Re: can you answer CHICAGO question?

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 "Mike Kohary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > And now he does, so he's doing it.  But that doesn't answer the 
> > second question.  Jaba the Hut existed in the original movie, but 
> > got cut.  Why did it get cut?
> 
> This is really a side issue, but the answer is the same - lack of 
> time, money and technology.  He had a person stand in for Jabba and 
> shot the scene anyway, true, but that's not what he wanted, and in 
> the end he made the decision not to make that particular compromise, 
> opting to axe the scene entirely.

No; at the time, he envisioned Jaba as a human being.  Before you 
continue to cast stones about others not knowing what they're talking 
about, look to your own glass house.

> Interesting trivia, but not really germane to this discussion.

It's not trivia, and it is most germane.

> > > It wasn't due to studio demands - he had complete creative control
> > > (which isn't really as rare as a lot of people like to think).
> >
> > As soon as the studio imposed a budget, that infringed on his creative
> > control.
> 
> Every artist works on a budget, so this is moot. 

I see that you have a rationalization for everything that disputes your 
agenda.

> It's just one of the limitations that all artists have to work with - 
> financial resources aren't infinite.

Therefore, contrary to your pronouncement, he did not have complete 
creative control.

> > Also, studios still can and do impose time restraints.  Chris 
> > Columbus had to fight the studio to let him make the LOTR movies as 
> > long as they are--and he still had to cut out scenes to fit time 
> > constraints.
> 
> You mean Peter Jackson.

Yeah, I got directors of LOTR and Harry Potter mixed up for a moment.

> > > So then you know that Star Wars has *never* been released in it's
> > > original format to any medium, ever.  The Empire Strikes Back and
> > > Return of the Jedi have been, but not to DVD.
> >
> > I consider appending "Chapter 4" to the title so trivial as to
> > constitute original format.
> 
> Perhaps, but even that version has not been released to DVD.

But it has been released on other media.

> We've been going around in circles because you refuse to acknowledge 
> that another person's complaint has merit, even if you don't share 
> the same complaint.

I acknowledge that complaints have merit only when I believe that they 
have merit.  I do not believe that yours has any merit.

> > Just because I'm not obligated to pay them any heed doesn't mean 
> > that I can't respond to them.
> 
> Of course you can, but why are you?  What's your point?  You haven't 
> really made one, you know.

Your refusal to acknowledge my point does not mean that I don't have one.

My point, as I've reiterated more than once, is that Lucas has the right 
to decide what versions of his works, which he owns full rights to, to 
release, and that his is the only operable opinion in the matter.

And I ask again, what does this have to do with _Chicago_?

-- 
Never play strip tarot.