I just dislike the original white walls, agree that the cgi sucks.Hard disagree - the original matte paintings of Bespin are way better than the ugly 90's cgi.
I just dislike the original white walls, agree that the cgi sucks.Hard disagree - the original matte paintings of Bespin are way better than the ugly 90's cgi.
People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.
These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more 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. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.
In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.
George Lucas, speech to Congress, 1988
I don't mind the changes either. ESB has the least amount of changes/additions and most are fine, like the wampa. It would have been better if there was effort made to make the new material look more like the original rather than it sticking out so obviously.I just dislike the original white walls, agree that the cgi sucks.
Nah, fuck George, release those cuts.
They don't need the original negatives. Fans have restored the OT to 4K resolution using gnarly 35mm reels.Or maybe they don't have the original cut and don't want to admit it? 🤣
Only Han shot.You'll never take my VHS trilogy from me Lucasfilm! YOU CAN PRY IT FROM MY DEAD COLD FINGERS. HAN SHOT FIRST
George Lucas didn't direct Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi though.I mean, there's a difference between a creator making changes to their film and some company swooping in to make changes to someone else's film to censor it or adjust it to their own personal sensibilities, but sure.
Yup, he cops to having seen the despecialized editions and even talks about how there was confusion when writing the script, because people kept referring to different versions of the Emperor/Vader discussion in Empire.In the full version JJ says he was referencing a fan restoration that someone had given him when making Force Awakens.
I don't like this idea of treating these movies like they're the work of one creator. There are a ton of people who worked on those movies to help make them what they were, and acting like George Lucas is the only one that matters is insulting to everybody else who worked on them.I mean, there's a difference between a creator making changes to their film and some company swooping in to make changes to someone else's film to censor it or adjust it to their own personal sensibilities, but sure.
People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.
These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more 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. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.
In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.
George Lucas, speech to Congress, 1988
Fuck George Lucas for being a hypocrite and against film preservation after claiming to be for it.
Exactly. Fuck him.
It's so weird because he let it happen once on DVD and then just...like...stopped agin.I will just never be able to fathom Lucas being such a fucking ass hole that he refuses to let this happen. There is absolutely no good reason to be this stubborn.
My favorite part of this alteration is the shot still would've missed him if they didn't digitally slide his head around.
All this to say nothing of Empire and Jedi, neither of which he directed. Recutting films by dead filmmakers and prohibiting the commercial release of their original work is disgusting.Yeah Lucas truly is a huge hypocrite when it comes to this issue A new hope is preserved in the library of congress the ORIGINAL version.
And his CGI enhacements is also a slap in the face to those that made the effects in the 1977 version which they won an academy award for.
All this to say nothing of Empire and Jedi, neither of which he directed. Recutting films by dead filmmakers and prohibiting the commercial release of their original work is disgusting.
I agree wholeheartedly. It's like...is anyone asking for the Ray Harryhausen stop motion classics to be "remastered" with CGI? Like goddamn, this painstakingly animated stop motion sure looks like shit! It's so dated!At best we will have to wait until George is no longer with us.
In George's mind, respecting his right to add asinine and ugly changes is more important than preserving the work of others. Academy Award winning effects work has simply been erased by these enhanced versions. Story beats in films he didn't even direct have been altered. If he had any respect for the craft he would have made sure to preserve the original versions and present them alongside any new release.
I think it's crazy to compare his stance to someone like Ridley Scott's. I have this baby:Lucas did show the original version of A New Hope recently at an event. Maybe he's calming down about this stuff but I'm not holding my breath.
Lucas' insistence on never releasing the originals was always baffling and shitty, and of course people in this thread are defending it lmao. Fuck that.
typical billionaire attitude: do as i say, not as i do.People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.
These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more 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. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.
In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.
George Lucas, speech to Congress, 1988
That a bunch of dedicated fans can accomplish what Lucasfilm/Disney cannot with 4K scans of the original unaltered trilogy seems almost too outlandish to be true.
Because it's not true. Disney would release the theatricals if they could. They can't. George still doesn't want that to happen, and it almost certainly was part of their sale deal. And it wouldn't surprise me if it was written into his will that it can never happen, although I don't know how well that would stand up in court.
Earlier this year the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences held a special weekend symposium/celebration of classic ILM effects artists and their work. The centerpiece of the weekend was a screening of the Academy's archive copy of the original Star Wars. Lucas threw a fit and and refused to allow it to be shown. It took Kathleen Kennedy and Bob Iger personally arguing with him for months to convince him to let them show it, and only because they were finally able to get across their point that it makes no sense to screen a version of the film that doesn't include most of the special effects the event was supposed to be honoring. Even after that he basically made them swear it would never happen again. He is dead set against the originals ever seeing the light of day again, and nobody really knows why.
Nobody knows why? There is plenty of evidence showing he is utterly unable to accept anyone contradicting him in any way, in a way that is simply abnormal.
I think it's crazy to compare his stance to someone like Ridley Scott's. I have this baby:
Ridley Scott included every version of Blade Runner in this set - from the theatrical to the international to the director's cut. There's 5 versions of this film in this set. It's fascinating history to compare and contrast the different versions and to have them archived and preserved as examples of what went wrong and what went right with the director's vision. They are monuments to the moment in time of their creation, alteration, and restoration. Ridley Scott knew it was important to keep that history there.
But for Star Wars and its genre-defining work?
Edit:
When people ask me which E.T. they should look at, I always tell them to look at the original 1982 E.T. If you notice, when we did put out E.T. we put out two E.T.s. We put out the digitally enhanced version with the additional scenes and for no extra money, in the same package, we put out the original '82 version. I always tell people to go back to the '82 version.
i am not sure that having both versions avaliable is really a disrespect to Geroge
I mean you can armchair psychoanalyze him as much as you want but people are more complex than that. Which is why I phrased it as "nobody really knows why," not "nobody knows why." We speculate, and some of the ideas are probably close to part of the truth, but there's obviously more happening there and George just refuses to get into it publicly.
I think it's crazy to compare his stance to someone like Ridley Scott's. I have this baby:
Ridley Scott included every version of Blade Runner in this set - from the theatrical to the international to the director's cut. There's 5 versions of this film in this set. It's fascinating history to compare and contrast the different versions and to have them archived and preserved as examples of what went wrong and what went right with the director's vision. They are monuments to the moment in time of their creation, alteration, and restoration. Ridley Scott knew it was important to keep that history there.
People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.
These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more 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. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.
In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.
George Lucas, speech to Congress, 1988
It's not like Lucas didn't do it himself ages ago on DVD (even if they were inferior transfers).I have that too and I wish they would allow that for other works as well, because it's the best effort in preserving films in their different iterations. The original SW is part of history so why not just release it in a set along with the 'touch-up' edited versions - seems like it would be a money maker for Disney and LucasFilm.
It's not like Lucas didn't do it himself ages ago on DVD (even if they were inferior transfers).
I can't speak about the original film negatives, but there are 35mm prints preserved for museums and enthusiasts. Prints were purchased for the Despecialized and 4k77 versions.
Another good example is Steven Spielberg.
He basically did a Special Edition of his own, the 20th anniversary release of E.T, which too had shoved in CGI scenes of E.T. and other weird changes like the agent's guns being replaced by walkie-talkies.
The difference is that, at the very least, Spielberg never went out of his way to erase the original, unaltered version of E.T. from history like how George did with the original Star Wars movies. He personally demanded that the DVD release contained both versions of the film. Years later, he admitted that he prefers the original version, and that it's the version that people should watch instead, and that he won't do anymore major modifications to his old movies.
Apparantly the latest re-releases of E.T. on Blu-Ray don't even bother with the 20th anniversary edition anymore, now it's just the original theatrical version.
As pointed out in the interview above, it's just a shame George didn't take a page from one of his known buddies.
At this point right now I think letting movies exist in the era, with all the flaws and all of the flourishes, is a wonderful way to mark time and mark history.
Steven Spielberg: Well, I can't!Quint: I'm in total agreement with you. I wish you could talk George (Lucas) into doing the same thing!
Steven Spielberg: George goes his own way and I respect him for it, but my new philosophy on this is to let sleeping dogs lie.