The Star Wars Rants:

[Knappos]

Originally Posted by Veela Magnet

... but if you stick 'em all in the same box, everyone wins!

This.

I was very much of the same mind with the extended cuts of Lord of the Rings. I prefer them to the theatrical but the discs to get were the ones that had both cuts on, which came out years after the theatrical and extended cuts separately.

I've got the spec ed DVDs of the Star Wars films. I didn't fork out again for them plus the theatricals.

I was thinking of maybe going for the Blu Rays (or christmas listing them) but only if they had both versions at the least.

They don't. So I won't.

At least Shia Lewhatsit won't be swinging through the trees of Endor with the Ewoks.

[TALON]

I actually didn't have that much of a problem forking out for the two cuts of Lord of the Rings, I think maybe because of the gap between the releases. You wanted the theatrical cut as soon as it came out, but didn't have a problem then purchasing the extended cut because that package added so much more, not just a few tweaks here and there, but a genuine intended to be featured whole extra hour or more on each movie. And then the extras were just so sumptuous that they were almost worth buying the extended cut just for them alone. Maybe it was the way it was handled which made it more palatable, first that you could freely have access to whichever version you desired, and also because they were quite open about the fact that there would be an extended cut being released later, so purchasers went in fully informed and could make the choice to either wait for those extended cuts, or buy the theatrical one there and then. I think that makes such a difference.

[Kudos]

Hello, Ranters! (ooh, I like that) as you may have noticed I've been very quiet about the Blu-Ray releases in this thread and that, for me is a bit odd isn't it. I'm usually so vocal about my opinion of all things Star Wars. I've got a blog up on the main SFX site that sums up my feelings on them, I thought you guys might be interested.

[Veela Magnet]

Ooo, I didn't realise that was you -- good bloggin', sir.

[Kudos]

Cheers fella

[TALON]

Heh heh, well said brother.

[SqueakyGibson]

Originally Posted by Veela Magnet

Yeah but aren't the films (even the ones he didn't direct) technically his property? I think morally, he's not doing anything wrong, as they're his films to do with as he wishes. It'd be like Joss Whedon going back and fixing up the odd episode of Buffy, say ones which he didn't write or direct.

Technically he is the same man who made - and owns - the films. His social security number is the same, his name is the same.

But I would argue that the artist who is now adding things to Star Wars is a different man than the artist who made them. Everyone changes their artistic, philosophical and political outlook in life after several decades. A person in their 30s is very different to the same person in their 60s. Should an elderly artist make changes to the art they made as a young man, especially if they destroy the original version in the process?

The George Lucas who made Star Wars was a thin man with black hair and a black beard, in his 30s, married to a woman called Marcia, childless, financially secure but not excessively rich, with a young man's creative energy and passionate ideas about independent filmmaking. In 1988 a similar version of this man told Congress that original negatives should always be preserved, and that all generations of people should have access to the original versions of films.

Less than 10 years later, a man called George Lucas literally cut computer-generated footage into the original negative (thus destroying it) and denied access to the original versions of the films. This man was grey-haired, overweight, divorced, reclusive, devoted to raising his adopted children, worth over a billion dollars, and the head of a corporation.

I argue that they are different people, and thus he is vandalising the work of a different filmmaker.

In your Joss Whedon example, it would be more like if Joss Whedon grew older by 30 years, decided that he currently hates vampire romance, and so digitally replaces Angel with Riley throughout seasons 1 - 3.

[Son of Solo]

Fantastic post Squeaky

[Kudos]

Yeah, excellent post.

[TALON]

Indeed, I think he's hit the nail right on the head there, more so than any other post regarding the Blu-Ray release of the original trilogy in this thread.