Agent Spalko said:Why? Because I got Phantom Menaced.
If ya don't like Phantom Menace, there's a simple solution to that--
Don't watch it.
Agent Spalko said:Why? Because I got Phantom Menaced.
Raiders112390 said:If ya don't like Phantom Menace, there's a simple solution to that--
Don't watch it.
Agent Spalko said:I don't but he Menaced all over my original Star Wars.
Adamwankenobi said:And he "Menaced" all over my original YIJC.
Agent Spalko said:I don't but he Menaced all over my original Star Wars.
Agent Spalko said:True that! Bring back Old Indy (not Harrison, the other one).
Agent Spalko said:And why should we cater to a younger generation that cannot appreciate the historical artistic merits of film making and special effects? By that token we should just arbitrarily redo all of the visual effects of all films prior to Jurassic Park just to make them happy? I staunchly disagree with revisionism. If you want to "update" the effects to look modern, that's fine so long as the film is given the addendum that it is an entirely different version and the original theatrical film is preserved independent from the revisionist edition, something Lucas obviously is against.
Raiders112390 said:Why does everyone seem to like Old Indy? I thought the Old Indy bookends were really cheesy and made the show kind of sucky, whereas without him it's classic. George Hall had this almost British sounding accent, not like Indy would sound like at all. Though he did look very much like a 90 year old Indy would. And they haven't aged well; every bad 90's fashion, hairstyle and item of clothing is very visible in the book-ends.
Agent Spalko said:When are you going to learn that Lucas doesn't give a damn what the public thinks. If Lucas showed some respect the fans we'd give it to him.
Darth Vile said:If it?s his work, Lucas has the right to do what he wants with it? and I?ll defend to the death any artist who wants to retrospectively change/alter their creation. Of course that doesn?t mean we have to like it, or that the change/alteration makes it any better. As a concept, it?s either something you agree with or not. So all this Ridley Scott does it better is a bit bogus for me, Indeed, I thought the changes in the Director?s cut of Blade Runner i.e. the voice over, was far more fundamental to the narrative than anything Lucas has changed. Also, I?d argue that Scott?s change of Roy?s dialogue (The Final Cut) from ?I want more life f**ker?, to ?I won?t more life father? is akin to Greedo shooting first.I agree. An artist always has the right to retrospectively change their work if the wish. If the audience doesn't like it, thats a shame, but at the end of the day, a true artist creates their work for themselves and not for an audience.
Anyway, I didn't appreciate that change in Blade Runner either. That "f***er" was so emphatic and so fuelled. It conveyed how much Batty wanted life and how indignant he was at being reduced to ASKING for something that should be his God given right.