Of course not, but if he started painting over Guernica with "new, improved painting techniques" there would be an uproar.
Star Wars blu ray in September
- Thread starter jcoffman99
- Start date
Of course not, but if he started painting over Guernica with "new, improved painting techniques" there would be an uproar.
defstartrooper
Sr Member
Agreed but that wasn't your statement, your statement was that fans are demanding changes.
Firstly i don't think anyone is demanding anything they're simply stating their opinion on what they would like.
I'm sure there are a few nutjobs who write to GL and demand stuff but on the whole it's mainly people just voicing a dissatisfaction with what they've been given.
Secondly they certainly if anything are not demanding changes they're wishing he would stop changing stuff.
But yeah you're right it's his to do with as he pleases, and as long as people keep buying up this stuff they think is crap there's nothing to motivate him to take their opinion into consideration at all.
Jannix Quinn
Sr Member
I don't mind when they fix things and make them look nicer, like the outlines from blue screen and so on. I don't like added scenes or changed scenes though.
tgreco
Sr Member
one final note:
and having just read the opening chapters of the book, I suggest you reread them
nowhere in there does it say Lucas wrote it. It states that he was trying to develop it. Not the same thing. The first mention of Apocalypse Now is in regards tp THX 1138 where it states Warner Brothers pulled funding for six films slated for production after THX didn't fair too well at the box office.
This is after the VERY SAME BOOK you reference states Lucas hates writing, and the FIRST script he wrote was THX 1138, and then he wrote American Grafitti. The first mention of Apocalypse Now in the book you're citing is when Warner Brothers (not Columbia) pulled funding for 6 films in development after the release of THX 1138
Quoting Lucas as saying
"No, no, no, we ought to hire a writer to write it. I don't want to write it. I'm not a writer, I can't write." Then goes on to state that they hired a writer to rewrite it. Then Lucas rewrote it again. And that was HIS FIRST SCRIPT. For a movie first screened in Nov 1970.
(page 3)
and again on page 5 where it says United Artists rejected the AN script AFTER it had financing yanked by Warner Brothers, referring to AN as "a script he had worked on with John Milius." Now given that the first draft was 1969, and he was trying to get it made after THX...and by Lucas own words his first script was THX... exactly where does he fit into writing AN?
On the same page it says Gary Kurtz was hired BY Coppola to line-produce AN which development had stalled... so they used him for American Grafitti.
So this would have been 1971.
so again... sorry but you're wrong, even by your own source.
PS: Rinzler really needs to learn how to present material. His writing style is all over the board. He's not very succinct, and frankly his jump around approach to the material is confusing as hell. So I understand why you might have misinterpreted what he said.
And seeing as you'll be doing some reading anyway, I suggest you read Heart of Darkness... so you can see just how close Apocalypse Now is to it's source material. And the interview above with Milius (linked above) where he talks about the inspiration for him to write it in the first place. He was still in school at that point.
and to Zombie Killer: there a reason you felt a need to try and inject an insult into a conversation that didn't involve you? And more importantly if your going to poo-poo all over user contributed content sites as resources, exactly what are you doing here on the RPF (A user contributed content site) ?
robo3687
Sr Member
well this is a fun discussion...lol...even if i do end up being wrong...
okay...
here's the quote I've got from the book (top left of page 6)
I can roughly place this mid 1971 based on dates around the paragraph, but it certainly reads as though George and John both worked on the script, and had been doing so for at least a little while.
as for the references to the first AN draft being in 1969, a quote which seems to be from some point in 1973 says this (page 7)
Then on page 63 he says this ( it still seems to be somewhere in the '73-74 period)
so it would seem that George had at least 4 years of involvement with Apocalypse Now up to around 73, which would go back to 1969 when the first draft was written....
so is it not resonable to assume, based on that and the above quotes, that he had a part in writing it?
i guess we'll never really know...unless someone asks him point blank ...lol...
but in the end it's highly likely that anything he may have contributed to it mght not have ever made it into the final script or movie....so this is all for moot...but it has been fun...
okay...
here's the quote I've got from the book (top left of page 6)
I can roughly place this mid 1971 based on dates around the paragraph, but it certainly reads as though George and John both worked on the script, and had been doing so for at least a little while.
as for the references to the first AN draft being in 1969, a quote which seems to be from some point in 1973 says this (page 7)
Then on page 63 he says this ( it still seems to be somewhere in the '73-74 period)
so it would seem that George had at least 4 years of involvement with Apocalypse Now up to around 73, which would go back to 1969 when the first draft was written....
so is it not resonable to assume, based on that and the above quotes, that he had a part in writing it?
i guess we'll never really know...unless someone asks him point blank ...lol...
but in the end it's highly likely that anything he may have contributed to it mght not have ever made it into the final script or movie....so this is all for moot...but it has been fun...
tgreco
Sr Member
I would say no, for the simple fact that GL flat out says his first script was THX 1138. In that same book, GL even states Coppola essentially had to force him to write THX.... If he had co-written any earlier drafts of Apocalypse Now, seeing as he had never actually done a film prior to this, I'm sure he would have wanted his name placed squarely on it, and seeing as it was part of a package deal for a film to be developed by American Zeotrope for Warner Brothers why wouldn't he have pushed to get the credit?
My take on reading that was that he liked the script, and he was trying to figure out how to produce it on a tiny budget, therefore they were in the idea and rewritting process to make the script fit their budget. Based on his friendships and schooling at the time, he was probably aware that Milius was writing it very early on, but that doesn't imply that he helped write it.
I realize there is the legend of who GL is now, but back in 1970 he was a freshly graduated from film school nobody, who won an award for a student film, and had met Francis Ford Coppola... which was really his big break. As Coppola went on to do Patton, The Godfather, the Godfather 2, The Conversation, and Apocalypse Now. He was THE force to be reckoned with during the 70s.
And when you look at THX, it's obvious GL wanted to emulate Kubrick. Hearing that he wanted to do Apocalypse Now as "Dr. Strangelove" in Viet Nam (circa 1971) makes perfect sense, and fits in with where he was creatively at that time and he would want to follow in the footsteps of the hey day of his idol. And all I can say is I'm glad that's not the movie that was made. The other thing to remember is that Viet Nam was still going on at that time. So again, it would have been a very different film.
I've always seen SW as a bit of a mish-mosh of nostalgia mixed with high technology, which is where GL was at that time. With the commercial success of American Grafitti, and the admiration for Kubrick's work, and with the real genesis of modern production design and special effects culminating in 2001, SW always seemed like the natural progression for Lucas.
Solo4114
Master Member
Interesting point, and I'll even take it a step farther.
What if Lucas is using this initial release to provide funding for the next Blu-Ray or 3D remaster? That'd be my bet, personally. Heck, he might even skip remastering for Blu-Ray and go straight to 3D and then say that THIS is the new "official" version.
Boy, those DVDs are looking better and better...
SVTStingRay
Sr Member
at this point lucas doesnt need to "fund" anything. he has always said that even during the making of episode 1. alls hes got to do is whip out the bat credit card. he could have restored the original films hes got plenty of money to do it, he just doesnt want to. hes always considered those films to be incomplete. us fanboys will just have to live with the fact that our original trilogy is gone forever, and over georges dead carcass he will not allow it to be released even after hes gone.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
From what I gathered, George has invented blu rays are actually time travel devices. When someone watches these disks, there is a chance that it will alter space and time and destroy their childhood. Strange that this doesn't happen to all people, just a select few. Others still fondly remember the movies despite being subjected to the power of the blu ray.
Maybe this should be a subplot for his next Indiana Jones script set for 2011 so that Harrison Ford can play an Old Mutt Williams.
Maybe this should be a subplot for his next Indiana Jones script set for 2011 so that Harrison Ford can play an Old Mutt Williams.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Nothing can destroy my childhood. Not even revisionist crap that happens in my grown-up life. All that does is taking a **** on my grown-up life... and not my childhood as that is safe from any meddling happening now.
I had a happy childhood and I watched the real Star Wars movies... not the newer remakes.
I had a happy childhood and I watched the real Star Wars movies... not the newer remakes.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Doesn't ruin my adulthood either. I can just opt not to see the remakes and concentrate on other, more interesting pursuits.
Though... I do enjoy a good sparring about why he doesn't just restore the originals. It's not like he won't earn his investment back and then some. He really has no real reason to not do it other than stubbornness. Or... he's using the Eric Cartman tactic of refusing people what they want to get them to want it even more.
Though... I do enjoy a good sparring about why he doesn't just restore the originals. It's not like he won't earn his investment back and then some. He really has no real reason to not do it other than stubbornness. Or... he's using the Eric Cartman tactic of refusing people what they want to get them to want it even more.
ave4uevoli
Sr Member
Real quick warning to the guys who pre-ordered these.
You do realize the amazon website has these listed as 1.33 format right? You know what that means right? 1.33 = full screen!
I have no idea what Lucas is thinking (actually, i'm sure he's thinking, I'll sneak this in first and then make them buy another set after they realize), but this entire thread has been a debate over what is "altered and unaltered" and "SE vs. original".... but quite frankly - I don't think anyone is going to debate that a full screen version with both the left and right side of the screen chopped off is acceptable.
Just a heads up for those who were thinking blu-ray automatically means widescreen.
Personally, I wouldn't touch these with a 10' pole, especially, again, there are already 1080p 2.35 aspect ratio 5.1 dolby versions that have been shown and available.
For those who can't get that version - I suggest you just DVR it the next time it comes up on Spike tv or something. I doubt the blu-ray will be that much better.
You do realize the amazon website has these listed as 1.33 format right? You know what that means right? 1.33 = full screen!
I have no idea what Lucas is thinking (actually, i'm sure he's thinking, I'll sneak this in first and then make them buy another set after they realize), but this entire thread has been a debate over what is "altered and unaltered" and "SE vs. original".... but quite frankly - I don't think anyone is going to debate that a full screen version with both the left and right side of the screen chopped off is acceptable.
Just a heads up for those who were thinking blu-ray automatically means widescreen.
Personally, I wouldn't touch these with a 10' pole, especially, again, there are already 1080p 2.35 aspect ratio 5.1 dolby versions that have been shown and available.
For those who can't get that version - I suggest you just DVR it the next time it comes up on Spike tv or something. I doubt the blu-ray will be that much better.
