Could Disney finally give us the remastered, unedited Star Wars we want?

Movies were to the 20th century what painted artwork was to the Renaissance.

ANH could be compared to one of the big famous Renaissance paintings in that sense. The whole SW franchise isn't on that level but the 1977 movie is.

IMO it deserves preservation in whatever condition it had its big original impact. That happens to be the original cut.
 
We could debate it to death - it's silly. You're comparing centuries old artwork to a film made 35 years ago. A film that is actually owned by someone - just as arguably, someone that privately owns one of the great masters works could chose to deface it if they wished. Copies of the artwork can be made, I'm guessing as they most likely aren't copyrighted and the original artists are long dead have no copyright. As far as who has seen what... that's irrelevant, the artist made their finished product.

Lucas is still alive; Fox/Disney have varying ownership/distribution of his work. Part of me hopes GL managed to include some sort of protection clause in the sale to preserve his artwork the way he sees fit.

There's just so much arrogance with some folks who feel they can control other people's art and properly. It's not yours to do with it as you wish - he doesn't owe it to you or anyone.
 
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.

Non of which is you or anyone else's decision to make. "Fans" have no I intrinsic right to do anything with licensed and copyrighted property.
 
There's just so much arrogance with some folks who feel they can control other people's art and properly. It's not yours to do with it as you wish - he doesn't owe it to you or anyone.


It's not arrogance or entitlement. It's just seeing the bigger picture.


What if the great Renaissance paintings were privately owned (and copyrighted) today? It would still be a moral/cultural crime for the present owner of the Mona Lisa to spray paint over it and do whatever was legal to erase the memory of the old appearance.

Legal? Yes.

Right? No.


Yes GL is still alive. But he's not the same guy that he was before the movie was released and we aren't the same audience either. The original film's cultural & artistic significance is established.

Spielberg wanted to monkey with E.T. but changed his mind after he saw the public's reaction. Spielberg hasn't given up his claim as E.T.'s owner or creator, but he has respected the rest of the public's feelings about it now.



Some older pop stars refuse to play their early popular hits in concert anymore. But the ones who respect their fanbase still play them, no matter how "over it" they might be after a few decades have gone by.
 
Copyrights...whatever, until Disney releases the Original OT, I will be watching the original OT in HD ;). Call it what you want, I have owned a every official release since VHS.
 
It's not arrogance or entitlement. It's just seeing the bigger picture.
I disagree. This is about a group of people who feel that "version" of someone else's property is better - they want it their way, not the way they creator and owner wants or intends it to be.

What if the great Renaissance paintings were privately owned (and copyrighted) today? It would still be a moral/cultural crime for the present owner of the Mona Lisa to spray paint over it and do whatever was legal to erase the memory of the old appearance.

Legal? Yes.

Right? No.
Many are privately owned and some we will not be able to gaze upon. Also those artists are not around (and some of these artworks were created as commissions, so they didn't own them at all).

I respect the right of the artist and owner to do with their work as they please.

I also believe that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few (thanks, Spock)... But, I still haven't heard a convincing argument how altering someone's artwork (especially a film not even 40 years old and whose creator is still alive and it's rights are not in question) should trump owner's rights.


Yes GL is still alive. But he's not the same guy that he was before the movie was released and we aren't the same audience either. The original film's cultural & artistic significance is established.
He's not the same guy? What happened? Did I miss a news story where GL was incapacitated?

A moot point even without the overtones you suggest. Mr. Lucas is very much alive and well and by all accounts in fully legally capable of making his own decision... again, whether you and others like it or not.

Spielberg wanted to monkey with E.T. but changed his mind after he saw the public's reaction. Spielberg hasn't given up his claim as E.T.'s owner or creator, but he has respected the rest of the public's feelings about it now.
Spielberg opted to do what he wanted to with his work - good for him. Ultimately, he chose to keep to the original vision of ET and not bow to pressure from parents groups to make changes to his movie.. which, is pretty different than Lucas wanting to make changes to his movie.

Some older pop stars refuse to play their early popular hits in concert anymore. But the ones who respect their fanbase still play them, no matter how "over it" they might be after a few decades have gone by.
So are we to kidnap these stars and force them to play their hits in concert? Because stealing and altering one's work is much different than choosing to go to a concert. Most artists who opt to not play that "big hit" or two are usually well know and/or make it known prior to a tour/show that they're not playing those hits.

...and it's not about respecting a fanbase at all. That's silly. I've been very fortunate to work for a rock band with a large following... and had quite a few fans follow them from show-to-show, it's the real fans that respect the setlist changes and the artistic integrity.
 
Last edited:
Ugh, I give up. I consider Star Wars part of our cultural heritage regardless of who legally owns it. I have zero interest in the legalities of the situation. You can argue whether people have a "right" or are "entitled" to the OOT all day long. It won't change my mind. Nothing anyone can say to me makes me believe that suppressing the OOT is morally right, regardless of the legal rights. Art that stands the test of time eventually extends into the public arena, beyond the sphere of its creator's influence. I personally own two different versions of the novel Frankenstein (Shelley revised it, much like GL). There are multiple versions of Leaves of Grass as well, and I have them. Whitman and Shelley may have died hoping nobody saw the originals, and they can suck it as far as I'm concerned. And GL can get in line to suck it with them. Their artworks have left their sphere of influence. If they want to play the whole "it's mine and I'll do what I want with it" then they should sell cars. Well, except two of them are dead. But the point is, art is intended for an audience. It's not a one way street. And that audience has a stake in it, and is intended to. A movie doesn't exist in any meaningful way without an audience. It's more than just a product or a commodity. Now I'm not saying throw out the laws and let others profit from/steal/alter your work. But if the audience embraces your work, and you try to take it from them after having shown it, you're breaking a contract, in a sense. We're not stealing from GL. GL is stealing from us.
 
...He's not the same guy? What happened? Did I miss a news story where GL was incapacitated?...
Okay, now I think you're being argumentative just to be argumentative (I honestly don't mean for that to sound insulting, I'm only making an observation). Of course Lucas isn't the same guy he was in 1977 because he's added 37 years of life experiences to the person he was then. I would hope none of us are the same people we were 37 years ago, or mankind is in a lot of trouble. :D
 
JD is in rare form today. :)
I don't know, sometimes I look back at these posts and think "did I really type that?" I wish it were easier to explain some viewpoints... sometimes I think this would all be easier over a cup of coffee (I'm not a beer drinker). We're all fans of this art - and I think we all would appreciate a nice, clean copy of Star Wars (I'm happy with most of the changes - just let don't let Greedo shoot and don't let Jabba in ANH)... I don't think the Blu Rays are great copies and I don't think we've seen a great presentation on a digital format yet.

I don't like beating a topic to death, either... but, sometimes I just can't shut up!

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, now I think you're being argumentative just to be argumentative (I honestly don't mean for that to sound insulting, I'm only making an observation). Of course Lucas isn't the same guy he was in 1977 because he's added 37 years of life experiences to the person he was then. I would hope none of us are the same people we were 37 years ago, or mankind is in a lot of trouble. :D
Um, why would one even say that he's not the "same guy" to begin with? It's a given, it's worthless point and the way it was brought up seemed ...um, insulting (for lack of a better word) to me.

I wasn't being argumentative as much I was being sarcastic... which can be considered one and the same. :)
 
...sometimes I think this would all be easier over a cup of coffee (I'm not a beer drinker)...
Nah, it would in all likelihood devolve into a shouting match, and then we'd get thrown out of the coffee house or restaurant for disturbing the other patrons. :lol

...Um, why would one even say that he's not the "same guy" to begin with? It's a given, it's worthless point and the way it was brought up seemed ...um, insulting (for lack of a better word) to me.

I wasn't being argumentative as much I was being sarcastic... which can be considered one and the same. :)
Yeah, sorry, but it didn't quite come across that way in print.

By the way, I understand and agree with (to a degree) your position on the matter. Star Wars (the franchise, that is) is (or was) his creation and, as such, he should be able to do with it as he pleases. And he clearly believes the original theatrical releases of the Original Trilogy movies are inferior to his Special Edition versions regardless of how many fans disagree. But I also agree with those who believe those original versions should be preserved as a part of movie history regardless of Lucas' position. People can argue the legal, moral, ethical, political, and whatever other angles of the issue that they want to use as their platform, but it is my opinion (and nothing more) that Lucas should make every version of the movies available and let people decide for themselves which they prefer.
 
By the way, I understand and agree with (to a degree) your position on the matter. Star Wars (the franchise, that is) is (or was) his creation and, as such, he should be able to do with it as he pleases. And he clearly believes the original theatrical releases of the Original Trilogy movies are inferior to his Special Edition versions regardless of how many fans disagree. But I also agree with those who believe those original versions should be preserved as a part of movie history regardless of Lucas' position. People can argue the legal, moral, ethical, political, and whatever other angles of the issue that they want to use as their platform, but it is my opinion (and nothing more) that Lucas should make every version of the movies available and let people decide for themselves which they prefer.
There's a difference between preserving the film in its original form(s) and selling all those different versions of it. The "original" version was release on the DVD sets - just not to some folks' standards.

For the record, the copyright office does have an original version of the film. How time has effected that... well, I don't know.
 
There's a difference between preserving the film in its original form(s) and selling all those different versions of it. The "original" version was release on the DVD sets - just not to some folks' standards.

For the record, the copyright office does have an original version of the film. How time has effected that... well, I don't know.

people here need a lesson in the concept of Public Domain.

http://www.greatdetectives.net/detectives/movie-public-domain/

and it's worth noting because Lucas has been altering his work, he effectively extends his companies right on it. The argument that the OOT should somehow be considered a projected work has no bearing on its artistic quality, it's some people's nostalgia overcoming common sense. The OT exists for public consumption in the form desired by its creator, end of story.
 
It's not wrong for GL to want to update his old movies. However the public has their own opinion and they want the original cut preserved too. The public is not screaming for GL's blood just because he wants to tinker with his movies. But people get frustrated when he starts fighting access to the original versions.

In the modern era of constantly changing digital recording formats, it takes periodic re-releases just to "preserve" something for widespread public consumption/viewing. Stopping all future new-format releases of the original ANH is not technically cutting off access to it. But it has that effect in practical terms.

One could argue that GL shouldn't be morally obligated to spend money to keep re-releasing his existing work just to keep other people happy. But the flipside of the situation is that he is almost "morally obligated" to make another tidy profit off his existing work with every format update too. IMO if he hypothetically had to lose a few bucks on an ANH re-release then the profit he makes off subsequent SW projects & releases more than offsets it. His earlier work has largely made it possible for his later work to be a success, after all.

The whole situation with all these constantly changing formats is unusual and probably won't last too many more decades anyway.
 
It's not wrong for GL to want to update his old movies. However the public has their own opinion and they want the original cut preserved too.

incorrect. A rather small vocal internet minority feel that way. The vast majority of casual consumers don't know the difference.
 
That's true.

But the vast majority of casual consumers wouldn't care enough about any of this to rate much opinion at all.



I'll bet if you polled a cross section of film & art lovers & historians then you would find they think the original version of something should always stay preserved & available.

Some print & audio cleanup is usually welcomed. But that is usually just very subtle minor technical fixes, no creative changes in any way.
 
incorrect. A rather small vocal internet minority feel that way. The vast majority of casual consumers don't know the difference.

The vast majority don't know **** about ****. They don't follow politics or vote, either. What the vast majority wants is hardly synonymous with what's the right thing to do. And can we stop talking about Star Wars as if it's Need for Speed or Gleaming the Cube? It's not JUST another movie. It's a ****ing historical artifact. It matters. We're not fighting for the theatrical edition of the Phantom Menace here.
 
That's true.

I'll bet if you polled a cross section of film & art lovers & historians then you would find they think the original version of something should always stay preserved & available.

Some print & audio cleanup is usually welcomed. But that is usually just very subtle minor technical fixes, no creative changes in any way.

The vast majority don't know **** about ****. They don't follow politics or vote, either. What the vast majority wants is hardly synonymous with what's the right thing to do. And can we stop talking about Star Wars as if it's Need for Speed or Gleaming the Cube? It's not JUST another movie. It's a ****ing historical artifact. It matters. We're not fighting for the theatrical edition of the Phantom Menace here.
...and then there are those, most likely a majority, that feel that Star Wars is some silly kids movie and that most of us are making mountains out of molehills.
 
The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.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.People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.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.There are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of "The Maltese Falcon?" Why are films cut up and butchered?Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art--as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities."

George Lucas 1988
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread is more than 9 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top