main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

CT Will Disney Re-Release Theatrical Cut Of The Original Trilogy?

Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by Max@TSWP, Sep 18, 2015.

  1. PymParticles

    PymParticles Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 1, 2014
    It's not that we have a problem with it (or at least I don't), it's that sequels with escalating numbers tend to do worse at the box office because feel inaccessible to the audience. That's why The Force Awakens isn't being marketed by Disney/Lucasfilm as Episode VII, even if it technically is. The reason why this particular set of movies is Episodes VII-IX is because there's 3+ decade built up desire for those particular movies, specifically to see what happens to Luke, Han, and Leia alongside meeting a bunch of new characters in a trilogy that's a direct sequel to the originals. After IV-VI finished their run, people wanted I-III because their existence was implied and it promised the origin of Darth Vader, but they wanted VII-IX because of how invested they were in the characters and world of the OT, and that desire has been left to grow for decades. There's no real nostalgic desire or built up demand for X-XII. There will be more movies, there will be another trilogy, but I don't think it'll be X-XII, and it might not be directly connected to the Saga of I-IX. Again, I personally think it'll either be set long before or long after the Saga, but that's just speculation on my part.
     
    TX-20 and lovelikewinter like this.
  2. ThisHurricane

    ThisHurricane Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 9, 2015
    TFA isnt a sequel to rotj its about the new characters. Ship sailed long ago.
     
  3. Hogarth Wrightson

    Hogarth Wrightson Jedi Knight star 4

    Registered:
    Jul 2, 2015
    These things are not mutually exclusive. IOW, it's a sequel and it's about the new characters. But now we're off-topic.
     
  4. Force Smuggler

    Force Smuggler Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    But still has the OT generation characters starring in it.
     
  5. darth-sinister

    darth-sinister Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Boba was in the film not because of the fans, but because the backstory for Boba was already in place during the making of TESB. His connection to the Shock Troopers was established then and Lucas just followed through on it. The only change was that rather than having Boba being a trooper, he used Lando's abandoned origin for him. As to Jar Jar, he wasn't in it more not because of the fans, but because the story didn't require him to be more involved. Note that Jar Jar, Threepio and Artoo are almost completely absent from ROTS. Not because of the fans, but because of the nature of the story which stopped being funny after Act I. Also, this is the same man who refused to change the reasons for Anakin's fall to avoid making it more commercial for people. He already knew he was going to be raked over the coals about the Ewoks, but went ahead with it anyway.

    Paul Scanlon: That's the first time I've heard you say really positive things about one of your pictures. In the past, you have expressed disappointment for one reason or another.

    Lucas: Each film has accomplishments that I like. It's not that I didn't like the movies, but that if I look at them now, each one falls a bit short of what I had hoped it to be – because I guess I either set my sights a little bit lower, or we actually do get a little bit better.

    --Rolling Stone Interview, 1983.


    So even then, he was never 100% satisfied. He never felt 100% happy with ANH and TESB, which Scanlon noted. He had no choice when it came to releasing ANH, because he was up to his eyeballs in it and he was driven by his desire to at least get this one film out there. In fact, he wasn't even expecting it to do well. And was crushed that TESB didn't do as well as ANH.

    As to the moral right, well, that's the thing. What one things is wrong is also right and vice versa.


    Well, technically they are. You could get someone to pirate a copy for you while keeping it on the QT. We live in the age of the internet where such things happens all the time.
     
    Thoix Heoro and Qui-Riv-Brid like this.
  6. Prequel_Rubbish

    Prequel_Rubbish Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2014
    Was at the movie theater last night watching something else. Saw TFA stuff starting to go up around the building. Reminded myself I won't be seeing any other Star Wars film until the OOT gets released.
     
  7. PymParticles

    PymParticles Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 1, 2014
    As much as I may want the OOT to be restored and released, nothing is keeping me out of the theater this December.
     
  8. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011
    That's great. But I disagree, and so does the law. So on the one hand, you've got your own personal moral stance on the issue. On the other, I've got my own personal moral stance on the issue, and the law on my side. I'm actually not really sure what point I was trying to make. I guess I was just drawing attention to the fact that I seem to come out ahead no matter which way you slice it. Kind of douchey of me, I suppose. Sorry, but sometimes I forget myself when I'm on the Internet.

    That is your argument, though. You are mad, and you do want the OOT. You think George Lucas violated the social contract because he made you mad by not giving you what you want. You literally just explained that to me yourself in the above paragraphs.

    I can only assume you haven't read the spoilers for the plot of TFA. Aftermath didn't need to retcon anything in the SE in order to explain the existence of the First Order.
     
    Thoix Heoro likes this.
  9. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 4, 2012
    I agree with your post and would like to add that Lucas has said that he wants films he saw as a child, be preserved and made available so that his children can see them.

    So films Lucas saw as a child, those should be preserved and be made available for future generations.
    So Lucas apparently cares about film history and film preservation.

    But somehow that doesn't fully apply to his own films. For those that saw Star Wars as children in 1977. "Sorry you saw half a movie but I don't want that version preserved and if you want to show it to your children, I won't help you."

    That is a bit hypocritical to me.

    I am fine with him making newer versions but not with him trying to suppress the original versions.
    And no, saying they are available if you don't care about breaking the law, that isn't available to me.

    Bye for now.
    The Guarding Dark
     
  10. Dagobahsystem

    Dagobahsystem Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 25, 2015
    Agreed. It is hypocritical.
     
    lovelikewinter likes this.
  11. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Not technically. It is. It was "marketed" as VII for 2 years until they revealed the title just as VIII and IX are now. The PT has been marketed for years without the Episode titles for the most part as has the OT with minor referencing here and there. This already started by the time ROTS was coming out where for continuity it was still there for trailers and the posters.

    As KK stated yet again (as if the second teaser didn't spell it out already): "The Saga films focus on the Skywalker family saga. The stories follow a linear narrative that connects to the previous six films. The Force Awakens follows Return of the Jedi and continues that generational story."
     
    VMeran likes this.
  12. Slicer87

    Slicer87 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2013

    Lucas also believes in the rights of the artist, and that only the artist has any right to alter their work. If the artist who made his childhood favorites decided to change those films, Lucas would respect that. Basically this is perverting film presavation as an accuse to ignore and override the artist's creative rights to suit the opinion of some of the fans. The artist wasn't a different version of their work presented? too bad, society knows better than the artist.
     
  13. Artoo-Dion

    Artoo-Dion Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2009
    That's a pretty easy stance to take, given that the artists behind the films he enjoyed as a child are all dead. Ford Beebe and Ray Taylor aren't going to come along and colourise Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe anytime soon.

    The_Phantom_Calamari, it's not that I'm "mad", it's that I find the opposing arguments lacking in internal consistency once examined carefully, and therefore not convincing.
    1. Copyright exists so that the public can gain access to art.
    2. By removing a copyrighted work from the public sphere, the artist thus removes the very reason that copyright was granted in the first place.
    3. As such, removal of a copyrighted work is self-contradictory.
    This all hinges upon point #1. If the first point is agreed upon, points 2 and 3 easily follow. So do you or do you not agree with point #1?
     
  14. Darkslayer

    Darkslayer #1 Sabine Wren Fan star 7

    Registered:
    Mar 26, 2013
    Oh come on. :) I've had a very rocky relationship with TFA so far but I will in all likelihood still see it.
     
  15. SW Saga Fan

    SW Saga Fan Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 19, 2015
    I'm just giving my two cents here. But I think that the definition of copyright here is a little bit misunderstood, especially when you mention that it is meant specifically for the public to have the rights to access to a piece of art. Yes, it allows the public to have access to it, but while protecting the property and the rights of the artist.

    I've followed some courses and passed an exam about ethics in engineering, since I'm engineer, and as engineers we have many responsibilities, particularly the public's protection and we also produce some publications in the scientific domain. I have read a section in my book during my courses of ethics referring to intellectual property and copyrights and here are two paragraphs taken directly from my book of ethics in engineering, so I'm not making up anything:

    I think that we should pay attention to how we interpret a definition. Yes, it is told that it allows an artist or an author to let the public have access to his work and to perform it publicly. But the copyright act is meant specifically to protect the rights of the owner upon his work, not the rights of the public who have access to it. In other words, the owner has all the rights upon his work.

    I think that the right question we have to ask ourselves is how far does the owner's rights extend upon his work. Debating upon the definition of the copyright act would be useless since its definition has already been clarified for many years...
     
  16. Dagobahsystem

    Dagobahsystem Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 25, 2015
    Agreed, SW Saga Fan. The owner has exclusive rights to his or her work.
    John Lennon, a few months before he was murdered, had mentioned his desire to rerecord some of his classic songs like Strawberry Fields Forever and Help! Of course, he had every right to do so.
    I don't think he would have tried to make The Beatles versions of those songs unavailable and out of print, however.
    GL seems to have at least attempted to negate the OOT.
     
    El_Machete12 and lovelikewinter like this.
  17. Artoo-Dion

    Artoo-Dion Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2009
    SW Saga Fan, I thank you very much for attacking my points directly. I'm open to being convinced by a strong argument. Here's my response:

    "Intellectual property" is an artificial construct--the notion has no analogue in oral cultures. Even in cultures where there was some degree of literacy, ideas as such were not thought of as property: the Library of Alexandria, for example, housed any texts found on ships which happened to come into port--the books were confiscated with original owners receiving copies thereof. And these were not just factual texts--the Library often housed multiple versions of the same story so that textual criticism could be conducted. The author of a text would "own" it only insofar as it could be attributed to him or her.

    Where things get tricky is with the introduction of the printing press. Suddenly books were being copied and distributed at almost zero cost, and the result was that authors lost any incentive to write books. At that point, society faced the prospect of losing the potential for new books.

    The Gutenberg press was invented in the mid-15th century, and the number of copies of books rose exponentially in the next 250 years. In 1709, we see the first instance of legal copyright in the form of the Statute of Anne. This is no coincidence.

    What I trying to draw your attention to is the fact that the idea of intellectual property arises as a direct response to an existential threat to the continued production of art and research due to ease of reproduction. We, as a society, valued the production of books, and so we created the idea of intellectual property so as to ensure that books continued to be produced. As technology improved and other forms of art became threatened, we generalised this notion.

    Yes, copyright exists in order to protect intellectual property, but intellectual property as a concept only exists in order to ensure the sustainability of intellectual labour and thus the continued production of its fruits.
     
  18. SW Saga Fan

    SW Saga Fan Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 19, 2015
    Artoo-Dion I didn't mean to attack anybody here. It's just that I felt there was a lot of misconception here, especially concerning the notion of "copyrights".

    But I agree that copyrights aren't good reasons not to release the theatrical cuts of the OT, but Lucas has at the same time the rights to add those changes if he wants to, whether the public likes it or not. At which extent has he the right to add those changes? This is a subject to discuss. On my part, there are changes that I've found unnecessary in the SE but there are others that I really like.

    About your point concerning intellectual property being "an artificial construct", I disagree with this. Although this notion has only appeared recently in our modern world (mid-1950 or 1960 I believe), it has been approved by many countries around the world and is even supported by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a branch of the UN. Indeed, some laws surrounding this notion have changed but it was done in order to adapt it to reality of the world's industry and evolution. This notion has been inspired by an article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating that "everyone has the right to the protection of moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he or she is the author".

    We can continually discuss about the author rights or the public rights towards an intellectual product, but I'm wonder if we aren't deviating from the main subject of this thread here, which is "Disney To Re-Release Theatrical Cut Of The Original Trilogy".

    Hasn't it been two or three weeks since this rumor? Are there any official announcement?
     
  19. Prequel_Rubbish

    Prequel_Rubbish Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 5, 2014
    I wouldn't mind seeing it but if Disney can't be bothered to release the OOT, then I'm drawing the line in the sand. Of course, there is no reason for either of these things to not happen. The only reasonable outcome would be for them to release the OOT, and for me to pay a ridiculous amount of money to go see this movie. Wish it were so.
     
  20. L110

    L110 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 26, 2014
    We never had that option since the shot is never seen in the original version.
     
    Darkslayer and ThisHurricane like this.
  21. Artoo-Dion

    Artoo-Dion Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2009
    SW Saga Fan, sorry, I did not mean to suggest that you attacking anyone. I was just happy to read a counter-argument that was engaging with my points.

    In any case, I'm not clear as to which moral rights they are referring. Given that it includes scientific research, I cannot imagine such rights including suppression, such as the suppression of published research. Indeed, the mandate of the WIPO is "to encourage creative activity, to promote the protection of intellectual property throughout the world" and the organisation is responsible "for promoting creative intellectual activity and for facilitating the transfer of technology related to industrial property to the developing countries in order to accelerate economic, social and cultural development".

    It is easy to see here that the WIPO sees intellectual property not as a natural right but as a means to an end, i.e. the proliferation of the fruits of "creative intellectual activity". Supporting the suppression of such would be contra their mandate.
     
    SW Saga Fan likes this.
  22. Davak24

    Davak24 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 15, 2015
    What?!
     
  23. Tosche_Station

    Tosche_Station Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Feb 9, 2015
    He saw the Katie Lucas* version.

    * "Han NEVER shot first!!!"
     
  24. PymParticles

    PymParticles Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 1, 2014
    Please don't tell me you're one of those people that believes Lucas' "Han never shot first; the audience was just confused" revisionism.
     
  25. darkspine10

    darkspine10 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Dec 7, 2014
    Isn't it just that Han was the only shooter originally?

    So it's not really Han shoots first, but Han shoots alone.