Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (US - DVD R1)
Chris Gould reviews the third and final chapter of the original Star Wars trilogy
Here we are again for this, the sixth and (possibly) final of my Star Wars reviews for DVDActive, and in this instalment I’m going to be looking at the ‘lame duck’ of the original trilogy, the oft-maligned Return of the Jedi. As with the previous review (of The Empire Strikes Back) I’m going to concentrate more on the technical aspects of the release, rather than kicking up a storm over its shortcomings.
A year has passed since Luke Skywalker’s fateful confrontation with Darth Vader, and the young Jedi has journeyed to Tatooine to free Han Solo from the clutches of the vile gangster, Jabba the Hutt. With the aid of Princess Leia, Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian, and the faithful droids R2-D2 and C-3PO, he succeeds in rescuing his friend and putting an end to the crime lord’s reign of terror. Upon their return to the Rebel fleet our heroes learn of the construction of a second, more powerful Death Star, the final stages of which are being supervised by the Emperor himself. In order to destroy the Death Star’s defence systems, Han leads a small team to the forest moon of Endor, while Lando heads up the Rebel fleet, leaving Luke to face Vader and the Emperor alone…
My earlier ‘lame duck’ comment was partially tongue in check, as although Return of the Jedi is generally considered to be the weakest of the original Star Wars movies, I’m actually quite fond of it. It’s easily the most action-packed of the films in the original trilogy, with an exciting opening act and a multi-layered finale that delivers both action and drama. The special effects work is superior to anything seen in the previous films, we are introduced to a variety of new and interesting characters (specifically Jabba and the Emperor), and it serves as a satisfying resolution to the events of the preceding movies. So why does it have such a bad reputation?
There have been many theories put forward to explain Jedi’s supposed inferiority, raging from directorial interference to lack of interest by the actors. The story goes that George Lucas was not happy with director Richard Marquand’s performance, and that Lucas himself actually directed much of the film. There has also been a fair bit made of Harrison Ford’s reluctance to be involved with the project, and some feel that he all-but phoned in his performance. Others are against the inclusion of the second Death Star, citing it as nothing more than a rehash of the first movie’s plot (ex-producer Gary Kurtz is among the detractors). However, perhaps the biggest criticism is of the furry little Ewoks, the presence of which is seen by many as nothing more than a marketing gimmick to sell toys to kids, rather than a genuine plot device.
However, while I can see where people are coming from with these comments, I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. I do agree that there’s a bit of a slump in the middle of the film, but I think this is made all the more obvious because of the tremendous amount of action that surrounds it. I also agree with the comments about Ford—at least to a certain extent—as he’s nowhere near his wise-cracking best. Still, much of this can be explained by the hardships he endures and his character arc—he’s gone from rogue smuggler to self-sacrificing hero. Other than that, I think the film hangs together rather well: there’s plenty of character progression, the performances are no less ‘hammy’ than the previous films and our own history has taught us that it is possible for a technologically inferior people to overcome a technologically superior force.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I really don’t feel that Return of the Jedi deserves half of the flack it gets. Sure there are flaws, but it retains all of the charm, action and excitement that made the other films so great. This is especially true of the original version of the film, which escapes the full-on CGI dance number, Sarlacc beak, Gungans yelling ‘wessa free’ and a demonic looking Hayden Christensen, and I firmly believe this is the third best film in the saga as a whole.
Return of the Jedi is presented in non-anamorphic widescreen at its theatrical ratio of 2.35:1. The rest will be familiar to anyone who has read the previous reviews, as the transfer is plagued by the same issues: lack of resolution, excessive grain, film and digital artefacts, aliasing, telecinie wobble and inconsistent levels. Of the three, Jedi is possibly the most visually impressive, although this probably has more to do with its relative youth than anything else. Unfortunately the film has more alien-language dialogue than either of its predecessors, so viewing using a ‘cinema’ mode on a widescreen display causes some problems. The bottom half of the text is cropped off, and while this probably won’t cause a problem for die-hard fans, it is an annoyance. It’s also a potential deal-breaker for anyone that relies on subtitles to enjoy the film.
The Special Edition is much sharper and more detailed than the original version, and once again this is all down to Lowry’s restoration work and the additional 25% of resolution afforded by the anamorphic enhancement. On the whole things are very impressive, but there are still a few niggles that prevent the transfer from attaining ‘reference quality’ status. For one thing colour rendition is still off in many scenes, particularly in the deserts of Tatooine, where everything seems to have a magenta tint to it (just look at the screen cap). Lightsaber consistency is also the worst in the entire trilogy, with at least one instance where sabers lack their cores and seems to pass through one-another (again shown in a screen cap). I’ve read plenty of speculation about the reasons for this, and the general consensus seems to be that it’s a result of Lucasfilm colour-correcting the film before shipping it off to Lowry for restoration. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still an impressive transfer, but the silly little problems prevent it from attaining true greatness.
Once again the original version of the film is accompanied by a solid Dolby Digital 2.0 Surround track. Dialogue remains relatively clear and consistent throughout (although not as crisp as more recent films), and although the quality and directionality of the matrixed surround channel is once again ‘limited’ in comparison to a fully-fledged discrete mix, there is plenty of rear activity (no sniggering). The exceptional John Williams score is an almost constant presence and there are plenty of neat effects to draw you into the action, with some of the more memorable moments including the breakneck speeder bike chases and the climactic Battle of Endor. Bass is still a little weak compared to what we’re used to nowadays, but it doesn’t really affect the viewing experience. As with the other films in the series, there are numerous aural differences between this version and the Special Edition. For me, one of the biggest selling points for this track is that it features the original Lapti Nek song from Jabba’s palace, rather than the execrable Jedi Rocks. We also get the Ewok’s Yub Nub song playing at the climax of the film, rather than the more laid back victory celebration of the Special Edition, and Han Solo’s ‘trust me’ line is there in place of his ‘I can see a lot better’ line from the SE.
The Special Edition’s Dolby Digital 5.1 EX track is probably the best of the original trilogy releases, as there’s a hell of a lot of action in the third flick. Once again, there are no huge problems to report, and it’s only the changes to the songs that really stand out. I really cannot stress how much I hate the new dance number in Jedi. No really, words fail me. The entire sequence is terrible (hey, lets put the movie on hold for a CGI song and dance routine), but the Jedi Rocks song itself is easily the most offensive part of the whole sorry affair. I’m not particularly troubled by the replacement of Yub Nub with the Victory Celebration music, as the latter fits the revised shots of the galactic celebrations better than a bunch of Ewoks singing about ‘celebrating the love’. The only dialogue change I noticed in this one was the aforementioned line about ‘seeing a lot better’, rather than the traditional ‘trust me’. I find both to be quite humorous given the situation that Han is in at the time.
As I’ve now covered this in two separate reviews, I'll keep things very brief. The menus for the 2004 edition are extremely well-rendered, and include footage from Tatooine, Endor and the Death Star II. Each of the sub-menus expands upon the theme of the main menus to create a pleasant navigational experience. The bonus disc is disappointing by comparison, with a short animation giving way to a bunch of static menus. Thankfully these are accompanied by a great selection of music from the film. This time, the main menu displays the ‘Revenge of the Jedi’ style poster art.
As with the previous releases, disc two contains the original, unaltered version of Return of the Jedi, along with a demo and trailer for the Xbox version of Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy. The bonus material on disc one is again a direct port of the disc found in the boxed set releases, which means another dry commentary from George Lucas, Ben Burtt, Carrie Fisher and Denis Muren. The rest of the extras are again DVD-Rom oriented, and include links to the standard and DVD-specific Star Wars websites. Guess what? That DVD site still didn’t work…
Return of the Jedi is probably just about deserving of its reputation as the weakest of the original films, but I thoroughly enjoyed watching it again in its entirety after a long period away. The Special Edition all-but killed my enthusiasm for the film, with its needless CGI additions and changes intended to tie it into the prequels, so it was a real treat to see Sebastian Shaw’s warm, loving smile at the end of the movie (rather than the embarrassed, child molester look given by Hayden Christensen). If you happen to disagree with me on this point, you might want to check out Bryan Rickert’s review of the Special Edition from way back in 2004.
I was again disappointed by the quality of the original, unaltered release of the film on DVD, but I guess I should have expected it after three reviews. While the transfer is slightly cleaner than the other films, it’s still non-anamorphic and so inferior to pretty much every commercially available DVD on the market. The lack of extras is also a fairly large blow, and even the commentary track from the Laserdisc release would have helped bump up the score a little. I’ve still no real complaints about the audio, as it’s reasonably faithful to the track you would most likely have heard back in theatres in the early eighties, but this is not enough for me to recommend the disc based on its technical merits alone. Ultimately the decision whether or not to buy this release will come down to how much love you have for the film, Ewoks and all.
1983
2004
Feature
A year has passed since Luke Skywalker’s fateful confrontation with Darth Vader, and the young Jedi has journeyed to Tatooine to free Han Solo from the clutches of the vile gangster, Jabba the Hutt. With the aid of Princess Leia, Chewbacca, Lando Calrissian, and the faithful droids R2-D2 and C-3PO, he succeeds in rescuing his friend and putting an end to the crime lord’s reign of terror. Upon their return to the Rebel fleet our heroes learn of the construction of a second, more powerful Death Star, the final stages of which are being supervised by the Emperor himself. In order to destroy the Death Star’s defence systems, Han leads a small team to the forest moon of Endor, while Lando heads up the Rebel fleet, leaving Luke to face Vader and the Emperor alone…
My earlier ‘lame duck’ comment was partially tongue in check, as although Return of the Jedi is generally considered to be the weakest of the original Star Wars movies, I’m actually quite fond of it. It’s easily the most action-packed of the films in the original trilogy, with an exciting opening act and a multi-layered finale that delivers both action and drama. The special effects work is superior to anything seen in the previous films, we are introduced to a variety of new and interesting characters (specifically Jabba and the Emperor), and it serves as a satisfying resolution to the events of the preceding movies. So why does it have such a bad reputation?
1983
2004
There have been many theories put forward to explain Jedi’s supposed inferiority, raging from directorial interference to lack of interest by the actors. The story goes that George Lucas was not happy with director Richard Marquand’s performance, and that Lucas himself actually directed much of the film. There has also been a fair bit made of Harrison Ford’s reluctance to be involved with the project, and some feel that he all-but phoned in his performance. Others are against the inclusion of the second Death Star, citing it as nothing more than a rehash of the first movie’s plot (ex-producer Gary Kurtz is among the detractors). However, perhaps the biggest criticism is of the furry little Ewoks, the presence of which is seen by many as nothing more than a marketing gimmick to sell toys to kids, rather than a genuine plot device.
However, while I can see where people are coming from with these comments, I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. I do agree that there’s a bit of a slump in the middle of the film, but I think this is made all the more obvious because of the tremendous amount of action that surrounds it. I also agree with the comments about Ford—at least to a certain extent—as he’s nowhere near his wise-cracking best. Still, much of this can be explained by the hardships he endures and his character arc—he’s gone from rogue smuggler to self-sacrificing hero. Other than that, I think the film hangs together rather well: there’s plenty of character progression, the performances are no less ‘hammy’ than the previous films and our own history has taught us that it is possible for a technologically inferior people to overcome a technologically superior force.
1983
2004
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I really don’t feel that Return of the Jedi deserves half of the flack it gets. Sure there are flaws, but it retains all of the charm, action and excitement that made the other films so great. This is especially true of the original version of the film, which escapes the full-on CGI dance number, Sarlacc beak, Gungans yelling ‘wessa free’ and a demonic looking Hayden Christensen, and I firmly believe this is the third best film in the saga as a whole.
Video
Return of the Jedi is presented in non-anamorphic widescreen at its theatrical ratio of 2.35:1. The rest will be familiar to anyone who has read the previous reviews, as the transfer is plagued by the same issues: lack of resolution, excessive grain, film and digital artefacts, aliasing, telecinie wobble and inconsistent levels. Of the three, Jedi is possibly the most visually impressive, although this probably has more to do with its relative youth than anything else. Unfortunately the film has more alien-language dialogue than either of its predecessors, so viewing using a ‘cinema’ mode on a widescreen display causes some problems. The bottom half of the text is cropped off, and while this probably won’t cause a problem for die-hard fans, it is an annoyance. It’s also a potential deal-breaker for anyone that relies on subtitles to enjoy the film.
1983
2004
The Special Edition is much sharper and more detailed than the original version, and once again this is all down to Lowry’s restoration work and the additional 25% of resolution afforded by the anamorphic enhancement. On the whole things are very impressive, but there are still a few niggles that prevent the transfer from attaining ‘reference quality’ status. For one thing colour rendition is still off in many scenes, particularly in the deserts of Tatooine, where everything seems to have a magenta tint to it (just look at the screen cap). Lightsaber consistency is also the worst in the entire trilogy, with at least one instance where sabers lack their cores and seems to pass through one-another (again shown in a screen cap). I’ve read plenty of speculation about the reasons for this, and the general consensus seems to be that it’s a result of Lucasfilm colour-correcting the film before shipping it off to Lowry for restoration. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still an impressive transfer, but the silly little problems prevent it from attaining true greatness.
Audio
Once again the original version of the film is accompanied by a solid Dolby Digital 2.0 Surround track. Dialogue remains relatively clear and consistent throughout (although not as crisp as more recent films), and although the quality and directionality of the matrixed surround channel is once again ‘limited’ in comparison to a fully-fledged discrete mix, there is plenty of rear activity (no sniggering). The exceptional John Williams score is an almost constant presence and there are plenty of neat effects to draw you into the action, with some of the more memorable moments including the breakneck speeder bike chases and the climactic Battle of Endor. Bass is still a little weak compared to what we’re used to nowadays, but it doesn’t really affect the viewing experience. As with the other films in the series, there are numerous aural differences between this version and the Special Edition. For me, one of the biggest selling points for this track is that it features the original Lapti Nek song from Jabba’s palace, rather than the execrable Jedi Rocks. We also get the Ewok’s Yub Nub song playing at the climax of the film, rather than the more laid back victory celebration of the Special Edition, and Han Solo’s ‘trust me’ line is there in place of his ‘I can see a lot better’ line from the SE.
1983
2004
The Special Edition’s Dolby Digital 5.1 EX track is probably the best of the original trilogy releases, as there’s a hell of a lot of action in the third flick. Once again, there are no huge problems to report, and it’s only the changes to the songs that really stand out. I really cannot stress how much I hate the new dance number in Jedi. No really, words fail me. The entire sequence is terrible (hey, lets put the movie on hold for a CGI song and dance routine), but the Jedi Rocks song itself is easily the most offensive part of the whole sorry affair. I’m not particularly troubled by the replacement of Yub Nub with the Victory Celebration music, as the latter fits the revised shots of the galactic celebrations better than a bunch of Ewoks singing about ‘celebrating the love’. The only dialogue change I noticed in this one was the aforementioned line about ‘seeing a lot better’, rather than the traditional ‘trust me’. I find both to be quite humorous given the situation that Han is in at the time.
1983
2004
Extras
As I’ve now covered this in two separate reviews, I'll keep things very brief. The menus for the 2004 edition are extremely well-rendered, and include footage from Tatooine, Endor and the Death Star II. Each of the sub-menus expands upon the theme of the main menus to create a pleasant navigational experience. The bonus disc is disappointing by comparison, with a short animation giving way to a bunch of static menus. Thankfully these are accompanied by a great selection of music from the film. This time, the main menu displays the ‘Revenge of the Jedi’ style poster art.
As with the previous releases, disc two contains the original, unaltered version of Return of the Jedi, along with a demo and trailer for the Xbox version of Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy. The bonus material on disc one is again a direct port of the disc found in the boxed set releases, which means another dry commentary from George Lucas, Ben Burtt, Carrie Fisher and Denis Muren. The rest of the extras are again DVD-Rom oriented, and include links to the standard and DVD-specific Star Wars websites. Guess what? That DVD site still didn’t work…
1983
2004
Overall
Return of the Jedi is probably just about deserving of its reputation as the weakest of the original films, but I thoroughly enjoyed watching it again in its entirety after a long period away. The Special Edition all-but killed my enthusiasm for the film, with its needless CGI additions and changes intended to tie it into the prequels, so it was a real treat to see Sebastian Shaw’s warm, loving smile at the end of the movie (rather than the embarrassed, child molester look given by Hayden Christensen). If you happen to disagree with me on this point, you might want to check out Bryan Rickert’s review of the Special Edition from way back in 2004.
I was again disappointed by the quality of the original, unaltered release of the film on DVD, but I guess I should have expected it after three reviews. While the transfer is slightly cleaner than the other films, it’s still non-anamorphic and so inferior to pretty much every commercially available DVD on the market. The lack of extras is also a fairly large blow, and even the commentary track from the Laserdisc release would have helped bump up the score a little. I’ve still no real complaints about the audio, as it’s reasonably faithful to the track you would most likely have heard back in theatres in the early eighties, but this is not enough for me to recommend the disc based on its technical merits alone. Ultimately the decision whether or not to buy this release will come down to how much love you have for the film, Ewoks and all.
Review by Chris Gould
Advertisements
I simply cannot understand how anyone can rate any of the prequels higher than the original film...
It is real easy Chris.......film is a subjective art and no one person has the same set of eyes and expectations as another.
I still have fun watching ANH to this day, I destinctly remember the excitement of seeing it for the first time in August 1977, going out afterwards and "playing" Star Wars with my friends. But when you take off the fanboy glasses and view the film objectively, it isn't the Holy Grail that it is made out to be (at least in my opinion).
It is a fun film, but lordy, it isn't something that is flawless or without need of some improvements here and there (exposition that slows it to a crawl. The rescue and battle at the end being the only parts that keep you from being totally bored). That is why I have no issue with the SE's, especially with ANH, I think it has helped to improve the effects and make it even more fun to watch.
I think all the attention to color of light sabers, quality of this or that image, a sound being in the front right speaker instead of in the rear left surround and other stuff is, in my opinion, takes the fun out of watching the film. I am glad that I still just see these films as fun entertainment, not some sacred relic that you put under the microscope and can't have as much as a spec of anything done to it or it some how is "tainted". I know that kind of thinking pisses folks off that feel otherwise. I personally go to the movies to be entertained, not to have a golden idol to worship. But that is just how I approach movies, I know others feel differently and that is cool. The fun of the movies!
This might sound crazy, but ANH helps me to enjoy say ROTS that much more because of the realization of all the exposition introduced in ANH.
Back on ROTJ, all this talk made me go back and watch it again last night. Still hate that damn music sequence in Jabba's layer and still think it is filled up with too many creatures. But it has never looked and sounded better. It is still in my opinion the weakest of the original trilogy and by far, my least favorite of all the SW films, but by no means a film that I don't enjoy and it ranks in my top 20 films all time. Just doesn't rank high went compared to the other SW films.
I still have fun watching ANH to this day, I destinctly remember the excitement of seeing it for the first time in August 1977, going out afterwards and "playing" Star Wars with my friends. But when you take off the fanboy glasses and view the film objectively, it isn't the Holy Grail that it is made out to be (at least in my opinion).
It is a fun film, but lordy, it isn't something that is flawless or without need of some improvements here and there (exposition that slows it to a crawl. The rescue and battle at the end being the only parts that keep you from being totally bored). That is why I have no issue with the SE's, especially with ANH, I think it has helped to improve the effects and make it even more fun to watch.
I think all the attention to color of light sabers, quality of this or that image, a sound being in the front right speaker instead of in the rear left surround and other stuff is, in my opinion, takes the fun out of watching the film. I am glad that I still just see these films as fun entertainment, not some sacred relic that you put under the microscope and can't have as much as a spec of anything done to it or it some how is "tainted". I know that kind of thinking pisses folks off that feel otherwise. I personally go to the movies to be entertained, not to have a golden idol to worship. But that is just how I approach movies, I know others feel differently and that is cool. The fun of the movies!
This might sound crazy, but ANH helps me to enjoy say ROTS that much more because of the realization of all the exposition introduced in ANH.
Back on ROTJ, all this talk made me go back and watch it again last night. Still hate that damn music sequence in Jabba's layer and still think it is filled up with too many creatures. But it has never looked and sounded better. It is still in my opinion the weakest of the original trilogy and by far, my least favorite of all the SW films, but by no means a film that I don't enjoy and it ranks in my top 20 films all time. Just doesn't rank high went compared to the other SW films.
*Shudders*
"A New Hope/Episode IV"
Still makes me cringe every time I hear someone say it in real life
"A New Hope/Episode IV"
Still makes me cringe every time I hear someone say it in real life
LLcruize wrote: It is real easy Chris.......film is a subjective art and no one person has the same set of eyes and expectations as another.
Um yeah, I know that. Tongue firmly in cheek and al that. BTW, the added bits to ANH actually screwed up the pacing and added yet more needless exposition, but you say you prefer it to the original. Isn't that sort of contradictory?
I think a lot of people forget that this is a DVD review site, not a film review site. That's why we point out stuff like translucent lightsabers and incorrectly mixed audio - it's kind of the point of reviews. I guess we could be like 99% of the other sites out there, who sum up their video and audio sections in about two lines, but personally I find them all useless when it comes to ascertaining the quality of a particular release. You might as well buy a print mag if you're only interested in a film review and a list of the specs...
Um yeah, I know that. Tongue firmly in cheek and al that. BTW, the added bits to ANH actually screwed up the pacing and added yet more needless exposition, but you say you prefer it to the original. Isn't that sort of contradictory?
I think a lot of people forget that this is a DVD review site, not a film review site. That's why we point out stuff like translucent lightsabers and incorrectly mixed audio - it's kind of the point of reviews. I guess we could be like 99% of the other sites out there, who sum up their video and audio sections in about two lines, but personally I find them all useless when it comes to ascertaining the quality of a particular release. You might as well buy a print mag if you're only interested in a film review and a list of the specs...
kevy . wrote: *Shudders*
"A New Hope/Episode IV"
Still makes me cringe every time I hear someone say it in real life
Ha ha...me too. I'll never think of or refer to the original films in that way.
"A New Hope/Episode IV"
Still makes me cringe every time I hear someone say it in real life
Ha ha...me too. I'll never think of or refer to the original films in that way.
Chris Gould wrote: LLcruize wrote: It is real easy Chris.......film is a subjective art and no one person has the same set of eyes and expectations as another.
Um yeah, I know that. Tongue firmly in cheek and al that. BTW, the added bits to ANH actually screwed up the pacing and added yet more needless exposition, but you say you prefer it to the original. Isn't that sort of contradictory?
But see, Chris, I think you're missing the point of the statement that you highlighted above - film is subjective. What you think messes up pacing may not be what someone else feels; they may feel it's an added improvement. To somehow say definatively that some aspect was "screwed" up because of changes is an egocentric statement...it may be screwed up in your eyes, but not to someone else.
And totally off topic, but what was added to ANH that added more exposition? The only thing I can think of is the added Jabba/Han scene, and that was throwaway at best.
But I can totally understand LLcruize's point about these films being held to insermountable standards...they're movies, take 'em for what they're worth - entertainment. With that in mind I can totally see where someone finds 'Sith' better than 'Hope' - it's story was leagues deeper than the breezy EPISODE IV...but then again, as the original poster makes clear - film is subjective. You may think otherwise, and that's fine.
Um yeah, I know that. Tongue firmly in cheek and al that. BTW, the added bits to ANH actually screwed up the pacing and added yet more needless exposition, but you say you prefer it to the original. Isn't that sort of contradictory?
But see, Chris, I think you're missing the point of the statement that you highlighted above - film is subjective. What you think messes up pacing may not be what someone else feels; they may feel it's an added improvement. To somehow say definatively that some aspect was "screwed" up because of changes is an egocentric statement...it may be screwed up in your eyes, but not to someone else.
And totally off topic, but what was added to ANH that added more exposition? The only thing I can think of is the added Jabba/Han scene, and that was throwaway at best.
But I can totally understand LLcruize's point about these films being held to insermountable standards...they're movies, take 'em for what they're worth - entertainment. With that in mind I can totally see where someone finds 'Sith' better than 'Hope' - it's story was leagues deeper than the breezy EPISODE IV...but then again, as the original poster makes clear - film is subjective. You may think otherwise, and that's fine.
The Sarlacc was one of the lamest choices to change. As a kid I always imagined that there was some awful thing down inside that pit that would digest you for 1000 years. Now in the 2004 version we get to see that this terrible thing was only a giant worm. My imagination cooked up a much better image than that, a toothless worm.
ticktock wrote: But see, Chris, I think you're missing the point of the statement that you highlighted above - film is subjective. What you think messes up pacing may not be what someone else feels; they may feel it's an added improvement. To somehow say definatively that some aspect was "screwed" up because of changes is an egocentric statement...it may be screwed up in your eyes, but not to someone else.
Oh Christ, here we go again. I'm not missing any point - I fully understand that film (and indeed most things in life) is subjective. However, he said that he felt that ANH had 'exposition that slows it to a crawl', and that the SE was better. I find that contradictory because, as you pointed out, the SE includes a totally redundant scene with the CGI Jabba (we learn nothing that the Han/Greedo encounter didn't tell us) and loads of long, pointless CGI shots with comedy Jawas etc. There's also the re-instated Biggs scene. I never said he's not entitled to his opinion, but I find it odd that he prefers the longer, more bloated version to the tighter version given his comments.
I'm always amused by people stating I'm 'definitively' claiming that the originals are better. What I'm doing is no different than any other reviewer (or visitor to these boards); I'm giving my opinion of the film. That's all it is. I may not understand why people have differing views, and hell I may even argue my point to see if I can sway them at times, but I have never said that my point of view is the only valid one. Unless of course it's a technical point, because if people start saying that anamorphic enhancement doesn't matter, or that I shouldn't care about flaws in the DVDs, I'll take issue with it. Those people clearly aren't interested in reading a detailed analysis of the DVD, and would probably be better off sticking to a pure film review site.
Oh Christ, here we go again. I'm not missing any point - I fully understand that film (and indeed most things in life) is subjective. However, he said that he felt that ANH had 'exposition that slows it to a crawl', and that the SE was better. I find that contradictory because, as you pointed out, the SE includes a totally redundant scene with the CGI Jabba (we learn nothing that the Han/Greedo encounter didn't tell us) and loads of long, pointless CGI shots with comedy Jawas etc. There's also the re-instated Biggs scene. I never said he's not entitled to his opinion, but I find it odd that he prefers the longer, more bloated version to the tighter version given his comments.
I'm always amused by people stating I'm 'definitively' claiming that the originals are better. What I'm doing is no different than any other reviewer (or visitor to these boards); I'm giving my opinion of the film. That's all it is. I may not understand why people have differing views, and hell I may even argue my point to see if I can sway them at times, but I have never said that my point of view is the only valid one. Unless of course it's a technical point, because if people start saying that anamorphic enhancement doesn't matter, or that I shouldn't care about flaws in the DVDs, I'll take issue with it. Those people clearly aren't interested in reading a detailed analysis of the DVD, and would probably be better off sticking to a pure film review site.
I totally get what this site is about Chris; hence why I love visiting and checking out the reviews. My commentary is what I see as being rediculously technical nit picks/expectations of this film series that other films/DVD's are not held to because this film series is held up as some golden calf to be worshiped. Personally I wish it was held up as what it was intended to be; fun entertainment. Is a light saber's glow really a technical flaw or a personal preference? The same with what sound is coming from which speaker or at what level? Again, is this film's technical aspects overly critiqued? That is what i'm saying/asking. My personal opinion of that is yes.
I expect technical reviews from this site. That is why I called foul when the "best of" for 2005 lists were released here. Batman Begins made the list of most everyone, but Sith didn't. Why? Because folks were rating the FILM, not the DVD. From a TECHNICAL aspect, ROTS kicked Begins arse all over the place. That is not just my personal opinion, but most TECHNICAL reviews I saw of Sith for last year rated its sound and image the best of any new DVD put out. Beyond the sound and image quality, the extras on Sith were far more plentiful and superior to Begins. So not to debate you on the reviews here being different than every other site, but that is a prime example of how the SW films are held to standards/prejudged harshly on a technical side in comparison to other films released to DVD.
As ticktock mentioned, the two actual scene additions to ANH amount to 2 minutes total (Jabba & Biggs). Everything else is effects enhancements/corrections, which are what I feel help to improve the film. Checking the runtime on each, the SE shows the runtime being 123 minutes, the VHS of the untouched versions lists 124 minutes. How the blazes that is I don't know, but the point being the SE doesn't add any consequential exposition time compared to the original theatrical, but the effects addtions/clean up help make it better in my opinion.
I am REALLY going to get in trouble for this next statement, but the so called tainting of Han's character in the infamous altered Greedo shooting segment, to me, is not the tell-all character scene for Han that a portion of the fanbase makes it out to be. The idea that Han shooting first rather than Greedo is the only proof that he is one steely cold smuggler is laughable. He did what he needed to for self-preservation. That same character trait, doing what he must to survive, is showcased again and again throughout the film from different angles. We see the unselfish side of this character trait when he runs down a group of Stormtroopers so others can escape. We then see the selfish side when he takes his reward and leaves to pay off his debt rather than stay to help (though he shows his loyalty to friends by returning). These two examples (and not the only ones by any stretch) are much better and more telling examples of his ability to survive than if he shoots first, last or not at all against Greedo. You say that the additional scene with Jabba is pointless, yet it showcases Han being just as cold, cocky and self-preserving as the infamous Greedo scene, in my opinion.
I have digressed above and I apologize. But I wanted to make clear what I am saying about the SW films/DVDs in general.
Back to subject, I agree trstno1, I think Lucas didn't need to add the beek to the Sarlacc. He did a similar thing in Empire by adding more looks at the snow monster. I think that enhancement worked a lot better than the Jedi addition. We already saw the snow monster so getting a longer peek wasn't a big deal, but with the Sarlacc, there was more left to the imagination as to what was inside of it. I understand Lucas' desire to make it more than just a hole in the ground with some tenticles, but I think he could have just enhanced how it looked on the outside and left the inside to our imaginations. It is not an addition that doesn't ruin anything for me, but one that I agree needed to be better realized.
The one other complaint I have against Jedi, and this has nothing to do with the technical additions. It is the fact that Boba went out like a punk. At least in Clones we got to see his father Jango go out with a fight against the 2nd most powerful Jedi counsel member. But ole Boba going out by an accidental slap on the rocket pack by a blinded Han has always made me mad. If it were me, I would have had Boba survive the exploding barge and turn up later on Endor where he and Han have a final showdown.
Just for the record, I love this site and it is the only site out of the hundreds available that review DVD's on the net that I frequent. I hope my comments are not seen as b***hing, negative or unappreciative. They are just my views and opinions.
I grew up with the original Star Wars films, they were and continue to be a huge part of why I love movies. The prequels I have the same affection for. I have a distinct memory of each and every first viewing of every Star Wars film. There is no other franchise which I have that kind of connection to. So I don't comment on these DVD's out of some fleeting appreciation. I love the entire franchise of Star Wars films for the fun and adventure they have helped me share with my parents and friends in the 70's and early 80's and now with my own children in the late 90's and early 2000's. I think in all this madness of technology, we forget just how much fun these films can be .
What Chris and the others do here is a lot of work and for someone like me who isn't a total DVD geek, but close enough, I appreciate the time and effort put into the reviews. It is why I frequent here. And as you put it Chris, you guys do offer more than just a review of films, but give the DVD's a good disecting. These reviews such as this one for ROTJ are fantastic and though I post about us not needing to worry about all the "small stuff", the effort is much appreciated and why I spend time reading and commenting on them.
Anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there. It is hard to get across your true feelings and intent sometimes through these posts.
I expect technical reviews from this site. That is why I called foul when the "best of" for 2005 lists were released here. Batman Begins made the list of most everyone, but Sith didn't. Why? Because folks were rating the FILM, not the DVD. From a TECHNICAL aspect, ROTS kicked Begins arse all over the place. That is not just my personal opinion, but most TECHNICAL reviews I saw of Sith for last year rated its sound and image the best of any new DVD put out. Beyond the sound and image quality, the extras on Sith were far more plentiful and superior to Begins. So not to debate you on the reviews here being different than every other site, but that is a prime example of how the SW films are held to standards/prejudged harshly on a technical side in comparison to other films released to DVD.
As ticktock mentioned, the two actual scene additions to ANH amount to 2 minutes total (Jabba & Biggs). Everything else is effects enhancements/corrections, which are what I feel help to improve the film. Checking the runtime on each, the SE shows the runtime being 123 minutes, the VHS of the untouched versions lists 124 minutes. How the blazes that is I don't know, but the point being the SE doesn't add any consequential exposition time compared to the original theatrical, but the effects addtions/clean up help make it better in my opinion.
I am REALLY going to get in trouble for this next statement, but the so called tainting of Han's character in the infamous altered Greedo shooting segment, to me, is not the tell-all character scene for Han that a portion of the fanbase makes it out to be. The idea that Han shooting first rather than Greedo is the only proof that he is one steely cold smuggler is laughable. He did what he needed to for self-preservation. That same character trait, doing what he must to survive, is showcased again and again throughout the film from different angles. We see the unselfish side of this character trait when he runs down a group of Stormtroopers so others can escape. We then see the selfish side when he takes his reward and leaves to pay off his debt rather than stay to help (though he shows his loyalty to friends by returning). These two examples (and not the only ones by any stretch) are much better and more telling examples of his ability to survive than if he shoots first, last or not at all against Greedo. You say that the additional scene with Jabba is pointless, yet it showcases Han being just as cold, cocky and self-preserving as the infamous Greedo scene, in my opinion.
I have digressed above and I apologize. But I wanted to make clear what I am saying about the SW films/DVDs in general.
Back to subject, I agree trstno1, I think Lucas didn't need to add the beek to the Sarlacc. He did a similar thing in Empire by adding more looks at the snow monster. I think that enhancement worked a lot better than the Jedi addition. We already saw the snow monster so getting a longer peek wasn't a big deal, but with the Sarlacc, there was more left to the imagination as to what was inside of it. I understand Lucas' desire to make it more than just a hole in the ground with some tenticles, but I think he could have just enhanced how it looked on the outside and left the inside to our imaginations. It is not an addition that doesn't ruin anything for me, but one that I agree needed to be better realized.
The one other complaint I have against Jedi, and this has nothing to do with the technical additions. It is the fact that Boba went out like a punk. At least in Clones we got to see his father Jango go out with a fight against the 2nd most powerful Jedi counsel member. But ole Boba going out by an accidental slap on the rocket pack by a blinded Han has always made me mad. If it were me, I would have had Boba survive the exploding barge and turn up later on Endor where he and Han have a final showdown.
Just for the record, I love this site and it is the only site out of the hundreds available that review DVD's on the net that I frequent. I hope my comments are not seen as b***hing, negative or unappreciative. They are just my views and opinions.
I grew up with the original Star Wars films, they were and continue to be a huge part of why I love movies. The prequels I have the same affection for. I have a distinct memory of each and every first viewing of every Star Wars film. There is no other franchise which I have that kind of connection to. So I don't comment on these DVD's out of some fleeting appreciation. I love the entire franchise of Star Wars films for the fun and adventure they have helped me share with my parents and friends in the 70's and early 80's and now with my own children in the late 90's and early 2000's. I think in all this madness of technology, we forget just how much fun these films can be .
What Chris and the others do here is a lot of work and for someone like me who isn't a total DVD geek, but close enough, I appreciate the time and effort put into the reviews. It is why I frequent here. And as you put it Chris, you guys do offer more than just a review of films, but give the DVD's a good disecting. These reviews such as this one for ROTJ are fantastic and though I post about us not needing to worry about all the "small stuff", the effort is much appreciated and why I spend time reading and commenting on them.
Anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there. It is hard to get across your true feelings and intent sometimes through these posts.
That bad music in Jabba's Palace.
Everybody keeps forgetting that scene wher Luke battles the creature in the pit while Jabba watches. In the original cut, there were thick white outlines around where Luke was super-imposed, and the composition looked very pale and flat colored. In the special edition, no changes were made. However, in the 2004 DVD version, this scene has been digitally restored, and the cheap super-imposing has been fixed, so now Luke looks more like he belongs in the shot. Also, when he runs past the creature and we see its legs, they no longer are outlined. You'll be amazed oncew you notice how much better the 2004 version of that scene is!
Does anybody else miss that tune that Sy Snootles sings in the original version? I want a restored version with everything else already on the DVD except with a remastered version of that song sequence. Nobody needs to hear a goofy jazz song with rubbery CGI characters. I miss the old Max Rebo band!
Does anybody else miss that tune that Sy Snootles sings in the original version? I want a restored version with everything else already on the DVD except with a remastered version of that song sequence. Nobody needs to hear a goofy jazz song with rubbery CGI characters. I miss the old Max Rebo band!
To LLcruise, I have absolutely no problem with you or anything you’ve said. I made a throwaway comment that was never intended to be taken the way it was. How many times have you said ‘I don’t believe it’ or ‘I don’t understand it’, when in actual fact you both believe and understand perfectly? It’s a figure of speech, nothing more. If you look back over my posts on this site you’ll see that I argue the point about subjectivity myself, so of course I ‘understand’ it in the literal sense. I know a lot of people aren’t bothered by the changes to these films, but I am. Seeing as I’m the one doing the reviewing, they’re going to get mentioned, but I don’t really have any feelings either way about other people’s preferences. I don’t need others to tell me what I enjoy, and there are plenty of like-minded individuals out there for me to converse with.
However, I disagree about the technical aspects. I try to analyse every disc I get as thoroughly as possible. Sometimes I can’t go into as much detail as I’d like because I’m unfamiliar with the film, but I do try to do some research for each title and judge accordingly. At other times I’m extremely familiar with a film, and as such I’m in a position to give a very in-depth appraisal of the technical aspects of the release. The Star Wars films are the best example of this. I know more about them than is probably healthy and therefore I pick the DVDs to bits, mostly for other people who are as demanding as I am. If you’re not, hey that’s fine, but I get annoyed when some people start having a go for ‘nit picking’. I do it with every title I review, but it only seems to be the Star Wars reviews that bring out the haters (hence my somewhat hostile responses to certain posts).
Oh, and I did include Sith in my top ten of 2005, based purely on its technical accomplishments, and I got a load of stick for that as well…
However, I disagree about the technical aspects. I try to analyse every disc I get as thoroughly as possible. Sometimes I can’t go into as much detail as I’d like because I’m unfamiliar with the film, but I do try to do some research for each title and judge accordingly. At other times I’m extremely familiar with a film, and as such I’m in a position to give a very in-depth appraisal of the technical aspects of the release. The Star Wars films are the best example of this. I know more about them than is probably healthy and therefore I pick the DVDs to bits, mostly for other people who are as demanding as I am. If you’re not, hey that’s fine, but I get annoyed when some people start having a go for ‘nit picking’. I do it with every title I review, but it only seems to be the Star Wars reviews that bring out the haters (hence my somewhat hostile responses to certain posts).
Oh, and I did include Sith in my top ten of 2005, based purely on its technical accomplishments, and I got a load of stick for that as well…
Understand Chris. The reason I commented on the nit picking is for the same reason; I am very familiar with these films, more so than others. We are of the same mindset, though yours pushes you to look at the films in a more critial stance and mine is more to defend them. Lets face it, SW, either old school trilogy or the prequels, always offers up a buffet of commentary 
Yeah, I know you did put Sith in your top 10. And it is absolutely rediculous that you get a load of stick for it. It WAS/IS one of the top 10 from 2005.
Yeah, I know you did put Sith in your top 10. And it is absolutely rediculous that you get a load of stick for it. It WAS/IS one of the top 10 from 2005.
Chris Gould wrote:
However, he said that he felt that ANH had 'exposition that slows it to a crawl', and that the SE was better. I find that contradictory because, as you pointed out, the SE includes a totally redundant scene with the CGI Jabba (we learn nothing that the Han/Greedo encounter didn't tell us) and loads of long, pointless CGI shots with comedy Jawas etc. There's also the re-instated Biggs scene.
Errr, first off there is no "re-instated Biggs scene"...the scene was originally shot but is not included in the '97 nor the '04 Special Editions, so I don't really know what you're talking about there. Secondly, added CGI shots and comedic scenes are not exposition; exposition by definition is backstory and so this does not apply. So basically what we're left with is the one-minute-forty-two second Han/Jabba scene. And while he said ANH had "exposition that slows it to a crawl," he no where said that the SPECIAL EDITIONS improved on the fact (I think his comment about the SE being better was for the video/technical enhancements).
But, seriously, I'd really like for you to point out that Biggs sequence...
However, he said that he felt that ANH had 'exposition that slows it to a crawl', and that the SE was better. I find that contradictory because, as you pointed out, the SE includes a totally redundant scene with the CGI Jabba (we learn nothing that the Han/Greedo encounter didn't tell us) and loads of long, pointless CGI shots with comedy Jawas etc. There's also the re-instated Biggs scene.
Errr, first off there is no "re-instated Biggs scene"...the scene was originally shot but is not included in the '97 nor the '04 Special Editions, so I don't really know what you're talking about there. Secondly, added CGI shots and comedic scenes are not exposition; exposition by definition is backstory and so this does not apply. So basically what we're left with is the one-minute-forty-two second Han/Jabba scene. And while he said ANH had "exposition that slows it to a crawl," he no where said that the SPECIAL EDITIONS improved on the fact (I think his comment about the SE being better was for the video/technical enhancements).
But, seriously, I'd really like for you to point out that Biggs sequence...
Appreciate the backup there ticktock, but the Biggs scene is reinstated on the 2004 boxset DVD version. It comes right after Leia gives ole Luke a peck on the cheek for good luck/console after Han has decided to leave with his reward.
ticktock wrote: Errr, first off there is no "re-instated Biggs scene"...the scene was originally shot but is not included in the '97 nor the '04 Special Editions, so I don't really know what you're talking about there. Secondly, added CGI shots and comedic scenes are not exposition; exposition by definition is backstory and so this does not apply. So basically what we're left with is the one-minute-forty-two second Han/Jabba scene. And while he said ANH had "exposition that slows it to a crawl," he no where said that the SPECIAL EDITIONS improved on the fact (I think his comment about the SE being better was for the video/technical enhancements).
But, seriously, I'd really like for you to point out that Biggs sequence...
Feeling silly now? I have no beef with LLcruize; in fact we've had a nice little discussion in which we've both aired our points of view without getting into an argument. The situation doesn't require you to ride in on your white stallion to defend his honour, especially as you can't get your facts straight.
I'm fully aware that added CGI and effects shots are not 'exposition' (hence the use of the word 'and'; so redundant scenes 'and' long drawn out CGI sequences), but you're just looking for a fight now ticktock, and it's getting old.
But, seriously, I'd really like for you to point out that Biggs sequence...
Feeling silly now? I have no beef with LLcruize; in fact we've had a nice little discussion in which we've both aired our points of view without getting into an argument. The situation doesn't require you to ride in on your white stallion to defend his honour, especially as you can't get your facts straight.
I'm fully aware that added CGI and effects shots are not 'exposition' (hence the use of the word 'and'; so redundant scenes 'and' long drawn out CGI sequences), but you're just looking for a fight now ticktock, and it's getting old.
I really wonder how this film would've turned out if David Lynch would've directed it, as was planned...
Anyway, is there ANY confirmed info on whether the R2 release has a genuine PAL or a standards conversion picture?
Anyway, is there ANY confirmed info on whether the R2 release has a genuine PAL or a standards conversion picture?
Ok - I know I'm somewhat behind the times on this but last night I watched ITV's broadcast of the Return of the Jedi - the first time I have seen it since 'the changes' it seems. Chris, you've written an interesting and skillful review of all the minute enhancements and alterations that have been made, which I've read today. But unprepared as I watched the film yesterday move inexorably to the final confrontation between the Emperor/Vader and Luke, I was shocked into expletives at the new ending where Hayden Christenson has replaced the benign Sebastian Shaw spirit. I absolutely have to comment in the billion-to-one-hope that George Lucas reads this blog. For me, the three prequels weren't a patch on the first Star Wars films. I pass over all of that except to say that the change to the end of the Return of the Jedi is truly awful. Darth Vader's helmet was removed by Luke so that he could see his son with his own eyes, before dying, moments after he had saved him in the knowledge that he was forfeiting his own life. To then present the spirit shining in the firmament of the Force with the appearance of Annakin as the young Haden negates the act of the man who was older in body and spirit, the father of the grown-up son he'd died to save. He didn't kill the emperor to be reborn as a dishy Hayden (he doesn't look shifty to me) Christenson. What was once an emotive and uplifting ending has been spoiled to become a cheap ploy to tie the prequel in with the final ending made years earlier. If something's not just not broke but great, don't try and fix it.
Some material may not be suitable for children
Disc Details
Release Date:
12th September 2006
Discs:
2
Disc Type:
Single side, dual layer
RCE:
No
Video:
NTSC
Aspect:
2.35:1
Anamorphic:
Yes
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
Dolby Digital 5.1 EX English, Dolby Digital 2.0 Surround English
Subtitles:
English, French, Spanish
Extras:
Audio Commentary, Lego Start Wars II Xbox Demo, Lego Start Wars II Trailer, DVD-Rom Content
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
Richard Marquand
Cast:
Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, David Prowse, Billy Dee Williams, Frank Oz, Ian McDiarmid, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew
Genre:
Action, Adventure, Fantasy and Sci-Fi
Length:
136 minutes
Ratings
Amazon.com
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Reviewer Agony
Shock Labyrinth 3D, The
UK - DVD R2
Puppet Master: Axis of Evil
UK - DVD R2
Norwegian Ninja
UK - DVD R2
Women Behind Bars
US - DVD R1
Cecilia
US - DVD
Unseen Reviews
Last Stand, The
UK - DVD R2
Key, The
UK - BD RB
All Ladies Do It
UK - BD RB
Howl's Moving Castle
US - BD RA
My Neighbor Totoro
US - BD RA
Hot Easter Eggs
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
US - DVD R1
Star Wars: The Clone Wars - The Complete Season Two
UK - BD
Fight Club
US - DVD R1
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
UK - DVD R2
Alien
US - DVD R1
Most Talked About
More Scream Factory News
US - BD RA
Texas Chainsaw (2013, 2D)
US - BD RA
Prince of Darkness
US - BD RA
Host, The
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Universal Steelbooks
US - BD RA
1) TESB
2) ROTS
3) ROTJ
4) AOTC
5) TPM
6) ANH