May 22, 2012: This post was originally published in February 2012. I temporarily removed it in March, intending to repost it later, but a WordPress gremlin deleted it altogether. I’ve rewritten it to the best of my memory, and am now posting it with its original date.
x
If there’s one thing that Lucasfilm knows how to do, it’s sell stuff. Therefore, I’m guessing there’s a pretty high likelihood you’re aware that today, Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace returns to theaters in a shiny new 3D incarnation. Alas, the 3D is a visual enhancement only. The movie remains 1D in most other aspects. If The Phantom Menace performs well, Lucasfilm plans to release 3D conversions of each subsequent installment, one per year, in the story’s chronological order. That makes sense from a continuity point of view, but if you want a litmus test of how much interest the public has in seeing 3D conversions of the Star Wars films, The Phantom Menace is the last place you should start. Anyway, I had considered writing a post to comment on the release, but decided not to bother.
And then George Lucas spoke. Now I’m forced to respond.
Yesterday, The Hollywood Reporter published a short interview with Lucas, in which they asked him how he feels about some of the intense reactions fans have to the changes he’s made to the movies over the years. His answer included the following statement:
If you look at Blade Runner, it’s been cut sixteen ways from Sunday and there are all kinds of different versions of it. Star Wars, there’s basically one version — it just keeps getting improved a little bit as we move forward. … All art is technology and it improves every year. Whether it’s on the stage or in music or in painting, there are technological answers that happen, and because movies are so technological, the advances become more obvious.
Oh George. You poor, tone-deaf, deluded man. It hurts me to get angry with you, but when you say things like that, it makes me want to dangle you head-first over the Great Pit of Carkoon, threatening to feed you to the Sarlacc until you come to your senses and correct your position on these matters. First, what planet farthest from the bright center to the universe are you living on, that you could possibly say there is “basically one version” of Star Wars? Joan Rivers has done less work on her face than you’ve done on these movies. Second, no: they do not keep getting improved by your relentless meddling. As I said last fall when the saga was released on Blu-Ray, none of the changes you’ve made have improved the movies. Not one. Some have been harmless and palatable, but none have made the films markedly better.
Third – and this is the more important point – yes, several editions of Blade Runner exist…but EVERY ONE OF THEM is widely available, giving the movie’s fans a choice as to which version they want to see. In 2007, a five-disc DVD set was released that included all five versions of the movie that had been created up to that point. Ridley Scott altered the movie over the years until he had created a cut he was satisfied with, but he never eradicated the editions that had come before. By releasing them all in one set, Scott and Warner Brothers allow fans to either see the film’s evolution through the years, or watch whatever version they prefer at any given time. THAT is how you handle updates and alterations. Like I said in that post last fall, you have a right to change the movies as often and as drastically as you want. All the fans desire is that you preserve the originals so that we have a choice. And that’s the obvious point that you repeatedly fail to grasp.
Looking at the second part of your statement (I’m not sure when this shifted to me writing as if directly addressing Lucas, but I’m on a roll now), you say “all art is technology.” What are you talking about? What does that mean? How is all art technology? And how does it improve every year? Technology is a tool which can be used to maintain and preserve films, paintings, music, etc. But there’s a difference between remastering or restoring a damaged original and permanently altering its content. The Mona Lisa has undergone restorations over the years, but Leonardo da Vinci didn’t go back years later and add a new color of lipstick, claiming that the original shade of red he wanted and always intended to use wasn’t available at the time he painted it. Grant Wood didn’t revisit American Gothic after unveiling it and change the curtain in the upper window because he didn’t like the way the original looked. When The Police recorded a new version in 1986 of their early hit “Don’t Stand So Close to Me,” the resulting “Don’t Stand So Close to Me ’86” didn’t replace all copies of the original. Nor did Eric Clapton’s late 80’s update of “After Midnight” supplant the original he released in 1970. Listeners still had the choice of enjoying the first version while knocking back a bottle of Michelob. So this idea that art is technology and is always changing? It makes no sense, and I doubt anyone would be buying it even if it did, because you could still make your work available in all its variations.
The other comment from the interview that I take objection to is the remark about one of the most egregious and fan-derided changes you made in A New Hope: the cantina scene between Han and Greedo. You say:
The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo [who seemed to be the one who shot first in the original] to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.
Now I’m sorry, but like any pure of heart Star Wars fan would, I’m calling stone-cold bullshit on that. Forgive me as we enter full-on geek territory here, but a geek’s gotta do what a geek’s gotta do. So let me lay it out for you, George: there was no confusion. Han shot first. But it was not the act of a cold-blooded killer, as you’re trying to suggest in order to justify your lame revision. Greedo had Han at gunpoint and was threatening to kill him. What’s a smooth smuggler supposed to do? Wait to see if he’s fired at, and then draw his gun and shoot back? No. He gets his gun ready, and when it becomes a “him or me” moment, he does what he has to do. It’s not like he just walked up to the dude and capped him. It was an obvious case of self-defense. You had it right the first time, so don’t try to talk to the fans like we just stepped off the Rebel Transport. Han shot first, that’s how it should be and that’s how it always will be to old school Star Wars fans.
[This clip replaces separate clips showing the scenes directly taken from the 1977 and 2004 versions. Sometime after publishing this post, the content was removed from YouTube per 20th Century Fox. This replacement is an overall view of the changes made to Episode IV. Skip to 2:29 for the Han vs. Greedo section.]
With these latest comments George, you reveal how out of touch you are with your own films, their place in popular culture and the very medium in which you work. Like many fans, I remain hopeful that you will eventually rediscover the savvy filmmaker who dreamed up this world beloved by so many. But until the Force guides you back, stop alienating us further by saying dumbass things about how you’re improving the films and how all art is technology.
All art is technology…seriously, what the fuck?
I Am DB 
Lolllol nice one. Thanks for reopening old wounds. Just when I thought I had moved on from this [REDACTED] excuse for a [REDACTED]. I do predict however, no matter how unlikely it seems, that we will again own the actual films. “Jett…… Hear me…..”
Comment by Jim — May 22, 2012 @ 8:43 pm |
I know it’s like beating a dead horse – or Tauntaun – but I can’t hold back when he says such stupid things.
Comment by DB — May 23, 2012 @ 5:21 pm |
I don’t know anything about Star Wars but I know that George Lucas if full of shit
Comment by Shirley — May 22, 2012 @ 11:42 pm |
Hang on…have you never seen Star Wars??
Comment by DB — May 23, 2012 @ 5:21 pm |
Bro, please tell me you’ve seen The People vs. George Lucas. It is basically 100 minutes of lots of people complaining like this, and it is great. I also get it. I didn’t see the trilogy until the late 80s and while I liked them and own the movies, I have never gotten my panties in a bunch over who shot first. Although, in the movie mentioned above, they do make a good point that if he shot first that makes Han a badass who don’t give a shit. Having him shot second takes some of the edge off, which blows.
In general though, ain’t this just a bunch of silly movies about space wizards (not my phrase, those gladly stolen)? Does it really matter all that much. I really think this comes down to falling in love with something when you were a kid and then never wanting it to change, no matter or lame or hookie it may be in the grand scheme of things. But, again, we were young so in our minds the movies remain perfect and untouchable. We lament Jar Jar and lame jokes in the later episodes but forget the silly nonsense that happens in the original films. I mean, really, a single torpedo, up the tailpipe? Are you shitting me? Is this Star Wars or Beverly Hills Cop? And a character whose only lines are unintelligible noises that only Han understands and threatens to beat up a robot while playing some sort of battle chess? C’mon. Let’s call a spade a spade. These movies are basically written for kids and that is the audience George stuck with, so let’s not pretend this shit is Citizen Kane.
As for the bigger debate around him screwing with the films, I see both sides. Why mess with something that millions upon millions love? But, if you were an artist and were not happy with the work you put out there and could change it, wouldn’t you? I mean, and I know this isn’t a great example, but wouldn’t you change a blog post if it turns out you didn’t like something about it? Doesn’t the saying go that art is never finished, only abandoned?
But you’re right, George is a dick.
Comment by Dave — May 23, 2012 @ 8:04 am |
Well, you’re touching on a lot of things here. First, and fastest, no, I have not yet seen The People vs. George Lucas. It’s in the Netflix queue though.
Second, yes, it’s just a silly movie. But if I didn’t get worked up about silly movies…and silly TV shows about smoke monsters on islands or what have you, then I’d pretty much have nothing in my life. Don’t take this away from me, Dave!
Third, yes, the saying about art being abandoned rather than finished is completely legitimate, and I said that I acknowledge George’s right to change the movies to his heart’s content. But I also believe – and I elaborated on this in my related piece last September – that when a work of art (or entertainment, if “art” sounds too highbrow a label for Star Wars) is so embraced by the masses – to the extent that Star Wars has been – the audience comes to own a piece of it too. Legally? No, of course not. But we took it into our hearts and minds, and we made Lucas a wealthy man. So if he wants to change the movies, he absolutely has that right. He should just respect his fans enough to offer them a choice. And he should respect the movies enough as cultural artifacts to preserve them in all their forms. Just like the makers of Blade Runner did. He himself has spoken about that very issue in the past, multiple times. But he seems to think it doesn’t apply to him.
Fourth, yes, I’m sure part of this stems from seeing the movies as a child and developing a lifelong affinity for them. And yes, the movies are essentially made for kids. But making something for kids isn’t an excuse for poor quality. Some of the best films I’ve ever seen are ostensibly “for kids.” Star Wars (A New Hope) and The Empire Strikes Back are excellent movies. Return of the Jedi dropped off a bit, but is still good, and has moments of greatness. (Ewok haters can blow me.) The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones are not good movies. They are, by and large, bad movies. And Revenge of the Sith is…better than the previous two, but compromised by being built on their weak foundations. Some people, critics or otherwise, may have dismissed the original Star Wars as silly or childish, but it’s a well-made movie and doesn’t suffer from the problems that plague Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones. Lifelong affinity or not, I can see the difference between a movie that’s solidly constructed and one that isn’t. Just because Star Wars isn’t Citizen Kane doesn’t mean it’s a weak movie, or any less worthy of consideration or artistic integrity. As for the many offenses of Jar Jar, I don’t think they’re comparable to anything in the original Star Wars; certainly not to the “torpedo in the tailpipe” (nice reference, by the way) or Han’s communication with Chewbacca, neither of which pose a problem for me.
Finally, George pisses me off something awful some times, but I don’t think he’s a dick. I just think he’s lost his way. I write these missives with the hope that he will find the path back.
Comment by DB — May 23, 2012 @ 6:09 pm |