Saga What is wrong with the SW films being of their era?

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon, Oct 3, 2011.

  1. Heero_Yuy Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 4
    Yet that doesn't change my larger point. If a film needs to be updated to conform to "modern," effects standards or whatever then was the film really timeless to begin with? A movie that is truly timeless will hold up all on its own. Adding CGI to the OT hasn't done anything to make the films seem less dated. In a way, they've done the opposite since that CGI has aged worse than any of the OT's practical effects.
  2. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    I think Star Wars would be timeless if no changes had been made; I don't think Lucas made the changes in order to make the saga more timeless. I think he did it because he saw the opportunity to create some effects that he could not create in 1977. And that being said, I don't think the changes make Star Wars any less timeless.
  3. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    The whole, "He's using modern effects to match up to his original vision because the effects weren't possible before" has been an obsolete explanation for anything since the 1997 SEs.

    I'm not meaning this to get into a debate about the altered vs. unaltered versions, but just to set the record straight.

    There are NO effects added to the DVDs in 2004 or the Blu-Rays in 2011 which were not entirely possible in 1997. Therefore, if George Lucas were trying to match an original vision, he would have included them there. If you don't think that ILM could've added a 2D extension to Jabba's door or used a 2D program to change Han's thawing in 1997, or that they couldn't have changed Obi-Wan's scream to the Sand People, then you should probably go and look at the insane effects work that ILM was regularly doing long before then ('Casper' was just on TV and that was in 1995. 'Dragonheart', 'Jurassic Park', 'Death Becomes Her'.... Yeah, I think Lucas could've added the 2D door for the 2004 DVD.)

    I believe even Lucas himself has abandoned the, "These weren't possible in 1977" and is now saying something like, "An artist is never done with his work." So I don't think that even Lucas is giving that explanation any longer.
  4. PiettsHat Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Interesting points, and I'll make a few of my own in response:

    1. This is really a very minor point, but it's just a pet peeve of mine. However, I just want to point out that neurons, unlike many other cells of the body, do not undergo cell division. According to Wikipedia, " In humans, neurogenesis largely ceases during adulthood?only for two brain areas, the hippocampus and olfactory bulb, is there strong evidence for generation of substantial numbers of new neurons." I still see your point, just thought I'd throw that out there. I get that you're talking about life experience though.

    But, more generally, I think many people share your opinion, and understandably. My issue with it is that I find it's too selectively applied. Where is the controversy over JRR Tolkien's changes to The Hobbit for one? I bring this point up a lot, but that's because I have often spoken to huge fans of Tolkien who have read his books multiple times, and even they were not aware of the changes. Nor is the original version of the Hobbit's text widely printed anymore.

    If you want to look at another artist who revised his work, though, look no further than William Shakespeare and his most famous plays. The 1608 Quarto 1 text of the play King Lear (written in 1606) contains about 300 line that do not appear in the 1623 folia text (over a decade later). And the folio contains about 100 additional lines of new material. It has been argued, by Shakespeare scholars Michael Warren, Garry Taylor, Steven Urkowitz, and Stanley Wells that Shakespeare made the revisions to the first edition himself for artistic reasons. These changes are huge, in fact, and intensify Lear as the major figure of attention, emotion, and performance. And this was done with very strategic and considered goals in mind by Shakespeare. More than that, moral commentary, speaking parts, and the movement of the play were greatly altered. Some of these minor speaking parts were even wholly removed.

    Source: Shakespeare performed: essays in honor of R.A. Foakes By Grace Ioppolo, R. A. Foakes, page 181 and A Companion to Shakespeare's Sonnets By Michael Schoenfeldt page 148

    Lucas has made significantly fewer changes to the OT, and they have not nearly as profoundly affected the films. Yet he is lambasted as though he is unique in this regard, as though it is a crime against cinema. But what about others? I never hear people question that Shakespeare did not have the right to alter his plays and the man is still considered one of (if not the single) greatest writers of the English language. Note the similarities as well with Lucas and Shakespeare: both utilized actors, had people employed who developed the props and stages, and even had others direct their plays. Yet, I would argue few would see these facts as denying Shakespeare authorship over his plays and the right to
  5. YodaDooDahDay Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2010
    star 3
    As always, PiettsHat, spot on and informative. =D= Your examples of Tolkien and Shakespeare are terrific reminders that Lucas is simply doing what countless artists before him throughout history have done. And if he wants to present one particular version of his work over another, that's his right, legally and morally.

  6. anakinfansince1983 Nightsister of Four Realms

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 9
    I was referring to the 1997 SEs, and I have no problem with the concept of an artist never being done with his work. Does not make Star Wars less timeless either way.
  7. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    Thanks for the history, PiettsHat.

    I think that everybody would stipulate that many artists and moviemakers change their works all the time. There are the examples you have and then most of us know of different versions of novels in high school literature - like how Charles Dickens or Jack London would alter their serially published stories when they made them into novels. Musicians change their music every concert - sometimes unintentionally, but sometimes very intentionally to experiment or just give themselves variations.

    But that doesn't mean everybody thought it was great. Aldous Huxley wrote a long intro to 'Brave New World' decades later where he basically rattled off how wrong many of his predictions were and how he felt stupid for not foreseeing nuclear power....but that it would be childish and stupid to go back and alter it. (http://books.google.com/books?id=3h9eNAyQWzAC&lpg=PP1&dq=brave%20new%20world%20revisited&pg=PA5#v=onepage&q&f=false)

    It's funny, but Steven Spielberg had, I think, the modern era's first major "Special Edition" with 'Close Encounters', and virtually every review from back then (a) preferred the original version and (b) expressed uneasiness with the idea of re-writing a new ending. So that was a sign of things to come.

    And when James Cameron made the special editions of his movies, he was adamant about not altering existing footage (he did tweak two glaring effects errors for the Blu-Ray of 'Aliens' though: a wire-removal and a dummy floor gag). He wrote a long and detailed explanation of his thoughts and feelings of special editions in the 1993 laserdisc for 'The Abyss: Special Edition'. (George Lucas gave the middle finger to Cameron's ideals a few years later, but hey, Cameron can always brag that his last two movies have completely destroyed Lucas's biggest hits at the box office.)

    Still, the averse reaction to 'Close Encounters' and Cameron's thoughts that revising old movies is lazy and narcissistic are the exception. I'll definitely stipulate that director's cuts/special editions weren't really too big a deal until the 'Star Wars' special edition.

    What's the difference? I don't know....and I sure as hell can't speak for anybody else!

    From my point of view, I don't remember having any issues with the SEs when they were released in 1997 (except Luke's yell at the end of ESB, but that was taken out, anyway). I don't think I was bothered by the DVD changes, either (and liked the new Emperor a lot). Yeah, I think the effects on the Blu-Ray are hilariously bad (I'm self-taught in 3D modeling and animation....and I could literally do a better job then they did on most of that with a budget of $0), but I don't care.

    I mean....what are we, children? We all know how to get whatever version of SW we want, for free, any time we want.

    I prefer Adywan's ANH, without a doubt. That's a Special Edition.

    So I guess, for me personally - and I don't speak for any of the other millions of SW fans, obviously - the only real problem is the lies and artistic posturing LFL has made about the recent SEs. I don't believe for one second that Lucas had an "original vision", I don't believe that money isn't the biggest factor in these alterations (he did release the O-OT on DVD and, according to Van Ling, they flopped; otherwise I'm positive they'd be on Blu-Ray), I don't believe that this 60-something old man could even POSSIBLY have the same emotional and intellectual sensibilities as the 30-something young man who made the OT, and, heck, I don't even think that the alterations are even "artistic" at all. Most of the SE changes are designed to retrofit it to the PT, like Lucas is still trying to dupe people into believing that he conceived it all as the "Tragedy of Darth Vader" and all this.

    So, for me, I'm not really bothered by the SEs, and think some of the stuff is cool. I'm just bothered by all the phoniness surrounding it. I don't like lies, and I'm sure as hell not going to indulge the lies of some mega-corporation like some effeminate corporate toadie.
  8. PiettsHat Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I certainly agree with you on some points DBrennan3333-- there are definitely artists whose changes to their have been more widely accepted and appreciated while others have had mixed response or outright derision. Where I find the issue contentious, however, is that people seem to argue that artistic alterations are justified based on how they are received by the public which is a rather poor way of judging merit, in my opinion, if only because there are such a diverse range of opinions that I feel it's foolhardy to try to cater to them all.

    You mentioned Steven Spielberg's changes to Close Encounters and, although many people may have preferred the original version and been uneasy with the changes, I still don't see why it's necessarily a negative that Spielberg altered his film. I suppose my question is whether the public has any right to dictate to an artist how they should relate to their work. Should that artist be confined to what he or she has established? I don't think so, personally. I'm often reminded of Lois McMaster Bujold's statement that "the author reserves the right to have better idea." Overall, I find the idea that people should be confined by their art and the parameters that have been set to be a rather paradoxical system. It seems to go against the very idea of art itself.

    I'll admit, I don't see much point in insisting that everything was planned out ahead of time. A master plan is certainly a sign of dedication to a project, but there's nothing wrong with building a world on the fly. Sometimes ideas work out, and sometimes they don't -- I doubt many people can come up with brilliant ideas at request. My belief, unsubstantiated mind you, is that Lucas and artists who maintain that they've always had their grand vision since day one probably feel they need to insist that they've known all along because, otherwise, they fear their work won't be taken seriously. From my perspective, though, there's nothing wrong with taking a while for your vision to come into focus. Sometimes you need that experience to gain a better understanding of what message you want to leave behind.

    Your view of the alterations to the SE seems a bit cynical, in my opinion, though. I agree that some of the changes are likely made to fit into the continuity of "the Tragedy of Darth Vader" but I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. And I doubt that Lucas is trying to dupe anybody. Just like Shakespeare tweaked Lear to make its title character by more of a focal point within the play, I think Lucas is doing something similar with the Saga so that "the Tragedy of Darth Vader" runs parallel to "the Adventures of Luke Skywalker." You mileage may vary, though, I suppose.

    For my part, I sometimes disregard what Lucas says simply because the text (or work) is the ultimate authority on what themes are stated. And at th
  9. Rowboatcop Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 11, 2011
    star 1
    I think we've got a few separate issues going here (such as Lucas' rights to do something) which don't really address the question in the title. Why is all this BETTER than leaving it alone and letting it be an honest representation of filmmaking in the 70s. Why is consistency and thread-connecting considered more valuable than that? I've yet to hear an answer that makes any sense to me.
  10. StampidHD280pro Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2005
    star 4
    One word: Dewbacks.
  11. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    The question could easily be flipped around: does an "artist" have the right to dictate to the audience how they should relate to his work? Should the audience be confined to what the artist has established? I don't think so, personally. (And, oh yeah, then there's Lucas's ever-changing explanations about what 'Star Wars' is. See: Secret History of Star Wars.)

    And, not to be repetitive, but I think it's bogus on its face to claim that 67 year-old George Lucas is the same person as 32 year-old George Lucas. It's like if I went back and modified my high school essays and said, "See! This is my vision!" No....that's the vision of 31 year-old David. The vision of 15 year-old David was something else. I can't retroactively claim to speak for that version of me. There is a statute of limitations. Lucas is an old man now. Old men are different then young (or 30-something) men, and the old man doesn't speak for the young man - no matter what the old man claims. In professional sports, you're forced to retire and confess, "I'm not the same man I was at 28". The changes to your person are exposed. Whereas in media, you have intellectual property rights and other legal concoctions to essentially say, "This is yours and your right in perpetuity." It'd be like if athletes were given tenure on their sports teams and told, "You're the same your whole life!" when that's obviously B.S.

    (And I'm sure we all understand that, as hilariously obsolete and worthless American intellectual property rights are in the digital age, an artist does, technically, "own" his work. But, of course, we're not fools and we can all get all the Star Wars we want, for free, any time we want, and this is how it will be forever. So when we talk about how the different versions of SW, all we're really talking about are legal practices, not practical reality.)

    You can't say, "These are George's intentions". They're not....they're OLD George Lucas
  12. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    I believe that what LFL is seeking is brand consistency. They want complete continuity across their brand line, particularly concerning the movies, which are the foundation on which the whole rest of the brand is constructed.

    Therefore, evidence that the movie was made in the 1970's is done away with new effects and (much more substantially, I believe) extensive DNR and color-timing. Evidence that it was not all a "master plan" of George Lucas is shunned, even the author of 'The Making of Empire Strikes Back' has to qualify and be political when asked point-blank whether Father Skywalker was originally Darth Vader. Ideas that are politically incorrect in modern America - an alliance of "Rebels" overthrowing an "Empire" - reads too subversive in modern America (2001 and on), and so TCW comes along and it makes 'Star Wars' politically correct by re-writing the Clone Wars and changing the Clone Troopers from Nazis (Lucas's original inspiration in the AOTC designs) and turning them into 'Saving Private Ryan'-esque manly American saviors.

    So, I don't think that the issue is with the movie being evocative of a bygone cultural era. I think the issue is the movie being made to fit in with the modern Star Wars brand, no matter what. And dropping that tactile, raw edge to the OT is a consequence of the brand consistency, not the cause of it. That's my opinion.
  13. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    To add to my point that it's brand consistency that's being sought and so the covering-up of the original material is just collateral damage of that, note that even the PT has been SEVERELY affected by LFL's attempt to shoehorn an aesthetic consistency between the movies.

    I see some talk about DNR on the OT, but has there been much talk about the DNR on TPM? For me, it went from the crispest, most vibrant, best-looking prequel (by far) to a SyFy network made-for-TV movie. Look at Qui-Gon's close-ups for the most obvious examples (because of his facial hair and wrinkled face):

    [image=http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/2706/quigonwax.png]

    This is done in spite of the fact that the whole movie was scanned digitally for the initial theatrical print! Why do you need to do DNR when you already had a digital master? This is doubling-down on the DNR, essentially. Absolutely hideous looking. It's clear from looking at the Gungans and Watto that this is indeed the case: the entire movie, even the natively digital elements, went through another pass of DNR. This takes image data OUT of the picture, not adds to it. The "crispness" is an optical illusion.

    Yeah, this is Lucas's "original vision". He just wanted to mess with everybody for 12 years before revealing it.

    [image=http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2599/davidbn.png]

    NOTE: For those unfamiliar with DNR, I refer you to
    1. This article: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris062408.html
    2. This fan rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ5i78Ihmi4
    3. These epic pics from the DNR "enhanced" Predator Blu-Ray:
    http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/wp-content/images/predator_ultimate_pics/predator_7.jpg?9d7bd4
    http://www.darkrealmfox.com/film_reviews/wp-content/images/predator_ultimate_pics/predator_5.jpg?9d7bd4
  14. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    (NOTE TO MODS: I moved my above post to the Blu-Ray thread, although it still has some relevance here.)
  15. PiettsHat Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    For me, you point is a non-sequitur because one cannot force the audience to react in a particular way. An artist can only attempt to paint his point as clearly as possible when he releases it to the public. But two people can look at the exact same pieces of art and come to completely opposite conclusions. Case in point: I've heard people on this site express the opinion that they felt Anakin, in ROTS, deserved everything he got and enjoyed watching him burn. It's a legitimate opinion, but it's the complete opposite of another opinion, such as that of Dr. Athena Andreadis who states:

    "After Revenge of the Sith, I can't look at the praying-mantis mask of Vader without superimposing the haunted eyes of the boy entombed within that carapace, still smoking with need and loss. I cannot watch the films without recalling how his mentors tormented and betrayed him, turned his humanity against him, leading him to wreak terrible ruin in his turn."

    So there is this facet to take into account: that Lucas's vision, no matter what he does, will always be subject to interpretation. Which is why laying out as precisely as he can is so important -- it transmits what he is trying to say most clearly but it can never truly dissipate alternate explanations and reactions.

    My reasoning for why the audience has no right to dictate to the artist is simple -- it is not their name attached to this work. The ideas behind it, the themes being represented, the story being told are not attributed to the audience. They do not reflect a contribution by the audience and will therefore, not be tied to any of us and our names in the future. The themes/motifs of Star Wars, however, will be tied to George Lucas for as long as the movies persist in public memory. I feel, personally, that it would be rather terrible for ideas/notions that he does not support to be attributed to him because he could not concretely and exactly, lay out his final message. Yes, it's subject to interpretation, but as long as the intended message is contained within the work, there exists the possibility that it will be interpreted as such, and so the artist's name can defended. Even while the art itself can cause contention.

    As for The Secret History of Star Wars, let me just say that while I admire the effort and time the author invested into compiling the book, I take its claims with a grain of salt. This isn't intended to be bash, but I think it's worth noting that all secondary sources are subject to the unconscious bias of the author. That's why I have been attempting, lately, to go back to primary sources. I don't have the time right now, but in about two months, I should have some free time when I intend to begin tracking down and reading for myself the primary sources documented in that book. This is based off a disagreement I had with the author of the book's interpretation of Lucas's 1988 speech concerning the Berne convention. I found that the omittance of several of Lucas's statements from the original text of the speech drastically altered the meaning of the speech. The phrase of interest, in particular, is located in my signature.

  16. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    You were complaining about "secondary sources" used for 'Secret History of Star Wars'. The ideas in the version I read was 100% based on direct quotes from the participants themselves. So maybe we read different drafts or something - I read the 3rd draft that was free online. I don't know what you might've read.

    Anyway, even if "secondary sources" were supposedly used, that should just make it easy to debunk the whole thing: YOU could site primary sources of Lucas, for instance, saying SW is the Tragedy of Darth Vader back in 1977. If you wanna continue this discussion, you can post in the SHoSW thread. But I'm gonna continue to cite SHoSW. Sorry that you think it's bogus.

    You were then saying something about how Lucas is "laying out as precisely as he can is so important" his "artistic vision" (I love that one!) If Old George Lucas's three-plus different "visions" of each movie is considered "precise" to you, then I think we just have different vocabularies and so we probably need an interpreter or something.

    You then said that old and fat 67 year-old George Lucas is the same as lean and young 32 year-old George Lucas. I disagree. I think this is a silly claim on its face, but the evidence is in the fact that Old George Lucas is constantly altering the works of Young George Lucas, when Young George Lucas could easily have had those items in his own movie.

    Funnily, after saying that 'Secret History of Star Wars' is worthless because of its (non-existent) dependance on "secondary sources"....you then cited a REAL secondary source to accuse James Cameron of plagiarism. You're obviously not knowledgeable about James Cameron or the Harlan Ellison settlement, and your reverence for the mainstream media didn't do you any good.

    (1) Harlan Ellison's claim was about Terminator 1, not T2. So you're off to a bad start.
    (2) There was one story Harlan Ellison claimed was plagiarized, and that was an episode of the Outer Limits called 'Soldier' (the short story wasn't a factor). QUOTE FROM ELLISON: ?'Terminator' was not stolen from 'Demon with a Glass Hand,' it was a ripoff of my OTHER Outer Limits script, 'Soldier.'?
    (3) The similarities between 'Soldier' and T1 were, by Ellison's own account, limited to the first "3 minutes" of each respective story: a soldier from the future lands in a present-day alley. That's it.
    (4) Cameron didn't fight it because he had told a reporter how much he liked Harlan Ellison's works....along with Isaac Asimov's, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, AE Van Vogt, and many others. That "incriminating" statement would've been enough for a Hollywood jury.
    (5) By any sane measure, the similarities SW has to King Arthur or 'The Hidden Fortress' are 10x more substantial than the trivial similarities between 'The Terminator' and Soldier.
    (6) I still don't know why you brought this up.
    (7) You keep using the word "artist" and "vision". While George Lucas isn't an artist, James Cameron definitely is: http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff154/robhumanick/SPECIALS/TerminatorPainting.jpg

    Anyway, you keep turning to abstract, philosophical claims about "artistic vision" or whatever. Those kinds of flowery terms are highly subjective and so you can't really make much headway in the growth of solid, concrete ideas with them. The bottom line, as far as I can tell, is that you think that George Lucas is somehow the same dude he was now when he was 32. I think that everybody changes a ton over a 35 year span. You claim that the SEs are all about (here we go again) "artistic vision" when I've cited numerous concrete facts and solid ideas to firmly demonstrate that that's definitely not true, and that the probable motive for most of this is something along the lines of brand consistency for the Star Wars media brand.

    That's as far as I think we can go with this, since most everything in your last post was either foggy subjective stuff that can't possibly be proven or disproved or else and the few solid, material statements you made were incorrect.
  17. Ten_Mills Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 31, 2009
    [face_pumpkin] ]-} :oops: [face_plain] [face_tired] :) [face_worried] :eek: [face_skull] @};- [face_blush] :_| o_O :rolleyes: [face_peace] [face_mischief] :mad: :p [face_alien_1] [face_talk_hand] [face_whistling] [face_shame_on_you] [face_devil] [face_flag] [face_laugh] [face_liarliar] [face_good_luck] ;) =D= [face_cow] [face_clown] [face_chicken] [face_praying] [face_hypnotized] :confused: [face_thinking] :-B :* [face_batting] :D [face_frustrated] :( [face_idea] [face_money_eyes] [face_love] [face_cowboy] [face_shhh] [face_sick] [face_monkey] [face_not_talking] O:) [face_dancing] [face_beatup] [face_pig] =P~ I-) 8-} [face_coffee] [:D] :cool:
  18. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    Are all those contradicting smileys, like, a cry for help from an affliction of schizophrenia?

    I meant "artist" as in an illustrator - Cameron's a first-rate painter and sketch artist. The only reason I brought up Cameron was to quote his logical opinions and self-imposed rules on special editions, not to start comparing him to Lucas. I just did that as a dig to the ignorant "Cameron plagiarized Harlan Ellison" statement.
  19. ezekiel22x Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 5
    I guess someone forget to tell Lucas that the Special Edition Doctrine to be followed by all people for all times was laid out in an Abyss laserdisc special feature.

    And for a guy who apparently has little patience for the mainstream media and rampant corporatism, seems weird to resort to a "Avatar made more money!" snark attack.
  20. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    Since you apparently didn't read it the first time around:

    JAMES CAMERON (1993): "I created my own ground rules for the restoration." (Emphasis added.)

    So you're making up quotes here, basically arguing with yourself. Have a good time with that.

    But I'm sure Lucas knew about Cameron's personal opinions about Special Editions. But by 1997, Old George Lucas (no relation to Young George Lucas) wasn't capable of making blockbusters anymore, so he had to suck off the teat of his younger self. Where else was he gonna get money?

    You forgot about 'Titanic', also.

    Don't have any clue what relevance that has to the mainstream media, though. (Actually, 'Star Wars' and 'Avatar' are both largely independent movies, as 'Avatar' was financed at least 60% by private equity firms. So that's yet another layer of detachment from media conglomerates.)
  21. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    Here again are the logical personal opinions of James Cameron regarding movie Special Editions. Most of this preceded the SW Special Editions: he was primarily talking about 'Close Encounters' and his own special editions.

    Cameron's ideas are apparently horribly offensive to some people here, whereas I think they're very cool.

  22. ezekiel22x Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 5
    Wasn't really arguing. Just pointing out the weirdness of saying Lucas gave "the middle finger" to Cameron's ideals, which suggests he consciously acknowledged or was supposed to consciously study and acknowledge Cameron's ideals in the first place. Your choice of language suggests that Cameron's way wasn't just a personal ideal, but one that should be implemented across the film release board. If you do a SE of your post in the future, I suggest excising the "middle finger" line and simply saying that Lucas's personal SE ideals differ from Cameron's.

    And Star Wars and Avatar both fall under the News Corporation umbrella in terms of their distributor, so about that mainstream media connection...

    But mostly my point in bringing that up is that (again) it reads weird to have a poster be critical of Lucas's emphasis on money and profit (SE changes were 99% done for money, I believe you said, elsewhere you railed against "effeminate corporate cronies"), only to throw in a random "Avatar made more money, so take that, Lucas" swipe. Way to speak out against the emphasis of money and profit... by emphasizing money and profit.
  23. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    Oh, so that's what you meant! You were referring to a single, sarcastic line in a whole long post. I shoulda known.

    And if you inferred a greater intelligence from Cameron's quotes, that's your own personal sense. Don't claim to speak for me and what I might've subliminally and secretly "suggested".

    Whoa, snap! You sound like you know a lot about the movie business! (And you really nailed me with the ellipsis at the end of your statement!)

    First off, I don't know what a "crony" is. I said, "effeminate corporate toady".

    Second off, the reason I mocked Lucasfilm for being transparently greedy was because it disproved their publicly-stated motive, "George Lucas's 'original vision.'" I don't have much of a problem with them screwing over some hording suckers who don't know they're being taken for a ride or don't have the discipline to stop. I do have a problem with them lying about it. I was just offering the fact that Cameron's movies obliterated Lucas's movies to show that Cameron actually has some dignity and sincerity in how he goes about his special editions....and he still destroys Lucas. (In fact, in box office receipts alone, 'Avatar' brought in three times as much revenue as the entire Lucasfilm corporation averages, using the NY Times $1 billion figure.)
  24. PiettsHat Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    Yes, The Secret History of Star Wars uses quotes from its cited sources, but sometimes, with the loss of context, those quotes can lose their meaning. I base this off the fact that the author of TSHOSW has an excerpt from Lucas's 1988 speech about the Berne Convention on his website. He maintains that in the speech, George Lucas is arguing that films must be preserved in their original form. Having read the original speech in its entirety, I came away with an opposite interpretation. It seemed to me that Lucas was arguing for the moral rights of artists, that they are the only ones who have the rights to change their work. I took issue with the author of TSHOSW because the version listed on his website omitted quotes that, I felt, significantly altered the meaning of the speech. That's all.

    I've never argued that Lucas saw the saga as "the Tragedy of Darth Vader" since its inception. That's not my point. My point was simply that I see nothing inherently wrong or artistically incongruent with having an evolving vision of your work and striving towards that goal. What I was trying to get at was that Star Wars is going to be Lucas's legacy and so he has every right, I feel, to have it reflect the messages he is trying to leave behind to future generations.

    And yes, I claimed that 67-year old George Lucas is the same person as 32-year old George Lucas. Because they are. They are separated by decades of experience, to be sure, but 67-year old George Lucas still has the same memories as 32 year old George Lucas, still has the same experiences and influences, still has the same DNA. Sometimes people change their minds as they grow older, or want to expand on a concept they laid down earlier. I fail to see what is so terribly problematic with this notion.

  25. DBrennan3333 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2004
    star 4
    First off, no, Old George Lucas doesn't have the same DNA as Young George Lucas. Your DNA corrodes over time as the protective caps on the end of chromosones, called telomeres, degrade with each subsequent generation, which makes the DNA itself vulnerable to decay. If Old George Lucas were the same as Young George Lucas, they wouldn't LOOK like two totally different people and, of course, ACT like two totally different people. For that matter, are you saying that George Lucas is the same person now he was an infant? Or what about - Egads! - a fetus! The DNA is formulated at the instant of conception.

    So by any practical definition of identity - not a legal definition - a person isn't merely their DNA.

    Second off, there's more to a human than just the DNA: there are the hormonal molecules all over the body. These change by the day, and definitely with age.

    So when people say Lucas "owns" Star Wars, they're talking about a legal construct, not that he is the same person.