everyone that nobody may view the original film, they can only see his altered version.

Well, that there, is the crucial difference, because (to continue the analogy) that is like an artist buying back a painting he has sold and then destroying it, or locking it away in some vault. And that is the part I have a problem with.

Ridley Scott doesn't seem to mind countless different versions of 'BladeRunner' being available. He doesn't have the authority to force viewing only the 'voice-over' version, or the 'directors version' or 'the final cut', but even if he did have Lucas' power, would he try? I very much doubt it.

Stanley Kubrick prevented the showing of 'A Clockwork Orange' during his lifetime, but he didn't destroy the film. I guess we can't judge what will happen after Lucas dies, but still plenty of time yet, I think, for the 3D version of 'The Empire Strikes Back', No?

 

[J Riff]

Wow. Well, a look at the box-office receipts may prove telling. Are these StarWars alterations achieving a new audience that the originals wouldn't?
The Beatles sold like crazy a few xMas back, re-mixes of a bunch of stuff... I can see a short story here... a guy time travels to year 3012 and watches Star Wars and listens to the Beatles and doesn't recognize any of it.

 

[Rodders]

By 3012 digital Special Effects would be so good that it means that he would probably be Star Wars: the Musical, starring the beatles.

 

[biodroid]

I think the new updates to the old movies are pretty good, besides being remastered so you can't see the feint ghosting of blue screens from old SFX and the additional cg, I reckon they haven't lost their spark.

 

[soulsinging]

Wow. Well, a look at the box-office receipts may prove telling. Are these StarWars alterations achieving a new audience that the originals wouldn't?
The Beatles sold like crazy a few xMas back, re-mixes of a bunch of stuff... I can see a short story here... a guy time travels to year 3012 and watches Star Wars and listens to the Beatles and doesn't recognize any of it.

But you're implying an assumption that the changes are the reason for the new audience... and if you listen to younger kids, they prefer the prequels to the originals. I think a simply remastered (like a restored painting or the updated Beatles collection) would bring in MORE than the crappy edits he has put together. I think the weird mix of old and new makes the originals look like garbage, which is why kids don't like them as much as the seamless prequels.

The Beatles didn't go back and re-write the songs or change lyrics or alter choruses or digitally replace Ringo's singing with someone more modern. They simply remastered/restored the original (there were, to my knowledge, no re-mixes, they are faithful to the original albums and songs other than maybe some remixing of the mono versions which technically speaking had to be done just to play on modern equipment). If Lucas did this, I'd have no problem (and would in fact leap for joy because I think the scenes he didn't tinker with in his new versions look and sound great, it's the alterations to the actual visuals and story that I take umbrage with). But he's not. He's saying cling to an obsolete and near impossible to find old version, or swallow his many, many edits and like it.

I also have to note that nobody here defends the new versions. Everyone taking issue with what I'm saying defends only his right to do it, which I've never challenged. Only the necessity and wisdom. So instead of hiding behind his right to do it... answer straight out, do you think the changes are improvements? Like:

Do you think it is an improvement to have Greedo shooting first and Han doing his awkward dodge?
Do you think the song in Jabba's Palace really has a much bigger impact now with a different song and CGI singer?
Does seeing Hayden instead of the other guy make a huge impact for you at the end?
Does Mos Eisley have a stronger impact with a CGI animal tossing a jawa off its back a la Jar Jar, as opposed to being the dusty, deserted, run down ghost town it was initially?

The ONLY addition I don't mind and may grant as an improvement is getting a better look at the wampa... but that is about 2 seconds of a pleasant addition compared to several minutes of jarring subtractions.

 

[C Of K]

I never watch the newer versions of Star Wars that I own. And I own them all. About 2 times a year I'll put on the DVDs of the original Originals, and enjoy those. As long as we're discussing art, I might as well add that part of creating good art, no matter the medium, is about setting the mood. The original three movies set a certain mood from scene to scene, and it carried from film to film. It all fit together, and made for something ground-shaking that will never be duplicated again, because back in the 70s and 80s George Lucas was knee deep in his art for 10 years.

Returning 20 or 30 years later, with evolved technology and a new perspective, to make additions and subtractions in various places, the way he did, disrupts the mood and devalues the films. He has the right, like everyone has noted, but I have the right to draw a stenciled border over my computer screen in black permanent marker. It wouldn't be wise, but I have the right.

Same thing with the Beatles. If you mix glaring sounds and techno rhythms in with their classic hits, it will disrupt and devalue their songs. It may be a cool thing to hear once or twice, but I don't want to listen to that every time the Beatles come on the radio. I would turn away, the same as I turn away from Star Wars when it comes on tv, and the altered versions that I spent a substantial sum of money on.

 

[J Riff]

Beatles remixes appeared. an obvious cash grab, and I din't like them- didn't even want to hear them.
Actually.. you may recall that when CDs first appeared, some very weird things happened- some clever dick listened to Beatles, stereo and mono mixes(which are not true mono, put the old 45s on headphones to prove this)
- and decided he could 'clean it up'.. by isolating Lennon's guitar here, moving vox round etc.- and it was horrible, ghastly!
The mix, esp. the mono mix, was a big part of the sound. Separating and clearing up the audio trashed the song.
I agree with the general disgruntlement re:SW, tho I am not a StarWars afficianado by any stretch. It has to be profit motivated, or maybe Lucas just has too much free time.

 

[Captain Campion]

I never watch the newer versions of Star Wars that I own. And I own them all. About 2 times a year I'll put on the DVDs of the original Originals, and enjoy those. As long as we're discussing art, I might as well add that part of creating good art, no matter the medium, is about setting the mood. The original three movies set a certain mood from scene to scene, and it carried from film to film. It all fit together, and made for something ground-shaking that will never be duplicated again, because back in the 70s and 80s George Lucas was knee deep in his art for 10 years.

Returning 20 or 30 years later, with evolved technology and a new perspective, to make additions and subtractions in various places, the way he did, disrupts the mood and devalues the films. He has the right, like everyone has noted, but I have the right to draw a stenciled border over my computer screen in black permanent marker. It wouldn't be wise, but I have the right.

Same thing with the Beatles. If you mix glaring sounds and techno rhythms in with their classic hits, it will disrupt and devalue their songs. It may be a cool thing to hear once or twice, but I don't want to listen to that every time the Beatles come on the radio. I would turn away, the same as I turn away from Star Wars when it comes on tv, and the altered versions that I spent a substantial sum of money on.

Very well said. Bravo.

 

[AdamCollings]

I'm probably a bit in the minority here when I say that I quite like the new versions. I was excited when the first re-mastered versions came out with updated effects. I loved them, in fact I remember thinking 'why didn't he go further' at some points.

As for Hayden Christiansen at the end of Jedi, I can understand why some didn't like that, but to me it just completes the circle. It makes the Star Wars saga one complete 6 part novel on film. That's how I see it.

 

[soulsinging]

I'm probably a bit in the minority here when I say that I quite like the new versions. I was excited when the first re-mastered versions came out with updated effects. I loved them, in fact I remember thinking 'why didn't he go further' at some points.

As for Hayden Christiansen at the end of Jedi, I can understand why some didn't like that, but to me it just completes the circle. It makes the Star Wars saga one complete 6 part novel on film. That's how I see it.

Greedo shoots Han first... you are excited abotu this?

And kudos to CofK for so eloquently encapsulating in one post what it took me about 6 to not clearly express.

 

[IainRichmond]

I am glad George updated the films as it reminded me just how good the original three were. There was a passion of craft that made the original 3 special in a way that was hard to define, but could be experienced by watching the films.

There Lucas films & he can do what he wants as long as the original 3 are available for comparison.

 

[soulsinging]

There Lucas films & he can do what he wants as long as the original 3 are available for comparison.

I'm not sure they will be much longer though. Once he redid the films, no more copies of the originals on vhs were produced, you could only get his edits. When he switched to dvd he refused to offer the originals for a very long time, claiming they didn't have the film or some similarly bizarre lie. When the hue and cry from fans finally got to him he "found" that film and finally released the originals on dvd. However, they can only be bought with his updated versions, he refused to remaster them at all, and even forbid them being encoded in anamorphic, so that they appear in a tiny box on your screen... basically he did his best to sabotage them and make them unappealing compared to his updates. It's a telling sign of the damage he's done that even so, the dvd versions I have of the original, with crappy picture and sound and appearing in a tiny box on my large hd tv, are still vastly superior to his remastered versions.

And now bluray is coming... and I can guarantee you will not be able to buy the originals for comparison in bluray, they will only be his edited versions. Maybe in 10 years when he wants to fatten his wallet a bit, he'll throw together a bluray of the originals that is purposefully inferior in quality in order to "prove" how superior his new edits are.

Lucas isn't allowing the originals to have a fair comparison. He has, every step of the way, tried to bury them and erase all memory of them and when he relents he attempts to sabotage them in a petty and egomaniacal attempt to validate his edits.

 

[J Riff]

It would be nice if StarWars just ....went away, ended. Then he could try his hand at some modern SF, instead of rehashing 30s-style space opera.
Subtly colorizing old movies is one thing, changing the plot line is... wrong. )
Funny how some big names get weird about their work, no matter how succesful it is-
Zappa started doing re-mixes of his old stuff for no good reason.

 

[Rodders]

As a long time fan, i really don't want to see it end, but i was looking forward to the darkness and the adult themes that we were supposed to be seeing for the new TV series.

No, it shouldn't end, but Lucas needs to hand the franchise over to someone that's prepared to take it in a new direction.

 

[IainRichmond]

As a long time fan, i really don't want to see it end, but i was looking forward to the darkness and the adult themes that we were supposed to be seeing for the new TV series.

No, it shouldn't end, but Lucas needs to hand the franchise over to someone that's prepared to take it in a new direction.

I fully agree with Rodders on this. Lucas needs to let his cash cow go and allow new blood to take it in a different direction. Dump the "campyness" and bring the darkness and deeper themes. Batman, Spiderman and the Revenge of the Sith have all benefitted by darker themes, and less campyness in their latest versions.

In my humble opinion, of course.