Talk:Changes in Star Wars re-releases/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Here's one I'm pretty sure of but would like confirmation: In the 2004 version of the Cantina scene, one of the aliens resembling a werewolf is replaced by a new character.Lee M 02:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought the original 1977 release was slightly different from subsequent releases. I think the "Episode IV: A New Hope" tag wasn't added until the re-releases in preperation of Episode 5 came out. That distinction (with any other changes) should be listed.

You mention a change to Phantom Menace. Are you sure you didn't confuse it with one of the deleted scenes? Of course, I don't own the DVD as of this writing.- B-101 20:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about changes prior to what we think of as the re-releases? I'm thinking specifically of Luke watching the space battle above him early in the movie that was apparently in the very earliest screen showings and was added in for the first US network TV showing? And the scene with Biggs? - Bitt 21:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Episode 1

Isn't the Darth Vader breathing sound at the end of the credits in the theater version of Episode 1 absent in the home versions?

Well, it's pretty quiet in the DVD.

Criticism?

I think this article should exactly point out which changes are most criticised, or are most ¨important¨. After all, I´m sure nobody minds ¨New digital shots of the X-Wings and Y-Wings taking off from Yavin (in the original version, they just appeared as red flashes)¨, but a lot of people are very passionately against Greedo shooting first ;-) Shreevatsa 07:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

As a Star Wars fan, I am against Greedo shooting first, as he would have hit his target instead of missing to the far left side of Han's head. I also disagree with them putting in Haden Christensen in Sabastian Shaw's place. I also can't stand them putting Jar Jar's voice in the Naboo Celebration at the end of VI. They just couldn't have left him out of it, could they :) But those are the big three in my mind, and the rest i really don't mind. Does anybody agree/disagree/care? Firestorm 00:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I was 5 when Empire came out, but I seem to remember when I saw it in the theatre that there was a short shot of luke's hand still holding ahis lit lightsabre falling down the shaft. This scene in particular stood out in my mind after watching the movie. Did I imagine this?

I don't know if there should be a star by "important" changes, but it would be nice to discuss which changes will be remembered, or at the very least, the impact of the changes. The paragraph currently at the bottom about "controversy" is a step in the right direction, but I think the page could benefit from an extended commentary on the issue. Of course, the text should never throw its scholarly aspirations to the wayside and express an opinion about a specific change (this is a dictionary), but perhaps discussing the reasons behind the changes, as well as the responses, including those informative quotes from the DVD commentaries by Lucas and others about why changes were made, would be both interesting and informative for the reader.

Episode VI end scene original-to-DVD comparisson images

I know there is no big difference between the two, but can both images be from the exact same moment in the movie? Copperchair 2 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Why should they be from the exact same moment? Even though the images are slightly different, they clearly show the differences between the original release and the 2004 DVD release. Please, lets not start another edit war. --LlamaMan 6 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

I won't, but what I will do is give you an address where you can find the exact same moment comparisson: http://www.dvdanswers.com/rotj5.html So, if you want to upload it, just help yourself. Copperchair 7 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

I just restored the images. If you want them to be the same frame, fix the images, but don't just remove them. That doesn't accomplish anything. — Phil Welch 06:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't have any other images, so why this one? It doesn't look good. Copperchair 05:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So add more images. Add images of Greedo shooting first, Jabba's changing appearance, etc. Really, this is a simple problem. — Phil Welch 05:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

YOU add them. You are the one interested in having images. Copperchair 05:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You're the one complaining about there not being any other images. You're just doing this to be an ass, so I'm not going to dignify your childish tantrums with a response. — Phil Welch 06:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, just cover your ears and ignore the discussion, as always. Copperchair 06:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

edited previous response out - too childish, no message, nothing to say — Actually, Copperchair, if you feel there is a need for better quality images, you must do one of two: one, find better quality images and replace them accordingly or, two, mention this in reasonable time lapses and not make a fuss; whereas others don't necessarily need to make an argument, you certainly seem ready to do just that. - RaspK FOG (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Luke & Leia's kiss

I just watched the DVD version of Episode IV. In the scene where Luke and Leia are about to swing across the chasm, Leia kisses Luke and says it's "for luck." In the DVD, she kisses his cheek, but my memory tells me she used to kiss him on the mouth. Did this get altered for the DVD, or has it always been a cheek kiss? Amcaja 17:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It's always been on the cheek. — Phil Welch 00:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Lucas' kid in Revenge of the Sith

Is it just me, or did the jedi padawan who gets iced trying to escape the temple get a much more heroic death in the DVD? In the timestamped copy from bittorrent, he does a somersault between the two teams of stormtroopers, tries to deflect the blaster shots from all sides, and gets shot multiple times. In the DVD, he leaps all the way over to where Bail Organa is standing, kills four soldiers outright, then gets hit once in the chest trying to deflect the fire from the other four clones.

I'm not entirely sure how that is possible. The DVD is an exact replicant of its theatrical release. - AWF

Nonsensical Emperor Hologram rumor

Wookiepedia keeps wheeling out the tired and false "woman w/ chimp eyes" comment each time on the origianl Emperor hologram in ESB, but it was a specially-made mask, and much more sinister in the scene. Emperor mask

Hmm it ain't wookiepedian, who the heck keeps changing it, btw thanks wookiepedia for rv it.--Mole Man 07:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The official Star Wars site references the chimpanzee eyes. I don't think it's a rumour- just watch the film. It looks quite clear that the actual eyeballs aren't human. [1] -Somerandomnerd 09:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• No... if you look up a few lines there is a link posted showing the photo of the person wearing a mask. Please stop vandalizing or there will be measures taken by the administrators.

Yes it was a woman in a mask, but the eyes were superimposed afterwards in post-production. This has come from older making of books that have been produced over the years. Ben W Bell talk 08:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

But if you look at the link to Palpatines databank page here, it clearly says, 'The Emperor first appeared on film in The Empire Strikes Back. He was played by an old woman wearing prosthetic makeup, with chimpanzee eyes superimposed in post-production into darkened eye sockets in order to create a truly unsettling image.' Gran2 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've provided a link to starwars.com that verifies the story- not sure how much more of an official source you can find online, but as Ben W Bell pointed out, there are plenty of books that also mention it (aside from countless other websites.) The Behind the Magic CDROM is another official source. Now, Mr. Anonymous Editor, if you can provide something to verify why you *don't* believe the rumour to be true, rather than just keep reverting my edits, ignoring the references I've posted and accusing me of vandalism, I'd be very happy to hear about it.

(Oh, and here's a clearer behind the scenes shot of the woman in her mask, which I think makes it a bit clearer that it's an old woman. Also note that the actual eyes are in shadow and impossible to see, unlike the non-human eyeballs clearly visible in the film.[2] ) --Somerandomnerd 15:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

For the third time i direct you to Emperor mask which is already at the top in this talk section, a mask.

For the third time we direct you to THE OFFICIAL SITE here. This is the highest source you can get. Gran2 06:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Since we're repeating ourselves, I'll say again that I've provided a link to starwars.com that verifies that a) it's an actress, and b) it's a chimpanzee's eyes- two points that keep getting anonymously removed, and as Ben W Bell has pointed out, there are plenty of books that also mention it (aside from countless other websites.) The Behind the Magic CDROM is another official source if the website and publications aren't enough- short of a signed statement by the chimp, I don't know what more evidence you can ask for. So, Mr. Anonymous Editor, I ask for a second time, if you can provide something to verify why you *don't* believe this story to be true, rather than just repeatedly reverting my edits, ignoring the references I've posted and accusing me of vandalism, I'd be very happy to hear about it. --Somerandomnerd 08:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A better image of the "old" Emperor is here: http://www.dvdactive.com/images/editorial/screenshot/2006/8/emperor1997.jpg. If you know any human with eyes like that, I advise they see an optician. Also not the lack of symmetry- the position of the right eye is further out to the side than it would be were it the actual actress' eye. --Somerandomnerd 09:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor quality

I was perusing the entry's subject of "controversy" and was greatly disappointed. Its bias is evident and the overall "tone" is juvenile. I'm beginning to think a re-write may be in order.

Cool. Go for it. BE BOLD The Wookieepedian 04:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Return of the Jedi

I believe they editted out the nipple of Oola, Jaba's slave dancer, which pops out right before she falls in the pit of the Rancor.

• No, the tit is still visible, but you really have to look for it.

Unclear sentence

Can someone please explain what we mean with this line, " However a version on USA Network has both versions, some things are changed and some are not." Why do we mention the cable network in an article about the movies? Do they sometimes show one version and sometimes the other - so what? Maybe they once showed them side-by-side on split screen? I don't see what this sentence adds to the article.

Next gen format

I have removed a reference to the gen after next format being called Holographic Versatile Disc. While HVD may very well be the next media format, it's simply too early to speculate esp since the studios AFAIK haven't even begun to seriously consider a gen after next format. Some people suggest bluray/HD-DVD may be the last media format since we'll have abandoned media by then. Or maybe HVD will be the next gen format but it'll becalled HoloDVD or something. Whatever, who knows? Speculating on the gen after next format in this article is rather silly not to mention completely unnecessary so please don't do it. Nil Einne 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Jango/Boba & silly statement

I find this statement rather silly: "although some increasingly feel that it helps the two trilogies flow together better, especially in the case of the voice of Boba Fett who, being raised by and being the clone of Jango Fett, ought to sound identical." Anyone who knows identical twins should know that they don't sound identical. They sound quite similar, but not identical. Furthermore, twins generally grow up in similar enviroments and together. While it's possible that a clone if raised by his biological parent may pick up more then a twin, this seems rather unlikely since the clone will be raised in a fairly different environment from the parent reason in the case of twins, they grow up in the same environment with the same influences! It's probably fair to say that Boba Fett's voice sounded different enough that it would seem rather strange if he were a clone of Jango unless there were damage or whatever but claiming their voices should be identical is just plain silly. Nil Einne 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also on the topic of Boba, from memory, I think the bigger issue is that Jango seemed to big to be Boba's clone parent, especially considering Boba was in a suit (so was presuambly smaller then what we saw). I'm not just referring to body mass or muscle mass but it appeared Jango's bone structure and body size was more then Boba appeared to be. Of course, it's easily possible Boba was malnourished or whatever I guess. Nil Einne 21:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is and why Boba Fett's voice was changed. He's wearing a helmet, so of course his voice would have been sounded different. The line, "what if he doesn't survive, he's worth a lot to me?!" sounds completely butchered on the redone version. The old version gave you a tiny glimpse of how ruthless Boba Fett was by the tension in his voice heard in the small line. Boba Fett only had, what, five lines? The new voiceover sounds lifeless and nonchalant. It's funny because Boba Fett's poorly done voiceover is the only "Redone" thing I found retarded. I didn't mind the cheezy and stupid Hayden Christensen insert. (is there any person on earth that actually LIKED his portrayal of Anakin?) I.... LOVED the fact that they redid the Emperor's holograph sequence in The Empire Striks back. I always hated that is was clearly a different actor. However, they should have left the original dialogue. I believe a strong majority of the other re-re-redone alterations were done very well.

1997 theaterical

Were the 1997 theaterical versions released as VHS or broadcast or something? This isn't mentioned on the page AFAICT so if it's true, should be corrected. If not true, this comment doesn't make sense. "In the case of pan-and-scan versions of the re-releases, the 2004 DVD release was panned and scanned differently from the 1997 theatrical release." There wouldn't be a 1997 pan and scan if it was only released theaterically, would there? Nil Einne 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good catch. I think the assumption was that a theatrical release would naturally have also been released later on VHS, and the goal was to indicate that, unlike other version, that particular one also saw a release in cinemas. I added a little VHS reference in the header for that section. Is that adequate? - user:rasd

Late comment: BTW, yes, I remember that a boxed set of the three Special Edition movies on VHS came out around '97 or '98, and I thanked my lucky stars I had a 1992 VHS (pan 'n scan) copy of STAR WARS. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Episode IV werewolf

The werewolf's actually still there in the 2004 DVD as far as I know - but only in the first shot where the cantina scene begins, the music begins, and the alien pops up from the bottom of the screen.

He's on the left side of the screen, blurry (or out of focus), and in the background.

He has a name, you know. Lak Sivrak. --maru (talk) contribs 02:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, for some reason, the "What Has Changed" pages (for Episode IV) list them as two wolf-like characters. --Addict 2006 17:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode IV crawl

The lines Episode IV: A New Hope was added after initial release, as this article says. Was there anything in its spot before, or did it just not exist? --myselfalso 03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Originally it just went straight onto "It is a period of civil war..." after the logo. No subtitle appeared. Ppk01 22:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Lucas on originals

Can someone cite a source for Lucas saying the original versions "don't exist anymore for me" and "sorry people fell in love with a version of a film that wasn't finished"? It seems quite unlikely that he would be sorry that people fell in love with the movie, and a quick Google search (although obviously Google doesn't know everything) does not show any sources for the quotations other than this article.

I can't see the quotation in the article, but here's the quote you're looking for;

AP: Why not release both the originals and special editions on DVD? Lucas: The special edition, that’s the one I wanted out there. The other movie, it’s on VHS, if anybody wants it. ... I’m not going to spend the, we’re talking millions of dollars here, the money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn’t really exist anymore. It’s like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I’m sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it to be the way I want it to be. I’m the one who has to take responsibility for it. I’m the one who has to have everybody throw rocks at me all the time, so at least if they’re going to throw rocks at me, they’re going to throw rocks at me for something I love rather than something I think is not very good, or at least something I think is not finished.

From an Associated Press interview, online here- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6011380/

--Somerandomnerd 13:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Update & Redundancy

For all the chatter on the talk page, the article itself is badly in need of revision. The two most pressing issues being the outdated (and seemingly irrelevant) discussion of the Episode III DVD, as it is not a re-release, and the repitition of several of the controversies regarding the re-releases. I'll start editing these as best I can, but I'm sure there are others far more familiar with the Star Wars universe than myself. - IstvanWolf 06:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Second DVD release

I've removed the line "This particular transfer of the films was once again released on DVD on December 6, 2005. This release, though including new artwork, does not contain the bonus disc from the 2004 DVD release, and it therefore has a lower price than the 2004 set." It's not particularly relevant to the discussion of changes in the films. If someone else feels that the bonus DVD is, in fact, worth mentioning, then perhaps it could be added. However, there were a couple releases of the special edition on VHS. Plus, after the DVDs were release, the films were also sold individually, so there doesn't seem to be any special reason to mention the packaging (which, to me, would include the bonus DVD in this context). -user:rasd

It definately has to be mentioned as this is all about the list of Star Wars re-releases.Each re-release,no matter what kind of packaging, has to be mentioned as this is the purpose of the article.Nadirali 02:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Han/Greedo Shoots First - Image

Notice the lack of spaces in the filename, as opposed to the Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg present in the article.

The image used in the article. Larger than the other image, but seems to be taken from a different video source.

At this point in the article, an image of Greedo shooting first appears. This is the same one as the one in the 1997 section, and needs to be updated to one from the 2004 DVD, where they shoot at about the same time. Does this otherwise unused image have anything to do with it, perchance? Ppk01 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Krayt Dragon

I've noticed in the DVD version of ANH that it's mentioned that the krayt dragon sound was first heard in Star Wars Galaxies, which isn't true because it was heard previously in Jedi Knight: Dark Forces 2, although it sounded completely different. I'm not sure, but I think it might even have been heard in Dark Forces.

How did they know that all these people wanted the originals back?

Was OriginalTrilogy.com the way Lucas knew that they wanted them back?

Should one be done for the 2007 Definitives on DVD instead of just Blu-Ray?

--Addict 2006 17:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Revenge of the Sith Blu-ray

There are discussions that there will be some changes between the DVD and Blu-ray versions of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. According to the DVD bonus material, Rick McCallum is considering that the scene with Yoda landing on Dagobah may be inserted for the Blu-ray version. For the character Stass Allie, they could possibly have Lily Nyamwasa edited in, replacing Tace Bayliss and Nina Fallon. That is because Nyamwasa is the canonical representation of the character. There is also a possibility of extended Order 66, such additional shooting for the death of Luminara Unduli. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew about the Yoda scene, but not the Order 66 and Stass Allie things. Pretty cool. I'm thinking if these are real, we may see them on the Revenge of the Sith from the 'Complete Saga Box Set' rumoured for next year. As well as other changes to the other five films. Like digital Yoda in Episode 1. Gran2 07:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"Theater rips"?

Why is there talk of bootleg versions of the theatrical editions? I'm pretty sure most of the info in the article comes from the theatrical re-releases yet it claims "theater rips" and personal memory are the only way to compare the SE's the originals. 24.158.134.254 07:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"See to him"

"See to him" is in one of the versions of ANH before 2004. I know, because I never saw the new versions. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Male/Female Emperer

It is frustrating to see the female actress continually getting changed to the male actor, and then back again. The earlier part of the discussion that was devoted to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases#Nonsensical_Emperor_Hologram_rumor) I feel sorted that out once and for all. I have added a comment to that paragraph in the main article to ask that they check the official Star Wars site (included link) before considering changing it.

Finger's crossed....

StephenBuxton 16:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the other discussion about the hologram, there was a picture provided of an unknown person wearing the mask -- whether it is male or female it's uknown however. Where did you hear it was a female actress? Why would it be female behind the male Emperor mask?

Because that's what it says on the Official Star Wars Databank page on the Empreror. It says on the wkipedia page that it was a female actress because it was. [3] Gran2 06:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also mentioned in the Behind the Scenes CD-ROM and the Star Wars Chronicles. Ben W Bell talk 09:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode 3 DVD changes

It says only one minor change was made to the Episode 3 DVD, but IIRC, in the scene where Yoda fights the Emperor, the two red-suited Imperial Guards (after being killed/knocked out) disappeared from later shots in the theatrical version but remained on the ground in the DVD version. Some guy 09:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

2007 re-releases

"Lucasfilm is likely to return to John Lowry to do even more work on the films (possibly digital contemporization of the original trilogy)." Can someone explain precisely (or even vaguely for that matter) what is meant by "digital contemporization"? Even more new effects? (if nothing else, I hope they change the lightsaber back to blue in ANH) Or just a new HD transfer?

Actually, I hope they change ALL the lightsaber effects. --Addict 2006 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Laserdisc Versions

What about the original laserdisc versions? The article states "The initial 1989 North American widescreen release", but I've got a UK laserdisc of Star Wars from about 1980 I think it is.

• That line is referring to the first widescreen laserdisc release in North America. The release you have is probably a time-compressed Pan and Scan LD, if it is from 1980. skyman8081 07:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars was first released on video in 1982, so it is highly unlikely that a laserdisc was available in 1980. 17.201.38.216 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Han Shot First: repeated topic

Please note that I am not entering into the discussion about whether or not Han shot first. However, I have noticed that the topic is summarised in some detail in several places in the article: First off in 1997 Special Editions (Theatrical, Laserdisc and VHS) - Lengthy summary of main article, directs reader to main article. Mentioned again in 1997 Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition A New Hope - description of change from earlier release, directs reader to main article Last mention in Controversy - Lengthy summary of main article, directs reader to main article. Now, I do believe that there should be a summary of the change, and also a brief summary of the controversy surrounding it, along with a link to the main article. However, what we have here is an over-kill (no pun intended). Any suggestions as to which bits we keep and which bits we lose? StephenBuxton 11:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that someone with a bit more experience in editing would have had a go at this, but no one has. I've had a bash at combining and removing repeated information - hope the end result is ok. StephenBuxton 23:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

This section completely lacks citations and is loaded with weasel words and original research. I've moved it here. Feel free to return it, in part or in whole, once there are reliable sources to back it up. --EEMeltonIV 01:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Many fans were displeased by some of the changes Lucas has made. It is the most evergreen topic for fan criticism of George Lucas and is the most broadly accepted as inspiring legitimate objections. Re-release changes were also the first major cause of the criticism phenomenon that takes a vehemently anti-Lucas stance, known as "Lucas bashing".

Greedo shooting at Han is particularly contentious. In the 2004 Special Edition DVD set the shots are timed to occur almost simultaneously, with Greedo's shot being just a hair faster and with Solo now effectively dodging his head out of the way from the blast. However, many argue that not only should Greedo not have made his shot, but that the scene undermines Solo's character. Han's original action marked him as a tough, independent-minded character; having him respond to Greedo makes him appear weaker, though he is still nonchalant about killing him. This change was so controversial that it spanned a movement called "Han shot first", a retort to Lucas' assertion that Greedo shot first. George Lucas has been quoted in Entertainment Weekly as saying that this version (where Greedo shoots first) of the scene was meant to be the original, as in the original storyboards (Greedo fires first at Han Solo).

There was also controversy over Lucas's decision to place Hayden Christensen in the end scene of Return of the Jedi in favor of Sebastian Shaw, as well as replacing Jason Wingreen with Temuera Morrison, who played (Jango Fett), as the voice of the heavy fan favorite "Boba Fett". Many longtime fans feel that it's disrespectful to the original trilogy, although some feel that it helps the two trilogies flow together better.

The altering of the dialogue between the Emperor and Vader has also been criticized as creating a contradiction, since it implies Vader does not realize Luke is his son until this moment, despite his being "obsessed" with finding Skywalker, mentioning him by name and pursuing him for the rest of the movie until this point. Defenders have argued that the scene is an improvement because it provides another blatant example of Vader plotting against his master by playing dumb in the face of this revelation.

Other fans especially missed the "songs" that were altered in Return of the Jedi ("Lapti Nek" and "Yub Nub"). They point out that the new music makes the Ewok's dancing and antics seem out of place (for example the "Stormtrooper Helmet drums" were beat in sync with the original music in the theatrical version). Others have argued that the new flute music and pan over shots of the planets being liberated makes a more effective end to the entire saga, rather than just a celebration of the single battle. The alteration of "Lapti Nek" into the new "Jedi Rocks" to many critics helps to undermine the serious nature and threat of Jabba the Hutt and his evil henchmen. They characterize the new sequence as "cartoonish," with overt pandering to Boba Fett "fanboys" by introducing superfluous shots of a new actor in the bounty hunter suit. Some believe the lead singer looks too much like the "Me Want Honeycomb" critter from the popular cereal commercials in the US.

A final alteration, unique to the 2004 DVD release, is that of lightsaber discoloration due to the color/brightness/contrast changes made to the movies for the DVD release. In the scene in Episode IV where Luke trains against the remote aboard the Millennium Falcon, his lightsaber blade is inexplicably given a faint (but distinct) green color. Also, Vader's blade, in particular, is given a "pink" hue throughout the original trilogy. Perhaps the largest infraction is a scene in which two blades are seen to pass "through" one another during the final climax of Episode VI.

Many fans hoped that Lucas would release the original versions of the original Star Wars Trilogy on DVD, alongside his newly re-edited versions. These "Limited Edition" 2-disc sets were released in September 2006.

On December 9, 2005, a new set of Star Wars original trilogy DVDs were released, also with the label "Limited Edition". However, it was merely a repackaged and discounted version of the 2004 set with no changes, and no original versions (despite packaging that some felt was misleading in that it used the original theatrical film posters, as if to imply that these were the original versions). The set was discounted in price, with the fourth (bonus) disc from the previously released 2004 set removed.

Fans and critics alike continue to speculate that Lucas will make further changes to his films (both trilogies) for inevitable subsequent releases on next generation formats like HD DVD and Blu-Ray, and a generation-after-next format whatever this may be, but this remains speculation.

Reportedly, nostalgia for the original versions of the original Star Wars Trilogy on a high quality format has driven up the demand for the Laser Disc editions of the movies released prior to 1997, as well as the proliferation of fan made DVDs, often encoded from the Laser Disc originals. How far the demand will go depends upon sales of the current "official" releases of the original versions of the classic trilogy on DVD. Some fans feel that the release is arguably an "official bootleg," offering the best Lucasfilm could have done given the constraints of over ten year old masters for another video format. However, others argue that had the effort been put for a proper restoration, an excellent high-quality DVD release would have been possible. During these discussions, film restoration expert Robert A. Harris offered his opinions on the issue during extensive discussions on The Home Theater Forum. Fan edit projects generally slam the release or use it as a reference to their efforts.

Controversy edited out?

It seems that, somewhere along the line, an anchor and its related text were deleted from the article; there's still reference to it, though (right there with the "Han shot first" issues fans have), so please see to it that it's reworked, if you can. - RaspK FOG (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me forgetting to see whether my cookies had still kept me logged in. :(

A topic that might be relevant to this article

Hi. I started a discussion concerning the deletion of images that could or would be useful in this article, mainly because they were previously being used in the article on the movie itself. So far, there has been no comments in that thread. If nothing changes, the images will probably be deleted. That being the case, it might be useful for anyone concerned to take a look at it. Thanks, Redux (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be kept

i know people were thinking about deleting it but this is the exact article i was looking for. this page has the information that i need. Wikipedia is about getting information to people, and where else could i find the changes to star wars. please keep this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.102.187 (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

labeling releases

Hey, why don't you label the releases as ver.1.0.0 ver.1.1.0 etc to give the readers a better chance to understand each of the releases? At the end, there can be a list giving its release date and format detail about that release. Also this will help film fans and collectors to easily track and distinguish for what they should look for. Ahmetalperparker (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Because unless Lucasfilm labels the releases in this form, doing so will likely be classified as original research, which is a "no no" per Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Missing CNN 'citations'

At two points in the article, CNN articles are referred to as sources, with a wikilink to the External Links section of the article. They are

In a September 2004 CNN article, Lucas claimed that the original films were "25 to 30 percent" of what he intended. - lead section

Special coverage on CNN in 1997 notes that Lucas spent $10 million to rework his original 1977 film, which was roughly what it cost to film it originally. - 1997 Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition

However, there is no link or citation in the External Links or References sections relating to these articles. Could someone who knows the article identify what happened to these citations and re-add them or alter the article as appropriate? -- saberwyn 08:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Revisited

I'd like to ask posters not remove the Star Wars Revisited notation on the Star Wars Changes section. It is not a promotional edit; promotional material has been removed. This is just the facts of a noteable edit, which has gained as much, if not more, notoriety as the cited Phantom Edit. It's source is cited and the events associated with it have impacted Fan Editing and Star Wars fan edits in general greatly; I think it is significant and relevant to the category it is placed under. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.59.42 (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I am re-posting this. I will continue to do so until someone gives a valid reason that this major event in the fan edit arena, which has gained equal notoriety to the aforementioned Phantom Edit, and which has led to an MPAA crackdown, a noteable event, is not a valid addition to this article. Please CEASE removing it without explanation. It is cited, non-promotional, and an important event in the subject being discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.59.42 (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You have given no reliable sources that this is a "major event" - I've removed the information again, as you need to familiarize yourself with proper reference sources, i.e. articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Fanedit.org is not one of these. Both of the articles you've linked to are primary sources - the first one in particular, as it's written by the "author" of the Star Wars Revisited project himself, the second written directly by the site administrators - neither are impartial sources. If you can source these with reports from independent reliable published sources (this means NOT fanedit.org, not blogs), I have no problem with the addition. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What would be considered 3rd party and reliable in this case? Obviously, CNN doesn't often cover bootlegs. :-) But just because it isn't covered in mass media doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist; it's only likely to be chronicled on fan sites, privately owned, etc. For example: http://www.webpronews.com/ http://techdirt.com/ http://webnewssite.com/ http://www.mediapost.com/ Etc. have covered it extensively, but 'mainstream' journals, sites, etc. don't seem to have picked up the story. However, the wikiguidelines seem rather fuzzy on what makes a source 'reliable' - is there any recourse in a situation like this where the story exists but the websites covering it tend to be minor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.59.42 (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(reposted from my talk page) :You've mentioned several sites above, but no links to actal articles. Searching for "Star Wars Revisted" on WebProNews returned no results, though - same for Techdirt, webnewssite (which is a blog, BTW), and MediaPost (search results link doesn't work). Obviously, the subject is important to you, but just because it's notable to you doesn't necessarily confer notability to the world at large. At one point, you've claimed that Star Wars Revisited "has gained as much, if not more, notoriety as the cited Phantom Edit" - however, that doesn't seem to be the case, as I can quickly find stories on The Phantom Edit in Salon, TheForce.net, National Public Radio, the BBC, NewsAskew, The LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, Entertainment Weekly again, The New York Times, Guardian (UK), [http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-8330193_ITM Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post... and there's more, but I think you get the picture... there just simply isn't the same level of coverage out there for Star Wars Revisited as there has been for the listed projects. There's barely *any* coverage in reliable third-party sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was asking about the general reliability of sites before linking to the articles. They all contain coverage of the MPAA crackdown mentioned elsewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.59.42 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The MPAA crackdown on Fanedit.org isn't relevant to this article, or even mentioned here, apart from your edits. Heck, the entire bootleg section is barely relevant, as the article is about changes to the official re-releases. Your citations about the MPAA thing would be more relevant here than this page. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.158.59.42 (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"GFDL" removals?

An IP's been removing material, and in the edit summary only says "GFDL." What's going on here? Blueboy96 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)