CT Rumor: Disney to Release Unaltered Old Trilogy on BR

But...meesa is too greedy to settle for not owning them I need my precious...









That, and 2) With no way to have access to a VCR borrowing is pointless.

&3)I'm soon going to be at the other end of the country for what I hope to be a permanent stay. No way I can just borrow and return when a minimum of two flights will separate us.

 

No other franchise does this.....

 

I never imagined I'd be told that I didn't really need to own Star Wars on home video on a Star Wars forum.

(And you may argue differently, but for my purposes at least, the SE is not truly Star Wars.)

 

Words have failed me as well ATMachine. I honestly don't get this fandom at times.
Because we like a different version of the films we have to resort to borrowing them? How is borrowing and owning the same thing?

If I create a movie series and for some reason create multiple SE's (which I wouln't) I will allow everyone an equal chance to buy the version they want.

 

I see Clive Revill is invited to Celebration. Hmmm, could this mean Disney is going to actually acknowledge the OOT again?

But then we can borrow the VHS, so there is no need to ever release the OOT again!

This is the only fandom that does this. Let's see:

Blade Runner: 5 versions of the film are available.
Star Trek TOS: The Blu-Rays have the original effects and the new effects for each ep.
Doctor Who: any classic release that have new effects also has the original version (as a default)
Aliens: Theatrical and SE versions of the movies.

But with Star Wars we have only the SE's and if you are open about liking the OOT, you are attacked, at least on here.

 

Really now? Haven't seen this nearly as much as people who enjoy the SE being attacked. By you, for instance, and rather frequently at that

 

So the Greedo scene was all in service of a movie trilogy that hadn't yet even been conceived as ever existing?

But it's a flaw that's never really addressed in the movies. Being a selfish person doesn't necessarily mean you're willing to actively murder people to come out on top. But Lucas felt that scene made Han come across as a cold-blooded killer. And Han was never made to atone for that act in the later movies, or to even recognize that it was wrong.

 

I disagree with that viewpoint. To me, it also begs the question: did Lucas feel that way in 1976/1977, or anytime prior to the early to mid 90's?

Not that he needed to 'atone' for self-defense, really.

 

They could still add to Han's arc. His story isn't over until he dies. He isn't going to remain static in this trilogy.
Lucas would spin it that way.

 

I rather hope he wouldn't. Instead, I'd far prefer that GL would re-discover his own gift for storytelling, and break out of the rut in which he has trapped himself.

But maybe that's just my foolish side talking. At any rate, we'll see whether JJ is a good steward of the franchise when the movie hits cinemas.

 

Okay, then why do you care that the scene was changed, if it's self-defense either way?

 

Because it was fine the way it was. The change was pointless.

 

I would say even more: that change was worse than pointless. To be precise, it stripped the ruthlessness and cold-bloodedness from Han Solo's character as originally presented in SW 1977.

These are the very qualities that make him an anti-hero of sorts... and which make his moral redemption at the end of the film all the more compelling.

But GL changed the film, so that Han shoots Greedo only after (or even while) being shot at himself. This makes Han much less of an obviously amoral scoundrel in the beginning. Conversely, then, he grows less as a character in the film's ending, and therefore the audience appreciates him less.

Screenwriters like to give movie heroes an "arc" of character development. It's a cliché of writing, but that's because it works. If you ignore the laws of storytelling, you risk greatly displeasing your audience.

Actually, I'd wager that certain changes to a film, if not detrimental to the overall product, would not upset most fans. For instance, I think very few people complained when the wires were digitally removed from the Indiana Jones films as issued on DVD.

But GL's changes to SW were unnecessary because they arguably made the films worse.... and, what's more, fans who are dissatisfied have no official alternative.

 

I grew up with the special editions, but even then I remember something off about the Han and Greedo scene. I don't hate the changes as much as some, but after thinking about it more, I agree that Han shooting first is not something you need to change. Redemption is a important theme in star wars, having Han being a scumbag and even someone you might not like means that when he finally joins the rebels it just makes it more satisfying. But the changed scene makes Han less of a ant-hero type and makes his redemption less satisfying, though again I'm not that bothered by it as others as I grew up with the SE. Besides, I think it was pretty clear that Greedo was planning on shooting Han anyways.

 

But Han never became less ruthless and cold-blooded. He just learned to care about his friends more. But that has nothing to do with whether he's a cold-blooded killer or not. There are plenty of cold-blooded killers out there who have friends and family they'd gladly make sacrifices for. The character development was never there in the first place. It was imagined in the minds of fans.

 

That doesn't make it any less real.

Movies like SW wouldn't exist without an audience to watch them, after all.

 

Han was going to shoot Greedo no matter what. The only change is that Greedo gets off a shot first. If Lucas really wanted Han to be less ruthless, he wouldn't have kept in the close-up of Han pulling his blaster out of the holster.

 

The thing is he doesn't shoot first. He's the only shooter in the original version and it is self defence but as I and other and you yourself have said.

If the scene is completely lifted out of the movie it has no real impact on the rest of the movie. The very point of Lucas changing it seems to me because enough people got the entirely wrong impression that what Han did made him a bad guy and to them it made his transition to a good guy stronger.

Except that it was a product of them totally misreading the scene in the first place. In their minds it like Greedo wasn't pointing a gun and saying he was going to kill him right there but instead he was just going to take him to Jabba and Han shot him when their was no need to.

This is course is not at all the case. The real problem is that "good guys" let the bad guy know that a draw is going to happen. That is more of a bad guy move if Greedo was a Sheriff and Han was being taken in. This of course is not the case. So the scene really wasn't changed at all but merely clarified for those that didn't get it correct in the first place and more importantly for those of a similar mind in future to not get confused.

This is where Lucas' decision to use subtitles came back to bite him because if it had been in the spoken rather than subtitles then the whole thing probably would have been avoided in the first place.

The very fact that people have t-shirts that say Hans Shoots First is mistaken which shows the misreading of the scene for some is so ingrained that they seem to actually think Greedo shot in the original version in the first place!

 

I see your point, and to be honest I never was bothered by that scene anyways. I still think its a unnecessary change. But for me, not a game changing one, I just wanted put my two cents in.

 

I hope that this will become true some day.

 

Except that Lucas himself tried to justify this change by claiming that in the original version Greedo DID shoot first, that people just missed it. He also claimed that they tried to film Greedo shooting first but there was techincal problems. People have questioned the validity of these claims as no version of the script that have this scene have Greedo shooting first or even at all, as you correctly point out. Gary Kurtz also said that they never tried to film Greddo shooting first and if that had been the plan, they could easily have done it.

Lucas said;

This also sounds like PC. Lucas doesn't want the "heroes" to behave too much like bad guys. I know some blaster hits were shortened, presumably to make it less "violent."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/alternateversions?ref_=tt_ql_trv_5

Aagin according to Lucas, the original intent was that Greedo shot first and so Han shooting second was clearly self-defense. Also I don't know what people Lucas have talked to but to me the scene was very clear. Greedo has gun pointed at Han and more or less tells him that he is going to kill him. So Han shooting Greedo was always self-defense. Han knew his life was in danger and he wasn't going to wait for Greedo to make good on his threat.

As for the scene, originally it effected later things. It established that Jabba had put a price on Han's head. It explained a little why Han owed Jabba money and also explained why Han was so eager for money. As for Han's character, he doesn't just shoot Greedo, the entire scene informs us about his character. Han plays it cool and keeps Greedo talking while getting his gun. Once it is clear that Greedo intends harm, Han blows him away without warning. He doesn't kill people for no reason but he isn't above taking advantage of an enemy's carelessness. Plus him tossing a coin to the bartender added to Han's "cool". So it was a good bit of character development.

Now I wonder who you have been talking to? I saw the film back in 1978 and I was eight. I got the scene in one go, it isn't complicated. Greedo has a gun pointed at Han and threatens to kill him. Han has every reason to shoot. I don't know anyone that thinks the way you describe it.

Again, based on what Lucas said at the time, the scene was changed to show that Greedo DID shoot first and Han only shot back after having been shot at. So Lucas reason seemed to be that Han shooting Greedo just because Greedo has a gun and threatens to kill Han isn't enough. That would make Han a bad person and would be immoral.

People had problems with the altered scene, partly because in 97, it didn't look very good.
And for Han to wait until Greedo tries to shoot him before using deadly force would not only be kind of stupid but also doesn't fit Han's character.
They also didn't find Lucas reasons very convincing.

[/QUOTE]

You can add Lucas to the number of people who thinks that Greedo shoot first.

As the scene is now, it doesn't look as bad as before but still not good.
Now Han doesn't wait until he gets shot at, he and Greedo shoot at the same time.
Even if we assume that it doesn't impact Han at all, all it now does it show that Greedo is a terrible shot. Was that really needed? Greedo is a bit stupid for not keeping both of Han's hands above the table. Why make him a lousy shot as well?
So the change is now pretty pointless.
The original version was better.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

The inherent problem there of course is that maybe that did all happen. Between shooting it in England then reshoots in the US then editing it together and the many thousands of decisions that Lucas made on the film we have no way of knowing that he isn't being entirely honest in that.

He wanted the Jabba scene as well but that didn't happen. He wanted lots of things on the first film but they didn't happen and things changed constantly in the edit. So for all we know one version of the scene in the editing process was just like the SE shot but in the end he thought that it didn't work. Obviously many angles were done for that shot with the coverage from both shoots.

As I noted elsewhere there was the original scripted scene, then the revised version that was reshot, then the version in the edit where they dropped some of Greedo's dialogue where it's even more clear he's going to shoot "first" (before Solo gets the drop on him) which was replaced by giving Greedo some of Jabba's dialogue (because that scene was dropped) to using Huttese and subtitles.

I think you can forgive him like anyone else for using the incorrect Han shoots first (meaning Greedo also shoots even when he didn't) I use the correct term just to show how confusing it really is.

The larger point of all of this to me is simply this. For those that imagined it to be some great character point for Han to do with his "cold blooded" attitude the way the scene was shot and put together simply shows it to be what it was meant to be. A variation of the gunslingers of the West. Han is no goody good guy nor is he some really bad guy either. It's not like he shot the Sherriff but just some slimy bounty hunter.

The real confusion comes from the not at all uncommon occurence that ended up happening on the movie. That people broke down every single scene and tried to give some deep complex motivational context to it in a film that wasn't really aiming for that in any deep meaningful way for the most part.

The audiences went wild at coming out of hyperspace. They treated it like some event. To Lucas and his team it wasn't a big deal. The opening was meant to be a big deal, turning on the Lightsaber was a big deal. Dozens of other things which you might care to name simply were not intended to be but became that afterwards.

 

The worst thing about Greedo shooting is it sanitizes the whole thing. It is one step into kiddie-land. In retrospect, it was a portent for kid Anakin and Jar Jar Binks, more kiddie crap added to the movies.

I'm going to get letters for this. Lucas had spent the previous decade raising kids. Kids can be mind-numbing and most kid programing is complete garbage, with the excuse that its only for kids so it doesn't have to be that good. He looked at the film from a parent's eyes and changed it because 50 year old parent Lucas wasn't as cool and edgy as 30 year old Lucas. He altered the scene to play better for kids, so Han is not as grey as he was. Then he exaggerated and said that the scene always had Greedo shooting. The sad thing is he couldn't just put the scene back the way it was, admit he was wrong and end it.

 

The point is that you said that the people that had t-shirts with "Han shot first" and what not, were all basing it on a misreading on how the scene was originally. That Han was the only shooter. My counter is that Lucas said very clearly that BOTH Greedo and Han fired shots and Greedo was the one who shot first.
So their reaction isn't really to how the scene was originally but to Lucas argument.
They didn't imagine Lucas saying "Greedo shot first". They just don't think that makes the scene better.
Lucas argued that Han shooting first would make him a "cold blooded murderer" and "cold blooded murderers" don't become heroes. They disagree with that too.

Also, based on what I've read, the person in the Greedo costume had a prop gun that couldn't fire any blank rounds, which were used for the guns that were supposed to fire. So that speaks against the idea that Greedo was supposed to shoot.

How the scene was originally was to develop Han's character a bit more and to get some backstory out. Who he owed money to, that there was a price on his head etc.
Han's character, based on how he acted, was not unlike a Leone character from say "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." He is no evil villain but he isn't a noble good guy either.
Greedo threatens Han and says he will kill him and Han shoots him before he can make good on his threat. "As Tuco said "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk," Greedo made the mistake of gloating over his victim and paid the price.

When it was first changed, as I've said, some people thought it looked bad and objected for that reason. Also at first, Han didn't shoot until he got shot at and combined with what Lucas said, that shooting first makes you evil. People objected to that too. They argued, correctly in my opinion, that for Han to wait until Greedo actually takes a shot at him before firing back is stupid.

They argued that Han wasn't some noble hero that would never shoot first and always used violence as an absolute last resort. Later in the film Han shoots first in several instances. So people argued that this "change" was not consistent with Han's character.

[/QUOTE]

Again I have to wonder who you have been talking to. I think you overcomplicate matters.
I don't think people wrote whole treaties over Han shooting first or anything like that.
They liked the character. He came across as a cool anti-hero, like something from a Leone film, which Lucas were a big fan of. He is calm under pressure, his throwing a coin to the bartender shows his sardonic and black sense of humor. For Han to not shoot first even when threatened doesn't make much sense. So people didn't like it. Plus it smacked of PC.
Now he and Greedo shot at the same time but all this does is to make Greedo a very lousy shot.
He misses a stationary target about two feet in front of him.

I am kind of reminded of the TV version of "A Fistfull of Dollars." This odd version has a prologue, made by some TV company added to make the Eastwood character more of a good guy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058461/alternateversions?ref_=tt_ql_trv_5
So to sum up, people don't like this change because they think it looks bad, makes Greedo even more incompetent and doesn't do any favors to Han as a character. Plus to me the angle Han shoots at now looks weird. Before we never saw a laser blast, we just heard the sound, a flash and Greedo slumps down dead. Now it looks like Han shoot from under the table, over his leg and at Greedo.
How did Greedo not see the gun? And since Han can't really aim, won't he run the risk of shooting himself in the foot? Before I though that Han shoot under the table and hit Greedo in the stomach. Now it looks like Greedo is hit higher up.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

"Highlander" has. The theatrical versions of the first four films are no longer available on DVD in region one. Since 1996, the European release of the first film has been available as the Director's Cut and since 2000, the theatrical version shown in the US and was available on VHS and Laserdisc, is no longer available. The second film did have both the US theatrical version and the Renegade Version available on VHS since 1994 and then on laserdisc in 1997. The theatrical version was last available on VHS in 2000. Currently, the 2004 revised edition of the Renegade Version which replaced a number of effects shots has been the only version available. The theatrical version of the third film was never released on VHS in the 90's, instead a director's cut was available. In 2004, this cut was altered with a few scenes swapped out from the international theatrical cut and the original US end credits version, rather than the VHS version and has been the only version on DVD. The Producer's Cut of the fourth film has only been available on VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray since 2001, along with an earlier cut of the film and only in region one. Region's two, three and four have the theatrical version included. Not sure what the current status is on the fifth film, but there were two versions out there. Not sure if the first cut that was released in Russia is still available or not.

But yeah, there is at least another franchise that's had that going on.