I have mixed feelings. Yeah, I prefer the originals (Han shoots FIRST!). But in the larger sense I don’t have a philosophical problem with a creator going back and changing his creations, particularly when (as with some of Lucas’s changes) the technology to do what he wanted didn’t exist the first time around.
It used to be common practice for authors to make changes to their novels (some large, some small) between the first edition and subsequent editions. Why not with movies? I think the Director’s Cut of “Blade Runner” is vastly superior to the original studio release (although I can live without the Final Cut). Slightly different case there, because the studio originally would NOT let the movie be released the way Ridley Scott wanted, but would you deny him the right to make “corrections” after the fact, on the basis of “the way it was released, for better or worse, is the way it must remain”?
Which would you rather have – a sci-fi series with an active creator who, despite criticism, makes the odd tweak here or there because, as a creative person, he’s never quite satisfied…
Or would you rather have a sci-fi series that was sold to a corporate studio interest decades ago and handed over to hack writers and directors to play willy-nilly with the history of the universe and characters.
Cry all you like about the changes Lucas makes to “Star Wars,” at least he’s not blowing up Tatooine and having his prequels exits in an “alternate timeline” ala the new “Star Trek.”
George Lucas has the perfect right to alter his vision any way he likes. If you don’t like it, vote with your pocket book and don’t buy the bloody thing. That said, in many cases the “director’s cut” of a movie is a superior product. Such is the case with the First Star Trek movie (IMO the theatrical release was an abortion but the Robert Wise Directors Cut is far superior) and also the case with Blade Runner and all three extended editions of the Lord of the Rings movies. I’m not going to buy the new release but that’s only because I don’t own a Blue Ray player. I got burned with Laserdisc, HD DVD and Beta Max so I never upgrade to BlueRay.
So… it’s you again. The last time you wrote me letters complaining about my work, I told you to $%&* yourself. Looks like neither of us learned our lesson.
perceptor3 over 12 years ago
Why?
Money. Money. Money. Money. Money. Money. . .
zero over 12 years ago
No, Dean. He obviously doesn’t.
AKHenderson Premium Member over 12 years ago
What would Yoda say?
KEA over 12 years ago
I have a laserdisc box set of the original trilogy. bwa-ha-ha-ha
poihths over 12 years ago
Becau$e. Becau$e. Becau$e. Becau$e. Becau$e. Becau$e. Becau$e. Becau$e. Becau$e. Becau$e. Becau$e. Becau$e.
Dillithamir over 12 years ago
I ask the same question…. but I don’t want the answer…. ’cause the answer is always something to do with money..
rhaacke over 12 years ago
The answer can’t be money. At least not if George isn’t fooling himself. Everyone hates the changed versions so fewer people are going to buy them.
ninetoes over 12 years ago
If the comments are any indication, geeks make up a good portion of the readership. Myself included, and I’m with Dean on this one.
Fan o’ Lio. over 12 years ago
Who is this George Lucas guy everybody is so upset about?
burleigh2 over 12 years ago
Yeah… but now they BLINK! ;-)
fritzoid Premium Member over 12 years ago
I have mixed feelings. Yeah, I prefer the originals (Han shoots FIRST!). But in the larger sense I don’t have a philosophical problem with a creator going back and changing his creations, particularly when (as with some of Lucas’s changes) the technology to do what he wanted didn’t exist the first time around.
It used to be common practice for authors to make changes to their novels (some large, some small) between the first edition and subsequent editions. Why not with movies? I think the Director’s Cut of “Blade Runner” is vastly superior to the original studio release (although I can live without the Final Cut). Slightly different case there, because the studio originally would NOT let the movie be released the way Ridley Scott wanted, but would you deny him the right to make “corrections” after the fact, on the basis of “the way it was released, for better or worse, is the way it must remain”?
runar over 12 years ago
Why does a dog lick his bleeeps? Same reason.
docnuke over 12 years ago
Which would you rather have – a sci-fi series with an active creator who, despite criticism, makes the odd tweak here or there because, as a creative person, he’s never quite satisfied…
Or would you rather have a sci-fi series that was sold to a corporate studio interest decades ago and handed over to hack writers and directors to play willy-nilly with the history of the universe and characters.
Cry all you like about the changes Lucas makes to “Star Wars,” at least he’s not blowing up Tatooine and having his prequels exits in an “alternate timeline” ala the new “Star Trek.”
Dampwaffle over 12 years ago
George Lucas has the perfect right to alter his vision any way he likes. If you don’t like it, vote with your pocket book and don’t buy the bloody thing. That said, in many cases the “director’s cut” of a movie is a superior product. Such is the case with the First Star Trek movie (IMO the theatrical release was an abortion but the Robert Wise Directors Cut is far superior) and also the case with Blade Runner and all three extended editions of the Lord of the Rings movies. I’m not going to buy the new release but that’s only because I don’t own a Blue Ray player. I got burned with Laserdisc, HD DVD and Beta Max so I never upgrade to BlueRay.
Decepticomic about 3 years ago
“Dear Dean
So… it’s you again. The last time you wrote me letters complaining about my work, I told you to $%&* yourself. Looks like neither of us learned our lesson.
George Lucas"