George Lucas's "Tinkering" with the films

[Parson]

I must misunderstand "campyness." As I would understand campyness it would refer to tongue in cheek, wink, wink, you know what, I mean kind of dialogue. Think Rocky Horror Show or TV Batman.

Star Wars is so far above that and so much richer it doesn't even begin to compare. Please enlighten me as to what Campy really means.

 

[Dave]

Parson's idea of 'Camp' was mine too, but I still think 'The Empire Strikes Back' is the best of the films and I don't think it is a coincidence that it was directed by Irvin Kershner rather than George Lucas, and that it is significantly darker in tone. So, I'd have to agree with Rodders on that score.

 

[C Of K]

Very well said. Bravo.

Thanks CC.

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

Well, I do have about 50 posts more than you. That might have something to do with it.

No, but seriously, SS. I connected so strongly with what you were saying, that I was compelled to post in agreement. You made perfect sense to me.

 

[Pyan]

claiming they didn't have the film or some similarly bizarre lie... 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... sign of the damage he's done... still vastly superior to his remastered versions... to "prove" how superior his new edits are... he attempts to sabotage them in a petty and egomaniacal attempt to validate his edits.

He owns the films - he had the concept, he thinks they're better after his "tinkering", and he has the right to do whatever he wants to do with them. If you, or any of the posters decrying the changes, were in the same position, would you be unable to resist the ability to make them, in your own opinion, better?

when he wants to fatten his wallet..

.
The man is worth over three billion pounds* - I doubt very much that this is a factor in his actions...


*The Richest People in America - Forbes.com

 

[Dave]

If you, or any of the posters decrying the changes, were in the same position, would you be unable to resist the ability to make them, in your own opinion, better?

A good question, and I'm not sure because I'm not a film director. The analogy has been made with an artist or sculptor, and you could make it with anyone doing something creative such as a novelist. I'm none of those either, but I do think that, like anything else, in any walk of life, I would have "moved on" by now. I don't believe that a painter would go back again and again and retouch some very early work of his, any more than a bricklayer would pull down a wall he built 30 years ago because a brick was the wrong way around, or that Alan Sugar would be still on a market flogging car aerials. They would all be doing something much bigger and much more exciting than that to be even bothered. I think this says something about George Lucas himself. Why isn't he out creating something that will top Star Wars and Indiana Jones, instead of making sequels and "tinkering" with his back catalogue?

 

[C Of K]

I spent some time recording music. I have attempted to improve older material with upgraded equipment as years pass, or to add extra instruments with better programs. Sometimes it works for the better. It's a real trick to recognize when it doesn't. I've had to do that a few times, and admit to myself that the crystal clear recording I've made today isn't as good as the crappy scratchy one of yesterday, and the new instruments make it less musical. A few times, I've admitted this to myself before others were given the chance to unanimously agree with me.

This isn't to say that the older songs can't be improved upon. It just means that the specific steps I took didn't improve them.

George Lucas is 100% entitled to his opinion, but there comes a point when an artist should admit that he is fooling himself. He made minor changes that only make a difference to him. That's fine, but there are changes that would be unacceptable in any other film of such merit. I don't mind the fact that George made Greedo shoot first out of some principle. But the choppy two frame transition that resulted from some editor trying to shoehorn Han dodging Greedo's laser was comical at best, if you're not a Star Wars fan. Nowhere else in all 6 of those films will you find such an unnatural scene. Greedo shooting first may fit George's opinion of the ideal Star Wars film, but the onscreen result is bad film making. If it wasn't, he would have a few thousand unnatural scenes of people making choppy movements throughout the films. At least then it wouldn't seem so strange. Unfortunately, it only takes one decision to keep a badly cut scene to ruin the Star Wars experience. I remember watching the Special Edition in the theater in the late 90s. That scene stood out, not because Greedo shot first, but because the execution of the scene was horrible.

 

[soulsinging]

He owns the films - he had the concept, he thinks they're better after his "tinkering", and he has the right to do whatever he wants to do with them. If you, or any of the posters decrying the changes, were in the same position, would you be unable to resist the ability to make them, in your own opinion, better?
.
The man is worth over three billion pounds* - I doubt very much that this is a factor in his actions...

Yes, I would be able to resist. Name me one director other than Lucas that has gone back and made such wholesale and visible changes to their classic movie. The Godfather is the same. Casablanca is the same. Nobody has messed with the Labyrinth. Raiders of the Lost Ark is exactly as it was. Disney has not had Pixar redo Snow White. Lucas stands alone on this. Even Blade Runner, which has had multiple editions, was only updated to restore the original version after studio-forced changes altered his movie. And he resisted the temptation to overlay dozens of CGI effects and PC plot alterations when he removed the narration track. And I've yet to see a director's cut or extended edition of any movie that altered original scenes like Lucas did... they mostly just add scenes cut for length. The better question is why is George the only director that doesn't seem able to let go of a completed work that has become a landmark classic?

As to his money, I don't know if you've been reading the news the last few years with the economic meltdown or Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, but being incredibly wealthy is no hedge against wanting more.

And again, there's only one person in here defending Lucas on the merits of the changes. Everyone else is simply repeating the mantra that "he can do what he wants to his film." I've never said he couldn't. I'm just saying he shouldn't. As mentioned above... the changes are distracting and amount to poor film-making. Han dodging Greedo's shot looks like the kind of editing you might see from a junior high student trying to do a film about teleportation... one second he's here, then he's there! It's awful, visually.

I'm still waiting to see someone defend the changes from an artistic perspective... tell me what the changes added to the film for you and why they improve the original, not just that he's allowed.

 

[Parson]

I'm reminded of a proverb:

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

 

[Clansman]

I thought that this was the best place to put this comic:

Kinda says it all about the not-so-highlights of Lucas's efforts.

Sheldon is a really funny comic that I discovered a while back. Basically, it is a nerd poking fun at nerds. Here's a link if you're interested:

Sheldon Comic Strip: Daily Webcomic by Dave Kellett

 

[Parson]

LOL Clansman. I'm not sure about that last line and arrow though.

 

[C Of K]

The Hutt. Jabba the Hutt.

Asking which Jabba is the best is like asking which Bond is the best.

1.Connery
2.Moore
3.Brosnan

George changed the docking bay 94 Jabba. He is willing to release a product that he isn't happy with, even during the CG age of film making, and it's pretty much just because he can. They could have done better the first time, even back then. The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park didn't look fake, but that Jabba did. The second version looks more real, but something still seems off about it. Hard to point out what that might be.

 

[Rodders]

It certainly looks closer to the Jabba we see in Return of the Jedi.

 

[Clansman]

Here's the next one in the series of strips:

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[Rodders]

This was on last nights South Park. Not so funny, but very true.

 

[Dave]

..still plenty of time yet, I think, for the 3D version of 'The Empire Strikes Back', No?

Ahh! That was a joke. I never seriously considered that he might do it!!!!

 

[C Of K]

Lol, Dave. I'm not sure he can help himself. You may have put the idea in his head. I have to say, it's an intriguing idea, so long as they do the 3D well and he doesn't take this chance to alter other things even further.

 

[Interference]

Maybe a little un-altering might be acceptable, though.

 

[Cayal]

Maybe a little un-altering might be acceptable, though.

lol the most apt username for a thread ever?

 

[Rodders]

Great name for a ships mind in the Culture too.

I wonder if there's any tinkering with the Clone Wars cartoons?

 

[Interference]

lol the most apt username for a thread ever?

Thank you.

My work here is done ...


Oh, wait a minute, maybe if I just tweak this, adjust that and add a little bit of ......