It's 20XX and people are mad online about Star War!

[VomKriege]

"Last Jedi" is a plural in the official french translation. Same for the spanish.

[Trent Dole]

Rewatched The Force Awakens this morning. On repeated rewatches, the amount of content cribbed from Episodes IV and V is nearly overwhelming. The awkward introduction of named characters is also ham-handed:


"What's your name?"
"FN2917"
"I'm going to call you Finn. I AM POE DAMERON."
"NICE TO MEET YOU, POE DAMERON."
"GOOD TO MEET YOU, FINN."


LATER:
"What's YOUR name?"
"I'm FINN."
"I'm REY."





The bits with the old characters going out of their way to validate the young ones is also clumsy. "I LIKE THIS ONE," says Han. Jeez.

Still liked it a bunch.

I know somebody who referred to TFA as EpIV Affirmative Action edition.

[Stoney Mason]

http://makingstarwars.net/2017/02/rumor-unaltered-original-star-wars-trilogy-re-released-year/

[Cerveza mas fina]

Aaaawww yiissss

[Joe Molotov]

I always figured Disney would wait until the sequel trilogy was finished and then do  theatrical rererereleases of the OT followed by a a 12 movie, 27 disc Ultimate Edition fuckfest with 8K remasters of the Ewok movies, but tbh I could give two shits about any of that. Even TFA and RO, that I enjoyed, I don't really care about owning on BD. Just give me remastered copies of the unaltered OT asap and I will be over the moon. We've waited long enough.

[Oblivion]

R1 has a lot of weird writing and directing in it. Like that scene when Jyn and Cassian talk on the ship after her father gets killed.  Look at this exchange (I'm paraphrasing and also missing some lines, but here's the gist):

Jyn: Those were rebel bombs that killed them! You were sent there to kill him, weren't you?
Cassian: I had orders to kill him. Orders that I disobeyed!
Jyn: Orders? Even though you knew they were wrong? You're not better than a storm trooper.

BITCH! He just said he fricken disobeyed them!


Aside from that there were just some weird instances of acting, which I'm not sure if it was due to some of the characters (since they were foreigners) or if it was cause they got shitty directing, but either way, it bugged me.

Still enjoyed it waaaay more than TFA.

Still the GOAT:

Sounds like Rainbow Road from Mario Kart: Double Dash.

[Stoney Mason]

http://makingstarwars.net/2017/02/rumor-unaltered-original-star-wars-trilogy-re-released-year/

Nope

http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/022417-0100#.WK_gSm5QL20

Gluck was asked there about Star Wars and reported that the original cut negative for the film currently exists in its “SE” configuration only. (There’s more info, so do continue on past the jump.)

In addition, 20th Century Fox’s Senior Vice President of Library and Technical Services, Shawn Belston, was also on hand at the Wexner event last night. He confirmed that all of the “trims” removed from the original cut negative (in the mid-1990s, to create the SEs) still exist as well. (Thanks to Bits reader Chuck P., who attended this event, for his firsthand report.) So what does all that mean to you?

In summary: While it is essentially technically true that the ‘77 cut negative “no longer exists” in its original state, it is also technically true that it could be re-built if so desired. All of the needed film elements still survive and have been preserved. Nevertheless, if one takes Gluck and Belston at their word (and knowing them as we do, we certainly do) this would seem to be fairly official word that no such reconstruction work has been done to date. Thus, it appears that there is little chance of the original 1977 Star Wars being released on any home video format in 2017.

[VomKriege]

I'm not even sure you have to reconstruct anything physically anymore, the original bits trimmed and stored away separately could probably be scanned on their own and the film edited in its original form digitally (then being shot back on a new film reel from there for archiving purposes if needed). Besides it seems ludicrous that Lucasfilm wouldn't have the original movies in some form, even if not negative, on second or third generation elements or at the very worst couldn't access a broadcast copy. Obviously the negative is always the superior choice for image quality, but I mean most people who saw it in theaters back then did so on copies far removed from the original anyway, it's an OK source for digital scanning... Anyway, the weird vague explanations from Lucas always sounded bullshit and this seem to confirm that they could restore and distribute the original versions, but there's no will to do so on the part of the people calling the shots.

[VomKriege]

At this point, is it really even that big of a deal? How many people all about the "original" films were even alive when the original trilogy came out? On GAF, how many were even old enough to be aware when the special editions were released in 1997? All these brehs obsessed with the idea of the unadulterated OT very likely have no idea what that actually looks like.

I mean, film buffs got seizures when William Friedkin changed the grading of French Connection (in a pretty extreme manner) without even giving a heads up to the cinematographer and making up some grade-A Friedkin post ex facto bullshitting ("Really I always wanted to grade it like Moby Dick with a poor Technicolor aspect of red bleeding everywhere"  ). But it's a pretty complex discussion (Is an artist allowed to touch up his work later down the line ? Does't a work exist in the moment it was originally created ? On works created by large teams like films, who is even the "artist" ?) we're not going to solve here. For what it is worth, I do believe it would be a good thing to have the "Original cuts" available for historic purposes and because they're, without much debate, the stronger/superior versions.

It's actually a fairly common occurence that the film is re-edited (and tweaked) for a variety of reasons but until recently and the advent of so called "director's cut" it was rarely as drastic as that and often internal to the "sausage factory" part of the business.

Do enough people care to force the hand of Lucas, Lucasfilm and or / Disney ? I guess reality is telling us that "no". I don't know who exactly get a say in this and if it is Lucas just being stiff on the issue or the suits not wanting to dilute the brand by circulating different versions of a movie.

[benjipwns]

The DVD's they released in 2006 had two discs, the re-re-re-remastered version (with the new lightsabers and Hayden Christensen inserted, also they reversed the sound channels by accident in the first movie or something) and then the original theatrical cut. But the latter was taken from the 4:3 letterboxed LaserDisc releases rather than the original film so it's all blurry and low contrast.

There's fan edits that already take from the various versions to reconstruct them. Along with versions that put everything in to be "complete" since George has cut things back out.

[benjipwns]

I've never felt the Star Wars edits are all that big of deal for the most part compared to other "Director's Cuts" or whatever.

Look at Robert Wise re-editing Star Trek: The Motion Picture twenty years later, or Donner getting a second crack at Superman 2. Hell, the Batman v. Superman Ultimate Edition restores two entire plotlines and reshuffles Luthor's to make more sense. Waterworld and Kingdom of Heaven have cuts that drastically alter the film restoring plotlines and characters. Daredevil even has a better cut.

The Star Wars stuff is little "polishes" around the edges or tweaks to effects. Both Lucas and Spielberg have been obsessed with these at times. Close Encounters has like four different slight cuts and he went back over ET rather infamously. But they don't really change the movie to where you'd really notice 90+% of them unless you watched them back to back or something. Sure you can criticize them as unnecessary or even worse but they don't really mess with the core of the movie plot, even pacing wise for the most part. BvS and TMP's longer cuts felt quicker to me because they're paced way better despite the extra footage and scenes. It's like that homeless guy who drinks cough syrup talks about sometimes on the youtubes.

And a lot of the longer stuff that does change in Star Wars was pre-existing deleted scenes I saw a bunch as a kid like Jabba in the first one when it was some fat dude that they just pasted CGI over.

[VomKriege]

You're not wrong but the additions being trivial is actually more of a problem. The main issue is that they're tacky and jarring. The added CGI breaks the cohesiveness and immersion.

It's like compositing talkie walkies instead of shotguns in ET. I mean... Yeah you can but why ? But I'm of the school that directors shouldn't tweak movies past a certain delay. Though sometimes it can't be avoided.

[Kara]

On works created by large teams like films, who is even the "artist" ?

This reminds me of one of my favorite members of the movie junkie clique I ran with when I lived in LA: They considered movies art (with the Western interpretation that the director was the artist), but would argue that Andy Warhol wasn't an artist because he didn't actually make his art.

[Stoney Mason]

At this point, is it really even that big of a deal?

To me yes. For both historical purposes and for reasons that I think all the additions are awful. The lighting is weird too (changed). Not everybody on here or on GAF are 18-24. 

Not to mention on the strength of some decent marketing I think they could make a shit-load of money by just good marketing. The idea of some unaltered original vision is a strong selling point that even people who don't care about could be marketed to like the gullible sheep they are. The same way Disney marketed their "Vault" stuff for all their classic animated properties.

The main issue is that nobody is suggesting the new versions should go away. People just want an option. Currently they don't have one.

Unless you are willing to find and download the de-specialized edition.

I've never felt the Star Wars edits are all that big of deal for the most part compared to other "Director's Cuts" or whatever.

Look at Robert Wise re-editing Star Trek: The Motion Picture twenty years later, or Donner getting a second crack at Superman 2. Hell, the Batman v. Superman Ultimate Edition restores two entire plotlines and reshuffles Luthor's to make more sense. Waterworld and Kingdom of Heaven have cuts that drastically alter the film restoring plotlines and characters. Daredevil even has a better cut.

The Star Wars stuff is little "polishes" around the edges or tweaks to effects. Both Lucas and Spielberg have been obsessed with these at times. Close Encounters has like four different slight cuts and he went back over ET rather infamously. But they don't really change the movie to where you'd really notice 90+% of them unless you watched them back to back or something. Sure you can criticize them as unnecessary or even worse but they don't really mess with the core of the movie plot, even pacing wise for the most part. BvS and TMP's longer cuts felt quicker to me because they're paced way better despite the extra footage and scenes. It's like that homeless guy who drinks cough syrup talks about sometimes on the youtubes.

And a lot of the longer stuff that does change in Star Wars was pre-existing deleted scenes I saw a bunch as a kid like Jabba in the first one when it was some fat dude that they just pasted CGI over.

For me the issue has never been a debate over the degree of tinkering or not. The issue reminds me a lot of the concept of modding in gaming. I'm fine with people twiddling and fucking with something as much as they want. Just as I'm fine with fan edits. I quite like both concepts. But I always want a vanilla backup "pristine"  original copy available also.

In the specific case of Star Wars I think most of the additions are stupid crap but I'm fine with the idea that he's allowed to do all that shit. I just think its nasty and deceitful to not give fans the option to not partake in it if they don't want to. It's like nope. You either get all the shit I added or nothing at all. Very dickish.

[team filler]

On works created by large teams like films, who is even the "artist" ?

This reminds me of one of my favorite members of the movie junkie clique I ran with when I lived in LA: They considered movies art (with the Western interpretation that the director was the artist), but would argue that Andy Warhol wasn't an artist because he didn't actually make his art.

"movie junkie clique" sounds like some real ruffians 

[VomKriege]

But I always want a vanilla backup "pristine"  original copy available also.

It's debatable that films (and several other works of art) actually do have a definitive "original" or "pristine" state. By definition most films were experienced through inferior copies of the original negative (or even worse, video) in fairly random conditions sometimes to the point of affecting grading or framing (for stuff completely out of the control of the creators, how long had the bulb of the projector been in service, how poorly you set up your TV etc...). That's on top of the variety of different cuts that may have been done during the first commercial run of the film, sometimes on behest at the director, sometimes for needs of the production.

I understand it sounds a bit like an academic debate because the SE additions are not exactly subtle. Still, the fact remains that the owners (whether of artistic or commercial rights) of those artworks are still overwhemingly private entities and while I agree with the sentiment, they're not under any obligation to provide anything to consumers for the sake of the history of the medium.

Andlook at it from the POV of Lucas (or any other director tinkering his work sevqeral years later) : he's "improving" the films. Why would you let people experience an "inferior" version anyway ?

[VomKriege]

Look at it this way : Any old film "remastered" or restored or whatever the distribution company labels it you've seen recently ? It was probably color graded for the release and it's impossible to tell if it's really faithful to the original material or even if the people supervising it gave a rat's ass about keeping in line with historic fidelity. Sometimes there's just no one to ask anymore anyway because the director, DoP, grader and lab technicians are all long deceased, but it's not like well alive directors or DoP are above just tinkering with their work (it's actually been fairly common to see them "get more out of the film thanks to the new tools of digital grading" : See French Connection and Friedkin, the 10 years old remasterisation of Suspiria, etc...). In fact I believe experience proves it's fairly useless to expect the original makers to have a photographic, exact memory of what they were doing 20 years ago.

You'd think film historians would be brought in into the process but really AFAIK it's fairly rare.

[Stoney Mason]

The debate here isn't legal in any sense of course. No one is disputing what is legal for a corporation to do with their film. This is all a debate about artistic inspirations, and what is ethical and moral.

In the same way that filmmakers rebelled against the colorization of black and white films, because they felt it was an artistic and moral sin.

I think getting to view a movie the same way it was originally presented is essentially the consumer version of that argument. We have a moral and artistic right to view a film as it was originally presented if that is at all feasible. Which is different from a legal right. There are of course always comprises in this due to changing technology, degradation, etc, but I think in this specific case we all mostly know what we want here for Star Wars versus what is currently available on the market.

The other argument I think that is relevant for a corporation is a money-making imperative under-girding all this and I truly believe that as a money making proposition you can justify any expenditure this would cost and recoup it back in spades. I can already see how easy this would be to market.

"See the film for the first time"
"See Star Wars like you've never seen it before"
"See what you haven't been allowed to see.. Until Now"

The marketing writes itself. People would eat it up whether they understand the artistic implications or not. Just selling the fact that you can see something that is a brand new experience is always a great motivator for people. I would argue more so at this point than trying to hump out a new box set of Star Wars every 10 years for an anniversary edition.

Then there is the issue of the good will it would generate which is not something you can financially accurately measure but I guarantee it will have an effect because it just makes everybody feel positive about the franchise whether the small percentage of people actually begging for this or not is that large a percentage.

The last bit is that I don't deny the artistic vision of any director who wants to tinker with his shit. There are some people who are fundamentally of the position that a director shouldn't mess with his stuff once its out there (or any art for that matter). That isn't my position. I think all art is living and breathing and able to be remixed by the original creator or fans. Art doesn't have to be static. It can be dynamic and changing. Put a hat on the mona lisa and give her wings for all I care. That's art too. But there will always be people that want that original thing also or as close as an approximation as they can get. I think by not serving that audience a corporation is not doing the artistic and ethical thing which moviemakers like to harp on about but we all know its really about the money motivation. This is a case where I think they can serve both masters. They are doing the right thing ethically here. They can also make money. They can also serve an audience who isn't getting what they want currently. They can also continue to tweak the shit out of it if they want by releasing future special editions where they re-animate every dead actor for future special editions and insert them singing and tap dancing in them (kidding...although not really because of Rogue One)

My issue about this whole thing is that imo it makes so much sense to absolutely do it. Very little to not do it. Even the money angle. The only person who doesn't want it is George Lucas. So I don't understand the hold up. It's like Selling Coke. Diet Coke. Sugar Free Coke, etc.

I would bet my life they will absolutely do it one day whether its 1 year from now. 5 years from now. Or 20 years from now. Are we just waiting for Lucas to die so we don't offend him?

[VomKriege]

I think getting to view a movie the same way it was originally presented is essentially the consumer version of that argument.

Not to belabor the point, but for movies shot on film, you're probably never will experience them as they were originally made, for a variety of reasons. Yeah, some of the differences (like les loss of picture quality from tyhe original negative to the copies used in theaters) are fairly minute and will probably fly above the head of 99.9% of the viewers but they do exist. Again, I understand we're entering some fairly academic debates here when the SE alterations maybe don't qualify but if I think it's important to consider.

We have a moral and artistic right to view a film as it was originally presented if that is at all feasible.

Do we ?
You're not entitled to a first copy edition of Don Quixote (another work that was tweaked a bit) and a museum has no obligation to put on public display a painting it might have in stock.
Not to be a cynic, but the thing is that the legal right (which gets fairly complex with films) is really all there is to it in the movie industry. Preservation efforts are mostly down to the commercial potential of held catalogs and whatever is feasible. And the sad thing is that it may actually work better under the guidance of the market than not. Film museums might be more inclined to artistic arguments but they can't match the money and work expanded by film majors.

As for the release of the unaltered films ? Yeah I sort of agree with you. It's the "FF7 remake" scenario : It's a nice ace in the hole to have, but you can probably use it only once. But Disney's goal is to sell us new shit, really. I mean the original trilogy is probably plenty profitable, but some old seventies movie with goofy models ain't gonna be the be all of end all of billion makers going forward. Casablanca surely will make money for many more years, but that's not the business model pillar of whoever has the rights to it.

[Kara]

On works created by large teams like films, who is even the "artist" ?

This reminds me of one of my favorite members of the movie junkie clique I ran with when I lived in LA: They considered movies art (with the Western interpretation that the director was the artist), but would argue that Andy Warhol wasn't an artist because he didn't actually make his art.

"movie junkie clique" sounds like some real ruffians 

Doing an actual 24 hours straight in a movie theater will make you hard as nails.

[chronovore]

Little known sub-fact: All this salt was generated by disappointed fans.

[chronovore]

Apparently there's this thing called "Sithposting"







MOAR

[Atramental]

There's also "sheev posting":

[Stoney Mason]

Watched Rogue One again. I had issues with it originally. It ages even worse imo. It was hard to sit through this time around.

[chronovore]

There's also "sheev posting":

What's our standard "cringe" emoticon?

[Great Rumbler]

[Atramental]

It be a Star War.

[Let's Cyber]

Lots of War but not enough Star.

6/10

[MMaRsu]

0/10 stars

[zomgee]

It's a teaser! Very teasy.

[team filler]

I want Rey to force choke my cock

[Steve Contra]

Fun fact about that teaser, it was procedurally generated by analyzing past star war movies. Actual humans didn't have to touch it at all!

[TakingBackSunday]

I didn't mind it :shrug:

[Atramental]

As someone who is a very visual person, I'm just happy to see the Star Wars A E S T H E T I C. It produces dopamine in mah brain. 

[bluemax]

I'm fine with it. Grim dark Star Wars is here to stay it seems.

[toku]

Rian Johnson bout to fuck around and make a decent star wars movie.

[headwalk]

I'm fine with it. Grim dark Star Wars is here to stay it seems.

grimdark only really works with faux shakespearean warhammer 40k dialogue. not the sort of dialogue you'd play at an english induction class like they've gone with.

[Madrun Badrun]

Looked OK but where is the new death star? 

[Dennis]

Pretty weak teaser.

Liked the shot from afar with Rey practicing with the Lightsaber and Luke watching.

[Kara]

I'm fine with it. Grim dark Star Wars is here to stay it seems.

grimdark only really works with faux shakespearean warhammer 40k dialogue. not the sort of dialogue you'd play at an english induction class like they've gone with.

In the long years before the Battle of Canticle City, I knew no fear because I had nothing to lose. Everything I’d treasured was dust at the mercy of history’s winds. Every truth I’d fought for was now nothing more than idle philosophy – spoken by exiles, whispered to ghosts.

None of this angered me, nor was I victim to any special melancholy. I’d learned over the centuries that only a fool tried to fight fate.

All that remained were the nightmares.

My somnolent mind took a dark joy in casting back to Judgement Day, when wolves howled and ran through the burning city streets. I dreamed the same dream each time I allowed myself to sleep.

Wolves, always the wolves.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I think this is normal talking and the affectation doesn't register the desired effect.

[close]

[Great Rumbler]

Looks...not very interesting. Luke as Yoda is about the lamest direction possible to go.

On the other hand, Yoda was always yapping on about balance and light side/dark side, but from the teaser it sounds like Luke is tired of all that now.

[chronovore]

I've got faith in Rian Johnson.

[chronovore]

New trailer is dope. Y'all are jaded.

As someone who is a very visual person, I'm just happy to see the Star Wars A E S T H E T I C. It produces dopamine in mah brain. 

Today, I re-watched ROGUE ONE for the first time since the theater. That STAR WARS æsthetic is in full force there. Knowing what was happening made it more enjoyable overall, but also made the clumsy exposition stand out more strongly.

[chronovore]

Whoever decided that some piece of junk cropduster bouncing off the dirt should be the first shot we get with that epic musical swell should not be cutting trailers.

OK, that's true. It could turn out that those are totally epic tractors though.

[Atramental]

I'm going to cut them some slack because it is the very first teaser.

There will be more trailers with more interesting footage as the year progresses.

Also, you have to take into account that Disney is very tight lipped when it comes to Star Wars and doesn't want to spoil anything too major.

A bunch of movie trailers these days seem to give away the whole plot which I absolutely despise.

[Atramental]

http://www.polygon.com/2017/4/15/15303952/star-wars-last-jedi-luke-end-of-jedi

My thoughts exactly why the Jedi weren't as great as people make them out to be. 👌

[toku]

I think the trailer is dope and im not really a SW guy. It was pretty and the backing score was even better.

[toku]

*voice change*
"I thought it was FUCKING STUPID"

[Great Rumbler]

I didn't watch it, but did they put in a record scratch sound effect when that happened? Missed opportunity, if not.

[chronovore]

[Atramental]

https://redlettermedia.bandcamp.com/track/star-wars-rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-commentary-track

[toku]

that laugh in the middle

[chronovore]

that laugh in the middle

I laughed at its accuracy, but –dudes– come /on/ this is like hating on Prince for having a guitar solo in his song, or criticising Scorcese for making a movie about urban crime. Star Wars IS what it IS.

[Cerveza mas fina]

Only just watched the trailer now, looks good as always, sure it will be a decent movie

[chronovore]

[chronovore]

[Atramental]

http://www.newsnow3.com/asheville-north-carolina/next-star-wars-movie-to-be-filmed-near-asheville-nc-hundreds-of-extras-needed/

[Atramental]

https://twitter.com/VanityFair/status/866957427085910016

Nice  A E S T H E T I C. 

[VomKriege]

Annie Leibovitz must have some automatic filters by now.
But heh, who am I to complain : It works.

[Dickie Dee]

http://www.newsnow3.com/asheville-north-carolina/next-star-wars-movie-to-be-filmed-near-asheville-nc-hundreds-of-extras-needed/

Rumor is they're going hard on physical effects and filming real venus flytraps as aliens/monsters.