from theforce.net:

--------------------------------------------

Episodes 7, 8, and 9 In The Works?
Tue, Oct 21, 03 09:12:37 AM EDT

As many of you have reported, Dark Horizons posted the following:

"One of my pals at ILM told me a few days back that another trilogy 'might' happen. This is the sequel trilogy that Lucas said he'd never do. It's very very early days yet, but apparently there is some talk, even to the point of Mr Spielberg - who was interested in doing 'Clones' at one point - stepping in for Lucas, who may want to write, but probably won't want to direct. If Lucas doesn't they'll probably work out a deal for say Frank Darabont to pen (ala the current "Indiana Jones IV" arrangement). This one would be the three films following Return of the Jedi, Han Solo, Skywalker, post-Darth etc. How hard of a time are they going to have on their hands getting some of those original players! ha ha! finally a fitting use for CGI hey? The deal is everyone wants the sequels, except Lucas, who is apparently exhausted [Personally I'd say studio pressure]. If Spielberg directs, it could be ok. Better than those terrible prequel movies".
Our thoughts? Well, there have been rumors about a sequel trilogy for as long as there's been Star Wars. However, we have yet to hear any rumblings on this. Lucas has also publicly stated that he's done with Star Wars after Episode III. He wants to move on to other projects. Plus, there's no way they're going to be able to get Harrison Ford to play Han Solo again without generous sums of cash and giving him free reign over his character.

However....

If Dark Horizons says their source is reliable, we're inclined to believe them. Plus it seems crazy to let a multi-million dollar franchise fizzle and die after Episode III. The story still has life in it and can still generate money. Plus there are probably a long line of excellent writers and directors who would love to play in a galaxy far, far away that Lucas wouldn't have to get that involved with. After all, he's allowing the Clone Wars cartoons to play in the universe without him and he seems to be pleased with the results. The same goes with the Star Wars fan films.

Anyway, don't put too much stock in this rumor yet, but don't flush it away either. After all, Lucas has been known to change his mind...from time to time. (Did Greedo shoot first?!?)

(Edited by youregay at 1:29 pm on Oct. 21, 2003)

How about some Peter Jackson?

Um, this is a world of 'no' coming from me. There is absolutely no way that they would be able to get Harrison Ford back as Han Solo since he has publicly stated that he doesn't like the character. There is also no way that they could find three actors to replace Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill. However, I'm definitely down with more Star Wars movies with Lucas on as, say, a creative consultant. I think the trilogy aspect of Star Wars is done and over with. Leave it with these two. I think some stand alone films chronicling certain areas of the universe written by great writers (say, Joss Whedon...?) and different directors, it could be very nice.

Heck, I think a TV series could really really work as long as they avoided the problems that Star Trek Enterpise has (stagnant characters, no epic battles, no risks). So, 7-9 no. Stand-alone movies and tv show, yes?

has anyone seen that clone wars cartoon? i'm less than moderately curious about it.

i think they thought a voluptuous vulcan would be enough to carry it. some of the episodes i've seen are pretty cool, but they've all been slow moving.

I'm very curious about it, but I doubt I'll remember to watch them when they come on. I'll probably just wait until they release them all on DVD (which you know they will) and see them then.

I'd be down with old Mark Hamill being in another movie.

I agree. The poor man needs the work. It's obvious Lucas has no standards for the ability of actors he hires anyway.

thats too bad since hes such a good actor

Star Wars with Spielberg at the helm would suck. They need to get a young director to do it (if it's going to happen, which I doubt) - someone in the first half of their career.

let's not write off the possibility of Hamil, Fisher, and Ford getting in on this. Any smart studio executive knows that the films won't be plausible to the audience if these actors aren't involved, no matter how old and washed up they are. Hamil and Fisher will both come cheap, leaving the rest to spend on Ford and other young lead actors who will be necessary.
This whole prospect excites me, and if the script is only slightly better than the scripts in I and II it should be a better film. My suggestions: breathe some new life with new characters and do less of the Christ figure saving the world crap. 2): completely scrap the fake blue screen backgrounds. Not only do the look fake but they're blurry as well. Shoot on all real sets and add CGI characters where needed.

I don't think Spielberg would suck. But I do think a younger director would do it better.

this is slightly off topic, but does anyone know about dvd releases of the original trilogy? i heard that lucas is going to maintain his status as a money grubbing asshole by releasing them ONLY as a boxed set of six. i also heard that the "original" trilogy will never be available on dvd... only the special editions. what an asshole.

I say we start lobbying for moi!!!! LOL

I don't see Spielberg directing Star Wars for a number of reasons, primarily:

a.) He's stated that he never wants to get involved with doing more franchise films. Indy 4 would be the notable exception, just because everyone wants to have that fun again.

b.) Spielberg has stated that he won't shoot digitally until they stop making motion picture film (God bless him). Lucas has stated that he's never going to work in film again. Somehow I see the two never meeting in the middle.

Will

I think Spielberg is scaredof learning a new medium. You can't tell me that Jurassic Park would have been 9000 times easier to shoot if it was all in a digital realm. As for Lucas saying he's never working in film again, that's dumb as well. Film and video are tools that lend themselves to the artist.

What if Lichtenstein worked in watercolor? Monet in acryllics? What if Ansel Adams shot color 110 film on an instamatic? That would change the end products immensely.

I for one will never ever ever roll another frame through a gate on a documentary. It's stupid. Stopping your interview subject every 8 minutes to change mags is very discombobulating for a subject, not to mention expensive. Now I can roll for 63 minutes if I want without interupting the person.

Hell, for most commercials I shoot now, I steer my clients toward digital. It's so much easier, and you get more bang for your buck.

Don't get me wrong, I love to shoot film. There's nothing more thrilling than the gentle whir of an Arricam. But, at the end of the day, its picking the right tools for the project.

As for Star Wars. I really think if Lucas wants to continue the franchise he needs to exec produce and turn the reigns over to someone who has a passion for the subject. He's lost his spark for those characters. Not to belittle my profession at all, but on a film of that magnitude a chimp can direct it if he had the passion for the story. The crews and departments are so enormous that the director really only has one job to do on that set, getting a passionate performance out of the actors. I think that's why Eps I and II are a bit flat. Lucas was more worried about the gee-whiz factor of the digital realm than the actual story. And for the people that will yell out that Lucas can't direct I point to American Graffiti and THX.

No more Diet Coke for me this morning... I'm all wound up.

I've never seen any Star Wars film.

It takes a lot of courage to say that, Miss S. Luckily, there's help for people like yourself.

Agreed. And in my opinion, for narrative filmmaking, there's just so much more that you can do with film that digital doesn't allow for in the same way. This coming from someone that has shot two projects in HD (one in the Panasonic format, and one in the Sony format, with the Zeiss Digiprimes.... so nice). In both cases, HD wasn't my decision, and while I didn't hate the format, I found HD to foster all sorts of bad habits amongst people on set and a new laziness that I couldn't combat no matter how hard I tried. For documentary, episodic television, and other applications, I'm sure its all you could ever ask for. For anything that needs to be quick and easy, it's a cinch. But I remain unconvinced that it is the right choice for a project that has any real investment in its cinematography, at least as far as this point in time is concerned. I have no doubt that things will change.

Will

valid points... but for a tech heavy film like Star Wars... a digi origination is the way to go... I still think Spielberg is scared

I like puppets. I'll take animatronics over a digital Yoda, that's all I ask for. More real scenery, more puppetry (which I'm sure is hard, but it seems like they're being lazy by going the computer route.), more nudity.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who wants to see Yoda naked.

Do you think he's hung like a wookie?

Bigger than a baby's arm, it is. Hrrrmmmph.

Peace,

Obviously because you do this for a living I'll take your word for it. The Verde video looks great, by the way. I guess in Lucas' case he's doing so much CGI he pretty much has to shoot on digital. But I still think that the animated backgrounds, maybe even the characters too, look more fake than the originals. I can't blame Lucas, though. Neuboy and I discussed just last night that he's using the very best technology available, just like in 4-6. I guess I just happen to like "the look" of 4-6 more.

So with the exception of Lucas' current situation, I have to completely agree with Spielberg. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to shoot a full length feature motion picture on anything but film. Likewise, I don't see much reason to shoot documentaries, music videos, and commercials on anything but digital. Of course we would all love to see these on film but the reality of modern finance (bottom line budgets) eliminates that possibility.

But I'm sorry, an ARTIST in the art of narrative filmmaking needs to be shooting on film. I swear whenever I hear someone say "but it's quicker and cheaper," I cringe. My response is "ya, it looks like shit, too." It seems so many people want the easy way to the quick buck. I could've went out and bought a nice digital camera and been shooting shorts and non-narratives for the past year, but I've decided to wait a couple more years to save up for a full quartz super 16. And the reason is because I know that even though it'll cost me a mini fortune, it'll be worth it the first time I see that reversal stock on a screen at home.

Yes I understand that the cost of digital offers the possibility of more stories being told by more filmmakers. And I understand the portability and mobility of a digital camera can lead to an artform in itself, a la dogme 95 and Winterbottom's stuff and whatnot. It just seems to me that either you are interested in art or you are interested in efficiency and as a fan of the artform, I prefer to watch film.

As for Lucas, I agree with you on THX but not Graffiti. I think he simply lucked out bigtime on Graffiti...its the sum of great actors and a pretty damn good script but I seem to recall Easy Riders/Raging Bulls talking about the frustration of the actors with him on that set. Didn't he almost get booted from it (his own script!!) in the middle of production?

Roadie,

Thanks for the kind words on the video. I think we pulled off a decent looking vid for the budget (or lack thereof). I totally agree with every word you and Wiyum both say, I was just calling out the "never say never" aspect of new technology that Spielberg (an innovator in his own right) has said.

I totally agree. CGI looks crude to me, and while seeing Yoda kick ass was fun, I'd rather see him as a puppet, too. I'm all for "If we can do it in camera, lets do it."

As far as digital looking like shit, I've seen people shoot on 16mm and even 35mm that I swore was shot on video. Its all in how its used.

I said the same thing you did 4 years ago. I was a director who never owned a camera because I couldn't afford the quality that I wanted. Then I decided to shoot my first feature length doc, and after weighing the options and seeing footage shot on the XL-1 I decided to dive in. That movie was the best $20K I ever spent. Sure, the movie has its problems, but I have now paid for my equipment 3 times over. My DP in Atlanta (who owns his own 35mm Arri and 3 16mm's thought I had gone Bat Shit Looney. 4 years later he owns 3 digicams and uses his film cams less and less.

Now I understand you may want to make art, but I have to pay the bills. I have whored out a bit, I'll admit that, but, on the other hand, I have total freedom to do things like make a music vid Verde and this doc on the Features and hopefully one day, if we can get a concept nailed, a vid for them as well. I have 22K ft of 35mm sitting in cold storage in Atlanta and every passing day I think of it less and less.

My advice to you is get the digicam, shoot, shoot and shoot. Then when someone comes along and just has to shoot film rent the film cam. I've been where you and Wiyum are (I'm still a bit jealous of Wiyum, those were great days in college being turned loose with more gear than sense). I'm still a film snob... big time, if the day came where someone had the budget and wanted me to shoot a narrative and wanted it on digi I'd kick and scream until I got film, but when its my pennies, I can break out my cam for $20 plus my time and shoot. My film cams (non sync) sit in a box gathering dust, because that's $400 out of my pocket when they come out. Plus, when you are used to shooting on $100K film cams, all of a sudden your clunky wind up film ones lose their luster.

I'm starting to babble, but I just want to clarify, that I smell what you guys are cooking and I can dig it. Like it or not though, the day will be here quicker than you think when the majority of "films" shot in the US will be shot on HD and delivered digitally to theaters, and Mr. Lucas and his minions are behind that.

And if you ever want go out and play around some weekend and make some shorts, give me a call. I'm always game for stupid fun.

Peace,

what can I say? Fantastic points. Especially about film being able to look like crap just as much as dig. I have lots of questions and I think I'll pm you.

PM away... feel free to call... just not during "Ed". A boy has to have his share of bowling alley lawyer fun.

Ah... the days of being able to play with toys and not have deadlines, well, not deadlines like you have today in the real world where there's clients expecting their finished videos and the damn computer doesn't seem to understand this and decides to crash on you whenever you want to make a simple title change.

I remember a time when I had the time to go to a movie. It wasn't so long ago, but it sure feels like it. I'm certainly a fan of film, of models, of things that actually have to go before a camera as opposed to stuff that can completely be created/fabricated in a computer. While they can create some amazing things utlizing CG, it's still not the same. The best example I can offer, and I offer this up with the stipulation that I am not a Trekie, I haven't seen the last 3 films nor any single episode of a show of theirs since the Next Generation, is the way the Enterprise looked in one of the early films when it returned from a mission verses the Enterprise in Next Generation. The one in the early Star Trek movies looked rusty, beat up, literally scratched and scarred by constant battles with Klingons and whatnot. Then came the perty, extremely well illuminated Enterprise of Next Generation fame. Boy they really improved the technology since these two time periods and now look at how that ship retains its luster! That sheen! See any scratches? Neither do I!

And I think the CG move by Lucas with his ships in the newer Star Wars movies gives off the impression that these folks have far more advanced technology than their future generations. Computer effects can look just too unreal, too clean, in my opinion.

Worst though then Lucas' move to digital, is the trend he started with rereleasing films as "Special Editions" with newly added scenes. The Star Wars people in my age group and older grew up with is not the same one that you can buy at the stores today. When Speilberg altered ET with walkie talkies instead of guns, I lost what little respect I had left for the man. It's one thing to restore a classic like Rear Window who's original print was falling apart, it's completely another thing to re-edit, alter, add in new characters, etc., to a work more than 10-20 years old and then force that version upon a new generation as the real thing. There should be a law that says filmmakers can't touch their works once it's gone to video. That's why you have those nifty "special features" of DVDs nowadays anyway.

Did you see the episode of South Park that addressed this topic? It seriously trashed Lucas and Spielberg for tinkering with their movies. Some people claim that the DVD versions of the Indiana Jones movies that just came out were actually supposed to be major reworks. However, when Spielberg heard about the episode of South Park, he quietly pulled the plug on the project and just released the movies in their original form. I know it sounds far-fetched that a silly show on Comedy Central could have such an effect on one of Hollywood's most powerful producers, but in a recent article, Jim Hill makes an interesting case.

Interesting article. I need to start watching South Park again. I pretty much abandoned ship when they got rid of Kenny (although I think he is back now, right?).

This whole conversation has been really interesting. Granted, a lot of the tech talk has gone over my head. My take is, sometimes we sound like bitter old farts when we talk about new technology and "in my day..." and whatnot. I'm sure when T2 came out, lots of people were up in arms about all the computer effects, but I think looking back, it was an awesome movie made better by the effects. There will always be crap, but to a certain extent, we have to embrace the digital world that we are only in the beginning of seeing. Sure we will always have Johnny Mnemonics, but we will also have Matrix-es.

That flat-out rules.

I'd say $30 million dollars might sway Harrison Ford to do that. Still, why the hell would we want to endure 7-9? Maybe we could be treated to Ewoks and Gungans cavorting on screen. No thanks. Knowing what I know now, I honestly wish 1-3 had never been made.

Yeah, they talked about that on the recent VH1 special about South Park. I plan on watching the replay of tonight's new episode at 11. I had abandoned South Park for years until recently when my friend, Danielle, directed me back to the sharp wit and hilarious subjects found in South Park. I have been addicted since about two months ago. I feel like a cliche bastard for watching it, but goddamn, it's hilarious. Last week's metrosexual episode made me laugh more than anything I've seen lately.

Sorry to go this far off topic.

those vh1 specials are addictive, particularly i love the 80s.

I disagree with the sentiments about CGI and digital... keep in mind that most special-effects intensive films still shoot film. Minority Report, for a Spielberg-specific example, shot film (I also think that Spielberg might be afraid to shoot digitally because it would mean he'd have to find a new editor; Michael Kahn, who has editied all of his films since Jaws, still cuts film). It isn't like the medium is worthless. Lucas is just afraid to get out on location anymore and wants to shoot all of his films on a green screen. He visited the beautiful, city-blocks huge set of Gangs of New York at Cinecitta, and remarked to Scorcese that "sets like this can be done entirely on computers nowadays" as if to imply that Scorcese was wasting his time. Without opening up a discussion on "Gangs," Lucas is clearly wrong. The beautiful sets built for that film have 100 times more life than any of Lucas' recent digital worlds. But no one here seems to disagree.

In any case, I don't agree that having lots of CG means you need to shoot digitally. I think Lucas is just lazy.

As for good uses of digital, music videos have often been a place for wonderful film experimentation. Processes like bleach-bypass and cross-processing, and all manner of fun, inventive visual tricks are often pioneered in music videos. The video for NIN's Closer was shot on film that, reportedly, was then baked in an oven for a short time before it was sent to the lab. While this is likely an exagerration, I think its great that music videos afford new opportunities for visual experimentation, and I think that digital isn't really always appropriate there. Often, however, I'll concede that it is, as with doc and commerical.

And for my part, I speak disparigingly about digital, but I only mean to as it applies to Hollywood. I certainly sympathize with anyone on a budget, and I think that if it allows you to tell your story, go for it. Lucas doesn't need to slum it with the HDW-900 to tell his story, he just does. Some people can't afford more than mini DV, and if they held out for film, I might never have seen something like Personal Velocity or Fast Runner.

Personally, I'm using my last weeks as a student to get student prices on a computer, scads of software, a solid tripod, microphone, and a Panasonic DVX-100. That little camera gets a great output, offers you loads of control, and works so well with FCP that you literally have all you need to make a high-quality production. Roadie, much as I support your desire to own a film cam, I'd have to say that I agree with peacefrog. I've had wonderful opportunities here at school playing with SRs, Zeiss primes, and all of the wonderous toys of the film world. But when free gear and student prices fade away, film is too expensive for you to get enough experience for your investment. If you buy digital technologies like FCP and a DVX, you'll have the control to do great things once you develop your abilities, and it will all be cheaper per experience. Unless you consider yourself at the height of your creative abilities already, consider that each film will teach you 20 lessons you'll wish you knew ahead of time. Will you learn 120 such lessons each year at a cost of $500 per film, or 20 such lessons a year at a cost of $7000 per film? Its just a matter of constantly working until you're ready to make that film on that Arri SR3 or Aaton XTRProd. Own digital technology for two years, and you'll know so much more that the first Super16 film will be 100 things it wouldn't have been if you didn't afford yourself growth opportunities.

Just a thought.

Will

the new one last night was superb. I could tell by the commercials that seeing cartman sing Christian music was going to be worth my time not sleeping. Kid Notorious, on the other hand, was a little disappointing.

Wiyum,

to clarify, I guess when I mentioned music videos i was referring more to low budget videos...those made by the vast majority of bands. Of course a lot (if not most) of what you see on MTV is shot on film, but those are videos with 250-500K budgets. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you only had 25-50k to spend, wouldn't you shoot dig and spend the rest on the set and concept?

Thank-you for the fantastic points. i appreciate the advice more than you know.

If I had $25k to $50K the film cams woud be popping out... unfortunately those days are over. I consistently get calls for treatments for music vids that have $10K budgets and want to shoot film. It can be done, but I don't get paid. If a label approves a high dollar concept, then they will give the appropriate budget. But it's usually, "We have X amount of dollars. What can you do?" Its not until you are big time, do the labels go "Ok Puffy, how much do you want?"

You are right though, Roadie, $25K on film can be limiting. For $50K you can pretty much do whatever you want this side of huge SFX. Where that budget loses out is in actual feet of film and camera coverage. Oh, the band and crew don't eat as well, but they're rock stars. Shooting HD would be an option but the funny thing is, most creatives at the labels want film, or they want to go super low tech and use the miniDV cams. Wiyum's Pana DVX100 being the darling du jour.

Last year about this time I got a call from a huge Christian label (South Park last night had me spitting beverages all over the screen last night, its definitely back and with a vengance) that wanted to shoot film for $10k. I was toying with the idea just to get my foot in the door with them. Then I find out they want it shot in LA!!! I laughed and hung up the phone. I guess they found some sucker to do it, but I guaranteed he paid close to $20k for that "right". The funny thing was, this act was on tour, and the window they wanted to shoot in was a three day break between Louisville and Birmingham... hmmm that's real close to LA!!!

(Edited by Peace Frog at 9:17 am on Oct. 30, 2003)

Agreed and agreed.

A - I don't like Kid Notorious, and they should bring Reno 911 back to that slot, instead of airing it on Mondays.

B - South Park was great last night. I think my favorite part was when Cartman said "goddamnit" in front of the Christian audience and followed it with "fuck Jesus." That was hilarious and priceless.

(Edited by richarddawson at 11:39 am on Oct. 30, 2003)

I even found myself watching the special on pregnant Hollywood mothers. Depressing on my account? Yes. Informative? Eh. Addictive, nonetheless? Terribly.

I love the 80s is the most addictive show known to man. Even though I've seen all of the old and new episodes plenty of times, I still stop and watch it when I'm flipping channels. I like "Donal Logue's Unfinished Thoughts On..." segment. For Christ's sake, they showed the "Kneel before Zod" part of Superman II. I'll stop now.

(Edited by richarddawson at 11:45 am on Oct. 30, 2003)

Michael Ian Black is probably my favorite commentator. I heart him.

I miss The State SO much.

What would I do for a klondike bar? Bark like a dog? *gasp* Scandalous...

(Edited by DigsySlattery at 3:38 pm on Oct. 30, 2003)

In "I Love the 70's," my favorite quote was from him.

" 'Young Frankenstien' is the funniest black and white movie ever. Even funnier than 'Schindler's List'"

I agree. Keith doesn't. That's because Keith's a punk.

Keith is a punk... obviously his tight shorts cut off blood to the Michael Ian Black humor portion of his brain.

If you know me, you know that I appreciate dark, dry, sarcasm as much as anyone, but he still isn't funny.

c'mon Keith!!! One more and you break the 1000 hyman!!!

smee directed me to some ramblings of his on the mcsweeney's site.

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/black/

Good stuff. One entire rant is devoted to how people on a VH1 messageboard were saying how much he sucks. Maybe you'd be more welcome on that messageboard, Keith.

I liked the "What would I do for a klondike bar? I'd be like.. 'Hey, man... can I have a Klondike bar?... Please, man?'" better.

Michael Ian Black is the only reason I watch it.

I watch it because I like nostalgia.

In light of recent developments shouldn't we be referring to him as Michael Ian African-American?

Actually, I refer to him as that fag from that gay show "Ed".

Dude... don't go laying the smack down on Ed... I'll have to knee cap you. It's a great show.

What do you mean by "light"?

Jeeze, just because I use the adjective "gay" to desribe the show, you have to assume negative connotations. Biggot!

ya got me nigga...

His sex scene in "Wet Hot American Summer" was pretty gay. 'Cause it was a gay sex scene. I love him even more for that.

Thanks for directing me to those ramblings. My favorite there was....

"Needless to say, I was blown away. I mean, look at me. I'm really cute."

I think it's funny 'cause it's true.



Star Wars is much less interesting than Michael Ian African-American.

Do you normally make such judgements on things you've never seen?

Only when Michael is concerned. I think everything is less interesting than him.

Right on.

Newsflizash:

NEWSFLASH! The Dark Horizons Web site has a summary of news regarding changes that will be made by writer/director George Lucas to the original Star Wars movie trilogy for its impending release on DVD. 46 changes in all total are reportedly on the cards for the trilogy, including new special effects, revised and updated shots and scenes, an extended Hoth battle scene in Empire Strikes Back, an elderely Jar-Jar Binks appearing at the end of Return of The Jedi, and new footage shot with actors Hayden Christensen and Ian McDiarmid that would flesh out their characters, Anakin Skywalker and Emperor Palpatine respectively, in the original films. For example, an aged and scarred Hayden will apparently appear as Anakin at the end of Return of The Jedi when Vader's helmet is removed.


What in the world? This really...really...irks me. I'm all for the novelty of having an old Hayden Christensen under the mask, but that's what it is: just a novelty. This crap should just be alternate takes in addition to the original films! Ugh! This is completely disrespectful to Sebastian Shaw who played Anakin in ROTJ. I mean, the guy is not even at all rememberd nowadays (I only know his name because it's an X-Men villain) and now his role in the most popular movies of all time will be erased just because? The man is dead, and now they're just removing him. And adding an old Jar Jar is just fluff, as is an extended Hoth battle.

Why must Star Wars be screwed with?

Dammit!

See, at least when Paul McCartney "alters" a classic, he has the decency to release it as a separate version, and not, for instance, change ALL of the Let It Bes being released nowdays.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 3:39 am on Nov. 23, 2003)

I wouldn't worry about these rumors too much just yet.

Sounds like Carl has a plan*...


*this plan warrants a

I have to say, I'm not big on any of these changes. They should be on a bonus disc included in the boxed set.

So in 5 years they can sell another set of DVDs to Star Wars nerds who will obviously buy this set, whine about it, then get excited about a new set with just the original movies on them.

which begs the question...

how many different sets of the trilogy do you own?

I have the remastered trilogy from what? 97? 98? I would love to have the originals though... word is, they'll never see the light of day, in fact GL declined to show the original print for either AFI or the DGA's 100 years of film showcase recently in LA. He gave them the remaster print.

I'm not sure if I'm embarassed or proud to say that all I own is A New Hope.

I received each of the original trilogy seperately back when I first saw them in 1990. I love those original versions and those are usually the ones I watched. I bypassed the THX versions that were released in 95/96, but I do own the special editions from 1997. I also own Phantom Menace on VHS and DVD.

And as much as I detest what could be done to the original trilogy, curiosity will kill this cat and I will buy them on DVD. And when/if they release the originals (or the special editions in their place) I'll buy those too...

The prosecution rests...

Yeah, I never even put up a defense. I know that I'm wrapped around George Lucas' finger...