Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Star Wars: Episode III Title Announced!!!!!!!!!!!

This is topic Star Wars: Episode III Title Announced!!!!!!!!!!! in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003396

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-25-2004, 02:00 AM:

Star Wars Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith. Yup. Just in case anyone cares.
[av=m]
I wonder how long it will take them to change Star Wars:ROTS from "Revenge" to "Return"?

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-25-2004, 02:17 AM:

yeah....I can see the marquee now if that full title is used.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-25-2004, 02:46 AM:

Someone pointed this out in another forum I read, but this one will make for the splendid typo:Revenge of the Shit. [Big Grin]

Nevertheless, this title is by far the best of the prequels. Perhaps the third time is the charm for the Star Wars prequels. I liked the other two, but they don't compare at all to the OT. I did order the ROTS Tshirt too. If I get lucky, it'll be worth a ton when they change the title! [beer]

AJG

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-25-2004, 02:50 AM:

Today at comicon I could have attended the Star Wars conference where they announced this. But I decided it would be more fun to stab my eyeballs out instead.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-25-2004, 03:14 AM:

My professional opinion is: [puke]

>>> Phil

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-25-2004, 03:19 AM:

C'mon Phil, don't judge a book by its cover. Or in this case, don't judge a film by its title. If you're judging it on the sole fact that the prequels weren't too hot and/or the fact that ole George has fallen off his rocker, then maybe I'll let it slide. But this movie is going to have Wookies, and Sith, and twins: oh MY! [Eek!]

AJG

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 07-25-2004, 04:23 AM:

quote:
If I get lucky, it'll be worth a ton when they change the title!

Why would they change the title? Is this some inside joke amoung Star War geeks? [Wink]

danny

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-25-2004, 04:50 AM:

Return of the Jedi was originally titled Revenge of the Jedi. I guess stuff where it says Revenge is worth a lot among collectors.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-25-2004, 05:03 AM:

quote: Aaron Garman
...I did order the ROTS Tshirt too. If I get lucky...

Yeah Aaron, and IF **I** get lucky, I'll get to see you without a T-Shirt! [Razz]

quote: Aaron Garman
...and twins: oh MY!

K! As long as it's NOT the Olsen twins! [puke]

>>> Phil

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-25-2004, 10:46 AM:

So people are going to be walking around with "ROTS" on their chests? ROTS? As in this film is so bad it ROTS?

This is just plain silly.

Steve

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-25-2004, 10:51 AM:

One can't help wondering if the people responsible for this title are completely out of touch with certain realities...

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 07-25-2004, 11:45 AM:

"Star Wars ROTS"... that's pretty good! [Big Grin]

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-25-2004, 01:00 PM:

That's the logo that will appear on the T-Shirt. I typed ROTS out of shear laziness and didn't want to type out the whole title. So thus far we've had these acronyms: TPM, AOTC, ROTS, ANH, TESB, and ROTJ.

As for Phil seeing me without T-Shirt: it will cost you. And your Jedi mind tricks (or your magical powers) will not work on me. [Big Grin]

I really don't think they'll change this title like they did on Jedi, however some fanboys may go nuts and say that it is too similar to the title Return of the Jedi or the fact that it was stolen from Revenge of the Nerds . [Roll Eyes]

AJG

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 07-25-2004, 02:59 PM:

For what its worth, 'Revenge of the Jedi' was changed to 'Return of the Jedi' because George realized that Revenge wasn't really something a 'good' jedi did. Revenge is something that leads to the dark side, etc.

In this case Sith are of the dark side, so revenge is totally their thing. No title change is likely.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-25-2004, 04:29 PM:

Wow, I'm surprised they didn't set the ROTS title in Trajan.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-25-2004, 04:57 PM:

I think it's a perfect title. They all tend to fall into the cheesy B-Movie format, but they have a little distinguishing character because of "Empire" or "Jedi" as particular Star Wars things. And I love the parallel to Return of the Jedi. Switching it to "Revenge" obviously makes more sense for the Sith, and it alludes to the original version of the Jedi title. It works, mate!!!

Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-25-2004, 09:51 PM:

I always heard that the name change from 'revenge' to 'return' was because of the similarity to Star Trek: the Wrath of Kahn which was released around the same time. ??? Anyway, at least it isn't "Star Wars: Episode III: Return of the King."

haha, look at what I just realized: SWET ROTS. hahaha

-Adam

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-25-2004, 11:58 PM:

[av=k]
SPOILER???

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-26-2004, 06:11 PM:

I'll just be glad when the movie is here and gone and we can be done with the whole crap pile for good. (Until the "digital cinema" re-release of the enhanced versions of the original trilogy, that is...or episodes 7, 8 and 9 which Lucas could still "have the vision" to make.)

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 07-27-2004, 06:00 AM:

As I understand it, the story goes that the original title of Episode VI was going to be Revenge of the Jedi. And as Michael pointed out, some of the merchandise even bears the original title. But then they found out Star Trek II's title was going to be Revenge of Kahn. So they changed it to Return of the Jedi. By the time Revenge of Kahn was changed to Wrath of Kahn right before its release, George had already decided Revenge was not a motivation a true Jedi would possess, so they kept the title change.

Personally, I think it's the perfect title. Like Brian, I like the parallel between Revenge and Return, Sith and Jedi. The Jedi's days come to an end as they are overthrown by the Sith Order at the end of the first trilogy, and the Jedi return at the end of the second. And let's not forget what Darth Maul said in TPM (okay, most of you have probably tried to forget [Smile]

.) "At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we have will have revenge." The third trilogy would have dealt with the rebuilding of the Jedi with a new Order but that's never going to see the big screen. Unless George changes his mind that is.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 07-27-2004, 09:46 AM:

quote: Dwayne Caldwell
As I understand it, the story goes that the original title of Episode VI was going to be Revenge of the Jedi. And as Michael pointed out, some of the merchandise even bears the original title. But then they found out Star Trek II's title was going to be Revenge of Kahn. So they changed it to Return of the Jedi. By the time Revenge of Kahn was changed to Wrath of Kahn right before its release, George had already decided Revenge was not a motivation a true Jedi would possess, so they kept the title change.

Although this makes some sense and I have read it before. It is not true. The Star Wars and Empire 1982 re-releases all featured a trailer for Revenge of the Jedi and the Star Wars 1982 Re-release poster had the Revenge Title included on the poster in one of the corners. Star Trek: Wrath of Kahn was released in mid summer of 1982 and the re-releases of Star Wars and Empire were in late summer early fall of that year. If Lucas had changed his mind early on about the revenge related with Star Trek. These ad materials I think would have had time to reflect his change of mind.

I think in actuality that Star Trek producers decided to change the Title for Star Trek II from revenge to wrath because Lucas had originally anounced that the title would be Revenge of the Jedi. But I think it was just a decision that Lucas made to change it, not based on another films title.

[ 07-27-2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Darryl Spicer ]

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-27-2004, 02:26 PM:

Continuing the banter, I heard that the Revenge-Return change was based on the fact that a Jedi would not seek revenge.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-27-2004, 06:12 PM:

I don't recall Star Trek II ever being titled "Revenge of Khan". If it was, it must have been very brief. It was originally gonna (yes, "gonna") be titled as: Star Trek II: Da Undiscovered Country. The title was supposed to reflect the characters new journey into middle age or some other such bullshit. Later the title was changed because it was deemed unsuitable for the movie. It makes much more sense on the 6th movie anyway, which was directed by the same asshole. [av=m]

quote: Darryl Spicer
Although this makes some sense and I have read it before. It is not true.

Dwayne is never wrong, please edit your post to make HIS story the true one. [Smile]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-27-2004, 06:46 PM:

The original title of Star Trek II was actually "The VENGEANCE of Khan." I was actually alive then unlike many people on this board and I remember it.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-27-2004, 07:04 PM:

But just to make the whole thing gel SOoooo much better when we watch them all together in sequence (!) on dvd...this from showbizdata.com...

>>
Rumors are spreading on Star Wars fan sites on the Internet that George Lucas is making numerous changes to his original three films prior to their release as "the Star Wars Trilogy" on DVD on Sept. 21. According to Video Store magazine the changes include digitally changing the faces of at least two characters to make them gibe with those in the recent films. Steve Sansweet, head of fan relations for LucasFilm, described the set as versions of the films "as George Lucas sees them today." Some fans have expressed disappointment that the original films, as they were presented theatrically, will not be available on DVD. <<

and then there's aintitcoolnews.com's photo of the new ending of Return Of The Jedi with Hayden Christianson now standing alongside the original group...

More reasons to ignore the 'progress' of this series.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-27-2004, 07:46 PM:

So Darth Vader gets to look all young and strapping, but Obi Wan Kenobi still has to look like a frail old fart?[av=h]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-27-2004, 07:49 PM:

quote: Joe Redifer
So Darth Vader gets to look all young and strapping, but Obi Wan Kenobi still has to look like a frail old fart?

I agree, the photo doesn't make sense. The digitally modified scene is likely just speculation by aintitcoolnews.

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-27-2004, 08:59 PM:

I've been hitting some Star Wars forums lately and have stumbled upon some very interesting information. Apparently, there is a downloadable copy of the Return of the Jedi DVD that is coming out Sept. 21. In addition, the other two films have been leaked as well, but only photos and soundbites are surfacing for those. I tell you, I saw a clip ROTJ's ending: it's for real. Hayden is there in all his glory. To make sense out of it, you really would have to analyze too much so I just take it for what it is.

As for some other changes, it looks like they reworked Jabba the Hut in A New Hope, Ian McDiarmid is now the emperor in Empire, that same scene with Vader and the Emperor in ESB has some additional dialouge, Boba Fett's voice has been rerecorded by Temmura Morrison (who played Jango in AOTC), and Naboo has been added to the victory celebration at the end of Jedi. I thought about posting some pictures if that's kosher with the mods, considering the DVDs have yet to be released.

AJG

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-27-2004, 09:09 PM:

I have also heard that George had John Williams add the Imperial march theme to Star Wars: A New Hope so that all 6 of the films would have it. Anyone confirm?[av=k]

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-27-2004, 09:38 PM:

According to this person who has the DVD, the Imperial March did not make it. I never thought it was necessary. By the way, if you all want to go looking into the same information I was, check out this site: Millenium Falcon

Here's a peek at one of the pictures.

Also, if this is all legit, theses films are going to looks beautiful on DVD. The image quality really shines compared to the Laserdiscs, which were really quite good.

AJG

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-28-2004, 01:12 AM:

For the love of Christ! George Lucas's senile old brain has dried up in terms of ideas, and now as he progressivly goes into a deep psychotic depression, he will continue to butcher, re-edit, re-mix and fuck with his films in hopes of making a few more bucks and leaving a "legacy" before the silly bastard kicks the bucket.

Re-recording dialog? Changing actors' appearances? Shit, there has GOT to be some sort of breach-of-contract going on. If I starred in a movie and had some bearded fuck alter my appearance or voice DECADES later and RE-RELEASE the films as "new product" I'd be on the phone with every lawyer in the country. These alterations are worse than, "Let's make Han Solo walk around Jabba. Shit, the rendering screws up. Well, let's make up a story that he steps on the tail." [Roll Eyes]

Take a hint, George: If you keep erasing and re-drawing your little pencil sketches, they're going to end up a mess.

Oops. Too late.

=TMP=

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-28-2004, 02:39 AM:

quote: Thomas Procyk
If I starred in a movie

Come on, how likely is that?!

quote: Joe Redifer
I have also heard that George had John Williams add the Imperial march theme to Star Wars: A New Hope so that all 6 of the films would have it. Anyone confirm?

I certainly hope not. The scene in "Episode V" where the Imperial Fleet is shown and the Imperial March is heard for the first time is IMO one of the most spectacular cuts in any movie. The impact is partially due to the fact that the music wasn't heard before in the movies.

Part of why these new movies and alterations suck so much can be gleaned from watching those videos about the making of Episode III on the Star Wars website: look just how everyone is mega-kissing George Lucas' ass. He certainly has worked hard enough to deserve the position he is in now to do whatever he likes. But somehow I think the agonies he had to go through to get Star Wars made back in the 70s show in the consistency of the vision. The new movies don't have anything like that. Check those cheesy art school graduates who do the design work and how George then comes in with his little approval stamp, like a customs officer. These people would work in an ad agency if it wasn't chic to work for Lucasfilm. BTW, where is Ralph McQuarrie? His designs were probably the most important element in giving the original series their unique look and feel.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-28-2004, 04:59 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
I certainly hope not.

That's why it'll happen, cuz no one wants it to.[av=h]

Posted by James B. Openshaw (Member # 1310) on 07-28-2004, 08:00 AM:

Who knows what the hell is in Lucas's head now. Judging by that still of Hayden, Yoda, and Alec, he wants to keep Sir Alec Guiness in the shot but wants to dump Sebastian Shaw out? He'll probably also digitally superimpose Hayden Christensen's head over Sebastian Shaw's head during Vader's unmasked death scene.

Personally, if you're going to modify the originals, do it to enhance the quality to preserve the classic film; not this change whole scenes and characters out crap.

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 07-28-2004, 08:31 AM:

This whole thing with Lucas and digital fix-up doesn't end with the Star Wars pics. On September 10, theatres in major cities will get a revised edition of THX-1138, his first feature film and itself a upgrading of a short he did as a student at USC (the theatrical re-release supports the DVD street date of September 14). This is still, after over 30 years, one of my favorite science fiction films of all time. I was upset when I heard that he was adding new CGI effects to a film that I already considered a classic; but then I checked out the on-line trailer (www.thx1138movie.com), and, ya know, it looks kind of impressive after all.

Bottom line: they're all his films. If he doesn't mind the casual fan backlash (and he apparently doesn't), he can dick with them as he pleases. I mean, he knows full well that true fans will buy every different possible version of a film like Terminator 2: Judgement Day (and for the record there have been at least 17, yes that's seventeen, different home video releases of this film). He could keep revising the Star Wars films for years, and rake off a few extra million with every new version. He knows that the audience is there and will line up. Really, he'd be almost a fool not to (and when you consider that his former editor and ex-wife Marcia gets 50% of everything from the first three films, you could almost feel sorry for the poor bastard).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-28-2004, 10:09 AM:

quote: Mark Ogden
Bottom line: they're all his films.

Yeah, they may be his films. But the dollars in my wallet are mine. Customers don't have to buy the damned things if they are crap.

The end shot from ROTJ with Hayden (wasn't his character just a whining bitch in Episode II?) in there just doesn't make any sense. It plays worse than watching some signer perform an aria and miss a bunch of the notes.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-28-2004, 11:33 AM:

One thing that really irks me in this era of "re-released with never-before-seen footage" is that we seem to be losing the concept of a single, complete, finished film. I'm sick of seeing multiple versions and re-edits and re-mixes of everything. What's so wrong with letting existing films continue to exist in their original theatrical release form?

Posted by Jannette McQueen (Member # 1885) on 07-28-2004, 01:06 PM:

I *knew* it!

I should have put money on it!!

curse my hesitance to risk my money!

Course, who would put money *against* "Revenge of the Sith"?? I thought it was pretty obvoius.

Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-28-2004, 01:56 PM:

I guess in the event of extreme suckage the word 'Sith' can be rearranged on marquees to accurately identify the film being played. I mean, isn't that a THX standard?

(Yes, I remember Lucas got out of THX somewhat)

Posted by Daniel Alt (Member # 2303) on 07-28-2004, 02:54 PM:

We actually have a "Revenge of the Jedi" trailer in our collection that generally gets played once a year at the Sci-Fi marathon. It gets kept in the booth, and not out in the closet with the other trailers.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-28-2004, 03:09 PM:

quote: Mark Ogden
He could keep revising the Star Wars films for years, and rake off a few extra million with every new version. He knows that the audience is there and will line up.

What does that tell ya about the audience? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 07-28-2004, 06:52 PM:

I was up in Canada last weekend for the final "You Can't Do That on TV" fan convention and one of the technical people from the show said, "An edit is never finished, it just reaches a state of mutual abandonment."

I have the OT on VHS and LD and that's good enough, I tuned out of the Star Wars thing when I saw a trailer that looked like it was for some made-for-tv movie (Ep II) in front of LOTR TFOTR.

I am re-editing my first movie (two reasons, to add back in a bout 5 seconds of footage that was mistakenly excised from the original version, and to make the sound sync-up), and I can sympathize to a certain extent with wanting to "make it better," heck, I even understand seeing the movie differently from when you made it. But, at some point you have to draw the line and say, "I'm finished with this thing."

Well, I guess George doesn't get the concept of drawing lines, and he is (currently) rich enough to maintain ignorance of the subject.

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-28-2004, 07:44 PM:

quote: Mark Ogden
(and when you consider that his former editor and ex-wife Marcia gets 50% of everything from the first three films, you could almost feel sorry for the poor bastard).

Judging from Lucas' behaviour and talk in the documentary EASY RIDERS, RAGING BULLS, I doubt that he could have made STAR WARS a successful film without his wife's professional advice. [Big Grin]

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-28-2004, 09:18 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The end shot from ROTJ with Hayden (wasn't his character just a whining bitch in Episode II?) in there just doesn't make any sense.

I thought about it. At first I had the same reaction, but I think there is some justification for replacing Anakin with the younger version, yet keeping the original, old Obi Wan (assuming that this switch is true). Obi Wan and Yoda were never part of the Dark Side, and were always "pure", so they retained their pure images in the afterlife. Anakin was only "pure" up until a certain point. When he died as Vader, he had his little epiphany or whatever and (as I remember) gave up the Dark Side in those last moments, realizing the error he's made, and then, in a manner of speaking, is forgiven (by the Force, perhaps). So his ghost "reverts" to what he looked like when he was last truly "pure". He was never worthy of a Jedi's afterlife as an old man, so it kind of makes sense that the ghost is of the young Anakin.

That might just sound like complete bull, but if that turns out to be the "official" Lucas justification, I'm just saying that I would go along with it. Replacing the dying Vader with Hayden's face would just be wrong, though! [Razz]

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 07-29-2004, 01:28 PM:

Since he is once again making changes to the original trilogy, I think that the best way to see just how greedy Mr. Lucus really is is whether or not he also releases a updated VHS version so that those people without a DVD player can "enjoy" the new version.

[ 07-30-2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Michael Gonzalez ]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-29-2004, 01:43 PM:

Somewhere (I can't find it right now though) I read an interview with Ewan McGregor in which he went on at great length about how maddening it is to be an actor working for George Lucas. Lucas often doesn't direct the actors at all and doesn't even seem interested in talking to them. McGregor said it was exasperating. The only thing Lucas was interested in was getting everyone to hit their marks so the blue screen stuff would turn out right. (That's paraphrasing -- I'll see if I can hunt down the exact quote)

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-29-2004, 08:43 PM:

McGregor is a fine actor. But the Star Wars movies have NEVER been great acting movies. There are a couple good acting moments, but never any good, solid "performances". I can fully understand the aggravation of trying to do a fine performance in that just-stand-on-the-mark environment. I don't blame him.

I suppose all the actors' work is done now, right? They're free to talk about the experience all they want (except for breach-of-contract divulging of script secrets, of course).

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-29-2004, 09:44 PM:

I wonder if the actors have been synthesized so that their likness can be rendered when George redoes the original trilogy out of sheer boredom in 10 years? [av=k]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-29-2004, 11:53 PM:

Hey Joe! Why wait 10 years when you can do it now???

According to milleniumfalcon.com, among the changes being made are...

>> Episode I DVD Re-Release:

* Puppet Yoda has been replaced completely by CGI.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-30-2004, 12:39 AM:

Have they replaced Jar Jar with CGI empty space yet? I'm still holding out for that one.[av=m]

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-30-2004, 02:07 AM:

quote: Thomas Procyk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I starred in a movie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

Come on, how likely is that?!

Ask, and ye shall receive:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1596456/

[Smile]

=TMP=

Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 07-30-2004, 04:48 AM:

That looks nothing like you.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-30-2004, 05:20 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Have they replaced Jar Jar with CGI empty space yet?

I hated Jar Jar as much as anyone, but I actually think if they just re-recorded the damned voice with a different actor not doing a made-up dialect, Jar Jar wouldn't be that bad. No CGI required! Easy! [thumbsup]

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 12-12-2011, 02:47 PM:

It has been 2691 days since the last post.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-12-2011, 02:47 PM:

Interesting to go back and read this thread knowing what we know now.

I like this bit particularly...

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'll just be glad when the movie is here and gone and we can be done with the whole crap pile for good. (Until the "digital cinema" re-release of the enhanced versions of the original trilogy, that is...

You only missed the 3D part, Mike. [Wink]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-12-2011, 05:45 PM:

Ha! I don't even remember creating this thread. And I'm not interested to go back and read whatever it was that I posted. I sure seemed excited, though.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-13-2011, 01:29 PM:

Well...you were younger then. [Wink]