CT Original unaltered Trilogy on Blu ray?

I think you are looking way TOO much into the viewing of these movies. You think that everyone who watches SW is going to be a uniform 1-6 fan, and that isn't the case with any movie series. Some fans don't even look at certain movies as part of the series after they view them all. I think Rocky V was an embarrassment, as my Rocky Saga is I, II, III, IV, VI. I never liked the Back to the Future Sequels, so I only look at Back to the Future and it ends with the original. Cameron puts out multiple versions of T2 on every release, so I view my Terminator Saga is Terminator and Terminator 2:Extended Edition.

You can't force fans to follow uniformly with the movies because everyone has their own taste. I know some Original Star Wars fans who don't even like ESB and ROTJ, and they would only care to watch the 1977 version they saw in the movies. Now of course fans like us are going to argue about stupid stuff like this because we are diehard fans and that's what we do. You're passionate about the SW movies and I'm passionate about the SW movies, and no matter what you say or I say or even Lucas says on how to watch the movies, everyone will eventually watch it whatever way they enjoy it.

 

Yeah, but there's a difference between personal preference and institutional/canonical recognition (as in the canon of works of art, not the canon of in-univese narrative continuity). I'm reminded of various fans who have indulged in daydreams about the OT being given a full release by the Criterion Collection some day, even going so far as to write up full mock-up product descriptions on message boards, and the like, and making a point to emphatically underline that only the pure OOT would be included in what they imagine as a Criterion Star Wars set. This of course would completely violate the whole mission-statement of the Criterion Collection, being that they're dedicated to showcasing movies as the filmmakers in question want them to be seen, first and foremost, and indeed it ought to go against the intention of any institution that's seriously dedicated to presenting cinema as an art form.

Now that doesn't mean that Criterion wouldn't, or indeed shouldn't, present both SE and OOT versions in any hypothetical home-video set of the films-- they routinely in fact go out of their way to make as many versions of films with rocky editing histories available as possible. I've always been of the mind that having the OOT as a supplemental extra to future Blu Ray editions would be fine, just as all of those additional versions of Blade Runner and the like are cool to have for peoples' personal viewing preference at home. But in theatrical exhibitions, at least, the line should be drawn at what the filmmaker wants, and I'll stress that even in cases where I'd disagree with what the filmmaker has in mind. I love Michael Mann's films, but I'll admit that most of his directors' cuts tend to take out stuff I rather like.

 

Fans who pretend that certain parts of film series don't exist are promptly ignored in film continuity. The connecting of an entire Saga is far more important to filmmakers than a fan who happens to not like, say part 4 of a franchise. This denying the existence of films is a series seems frankly silly to me.
Guess what? There are canonically THREE Back to the Future films (and SS made sure you knew that by the ending of #1)! There are FOUR Indiana Jones films! There are THREE matrix films! There are SIX Star Wars films! There are SIX Alien films and FIVE Predator films! There are FOUR Terminator films! Nothing you can do about it, and the studios clearly aren't interested in forgetting. The Fact that Lucas kindly allows a choice of trilogies in his box set releases is a nice move. I would only sell them as a six-film set.

 

Jaren_Lee-Saber, doesn't your signature kind of contradict your posted stance?
I don't think some of you are understanding what I think Carbon1985 was saying. These are MOVIES. There is no rule that you have to like every sequel or whatever and watch it religiously. It's like telling kids they have to play with their toys a certain way. People watch movies for enjoyment, and if they don't enjoy something, why watch it? All those sequels he referenced were first viewed by the people who then decided they don't like them. There's no requirement to watch them again; it doesn't mean they aren't really acknowledged or their existence is denied. So what if a sequel or a version is "the filmmaker's true vision", your brains can't possibly work that way where that is the motivator for sitting down and experiencing the artform or reliving the nostalgia or getting a quick fix of the content, or you're just force feeding yourselves. I never feel that just because I've watched or even bought one movie in a series that I have to watch the next one or buy the whole set.

 

I always do. Even if the sequel(s)/prequels(s) aren't great, I consider them part of the whole and always watch them all together. And I only EVER buy complete box sets. Never individual films.

 

With all due respect you don't understand your history about Back to the Future, because there were NEVER any sequels planned after the first movie was being filmed, as Zemecki's says it in the Back to the Future DVD Documentary. The 'To be continued' was added to the VHS Version in 1986 because it had become such a hit a sequel was almost inevitable. But Zemecki's says, "We never had some grand story for a trilogy, only 1 movie." Hence why they released Back to the Future as Trilogy Boxset, and then the movies individually for fans who probably just wanted to buy the Original like me. If they were so hell-bent on getting me to watch it as a trilogy, why would they release them individually?

Same goes Rocky Saga as for the first few years on BluRay, only the ORIGINAL was released for the public to buy and eventually the boxset came out years later of all 6 films. Most people I know just like the original, and don't care much for the sequels, so Stallone/MGM knows the demand is higher for the original movie, hence why they released that when BluRay first hit the markets.

The problem is people like you are probably taking the 'saga' talk much too seriously then the actual directors! If so, then they would never release the movies individually, but they know there is a demand for specific movies sometimes in a movie saga, or in SW case: a demand for the Original Trilogy over the Prequel Trilogy.

The only true saga's that you need to watch all the movies are probably Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, because they were taken from books and filmed as one grand story from the start. Star Wars, Rocky, Back to the Future, Alien, Jurassic Park, Jaws, were all filmed as ONE movie and they can all be watched in the context of the viewer never needing to watch any sequels for maximum enjoyment.

Remember, there is a reason that most of the time, sequels don't make more then the original, because the base of fans shrinks after that. Hence why Star Wars 1977 still made more money then the other 5 movies after you adjust for inflation.

 

Um, what? The ending of Back to the Future involves them heading off to 2015 to help their kids - you know, the plot of Back to the Future II ?

 

Question, do you do this when it comes to TV-series as well?
Say that a TV-series runs for 10 seasons and you like the first two and sort of like the third but not the fourth.
Do you keep watching? And if you want to buy it, do you buy the "all 10 seasons Mega pack"?

What about film series where one film is deemed to not to have happened?
Like the Highlander series, the second film was very bad and the third film basically said that the second film had never happened.
For me, I like only the first film and I own that, I have seen two and three but have zero interest in buying them as I find them rather bad.

What about film series where the films are not really connected, like James Bond? If you only like two or three of them, would you still buy the 22 film box set?

Most film series start as one film and when that does well, sometimes sequels are made. Like the Pirates movies, Iron Man, Spiderman, Police Academy and so on. If you like all films then it makes sense to own all of them. But if you only like one and dislike or even hate the others, it seems odd to keep seeing them and even odder to buy them.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Please watch the Documentary on the DVD. Spielberg/Zemecki's joked that they put that in there just for the fun of it, but had NO plans for a sequel when it was released in 1985. They even said if they had it to do all over again, they never would have had Doc take Marty AND his girlfriend to 2015 because they didn't know what to do with her when they were writing the sequel, so they just had her feint when she saw her future self.

When Back to the Future was released in 1985, the original movie has a story arc (and a true ending when Marty's whole life changes after his father knocks out Biff and the ironic thing is that Marty/Doc time travelling around isn't what you are suppose to get out of the movie. The movie is about how parents and kids have certain perceptions about each other, and how after Marty saw his parents at his age, he understood them better because they essentially were going through the same struggles as he did. The real ending of the movie is because Marty's dad stood up to Biff, there was a true cause/effect on his life and his family: He becomes a best selling writer because he has more confidence in himself, they live in a better house, and the kids all have better jobs too. Time travel was just a metaphor used to show the arc of the McFly family. Trust me I saw the movie in 1985, and the movie has a complete ending.

 

This I would be prefectly fine with. Lucas has his prefered choices and those are the ones shown on TV or in theaters. The OOT is avalible in good quality for all those that want it. History is preserved and Lucas can say which version he prefer and the audience can choose as well, everyone wins.
Which is why I have a hard time understanding Lucas resistance to having the OOT out there in good quality. Their existence won't make the SE invalid or harm them in any way.
Most directors that make SE also release the original versions as well, either together or separately and they let the audience choose what they want.

The only problem I can see is if a film festival or seminar wants to showcase specific films from specific eras. If they want certain films from the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's and they have chosen Star Wars as a 70's film. The SE wouldn't really fit as it wasn't made in the 70's.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Jeez. The lack of knowledge about the origins of the Back to the Future movies says a lot about your perspective on all this. Were you there in 1985? That reference to saving the kids was just a tag at the end of the film to end on some funny laughs and oohs and ahhs at the flying DeLorean. The movie was a hit, so they extrapolated a story out of that. They were stuck. That's why Marty's girlfriend spends the next movie sleeping on the porch. Also, it's why the sequel came four long years later. Four years use to be a long time between a first and second installment. A lot changed in pop culture between '84/'85 and the end of the decade.

This just seems like collector's obsessiveness culture, where people have taught themselves to buy every single thing related to a movie, reissues and all, all in the name of calling themselves such great collectors. Nobody really cares about that stuff; it's not important. Out of curiosity I watched the first Twilight movie. I have not felt compelled to see the sequels and should not. I like The Bad News Bears and bought it when I saw it on the shelf. I don't care about the sequels; should I have just left it on the shelf because the sequels weren't available or because I didn't want to watch them? That doesn't make me less of a fan of The Bad News Bears or someone who is insulting the cast members or producers involved in the whole franchise. I reminisce with the first film in a way I don't with the sequels. I remember being four years old and seeing on HBO Tatum O'Neal's elbow in the bucket of water and wondering why she was doing that. The hair and socks and t-shirts on the kids reminds me of kids I knew around that time. So far, I refuse to watch Basic Instinct 2. I don't feel incomplete. Someone who likes Back to the Future and feels like watching it after getting off work on a Friday evening should not be criticized for not feeling a desire to watch the sequels. (I never bought the DVD set because there was a reported glitch with the aspect ratio on the sequels.) Someone who watches A New Hope on Saturday should not be criticized if he doesn't want to watch The Empire Strikes Back on Sunday, or if just feels like watching TESB without first watching ANH that day. It is possible to not want to watch Smokey and the Bandit, Part III after having a rollicking good time watching the first one. I don't care if someone calls me less of a STAR WARS fan because I don't like the changes to the movies I had burned in my mind from watching with glee for over many years by the time anything else was done to them. I don't get this opposition to the OOT by the sycophants who tell themselves to like whatever new version comes out; you have your movie, so why are you complaining?

 

Yes I do. I would never buy half or a quarter of a series. It's complete or none at all.

I don't know. It hasn't happened yet. I don't like any of the Highlander films so I don't own it. I suppose the closest I could get would be the Aliens franchise, where I only REALLY like Aliens (Alien 2), but I still own the complete Anthology, and usually watch it all if I watch one.

Oh man, of COURSE I own the complete James Bond box set!

When I like one or two films in a series, I automatically tolerate all the others, even if I don't actually really like one or two that much. Case in point, I didn't really like Pirates 4 but of course I own it and watch it in series. Heck, I am completely bored of ANH and half of ROTJ now - but to watch only four Star Wars and skip two is ridiculous to me!

Nope, I was just a glint in the Milkman's eye. I was born in '87. I'm 26. Like I said before, not all Star Wars fan are pushing 40.

Ok, I admit, I may be a bit OCD about my film/DVD/Blu-ray/box sets collections. Especially about my four faves (The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, The Dark Knight trilogy, and Star Wars). Which probably explains why I own three sets of LOTR box sets (theatrical Blu-ray, extended blu-ray, limited DVD), two matrix sets (trilogy blu-ray, ultimate collection DVD), and three Star Wars sets (2004 DVD, 2008 DVD, 2011 Blu-ray). Also explains why I won't buy The Hobbit until the entire trilogy is finished

I was compelled to finish the series. Never buying it though!

This is where I'm different. I don't suffer from nostalgia of any kind. I've gone back and watched old films that I loved as a kid, and sometimes they stood the test of time, but mostly ended up being disappointments that I won't watch again.

I will always ask, "So you only watch ONE of them???"

We're only complaining about your ENDLESS complaining about how it MUST be released, when its entirely unnecessary. Lucas' "vision" aside, the graphics are so terrible (especially in ANH) that if I were him I would be so embarrassed by how bad it is that I wouldn't release it for that reason only.

Oh, and thank you for calling us sycophants. That really helps your argument a lot! Oops, no, it merely throws out your entire testimony

 

And finally, the reason I have little tolerance for the "please give us OOOOT" crowd. is because the LAST time Lucas caved in to the vocal ones, it RUINED the 2008 box sets! With the 2008 Prequel box set, each disc 2 had a boatload of awesome docs, deleted scenes, and bonus materiel. With the 2008 Original box set, disc 2 was just the same film all over again, except in a crappier version!!!!
You guys robbed us of hours of awesome stuff just because of this obsession with old junk. And yet, you STILL weren't satisfied with that. Zero sympathy!

 

Then, after your post is this.When is Disney releasing the original unedited Fantasia and Song of the South?

You need to stop with the attacks and think about what you are posting.

 

Please read the rest of that quote where I said: Oh right, never! Completely unnecessary! and see the context.
Which is exactly how I feel about the OOOOT

 

When do you have time to watch 6 SW films in a row to begin with???? Most OOT fans grew up before the day of VCR's and DVD's players, so the only time we watched them was when they came on cable in the early 80's. Star Wars came to HBO in 1983 and everyone watched it a zillion times as they would show it almost every day. ESB came to HBO in 1986 and again we all just watched that movie a zillion times, and the same goes for ROTJ when it came to HBO in 1988. Even though they were a trilogy by 1983, I never looked at them that way, in fact I never looked at any of the movie series growing up as 'I have to watch them in order' or my life will end mentality. They came on Cable, and you watched them endlessly until the next great movie came to cable. You look at them as individually movies, as some are better then the others, and usually you watch the better ones more. Do you listen to music that way? There are hit songs by bands and there are average/bad songs, do you listen to every song equally, or do you listen to their better songs more?

Even now with DVD/BluRay in the past 10-15 years, I still watch movies individually in one sitting, and have never said, "OK, I watched Episode II last night, I HAVE to watch Episode III tonight. It's nice that there are continued stories in Star Wars, LOTR, The Matrix, but it sounds like you need to see a shrink if must watch the story from start to finish. Watching movies is all about enjoyment and if you whatever you feel like watching at any given time. Sometimes I'm in the mood for the original Star Wars, sometimes ESB, sometimes AOTC, etc, all depends on what mood I'm in. I can honestly say that after I watch Raiders of the Lost Ark, I have never said to myself, "OK, I have to watch the 3 Indy sequels in that order, or I won't be getting the full story arc!"

 

This is what makes me laugh about this line of thinking. You are actually calling the movies that made Star Wars what it is today 'old junk.' If it weren't for that 'old junk,' there would be no sequels, no prequels, or no Episode 7,8,9! And does that 'old junk' bother you so much that you couldn't enjoy the OOT movies?? So you're saying that you need that extra dewback on Tattoine with the stormtroopers or the movies just doesn't work for you? Or the new song, 'Jedi Rocks' just makes ROTJ a much better film that wasn't watchable in 1983. And thank god Lucas re-did ObiWan's house in ANH Special Edition, because I remember walking out of the theater in 1977 saying, "ObiWan's house is so lame looking, I can't wait for CGI to make this movie alot better!"

 

LOL I don't necessarily watch them all in one day! (though I have) I usually watch like one a day over a period of 3-6 days. Or on a weekend. I watch films a LOT (its my passion).
I didn't grow up with TV, and I really never watch it, so that might be the difference. Everything was VHS tapes when I was growing up. We didn't even have TV in English until I was 12!! So when I started TRULY watching films, it was the DVD era. I just like watching film series that way. I don't look at them as individual movies, I look at them as pieces of a whole. Need for a shrink just because I enjoy full series is...well...a little insulting. I got them in sets, so I watch them in sets!

 

Just like a song that changes the face of music in 1850 is no longer relevant today, so is a presentation of a film from the 70s. The SE (and continued changes) made it possible for the films to be relevant for today's audience & not feel dated (like, you know, Star Trek. Or the original TRON).

You picked entirely minor changes to use as your frontline, I'll point out where the real improvements were:
I AM saying that the additional graphics in ALL of the OT films them greatly improved the film.Not just one piece of it, but the entire set.
I AM saying that the improved vista shots in ALL the OT films make the films look WAY better, like the PT.
I AM saying that making the X-wings fly properly rather than looking like toys on a string improved it.
I AM saying that adding the Jabba & Biggs scenes added a LOT more to the characters.
I AM saying that having Han shoot in self-defense makes him look a lot less like a unlikeable ****
I AM saying that putting Ian McDiarmaid in ESB was brilliant and made way more sense than monkey-girl
I AM saying that the Victory Celebration made the ending of ROTJ sound like a true victory, rather than a 5-year-olds teddy bear tea party
I AM saying that putting Anakin (Hadyn) at the end of ROTJ was one of the most beautiful edits ever done to a film. Seeing the real Anakin there in all his glory, young, happy, beautiful, and redeemed, no longer fettered by his suit prison, and clean of all his physical & mental scars has more emotional clout than the entire film ANH!!!

Was the OOT incredible, groundbreaking, and a beauty when shown to us in the 70s-80s? Absolutely it was!
Is it old junk compared to all the new version improvements made in the 90s-2000s? Absolutely it is!

 

So I guess you were never a fan of The Wizard of Oz? It's funny cause generation and generations have loved that movies since 1939, and it hasn't gotten one update. Do you think they should go back and CGI update the Wizard of Oz so it doesn't look so 1939'ish?

The bottom line is that if Lucas never touched the OOT movies, they would be beloved today just as much as they were in 1977-83. Its funny cause you mentioned 2 changes: Hayden as a Force Ghost and Ian McDiamaid in ESB, but that wasn't done til 2004 DVD, yet the Special Edition movies made millions and millions of dollars in 1997 for a NEW generation of fans! Did people walk out of the theater in 1997 ESB and say, "They gotta update Monkey Women as the Emperor!" Don't think so!

The bottom line is all these changes you like are a frame of reference now, but they were never complained about during the theatricals runs. I grew up with all 3 OOT movies, and no once did ANYONE complain about the movies being outdated even when they were showing them on SciFi in the early 90's before any changes were made. The bottom line is everytime Lucas makes a change, THEN the SE lovers like yourself proclaim it was a great change and thank god he did that, yet you never said a word about it BEFORE it was changed!

 

Not really. I never really liked that film. If fans want an update that matches 'Oz the Great & the Powerful'', then great! I'm all for it. I very much agree with updating graphics on Sci-Fi and Fantasy films.

I am certain that at least SOME people wanted the Emperor in ESB to match the one in ROTJ. Especially if they noticed the difference. And As for Anakin, he had not even been introduced yet. If I had seen ROTJ for the first time WITHOUT Anakin at the end, and Shaw instead, I would have noticed! Then I would have written it off as a problem of the OT being made first. Another similar case can be made for my favorite trilogy - LOTR. There is now a discrepancy in the prologue of old Bilbo (Ian Holm) finding the ring, but now that we have a full movie of that sequence with a young Bilbo (Martin Freeman), I want them to edit it so that scene shows young Bilbo. Most people don't look at films and think about changes, but they do notice when its changed, and 99% of the time I find it as a change for the better! Up until recently, we didn't even know that old films COULD be changed! Now I can look back and say "great" about a change, but I also look forward. For example: I want Yoda, the Rancor, and all other puppets & claymation taken from the OT & replaced with CGI. I wanted this for TPM Yoda too, and I was lucky to get it!! Another change I want is for all the deleted scenes that we've seen to be reinserted into the film proper, and that's a change I want BOTH for the OT & the PT. When I know something CAN be done, and I think its an improvement, then I want it to be done.

 

You just made my point about the 'SE Fanbase' that you need better special effects for you to enjoy the movie. I hate to break it to you, but my love of the Star Wars films all the way back to 1977 were: 1. Characters 2. Story 3. Drama/Humor 4. Special Effects. If you want great special effects then there are a load of movies like Independence Day and Transformers, which you can leave your brain at the door and can be wowed by all the CGI. Star Wars movies go deeper then that, and there are more to them then just special effects, as they were just gravy back in 1977. The irony is the way you are talking Lucas will need to keep updating these films every 5-10 years for you to still enjoy them, yet I still love the versions that came out in 1977-83 simply because the story and characters are what made them great.

I want to thank you for proving my point all these years regarding the SE Fans vs the OOT crowd, because the eye candy is what is more important to you guys, while the story and characters are what is more important to us. Hopefully Disney lets Lucas update the movies again in 2020 or you'll be calling the Special Editions 'old junk' just like you called the OOT!

 

Unfortunately, Star Wars aren't just any drama. Star Wars is Sci-fi drama. And sci-fi NEEDS special effects! The FX is not MORE important than the story/characters, its is equally as important. If FX was the all in all for me, my favorite films would be (as you mentioned) Transformers or Wrath of the Titans or some other crappy film with tons of FX. Instead, my favorite film series are LOTR, The Matrix, The Dark Knight trilogy, and the Star Wars Saga. All of these have fantastic stories, great characters & acting (except for some of the SW actors, and i mean OT here), AND great FX. If LOTR looked like the old BBC versions of Narnia, I would have watched them once and that's it. If The Matrix looked like Metropolis & the fights were like William Shatner Star Trek, same story. If The Dark Knight looked like the 60s Batman, same story. If Star Wars still looked like it does in the OOT, same freaking story! It is EQUALLY important for a sci-fi or fantasy series to have the look that fits the tale. And another thing - I may be wrong here, but I myself and several of the people I know who have seen the Saga no longer connect to OT characters! So if the characters aren't doing it for us, and the story is incredibly simplistic by today's standards (except ESB), AND the graphics are poor, it no longer a good movie makes. If there had been no PT and no SE, I wouldn't be a Star Wars fan. Its that simple.


I will give you this: If they release a extended edition, with all the deleted scenes from both trilogies back in, and a complete graphical rework of all the puppets/claymation of the OT - THEN I will be fine if it has an extra disc in with the OOT.

 

I am amazed that there are people who don't want the OOT to be released. Baffled. Even if you prefer the altered versions, why would you care if someone else wants to see/own them unaltered? Can't we have both? Does one negate the other?

If they were both on the market, one would not degrade the value and appreciation of the other. In fact, I think it would actually enhance appreciation for Star Wars as a whole.

To me, none of the arguments against an OOT release I've seen here are compelling. They all seem to translate into, "The OOT is flawed, I like the SE's better, no one should see the OOT, my opinion is law."

 

That's a load of crap, because you said your favorite Trilogy of all time is Lord of the Rings, yet you seemed to love it before the Hobbit Trilogy came out? You're saying this now because the PT is out, but all of your beefs about the OOT wouldn't be there if Lucas stopped SW making movies in 1983. If we had this conversation 10 years from now, you would have said, "If it weren't for the Hobbit Trilogy, I wouldn't be a Lord of the Rings fan."

So essentially you don't like any older movies? I can't argue your taste in movies, because it is just an opinion just like mine, but I feel kind of sad for you that you are that obsessed with Special Effects. I think the Nolan Batman movies are great simply because he was the first one who actually understood the Batman character (unlike the 1989-95 movies and the old TV show) and it has more to do with him making a serious movie rather then a cheesy movie/TV show like the others. And I would disagree with you about CGI in the Batman movies, as Nolan was steadfast against using CGI, as I remember in the 2nd movie when the Truck overturns, he said he wanted it to be real and not rely on CGI.

Now I'm not saying you can't use CGI in movies, because sometimes it does enhance the movie: Jurassic Park with some dinosaurs and T2 where the liquid metal terminator is very cool, but as James Cameron said, "You want CGI to enhance a movie, not overtake it."