We're just a few weeks away from the release of the Star Wars films on Blu-ray. I had decided months ago that I would not be buying them, when it was confirmed these would not be the original versions of the films. Now that we're close to the release, it's coming to light that they're not going to be the special editions, either. George Lucas has decided to go in and tinker with the films yet again.
This news has sparked off a fresh round of condemnation from Star Wars fans. Most of the entertainment news sites I visit regularly have run their own version of a story about it; here is one.
Yes, Lucas has decided to take the stupidest moment of Episode III (of the entire six-film series, possibly), a moment widely mocked by fans and emphatically dissed by me at the time, and "bookend" Vader's story by echoing it at the climax of Return of the Jedi. I can understand why a man who worships at the altar of Joseph Campbell thinks this change is a good idea, but no thank you. But then, I wasn't buying the Blu-rays anyway.
But rather than focus on any specific change here, I want to talk about the notion of the changes as a whole. There are some (not many, but some) who defend Lucas' right to change the movies as much as he pleases, since they're his creation. And it seems that many fans are willing to concede that point, so long as they're given the option to buy either the original, unaltered films, or the latest Lucas edit.
This new batch of changes has given rise to a splinter opinion -- that Lucas should be free to change Episodes I-IV as he wishes, but should keep his hands off Episodes V and VI, which were helmed by other directors. He may tinker with his own creative product, they argue, but should leave the work of others alone.
Personally, I disagree on all of this. I think George Lucas should leave his filthy hands off the movies, period. And my reasoning comes in the form of a question: what sort of art form do we think movie-making is?
Authors don't routinely go back and re-write their published work. Sure, there are examples of successful writers publishing "unedited editions" of books they were forced to cut down early in their careers, but they aren't actually writing and changing the material after the fact -- they're simply revealing the original vision. Countless writers who have had their novels adapted by Hollywood have remarked on cases where they saw improvement on the source material. George R. R. Martin made such comments about certain scenes in the first season of Game of Thrones; Charlaine Harris has professed her love for characters on True Blood she didn't invent herself in her novels; the list could go on and on. But that's just the way it is with writing novels. You don't get a "do-over."
You know what does get revised after release? Video games. They get patched as a matter of course. I do believe video games are an art form too (of course I do; I'm in the industry), but consider what a video game patch does. It fixes bugs. When it's revising gameplay, it's usually because the gameplay was bad the first time around.
So, Mr. Lucas -- do you think you're making a video game? And are you trying to tell the world that you think you made a bad game that needs to be "patched?"
Of course, with the rise of e-books, we're reaching a point where writers could conceivably patch their books if they wanted to. But I really think you have to ask if this is a case where technology allows people to do things we shouldn't do. You could make the argument that this use of technology isn't destroying civilization; it's not an atomic bomb or anything. But to whatever extent you believe that a civilization is the sum of its art, then I'd argue that retroactively changing art like this is destroying civilization -- an incremental death of a thousand cuts.
Movies are products of their time, warts and all. The good ones are praised because they hold up over time in spite of the flaws, not because they were without flaws. And as this is my primary argument, it applies even to someone who thinks that every change George Lucas has made to the Star Wars films has been an actual improvement.
Not that such a person actually exists. At this point, I believe the best thing that could happen to Star Wars would be the death of George Lucas. The creation needs to be saved from its creator.
2 comments:
I am both not surprised AND disgusted by the news.
The worst offense here, to me, is changing stuff that really worked and that, as a result, have found their way into our collective consciousness
.
The Krayt Dragon howl (the original, mind you!) is a good example of this. Who ever said, "You know, they really ought to change that sound, it just doesn't work"? It worked, and we all internalized that sound bite from watching the film dozens of times.
The ominous silence of Vader at the end of Jedi, when he watches Luke being tortured and finally decides he's had enough, is another very good example.
I've always found it fascinating that, even though the character doesn't say a word and YOU CAN'T SEE HIS FACE, you can almost hear him think, and think *real* hard. You feel the dilemma in your bones. There's no need for some lame lines to layered on top of this. Especially since that scene's worked for 30 years.
I wasn't buying the Blu Ray discs anyway. But this has pushed me into the category of people who will try to dissuade friends and coworkers from buying them as well.
FKL
the "new-new-NOOOO!" version is supposed to be for people who have NEVER seen the movies before, so they can experience the saga as blah-blah-intended-blah. but he should know by now that EVERYBODY has seen the movies already, and for those that haven't, we recommend these movies to them and want them to experience the SAME thing we did when we first saw it. and it sucks that we can't share that "same experience" with them.
maybe Lucas is trying a "New Coke" thing here? I wonder what the sales figures would be if he decided to release the original un-special'd movies?
the mole
Post a Comment