Will Booker's new editorial for TheForce.net(another whinefest)

MANDALORIAN: Then you, my friend, are not a Star Wars fan.

NZPoe: Now now, we're all Star Wars fans here. Any of that goes flying and we'll all be eating mod-fury.

Interesting that it is frowned upon to say that someone who wishes to "consign the O-OT to the dustbin of history" is not a real fan...yet it is acceptable for purists to be flamed all over the boards for simply wanting the original Star Wars. Anytime you express any disappointment with the PT or with the altered OT, you run the risk of openly being called "not a true fan". Anyone see the double standard here?

 

Nice attempt at a red herring though.

Not a red herring. Simply citing a relevant parallel example. It's simply to point out that Lucas is being villified for something that is actually quite common in the artistic world.

For instance, did you know the original cut of The Shining is not available anywhere in any format? After the film received unfavorable critical response, Kubrik immediately took it into the editing room and mercilessly recut it then rereleased it a week after its initial opening. In your opinion, was Kubrik disrespecting all those who might have seen and enjoyed the original edit?

Or what about Robert Wise choosing to release only the director's cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture on DVD? I did a brief internet search, and the original cut is no where to be found. Is he, too, disrespecting the fans?

I suppose if I had the time and inclination, I could provide dozens of examples, but I think my point has been sufficiently made.

Of course, your counter argument is, "I don't care what everybody has done. It's what I think Lucas should do." Of course, it would behoove you to provide a rational defense of this argument. What compelling reason do you think Lucas should have to rerelease versions of films that he has flat out said he is dissatisfied with? What compelling reason would any artist have for preserving work they are dissatisfied with?

 

Anyone see the double standard here?

Are you implying that I've accused PT-bashers and purists of not being true fans? Because if you are then I request you post proof thank you very much.



Anybody here, whoever they are, who goes around accusing ppl aren't "good enough" fans are a) acting like complete idiots b) showing their lack of maturity to handle c) getting very close to violating the etiquette rules of this forum.

Nobody, no matter who they are, deserves this kind of treatment. This is why I frown on people calling ANYBODY (famous or not) "morons", "idiots" or whatever...because it degrades the overall behavior of this forum. Today we call Lucas a moron...tommorrow someone takes this as meaning that it's okay to start insulting other users here. Then it's all downhill from there.

 

Not a red herring. Simply citing a relevant parallel example. It's simply to point out that Lucas is being villified for something that is actually quite common in the artistic world.

For instance, did you know the original cut of The Shining is not available anywhere in any format? After the film received unfavorable critical response, Kubrik immediately took it into the editing room and mercilessly recut it then rereleased it a week after its initial opening. In your opinion, was Kubrik disrespecting all those who might have seen and enjoyed the original edit?

That is hardly a "parallel" example since Kubrick didn't take a twenty year old print of The Shining and revise it extensively, expecting everyone to simply accept it. Not a good example, and you still don't make a point.

Or what about Robert Wise choosing to release only the director's cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture on DVD? I did a brief internet search, and the original cut is no where to be found. Is he, too, disrespecting the fans?

Have said fans been vocal about wanting the original cut and Wise saying "tough luck, this is what I want?"

Of course, your counter argument is, "I don't care what everybody has done. It's what I think Lucas should do." Of course, it would behoove you to provide a rational defense of this argument.

I'll provide a rational "defense" once a rational argument is presented.

What compelling reason do you think Lucas should have to rerelease versions of films that he has flat out said he is dissatisfied with? What compelling reason would any artist have for preserving work they are dissatisfied with?

Obviously influencing a generation is not compelling enough. Oh well.

 

For instance, did you know the original cut of The Shining is not available anywhere in any format? After the film received unfavorable critical response, Kubrik immediately took it into the editing room and mercilessly recut it then rereleased it a week after its initial opening. In your opinion, was Kubrik disrespecting all those who might have seen and enjoyed the original edit?

Or what about Robert Wise choosing to release only the director's cut of Star Trek: The Motion Picture on DVD? I did a brief internet search, and the original cut is no where to be found. Is he, too, disrespecting the fans?


Your argument is flawed because Loco thinks all revisionism is wrong, but he's only going to complain about Lucas because that's all he cares about. He's not gonna stand up for all the other fans out there who've lost out from their franchises though, only the thing that affects him.

Course it doesn't stop him from using examples like Spielberg and Jackson to prove him wrong (even tho they're both guilty of the same crimes as it were - e.g. CE3K and Heavenly Creatures).

 

Oh and the above ^^^ post isn't an insult, bait or anything else of that nature. I'm simply stating that Durwood shouldn't waste his time because his points are "moot" in terms of Loco's opinions. No offense meant to anybody of course

 

Of course, your counter argument is, "I don't care what everybody has done. It's what I think Lucas should do." Of course, it would behoove you to provide a rational defense of this argument. What compelling reason do you think Lucas should have to rerelease versions of films that he has flat out said he is dissatisfied with? What compelling reason would any artist have for preserving work they are dissatisfied with?

the point is moot because:

a. this is a Star Wars board, so we are talking about Star Wars.

b. none of the films mentioned had the historical impact that star wars has had

c. all artists should release the original versions of historically important films if they are altering them so that (and this is more often the case) both versions are available for comparison and for historical context.

see? its a red herring.

What compelling reason do you think Lucas should have to rerelease versions of films that he has flat out said he is dissatisfied with?

because Lucas claims to be a film preservationist, and because the historical impact of the films is beyond Lucas and his personal likes and dislikes.

Your argument is flawed because Loco thinks all revisionism is wrong, but he's only going to complain about Lucas because that's all he cares about. He's not gonna stand up for all the other fans out there who've lost out from their franchises though, only the thing that affects him.

i think all revisionism is wrong too but im complaining about Lucas and Star Wars because again, this is a Star Wars board. also CE3K and Hevenly Creatures do not have the historical significance that Star Wars does. i would love to see the original CE3K released on DVD, i have been looking forward to that for years, and i am not a fan of the SE changes. what are the changes to Heavenly Creatures?

DrE

 

what are the changes to Heavenly Creatures?

Heavenly Creatures was recut and shortened by Miramax and Harvey Weinstein after its initial release, a cut that Peter Jackson decided, in hindsight, that he preferred. The extended version of Heavenly Creatures can now only be seen in out of print VHS releases, but in no other format. The new VHS prints and DVD releases are the shortened cut and Jackson has no intention of releasing the longer version.

 

also CE3K and Hevenly Creatures do not have the historical significance that Star Wars does

CE3K's significance is arguable and a matter of opinion. Some feel it is highly historically significant. Likewise Heavenly Creatures has ENORMOUS historical significance in New Zealand - believe me, it's like Citizen Kane down here - so again its a matter of perspective and opinion.

Red herrings? You decide.

 

Lucas is a film preservationist, he wants to preserve the vision of the artist. If the artist says: Well I meant to do this here, and now that I think about it, this should go here, then that's his right as an artist. Once he is finished with HIS/HER art, then he can do what he wants with it.

They can not show it to anyone, show only their close friends, show it to anyone who wants to see it, or whatever they want to do with it. That's the beauty of creating something, is you now posess that. It's your communication to whoever happens to see it, and as such, it should be up to the person trying to communicate how that message should be preserved.

Your case against that is, well we saw it and liked it, so therefore, Lucas should feel obligated to sell it the way it was before they refined it until the end of time.

I am sorry but seeing it doesn't really give you the right to say how the films should be remembered.

I could half understand this argument if the people involved with the making of these films had an issue with how their work was being remembered, that I could at least see as a legitimate complaint.

But to be one of the audience members and acting like it's something Lucas owes us is not a very compelling stance as far as I am concerned.

 

Your case against that is, well we saw it and liked it, so therefore, Lucas should feel obligated to sell it the way it was before they refined it until the end of time.

I am sorry but seeing it doesn't really give you the right to say how the films should be remembered.

I could half understand this argument if the people involved with the making of these films had an issue with how their work was being remembered, that I could at least see as a legitimate complaint.


Realism vs Idealism. Nice post Go-mer!

 

I missed this point earlier somehow...

a. this is a Star Wars board, so we are talking about Star Wars.

Agreed - the sooner we stop using what "other people do" to bolster both sides of the argument, the better. Also makes things a lot easier and clearer...if we all agree to do this that is.

b. none of the films mentioned had the historical impact that star wars has had

"The Hobbit", as a book, was mentioned as was "Lord of the Rings".. You're not gonna tell me they weren't as significant as Star Wars - they're the second-biggest selling book of all time, next to the Bible. But then...let's not discuss this any further as it violates point A (seriously let's not).

c. all artists should release the original versions of historically important films if they are altering them so that (and this is more often the case) both versions are available for comparison and for historical context.

Fair enough. A good point and a valid opinion! I agree with it on principle myself!


see? its a red herring.


See response to point A.

 

Kubrick didn't take a twenty year old print of The Shining and revise it extensively, expecting everyone to simply accept it.

Irrelevant. He still deprived those who might have preferred the original cut from ever seeing it again without so much as an apology.

Have said fans been vocal about wanting the original cut and Wise saying "tough luck, this is what I want?"

Irrelevant. He still deprived those who might have preferred the original cut from ever seeing it on DVD without so much as an apology.

Me: Of course, your counter argument is, "I don't care what everybody has done. It's what I think Lucas should do." Of course, it would behoove you to provide a rational defense of this argument.

Loco: I'll provide a rational "defense" once a rational argument is presented.

Are you saying that your argument is not rational? By putting "defense" in quotes are you implying that it's indefensible? Look, it's your argument, my friend; therefore, it's your responsibility to defend it. Do you not realize this?

Obviously influencing a generation is not compelling enough.

You're begging the question.

 

^^^^ what NZ said: "the sooner we stop using what "other people do" to bolster both sides of the argument, the better. Also makes things a lot easier and clearer...if we all agree to do this that is."


Your case against that is, well we saw it and liked it, so therefore, Lucas should feel obligated to sell it the way it was before they refined it until the end of time.

I am sorry but seeing it doesn't really give you the right to say how the films should be remembered.

now you are flat out disagreeing with Lucas' opinion on the matter

"I am very concerned about our national heritage, and I am very concerned that the films that I watched when I was young and the films that I watched throughout my life are preserved, so that my children can see them"

- George Lucas

sorry George, but Go-Mer thinks that "seeing it doesn't really give you the right to say how the films should be remembered."

 

He would agree with me.

 

clearly he does not. at all.

 

Lucas is a film preservationist, he wants to preserve the vision of the artist. If the artist says: Well I meant to do this here, and now that I think about it, this should go here, then that's his right as an artist. Once he is finished with HIS/HER art, then he can do what he wants with it.

...

I am sorry but seeing it doesn't really give you the right to say how the films should be remembered.

From Lucas' own statements, Lucas has made it abundantly clear that he cares more about his own personal experiences and wanting to share those experiences than anything else. That trumps "artist's right." The only way "artist's right" can be factored in is through Lucas-fan conjecture.

Irrelevant. He still deprived those who might have preferred the original cut from ever seeing it again without so much as an apology.

Your original point in mentioning it was irrelevent as it is no where near the same scope and scale of what Lucas has done, which is the main point of the discussion. You may say it's "irrelevant," but I say it's not as an answer to your post as Kubrick didn't take something that was established and known and altered it years and years later.

Irrelevant. He still deprived those who might have preferred the original cut from ever seeing it on DVD without so much as an apology.

Well, have they been vocal? Have the fans made themselves heard and Wise, as a jerk, said "tough luck, suckers?"

Are you saying that your argument is not rational? By putting "defense" in quotes are you implying that it's indefensible? Look, it's your argument, my friend; therefore, it's your responsibility to defend it. Do you not realize this?

I figured it was clear that if my responses appeared irrational it was because they were in response to irrational arguments. You pretty much said your own arguments were irrational.

You're begging the question.

Nope, you're denying the obvious.

 

Just to clarify NZPoe, I was certainly not implying earlier that you personally were rolling out the old "not true fans" argument. On the contrary, you always respect others' opinions in this and other threads. I was commenting on behaviour by certain other posters (and not necessarily in this thread). Look around and you see it everywhere. No offence intended, anyway.

 

You may say it's "irrelevant," but I say it's not as an answer to your post as Kubrick didn't take something that was established and known and altered it years and years later.

So you're arguing there's a statute of limitation on artists' rights? That after an arbitrary period of time or after the work has become "established and known" (a vague and subjective evalutaion at best), the artist no longer has the freedom to alter his own work as he sees fit? What is your rational for this assertation? How "established and known" does a work have to be and what specific period of time has to pass before an artist loses his rights?

Well, have they been vocal? Have the fans made themselves heard and Wise, as a jerk, said "tough luck, suckers?"

So now you're saying the desires of the "fans" outweigh the desires of the original creator? That as long as nobody bitches and moans about it, an artist is free to make whatever changes he pleases, but the minute a "fan" throws a hissy fit, his rights are revoked? What is your rational for this assertation? Is it enough that one fan has to complain? What about 10%? 20%? How many "fans" have to complain before the artist loses his rights?

Your argument appears to be specically constructed to box Lucas and only Lucas into corner, where the only acceptable course of action is for him to do what you want, Lucas' desires be damned.

...you're denying the obvious.

And you continue to beg the question (in case you're unfamiliar with the phrase, it means to assume true the very thing being debated. Defending a nebulous point by saying, "It's so obvious," is a classic example of begging the question.)

 

So you're arguing there's a statute of limitation on artists' rights? That after an arbitrary period of time or after the work has become "established and known" (a vague and subjective evalutaion at best), the artist no longer has the freedom to alter his own work as he sees fit? What is your rational for this assertation? How "established and known" does a work have to be and what specific period of time has to pass before an artist loses his rights?

No, as I've stated MANY TIMES, the artist has the right to do as he/she wishes with their work, but to deny the continuation of an older print that was already well-known and accepted to the world, one that had already influenced millions of people, is not acceptable in my eyes. To me, he can have a special edition all he wants, as long as there's an alternative for the audience to choose which version they like or if they might want to have both.

So now you're saying the desires of the "fans" outweigh the desires of the original creator? That as long as nobody bitches and moans about it, an artist is free to make whatever changes he pleases, but the minute a "fan" throws a hissy fit, his rights are revoked? What is your rational for this assertation? Is it enough that one fan has to complain? What about 10%? 20%? How many "fans" have to complain before the artist loses his rights?

You're avoiding the question I asked. Have the fans asked for it and were denied?

Your argument appears to be specically constructed to box Lucas and only Lucas into corner, where the only acceptable course of action is for him to do what you want, Lucas' desires be damned.

One would venture to say the same about yourself and how your arguments are specially crafted specifically for Lucas to keep him from looking like the fool and hypocrite he makes himself out to be in interviews and in action.

And you continue to beg the question (in case you're unfamiliar with the phrase, it means to assume true the very thing being debated. Defending a nebulous point by saying, "It's so obvious," is a classic example of begging the question.)

At least one "compelling argument" has been presented, as well as many others stated in this and several other threads, yet you continue to deny them and make yourself blind to them. So no, I'm not "begging the question," you're ignoring the obvious.

 

Is the original of Episode IV even still around? I'd heard it was very much the worse for wear in 1997, before they started the restoration for re-release.

 

No, as I've stated MANY TIMES, the artist has the right to do as he/she wishes with their work, but to deny the continuation of an older print that was already well-known and accepted to the world, one that had already influenced millions of people, is not acceptable in my eyes.

So this is what it comes down to. You're not concerned with Lucas' rights as an artist but only with what is "acceptable in [your] eyes". Dare I say that what is deemed acceptable by you is irrelevant in this instance?

Again I ask, why should any artist be expected to release or preserve work that they are ultimately unhappy with? What, exactly, constitutes a "well-known and accepted" work of art, and why does the fact that it is "well-known and accepted" make any difference at all if the artist is ultimately unhappy with his work and desires to change it?

re: Robert Wise and Star Trek: The Motion Picture:

You're avoiding the question I asked. Have the fans asked for it and were denied?

Does it matter? You ask this as if the request of fans would somehow nullify the rights of the artist. If Robert Wise is extended the courtesy to preserve his films the way he wants them preserved then why not Lucas? What difference does fan pressure make?

So no, I'm not "begging the question," you're ignoring the obvious.

You've made a series of assertations, yes, but you have utterly failed to defend any of them with a coherent argument.

 

On the contrary, you always respect others' opinions in this and other threads. I was commenting on behaviour by certain other posters (and not necessarily in this thread). Look around and you see it everywhere. No offence intended, anyway.

None taken and yes I do agree the semantics of the debates on here have taken rather ill-turns time and time again. *opens umbrella and cowers*