Slap in the face followed by a cream pie, and then the bill with a marked up tip added on....
So, who hasn't heard the news about the new DVD release of the original Star Wars Trilogy as it was before the "Special Editions" were released in 1997? No? Well, it's not good news.
Here's my understanding, based on what I've read, and there are articles and columns all over the place at such sites as aintitcool.com, originaltrilogy.com, what have you, and I'm not at all happy about it. Many fans were not entirely impressed with the changes made to the original trilogy, and the "refinement" of those changes as they are seen on the "official" release of the trilogy on DVD may have helped quell some concerns (Greedo shooting first is wrong. Han Solo is a scumbug, we know it, and we love him for it. Let the man toast the green beady-eyed bounty hunter first. He had it coming.), and instigated new outcries (Hayden Christensen at the end of Return of the Jedi as Anakin in Ghost Form? Bleahhhhhh.....). The result has been an undying campaign by fans for an official release of a restored/remastered trilogy presented in anamorphic widescreen and surround sound as it was first seen decades ago.
So what are we getting come September? Crap. No, really, that's what it is, and here's why. Apparently, Lucasfilms "lost" or "destroyed" the original prints during the restoration process and the production of the Special Editions. They apparently don't have any "copies" of those prints or any "usable" elements, such that would be used for effects and the like. They checked the Lucasfilm archives and could not find a single thing. So, what is being released in September is a transfer from the 1993 LASERDISC releases which will feature standard letterbox video format (this is the same as widescreen on VHS) in 2-channel stereo. Bull. This is an insult. But here comes the pie...
Lucasfilms' official stance is that the current DVD version, improved Special Editions, is George Lucas' "definitive vision" of the trilogy and that the original theatrical releases were merely "work prints." He apparently doesn't understand why fans would want the old version and is not willing put out the money to have the films restored. How can they be restored if the original prints and elements aren't available? I refer you to this page: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa121.html
Go to the May 19 posting. According to the head of the company that has restored several significantly older films of equal influential standing in cinematic history which include Lawrence of Arabia and My Fair Lady, it would not be impossible to restore the trilogy given the necessary budget and time. The raw material for this project are in the possession of various collectors and archives not directly affiliated with Lucasfilm.
So, it comes down to this: George is too proud to admit that his creative vision isn't perfect, and his refusal to allow even the possibility for the original trilogy out sell the definitive edition is further illustrated with the two editions being coupled with each other. The original editions are being included as a bonus disc "for fun" with the definitive editions. It'll cost you $90 to get the original version and you HAVE to buy the special editions to get it.
It is a complete insult to his fans, and these actions seem to be following many other company's views of the consumers as just a source of continuous income and profits. "Buy more. Buy more now. Buy more and be happy." This is a quote from THX1138, a film by George. Wonder what ever happened to the guy that made that film.
On a bright note, however, a fantastic film that had major bumps along the road in its original release will be coming back to theatre's in an official director's cut, completely restore. Blade Runner, starring Harrison Ford in his glory days, will also come to DVD in this restored format. This is a welcome edition of a great film as Ridley Scott's track record as a director and producer is well above average. Given his proven maturity in vision as a filmmaker, this is should be a highly anticipated re-release.
I think I'll have that cherry now.
posted by Ravings of Ki @ 6:34 AM
4 Comments:
Sorry Ki, I was there for the original Star Wars before you were born and the original Star Trek. I am not a Puritan about Stars Wars because Star Trek is the ONLY cult classic as far as I'm concerned. I like the new technology and did not like the reveal of Darth Vader as the British actor that they used just because of his height. After all it was the great James Earl Jones that gave him the powerful voice and the face was not fitting the voice. Should have been Sean Connery's face. So, using the new Darth Vader is fine with me. It does not take away from the film and actually provides closure. I'm sure that was the thought Lucas had in making the decision.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Firstly, my concern doesn't regard Star Trek, nor am I making any sort of comparisons to the Star Trek mythos. I'll get back to that in a moment. This is primarily about the foundation of Star Wars and removing it from the original context.
I understand the creative decisions that were made, and insofar as Mr. Jones I agree that he should not have been used in Episode III, or that if they decided to use him that the voice should have been altered to reflect Anakin's youth. At the same time, using Hayden in ghost form at the end of Return of the Jedi contradicts the presence of Alec Guinnes and puppet Yoda, their forms at the moment of death. To maintain consistency, Lucas would have had to replace them with Ewan and CGI Yoda to reflect the return to their youthful selves, and not their literal form at the moments of their deaths. It would seem to be too literal an interpretation of Vader destroying Anakin at a young age, and going with that interpretation Proust or older Anakin should still have been left in because Anakin returned to his "pure" or Jedi state, no longer the Sith Lord after defying Palpatine and therefore rejecting his identity as Darth Vader, and died/joined the force in that physical form (with or without scarring is another argument).
Essentially, it is the original creative integrity with which I am most concerned. Obviously, Lucas has changed as a person, no longer the youthful idealist he was in the 70's and 80's, and his creative perspective has changed with it. Steven Spielberg himself admitted that his perspective on things changed between now and the time that he made Close Encounters. If had he made the film today, he explained in an interview, Richard Dreyfuss' character may not have decided to follow the path to the stars, instead staying with his family and letting go of the dream. This is the conflict between the varying personal desires influenced by wishful thinking and societal/familial obligations.
Despite the changes in his life philosophy, Spielberg has not gone so far as to change the ending to Close Encounters. The last update to the film was sound and picture restoration. Ridley Scott's update to Blade Runner will actually keep the film true to it's original intent. Lucas re-doing the Trilogy removes it from its original context and places it into the social and political context of today which is far more cynical.
The prequels were his vehicle to explore the change, which he did. Political conflict and the removal of spiritual faith in terms of the force were central to the prequels. Instead of the force being a mystical essence that ties life and the universe together, it is reduced to a measurable biological and physical phenomenon and the notion of an overseeing entity of which we are all a part is removed. This reflects a focus on science deconstructing the inexplicable, a notion absent in the original trilogy. This also reflects a loss of optimism or even hope in the face of reality's overwheming tendency to contradict the ideal. Their is a balance that can be met and has been met.
This brings me back to Star Trek. Besides seeing the original trilogy in theatres as a child (The were still showing Star Wars in budget theatres even five years after it first opened), I grew up watching Star Trek reruns despite the lack of interest or understanding in my earlier years. The older I was, the more I came to appreciate and understand what was being attempted.
Where Star Wars focuses on the fiction of science fiction, Star Trek focuses on the science. Neither is worth more than the other in that they serve different functions. When the two are compared, it's an unfair comparison. They both have pertinence, and they are both forms of escapicism. Star Trek has the tendency to open up discussions of political and sociological concerns, human rights, etcetera, while the original trilogy opened discussions regarding spirituality and personal choice. They are two sides of the same coin.
Many series have since taken a cue from both of these mythologies, if they have not been inspired directly by them. The creative decisions behind restarting the Trek mythos with Next Generation reflects the show's pertinence to societal concerns and debate in political and social ideologies. Voyager and Enterprise were departures from this, while Deep Space Nine more closely found a balance between the larger aspects of societal and personal responsility and growth.
Babylon 5 is a masterpiece that took the best of both worlds, while SG1 has taken these notions to extremes. Firefly/Serenity is far more personal and internal, but the ideas of both the individual and societal are still very present.
It would be foolish to deny the equal influence of both series (Star Trek had a cult following and had to GAIN its widespread popularity. Seeing it reduced to a marketed franchise is often painful. Star Wars was commercial success because it changed the way in which certain stories could be told.) on today's televised and cinematic science fiction. But so too is it for those involved with their respective creative processes and production to remove them from or abandon their original contexts. Star Trek was an explorative commentary on current issues and Star Wars was an expression of the strength that people have to overcome overwhelming overtures of social dominance over personal freedom of choice through spiritual resilience and ideological sanctity (that which posseses intelligent skepticism not corrupted by cynicism/pure pessimism nor possessing voluntary ignorance.). The current creators of these mythologies have lost sight of what made them so memorable and pertinent, and it is THIS that is more disheartening.
At the same time, I must take comfort in the fact that the struggle to find a balance is very present and more comforting to know that there are creative people still able to express this struggle so poignantly.
If you haven't seen Babylon 5, for example, then take an opportunity to read up on the five year series (modeled after Roddenbery's original intent) for a better sense of context.
P.S. Bryan Singer and Sam Raimi rock. Go Joss!!!!!
I agree with you about George Lucas and his refusal to put the original Star Wars out for the long time fans to buy. I think that if George Lucas had the ability to relate to his fans at all, he would understand that the original Star Wars edition is what his audience wants. I wouldn't mind so much if the new edition was separate from the original edition, but the fact that you have to buy the new edition to see the original cut for "fun" is just plain ridiculous. I guess fans just have to accept George Lucas's ignorance and selfishness in this case. It's sad, but true.
Post a Comment
<< Home