If only he could have retired BEFORE he raped the Star Wars franchise...
George Lucas is retiring.
- Thread starter Aspiring Mogul
- Start date
Do not waste your money on this re-release. The 3D post-conversion is crap (as are all 2D->3D conversions), and has absolutely no impact on the film. Plus, for me at least, after having not seen the film in so many years, it's considerably worse than I remember. If you're really itching to see some "Star Wars" on the big screen, perhaps you might be able to find a 2D showing in your city (my local theater has exactly one 2D screening scheduled).
I'm not going to bother with the 3-D version - I want the old versions back.
George Lucas seems pretty defensive in this interview.
George Lucas seems pretty defensive in this interview.
Defensive? Maybe, but he's not wrong:
...yes, yes, I know...
His basic point is that the movie, fundamentally, hasn't changed, and that the plot changes (greedo shooting first and...well, what else changed the plot?) just clarify his original intent. Fair enough. If the question is really the availability of the original cuts, well, I know they're out of print, but I saw them in a used dvd shop Tuesday evening. They're not that hard to find. As someone who buys as many books and cds as I do dvds, stuff goes out of print all the time.
All that said, if they did what they did with the SE dvds (include the theatrical cuts as a bonus), even if it's the same laserdisc transfer, I'm sure they'd sell a ton.
...yes, yes, I know...
His basic point is that the movie, fundamentally, hasn't changed, and that the plot changes (greedo shooting first and...well, what else changed the plot?) just clarify his original intent. Fair enough. If the question is really the availability of the original cuts, well, I know they're out of print, but I saw them in a used dvd shop Tuesday evening. They're not that hard to find. As someone who buys as many books and cds as I do dvds, stuff goes out of print all the time.
All that said, if they did what they did with the SE dvds (include the theatrical cuts as a bonus), even if it's the same laserdisc transfer, I'm sure they'd sell a ton.
That seems quite believable. If he says that Greedo shooting first was always the intent, who's to say otherwise?
To be fair to those disgruntled fans who feel otherwise, it may also be the case that it's not that they wanted Han Solo to be a cold-blooded killer who just gunned him down, but rather a survivor who saw Greedo's shot coming, and he acted preemtively.
It's a nice interview. I feel all the more sympathetic towards George Lucas having read it.
That black & white portrait of him is a really nice photo. I like it.
Burden of proof is on him - does he have any memos or video recordings from the 1970's to show his original intent?
In the 1976 screenplay, there is one shot fired - a "blinding flash". The smoking gun is in
Han's hand. The 1975 version of the script doesn't have this scene at all.
I wonder what causes the barrel of a blaster to smoke....
Han's hand. The 1975 version of the script doesn't have this scene at all.
I wonder what causes the barrel of a blaster to smoke....
Here is the original 4th shooting draft revised screenplay excerpt
ALIEN
It’s too late I think. Jabba would rather
have your ship.
HAN
Over my dead body.
ALIEN
That’s the idea, Solo. You will come outside
with me or must I finish it here?
HAN
I don’t think they’d like another killing in here.
ALIEN
They’d hardly notice… get up. I’ve been looking
forward to this for a long time…
HAN
I bet you have…
It’s too late I think. Jabba would rather
have your ship.
HAN
Over my dead body.
ALIEN
That’s the idea, Solo. You will come outside
with me or must I finish it here?
HAN
I don’t think they’d like another killing in here.
ALIEN
They’d hardly notice… get up. I’ve been looking
forward to this for a long time…
HAN
I bet you have…
Suddenly the slimy alien disappears in a blinding flash of light. Han pulls his smoking gun from beneath the table as the other patrons look on in bemused amazement.
HAN
… but it will take a lot more than
the likes of you to finish me off…
… but it will take a lot more than
the likes of you to finish me off…
Han gets up and starts out of the cantina, flipping the bartender some coins as he leaves.
HAN
Sorry for the mess…
From reading this, I think the "intent" is that Han shot first, but much like the original version of the movie, if he wants to claim it was vague, he can, as the screenplay is merely stating what the camera will show - not character intentions.
The alien seems to be implying he'll shoot, so I can see that he was going to do so, but Han shot first.
The intent of what's written in that excerpt seems clear, crystal clear. Not only did Han shoot first, but he was also the only one who shot.
But, right, that doesn't mean that that's what they ultimately filmed or edited or chose.
It does seem to be clear evidence that at least at some point in developement, here, in the "original 4th shooting draft revised screenplay" Han shot first. I don't think there's any ambiguity in that excerpt.
So, an interesting question might be, when did the change occur? Did it come in the original 5th shooting draft revised screenplay? Did it occur when they actually filmed the scene or when they edited? Or did it come years or decades later when/if Lucas had a change of heart and decided to excise it?
But, right, that doesn't mean that that's what they ultimately filmed or edited or chose.
It does seem to be clear evidence that at least at some point in developement, here, in the "original 4th shooting draft revised screenplay" Han shot first. I don't think there's any ambiguity in that excerpt.
So, an interesting question might be, when did the change occur? Did it come in the original 5th shooting draft revised screenplay? Did it occur when they actually filmed the scene or when they edited? Or did it come years or decades later when/if Lucas had a change of heart and decided to excise it?
Uhhh... yes it was, 'cos when thousands of cinemas across the entire globe premiered the film in '77, that's exactly what tens of millions of people saw. Multiple (depending on their fandom) times, each.
It was still common, back then, for cinemas to carry a staple film for months (or even years!) on end btw. That's a lot of collective memory to impression, just sayin'.
At the 20th anniversary release, in the cinema. Complete with a lot of other out-of-place material... that to be fair, was trying to replace lost or damaged footage that never made the original cut... that still looked like misplaced ass.
I'm glad to take your word for it, Steve.
I consider the matter settled then. I was about seven when it came out, and I don't really remember what I saw. But, I along with everyone else must have also seen it that way on cable and VHS.That's an interesting historical fact. Let's remember it for prosterity's sake.
Yeah. I think I mostly or even fully agree. I should rewatch them again. It's been a while. See what I think of the changes now.
[Edit]
So after writing that, I watched most of Star Wars on DVD last night. It had been a while. Yeah, I agree with you, Steve. Maybe initially it worked okay-ish, but now...the added CGI creatures and storm troopers etc look mostly out of place. It was a mistake. Oh, Lord, could we just have them removed, pleased?
And I think that's very well said below and appropriately empathetic, directorik.
But I think I do regret the alteration of the altercation between Han and Greedo. As I wrote above, Han shooting first didn't necessarily make him a cold-blooded killer. After all, in the exerpt cited above, Greedo makes a clear threat on Han's life and more-or-less states outright that he's about to kill him, which makes him a clear and present danger. So it would have been reasonable to say it was self-defense.
I don't mind writing about such an issue on a filmmaking forum as though it's important because these sorts of issues do matter in film exactly because they do matter to people, to us. Lucas is right to give it some consideration, because who shot first, or at all, and why, is important to the character of Han, or to anyone's character for that matter.
So yeah, unapologetically, I join the fans who want the original cuts to be released on Blu-ray or whatever the format of the future is. On the other hand, I no longer care all that much. I'm not a rabid fan. For one thing, the prequels largely killed Star War's relevance for me.
I do hope that he continues to keep his defacing hands off of Raiders and other films, though. 'Cause his right to do what he wills with his property notwithstanding, let's not kid ourselves...these kinds of alterations are a little too Orwellian for comfort.
Last edited:
As people grow up they often change their perspective. How a 20
year old feels about something is most often quite different than
that same person feels at 50. Marriage, children, the work one
does, the amount of money one has and simply living and growing
has an affect.
The 30 year old writer with no children seems to have seen Solo as
a “bad ass”. All drafts of the script and the finished product
show that. The 50 year old, very wealthy, father began to feel
what he did in 1976 showed Solo as a cold-blooded murderer. He
changed his perspective over 20 years.
What bothers me is not that he changed it - he has every right to
change his movies - what bothers me is he tries to convince us
that his intention all along was to have Greedo shoot and Solo
defend himself.
That is not reflected in the script. There is clearly one shot
fired. In the film we saw in 1977 - and still available on VHS on
laserdisc - there was one shot fired.
Lucas changed his views and his perspective as he grew older. We
all do. There is nothing unusual about that. What we write and
feel and say and do at 20 and 30 is different than what we write
and feel and say and do at 50 and 60.
Change the movie - it’s just a movie. But don’t tell me the
original intent was to have two shots fired. Yep, it’s just a
movie. And I love movies and I love talking about movies.
year old feels about something is most often quite different than
that same person feels at 50. Marriage, children, the work one
does, the amount of money one has and simply living and growing
has an affect.
The 30 year old writer with no children seems to have seen Solo as
a “bad ass”. All drafts of the script and the finished product
show that. The 50 year old, very wealthy, father began to feel
what he did in 1976 showed Solo as a cold-blooded murderer. He
changed his perspective over 20 years.
What bothers me is not that he changed it - he has every right to
change his movies - what bothers me is he tries to convince us
that his intention all along was to have Greedo shoot and Solo
defend himself.
That is not reflected in the script. There is clearly one shot
fired. In the film we saw in 1977 - and still available on VHS on
laserdisc - there was one shot fired.
Lucas changed his views and his perspective as he grew older. We
all do. There is nothing unusual about that. What we write and
feel and say and do at 20 and 30 is different than what we write
and feel and say and do at 50 and 60.
Change the movie - it’s just a movie. But don’t tell me the
original intent was to have two shots fired. Yep, it’s just a
movie. And I love movies and I love talking about movies.
I agree completely.
The word emphasis on "seems". Whilst I agree with you in principal, it has always seemed clear to me too, but I am not George Lucas, neither are you, and we do not know what he 'intended'.
I agree with George, though. They are just movies, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't even understand what that means. "It's just a movie."
Is there an implication that discussing the movie somehow
makes it something more? So we need to be reminded it's "just"
a movie? Does that statement mean those who love to discuss
movies are... what? delusional? That they believe it is NOT just
a movie? Aren't movies made so people will talk about them?
The movies people talk about for decades are the movies that
live on. It's a movie; nothing more and nothing less; and talking
about movies is so much fun. I can speak for experience that
talking about - even obsessing over - movies does not mean I am
unaware that it is "just" a movie.
So what he says, "It’s a movie, just a movie." I wonder what he
means? When he makes a religious comparison, "Well, it’s not a
religious event. I hate to tell people that." I wonder what he means.
That it's okay to talk about or even obsess over a religious event, but
not a movie?
I don't quite understand.
Is there an implication that discussing the movie somehow
makes it something more? So we need to be reminded it's "just"
a movie? Does that statement mean those who love to discuss
movies are... what? delusional? That they believe it is NOT just
a movie? Aren't movies made so people will talk about them?
The movies people talk about for decades are the movies that
live on. It's a movie; nothing more and nothing less; and talking
about movies is so much fun. I can speak for experience that
talking about - even obsessing over - movies does not mean I am
unaware that it is "just" a movie.
So what he says, "It’s a movie, just a movie." I wonder what he
means? When he makes a religious comparison, "Well, it’s not a
religious event. I hate to tell people that." I wonder what he means.
That it's okay to talk about or even obsess over a religious event, but
not a movie?
I don't quite understand.
Movies can be a big part of our lives and when some one decides to change a movie that we think of as a perfect movie we don't like it. The changes that were done to the films were not needed. The THX versions with the updated effects, changes to scenes, changed music. Overall I like the originals and think they should have released those as the bluray.
Well, I would agree that Jediism as a religion is silly, so those adherents should know that it's just a movie - or, more accurately, they're just movies. But I do like movies, and I am aggravated that one of my favorite movies (Empire) is changed and changed again, and I don't have the option to see the original.
This, by the way, like the colorization debate of the 1980's, when B&W movies were colorized. The difference, of course, is that people can see movies in both versions. That's not the case here.
This, by the way, like the colorization debate of the 1980's, when B&W movies were colorized. The difference, of course, is that people can see movies in both versions. That's not the case here.
*sigh*
YES YOU CAN
Yes, they are out of print. No, they are not hard to find. No, they're not on blu-ray. Yes, they can be expensive, but if you spend some time digging, you can find them at the price you want to pay (hell, the first one is as low as $20 and $37 for SEALED NEW).
For the record, when they first came out on dvd, I shared your perspective. However, they fixed it back in 2006, so that argument is no longer valid.