Indiana Jones & The Entirely Satisfactory Conclusion!

[Keepcoolbutcare]

look, different strokes for different folks. the goody two shoes bunch prefer TLC while those more inclined to appreciate the wilder things in life prefer ToD....

Goody two shoes? I bet you haven't even been in a stick fight, have you?

his stick was too small to enter the contest...

[Peven]

look, different strokes for different folks. the goody two shoes bunch prefer TLC while those more inclined to appreciate the wilder things in life prefer ToD....

Goody two shoes? I bet you haven't even been in a stick fight, have you?

his stick was too small to enter the contest...

nice to see you Kurgen

[Retardo_Montalban]

look, different strokes for different folks. the goody two shoes bunch prefer TLC while those more inclined to appreciate the wilder things in life prefer ToD....

Goody two shoes? I bet you haven't even been in a stick fight, have you?

his stick was too small to enter the contest...

nice to see you Kurgen

So are we arguing over whether Highlander:The Quickening or Highalnder: The Sorcerer is the better movie? I'd go with the quickening for sure, because Sean Connery gets shot and comes back to life just like The Last Crusade.

[tapehead]

No one's gonna vote for H:TS...

[Peven]

look, different strokes for different folks. the goody two shoes bunch prefer TLC while those more inclined to appreciate the wilder things in life prefer ToD....

Goody two shoes? I bet you haven't even been in a stick fight, have you?

his stick was too small to enter the contest...

nice to see you Kurgen

So are we arguing over whether Highlander:The Quickening or Highalnder: The Sorcerer is the better movie? I'd go with the quickening for sure, because Sean Connery gets shot and comes back to life just like The Last Crusade.

i liked Connery better in "Highlander"

[Retardo_Montalban]

i liked Connery better in "Highlander"

Filthy, Richard Hatch lies!

[Keepcoolbutcare]

nice to see you Kurgen

don't ever speak to me.

and what does that make you, a saucy 16th century wench or a hot to trot forensics geekette?

[Lady Sheridan]

nice to see you Kurgen

don't ever speak to me.

and what does that make you, a saucy 16th century wench or a hot to trot forensics geekette?

I reserve the right to be the saucy 16th century wench. No man is going to take that from me, by God.

[tapehead]

It's 'the Kurgan'.

[Chairman Kaga]

WTF movie is Highlander: The Sorcerer?

[tapehead]

A.K.A. Highlander III: The Final Dimension

[caruso_stalker217]

A.K.A. The One With Mario van Peebles.

[papalazeru]

A.K.A. The One With Mario van Peebles.

A.K.A The shit one.

Mind you, I'm not including End Game because it's part of the shitty series with that guy who looks like the modern day equivalent of Eric Roberts.

[Brit Pop]

I sense a disturbance in the thread - almost as if it is splitting!

[papalazeru]

I sense a disturbance in the thread - almost as if it is splitting!

Almost like the silly story in ToD.

See how I brought it back there.

[AtomicHyperbole]

That Spielberg "loved" on less than the other is a complete fallacy. He was only disappointed with the reaction to TOD.

This is simply wrong - let me just quote you some Spielberg on Spielberg:

"“I wasn’t happy with the second film at all,â€

[Al Shut]

You TOD fans will be happy to know, my Last Crusade defense over on Cinematical pretty much went down in flames.

It's great, just as the movie deserves.

Since nobody else linked, from the mouth of LS you shall recieve Illumination

Argue that Temple fans.

[Peven]

nice to see you Kurgen

don't ever speak to me.

and what does that make you, a saucy 16th century wench or a hot to trot forensics geekette?

why? are you cruising for a piece of ass?

[Peven]

@papa - No, you talked as if they were profound character development.

/offers ass to Papa

corrected for accuracy....

[papalazeru]

You're rantings are nothing but a defense for the Pro - TLC's

That sort of a verbal barrage doesn't cut it.

Whether the AICN staff value ToD over TLC is irrelevant if Spielberg himself is coming out of the closet and apologising for ToD.

Also, whether staff or not, Kaga and Fried Gold have offered valuable attacks and defences of your trifling attacks.

Now you're just arguing with comments of other peoples comments without writing anything new.

WTF, get off your high horse and start getting back to referencing the movies.

[papalazeru]

Y ou're rantings are nothing but a defense for the Pro - TLC's

That sort of a verbal barrage doesn't cut it.

Whether the AICN staff value ToD over TLC is irrelevant if Spielberg himself is coming out of the closet and apologising for ToD.

Also, whether staff or not, Kaga and Fried Gold have offered valuable attacks and defences of your trifling attacks.

Now you're just arguing with comments of other peoples comments without writing anything new.

WTF, get off your high horse and start getting back to referencing the movies.

Rubbish. Nothing you guys have said can't be batted back easily by holding up the flimsy plotting, rubbish action choreography, awful effects and useless Macguffin of TLC. You guys are doing exactly the same. It's Raiders Lite and doesn't stand up.

Except I'm not using Alts to boost my defense, because you're all too weak and lazy to actually put together something that makes sense.

Instead of belittling everyone else's comments, why don't you at least be grateful that both Nordling and LS have made concise documents concerning this matter, and why don't you go write something new.

We've talked about the music (which I think is better in TLC after listening to the ochestration on youtube), we've talked about the back story (which ToD has none), we've talked about the story and flaws in both, we've talked about the tone, the special fx and the character relationship.

Is there anything left?

[RogueScribner]

You're rantings are nothing but a defense for the Pro - TLC's

That sort of a verbal barrage doesn't cut it.

Whether the AICN staff value ToD over TLC is irrelevant if Spielberg himself is coming out of the closet and apologising for ToD.

Yeah, Spielberg also wishes he never put guns in E.T. and that Roy never left on the alien spaceship.

[doglips]

Ok, this debate has been cool, but if it descends into garbage spouting, I'll just lock the thread. Have a rest on it for a couple of days, watch KOTCS and come back to it or something!

[papalazeru]

You 're rantings are nothing but a defense for the Pro - TLC's

That sort of a verbal barrage doesn't cut it.

Whether the AICN staff value ToD over TLC is irrelevant if Spielberg himself is coming out of the closet and apologising for ToD.

Yeah, Spielberg also wishes he never put guns in E.T. and that Roy never left on the alien spaceship.

Ooo...look at that AH. Reasoned argument.

Bet you forgot about those.

[Brit Pop]

I reckon the defence of everybody's favorite 'archaeologist slash lecturer slash aviatory narcoleptic' means that even bad films with Indy in still can be defended - I guess thats the endearing quality of HJJ.

Sticking my neck out a bit I would say...

ROTLA - Greatest film ever made.
TOD - A good film... funny, exciting.
TLC - Re-heated monkey squirt after a batch of bad dates.

Sticking my neck out fully (and in comparison to ROTLA) I would say...

"Raiders is fucking awesome... all the rest are shite"

[Lady Sheridan]

[ quote="papalazeru"]Y ou're rantings are nothing but a defense for the Pro - TLC's

That sort of a verbal barrage doesn't cut it.

Whether the AICN staff value ToD over TLC is irrelevant if Spielberg himself is coming out of the closet and apologising for ToD.

Also, whether staff or not, Kaga and Fried Gold have offered valuable attacks and defences of your trifling attacks.

Now you're just arguing with comments of other peoples comments without writing anything new.

WTF, get off your high horse and start getting back to referencing the movies.

Rubbish. Nothing you guys have said can't be batted back easily by holding up the flimsy plotting, rubbish action choreography, awful effects and useless Macguffin of TLC. You guys are doing exactly the same. It's Raiders Lite and doesn't stand up.

Except I'm not using Alts to boost my defense, because you're all too weak and lazy to actually put together something that makes sense.

Instead of belittling everyone else's comments, why don't you at least be grateful that both Nordling and LS have made concise documents concerning this matter, and why don't you go write something new.

We've talked about the music (which I think is better in TLC after listening to the ochestration on youtube), we've talked about the back story (which ToD has none), we've talked about the story and flaws in both, we've talked about the tone, the special fx and the character relationship.

Is there anything left?

awww, thanks Papa. (And you too, Al.)

Seriously, I dig out the Arthurian literary tradition and it's shit? That's not cool. I expect a gold star if I use my degree in such a debate.

[so sorry]

Is there anything left?

Boy, if THAT isn't the best way to end this thread, I don't know what is!

[RogueScribner]

So basically people like TLC more than ToD either because they dig the whole holy grail business or they like that it's a retread of Raiders. Okay. I can dig the holy grail, but I hate retreads. You take the father-son stuff out of TLC and it's weak sauce indeed.

[captainbrose]

So basically people like TLC more than ToD either because they dig the whole holy grail business or they like that it's a retread of Raiders. Okay. I can dig the holy grail, but I hate retreads. You take the father-son stuff out of TLC and it's weak sauce indeed.

But you cant say "if you take the father-son stuff out...". Its in the movie and that was the core relationship and theme of the movie. Its one of the reasons people like the movie.

[tapehead]

That Spielberg "loved" on less than the other is a complete fallacy. He was only disappointed with the reaction to TOD.

This is simply wrong - let me just quote you some Spielberg on Spielberg:

"“I wasn’t happy with the second film at all,â€

[Retardo_Montalban]

What I've noticed in this thread is that the people who like The Last Crusade defend their position by discussing the many merits of The Last Crusade while the people who like Temple of Doom defend their position by ragging on The Last Crusade.

[The Vicar]

What I've noticed in this thread is that the people who like The Last Crusade defend their position by discussing the many merits of The Last Crusade while the people who like Temple of Doom defend their position by ragging on The Last Crusade.

Just like in the Tbs.
It's a sad day for The Zone when this sort of shit becomes the norm.

[Retardo_Montalban]

Well, to be honest it really is a vast minority whose stirring the pot. I just don't understand why we can't all agree that the real difference in quality between the two movies is our own personal criteria that we judge it upon. Then maybe we can actually get a real discussion going between the two movies and compare the various aspects of both movies in an intricate and objective manner.

[Pacino86845]

I just voted for TLC 'cause the Temple of Doom guys were getting annoying!

[Pacino86845]

Kirk is being a princess again, he asked me to post this:

I voted... TOD as you TLC guys were getting annoying!!! (This is war)

Also can you post this quote from me too?

TLC sucks as it is named after a dodgy R n B girl band.

How Dumbledore is that?

Honestly I can't see why we're not debating why Indiana Jones and the Whorsemen of the Aplocalypse isn't the BEST. INDY. MOVIE. EVAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This whole debate has been kinda Dumbledore...

[RogueScribner]

Hey, I've posted several times why I like ToD and the response has usually been "Well, it was nothing like Raiders and TLC was." So my natural response is to show why I think that's a bad thing.

And yeah, part of the reason why I like ToD more than TLC is because I simply feel TLC is an inferior film. It's not simply a matter of preference to me, it's about real differences in quality.

And some people have been propping up TLC by stating everything that was supposedly wrong with ToD, so don't act like either side of the debate is immune from it. Just because AH continues to beat the dead horse with everyone doesn't mean everyone who prefers ToD to TLC is backing up everything he says. If you want me to go back and quote every slam against ToD in this thread, I will.

Outside of the father-son stuff, I didn't think TLC brought anything new to the table; it was all territory we've tread before. Sorry, but I liked TLC the first time when it was called Raiders of the Lost Ark. And it didn't even retread well: the music was subpar, the VFX were subpar, the villains were subpar, the mission was subpar, the jokes were subpar, the action was really subpar . . . it goes on and on. TLC just meanders along wishing it was half the adventure Raiders or ToD were.

I hope KotCS fares better.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[papalazeru]

And that's a fair opinion there Rogue.

The music from TLC wasn't a rehash at all, it had it's own themes in which were not part of the Raiders tune.

The jokes themselves, I didn't find them flat. I thought it worked really in, most of the time, showing the relationship between Indy and his dad.

As for being a complete rehash of Raiders, I don't quite see it like that.

In Raiders he meanders off to find the Ark through as series of different locations and explorations.

In TLC, Indy goes off to find his father, who is in fact searching for the grail, and ends up following the grail....with a heck of a lot of Fez action.

[RogueScribner]

The TLC score wasn't a rehash, but it wasn't very adventurous either. The grail themes were slow and dull, IMO. The score wasn't awful - heck, the MOVIE wasn't awful - but I can have a good time listening to the first two Indy scores but I haven't listened to the TLC score in years because it bores me to tears.

The jokes were too numerous and often cheesy. There was a bit of dry humor and rampant sarcasm in the first two movies, but in TLC the humor was largely dumbed down. Really, TLC is probably the most family-friendly Indy movie and I doubt that was an accident. Much like Return of the Jedi before it, TLC decided to whitewash everything to appeal to the masses. TLC can be many things to many people, but even its supporters have to admit it isn't edgy.

Thematically and structurally TLC has much in common with Raiders:

* after a brief opening adventure in a cave, it sets up the next adventure via the university

* Indy treks across the globe to find someone, but gains a female partner instead

* Indy races the Nazis to find the religious artifact first

* Indy enlists the help of Sallah to track down the locale

* There's a big desert chase (except this time there's a tank!)

* Indy does all the heavy lifting to get the artifact, but the nazis end up taking it away from him

* The bad guy uses the religious artifact and his face melts/withers away

* Neither Indy or the nazis end up with the artifact

That's not to mention all the direct references made to the first film in TLC which only added to deja vu.

Luckily there was a father-son dynamic added to the mix or the film really would have been in trouble!

I appreciate ToD for going somewhere new and for having bat-shit crazy moments of action-adventure. TLC didn't have a single rousing action scene. Not in comparison to the first two films, anyway.

Honestly, it just felt like Lucas/Spielberg were going through the motions on TLC, trying to appease people who were put off by the edginess of ToD by adding lots of humor and familiar situations.

[papalazeru]

The TLC score wasn't a rehash, but it wasn't very adventurous either. The grail themes were slow and dull, IMO. The score wasn't awful - heck, the MOVIE wasn't awful - but I can have a good time listening to the first two Indy scores but I haven't listened to the TLC score in years because it bores me to tears.

I'll agree with you there but only to point out that John Williams has done nothing exciting in years.

Jaws was about the most exciting he got, the rest is over dressed nonsence - admittedly, I enjoy it. It's all good to listen to.

[Vegeta]

To reiterate an earlier point this "debate" really comes down to personal preference. I like both movies, but perfer TLC, probably because of it's similar tone to Raiders. That's not a bad thing. For me, TOD, doesn't work on many levels. Mainly the added characters don't work at all:
Shortround is needless and nonsensical comic relief. Seriously, what kind of person is Indy to drag a 10 year old orphan into all these completely dangerous and possibly deadly situations. Okey-Dokey Dr. Jones indeed.
Willie just screams through the entire movie... nuff said.
There are other issues I have, but that's the main one and a fairly large problem at that, IMO. If I don't like/understand characters that are on screen for the majority of a film it's hard to enjoy said film.

In the end, none of this matters, becuase neither film holds a candle to Raiders.

[doglips]

In the end, none of this matters, becuase neither film holds a candle to Raiders.

Rumour has it that's what's written on one of the stone tablets in the Ark itself!

[AtomicHyperbole]

OK, fine, you fucko's asked for it.

I've already banged on frankly about why I feel The Last Crusade isn't much of a movie, but let me elucidate a bit before going into my concise defense of The Temple of Doom. Trust me, I would love to openly love it as much as some of you here, but as RogueScribner says it's a film that only just about gets by on the central relationship between Indy and his father, which is wonderfully played by Sean Connery. The problem is what surrounds it. Outside of the lead pair, the rest merely feels like a flimsy, less powerful reference to the first film, only not as well made - astounding considering the gap between their productions and difference in adjusted cost - nor written.

Where Temple of Doom succeeded for me was because it actually tried to take the character somewhere else. I'd imaging creating it was a bit of a learning process for Spielberg, who at that time was trying to reject his more cynical nature in favour of straight family entertainment. Take Close Encounters, a movie most would agree as being an uplifting, almost spiritual experience as a man discovers a higher destiny. Well, as Spielberg later saw it, here was a man who destroyed his family on a selfish quest that didn't end in any particular redemption.

Temple of Doom continues with Spielbergs previous fascination with slightly flawed hero characters. Whereas in Raiders, Indy was a man who'd learned by his mistakes, in Temple of Doom, here was the man who was living them. Only through the course of the film, he learns by them and gains a chance to redress his character- unlike Close Encounters' Roy Neary. For me, that adds an extra dimension - a figure who can tell what's right and wrong, but lives in the grey areas whilst simultaneously trying to redress the balance, even if he has to get his hands dirty to do so. He's not simply a "grave robber", merely someone whose intentions are skewed on a journey that would lead him to become the rounded hero we find in Raiders. He's also someone who cares, as shown by his angry reaction to his fallen colleague, taking in of Short Round and seeing hiddne depth through his trust in the intentionally annoying Willie Scott.

As for his quest, it's not simply about "saving the world", but also saving himself. The whole world stuff merely comes by proxy, even if Mola Ram - who has ambition to retrieve the other Sankara stones - does present a deadly threat beyond those within the boundaries of Pankot. Initially, as he embarks from the village, it's about "fortune and glory", yet when he peeks over the top of the cliff (in a scene cleverly referenced The Last Crusade) he's become a man of integrity. In some ways, I find the Indy of Temple of Doom far more interesting than Raiders, even if the original is the better movie.

Outside of Indy, the character of Willie Scott is someone whose attacked quite regularly in Doom. But I find those who attack her for being annoying simply don't understand that she's meant to be - even Indy remarks on it;

"...the biggest problem with Willie is the noise."

Not only is she a reference to past screwball comedies, as Indy she's another character who begins the film quite selfish. Although doesn't totally redeem herself by the end, her powerful, abrasive personality acts as a foil to Indy and Short Round's seen-it-all-before attitude. She's a realistically sassy woman, confident and yet completely out of her element, and it's hard to argue against the fact that she's a fully fleshed, three-dimensional character. In fact, despite her slightly cartoonish (and I'll get onto that later) nature, she's a reasonably realistic portrayal of a theatrical prima donna. And she provides us with one of the finest character intro's in cinematic history. Without her the movie would no doubt had been quieter, but also lacking a backbone for which the others could play off.

Short Round too, is more than just a "whacky" sidekick. His love for his surrogate father shows through in his respect for him in the village, and later on in the darkest part of the Indy trilogy where our hero practically loses his mind. If it wasn't for Short Round, Indy would've probably been lost for good. He's even provided with his own enemy to overcome, the bewitched maharaja (a symbol of the power Mola could put over any political leader) which helps complete one of Temple's fine action scenes. Naturally, it helps that Ke Quan is a very capable comedic actor, even at this early age.

Temple of Doom also contains the series' most recognisable bad guy outside of the bald Nazi from Raiders, Toht. He was created by Lucas and Spielberg to represent true evil, and I think that Amish Puri's repulsive turn makes him possibly one of the finest cinematic villains ever created. Gleeful and fully aware of the power he wields, he manages not only to corner the kingdom and enslave the children from the surrounding villages, but he's also got the respected Maharajah in his hands (don't forget the English at this time didn't wield as much power, proven in the dinner scene). Plus outside of Blonde Nazi in the first film, he actually represents a real threat to Indy's life -and sanity. He's not meant to be the most complex character in the world, he really doesn't need to be. He's meant to represent nothing but the purest evil. He has no good traits nor detailed backstory, but that's purposeful in setting him out beyond the Nazi's in the first film. Here is a man willing to play with the Gods and do anything to gain power.

Overcoming him, and also overcoming his scepticism in the process, represents a big leap for Indy from his character in the beginning of the film. Redemption isn't an easy thing. In fact, you could say that the entire film is about redemption from beginning to end - those who don't redeem themselves are doomed to fall. Maybe this was intentional when creating the trilogy - if, as Lady Sheridan eloquently points out, the last of the first three films is about illumination, then Temple was about redemption. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out what the first was.

Naturally, I could now harp on and on about the action beyond the story, which is - and I have to be truthful - merely a caper. Then again, the films pacing and narrative is meant to be a ride of sorts, which is why I think it works. Although generally it keeps itself at quite an intense pitch, there's enough moments where the characters relax - be the stop in the village (which I think reveals Indy as being far more complex than his "fortune and glory" speech makes out), Pankot and later in the cave, where things are taken to a real low. That low actually make the highs seem more of a struggle to attain, which is why towards the end I feel like cheering, no matter how ridiculous the scenes become.

From the wonderful musical introduction, to the chase through the streets of Hong Kong and crash landing, all the way through to the insect caves, mine cart and run from the flood, pound for pound I don't think Temple of Doom has quite been beaten in terms of imaginative set pieces by any movie since. It helps that all the model work, for the time, are possibly the best in-camera effects ever made outside of Return of the Jedi and that the direction throughout is completely impeccable. Coupled with a score that's probably more powerful than the on in Raiders (for my money), everything rollocks along at such a pace it's hard to take a breath once the films kicks it up a notch.

Moving on, I've already defended its blatant orientalism to some degree - to my mind it's accepted as a fantasy, and the vast amount of indian actors would've probably had something to say about it during production. I also think it manages to encompass a lot of what I've seen of Bollywood cinema, where villains are blatant moustache twirling foes (literally) and characters are painted in broad colours, as is the canvas.

I'm pretty certain both Lucas and Spielberg were very aware of what lines they could and couldn't cross when creating it, and feel it manages to get away with what it does by tempering any classical stereotypes with either a counterpart, or by limiting them somehow. At the dinner scene, the British captain makes a point that he doesn't have any power as British rule was fading at that time, for example, and the Maharaja shows himself as a capable ally beyond being a cypher for Mola Ram. Besides, all the films take liberties with various culture, so any accusation of racism could probably be turned on each one.

Lastly, in its difference to Raiders - I think that makes it stand out on its own two feet. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be HALF the film if you were to replace the main character with anyone other than Indy, as much as I think The Last Crusade wouldn't be worth watching without the central relationship of Indy and his father. It not only manages to show how Indy was before he took on the Nazi's and the Ark, but progress his character from where he is at the start. The production design is incredibly high quality and the change of theme distances itself from the first, making it fresh - giving you an adventure with an old friend. For me, that's the mark of a good sequel - not the lazy "more is better" productions of late, but showing that there's enough depth and breadth in a loved central character to take them into new environment whilst simultaneously keeping the movie within the confines of what's expected. As an example of this, TOD has not since been bettered.

I hope The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull manages to live up to its promise.

[AtomicHyperbole]

Noting what Vegeta said, I think the similarity to Raiders is the main crux as to why people prefer one to the others. Whilst TOD'ers see it as a sign of weakness, TLC'ers see it as a comfortable familiarity.

[Vegeta]

Noting what Vegeta said, I think the similarity to Raiders is the main crux as to why people prefer one to the others. Whilst TOD'ers see it as a sign of weakness, TLC'ers see it as a comfortable familiarity.

Bingo! Just different sides of the coin

[Vegeta]

Yeah, we all knew that from the start anyway.

TLC is still badly made though.

/runs

*slings rotten fruit and vegetables*

[Keepcoolbutcare]

What I've noticed in this thread is that the people who like The Last Crusade defend their position by discussing the many merits of The Last Crusade while the people who like Temple of Doom defend their position by ragging on The Last Crusade.

Just like in the Tbs.
It's a sad day for The Zone when this sort of shit becomes the norm.

i don't think you're going to have to worry about that anymore...

[travis-dane]

What I've noticed in this thread is that the people who like The Last Crusade defend their position by discussing the many merits of The Last Crusade while the people who like Temple of Doom defend their position by ragging on The Last Crusade.

Just like in the Tbs.
It's a sad day for The Zone when this sort of shit becomes the norm.

i don't think you're going to have to worry about that anymore...

I thought this a new thread!
BUT no......
I dont know if this the new "In-Joke" right now,but this is some funny shit here.....just dont take it serious guys...

[The Vicar]

What I've noticed in this thread is that the people who like The Last Crusade defend their position by discussing the many merits of The Last Crusade while the people who like Temple of Doom defend their position by ragging on The Last Crusade.

Just like in the Tbs.
It's a sad day for The Zone when this sort of shit becomes the norm.

i don't think you're going to have to worry about that anymore...

Why? Am I getting b4nn3d?

[Nordling]

Once the art is out in the public, the opinion of the artist is not very important. Besides, it's a slippery slope from "I didn't like that film I made" to "Let's take the guns out" to "I'll never release that version of that film again." Once you let a piece of art out, you really have no business touching it again. I have no problems with director's cuts as long as the original piece of art remains available.

[Vegeta]

Once the art is out in the public, the opinion of the artist is not very important. Besides, it's a slippery slope from "I didn't like that film I made" to "Let's take the guns out" to "I'll never release that version of that film again." Once you let a piece of art out, you really have no business touching it again. I have no problems with director's cuts as long as the original piece of art remains available.

tell that to George Lucas