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

Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" is a more apt example where even a power-house director like Scott had to release a studio-approved, 2-hour cut of his movie which he dislikes and the critics absolutely panned. His 3-hour director's cut had quite the opposite effect when it came out to DVD. Since then Scott has all, but disowned the 2-hour cut. However quite the reverse is the case for "Alien" which he still prefers the theatrical cut, but he enjoys tweaking the movie for the fun of it at the expense of 20th Century Fox.

Is there any reference article or interviews that says that was Scott's decision? I only ask because Scott is not any sort of position to muscle in on what version ends up on what DVD and what is released and what isn't. Scott is neither the copyright holder, owner nor the distributor of the DVD. It WOULD be nice to know if the old versions ended up by his request or if that was the studio's idea. The 1992 Director's Cut of "Blade Runner" is still a HUGE seller even though the DVD came out years ago. And, of course, they weren't able to sell the original edition of the movie because of complex distribution ownership deals cut back during the original theatrical release of the movie.

Likewise Coppola and Cameron - they do not own copyrights for any of their films and have limited input in terms of what gets released and what doesn't. So long as the studio doesn't release something that can endanger a director's reputation or defame/slander their good name, they can do pretty much whatever they want with these director's movies. Their involvement in the production of "special editions" or "director's cuts" is as much an exercise in courtesy and publicity as it is preservation or artistic integrity.

The release of the dual-version of "The Abyss" could be explained as much a marketing tool for its seamless-branching technology as much as it could be explained as "preservation".

You could equally argue that the DVD release of "Legend" was the first release for both the American cut and the Director's Cut (in the American market) and made sense for the two to be shipped together - particularly in the early days of DVD when there was considerable backlash from the collector market for double-dipping (which studios have figured out they can get away with now thanks for a much larger DVD viewer market).

In regards to "Terminator 2" - you are speaking of a franchise that James Cameron doesn't hold a single dime of control. Lost in the depths of legal-time-and-business-space, after the dissolving and then cannibalisation of Corolco and Orion Pictures, Cameron only allowed to be involved in the Ultimate Edition/Laser-Disc Edition of the film as long as he was able to restore his "extended cut" (which presents all three versions of the movie - again marketing the DVD platform as the ultimate movie consumer product). Cameron's return to record a commentary track on the Extreme Edition was supposedly due to a substantial amount of money paid by Artisan and co-funded by Universal as a marketing double-dip for the release of "Terminator 3".

Likewise Coppola does not own distribution control or rights to either version of "Apocalypse Now", but there's hurting spending a little money for him to restore and recut the film for that wholesome double-dipping of paying-customer goodness.

It's useless to try and start mind-reading people who have Hollywood alliances to look after, their own busines

 

Neither is Lucas. He has to keep his companies running and his employees paid and he certainly doesn't go around saying "yeah lets put Yoda on a jockstrap". That's not actually his call to make, he's not CEO of his marketing division. You can't claim to be flawed and then expect him to be perfect. You can't quote his words as epic, written-in-stone, gospel and then claim that you're liable to say the wrong thing from now and then. Can you?

Errrr...no I'm pretty sure the cost for making movies is still pretty much the same as always. The people who manage to make ultra-low-budget "big films" are still working with the same kind of budget and financing as the Sam Raimi's and Peter Jackson's of old. You only need to compare the budgets for "Evil Dead" and "Bad Taste" with inflation adjustment to see that. Digital filmmaking is making it easier for people without experience on working with CELLULOID to make movies, but to make something that any distributor or studio won't turn their noses up at is still as difficult as it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. You still need that magic half-million to one-million US budget to have something substantial to show for yourself.

Because it's his to do with as he pleases. I know you may feel that your questions are rhetorical, but I don't believe that they are. The society we live in today upholds law that states that art belongs to the artist until its copyright falls into the public. The right to free expression and the ability to control what form that expression takes in is a human right that our laws support. To force Lucas's hand by law is to strip freedom away from the individual. Sure it is fair to question it on a moral standpoint, but arguing morality isn't going to make Lucas give into your wishes sadly. And to suggest that the "people" have the power to influence art works both ways - once you set a precedent that art belongs to more than the artist then you are in a position to open a whole new can of worms in terms of ownership of art and who has the right to distribute and SURPRESS art for the sake of the "public good". What applies to "Star Wars" will eventually apply to the world as a whole.

To suggest art goes beyond ownership is to rob individuals of their basic human freedom to self-censor. The freedom of speech is also the freedom to shut yourself up as well.

And, of course, filmmaking isn't just art as a lot of people seem to not want to believe - its business-driven and business motivated. Irrespective of whatever Lucas says in whatever interview (even though people aren't willing to apply the same rules of "people say stupid stuff" to him as they are willing to apply to themselves). The ramifications of films - a vital source of income for a huge industry - being co-owned by "society" out of the reasons of nostalgia and historical significance can be manipulated to rob income from those same groups of people and remove motivation for people to make more movies, especially high-priced blockbusters.

 

Errrrr your lack of understanding of one principle concept is making you think you have ammunition to attack another.

The issues with Lucas's rights are not because he's the writer/creator/whatever. HE IS THE OWNER. HE OWNS IT. HE PAID FOR IT. IT'S HIS STUFF. PERIOD.

One thing is NOT like the other.

If Lucas was some writer whining about how his movies were screwed over by the studios (and the films were just as good as they are today) then there is no precedence to be set and Lucas would have to deal. He doesn't have to deal because he owns his own material. He's free to mess it up as much as he likes. If I make a movie for a major studio and they screw me in the process, I have to the right to scream "they screwed me waaahhh", but ultimately the studio paid for and owns the movie so I don't have the legal right to go behind their back and release my own cut of the film and try and steal income away from them or anything like that. It's THEIR MOVIE, I made it as a contractor FOR THEM.

That's life and that's the law. Twisting facts and people's statements to fit your own theories isn't going to give creedence to your argument. Hell I will even concede that a lot of the things that people dislike about the prequels is the result of the writer having a bit too much creative control without people questioning his judgment. That's also life and there's little we can do about that either.

Except to exercise our right to say "no thanks" and move on.

 

I haven't read the posts made this afternoon, but otherwise I am FINALLY caught up. So here's my mamoth post...


First of all, the whole "colorization of classics" debate isn't being understood properly. Lucas isn't a hypocrite for wanting to change his films while also wanting to "protect" others. The point he's trying to make is that the auteur is the only one who should be making changes. Auteurs have been changing their movies for years, sometimes to placate specific audiences within a single theater! If someone unrelated to the project swoops in and starts tinkering, then there's a problem.

But there are two things to consider with this: 1) its inevidable SW will fall in the public domain somepoint in history. Copyrights are not eternal. (2) Those who changed the above mentioned films did so legally.

The question becomes does it become right to change an original work? GL says not unless the artists specifically stated his intention to do so, yet the lack of statement from dead artists isn't enough to say they would not or we should not. Would the original creators of King Kong not want a CG version of their film if they were alive today? Maybe not, but why wouldn't they? It would look better and they could market it for additional $$$$.

Also, consider: If GL died in July of 1977, long before he could document specific changes he wanted made to that movie, why would it be wrong for someone else to come along and enhance the effects 20 years later? They may not have known what GL wanted to change, but if they saw possiblities and knew GL wasn't entirely happy with his budgetary limitations, then why not? How would that have been different than GL doing it himself 20 years later? In both cases you have the same end result: ANH updated. I would propose its the end result that matters and that it is done within the context of the law. If a SE of a SW movie is a good thing, artistically, it's a good thing artistically no matter who does it.

Let me put it in another perspective, an actual RL happening-now-in-our-time perspective: Star Trek is being updated by the studio that controls it. Rodgenbury cannot weigh in. He's dead. Star Wars had the same thing done to it, only not by the studio, by the creator. So, two sci-fi franchises having the same thing done, both legally, but one by the creator and the other by the studio. How is CBS wrong for what they are doing to ST?

Now, I realize my above statement would be, in fact is, a good argument for the SEs, but bear with me. You'll see it works on many angles, but first, please answer the question: How is (or, merely, "is") CBS wrong for what they are doing to ST? After all, GL said it was wrong for the studios to make a technical change to the 3S to modernize it, because it took it out of context and wasn't fair to the artist. CBS is deliberately modernizing the O-ST.

Now, regarding whether or not the O-OT are completed movies, actually, they are. The fact that each of the six movies had a threatical release and the fact that a theatrical release is a complete version and not a rough cut is self evident. In my opinion, it isn't even worth arguing about so I won't dwell on this. Now, yes, as a side note, the fact he wasn't happy with them, and that's a different issue, and, yes, movies can have various versions, each one a completed work in-to-itself. There are dozens of examples of this.


Where? In "Good-Intentions-Really-Do-Count-World"? Why on earth would Lucasfilm bother to confuse their target audience more than they already have?

Acient history at this point, but I still feel compelled to say: I don't know that this comment was worth ranting on about, NZ. He was obviously making a joke, I would have just let it pass, even if you didn't find it funny.


I, personally, don't trust any single one of them to remain consistent with their positions today if they had the power - like Lucas - to prevent distribution of offending versions of their films.

Historically, directors who recented a ve

 

I can't agree with you there. Multiple versions of films released by studios (as I've stated in an earlier post) are not always motivated by helping the director maintain artistic integrity. The act of releasing a director's cut of any film is a huge financial undertaking by a studio costing several million dollars or more. Very rarely do directors pay for this out of their own pocket and thus end up having to tow a studio-line regardless of whether or not they're getting their way. Director's cuts are a marketing tool foremost in the eyes of a studio and function to revitalize interest in a film as much as try and make a better product if they can.

A director, left to truly control the release of their films, may just as well turn around and shut down the production lines for DVDs of their theatrical editions. Peter Weir has done it for "Picnic At Hanging Rock". Russell Mulcahey did it for "Highlander". Milos Foreman's theatrical cut of "Amadeus" (arguably superior in pacing) is well out-of-print and the studio doesn't deem interest in it at the moment to bring it back.

Sometimes you have to state the overbearingly obvious

Oooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhh touche!!! You are right, I think I can only concern myself as a consumer.

Having said that....I think there may be a surprising amount of people here who blur the lines between the two or use motivations of one position to serve another.

 

As the curator and possessor of said artwork, he is the only one in the position to be able to preserve it in a true sense of the word.

As for directors and multiple cuts, as Strphe pointed out, if it truely bothered them they would speak out against the existance of multiple cuts. There have been many cases where directors have objected, disowned or tried to oppose a certain cut of their film, and the absense of resistance must be taken as compliance with the existing version. And it is true that there are some cuts of film that are at present not available--such as Amadaus. But the difference is that no one has ever lobbied for the release of such a thing--if audiences did, it is virtually garunteed that this would be made available. Its simply the studio not aware of the importance (and in parallel, consumer demand) for the avaiability of such a thing. Ridley Scott may very well prefer the original cut of Alien--despite the fact that he explicitly professes the opposite-- but its safe to say that if he truely opposed its existance to the degree that he wished it no longer be viewed that he would imply such a thing, if not stating it explicitly.

But, this also brings me to a last point, which i think some have been hinting at before.

Which is emotional attachment. It has been said that different people are asking for different things and that some preservationists have dubious motives. Well, firstly not all of us are the same, so i don't think you can group us together like that. But more importantly to understand is this: it is emotional attachment and theres nothing wrong with that. Here is where i am getting at: as a, quote, "preservationist," i am indeed bothered by the fact that the original cut of Close Encounters of the Third Kind is not available. That bothers me on the principle that a work of fairly significant importance is currently lost. The same goes for Amadaus, or the original American cut of Once Upon A Time in the West. I support the preservation of these things in principle. But in practice--i am not going to actively pursue it. Why? Because i just don't have the emotional attachment to take up the fight for these things. Star Wars, on the other hand i do. The original cut of Apocalypse Now i do, as another example, and Alien as well. Why? Because i like these films more. I also consider them more important than the other two examples, but really it comes down to emotional attachment; whenever you have to take up an active stand against something your efforts inevitably come down to this, and like i said, what is wrong with this? Other people that are more bothered by the absense of the original Close Encounters cut--and there are lots of them, believe me--can make that battle but Star Wars is the one i am devoting my time for. But, in principle, i support them all. Theres nothing abnormal, contradictory, hypocritical or confusing about that.

But now lets go back to the previous point--no one ever really actively lobbied for a release of the original Amadeus, and i am almost positive that if a group did that it would be released. Who is the studio to know that there was such demand for it? Lucas too can be excused for underestimating the importance and demand for the original versions. And in the same way--after massive fan outcry and a petition of thousands upon thousands of names, he finally relented to it. It is true that it can also be described as coming down to "consumer demand" and thus profit to be made, but in the world of motion

 

alright, I'll throw in a few more things that came to mind while scanning these long posts.

Regarding the preservationist angle, of course I absolutely wish that every movie dvd I own that is not the theatrical version of that movie was also including said theatrical version in addition to whatever version is being presented and of course all in good acceptable quality. The ones that come to mind are ST: The Motion Picture (although the altered scenes with the exception of the credits are presented as a bonus and in anamorphic widescreen, practically a "here you go" to the fan-editors) the 2-disc dvd's of Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country (both by Nick Meyer I might add, and while I'm on the subject I should point out that Meyer actually states his dislike for the concept of a director's cut on the audio commentary for that particular Wrath of Khan dvd which is itself not the theatrical cut!!!! I'll come back to that in a minute), Stargate, THX and the Frighteners (although Wrath of Khan and the frighteners are pretty much excempt since their original versions were released seperately and in good quality). I also wish I had a full uncropped transfer of Apocalypse Now in its original technovision frame or that I didn't have to watch Conan the Destroyer, the U.S. broadcast cut of the Dune miniseries and the Star Wars Trilogy in nothing better than non-anamorphic letterbox.

Ok, now let me get as relevent to the topic as I can. TPM and AOTC are not presented on dvd as they originally were, but I can't say I mind the undeniably minor changes made to AOTC. TPM is a different story and I think it was much better left alone. I'm not going to completely derail this thread by bringing the argument down to "well if hadn't been for those darn prequels, Lucas would've never altered the OT in the first place!" but that's why you honestly don't see people getting offended at the changes to TPM and AOTC: many never cared about those movies in the first place. On top of that, and I'm not going to start walking a slippery slope either, but the alterations to the prequels absolutely pale in comparison to the OT SE changes. I don't mind the prequels existing, and in all honesty I hope LFL goes all out if and when they release the films again on dvd, including the theatrical cut and the latest what have you cut for each film on seperate discs (the old dvd versions will still be lying on the shelves for those interested), making the set no less than 12 discs thick. The problem, at least as far as Star Wars is concerned, is as undeniably simple as that.

I'll be the first to admit that these complaints are nothing when compared to the untold number of films made over the years that are not being preserved on dvd either. THX will probably never be released in anything besides its current form if only because it wasn't the history making event that Star Wars '77 was. American Graffiti and Revenge of the Sith may end up as the only unaltered George Lucas movies on dvd (although I'm not 100 percent sure on Graffiti and of course there is that one wipe in ROTS notwithstanding).

The situation with Star Trek is interesting since the original version of the show is available in its highest possible quality on dvd, whereas Star Wars is not. I actually wouldn't be surprised if LFL completely puts the old dvd's behind it as the obviously prequel-centric (or at least ROTS-centric) versions that they were if and when they decide to put out another dvd release. The conventional wisdom would say "Who does GL think he's kidding?" What else does he have left to sell us besides what we've been clamoring for all these years?

 

NZ, I'll catch up with you a little later, but I just wanted to say that think there is a great deal of misunderstanding going on here, not just between our debate (you and I), but in a larger sense of this thread. Anyway, I'll post more later.

 

In my opinion - no, he shouldn't. Not unless he feels like doing it for his own sake. People, ultimately, still preserve things for their own sake and peace of mind. They don't go out of their way and cost to preserve something they have no affinity for. Why should Lucas be any different?[/quote]

And he has chosen not to and there is no line of morality or philosophy that can twist his arm to force him to preserve it. If you can convince me otherwise, I'd be very keen to hear it.

Your second sentence pretty much answers your first sentence. And, as I've stated before, there are many reasons as to why director's may or may not publically denounce a certain cut - and it has strong ties to their power, business alliances and ties within the industry. If Ridley Scott - coming off the success of a long string of movies - can have "Kingdom of Heaven" chopped down by the studio against his wishes, then there is cause for thought that even some of Hollywood's most powerful directors have to be very careful in what they say about cuts of their films that they are not fond of. You cannot take ANYBODY in the film industry - not even Lucas - at their word. To do otherwise is playing ignorance to the very foundations of the Hollywood system - a system that is closely tied to making money and delivering product as it is to the creation "art" as you put it. This is what I'm trying to get people to understand - that the treatment of film as "product" by studios undermines greatly the sense of artistic integrity and honesty that people are throwing around on here. You cannot afford to believe the hype because you do not have the facts - nobody here really has the facts at all.

Err no, have a listen to the audio commentary for the new Director's Cut edition of "Alien" and you will hear him - in his own words - profess that he feels the theatrical cut stands up fine as it is and that his "director's cut" is not a director's cut, persay, but an opportunity to show a slightly different version movie at the request of Fox (who paid him handsomely to recut the film). I'll find you a timecode if you really want it.

I've never implied that there was anything wrong with emotional attachment except for the fact that you have to paint the world with the same paintbrush that you paint yourself with. You have an emotional attachment. Great. That's awesome. Good for you. Guess what - Lucas doesn't. Sure, he's the only person who can give you and the rest of the world what they desire from emotional attachment...but he's not going to because he doesn't feel its important to him. How does your emotional need outweigh his, especially when he is t

 

No one ever has tried to force anyone to do anything, and we are quite aware of Lucas' choice. Its not that he he must, or that he should, its that he ought to. Obviously, Lucas doesn't feel the same way.

Er, how does that figure?

This is a completely sweeping statement without any backing. If this were true then there wouldn't be the wealth of examples where directors have expressed indifference, dissapointment or outrage with certain cuts. American History X is a fine example, Alien 3 is another. Its true that sometimes its in a filmmakers best interest to keep quiet so as not to ruffle the feathers of those in the power of financing, but its also true that this does not entail slagging the studios--there are ways of expressing disapointment with the way certain decisions came about that is gentle and not abraisive, and that does not lead to professional suicide. And the flip-side of this argument is that its in the studio's best interest not to alienate a director--because they are the ones that make them money. Disagreements and acrimoneous splittings usually come about when the two parties have had poor communication and the final product is not what was expected, thus it is recut against the directors wishes.

This is not an apt example because Ridley Scott re-cut the film himself under his own decision. He says that he let his business sense get the better of him because he thought that audiences would respond better to a shorter, action-oriented version of the film and that this would do better business, and was working on the editing of the theatrical version and his own longer version simultaneously in 2005, and even had actors do ADR for all the additional scenes when they came in to do ADR in 2005 for the theatrical versions; it was planned all along by the director. Even Ridley Scott's cut-down version of Legend was his own doing--a screening went bad, he completely flipped out and radically changed things to be more commercial and then years later he kicked himself for being swayed by "a few stoned teenagers" at a preview screening.

Again this is a complete blanket statement that is unreasonable. Certainly politics play a role in what people sometimes do or don't say, but to suggest that every single statement is colored by the political mindgames of Hollywood is just ra

 

This thread should've been called "why didn't George remaster the OOT?"

First the rumor started that all film copies had been destroyed. Then came the announcement that it was hitting dvd in 2006. Then came the announcement it would be from the same telecine used to make the '93 LD. Then came a quote from LFL saying that "existing film prints are in bad condition." So? They exist, restore them. Why would we pay for something that's already been released effectively? The 2004 set was something new, an old telecine of the OOT was not.

 

I did not agree.

I don't think that an artist should be forced to release his own art.

I don't think there should be a law to protect artists from being overridden by the people who employ them. The reality of the world is that this stuff costs money, and I don't blame the people who put up the money for wanting to be able to have the final say about the project.

 

"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.

I cannot see that this true. Digital equipment and technology (and people trained to use them) are extremely expensive. Superman Returns was shot digitally and it was one of (if not the) most expensive movies to make last year.


It's useless to try and start mind-reading people who have Hollywood alliances to look after, their own business courtesies to extend to studios and who - also - have no control over the distribution of their media.

This goes back to what I said in my previous post. An artist who is unhappy with a certain version usually makes it known (Fincher distance himself from the Alien franchise because he protested the TE of Alien 3, David Lynch had his name removed from Dune extended, Orson Wells begged the studio to reconsider which cut of Touch of Evil they would release, etc...) Your point is valid, I'll grant you, but if artist are going along amicably with dual releases, it's reasonable to assume a fair number of these would still do so even if they had the final say. Is that a majority, large minority or a small minority? We can't know for sure. Probably a smaller number than do now, but not all. This is a reasonable assumption.

Oh, and another movie to through on your list of "can't get" theatricals: The Last Emporer.


To force Lucas's hand by law is to strip freedom away from the individual. Sure it is fair to question it on a moral standpoint, but arguing morality isn't going to make Lucas give into your wishes sadly.

Well, nothing is, really, not even boycotting a certain release of the DVDs. That's really not the point here. (Genuine question here, not retorical Do you honestly think this thread is an effort to force SW out of GL's hands?


To suggest art goes beyond ownership is to rob individuals of their basic human freedom to self-censor. The freedom of speech is also the freedom to shut yourself up as well.

But to do so both totally legally and totally effectively, that has to happen before you document yourself and distribute. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you're kind of stuck. Even if you say "I'm not going to produce\distribute this anymore" what amount you already have will continue to be circulated, and I'm talking in the legal since here.


I can't agree with you there. Multiple versions of films released by studios (as I've stated in an earlier post) are not always motivated by helping the director maintain artistic integrity. The act of releasing a director's cut of any film is a huge financial undertaking by a studio costing several million dollars or more. Very rarely do directors pay for this out of their own pocket and thus end up having to tow a studio-line regardless of whether or not they're getting their way.

Ah, the later point you mention here is proven not to be true in several cases. Directors have walked away, asked for their names to be removed or just openly made it know how they feel about the various versions, even if they did so in a tactful way (Cameron is very tactful about his feelings for the TE, you wouldn't think he minds it at all, yet the DE is clearly the only version he wants to support).

Neither of us has enough evident to fully prove our point on this, so you may be more right than me, but I feel vendicated enough because of the support directors have leant, either in terms of publicity or in actual being a part of the recreation of their films. Now, one think you mention is important to point out and I will conceed, although it doesn't nullify my point: the SE/DE/EEs phenomia is a product of marketing and commercialism, not really a product of art. Artists don't sit down and create a work so they can make three or four versions of the same and distribute them in different packaging, the set out to create a singular work that they feel is best. SE/DE/EEs came about because they become commercially acceptable (and profi

 

Go-Mer

I did not agree.

I don't think that an artist should be forced to release his own art.

OK, thanks. And I agree with you. I'm just trying to figure out who is supporting the notion that legal force (or any other kind of force) be applied on either side of the ilse in this debate. The idea that anyone wants to force GL through some sort of legislation is muddling the thread (and has been since it started) and taking away from the true spirit of this discussion. So, I am forcing (pardon the pun) the issue and if anyone does support a kind of force, well, then we can discuss that as they make their feelings known.

 

Well, it was expensive due to the ten years of false starts and "Play or Pay" contracts. The film was already in deep for something like $40-60 million in developmental deals, screenplays that were written but not used and other areas. Between 1994 and 2004, numerous attempts were made to get a film done. So already the film was burdened with money that it had to make back on early deals, on top of what it cost to make and market the final product.

Just wanted to clarify that.

 

Film production is more or less consistent, its just that inflation has made movies that in 1980 cost $30 million cost about $150 million in 2007. Add to that the fact that a higher percentage of films these days are mega-budget blockbusters and the fact that star salaries are ridiculous, and you have soaring production costs. In terms of digital, it hasn't made anything cheaper, just easier, but both of those things are fast and loose rules because in some areas things are much more expensive and much more complicated. But in basic costs movies are more or less the same--maybe a bit more expensive but nothing that i see as really skyrocketing.

In low-budget productions, however, digital has certainly cut costs down because theres no film, lab and processing fees like you have with film--for a low-budget production of $400,000, a good third of that can easily be spent on film related expenses if you are shooting 35mm, whereas an extra hundred grand on film is a well worthwhile expense when you budget is in the ten--or hundreds--of millions.

 

Yeah, digital helps lower costs for low-budget and fanfilm guys. It's much cheaper to create a low budget film these days, but not really big studio productions. Just look at the budget for Pirates and Spidey 3.

 

Here is where i am getting at: as a, quote, "preservationist," i am indeed bothered by the fact that the original cut of Close Encounters of the Third Kind is not available. That bothers me on the principle that a work of fairly significant importance is currently lost. The same goes for Amadaus, or the original American cut of Once Upon A Time in the West. I support the preservation of these things in principle. But in practice--i am not going to actively pursue it. Why? Because i just don't have the emotional attachment to take up the fight for these things.

Well said. Now if you were active in the preservationist community, such as a member of a preservalist society some are, I would expect a broader and more impartial stand from you on an official capacity. But if you're voicing your feelings and voting with your wallet only, that's another matter.


Stargate, THX and the Frighteners (although Wrath of Khan and the frighteners are pretty much excempt since their original versions were released seperately and in good quality). I also wish I had a full uncropped transfer of Apocalypse Now in its original technovision frame or that I didn't have to watch Conan the Destroyer, the U.S. broadcast cut of the Dune miniseries and the Star Wars Trilogy in nothing better than non-anamorphic letterbox.

Stargate is available with both cuts in the same set. Fair point about Dune, but here's where marketablity comes into play: I've got both cuts, don't need an anamphoric cut of the broadcast version since I don't have a widescreen TV and when I do get one, even if an anamphoric version of the broadcast Dune were available I wouldn't buy it because I already bought the show twice. I imagine most people feel the same. Now, having said that they could remedy it when they do the HD-DVD version, which could have both with seemless branching. HD-DVD\Blu ray releases will correct some of this, but with others it won't.


American Graffiti and Revenge of the Sith may end up as the only unaltered George Lucas movies on dvd (although I'm not 100 percent sure on Graffiti and of course there is that one wipe in ROTS notwithstanding).

Even those have slight changes. It's debatable if they count. AOTC definitely counts, in my book, as an SE. When you start adding/change dialogue, that crosses the line and is no longer a TE, IMO.


This is what I'm trying to get people to understand - that the treatment of film as "product" by studios undermines greatly the sense of artistic integrity and honesty that people are throwing around on here.

Perhaps, but not for the angle I am arguing. I'm strictly speaking of film cuts that have been completed and released. In these cases the director and studio have both signed off on it, even if relucantly, and made it available. Whether art has been undermined or not in that process is not what I am discussiong (unless we want to discuss adding new effects to old movies, then, yes, I do consider it a matter of art, too). The merit of "art" within the work itself is always a debatable issue which can never be settled. But the impact and importance of certain films is self evident.


Err no, have a listen to the audio commentary for the new Director's Cut edition of "Alien" and you will hear him - in his own words - profess that he feels the theatrical cut stands up fine as it is and that his "director's cut" is not a director's cut, persay, but an opportunity to show a slightly different version movie at the request of Fox (who paid him handsomely to recut the film). I'll find you a timecode if you really want it.

I know what you're talking about. It's in the intro, I am pretty sure.


...but he's not going to because he doesn't feel its important to him. How does your emotional need outweigh his

Well, again, strictly in the realm of philosphical discussion, the answer is quite easy: Mathematics.


And - like you've said before - seeing as he's already released the OOT in non-anamorphic anyways, this discussion is hardly

 

the films belong to Lucas, the experience belongs to me

its no different than someone who goes on vacation and spends all there time with a video camera recording the sights.

how about appreciating it for what it is and moving on

i swear the ones who are the most engrossed in the saga didnt learn anything from it

 

Prove it.

 

I doubt i can prove it =)

But the fact that there is a thread debating this topic at least supports my theory.

 

Not really, no.

 

This thread in large part has turned into "does Lucas have the right to make changes". Its about what has happened, and is it good or bad. Its about what is going to happen, and is it good or bad.

Regardless of wether Lucas has the "right" to change the saga: This is about the idea of ownership, and ultimately not being able to let go of something you love and don't want to see change. How very Anakin Skywalker.
This is an amazing example of a bunch of fans who seem to have missed a great lesson from the movies.


Yoda to Luke in ESB: "Always looking to the future are you, never where you are, what you are doing". Haven't seen Empire in a while, might be slightly off on the quote, sorry. To me this one hits home as well.
How about not obssesing over what has been done, or what might or might not be done in the future. Maybe we should just enjoy Star Wars for what it is, not what it was once, or what it might be.

Again this isn't fact, and I obviously can't "prove" my initial observation =P. I do however think these are just 2 examples that would support my theory quite well.

Loco_for_Lucas: Dismissing someones ideas out of hand? I am sure theres a lesson to be learned about that in a galaxy far far away. I may be wrong.

 

Arguing the relevance of PT moral lessons to RL (which is a debatable point in-and-of-itself) is not on topic for this thread.