CT Why restore one Biggs scene, but not the other?

All this fuss over Biggs, but what about Tank? At least Darklighter’s story had a conclusion. Tank is just out there somewhere in the ether, forgotten.

Anyway The Hidden Fortress is the reason why the earlier scenes with Biggs were excised from the final cut. The Oscar winning editing team may done a stellar job with trimming the fat in order to improve pacing and plot cohesion, but the aforementioned scenes were punted due to Lucas’ desire for the narrative structure to be in the same mould as Kurosawa’s 1958 yarn.

 

I'm pretty sure there's some EU material (either canon or Legends) that elaborate on him. I'm too lazy to look it up, though.
As for removing the reference to Ani in the hangar scene, I don't see how it would harm anything in terms of continuity. I doubt that Ani only fought alongside Jedi and Clonetroopers in the war. There had to be others involved. Just having Red Leader be one of them and have good memories of Ani's skill doesn't cause a problem. And I figure, to the galaxy at large, Ani is pretty much missing, presumed dead after Order 66, so he could still be looked upon as a hero by the Alliance. In the fan fiction I'll never get around to writing, we learn that one of the charges the Empire leveled on Kenobi is Ani's murder.
Sorry, digressing there...

 

There is no nuance in hypocrisy. When he made his plea to the Senate in 1988 he referenced the Berne convention, which protects artists' works - he then also noted that in future “...advanced technology will be able to replace actors with ‘fresher faces, or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match.” So he wasn't just talking about the rights of the Director. He was advocating for the rights of the artists involved. Why is it ok for him to change an actor for a 'fresher face' or alter dialogue?

It is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

 

I can't speak for the entire situation, but Lucasfilm did get the permission of the Cushing estate before doing the CGI Tarkin for "Rogue One", and, since Carrie Fisher was specifically thanked in that movie's credits, she must've also given permission for the CGI Leia. I guess it's a question of whether a studio/company can do this sort of thing on their own whenever they feel like it, or if they need to seek out clearances from any actors/artists involved. I'm not going to try to sort that out further.

 

First of all, I don't hate things. Second of all - again - I do not care. About any of the things you just said. Not one tiny bit. It is meaningless.

Okay, that's not completely true. I do care in the sense that I really think all awards of that type should be done away with. They have no place in the world of art.

 

There is. Lucas didn't want Turner, an outsider, making changes to the work of the directors who had no say in coloring classic films. Recently he spoke out when Disney was in fight regarding the Disney board of directors. He again spoke out against outsiders running the studio and the parks.

He never said that the filmmakers couldn't make changes and decide the fates of their films.

 

Considering the state Disney is in now, they really do need a shake up on the board

 

Better to come from people who know the industry than outsiders who would do a terrible.

 

Then his argument went way beyond what he allegedly wanted (as far as your argument goes). As I said above, he was talking about protecting the work of artists - using the example of an actor's face being over-written (so, beyond simply the Director) - and was referencing the Berne Convention, which is in place to protect all artists works and their rights to it. he also argued that films were records of their time and place, that the original films should be held for the purpose of having them viewed within that context. he also argued that films belong in some way to the public, as artefacts of American culture (see my previous point about context).

There is no conceivable argument that a film is the work of one artist.

As I have said before, I have no issue with Lucas making changes to the movies, what I have an issue with is his making those changes AND at the same time refusing to submit the original films in their original form to the film library and worse, to aggressively assure that no prints of the original movie continue to exist - which is completely hypocritical given the arguments he made to the Senate. There is no nuance in hypocrisy.

 

OK, the idea of him preferring the later revised versions of the OT and making them the most publicly-available versions is something I can understand. But the idea that he's trying to make sure any copies of the Original OT cease to exist in any form and make them forever unavailable doesn't make sense to me. For one thing, when the OT were voted into the National Film Registry, which is dedicated to the preservation of films in their unaltered form, the Library of Congress would've raised both Hell and Cain if Lucasfilm submitted the newest SE versions rather than good copies of the original versions. And saying that they're just "unavailable" would cause a fuss over how shoddy Lucasfilm would look in terms of preserving its own material.
So far as I know, the only bit of "Star Wars" material Lucas has gone on record as wanting to utterly remove from history is "The Star Wars Holiday Special".

 

So you're saying Lucas submitted the originals? When was this?

 

I would assume when each of the movies were voted in: 1989, 2010 and 2021.

 

You assume too much. This is a response from Library of Congress librarian Zoran Sinobad to a request for information:

"While both STAR WARS (1977) and THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980) are on the National Film Registry, the Library has not yet acquired new prints of either one. When the request was made for STAR WARS, Lucasfilm offered us the Special Edition version. The offer was declined as this was obviously not the version that had been selected for the Registry. We have not yet requested a print of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, added to the Registry late last year...."

As you say, it's odd that there isn't more of a stink being made about this, but the National Film Registry doesn't actually have any legal powers to enforce their requests, most studios simply have - except Lucasfilm.

I get that it's difficult to see ill in someone you've probably looked up to for years, but go take a look. We're not making this stuff up (simply google star wars and National Film Registry, there's plenty to go on there..)

 

Zoran Sinobad, what a cool name.

 

You assume too much, as well. I'm not reeling in shock over the information you've provided. I'm somewhat surprised that a bigger fuss hasn't been made over this. Has anyone asked a Lucasfilm rep, or even Lucas himself, for their side of the story? If what you report is accurate, I'd like to hear their explanation. In addition, since the property is currently owned by Disney, has a Disney rep made a statement regarding this? And I would assume some bigwigs from the entertainment industry might've called Lucasfilm out on this, should your information be accurate.
Basically, I'm not about to suddenly start leveling all sorts of accusations against Lucas and start adding to the metric ton of YouTube videos demanding that the heads of everyone in charge at Lucasfilm be figuratively displayed on Traitor's Gate. But I think I will make my own enquiries over the situation.

 

Just to point out, once again - because here we go with the usual strawmen - I don't demand anybody's head. I don't hate anyone or want anyone's blood. Nobody has hurt me. I simply believe Lucas is a hypocrite, and that that hypocrisy is derived from a sense of entitlement and ego.

 

If I've mischaracterized your intention, I apologize. I just see shots of videos posted on YouTube that are openly hostile (the ones usually titled with some variation of "STAR WARS IS DEAD FOREVER!!!") with astonishing frequency, and I suppose that gets to be my reflexive reaction. I'm not out to demonize anyone, either, be they made of straw or some other substance. I'd just rather look into it myself and see what I can run across.
On the other hand, I've gotten a real kick out of the stuff from "UK Cinema Retro Trailer Reels". Good stuff, but those safety PSAs take no prisoners.

 

I never felt the scene itself was that good and does cast Luke as a little too "stay at home" but as you say I think it would also have cut into the sense of isolation we get around Luke's life. Keeping Biggs as someone Luke knows but we don't see unlike latter in the film I think retains much more of that, Luke does have friends but he's not seeing them all that often.

 

The YouTube grifiters have to gift. They are the ones that I refer to when I say fans are the worst thing to happen to fandom. Take "X-Men 97", for example. They were saying that the ratings were terrible and then when they were released, they refused to mea culpa and shifted the argument.

 

Here's an update re: the question of the OT and the National Film Registry. Last week, I sent an email to Lucasfilm Public Relations asking about it. I sent it from my work account, since I thought they might respond faster to a Sr. Library Assistant (which I am) asking a reference question (which I was). No response as yet.
And at last night's "The Mads are Back" on-line show, their guest for the post-movie Q&A was Bonnie Burton, who worked for Lucasfilm on "Star Wars Insider" magazine and starwars.com. I submitted a question about the National Film Registry, asking if she knew anything about it. She said she'd never heard that particular story before, but she doubted it. She also said that the idea that the original negatives of the OT had been tossed was also doubtful, since she knew Lucas was a big saver of materials (including stuff from "Howard the Duck").
By the way, the Q&A lasted over an hour, and she, Trace, Frank & Chris had a really interesting, largely "Star Wars"-centered conversation, ranging from the Holiday Special to the ST to Lucas nearly filming "Apocalypse Now" to Disney cleaning house after the sale. And the story about the mice at the Presidio is really worth hearing.