PT Changing the PT due to the ST, OK?

I doubt we will ever see any more changes done to the films, unless they're with Lucas' supervision/cooperation. It would set a terrible example for studios in the future.

 

Part of me would like Disney to get someone else (Matt Lanter?) to do dubs of every line Hayden Christensen mangles in Revenge of the Sith - particularly the Obi-Wan confrontation. That aside (which is obviously not going to happen) I'd be happy with stuff like higher-res textures for the CGI models.

Actual 'story altering' edits, it would depend on what was changed and how well (I suppose you could say how tastefully) it was done. I've no problem whatsoever with the 'Greedo shoots first' thing (for reasons I won't go into, as I suspect it would be considered offtopic), but the ridiculous copy-pasted "Nooooo!" in the Return of the Jedi Bluray annoys me to no end.

 

ST = Sequel Trilogy. Episodes 7,8, and 9. Currently in preproduction at LFL
OT = Original Trilogy. Episode 4-6.
PT = Prequel Trilogy. Episodes 1-3

 

Thank you very much!

 

No prob, mate

 

I could live with that.

 

Replacing Shaw and Vader screaming NOOOO in RotJ as well as the emperor's dialogue changes in TESB are not minor changes. Those are pretty big changes.

I say make changes to the PT if need be. If the OT can be changed to better fit the PT, the PT most definitely be changed for the ST.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of fans who would pay good money to see these changes. I won't be one of them.

 

Did you pay good money to see changes to the OT?

 

Yes. When GL established the precedent of altering the actual film instead of remaking or rebooting, he changed what Star Wars movies are and made them fluid and ever changing. Alterations to any of the six movies, no matter how distasteful are fair game.

 

Then you and I don't agree on this topic.

And considering that the ST will be set after the OT, I suspect the story lines from the first trilogy will be more affected than those from the second.

 

As long as Lucas is the one doing the changes, sure. But if Disney does it without his involvement, it isn't tolerable.

 

I think Disney will want to distance themselves from the PT/OT in some ways especially with how the economy is going because they can't throw money around....those movies already have a strong fan base so why not just plow money into the new films they have total control over?

 

Fixing shots or improving SFX is one thing, changing and altering scenes is another. Lucas should have taken the opportunity to tweak and fix the PT when he had the chance, instead of continuing to mess with the OT. Now it's too late and we're stuck with the end result of the Prequels. What a shame.

 

<Lucas>I have this great idea, Disney. An undercover Plagueis will be in TPM and Anakin will meet him!</Lucas>

 

I don't fully understand this reasoning. It seems to me that what is being done isn't important and it is only a matter of who is doing it.
So if Lucas does one thing then it is ok but if someone else does the exact same thing then it is not ok.
Why? The end result is the same, an altered movie.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

The end result of an altered movie might be the same, but I think some people would object on the grounds that Disney's alterations wouldn't be artistic in nature so much as they would be commercial. Lucas was greatly involved in the development of all the Star Wars films and hand-picked the people who made them. Like his changes or not, he was at least involved in the creative process. I imagine Disney making changes would strike some people as disingenuous given that, while they are free to make and alter new films, they were never part of the creative process of I through VI, nor the main intellectual driving force behind those films.

At least, that's what I would suppose.

 

But this logic, to me, implies that a creator can never alter his or her movies for commercial reasons and a mere "copy-right holder" will only ever make changes for commercial reasons.
If Lucas had made the ST and decided that the rule of two was a hindrance to the story and thus altered the PT so that those lines were not said, that would be ok. But if Disney does the exact same thing for exactly the same reason then it will not be ok. I don't understand, if the end result is the same and the motivation is the same, why is it ok for one person to do it but not another?

To me, either you say, noone is allowed to make changes or alterations to old films. You want changes, remake the films.
Or you say, I will judge the change as good or bad based on the actual change itself, the reasons behind it and how well it fits with the rest of the film/films.
So if the change is done purely for commercial reasons then it is bad regardless of who makes it. If a change is made for story purposes or continuity purposes and the change works well with the rest then it might be ok even if it is not the creator who does it.

Ex. say that Lucas sold SW before he made the PT and Disney made them. They decided to keep using Ian as Palpatine and to create a better consistency with the OT, they did what Lucas did, put him into ESB. This change is one that most are ok with, the altered dialogue is another matter, but lets say that the same dialogue was used. Would the mere fact that it was Disney and not Lucas that did this make this change unacceptable?

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Sure, the creator could alter his work for commercial gain, but that's not the only reason. And, importantly, the creator was there when the work was being made. He/she was part of the creative process and thus they understand the artistry behind the work itself. In the way that a corporation -- a removed entity that just happens to hold the copyright, never could -- because they weren't there when it was being made and they weren't part of bringing the art to life.

Because intent does matter. Perhaps not to you, but some people do take it into account. Why? Because when the credits roll and the names of the people who made the film comes up, what is on the screen is going to be associated with them. Their names are on it and if you weren't part of the creative process, then you don't have the same stake as if you did. You didn't know what was involved and you didn't contribute to making it. And those people whose names appears on the film were responsible for bringing it to life.

As for "remaking" the films, I say there's no reason an artist shouldn't be able to alter his/her work once it's released.

Shakespeare has done it. Tolkien has done it. Naoki Urasawa has done it. And in no way would I say the quality or integrity of their work was diminished by these alterations. In my opinion, at least.

If they had Lucas' backing, I wouldn't mind the change personally. If they didn't though, that brings up the thorny issue of the fact that there's been a change made to a film that, purportedly, represents the universe that George Lucas created -- the stories he envisioned -- when it doesn't. That feels more dishonest to me because it's a third party doing it on its own.

 

Yeah. It's the right of the original creator to make changes to a work after it's been released, not the corporate copyright owner. Otherwise, you could easily see studios making changes to films long after they've been released either to maximize potential profit, mitigate controversy or ingratiate themselves with the viewing public. Actually, this sort of thing has happened all the time in Hollywood, but usually it's before a film gets released, and the vast matority of the time it's rightly frowned upon. Disney making changes to the existing films without Lucas' involvement is no different than RKO butchering "The Magnificent Ambersons" or Universal running roughshod over "Touch of Evil", and would be just as bad as Warner Bros. deciding they're in the clear to make alterations to "Citizen Kane". If Orson Welles were to come back from the dead and insist upon changes, that's one thing. But when a studio meddles, it's goddamn anti-American.

 

Back when Lucas was still in charge, he had the right as a creator of the art, to change and alter it as he saw fit. Disney, not being the creators of the OT like Lucas, can't alter it, I am sure he has a clause in the purchase to prevent this.

My guess is the ST may be like the EU and could just be a different interpretation of Star Wars.

 

Why MUST there always be another reason when a creator alters his or her work? Isn't it possible that a creator alters their work for no other reason than financial gain?

You mentioned Tolkien and with the Hobbit he originally had Gollum give Bilbo the ring after he won the riddle game. Many years later after Tolkien had written LotR he realized that this made no sense from how the ring was there and so he went back and altered it. The reasons weren't commercial to be sure but he changed something that already existed and the reason was that it no longer made sense. A third party could see the same problem and make the same choice, alter the Hobbit.

But what if the intent is the same? Say that Lucas didn't have the rule of two in mind when he made the OT. He came up with it when he made the PT and then when it comes to making the ST he decides that it is a hindrance to the storytelling and thus removes it from the PT. If the writer/director of EP VII feels the same way and wants to do the same thing for the same reason, why is that not ok?

Another example, say that the writer/director of Ep VII wants Luke to talk to his father in ghost form.
And say that Lucas had never put Hayden in RotJ but the people making ep VII hire Hayden to be the Force ghost but using him and keeping Shaw in RotJ would cause a glaring continuity problem so they insert Hayden there as well. Would this be ok?
Suppose that the outline that Lucas wrote had Luke talking to his fathers ghost but no mention of how he looks. Would it be ok now?

Also, who created the music for Star Wars, John Williams or George Lucas?
And who should have the right to alter it?
You bring up the all people that created a movie but you also argue that just one person should have the right to alter their works without consideration.
A movie is a collaberative effort, who is the single creator? The writer, the director, the producer, the DP?

If we are dealing with single, solitary creators yes but what if multiple people are involved in the creation? Say a band where the songs are written by all the members of the band, should just one be allowed to alter them without consideration of the others?
A film by it's very nature is the creation of many people so who decides which one should have sole dominion over them? As it stands now, the copyright holder has all the power.
If the director changes something years later, say altering a matte-painting then he or she has altered the work of the artist that created the matte-painting.
So shouldn't all the artists involved in creatiing a movie then have some say in this?
If an actor, when creating the performance makes the character do one thing and the director agrees. But years later the director chnages his or her mind and alters the performance. Shouldn't the actor be asked first?

But when ESB was made, Ian had no been cast, but he did play the role in RotJ.
If Lucas had sold SW and those making the PT wanted to continue to use Ian, which makes sense from a continuity perspective. Then they put Ian in ESB for continuity reasons, which, I am sure, is why Lucas put him there.
Why is one bad and the other good? The end result is the same, the motivation is the same and they make use of an actor that Lucas hired to play Palpatine.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

But films by their nature involves many creators and contributers so why should just one person be given all rights to make changes?
Should J K Rowling be allowed to alter the Harry Potter films? Should Ridley Scott be allowed to alter James Camerons Aliens?

This is something that has been hotly debated many times and to be sure, many directors, writers have been angry that their work have been altered due to "executive meddling".
The colorization of old films was a very debated issue many years back and a propostion was made to amend the copyright laws in the US to give better protection to film artists from having their work altered by those that only held the rights. The Berne Convention was used as a model and I believe that it would have put the director, writer and DP as creators of a film. So any change would have to be ok by these three people.

However the proposition was not accepted fully, films and motion pictures are still not included but books, still photos and other works of art were.
The Berne Convention also dealt with Moral Rights, ie that the artist/artists should not have their work altered or distored by others even after it had left their possesion or ownership. But here too the US only used them partially.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

No don't change it. Please.

 

Rowling created the Potter series as novels, but she didn't write or direct any of the films herself, so no. Ridley Scott didn't write the original "Alien" or have anything to do with Cameron's "Aliens", so no, again.

Here's a hypothetical example that I would use instead. Let's say that there was going to be a "Ghostbusters 3" after all, despite Bill Murray saying no repeatedly. And let's say that to honor the occasion, there was a rerelease of "Ghostbusters" and "Ghostbusters 2". And let's further say that Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis wanted to invest in revamped CGI effects to replace the old-school puppets and stop-motion (they probably wouldn't, but this is hypothetical, so who cares). And let's go even farther than that and say that the film's director, Ivan Reitman, wasn't so hot on the idea himself. Would it be okay for Ackroyd and Ramis, as creators, writers and producers (I think, I'm not bothering to check that far for this hypothetical quandry) to go over the director's head and change the films?

Maybe. They'd be far less so than Lucas was when he did the SE's of ESB and ROTJ (Lucas was more involved in the creative production and pre-viz process than either of them were, and Reitman was instrumental in the development of the early scripts), but far more so than Disney would be for any hypothetical changes they might make.