Talk:List of changes in Star Wars re-releases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Star Wars Portal This article is part of WikiProject Star Wars, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. To participate, you can improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

This article was nominated for deletion on July 22, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

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)

Contents 1 Episode 1 2 Criticism? 3 Episode VI end scene original-to-DVD comparisson images 4 Luke & Leia's kiss 5 Lucas' kid in Revenge of the Sith 6 Nonsensical Emperor Hologram rumor 7 Poor quality 8 Return of the Jedi 9 Unclear sentence 10 Next gen format 11 Jango/Boba & silly statement 12 1997 theaterical 13 Episode IV werewolf 14 Episode IV crawl 15 Lucas on originals 16 Update & Redundancy 17 Second DVD release 18 Han/Greedo Shoots First - Image 19 Krayt Dragon 20 How did they know that all these people wanted the originals back? 21 Revenge of the Sith Blu-ray 22 "Theater rips"? 23 "See to him" 24 Male/Female Emperer 25 Episode 3 DVD changes 26 2007 re-releases 27 Original Laserdisc Versions 28 Han Shot First: repeated topic

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

You got pwned, Phil.

[edit] 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? BrianSmithson 17:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Han/Greedo Shoots First - Image

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)