Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2004, 10:50:34 AM
I haven't read far enough into this thread so I don't know if it's revealed to be a fake but check this out.
If that's a real pic not only am I not buying this DVD set I'm tempted to systematically burn down every retail store in my area to prevent others from buying it.
Scary stuff, no?
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 19, 2004, 11:19:18 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2004, 11:27:31 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 19, 2004, 11:32:08 AM
And if Lucas wanted to be really greedy, he could have waited for the DVD release until Ep. 3 was out and had a sextology set.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 19, 2004, 12:45:40 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 19, 2004, 01:01:05 PM
Oh God, if that were true......
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 19, 2004, 01:57:18 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 19, 2004, 02:12:03 PM
No you see that would make some sense. Replacing only one of the characters with their younger self and not the other two is the exact sort of stupid sh!t George Lucas would do.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 19, 2004, 02:52:33 PM
The Force.Net says that " The years in the Dark Side don't age the Jedi's spirit form".
These are rumours. Nothing more. But at least this one made more sense than the rumours that Natalie Portman's Padme was making an appearence in spirt form in Return of the Jedi.
But still, it's really confusing as to why someone (Lucas?) would even think about changing the movies AGAIN. Now I didn't mind the Special Editions at all, but this is going too far.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 20, 2004, 01:30:33 AM
Post by: The Omen on May 20, 2004, 12:38:22 PM
Quote
How could it be anything BUT a fake? It's obvious if you ask me.
And if Lucas wanted to be really greedy, he could have waited for the DVD release until Ep. 3 was out and had a sextology set.
And he will do that, in edition to this trilogy set. Lucas is nothing more than a blubbering idiot. He co-wrote the best movie in the series, and didn't even direct it.
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 20, 2004, 05:29:15 PM
The reason why Anakin's ghost appears young has to do with something that happens in EIII. Apparently Anakin will die in the duel with Obi-Wan, but he will be resurrected by the Dark Side as a soulless monster ala Frankenstein's Monster. It isn't until he turns back to the Light Side in Jedi that his soul is able to become one with the Force, hence why his spirit appears young.
There's also a few other changes too.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 20, 2004, 08:16:09 PM
If anybody does not think this film will suck they are insane. That COMPLETELY ruins the Darth Vader character. I always assumed that he CHOSE to embrace the dark side and then repented at the end of his life. The cyborg body is only a result of him being seriously injured and thus needing a new body. That is a very positive storyline and it ties in really well with the religious theme of the Jedi. If he dies and is then resurrected as a monster it totally kills that character because he was then turned evil against his will. It's important for him to choose to embrace evil and then choose again to return to good. Plus instead of the new body symbolizing his change from good to evil it literally is his change. Subtlety? What's that?
Lucas is such a hack. Clearly it was a total fluke that Star Wars was any good. It's like everything I love about the original trilogy was an accident and was not what Lucas envisioned.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 21, 2004, 03:32:32 AM
) would have reacted when he sees their three spirits there at the end of RotJ, but instead of the Anakin he saw when he took Vader's mask off, he sees a guy thats younger than he is - thats meant to be his father.I don't know about you, but I'd be like 'Who the hell is this dipsh*t?"
Hayden Christensen's resemblance to Mark Hamill is quite remarkable, though.
Post by: oohhboy on May 21, 2004, 06:31:56 AM
That picture has finally broken the magic that was in the Star Wars movies. I can only hope GL doesn't go and edit the books too. If he does, I wouldn't mind chipping in to take him out.
Hayden Christensen can go join GL in the Hack Club.
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 21, 2004, 06:53:17 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"but he will be resurrected by the Dark Side as a soulless monster ala Frankenstein's Monster."
I always assumed that he CHOSE to embrace the dark side and then repented at the end of his life.
Uh yeah, that's still how it works. Just because he doesn't have a soul doesn't mean he's mindless and can't make moral decisions. By the time he's fighting with Obi-Wan he will already have made the decision to join the Dark Side and become Sidious'' Sith apprentice. In fact the reason why he joins the Dark Side is to cheat death. Remember that whole thing in EII about how he's going to learn how to keep people from dying? He also still makes the decision to sacrifice his life to save his son. In fact this will now be a bigger deal, since only the Dark Side of the Force is keeping him alive, and he knows that once he turns back to the Light Side he's a goner.
Anyway all of that stuff I said is just unconfirmed rumor at this point. No one's entirely sure why George has decided that Anakin's ghost will be played by Hayden. It's supposed to be explained in EIII though.
There's also the possibility that Anakin simply choses to appear that way to Luke. Maybe he wants to give Luke the chance to see him the way he was before he turned to the Dark Side and became a broken, scarred, old man. It worked just fine in Field of Dreams, when the ghost of the main character's father appeared to him as a young man. Also there's really no point to saying Luke won't recognize him, because Sebastian Shaw looked completely different as a ghost than he did in the unmasking scene as well. In fact I've heard quite a few times about people not even realizing who that third ghost was.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 21, 2004, 07:35:45 AM
Yeah he didn't have all the make-up on. OH NO I can't recognize him now. Anyone who couldn't recognize who the third ghost was is an idiot. It's played by the same actor and everything. And obviously Luke would be able to tell who it is since he just saw the guy's face a few hours ago. He's never even seen a picture of his father as a young man so he probably would have much more difficulty recognizing him in that form.
Plus this whole "he died when he was young" stuff doesn't make any sense. He died in front of Luke shortly after being unmasked and at that point he had gone back to the light side. Thus he should still be an old man in ghost form.
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 21, 2004, 08:00:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
He's never even seen a picture of his father as a young man so he probably would have much more difficulty recognizing him in that form.
Luke's not stupid. I'm sure he could figure it out. Who the hell else is it going to be? Plus, there's that whole feeling things through the Force thing, so I'm sure he'll pick up on his dad's vibes or whatever.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Plus this whole "he died when he was young" stuff doesn't make any sense. He died in front of Luke shortly after being unmasked and at that point he had gone back to the light side. Thus he should still be an old man in ghost form.
Well, you completely missed the point. When he dies in EIII he loses his soul. He does not get it back when he is resurrected because cheating death is a Dark Side thing and not the natural way of the Force. Yoda tells Luke in EVI when referring to his own death, "That is the way of things. The way of the Force." That's why I brought up Frankenstein, because he isn't really brought back to life but simply reanimated. It's kind of a big thing in Frankenstein, at least in the movies, about how The Monster doesn't have a soul because he was brought to life in an unnatural way outside of god's order and such. Basically all those years as Vader end up being void once he turns back to the Light Side.
That's about the simplest way I can put. Of course like I said earlier, not even the insiders are 100% certain why the change is being made.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 21, 2004, 08:33:42 AM
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 21, 2004, 09:08:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I guess that makes sense but it's confusing and I imagine a lot of people are going to be confused by it. The original ending didn't need to be explained, it just made sense.
Are you sure about that? I mean, one of the biggest mysteries about the Star Wars movies is how a Jedi vanishes and becomes one with the Force. There's also the fact that Anakin's ghost didn't look exactly like he did when he died in the original version anyway. He didn't have any of his scars, wasn't bald, and wasn't missing any limbs. Sure, we understood it was Anakin, but we've never understood exactly how this Force ghost thing works, which is supposed to be explained in EIII.
Anyway, from what I'm hearing this will be cleared up in EIII, and I wouldn't be surprised if George explains it on the Return of the Jedi commentary track.
Just be patient with this whole thing. If George doesn't explain it or his reasoning is stupid, then get pissed off. Until then, just calm down.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 21, 2004, 09:41:17 AM
Post by: oohhboy on May 22, 2004, 05:16:11 AM
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 22, 2004, 07:16:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
I guess they are going to go ruin that to?
Are you talking about the Force ghost thing? George has been saying for years that he would explain that in the prequels.
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
They already messed up with that Midichloriane thing which blow the living day lights out of the force.
How?
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
Some one kill him for the love of god...
You're an idiot. If you don't like George or the changes, don't f@cking buy the DVDs or watch the prequels.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 23, 2004, 02:20:27 AM
Obi-wan's explanation (in A New Hope) was cool and mysterious, which was ok for something that couldn't really be explained at the time, but I rather liked what Qui-Gon said about it. It still has that mystcal element to it and makes lots of sense.
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 23, 2004, 09:38:29 AM
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on May 23, 2004, 04:11:03 PM
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 23, 2004, 05:23:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1
And now, since Ep3 is gonna suck,
And you know this "fact" how?
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 23, 2004, 05:42:03 PM
Quote
And you know this "fact" how?
George Lucas is writing and directing it.
Post by: BiLdItUp1 on May 23, 2004, 06:05:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
And you know this "fact" how?
George Lucas is writing and directing it.
Exactamundo. The best SW, ESB was directed by Irvin Kershner, and ROTJ, which is enjoyable if flawed, was done by Lawrence Kasdan. With the exception of American Graffiti and possibly ANH, Lucas directed films suck.
Besides, it might have some saving graces if the rumors posted here aren't true...
But you know all this, so I'm gonna go to bed.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 23, 2004, 07:24:20 PM
I think that's the real problem with these prequels. A lot of the best stuff in the original trilogy was subtle and we assumed that things were a certain way. The prequels remove the mystery and they reveal that what we assumed was not true was not what Lucas intended. That's a really sucky wake-up call.
Hell I even noticed stuff like that in the Special Editions. I assumed that the Wampa was barely shown to build suspense. "Oh sh!t what's that thing that attacked Luke? F*ck it's coming! Get out of there!" Instead it turns out that he was technically unable to show the beast and that's the only reason we got what we got. What turned out to be a suspensful scare was supposed to be a slasher b-movie "scare". Yeah. And I thought the original Sarlac pit was really cool and original. It was a giant mouth in the middle of the desert. That's just so creepy and mysterious. Of course that too was unintentional and only done because of limitations. Instead Lucas wanted a generic cliche sandworm.
What's really annoying is that he doesn't realize that these "less is more" situations turned out BETTER than what he originally wanted. He looks at the creative original design of the Sarlac and thinks "but I wanted a sandworm." Most people would think "hey that turned out to be really original and creative and the fans really liked that."
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 23, 2004, 08:01:14 PM
Quote
I think that's the real problem with these prequels. A lot of the best stuff in the original trilogy was subtle and we assumed that things were a certain way. The prequels remove the mystery and they reveal that what we assumed was not true was not what Lucas intended. That's a really sucky wake-up call.
That was the main reason Tolkien didn't want to publish The Silmarillion. He said a huge part of the appeal of Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit was their allusions to events that happened far in the best, giving both books a gigantic sense of backstory that was just out of your reach, and it created an immense depth. He was afraid that actually reading those backstories would remove that mystery and diminish the feel of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. I find I both agree and disagree with him- to your casual reader I think he's exactly correct, and reading The Silmarillion will dampen the atmosphere of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings quite a bit. But to huge fans reading The Silmarillion only goes to heighten the sense of depth we get from The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings since we know what is being referenced to in so many passages.
Star Wars followed that same principle- the original trilogy alluded to many things that was left to our imagination, and for many people having been *told* what happened lessens the impact of both trilogies in a way. It also didn't help that Lucas just screwed everything up.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 23, 2004, 09:15:29 PM
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 24, 2004, 08:18:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
You're a Jedi because of these microorganisms that Jedi have but regular people don't.
According to Qui-Gon though, everyone has them. Also, I think who does and doesn't become a Jedi has to do with more than just the Midichlorians. The Council originally rejected Anakin despite him having the highest Midichlorian count they'd seen, after all.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think that's the real problem with these prequels. A lot of the best stuff in the original trilogy was subtle and we assumed that things were a certain way. The prequels remove the mystery and they reveal that what we assumed was not true was not what Lucas intended. That's a really sucky wake-up call.
Well, that's sort of the point. If these films didn't change and reveal things, then they would be pretty pointless. George even said before he started making Menace that he wouldn't do these films unless they changed how we look at the original films.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Hell I even noticed stuff like that in the Special Editions. I assumed that the Wampa was barely shown to build suspense. "Oh sh!t what's that thing that attacked Luke? F*ck it's coming! Get out of there!" Instead it turns out that he was technically unable to show the beast and that's the only reason we got what we got. What turned out to be a suspensful scare was supposed to be a slasher b-movie "scare". Yeah. And I thought the original Sarlac pit was really cool and original. It was a giant mouth in the middle of the desert. That's just so creepy and mysterious. Of course that too was unintentional and only done because of limitations. Instead Lucas wanted a generic cliche sandworm.
What's really annoying is that he doesn't realize that these "less is more" situations turned out BETTER than what he originally wanted. He looks at the creative original design of the Sarlac and thinks "but I wanted a sandworm." Most people would think "hey that turned out to be really original and creative and the fans really liked that."
Well, if you haven't noticed, Star Wars is an extremely visual, special effects laden series. In my opinion, it doesn't really fit with the rest of the movies to not show the Wampa. Even George acknowledged that some felt not showing the Wampa was more suspenseful on the Special Edition VHS interview, but that wasn't how he intended it.
I was fine with adding the beak to the to the Sarlac, since the original looked like a lifeless hole in the ground with a couple tentacles. It didn't really seem all that threatening.
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 24, 2004, 08:28:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
That was the main reason Tolkien didn't want to publish The Silmarillion. He said a huge part of the appeal of Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit was their allusions to events that happened far in the best, giving both books a gigantic sense of backstory that was just out of your reach, and it created an immense depth. He was afraid that actually reading those backstories would remove that mystery and diminish the feel of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. I find I both agree and disagree with him- to your casual reader I think he's exactly correct, and reading The Silmarillion will dampen the atmosphere of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings quite a bit. But to huge fans reading The Silmarillion only goes to heighten the sense of depth we get from The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings since we know what is being referenced to in so many passages.
Do you have a quote or something to back that up? Tolkien worked on the thing for years but didn't publish it himself because he died before it was finished. At least that was my understanding of it. I've certainly never heard that he didn't want to publish it.
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Star Wars followed that same principle- the original trilogy alluded to many things that was left to our imagination, and for many people having been *told* what happened lessens the impact of both trilogies in a way. It also didn't help that Lucas just screwed everything up.
Uh, no. George always planned on making prequel movies. That's why A New Hope was called Episode IV and not Episode I.
Post by: KDR_11k on May 24, 2004, 09:32:36 AM
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 24, 2004, 01:31:47 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BiLdItUp1Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuote
And you know this "fact" how?
George Lucas is writing and directing it.
Exactamundo. The best SW, ESB was directed by Irvin Kershner, and ROTJ, which is enjoyable if flawed, was done by Lawrence Kasdan. With the exception of American Graffiti and possibly ANH, Lucas directed films suck.
Besides, it might have some saving graces if the rumors posted here aren't true...
But you know all this, so I'm gonna go to bed.
Then why the hell do either of you care? If George and his movies suck so much don't watch them and shut up about them. I can't stand you fan boys who take special pleasure in constantly bitching and complaining about movies you hate. It's f@cking childish. What amazes me is that you guys being Nintendo fans should know better. How many of you don't get sick and tired about hearing how "kiddy" Nintendo is or how stupid WW looks and the other loads of crap we Nintendo fans have to hear constantly?
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 24, 2004, 04:24:16 PM
Post by: Gibdo Master on May 24, 2004, 06:30:12 PM
By the way, other than the Emperor/Vader/Luke stuff I think Jedi is pretty terrible. The Jabba stuff went on way too long, and the acting challenges even the prequels for woodenness in the Endor scenes. That's just my opinion though.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 24, 2004, 06:43:16 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 24, 2004, 06:46:31 PM
The problem is we can't watch the ones we like anymore. They're no longer sold in stores and for the immediate future will not legally be available on DVD. The only way to enjoy Empire and Jedi now is with Lucas' sh!t splattered on them.
"The Jabba stuff went on way too long, and the acting challenges even the prequels for woodenness in the Endor scenes."
You're the very first person I've ever met to complain about the Jabba part. I love that part of the movie. As for the acting it was never that good in any of the Star Wars movies but Empire and Jedi had an advantage. The lines were not NEARLY as corny and the directors actually had the talent to pick good takes and not edit the f*ck out of everything. The shoddy directing and writing in the prequels just makes the wooden acting stand out more. It's like how the acting in the Star Trek movies is always pretty average but it isn't as noticeable in Star Trek II as it is in the first movie due to the huge difference in the quality of the films themselves.
Post by: The Omen on May 26, 2004, 04:53:01 PM
And Gibdo Master, many of us care because Empire is a great film. Not a great Sci fi film. But a great film. And he had less to do with it than any of the others. So now as he soils his image because of his bloated ego, we should just sit back and have no opinion? Having a conflicting opinion doesnt mean we hate him. And our opinion is just as valid as someone who sees no fault with anything he does.
Post by: Gibdo Master on June 14, 2004, 10:09:10 AM
Also does anyone else notice how clean and sharp the image is? If anything else, these movies are going to look gorgeous thanks to the Lowry Digital.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 14, 2004, 10:49:38 AM
I am? Cool! Maybe I can land a date with Natalie Portman.
That change actually does make some sense but I still don't like it. The revisionist history nature of the changes is what pisses me off. The old scene may look out of place when viewing the trilogy as a whole but it wasn't a mistake when Empire Strikes Back came out. If he wants to screw around and make a Director's Cut that's fine. I just don't like how he's attempting to remove the original cut from the face of the Earth.
Post by: Gibdo Master on June 14, 2004, 11:00:35 AM
Anyway, I wouldn't worry about the original versions never being released. Along with all the rumors of changes, there's also rumors that the originals will be released in 2007 to commemorate the 30th anniversary of A New Hope's first theatrical release. George isn't going to tell you that though because he doesn't want to downplay the release of his ultimate editions in September.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 14, 2004, 11:07:50 AM
Oh the originals will be released on DVD around the same time as these new cuts. George Lucas just won't get any money from them.
Post by: Gibdo Master on June 14, 2004, 11:21:08 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 14, 2004, 11:47:00 AM
Post by: Gibdo Master on June 14, 2004, 11:54:28 AM
Either way you'd be wrong because the DVDs coming out in September are already seeing record pre-order sales. I'm sure plenty of people will buy any official version of the originals too, especially if it means better quality sound and video.
Post by: Syl on June 14, 2004, 11:56:25 AM
If you want to try and recreate it better, go ahead.
If you succeed, we get a better game/movie.
If you don't succeed, then at least i'll always have the original.
Personally, I think the starwars universe is a damn good universe, hence why it has so many incredibly good novels following hte movies. I don't care nearly as much for the movies as I do for the Thrawn Trilogy, The Jedi Academy trilogy, or hell, even some of the stand alone books.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 14, 2004, 12:34:20 PM
No I mean that he won't make any money off of bootlegs of the original versions that are sold from 2004 to 2007 before the official release of the originals. In the end I guess he won't care but bootleggers will be cashing in.
Plus I imagine the record setting pre-order sales are largely from ignorant people who are going to put their Star Wars DVD in their player and say "What the f*ck? What's with all this new stuff?" Many won't care, a whole lot will.
At the very least Lucas lost a purchase from me with this retooling BS. I'll buy the original cut but I will NEVER buy the special one. In theory however I might have had the original been released first. Then I would see this as a cool Director's Cut instead of an attempt to rewrite the past.
Post by: Nile Boogie on June 14, 2004, 08:04:25 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on June 14, 2004, 08:55:04 PM
This isn't like a crappy movie that I don't have to watch. It's a good movie made worse by changes. I don't want to not watch, I want to watch the original movie I fell in love with. It's not that I have to watch the special edition it's that I CAN'T watch the original. The "don't watch" arguement is valid for the prequels but it totally doesn't apply here.
Everyone who defends these changes are selfish since your whole arguement is "well I like the changes and get what I want so I don't care if you don't get the option of the original."
Post by: manunited4eva22 on June 15, 2004, 09:47:01 AM
Post by: Jale on June 15, 2004, 10:30:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Nile Boogie
Go get some fresh air and sunshine you synical bastards!
It is spelt cynical
Pleb.
I think that he should release the unadulterated ones first. Let him do the directors cut separately as a cash-whore project.
Post by: Syl on June 15, 2004, 12:01:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"If you don't like don't watch."
This isn't like a crappy movie that I don't have to watch. It's a good movie made worse by changes. I don't want to not watch, I want to watch the original movie I fell in love with. It's not that I have to watch the special edition it's that I CAN'T watch the original. The "don't watch" arguement is valid for the prequels but it totally doesn't apply here.
Everyone who defends these changes are selfish since your whole arguement is "well I like the changes and get what I want so I don't care if you don't get the option of the original."
You've seen the original, otherwise you wouldn't be bitching about the changes.
so what the f*** are you complaining about? its not like you've never seen it.
Your calling Me selfish? I don't even own a VCR, theres no way in hell i could own the originals, i don't care though, cause i've seen them. And if Lucas wants to change his own movie so that it ties in better with prequels, great for him. I'm just glad that I can finally own SOME form of the movies, even if they arent the "original cut"
You never know, might end up better. But not to you, of course, your going to be blinded by your "OMG ITS NOT THE ORIGINAL" mentality. Go into something wanting it to suck, and it will suck. Nothing he could do will change that if you think like that.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 15, 2004, 01:19:03 PM
Uh yeah but I want to have the option to own it and watch it whenever I want. Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? I mean I just saw Harry Potter 3 in theatre a few weeks back. I've thus already seen it so hypothetically if the director decided to not release it on DVD or video I have no right to complain? This is essentially the same thing.
I own the extended cut of the Lord of the Rings movies and I have no intention of owning the original versions because I like the extended cuts better. Yet I'm still happy that for those that want it the original theatrical cut is also available on DVD. Had it not been, even though it wouldn't really affect me in any way, I would be complaining about it.
Post by: mouse_clicker on June 15, 2004, 01:47:55 PM
Post by: Gibdo Master on June 15, 2004, 03:40:56 PM
There's also the fact that I've always sympathized with what George went through to make the OT and the fact that he wasn't always able to do what he wanted to do, so the idea of him being able to go back and do those things has always been cool to me.
The only changes, in my opinion, that make a serious impact on the films are Greedo shooting first, the Jabba the Hutt scene, and now Hayden playing Anakin's ghost.
The Han thing has always been weird for me, but my biggest problem, like with most of the SE stuff, was from the technical side. It just looks dumb now. I never felt this was a defining moment for the character. Whether he shoots first or not he's still a scoundrel, loner, and a bit of a jerk. Of course George's argument that Han shooting first makes him a murderer is kind of BS to me too. Even if that's the case he still redeems himself at the end of the movie by saving Luke and becoming a good guy.
The only problem I have with the Jabba scene is again with the technical. The CG Jabba they used looks like ass, but this is supposed to be remedied on the DVD versions.
My opinion of Hayden playing Anakin's ghost is still up in the air at this point. If George has a good solid reason for doing it, then it's fine by me. I never had any special attachment to Shaw, and he's still in the only scene in which he had dialog anyway.
By the way, I was reading a really great interview at filmforce.ign.com with Gary Kurtz who produced A New Hope and Empire, and he explained what the problem is with George's writing and directing. Basically, George's background in film is documentary, so his style of writing and directing is fairly cold and emotionless. This of course explains why the mood in Menace is so serious and boring and why the acting is so wooden.
Also George didn't write the A New Hope script completely by himself. The Huycks, who wrote the script for Temple of Doom, added a lot of the warmth and humor that we see in the movie.
Post by: manunited4eva22 on June 15, 2004, 04:53:39 PM
Post by: Gibdo Master on June 15, 2004, 05:49:01 PM
I'm not necessarily arguing that it's the right thing do to here, but just that George is definitely not the first person to do this sort of thing. In fact I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to write a large book about famous artists and changes they made to their famous works over time. Hmm, that would actually be a pretty interesting book.
