I love science fiction movies, primarily older science fiction movies from the fifties. I love Forbidden Planet and Earth vs. the Flying Saucers. I love The Day the Earth Stood Still and Invaders from Mars. I love The Incredible Shrinking Man, Them!, War of the Worlds and every other great or not so great sci-fi flick of the fifties and sixties and I even love At the Earth's Core and Logan's Run from the seventies too. And a part of why I love them is their lack of seamless perfection. I don't ever, EVER, want to see Doug McClure and Peter Cushing in a CGI-enhanced Earth Core drilling machine thingy. I want to always see them in that glorious throwback of a machine created for the original 1976 movie. I don't ever want the ants in Them! to look like honest-to-goodness real live ants, I want them to look like those big furry props that grab a hold of James Whitmore and don't let go. And, dammit, I want (and really would have fucking loved, George!) to have the original Star Wars Trilogy look the same from when I first saw them.
"But wait," you say, "Didn't they release (for a limited time) the original, unaltered films on DVD as part of a boxed set?"
Yes, they did and no, I didn't buy it because I cannot invest that kind of money in a box set. And it's not really what I mean anyway. What I mean is, despite being technically available, the original unaltered trilogy will never, ever be shown on cable or television again. All anyone is ever going to grow up seeing are the altered versions and that's a shame and a real loss. I understand the arguments for updating it to keep it going from generation to generation and keep the profits rolling in. I understand, I just don't care. I think it's important for people, film fans whether casual or hardcore, to enjoy a film for its place in history as well as for its technical specifications. When Gus Van Sant remade Psycho shot for shot in 1998, he proved, whether unwittingly or not, that a film does not just rise or fall dependent upon it's exacting technical content but upon when that content was originally done as well.
A film is a time-capsule and an archaeological object as well as a work of art. It is a piece of frozen time whose importance is, in the end, a lot more tied to historical significance than its bottom line. Watching an older movie takes me to another time in history and watching a movie I love takes me to the time in my life when I fell in love with it. Increasingly, all I see when I watch Star Wars (which, for these purposes is rhetorical because I don't watch it much these days) is a product that keeps getting a "New and Improved" sticker slapped on it. I'd love to say I've seen the trilogy and that's that but I know I haven't. I know that it will continue to be changed, most likely long after George Lucas' death, as he has probably already laid out in his will that the trilogy should be technologically updated in perpetuity with the requisite re-release for each new retro-fit. I wouldn't even be surprised if, eventually, it doesn't star Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher or Harrison Ford but rather whoever the big new stars are of the day, digitally inserted to keep the next generation interested.
My advice to everyone who wants to pass on the magic of Star Wars to their kids: Show them something else. Show them the great sci-fi of the fifties, sixties and seventies and the cheesy ones too. Show them Forbidden Planet and Planet of the Apes and Fantastic Voyage and Soylent Green and even Lucas' THX1138 and make sure you give them a healthy dose of Amicus while you're at it. Because it's those films that represent the true feel and time of the original trilogy, not that fleeting, ephemeral thing that's out there now that changes so much it's become impossible to ever actually see the final product. It's like Star Wars doesn't even exist anymore. It's a spirit, a phantom, but not necessarily a menace. More just a waste of time.
31 comments:
I think you articulate a sentiment many of us feel, even those of us who didn't see the movies on their initial release. I remember being taken to the special edition of Star Wars that came out in 1997 and being floored by it; I'd never heard of it, so in a way it was like seeing it on its initial release. When I hear people talk about the way it rocked their world, I can actually relate to that, coming to it 20 years later.
Of course as I learned a thing or two about the history of them, I came to be kind of disgusted by the changes he made (though I think the Star Wars special edition is the least offensive of them all, as in the changes do the least damage to the movie as a while). I did buy the original cuts of Star Wars (none of this "A New Hope shit) The Empire Strikes Back (the ones I think are actually good movies) when they came out, but only because I hadn't even seen the original cuts to that point! So what you say about the original cuts not being the canonized versions of the movies is true even of my generation, let alone the younger ones.
But what I've always wondered is if Lucas really is constantly tinkering with them as a business decision, or as a creative one. Probably the former but isn't it easier to just release toys?
The scary thing is I'll probably see at least The Empire Strikes Back, because I never did actually get to see that one in a theater...
THX-1171? Is that a sequel?
And I can't believe Ryan is one of those people who grew up on the "special editions". What the hell, Ryan? Be older, for God's sake!
I'm old for my age!
Ryan, I assume Lucas says it's an artistic decision and I can't honestly say I don't believe he believes it. Judging from his interviews with Bill Moyers, he doesn't quite come off as someone who understands what he created. It's always surprising to come across that but artists often misinterpret, or rather, interpret very differently their own work from how others interpret it.
Right out of the starting gate with the first film of the second trilogy, The Phantom Menace, he made clear he had never understood the appeal of the force and Jedi philosophy that he created. What was so appealing to fans was that it was something, like nirvana, to be attained through discipline and enlightenment. Obi-Wan even said, it's all around us, but you've got to open yourself up to it. If you were willing to sacrifice, eschew violence except in the defense of yourself or others and come to an inner peace, then the force would be strong with you and you could become a Jedi. Then, with the start of the second trilogy, bam, he throws midichlorians on us and tells everyone that, basically, there is no philosophy, no discipline, no sacrifice. You're born with it or you're not. If you are, you can be an undisciplined, selfish prick and still be really strong with the force.
I mean, really. My god is Lucas a moron.
Bill, I know, right? Why doesn't Ryan get older, now?!
And the title of Lucas' sci-fi flick, oops. It came out in 71 and I have always, as a result, called it THX 1171 by mistake. I've been corrected a million times and you'd think that would've been in my head to double-check it this time but, of course, I didn't. If only I'd been born with more midichlorians this would've never happened!
And so, Ryan, I failed to add, I think Lucas convinces himself with each new technological advance, "Ah, yes, that will finally make the film look how I originally wanted it to!" Trust me, he'll keep the updates coming for decades. Eventually, it will be completely and wholly unrecognizable from what was released in 1977. And once the original fans are old and decrepit I imagine his estate will pull the few unaltered original versions that are out there.
But I still have trouble deciding if he's doing it as a way to keep Star Wars cool for younger generations, so that our kids and their kids and their kids' kids buy the toys and the games and the lunchboxes, or if he's really so in love with the new technology that he really wants to make them better. So what I'm wondering is does he just love playing with his toys, or is this part of an insane marketing strategy? Or is it both?
What makes me think he's not just in love with technology, and that it's a calculated business venture and nothing more, is that if you love the new computers, why not make new movies? Not just more Star Wars movies, but different movies altogether, with the technology. I'm not a huge Cameron fan and hated Avatar, but at least he challenges himself and tries to do different things. That Cameron sucks at it is beside the point I'm trying to make here.
Oh, my! I'm on my limited online time and here comes a subject that's been much on my mind lately and about which I could say so much all around.
I think Lucas's futzing and claiming that he's just retrofitting his original vision is frustrating. Not because I, as much as others at least, mind the changes in themselves.
But there is something deceptive or delusional about how he goes about it, and that's the part that I can't figure out.
Especially since it's oddly contradictory. There are things that he seems intent on stating are true and have always been true and seems like he will insist are true with his dying breath.
And yet some are contradicted by his own official materials, books and the (quite excellent) documentary on the original trilogy DVD set. Not hidden then in some dark volume of esoterica, but right in the open.
But I still don't feel like one would or could ever get a straight answer from him, and yet I'd be so curious about the straight answers regarding so much of it.
Just the other day, I was thinking about how Jar-Jar Binks casts the deciding vote that ultimately makes Palpatine the dictator and sets him in motion to become The Emperor, etc. Was that always intended, that the dumb but well-meaning guy would do that? Or was that part of how he recast, and downplayed, Jar-Jar, it would seem obviously, in reaction to fan opinion?
I'm not sure I could believe any answer he gave to that, and yet I'd like to know.
How do I feel about the changes?
Ambivalent.
Some are genuinely better, little fixes and such. Some are devastatingly horrible. Others are odd and hard to put my finger on.
Some part of me admires the notion of changing and fixing, but I also see something frustrating about the fact that even if the originals are held onto as a collector's item - and those DVDs are easily available individually still, for whatever that's worth - but diminished from public view.
For myself, I will show Star Wars and it's kin, to my child. I don't expect whatever it will be at that point to be the same as what I experienced, and no matter what it was, it was unlikely to capture the same magic it did for me.
Why? Because why would it? It's a common point of magic for people around my age, but then so are other things.
My kid will discover their own, and it may or may not be something that exists now or existed when I when I was a kid or when my dad was a kid.
For whatever it helps, I promise I'll also show them Forbidden Planet, Planet of the Apes, Fantastic Voyage and Soylent Green. I think a lot of the joy is in discovering so many things, so many worlds of wonder out there.
Oh, and I'm totally going to Star Wars in 3-D! Why? I haven't seen the conversion process. If I'm going to see how well it does or doesn't work, how better than with something I'm so familiar with?
I'm not sure what happened with Neil's comments (they repeated about four times) but I think I've corrected it now.
I'd like to respond to Neil by way of Ryan. Ryan said this:
What makes me think he's not just in love with technology, and that it's a calculated business venture and nothing more, is that if you love the new computers, why not make new movies? Not just more Star Wars movies, but different movies altogether, with the technology.
Since Neil and Ryan and I would all love straight answers from Lucas on this, it's what Ryan says here that has always led me to believe that whatever comes out of Lucas' mouth, it is bullshit. He's never made different movies! Jim Emerson brought this up on Scanners last year. He mentioned how Lucas had said, repeatedly, that he made Star Wars to finance the smaller, more personal films he really wanted to make. But then he never did! It would seem he was saying that to kind of say, "See, I'm really a deep, personal filmmaker. This stuff is just for capital." And then I guess he hoped we'd buy it.
In the end, who cares anyway, right? As long as the originals are still out there somewhere because, as Roger Ebert once said, once a movie is released, it belongs to everyone. And I don't want my original, unaltered Star Wars taken away. That's why I said in the piece, for me, it's not all the changes, it's getting rid of the original record. One thing that fascinates me with older films I saw when I was a kid was how much I can see through the special effects now. When I watched the original trilogy on videotape years after not seeing them for awhile, in the nineties, I was surprised at how cheesy they looked. Some of the effects worked, other really didn't. I liked that and now that's gone for the most part.
One update of his that really did bother me on its own merits is the Hans Solo/Jabba conversation in the space dock. It's not that the CGI was awful (Oh my god, it was!) but that it was a purely cynical "let's cash in on CGI" addition because nothing, and I mean nothing, that they talk about in that scene isn't repeated by Solo later in the film on board the Falcon. It was totally unnecessary, Lucas just wanted to masturbate with his new CGI dildo.
Why the hell is 3D taking over again?..I thought audiences grew up out of this gimmic in the 50s.
I'd like to see some great scripts and actors come along for the next novelty.
Christopher, it happens every thirty years. First the fifties, then the eighties, remember? Jaws 3-D, Friday 13th 3-D, etc. Now, 2010, here it is again. Eventually character and story might be a trend but I doubt it.
What really irked me about the special editions is not just the license Lucas took with the look of the film but with the actual storyline and characters.
One of the things which made Han so interesting initially was the danger one felt emanating from the character, mostly due to the scene in which he originally SHOOTS GREEDO FIRST. It makes his arc over the course of the trilogy a redemptive one. Now, not so much.
I'm a STAR TREK fan, and they too contemporized their cheesy effects for the Blu-rays of the original series. I have to admit, I quite like it, but A) many times it is used to reinforce the story not undercut it (for example, when Kirk says there is a fleet of Klingon ships out there, it doesn't cut to an empty starscape as it did in one episode but to an actual fleet), and B) they still allow you to see the episodes with their original effects through the magic of seamless branching.
Why Lucas would leave money on the table when a fan of his originals like myself or you would actually purchase such a thing (I heard the last time the original versions were released on DVD they weren't even in anamorphic widescreen) mystifies me.
Tony, I'm sure you've seen the t-shirts that say, Han Shot First. That is something that absolutely changes something fundamental about Han's character and, again, Lucas - WHO CREATED HIM!!! - didn't get that. It. Is. Maddening!
I don't mind the Star Trek ones much but only because, so far at least, all I really notice are different spacescapes. The phaser beams and old-timey bridge all look the same. Still, I don't really see the need for it. I'm fine watching the old special effects, which, in fact, were pretty good.
I do hope one day there is a beautifully restored (but not altered!) original trilogy put on DVD or Blu-Ray, that you can buy separately, not priced out of everyone's range by being included in some box set with everything else for 200 dollars. I hope, but I know it won't happen.
True stuff - I don't want a new & improved version of any movie - unless it's an awful movie and someone figures out how to remake it better.
Right on.
What gets me is how damn UNPROFESSIONAL it is to keep tinkering with finished movies. Maybe it's the journalism training in me, but once deadline is met and the thing is out there, your part in it is DONE. It's over. Even if there's stuff you want to fix, too bad; move on to the next thing.
Stuff didn't turn out like you wanted it to, George? Welcome to EVERY CREATIVE ENDEAVOR EVER. If you ever turn out something creative--especially something as complicated and multi-faceted as a movie--that you are 100% satisfied with, let the rest of us know, because you'll be the first.
I only have the updated trilogy on DVD, but I haven't watched it in ages. I figure I won't have much trouble figuring out what was altered, though... I just have to look for the obnoxious CGI drawing attention to itself.
unless it's an awful movie and someone figures out how to remake it better.
RC, totally agree. I've always said if you're going to remake a movie, remake a crappy one and make it better. I hate when Hollywood takes a classic and remakes it. Take something that failed on some fundamental level and fix it, instead.
Stuff didn't turn out like you wanted it to, George? Welcome to EVERY CREATIVE ENDEAVOR EVER.
Exactly. And why didn't he move on to other movies as a writer/director if he had more to say? Why keep going back and tinkering the damn thing out of existance?
And don't you wish he had simply supplied the outline of the story for Episodes I, II and III and let someone else write and direct them, as with Empire and Jedi? I mean Jedi didn't turn out that great (until we all saw the next three and suddenly it started looking good) but Empire is simply fantastic, thanks to Kasdan's sharp script and Kirshner's tight direction.
And, as I alluded to above, no CGI in any of the films (or possibly any film ever, period) is worse than the Solo/Jabba scene in the updated Star Wars. Oh my god, that scene just makes me cringe.
Is Lucas still threatening to make that quirky, artistic "indie" movie he used to drone on about years ago?
I'll never forget seeing STAR WARS at the Ziegfeld when it came out, sitting there thinking, "I don't get it." Open minded, I went again a week or two later, figuring perhaps I'd been in a sour mood the first time. But it really struck home that the film just wasn't terribly good. I tried watching it again ten or fifteen years ago when it arrived on VHS in letterbox, but after thirty minutes I shut it off from boredom.
I made it through thirty or forty minutes of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. I thought RETURN OF THE JEDI was fairly engaging, but it certainly didn't stand up to a second viewing. I haven't been anywhere near the other movies that came out later.
figuring perhaps I'd been in a sour mood the first time...
You? That's crazy talk! I, of course, thought they were damned entertaining at first but that greatly diminished over time. I can't imagine watching Star Wars now and finding it very compelling. However, I still think Empire is the best of all six and a good movie in and of itself.
That said, I would absolutely love to hear your thoughts on the next three because, brother, did they suck! Now, I know, there are many fans who think Menace was average, Clones was better and Revenge of the Sith was very good but I think they're all crazy. That second set of films was, to my eyes, pure fucking garbage. I saw Menace with a friend who had already seen it twice when we went and he was excited to be seeing it again. After it was over I just kept asking him, "What were you thinking? Why did you like that?"
But for me, I think Sith is the worst because, somehow, it manages to be boring, pedantic (it has so much to wrap up that lots of it feels like bullet points on a powerpoint presentation) and cringe-inducing all at once. And by cringe-inducing I specifically refer to the fact that Lucas, and his glorious eye for talent, gave most of the movie to an actor, Hayden Christensen, with about as much talent as a piece of scrap paper and the charisma of driftwood. And then he made Christensen's character, Anakin Skywalker (Darth Fucking Vader), into a dullard. Really, it's just lose/lose all around. I'm still kind of aghast at how bad the second set of movies was but I shouldn't be should I? They're that bad!
Sorry. Comment kept telling me it didn't go through. I'm sorry if it got to be a mess.
I have little to add at this point.
Well, except 3-D rules! Sure, it's used lazily and badly, but then so is nearly everything.
And I have 2 grandmothers telling me to be careful about letting a kid watch any - or much - TV before age 5, so my plan is - not much different than before - to do a lot of reading and story listening, so my kid may actually be introduced to Star Wars via the BBC radio adaptations.
Interestingly, I'm more intrigued by anything by the idea of every generation, every person getting a different view of things.
I came to POTA through toys and a the Power! Records adaptation, which skips Conquest, making Battle even more nonsensical in the telling than the movie itself is, which is impressive.
It's a subject of great fascination to me frankly.
And I have 2 grandmothers telling me to be careful about letting a kid watch any - or much - TV before age 5...
Well, it's mainly two and under. And when they do watch it's good to go with DVDs, so with us for instance, instead of the fast-paced manic crap on cable our daughter watched the Kipper collection on DVD. Very gentle, very British. It also helped that we never watch tv so our children never watched. We all watch our shows in huge season ending chunks via Amazon Video on Demand or Netflix.
Also, we've always kept the tv in the back room of the basement (finished basement). To watch you have to go down there where there's no cell reception and be out of touch with the world. It's a commitment quite frankly and deterred the kids from watching too much. We have never ever kept a tv in the living room or any public part of the house. You'd be amazed how much more relaxing it makes the house.
So that's my advice to a soon to be parent. Make tv watching kind of chore, and a dull one at that. Don't rail against it (they'll just react against that), just kind of treat like this ho-hum thing to do. Encourage them to watch shows and movies on DVDs so there's no commercials to distract their concentration. I've nothing against tv or movies (obviously) but there are ways to get your kids thinking of them as something to do for a purpose (i.e., there's this great movie I want to watch) not out of boredom.
Okay, sorry for the parent/tv talk there.
Interestingly, I'm more intrigued by anything by the idea of every generation, every person getting a different view of things...
That is intriguing but to me, that's what remakes are for, not this endless tinkering. And speaking of remakes, even though I'm sure Lucas and his estate will forever after bar it from happening, I would love to see someone remake the Star Wars movies and do it right from beginning to end. Or at least the second harrowingly sucky series of movies.
Yeah, I won't be railing against TV or making it a crazy, impossibly tempting forbidden fruit... or I'll make every effort to avoid that.
I also want to make reading and other activities a treat.
Police Chief Wiggum to Ralph:
"You know you're not supposed to go in there. What is your fascination with my forbidden closet of mystery?!"
Maybe George is just one of those types who really, really thinks he is improving his life's work. So he wants to make it the best he thinks it can be, even if everybody else tells him it's fine. I recently saw Springsteen's THE PROMISE, the film about Darkness On The Edge of Town, and he kept recording and recording and recording until he could hear the sound on tape that he could hear in his head. If you look at it from a music angle, there's little difference between what Lucas is doing and digital remastering of albums with bonus tracks and alternate versions every few years (but, yes, you can usually still get the original version.) Maybe it's that way with George. It's like Jack Torrence typing the same line over and over. Maybe instead of hating George, we should sympathize with him in some way. He's got everything a man could want, except satisfaction on some artistic level. I can't help thinking of the end of THE CONVERSATION, after Hackman has torn up his house looking for the bug he'll never find. Maybe that's what Lucas is after, too. The unobtainable bug.
Maybe instead of hating George, we should sympathize with him in some way. He's got everything a man could want, except satisfaction on some artistic level.
Well, that's an honest possibility and since I don't think he quite understands what he created, he keeps tinkering with it to try and get there, only that there is a non-existent place. Like Burt Reynolds not understanding his best work (when you wrote about his autobiography) Lucas doesn't understand, or maybe appreciate is the better word, what made the first Star Wars work. It worked for most everybody but not for him and it turns out what he wants out of it is so much worse than anything anyone can imagine.
Thanks, by the way, for that link. I've bookmarked it.
I wish I had more to say about the larger Star Wars issue here. I have so many thoughts on it... Who knows? I may have another blog post on it soon.
Neil, what link? StarWars Wikia? The Roger Ebert Newsweek article?
The TV watching kids link.
Of course. I don't know why I went blank on that one.
Very passionate article. Although I love George Lucas and think he is a genius film maker
Post a Comment