Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday April 26 2017, @09:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the we-demand-a-jar-jar-force-ghost dept.

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/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:45PM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 27 2017, @06:45PM (#500838)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2