SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Bad news, Star Wars fans. Those of you who have been holding out hope that Disney may want to further capitalize on a galaxy far, far away by restoring the theatrical cuts of the original Star Wars trilogy are about to be sorely disappointed. Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy has officially confirmed that they have no plans on messing with the cuts and intend to leave the movies the way that George Lucas did when he revisited them in the 90s.
[...] While she revealed that there is no agreement in place to keep the Star Wars cuts as they are, she also made it clear that Lucasfilm isn't planning on messing with them.
Source: http://movieweb.com/star-wars-classic-trilogy-disney-wont-alter-restore/
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Disney Will Never Alter or Restore Original Star Wars Trilogy
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 43 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The last time I saw him he was walking down Lover's Lane holding his own hand.
-- Fred Allen
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @11:02PM (8 children)
Keep in mind most people who want to buy star wars have it at this point. These 'original editions' would sell 'ok' but may not be worth their time messing with when they can crank out another star wars and rake in 2 billion...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @12:08AM (7 children)
I bought the VHS set of the original trilogy when it came out, then I bought the enhanced (or whatever it was) VHS set, then the DVD set. Enough is enough. Parts IV, V, and VI were great. Part I was pretty good. Parts II, and III were shitty. I kept fell asleep on part VII. I have no desire to see any more as they ruined the franchise for a money grab.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 27 2017, @05:49AM (6 children)
WTF? You must be the only person I've ever seen to say that I was "pretty good" while III was "shitty". Everyone else switches those around. I hated I and II; they were both shitty. I never saw III because of that, and literally everyone I talk to about this tells me that I missed the best of the 3 prequels. I was not "pretty good"; it was a terrible movie with horrible acting and dialog (but not quite as bad there as II), and horribly blatant racist stereotypes to boot. Fantastic visual effects were simply not enough to make up for that (plus it didn't help that it all looked computer-generated, and much too "clean"; one nice thing about the original SW movies is that so much stuff looked used and dirty, like in real life, especially considering it was about a bunch of rebels fighting a war).
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday April 27 2017, @01:13PM (5 children)
I wouldn't say that III was pretty good, but instead was the least shitty. What became clear was that Lucas had forgot completely that Anakin needed to make the transition to Vader so it was just awkward when it did happen. In the prequel trilogy Lucas decided that you could solve everything in post filming even bad dialogue ("From my point of view the Jedi are evil."). So instead of what people were hoping for we got more Howard the Duck [wikipedia.org]
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:29PM (4 children)
I wouldn't say that III was pretty good, but instead was the least shitty.
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but this is what most other people have told me too, not that it was a fantastic movie by any means.
I did meet one person, however, who absolutely loved the Prequels. She was young when those movies came out though, so maybe that had something to do with it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 27 2017, @03:41PM (1 child)
I was a fairly original script which tied in well with the franchise which is why I liked it. II and III just seemed too money graberish and didn't feel like Star Wars any more.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 27 2017, @04:20PM
> fairly original script
As Lucas pointed out when VII came out (and could have again for Rogue One), you may hate the prequels, but at least he was striving to imagine different stories on varied planets ...
(Score: 1) by termigator on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:24PM (1 child)
Sounds similar to those that love the first trilogy. I think it hard for folks to separate nostalgia from quality.
IMO, Star Wars is a mediocre movie. The acting is not good, and the story is very simplistic, at the level of a children's book. For its time, it was a visual spectacle, and I think that caused many movie goers to overlook the flaws of the film. As I got older, it was harder to overlook the many deficiencies of the film, and its sequels (but I do agree with others in stating Empire Strikes Back is the best of the bunch, but it is still not a great movie). Stars Wars has not aged well.
With today's audience being more sophisticated wrt special effects, if Stars Wars came out today, it would do poorly. The quality of acting and story of the prequels is on par with the original trilogy, but audiences are less wowed by special effects, so were able to focus more on the acting and story deficiencies of the newer prequels.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:45PM
I think you're a little harsh.
Star Wars (ep. 4) was a fun movie. It was campy though, which wasn't abnormal in the 70s, and in today's "dark and gritty" environment that doesn't work that well, but it's fun to watch SW even now because it isn't like today's brutal movies. The acting wasn't Oscar-level, but it wasn't horrible. The dialog made sense, it was still believable. It was never meant to be a movie with Brando-level acting and drama, it was meant to be a fun, slightly campy, space opera movie with fantastic (for the day) FX. It succeeded well there. It did help that Lucas's (now ex-)wife and other helpers edited the script and helped keep the story and acting from being too crappy, which didn't happen in the Prequels. I think I even heard that Harrison Ford got into a fight with Lucas over the quality and smashed part of a set because he didn't want his acting career marred by a poor performance because Lucas was too lazy to do proper retakes.
So no, you're not going to get Oscal-level performances out of SW, but the performances and script were still a lot better than the Prequels. And what are you comparing to anyway? Let's compare to some modern FX-laden movies: the Transformers franchise. Is SW really that much worse in terms of story and acting than the Transformers films?
What about the various Marvell superhero movies? I don't think so. (Of course, the Marvell movies are a little hit-and-miss: the first Iron Man, for instance, I thought was fantastic, but it went downhill from there, and the Avengers movies really were paper-thin on plot and acting.) If you're comparing SW to some kind of serious drama with top-rated actors, you're doing it wrong.
The quality of acting and story of the prequels is on par with the original trilogy
This is just blatantly wrong, at least for the acting and dialog. Lucas famously did only single takes in the prequels because he didn't care about acting at all. This didn't happen in the earlier movies because he wasn't surrounded by yes-men then, and he didn't even direct V or VI. The prequels had people convinced that Natalie Portman, of all actors, and Haydn Christensen, were terrible, lousy actors. It takes a really bad director to pull that off. Portman in particular is generally considered an extremely talented actor. This just didn't happen with the original SW movies: Ford went on to have a fantastic acting career, and while Hamill and Fisher had less fantastic careers, they weren't considered to be absolutely horrible actors either.