The films belong to Lucas/The films belong to the Fans

I want to form a thread where we can debate this issue as an end in itself (as Kant would say).
Here is the premise:

Fans who like the SEs and continual changes to the films say that Lucas is their creator and that they belong to him.

Fans who dislike the changes and the SEs say that the films belong to their public and therefore should be readily available in the highest quality, legally, to be purchased in whatever the current industry standard format is.

This really leads to a philosophical debate: When is a work of art finished, and therefore no longer the propery of its creator, but rather of the general public? And I am not here interested in legalistic answers, as there is a simple answer to this in copyright law and public domain laws.

In my opinion, part of what makes a work of art is the act of the artist in declaring a work "finished": having it exhibited publicly and subject to review and criticism. If an artist wishes to revisit past ideas, he/she is free to. How many times did Raphael paint the Madonna and Child, Rothko paint color field paintings, the Beatles make different recordings of "Revolution", etc.

So I have no objection to George Lucas remaking and/or altering any of his films as long as he makes sure the originals are still available in a decent format. To me this is an issue of artistic integrity. It would be a terrible shame if other artists and film makers all but destroyed finished works when they wished to revisit past works and ideas. In my opinion, when an artist releases a work, he or she waives the right to deny it was their "vision" etc. If they want that right, they should leave the work in their studio until it meets that vision. Once something is publicly released, in this sense, it is no longer the property of said creator.

I know many regular posters disagree with this premise, and I don't want to talk about which is better the O-OT or the SEs, PT or OT, etc., but rather to discuss this notion of Lucas constantly changing things and not making the originals readily available at current standards and preventing others from doing so legally.

So, dive in!

 

well said, i also think a released work by any artist is then the property of the public domain in this sense. for the legalistic yes the artist retains the rights to their work but that's different from owing the work itself.

the problem i have with what has been done with star wars is not the changes, i welcome them.

i don't like this foolish insistance on an "official version", and the reluctance to release the original work at the same quality level as the new versions.

 

I think it belongs to Lucas since he created and financed it.

Enjoying a movie shouldn't imply ownership for the viewer. When it comes to buying a ticket to see the movie, the money is in exchange for seeing the movie. When it comes to buying a movie on home video, then you get to keep that movie, but it doesn't make the movie -your- art.

While I think it would be nice of Lucas to cater to the people who fell in love with the originals before he altered it, I don't think he's under any obligation to do so.

 

This is a great thead, cause I was watching King Kong 1933 the other night on AMC, and I haven't watched it in a long time. I have to say for 1933 effects, the movie holds up pretty well, and I feel it is better then the Peter Jackson CG version that came out last year, and it got me to thinking.

Say that director updated King Kong 1933 and continually said that the 1933 version does not exist, and tried like hell to keep it out of the public domain. That would be a travesty!!!

I was amazed at how they could do what they could with King Kong and realized that nothing came close to that in 1933, and probably not for years to come either.

And it makes me think of how many SW fans will never see the O-OT SW from 1977 in its original version and never really understand how great those effects were for that time. Cause the only way to get it now is to buy some laserdisk non-anamorphic transfer on DVD, which I don't think the average fan is going to do.

Yes this is Lucas's movies, but I think Lucas has done a disservice to the O-OT movies cause I think that anyone who is just watching for effects is missing out on what made the movies great, yet the effects give a great reflection of that time period and how good they were compared to others.

 

i agree with your line of thinking up to a point, it's a point you did not reach.

does lucas' ownership of star wars rights enable him to update the original films and declare which version is official, which version is not and alter what was released to the public.

this is a different issue than releasing a theatrical release and a directors cut, which i fully suppport.

what has been presented is that the new version should replace the old version, so my question to you is this:

does he have the right to replace the older version with the newer?

i don't think so, once a work is released to the public it's out there, you can't take it back and change it.

there is nothing wrong however with the notion of director's cuts or special editions, but the original work is always going to exist and should be respected as such.

in no other medium has any 'artist' ever attempted to update their work and replace an originally finished work with a 'new and improved' version of the same work.

what lucas is attempting to do in the public's mind is unprecedented and imo not something that should be acceptable.

 

What he previously released to the public wasn't taken back, he's just choosing to release his newer versions now.

 

Wow, I think people take this way too far sometimes.

First of all, art is the artists property and nobody's elses. We as viewers can enjoy it over and over, but its not ours. Its ours ot enjoy not to own. Now, listen to me. I'm no gusher. I'm not happy with EVERY SE change. I love the PT, and the OT equally as one saga but I ALSO appreciate them on their own (even going as far as appreciating each movie on its own as a masterpeice.) I understand some people's dissatifaction with George Lucas, but this is going WAAAY too far. I mean the SE is not SOOOOOOOOO different from the original. Its not a complete remake he is enforcing on us. I mean he DID release the O-OT on dvd and its not PERFECT but its still pretty good. The artist has the power to say which is the OFFICAL. Ofcourse he does. he created it. He's not going to everyone's house and burning our copies of the O-OT. With the recent DVD's, he's saying: We can have the O-OT and enjoy them, as long as we know what si the offical version in terms of his vision.

Thats all. But comparing this to a remake of the 1933 King Kong is going waay too far.

Trust me, I understand. I'm no gusher. I see the saga how I want but that dosen't mean its hte OFFICAL version I'd tell new people. Its Lucas project, he has creative rights. Just respect him and be happy for having the guts and imagination to create something so wonderful, timeless and compelling.

Sometimes you have to put yourself in his position and ask yourself..how would you feel if your fans wanted what you deem as your rough draft to be THE offical version of the art?

 

Star Wars belongs to Lucas, at least until such time as he expires. I don't know why fans believe that they should have some say in what he puts in his films. I love almost everything about the films. There's a few things I personally would change if I had the license, but I've read some fanfics and fan rewrites, and I'm very glad that Lucas does his own things, because fans would just destroy it.

 

Sometimes you have to put yourself in his position and ask yourself..how would you feel if your fans wanted what you deem as your rough draft to be THE offical version of the art?

No offense, that is Lucas spin, and unfortunately you are buying into it. Lucas NEVER wanted to update ESB & ROTJ back in 1994 when he was doing ANH SE. He flat out says in the SE Laserdisk Interview that SW '77 was the only movie he wanted to make changes cause of the technology he couldn't achieve back then. He then goes on to say after they finished ANH SE, he then thought it would be fun to touch up ESB & ROTJ, which means we can make 3 times the money rather then 1 with a theater release then a VHS release. But Lucas plainly states that ANH the ONLY movie he wanted to ever go back and touch up, and that is why when I hear you guys say the O-OT are rough drafts, that is flat out false, and Lucas confirms it.[/quote]



Lucas spin? Please. This is how any writer with a good sence of self-worth feels. Being a writer myself, I know what I'm talking about. My work (non-fan fiction) is MINE. Period. I dreamed it. I spent many late nights writing it down. I went through the AGONY of writer's block more times than I can count. Now if I spot an error in the original publishing and want to issue a second print, essentially claiming that the original print is flawed, that's my perogative. And no whiny fan is gonna stop me. You know why? Because it's mine! The only investment the whiny fan made was the time it took to read my story. I have invested so much more.

 

Simply put, Star Wars was made in 1977 and should therefore have F/X from 1977. King Kong was made in 1933 and should have F/X from 1933. What would King Kong look like if it were updated with CGI from 2006? Horrible, that's what. Star Wars was a testiment to the state of the art in 1977 and should be preserved as such. If George insists on having his Special Editions, so be it, but he shouldn't DARE take away or mistreat the versions that put him on the map. I just don't want to see a movie from 1977 with 2006 effects in it.

 

I fundamentally disagree with the question posed here. So let me get this straight, if I create a work and post it on an internet site for public viewing, then it no longer belongs to me? People have no obligation to ask my permission to download it and use it on T-shirts, mugs, or anything else to make money for themselves with? Or more directly let's try this: Create an internet site and start selling items with SW characters or ships and when the lawyers come calling, tell them you have the right to do it because Lucas released the movie for public viewing and see how well that works.

The real question is rather does Lucas have a moral obligation to the fans to make the original versions available along side the SE's with equal quality. To that I would say yes.

 

your example is flawed.

try this, leave the internet out, if you created a work of art and sell it to a museum can you then come back in 10 years take the painting home and redo it because you have new inspiration and now the work is incomplete?

while a living artist who sold such a work might still own the rights to his work they do not have the moral right to do that, nor the legal right.

Lucas doesn't have the legal right to declare the official version of the film, he does have the legal right to make updated films. I personally think that the moral obligation is there to offer all versions in the best possible quality but that's me.

if lucas "owned star wars" instead of just owning the rights as some like to say then he could order us to surrender all of the laser disks and vhs versions of the orginal in exchange for his new vision.

thankfully he doesn't own star wars, just the rights so he cannot order this.

it's funny that today i have more respect for the work that was done on star wars in the 70s than the director of the film does but his words make it clear to me that is the case.

 

Lucas is bold and inventive, my kind of scum. I champion his integrity to tinker with his creation. I write stories as a hobby, and every year I get better and better. I like to redo somethings and correct continuity errors, so I see all my works (i play guitar too and am constantly tinkering with my songs, making them better) as a work in progress. People have their OOT on DVD now, so the argument is moot. For me, I know the story by heart, so any new developments is a welcomed surprise. I hear what you are saying about the 1977 state of the art being preserved, but you must realize that for GL, SW is beyond movies and technology. It is a moving, almost living, masterpiece that will survive well into the future. This is the man's lifes work, let him work it out. I like his vision, I accept it. I dont want SW from anyone else when it comes to the films. If i want someone else's take on SW, i read a novel or play a game or get a comic. And anyhow, all his tinkerings are minor adjustments, he wont retcon anything major, that is not his way. I am a SW fan, and thereby a fan of GL, so what he does with it is welcomed by me.

 

Okay, but are your stories published in book form, for sale to the public? How about your music? Is it presented in a finished CD form for the public to buy? If not, then this argument doesn't hold up. Lucas released his works as FINISHED films.

What if a band recorded a CD, put it out in the market, then decided to re-record it a few years later because they were better musicians? They insist the previous version isn't their "real" album anymore. The new CD doesn't have the same VIBE as the old one and a lot of people don't care for it. They want the original back, but it has been yanked from the market. You'd have a lot of upset fans on your hands.

In my opinion, once you've released your work to the public, it's HANDS OFF for the creator. Live with it. Your baby has left the nest.

 

I fundamentally agree.

Lucas could and should treat his original releases with the care, attention and respect they and their fans deserve. His decision to finally release the originals in non-anamorphic form, despite the fact that Lucasfilm and THX are meant to be committed to the highest standards in the entire industry, is perplexing and hypocritical. As much as I like Lucas, he isn't beyond criticism, and this is a severe failing of his, in my opinion. After Coppola revisted "Apocalypse Now" and had people crying foul, a fresh release of the original is soon to hit the market, fully remastered and restored. Perhaps Lucas will pay attention to one of his best buddies. I like the newer versions of SW, conceptually, if not always practically, because I feel I know where Lucas is going and what he is trying to do (beyond the commercial side of things, that is), but I also recognise that the unaltered originals should really be out there in fine form, too. They are an important part of film history.

 

He didnt' change the movies he already released, he sold them to us and we got to keep them (well the home video releases anyway). He even told us he wouldn't keep re-releasing them after the THX version. It said it right on the box. I don't see any problem with him tweaking them and re-releasing them. The originals are archived in the library of congress for historical purposes. They aren't going anywhere.

 

I'm not trying to get too off topic - there's 'SW' reason why I'm asking this...

Can anyone think of the first major, popular film which was changed in a major way (ie Director's Cut)?

I remember seeing Blade Runner for the first time in 1992 (it was the director's cut). I've never seen the first version, and at the same time, I'd never seen a 'director's cut' either.

I was in university at the time living in residence. Dinner time was always pop culture debate time - and the idea of director's cuts came up. Needless to say, it was a never-ending debate.

Still, before 'director's cuts' became a fad, to me, Star Wars was 3 movies carved in stone. 'Ownership' of these movies simply meant who gets the big cut from the VHS sales & rentals and TV revenue. The movies were just 'out there for anyone to enjoy'. Five years later, the SW fanbase is divided and internet threads expolde with more debates.

In my humble opinion, the advent of the scecial editions plus the further 2004 DVD changes have fed a huge chunk of the fanbase a bitter biscuit. How? Having the state of the films in an constantly evolving fashion has given the fanatics a false sense of ownership and a false sense of an entitlement of how more changes should be made.

Speculation is one thing, but let's be honest, having the whole "Lucas has to do this, Lucas needs to do that, if Lucas doesn't do such and such, boy, oh boy" is just not grounded in reality.

 

There are many good points being made here on both sides of the debate--this is exactly what I was hoping for in this thread.

The one thing I want to remind people is the difference between what we do ourselves as writers, musicians, atists, home movie makers, etc. and what Lucas and other professionals do: this is publication, theatrical release, public exhibition, etc. of works. I am a published writer (non-fiction) and sometimes look back on things that I have published and wish I had done something differently, but all I can do is write something new admitting that I changed my opinion or idea or make a new edition that says the same thing in its intro. The old ones still sit on the shelves of academic libraries and can still be bought on Amazon.com--they are part of the public record, whether I like it or not, and they are subject now and forever to acceptance or rejection by critics, readers and scholars. If and when the format of the printed book is superceded and these libraries all transfer books to an electronic media, I will not have the right to change what I said in the first edition and say that was always my original vision--it just doesn't work that way with published material. If something doesn't live up to your original vision, something you are proud of, it isn't ready for publication/exhibition/release.

I completely concur with those who defend director's cuts, etc. There is always room for revisiting past works and updating them, as long as they readily admit that is what they are doing, rather than saying that was always what was meant, which is clearly not true. Such works are really glosses on the original and as such are only artistically valid, in my opinion, as long as the originals are preserved and made readily accessable beside them.

And Go-mer, one shouldn't have to go to Washington and get permission from the Library of Congress to watch the top film of all time! That is hardly accessable, though LC is doing a great service by preserving them and, when they enter the public domain after George passes will doubtless be made available, I will be an old, old man by then.

 

I think people who really wanted to see the originals should have picked them up the last time Lucas made them available, and now that it's on DVD, there's just no excuse anymore.

 

The way I see it, the films do belong to Lucas, per copyright laws. We just own copies of them. He has not told us to give back said copies, for the newer editions. So he and others like him, are in the right to do whatever they want. No matter how they advertise it. I don't think any of these prodcuts truly belong to us. We are allowed to purchase and view copies of these materials. But we have no ownership claim other than owning a copy of the material.

 

Well, in all fairness to DarthPoppy, even though I have clashed with him before, he did make a point of saying he didn't want to argue the legal side of it. This is more a moral/ethical/cultural/artistic/aesthetic issue.

 

It shouldnt matter if your art is published or not, it's still yours. If you can legally update your material, or re-record it as alot of musicians do, that is totally within your right to do so. The same applies for all forms of media. Film and literature are not necessarily subject to the same discrimination as scholarly material. That is a completely separate form of work altogether. And for the person who stated that once the work becomes a part of the public domain it no longer belongs to the creator, I am very happy that you are wrong and that is not how things are done. If it were, no one would ever release anything for fear it would forever be taken out of their hands.

 

... but the legalities of ownership do add variables of relevence here.

 

It's not flawed because uploading artwork to the internet is making it viewable to the public and further you are uploading a copy of your work which is very similar to viewing a copy of a movie or buying merchandise (dvds tapes etc) and even further it is a valid comparison because another term people use when uploading copies to the internet is . . . "publishing"!

And that's what I as saying as well and have said before in this very forum. It's a moral issue not a legal one but to get to the meat of this argument, we need to define the difference.

No Lucas owns SW but he doesn't own the merchandise we buy because we bought that merchandise. However there is still conditions that came with the buying of said merchandise. The major one being that we are not allowed to make copies and sell them. Everything we do with them must be for personal use. Lucas does have the right to set those conditions because SW does belong to him.

What does ownership of Star Wars mean? It means the authority to direct how it is used or not used for personal or financial gain or loss. It pertains to the title, the names, the film elements, the props and costumes, the soundtrack and music, the concepts, the characters and everything else that goes into making SW a lucrative and viable product. It's not even debatable that all these things belong to Lucas. In every way shape and form, he owns Star Wars. But he doesn't own the right to tell us the fans how we are to perceive SW as you rightly mentioned earlier because basic human rights surpasses any and all copyrights obviously.

Right, if the library is taking it upon themselves to transfer the content of the book to an electronic medium, you don't have the right dictate they only put in content that agrees with your current views of the work. But this is more like taking a DVD and for whatever reason making a copy of it to blue ray or whatever for your own personal use. It's not until you start making a business out of it that the rights of the "owner" come into play because the owner is the one who has the right to make money off the work.