The Star Wars Trilogy Special Editions - a combination of hits and misses

Now that the 20th anniversary of "Star Wars" has passed and audiences eagerly await the new set of prequels, the first one now officially set for release May 21, 1999, the debate can now begin on whether director George Lucas’ decision to add a combined 15 minutes of computer-generated effects to the trilogy was really an improvement over their original versions. In the cases of "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back", which I thought were flawless when first released in 1977 and 1980, the new footage is a combination of hits and misses.

It was great the way special effects wizards at Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic got Han Solo (Harrison Ford) to step on Jabba the Hutt’s tail as he walked behind the computer-generated jolly behemoth in what was one of the most eagerly anticipated scenes from "Star Wars: The Special Edition." Also, an improvement was the way the X-Wing Fighters approached the Death Star in the film’s climax in swarming attack fashion instead of following each other in a straight line.

Cloud City’s enhancement in "The Empire Strikes Back: The Special Edition" into the outer space resort Lucas envisioned it to be in the original version was also impressive but the added footage threw off music composer John Williams’ majestic soundtrack at the same time.

What I especially didn’t need was the infamous “Greedo shoots Solo” first sequence in "Star Wars: The Special Edition" before he is gunned down. It is clear the green alien is sitting across the table from Solo. But when he fires a laser bolt that hits the wall off in the corner, Greedo is not only unlucky as seen in the original version but also a very poor marksman in the new version.

The case of "Return of the Jedi: The Special Edition", which boasts almost two minutes of new digitally enhanced effects, is another matter entirely. The film, which was at times overlong and unlike the first two, geared more for children than adults, is actually a slight improvement over the 1983 version.

Though fans will no doubt savor new scenes of bounty hunter Boba Fett flirting with a couple of alien dancers shortly before he becomes lunch for a giant snake like head that now bobs in and out of the Sarlacc Pit while the heroes battle it out on Jabba’s sailbarge, the best thing about this special edition is it has no more dancing, singing Ewoks!!!

All right, so the little “furball” teddy bears as Solo appropriately called them still sing and dance but gone is the silly musical “yuck-yuck” sequence at the end. This time, Jedi’s ending is more dramatic featuring a new soundtrack showing celebrations of the Empire’s demise on Cloud City, Tatooine, and the imperial city of Coruscant which will be seen more in the prequels.

Despite the original version’s flaws, Jedi never lost sight of what all three films were really about; the loyalties of love and friendship shared by the heroes that even included the bickering droids, R2-D2 and C-3P0, and in the final installment, family bonding.

The film is still a visual marvel today in special effects from the imperial speeder bikes (perhaps the 21st century’s answer to police motorcycles) racing across the lush green forests of Endor to the chaotic, suspenseful space battle between the Rebels and the Empire. Scenes like this proved just how far Lucas had gone in technology since 1977.

Lucas, reportedly happy with the new changes he made to the trilogy, says these versions officially replace the originals, which reportedly won’t be released on video again.

But various entertainment magazines have also reported the director saying he wants his next three prequels to have the epic scope of movies like David Lean’s "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962).

Given those facts, it wouldn’t surprise me if Lucas goes back again when the 25th anniversary of the series comes up in 2002 and adds all the deleted scenes fans and science fiction magazines have been talking about over the years.

I wouldn’t be surprised if scenes detailing Luke’s relationship with his friends on Tatooine in "Star Wars", for example, and sequences in "The Empire Strikes Back" where the rebels, shortly before their escape on Hoth, release the ice creatures they had been holding to attack imperial stormtroopers are reinstated. And in "Return of the Jedi", there is a supposed scene where Darth Vader tries to contact Luke using the force in the film’s opening moments shortly after he arrives on the new Death Star to “motivate” the troops.

There is probably more than enough rolls of deleted scenes sitting in Lucas’ vault to last a couple of anniversaries.

©9/24/97

Who’s to blame for Princess Diana’s untimely end?

The tragic untimely death of Princess Diana over three weeks ago in Paris mentions the most difficult question Hollywood, the world, and the press must now ask. Who is responsible?

Was it the aggressive stalking photojournalists known as the paparazzi who caused the fatal accident as they relentlessly pursued the “people’s princess” and her new boyfriend Dodi al Fayed on motorcycles under the Place de l’Alma bridge that fateful night?

Or should the blame be on the driver, Henri Paul, who was behind the wheel of Diana’s Mercedes 600 going 120 mph at the time of the crash and whose lab tests indicate his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit by almost four times making it, what news accounts report, equivalent to a bottle and a half of wine?

As French Police and members of the British monarchy and Spencer families continue their investigations, it seems likely the paparazzi will be the ones to take the fall.

In one of the most damning comments made to the tabloid press that week, actor George Clooney congratulated the media saying how exhilarated they must feel about the accident.

“You’ve bought and paid for one of the greatest news stories of the year,” Clooney said. “And for your success, you should be held accountable.”

But it isn’t just the tabloid press and the driver who should share the blame. It is also the readers who shell their money out every week buying such filthy rags as The Star and The National Enquirer to find out the latest scoop. If it wasn’t the fact much of the public craves this kind of junk journalism, Diana might still be alive today and the paparazzi would be out of work.

It is unfortunate when the tabloid press says the First Amendment gives them the right to invade a celebrity’s privacy. The First Amendment, however, works both ways. The media can publish what they want but it is the public who has the final say on whether they find the material objectionable. And if they don’t like what was said or photographed, they don’t have to read it or they can launch a counteroffensive attack against the publications through boycotts and lawsuits.

As we can see, however, society is not all that fed up with the things the paparazzi covers. They love to read gossip and in the case of Princess Di, the tabloids delivered. Through pictures and words, the media had a lot of negative things to say about Diana Spencer ever since she burst onto the national spotlight and won the world’s hearts in 1981 when she married Prince Charles. We heard it all from her personal bouts with anorexia and bulimia to her messy divorce and tales of unhappiness.

But the press also captured the positive side of Princess Di, through such emotional, moving pictures and words of kindness as a protective loving mother and her willingness to help the suffering from the homeless and people afflicted with AIDS to her worldwide campaign against land mines.

We never saw those selfless acts of humanitarianism reported about on the front pages of the daily newspapers when she was alive. The articles could only be found somewhere on pages two and up while the tabloid press paid no attention to it at all. The focus of their stories was always on the juicy, lurid, scandalous details of her life because that is what sells magazines. Her brother Charles Spencer spoke of this when he delivered her eulogy Sept. 6.

“I don’t think she ever understood why her genuinely good intentions were sneered at by the media,” he said. “Why there appeared to be a permanent quest on their behalf to bring her down. It is baffling. My own, and only explanation is that genuine goodness is threatening to those at the opposite end of the moral spectrum.”

The death of Princess Di is not going to change the way the paparazzi and the tabloid press hound celebrities. Nor will it stop society from buying the trash they publish every week.

If there is anything positive to come out of this is perhaps her death will send a message to the young about the hazards of drunk driving, speeding and the reason why cars come equipped with seatbelts. It is another worthy cause Diana probably would have immersed herself in sooner or later had she lived.

Perhaps even in death, Princess Di is saving lives.

©9/24/97