• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gee thanks, George Lucas, you suck.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
if greedo and han fire at the same time that would be ok

the only change i don't think is good is using hayden christensen for anakin rather than sebastian shaw.
 
In the SSE version of the Star Wars Trilogy, Darth Vader changes his name to Turd Ferguson, Paris Hilton is digitally edited into the movies to replace Carrie Fisher as Leia, R2D2 no longer beeps but has a voiceover with a lot more street cred (?C3PO, you just got served, biatch.?) and Han Solo is now a woman warrior with a lot of heart played by Angelina Jolie.
 
I think I'm probably the only one that thinks it's kinda cool that he likes the movies so much to go back and "better" them.

I still like the originals best.

 
Originally posted by: TheAudit
In the SSE version of the Star Wars Trilogy, Darth Vader changes his name to Turd Ferguson, Paris Hilton is digitally edited into the movies to replace Carrie Fisher as Leia, R2D2 no longer beeps but has a voiceover with a lot more street cred (?C3PO, you just got served, biatch.?) and Han Solo is now a woman warrior with a lot of heart played by Angelina Jolie.

hey id watch that... yummm paris in he ROTJ bikini...
and Angelina.. <3 in anything...
 
Originally posted by: DougK62
I think I'm probably the only one that thinks it's kinda cool that he likes the movies so much to go back and "better" them.

I still like the originals best.

He's just so insecure in his filmmaking that he has to go back, "better" them and destroy the originals so that eventually no one will know anything else but the updated versions.

You don't see a lot of the other great directors to come out of that time going back to make their films "better."
 
Anyone seen the recent "Making of..." Star Wars bit on (IIRC) A&amp;E? Even Lucas admitted that he has slipped to the Dark Side (in his opinion, corporatism).

The changes that Lucas has made are not "minor". The entire moral story has been changed (Star Wars is, or was, a morality play). Not just with the SE changes but with the developments added in Ep's 1 and 2. Han is no longer running for his life and desperately in need of money to pay off Jabba. The Force is something one is born with, not a discipline that can be learned by faithful. Stormtroopers are zombie clones. Annakin's fall to the Dark Side to become Darth Vader is no longer a mighty fall from grace, but like tripping off a low curb (and thus his redemption in ROTJ has much less meaning). I could go on.

Lucas himself said that (in his early film career) the Dark Side of the force represented all that is evil and corporate in the film industry. Now he is exactly that.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone seen the recent "Making of..." Star Wars bit on (IIRC) A&amp;E? Even Lucas admitted that he has slipped to the Dark Side (in his opinion, corporatism).

The changes that Lucas has made are not "minor". The entire moral story has been changed (Star Wars is, or was, a morality play). Not just with the SE changes but with the developments added in Ep's 1 and 2. Han is no longer running for his life and desperately in need of money to pay off Jabba. The Force is something one is born with, not a discipline that can be learned by faithful. Stormtroopers are zombie clones. Annakin's fall to the Dark Side to become Darth Vader is no longer a mighty fall from grace, but like tripping off a low curb (and thus his redemption in ROTJ has much less meaning). I could go on.

Lucas himself said that (in his early film career) the Dark Side of the force represented all that is evil and corporate in the film industry. Now he is exactly that.


Gotta love a hypocrite. Doesn't this guy have enough money as it is? At what point are you content?
 
Lucas considers himself an artist. Artists are rarely 100% happy with their work. He thought he was improving it. Unfortunately, he messed with something that was beloved by the entire world and now nerds are angry. My wife didnt even realize it was mucked with (and she bought the original VHS box set back in the day).

It's really not that big of a deal, although he should have left well enough alone.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone seen the recent "Making of..." Star Wars bit on (IIRC) A&amp;E? Even Lucas admitted that he has slipped to the Dark Side (in his opinion, corporatism).

The changes that Lucas has made are not "minor". The entire moral story has been changed (Star Wars is, or was, a morality play). Not just with the SE changes but with the developments added in Ep's 1 and 2. Han is no longer running for his life and desperately in need of money to pay off Jabba. The Force is something one is born with, not a discipline that can be learned by faithful. Stormtroopers are zombie clones. Annakin's fall to the Dark Side to become Darth Vader is no longer a mighty fall from grace, but like tripping off a low curb (and thus his redemption in ROTJ has much less meaning). I could go on.

Lucas himself said that (in his early film career) the Dark Side of the force represented all that is evil and corporate in the film industry. Now he is exactly that.

LOL this post cracks me up.. dude get off the freaking crack...
nothing has changed at all except better grafics and more immersion..

the story is exactly the same...
we all knew that you had to be born force adept...
you dont just wake up one day and say wow.. i feel like i could move an Xwing with my mind today...

anyone that has followed Star Wars and the cannon as well as the movies knew this long before ep 1 and 2...

the Stormtroopers in the clone war were in fact clones....
in the time frame of the later movies they were not all clones...
the Empire began recruiting and stromtroopers were regular shock troopers in battle armour..

Han was never innocent of anything he was a scum bag smuggler.
 
Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
The only change I think is bad is adding Hayden Christensen in with the "Force Ghosts"...

Same here. That one just doesn't fit.

Plus he's a really bad actor.
 
Originally posted by: CVSiN
anyone that has followed Star Wars and the cannon as well as the movies knew this long before ep 1 and 2...

And yet the other posters in the thread are "stormtrooper helmet wearing plastic lightsaber havign fruit loops." 😛

It *does* change a lot of the story to change those things. If the characters' motivations change (as w/ Han), the character changes.

Plus the midichlorian thing is the *stupidest* addition to the whole series. Way to reduce something that fascinated my 8-year-old self into something like white blood cells, heh.

Imagine how pissed off I would be if I was actually a Star Wars geek. 😛
 
Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
The only change I think is bad is adding Hayden Christensen in with the "Force Ghosts"...

Same here. That one just doesn't fit.

Plus he's a really bad actor.

That and it just doesnt make any sense. Luke unmasks Sebastian Shaw's Vader, not Hayden Christensen's. You dont see a younger Yoda or Ewan McGregor as a younger Obi-Wan... You know why? Luke didnt see them in that form so it makes no sense for them to appear in the "Force Ghosts" scene.

Luke would look at Hayden and be like "who the fvck are you?"
 
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: DougK62
I think I'm probably the only one that thinks it's kinda cool that he likes the movies so much to go back and "better" them.

I still like the originals best.

He's just so insecure in his filmmaking that he has to go back, "better" them and destroy the originals so that eventually no one will know anything else but the updated versions.

You don't see a lot of the other great directors to come out of that time going back to make their films "better."

Yeah you do. The exorcist was re-released. So was apocalypse now. Worse, those movies didn't even really need it, because they didn't seem too dated compared to SW.
 
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: DougK62
I think I'm probably the only one that thinks it's kinda cool that he likes the movies so much to go back and "better" them.

I still like the originals best.

He's just so insecure in his filmmaking that he has to go back, "better" them and destroy the originals so that eventually no one will know anything else but the updated versions.

You don't see a lot of the other great directors to come out of that time going back to make their films "better."

Yeah you do. The exorcist was re-released. So was apocalypse now. Worse, those movies didn't even really need it, because they didn't seem too dated compared to SW.

But those are directors' cuts with original footage re-added, not CGI-edited footage.
 
These small changes don't bug me, if I were George though I'd offer the original version and the "enhanced" version in an effort to make more money if anything else.

BTW Hayden Christensen sucks ass at acting and is one of the biggest failings of all the movies. They need to get a completely new actor and digital redo the last two with Hayden Christensen removed. How could they go so far as to make two movies and not realize how badly he sucks at acting?
 
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: DougK62
I think I'm probably the only one that thinks it's kinda cool that he likes the movies so much to go back and "better" them.

I still like the originals best.

He's just so insecure in his filmmaking that he has to go back, "better" them and destroy the originals so that eventually no one will know anything else but the updated versions.

You don't see a lot of the other great directors to come out of that time going back to make their films "better."

Yeah you do. The exorcist was re-released. So was apocalypse now. Worse, those movies didn't even really need it, because they didn't seem too dated compared to SW.

Not the same thing.

Both the originals of those movies were made available (and are still available) in current video formats.

The Apocolypse Now DVD came out a long time before the Redux and the Redux just contains extra footage. The overall story hasn't change.

The Exorcist DVD is the same thing. It was released on DVD long before the add scenes were in and you can still buy the original version.

For either of those you aren't forced to by the "better" version.
 
Originally posted by: Strang
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: DougK62
I think I'm probably the only one that thinks it's kinda cool that he likes the movies so much to go back and "better" them.

I still like the originals best.
He's just so insecure in his filmmaking that he has to go back, "better" them and destroy the originals so that eventually no one will know anything else but the updated versions.

You don't see a lot of the other great directors to come out of that time going back to make their films "better."
Yeah you do. The exorcist was re-released. So was apocalypse now. Worse, those movies didn't even really need it, because they didn't seem too dated compared to SW.
But those are directors' cuts with original footage re-added, not CGI-edited footage.
And you can still buy the originals if you so choose.
 
Originally posted by: blazert40
These small changes don't bug me, if I were George though I'd offer the original version and the "enhanced" version in an effort to make more money if anything else.

BTW Hayden Christensen sucks ass at acting and is one of the biggest failings of all the movies. They need to get a completely new actor and digital redo the last two with Hayden Christensen removed. How could they go so far as to make two movies and not realize how badly he sucks at acting?

Well, to be fair, Christensen wasn't in the first movie -- Jake Lloyd was the awful actor playing Anakin in that one. If you want to give Lucas the benefit of the doubt, you could argue that he hired Christensen to maintain a consistency in the crappiness of the acting.

Also all of the actors sucked in the prequels (with the exception of Ewan MacGregor).
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Anyone seen the recent "Making of..." Star Wars bit on (IIRC) A&amp;E? Even Lucas admitted that he has slipped to the Dark Side (in his opinion, corporatism).

The changes that Lucas has made are not "minor". The entire moral story has been changed (Star Wars is, or was, a morality play). Not just with the SE changes but with the developments added in Ep's 1 and 2. Han is no longer running for his life and desperately in need of money to pay off Jabba. The Force is something one is born with, not a discipline that can be learned by faithful. Stormtroopers are zombie clones. Annakin's fall to the Dark Side to become Darth Vader is no longer a mighty fall from grace, but like tripping off a low curb (and thus his redemption in ROTJ has much less meaning). I could go on.

Lucas himself said that (in his early film career) the Dark Side of the force represented all that is evil and corporate in the film industry. Now he is exactly that.

You quite nicely summarized my feelings about the "new" SW and Lucas. :beer:

He really has become a greedy self-centered SOB.

 
Hayden Christensen does NOT suck as an actor. Anybody who's seen Life as a House and/or Shattered Glass would know he's an EXCELLENT actor.

Lucas just doesn't know how to direct people - plain and simple.
 
Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Hayden Christensen does NOT suck as an actor. Anybody who's seen Life as a House and/or Shattered Glass would know he's an EXCELLENT actor.

Lucas just doesn't know how to direct people - plain and simple.

I'd say that's true, although if Christensen is excellent, what does that make MacGregor? 😉
 
Originally posted by: Strang
Originally posted by: blazert40
These small changes don't bug me, if I were George though I'd offer the original version and the "enhanced" version in an effort to make more money if anything else.

BTW Hayden Christensen sucks ass at acting and is one of the biggest failings of all the movies. They need to get a completely new actor and digital redo the last two with Hayden Christensen removed. How could they go so far as to make two movies and not realize how badly he sucks at acting?

Well, to be fair, Christensen wasn't in the first movie -- Jake Lloyd was the awful actor playing Anakin in that one. If you want to give Lucas the benefit of the doubt, you could argue that he hired Christensen to maintain a consistency in the crappiness of the acting.

Also all of the actors sucked in the prequels (with the exception of Ewan MacGregor).

You are correct, except I'd like to add Liam Nealson on the first one did a fine job even though he died early on.
 
Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Hayden Christensen does NOT suck as an actor. Anybody who's seen Life as a House and/or Shattered Glass would know he's an EXCELLENT actor.

Lucas just doesn't know how to direct people - plain and simple.

I thought he was terrible in Life as a House, but whatever.
 
Originally posted by: Yossarian
Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Hayden Christensen does NOT suck as an actor. Anybody who's seen Life as a House and/or Shattered Glass would know he's an EXCELLENT actor.

Lucas just doesn't know how to direct people - plain and simple.

I thought he was terrible in Life as a House, but whatever.

Where he played yet another whiney b!tch. His freaking voice gives me a headache.
 
Back
Top