Low Budget

This is an interesting question about any work or body of work. Many an author, after developing a series, has felt constrained by fan expectations. If she unexpectedly kills off a much-loved character, fans feel betrayed. This didn't happen in "their" universe.

Movies are often more sensitive to fan requirements, given the budgets involved. Still, when David Fincher took over the third installment of Alien, he made some choices that were actively hostile to the nature of the series. He took an established universe, built over two installments by Ridley Scott and James Cameron, and replaced it with his own quasi-religious vision. To do so, he had to casually kill off characters whose survival had been the success of the prior movie. In response, audiences generally discounted his contribution, considering only the first two movies genuine.

But George Lucas is different. He created Star Wars. It is, arguably, his vision. Though almost every critic agrees that he is somehow unable to see why the original trilogy worked, it's still his, isn't it?

Is it possible that art can transcend the artist? Obviously when Lucas went back to the well, he had lost his touch. So the follow-up movies don't have the magic of the originals. But that happens to many authors, what really rankles is that he's altered the originals. Now, remember that when Star Wars came out, it was the first movie that people sawmore than once. I know someone who saw it 40 times while it was in the theater. More than one guy could do line after line of dialog. Star Wars wasn't just a fun, afternoon adventure, it had become part of people's lives. Bad sequels were painful, but changing the original?

The most glaring change, the one that has inflamed former Lucas fans, is the scene in which bounty hunter Greedo meets Han Solo at the Cantina. When Greedo tells Han he will kill him, Han shoots Greedo under the table. It's the ultimate cool moment for Han. But George Lucas in his drive for younger markets, felt there was something dishonorable about that scene. So he "fixed" it. In later versions, Greedo shoots first, somehow missing Han from like one meter away. It's unconvincing, and counter to the character that has been developed. More importantly, it broke relationship between audience and filmmaker. Remember, people have seen the original many, many times. Hundreds. Han is well-fixed, probably the most accessible character in the series. Now he's been emasculated, by the filmmaker. In response, hundreds of reviewers and websites have decried Lucas. Petitions have demanded that the original version be made available. Online comics have depicted the conflict in terms of a trial. One website is actually named Hanshootsfirst.org. Obviously, people believe that there is an authentic version out there, a Star Wars that they grew up with, one that is untouched by Lucas' revisions. Oddly, Lucas is blind to this. His comments on the original movies indicate he envisioned them differently, more like the later failures. Yet again, limitations create better art. The argument remains, though. Is the original more authentic because people have just seen it so many times, or is it somehow truer to the nature of storytelling?