Saga Recomended way to watch the entire saga?

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Pimpsy, Oct 31, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: Darth_Nub
  1. Jango_Fett21 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2002
    star 3
    As long as the original creator of a given piece of fiction is alive, they have the right - and should be allowed to - to tinker with their creation should they decide to do so. Fans get way too possessive of and attached to things that they don't own and over which they have no influence.
    Last edited by Jango_Fett21, Nov 3, 2012
  2. Heero_Yuy Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 4
    On the contrary, when a work of art is released to the public, it is no longer the artists' solely. It belongs to the people.
  3. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I heartily disagree. "The people" didn't put any work into creating the work of art in question. They merely spent money on it in order to appreciate it. But the audience has no power to influence the course that a work of art will take besides through expressing their pleasure/displeasure with their pocketbooks.

    And Lucas is certainly not unique in altering his work after releasing it.
  4. Heero_Yuy Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 4
    Certainly. An artist has every right to work on a film so it is as good as he can be. Until it is released to the public. Where it becomes part of popular culture. Unless we're talking about a petty, selfish "artist."
  5. ezekiel22x Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 9, 2002
    star 4
    I don't want Star Wars to belong to me.
  6. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    So Tolkien and Shakespeare are "petty, selfish 'artists'" then?

    Eh, to each their own. Personally, I would rather be in their (and Lucas') company than subscribe to your definition, which gives credit to people who have not contributed in the slightest to the work of art in question.
  7. sinkie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2004
    star 1
    Ahhh, but they have! The audience is a very under-appreciated aspect of the function of art and of its life cycle overall! On a practical level, without an audience, the artist would have only their own perspective on their own work. At least they know they have a goal of expressing themselves to others, they are motivated to communicate and move us. And then when we do react, the artist feels that reaction and responds in some way, large or small, in harmony or against, or anything in between. Eventually too, the audience supports the ideas by allowing it to infect their own lives, actions and creations. The artist him/herself is supported, or not, financially as well. There is definitely an interaction.

    Now of course, any artist is free to do what they want with their work, tweak, rerelease, overwrite, whatever. But they can't expect this right alone to create a work that will be appreciated, understood or championed. It is quite possible any of the artists named above could have tweaked their own work for the worse and history, if both copies survived, would have been the judge. Just as some of us react to Lucas. He releases his films between 1977 and 1983 and then in home video format after that...until 1996 when he tweaks them. By this point a large portion of the audience has assumed these were the artist's official version of their work. The tweaks, as far as I understood them at the time, were given the name "special" to demarcate them from the originals. These were meant to be seen as tweaked versions of the classic films, not necessarily replacing them, merely existing side by side as an example of what is possible now. They felt more like an experiment than a change of heart. Anyway, the point is, the audience, a portion of them, responded to the news that they were now the official version with disapproval because they disapproved, they did not feel the artist had made a good choice given the range of choices at their disposal, they did not find the changes made the films better etc. (the old story...) and they let the artist know. At that point, he's free to do what he wants, but we are also well within our rights not to support or appreciate those changes. I wouldn't call them petty or selfish necessarily though.
    V-2 and Heero_Yuy like this.
  8. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    @sinkie

    The ability to provide feedback, though, does not automatically translate into ownership of a work. Financially and in terms of reception, yes, and audience can provide a creator with their perspective, but that does not give them any sort of ownership (legal or otherwise) in the work of art.

    And this is important because the audience is not a monolithic entity. You have fandoms where people are split down the middle and something half of the audience likes, another half will hate. And an artist is not required to cater to an audience. In fact, trying to please everyone is the surest path to failure.

    I have never questioned people's right to criticize a work of art or to make their opinions heard. Where I do draw the line is when people try to claim that a work of art belongs to the public because the public does not contribute creatively.
    Valairy Scot likes this.
  9. Jango_Fett21 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 9, 2002
    star 3
    I hate to break it to you, but your viewpoint is a fallacy and a fantasy that has no basis in actual reality. Whether or not fans responded to Lucas' decision to tweak his films in a positive manner has absolutely no bearing on or relevance to his right to make said decision and execute it.
    obi-rob-kenobi4 likes this.
  10. sinkie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2004
    star 1
    No not ownership, at least not at first, in the short terms, the audience simply has a massive role to play in the dynamic of artist/work/reception. But there are those that study the history of copyright and the circulation of works in culture and as hard as it is to see on a practical, day-to-day level, there is a certain "ownership" that takes place, not in a legal sense, because that is a manufactured contract but most definitely in the minds and imaginations of the public. An absorption that no law can quite supplant.

    There were times when the notion that an artist releases their ideas to the public for them to take possession of was more common. The artists compensation was not seen as indefinite in part because the artist themselves did not pull these ideas and inspirations out of their own mind but rather out of the rich cultural tapestry in which they were born. By taking the ideas and turning them into something different or new, the artist was compensated, usually financially, and then, after a "fair" amount of time, the work was free for anyone to take possession of, rip off, use, or simply redistribute (a service). The creative role was understood as much more intertwined with that of the public sphere than it is now. Our current understanding seems to hover between the romantic version and the corporate/capitalist one. The artist's reputation attached to the now "copyright free" work would still be intact, and they would benefit from this reputation. Now we have bought into the idea of the "creative genius" and their inherent rights to own what they seem to have come up with all on their own. But an exploration of this topic will show that our beliefs are based on discourse and legal definitions that are not based in some sort of objective reality. How we choose to deal with works created by a member of society is decided by us. We are not discovering the "hidden natural laws" we are making very human laws negotiated often through those with vested interest in seeing them changed. There is a lot of grey in this debate that few acknowledge. But I'm not pointing the finger at Lucas. If anything, his new owners are far more guilty, lobbying over the years to push the definition of ownership far beyond what it used to be. How many times has Mickey Mouse's copyright been set to expire when they managed to bend the ear of congress and get the laws changed? The new copyright laws do not benefit "artists", they often simply take their properties and exploit them for a larger corporate entity for a longer period of time while becoming essential, day to day aspects of our cultural landscape that we cannot easily utilize without fear of punishment. Lucas is probably an exception here and cannot be held up as the shining example of our current understanding of intellectual property rights.

    And oddly, despite the legal constraints or opinions against the idea of ownership, it happens just the same. From infecting the imagination right through to inspiring new artists to create in light of this inspiring reconfiguration of ideas to come from Lucas (and company's) work. It happens every time SW is directly referenced in someone else's work all the way through to the more unconscious emergence of its themes, etc in new works. It becomes a part of the palate and we end up with a stake in it in a very real sense. Not only this, but many works, if not all works, ultimately do ask the audience to be creative, to bring their own imaginations to the table to suture things together, to take the artist's images, sounds, words, colours, and to have them work through you to mean something. If anything, Star Wars is a perfect example of the audience being asked to bring a very large amount of energy and creativity with them and participate in world building, in fleshing out the unknowns even if only temporarily and fluidly in their mind. It is why so many do feel a certain sense of ownership having lived in this state of "contribution" for decades with the OT. No work is a complete picture. It is always asking us to read it and in reading bring something to the table.
    Last edited by sinkie, Nov 3, 2012
  11. Alexrd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2009
    star 5
    No, it doesn't. You may wish so, but that doesn't make it true.
  12. sinkie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 27, 2004
    star 1
    But in a way it does, so neither side is completely correct. And the entire matter is up to society to decide through negotiation. Nothing inherent in the work itself. And as I argued, once it is out there, we do, like it or not, take "ownership" in that we do internalize it, utilize it, have it become a part of our own influences. It takes root and does what it will do through us, not only through the artist.
    Last edited by sinkie, Nov 3, 2012
    V-2 likes this.
  13. obi-rob-kenobi4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2007
    star 4
    And there it is.

    At its core these hateboys and their mentality they stubbornly try to indoctrinate on others through social conditioning is all about hate.

    These people dont even think of the creator of Star Wars as an artist and most of them will even admit it.
    Samnz and Jarren_Lee-Saber like this.
  14. Yunners Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 30, 2006
    star 2
    Quit trying to tar everyone with the same brush. Those were the words and thoughts of one person, one.
    V-2 likes this.
  15. obi-rob-kenobi4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2007
    star 4
    You know very well that there are many more like him. The levels of audacity vary from hateboy to hateboy.

    You get through this by education (learning about the films rather than stubbornly dismissing them).

    Encouraging open mindedness rather than closed mindedness.

    like George Lucas says, "Education can save the human race."
    Last edited by obi-rob-kenobi4, Nov 3, 2012
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  16. Frank T. Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    Way to watch the entire saga? On a really big screen in a dark room. Don't forget popcorn if that's your thing. I prefer sammiches. And if you are sharing the experience with others don't forget to turn off the ringer on your phone.:D
  17. Yunners Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 30, 2006
    star 2
    Quite possibly. But does that mean everyone you consider a hater thinks that? no. There is no 'they' because there is no constant. People are individuals and therefor have individual thoughts and opinions. Certainly there's some overlap, but your constant chants of Haters say this, haters think that and hater mentality is getting tiresome, especially when it's in response to the opinion of just one person.
  18. obi-rob-kenobi4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2007
    star 4
    Its a perpetuated, glorified trend that people feed into and consciously try to keep alive through persistent social conditioning.

    And its all based on the rhetoric that said person has been exemplifying for us for pages now.
    Jarren_Lee-Saber likes this.
  19. Yunners Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 30, 2006
    star 2
    What people? All people? some people? hater people? All hater people or just some hater people?

    See, this is the kind of gross generalization I'm talking about.
  20. Frank T. Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    Another good way to watch any or all SW movies? At home by yourself and in the dark with nobody to bug you about rules.
  21. StampidHD280pro Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2005
    star 4
    WHY?
  22. Jarren_Lee-Saber Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 16, 2008
    star 4
    Nope, just read the entire thread - you do that very well on your own!

    What you're saying is "they should be allowed to make changes but only IF I LIKE those changes, otherwise they shouldn't be allowed to!!"

    That is correct! The original unedited editions are objectively inferior quality. SE & Blu-ray edits FTW!
    obi-rob-kenobi4 likes this.
  23. Alexrd Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2009
    star 5
    What? Since when?

    What do you mean with "ownership"? Adding quotation marks doesn't change its meaning. The fact is, the creator (or someone else, if he has sold the rights) has ownership of its work and is free to change it however and whenever he wants. The people merely paid to watch it and/or own a copy of it's work. They don't own the work itself and never did. Did it influence many? Sure. But that doesn't mean it's theirs.

    Are we still talking about the movie? What's its will?
  24. Samnz Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 4, 2012
    star 2
    Actually, it does belong to the people. But in the case of a movie only at the very moments they're watching the movie in the theatre. From the moment you leave, your "possession" ends and the creator is free to release whatever movie he wants on VHS, DVD, blu ray (and if you buy, this movie belongs to you too until the copy is destroyed). One has nothing to do with the other.
    Last edited by Samnz, Nov 4, 2012
  25. WIERD_GREEN_MAN Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2010
    star 4
    The artist had no obligation to the people to create the art in the first place.
Moderators: Darth_Nub
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.