after seeing a lot of STAR WARS fans in the best fight thread.... look:

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by Henry

Didn't you have to flip it halfway through the movie like an LP?

Depends on the kind of disc and the running time of the movie. For example, if it's a CLV disc, you can go an hour without having to flip it. So if the flick is two hours long, you only have to flip it once. However, if it's a CAV disc, you go 30 minutes before having to flip it, meaning you'd have to do two disc flips and one disc change (two discs would be required for a two-hour, CAV-encoded flick) for a 120 minute movie.

Yeah, it ain't perfect, but the image and sound quality of LDs is lightyears better than VHS.

[PCS]

Sigh...just saw the XMen....I'm in geek mode. I'm not sure one wants to call it revisionist history if the extra scenes are the way he always wanted to tell the story. I can see the part about Greedo... now that, just by the way Lucas described why he changed the scene, was revisionist. Frankly, loved the add ons and other eye candy. this coming from a guy who as a teenager saw the movie oh...............5 times during its original release and roughly......50 times on vhs when it finally came out. I guess I'm just not enough of a purist to worry about the changes. as I said, I liked them. Some were fairly subtle. Hell, the new and improved Mos Eisely spaceport scene was worth the admission. Loved the way he added in Jabba over what he already had filmed.

As for the DVD. Well, heard the same thing as Utah. That and I think I've heard that releasing the whole damn story line, (all 6), new scenes and all is what he would like to do.

Of course, this will finish the complete destruction of Hollywood as we know it. That SUV driving fiend Lucas.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by Park City Skins

I'm not sure one wants to call it revisionist history if the extra scenes are the way he always wanted to tell the story.

Jim Cameron called it revisionist history, and I agree with him. However, as Cameron also observed, "when it makes several hundred million at the box office [as the re-released, 'Special Edition' Star Wars trilogy did], who can argue with it?"

However, by going back and reintegrating digital FX into two-decade-old movies because Lucas "didn't have access to these effects back then," as Lucas argues, is simply wrong, in my opinion. The reality is that filmmakers never have exactly everything they want when they make movies. There's never enough time or money or technology to do it exactly they way they want to.

But that's the whole point. They do it as well as they can, given the time, money, and technology they have at their disposal, and let the chips fall where they may.

Howard Hawks didn't have multi-channel Dolby Digital surround-sound at his disposal when he made The Big Sleep, but it didn't matter. It's a great movie, nonetheless.

John Ford didn't have the breadth and sweep of widescreen or even Technicolor at his disposal when he made Stagecoach, but it didn't matter. It's a great movie, nonetheless.

And, yes, George Lucas didn't have his precious CGI at his disposal when he made Star Wars. But that ultimately didn't matter either because it, too, was a great movie.

In fact, for all of Lucas's big talk about CGI, I can't recall one person ever saying, "Ya know, The Empire Strikes Back is damn fine movie and all, but it'd be soooo much better with digital FX. Them damn matte lines are driving me crazy!" The make-up & optical FX of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi were top-flight and state-of-the-art for their time -- which is all any filmmaker can really ask for. And they still hold up extraordinarily well today! It's not like Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion dinosaurs from the 1950s, which were frightening sights in their day but have disintegrated into creaky yet endearing nostalgia. All of the space dogfights from the original Star Wars trilogy still look fantastic all these years later.

I can certainly understand Lucas wanting to use more modern special FX techniques on the newer Star Wars films, but please leave the old films be, George. Or at least be willing to release the original theatrical cuts of those films on DVD, alongside their "Special Edition" counterparts.

I'm reminded of the approach Jim Cameron took when producing his extended version of The Abyss in 1993. By that time, a scant four years after the original release of The Abyss to movie theaters, so much had changed in Hollywood. The "morphing" FX that had only been hinted at in The Abyss had been pushed considerably further by 1991's T2 (which was also directed by Cameron), and the AVID digital editing platform was slowly becoming a staple of the industry. For the re-issue of The Abyss, if Cameron wanted to, he could've decided to have done all of the newly integrated FX shots as well as some or all of the older, originally integrated FX shots of The Abyss (whether of the in-camera, make-up FX sort or the composite-shot, optical FX sort) as all-digital FX, a technology that was largely unavailable to him four years earlier.

But Cameron felt that would've been dishonest from a filmmaking standpoint.

"I created my own ground rules for the restoration," Cameron explains in the liner notes of The Abyss: Special Edition laserdisc. "I would not touch the scenes that were in the 1989 release version," he continues, "even though there are a few things that make me cringe that I would do differently now. That seemed a violation of the rules to me... We didn't do any new photography. Effects shots in the [tidal] wave scene had to be completed using existing [optical] photographic elements [which were created for but never used in the original theatrical cut of the film]. They were completed by ILM [industrial Light & Magic], with many of the same people involved who started the shots in 1988."

Cameron also makes clear, "It would be inaccurate to call it [The Abyss: Special Edition] "the director's cut"... with the implication that the 1989 version was not. I had final cut in 1989, and the film we released was the director's cut. Or a director's cut. This is merely another one. Made possible by another market -- the laserdisc [and home video] market -- which has no real running-time limitations."

Apparently, Lucas created his own, different ground rules for the "Special Editions" of the original Star Wars trilogy, which is certainly his right as owner of those films.

However, while I think most of the optical-for-digital switcheroo Lucas pulled with the original trilogy's space vistas and dogfights has proved to be much ado about nothing (which is to say that these new CGI shots have really added nothing substantial to the films in the way of better pacing or additional understanding of the characters and storyline), the most egregious alteration Lucas made in the re-releases was in shaving away some of the intriguing rough edges of Han Solo's character by having Greedo shoot first (as has been previously discussed here) and in calling upon a rather unconvincing (and inexplicably slimmer) looking CGI Jabba the Hut to make a cameo appearance in Episode IV. Not only does this cameo by the CGI Jabba completely ruin the mystery of the character that had been established by him being kept from the audience till the third film (Episode VI), but what transpires during this cameo makes little sense based upon what we come to know of Jabba in Empire, when he's spoken of with dread and apprehension by Han & Co., and Jedi, when he's finally revealed to us in all his revolting, outsized, intimidating glory.

How does Lucas reconcile Han's dismissive and disrespectful treatment of Jabba in the "Special Edition" of Star Wars, where at one point Han even purposefully steps on Jabba's tail, with Han's cautious and circumspect talk of Jabba in Empire, where Da Hut is offscreen and Han is free to say whatever he wants about the big slug?

Oh well. I guess it was more important for Lucas to have ILM show off some CGI eye-candy on the silver screen than it was to get the story straight.

And after having to endure two new scripts by Lucas for Episodes I & II chock full of flat, perfunctory dialogue and stiff characterizations, one longs for the days when Lucas was smart enough to hire real screenwriters, like Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett, to punch up his writing.

[codeorama]

GlennX, just to point out, the characters in the Prequel Trilogy are supposed to be much stiffer than the characters in the Original Trilogy.

The Jedi are a strict and FORMAL order. They are supposed to be stiff and formal.

Anakin is a whiney cry baby, that's part of the reason he turns into Vader.

Padme is a former Queen, current senator. Stiff...

The times of the Prequels was much more formal. The Original was about rebels and smugglers and a farmboy.... not too formal there. Take Yoda for example, in the PT, he's on the Jedi council and is much more formal. In the OT, he's a crazy hermit living in a swamp. The acting fits the characters. I think the criticism over the stiffness in the prequels is very unfair. The Prequels reflect the "times".

Just my opinion.

[PCS]

Whoa. Certainly didn't mean to start off something like that Glenn, and to be honest the few oz. of JD prevent me from going into an Art type response within type post,(kidding Art). That and maybe I'm just not qualified. However let's give this a try.

I am a fan. I really am. I understand, I think, where Cameron is coming from. However, I also understand that film, like any other "art", is subjective in nature and nowhere is this more evident than when refering to the "artist" themselves. Cameron may believe this but Lucas obviously doesn't. It's really quite simple to me. Some people can look at Picasso or Monet, in their later years, and see brilliance. It's never been done before. Can feel what the 2 were trying to express. Or, some can look at it and say "Cripes! Who spilled the paint?" This is where you and I differ. (er...in order to head off possible retorts, 2 very differnt forms, though I do admit to similiar principles).

Yes. Some do the best that they can, but given the tools to do it differently, would they act as Cameron, or would they act as Lucas. See above for that answer I think. Lucas has always done things a bit differently than the rest, that's for sure. But I myself just can't hold that against him.

Lucas, too me, is telling a story and is sharing it with us. It's his story. He knows how he would ideally like it to be told. We're along for the ride. His story. His vision. ( okay, so we're paying for the ride). When he makes a few changes in the film, and this is from him, it's because this is the way he always invisioned it. This is what I mean when I say it's not necessarily revisionists history. (Er...might I add that I am enough of a fan that if Lucas or Cameron are involved in the project, I'm going to watch it and more than likely enjoy it.). Might I add that Cameron admits to "creating his own ground rules for restoration". Seems to me Lucas is doing the same thing. That one appears to be doing so in a more acceptable method based on personal preferance in film making than the other doesn't necessarily make it wrong. As I said. Art in all its forms is subjective.

Oh my God I admit to doing so. I watched both versions of the original 3. I noticed the difference in the scenes immediately. I now own both, but watch the newer versions. Add to the story lines? nah. Pace? More than likely not. To the enjoyment of the film? Depends on your point of view. ( Know where I stand by now huh? ) Don't think that makes me a bad person though.

Oh. Not to be nitpicky but: "How does Lucas reconcile Han's dismissive and disrespectful treatment of Jabba in the "Special Edition" of Star Wars, where at one point Han even purposefully steps on Jabba's tail, with Han's cautious and circumspect talk of Jabba in Empire, where Da Hut is offscreen and Han is free to say whatever he wants about the big slug?"

Lucas filmed the scene with a character called Jabba in the original shooting of the film. Cutting it had nothing to to with not being able to reconcile the characters actions. Besides, what we show and what we tell are sometimesdiffernt things. That or all of a sudden having a death sentence on one's head can change ones attitude. Quickly.

sigh..went and wrote a bunch anyway.

[codeorama]

The original Jabba was a human too. Han even says "Jabba, your a wonderful human being" which in the context of being directed at a big slug seems like a put down.

I like the Special Editions. I just didn't like the Greedo scene. I liked Han shooting him in cold blood better. But other than that, the SE is cool.

[PCS]

Why Lucas changed that scene and what I was refering too.

http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/classic/2000/05/classic20000515.html

"Even when I first shot the scene with an actor, I had planned to replace him later with some kind of stop motion animated character. I imagined Jabba would be furry, but we just never had the time or money to do that shot, and I had to eliminate the scene. But I always wanted it in there."

I'm thinking that what Han said is meant to be rather sarcastic in nature.

[luckydevil]

Star Wars= one of the greatest conservative movies ever made.

[codeorama]

I'm thinking that what Han said is meant to be rather sarcastic in nature.

[/b]

That too.. Have you seen the scene before they added the cgi Jabba, It' looked like some bad guy out one of the Conan Movies..:laugh:

[Henry]

I pretty much agree with Glenn X about the SE's. We can bounce it back and forth for eternity, but some people prefer to see Casablanca remain black and white forever while others want to see it colorized. I belong to the first category. I certainly don't think those in the second are bad people. I just want the option to watch the movie the way I enjoy it. Is that too much to ask?

Where I part ways with Glenn is with regards to the prequels. I love em. I watch them often, and to me they fit just fine in the SW universe. It's gonna be a long two years.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Henry

Where I part ways with Glenn is with regards to the prequels. I love em. I watch them often, and to me they fit just fine in the SW universe. It's gonna be a long two years.

I couldn't agree more. I just watched EP I and II over the weekend AGAIN, with my nephew. I personally think they are in the same style and scope of the originals and I love them too. Ep III is going to be nuts. I have been to the first showing of each of the first 2 prequels, and I can't wait to take my 4 yr old nephew to the midnight showing of EP III. (he will be six) He will love being in that atmosphere, which is the most fun watching the movies anyway...

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by Park City Skins

Not to be nitpicky but: "How does Lucas reconcile Han's dismissive and disrespectful treatment of Jabba in the "Special Edition" of Star Wars, where at one point Han even purposefully steps on Jabba's tail, with Han's cautious and circumspect talk of Jabba in Empire, where Da Hut is offscreen and Han is free to say whatever he wants about the big slug?"

Lucas filmed the scene with a character called Jabba in the original shooting of the film. Cutting it had nothing to to with not being able to reconcile the characters actions. Besides, what we show and what we tell are sometimesdiffernt things. That or all of a sudden having a death sentence on one's head can change ones attitude. Quickly.

To my knowledge, Lucas initially cut the scene with Jabba in Episode IV (which featured a short, bald, portly actor in a bearskin get-up [who was digitally omitted in the "Special Edition" version]) because (a.) it slowed down the pacing of the film after the shootout at and escape from the cantina, and (b.) the scene just didn't "play" (which is movie industry-speak for "the scene was slow," or "there was no chemistry between the actors," etc.).

Putting this scene back in (with a superimposed CGI slug) for the "Special Edition" of Episode IV still slows down the pacing of the film, and, as I said, creates a narrative dissonance at least somewhat comparable, in my opinion, to if Ridley Scott decided to reintegrate previously eliminated footage into Alien that accounted for the titular E.T.'s life cycle in a way far different than the sequel did, presenting a kind of "self-contained" organism that grabbed, incapacitated, and mutated other organisms (e.g. humans) via cocoons that slowly transformed the deadly alien's knocked-out prey into fellow deadly creatures. (To his credit, Ridley Scott has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in ever reincorporating this excised footage into a "Special Edition" version of Alien because this footage [a.] ruined the pacing of the film to begin with, and would [b.], as I said, toss a veritable monkey wrench into the narrative continuity already established between Alien and Aliens, in which the ravenous, otherworldly creatures were spawned, like bees or ants, from a queen-mother organism.)

No matter how anyone slices it, the re-inserted scene with Jabba in Episode IV does nothing to improve the film and much to damage it. There was a reason that it hit the cutting room floor to begin with. A very good reason. And it should've stayed on the cutting room floor.

Similarly, all of the extra bits of footage in the "Special Edition" of Episode IV featuring Wedge (a.k.a. "Red Two"), a minor character from Star Wars who has inexplicably gained a small yet very loyal fan following, do nothing but slooow the movie down. I understand Lucas's well-intentioned desire to stroke some of the hardcore fanboys here, but the best interests of the movie itself should always trump all other considerations. As with the Jabba scene, there was a good reason this extra footage of Wedge initially got 86ed, and it should've stayed 86ed.

BTW, PCS, your use of the analogy of painters vis-à-vis filmmakers is apropos. In fact, Lucas's use of originally non-existent GGI in his "Special Editions" reminds me a smidge of, say, an ornery old Impressionist painter who goes and doctors some of his old work, using newly discovered painting techniques and then acting as if he were the first to pioneer them "way back when." Of course, such subterfuge was obviously lost to Lucas (not that I believe subterfuge was ever his intent with the re-releases, though), as everyone was plainly aware of the fact that his "Special Editions" were "spruced up" versions of older movies.

Originally posted by codeorama

GlennX, just to point out, the characters in the Prequel Trilogy are supposed to be much stiffer than the characters in the Original Trilogy. The Jedi are a strict and FORMAL order. They are supposed to be stiff and formal.

Perhaps this is why I've always found Merchant/Ivory films, with their emphasis on subject matter concerning Victorian & Edwardian era primness and prudishness, to be so drab and deadly dull. :laugh:

But seriously, you're telling me that there's no way Lucas could've made Episodes I & II more interesting?

I don't buy that for a second.

The reality is that Lucas simply doesn't have an ear for dialogue. If you don't believe me, go and ask Harrison Ford, who frequently complained to Lucas on Star Wars, "You know what, George? It's easy for you to write this sh*t, but it's less easy for me to say it."

Go and watch Star Wars again. Then watch The Empire Strikes Back. Notice the difference in the dialogue? Notice how much crisper and more vivacious the dialogue is in Empire? That's no accident. That's what happens when you hire people like Larry Kasdan and Leigh Brackett (who came to fame as a screenwriter by penning the great quippy exchanges between Bogie & Bacall in The Big Sleep and John Wayne & Dean Martin in Rio Bravo) to clean up your stuff. They clean it up but good.

I have no doubt that The Phantom Menace (which I very nearly fell asleep during) and Attack of the Clones (which I actually quite liked, finding it to be infinitely more engrossing and psychologically complex than its predecessor; the scene where Anakin goes ape-sh*t -- and understandably so -- and kills an entire tribe of Tusken Raiders for their having kidnapped and tortured to death his mother, Shmi, is particularly gripping) could've been more lively written if Lucas had really wanted them to be, if he'd surrounded himself on this new trilogy with people capable of being (brutally) honest instead of obsequious yes-men (see: Phantom and Clones producer Rick McCallum).

After all, we're talkin' science fiction here, lasers and rocket ships. Not Jane Austen. This stuff doesn't have to be boring, nor should it be. Not ever.

[Henry]

Glenn, that wasn't Wedge in the added scene. It was Biggs. Sheesh.

[codeorama]

Ok, my comment didn't really apply to you as much as others I know. MOST of the complaints on the PT are because the characters are stiff and Hayden Christiansen comes across as a whiney cry baby... I was just pointing out that the characters are supposed to be stiff and he was supposed to be a whiney cry baby.

I agree in principal to your comments. Lucas has never been known as a director that gets the most out of his actors. I would have liked to have seen the PT directed by someone else like ESB and ROTJ. Lucas' strong point is his story telling. He is brilliant. The fact that he was behind the stories for Star Wars and Indiana Jones speaks volumes about his talents. But as a director, I agree, he would have been better suited to let Speilberg have his wish and direct SW.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Henry

Glenn, that wasn't Wedge in the added scene. It was Biggs. Sheesh.

It was Biggs Darklighter... What was he thinking???:doh:

[Glenn X]

Biggs Darklighter?

Henry, code, is this some kind of hardcore Star Wars fanboy humor, like how many bolts are in C-3PO's @ssplate, and what the precise mileage is on the Millenium Falcon (BTW, if you fly it backwards, will that mileage tick down)?

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Glenn X

Biggs Darklighter?

Henry, code, is this some kind of hardcore Star Wars fanboy humor, like how many bolts are in C-3PO's @ssplate, and what the precise mileage is on the Millenium Falcon (BTW, if you fly it backwards, will that mileage tick down)?

:laugh: :laugh:

I'm glad you caught the humor...

BTW.. there are 48 bolts in C-3PO's @ssplate.... (just kidding, I really don't know, but I'm sure there is someone who does..)

[Henry]

Originally posted by Glenn X

Biggs Darklighter?

Henry, code, is this some kind of hardcore Star Wars fanboy humor, like how many bolts are in C-3PO's @ssplate, and what the precise mileage is on the Millenium Falcon (BTW, if you fly it backwards, will that mileage tick down)?

Yes. Yes it is.

However, let me state for the record that my knowledge falls somewhere in between the names of the terciary characters and exact number of @ssbolts attached to various droids throughout the series.

A SW geek I most certainly am. A scary hardcore fanboy I am not. And if you ever catch me dressing up as a Jedi and re-enacting varous scenes of previous SW films whilst waiting in line for Episode III, feel free to slap me.

[PCS]

Be it known now that there a couple lenthgy posts as well as some sho------- Ok. Look. We're having filmaking debates about Star Wars and the New and Improved Star Wars Trilogy. We're all geeks.

"To my knowledge, Lucas initially cut the scene with Jabba in Episode IV (which featured a short, bald, portly actor in a bearskin get-up [who was digitally omitted in the "Special Edition" version]) because (a.) it slowed down the pacing of the film after the shootout at and escape from the cantina, and (b.) the scene just didn't "play" (which is movie industry-speak for "the scene was slow," or "there was no chemistry between the actors," etc.). "

Er.... Glenn. What I posted before was from the man himself.

No really.

"Even when I first shot the scene with an actor, I had planned to replace him later with some kind of stop motion animated character. I imagined Jabba would be furry, but we just never had the time or money to do that shot, and I had to eliminate the scene. But I always wanted it in there." He tends to disagree with the rest of what you said I think.

Major Geek moment. The Jabba scene,Biggs scene, and commander confronting Luke scene we're in the book and comic that came out at the time of the movie.

From practically the first day the movie became a hit, Lucas complained about not being able to do some things in his orginal film. He made a big stink about the special effects guys giving him a "big terd" when he asked for a compacter creature. He settled for the simple effect that is still in the film. As for the rest Glenn, sorry man, but obviously I, like possibly George, disagree. I like the idea of Han meeting Jabba and don't think that it was inconsistant with the narrative of the movie up to that point,( such as it was). Han had just mentioned the Hut not too long before then. He had "fried" Greedo as well. Now with this scene the threat is given face. This makes Han's eventual decision to help the rebellian, imho, a little more dramatic. Frankly, I don't see the "damage". (Critics at the time would just love this conversation. Washington post magazine killd it and the only one who seemd to like it was TIME. "Movie of the Year" on the cover.")

No matter how you slice it, it's Lucas' story. He knew and knows how he would like it to be filmed in order to share it. And if some of the fans don't like it, oh well. If some do...cool.....more money. He stated in an interview about Episode one that he knew the fans would kill him for centering the story around a boy. But that's the way the story went. So that's the way it was done. (Actually, many of us killed him for killing Darth Maul )

"BTW, PCS, your use of the analogy of painters vis-à-vis filmmakers is apropos"

What can I say, I'm an aspiring artist.

To be honest, many an artist of the canvas or paper more than likely have gone back and touched up a painting or drawing or 2....er before selling it I admit. And many would say, "Geez. If I could do that one again". In this case though, 2 seperate mediums.

Did I mention I love the prequels? I didn't even mind Jar Jar.

[codeorama]

Whoa... I didn't mind Jar Jar that much either.

[Glenn X]

Originally posted by codeorama

Lucas' strong point is his story telling. He is brilliant. The fact that he was behind the stories for Star Wars and Indiana Jones speaks volumes about his talents.

I would parse this a bit and concede that Lucas is a great idea guy.

High-tech knights in outer space rescue damsel in distress from evil galactic emperor.

Dashing archaeologist searches for priceless artifacts and big adventure during the era of the Nazis.

He's great at churning out that much and then turning it over to good screenwriters, like Larry Kasdan and Philip Kaufman, to actualize it into a full-fledged screenplay.

In addition, though, I think he's a fine producer.

Originally posted by Park City Skins

He [Lucas] tends to disagree with... what you said [about the added Jabba scene].

Well, with all due respect to Mr. Lucas (who's a fellow 'SC alum ), I couldn't care less what he says. I really couldn't.

I understand that you're a big fan of his and all, PCS, but Episodes I & II served as two bright, shining examples to me that Lucas's filmmaking judgment was far from inviolate and his filmmaking instincts far from on-the-money on a universal basis. (In fact, Lucas's self-imposed, two-decades-plus, wine-sipping sabbatical in northern California seems to have only further deadened -- rather than reinvigorated -- his judgment and instincts in this regard.)

In my view, the added Jabba scene in Episode IV is as gratuitous as the added scene of the colonists, featuring Newt and her family, going about their daily business on the planet of LV-426 near the beginning of Aliens: The Special Edition. As DVD reviewer Colin Jacobson explains:

Whereas in the original [theatrical] version, we go straight from hearing that there is a colony there [on LV-426] to the early part of a mission to check out why communication from that group has ceased, the extended cut adds significant scenes that detail what happened to the colonists. These bits are essentially redundant -- they don't tell us anything we won't learn soon enough -- and they substantially reduce the suspense and mystery of the story. These scenes are so unnecessary -- and damaging, in my opinion -- that I'm not sure why Cameron even filmed them, much less reinserted them into the movie. Perhaps he thought that we would feel more empathy toward the colonists and toward Newt if we saw how they lived prior to the alien attack. He was wrong. This cut didn't alter my feelings about the colonists one iota, mainly because the movie isn't about them; their fate is nothing more than a plot device to get Ripley and the Marines onto the planet. I like having the scenes for historical value, but to be truthful, I usually skip past that chapter when I watch the movie.

I agree with Jacobson wholeheartedly. But I don't hold this scene addition against Cameron because he's always made clear that the extended version of Aliens was just that: another version of the film. The official version of Aliens has always been and always will be the original theatrical cut. Cameron makes no bones about that, nor should he.

However, Lucas has made clear that he feels the "Special Editions" of Episodes IV-VI are the "better" versions of these films and would like to see them supplant the older versions (which is why he's against releasing the older versions on DVD). So when Lucas includes that extra scene of Jabba, which screws up the pacing of the film and shoots to sh*t the payoff of the slow, shadowy reveal of Jabba in Return of the Jedi, all the while trying to convince me of how "great the scene is... No, really!" I simply have to roll my eyes at the man.

And, PCS, as to you and code "not minding" Jar Jar Binks, I must quote mardi gras skin in observing that anyone incapable of finding fault with that "digital goober" must be a "Star Wars homer extraordinaire."