# Just saw RotJ Spec. Ed. on DVD for the first time...



## theburningman (Jun 24, 2005)

...and I was just wondering _why_ Lucas changed the Force ghost of Anakin at the end to the younger version.

I had heard the rumors of the change months ago, and I thought that perhaps in RotS we would find out a reason for it.  I know that almost none of his changes make any sense (Greedo shooting first and all that),  but this one in particular has me stumped.  Of course it is a visual way to tie Episodes 4-6 in to Episodes 1-3, but I can find no other reason.

Any apologists out there who can come up with a good excuse?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 24, 2005)

I think it was because he was 'forgiven' in the end. The age that he appears to be as a ghost is the last time you see him before he turns to the dark side. I think since he came back to the light, or whatever, he appeared as his true uncorrupted self as a ghost.
I guess what I'm saying is that had Anakin turned to the dark side when he was 8 years old, but returned to the light side just before he died when he was 50 ish, then his ghost would still look like an 8 year old...
I hope that makes sense. It does to me, but I still think that Sebastian Shaw got shafted when they replaced him with Hayden.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 25, 2005)

Captain Howdy said:
			
		

> I think it was because he was 'forgiven' in the end. The age that he appears to be as a ghost is the last time you see him before he turns to the dark side. I think since he came back to the light, or whatever, he appeared as his true uncorrupted self as a ghost.
> I guess what I'm saying is that had Anakin turned to the dark side when he was 8 years old, but returned to the light side just before he died when he was 50 ish, then his ghost would still look like an 8 year old...
> I hope that makes sense. It does to me, but I still think that Sebastian Shaw got shafted when they replaced him with Hayden.




 I agree with you on all counts and poor Sebastian Shaw did get screwed.


----------



## Villano (Jun 25, 2005)

I have a question about the new special edition.   A couple weeks ago, they ran the first (pre-prequel) special edition ROtJ on TV.  One of the wierd things I noticed was that, in some of the scenes with the Emperor, there was a strange, black blob on the right side of his face.  It looks like an attempt to cover something up (perhaps the make-up came loose or something?).  His face is surrounded by shadow because of his hood, but the blob stands out like someone scribble it in with black marker on the film.

When I saw it, I wondered why Lucas would take the time to put in a CG Jabba and other big things but not fix something like this.  

Anyway, I was wondering if the black blob is still there, or did they finally fix it?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jun 25, 2005)

I know the blob you are talking about. And, as far as I can remember, they didn't clean it up for the dvd's. I'll have to go back and watch it again, but I'm pretty sure the spot is still there.  :\


----------



## The_lurkeR (Jun 25, 2005)

I agree... this was definately one of the lamest changes. I was rather upset when they were released on DVD and Lucas promised the true originals will never be released on DVD.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 25, 2005)

Count me as somebody who liked the young Anakin Jedi Spirit being inserted into RotJ special edition.  After seeing Revenge of the Sith, I thought that seeing Anakin's spirit appearing exactly as he looked before falling to the dark side was a nice touch.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 25, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Count me as somebody who liked the young Anakin Jedi Spirit being inserted into RotJ special edition.  After seeing Revenge of the Sith, I thought that seeing Anakin's spirit appearing exactly as he looked before falling to the dark side was a nice touch.



One of my favorite changes as well.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 25, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> After seeing Revenge of the Sith, I thought that seeing Anakin's spirit appearing exactly as he looked before falling to the dark side was a nice touch.



I'm not too sure about how I feel yet. But another thing I considered is that it is exactly as he looked before he got chopped up and toasted crispy. In other words... with an intact body.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 25, 2005)

I think it was very unfair to poor Sebastian Shaw.

And didn't Anakin redeem himself when he slam-dunked the Emperor? He must have lived for about 10 minutes back in the light side of the Force...


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 25, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> I have a question about the new special edition.   A couple weeks ago, they ran the first (pre-prequel) special edition ROtJ on TV.  One of the wierd things I noticed was that, in some of the scenes with the Emperor, there was a strange, black blob on the right side of his face.  It looks like an attempt to cover something up (perhaps the make-up came loose or something?).  His face is surrounded by shadow because of his hood, but the blob stands out like someone scribble it in with black marker on the film.
> 
> When I saw it, I wondered why Lucas would take the time to put in a CG Jabba and other big things but not fix something like this.
> 
> Anyway, I was wondering if the black blob is still there, or did they finally fix it?




 I saw that to. Some sort of Dark Side slug or maybe, just maybe those are what mitochlorians look like, hmmmmmmm.


----------



## Welverin (Jun 25, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> I was rather upset when they were released on DVD and Lucas promised the true originals will never be released on DVD.




When did he ever promise that?



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> And didn't Anakin redeem himself when he slam-dunked the Emperor? He must have lived for about 10 minutes back in the light side of the Force...




And still looked nothing like he did as a force ghost, it never made any sense for him to look the way he did.


----------



## Shag (Jun 25, 2005)

Just looks like the shadow of his hood falling on his face...maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 25, 2005)

Shag said:
			
		

> Just looks like the shadow of his hood falling on his face...maybe I'm missing something.




 In the movie it squirms around on its own, moving up and down the edge of the hood.  It is VERY distracting.


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Jun 26, 2005)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> Count me as somebody who liked the young Anakin Jedi Spirit being inserted into RotJ special edition.  After seeing Revenge of the Sith, I thought that seeing Anakin's spirit appearing exactly as he looked before falling to the dark side was a nice touch.




Ditto for me.  If anything is made the end of RotJ have _more_ impact.  And Sebastion Shaw was still in the movie - he's under the make up when the helmet is removed (although why anyone is upset over that and none noticed that the guy who did the Emperor in ESB in the theatrical release is _completely_ replaced by Ian McDermitt - but the original guy is still isted in the credits - how can Lucas call himself a filmmaker?!)


----------



## Psychic Warrior (Jun 26, 2005)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> In the movie it squirms around on its own, moving up and down the edge of the hood.  It is VERY distracting.




Huh.  I just watched the DVd of RotJ and didn't notice it.  I've seen the movie maybe 20 times and have never noticed it.


----------



## Dingleberry (Jun 26, 2005)

The "Emperor's slugs" have been noted for decades.  As I understand it, when the scenes were filmed, the lighting used to highlight the Emperor's eyes also lit up the side of his face and hood too much, so they blacked it over on the film.  It wasn't very noticeable in the theaterical release, but was clearly visible on the lower-quality video release.

Run a Google search on "Emperor's slugs" and you'll find plenty.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 26, 2005)

My opinion:

When a Jedi dies, he can choose how to appear as a ghost. Yoda and Obi-Wan were comfortable with their selves, so they just took on the appearance they had before they died. Anakin, however, repented what he did as Vader, so, when given the chance, he made himself appear as a young Jedi, as he did the last time he could respect himself.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 26, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> One of my favorite changes as well.



Ditto.  I think it makes alot more sense this way too.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 27, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Ditto.  I think it makes alot more sense this way too.




Plus it adds a bit more continuity to the series.


----------



## The_lurkeR (Jun 27, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> When did he ever promise that?





Here you go...



> AP: Why not release both the originals and special editions on DVD?
> 
> Lucas: The special edition, that's the one I wanted out there. The other movie, it's on VHS, if anybody wants it. ... I'm not going to spend the, we're talking millions of dollars here, the money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn't really exist anymore. It's like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it to be the way I want it to be. I'm the one who has to take responsibility for it. I'm the one who has to have everybody throw rocks at me all the time, so at least if they're going to throw rocks at me, they're going to throw rocks at me for something I love rather than something I think is not very good, or at least something I think is not finished.




You can google for plenty of other quotes from others, including this cheery one from Jim Ward, a VP of Lucasfilms.



> So what are the faithful to do if they don't want to watch the altered 1997 editions of the trilogy? Either give in, or don't buy. "We realize there's a lot of debate out there," says Ward. "But this is not a democracy. We love our fans, but this is about art and filmmaking. [George] has decided that the sole version he wants available is this one."


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 27, 2005)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> (although why anyone is upset over that and none noticed that the guy who did the Emperor in ESB in the theatrical release is _completely_ replaced by Ian McDermitt - but the original guy is still isted in the credits - how can Lucas call himself a filmmaker?!)



The "original guy" who played the Emperor in ESB was a woman with chimpanzee eyes super-imposed over her own and was voiced by Clive Revill.  I think the woman who's face and voice were covered will be just fine with the change, assuming she's even alive.

The new Anakin ghost is awesome, really ties the films together and makes sense artistically.  It was how *Anakin* last remembered himself.  Plus in the ROTJ novelization released 25 years ago when the helmet is taken off Anakin is ashamed and wished Luke could see him as he was.  As a ghost, he was able to appear that way.  Really nice change all around.


----------



## fett527 (Jun 27, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> ...Plus in the ROTJ novelization released 25 years ago when the helmet is taken off Anakin is ashamed and wished Luke could see him as he was.  As a ghost, he was able to appear that way.  Really nice change all around.




This is definitely the best reasoning in my opinion and how I think of it.  Obi-Wan and even Yoda had to be taught to appear like this, but Anakin was powerful enough to do it on his own and let Luke see him as he wanted him to see him.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 27, 2005)

I was fine with it.  That was how Anakin remembers himself.  Everything since was Vader.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 27, 2005)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> Ditto for me.  If anything is made the end of RotJ have _more_ impact. And Sebastion Shaw was still in the movie - he's under the make up when the helmet is removed (although why anyone is upset over that and none noticed that the guy who did the Emperor in ESB in the theatrical release is _completely_ replaced by Ian McDermitt - but the original guy is still isted in the credits - how can Lucas call himself a filmmaker?!)




Sebastion Shaw got screwed? What about David Prowse? He gave Darth Vader a body and presence and the one time you actually got to see Vader's face it was someone else. I always hated the face they showed for Vader in RotJ it just looked stupid and pathetic, which I suspect was intentional


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 27, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> I agree... this was definately one of the lamest changes. I was rather upset when they were released on DVD and Lucas promised the true originals will never be released on DVD.





My tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is that Lucas will release the High Definition DvDs with the current "updated" versions.  Then he'll wait a couple of years and release the originals in HD DvD.  

I base this on no evidence whatsoever.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 27, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Sebastion Shaw got screwed?



Yep, just like the actor who originally played Jabba the Hutt got "screwed".  Or all the Stormtrooper extras.  How dare Lucas not show their faces.  And in one scene in ROTJ, you can see one ewok in the distance who isn't facing the camera.  An outrage.  Even worse, apparently there are actors, lines, and scenes left on the cutting room floor of almost every single movie ever made!  And you just know George was behind it all....

Good grief its as if people have no knowledge whatsoever of even the most elementary filmmaking practices.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 27, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Yep, just like the actor who originally played Jabba the Hutt got "screwed". Or all the Stormtrooper extras. How dare Lucas not show their faces. And in one scene in ROTJ, you can see one ewok in the distance who isn't facing the camera. An outrage. Even worse, apparently there are actors, lines, and scenes left on the cutting room floor of almost every single movie ever made! And you just know George was behind it all....
> 
> Good grief its as if people have no knowledge whatsoever of even the most elementary filmmaking practices.




Good grief its as if you have no knowledge whatsoever of even the most elementary elements of politeness. It is possible to disagree without calling people stupid and ignorant.

Darth Vader was not a minor character, who only appeared in a handful of scenes and had few if any lines. David Prowse was more than some one simply standing in a spot so it looked like he was saying the lines James Earl Jones had spoken. Prowse provided a physical presence and stature to make convincing the magnificent job of voice acting that JEJ did. It's not like there was something that special about the face that they did use, that couldn't have been modified and changed through makeup and SFX. It is a small thing, but it would have been a nice little acknowledgement of David Prowse for giving Vader a body for all those years. 

Ahem, now to try and argue according to your style.

You would know this if you'd ever bothered to pay attention to the movies. But your ego probably blocked your view of the screen. 

There, was I sufficiently insulting and derogatory towards your opinion?


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 27, 2005)

Even though your post was quoted Rackhir, I was actually replying to the sentiment that Sebastian Shaw got "screwed" which was expressed by another poster.



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> It is a small thing, but it would have been a nice little acknowledgement of David Prowse for giving Vader a body for all those years.



James Earl Jones' contribution to the character of Vader had much more of an impact.  Where's his acknowledgement?  Why wasn't his face under the mask?  Or maybe Ralph McQuarrie's face should have been used since he designed the costume.  But it was George himself who invented the character so maybe it should have been him.  It just gets silly when you break it down as a criticism against Lucas.  Prowse was paid for being the body of Vader.  And given screen credit.  That's what everyone in the film industry (except for Prowse if memory serves) considers to be a "nice little acknowledgement."  Prowse wasn't hired or paid to be Anakin Skywalker so him being under the mask would have been about as appropriate as using Harrison Ford.

George is a nice enough guy when it comes to that sort of thing.  He rewarded Warwick Davis, Anthony Daniels, Ahmed Best, family members, and many in the crew with little unmasked cameos throughout the films, he's not a bad guy for not doing it for every single person who was hired and paid for other roles.


----------



## Orius (Jun 27, 2005)

Psychic Warrior said:
			
		

> (although why anyone is upset over that and none noticed that the guy who did the Emperor in ESB in the theatrical release is _completely_ replaced by Ian McDermitt - but the original guy is still isted in the credits - how can Lucas call himself a filmmaker?!)




Probably has to do with union rules or something, he did the work for the voice lines (originally) and has to be credited with it or something.  It might be something else entirely.  I don't look for logic in Hollywood.


----------



## Felix (Jun 27, 2005)

What are these "prequils" you all are talking about? I've heard rumors, but haven't seen conclusive evidence that they exist. My THX remastered VHS tapes also have Han Solo killing Greedo in cold blood, so I don't know where people get off saying "Greedo Shoots First". All that is complete bubkis. 

The Star Wars saga was complete in 1997. All since is spurious.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 27, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> What are these "prequils" you all are talking about? I've heard rumors, but haven't seen conclusive evidence that they exist. My THX remastered VHS tapes also have Han Solo killing Greedo in cold blood, so I don't know where people get off saying "Greedo Shoots First". All that is complete bubkis.
> 
> The Star Wars saga was complete in 1997. All since is spurious.



If the saga was complete in 1997, then that makes you an advocate of "Greedo shoots first."  Otherwise you would have said the saga was complete in 1983.  Nothing wrong with that you Special Edition fanboy.


----------



## Felix (Jun 27, 2005)

Nah, 1997 was when the THX digitally remastered edition of the OT was released with cool pictures of Vader, a Stormtrooper, and Yoda on the covers. (which I thank my lucky stars that I found at a garage sale on sale for $1, woo!)

And I am most certainly not a member of the "Professional Bounty-hunter Greedo Misses at Point-blank Range Club".


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 27, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> Nah, 1997 was when the THX digitally remastered edition of the OT was released with cool pictures of Vader, a Stormtrooper, and Yoda on the covers.



Actually it was 1995 (bought 'em all on laserdisc), and those pictures were pale successors to the awesome painted art of the original theater posters...


----------



## Welverin (Jun 28, 2005)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> My tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is that Lucas will release the High Definition DvDs with the current "updated" versions.  Then he'll wait a couple of years and release the originals in HD DvD.
> 
> I base this on no evidence whatsoever.




Actually there is, George's tendency to cave to the desire of fans supports it.


----------



## Welverin (Jun 28, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Actually it was 1995 (bought 'em all on laserdisc), and those pictures were pale successors to the awesome painted art of the original theater posters...




Sure, in bizarro world.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 28, 2005)

Orius said:
			
		

> Probably has to do with union rules or something, he did the work for the voice lines (originally) and has to be credited with it or something.  It might be something else entirely.  I don't look for logic in Hollywood.



Actually, the Star Wars films were non-union.  Lucas was fined by the Director's Guild for not putting opening credits in front of Star Wars, and the guild demanded that Star Wars be re-cut with "proper" opening credits.  Lucas refused, paid the fine, and quit the guild, leaving the union scene in Hollywood (and becoming rich enough to generally not worry about the unions).  Lucas wanted Spielberg to direct The Empire Strikes Back, but he couldn't because of union obstacles (since Spielberg is part of the Director's Guild.)  However, as Spielberg is credited as an Assistant Director on Episode III, he either changed his mind, left the Guild, or the rules were relaxed.

The non-union status of the Star Wars movies has kept some notable actors out, like Gary Oldman (the original voice of General Grievous), who bowed out of production early on because Lucas uses non-union actors and crew.  Presumably some SAG members didn't have a problem (like Samuel L. Jackson).

Also note that most of the production of the Star Wars movies was done overseas, either in location shooting, or in studio work done mostly in England (although some of Episode II was done in Australia).  The only shooting I can think of for any Star Wars movie done in the U.S. would be the Dune Sea parts of Return of the Jedi, which were filmed in Death Valley.


----------



## Chaldfont (Jun 28, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> What are these "prequils" you all are talking about? I've heard rumors, but haven't seen conclusive evidence that they exist. My THX remastered VHS tapes also have Han Solo killing Greedo in cold blood, so I don't know where people get off saying "Greedo Shoots First". All that is complete bubkis.




I'm with you on this one, Felix. I still have my VHS copies and have not purchased the DVDs. These are the films that changed the industry, not the recently modified ones.

I keep waiting for someone to make a high-quality "rip" of those VHS copies and stick them up on a P2P network. They could be the definitive Star Wars trilogy instead of the constantly updated versions Lucas keeps making.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 28, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The only shooting I can think of for any Star Wars movie done in the U.S. would be the Dune Sea parts of Return of the Jedi, which were filmed in Death Valley.




And the California redwood forests shots for Endor.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 28, 2005)

Chaldfont said:
			
		

> I'm with you on this one, Felix. I still have my VHS copies and have not purchased the DVDs. These are the films that changed the industry, not the recently modified ones.



The films that changed the industry?  Yes.  The best versions of the Star Wars films?  No.  But if all you care about is watching films that "change the industry" then you better run out and pick up Attack of the Clones on DVD immediately if you haven't already.  That film was the beginning of an industry change probably even more dramatic than even the first Star Wars film.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 28, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> That film was the beginning of an industry change probably even more dramatic than even the first Star Wars film.




First movie to be released in digital format to the movie theaters, correct?


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 28, 2005)

The_lurkeR said:
			
		

> I agree... this was definately one of the lamest changes. I was rather upset when they were released on DVD and Lucas promised the true originals will never be released on DVD.




On May 25, 2072, Star Wars will pass into the Public Domain (only 68 years from now), and 3 years later Empire, and three years later Jedi (barring yet more legislation to overextend copyright, like the Mickey Mouse Protection Act Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act).

Our grandchildren will be able to buy the originals on holocrystal, whether Lucas the IV likes it or not likes it or not.


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 28, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> On May 25, 2072, Star Wars will pass into the Public Domain (only 68 years from now), and 3 years later Empire, and three years later Jedi (barring yet more legislation to overextend copyright, like the Mickey Mouse Protection Act Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act).
> 
> Our grandchildren will be able to buy the originals on holocrystal, whether Lucas the IV likes it or not likes it or not.




Just because something has passed into the public domain does not mean that it is available to the public. If someone has the only copies of a movie and they choose not to either sell or license it to anyone, then nobody is getting copies of it. So given Lucas's attitude towards things, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for decent quality copies of the original versions being around for it to pass into the public domain. 

Plus, I suspect that public rights to copyrighted material will be severely restricted or eliminated over the next 70 odd years as the ability to re-use and salvage material from old films increases in practicality and value. It isn't going to be too much longer before you will get dead actors cast in new movies using digital technology to create new performances or recast old ones.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 28, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Just because something has passed into the public domain does not mean that it is available to the public. If someone has the only copies of a movie and they choose not to either sell or license it to anyone, then nobody is getting copies of it. So given Lucas's attitude towards things, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for decent quality copies of the original versions being around for it to pass into the public domain.



Lucasfilm wouldn't have to approve, or use their copies.  His descendants could even explicitly disapprove.   The key word there is "decent", in the next 68 years we will have to see about what happens in the field of digital restoration.  

I know that the Library of Congress keeps copies of the original movies on file in very controlled archival conditions.  Lucas wanted them to dispose of them and replace them with Special Editions when they came out , claiming that they were the only valid editions now, but the LoC told him no way.

Once copyright is expired, any company (or private citizen) could use archival copies to create new copies that can be released freely.  Just like anybody can print a copy of the works of Shakespeare, without needing approval from his estate, one day in the future anybody will be able to encode a copy of the Star Wars movies without permission of Lucasfilm, we've just got to wait about another 70 years.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 28, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> First movie to be released in digital format to the movie theaters, correct?



It was the first film, or movie rather, shot digitally on High Definition.  I'm not sure about the digital projection, for some reason I seem to recall hearing about a digital showing of one of the Toy Story films before AOTC was released, but I'm not 100% on that one.

From Rick McCallum's ShowWest speech in 2002:



> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm very excited to be here tonight, even though it is a weird experience unveiling any part of a movie for the first time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 28, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Just like anybody can print a copy of the works of Shakespeare, without needing approval from his estate, one day in the future anybody will be able to encode a copy of the Star Wars movies without permission of Lucasfilm, we've just got to wait about another 70 years.




And most people will care why?  I hope, that within the next 70 years this hatred of Lucas disappears and no one is running around in a “Han Shot First T-Shirt.”


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 28, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> And most people will care why? I hope, that within the next 70 years this hatred of Lucas disappears and no one is running around in a “Han Shot First T-Shirt.”




Apparently 0.7% of the population of England lists their religion on survays as "Jedi". So I suspect that not only will people care, but it's likely that there will have been religious wars and killings over those sorts of things. 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/14/jedis_reach_the_stars/


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 28, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Apparently 0.7% of the population of England lists their religion on survays as "Jedi". So I suspect that not only will people care, but it's likely that there will have been religious wars and killings over those sorts of things.




Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet...  The above is an urban legend.  (Unless the “old” Urban Legend inspired it to become true.)


----------



## Rackhir (Jun 28, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet... The above is an urban legend. (Unless the “old” Urban Legend inspired it to become true.)




Well the Register Story does link to an official looking web site, with the data they claim. Besides how can you resist the image of two star wars geeks attacking each other with their "lightsabers" denouncing the other as heretic, because they follow the original/special editions.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 28, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Well the Register Story does link to an official looking web site, with the data they claim.




And people give their credit card information, their eBay accounts, their paypal accounts, cause they get a link to a official looking website.   (Not saying you would just that isn’t proof enough for me.)



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Besides how can you resist the image of two star wars geeks attacking each other with their "lightsabers" denouncing the other as heretic, because they follow the original/special editions.




Granted that would be seriously funny.  Of course it would be a sad day for ENworld cause we would never be able to talk about star wars again since it would be a real world religion.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 28, 2005)

theburningman said:
			
		

> I had heard the rumors of the change months ago, and I thought that perhaps in RotS we would find out a reason for it.  I know that almost none of his changes make any sense (Greedo shooting first and all that),  but this one in particular has me stumped.  Of course it is a visual way to tie Episodes 4-6 in to Episodes 1-3, but I can find no other reason.
> 
> Any apologists out there who can come up with a good excuse?



Well, you already kinda presented the good excuse right there, or at least as good a one as can be found.  I mean, why ask a question and present an answer in the same breath?    

A better question would be why, when getting read of the really stupid "Yub nub" song immediately following Anakin's force ghost shot, did Lucas replace it with one that's --if anything-- even worse; some cheesy elevator music celebration song?


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Apparently 0.7% of the population of England lists their religion on survays as "Jedi". So I suspect that not only will people care, but it's likely that there will have been religious wars and killings over those sorts of things.
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/14/jedis_reach_the_stars/




http://www.snopes.com/religion/jedi.htm


----------



## Villano (Jun 28, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> And most people will care why?




I'm sure that 70 years ago people said, "Who's going to care about these movie serials?", yet you can still find them in most video stores.  There are even books about them.

There are a lot of companies out there that produce only public domain movies, like Alpha (you've probably seen their DVDs for under $5) and Sinister Cinema.  If there's money to be made, you'll find people who will care.  Hell, Sinister sell silent westerns.  I can't imagine there's a huge market for that, but, if they didn't spend anything for the rights, you don't need to sell that many to make a profit.

As to why people would want the originals instead of the special editions in the future, ask yourself how many people own copies of the new, "improved" colorized versions of King Kong, Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, It's A Wonderful Life, or Night Of The Living Dead?  Sometimes people prefer the original versions.  I'm sure if Lucas released the OT on DVD today, it would sell very well.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 28, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet...  The above is an urban legend.  (Unless the “old” Urban Legend inspired it to become true.)




http://www.bbc.co.uk/lincolnshire/faith/jediism.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2757067.stm

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/rank/jedi.asp

The BBC reports that in 2001, 390,000 people in the UK declared "Jedi" as their official religion, and the last link is an official government site confirming it: 390127.

That's just in the England and Wales, not to mention the rest of the world.


----------



## reveal (Jun 28, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/lincolnshire/faith/jediism.shtml
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2757067.stm
> 
> http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/rank/jedi.asp
> ...




http://www.snopes.com/religion/jedi.htm


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 28, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> http://www.snopes.com/religion/jedi.htm



Ahem,

I read that.  It was already posted.  I read it.  I am posting a rebuttal.  The snopes article is _*only*_ about it being granted "official" status as a recognized religion, nothing about the validity of the beliefs of the respondents to the census.  It might not be a legally recognized religion, but that didn't stop over 390,000 people from declaring it as their religion, under possible legal penalties for falsely reporting information on a census.

Just because Snopes puts a big red "False" up there on a post relating to the Jedi movemnet doesn't make it all not so.  Read the details of the articles, instead of looking for the red "False" summary.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 28, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, you already kinda presented the good excuse right there, or at least as good a one as can be found.  I mean, why ask a question and present an answer in the same breath?
> 
> A better question would be why, when getting read of the really stupid "Yub nub" song immediately following Anakin's force ghost shot, did Lucas replace it with one that's --if anything-- even worse; some cheesy elevator music celebration song?



 Oh, I totally agree on the saga-end lousy song.

And that galaxy-wide celebration: when did news ever travel that fast in the Star Wars universe?


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 28, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> That's just in the England and Wales, not to mention the rest of the world.




It's still an Urban Legend…  It was meant as a joke and should be looked as a joke not a religion.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 28, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> And that galaxy-wide celebration: when did news ever travel that fast in the Star Wars universe?




Well, if their ships can go FTL, why not their transmissions go Super-FTL? Besides, it never mentioned how long after the celebrations take place.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 29, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Well, if their ships can go FTL, why not their transmissions go Super-FTL? Besides, it never mentioned how long after the celebrations take place.



 And RotS provides evidence of FTL transmissions across the Holonet.

See the reporting of the battle on Utapau to Mace Windu and then the subsequent report of Grievous' death as evidence as such.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 29, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And RotS provides evidence of FTL transmissions across the Holonet.




As does ESB.  “What is thy bidding my master?”

People did notice that Empire Palpatine wasn’t really in the same room correct?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Jun 29, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> It's still an Urban Legend…  It was meant as a joke and should be looked as a joke not a religion.




While I can understand... it's not an Urban Legend, because it DID happen. People DID put Jedi down for religion. The motives of them may be humor, or fandom, or just nutjobs, but it's there.

So, really, Rakhir is right, people did put their religion as Jedi.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 29, 2005)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> So, really, Rakhir is right, people did put their religion as Jedi.




Right... but the orginal post that started this whole side topic:



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Apparently 0.7% of the population of England lists their religion on survays as "Jedi". So I suspect that not only will people care, but it's likely that there will have been religious wars and killings over those sorts of things.




Still isn't valued. (IMHO)


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jun 29, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> I'm sure that 70 years ago people said, "Who's going to care about these movie serials?", yet you can still find them in most video stores.  There are even books about them.




Right but they aren't mainstream, are they?



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> I'm sure if Lucas released the OT on DVD today, it would sell very well.




I'm sure they would, I would buy them myself but that's different cause I'll buy the super big set even though I have all of them already, but that's not 70 years from now when I'm sure that even the current version we have no will not sale much at all. (just like the originals…  even though the originals have never been released upon VCR cassette.)


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jun 29, 2005)

Some of Robert E. Howard's stories are over 70 years old.  Most people don't consider them great literature, but they're certainly still known and appreciated - and recently re-released to, I assume, at least decent sales since the publisher issuing them continues to do so.

While I for one vastly prefer the Conan stories (or any other Howard series) to Star Wars and consider them superior across the board, they certainly didn't have the kind of broad cultural saturation the latter boasted/boasts.

If Conan still gets action figures, re-issued story collections, a successful licensed RPG, an upcoming MMORPG, new authors writing new stories, comic books from two companies and possibly a third movie... I'd say Star Wars will still be available and of interest 70 years from now.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 29, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> As to why people would want the originals instead of the special editions in the future, ask yourself how many people own copies of the new, "improved" colorized versions of King Kong, Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, It's A Wonderful Life, or Night Of The Living Dead?  Sometimes people prefer the original versions.



And how many of those updated movies were "improved" by their original creators?  I suspect Star Wars will be just like The Hobbit novel or _Close Encounters of the Third Kind_.  Both were revised by their creators after initially being released to the public and most people aren't even aware of it, much less have a problem with it.  If we somehow discovered a series of *inferior* scripts written by William Shakespeare of _Romeo and Juliet_ 20 years before the story we all know today, it'd be an interesting find and nothing more, even if a small minority preferred those versions.

People who see the updated Star Wars films for the first time don't even bat an eye when the Greedo scene occurs.  I liked it the old way, but I also like new X-Wings, Jabba scene, and restored picture quality even more.  The movie's better, I'm happy, life goes on.  Oh no, the movies aren't perfect, not every revision was for the better.  Well guess what, the film's were never perfect, and no movie is.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 29, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> People who see the updated Star Wars films for the first time don't even bat an eye when the Greedo scene occurs.  I liked it the old way, but I also like new X-Wings, Jabba scene, and restored picture quality even more.  The movie's better, I'm happy, life goes on.  Oh no, the movies aren't perfect, not every revision was for the better.  Well guess what, the film's were never perfect, and no movie is.




The voice of reason.


----------



## Villano (Jun 29, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And how many of those updated movies were "improved" by their original creators?  I suspect Star Wars will be just like The Hobbit novel or _Close Encounters of the Third Kind_.  Both were revised by their creators after initially being released to the public and most people aren't even aware of it, much less have a problem with it.  If we somehow discovered a series of *inferior* scripts written by William Shakespeare of _Romeo and Juliet_ 20 years before the story we all know today, it'd be an interesting find and nothing more, even if a small minority preferred those versions.




Well, there is a difference in the Shakespeare analogy since you are comparing films which were seen by millions of people long before the special editions with an unknown discovery.  An unproduced play is different from a blockbuster film.  

You are right that there aren't that many cases of creators going back and altering their films.  Usually, you end up with a "director's cut" after the movie hits video or DVD, but, in thoses cases, it's usually because the director isn't happy with changes the studio made.

One case I can think of when the director simply changed his mind is Donnie Darko.  From what I understand, people seem to like the original much better.  In this case, like the special editions, people would rather watch the original.

There is also the John Carpenter example.  He took a film he made, Assault On Precinct 13, and remade it as Ghosts Of Mars.  He also virtually remade Escape From New York when he did Escape From LA.  People like the originals better.

In other words, people like the new versions if they are actually better and the orignals if they think they were made worse.  Most people, critics included, don't like the special edition of the first Star Wars as much as the original.  




> People who see the updated Star Wars films for the first time don't even bat an eye when the Greedo scene occurs.




No, I think people do notice the Greedo scene since it just looks so odd.  He's two feet away with his gun aimed at Han's chest, but he fires up in the air?  Kind of like when Van Helsing fired his grappling gun from the top of the castle to a tree 3 miles away.  They just look at the screen and say, "Oh, come on!"


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 29, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> Well, there is a difference in the Shakespeare analogy since you are comparing films which were seen by millions of people long before the special editions with an unknown discovery.



Actually I wasn't comparing the Skakespeare plays with my experience or your experience, but rather with the "millions of people" that have had their first viewing of _Star Wars_ between now and 1997 be of the Special Editions.  For _those_ millions, I wager most will see viewing the originals as going back a step and less entertaining.  Imagine now only a couple of years after _Return of the King_ if Peter Jackson released a "work in progress" edition, with 1977-style stop motion effects for all the oliphants, fell beasts, and Shelob and orcs wearing masks that have visible seams, and instead of 200,000 orcs they show 20 extras in costume marching across a field.  But *one* random scene toward the beginning of the movie is actually a little less awkward, would you suddenly trash your pristine DVD of the current version so you could watch all the dated and unconvincing effects of the work in progress?  That's what some expect people are going to do with _Star Wars_.  Time will tell, but I don't see it happening.  The new generation, and many of the old, just don't _care_ about the trivial missteps of the Special Editions.



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> In other words, people like the new versions if they are actually better and the orignals if they think they were made worse.  Most people, critics included, don't like the special edition of the first Star Wars as much as the original.



To quote a line from Napoleon Dynamite, "Like anyone could possibly know that."  You really can't say for certain that most people like the originals more.  Millions have been introduced to _Star Wars_ since 1997.  Of those who I personally know, none of them prefer the originals.



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> No, I think people do notice the Greedo scene since it just looks so odd.  He's two feet away with his gun aimed at Han's chest, but he fires up in the air?  Kind of like when Van Helsing fired his grappling gun from the top of the castle to a tree 3 miles away.  They just look at the screen and say, "Oh, come on!"



Maybe the tree was about to turn him over to Jabba....


----------



## Felix (Jun 30, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I liked it the old way, but I also like new X-Wings, Jabba scene, and restored picture quality even more. The movie's better, I'm happy, life goes on.



So the benefits outweigh the costs for you, eh?

Well, yes. The re-done movies are indeed shinier. They have more bright lights and loud sounds. The explosions are more explosivey. That's a definite gain there.

What's lost? To me (and why should I care about what first-time viewers think when I can only judge a film on my preferences and not their ignorance?), the Han-Greedo scene edit fundamentally changes the character of Han Solo. This is not a relatively trivial change from 10 X-wings to 50, but a series-shocking reversal of character.

What Han was, was a rogue who will smuggle if there's money in it, kill in cold blood, deal with gangsters, and generally do what's in his own monetary interest.

Lucas tried to make Han a shinier, happier person by not having him strike first when being threatened by a blaster, but instead making sure that Greedo's intent was to kill him, and only _then_ acting. He was insiting on the proverbial smoking gun.

This changes his character. And it changes his character for the worse. With the new Han, the character development from rogue to hero over the course of the movies isn't as intense because we begin with someone who refuses to kill when held at gunpoint.

So... back to cost/benefit:
More, shinier spaceships.
vs
Radically different Han.

Give me my good old time Han. It's the characters and the story that matters anyway, not the FX.

ps. I won't even get into the added Jabba scene... who once was a mysteriou and feared gangsterous agent who turns out to be an imposing and viscious slug-thing... becomes a sniveling wanna-be wise guy who lets the sensitized Han push him around. Ugh.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 30, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> So the benefits outweigh the costs for you, eh?



That's pretty much what I said, yes.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> Well, yes. The re-done movies are indeed shinier. They have more bright lights and loud sounds. The explosions are more explosivey. That's a definite gain there.



Oh please, your little bid for artistic high ground by demeaning the visuals and sound as nothing more than "bright lights, loud sounds, and explosivey explosions" isn't fooling anyone.  This is the _Star Wars_ saga.  You're not impressing anyone to imply that half the fun isn't being dazzled by all the cool worlds, ships, creatures, and music.  If the story wasn't there, sure they wouldn't be as big a deal as they are today, but if the visuals, sounds, and music weren't there then the films would lose an equal amount of impact.  The story of Star Wars is very simple and the themes aren't new.  What sets it apart is the setting and the way its presented.  You know, all those bright lights and loud sounds.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> What's lost? To me (and why should I care about what first-time viewers think when I can only judge a film on my preferences and not their ignorance?),



No one said you should care.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> the Han-Greedo scene edit fundamentally changes the character of Han Solo. This is not a relatively trivial change from 10 X-wings to 50, but a series-shocking reversal of character.



No it isn't.  To believe so only shows _your_ ignorance.  Greedo was going to blow Han away at the table.  That's how it was always intended.  So Han blew away Greedo.  Again the way it was _always_ intended to be.  The only reason the change was made was because George didn't believe that it was clear that Greedo really was going to try and murder him on the spot.  If he had realized that at the time it was filmed no doubt he would have reblocked the scene to make it more obvious.  But that option wasn't available.  All he could do was try and jury-rig the scene that was already there.  Which led us to the awkward shot that exists today.  The only character change whatsoever is for _Greedo_ as he's now 1. a quicker shot and 2. a bigger spaz.  I'm sorry, but the awesomeness of the Star Wars saga has hardly revolved around the nature and competence of a random throw-away bounty hunter who was a chump from the very beginning.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 30, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> No it isn't.  To believe so only shows _your_ ignorance.  Greedo was going to blow Han away at the table.  That's how it was always intended.  So Han blew away Greedo.  Again the way it was _always_ intended to be.  The only reason the change was made was because George didn't believe that it was clear that Greedo really was going to try and murder him on the spot.




It was pretty clear to every I know who saw it.



> _The only character change whatsoever is for Greedo as he's now 1. a quicker shot and 2. a bigger spaz._





Umm, no. It changes Han from a "shoot first, sort things out later" kind of guy to a "wait until your opponent fires" kind of guy.



> _I'm sorry, but the awesomeness of the Star Wars saga has hardly revolved around the nature and competence of a random throw-away bounty hunter who was a chump from the very beginning._





It's not the change to Greedo that matters. It's the change to Han. If you weren't busy getting so hot and bothered defending the deific nature of Lucas you'd notice that.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 30, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Umm, no. It changes Han from a "shoot first, sort things out later" kind of guy to a "wait until your opponent fires" kind of guy.




No longer does this argument hold up with the DVDs, since both Han and Greedo shoot at almost the exact same moment. Sure, it may look odd, but it shows both of them as out to kill the other despite whatever is said.



> It's not the change to Greedo that matters. It's the change to Han. If you weren't busy getting so hot and bothered defending the deific nature of Lucas you'd notice that.




And if you weren't getting so hot and bothered about a truly minor change you might notice that it is only one small moment in the movie and that it in no way changes the very nature of Han at all.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 30, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It's not the change to Greedo that matters. It's the change to Han.



Not even just that.  It's the change from a movie that would have a protagonist who would shoot first to one that wouldn't.  The whole nature of the saga, not just Han is impacted.  The level of seriousness with which the movies take themselves borders on pretentious now that we have this heavy-handed little moralistic retconning added in.

Of course, I'm not one of those guys who thinks the change is a sign of the coming Apocalypse, like some, but I honestly don't know who it was supposed to appeal to.  It does nothing but make the scene worse, and I can't think of any other way of seeing it.

And then, adding in the Jabba scene while still _not_ adding in the Biggs and Luke Tatooine scene was a blow too -- the Jabba scene was clumsily made and seriously detracts from Jabba's character by making him a bit of a chump rather than a truly threatening figure, while the still missing Biggs scene (I've seen screenshots of this scene; I know it exists somewhere!) is pretty important in understanding some of the later added scenes with Biggs on Yavin 4.  Both of those changes are completely baffling to me; they don't improve the movie at all.

And the added X-wings in the last action sequence is perhaps evened out by the very hit-or miss added special effects in Mos Eisley.  Most of those look fake, cheesy, childish attempts at gags, and very few of them actually improve the visual look of the movies.

<sigh>  I'll probably end up converting my restored tapes that I bought right before they went off the market for good into DVD-Rs and when that happens, that'll be the only Star Wars OT I'll watch.  The newer DVDs are as frustrating as they are improved -- not only from the Special Edition changes, but the further DVD changes as well.


----------



## mojo1701 (Jun 30, 2005)

I still don't see the difference in them shooting at the same time versus Han shooting first. Either way, Han was getting ready to shoot, and did. In the newer versions, Greedo apparently shoots with the same intention, even though it doesn't look 100%.

And yeah, I LOVE the redone. Say what you want, the improvements are there, and they work.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 30, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Umm, no. It changes Han from a "shoot first, sort things out later" kind of guy to a "wait until your opponent fires" kind of guy.



Oh...so in the Detention Center Han blasted the comlink as soon as it turned on then wondered what would happen?  Oh no wait...he tried to _talk_ his way out of the situation first, _then_ blasted the comlink controls.  Wow, who'd a thought.  Anyway, I don't see a change in Han, George said Greedo was always going to shoot and Han just outgunned him, and that Han's character didn't change, only how obvious Greedo's intentions were.  I'm sorry, I know you guys are quite passionate about the scene but I'm going to have to side with 1. the dialogue of the scene "Over my dead body" "That's the idea", 2. the current blocking of the scene (both fire at virtually the same time) and 3. what the guy who created the characters and wrote the scene said about it.  Sorry fellas.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It's not the change to Greedo that matters. It's the change to Han. If you weren't busy getting so hot and bothered defending the deific nature of Lucas you'd notice that.



Hey no one told me ENWorld was hosting a canned response food drive.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 30, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> while the still missing Biggs scene (I've seen screenshots of this scene; I know it exists somewhere!) is pretty important in understanding some of the later added scenes with Biggs on Yavin 4.



"That's what you said when Biggs and Tank left." --Luke to Uncle Owen on Tatooine.

"All of his friends have gone..." --Aunt Beru

"Hey Luke!"  "Biggs!"  "I told you I'd make it!"  --Luke and Biggs in new Yavin IV scene

Do you really know people who are too dense to connect the dots?  As for the cut footage, try and dig up a copy of the "Star Wars: Behind the Magic" CD-ROM.  I believe its out of print, but it not only had the first Luke/Biggs scene (horribly acted IIRC), but it also has a longer cantina sequence with Han chilling with a girl before sliding over to talk to Luke.  Pretty interesting stuff.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 1, 2005)

I do have to say I would have loved to see the Biggs/Luke scene(I believe Cammie was also supposed to appear) in ANH. 

Also would have liked the sandstorm scene from RotJ.

But, oh well, I do have that old CD-ROM at least.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 1, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Oh...so in the Detention Center Han blasted the comlink as soon as it turned on then wondered what would happen?  Oh no wait...he tried to _talk_ his way out of the situation first, _then_ blasted the comlink controls.  Wow, who'd a thought.




Yeah, he tried to talk himself out the situation _badly_. Showing why he seems to otherwise be a "shoot first, talk later" guy: he's bad at talking first.



> _Anyway, I don't see a change in Han, George said Greedo was always going to shoot and Han just outgunned him, and that Han's character didn't change, only how obvious Greedo's intentions were._





Now Han doesn't "outgun him" he gets lucky. In point of fact, in the original scene Hand didn't "outgun him", he didn't wait for things to get to that point. Waiting until your opponent fires is a classic Western cliche. Overturning that cliche is what made the scene great, now it's just run of the mill.



> _ I'm sorry, I know you guys are quite passionate about the scene but I'm going to have to side with 1. the dialogue of the scene "Over my dead body" "That's the idea", 2. the current blocking of the scene (both fire at virtually the same time) and 3. what the guy who created the characters and wrote the scene said about it.  Sorry fellas._





Lucas has made several pronouncements about what he "originally intended" that don't match up with anyone else's recollections.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 1, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And then, adding in the Jabba scene while still _not_ adding in the Biggs and Luke Tatooine scene was a blow too -- the Jabba scene was clumsily made and seriously detracts from Jabba's character by making him a bit of a chump rather than a truly threatening figure




Yeah, I'm not sure how we are supposed to be frightened of Jabba after Han _steps on his tail_. Plus, the dialogue from that scene is word for word the same as Han's dialogue with Greedo in places. It is obvious that the Greedo scene was to convey the information that the Jabba scene was supposed to convey, but couldn't because Lucas couldn't figure out how to present Jabba. So why have them both?


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 1, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Do you really know people who are too dense to connect the dots?



Biggs was a name mentioned in passing in two quick lines of dialogue vs. a scene that shows Luke and Biggs talking about their opinions of the Empire and foreshadowing Luke's rise from apathetic and whiny farmboy to hero of the battle of Yavin 4.

It's not so much connecting the dots; most people I know already knew who Biggs was anyway.  Its a matter of making the movie better.  Adding in Biggs on Yavin 4 _without_ adding him back in on Tatooine too is poor editing.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 1, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It's not so much connecting the dots; most people I know already knew who Biggs was anyway.  Its a matter of making the movie better.  Adding in Biggs on Yavin 4 _without_ adding him back in on Tatooine too is poor editing.



Actually, this was a place where Lucas knew to leave well enough alone.

The problem is, Biggs is supposed to leave Tatooine, go back to his ship, wait for an opportune moment to defect to the Rebellion, and become a serving starfighter pilot in the time it takes for Luke to go on his little adventure to leave Tatooine for the Death Star in the fastest ship in the galaxy and end up at Yavin IV with Biggs already as an established and serving pilot.  In other words, Biggs would be extremely lucky to be at Yavin at the same time as another raw pilot, and the second Biggs scene depicts him as a veteran.

In other words, the first Biggs scene probably did happen, just not within the timeframe of the movie.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 1, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The problem is, Biggs is supposed to leave Tatooine, go back to his ship, wait for an opportune moment to defect to the Rebellion, and become a serving starfighter pilot in the time it takes for Luke to go on his little adventure to leave Tatooine for the Death Star in the fastest ship in the galaxy and end up at Yavin IV with Biggs already as an established and serving pilot.  In other words, Biggs would be extremely lucky to be at Yavin at the same time as another raw pilot, and the second Biggs scene depicts him as a veteran.
> 
> In other words, the first Biggs scene probably did happen, just not within the timeframe of the movie.




Screwey timelines are not new to the Star Wars saga. Did you ever notice that in _Empire Strikes Back_ it apparently takes about as much time to flee from Impreial Star Destroyers, go to Bespin, and get tortured as it does to fly to Dagobah and train to be a jedi knight? If Luke had known that jedi training took a weekend or so of effort, he probably would have knocked it out earlier.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 1, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Screwey timelines are not new to the Star Wars saga. Did you ever notice that in _Empire Strikes Back_ it apparently takes about as much time to flee from Impreial Star Destroyers, go to Bespin, and get tortured as it does to fly to Dagobah and train to be a jedi knight? If Luke had known that jedi training took a weekend or so of effort, he probably would have knocked it out earlier.



It didn't just take a weekend or so of randomly working out, it took actually being trained by a master.  All he had before was intuition and a few hours of training from Obi-Wan a few years earlier.  

Think of it like martial arts, even if you're gifted and have lots of chances to practice, if you've only been taught the basics a while back and haven't had a teacher for a long time, your progress won't be anywhere nearly as effective as if you actually have an experienced master to help you along, even if for just a relatively short time.


----------



## Jhamin (Jul 1, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> It didn't just take a weekend or so of randomly working out, it took actually being trained by a master.  All he had before was intuition and a few hours of training from Obi-Wan a few years earlier.
> 
> Think of it like martial arts, even if you're gifted and have lots of chances to practice, if you've only been taught the basics a while back and haven't had a teacher for a long time, your progress won't be anywhere nearly as effective as if you actually have an experienced master to help you along, even if for just a relatively short time.





If all it took was a long weekend and alot of talent, why was Anakin's training such a big deal?  It sounded like he was with Obi-Wan for _years_.  And if Yoda was that big a factor, why didn't he take two days out of his schedule to make Anakin a master?  Expecially after the clone wars started?  The younglings couldn't have been that demanding.



Naa..  
It was dramatically appropriate that Luke learn at montage speeds, so he did.  Same way Indiana Jones crossed the ocean on a periscope top.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 1, 2005)

Considering we don't actually no HOW LONG it took to repair the Falcon, etc on Bespin, its impossible to make any judgements on how long Luke's training was. Well, other than the fact it took roughly the same time and that Luke cut out before he was done.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 2, 2005)

Felix said:
			
		

> What's lost? To me (and why should I care about what first-time viewers think when I can only judge a film on my preferences and not their ignorance?), the Han-Greedo scene edit fundamentally changes the character of Han Solo. This is not a relatively trivial change from 10 X-wings to 50, but a series-shocking reversal of character.




No, it's not. Han's still as much of a badass after the change as he was before, the reason for it is just a little different. The man was inches from having his face blown off, kills the guy right back, gets up tosses some money to the bar keeper and walks out like nothing happens.

And since you refuse to acknowledge it, it did refuse to kill at all.



> <sigh>  I'll probably end up converting my restored tapes that I bought right before they went off the market for good into DVD-Rs and when that happens, that'll be the only Star Wars OT I'll watch.




If you do some searching you should be able to find copies of the laser disc version you could acquire (jdavis mentioned having pick up a copy way back when).

I had wanted copies myself, but I've come to the conclusion that it wouldn't make much sense because I'd never watch them anyway. I can barely watch them as it is.

Bit of trivia:
Anyone else notice that every single SW movie DVD has exactly fifty scenes?

Trivia Question (because I want to know):
Was Bobba Fett originally in the ANH Jabba scene? THe only raw footage of it I've scene is cropped and he's always on the edge of the screen.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 2, 2005)

*seem to have missed a page*



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Considering we don't actually no HOW LONG it took to repair the Falcon, etc on Bespin, its impossible to make any judgements on how long Luke's training was. Well, other than the fact it took roughly the same time and that Luke cut out before he was done.




How long it took to get to Bespin is the critical factor, no hyperdrve equals really damn long, but this is Star Wars, so about an hour.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 2, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> How long it took to get to Bespin is the critical factor, no hyperdrve equals really damn long, but this is Star Wars, so about an hour.



 Also have to factor in the time spent on Cloud City, which could very well have been a matter of weeks. Sure, still short Jedi training, but Luke didn't finish AND it was rushed anyway.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 3, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Also have to factor in the time spent on Cloud City, which could very well have been a matter of weeks. Sure, still short Jedi training, but Luke didn't finish AND it was rushed anyway.




I think the most important thing is simply that Luke's training never was completed, he ran out early and it caused all sorts of trouble.

And again I say it's Star Wars and apply logic will only make your brain hurt.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 4, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> I think the most important thing is simply that Luke's training never was completed, he ran out early and it caused all sorts of trouble.




Sort of. The screwey thing about that is that when Luke returned to complete his training in RotJ, Yoda said "you don't need any more training, you need to confront Vader". I'm sure Luke was thinking "then why did you try to stop me when I went to do that in the last movie?"


----------



## mojo1701 (Jul 4, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Sort of. The screwey thing about that is that when Luke returned to complete his training in RotJ, Yoda said "you don't need any more training, you need to confront Vader". I'm sure Luke was thinking "then why did you try to stop me when I went to do that in the last movie?"




Answer: "Shadows of the Empire."


----------



## wingsandsword (Jul 4, 2005)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Answer: "Shadows of the Empire."



For those who have not read it: After the showdown at Bespin and his recovery aboard a medical frigate, Luke went back to Tatooine first, and returned to Obi-Wan's old hut, where he had left Luke a textbook of Jedi teachings, including the details of lightsaber construction.  Building your own saber being a major trial of Knighthood.  In the story, as things progress he learns to put Yoda's teachings into practical use, and ends up fighting a duel with a super assassin droid where he puts his full faith in the Force for the first time, and just lets it flow through him, which lets him win.  Thus, by the time he returns to Yoda he's completed one of the main tests Yoda would put him through (building a saber) and now understands what Yoda was talking about in his teachings, having had a chance to put it to practical use.

Also, I always figured that Yoda and Obi-Wan urging Luke not to go was more a test of maturity, Luke being able to shrug off temptation to go into what is obviously a trap.  Luke failed that test of maturity, but then had to go through another, even greater test of maturity when he was told the true nature of Darth Vader and had to deal with that.


----------



## Orius (Jul 7, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Actually, the Star Wars films were non-union.  Lucas was fined by the Director's Guild for not putting opening credits in front of Star Wars, and the guild demanded that Star Wars be re-cut with "proper" opening credits.  Lucas refused, paid the fine, and quit the guild, leaving the union scene in Hollywood (and becoming rich enough to generally not worry about the unions).




Well, I stand corrected.  Shows how much I care about how Hollywood does things.


----------



## Orius (Jul 7, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> Trivia Question (because I want to know):
> Was Bobba Fett originally in the ANH Jabba scene? THe only raw footage of it I've scene is cropped and he's always on the edge of the screen.




Probably not, given that the character was originally introduced in the Star Wars Holiday Special.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 7, 2005)

Fett is in the Jabba scene, standing around like a mook. That;s the reason why there was a Boba Fett action figure in one of the first Star Wars batches, even though he wasn't on the released movie.

"Star Wars Action Figures! Collect All 79!"

Yessir!


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 7, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Fett is in the Jabba scene, standing around like a mook. That;s the reason why there was a Boba Fett action figure in one of the first Star Wars batches, even though he wasn't on the released movie.
> 
> "Star Wars Action Figures! Collect All 79!"
> 
> Yessir!



Actually no, try and track down a copy of the old VHS tape "From Star Wars to Jedi."  It has the original Jabba scene, sans the CGI Jabba.  No Boba Fett.  Lucas thought it would be cool to add him in 1997 so they filmed an ILM employee wearing the costume in front of a green screen and composited him in for the Special Edition.

The reason he was an action figure in 1978 was because he had just been designed for The Empire Strikes Back and was introduced in the Star Wars Holiday Special that same year.


----------



## MaxKaladin (Jul 7, 2005)

Fett wasn't even originally available in the stores.  I have distinct memories of being a little tyke and wanting a Boba Fett figure but the only way to get one was to send off so many "Proof of Purchase" clippings from other toys and then wait 4 to 6 weeks for delivery.


----------

