Technically it's not bootleg if you own an original copy and I'm sure all of us in this thread own multiple original copies.
Ben
Could Disney finally give us the remastered, unedited Star Wars we want?
- Thread starter rodneyfaile
- Start date
Technically it's not bootleg if you own an original copy and I'm sure all of us in this thread own multiple original copies.
Ben
cayman shen
Master Member
Hahaha I've lost count of how many original copies I've owned over the years. Many many. Besides, bootleg of what? The SE is the only sanctioned edition. It's the only one for sale or in print. So discussing Harmy et al is talking about downloading something that's been entirely disowned. Now if we were talking about pirating the blu rays, I see how that's a problem. Talking about the OOT is historical restoration.
And seriously, intellectual property quibbles on THIS site? It's like a whole site devoted to copying and distributing other people's intellectual property! No offense meant, but...
And seriously, intellectual property quibbles on THIS site? It's like a whole site devoted to copying and distributing other people's intellectual property! No offense meant, but...
Curmudgeon
Well-Known Member
Sorry if this has already been discussed.. but what sort of sound edits fall under the realm of remastered? Would the magnum blaster sound come back? Or what about the different versions of Ben's Krayt call? One thing I really hope is to get Jason Wingreen's Boba Fett voice back..
I may be misunderstanding, but what balance of remasters are we hoping to see? Are we hoping the the pre '97 edition version with only cleaned up lightsabers, blaster shots, etc. What about the sandcrawler changes or the sarlacc beak? Just curious where everyone stands on this.
I may be misunderstanding, but what balance of remasters are we hoping to see? Are we hoping the the pre '97 edition version with only cleaned up lightsabers, blaster shots, etc. What about the sandcrawler changes or the sarlacc beak? Just curious where everyone stands on this.
Visually, people asking for an "original cut" want it to be 1977 (not even 1978) again. All goofs & limitations of the time in full view.
Audio seems to draw less attention. But it's safe to assume that everything should predate the SEs.
I've been arguing that the largest number of buyers would probably like a cut of Star Wars with maximum technical improvements and minimum creative changes. But there will always be some demand for both original & SE version of the movies. What I am suggesting would be a better replacement for the SEs than the originals.
Audio seems to draw less attention. But it's safe to assume that everything should predate the SEs.
I've been arguing that the largest number of buyers would probably like a cut of Star Wars with maximum technical improvements and minimum creative changes. But there will always be some demand for both original & SE version of the movies. What I am suggesting would be a better replacement for the SEs than the originals.
clancampbell
Sr Member
Here's
pics of me watching Harmy's 2.0 on my 63inch Samsung complete with DTS-HD-MA soundtrack!
Rich
pics of me watching Harmy's 2.0 on my 63inch Samsung complete with DTS-HD-MA soundtrack!Rich
Davy Jones
Sr Member
Actually it's both those things. But you're right it is technically a bootleg.
I'm glad you're looking out for LFL.
I'm glad you're looking out for LFL.
JD
Master Member
Not looking out for anyone - stating facts.
A bootleg is an copy not authorized by the owner; no ifs ands or buts about it. Show me where "Harmy" (and/or others) has authorization to do anything by the owner(s) of the source material to do anything to Star Wars - simply, it's not their material to do anything to.
Again, stating facts... no need to try to politicize, ostracize, or in any other way attack or insinuate.
Or just pointing out intellectual property theft despite equivocating arguments to the contrary.
Davy Jones
Sr Member
I agreed; "it is technically a bootleg"
No arguments there. Sometimes people try to elevate it to a status beyond that because of the historic and cultural significance of the particular project, but at the end of the day of course it's still an illegal bootleg.
What I take umbrage with is certain people's inability to understand how important having the original version is. Using the "it's still piracy" argument, while technically correct, is just as petty as bringing that fact up in almost any thread here at the RPF.
That's all. It just stuck me as cheap leverage in the battling of different opinions.
No arguments there. Sometimes people try to elevate it to a status beyond that because of the historic and cultural significance of the particular project, but at the end of the day of course it's still an illegal bootleg.
What I take umbrage with is certain people's inability to understand how important having the original version is. Using the "it's still piracy" argument, while technically correct, is just as petty as bringing that fact up in almost any thread here at the RPF.
That's all. It just stuck me as cheap leverage in the battling of different opinions.
cayman shen
Master Member
JD
Master Member
Because you simply can't justify it - it's not preserving history - it's a small piece of entertainment that not even a blip in history. Folks need to stop being so darn self righteous about Star Wars - it's a frigging movie.
Let the artist decide what to do with their art. Let the studio decide what to do with their property.
cayman shen
Master Member
JD
Master Member
Should we then restore some of the "Old Master's" works to their original visions? X-Rays reveal that many of them have been painted over and changed by those same painters. You're not comparing the same thing at all... these paintings represent their finished work, we're not hanging pictures in museums of works that these painters did not want shown (there maybe a rare case or two of this) or that they did not consider finished or want shown (again, there maybe rare examples of this).
Again, it's not our job to manage other peoples property. How does this even need explaining?
Yes, I personally think Star Wars should be preserved - but, I think the personal freedom to do what you want with your own property outweighs what I want. It's not rocket science.
glunark
Sr Member
These paintings that got painted over though, its not like the artist hung the original in a gallery, billions of people loved it, then he decided to go over it.
We only ever saw the mona lisa when it was finished, and the same with the rest.
Thank god Speilburg never felt the need to go back and give us a CGI jaws.
We only ever saw the mona lisa when it was finished, and the same with the rest.
Thank god Speilburg never felt the need to go back and give us a CGI jaws.
cayman shen
Master Member
Again, nobody's saying we should repress the SE versions. Preserving/restoring the original takes nothing away from the original artist's rights and intentions. The SE won't go away if Disney gives us the OOT. It's less analgous to dealing with altered paintings and more like talking about altered PRINTS of paintings, since there's not just ONE copy of a movie any given place.
Similar threads
