This isn't a fan edit, it's from the BluRay. Let's see if you can spot the difference.

I truly believe that Lucas is deliberately fucking up his movies to see how much money fanboys will still shove in his pocket.

Yes, because the powerfully silent music wasn't there to speak for his emotions...because his actions could be TOTALLY confused by the viewer if he didn't say NOOOOOOOO! then, how would they know why he threw the Emperor down the shaft?

Fuck you, George Lucas.

Yeah. I think Lucas is a complete tool. But, in regard to the fanboys you are referencing, I really do think they deserve it.

Lucas trolling his fanboys is more entertaining than all six movies put together. There's nothing funnier than an entitled star wars fanboy.

Lucas's company makes that shirt btw

More or less. If nothing else he knows he can release the original versions later and sell that many extra versions of the films.

I've got the DVD of the original 'non special edition' Star Wars. That's the only one I care about and I don't need to keep rebuying it.

i don't think the above edit is necessary, but i also don't think it detracts from the film. to be honest, i think it makes the moment a little more ...better, to sound filipino (som?)

on a related notw, i've often wondered how the film's original 70s and 80s hardcore fans reacted once they ultimately realized the entire epic wasn't luke's story, but rather a 6-chapter story about vader.

Darth Beard hates everything fans like.

This is the same guy who wanted Indiana Jones to be a pedophile.

No, because it doesn't jibe with what is happening on screen.

The visual is Vader acting calmly and deliberately. Yelling, even through the mask, doesn't go with that. Furthermore, the Emperor is zapping away at Luke and not paying attention to Darth. Part of the reason he isn't paying attention to Vader is because Darth isn't screaming 'nooooooo' during the scene.




For my part, it was not that big of a shock. Lucas had said early on (even before we knew Vader was Luke's dad) that he intended on doing nine films, three of which were prequels. The first film, of course, set up that Ben and that dad had been jedi together. So we all had a pretty good idea that there would be three films about Ben and Luke's dad at some point.

Once ESB came out, we all knew those prequels would be about Luke's dad being Darth Vader. We just didn't know they'd suck.

If anything, the bigger surprise was that Lucas (a) waited so long to do any films after Return; (b) didn't do sequels first and then prequels.

Of course, for my part, by the time we got to the Ewoks, I really wasn't that excited one way or another for whatever he did.

i don't see how his verbal expressions are that different from his actions. the first "no" is downright dismissive. the second "nooo" is a lil angrier and confrontational, sure, but the man has put in a good 20 years to dark side type work, punching the clock at the death star. i think his instant rebellion warranted the action, which is deliberate, but understandably (and i thought obviously) not all that calm.



he's not paying attention to darth because the emperor is a shit. the man shoots lightning bolts from his hands, and never once even thinks to wiggle as vader picks him up and brings him over to the freshman trashcan. yeah, he's seemingly unaware of the "nooo" this time around, but in the originals, he wasn't even aware he stopped facing luke!




you knew there were going to be four more movies ...in 1980? shit, i thought most people didn't know it was a nine issue series until the internet. fuck, i didn't know what a "prequel" was until ... well, the prequels came out.



i still don't understand why it was more important to tell 1-3 instead of 7-9. maybe you were aware there was an earlier story to tell, but i think most casual fans had no idea, and the "logical" step would have been advancing forward.

even with the 20 year difference, i think it woulda been pretty sweet to have an older luke / han / leia, etc, all featuring the original cast. that, to me, was the biggest loss of the prequels (immediately followed by their terrible, terrible, terrible acting), that the characters star wars fans grew up loving weren't featured in the new stories.

Yep. Pre-internet we had these things called newspapers and magazines (and we LIKED it):

• in early 1978, it was announced in Time that there were twelve Star Wars films in the franchise...Lucasfilm referenced them frequently in publications ... from 1978 to 1980, and Lucas himself even addresses them in the May 1980 issue, stating he had limited the series to nine films ... comprising three trilogies, chronologically connected, with twenty years in between each set, later elaborating that the third trilogy is about "the re-building of the Republic."

And, as early as August 1977, he told Rolling Stone:

• "One of the sequels we are thinking of is the young days of Ben Kenobi. It would probably be all different actors."

One of the things to remember is just how HUGE Star Wars was back then, even in the mainstream press. The film played in theaters for a year in some cities and non-genre magazines covered the details of possible sequels for THAT film (but no other) the way the interwebs cover films these days.

And, yes, I agree that sequels would probably have been better (or at least they might have been-who knows with Lucas these days).

Oh, and while not as common as now, the word "prequel" was floating around in the 1970s, used to described films like "Godfather II" and "Butch and Sundance the Early Years". In fact, some sources say that Coppola got the term for Godfather II from Lucas in the first place (they were good buddies).

The Greatest Speech Against the Special Edition was from George Lucas

• People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society.
  
  The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.
  
  These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires...
  
  Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.

It's ironic. The Lucas of 20 years ago was basically an enraged fanboy, demanding that the movies he loved not be changed by people out for a buck. Now....

George Lucas is a cunt.

a very rich cunt

In his defence, he (well, his company) did restore "Lawrence of Arabia".

I guess he doesn't think his own works are classics.

Someone rip me the sand storm scene from ROTJ, and I can skip this. That way I'm not curling up in a fetal position crying.