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

CT Why Does Lucas Owe Us the O-OT?

Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by PiettsHat, Oct 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PiettsHat

    PiettsHat Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 1, 2011
    This is a question that has bothered me for some time. Simply put, why do some fans feel that Lucas has an obligation to release the unaltered Original Star Wars trilogy? It's not as though it's not available.

    You can purchase the 1995 VHS set on Amazon.com for as little as $1.00 used and $31.98 new (which comes out to just under $11 per movie). Seen here:

    http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Trilogy-Mark-Hamill/dp/6301792734/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1317510168&sr=8-3

    Granted, that's quite expensive for new VHS tapes, but there's dozens of reliable sellers offering used tapes for very reasonable prices. Then, of course, there's the laserdisc transfers. See, here's my problem with many of the O-OT arguments: there's no suppression of the unaltered original trilogy, it simply isn't promoted anymore by Lucasfilm. While that's certainly disheartening for fans, it's by no means difficult to get your hands on a home media format.

    I simply don't understand why Lucas is obligated to restore the O-OT for a new release. When you purchased a ticket in 1977, it gave you entrance to see the film Star Wars, not a lifetime guarantee to have access to that film in the newest available format.

    I realize I may come off as antagonistic, and I apologize for that, but my recent attempts to obtain a copy of a manga I'd like have left me rather unsympathetic to O-OT fans' plight. (For the record, the volume of manga I'm looking for I haven't been able to find anywhere on the internet for less than $89 used while normally they're priced at $10 brand new). You might argue that Star Wars is part of our cultural heritage far more so than another, random series, but I'd contest that this is merely in the eye of the beholder. I know many, many people who couldn't give two figs about any of the Star Wars movies. And really, I feel it's a bit disingenuous to say that one series has more inherent artist merit simply because it has more fans.

    I guess my argument comes down to this: why does Lucas need to offer a high-quality O-OT format? It's readily available and, to be honest, there are plenty of other fandoms that have to do without any method of legally obtaining their favorite works (video game, manga, anime, and foreign film fans quite often face this problem). So why is Lucas so harshly lambasted? On the whole, I find Star Wars fans have it better than most, given that I can buy the entire Saga on Blu-Ray for less than the price of that one aforementioned used volume of manga.

    I apologize if this thread is inappropriate and moderators can go ahead lock it if need be. I'm genuinely interested in your answers, so please feel free to provide detailed responses. Thanks, guys. :)

    And, for the record, I would be quite happy to see Lucas restore the O-OT because it would mean so much to so many people, I just don't understand why he's obligated to is all.

     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  2. Jedi_Ford_Prefect

    Jedi_Ford_Prefect Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Here's what I think could be a nice compromise offer-- come out with a Blu Ray release of all the deleted scenes from the movies, including ALL of the cut scenes from the Prequels in full, finished special-effects treatment, and all of the original versions of OT scenes altered by the Special Editions, in full digital remasters that bring them up to the same picture-quality. Prequel fans would get all their missing moments, OT fans would get what they want, and people would be free to fan-edit the material to their heart's content. Then maybe we could stop with all this nonsense.

    Anyway. What manga were you looking for? Something the mangaka (a word I don't get to use often enough) changed after the initial release?
     
  3. PiettsHat

    PiettsHat Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Oh, I'd certainly be happy with this proposal and I'm sure some fans would be. Though, not all, I imagine, especially those who aren't technically skilled enough to re-edit the films. Perhaps I'm simply misunderstanding fans, though, but it seems like they feel that Lucas owes them a release of the O-OT and I just don't understand the logic behind that sentiment. Sure, they've made contributions to the community, but none of that, in any way, shape, or form, obligates Lucas to provide them with the O-OT in their preferred format.

    This especially bothers me, I guess, because the O-OT is available for home viewing and quite easily at that. But then, I still frequently watch films in VHS, so maybe that's why it doesn't bother me personally.

    Naoki Urasawa's Monster Volume 6. On Amazon, the lowest price is $89.61 and it's $300 to buy the complete 18 volumes on ebay, so it's a huge chunk of change. It hasn't been altered, the manga's just not readily available anymore.

    To twist the knife deeper, Viz has only released 15 of the 74 anime episodes on DVD and that's all they're planning to release. Also, some of the music has been changed due to copyright issues, I believe.

    So yeah, I've been a bit put out with some Star Wars fans, especially since we've recently gotten blu-rays and yet there seems so much dissatisfaction.

    That's not to say there aren't legitimate complaints (there certainly are) but we don't have it bad, in my opinion.
     
  4. zombie

    zombie Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 1999
    As culturally important films, there is a moral obligation to protect and preserve national treasures. George Lucas said it best:


    "A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

    The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.

    It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

    In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

    The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.

    Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself."



    Besides which, hundreds of millions of fans love the films. The intense love of those original films is what made Lucas into the billionaire he is today and allows him to have the lifestyle and opportunities which he now has. It's kind of an ungrateful, and ultimately unnecessary thing to do. Why be a total jerk to fans who just want to enjoy something you made? It's what every other filmmaker from Coppola to Scott to Speilberg has done. Everyone would accept the SE as the final artistic statement of the director, and you could include the versions together in the same set. The way every other film does.

    Normally, there would be laws against suppressing cultural heritage like Star Wars; when you create something as huge and culture-shaping as Star Wars, it becomes bigger than any one man or company because it's become entwined in the fabric of society. But through law complexity and studio lobbying these laws haven't been extended to American motion pictures the way they have been to other works of art.
     
  5. PiettsHat

    PiettsHat Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 1, 2011
    I hope you don't mind if I remove Lucas's quote zombie (I'm more interested in what you have to say in this instance), but in what way has the O-OT not been preserved? There are millions of copies available on the market. No, they're not to modern standards, but I think it's unreasonable to expect Lucas to keep updating them if he is no longer interested in doing so. How far must this go? DVD? Blu-ray? 3D? Force feedback?

    As to "culturally important," who decides this? Does a single artist have the right to decide which films are "culturally important"? Does a larger fanbase mean that a particular work is more worthy of preservation than another?

    And, I'd have to counter, zombie, that fans made Lucas a billionaire. He made himself a billionaire through hard work -- by collaboration with others to bring an idea to life that many people enjoyed. The "hardcore" Star Wars fans, the ones who are especially keen to see the OOT and refuse the SE, make up a minority of the Star Wars fanbase. As we've seen from Blu-Ray sales, most people are content with the SEs which are the versions of the films that Lucas himself is interested in pursuing and refining.

    Why is he then obligated to release the O-OT in an updated form? Those who don't like the SE have the VHS or laserdisc transfers. And you mention that the O-OT is being suppressed, but I don't see how. Sure, the SE is being promoted over it (because Lucas has a vested interest in it) but you can find hundreds of cheap copies of the OOT online, no problem
     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  6. zombie

    zombie Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 1999
    I agree with everything Lucas said, which was why I used his quote. It's unfair to ignore it as though the points are not relevant. They are extremely relevant.

    Exactly. They are in the standards of 1993, almost two decades ago. That was the last time a transfer of the films was done.

    Lucas complained that some preservationists had to go to Eastern bloc countries to get good prints, and complains about negatives being lost. This means quality. Quality matters. It is not enough that they just exist, they deserve to be shown in the best quality one can give.

    The films were never in 3D or Force Feedback. If it's so unreasonable how come every other film title is updated? It's not a big deal. He could license the work to Criterion and they would do it for him. The films should be made available in whatever is the best way to show the films as they originally were and what is the most widespread. We now live in an age where films are watched in high definition close to the quality of 35mm prints, and this has become a standard for quality releases.

    Society decides it. It's just the opinion "in the air," you can see with your eyes how it has influenced other art and all the references in video, print and the like. It's not necessary to split hairs over this, when something has cultural value people can recognize it. The popularity and influence of Star Wars speaks for itself, so loudly that to question this is slightly ludicrous.

    No. He got rich by us buying movie tickets and videos, and then loving the films and buying the merch. Hard work doesn't make you rich, popularity does. If people aren't buying the darn stuff, your hard work just makes you poorer. More people bought Star Wars tickets in 1977 than any other film in history except Gone with the Wind. That's how he got to be rich.

    And yet on amazon the set has twice as many 1-star reviews asking where the original versions are than any other rating . I'd hardly call that a minority. In 2006, originaltrilogy.com had almost 100,000 signatures to see the original films released, and that's just for an online petition about movies (who bothers to sign those? Yet it amassed so many). James Cameron and even Speilberg have levelled criticism at the revision of history, and so has Phil Tippett and Simon Peg--not just fringe fanboys but brilliant industry folk and celebrities. Most people would want to see the OOT restored, even if they prefer the SE. They recognize it's historic and artistic value. There's really no reason why it shouldn't be available. Everyone knows Lucas' "final artistic statement" is the SE. It's not like it would somehow invalidate that.


     
  7. PiettsHat

    PiettsHat Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Very well. I'll address Lucas's quote. I'm just afraid we're going to devolve into one of the many threads that pick that quote apart to death rather than discuss what fans (not the creator) expect of the films. But, here goes.

    Lucas says:

    "A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history."

    I bolded the relevant section to my argument because I think that it gets at the heart of Lucas's mentality: the films are his until he dies and is thus no longer able to hold the copyright. At this point, it goes to the public domain and belongs to the American public. You can say that the work passes into public hands the moment it is released, but copyright laws extend even past an author's death meaning that Lucas is the owner of the copyright to the day he dies. Only then does it go to the public. I think Lucas has always (and likely will always) seen Star Wars as a work in progress. His work on those films is never complete. I think you can see evidence of this in some of the prequel special features that show how he believes films "escape" rather than are truly ever completed. In light of this, I would imagine that Lucas views his life as completing Star Wars to the best of his abilities. He wants to entrust to the public a product he can proud of -- one that he worked on to the fullest extent of his capabilities. The fans may not agree with all of his decisions, but I've never seen evidence from Lucas saying that he believes that an artist's will should be discarded.

    So? What does it matter that they are 1993 standards? Heck, I can't find any available legal media released for a series that began airing within the US in...wait for it...December 2009. What the heck is wrong with 1993 standards for films released in 1977, 1980, and 1983?

    Really? Every other title is updated, huh? What about Flight Angels (1940)? The Wild Life (1984) which is only available on VHS? Miami Connection (1987)? The Appointment (1981) which costs $50 for a new VHS tape? Many of these films were made even more recently than the O-OT. Additionally, I still can't even watch Avatar: The Last Airbender in widescreen and that wrapped up in 2008. It was quite a well regarded show as well -- won a Peabody.

    Personally, I don't see why Lucas should have to invest money in versions he views as incomplete when he could focus on those he's reworking to pass into public trust. The originals are out there if you want them. Which is more than I can say for many other films.

    I fail to see how this makes it more worthy of preservation, however. I'm sure you would agree that all art is subjective so what makes one film more worthy of preservation over anothe
     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  8. Jedi_Ford_Prefect

    Jedi_Ford_Prefect Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Yeah, this, for the most part. I don't really want to go into too much detail here, because really, this discussion has gone on so many times before, and at the heart of it we're arguing something pretty fundamental-- the author's control over first ammendment rights. At the very least, an artist has the right for their work to be kept in a state that they approve of, barring any legal arrangements they've made in selling that work (which Lucas hasn't, really). Yes, there's an argument for historical preservation of previous versions, but that doesn't mean they take precedent over the artist's preferred version, and certainly not because any previous versions are more "popular". Arguing otherwise puts you on a slippery slope towards a kind of societal censorship that I don't think anybody wants.

    As for the issues of preserving these works-- Lucas has no obligation to do so himself, or make the original versions available. The National Film Registry does, if they take that mission, and more power to them for it. However, even if they do, they still have a moral obligation to the artist to preserve both versions, in the cases where there are such, and it really shouldn't have anything to do with "special cases" where a director's-cut is seen as culturally privileged (ie, "more popular").

    Anyway, the whole idea of whether a work "belongs to society" is really only an issue when an author's dead and public domain has a chance to kick in, and obviously that hasn't happened yet here. The question of what Lucas has done to the OT is a far cry from the kind of manipulation that he's talked about in his film-preservation speeches, and it's miles away from the worst instances of an artist altering or suppressing their own works. This isn't Kafka demanding that all but a handful of his literary works be destroyed after his death. This isn't Beckett's estate preventing any and all stage productions of "Eleutheria". This isn't even Vitorio Storaro insisting that Bertolucci's The Last Emperor and Coppola's Apocalypse Now be cropped from 2.35:1 to 2.00:1 on DVD to fit his own invented Univisium aspect-ratio.
     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  9. 69Padme

    69Padme Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Apr 5, 2011
    I think it's wrong to characterize George Lucas as "the artist" in this scenario. A film is not authored by a single man; it took the hard, dedicated work of hundreds of craftsman to produce the original Star Wars trilogy. George Lucas was not responsible for the concept art of the characters and environment, he didn't build the models or paint the matte paintings, he was not the director of photography, he's not the one who won an Oscar for editing the first film, and he's not even the director of record for two of the three films. At best, he created the story and bankrolled the second and third films, but that gives him no ethical right to overwrite the pioneering and influential work of men like Phil Tippett in the name of some flighty "vision" that changes with the seasons.

    George Lucas had an idea for a movie and the business sense to finance it, but he has no moral rights as an "artist" when it comes to these films that supercede the hard work that was done by many others. The effects work and production design of the 1977 Star Wars influenced an entire generation of movies, and that is now endangered because of Lucas' shortsightedness.
     
  10. Jedi_Ford_Prefect

    Jedi_Ford_Prefect Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Vitorio Storaro is only the cinematographer on The Last Emperor and Apocalypse Now, and yet he's been allowed to dictate what aspect ratio those films can be sold in on home-video, which is a far bigger change to the whole of a film than anything Lucas has ever done. Fortunately Coppola wised up enough to finally present his film in full 2.35:1 for the blu-ray, but Bertolucci's still doing things Storaro's way.
     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  11. jamesdrax

    jamesdrax Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 30, 2000
    Because 1993 home video standards don't live up to how films made in 1977, 1980 and 1983 can look by 2011 home video standards.
     
  12. Darthman1992

    Darthman1992 Jedi Knight star 1

    Registered:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Honestly he should've just released the Updated and Original Versions together on Blu-Ray. Couldn't have been that hard to do. I think those who want the version of STAR WARS they love and prefer should have the right to have it in the best quality available. I wouldn't mind owning both versions on Blu-Ray myself.
     
  13. jamesdrax

    jamesdrax Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 30, 2000
    I don't believe I have the "right" to see the OOT in the best quality possible, but I would like the "privilege" to buy it.
     
  14. Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn

    Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 23, 1999
    There's a big difference here, though, because the original version of that scene in The Hobbit, while not included in new copies of the book, is available in the same "quality" as the revised version - that is to say, english text. If one wanted to read the original version, reconstructing it at "full resolution" would be trivial.

    The OT is not available at the same quality level as the SEs or the PT. And it's not an unending chain of ever-increasing quality levels up to and including smell-o-vision; I seem to recall that the resolutions available on BluRay are close to the highest level of detail the human eye can perceive under normal conditions, or are close to the resolution actually available on film itself, or something like that... I'd venture to say that's a pretty defining standard.

    Also, btw, Tolkien had sent the revised sections of TH to the publisher as examples of something he was thinking about, heard nothing for a long time, and was surprised by those sections' appearance in the next version's proofs.
     
  15. PiettsHat

    PiettsHat Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Really? You mean the man who created the setting, story, characters, tone, and themes of Star Wars is not the creator or the artist? You're right that the Star Wars films weren't (and couldn't have been) created by a single person, but I think you're mistaken in not giving George Lucas credit as an artist. Let me ask you something: is J.K. Rowling not artist of the Harry Potter films? She didn't direct them, do the cinematography, and they had countless people working on the effects, costumes, backgrounds, etc. Yet I would contend that she is the artist of these films although she was far less involved in their production than Lucas was in Star Wars. If changes had to be made to the films, do you really think that fans would want Christopher Columbus or David Yates to make those changes? I highly doubt it. They would want the conceiver of that world -- Mrs. Rowling -- to do so. The fact that she was not personally involved in every aspect of the films does not diminish her title as an artist.

    Lucas was far, far more involved in the production of his films than Rowling ever was, and yet he is far more often discredited as the author of Star Wars than J.K. Rowling is as the author of Harry Potter. No, Lucas never wrote a book, but that's in part due to his predisposition for visual media. He's not a verbal person. No one would have issues if J.K. Rowling wanted to overwrite the work of any of the crew of the Harry Potter films, so I don't understand why it's such an issue with Lucas.

    He certainly has a moral right as an artist, in my opinion. Truly, it's one of the peculiarities of the Star Wars fandom that the man who built us our playground is so often denigrated.


    And, again, why does the original trilogy need to be made to confirm to 2011 home video standards? That's my question. What obligation does Lucas have to provide you with an updated version of a product he's already released when he would much rather work on the SEs?
     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  16. PiettsHat

    PiettsHat Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 1, 2011
    This can most certainly be debated. For one, the original text is not integrated into the main body of the writing (from what I've heard) and thus it necessitates a break up of the flow. The equivalent would be restoring the O-OT scenes but putting them on a separate disc as bonus features. This might make some fans happy, but I don't know if it would satisfy everyone. If you want an original copy of The Hobbit, though, it can run into the thousands of dollars.

    As for Tolkien, he obviously did not protest the changes since they've been reprinted year after year. And, I might point out, his changes are significantly greater (both thematically and from a character's perspective) than anything Lucas has done with the O-OT and SEs.

    And, yes, you're correct to say that there's not an unending chain of quality levels, but why is the quality Lucas has provided not good enough? He doesn't owe anyone anything more. There was no contract signed when movie tickets were purchased that the O-OT would be available in Blu-Ray quality. The man obviously prefers the SEs. Why should he revisit the O-OT when it's already widely available in home video format? You might say it's not up to your standards of quality, but what is Lucas's obligation to provide you with this standard?
     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  17. jamesdrax

    jamesdrax Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 30, 2000
    Because 2011 home video standards are better than those from 1993. If films like Jewel of the Nile, Poltergeist III or RoboCop 3 can get decent HD 1080p releases with lossless sound quality true to the original release versions, then Lucas really owes it to himself and the films themselves to preserve them so they don't become lost in oblivion. Ridley Scott obviously has respect for the diverse fanbase of Blade Runner, which sets a good example for other directors to follow suit. It's not even just about respect for the films, but also respect for the work of others involved to make it happen (ie. Irvin Kershner, Richard Marquand, John Williams, John Dykstra, Richard Edlund, Phil Tippett, Dennis Muren, and the original acting talent). What Lucas is practicing is not preservation, rather destruction. I watch the 2006 GOUT and smile that it's unaltered and flows reasonably well, but I can't help being distracted by the fact that it's a low-resolution image with an awfully large letter/pillarbox surrounding the picture, plus the 192kbps Dolby 2.0 sound is actually inferior to the uncompressed PCM sound on the laserdisc. This is a not acceptable by today's standards in film preservation.

    Whether Lucas likes it or not, these were the completed films in 1977, 1980 and 1983. They should never have been touched after that given how poor the Special Editions have turned out. I would buy the OOT in HD for top dollar if Lucas restored and released them - as would many others.
     
  18. oierem

    oierem Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2009
    So, are you saying that Lucas should keep releasing new high-quality versions of the OOT every five years or so?

    Thinking about other arts, many great composers from the previous centuries, actively destroyed or altered their previous works; a lot of them are impossible to find anymore. They weren't comfortable with their earlier works, neither is Lucas with the OOT.
     
  19. Darth_Nub

    Darth_Nub Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Stanley Kubrick supposedly acquired all the prints he could of his debut film, 'Fear & Desire' & destroyed them. It's actually a pretty bad film (there's bootlegs around), but I'd like to see a high quality transfer, as it looks like there's some interesting photography in there.

    It's still a pretentious, somewhat embarrassing first effort, I can see why he'd want to bury it, but even if he 'owned' it, did he have the right to do so?
     
  20. Jedi_Ford_Prefect

    Jedi_Ford_Prefect Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2003
    Simple answer, yes. Good example, by the way. It helps put into context what Lucas is and isn't doing with his SE releases. I'm a big Kubrick fan, but I wouldn't really feel comfortable watching Fear and Desire, knowing it goes against his wishes. If I want to watch an early Kubrick film that's mostly a pretty bad & pretentious effort, I can always watch Killer's Kiss.

    Speaking of destroying your own work, there's Kafka, who I mentioned before, telling his friends and loved ones to destroy all but a handful of his works after his death. His mistress complied and burned a lot of his stuff, and though I'll hold he has the right to do this, I'll also admit that it's a tragedy. After all, among the works he wanted destroyed are absolute classics like The Trial and The Castle, which we'll never have in complete forms because either the material was destroyed or because Kafka never finished them properly in the first place (hence his desires that they be burnt, because he didn't want anyone reading unfinished drafts he wasn't happy with). An artist can be wrong to do what they're right to have the freedom to do, but that doesn't mean that freedom should be taken away.

    Speaking of Kafka again, there's also the case of Steven Soderbergh's second film, "Kafka", starring Jeremy Irons and Alec Guiness. It was a flop when first released, and hasn't seen anything past a VHS release back in the early 90's. For the past couple years there's been buzz about him teaming up with Criterion to release a director's cut that would not only see usual stuff like deleted scenes reinserted or footage reassembled, but also whole new scenes shot explicitly for this release (which I'll admit sounds a little dodgy-- shot on film, or Soderbergh's new favorite thing, the RED?). There's been no question at all as to whether or not it's right for Soderbergh to do this (if in fact he is) or for Criterion to release the film this way, or alongside the original version (no buzz about that at all). Anyone pipe-dreaming about a Criterion OT release should keep this sort of thing in mind (supposing it turns out legit, of course).
     
  21. zombie

    zombie Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 1999
    If the work was somehow being distorted, I could see some argument behind this. Unfortunately, there is nothing like this going on. The argument is that the films should be preserved in the form they were originally released in and in which they became famous. It's rather the opposite of distortion--historical authenticity.

    Normally, yes, the artist has control to either present the work as it was first released, or revise and change it as he or she sees fit, if they own the copyright that is. But things become more complex once cultural heritage becomes part of the equation. Famous movies aren't like some obscure painting hanging in a seldom-visited art gallery, or a random indie music record that all of ninety people have bought. Hollywood hits have become part of our culture and our history far more intensely than any other art medium has before it. And out of this, Star Wars and its sequels stand out as among the crown achievements for its influence and shape on culture. Things like these are provided special treatment because of their status. The term is "cultural heritage", and this provides an overlap between the private and public sphere. A copyright may be owned privately, but it is also protected publically. This is the case for historic buildings and paintings; their copyright owners are custodians of national treasures and so even though they own the works, they cannot simply do what they want. Star Wars is a national treasure, and the U.S. government has recognized this.

    Could an artist choose to revisit a painting and alter it? I'm not entirely sure on the specifics here, but I think legally the answer would be no. If the owner was trying to distort the work, the artist could stop him on the grounds of moral rights. But if the artist is willing to sell someone the art, the recipient is paying for exactly that, not some hypothetical future version subject to the artists whims and changes of heart. Lucasfilm owns the copyright to Star Wars--not George Lucas, the person. It's the abstract entity of the company instead. But as the head of Lucasfilm he is the de facto owner, in a roundabout legal way that he dictates their actions. He is essentially authorizing himself to alter the films, similar to
     
  22. zombie

    zombie Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 4, 1999
    Is this really so hard? This is what happens to pretty much every major studio title. Sometimes it's less than five years, sometimes more, but yes, they are regularly re-released. Typically the way it works is that they are released early in a format and then a better one comes out later on as the technology improves. I mean, the Star Wars already had re-issues every couple years.

    1990--VHS and LD release
    1992--VHS release
    1993--Definitive Edition LD release and VHS set
    1995--THX "Faces" LD and box set

    Then the SE came out

    1997--VHS and LD release
    2000--VHS release
    2004--DVD release
    2005--DVD reissue
    2006--DVD reissue
    2011--Blu-ray release

    This isn't rocket science. I've owned four different copies of Evil Dead II over the last ten years as the transfers kept getting better.

    That's a good point, but just because it's happened before doesn't mean that it's alright. Previous centuries didn't have the same laws, views and state structures as today, so people didn't think about saving stuff. People didn't even think of preserving movies until the 1930s and 40s, and it's only in recent decades that it's really caught on.
     
  23. 69Padme

    69Padme Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Apr 5, 2011
    I'll stop you right there: No. J.K. Rowling is not the artist of the Harry Potter films. She is the artist of the Harry Potter books. If she had some objection to the direction of the Harry Potter films, she should have made it known during the production. She has no right to go back and tamper with the work of Christopher Columbus or David Yates, anymore than Yates or Columbus has a right to insert new passages of text into her novels.

    If you had read more carefully, you would have seen that nowhere did I suggest that George Lucas is not an artist. I said that his rights as an artist don't morally supercede the rights of Irvin Kershner or Richard Marquand or Phil Tippett or Marcia Lucas or anyone else whose work he's diluted or suppressed. Particularly Marcia Lucas, who won an Academy Award for her editing of the 1977 version of Star Wars. The 1997 and further versions would not win an Academy Award with footage restored that Marcia wisely removed from the film originally. Now her Oscar-winning work will not be able to be studied by future generations. You may applaud such suppression, but film-lovers and historians do not.

    Obviously George Lucas' rights as a corporate tycoon do trump the rights of any artist, and that's the world we live in. Some of us choose to stand with corporate interests and some of us choose to stand with creative interests. You've clearly made your decision.
     
  24. Jedi_Ford_Prefect

    Jedi_Ford_Prefect Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 9, 2003
    I would compare Lucas on ESB and especially ROTJ being more akin to auteur-producers like Alexander Korda or television-producers like Michael Mann, back in the day. Even when he didn't direct, he was heavily involved in all the stages of production. In the case of ESB, he consulted with Kershner and got his okay for the '97 changes, at least (I doubt he would've objected much to Ian McDiarmid's insertion on the DVD). In the case of ROTJ, yes it was after Marquand's passing, but Lucas was much more heavily involved in that film anyway-- at worst, it'd be analagous to if Spielberg wanted to make a different cut of "Poltergeist" after Tobe Hooper passes (imagine the curse that would instigate).

    Is he the only artist? No. But he is the primary one.
     
    Andy Wylde likes this.
  25. 69Padme

    69Padme Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Apr 5, 2011
    That's demonstrably untrue. We've seen that the result of George Lucas being the primary artist on a project isn't "The Empire Strikes Back", it's the likes of Jar Jar Binks and "Jedi Rocks".
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.