Jedi Council Forums - Is the redone trilogy better then the original?

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
Loco_for_Lucas Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 3/31/05 1:59am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	Let's see, the argument goes that making changes to the films as they were originally presented degrades the films. Restoration work that makes them look better than they were originally presented is okay. You don't see the contradiction there? That's like saying mopping the kitchen floor and waxing it is the same as retiling it. That's going to extremes to rationalize these alterations. Surely you can see the difference between "alteration" and "preservation."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
RogueScribner Title: Webmaster Or lando FL FanForce Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 2:09am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original? - Date Edited: 3/31/05 2:14am (1 edits total) Edited By: RogueScribner
	You liken films to great works of art. Well, no one is currently altering classic paintings and sculptures, so why would you think film alteration would be commonplace in the future? The changes don't matter to you. Fine. Understand that the changes do matter to some people. Does it stop me from liking Star Wars? No. Do I have a preference in which version I'd rather watch? Most definitely. What you deem as cosmetic changes I see as a reduction in the film's integrity. No one here denies Lucas has the right (and by god the will) to do as he pleases with his films. To some the films are a product in the marketplace. To others they're art. In any event, they are out there for public consumption and, by extension, opinon. Some people prefer the films as they were pre-1997, others don't. My only real beef in this whole situation is why both versions can't coexist in the marketplace. I'm saddened by the apparent disregard Lucas has for the O-OT and the work many people performed to help him bring them to reality. The original trilogy is historic, ANH especially. I thought we as a culture were supposed to have reverence for objects of history, not utter disregard. L8r ETA nitpick: AFI released their list of 100 years, 100 movies more than six years ago, so I think the film industry has passed the century mark already. -----signature----- "I find your lack of faith disturbing." - http://www.orlandosystem.com - "You can't take the sky from me . . . ."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
inkswamp Registered: Oct '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 2:23am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	A scratched up and faded version of the film isnt an artistic property of the movies. Absolutely it was. It may not have been what Lucas intended, but that's what people saw and therefore, it's part of the artistic property of the films as they were originally presented, intentional or otherwise. That's what people experienced. That's what people fell it love with. That's what people stood in line and paid to see repeatedly. Films don't exist in a vacuum. The viewing is part of the experience and the process. Mistakes and visual glitches and color oddities and bad edits are part of the artistic properties of any film. When a filmmaker restores or cleans-up a film, he changes things that he had to accept at the time but had no control over. Again, the same logic applies solidly to the more overt changes to the film too. So once again, you have not made your case. How does restoration or enhancements differ from other changes? If that's how people originally experienced it, then that's what should be on the DVDs, right? This point of view that what was originally shown in the theaters must not be touched makes no sense to me unless you also accept that restoration work is also forbidden. Otherwise, it seems to me that there is some convenient "goal-post moving" going on in this argument. The goal-post is right here if we're talking about enhancing the color or sound that Lucas didn't like in the original theatrical releases but the goal-posts are way over there if we're talking about altering scenes or dialogue that Lucas didn't like in the original theatrical releases. To me the principle is the same: they are both changes to how the films were originally presented. Why do you find one acceptable but not the other? -----signature----- LAME COMEBACK #1 - Lucas should have done it my way or it's wrong LAME COMEBACK #2 - I can't think metaphorically so it's a PLOT HOLE LAME COMEBACK #3 - Complex interpretations confuse me LAME COMEBACK #4 - Lucas must spoon-feed me every detail
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
NeoBaggins Registered: Oct '03	Date Posted: 3/31/05 2:44am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	Because one of them destroys the heart of the film. The other makes the picture better. -----signature----- You hear that? That's the sound of inevitability. You hear that? That's the A train. You hear that? That's the sound of a thousand terrible things heading this way.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
inkswamp Registered: Oct '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 2:47am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	Because one of them destroys the heart of the film. The other makes the picture better. That's so subjective that it's almost making my point for me. The changes that you like... those are okay. The changes you don't like... those destroy the film. Am I reading this right? -----signature----- LAME COMEBACK #1 - Lucas should have done it my way or it's wrong LAME COMEBACK #2 - I can't think metaphorically so it's a PLOT HOLE LAME COMEBACK #3 - Complex interpretations confuse me LAME COMEBACK #4 - Lucas must spoon-feed me every detail
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
inkswamp Registered: Oct '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 2:52am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original? - Date Edited: 3/31/05 2:54am (1 edits total) Edited By: inkswamp
	Surely you can see the difference between "alteration" and "preservation." In fact, I do. The problem in this case is that the "preservation" looks and sounds way better than the original films did. The people around here who take this stance that any changes to what they originally saw in the theaters ruins the films should ask themselves why the so-called restoration doesn't bother them much. I have a perfectly consistent stance on this. I accept it all. I may not agree with some of the changes on an artistic or storytelling level, but I don't out-of-hand say that one set of changes is bad and ruins the films while another set of changes is done in the best interests of preserving it. That's nonsense and I get tired of hearing it. A change is a change is a change. If you say that any change to what was originally presented is bad in order to argue that Jabba shouldn't be in ANH, then you can't logically say that color enhancement that makes the film look better and more vibrant than it has ever been shown on the big screen is okay. -----signature----- LAME COMEBACK #1 - Lucas should have done it my way or it's wrong LAME COMEBACK #2 - I can't think metaphorically so it's a PLOT HOLE LAME COMEBACK #3 - Complex interpretations confuse me LAME COMEBACK #4 - Lucas must spoon-feed me every detail
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
RogueScribner Title: Webmaster Or lando FL FanForce Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 2:52am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original? - Date Edited: 3/31/05 2:58am (2 edits total) Edited By: RogueScribner
	The argument isn't for preserving or recapturing the theater experience. It's for restoring the films to their most pristine state. No edits, no dialogue rerecording, no modern visual effects, just a clean and vibrant print for all to see. It's to showcase the film in its best possible form, not to pretend we're inside a movie theater circa 1980 in our living rooms. A spit and polish is not equal to altering content in the film itself. How you seem to not grasp this most simple of concepts is beyond me. When I first saw Titanic and The Mummy in the theaters the film burned. Should I expect my DVD to rupture everytime I watch those movies? No, I expect to see them in the best presentation possible, free of scratches and audio pops and film burns. I don't expect to see new scenes and new dialogue when I pop in my DVD that wasn't there before. And if there were new scenes and dialogue, I'd expect the original to be made available to the public. We live in the age of multiple editions of films. Everyone has their choice in which version they choose to see. Everyone except Star Wars fans. L8r -----signature----- "I find your lack of faith disturbing." - http://www.orlandosystem.com - "You can't take the sky from me . . . ."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
inkswamp Registered: Oct '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 3:00am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	The argument isn't for preserving or recapturing the theater experience. I'm not the one making that argument, however. I'm just echoing the logic I hear coming from people who get upset over changes to the films. I hear people wailing about how it should be presented as it was originally shown. I just don't understand why that line of thinking applies to one aspect of the film, but not all aspects. If the goal is to capture what was originally shown (as others... not I) have argued, then it seems that it's just being applied subjectively. I don't hold to that point of view so please don't be condescending to me about it. -----signature----- LAME COMEBACK #1 - Lucas should have done it my way or it's wrong LAME COMEBACK #2 - I can't think metaphorically so it's a PLOT HOLE LAME COMEBACK #3 - Complex interpretations confuse me LAME COMEBACK #4 - Lucas must spoon-feed me every detail
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
NeoBaggins Registered: Oct '03	Date Posted: 3/31/05 3:05am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	Look, the restoration argument is weak. I know that you are intellegent enough to know that. If the films were going to be put on DVD without the alterations and insertions, do you honestly think that restoration would be left out? Its the process that hundreds if not ALL older films go through to be transfered to DIGITAL VIDEO DISC. What movie of any title or franchise would be transfered to DVD with less than VHS quality? Clarity is the whole point of DVD. Restoring the film isnt something that Lucas invented. It is a COMMON practice when transfering a movie to DVD. You dont understand that? Or will you persist with this weak argument to avoid the meat of the issue? -----signature----- You hear that? That's the sound of inevitability. You hear that? That's the A train. You hear that? That's the sound of a thousand terrible things heading this way.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
RogueScribner Title: Webmaster Or lando FL FanForce Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 3:08am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	You're just being nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky. Who would ever want film scratches, blurry pictures, and audio pops in their preferred viewing experience? No one here is making that argument. Those things have nothing to do with the film itself, but the public presentation of it. The presentation isn't up for debate, it's the content and structure of the film itself. L8r -----signature----- "I find your lack of faith disturbing." - http://www.orlandosystem.com - "You can't take the sky from me . . . ."
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Plo_Koen Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 3/31/05 3:37am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	How about adding "episode IV A NEW HOPE" to Star Wars? Altering sound effects and character voices? That goes beyond cleaning up, yet everyone accepts this as the "original". In fact, most people in this thread have never seen the original Star Wars, so how can you compare? -----signature----- My mind is not in my body, my body is in my mind.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Plo_Koen Registered: May '01	Date Posted: 3/31/05 5:44am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original? - Date Edited: 3/31/05 6:08am (1 edits total) Edited By: Plo_Koen
	conveniently ignoring me, huh? Let me spell out the hypocracy: No edits, no dialogue rerecording This is EXACTLY what happened in the 1980 ANH revision: actors were redubbed (Beru, Wuhrer, Imperial Officers) Shots were re-arranged, and there are persisent rumors of deleted scenes. (The Biggs scenes and the second grappling hook throw) Also a lot of sound effects were altered/added. (take a look at the teaser trailer to get a taste of this) You say you're against any structural change, but the reality is that you're only against changes you don't like, while others are ok because you're already familiar with them. (and probably didn't know they were changes in the first place) -----signature----- My mind is not in my body, my body is in my mind.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
calidevilguy Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 7:10am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	NeoBaggins: You can't compare a painting to a movie. In the last 20 years there have been so many advances in film making a movie made today and a movie made 20 years ago look completely different. GL just wants his movie to 1) Be finished and his originall invisioned it, had CGI been avaible in 1977 we would have gotten a Star Wars movie where change's wouldn't have been needed because the movie would have been made that way to begin with and 2) So that it holds up and looks the best it can. You take a painting that 200 years old, there's nothing more you can do to it, the proccess of painting is still the same and the product will look the same. You are talking about making meaningless and stupid addition's to a painting while GL is using new technology make movies that look dated look better and do what he couldn't do in the 70's.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
battlewars Registered: Mar '05	Date Posted: 3/31/05 11:23am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	another thing i didnt like about the SE is that they are too dark. i could live with all this tinkering if they hadnt darkened them so much, i think they did that to cover the matte boxes but it doesn't look right.
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
inkswamp Registered: Oct '04	Date Posted: 3/31/05 11:54am Subject: RE: Is the redone trilogy better then the original?
	Look, the restoration argument is weak. For the last time, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. I'm not making that argument myself. I'm all for restoration and improvement to the film. I'm fine with it. I have seen people make the case that the reason the changes to the films are bad is because of some perceived sacred quality of the original releases. If that's true, then people making that argument should be against all changes including enhancements to sound or color or whatever. I'm not making that argument myself. I'm just pointing out the contradiction that nobody seems to understand. And for what it's worth, I don't care for all of the more overt changes myself, but I would never use a ridiculous argument about how the films should be what they were as theatrical release. Just the simple act of transferring the film to another medium changes it. It's not sacred. To me, a valid argument is one that is argued within the context of the film itself, not relying on nostalgia or the idea that something shouldn't be changed ever. Example: I like a lot of things about the new Jabba scene in ANH. It was well done, the CGI is vastly improved over the SE. However, I think it was an unnecessary addition. I don't think the scene establishes anything significant beyond what we already learned in the conversation between Han Solo and Greedo only minutes prior. The only new info we get from it is a hint that Jabba and Han are very familiar with each other, almost friendly. But that doesn't matter to the film much and in the grand scheme, it sort of ruins the surprise of what Jabba is in ROTJ (if you're watching the films in release order.) So, on that basis, I think the Jabba scene was a weak addition. On the other hand, someone who just comes along and says they don't like the new Jabba scene in ANH simply because it changes the film is making a ridiculous argument for the reasons I've already gone over. I just feel that saying any change is unacceptable is a silly line of reasoning, based more on nostalgia and an irrational protectiveness over one's memories or childhood. -----signature----- LAME COMEBACK #1 - Lucas should have done it my way or it's wrong LAME COMEBACK #2 - I can't think metaphorically so it's a PLOT HOLE LAME COMEBACK #3 - Complex interpretations confuse me LAME COMEBACK #4 - Lucas must spoon-feed me every detail
	Locked Topic \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 - Previous | Next | Reload