CT Does anyone else actually like Anakin's "NOOOO" added in ROTJ?

Which is not in question. He wants to create a new version, fine. However, to effectively erase the originals constitutes defacement of art in my view. Whether it is done by a studio without an artist's consent, or by the artist him/herself is not all that relevant IMO, although the former is the greater evil.

 

Qui,

I have to ask - How long would you support Lucas changing things... What if he kept going? What if he decided "I don't like HC's performance in AOTC's so I am going to insert Jake Lloyd into that film now that he would be the right age!"



It's okay to love the original the way it was and it's okay to never be happy with unnecessary changes!

 

Always.

Doesn't mean I would like them all but as I said the only major thing I would disagree with is the Han-Greedo and clearly Lucas changed it 3 times so I would say he clearly struggled with it but for whatever reason the original which is the best version is something he doesn't want. The latest version is the least worst.

The rumor was that the 4K version returned it to the original among other changes and that these were done under Lucas.

 

That's a disingenuous argument and I think you know it. The entire issue at stake is an artist's right to control the disposition of his work. That moral issue would have nothing to do with Disney "taking away my toys."

Because that's actually a legitimate moral stance to take, unlike the one which is founded entirely on being upset at someone taking away your toys.

I don't care about those people. Disney has the right to do whatever Lucas granted them rights to do going forward. That doesn't mean people can't criticize them.

e:

It's not like human mortality though. It's not like that at all, because an artist can go back and change their work, but a person literally cannot come back to life. That seems to me like a very important and salient fact, one which greatly and even mortally imperils the fundamental soundness of your....let's call it a philosophy. Perhaps it would make more sense to limit the span an artist is allowed to make changes to their own work to the period encompassing their own lifespan? You know, since that's a limit actually imposed by Nature itself, rather than one artificially imposed by a mob on the Internet mad that Han doesn't shoot first in their favorite space fantasy movie.

 

Really?? Okay fair enough...

How come you didn't address my Jake Lloyd part? (stupid as it is) ...you always address everything!

 

Not really.

 

Again an artist's control is not written in law. It is a question of morality, just like Lucas erasure of the originals in the opinion of many. To act like one issue is just fans bitching about not getting the version they like, whilst acting holier than thou by stating it's about Lucas his right to control the disposition of his work is moral posturing.

Again moral posturing. You say you have a legitimite moral stance whilst everyone who criticizes Lucas does not, which is disingenouus, since you know it's not just about Lucas taking away toys. It's about the original films being important historically, and culturally, particulary the first film. The original Star Wars recieved awards for sound mix, editing, and it's special effects among other things. Yet, much of this award winning work has been erased. The original Star Wars (the 1977 version) and TESB (the 1980 version) were both chosen to be preserved by the National Film Registry. As it says on their website:

The National Film Registry selects 25 films each year showcasing the range and diversity of American film heritage to increase awareness for its preservation.

In exercising his right, Lucas destroyed an important part of our cultural heritage. You are right about one thing though, it's about control, not about art. Lucas wants to control which version we watch. Well, you can't put the **** back in the horse.

Lucas once argued the films are like his children. Well like children the originals left his parental home in 1977/1980/1983 and went into the world and interacted with it. You cannot expect to be able to exert the same level of control on your children when they've grown up as you had when they were were living under your roof.

You see, there you're doing it again, moral posturing. It's not just an internet mob that is against the replacement of an important part of our cultural history. It's film makers, historians, the National Film Registry. Nobody argues Lucas cannot alter his work. What people take issue with is the fact that Lucas after twenty years attempted to erase the originals. The original films are a product of their time. As I've argued before, the way the films are concieved is part of the artistic process, it's part of their identity. The fact that people in the Bronze Age did not have our technology, and thus had to rely on the methods available to them is part of what makes "Bronze Age art" Bronze Age art. Who cares that a certain object could be more perfectly round using modern technology? By taking a Bronze age dinner plate, and "perfecting" it with our machines we destroy an important part of it's identity and historical significance. The same applies to the OOT.

 

If he has no answer to something he doesn't bother trying. Don't blame him. All I heard were crickets in response to this:

 

It's not moral posturing because my opinion is based on an actual consistent moral principle, rather than personal disappointment posturing as moral principle.

Because that's actually a legitimate moral stance to take, unlike the one which is founded entirely on being upset at someone taking away your toys.

What do you think our cultural heritage actually consists of? It consists of the contributions made to our culture by artists. Lucas gets to control what his contribution to our cultural heritage will be, not you, not the National Film Registry, and not anyone else. Art does not unqualifiedly belong to the public the moment it is released into the wild. It just doesn't. That's never how it's worked, and it can't work that way if we want to have any hope of preserving the individuality, integrity, and autonomy of the people who actually create the cultural contributions you so voraciously consume and then claim as your own.

The French recognize this, which is why they include in their moral rights legal schema something called the "right of withdrawal", which allows an artist to "prevent further reproduction, distribution or representation [of their work] in return for compensation paid to the distributor of the work for the damage done to him."

The arguments I'm making aren't just some kooky stuff I plucked out of thin air to support my slavish devotion to George Lucas and his precious rontos; these things are based on actual fundamental principles which people who have thought very deeply about moral rights have come to as a matter of reasoned philosophy and ample consideration of the individual rights of the artists as weighed against the public good. The public doesn't have a right to control an individual's self-expression, in any way, shape, or form, while that individual is still living and capable of expressing him or herself. This is a matter I and many other people hold as dear to our hearts as the right to freedom of speech. I don't know if you consider yourself an artist, but I do, and as an artist I find your views on this matter morally abhorrent, and I would not want to live in a world where they held sway. For me, this goes far beyond Star Wars. I'm not sure about you.

And if you say Lucas can't control any of this and it's a futile effort on his part, why do you care? Let him keep his integrity, and you get to keep your illicit restorations of the OOT. Seems like a win/win to me.

He didn't attempt to erase them. He chose not to release them, himself, on new media. Anyone who still owns a copy of the original gets to keep it. How is this still so hard?

No one is talking about arbitrarily defiling historical artifacts. We're talking about a filmmaker expressing himself through film. I'm having a hard time following your train of thought here now, it's all over the place.

 

Which is your opinion. An opinion not shared by others.

Again your opinion, not law, not fact.

I disagree completely. I'm a scientist. When I write a scientific paper and publish it, I contribute to our collective knowledge. Once I publish that work, I don't get to withdraw it at a later date. It's my work, and I get credit for it, but it's about more than my personal expression. I view our cultural heritage in the same way. You release your work into the public realm, and it becomes part of something bigger. It's part of the fabric of our cultural expression. Now, does this mean I'm against any artist's right to withold his or her work? Not at all. However, I vehemently object that in a moral sense the artist's individual rights and control are the only guiding principle. It's not black and white. It's a gray area, where sometimes the artist's individual rights and the public good collide. Do we need laws to force one issue or the other? I don't think so, but to imply criticising Lucas for excercising his "right to withdraw" is morally abhorrent, is as I've stated moral posturing, and dishonest, as nobody is arguing to strip Lucas or any artist of their rights. It's equivalent to accusing someone of being against the freedom of speech, simply for critcising their statements.

 

It's interesting to note, that Lucas himself has made some very clear statements on the above subject. While he has of course defended the rights of the artist, he has also said the following:

"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 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."

So, it seems even Lucas ultimately feels our cultural history and the public interest is more important than the interests of the creator. I couldn't agree more.

To reiterate, this does not imply an artist or creator should be forced to release a work against his or her will, but in refusing to do so Lucas is placing his own interests ahead of the public interest, contrary to his own principles. I take issue with that choice, and believe it's damaging to our cultural history, even if I feel he ultimately should have final say on the matter.

 

Even now?

 

Yes, I think he should have final say, until the films enter the public domain. When that happens the films and all material related to it belong to the public, so that will end any debate on the subject.

 

I think Lucasfilm's only moral obligation is to have his SE's always available in the best current format. Nothing wrong with them also releasing the originals alongside them. They don't need his permission for that.

 

I think an artist should have final say on if and how his work should be released. However, since he sold his creations and all archive material to Disney, I think an argument can be made that any stipulations regarding the OOT or other archive material should have been made during the sale, especially considering Lucas' conflicting statements and actions on the subject. If no such stipulations exist, as stated by Kathleen Kennedy, in my view releasing the OOT would be not be different from releasing additional deleted scenes. I'm against studios altering an artist's work without their consent, but in the case of the OOT it would be an archive release, and not an alteration of the final cut. However, like I said to the squid it's a moral gray area, where the artist's interests and the public interests might collide. So, there's no right or wrong stance in my view.

 

GL is the king of changing his mind

 

& Lucas himself dubbed the SE's as the Special Editions. Which implies they're something extra, so IMO the standard/original versions should also be available. Nothing unusual about that. Plenty of movies have the original + a special/director's/extended edition.

 

Fun fact: Moral principles are still opinions

 

Only for the 97 releases in the theater and subsequent home video release. Afterwards they are simply the Star Wars Trilogy.

Ultimately is the key word which gets lost.

Which with Lucas constantly brings up the conundrum where people want Disney as copyright holders of the moment do what Lucas the artist didn't do and release the theatrical cuts in HD (because the SD ones he did release weren't good enough).

There is every chance that if Disney ever does release those versions that they will still not be the "originals" wanted by a relative handful which is a sliver of the audience. If that does happen then what is the next step because they can't hold it against Lucas anymore.

 

That's a rather tortured way of trying to imply that Disney would be doing what Lucas claimed to be opposed to in regards to artists rights, by releasing the movie he completed and released in 1977 in a condition approximate to seeing the brand new print of that film in 1977.

At no point did Lucas ever warn about corporations willfully presenting the artists original creation as it was originally presented by them and overwhelmingly approved of by audiences and critics alike for twenty years without being altered in any significant way.

 

I suppose, just for the sake of argument, that I could have accepted Vader's quiet No. Like, if he just whispered that without shouting it a moment later, that would be okay. It's not necessary, but that is a more subtle way to do it.

Otherwise, I think the voice undermines Prowse's acting. Prowse, yes, just did the hand gestures, posture, and the tilting of the helmet throughout the movies. But he did it so well. Jones gets a lot of credit for the voice, as he should. But Prowse deserves a lot of credit for carrying that suit realistically. You can feel the weight of the suit, and his arm gestures help him to express his feelings. It's all subtle. Good stuff.

I don't think the two actors in RO handled that quite as well as Prowse. Particularly when the guy is pointing at Krennic. It's a bit too intense. Still, don't get me wrong. I love Rogue One. Good to hear Jones' voice. But for me, the movies always showed Vader as a mature person, albeit a frightening, controlling one. It was not over-the-top. You just had good acting from Jones and Prowse that made this Vader guy come alive, and Jones did actually base his acting on Director Kershner's performance before he recorded his lines in TESB! Nice little factoid! Lol. I like Jones' voice in ROTJ the best. It's at his most psychological. you can hear the emotion better, even if it's still mechanical. In TESB, that's how it sounds the best, though. He's upset because he's impatient to meet his son...

"RIGHT NOW! FIND THEM, ADMIRAL! FIND THEM, FETT! I want to lure my son INTO A TRAP!!!"

 

It also undermines the character of Palpatine. Vader repeatedly says "No!" only inches away from the Emperor. His volume of voice is even louder than Palpatine's words to Luke from seconds earlier. Makes Palps look deaf or dumb to not react in time. Makes Vader look careless or foolish to risk tipping off the Emperor before he strikes.

 

True that. The main reason it's distracting is because Jones' voice had changed by the time they recorded it in 2011ish.

 

Sidious being oblivious to Vader's attachment to Luke presenting a danger to him, a character who appears otherwise unassailable, is precisely kind of ironic, fatal undermining of a character I like to see. Kind of like how the supervillains in Superman II allow Luthor's greed and duplicity to cause them to drop their guard about what Kal El is really doing with the Kryptonian technology in front of them, when they should probably know better themselves..

 

Good point. But Sidious was also more full of himself by this point. He wasn't as cautious as he had been during his middle-aged days. Plus, he liked being in danger. He liked being on the Death Star in the middle of that risky battle as much as he enjoyed racing in his teen years. To be blunt, he loved the violence against all of his apprentices, and the way I see it, Luke's defiance just struck him. He knew that Luke would be as powerful as Vader could have been, had he he sustained none of his injuries. That challenge incited Sidious. He loved the idea of taking the Chosen One's son before destroying the One himself. Gosh, describing Palpatine is like describing one of those abominations. Ugh. It's like discussing Mark Hamill's Joker. Lol. Maybe Hamill should go back and time and portray Sidious. Lol.