# Star Wars DVD: What's different?



## Dark Psion (Sep 9, 2004)

http://freewebhosting.hostdepartment.com/s/starwarstrilogydvd/main.html
--------------------------------------------

The above site has a list and some screen captures of some of the changes made in the upcoming Star Wars DVD set, some good, some not so good.

Click on the roman numeral of your choice.


----------



## Wolf72 (Sep 9, 2004)

here's hoping the new editing of han v greedo really does look better ... (the spec ed scene is horrible)


----------



## mojo1701 (Sep 9, 2004)

Wolf72 said:
			
		

> here's hoping the new editing of han v greedo really does look better ... (the spec ed scene is horrible)




Now they shoot at more or less at the same time. At least it makes more sense (although I can't say why Greedo shooting first is such a disgrace in the first place...).


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 9, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Now they shoot at more or less at the same time. At least it makes more sense (although I can't say why Greedo shooting first is such a disgrace in the first place...).




It's not so much the order of shooting it's self, more the fact that Lucas felt it necessary to have Greedo shoot first "Because Han Solo is a hero and heroes don't shoot people first". 

It's the same kind of obnoxious nambi-pambi whitewashing of things that led Spielberg to CGI the guns out of the hands of the military and police in the escape sequence near the end of ET. 

It's annoying to have them change things basically because they think something is too "nasty" or "bad" for people to cope with. It's treating the audience like children that have to be protected from things because they can't "handle the truth".


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Sep 10, 2004)

> It's not so much the order of shooting it's self, more the fact that Lucas felt it necessary to have Greedo shoot first "Because Han Solo is a hero and heroes don't shoot people first".




::mutters a string of expletives at Lucas::

It was supposed to be Han being a rogue who did what he had to to stay alive. He was a mercenary and a smuggler. They don't live up to most people's ideals of morality. And then he slowly changed to the hero we most know him for. He evolved, perhaps the most of any of the characters. Even Luke. Who was a whiny little bastich who became a Jedi.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 10, 2004)

_Discussing politics makes admins very, very irritated. Please don't discuss politics.

 ~ Piratecat_


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 10, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Quote removed by admin.




Ah....Please remember no politics. We don't need a discusion on that sort of topic.


----------



## ddvmor (Sep 10, 2004)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> ...Even Luke. Who was a whiny little bastich who became a Jedi.




Should this not read "Even Luke.  Who was a whiny little bastich who became a whiny little bastich of a Jedi"?


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 11, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> So shut up then.



Mmm. Nope.

But I will end that subject and focus on _Star Wars_ if you don't mind (then again, I really don't care if you do).



Still, I don't see all the fuss. "Han shoots first." "Greedo shoots first." Does one scene make the character any better?

Perhaps my own gripe of Georgie-boy invoking his "artist's right" is the cut-and-paste of Hayden Christensen as Anakin (instead of the original actor) into a few scenes from _ROTJ,_ notably the unmasking of Vader and the "Jedi spirits" at Anakin's funeral pyre. One can hope they include the original scene as part of the "deleted scenes" or "alternate ending" DVD feature.


----------



## satori01 (Sep 11, 2004)

Bah who cares about the actor the played the meatloaf version of Darth Vader.
I am fine with George changing the bookmark actor holding the place for Hayden.  Likewise I am fine with changing the holographic emperor in Empire for the "real" emperor.  These are good continuity fixes.

I wish he would remove his extended musical scene in Return of the Jedi, the SE edit completely ruins the tension of the scene.  Raucous sythsized music and Boba Fett getting his swerve on is not better than the orignial cut where the focus of the scene is clearly on Joba and the slave twilek.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 12, 2004)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Bah who cares about the actor the played the meatloaf version of Darth Vader.



Actually, I do care about actor Sebastian Shaw. I'm so used to him being the older version of Anakin (a counterpart to a younger Hayden Christensen), just as Sir Alec Guinness portrayed the older Obi-Wan (a counterpart to a young Ewan MacGregor).


----------



## Kesh (Sep 12, 2004)

From what I understand, the 'unmasking' of Vader is exactly the same. It's just the 'spirit' of Anakin at the end that has been replaced. Which still annoys me...


----------



## Dark Psion (Sep 12, 2004)

The Unmasked Vader does change his eye color and remove his eyebrows, but it is still Sebastian Shaw.

As to Han shooting first, the first problem was that it was so poorly done. I always wondered if the animator's heart wasn't in that change.

The second problem was "Why" they did the change.

This isn't updating the FX, correcting a mistake or fixing continuity. It is a "Pollitically Correct" change. Imagine removing the black maid from Gone with the Wind, editing out all the cigarettes from 50's movies or even insertng a modern actor to remove an "out of favor" actor.

A director doing this to his own movies sets a dangerous precident.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 12, 2004)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> The second problem was "Why" they did the change.
> 
> This isn't updating the FX, correcting a mistake or fixing continuity. It is a "Pollitically Correct" change. Imagine removing the black maid from Gone with the Wind, editing out all the cigarettes from 50's movies or even insertng a modern actor to remove an "out of favor" actor.
> 
> A director doing this to his own movies sets a dangerous precident.



I thought PC went out in the 80's. Also, I don't think the "Han Solo shoot first" scene is as grave as removing the maids from _Gone with the Wind_ (unless they remove that obese X-Wing Pilot in _Episode IV,_ then I would have a fit). Now, as much as I would like to know why Georgie-boy changed the scene (yet again), my question to the more dedicated fans (or purists), does the revised scene change the way you look at the character now? Is it good? Is it bad?


----------



## Kesh (Sep 12, 2004)

If you think political correctness went out with the 80's, you've obviously not paid attention to American news for the past decade.


----------



## mojo1701 (Sep 12, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> unless they remove that obese X-Wing Pilot in _Episode IV,_ then I would have a fit




Not so much remove, but why did the he have to be named "Porkins"?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 12, 2004)

Dark Psion said:
			
		

> As to Han shooting first, the first problem was that it was so poorly done. I always wondered if the animator's heart wasn't in that change.




Hey, I'm sure there are plenty of professional bounty hunters who could miss someone by that much when shooting from only four feet away!

-Hyp.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Sep 13, 2004)

In the words of Penny Arcade:


----------



## KenM (Sep 13, 2004)

From what I understand about the SE in 1997 when that changed it so Greedo shots first is part of the reason it looked so bad is that they were limited because of how the scene was orginally shot. 
  I don't agree with Lucas changing that, but thats part of the reason it looks bad. Hopefully the DVD will look better.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 13, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> From what I understand about the SE in 1997 when that changed it so Greedo shots first is part of the reason it looked so bad is that they were limited because of how the scene was orginally shot.




It's almost as though the scene was originally shot under the assumption that Greedo didn't get a chance to fire at all!

-Hyp.


----------



## thalmin (Sep 13, 2004)

I liked the original "Han shot first." He was a scoundrel. It makes his becoming a hero more pronounced, more positive.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 13, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> If you think political correctness went out with the 80's, you've obviously not paid attention to American news for the past decade.



 Don't forget Hollywood; I still chuckle whenever I see the movie *the Sum of All Fears*, where the Palistinian terrorists from the novel were replaced with rich white neo-Nazis in an obvious act of spineless political correctness.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 13, 2004)

thalmin said:
			
		

> I liked the original "Han shot first." He was a scoundrel. It makes his becoming a hero more pronounced, more positive.



How so? To me, he become more of an anti-hero if he shot first.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 13, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> How so? To me, he become more of an anti-hero if he shot first.




Uh... that's the _point_.  He was originally an anti-hero (who shoots first) who eventually _becomes_ a hero.

But when he starts off as not-an-anti-hero, there's no _becoming_, no journey, no growth.

-Hyp.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 13, 2004)

Agree with the Smurf 100%. But just to add to that...

Shooting first isn't always evil, or even non-heroic. If someone's got a gun on you (and assuming they aren't a licensed law officer), you can _assume_ you're in danger. Han may have shot first, but that doesn't make it any less a case of pure self-defense.

Add to _that_ the fact that having Han wait for Greedo to shoot first, at such close range, is sheer and unadulterated stupidity. Han's not an idiot; if someone you know is an enemy and willing to shoot you has got you at point blank, and you have the opportunity to get the drop on them, you take it. Anything else is, quite frankly, brainless.


----------



## beeber (Sep 13, 2004)

han shoots first, period.  
of course, lucas ruined what was once a central part of my childhood by the inclusion of the ewoks.
i have the "black box" version of the trilogy and the special ed.  i will not buy the dvds until the originals are included as well.
guess i'm waiting a long time. . . .


----------



## satori01 (Sep 13, 2004)

So you are saying even as a child you HATEd Return of the Jedi, because of the stupid ewoks?

I remember feeling a bit incredulous that unarmed ewoks where about to defeat 2 crack legions of the empire's best troops, but it certainly did not ruin the film, or my feeling towards the trilogy.

The trimuph of spirit over technology is one of the main themes of the triology.


----------



## beeber (Sep 13, 2004)

yes, the ewoks ruined the film.  that entire battle was a joke.  "crack legions?"  smoking crack was more like it.  jedi started out good, with luke sportin' the black, leia's bikini, etc.  the battle *over* endor was absolutely gorgeous.  a fantastic space battle combined with luke's struggles with vader & teh emperor.  then the teddy bears came.  no thanks.


----------



## Fast Learner (Sep 13, 2004)

Since there's no thread on it, let me just say that the DVDs include the documentary _Star Wars: Empire of Dreams_, which they played on A&E several times tonight. It's really excellent, providing all kinds of behind-the-scenes stuff I've never seen before. Recommended.


----------



## Greatwyrm (Sep 13, 2004)

It's cool that it will include the A&E special.  I really enjoyed that.

As far as the changes, most of them don't bother me.  I've had a few years to get used to Greedo shooting first, even though I don't like it.  What really bugs me is the Jedi ghosts scene at the end of RotJ.  The thing I didn't want the most was swapping Anakins, and of course, that's what happened.

Most of the rest seems like cleaning up special effects.  That's fine by me.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 13, 2004)

*Sigh* Back to the "Lucas ruined my childhood!" again...that's just annoying to me these days.


----------



## Greatwyrm (Sep 13, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *Sigh* Back to the "Lucas ruined my childhood!" again...that's just annoying to me these days.




I'm not going that far.  I'm just saying the ghost scene didn't need to be changed.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 13, 2004)

Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> I'm not going that far.  I'm just saying the ghost scene didn't need to be changed.



 Actually, wasn't commenting on your post.  I do understand the whole thing about the ghost scene, though it doesn't really bother me all that much.


----------



## Tom Cashel (Sep 13, 2004)

I don't mind the change in the ghosts scene all that much...but it doesn't make sense. How come Anakin's ghost is "young Anakin" while the others are old? Why not switch Alec Guinness out for Ewan MacGregor? I'm being sarcastic, but...help me see how it makes sense.

Maybe because Anakin's ghost appears as he did before turning to the Dark Side...?

Even the fact that it has to be rationalized is kinda annoying.

p.s. My copy of the new DVD set is already paid for, and I can't wait to see it. The new jabba scene in ANH looks keen, and Han and Greedo now fire simultaneously (Greedo's a VERY bad shot for a bounty hunter....). Changes are okay with me--I've seen the films so many freaking times that anything surprising is cool with me.

...as long as it makes some kind of sense.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 13, 2004)

[Digression]: Anhk-Morpork Guard, will you please shrink your sig pic? It's significantly too large.

Thanks!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 13, 2004)

Tom Cashel said:
			
		

> I don't mind the change in the ghosts scene all that much...but it doesn't make sense. How come Anakin's ghost is "young Anakin" while the others are old? Why not switch Alec Guinness out for Ewan MacGregor? I'm being sarcastic, but...help me see how it makes sense.
> 
> Maybe because Anakin's ghost appears as he did before turning to the Dark Side...?




I remember Lucas explaining it this way: Anakin died the he became Darth Vader.

...and now that I think about it, that really goes along with Obi-Wan's view of the whole situation. Or at least...from a certain point of view.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 13, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But when he starts off as not-an-anti-hero, there's no _becoming_, no journey, no growth.



Unless Georgie-boy decided to show a scene in _Episode 3_ where a young Imperial Lieutenant Solo helped the Wookiee of Kashykk escaped slavery and gain the companionship of the more honorable Chewbacca. A _D&D_ paradox where a Paladin got hooked up with a Rogue.


----------



## Gnarlo (Sep 13, 2004)

satori01 said:
			
		

> So you are saying even as a child you HATEd Return of the Jedi, because of the stupid ewoks?




I have to agree with Beeber on this one, I've ALWAYS hated stuff that was obviously put in "for the kids"...  I was 18 when Return came out, but even back when I was 11 or 12 in Battlestar Galactica (the Daggit) and Buck Rogers (Tweeki), and then back in the 70's cartoons (the idiot kids and their dog on Superfriends) I always could tell when I was being "talked down to" **blegh**



			
				Ankh said:
			
		

> *Sigh* Back to the "Lucas ruined my childhood!" again...that's just annoying to me these days.




That's just because your childhood isn't that far in your past      Wait about 20 years from now when the S.E. Holodeck version of Lord of the Rings comes out, and Jackson's decision to include authentic swamp smells and body odor for the Dead Marshes scenes has you screaming that he's "ruined your childhood!"


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 13, 2004)

Gnarlo said:
			
		

> That's just because your childhood isn't that far in your past      Wait about 20 years from now when the S.E. Holodeck version of Lord of the Rings comes out, and Jackson's decision to include authentic swamp smells and body odor for the Dead Marshes scenes has you screaming that he's "ruined your childhood!"




Bah!  Just because I was born in '86 doesn't mean I didn't grow up with Star Wars. Now, you want to know what ruined my life? Having to wait until the mid 90s to actually see them in the theater. THAT is life ruining.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 13, 2004)

Gnarlo said:
			
		

> That's just because your childhood isn't that far in your past      Wait about 20 years from now when the S.E. Holodeck version of Lord of the Rings comes out, and Jackson's decision to include authentic swamp smells and body odor for the Dead Marshes scenes has you screaming that he's "ruined your childhood!"



Nah, it wouldn't be Peter Jackson, but some upstart future director who think PJ's adaptation is poor and want to produce an authentic _LOTR_ to appease the Purists, including the swamp smell of the Dead Marshes and the manly cologne scent of Eowyn in disguise.   

But you are right. George Lucas want to make it a family-friendly film, also to offset the dark middle act of _The Empire Strikes Back._

Too bad he didn't invoke "artists' right" to remove the Ewok and insert the tree-climbing Wookiee of Kashykk, as originally scripted but could not be done in the early 80's.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Sep 13, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> *Sigh* Back to the "Lucas ruined my childhood!" again...that's just annoying to me these days.



 I can already picture what internet chatrooms will look like a few years from now when Peter Jackson gets around to making a live-action movie of _the Hobbit._ 

*Geek #1:*  "OMFG!  Beorn was such a lame character!  I also can't believe that a single damn arrow killed a dragon the size of a whale."

*Geek #2:*  "I was so let down by the stupid talking spiders in Mirkwood forest.  And what was up with the eagles showing to save the day _twice_?  Talk about a total deu ex machina."

*Geek #3:*  "Bilbo was so annoying, so were all 13 of the generic Jar-Jar comic relief dwarves."

*Geek #4:*  "Why weer ther not mor elfs?  I luved teh elves in lotr."

*Geek #5:*  "Peter Jackson raped my childhood."


----------



## Kesh (Sep 14, 2004)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Since there's no thread on it, let me just say that the DVDs include the documentary _Star Wars: Empire of Dreams_, which they played on A&E several times tonight. It's really excellent, providing all kinds of behind-the-scenes stuff I've never seen before. Recommended.



 Best part of that special was hearing the actor in the Chewbacca suit actually reading lines, and Darth Vader's Scottish accent. 

Second best was the screen test of Kurt Russel for the part of Han Solo.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 14, 2004)

Kesh said:
			
		

> Best part of that special was hearing the actor in the Chewbacca suit actually reading lines, and Darth Vader's Scottish accent.
> 
> Second best was the screen test of Kurt Russel for the part of Han Solo.



 Those were definitely great!

I seem to remember from a news item over at TheForce.net that this was an edited version of the documentary. Which means the DVDs will have more to it...not sure how much or if its even true.


----------



## driver8 (Sep 14, 2004)

The documentary was nice. Alot of the info I think weve heard before, but it was nice to see the original cast talk about it and see the audutions.

I have to say, after ranting like alot of people about the changes, et al. the changes on the dvd dont really bother me so much. Im certainly not a fan of Episode I and II, but I can give GL the benefit of the doubt that he couldnt do the original trilogy the way he wanted way back then.

That said I wish we could see the original movies the way they were theatrically released. Im a believer in that movies arent just a medium of entertainment, they are also a capsule of society at a moment of time. Even Sci-fi reflects the times in which they are made, and seeing the original trilogy in all its late 70s glory would be nice. /shrug


----------



## mojo1701 (Sep 14, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Bah!  Just because I was born in '86 doesn't mean I didn't grow up with Star Wars. Now, you want to know what ruined my life? Having to wait until the mid 90s to actually see them in the theater. THAT is life ruining.




Same here. Also an '86-er



			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Too bad he didn't invoke "artists' right" to remove the Ewok and insert the tree-climbing Wookiee of Kashykk, as originally scripted but could not be done in the early 80's.




Yeah. Stupid Fox studios.

It's interesting, it was Fox's original idea to have the movie rated PG, instead of G, so it would gain the appeal of teenagers. Then, 6 years later, they're trying to attract the kiddies...


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 14, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Yeah. Stupid Fox studios.
> 
> It's interesting, it was Fox's original idea to have the movie rated PG, instead of G, so it would gain the appeal of teenagers. Then, 6 years later, they're trying to attract the kiddies...



Yeah, but what's stopping Georgie-boy from replacing the Ewoks now? I don't think this "artists' right" he's been invoking (heard it from his mouth on the late-night Charlie Rose show) has a limit, not even fans' reaction.


----------



## ddvmor (Sep 14, 2004)

I've just noticed that If I reserve a copy of the trilogy at Virgin Megastores in Bristol, I can get it signed by David Prowse on the 20th.  Whaddaya think?  Should I reserve it..  hmm?


----------



## Rackhir (Sep 14, 2004)

satori01 said:
			
		

> So you are saying even as a child you HATEd Return of the Jedi, because of the stupid ewoks?
> 
> I remember feeling a bit incredulous that unarmed ewoks where about to defeat 2 crack legions of the empire's best troops, but it certainly did not ruin the film, or my feeling towards the trilogy.
> 
> The trimuph of spirit over technology is one of the main themes of the triology.




One of the most horrifying rumors I've heard, is that the battle on Endor with the ewoks was supposed to be a Viet Nam allegory. I've never seen any evidence to back this up, but it makes a certain amount of terrifying sense


----------



## mojo1701 (Sep 14, 2004)

Here's something I stumbled upon for a laugh about the new versions:

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2374


----------



## Jarrod (Sep 14, 2004)

Ohhh, my eyes....


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Sep 14, 2004)

mojo1701 said:
			
		

> Here's something I stumbled upon for a laugh about the new versions:
> 
> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2374



 Part of me has just died...again...ah well, most of them are funny.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Sep 14, 2004)

Heh, I love this one:


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 14, 2004)

This one made me laugh out loud:






-Hyp.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Sep 14, 2004)

Now, that is funny


----------



## Henry (Sep 15, 2004)

Han shoots first. There IS no other alternative. 

I loved the Ewoks when I was 12, and I love the ewoks now that I'm in my 30's. The "Viet Nam" allegory, I'll leave others to decide - it could just as easily be an American Revolutionary War allegory, or a Soviet Union/Afghanistan allegory, or what have you. The point is, like one person (Larry Kasdan?) made in _Empire of Dreams_: Superior technology is no match for a people whose determination and heart is in a cause. The Ewoks were there for kids to like, for sure, but they also reminded us, just like the rag-tag pilots of _A New Hope_, of the determination of the common man to rise up against tyranny, no matter the cost. If it was "just for the kiddies," they would have left out the scenes where Ewoks fought and died (especially the one where one Ewok cries for another who died - that one still gives my heart-strings a little tug 20 years later).


----------



## Viking Bastard (Sep 15, 2004)

Plus, man-eating teddy bears are jut kewl.

 People always forget the man-eating part.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Sep 15, 2004)

Those were ROFLMAO funny! Even the AT-AT one which is sooooooo wrong on many levels....


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 15, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> This one made me laugh out loud:



Whoo, lawd! That better not be tongues involved.


----------



## Sorren (Sep 16, 2004)

I saw Return of the Jedi on DVD last night. It's been a while since I last saw it, so I had a hard time telling what was new.

The lightsabers look much better, that's for sure. I also thought they did a good job putting Hayden in at the end.

*shrug* I guess I'm not a huge purist, but I liked it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 16, 2004)

You're a Purist if you want Han to shoot first.


----------



## Ranger REG (Sep 16, 2004)

You're a Purist if you want Han to shoot first.


----------



## Kai Lord (Sep 16, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Too bad he didn't invoke "artists' right" to remove the Ewok and insert the tree-climbing Wookiee of Kashykk, as originally scripted but could not be done in the early 80's.



Wookiees on Kashyyk were never scripted in Return of the Jedi.  It was George's first *idea* for what would become the Endor battle, but he wanted the Stormtroopers to be defeated by a primitive culture, and wookiees had been established as being quite technologically proficient.  So he decided not to go through with that and changed them to ewoks.

He specifically addresses the origins of the ewoks in an interview with Leonard Maltin at the end of the 1995 THX laserdisc release of Return of the Jedi.


----------

