The Official Boycott Star Wars Bluray thread

[Solo4114]

The speech seems very out of context, I read it as he wanted laws to keep other people from altering the artists work.

You guys need to quit taking that clip out of context.

He is talking about other people changing others works. People that are dead.

That's a very narrow reading of the text on the website. Lucas is indeed talking about other people modifying someone else's works (He specifically cites the colorization of the Maltese Falcon and it being objectionable to John Huston). But it's the reasons WHY he says it's objectionable that, to me, show how his mindset has changed. It's also the stated reasons why that make the two analyses above a narrow reading.

If you want the full text from the website, here's what it says. I'll highlight the portions I think are relevant to his reasoning as to why the changes being discussed were problematic:

My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.


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. Tomorrow, 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.

To me, the highlighted portions go to Lucas' mindset behind why altering these works is bad. The issue, when you look at the highlighted portions, is not MERELY that someone ELSE (other than the author) is altering the works, but rather that the cultural heritage of a people is being destroyed when it ought be preserved. Who is altering the work is, ultimately, irrelevant when you consider his comments about maintaining a work in the interests of the public, and when you look at his characterization of copyright laws.

Compare those statements to his current actions, and it's pretty clear that he's acting contrary to what he said in 1988. As I said previously, it's not as if the quoted portion above contains some allowance for the original author to subsequently modify the work. Lucas' contention -- at least in 1988 -- was that the modification of the work alone (regardless of who it's by) is an affront to the public interest.

If he changed his mind since then, hey, find and dandy. We can debate the merits of the public interest bases for copyright law, an artist's control over their work after publication/distribution, and the relationship between author and audience til the cows come home. That's not really the point. The point is that the guy said "A" and is now doing "B" in direct contradiction to his previous statement on the subject. That's it. You may not CARE that he's contradicting himself, but to claim that he isn't actually contradicting himself is intellectually dishonest, at least based on the text quoted above.


Now, as far as taking it out of context, that's the full quote of the text from the website. I haven't been able to find an online copy of the Congressional testimony so far. Did you happen to read the Congressional testimony itself? If you have a copy of the full testimony, or a larger portion of text where he later expands on those statements, I'd be curious to see it.

To my way of seeing it, without some other statement later in the testimony, which says something akin to "Of course, artists themselves should be free to subsequently modify their work, regardless of its impact on cultural heritage," simply saying "Oh, he's just talking about OTHER people modifying works" is a weak defense at best.

 

[The Rock-a-who]

I know you're not singling anyone out and I don't even mean this rant against you personally but rather against everyone that keeps saying essentially the same thing you just said regardless of whether it was worded politely or not. (Your's was one of the more polite ones for what it's worth.)

Yes, there are always a few bad apples. Yes, the RPF has had its fair share of liars, re-casters, thieves and worse.

But this is still a community and if you can't give folks in the community the benefit of the doubt then it just makes me wonder why you're here. If you can't take our word on it when we say we won't buy a blu-ray in the store, why would you send us money for a prop? Why would you trust us when we say "this is the most accurate way to build whatever prop?"

I mean, disagree and debate with folks but don't infer that "many of us" are liars or hypocrites who say one thing and do another. Yes, there are those that do that but try to remember "innocent until proven guilty."

Most of us are pretty freakin' nice guys I think with no real reason to lie. I've met quite a few in my ten years here and was hoping to meet more at DragonCon (unfortunately it's not gonna happen this year.)

So just cut folks some slack already.

Sorry, wasn't inferring the RPF group here, I was more commenting at the USAToday poll which takes anonymous and man-on-the-street polls.

Naw, I have no doubt in here people say what they do and do what they say.

Sorry about the accidental accusation if it came out that way.

 

[dualedge]

Sorry, wasn't inferring the RPF group here, I was more commenting at the USAToday poll which takes anonymous and man-on-the-street polls.

Naw, I have no doubt in here people say what they do and do what they say.

Sorry about the accidental accusation if it came out that way.

Thanks for the clarification on your post. After the earlier comments from others got me worked up, I was set to unleash my holy rant. :lol My opinion on the matter still stands (against those I mistakenly lumped you in with - sorry for that) but I trust you.

Thanks and no hard feelings on my side.

 

[ecl]

I literally laughed out loud when I saw the Obi wan yelling clip and the Vader no no no noooooo clip :lol It's sad because these films meant a lot to me and these new versions are like jokes haha

There was just always something cool about sensing what might have been going on in Vader's mind before he threw the emperor over. The action is always so much more powerful than the words. Hearing him say No a bunch of times feels like Lucas is trying to force feed emotions into the audience and explain everything to the point of ridiculous, kind of like the prequels.

 

[Carson Dyle]

No one has more respect for what Lucas has accomplished than I do, but this latest change has crossed a line for me. It's one thing to embellish a transitional shot with a herd of CG banthas, or to open up the corridors of Cloud City with CG cityscapes, but once you start futzing with the very climax of a beloved saga that has stood the test of time for 30 years you run the risk of destroying the soul of your creation.

Certainly, Lucas has every right to “refine” the films as he sees fit, and to be sure, some of the changes (removing matte lines) are welcome, however, making changes for change's sake... well, some people just want to see the films they fell in love with from a filmmaker who was able to make the absolute best of what he had, at the time that he had it.

A man has got to know his limitations, as Eastwood once famously uttered, and as such, just because the ability exists to edit a film long after it has been released and consumed by fans doesn’t mean it should be exercised.

If anything, it shows just how much Lucas has abandoned the art and inherent responsibility of filmmaking. And it’s sad, really, because I feel as if Lucas lost sight of what his films were supposed to be, and now only makes changes to satisfy merchandising opportunities or impulsive whims.

 

[blip]

The speech seems very out of context, I read it as he wanted laws to keep other people from altering the artists work.

I see where you are coming from.

So it's an artist-centric view of the world. The artist has the right to change his own work, but other parties do not.

So if the people who made the old Black and White films decided to colorise them, then that would be ok in George's mind?

It's totally possible that George is not aware that to the viewers there is a direct parallel between adding colour to an old B&W classic and adding a "Noooooooo" to Star Wars.

It's a question I'd love to put to George.

 

[exoray]

Interesting poll from USAToday.com

Will you buy it? Yes 24%
No 51%
Undecided 25%

Polls like this are utter nonsense...

If 1 in 4 people in the US buy it then LFL will laugh all the way to the bank with the number 1 selling Blu-ray of all time by leaps and bounds...

But, rather then speculate just wait until the end of September or October when the real sales figures roll out and then we can have a real debate on how many people really give a hoot about the changes...

 

[NAZGÛL]

Solo4114, I can understand your points, but In my opinion Lucas is not talking about artists working on their own art at all, but other people going against the artists will. I just cant see this happening here. Lucas is the artist behind SW, and does have the moral rights to it. The loss for the cultural heritage is when someone alters the art against the will of the original artist. I cant see this hapening here.

I think this text is taken out of the original intention, and using it in this context is wrong as, like I said, Lucas doesnt talk about artists changing their own work, but others doing it against their will.

 

[micdavis]

with the very climax of a beloved saga that has stood the test of time for 30 years you run the risk of destroying the soul of your creation.

You mean the scene that used to be referred to as the "tennis match" scene.

I always thought the back and forth head bobbing was a little much in that scene and so did a ton of other fans back when ROTJ first came out.

Did it need that No.

Well, Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

 

[PHArchivist]

The point is that the guy said "A" and is now doing "B" in direct contradiction to his previous statement on the subject. That's it. You may not CARE that he's contradicting himself, but to claim that he isn't actually contradicting himself is intellectually dishonest, at least based on the text quoted above.

Not only did he say "A" (and is now committing "B"), he stated "A" in a formal, on-the-record arena.

Not to say he is OBLIGATED to abide by his words simply because they were offered in a Congressional forum. But it'd be hard to find a more formalized arena in which to do so, outside and actual court of law.

Frankly, considering the gross (and pervasive) contradiction of his Congressional testimony, I feel he absolutely owes the public a reconciliatory statement.

But alas, I am just one...

 

[Carson Dyle]

Make no mistake, the marketing team at Lucasfilm are in HEAVEN right now. Not even Lucas can afford to buy this kind of publicity.

I only wish that's all this amounted to... a marketing department publicity stunt.

 

[NAZGÛL]

I see where you are coming from.


So if the people who made the old Black and White films decided to colorise them, then that would be ok in George's mind?

He doesnt say anything about it. I think its fair to think he would have thought so, as he reacts against the artistist having no say.

 

[micdavis]

Jett needs to go to film school, quit before he is done, then Francis Ford Coppola tries to hire Jett to remake Radiers of the Lost Ark. To save Jett, George will toss Coppola off the Golden Gate Bridge.

 

[PHArchivist]

Solo4114, I can understand your points, but .

To be perfectly honest, (and with all due respect), I don't beleive you do. If you fully understood Solo4114's points, I'm not certain there would be any further debate. At a bear minimum, be open that you don't agree with them (though that is implicit in your post).


However... I do not understand how one might not agree with Solo414's points (or mine).


These are just some examples of unequivocal statements made by GL.


American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.


Taken out of context or not, these statements, again, do not equivocate. They are clear. Precise. To the point. And they are unqualified - these statements do not depend on the source of the work in question; they do not bear the luxury of selecting if and when they may apply.

Lucase threw it out there:

"Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."

And a mere nine years later, he himself re-wrote an icon of our cultural history...

 

[blip]

He doesnt say anything about it. I think its fair to think he would have thought so, as he reacts against the artistist having no say.

Hmm, interesting point.

Considering that an artist makes a work for public viewing, would you say that while the artist owns the work, the public also have a stake in that work? A sort of shared ownerhip to some degree?

 

[Solo4114]

Solo4114, I can understand your points, but In my opinion Lucas is not talking about artists working on their own art at all, but other people going against the artists will. I just cant see this happening here. Lucas is the artist behind SW, and does have the moral rights to it. The loss for the cultural heritage is when someone alters the art against the will of the original artist. I can see this hapening here.

I think this text is taken out of the original intention, and using it in this context is wrong as, like I said, Lucas doesnt talk about artists changing their own work, but others doing it against their will.

I think you're reading the text through the lens of his current attitudes. If you try to make the two fit together, that's pretty much where you'd have to come out. To me, it's pretty clear from the text -- even if the original question was "Is it ok for other people to alter an artist's work?" -- that Lucas' attitudes in 1988 were that changes to the work in and of themselves were bad.

Arguably that was because it violated the artist's intentions, but also because it destroyed the public cultural heritage of what was established. The statements about the public trust, and preservation of the work imply that Lucas' attitudes -- in 1988 -- were far more concerned with the audience's experience of a work rather than the author's subsequent attitudes. Bear in mind that 1988 was a very different world anyway, before the advent of "Director's Cuts," and "Special Editions" and such, before the rise of CGI, etc. Ted Turner colorizing this or that was as bad as it had gotten and, as Lucas himself pointed out, it was the tip of the iceberg.

I think if all you did was read the text, without knowledge of any future special editions from Lucas, or any further tinkering, you'd probably come away from it thinking that he was against the modifications of films after they've been released because the films upon release ALREADY represented the artist's vision as best was possible, AND because doing so would violate the public trust. Moreover, the statements about preserving cultural heritage don't really make sense if that cultural heritage continually shifts at the whims of the artist down the road. Cultural heritage is, as the phrase itself implies, bigger than merely the artist's momentary vision. It also has to do with the cultural experience of that vision after it's released to the public.

So, again, to me, 1988-Lucas has a very different attitude from 2011-Lucas. 1988-Lucas seems to be more about a balance between the artist's intent and the public's experience of a work, and seeks to preserve both. Probably because, at the time, they didn't conflict for him. Now they do, though, since his intent and preserving the work (as it originally appeared and was experienced) for the public have diverged.



All of that, of course, is wholly separate from the merits of the arguments either would make. As I said, we can debate which is a BETTER attitude -- the sovereign rights of the artist vs. the preservation of the public's experience of that art. But all that is irrelevant to whether 1988-Lucas and 2011-Lucas are on the same page. I think the text speaks for itself pretty clearly.

Not only did he say "A" (and is now committing "B"), he stated "A" in a formal, on-the-record arena.

Not to say he is OBLIGATED to abide by his words simply because they were offered in a Congressional forum. But it'd be hard to find a more formalized arena in which to do so, outside and actual court of law.

Frankly, considering the gross (and pervasive) contradiction of his Congressional testimony, I feel he absolutely owes the public a reconciliatory statement.

But alas, I am just one...

Exactly. It's not that he's obligated to hold onto his attitudes from 30+ years ago. But to me, for him to come out and say "No, no, see, that doesn't ACTUALLY contradict what I said because..." is just intellectual dishonesty and/or self-delusion. If your attitude is different, fine. Own up to it.

 

[Carson Dyle]

You mean the scene that used to be referred to as the "tennis match" scene.

I personally never had a problem with Jedi's climax, nor was I aware of the great "tennis match" controversy. Seems perfectly consistent, stylistically, with the none-too-subtle saturday matinee vibe that runs through the entire OT.

At any rate, the climax as originally released worked well enough to generate a huge explosion of applause the opening night I was present, so Lucas must have done something right.

 

[NAZGÛL]

Id prefer if you didnt tell me what I understand or not. Picking arguments from a speach used in a totally different discussion is rethorical, at best.

 

[DL 44 Blaster]

Make no mistake, the marketing team at Lucasfilm are in HEAVEN right now. Not even Lucas can afford to buy this kind of publicity.

I only wish that's all this amounted to... a marketing department publicity stunt.

I believe it is just that with the exception of it being a "stunt". Not that there's some homegrown LFL conspiracy going on with round table meetings and suit's conniving on how they can screw with the fanbase, but you bet your arses it's a reason for making "changes".

History is an indicator back to the first round of SE's. How else did LFL expect the movie going public back in '97 en masse to go to see a then 20 year old film saga....and to ramp up interest in his new saga? With changes.

Seems plausible.

 

[PHArchivist]

Id prefer if you didnt tell me what I understand or not. Picking arguments from a speach used in a totally different discussion is rethorical, at best.

Again, I offered my post with respect. I typed "with all due respect" genuinely. Not as an exercise. I apologize if I offended you.

At least in the U.S. it is my experience that people often enter into an statement of differing opinion by offering a conciliatory, "I understand, but..." when really, they either do not understand, or (more likely) they do not agree. The "I understand, but..." hence becomes somewhat disingenuous.

Maybe that was the case with your post, maybe not. Solo4114 is a master at drawing points, so perhaps his points are fully understandable.

But clearly you don't agree. Perhaps a more effective lead in might be, "I respect your points, but do not agree with them."