New Shots of Vader in ESB SE edtion

[El Sitherino]

Perhaps you're frustrated when people don't agree with you.

I'm frustrated by your unfounded and overly trollish style posts on this subject. The fact of the matter is that you're very childish over the series. You're so selfish as to make tiresome accusations about people's characters because you can't grow up and just accept that some people like to do things with their own stuff. Lucas is not being the selfish one, rather you are. There is no contempt for his fans, otherwise he wouldn't have released anything at all. He would have stopped production of all media containing Star Wars, making owning of the movies a very rare thing.

 

What it comes down to is that if you don't like it, it's stupid.

 

 

PS: Can you source the claim that Lucas talked about he won't produce the originals for monetary reasons?

[Kurgan]

I'm frustrated by your unfounded and overly trollish style posts on this subject. The fact of the matter is that you're very childish over the series. You're so selfish as to make tiresome accusations about people's characters because you can't grow up and just accept that some people like to do things with their own stuff.

 

Let's see what you've called me thus far:

 

childish

selfish

trollish

immature ("can't grow up")

 

Anything else? Way to make a great argument there, you sure convinced me. Honestly, where do you get off flaming me now? Just because I don't agree with Lucas?

 

Perhaps its not me that needs to "let go" of this intolerance of the opinions of others.

 

Lucas is not being the selfish one, rather you are.

 

How am I being selfish? I have no control over the Star Wars Franchise. Lucas has complete control. I don't recieve a dime for Star Wars, he gets it. Did I ever say that I only want the originals for ME? No, so I don't see where you get off calling me names. Me wanting the originals does not stop Lucas from pissing all over his creation when he wants to. Nor does it stop him from making money off of his creation.

 

You freely admit that Lucas isn't doing this (just) for the money. So he's doing it for "artistic integrity." Isn't that a selfish reason by definition? He's not doing it for the public good or something. It doesn't have to be a negative thing, but you seem to want it both ways. Lucas gets to do whatever he wants, and if we criticize it, we're bad people. Or rather, you're saying I am.

 

 

There is no contempt for his fans, otherwise he wouldn't have released anything at all.

 

Perhaps his contempt of fans is balanced out by his desire to profit from them? He knows that he can continue to make money from Star Wars, long after he's moved on to other things. He can't help going back to it a few more times. I don't blame him for that. The contempt comes out when he calls fans delusional for taking things his said in interviews at face value, when he has obvious gaffes in his dvd's called "artistic choices," and when he says he "always intended" certain things, when it can be shown he just changed his mind and made something up. I don't know what the man thinks deep down in his heart, but he's said a lot of stuff that makes it sound like he thinks his fans are really gullible. Perhaps he has a bad memory, who knows. But there you go.

 

I'm sure it breaks your heart to hear criticism of Lucas's decisions with regards to Star Wars, but oh well. Learn to cope I guess. Even if you somehow got me to shut up, you've got an internet's worth of fans saming the same things, in different ways. I greatly admire Lucas for all he's accomplished, but I can't help and shake my head at some of the things he says/does (I could say the same about a lot of artists I like too btw).

 

He would have stopped production of all media containing Star Wars, making owning of the movies a very rare thing.

 

He could have which would have been even more stupid. But speculating on such a thing doesn't excuse stupid things he does do. You seem to be arguing that whatever scraps he throws to us is all we deserve. Perhaps you have more contempt for Star Wars fans than Lucas does?

 

What it comes down to is that if you don't like it, it's stupid.

 

Not even worthy of a reply.

 

 

PS: Can you source the claim that Lucas talked about he won't produce the originals for monetary reasons?

 

I can look up the quote...

[Kurgan]

And here it is:

 

Q: Why not release both the originals and special editions on DVD?

 

LUCAS: The special edition, that's the one I wanted out there. The other movie, it's on VHS, if anybody wants it. ...

 

I'm not going to spend the, we're talking millions of dollars here, the money and the time to refurbish that, because to me, it doesn't really exist anymore. It's like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it to be the way I want it to be.

 

AP interview, September 2004, posted on CNN (sorry, I had to google cache it, but you can read the whole thing above)

 

And in the behind the scenes interview I read about the production of the OT DVD, they said they had a "high definition digital master" of the original restored films, for any future home releases they would want to make.

[TK-8252]

Falling down a hole makes Palpatine feared? Getting choked by a dancing girl makes Jabba feared? etc.

 

You said that all the events Boba went through were needed to add to the "badass" side of him... but I say that such a humiliating "death" shows that he's just the fool that he was intended to be.

 

Exactly right. I don't dispute this. But do you think he was meant to be comic relief, or a credible threat? (apart from the much greater threat of Vader of course).

 

Comic relief. I mean, they make him look so great at first... a guy with a scary voice and an awesome jetpack suit... but he falls into the Sarlacc with a scream after a blind man with a pole made his jetpack go crazy.

 

 

You see, with his beginnings as a clone of who REALLY is the ultimate badass bounty hunter, Jango Fett, at least now we know that he's not just some goon with a fancy suit and a scary voice.

[El Sitherino]

And here it is:

 

 

 

AP interview, September 2004, posted on CNN (sorry, I had to google cache it, but you can read the whole thing above)

 

And in the behind the scenes interview I read about the production of the OT DVD, they said they had a "high definition digital master" of the original restored films, for any future home releases they would want to make.

All he's saying there is that he doesn't think spending that money to do all that is worth it in his mind, because it's not the film he wants it to be. Sounds reasonable to me. Why fix up something you feel is low quality and incomplete when you have the "complete' version already fixed up.

[Jan Gaarni]

And in the behind the scenes interview I read about the production of the OT DVD, they said they had a "high definition digital master" of the original restored films, for any future home releases they would want to make.

Original .. are we talking the original original? THE original? The 1977-80-83 originals?

[Prime]

Actually it's not hypocrisy on our part. Lucas "responded" to the fans who wanted the originals saying that it would "cost millions of dollars" to make them available. This from the guy who releases a dozen versions of the same movie or even the same movies multiple times in a short span of time. It's odd behavior, and odd logic on his part, I will admit.

The difference of course being that those are the ones that he wants to release. He doesn't want to pay money to release stuff he doesn't want out there.

 

Quite the opposite. "Apologist" is a descriptive term, not a derogatory name. It means you're defending him in rhetoric. On the contrary the fans who complain about Lucas's dumping on the classic trilogy get called "obsessed" "fanboys" "whiners" "crybabies" "nerds" etc. They paint Lucas as a martyr for his art, and these fans as heartless jerks who just whine to hear themselves whine. Now we can add "hypocrite" to the list of slanders against those who dare question Lucas. Joy...

I only made the comment because apologist was not in quotes and whiner was. I took that to mean that apologists actually are such, but whiners are not. Which when I read it seemed unfair. Both labels apply to their respective sides, IMO. And personally I don't have a problem with either, as I sympathize with both. But in the end, I feel Lucas has the artistic right not to release the originals, even if I am one who would buy such a thing. But I gave up that hope the day I saw "Last change to buy the originals" on TV...

 

At least you admit that much. I'm sick of hearing the Lucas line spit back with "the originals no longer exist, this is the true definitive vision."

In fairness, to him they do no longer exist. Can't change that. You don't have to like it, but as the creator pretty much what he says goes.

 

You can be whiny and not an apologist, and vice versa. No need to strawman.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

 

And what about the director's who do have the time and money and yet still make the originals available? As I see it the "original being available" is a freebie. They've basically already spent the money to create it, etc. The bastardized versions are what takes the time and effort.

But that is only part of the cost. They don't magically appear on the shelves for free. And it is not something he wants to invest in anyway. If other directors do, great. I support their right to do that too.

 

I figure not releasing the originals is a way to jack up the sales of the "improved edition" when you fear that it may not be viewed as an improvement (ie: if the originals were available, the super special edition might suffer in sales).

Since in the end the money goes to him anyways, if it was all about the cash he wouldn't care in that case. The division between what money comes from what sales might be different like you say, but I suspect a similar number of overall copies would be sold, and likely would increase. So if he was all about money, no doubt he would release the originals as well as a seperate package.

 

How can Peter Jackson do the same thing with the LOTR movies and the like? He's already released both versions (theatrical and Extended) of all three of them on DVD. Do you mean in relation to some future new format version?

I believe it is on the ROTK DVD somewhere, but he talks about how he would like to go back and update FOTR and TTT since the effects had come so far by the last film. IIRC he was talking about the Warg fight in particular. But he mentions that there were several places he would like to go back and change/update.

 

Note sure about Alexander (never seen it, period), but didn't the Abyss feature both endings viewable on the disc? It's been awhile, so I could be wrong.

Alexander was more or less completely re-edited from the theatrical version for the DVD release. They more or less claim it is a new film, since the original did so poorly.

 

You'll have to fill me in on that one. He very well could be. Don't act like I'm saying Lucas is the only artist who's made mistakes or snubbed his fans in strange ways.

It's not my goal to imply that, I'm just trying to find out if there is any grey area in what you feel is acceptable. Poor choice of words on my part.

 

In any event, the original Hobbit was re-edited to tie into the Lord of the Rings. Originally Gollum planned to give Frodo the Ring for winning the game, which of course doesn't work in regards to the later story. If you are interested, you can have a look at http://tolkien.slimy.com/tfaq/Tolkien.html#HobbitChanges

 

There's where you're strawmanning. I never said Lucas was the only guilty party. If somebody else famous did it, does that let Lucas off the hook? I don't think so.

I haven't read everything here, so if the blanket statement is that no artist should be allowed to alter a released work, then fair enough. But personally I don't think there is a hook that anyone needs to be let off of.

 

Lucas needs to be "blasted" because it's a stupid thing to do, which shows contempt for his fans and the legacy of his own work. I understand he's a perfectionist and a bit neurotic, etc. whatever, but somebody in his inner circle needs to sit him down and say "Look George..." but that'll never happen. And if he loses some money, that isn't likely to make much of a difference either. He does listen to fans whining though, sometimes.

Yep. He actually does listen to fans and their responses to characters and the like. Probably why Jar Jar was mostly absent in the last two films. I'm sure that someone close to him has suggest he release the originals, and I am sure he has given it some thought, he has just made a decision that some don't like. Whether it is stupid or not is a matter of opinion. He obviously hasn't alienates fans enough to really hurt sales of Star Wars goods or tickets to his movies. Whether he has alienated some is a personal decision everyone has to make for themselves.

 

He still views them as incomplete, and in fact the new versions are more problematic than the originals. He complained about unfinished effects, lack of technology etc, but clearly the Special Editions were lacking (they got dated fast) and some changes were actually a step back. That he changed some of the changes in the 2004 editions is clear enough of that. Likewise the gaffes in the 2004 editions indicate the need for another "draft" of the movies in a couple of years, and so it goes...

My understanding was that the DVD releases were somewhat underfunded and lacked the appropriate time budgets. Lucas had stated for the longest time that the DVDs were not going to be released until after all the films were completed. But there was enough of a fan demand that he changed his mind. IIRC there was also some piracy issue as well. That is vague in my memory.

 

Since they'll never be finished, and he'll never be satisfied, we'll never see the end of it, until he dies or runs out of money.

The former is much more likely than the latter.

 

Wrongly, of course.

A matter of opinion, obviously. Personally I don't presume to have any moral right to be able to tell an artist what they can or cannot do with their own creations. As a fan I have a right to have an opinion about said works and what I think should be done with them, but I don't believe my feelings override the creators' wishes.

 

So you turn it around and say the FANS are the stupid ones, to blame for liking the original work, not a later bastardisation?

I didn't say the fans were stupid. I said Lucas' decision was stupid only in that it alienates/upsets some fans. But it is not a stupid decision if his wish is to only have the latest and presumably "definitive" version available through general distribution. And I think that wish is a reasonable one, if not a universally desired one.

 

Fans can like any version they want, as I do (or parts of different ones). But I don't think any artist is morally obligated to provide fans with anything they want. There may be reasons why they would want to, but they are not obligated to do so IMO.

 

Once a work has entered the public consciousness and been accepted by generations of fans, the artist can't just step in there and ruin it, and then refuse to allow the original to remain anywhere in public memory. It's egotistical and silly. Does he have the LEGAL RIGHT to do this? Obviously. But it's still stupid.

"Ruin" is of course a matter of opinion when it comes to art, or just about anything for that matter. There are unlimited examples where there are books and such that have multiple editions (like the Bible for one ). Are all of those unacceptable because they alter an earlier published work? What about literature that is out of print? Many publishers refuse to continue to make older versions available after they have been in the public memory. Should all these practices be terminated?

 

Which is completely arbitrary anyway. He introduced just as many inconsistencies and goofs into the movies with each new revision than existed there before.

I agree that the inconsistencies are annoying.

 

Well, I've had my say.

 

Original .. are we talking the original original? THE original? The 1977-80-83 originals?

I think when they were released on VHS for the last time they were cleaned up, but I can't remember if digital copies were made.

[Kurgan]

All he's saying there is that he doesn't think spending that money to do all that is worth it in his mind, because it's not the film he wants it to be. Sounds reasonable to me. Why fix up something you feel is low quality and incomplete when you have the "complete' version already fixed up.

 

 

And I'm saying "do all what?" because it sounds like all he'd have to do is press the discs and throw it in a box. Lowry already created a "restored digital master" (apparently) of the originals!

 

He's already done the grunt work and spent the money, he has only to reap the harvest!

 

Now you may ask "why would he have restored the originals and not destroyed the originals and saved only the 2004 editions?" well it actually makes some sense. Having the originals as a "master" means you can more easily splice in new effects without having to layer effect on top of outdated effect over and over and over again into eternity. The Jabba model is a computer animation that was saved from TPM. It exists on their hard drives and probably on high quality backups. Same with the Yoda model and anything else they create on computers. This helps explain how they were able to re-do the Greedo scene again and do it more convincingly this time as well.

 

So they can create any number of models and use them on the original if they choose. This also gives Lucas the option if he ever decides to release the originals to do so, without having to worry about all the original film stock from 1977-1983 falling apart and finally having an ironclad excuse never to release it again.

 

So I see it that Lucas is (wisely) having it both ways. He's sitting on the originals, but also saying "they no longer exist for me" to validate his release only of modified versions to the public since 1997.

 

TK I can kind of see where you're coming from now with regards to Fett. I'd say I can agree with you, but only in terms of ROTJ. He's a bumbling villian there, to be sure. And look at how he's flirting up those dancing girls, etc. More "humor." Lucas sort of did the same thing with Han in a way. He has his serious moments, but he's also a bit of a bungler.

 

Now look at Fett in ESB and he's totally different. He's not a bungler at all. This is comparable to what Peter Jackson did with the character of Gimli in the Two Towers, vs. the other two movies. He's a bit of a buffoon, the butt of jokes, etc. But in the others he's more serious and heroic. You've actually made a good argument for this, bravo.

 

Prime, it's true "apologist" and "whiner" are both terms I'm using descriptively. The apologists are making an apologetic for Lucas. The whiners are whining about Lucas. I wasn't intending to use "apologist" as an insult however. It's more descriptive than "whiner" which conjures up the idea that the person "whining" is doing just that and not offering anything practical. I figure I tried to offering alternative solutions to what Lucas could do that would be more mutally beneificial and ease his anxiousness about the complaints of fans (since he himself has commented numerous times on fan complaints about his decisions). The apologists may also have valid complaints about Lucas, but generally these aren't expressed, which is understandable. There have been some exceptions on this forum, so it's not 100% pure, as no position is (which is why perhaps labelling "factions" in a debate is not altogether useful).

[Kurgan]

But that is only part of the cost. They don't magically appear on the shelves for free. And it is not something he wants to invest in anyway. If other directors do, great. I support their right to do that too.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Fox do the distribution? How much of the cost is paid out of pocket by Lucas to press the discs, put them into boxes and ship them to stores, and run adverts? (as if Star Wars needed any advertising to sell that is!). My point is the primary cost of "the millions and millions" he was talking about is the restoration process and digital mastering, which is already done. With the 2004 Editions, he didn't just have a few extra effects slapped onto the special editions. They actually restored the ENTIRE TRILOGY and redid the music (albeit with glitches, but still). Then they added in the effects they wanted on top of that. So a portion of their time was spent on doing just what he said would cost so much. As far as he's concerned the last part would be chicken feed, which he's easily make up in short order from advance sales (I would think).

 

 

Since in the end the money goes to him anyways, if it was all about the cash he wouldn't care in that case. The division between what money comes from what sales might be different like you say, but I suspect a similar number of overall copies would be sold, and likely would increase. So if he was all about money, no doubt he would release the originals as well as a seperate package.

 

Another argument I've seen made though is that if the originals were released, they wouldn't sell because they are "outdated" or that they would misrepresent his vision and lose him money somehow. Granted this is not a commonly made argument, but at least a few people seem to think that releasing the originals would be a "loss" rather than a sure-fire profit maker. But it is more commonly argued, as you've shown that Lucas MUST be in it for the artistic integrity since he's selflessly passing up this "money-making opportunity" with the originals. Of course why should we think Lucas is one to do that? He's released the same movies enough times over the past 20 years. In fact he's now re-releasing the same exact movies once again, with fewer extras, on DVD, for more or less the same price in a different box! Figure that one out!

 

One theory advanced back in the day was he was continually re-releasing the original movies to RAISE MONEY for the Prequels, because they were so expensive and such a big risk ('top star wars? never!'). And here the Phantom Menace has (by most counts) surpassed the original Star Wars in $$$ made (not sure if that's adjusted for inflation or not, but it's pretty impressive, given how most fans consider it the weakest of the series).

 

I believe it is on the ROTK DVD somewhere, but he talks about how he would like to go back and update FOTR and TTT since the effects had come so far by the last film. IIRC he was talking about the Warg fight in particular. But he mentions that there were several places he would like to go back and change/update.

 

Matters little since you can purchase the theatrical versions on DVD right now. The cat's already out of the bag. Lots of directors and artists feel they wish they could go back, etc, but most know to leave well enough alone. And in Jackson's case, he wisely provided both versions, so fans have a choice.

 

Alexander was more or less completely re-edited from the theatrical version for the DVD release. They more or less claim it is a new film, since the original did so poorly.

 

That is understandable. Highlander II: The Quickening had a similar fate. It was a box office flop, and hated by fans for years. Released in its original form on VHS and LaserDisk (with an alternate ending on TV), but on DVD it's only "The Renegade Version" and "The Director's Cut" both of which are heavily edited.

 

I haven't read everything here, so if the blanket statement is that no artist should be allowed to alter a released work, then fair enough. But personally I don't think there is a hook that anyone needs to be let off of.

 

My main beef is with an artist who lets their work become as world famous as Lucas has made his, then changes it and doesn't allow anyone to see the original version that became so ingrained in the public consciousness. I'm all for them releasing a million revisions if they want, but the original I think belongs to the world as much as it does the artist, morally.

 

My understanding was that the DVD releases were somewhat underfunded and lacked the appropriate time budgets. Lucas had stated for the longest time that the DVDs were not going to be released until after all the films were completed. But there was enough of a fan demand that he changed his mind. IIRC there was also some piracy issue as well. That is vague in my memory.

 

That is a good point. One wonders, did he just say "okay fine you whining fans, I'll make the DVD's, but I'll be really sloppy to show you how silly a request it was." But he didn't say that, he said these were the films he sees them today, this is his original vision, blah blah blah, etc.

 

For years he was content to give people low quality VHS tapes, so who knows. The OT DVD's were released to maximize profit, not necessarily to maximize quality. We've seen the audio and visual glitches and heard about the time crunches. They timed the release to promote the SWBF game on consoles and PC, which was also rushed and suffered, and to promote the Episode III game and Revenge of the Sith. It was a major money goldmine for promoting Star Wars products, not just a restoration of the Original Trilogy. The piracy issue is kind of a red herring, because people are still pirating the Original Versions and the Special Editions. His 2004 Editions are different. He never claims he created the 2004 Editions specifically to combat piracy (Ie: he didn't throw in Hayden Ghost to make his version more attractive to those who already had every previous version).

 

He originally claimed that he wasn't going to release the OT on DVD until all the rest of the movies were complete, so he could release them as one set. There was a lot of speculation as to why he made that decision, but he ultimately changed his mind. Still, he had the money and manpower to do them and he even became personally involved, so I don't see that as an excuse for poor quality.

 

A matter of opinion, obviously. Personally I don't presume to have any moral right to be able to tell an artist what they can or cannot do with their own creations.

 

That is true. On the other hand, consumers of commercial products do consider themselves to have a moral right to tell a company what they can and cannot do with their products they've spent money on. Can people complain about Windows because Bill Gates holds the moral rights to create it as he chooses? Do people have the right to complain about GM cars and trucks because the manufacturers take pride in their work and own patents? Etc.

 

I think there's a bit of a double standard here, that because it's art for sale, the consumers aren't allowed to complain or have a say about it. Are only art critics allowed to criticize art? A valid question.

 

As a fan I have a right to have an opinion about said works and what I think should be done with them, but I don't believe my feelings override the creators' wishes.

 

Right, but you're just one person. If thousands and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, or millions of fans demand something, what is the artists responsibility? These are the fans who've made him wealthy and famous for love of his art. Does he have any loyalty to them for their loyalty to him?

 

I didn't say the fans were stupid.

 

That's more credit than many give them! Kudos.

 

I said Lucas' decision was stupid only in that it alienates/upsets some fans. But it is not a stupid decision if his wish is to only have the latest and presumably "definitive" version available through general distribution. And I think that wish is a reasonable one, if not a universally desired one.

 

I see what you're saying there. If nobody, not a single one wanted the originals, then it would be a moot point. A historian might argue it's still desirable to have the original version of "Birth of a Nation" in a vault somewhere, rather than some colorized version with speech added and CG horses (hypothetically speaking here of course!) purely for purposes of history, but there's a lot to be said for demand.

 

Fans can like any version they want, as I do (or parts of different ones).

 

It's just harder when the version you like has been out of print for 8 years, and only exists on obsolete and/or decaying stock. With the swiftly approaching death of VHS, even that option will no longer be available. So Lucas is basically making it difficult for anyone but DVD owners who like the 2004 Editions to have their liking.

 

 

Many publishers refuse to continue to make older versions available after they have been in the public memory. Should all these practices be terminated?

 

Do you mean publishers refuse to release public domain works? Funny, I've seen plenty of copies of Frankenstein at Barnes & Noble, for example. I'm sure you can think of dozens or hundreds of others! Even if one publisher "refuses" to do so, another has stepped up to the plate. Not every work is in demand of course, but at least copies of them exist. Books are a bit different because unless they were made at a certain time in history (on acidic paper that deteriorates) the chances are you can get it at a library or used book store. A modern day book is no more longer lasting if you take care of it than an older book that was treated fairly. A VHS tape on the other hand wears out a little bit each time you watch it. A DVD will supposedly last for generations if treated carefully and can be easily copied onto another digital format with 0% loss. So I think that's a big difference.

 

Likewise public domain works are often available in E-text. Anyone can publish them (though I'm iffy on the rules with regards to this, since we have "editions" of even PD works).

 

As to the Bible, none of these manuscripts were ever commercially sold that we know of, they were sacred texts, so they either belonged to a temple, church or to "the people." Now we have commercially sold Bible texts, but the idea here is that you aren't really paying for the Bible, you're paying for the work somebody did to translate it into some modern tongue for your benefit and write those scholarly notes, etc. The Bible itself is a public domain work.

And that's even getting into the thousands (if not millions) of copies of the Bible (in various translations) that are given away free by churches and missionaries each year (but of course I'm sure somebody paid for them at some point in time). And if you want to view the Bible in the original ancient languages (as best we have them today), you can do that too, though the vernacular are more popular, for obvious reasons. Now perhaps you meant by "editions" how certain stripped down versions of the Bible, like the ones placed by the Gideons, omit the liner notes common to all Bibles going back to the time of the Masoretes (scribes who preserved the texts, and added notes where there were textual variants or questionable parts). But ever scholarly translation includes notes and variants, so people can check them if they wish to.

 

The Bible is different in that it isn't just one person or one corporation controlling its distribution, translation, etc. like the Star Wars franchise.

 

Imagine if Hotels had free copies of the Star Wars trilogy for every guest to use?

 

Well, I've had my say.

 

Great to hear it!

 

I think when they were released on VHS for the last time they were cleaned up, but I can't remember if digital copies were made.

 

They were cleaned up, but not nearly to the degree as was done for the Special Editions or even for the massive restoration of the 2004 Editions. As far as digital copies, who knows. But Lowry Digital explicitly said they made a "full restored digital master" of the entire trilogy (in an interview shortly after the set was released) which resides in LucasFilm's computer storage backups.

They didn't say it was the second or third one done, this is THE one. I believe for the SE they showed footage of them actually running the film stock through chemicals to clean it up. A very different type of process in terms of restoration! Lowry actually did computer algorithms to correct colors and went frame by frame in other cases to digitally "clean" frames.

[El Sitherino]

the original I think belongs to the world as much as it does the artist, morally.

That makes absolutely no sense.

 

That is true. On the other hand, consumers of commercial products do consider themselves to have a moral right to tell a company what they can and cannot do with their products they've spent money on. Can people complain about Windows because Bill Gates holds the moral rights to create it as he chooses? Do people have the right to complain about GM cars and trucks because the manufacturers take pride in their work and own patents? Etc.

Not exactly a valid comparison. GM complaints are matters of safety, if you think a car is ugly, you don't buy it. Microsoft is complained about because of shady business dealings that impact peoples abilities to do things they wish to do on their legally purchased system. Nothing of what Lucas is doing impacts our well being or prevents us from using our computer to the fullest extent. That's like claiming a poster impacts your walls functionality.

 

I think there's a bit of a double standard here, that because it's art for sale, the consumers aren't allowed to complain or have a say about it. Are only art critics allowed to criticize art? A valid question.

There's a matter of fact, and a matter of opinion. Art is about opinion, not solid fact or truth. Therefore, no double standard.

 

 

Right, but you're just one person. If thousands and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, or millions of fans demand something, what is the artists responsibility?

To do what they feel is right for themselves, fan demand really has no business in art.

 

These are the fans who've made him wealthy and famous for love of his art. Does he have any loyalty to them for their loyalty to him?

I think a thanks is fine enough, they aren't being forced to watch and buy this stuff. If they feel betrayed or like they wasted their money they have no one to blame but themselves. Childish whining because something doesn't go their way does not make for a legitimate arguement.

 

And Lowry did clean-up on the SE film stock, not the originals, seeing as the original reels have been all but eaten away.

[Kurgan]

So you think Lucas destroyed the Original Film Stock? I got the exact opposite impression from the Lowry interview(s). If he had done this, he could simply have said "the originals no longer exist, they have deteriorated" which is a FAR cry from "they no longer exist for me in my mind since I have these new versions that are my truer vision."

 

When it came time for the SE's to be created the reels were not "all but eaten away" and that was after 10 years. They cleaned them up, made copies and put in the new elements, etc. Did Lowry make the digital master ONLY of the SE copies? Again, I didn't get that impression. I guess that's something that ought to be cleared up by them... If the originals no longer exist, period, then there's no argument (though I guess you could still release the last decent existing master of the originals from some other source, like Laser Disk or a copy).

 

When I say "originals" I don't mean the very first print created in 1977 (without the "Episode IV: A New Hope" and Beru's voice redubbed on the sound track. I mean the reels (or a digital master) of the theatrical movies as they existed in the 1980's, before the Special Edition changes. It has been another 8 years but I find it hard to believe that no copies were ever made in that time that wouldn't still be in usable condition. The films are not "eaten away" but they do have faded colors and dirt, etc. That's very different. The sheer amount of work done on the restoration leads me to believe they were not talking about the already cleaned up SE "masters" but maybe there's something they're not telling us. Again, it would be good to know ("Ask the Jedi Council" anyone?).

 

I can't stay up all night researching this again, but here's a link or two to get you started: http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?print_page=y&section_id=2&article_id=701&page_number=1&preview=

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/feature_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2053173

[Prime]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Fox do the distribution?

Not sure exactly. I thought they only distributed the film itself. I'm not sure how all that works. But I do assume that Lucas would incure some costs, millions or not, if the classic versions were to be released.

 

Another argument I've seen made though is that if the originals were released, they wouldn't sell because they are "outdated" or that they would misrepresent his vision and lose him money somehow. Granted this is not a commonly made argument, but at least a few people seem to think that releasing the originals would be a "loss" rather than a sure-fire profit maker.

You know what? I don't that that is entirely impossible. I don't think it wouldn't sell, but I think it is possible that the demand for such things is limited to some extent to the older generation of hardcore fans. I don't think the casual fan much cares one way or the other (if they did, the current DVD sales wouldn't have been so huge) and there is an entire new generation of young fans who are growing up with the prequels (and on digital effects in general) and only really know about the updated versions. And likely these new fans would not want a version where the effects are somewhat (very?) dated. So I guess I suspect that if the classic versions were released on DVD tomorrow it wouldn't all of a sudden overtake the current DVD version sales.

 

But it is more commonly argued, as you've shown that Lucas MUST be in it for the artistic integrity since he's selflessly passing up this "money-making opportunity" with the originals. Of course why should we think Lucas is one to do that? He's released the same movies enough times over the past 20 years.

I think he is a brillaint business man, but I do think that he genuinely cares for Star Wars itself as a piece of art. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

 

In fact he's now re-releasing the same exact movies once again, with fewer extras, on DVD, for more or less the same price in a different box! Figure that one out!

Probably to shut up people who bitch and moan about getting older versions.

 

That should give you hope that he may one day release the originals...

 

One theory advanced back in the day was he was continually re-releasing the original movies to RAISE MONEY for the Prequels, because they were so expensive and such a big risk ('top star wars? never!'). And here the Phantom Menace has (by most counts) surpassed the original Star Wars in $$$ made (not sure if that's adjusted for inflation or not, but it's pretty impressive, given how most fans consider it the weakest of the series).

Number 5 all time according to Box Office Mojo. Star Wars is number 2, but that includes grosses from all versions. ROTS is number 7. Interestingly, they use the example of E.T. to explain the multiple editions part...

 

Matters little since you can purchase the theatrical versions on DVD right now. The cat's already out of the bag. Lots of directors and artists feel they wish they could go back, etc, but most know to leave well enough alone. And in Jackson's case, he wisely provided both versions, so fans have a choice.

My point was he was another example of a director who would like to go back an alter his original works.

 

My main beef is with an artist who lets their work become as world famous as Lucas has made his,

What do you mean "lets"? Should he have prevented it from being famous somehow? Should he not promote it?

 

then changes it and doesn't allow anyone to see the original version that became so ingrained in the public consciousness. I'm all for them releasing a million revisions if they want,

He lets me watch them. I got them when he said it was the last chance.

 

but the original I think belongs to the world as much as it does the artist, morally.

I don't.

 

I think the artist has a complete moral ownership over his own work, and I think most artists would resent the implication that they answer to the audience of the work. I have a right to view/listen/read such a thing as made available by the creator. I can express an opinion about what I want and like or dislike, but the artist has the final say.

 

That is true. On the other hand, consumers of commercial products do consider themselves to have a moral right to tell a company what they can and cannot do with their products they've spent money on.

They only have the right to complain if what they bought is either disfunctional or does not perform as indicated by the creator. They do not have a right to complain if they bought something expecting it to be something that the creator never claimed it was. That is their own fault. The creator can also apply rules and restrictions on the use of the product (software for example). When the buyer makes the purchase and uses it, they have technically agreed to these conditions. If they don't like the product or the conditions, they don't have to buy it.

 

Can people complain about Windows because Bill Gates holds the moral rights to create it as he chooses?

They can morally complain about Windows if it does not function as advertised (crashes or doesn't have advertised features). They do not have a right to complain that it doesn't do something it was never intended or advertised as being able to do. They can have and express an opinion of what should be added or changed on Windows, but they have no moral right to make that change. That decision belongs to Gates. If people don't like it, they don't have to buy it.

 

Do people have the right to complain about GM cars and trucks because the manufacturers take pride in their work and own patents? Etc.

Again, only if it doesn't function as advertised. They can't complain that their truck isn't as fast as a Porche after they bought it, because it was never advertised as doing so. They can say they want a truck that goes that fast, but it is up to GM to decide if they should make one.

 

I think there's a bit of a double standard here

I don't. We pay money for Lucas's films and we get something in return. "Contract" completed.

 

that because it's art for sale, the consumers aren't allowed to complain or have a say about it. Are only art critics allowed to criticize art? A valid question.

Consumers can complain and criticise until they are blue in the face, and have every right to do so. Doesn't mean the artist has to accomidate those requests.

 

Right, but you're just one person. If thousands and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, or millions of fans demand something, what is the artists responsibility?

To do what he feels is best for his art.

 

These are the fans who've made him wealthy and famous for love of his art.

So what? It's not like they haven't gotten something in return. Lucas offers films and products, and we decide if we want to pay money for them. When we give him money, we get something back. That is all he owes us.

 

Does he have any loyalty to them for their loyalty to him?

Maybe (I think so). But we are in no position to demand loyalty. If he does, it is because of how he feels about the fans, not because he is obligated to because they bought some of his stuff.

 

That's more credit than many give them! Kudos.

I'm a fan too you know.

 

I see what you're saying there. If nobody, not a single one wanted the originals, then it would be a moot point. A historian might argue it's still desirable to have the original version of "Birth of a Nation" in a vault somewhere, rather than some colorized version with speech added and CG horses (hypothetically speaking here of course!) purely for purposes of history, but there's a lot to be said for demand.

I don't think there is anything to be said for demand. If me and a few million of my buddies demand that Star Wars be updated so that all the characters be replaced with penguins, should we get what we want? And at what number does demand achieve a moral right to get what they want from the artist? Does he have to drop whatever he is doing and provide it?

 

It's just harder when the version you like has been out of print for 8 years, and only exists on obsolete and/or decaying stock.

But that's the same with anything. Older versions of anything, especially those out of stock or print, become harder to find with time. Again, the original artist or publisher is not morally obligated to make such things available until the end of time.

 

With the swiftly approaching death of VHS, even that option will no longer be available. So Lucas is basically making it difficult for anyone but DVD owners who like the 2004 Editions to have their liking.

He isn't making it any more difficult than any other artist who has come up with a new edition using a new format. Mediums become obselete and many works are not updated to the newest, like old tapes and VHS to CDs and DVDs. The artist is not morally obligated to release all his old versions of everything every time a new format comes along.

 

Do you mean publishers refuse to release public domain works?

No. I said public memory, which I intended to be the same as your term "public conciousness." Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

Not every work is in demand of course, but at least copies of them exist.

Just like there are copies of the classic trilogy that exist. For example, here.

 

A modern day book is no more longer lasting if you take care of it than an older book that was treated fairly. A VHS tape on the other hand wears out a little bit each time you watch it.

But they do degrade over time and with use (spins get warn, pages do decay). Same as VHS. So if I can't get my favorite first edition of a book in electronic format, should the author be morally obligated to provide it for me? I don't think so.

 

A DVD will supposedly last for generations if treated carefully and can be easily copied onto another digital format with 0% loss. So I think that's a big difference.

DVD is a better format, sure. But all the filmmakers out there are not obligated to transcribe everything they have done to a new format every time one comes along.