Post your Revenge of the Sith Reviews and Commentary here!

[JohnT]

Lol, for 24 out of 28 years it was there. The first run showing was crippled enough by by the tiny number of participating theaters that the second run a year later practically constitutes the same run. I admit when I saw star wars in 1978 I was young enough that I barely remember it whereas my 1981 recollection is substantially clearer, but let's not pretend that 1977-1980 constitutes some immense chunk of the public star wars experience. I daresay most people who enjoyed the 1977/78 release went to and saw and experienced the 1981 release as well.

Again, 65,000,000 tickets were sold to see the movie.

That equates to almost 1/3rd of the US population at the time (yes, you might rebut that many people saw it multiple times, however that actually helps my point in regards to the films overall impact in that period). To compare, the #2 movie, Saturday Night Fever grossed $74,100,000 that year, translating into 24.7 million tickets sold (38% of the number of tickets sold to SW.)

The movie was rereleased twice in the 1970's - once in 1978, another in 1979. Neither of those re-releases had "Ep 4, ANH" in the crawl.

It was the biggest movie (non-adjusted) of all time and was an absolute sensation, akin to more recent movie manias (Titanic, LOTR).

It's not "pretending" to argue that the period from 1977-1981 "constitutes some immense chunk of the public star wars experience" as it was when the majority of the films earnings were made.

Your "Hobbit" analogy is invalid as Tolkein didn't change the name of the book 20 years after he released it. We're not discussing the revisions made within the film itself but the revising of the films title.

[Boris Godunov]

Lord, the end might be nigh...

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No one said that, but MOST OFTEN, that's what happens, as I pointed out.

Yet there are plenty of examples of series that don't. It's not cut and dried that a series name is the name of a movie. And of course in other mediums (like books) a great deal of the time the series name may be totally different from the book names.

I'm not sure how you define "plenty" (esp. based on three examples, one of which you've admitted that despite the first film title not being the same as the series, people still know the film by its actual title "Raiders of the Lost Ark."). But the simple fact is that exponentially more series are named after the first movie. Star Wars, Rocky, Die Hard, Jaws, Superman, Jurassic Park, Terminator, The Matrix, Blade, Psycho, Ghostbusters, Spider-Man, Batman, The Godfather, Police Academy, Dirty Harry, The Exorcist, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Beverly Hills Cop, Friday the 13th, Alien, Predator, Scream, Critters, Revenge of the Nerds, Austin Powers, The Naked Gun, American Pie, Evil Dead, Highlander, Lethal Weapon, The Omen, Scary Movie, Planet of the Apes, Meatballs, Hellraiser, Children of the Corn are a few examples.

Why not call it "Sith"? People bouncing around in the Entertainment section of CNN will know that is part of the movie's name. Star Wars has become known to most as the series name, with any references to the first movie to be deliniated futher (by whatever means).

You answer your own question. Most people will recognize the name "Star Wars." Fewer will know what is meant simply by "Sith." So CNN creates a headline using a name that will draw the most readers, knowing that people will likely assume that they mean "Revenge of the Sith," which is being marketed out the wazoo on TV, radio, newspapers, the internet, etc. rather than the original film, which ain't being marketed anywhere at the moment.

I've seen all the Matrix movies, but I'm not sure if the Merovingian appeared first in the 2nd or 3rd movie. Just because people have seen a series of movies doesn't mean they can tell in which movie something happened. Fans would know, obviously.

How ubiquitous an icon is the Merovingian (I don't even know what the hell that is, as I've only seen the first Matrix) for those films as opposed to Yoda? We're talking the biggest icon of ESB. Yoda was probably the most popular aspect of ESB when it was released.

Um... no. They made statements/arguments that I agreed with. Rather than repost the argument, I refered to them.

Neither made statements that supported your assertions. Hence my pointing out that in my last post.

So you are saying that most people out there, a majority of which are non fans say X, but then use testimony of the fans to make your case, when you say their usage is not the issue? Wha?

No, Imran, the issue was, what do "most" people call the original movie. My position has been, consistently, that most people just think of it as "Star Wars" and aren't aware of it being "Episode 4" or "A New Hope." I said that, by and large, only fans tend to think of it as such. But here, even people who are fans are saying that they think of it most as just "Star Wars," which just gives further credeence to my argument. If even fans think of it more as just "Star Wars," then logically non-fans would be even more likely to do so.

My mistake then. It was first done in 2000. Still a decent cry from 1997, when the Special Edition movie was released. And if Lucas thought that people wouldn't know what "A New Hope" would be if on the cover, just simply put "Star Wars" on there as well. Why would that be difficult, and it would be consistent with the rebranding.

As I said, Lucas did not change the copyright until a week before the Special Edition was released to theaters. Since it had been marketed well before that time in the advertising blitzes of late 1996 as just "Star Wars," there would be little sense in changing it then. And Lucas kept it the same for the SE VHS release so to keep it consistent with the theatrical release of the SE, probably so people didn't think the VHS release contained new material. Given his penchant for revision, people might have thought just such a thing.

But for the next VHS release, after we had seen TPM marketed and branded as "Episode 1," we see the change. Any marketing exec would tell you that's the smart way to do rebranding: wait until you've got a new product to cause excitement and use that as a springboard for rebranding an older product.

So if people call a movie something for 20 years (or 15 or 10 years), a company making a minor change to the name (like adding an episode number and episode title to the box) will make people suddenly stop calling it what they have for X years? Why?

I simply don't understand how you could ask me this question, when I have stated many, many times (and you have quoted several times) that I categorically do not believe that people have suddenly stopped calling the original trilogy by their theatrical release names. In spite of the rebranding, most people still think of the original movies as "Star Wars," "The Empire Strikes Back," and "Return of the Jedi." Are more people aware of the episode numbers now? Absolutely, thanks to the branding of the new films by episode numbers. But, overall, the public perception hasn't changed yet. So this is an utter strawman.

Now in another 20 years, it's quite possible the situation will change to what Lucas wants: everyone consistently thinking of the movies by episode numbers. No doubt he will rerelease the original trilogy to theaters again in the future, and when he does, I'm sure it will be with branding that is consistent with the prequels. Until then, the majority of people simply will not have had exposure to the rebranding of the original trilogy to change their overall perception.

And yeah, it's been going nowhere, but I can't help pointing out that this is because, frustratingly, you have ceased to make any sense in your arguments and have contorted your position several times, resulting in hopeless contradictions. Of course it won't go anywhere then.

[Japher]

I call "Raiders of the Lost Arc" Indian Jones 1.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by JohnT

Lol, for 24 out of 28 years it was there. The first run showing was crippled enough by by the tiny number of participating theaters that the second run a year later practically constitutes the same run. I admit when I saw star wars in 1978 I was young enough that I barely remember it whereas my 1981 recollection is substantially clearer, but let's not pretend that 1977-1980 constitutes some immense chunk of the public star wars experience. I daresay most people who enjoyed the 1977/78 release went to and saw and experienced the 1981 release as well.

Again, 65,000,000 tickets were sold to see the movie.

That equates to almost 1/3rd of the US population at the time (yes, you might rebut that many people saw it multiple times, however that actually helps my point in regards to the films overall impact in that period). To compare, the #2 movie, Saturday Night Fever grossed $74,100,000 that year, translating into 24.7 million tickets sold (38% of the number of tickets sold to SW.)

The movie was rereleased twice in the 1970's - once in 1978, another in 1979. Neither of those re-releases had "Ep 4, ANH" in the crawl.

It was the biggest movie (non-adjusted) of all time and was an absolute sensation, akin to more recent movie manias (Titanic, LOTR).

It's not "pretending" to argue that the period from 1977-1981 "constitutes some immense chunk of the public star wars experience" as it was when the majority of the films earnings were made.

Your "Hobbit" analogy is invalid as Tolkein didn't change the name of the book 20 years after he released it. We're not discussing the revisions made within the film itself but the revising of the films title.

to the first portion of your post i still maintain that only a poll of the general public could truly shed light on what 'most people think the title of that first movie as. Anyway, I would be interested to see if in fact the first movie generated more money pre-1981 than in all the big and small screen showings since. That is a lot of small screen showings after all. Think of the vast portion of the publics viewing experience that is represented by ANH being shown something like 6 times a day on cable TV through the 80's!

to the second portion I'm intrigued to hear why alterations to a title bother you so much, while alterations to content apparently do not.

As I said earlier in the post, what if someone were to publish "The Hobbit" as "There and Back Again. A Hobbit's Holiday"? That is the title it actually had within the book from Bilbo's (the fictional character who ostenably wrote it) point of view.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT
Actually, my contempt is directed towards George Lucas who, in addition to being a craptacular director, is a revisionist of the worst order, a man whose constantly shifting vision of what his creation ought to be has sparked this debate and ruined the continuity of his films.

I don't have a problem with people revising their works--many great artists do. And the lack of a clear indication of their "definitive" meaning often leads to a good thing, which is variety of interpretation.

Take classical music. Beethoven revised Fidelio several times, essentially composing a total of 4 overtures for the opera. So opera companies have the ability to choose what overture they want to play, and often times play them all as entr'acts of some sort.

Or look at Mahler. He revised many of his works extensively. The 6th symphony is a clear example of this. He switched the initial order of the inner movements (Scherzo-Andante to Andante-Scherzo) after the premier, and he struck out the third hammerblow of fate in the finale for structural purposes. But there rages debate today over which order to present the inner movements, and how many hammerblows should be done. The result is a lot more recordings of the work with the varied interpretations, and I certainly can't complain about that (although I'm a firm proponent of Scherzo-Andante and three hammerblows being the most effective, whether it was Mahler's final intent or not).

Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov makes for another great example. 1869 version or 1872 revision? Reverse the order of the last scenes or keep them as Death of Boris followed by Kromy Forest scene? Include or discard the St. Basil Cathedral scene? Ah, the options are so varied, and it makes each production something different!

Erm, so the point is... *thinks for a bit* Ah, yes! Revision can be great. But Lucas hasn't exactly handled it in the best way, as many of his revisions, especially for the original "Star Wars," were pointless and ended up making me think less of the film, esp. the Han-Greedo shoot-out and inclusion of the redundant Jabba and boring Biggs scenes.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lancer
Ok, saw the flick, thought it was an 8. Thought Anniken went from trying to do the right thing to slicing and dicing the younglings a bit too fast...

Agreed. I could see Anakin joining the Emperor to save the Republic and learn the dark side of the force, but wiping out the younglings? There was no adequate explanation for this.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
I call "Raiders of the Lost Arc" Indian Jones 1.

Since you can't spell "Ark" or "Indiana" correctly, I'm not sure why we should consider you an authority on the matter.

[JohnT]

However, Boris, note that the revisions do leave it up to the performer to decide which version they perform. Film, being a fixed medium, is not a platform really fit for interpretation (in the musical meaning of the word.)

And, going by the information you provided, they did keep the same titles, which is what the current discussion is about. It wasn't as if Mussorgsky renamed the 1872 version: Boris Godunov Episode 4: A New Hope with his fanboys insisting that the earlier title didn't exist.

[Japher]

Since you can't spell "Ark" or "Indiana" correctly, I'm not sure why we should consider you an authority on the matter

doh! And I never claimed to be an authority, I'm just trolling...

I like when people call it Star Wars and if they feel clarification is in order they say "the original"...

werks fer me

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by JohnT
However, Boris, note that the revisions do leave it up to the performer to decide which version they perform. Film, being a fixed medium, is not a platform really fit for interpretation (in the musical meaning of the word.)

And, going by the information you provided, they did keep the same titles, which is what the current discussion is about. It wasn't as if Mussorgsky renamed the 1872 version: Boris Godunov Episode 4: A New Hope with his fanboys insisting that the earlier title didn't exist.

Do you call it Beethovens Third Symphony, or the Eroica? The Sixth, or the Pastorale?

For Mozart, the Jupiter Symphony? Etc, etc. Or do you go by the Kirchel (sp?) listing?

[Verto]

Someone shut this thread down for godsake.

What a ****ing retarded argument

[Q Classic]

Verto

[JohnT]

I go by the numbers. K. 551 (or 41st symphony). Same thing with Beethoven's symphonies, etc.

[Japher]

Beethoven has Opus, not K doofus

I go by numbers, but it's not like Beethoven wrote Symphony No. 4, and then went, "Oh crap! I should write 1, 2, and 3 too!"

[JohnT]

I know that. The question was do I go by the numbers or the names. I was given two examples and I responded to one in a bit of detail (the Mozart symphony) and the other in no detail (the Beethoven example.)