Thankyou again for the derailment, the second one this topic

You're right, nobody mentioned crimes. I'm just saying that your saying 'Is Lucas any less guilty' implies that he has actually done something wrong... which to be fair, he hasn't. Causing butthurt amongst fan-boys doesn't count, I might add (NO, I DONT mean you, before you start )

I must also make clear I don't think Steve Jobs has done anything wrong either, I just think it's funny that people will revere him as a saint whilst slanting the likes of Lucas et al.

Basically, to explain my butting this tangent into the conversation: Your views on Lucas are very clear, it has to be said. My question is, would you have similar passions about people like Jobs etc or is this a purely contextual based argument?

That's all I'm trying to understand. Other than that, I really don't take issue with your views, since we're all entitled to them. That and I cannot speak, since I rant on endlessly about GWTDT.

On that topic... have finally seen the remake... will post about it in the proper place once I can put into words how I feel about the whole thing... you aren't prepared

You know I don't take what you say that seriously, right? Comments like this aren't going make me start anytime soon.


Peddling inferior products for money is wrong in my book. It's why I'm not a huge fan of Hollywood studios as a rule. Lucas is in fact guilty of that as far as I'm concerned.


You're accusing me of "derailment" while bringing up something I never mentioned at all. BTW, what is your problem with Apple, exactly? What sort of inferior products are they marketing to piss you off?


Read what I wrote in my 2nd sentence. I'm not saying Lucas is the sole source or biggest source of corruption in Hollywood. My point was simply that it's ludicrous to claim that he is somehow above or outside that system.


I could care less. As good as Fincher's remake is said to be, I'm not going out of my way to see it, simply because I feel that the original Swedish film was more than good enough as an adaptation of Larsson's novel.

What because you think I like Twilight? I wouldn'nt take Twilight fans seriously either I suppose!

The original is the better version by far so wise move!

No, it's not just my initial impression of your like of the Twilight films.

Answer my question: why do you think that Apple and Steve Jobs are guilty of peddling inferior products? I'm not a huge fan of Apple, but I ended up getting an iPhone4 after seeing nothing but positive reviews of it, as well as a ringing endorsement from my brother who got one before me. For PC's, on the other hand, I'd still take a Windows-based computer over a Mac any day, though I use a Mac at work after my company switched over to them wholesale in the past few months.

I don't own any of the Lord of the Rings films on Blu Ray, but as far as my understanding of the technology a BD-ROM can hold something like 50 GB of data compared to only 4.5 GB for a DVD or 9 GB for a Dual Layer DVD. So a Blu Ray of the extended version of the any Lord of the Rings film should not require changing discs. A BD Rom should have enough room for the theatrical release, the extended version and plenty of extras all on one disc.

from thedigitalbits.com:

"Like the DVD release before it, the high-definition presentations of all three films in this set have been split over two discs, in this case BD-50s. While I've no doubt some will complain about having to get up and change discs, I'm EXTREMELY pleased that this was done in order to max out the video and audio data rates with the least amount of compression. The Rings films have so much detail, texture and action that they really need room to breathe on disc - even in high-definition. I'm very pleased they've gotten that room. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise - it makes a REAL difference. The added data space and lower compression significantly enhances the dimensionality of the image. All you need to do to see it is watch the scenes in Rivendell - there's remarkable depth visible. The improvement almost knocks you over. The presentation is rich, nuanced... stunning. My hats off to Warner for making absolutely the right call. At long last, Fellowship presents a truly satisfying image on Blu-ray. "

Well, it is kind of ridiculous when you see that Criterion was able to put all 5+ hours of the TV cut of "Fanny and Alexander" onto a single Blu-ray disc. "Woodstock" and "Reds" are 2 more films that could've easily been put onto a single Blu-ray disc but were still bisected just like the DVD versions. So much for upgrading those titles (as well as the LOTR trilogy) to Blu. We'll see what Sony does with "Lawrence of Arabia."

Do I need to find my quote again? not to be hyperbolic but I DESPISE the entire entity that is Twilight. If I sounded defensive, it's because I couldn't fathom WHY people were so keen to hate it. As it turns out, bad writing isn't the only thing wrong with the series. There's also the Mormonism peddling, the praising of controlling relationships etc. Now, if I tell somebody I'm a fan of Gothic Horror, they instantly ask if I like Twilight... it has tainted a perfectly decent genre.

Okay about Apple - I need to retract, alter and restate what I said: The products that Apple produce are not inferior as such. In fact I found the iPad to be a fun thing to use, when my Uncle showed me his one.

My issue is with the way that 1) the company sells these products at a massively inflated price (when compared to similar spec alternatives) and 2) Jobs is painted as a saint by Apple users, despite the obvious taint of 'good PR' at work.

Some examples:

First the iPhone. As you said, great reviews are all over the place. When the iPhone was a new thing, I was massively impressed by the concept; essentially the iPod touch in phone form. I came ever so close to aquiring one however two things stopped me.
First was the network monopoly in the UK; you could only get the handset on the O2 network, which just felt wrong. Why so exclusive? Second was the price. I am currently with Virgin Media, using a Sony Ericsson Xperia Ray. The phone was free on a £21 a month contract, which gives modest minutes and a shit load of texts. Win? Certainly. With Virgin Media, the more pricey handsets (such as high end HTCs) can be bought for varying prices depending on the monthly contract price. Back in 2008, the iPhone was nearly £300 regardless of the contract agreement. Even now, you still cannot get the handset for free.
Conclusion: I have a phone that is essentially based on a similar design as the iPhone, that runs on Android (the better OS I feel) and didn't cost me a large upfront sum.

Laptops/Mac Book. While I was still in the second year of my degree, in 2009, I bought the very laptop on which I make your lives a misery on a daily basis it cost me £325 for an average set up; nothing too fancy but not a piece of shit either. Aside from the laughably small hard-drive (160gb????), it was all I needed for photoshopping and semiotics brainstorming. My classmate bought a Mac Book at about the same time (is that the Mac laptop? I don't know it's exact name!). We compared specs and realised that aside from the hard-drive, they were pretty much the same thing.
Her machine cost £800. that's more than double what I paid for mine.
The argument was made that it was better suiting for doing visual based work. This is of course an urban myth, since all industry standard software is available on both formats anyway.

Then there's the attitude of how the products are marketed. This whole idea that Macs are hip, fun and trendy whilst PCs are boring, corporate and sterile is obviously horse shit... and yet it's been lapped up by the masses in spades. What came first; the hipsters or the hipster mythos of the products? I honestly cannot tell.
I know that companies will use clever marketing strategies to sell their loads to people. Most of the time, we like to think we're clever enough to not fall for it so what happened? Why is it that virtually everyone I know who owns and regularly uses an Apple product seems to be a walking advert for it? Can these people not tell that they are being led down a white, shiny path towards a gingerbread Power iHouse?


Okay I hope that answers you. As for Lucas, I will concede that from a contextual viewpoint, he has delivered a shoddy product (that is to say, the prequels might pale when compared directly to their 70s counterparts). I just don't think he deserves even half the shit he gets for it, just as I don't think somebody like Jobs deserves half the praise that HE gets.

This is just my opinion: I don't 'hate' Lucas but I am extremely frustrated by his rather childish mentality towards the original trilogy, his apparent disgust with anybody who prefers them over his tweaked versions, and how that disgust seems to be manifesting itself into changes that increasingly serve no purpose other than to piss some fans off. I wasn't particularly bothered by 'NOOOOOOOO' in ROTJ, but I sure did wonder if Lucas was just doing it for spite.

I also agree with posters here who question Lucas' motives for releasing the films in 3D. I can see it now: Hey kids, here comes Mark Hamil's hair in the 3rd dimension!!!

I can totally see why people would think it was spite but to be honest, I think it's more like The Simpsons where Bart gets given the Golfing video game because Marge thinks it's what 'all the kids are playing'.

The only Star Wars movies I've seen in the cinema were Clones and Sith. I'd like to see the rest, but not in 3D

This is an odd series of assumptions. I was under the impression that he keeps fucking with them because he's not satisfied with the way they turned out and probably never will be. Couple that with the trap of any creative profession: if you're not on a deadline, you have no way of knowing when the work is truly finished.

Maybe I missed an interview somewhere in which Lucas bashed fans of the original versions and admitted to deliberately antagonizing those people. If not, I don't see it, and I think it's weird to read a malicious motive into it without compelling evidence.

I might be paraphrasing a bit, but Lucas was asked about the original cuts right before the Blu-Ray release, and he said something along the lines of "Grow up, these are my movies, not yours." If that's not childish, I don't know what is.

I agree that Lucas feels the original trilogy is not 'up to snuff' compared to the prequels, and he can mess around with them all he wants (although short of redoing all the special effects I'm not sure what else he can do). And yes, legally as copyright holder he is not required to make the original cuts available. However, what bothers me is his complete lack of respect for history, demonstrated when he apparently tried to give the National Film Registry a copy of the 1997 SE instead of the original 1977 cut (thankfully, the NFR declined).

As I said, I am not one of the ones raving for Lucas' blood because he won't release the original cuts. And most of the additions and revisions don't really bother me. Lucas' attitude, however, does.

You got a link? Cause I am very interested in reading that.

I do remember him saying something in 1999, in response to the people who camped out in line for days (weeks?) ahead of time in anticipation of The Phantom Menace. His comment was something like, "I'm glad Star Wars can still capture people's imaginations, but people need to have well-rounded lives. A movie can't possibly live up to that."

This could be construed as backhanded criticism of his fans. That doesn't mean that he was wrong for saying it or that it's something that these people didn't need to hear. Mind you, this was before the "He raped my childhood!" nonsense started up, at which point he would have been entirely within his right to tell those people to take off their homemade stormtrooper uniforms and get a life.

http://savestarwars.com/news.html#2011growup

Granted, I know this site might not be considered 'gospel' but I find it to be a fairly even handed assesement of the whole controversy surrounding the 'original' vs 'tweaked versions'. Lots of good info on the actual process of the 1997 restoration too, and why Lucas' statements that the original cuts 'don't exist any more' might be technically accurate but very misleading. The bit about the National Film Registry is in here too.

Anyways, I don't think Lucas raped my childhood That line of reasoning always did seem a bit extreme.

If the originals don't exist anymore then I'm personally done with the old hope of New Hope on BRD Not sure about the current release. Not because it's the special edition or anything but because someone thought it would be best to use a digital transfer that's over a decade old fail.

I haven't given up all hope, but I'll admit that the outlook isn't very good.

On a separate note, I can easily defend Lucas for the technology he helped usher in. While his own use of it might be questionable, there's no doubt that visual efects, sound design, and digital technology would be a different beast without him.

The problem with making changes is once you start you don't know when to stop. You'll start to critique every little thing that bothers you and end up going overboard making changes.

I have the 2008 box set DVDs, and I'm thrilled with them. I can watch all six movies in lovely DVD quality any time I want. I can watch the original trilogy in it's theatrical glory, or enjoy the updated visual effects of the remastered editions. Either way, it's no skin off my nose whether the movie is released in DVD, Blu-Ray, or brain download, I'm going to enjoy them. I just don't understand how someone can hate a person for not giving them exactly what they want, how they want it. Perhaps we're a bit spoiled. Maybe Lucas has spoiled us in the past by giving us what we want every time we want it.

If you're talking about the rabid hater who threatens Lucas with death, I'll agree, as that's going too far as far as I'm concerned. However, I don't think for a second that most people feel that strongly about the issue, and those people generally just criticize Lucas for his decisions and actions over the past 20 years. Also, to imply that Lucas was only thinking about the public when re-releasing the OT films in the various formats over the past 20 years would be a huge stretch of the imagination IMO.