that awful man posted:

They could in the prequels.

Of course, we've decided that the prequels aren't goon canon.

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Those Republic Assault Ships are hardly Star Destroyers.

Ferrosol posted:

also didn't tarkin get famous for squashing protesters with a star destroyer? or am I thinking of something else?

Torael_7 posted:

Some sit-in protest at a spaceport. When the crowd refused to disperse, he landed on them.

I swear I remember a separate incident being mentioned in one of the books where he does something similar, except rather than landing on them, he fired the engines into the bay on which the town was located and boiled them alive or something...

Torael_7 posted:

Some sit-in protest at a spaceport. When the crowd refused to disperse, he landed on them.

I swear I remember a separate incident being mentioned in one of the books where he does something similar, except rather than landing on them, he fired the engines into the bay on which the town was located and boiled them alive or something...

Wookieepedia posted:

A group of activists were protesting Imperial taxation on the planet Ghorman in the Sern sector. Wilhuff Tarkin's vessel was blocked by peaceful protesters who stood on the ship's landing pad and refused to move. With implied permission from Palpatine, Tarkin landed the ship anyway, right on the protestors, injuring and killing hundreds. An overwhelming majority were killed instantly. A lucky few escaped the ordeal with their lives, but sustained severe injuries, some later resulting in death.

yronic heroism posted:

_{Still think we need to add this to the timeline.}

Chairman Capone posted:

I feel like it was recently retconned that the Imperial SDs could enter atmosphere but just not land, or something. Or maybe I'm just making that up.

quote:

Now, you’ll recall that a little bit ago, I said these should probably be best considered new 2011 versions of these films, and not the 2004 DVD versions. All the fixes and corrections alone justify this in my opinion, but there’s another reason too… and you can probably guess what it is: Once again, George has apparently added a few new “surprises” into these films. I don’t know what they are and didn’t get to see any of them on Friday, but I was assured that there will be “new things to notice” when we watch the films.

angrylinuxgeek posted:

dude got an early look at the blu-rays

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/starwarsbds/preview.html

angrylinuxgeek posted:

dude got an early look at the blu-rays

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/starwarsbds/preview.html

Tuxedo Jack posted:

angrylinuxgeek posted:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/starwarsbds/preview.html

Bombadilillo posted:

Yub Yub replaced by celebritory bug orgie.

LLJKSiLk posted:

Is it just me or did the Ewok music change from the original ROTJ to the special editions?

arioch posted:

Yes, they changed that. The original one was Ewokish, the new one more generic. Also later on, they went back and added Jar Jar to the end.

angrylinuxgeek posted:

dude got an early look at the blu-rays

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/starwarsbds/preview.html

thrawn527 posted:

Do we know that was Jar Jar, and not just some random Gungan? Like, did Lucas ever say that? All the Gungans talk in the same stupid speech pattern, so it could have been any old Gungan.

Not that it would make things that much better...

Sith Happens posted:

The vast majority of that article is very encouraging. It definitely makes it sound like the technical issues - color corrections, audio fixes, etc. - that plagued previous releases actually have been fixed for this set.

As for the "new surprises", that will be the next can of worms that we can complain about until the Super Mega Ultimate 3D Interactive Holographic™ box set is released in 2017 for the 40th anniversary of A New Hope.

angrylinuxgeek posted:

I am really excited after reading the full text, but I'm one of those horrible easy to please Star Wars fans and even I had trouble with Greedo shooting first and Hayden Christensen in ROTJ.

arioch posted:

Also later on, they went back and added Jar Jar to the end.

Systematic posted:

how about they make it so jedi can use the force to... move extra light sabers in mid air? Suddenly a young jedi is confronted by a sith lord with the power to control 10 lightsabers flying around in mid air!

Admiral Goodenough posted:

I really only object to the special editions because it seems like such a desperate way of trying to modernize the movie in order to keep making money off it.

Other than that, I don't give a poo poo about the Special Editions. I'm not going to buy the blu-rays, I'm fine watching the original theatrical editions on the double dvds. It's not like I don't know all three movies inside out anyway.

Captain von Trapp posted:

You'd think if Lucas just wanted money he'd include the original cuts. I don't pretend that special-edition haters like me are a large fraction of the fanbase, but between the two of us that's two fewer blu-rays that are going to be sold. I'd be willint to bet there's enough people making that decision to dent the sales at least some. And how hard can it be to include prints that by definition don't need much tinkering?

The only reasonable explanation is that he refuses to include the originals out of pure spite. That's fine. My money will stay in my wallet.

Fil5000 posted:

I honestly don't think it's spite - he GENUINELY thinks these revisions make the films better, and no-one near him seems to dare to tell him he's drawing Groucho glasses and eyebrows on the Mona Lisa*.

George Lucas posted:

My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

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. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.