-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Video of Hayden Christensen replacing Sebastian Shaw in Return of the Jedi DVD
- Thread starter The Bookerman
- Start date
- Status
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
This is a slap in the face to the guy who Played anakin. Wasn't he tryign to get back into shape to play Vader in episode III? Now they edit him out. I'd be pissed.
Spiritreaver
Member
DrForester said:
It's all about the money. I'm curious as to how much he's made. Money would make me not feel bad, and is Sebastian Shaw the same guy who plays Anakin when Luke takes off his helmet? If so, then he's still in the film.
AlphaSnake
...and that, kids, was the first time I sucked a dick for crack
Guzim said:Here's the best I can find.
That's fucked up...
The Shadow
Member
Hitokage said:
I think the re-release of ET was their model, not Star Wars. That episode came out long before the DVDs were announced.
Actually went and watched this new video...
I don't care for putting Hayden in there to begin with, but it doesn't look good either. He looks pretty awkward compared to Yoda and Obi-Wan. I don't know what the deal is with him looking down and then back up. It's also weird how he doesn't share that glance to Obi-Wan anymore. Anakin turns his head back just as Obi-Wan starts to look over. Instead it's just Obi-Wan with Yoda and Anakin just there doing nothing. It's retarded just from a simple scene blocking perspective, let alone the fact that it doesn't make tons of sense to have Anakin be young there.
I don't care for putting Hayden in there to begin with, but it doesn't look good either. He looks pretty awkward compared to Yoda and Obi-Wan. I don't know what the deal is with him looking down and then back up. It's also weird how he doesn't share that glance to Obi-Wan anymore. Anakin turns his head back just as Obi-Wan starts to look over. Instead it's just Obi-Wan with Yoda and Anakin just there doing nothing. It's retarded just from a simple scene blocking perspective, let alone the fact that it doesn't make tons of sense to have Anakin be young there.
Mike Works
Member
Does the bastard know no bounds
(credit to Unkempt at SA)
(credit to Unkempt at SA)
God's Hand
Banned
Dan said:
No, you're wrong. But that's okay; you're probably used to it. Do some research on intellectual property. It's his, not yours. He does not answer to anyone.
Legally speaking, you're right. Though you can do many things that are legal and still be a bastard. Morally, historically speaking, you don't have a leg to stand on. That Lucas legally owns the movie and makes money from it, isn't in doubt. That he's trying to destroy a part of film history and culture, is the problem. Lucas seems like the type of dope who would add voice to silent films and color to black and white films.God's Hand said:
As for Lucas destorying film reels, hopefully the people who still have them will hold onto them. Then maybe the original films can be released when Lucas dies off.
I'm not talking about law nor do I care about it. You cannot even attempt to say that the original release of Star Wars is not an important moment in popular culture and film history, and Lucas is trying his best to erase it all. You can justify it all you want, but some of us are concerned with far greater things than Lucas' personal wish for everyone in the world to forget what he originally released in 1977.God's Hand said:
They are Lucas' creations. It's his art, his vision and his money. He has absolutely every right to fuck with them as much as he wants, and without answering to anyone. It's incredibly pretentious of "fans" to believe they have a better vision of the creators work, than the creator himself.
I think it's incredibly pretentious for people to keep bringing up the whole "it's his" argument. IMO there is a limit to what an artist can do to his work. Lucas has gone beyond making these films better--some of his choices just seem like poor taste. What need is there to put Hayden over Sebastian's face? And don't get me started on the whole who shot first issue. This isn't like fixing Wells Touch of Evil--people were perfectly fine with the originals and as far as I know Lucas made the films that he wanted at that time they were filmed. His changes are nothing more than a misguided attempt to fight the fact that these films have become dated.
These kinds of choices do more bad than good I feel. In this age of interactive media there is no reason why Lucas couldn't offer the originals to people who feel in love with them. Spielberg gave us two versions of ET. Ridley Scott offer both versions of Legend in spite of his preferences.
These kinds of choices do more bad than good I feel. In this age of interactive media there is no reason why Lucas couldn't offer the originals to people who feel in love with them. Spielberg gave us two versions of ET. Ridley Scott offer both versions of Legend in spite of his preferences.
No, I'm being serious. Being an artist doesn't absolve one from criticism. Some artistic choices can be questionable. And in the case of Star Wars, I think that Lucas has made some mistakes. Really, what reason was there to past Hayden Christensen's face into the original ending of RotJ? Does it do anything meaningful for the continuity? Does it add any further significance to themes or ideas present in theStar Wars movies? I'm having a hard time justifying the change. The only thing I can say about it is that I also feel like the copy and paste job is slap to the face of the original actor and that the explanation of Vader's death is made more confusing. Maybe Ep 3 will address this issue, but I have my doubts.
Of course an artists work is open to criticism, but that was never the issue here.ge-man said:
Questionable choices or not, it doesn't matter. Lucas is ultimately the master of his work and can do what he wants, how he wants, whenever he wants. End of story.
The rest of what you say is simply your own critique, which is fine, but in the end doesn't mean anything. You cannot presume to know a mans work better than he or she does.
Boogie9IGN
Member
Is he just appearing or did I miss him walking over? Either way it's sexy, <3 Hayden
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Hitokage said:
Then don't buy them Hito.
Guess what ? I think the sales of the DVD box-set will be good and people in here will get the DVD box-set... maybe bitch about it or maybe just being silent as they do not want to look like hypocrits.
You are still free to make the choice of supporting him or not. If this is the version he wants to stand as the most current, concise and fitting his vision of the movies, then as the artist it is fully in his right to do so. People don't have to like it, or agree, and I'm sure they'll let him know.Hitokage said:
1) "Star Wars" has been and continues to be a widely popular movie franchise.
2) This popularity is primarily focused on the original trilogy release
3) This original trilogy will only be available on dvd in altered form.
4) VHS tapes wear out
5) People buy the dvds anyway, because there is no choice.
Of course, I could also talk about how an artist's right to their work is not ultimate, but since you are so keen on the "you're wrong, because I said so" argument, I'm not going to bother.
2) This popularity is primarily focused on the original trilogy release
3) This original trilogy will only be available on dvd in altered form.
4) VHS tapes wear out
5) People buy the dvds anyway, because there is no choice.
Of course, I could also talk about how an artist's right to their work is not ultimate, but since you are so keen on the "you're wrong, because I said so" argument, I'm not going to bother.
Listen mate, I'm all for good debate. I'm in the industry, I create art, be it still or motion. If you can tell me that I have no right to alter my work (that I still have full rights to) as I see fit, please do.Hitokage said:Of course, I could also talk about how an artist's right to their work is not ultimate, but since you are so keen on the "you're wrong, because I said so" argument, I'm not going to bother.
I'm not here to enter into polemics unless I am as sure as I can be that my position is absolute.
All in good spirit, mate.
No one is saying changes can't be made, but it's not proper for previous versions to be eliminated from existence. As said, Spielberg has made both versions of ET available, and Ridley Scott hasn't replaced the theatrical versions of his films with his preferred versions. Eliminating a part of popular culture and history is a world of difference to adding to it.Ill Saint said:
I still maintain that as the creator and owner of the rights to his films, he is fully and utterly within his rights to change, or cut whatever he wants to, whenever he wants to. Popular culture or not, that is totally irrelevent.Dan said:
I'm more than happy to concede and say I am wrong if someone can prove (legaly) otherwise.
Legality is irrelevant. Law has nothing to do with history, and that's what Lucas is seeking to change. He's seeking to wipe one of the most important films ever, for better of worse, off the face of the Earth. I find it surprising that more people don't take issue with this.
Dan said:
You know what if he made all the other versions availible then people would be bitching that he was an old rich man screwing fans over by releasing multiple versions of the same movie, ie Evil Dead and every other DVD that gets a special edition. Lucas can't win with some people. If he didn't make the changes the same people would be bitching over why Anikan is an old man as a ghost. Anyhow like I have said on many occasions nothing he's done has changed the mode or themes of the movies one freaking bit. Get over it or don't watch the movies, either way shut the fuck up about it.
Basically, the argument here is about the ability of an artist to retract or "unpublish" a previously published work. It's not a problem, per se, that Lucas sees fit to revise his work, but rather that he also wants to bury the earlier cut. On one hand, for hundreds of years published works have been incorporated into a larger creative pool that many have pulled from in creating their own work. Shakespeare pulled the base story Romeo and Juliet from another author, and that play went to inspire West Side Story. Creative works ultimately became contributions to society. On the other hand, the modern advent of draconian copyright perverts what used to be a device to promote creative work into an absolute and solitary right. It's become a tool of the corporate bottom line in order to assert total control over such works. While under today's system Lucas can certainly continue making his money from the Star Wars franchise however he wishes, his work has already made a significant impact on others, and his attempts to actively remove it serve as an attempt to blot out cultural history. The work itself is no longer entirely his, even though he's the one who sees the check from its success and even though current law places its importance over everything else.
Note: I generalized the argument, lest anyone think I care THAT much about fucking Star Wars.
Note: I generalized the argument, lest anyone think I care THAT much about fucking Star Wars.
No one is forced to buy his films twice or even once. He is however removing any chance of one version to be available for purchase ever again; a version that is one of the most successful films ever and with the help of Jaws created modern blockbuster-based cinema as we know it. There's a vast difference between creating choice and removing it.ShadowRed said:
Er... no. No one complained about Han Solo shooting first either.
He's changed pacing, tone (musical number anyone?) and visual consistency. Only a very casual film fan would think those things don't matter. He also changed Han's character by making Greedo shoot first. Saying that such a change to a character's introduction into a trilogy isn't important is just silly.
karasu
Member
lol I don't even see how this is being 'defended'. It's not a question of his legal rights, it's more about taste, and maybe having a SHRED of loyalty to the fanbase that made you so stinking rich to begin with. There's a reason most directors, artist, and everything in between don't pull crud like this.
i don't think anyone here is saying that he doesn't have the legal right to do whatever dumb shit he wants, they're just pissed because he's doing some fucking stupid ass shit and THEN he goes and destroys the smart funny great stuff he did in the past and limits other's access to it. i mean seriously, get a fucking clue lucas. what an ass!
when you get right down it, the guy really owes his fans, seeing as they've made him millions and millions and millions of dollars over the years. instead he's just out there bitchslapping all the poor basement dwelling virgins who worship him. not cool dudes. not cool at all.
when you get right down it, the guy really owes his fans, seeing as they've made him millions and millions and millions of dollars over the years. instead he's just out there bitchslapping all the poor basement dwelling virgins who worship him. not cool dudes. not cool at all.
DSN2K said:
I don't think voicing your displeasure about something is overreacting. I mean, I'm not going to buy it. I'd rather give my money to something else that won't release a new, edited version a year later. I'm sure Lucas isn't crying about losing my $40, but he can suck it.
Ill Saint said:
Oh, you. I forgot about you. Oh wait -- you're the guy that got served. Now I remember!
Basically, if you're an arrogant dick who feels his/her contributions to "art" in any form give them the ability to null other people's opinions and then is respectively debated on the matter, in an intelligent manner no less (a rarity on this damn forum), only to go running away, you get served.
Hey, don't worry. It happens. Shrug it off. Aim low.
- Status