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

Well, it is possible I said some things I shouldn't have in response to zombie (things along the lines of "I've seen you doing this stuff before"), but I tried my best, as did he, to give reasons for why we saw things differently. I didn't really consider it baiting on his part, so I think we're good. Plus, we aren't arguing anymore.

 

Museums HAVE been around for "hundreds" of years, but the art we are trying to preserve dates back thousands. Also museums were not started as a repository for preserving art, it was initially a place to display scientific and anthropological knowledge to help financially support exploratory/scientific societies, assist with creation of grants for academics and also raise public awareness. The fine rules of "preservation" that dominate museums today is a much more recent invention and even as late as the 1970s there were museums who were more concerned with displaying artifacts for tourism potential than for making sure nobody actually breathed on the exhibits.

I'm not saying we shouldn't preserve things - of course - but that the reason WHY we preserve things is never fair nor equitable across all cultures and items and likewise sometimes things that should be preserved are often crushed or destroyed in the process of preserving other things. Hell let's not forget thousands of books were burned for the preservation of the Nazi Heritage and the stone buddhas in the Middle East were destroyed for the preservation of the Islamic culture. Preservation is a matter of perspective, not a matter of fact. Everytime someone opens a tomb to raid its goodies and 'preserve' them under glass and lights, there is a group that opposes it because they feel it is a violation of their own sense of preservation for those artifacts and that they should be left where they are.

Or possibly that he just doesn't really care. I can't really see Star Wars having the same "rock-my-world" feeling that it holds for fans. We see a finished product, but as a filmmaker he sees the memories and experiences he went through making his movies. Hell even Steven Spielberg has said that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is the only movie he's ever made that he can sit through and not feel bad about or have bad memories flood back to him.

Prove otherwise. People have been debating the mechanics, motivations and dealings of the Academy Awards since their inception. Anybody who has ever been involved in a nominated film knows that there are certainly notable trends, unusual oversights and eyebrow-raising patterns.

I'm not saying I neccesarily believe MisterVader's accusations, but his opinion cannot be disproved emphatically. I've had the privelidge to meet three Oscar-nominated filmmakers and they've all said to me - especially as non-American filmmakers - that the Oscars certainly have a powerful whiff of I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine along with enough nudges, winks, taps and handshake semaphores to confuse your average baseball coach. The Academy Awards is not some solemn gift-giving ceremony, it's BIG business with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line and a junction point between Hollywood, Independent Cinema, Censorship and Ratings Classification, Corporate America and the International Film Distribution Network. Being dismissive of these aspects is broaching ignorance, just a tad.

No, it is not a conspiracy. But it is a place where the influence of some of

 

Museums began as a repository for cultural artifacts, and artworks have been a part of that for hundreds of years, and museums dedicated solely to art have been around since the 18th century. Its not a new thing. With regards to film it is a new medium but its no different from what was going on in the 1600's and the 1800's. And the problem is always the same, as i mentioned--determining what goes in the museum and what to preserve. As i said, the only difference is that we are discussing a work that is completely contemporary.

Of course, there are few filmmakers who actually enjoy watching their films. Even the few documentaries and short subjects that i have done myself i rarely watch for the same reasons you cited.

Wrong answer. The burden of proof lies on the one making the conspiracy claim. But i'll get to that in a sec...

 

Neither is merely saying "wrong answer". Throwing around seemingly-distracting negative-deconstructors doesn't qualify your point at all. The burden of proof is not the point of contention because no evidence has been presented by either side. The point of contention seems to have now risen to the fact that your argument has turned to mild slander, flame-baiting and making accusations that you have refused to back up. Evidence? Here:

Enjoy the SE, no one is saying Lucas shouldn't do this, but if you can't recognize the historic importance of the 1977 release of Star Wars and its key place in movie history then i have to say you sadly don't really understand the franchise that you love so much. You are dangerously ignorant of the facts my friend and you are making huge, sweeping statements that are quite serious.

and

Are you saying that one should respect the opinion claiming that Graffiti was nominated for an Oscar because it was part of a kick-back conspiracy involving the studios? If that can't be deemed delusional then something is seriously wrong here.

You haven't posted anything to refute this apart from accusing someone on this board of being delusional. You are well within your rights to think MisterVader is delusional, but you're not going to win an argument by simply saying "you're delusional" to anything he throws at you on a public forum and make people agree with you (and lets face it - you're not going to accuse him of being delusional on a PUBLIC forum unless you wish to make an example of him, especially when we have a perfectly functioning private message system). It would've been simpler to politely ignore him or bring the whole thing to an end (which you now have as I've seen, obviously after things got too heated).

So you're saying that the disregard for "fact" (which you haven't offered any to counter his opinionated claims) and a whole array of other elements (which you have not described, addressed, evaluated and retorted) ultimately renders his argument invalid?

In short....are you saying that his argument is invalid and you can't be bothered telling him or the rest of us why ... because you expect all of us to already know?

Tell us how they are different. We'd like to know and it would go far to pour water over MisterVader's arguments. We're not neccesarily on his side, but nobody can agree with anyone's point of view without evidence. He hasn't really provided any, though he has a right to his opinion which he has drawn as a conclusion based on information he has encountered. All you have to do is provide yours - if you still care about doing so that is.

This thread went off topic several pages ago when a whole bunch of people on here decided that it was better to argue art history via semantics rather than actually talk about the TOPIC AT HAND (which is about ownership of art). I've just arrived to the party fashionably-late

 

Do you know what you could have done, zombie? Showed me a list of independent films that have been nominated for Oscars!

I just went and researched it, and unless there's some sort of loophole, there is no agenda.

A bunch of independent movies HAVE been nominated.

It was that easy all along, but you had to accuse me of nonexistant contradictions and logical fallacies...I just didn't research.

And ROTS should have been nominated for visual effects.

I didn't want to say so before because I really didn't know, but after a bit more research it really does seem like Lucas invited more Academy backlash than you're admitting...

The Academy is actually slanted for completely unrelated reasons. Here are some examples: http://badgerherald.com/artsetc/2003/02/17/the_price_of_gold.php

I'll summarize: The Academy Awards are not indicative of a film's quality. The Razzies are not indicative of a film's quality.

 

No, the burden of proof lies on the one making the positive statement, ie "its all a conspiracy." Sorry, thats how theories work. I've debunked the baseless accusations thrown around already, and i have ceased responding to the rest because someone has to or else we're just going to spiral down into absurdity. The topic of the Oscars has no more relation to what we initially discussing and i think we should just drop it now.

The original topic regarded to preserving the original versions of the trilogy and what right one has or doesn't have to do so. The argument has been summed up by many already, and it boils down to "its historically important and theres no reason why the two editions can't exist simulataneously--one as historic preservation of a classic piece of cinema and the other as the artist's revised definitive statement of that initial film; Lucas himself advocates this since the OOT was released in this manner with the SE in 2006." I can't really see how the argument can really go beyond that.

 

Well there you go, MisterVader says better than I ever could. Cheers MV.

 

I'm sorry...you're justifying slander on a public forum by trying to convince us that it's written in some kind of debating playbook? Are you planning on proving this "positive statement" that this is how people are meant to argue theories?

Well hey seeing as MisterVader has led the insult slide, I guess I have no obligation to push it any further. *shrug* It's all yours.

Except that nobody - not even you - can empirically prove historical importance overides living-artistic control without resorting to a form of cultural facism. But as your next point seems to say, you wish to drop this argument so that's fine. We'll leave it be.

So....you're saying that you're happy with the OOT release as it stands and are not interested in pursing "equal-treatment" any further? You're happy to drop the argument as it cannot go any further because its nullified by the 2006 release??

 

Are you saying that one should respect the opinion claiming that Graffiti was nominated for an Oscar because it was part of a kick-back conspiracy involving the studios? If that can't be deemed delusional then something is seriously wrong here.

You don't have to respect the idea, but you do have to show enough respect for the people debating not to use words like delusional. That just drags a debate into a fight, which is not what these boards are for.

Besides, the notion a person can be "exposed" as being idiotic, delusion and/or foolish and thus the person doing the exposing is somehow justified in all their views is as delusional as any idea I've seen bantered around on the board. No one ever conceeds an argument because of this nor do they hang their head in shame. And no one ever proves their point by making such claims. The merits of any argument stand on their own without making personal comments about the person making them. If someone requires negative personal comments be applied to the person they are debating in order for their idea or argument to stand, then the ideas lack proper weight for a debate of this sort. If someone is delusional, then they believe an illusion and cannot, thus, prove their point, so it should not be a big task to debunk the argument on sheer facts without making a comment about their state of mind.

 

Now THAT'S funny!

 

The irony was intentional, Cyro

 

So we finally agree. The films do belong to Lucas, and we were just lucky we got to see them.

 

More like Lucas is lucky that we saw them.

You thought he could have just made them and not show them to the public.

The entire point of films is an audience to look at it.

But I do agree, SW does belong to him.

 

Is this debate still raging...after all these years?!

 

Without fans, Star Wars would've bombed. No sequels. I don't see how the fans can't claim ownership in at least some small way.
Btw why would the Academy keep inviting Lucas to the Oscars if they hate him?

 

And the typo...?

Reminds me of an Oscar Wilde quotation: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

 

OK, I'm still playing catch up and have been writing a long post as I go along (that I may get posted later today), but one thing I want to just post now as a tool to hopefully end the aspect of the debate as it relates to the law:

Would anyone here:
a) Support a law that forces an artist to keep their work in circulation against their will?
b) Support a law that would force studios in all circumstances to give the writer of (or the person who created the concept of the story) the story total control of the story (meaning: it would be impossible for a writer to sign away creative control to the studio, they would always get final say, no matter what agreement they made. Everyone would get a deal like GL did with ESB\ROTJ by default)?

Also, does anyone here know if GL supports "b", or any leglislation that would force the issue of preservation?

 

My complete guess as to Lucas posture on that would be that you can't make a law that forces who gets creative control.

While he hated the control others had on him while he was within the studio system, I think he respected the fact that other people were putting up their own money, and therefore had a right to a say in how the final project turns out.

His solution to it was to become financially independant. In that day you had to be a multi-millionaire to make a movie, which he made happen.

Since he's been in that fortunate position, he has invested heavily in bringing the cost of making a movie down, to the point where the creative people would be able to afford to invest in their own art, and therefore have their own say.

 

No, there should not be any kind of law. Lucas owns the films, he paid for 5 of them and legally acquired the first one. He owns them, legally he can do as he wants, as it should be. This is more of a simple courtesy/posterity/history thing, which seems to be no problem to Coppola Cameron or Scott etc., and their multiple versions (Scott is presenting EVERY version of Blade Runner in one package, including a final one, making all the others "useless rough drafts" but included just the same.) Plus it's just weird and off-putting to claim "artistic integrity/vision" stuff and sell Yoda jockstraps at the same time. It creates a negative reaction in some people because we are not scientologists or Ned Flanders, and those reactions can happen.

 

Ideally, Lucas would probably perfer option B. But he also knows that it's not possible for everyone. He just got lucky enough that he could fund the rest of these films, without having to rely on the studio. More so as the series went on and he was truly independent. At best for me, I think that the studio should allow for more creative control. It doesn't have to be a law, but more of a written agreement. At best, a stronger compromise that works out best for both parties. It seems like what there is now, but I think that if a director is content with the cut of his/her work, then they shouldn't be outvoted by the studio that want major cuts. Take James Cameron and "Aliens". A lot of good material was cut at the order of the studio. Granted, it helped to make the film more money which built up Cameron's career, but it was at the expense of the story. A lot of good development was lost. The director's cut restored his vision and was well recieved. To me, there should be a stronger medium ground for the up and comers as well as the veterans.

 

With costs of making movies coming down, up and comers will have that middle ground as they are more and more able to fund themselves.

 

Baron's last post pretty much sums things up for me. For the past ten years we've been hearing about the artist's vision and indeed it is annoying that George Lucas hires all these people to work on these movies just so he can keep saying "my movie" in conversation. Since he didn't direct Episodes V or VI and Episode IV had a smaller budget, we get the Special Editions. Now the entire thing belongs to him apparently. Shouldn't art go beyond ownership? Can't a thing just be what it is and be left alone, basically belonging to itself? Everyone's still getting credited, so why should one of them be able to alter it and suppress the original version, just because he now claims ownership?

I'm a huge fan of any release that takes the archival approach such as Apocalypse Now, although to be as fair as I can be the dvd aspect ratio is not what it was in theaters but then again it's for an interesting reason. Vittorio Storaro, the cinematographer, is a big fan of the 2.0:1 aspect ratio so the picture was zoomed in order to fit this. I point this out only because it was the cinematographer in this instance, not the director, who made a creative decision.

 

It's coming down? If anything, it seems to me that it's skyrocketing.

 

Through the use of digital technology, costs are going waaay down.

 

"Hell no" and "Hell no", respectively. The first is cultural fascism and would have enormous implications in other areas of media and free-expression. The second is just a recipe to open the floodgates for under-developed, under-realized and poorly-managed writing and films. Some of the best movies ever made were only done so after producers and studios cracked the whip over the writer's and director's heads, inciting them to improve on work that wasn't good enough. *whip crack* "FASTER! MORE INTENSE!! MUSH!!!"