Slashdot Mirror
Why Star Wars Should be Left to the Fans
Aguazul writes "The BBC has an interesting take on George Lucas's meddling with our memories: 'Fans of Star Wars are not happy. Someone has been tampering with their movie history.' They speculate on who really owns a piece of art. Even the artist doesn't really know what he's created, and a work doesn't become 'something' until given value by an audience: 'the artist is merely the medium for his or her work.' Many people contributed to the Star Wars trilogy. Is Lucas' over-inflated idea of his own importance in the process the reason he is stopping people seeing the unmodified originals?"
Noooooooo!!!!!!!
ok I am not a fan of the changes made to star wars, but if a thing in the background is really pissing you off THAT MUCH then you might want to evaluate your life
besides, if you want the originals I am sure there is a nice VHS collection at your local thrift store ... the originals were not in freaking THX surround and HD quality either. I have a set of the originals and converted them to DVD, they look original and do not suffer from physical damage due to playback.
How does this qualify as HD? Who buys this shit?
>> Even the artist doesn't really know what he's created, and a work doesn't become 'something' until given value by an audience: 'the artist is merely the medium for his or her work.'
the writers, producers, costume designers, actors, etc are really irrelevant in the creative process. no, its the
talentless consumer thats really the creative wellspring of artistic work
and they are really botched up! Lucas has done the world and SW fans a great disservice by injecting all the digital CRAP into what were once great movies.
Leave it the hell alone! Give us back the ORIGINAL, theatrical releases, as they were in the day, on Blu-ray without screwing with them!
Thanks.
We all know the truth!
Luckily some of us remember. Perhaps the law of diminishing returns is lost on some ....
The artist rules, not a bunch of crowdsourced nonsense. That's my first feeling.
Like a lot of things, it's not etched in stone and it's not an absolute. The artist shouldn't be allowed to rule to the point where he can "yank back" something that's been released. After a proper term, he shouldn't be allowed to restrict copying. Parody is actually protected of course, and should remain so. Fan art is fine; but it certainly doesn't trump the artist. Nowhere near it.
Now quit trying to suppress those originals, Lucas. You're just being a jackass. It's OK if you want to clean up the matte outlines that came through in VHS transfers (did anybody else notice that back when episode IV was on VHS?). Otherwise, no CGI dinos and rings around explosions. WTF? That's not a value-add. If you think it is, great; but make both versions available. You might think the smoke rings are closer to your vision; but a lot of us don't want 'em.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
I think that's a reasonable and praiseworthy understanding of what art, and copyright ownership, should be for. The time of creator-control should be "limited" to something like 14 or 28 years (one generation), as was originally intended. Afterward, it belongs to the world.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I don't think he's preventing anyone from seeing anything, he's not dedicating money towards distributing something he considers an inferior product, and as the owner of the IP he's in a position to make those kinds of decisions. If you want the 80's incarnation of star wars buy the VHS on ebay.
There are many leaders in history where they think they are above the people ... most of them are not that nice ...
"The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests."
and
"Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself."
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
It is morally right that the creator of a work should have complete control over it for all time immemorial. You don't see people messing with The Iliad -- it exists today in exactly the same format that Homer wrote it down, and the changes that he penciled in to later editions have been faithfully reproduced. The same is true with the plays of Shakespeare, which are always performed with exactly the same script and stage directions that the Bard himself took to the copyright office before the original performances. And music also has never been altered after composition -- the composers intent is always honored by the performer, and the audience would demand no less.
I don't see any reason we should give Lucas any less than the complete and total control over his creations enjoyed by Homer, Shakespeare, and Bach. To afford him anything else would be tragic.
That sounds like something someone non-creative person would say. Perhaps an art critic.
I'm gonna post this anonymously for fear of retribution. But seriously, who cares?
The damn movies weren't that good to begin with. There is way better science fiction
out there and more of it gets made all the time.
Firefly getting cancelled, that's a real crime!
... even worse then the author. Most people are mediocre, there are all stars among the fans but knowing who they are isn't something you know until after they've produced something and there's been a reaction.
The music was in MONO for God's sake. And the cars run on gasoline and tires - they should fly! And that part where the cops in Jerry's Cherry get the transmission pulled out of their car, it should be a great deal more AWESOME with fireballs and stuff! There is so much that Lucas could fix in his own childhood by reworking American Graffiti, why does he keep tinkering with Star Wars?
off of bittorent. My childhood memories are now restored. No more CGI blinking Ewoks, no more yelling darth, no more han shoots last. So to all the fans out there, relax and just download the originals (besides, I already paid for them decades ago on VHS).
Actually, I would like very much to be able to see the movie as it was in the theater. Back when we counted how many times we had seen it, like counting coup.
I think the real question isn't what someone is allowed to do to their own art, but what happens to our collective memories? I wold love to share my childhood memories with my grand kids, and for the most part I can... But thanks to Mr. Lucas one of the biggest influences of my childhood has been lost forever. Out of respect for all of us who have made him rich beyond any of our individual dreams he should allow the theatrical releases to issued on BluRay as well. It isn't my place to tell someone how to make their own art - As an artist myself I know that an artist doesn't ever really finish a work they abandon it, but at the point that art becomes a part of our collective conscience we should be able to revisit that memory. My two cents.
change it.
Even the artist doesn't really know what he's created, and a work doesn't become 'something' until given value by an audience: 'the artist is merely the medium for his or her work.'
Uh, say what? A work of art is entirely the work and creation of the artist creating it. Whether or not society deems it to have "value" is entirely irrelevant to it still being a creative expression by the artist. Indeed, one could create something and hide it away, never to have it seen by anyone other than themselves, and it still would not change the fact that it is a work of art. There would be no work of art without that artist, so the idea that someone is merely the "medium" for it is beyond ridiculous.
If that were true, anybody at any time at any place could, and indeed would, create any work of art that ever has been. Clearly that is not the case.
I personally feel that Lucas has lost touch with the artistic core that made Star Wars great in the first place, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is his (and everyone else involved in its production) work of art. It may be insane for an artist to decide to burn down or defecate on any work of art they have ever created, but that does not mean the art no longer belongs to them, or that it somehow belongs to those who can "appreciate it more".
This article's entire premise falls flat on its face.
There is an exellent article outlining what Lucas has done to the original negative. tl;dr: in the 90's Lucas restored the negative of the original release, and then subsequently nearly completely butchered it while at the same time destroying all copies of the theatrical release (except privately owned vhs and laserdisks, of course). At this point the only thing that exists is a 1080p scan of the film. All of the restored negative does still exist, though. It's just not assembled into something that could produce anything. It is possible to re-assemble that restoration, which by all accounts is stunning.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
The Mona Lisa smiled first! Don't try to change the story!
It's Lucas' right, but he's an ass for not letting us have the restoration without additions as it's something that had to happen whether he was going to crap it up again or not. So you're right, and everyone who wants his head on a pike is right, too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There's nothing wrong with making new editions. The problem is that he is trying to eradicate the originals from history.
(+1, Disagree)
It's never lucus.
The problem isn't so much that George is perpetrating a fraud. He is suppressing the originals. Part of his "ownership" is a social contract with the rest of us. It's part of the deal he made when he got to publish the originals and get a monopoly on their copying and distribution.
George owes us a usable copy of the original. That's a 35mm print BTW.
Also, his attempt to create derivative works and call them Star Wars are fraud and should be pointed out as such and perhaps even prosecuted as such.
Quite often whining about "following the rules" when it comes to copyright tends to be entirely one sided and in favor of publishers.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That whooshing sound you hear is the point flying over your head.
No one argues that Lucas isn't the legal owner. Of course he is, and of course he has the legal right to do whatever he wants. "Own" is metaphorical in this article, and your entire comment is irrelevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BMgegut3UM
I think this speaks for itself.
I've come to terms with Greedo shooting first in the Cantina. Yoda has been seen to dodge a laser shot in Ep.3. Chewbacca's close connection with the Jedis via Yoda would have allowed him to find a star pilot unconsciously strong with the Force, i.e. Han Solo. (Although I do prefer the narrative in which Han begins as a self-serving opportunist who later is willing to sacrifice himself by being frozen in carbonite.)
However, in the re-releases, when Ben and Luke are being questioned by Stormtroopers in Mos Eisley, a giant digital bantha walks in front of the camera during crucial dialogue. Why a director would add such a pointless camera obstruction in post-production I doubt I'll come to negotiate.
There's a problem here: you won't even get agreement from people in answering the question, "What is art?" If you can't get people to agree on what it is, then you won't get agreement from people on the question of "Who owns art?"
It's such a complicated topic where people won't even agree on the basics, so it's hard to come to complex conclusions. One general point that I hope we can reach a consensus on: there's value in preserving art in the original form, even if only as an artifact or cultural snapshot. For example, I don't think it should bother us that Lucas wants to continually mess around with Star Wars. It bothers me, though, in as much as he's trying to force the new versions to be the authoritative versions and trying to make it difficult/unappealing to access the original edits.
If the IT world put as much effort into reforming the system as they have bitching about Star Wars we'd get regular raises periodically instead of having to re-interview every 2 years to keep our old jobs.
A lot of the changes seem to be the type that he and his collaborators (he did have them) could have argued about during the original filming. Now that he has complete control over the property, he can "re-win" all of these.
Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence
It's a vast overstatement that "artists are merely a medium for his or her work". But it's true that artwork is a medium of communication between people, only one of whom is the artist. Without someone to perceive the art, the art might as well not exist. The art's effect is created by the beholder in their own mind. More educated and sensitive minds make more of the art they experience. More cultivated audiences recognize better art and give it more value. The most popular art, especially after generations as folk art, is mostly made of the experience of the audience that perpetuates the artwork.
This essential dynamic is key to all creation. That's one reason why copyright was created in the US Constitution only on the basis that it would control copying works for only limited times. After a while the audience is the main source of value in the art, with the original creator's contribution necessary but insufficient to give it the value it obtained in the culture.
Artists have the natural right to endlessly change their created works. Just as everyone has the right to be wrong creatively. The problem is the monopoly on controlling the work that our current legal regimes grant to artists and to their agents. Lucas is free to ruin Star Wars as much as he likes, and as long as his money holds out for budgets. But 34 years after releasing Star Wars it's as much the property of the generations of audiences who've perpetuated it as it is its original creators'. There should be no limit on anyone reediting what's released, or creating their own versions from scratch.
Only the power of business to capture government-protected monopolies trumps our free speech rights, and ignores the value of the people in the market in creating value in what we consume.
--
make install -not war
There is no difference between "commercial" art and any other kind of art, except style and perhaps meaning.
--
make install -not war
This topic has been getting a lot of attention recently. The guys at Red Letter Media just interviewed the director of the movie The People vs. George Lucas which examines the question in detail.
They're his movies and it's for Lucas to do with them what he wants.
cut
I'll always know that Han shot first, new versions won't change that.
And yet that is exactly what happened. Since 1997 Han doesn't shoot first.
Then new versions changed this scene, as many other scenes. And therefore changed the films.
People think that becasue Lucas changed what 3 minutes in the whole original trilogy then its acceptable. It is not, and the reason for this is that a film has a number of defining moments. Change those moments and you will by definition be changing the film. Doesn't matter at all wether the change is 10 seconds or 2 minutes.
Can you imagine changing the last 10 seconds of the duel in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly ?
Hey its only 10 seconds in a 3 hours film. Who cares right ?
Never invite a lawyer to a philosophical discussion.
In defense of the fellow anonymous Parent, I think you're missing the sarcasm dripping from his post. Everybody knows there wasn't any copyright office during the Bard's time and every classical music fan knows that there's no such thing as a canonical performance of a piece.
All the copies of shakespeare existing were heavily messed with by early theater owners. Scene order was messed with until scenes didn't make sense - characters saying things that the learn about in a later scene, scenes added to use a theatre's special effects -all sorts of changes, leading to arguments in scholarly circles to this day.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
There is no such thing as 'commercial art'. It's either art or trade goods.
If you sell art, you're covered on many things, mainly freedom of speech, but there's a price to it, such as having to share art with the public.
If you sell goods, you're not covered by freedom of speech (e.g. you can't print racist comments in a television manual) but you don't owe the public anything they don't pay for.
You can't have the best of both worlds while the public gets the worse of both. It doesn't work this way.
And if anyone has been dumb enough to include such a thing as "commercial art" into law, they should be jailed for crimes against humanity. I'm not kidding.
But how is it any different from a new version of a computer program that has more efficient algorithms and fewer security vulnerabilities?
I hope any of you who are against Lucas have never seen a remake/reboot or whatever you call them. If he wants to redo parts fine. It's his prerogative.Don't buy/see it. Sometimes the reboot/remake works (Battlestar Galatica) and sometimes they bomb (Day the Earth Stood Still). And those weren't made by the people who made the originals.
The concept that an author is not the authority on his/her own work has been common, even accepted, in literary analysis for decades.
So how many more decades will it take for legal analysis to warm up to this concept?
Yeah, when is he gonna release the Christmas Special on Blu-Ray(TM)?
Well, despite Lucas' stand on not honoring the originals, they were bundled as part of a DVD release not that long ago. Apparently they were referred to as "bonus content" (they appeared on the "Disc 2"/extras, bundled with releases of the Special Editions) but there they are - in unrestored glory. They looked very similar to the Laser Disc copies that went floating around about ten years ago. It's a real pity that the original theatrical releases couldn't be cleaned up and released though (unmolested). As to his right to mess with his art.. it's a strong case for reducing copyright term instead of increasing it in perpetuity!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author
the author often does not understand what his work means.
Lucas edited THX-1138 to utilize the latest improvemnts in special effects. It really did improve the audience experience. (I say this having been 17 years old in 1977). I remember Lucas saying at the time, 1977, about Star Wars something to the effect that as good as the special effects were they were only a fraction of what he wanted to accomplish, hence the tweaking of the film to fit his original vision. He was obviously frustrated to a certain degree at the limits of the 1970's era technology.
"No, I am your father!" - Best plot twist in movie history. Audience reaction in 1977- WTF? No freakin way! Don't listen to him Luke, he's lyin, trying to psych you out!
I want a string of movies based off of Asimov's stories. "The Naked Sun" and "The End of Eternity" come to mind as candidates.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
When you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. I only wish I had the laserdisc version so I could transfer that to DVD instead of from VHS.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s06e09-free-hat
And neither does George Lucas. He does all of his masturbation to please himself and no one else.
"Is Lucas' over-inflated idea of his own importance in the process the reason he is stopping people seeing the unmodified originals?"
How in hell is he stopping me from viewing the originals? No one came and took them from me.
Lucas also tried to rid the world of the Star Wars Christmas Special, arguably the worst thing my eyes have ever seen and lo and behold it won't go away. I'm sure the Streisand Effect will keep the originals alive.
Not that they are worth keeping alive...
So how are you liking now the copyrights which never expire?
Going to vote in the next election?
Greedo seems to be the poster child for complaints, but the Original Star Wars (1977) is ruined pretty much start to finish for me. There is so much ridiculously out of place tacked on CGI it makes me gag.
IMO, what was done to the the original 1977 Star Wars, is as bad as taking "Jason and the Argonauts" and replacing the stop motion work of Ray Harryhausen, with CGI.
He has taken a historically significant special effects movie and added a bunch of lame CGI on top and turned it into a running joke.
For myself, I am only interested in having even a decent DVD copy of just the original 1977 movie (the old DVD box set version is not DVD quality).
I have no interest in anything else Lucas has done.
Slashdot, the one place where having an unpopular opinion is an automatic troll. Most places Trolling has to do with harassment or being obnoxious. On Slashdot it's your opinion that makes you a troll. George didn't make the series in his garage. They spent many millions on each film. As dirt cheap as the first one was made for in today's dollars it would still cost 35 to 50 million. When you spend that kind of money you NEED a financial return. That makes it commercial in nature. Very few films are made purely for the love of filmmaking.
At least some things never change and Slashdot can be counted on to shout down and kill the messenger no matter how true the statements are. When fans love something they assume ownership. It's kind of like a pack of radical Christians keeping Jesus locked up in their basement. Yeah you love it but it doesn't make it any less creepy. Now that's a troll statement:-) True but at least it smells of troll.
But how is it any different from a new version of a computer program that has more efficient algorithms and fewer security vulnerabilities?
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Whether or not you like a film is a subjective decision - you cannot prove that one film/book/poem is better than another: we all have our own opinions. Hence any change to a work of art is bound to have those that like it and those who do not.
See, Darth Vader changed as shown in this one minute and six seconds YouTube video. ;)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
There's nothing wrong with making new editions. The problem is that he is trying to eradicate the originals from history.
Ahh, that was Lucas who broke into my house and scratched up my 1993 laserdisc copies
Huh? I really didn't expect him to be that dedicated to his cause.
(+1, Disagree)
It's the rabid fanatics who have an over-inflated idea of their own importance.
They are consumers. Numbers. Statistics. Buyers.
Not creators or artists.
So STFU, get out of Mom's basement, and get a life already.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You are a consumer. You got your copy of the original. That is ALL you are entitled to.
There is no "contract" guaranteeing updated versions of the old footage. That's pure fantasy and wishful thinking on your part.
And how is it "fraud" to come up with derivative stories set in the same universe? Do you even know what the word means?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
See, if I was George Lucas right now, I'd do what I did with my novel; either implicitly or explicitly make the entire Star Wars universe creative commons, non-commercial, share alike.
In my upcoming e-book Lacuna: Demons of the Void I made the first three chapters and the prologue available (here!) under that licence. What that means is that if I get rich and batshit loco and claim that only I, in my infinite genius, can truly understand this special snowflake of a world I've created and begin a vicious crackdown on my fans... well, my fans can tell me to fuck off.
Hell, they could even write a story where my own characters tell me to fuck off.
That'd be funny. I'd read that.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Thank you, that is indeed an excellent article. I do hope against hope that a proper restoration of the original will some day take place.
Free Hans!
He has had to hear about people being pissed for years. How can he love the work and fans and still continue to piss on the majority. He doesn't seem like an arrogant bastard in interviews.....but I guess he did create Jar Jar.
Lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.
They're his movies and it's for Lucas to do with them what he wants.
The argument is precisely that it's NOT his movie. That the art is changed by the ones who consume it. Considering the culture around Star Wars, it'd be hard to argue against this point.
If Lucas, the "owner" of Star Wars can't make tweaks then others shouldn't be performing Shakespeare except in Olde English and never anything in prose if it was written in poetry. (No women performers either ) Wagner should never be re-arranged and only performed acoustically, no mics, no amps. No stereo releases of Beatles songs that weren't recorded that way. Homer should only be printed in the original Greek. Disney shouldn't have made the version of Cinderella that didn't include a sister cutting off toes to fit in the shoe.
There's not a single person who is saying Lucas doesn't have the right to make tweaks. We're saying he should ALSO released the untweaked version. I have the blu-ray for Blade Runner with 5 different versions of the movie. I watched each of them, and I like different scenes better in each one of them. This is the way it should be. He should release the original version, the special edition, the dvd version of the special edition, and now this new tweaked special edition, and so on.
It is the stupid fanatic who thinks that because they are "fans" they know better than the "creator". They think that their input is important (is not) and that what ever they say is law.
In fact, they are nothing more than WANNABES. People who's life is so miserable they believe their useless "knowledge" about a sci-fi movie gives them powers beyond others, including the people who actually created the sci-fi movie.
In the end, it shows how pathetic fanboys can be.
Obviously his own viewpoint has changed since 1988 in his speech to congress or at least his viewpoint to his own work. If you have seen the behind the scenes of the new trilogy Rick McCallum is one of the major reasons he seems to be so insulated from bad decisions. I don't think he could criticize George if he tried. Also, seeing the American Zoetrope behind the scenes on THX 1138, he is now the exact villain that Francis Ford Coppola and he described as the old world studio that they dealt with in the 1970's. The fact that people can't watch the movies that they watched in 1977 in highest fidelity of today's technology is disturbing. It has to be more than money, more than ego, more than revision for him, I can't pinpoint why he wouldn't release them. Obviously, from outpouring of fans he will make money regardless.
Whatever. What really annoys me is that Thomas the Tank Engine has been converted from models to CGI. That's just wrong.
It is possible to re-assemble that restoration, which by all accounts is stunning.
Can we send in Harry Tuttle?
I've still got my laserdisc set. Just nothing to play them on at the moment...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
George Lucas is a frickin IDIOT! He ruined Star Wars for us, and he can eat garbage and die.
--Oringinal Star Wars fan
Yeah, this is an old argument that has some valid points on both sides, but I finally realized what really bothers me about this .... It feels too much like Lucas is attempting to redefine the reality of the fans who watched the original movies. By essentially destroying the original negatives and leaving only fragments that someone has to re-assemble, and then by releasing revised editions of Star Wars as though they're the originals (no clear notation that it's a revised version on the cover of the box or anything) - it feel like Lucas believes he can erase people's collective memories of what came before. Younger audiences will typically only see the modified version, and the originals are all in formats doomed to fade away as the underlying player technology dies off (VHS and LaserDisc).
Now ultimately? I don't really think Lucas has that as his goal. He's not sitting up at night laughing about how he's altering people's perception or making the first version of the movie vanish. But his clinging to the idea that a movie is a "fluid" thing, with a theatrical release amounting to nothing more than a frozen look at where the production was at that moment in time winds up with this evil result.
I'm sorry, but producers simply don't spend their lives constantly reworking and revising every movie they make. 99% of the time, it's a one shot deal. You make it, declare it "ready for release" at some point, and THAT defines the film, for better or for worse. In a few (1% for the sake of argument here) cases, the producer has a really legitimate reason to go back, make some changes, and release it again. But that simply means there are two competing works out there now, and both should be respected and preserved with equal vigor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Hat
Why don't fans just vote with their wallets? Stop buying all the Star Wars merchandise and special ultra deluxe editor's cut remastered bullshit and be happy with the originals. Let Lucas ruin Star Wars... assuming that's really what he's doing, and not just changing a film from what you remember.
Considering the number and rabidness of Star Wars fans, there must be plenty of places (regardless of legality) to get the original cut of the film.
i disagree... As a musician, I consider songs I've created as belonging more to me than the people who listen to them. If I want to remix or changed an old song and rerelease it, I will. The originals were still distributed so I'm not holding anything back. And if someone asked me to give him an older version of a track, I might not be inclined to do so, simply because my vision is the new version and that's all I can stand by. If you don't like what Lucas is doing with the new versions, that's fine. He's no obligated to do or not do anything based on what you or anyone else wants. Art in this case isn't just expression, it's hard work, long hours and massive investment. These are not things you can take lightly or ever hoped to be in control of unless you're the one making it all happen.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
Fan fiction. What more is there to say?
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
1. The vocal minority likes to bitch. I get that. But if Lucas weren't making money hand over fist from the clearly vast majority who like what he's doing enough to buy every new format and tweak that comes out, he'd stop doing it. Therefore:
2. Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up. You don't own anything. If you want to have an adult discussion about copyright laws, that's one thing. Crying about Lucas and how he ruined your childhood and molested your dog isn't going to change a thing.
>Lucas is quoted on the Save Star Wars website as saying in a 1997 interview with American Cinematographer magazine that he thought "the other versions will
>disappear". He said: "Even the 35 million [video] tapes out there wont last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that
>anyone will remember will be the [Special Edition] version."
Well... Not quite. See, that laserdisc edit got bittorrented. Thus, I've got a copy of the original 3 from those laserdisc rips, and I'm damn sure not the only one. The genie is outta the bottle there George, and you won't be getting it back in. My video cassettes will certainly moulder into dust but those laserdisc rips will be on the torrentz (or whatever p2p becomes popular in coming decades) long after I'm pushing up daisies.
ehintz
When it comes to art, particularly in the realms of entertainment, if it's not in the public domain, it's private property. And includes everything that has to do with private property.
I owned the original Mona Lisa, I could spray-paint it, toss it in a fire, or do whatever else I please with it. Contrary to what appears to be popular belief, there are no laws whatsoever about such things with your own property.
Of course, like Lucas, I would be eternally unpopular and infamous for doing such a thing.
Lucas owns Star Wars. We own the right to give him the middle finger and not contribute to his profit margin if we don't like what he's doing with it.
Hi All,
So I grew up with Star Wars and was always a fan but not nutcase level, I loved it but maybe a 6 or 7 out of 10 on the crazy scale.
No toys, no conventions, no cosplay but I always enjoyed the movies, until of course the prequels sullied my memories and the new edits tarnished the old ones.
I heard many many people recommending the Plinkett reviews of Star Wars Episode 1->3 and hyping them as amazing. However I'm one of those guys who generally ignores or disagrees with too much hype so I'd never watched them. I was wrong. They are completely enteraining, intelligent, insightful, weird (just wait!) and also genuinely sad at points as his editing and choice of music really makes you look back nostalgically at your childhood when Star Wars was still innocent, unbutchered fun.
Anyhow, you have to watch Plinketts reviews of all 3 new movies and NEVER watch the new movies again, or Plinketts review for that matter.
I went from 7 years of having given up on Star Wars to finally pining to watch them again, untarnished. For lack of a better analogy, I felt like I'd forgiven an ex after a bitter breakup, it was quite relieving.
Then,........... I obtained "Harmys" release of Star Wars, it's a 720p version of the original with the majority of the bad stuff ripped out. A few sections are touched up but they are genuinely not bad ones. - Google for Harmy Star Wars - 8gb, worth it completely.
Initially while watching it, as someone who gets invested in the universe of a series, I found myself thinking 'back' to the new movies at points, pondering who did what or why. I fortunately forced myself to stop doing that after about 30 minutes and just enjoyed the movie. (Han Shot first!)
As long as I make a point of NEVER watching EP 1/2/3 again, nor Plinketts reviews, the bad stuff will slowly fall out of my memory, leaving only the original.
I really, really recommend Harmys release of Star Wars, the audio and video for 99% of the movie is amazingly good.
Sorry somebody spoiled your imaginary life with the truth.
Before Empire, before Lucas started pretenting to take Star Wars seriously, back when he still thought he was going to be a "serious" filmmaker.
The Man who Made Star Wars
He basically say he made it for the money, he made it to sell toys, he did it on the cheap, and it wasn't a very good movie. Remember, he couldn't even be bothered to direct the next two installments himself. He really had no idea what he had made.
... repeatedly revised Leaves of Grass -- one of the best works of American poetry and a terrific comment on democracy. The difference is that George Lucas' changes are not considered improvements by much of his audience. Additionally, although Lucas may own everything to do with Star Wars, he is not the sole creator; Irvin Kershner and director of photography Peter Suschitzky are the reason Empire is still taught in most film classes.
Your claim about God and creativity is roughly correct. God was the creator; it was the role of artists to reflect the majesty of God's creation. See M.H. Abrams The Mirror and the Lamp. The development of the idea of authorship was partly a response to the upheavals of the industrial revolution. I have attempted to explain this in a video about the invention of the author. The video description includes references for further reading.
To address the larger point, audiences are significant contributors to the value and meaning of artistic works, as I explain in a video about audience labor. For something like Star Wars I would even suggest that the audience is the major contributor. However, the artist remains the largest individual contributor to his or her work, and before the audience gets involved they clearly haven't contributed much. It is the hits, not the also-rans, that in a sense belong to the audience.
Taking credit for their works was instituted in pre-modern copyright law. In 17th century England copyright was a censorship regime for licensing publishers, rather than a mechanism for rewarding authors. In order to allow the crown to keep tabs on who wrote what, the law required authors' names to be printed in books. Taking credit for their writing was a response to government monitoring, not the assertion of proprietorship that it later became.
Finally, Lucas is hardly the author of his films. Many, many people worked on them. The habit of giving credit for a film to a single person obscures their essential contributions. The recent copyright suit against one of the guys who made the storm trooper helmets gives a hint at how copyright can unjustly focus all credit in one individual.
It's too late. Star Wars is already irrevocably trashed. I saw the first film multiple times at the Cine Capri in Phoenix in 1977. Those memories have been pissed on, and nothing will bring them back. We'll have to wait for something new to replace them. Probably not by Lucas.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
If it was for copyright only, he could as well let them sit for the rest of his lifetime and he could still milk them. Copyright limits are so ridiculously long now that you can safely live off a single achievement in your whole life. Name one other profession that can do that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why would I? I don't invite a pig to a discussion about nuclear physics either.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you really want to let lucas know how you feel stop talking about it and don't buy it.
Thanks for the link, that was a great read. Interesting how a series of somewhat justifiable decisions leads to a result that pretty much sucks.
I wish Lucas could take a lesson from the New Coke guys - 1) bring back the original, 2) become a hero, 3) Stop fucking with shit, 4) Profit (even more!). Just re-release the first 3 movies restored as close to original condition as possible.
Then, if that doesn't get the fans to love him long time, re-release a version of the prequels without Jar-Jar. Or all the shitty green-screen scenes. Or the terribly acted scenes with grown-up Anniken. Or the cartoonish CGI. I think that would leave Natalie Portman, and that's about it.
I've always been irritated when an artist takes something back after giving to their audience. Lucas in particular was arrogant enough to think he still owned that story after not only gave it to audiences but sold it to them (i.e. they payed him money, and he STILL thinks it's only his). I don't think that once someone else see a work, they own it, but when you share a piece of art or creation, you've given a piece of it to them...you are now co-owner. Think of a sculpture: artists shows it to someone,they now have a piece of it to themselves. He may just show it but keep it, fine. If he sold it or gave it to someone does he really feel like he can just go reclaim it at any time? same token, the person who now has it cannot keep it or change it without feeling some responsibility to the creator...Yes they do that (both ways) but they are missing something.
Lucas is a punk to me just because he's still trying to control something AFTER he gave it to audiences. If he allowed the original versions to stay out there, not as big a deal. Yanking it back after giving it to us, very arrogant and immature. If he thinks he owns it to this level, should have just kept it in his basement locked up and never let an audience share it.
AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
It's pretty damn arrogant for fans of something to think they own or have more right to something than the creators (assuming the creators hasn't given up rights to it), or that the creators aren't allowed to do with it as they please.
If Da Vinci was alive right now and owned the Mona Lisa, wanted to draw a mustache on her and say that she was a guy all along, he would have every right to from a moral and a legal standpoint. It is his creation. I like how this article completely devalues that someone else made it, simply making it sound like the piece wanted to come to existence anyway and just happened to pick Lucas to do it.
The different artistic talents are fine. They're not what irk fans.
1. Extended universe timeline
Many books had already been written to fill out the extended universe. (And IMHO some of them were pretty good.) All them were painstakingly cross referenced so as to not conflict with one another, and especially to not conflict with the movies. However, George Lucas has (for better or worse, your call) taken the liberty to override the fan base timeline.
Some of these changes don't cause conflicts, such as "Did Han or Greedo shoot first?". Others may, such as Droids which was orginally set 200 years before the movies (as compared to Anakin building C-3PO).
Retroactive changes have been made to fit the pieces together.
2. Star Wars style
The original movies followed a few characters as they etched their little mark in a great (pun intended) universe. This gave the Star Wars universe a feeling of being enormous and unexplored. This gave people a desire to enter that universe to see more of it, thereof the massive fanbase and extended universe.
The prequel movies were... well, episode 1 was a Disney movie with "little boy hero and his comic sidekick". Episode 2 was primarily about a romance, and episode 3 sums it up... basically they were all about Anakin. It's fine for a movie to focus on a character. The problem, I think, was that it gave the feeling that much of the "great universe" now revolved around one character (diminishing the universe), rather than following the character within this grand universe.
I believe that one of the main falldowns with alot of fiction is that worlds are built around the characters and their stories. But whenever you start by building a world, and then tell the story within that world, you tend to get a much more interesting world that readers/viewers can escape into and want more of. You don't have this problem if you write a story about "today" because "today" is already a fully fleshed out world. I think that's partly why so many people are turned off by sci-fi and fantasy, often without being aware of it.
So, does it all really matter? Well, if you mess with something that is cherished by many people, then you better mess with it responsibly, or else you shall incur the wrath of those who feel they lose out.
It is possible to re-assemble that restoration, which by all accounts is stunning.
I've still got my laserdisc set. Just nothing to play them on at the moment...
The first laserdisk release was rehashed in the mid-2000s dvd release of "the originals", so you can get the original cut. However, it is taken from a badly damaged interpositive, and is not anamorphic, so it's missing a lot of information. There was a later laserdisk release of the "Special Edition" theatrical release, but the coloring was botched, and it is also not anamorphic, AFAIK. (I've never had a laserdisk player, but I think that's correct.)
Neither of these will do. FFS!, the negatives exist in some vault. All it would take is someone skilled with glue and a blade a couple weeks to re-assemble them and you'd have a fully restored 8k 4:4:4 copy of a film that is universally considered to be of significant cultural importance. Instead, we have zilch. It's a travesty.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
This entire fan vs artist argument makes no bloody sense. How is an artist not a spectator and fan of their own work? If fans are the true owners then so too are the artists. I suppose I can see an argument where no individual (artist or fan) is an owner of something that has is perceived to be collectively owned, but that is a far older debate. :)
From a free software perspective, the only problem here is when Lucas stops others from "forking" his work or tries to prevent people from distributing their favourite version (his own first version included). Everyone, including Lucas, should be free to do whatever they want with Starwars.
The argument that he must provide a digital copy of the original film is an interesting one. I'd say that anyone should be able to pay to have it digitized, but he certainly doesn't need to provide one - unless he restricts access to the "source" film.
Complexity Happens
I haven't read TFA or the comments, but I know one thing:
Star Wars should be left to this guy, and this guy only:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfBhi6qqFLA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1MqksXm6Zs
The same goes for Star Trek :D
If I created something and showed it off to the public, would I want anyone telling me that I could not alter it in the future? No. (Make that HELL no.) They do not own it - I do. Especially if I copyright the material. The public can whine and complain all they want, but I am in no way/shape/form OBLIGED to follow any of their advice (nor am I forced to pay it any attention to it if it does not suit me). If George Lucas wants to take a great film* and water it down, that is his legal right. * I am referring to the three good films - not the three later cash-grabs, ehr, "prequels". I would be happy to see the last three films completely redone. [The phantom mean *, the attack of the clowns, and whatever that last one was called] Sorry, but Darth Vader was a great villain. The prequels ruined him for me - turned him into a whiny brat. Now I would rather watch Dark Helmet play with his dolls. Does this mean that people cannot view older versions of the film? Hell no - he sold them, they should be able to watch them (before the mutations). Does he have the right to tell them where to stick their boot-leg copies? Yes. Illegal copies are still illegal. Savvy? So back to the main question (before I began my minor rant) - "Who owns the art?" Until or unless the art becomes public domain, the artist owns the art.
Sales are not affected in the least. Stupid fanboys.
They are consumers. Numbers. Statistics. Buyers.
This number is not consuming any more. Neither buying, nor steeling your mind-chains. Eat, drink, wear, drive, and heal yourself by your art, genius!
1) The original film(s), as seen/released in 1977, 1980, and 1983 respectively
2) Clean up the visual artifacting, i.e. the noise, scratches, matte lines, etc...
3) Clean up audio, mixed to the appropriate modern standards; e.g. 5.1, 7.1 lossless
4) Released on convenient, modern format(s) i.e. dvd, blu-ray, and digital download
and lastly...
5) An apology for everything post '83 to the present (minus temple of doom and the last crusade... those were still awesome)
Addendum:
I'm also ok with fixing the incidental mistakes a la hiding the wampa puppeteer's arm in ESB or continuity errors. Anything of that nature distracting to the overall experience being remedied is cool. But IF and ONLY IF the original, unmolested versions are included as well. Decent packaging and extras would be nice too, but not necessary. Just demands 1-5.
If for whatever reason George Lucas can't make that transition back from the dark side... I would be only somewhat disappointed to see a dvd/blu-ray re-release of the mid-nineties "faces" vhs release (the pre '97 shit). My tapes aren't going to last forever. Thanks in advance.
Getting a life might make them feel much better about the whole thing
Copyright should be subject to diminishing returns year on year.
Fnord Fnord Fnord
I could be entirely wrong about this, but when I see people insisting that artwork actually "belongs" to the audience, I get the extremely strong sense that the individuals speaking aren't artists of any sort... They're speaking, if anything, from the perspective of somebody that primarily works in a field where the process involves creativity but there's no investment of one's emotions, thoughts, personal experiences, etc. or attachment to the result, which is thus not creative. That's at best (or at worst, depending on one's perspective) -- often as not, not even that much creativity is involved in their pursuits.
The overwhelming majority of the time, the person claiming partial ownership of an artist's work will refer to the academic concept of art as "communicative", but likewise will have no experience studying the related field (or anything close to it) either. Ultimately, that just means that because they interpret the artwork based on their own backgrounds, individuals in the audience own (and are responsible for) their experience with the art, including messages they believe are there. Artists, meanwhile, are driven to create even without an audience, so the result isn't dependent upon that possessive audience for its existence any more than for its form (which is based on the creator's experience, not the audience's).
Don't get me wrong, I've felt like I was an integral part of some of my favorite computer games & books, to the point that I felt pride, shame, or defensiveness when introducing a friend to them based on the person's reaction. Difference is that I accept that the feelings are because someone else's work was so powerful that I became strongly attached and began to identify with aspects of it, and that it wouldn't be remotely reasonable to act like I'm owed something -- no matter how much I want it -- just because I'm a big fan.
People that believe otherwise should dedicate a month, at the least, to practicing whatever creative skill they have for at least a couple of hours per day, then spend another month or two working similar hours on a creative project (game, story, etc.) inspired by a merge of their favorite artwork and their own little fears, daydreams, nightmares, memories of favorite or hated people etc. After all of that, show it to one person, and consider what control they should have over what you do with it in the future, whether you owe it to them to create more work or take a certain approach with it, etc. Then maybe what I'm saying will make sense...and hell, maybe not.
If you feel that GL has ruined the movies, here's a way to get the message to him.
He's planning a 3D version for the series soon. When it's in the theaters, don't go.
When people stop paying for the different versions and he stop going, he'll get the message.
For him it's the 'they love me, they really love me,' yea, a big ego.
For me the "Noooo!" on Vader makes him seem like a wimp, funny and sad at the same time.
There exists at least one 70mm IB print still in existence, in private hands. Though I can guess whoever owns it would not be willing to let Lucas anywhere near it.
Stravinsky made a pointless (and bad) edit to his Sacre du Printemps because he was badly in need for money after moving to the US.
The Artist gets to ruin his works as he pleases - nothing new to see here and kinda funny that SF nerds of all people react so outraged to this.
I would actually be willing to pay for the original un-"enhanced" trilogy on Blu-ray, even though I already own the "enhanced" versions on DVD. If only they were available. I'm *not* willing to pay for a 2nd copy of the enhanced versions just to get Blu-ray quality. The edits of the so-called enhanced versions really stand out in the films and don't fit into the original storylines well in my opinion.
I will freely admit it's partially rose-colored glasses, as I saw all 3 originals in theaters on their release. They are what they are, warts and all. Don't try and fix them.
A long long time ago.... in a galaxy far far away... Star Wars was good.
More importantly, who will stop JarJar Abrams?!? Star Trek isn't even his to ruin but he's doing a helluva job pissing all over it.
Reader Response Criticism in hermeneutics says that once an artist releases a work, s/he loses control over it. S/he cannot force an interpretation of the work on anyone, it is up to those who experience it to respond to it. That is where the meaning of the work lies, not in the intention of the artist, which is not considered to have over-riding relevance. So if we think that Han shooting first is what happened because this is what we saw in 1977, and is in keeping with our view of Han's character, and Lucas goes back and re-cuts it, as he did, we can say that we disagree with that. The difference here is that the law doesn't really support this, and he has control over the version of the scene that he wants. That said, he cannot change what we remember to be true, nor the cuts that already exist outside of his domain. I wonder how much longer consumers will have control over editions of art what with the proliferation of streaming movies and e-book services like Kindle.
TFA (i.e. BBC's site) has fucked up browsing, big time (at least on Linux Chromium). Try middle-clicking links on the site. Why do they think they have the right to do that?
Why, o why?
What really bothered me about the changes boiled down to this -
Han Solo fired first, but only after the other guy drew on him. He wasn't portrayed as some coward who killed an unarmed man because he owed a debt, he was portrayed as a guy who played it very close to the edge. He negotiated when he could, but with one hand on his blaster and the other one distracting the guy.
When the guy made it clear he was going to kill Han, Han shot him. The scene left us feeling like the other guy was just out of his depth, and Han was a dangerous guy who was not only willing to go there, but knew what that kind of trouble costs in the underworld - evidenced by him laying down gold to cover up the mess.
The rewrite removed all subtlety and made Han seem like a passive guy who would let himself get shot at at point blank range. A complete change of character, from an old man who wants to remove all the questionable material by redaction from a work that was made when he was a better and braver artist than he is now.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
Wow, you've taken a meme, and tried to use it as an insult, rather than actually responding with anything intelligent. I'm very proud of you, you've filled the job role of "Anonymous Coward" very nicely.
The argument was that he can't change Star Wars. My argument was that there is no reason that he can't. And as you've been able to support your side of the argument with anything more than a sad little insult, I'll take it as you have nothing constructive or useful to support your side.
When you have something constructive to bring to the conversation, we can discuss it further.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Great films are not made by committee they are made by dictators. Lucas is the god of Star Wars. Not a single contributor or actor should not fool themselves into actually believing they could have easily been replaced.
George owes us a usable copy of the original. That's a 35mm print BTW.
George doesn't owe you (or us) anything. At some point his creation will enter public domain. When that happens, George isn't obligated to cough up the original masters. As far as fraud goes, well I'm not sure what fraud you think he is perpetrating.
The biggest transgression was, in my view, the creation of Anakin Skywalker. I remember in Star Wars, Alec Guinness calls out to Darth Vader as "No Daaaa..rth" in his quaking old man's voice.