So if anybody else is inspired to rewatch the prequels for some reason, I can't speak highly enough of watching the fanedited versions created by Hal 9000 (details available on fanedit.org here: [link] ).
Getting hold of them is a bit tricky, but e-mail me and I can talk you through what I did.
He makes many small cuts and edits that, together, alleviate some of the worst continuity problems between the prequels and the original trilogy (Why doesn't Obi-Wan recognize R2-D2? Why does Leia remember even images of her mother?) as well as reducing the cheesiness-factor many-fold (much less Jar Jar hijinks, making him seem semi-competent. No inane dialogue from the battle droids. The incredibly bad Naboo picnic scene is only about 1 minute long, which actually makes their falling in love more believable, Yoda doesn't use a lightsaber at all in the big Dooku battle)
It can't make the acting any better, or the CGI look any more real, and the horrendous epic Nooooooooooo! is definitely still there, but it is a vast improvement over the original series.
Huh. But I like the Yoda/Dooku light saber battle for its sheer over-the-topness.
Which set, Gris? Newer or older?
Re George Lucas's comments: He has the nerve to claim to have done something new? Star Wars was one of the most derivative series ever. There is zero in it you can't find in 50's space opera books. For that matter most of what was in it could have been found in the old Sci-Fi serials - Buck Rodgers, Flash Gordon - minus the Star Wars big budget. Filmed Science Fiction was undergoing a period of breaking away from the cliches. It is hard to believe that one year after the release of The Man Who Fell to Earth, we saw the release of Star Wars - damaged Tinker Toys and Legos in Space, with added Action heroes. Star Wars has its charms. But *originality*? Please.
Wasn't it originally supposed to be Flash Gordon or something?
Which set, Gris? Newer or older?
I watched the newer set. Have not compared them.
Of course, Flash Gordon was nothing other than a rip-off of Buck Rogers, anyway.
Guy from my FAC used to push the notion that Star Wars was in fact based on the Book of Revelation, with Darth Vader in the role of Jesus Christ. Still does, it seems: [link]
Of course, Flash Gordon was nothing other than a rip-off of Buck Rogers, anyway.
Just to be clear, I'm not *criticizing* Star Wars for lack of originality. I'm criticizing George Lucas for claiming originality for Star Wars. I know lots of people who love the Star Wars series. I have not encountered many who love it for its breakthrough originality. Many great films are great due to execution rather than concept. There is a reason "high concept" is not, for the most part, a term of praise.
I do have think the triumph of Star Wars represented a step backwards in filmic Science Fiction. That step backwards is not so much in itself. The problem is that its overwhelming blockbuster success helped change the ecology of the movie industry, intensified the already existing trend towards high budget formula films that needed overwhelming success to pay back their investment. Particularly in the Science Fiction and Fantasy realms, I think it played a role in encouraging big explosion space opera, and swords and sinews fantasy in film. Stuff outside of that range still happened, but I think at a lot slower rate than would have occurred otherwise.
