Special Edition Truck Chase?

Raiders90

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
I don't but he Menaced all over my original Star Wars.

I do think he should offer the original versions, don't get me wrong. But I think it is right to also change them. But it's unfair to the fans not to offer the original versions, for sure.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Agent Spalko said:
True that! Bring back Old Indy (not Harrison, the other one).

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.
 

FILMKRUSC

New member
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.

I agree. Leave the film the way it was originally made. Don't worry some idiot will come along some day to completely remake it then you can have the new updated FX.
 
Yes, George can have his Self-referential Masturbatory Editions so long as we have the unadulterated Original Uncut and Un-violated Editions.
 
Yeah, this is why I really like the Blade Runner revisions; Ridley believes in preserving the early incarnations. And I'll admit that all the changes in Final Cut were beneficial... though the update of Zhora crashing through the window could have been done without.

The Final Cut was more a restructuring than a special effects revision template. And that I have less of a problem with. The changes George makes are superficial and therefore pointless. And many times all this flashy CGI work is in detriment because it simply doesn't mesh with the rest of the footage.


I can't speak for the change done to Raiders as I haven't seen it. But it doesn't sound good... More superficiality...
 

Adamwankenobi

New member
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.

That's the way Lucas originally released the YIJC to the public. He can make all the changes he wants, but because of that fact alone, the original versions should be made available.

It's not a matter of quality, it's a matter of respect. More importantly than to us fans, Lucas should respect George Hall, who played Old Indy, and died in 2002. YIJC was his most well-known work, so it's sad to see Lucas "rewriting history".

Had Steven Spielberg been involved with the series, I doubt he would have gone all revisionist on us. And even if he did, he would have put out both versions of the series in equal quality (as shown by his E.T. and Close Encounters DVD releases).
 
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.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
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.

He is in a position where he shouldn't and doesn't need to about what the public thinks. He's created or had a hand in more beautiful works (Star Wars, Indy, Young Indy) then most of those in the ''public''. But that said, he should show more respect to fans by at least offering both versions (Or in the case of YIJ, showing Old Indy as deleted scenes or bonus footage for those who liked his segments).
 

crowmagnumman

New member
I agree. Lucas can mess with his movies all he wants and release as many new versions as he wants, but trying to destroy the original versions is totally uncalled for. Make them available too, and then I can appreciate his revisions more.
 

Michael24

New member
Someone mentioned Blade Runner: The Final Cut. I love the way Ridley Scott handled that, showing that a director can still go back and make changes while at the same time not alienating the fans. In regards to releasing five different versions, he basically said "everybody has their favorite, so I wanted the fans to be able to watch whichever version they prefer." Hint hint, Mr. Lucas.
 

Adamwankenobi

New member
Does anyone have the THX 1138 DVD. It's pretty pathetic to be watching Lucas and his buddies discuss the making of the film and all of their trials and tribulations in making it... all the while showing clips from Lucas' "Director's Cut". (n)
 

Darth Vile

New member
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.

Of course it?s great if we can have multiple versions of the same thing and play them at our leisure, but again I think that?s a bit of a moot point. The right to change one?s own work is an artistic choice and one that should be respected.
 

oki9Sedo

New member
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.
 
He doesn't say "father." He says "facker" It's intentionally ambiguous that way and gives the scene more depth. He's torn between love and hatred. This is his god, a fragile man... he crushes his god in his hands. That's poignant.

I love the "facker" bit, myself.
 

Darth Vile

New member
ResidentAlien,

I believe you are mistaken. He clearly says "father" (not "facker"), and it's also "father" in the subtitles...
 
Top