# Indiana Jones Special Edition



## Steerpike (Sep 10, 2012)

Remastered for delicate sensibilities by Mr. George Lucas:


----------



## Reaver (Sep 10, 2012)

As if that weren't bad enough:


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 10, 2012)

Reaver said:


> As if that weren't bad enough:



I'd actually like it if they included Qui-Gon in that ending scene. It'd really tie the whole series together. 

Besides, who created Star Wars? George Lucas did. So he has the right to change it as he wishes. It astounds me that "Star Wars" fans seem to think _they_ somehow own Star Wars.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Remastered for delicate sensibilities by Mr. George Lucas:



Okay, I admit, that's pretty funny.




Mindfire said:


> I'd actually like it if they included Qui-Gon in that ending scene. It'd really tie the whole series together.
> 
> Besides, who created Star Wars? George Lucas did. So he has the right to change it as he wishes. It astounds me that "Star Wars" fans seem to think _they_ somehow own Star Wars.



I mostly agree, and I think they worked Qui in pretty well. I like how he shows up right at the end, after Luke turned his back.

That said, I do think replacing the original Anakin with Hayden Christensen is kinda jarring. I mean, why does Anakin return as his younger self when Qui, Obi and Yoda are the ages they were when they died? That doesn't seem to make much sense. 

I think I would have rather liked it if they added Qui-Gon but kept old man Anakin. Then we'd have four of the last old Jedi, all old men, seeing off the young man who is the first of the new Jedi. I think that would have made for a really appropriate closing scene for the saga.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 10, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Okay, I admit, that's pretty funny.



Ok, yeah it is. xD


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 11, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Remastered for delicate sensibilities by Mr. George Lucas:



That is hysterical. 



Mindfire said:


> Besides, who created Star Wars? George Lucas did. So he has the right to change it as he wishes. It astounds me that "Star Wars" fans seem to think _they_ somehow own Star Wars.



Lucas has the legal right to do whatever he wants with it, as he owns the copyright.

But a lot of people feel that when a story becomes part of the common cultural firmament, retroactively changing it (especially in ways that are widely reviled) is a crime of sorts: sullying something that was once beautiful (even worse when the changes are clearly a money-grab). It's not a legal crime that can be prosecuted, but rather a crime against culture.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 11, 2012)

He has a right to change it; fans have a right to point out changes that are idiotic


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 11, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Lucas has the legal right to do whatever he wants with it, as he owns the copyright.
> 
> But a lot of people feel that when a story becomes part of the common cultural firmament, retroactively changing it (especially in ways that are widely reviled) is a crime of sorts: sullying something that was once beautiful (even worse when the changes are clearly a money-grab). It's not a legal crime that can be prosecuted, but rather a crime against culture.



No, see, _destroying a Rembrandt _is a crime against culture. There's a wee difference between that and releasing remastered editions of a thirty-year old sci-fi trilogy that - let us be honest for a moment - isn't really that important to most people who are not nerds. If having a large fandom made something culturally important, freaking My Little Pony would be considered high art. Let's not get carried away here. 

Besides, the originals still exist. I have them on DVD. It's not like Lucas hunted down every existing copy and burned them on a giant bonfire. 

(Though, he did try that with the Star Wars Holiday Special.)



Steerpike said:


> He has a right to change it; fans have a right to point out changes that are idiotic



Sure. But that's not an excuse for blatant overreactions. 

Greedo shooting first was unecessary, annoying and kinda stupid, but _not _goddamned high treason. Everyone is just taking this way too seriously.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 11, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> It's not like Lucas hunted down every existing copy and burned them on a giant bonfire.
> 
> (Though, he did try that with the Star Wars Holiday Special.)



And it's a pity he didn't succeed. But alas that special is still lurking out there somewhere in the dark corners of the internet. Although it's good for a few laughs if you watch it with a commentary of some kind. I like the Nostalgia Critic review of it myself.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 11, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> No, see, _destroying a Rembrandt _is a crime against culture. There's a wee difference between that and releasing remastered editions of a thirty-year old sci-fi trilogy that - let us be honest for a moment - isn't really that important to most people who are not nerds. If having a large fandom made something culturally important, freaking My Little Pony would be considered high art. Let's not get carried away here.



Yeah, but that's just a disagreement about magnitude. _Star Wars_ has way more value to me, personally, than a Rembrandt does. Maybe you think that makes me some kind of degenerate monster, but I don't think you want to go down that road


----------



## Endymion (Sep 11, 2012)

Hilarious. Damn that George Lucas!


----------



## Reaver (Sep 11, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Besides, who created Star Wars? George Lucas did. So he has the right to change it as he wishes. It astounds me that "Star Wars" fans seem to think _they_ somehow own Star Wars.




Will you please stop regurgitating that lame "Who created Star Wars?" argument?  I never claimed to think that I "somehow own Star Wars". 

However, I do believe that I am allowed to state my *opinions *here.  So please, by all means, continue to be offended by my *opinion *that George Lucas is satan and Steven Spielberg the antichrist.

Someday they will pay for their atrocities.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 11, 2012)

Reaver said:


> Will you please stop regurgitating that lame "Who created Star Wars?" argument?  I never claimed to think that I "somehow own Star Wars".
> 
> However, I do believe that I am allowed to state my *opinions *here.  So please, by all means, continue to be offended by my *opinion *that George Lucas is satan and Steven Spielberg the antichrist.
> 
> Someday they will pay for their atrocities.



While I do find your opinions on Lucas and Spielberg hilarious and totally misguided, I have nothing against you personally. My comment wasn't even directed at you in particular. What I don't get is the attitude that your post represents. This idea that "George Lucas doesn't have the right" to change the IP and mythos _that he created._ Of course he has the right. He has every right. What if Tolkien returned from the grave and decided he wasn't happy with the published version of the Silmarillion, or that Lord of the Rings would be better off with a few changes? Would he have the right to change it? Yes. Of course he would. And Lucas has every right to change Star Wars. I don't understand what it is you gain from obsessing over this. Do you _enjoy_ foaming at the mouth? Do you get some kind of pleasure from hatedom? Why do you care? I could understand if you were annoyed or disappointed, but furious? Come on. Huge overreaction.


----------



## Reaver (Sep 11, 2012)

Annoyed? Sure. Furious? Please. Obsessing over Star Wars? Hardly. Hatedom & foaming at the mouth? Now_ that's_ hilarious. Does satan have the right to do whatever he wants with Star Wars? Why not?

I just like to f**k with fans of the prequels.  Thanks for making my workday fun.:Laugh:


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 11, 2012)

Reaver said:


> Annoyed? Sure. Furious? Please. Obsessing over Star Wars? Hardly. Hatedom & foaming at the mouth? Now_ that's_ hilarious. Does satan have the right to do whatever he wants with Star Wars? Why not?
> 
> I just like to f**k with fans of the prequels.  Thanks for making my workday fun.:Laugh:



I didn't mean you specifically. *You* may not be foaming at the mouth, but there are people out there who are. They are the general "you" I was referring to. Sorry that wasn't clear.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 12, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> This idea that "George Lucas doesn't have the right" to change the IP and mythos _that he created._



Who specifically said this? I've seen a lot of people bemoaning Lucas's changes—I'm one of them—but I don't recall ever seeing anyone saying that he doesn't have the _legal right_ to do it.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 12, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Who specifically said this? I've seen a lot of people bemoaning Lucas's changes--I'm one of them--but I don't recall ever seeing anyone saying that he doesn't have the legal right to do it.



I've seen people, though not on this site, call it outright criminal and start baying like hounds for his blood. It's sad, funny, and disturbing all at once. And there are those who deny he has the right to do it.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 12, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I've seen people, though not on this site, call it outright criminal and start baying like hounds for his blood. It's sad, funny, and disturbing all at once. And there are those who deny he has the right to do it.



I've definitely seen people _hyperbolically_ call Lucas a criminal, though never come across someone who actually believed he had broken a law of any kind.

Regardless of whether anyone foolishly claims such things, one can quite rightly hold the opinion that Lucas desecrated his works and should suffer some sort of karmic punishment for doing so. There's no defending the position that Lucas did _good_ with any of his changes.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 12, 2012)

Greedo shoots first was the most egregious change


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 13, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I've definitely seen people _hyperbolically_ call Lucas a criminal, though never come across someone who actually believed he had broken a law of any kind.
> 
> Regardless of whether anyone foolishly claims such things, one can quite rightly hold the opinion that Lucas desecrated his works and should suffer some sort of karmic punishment for doing so. There's no defending the position that Lucas did _good_ with any of his changes.



I thought adding Qui-Gon to the end of ROTJ was a good one...


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 13, 2012)

As for being criminal, I think I saw someone say it violated some kind of congressional decision that certain films represented cultural history and should be preserved in their original form or something. But maybe I'm mis-remembering the statement.


----------



## Reaver (Sep 13, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I thought adding Qui-Gon to the end of ROTJ was a good one...



You do realize that's a fake right? Some prequel fanboy's wet dream.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 13, 2012)

Reaver said:


> You do realize that's a fake right? Some prequel fanboy's wet dream.



Meh. Pity. It would have been thematically appropriate.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 13, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Meh. Pity. It would have been thematically appropriate.



Doesn't make much sense; at that point in the timeline, Luke has (to the best of my knowledge) never heard of Qui-gon Jinn.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 14, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Doesn't make much sense; at that point in the timeline, Luke has (to the best of my knowledge) never heard of Qui-gon Jinn.



But the viewer (and Obi-Wan, Yoda, and Anakin) has.


----------

