The Official Boycott Star Wars Bluray thread

I certainly like the look of my words better than I like most people's. Honestly, it's a massively short list. Hemingway, Ellison, Parker, Verne, Pynchon, some Atwood. Heinlein, the crazy old bastich.

Then me, and then everyone else. So don't take it personally that I like the look of my words better than yours. The odds aren't really with you, at all.

And I'm thinking of Steve as Blaphe, now, too, Martyn, damn you.


Better late than never Larry, still im sure you feel even better about yourself now. And to quote someone else, never tell me the odds.
Was not even addressed to you, man some people would lick themselves to death if they were ice creams.
 
Last edited:
That's a legal distinction, not an ethical one. The legal issue is not open for debate. If you own the rights to the films, they're yours to do with as you please.

The ethical issues is very much open to debate, raising questions of whether an owner who is not also an author has the right to modify a work, whether an author who IS an owner has a right to further modify a work, and what role the audience plays in the consumption of their work, etc.

I don't disagree that LEGALLY Lucas has the right to do as he pleases. I'd laugh at anyone who'd suggest that they should, for example, file a lawsuit against him to enjoin him from mucking about with the OT. He has every LEGAL right to do so. The U.S. and other countries also legally grant authors certain "moral rights", which include modifying a work -- even when it isn't owned by the author -- in ways that would harm the author's reputation, etc.

NONE of that, however, addresses the further ethical issues that Lucas himself raised in his 1988 testimony where he addressed the public's interest in preserving works of art. Certainly, taking his statements at face value, you would think that 1988-Lucas appears to place the public's interest in art preservation above all else -- including the author. At this point, though, I would think he would simply argue that the author's rights trump all others. Ethically, though, I think that's open to debate, especially when the author seems to want to suppress previous versions of works that they themselves had in the past been only too happy to endorse. I actually think you could have a pretty interesting philosophical debate on the nature of art itself and how art should be treated using Star Wars as a case study. I actually do think that authors should be granted strong rights with respect to their works, but I think Star Wars and the post-release tinkering that's gone on raises some other concerns about the public's experience of art running counter to the author's own desires, as well as just how far an author's control over their work should go in a legal respect, and whether it matters when the public will find ways to circulate "its" version of a work.
 
Better late than never Larry, still im sure you feel even better about yourself now.

Well, it was Labor Day here in the States, mate, and there's bound to be a lag in responses over weekends anyhow and holiday weekends in particular.

But I'm not sure it's possible for me to feel better about myself as I do now, what with me being so damn awesome and whatnot.

Was not even addressed to you...

Dang; of course not. But posting in the field engenders the field posting back, yah? If you wanted just one person responding, I'd suggest just PM that person in the future.

man some people would lick themselves to death if they were ice creams.

My position on ice cream and chocolate is well known to serious, long-term contributors to the site.
 
That's a legal distinction, not an ethical one. The legal issue is not open for debate. If you own the rights to the films, they're yours to do with as you please.

The ethical issues is very much open to debate, raising questions of whether an owner who is not also an author has the right to modify a work, whether an author who IS an owner has a right to further modify a work, and what role the audience plays in the consumption of their work, etc.

I'm not a lawyer, of course, and I don't even play one on TV. I've even set up my company in such a way that I don't have to address this issue. But I am curious how you see an ethical "debate" for the work for hire concept, which working on the various SW movies obviously is.
 
Thanks for the social behaviour advice, Im slowly backing out the doors now
so you can get back to work on the self portrait.
 
Dang; of course not. But posting in the field engenders the field posting back, yah? If you wanted just one person responding, I'd suggest just PM that person in the future.

Hey, I know we haven't always seen eye to eye, but for god's sake don't suggest he PM me!
 
There would be no possible reason in this or even the star wars universe for that to ever happen. Really. You can go back to whatever is was you were doing, between the two threads its hard to tell and i will bother you no more, lifes too short, hopeing you can do the same
 
I'm going to throw a cat amongst the mice here...In the U.K. you can own a historic building but you aren't allowed to do what you want to it... and in the U.S. you can own a Brownstone and you can't put the rent up. So we have examples of the fact that ownership alone does not grant you carte blanche.
 
Simpletons Viewpoint Warning:

I love Star Wars. I have my whole life (I'm exactly the right age to be able to say that, and still not be remotely young). I love the untouched original trilogy the best, and I'm glad I own a copy. I also really like the Special Edition OT, and the prequels. Not to mention piles of Mr. Lucas' other work.

If he changes them again, though I wish he wouldn't, I'm OK with that. I bet I'll enjoy them, and get a copy anyway.

Really though, Star Wars IS considered one of the greatest films ever made, I fail to see how altering it can in any way be an improvement.
 
In Sweden at least, those buildings are marked as historical by experts, just not random people at the internet giving themself the right to judge. If you decided to paint your house, you are intitled, and would not like people telling you what to do, or even better saying they want to hurt you for it?
 
That's a very interesting point.

let's hope for your neighbour's sake thatyou don't decide to paint your house flouro green with pink stripes.

So how has Star Wars been judged by experts? Has it been inducted into any halls of honor by "top men".

(what top men? ...TOP MEN!)
 
In Sweden at least, those buildings are marked as historical by experts, just not random people at the internet giving themself the right to judge. If you decided to paint your house, you are intitled, and would not like people telling you what to do, or even better saying they want to hurt you for it?

Any film studies scholar, critic for a major publication (not just fanboy sites or whatever), or pop culture historian/professor would agree that an unaltered OT is a historic treasure. ANY. Like I'd bet my life's savings on it. They are experts.
 
That's a very interesting point.

let's hope for your neighbour's sake thatyou don't decide to paint your house flouro green with pink stripes.

So how has Star Wars been judged by experts? Has it been inducted into any halls of honor by "top men".

(what top men? ...TOP MEN!)

You missed the point. If you argue that some movies, like a few buildings, should be marked as historical and no changes allowed, then we need a system, like for houses, where experts decide if and when. Thankfully we dont have that, and Lucas is free to do what he wants with his films. :thumbsup

And no my neighbours should not care what I want to do with my house.
 
Since we are talking about preserving films. What about the Library Of Congress? A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back are on it's preservation list. Are these original, unaltered copies?
 
You missed the point. If you argue that some movies, like a few buildings, should be marked as historical and no changes allowed, then we need a system, like for houses, where experts decide if and when. Thankfully we dont have that, and Lucas is free to do what he wants with his films. :thumbsup

And no my neighbours should not care what I want to do with my house.

You don't consider the Oscars or being on the Library Of Congress preservation list to be a system of judging cultural value?
 
I'm not a lawyer, of course, and I don't even play one on TV. I've even set up my company in such a way that I don't have to address this issue. But I am curious how you see an ethical "debate" for the work for hire concept, which working on the various SW movies obviously is.

Ethically, I think a "work for hire" is fairly tricky and fact-specific because it's, by nature, a collaborative effort. If you believe that the artist's rights are paramount, and that the artist's vision must be maintained, then the next question with a "work for hire" is the degree of collaboration between the person doing the hiring, and the person who's been hired.

With Star Wars, I think it's tough to say without knowing the creative process. I suppose it could go like this.

George says to John Williams, "John, I want you to do a score that's really kind of epic. I'm looking for something particularly triumphant here, and then at this point, we're talking major confrontation with evil. Big, sweeping stuff. Think you can do it?" So, John says yes, gets to work, writes his score, and turns it in. George says "No, not quite. You're on the right track, but I'm thinking more horns, fewer strings. The woods are good, though. Let's keep those for the Princess' theme. I like that." John goes back to his studio, comes up with some more stuff, turns it in, George says "Perfect! Just what I wanted."

So, who's the author here?

Same deal with, for example, the design of the Stormtrooper helmet. George goes to Ralph McQuarrie and says "Ralph, I'm looking for something kind of chilling here. These are the Empire's elite troops, and I want them to be almost mechanical in nature, looking kind of like skeletons." Ralph comes back with one design, George says "Good, but not quite. Maybe we can make the face more skull-like? Also, lose the breathing masks for the heroes. We need to keep them visible. But I like them on the badguys. Let's work with that, just not with a lot of tubes." Ralph goes back to the drawing board, comes back with a new design, George says "That's it! You got it! We'll probably have the prop guys tweak it a bit, but that's the base design. Great job!"

So, again, who's the author?

On the one hand, George is the author. He guided the hands-on artists here to create something, then moved them in a different direction. They're creating all of this at his behest and also within the framework of his creation. On the other hand, though, they ARE creating and George is not. George doesn't have a design for stormtrooper armor, beyond what's sort of loosely in his head and/or described in the script. The two artists here are collaborating on creating a design that BOTH agree on, so I don't think George gets to claim sole ownership of the design in an ethical sense. Actually I'd say that's more the guys he has working for him. At least in the scenarios I described above.

I suppose it'd be different if, for example, George drew a basic concept art piece for the armor, hands it to the prop guys, and says "Make this." Likewise, it'd be different if he hummed a few bars of whatever had popped into his head for John Williams and then said "Now take that and adapt it for an orchestra." The more the material is solely George's creation, the more "ownership" think he gets in an ethical sense.

So, now what happens when, for example, George changes the design of the Sarlacc Pit? If he originally hired Ralph and said "Ralph, design me this huge monster that's basically a mouth with tentacles that's a pit in the desert," and Ralph does, then George adds a really big tentacle in the middle so it can swallow Boba Fett whole, is that his right in an ethical sense? Well....I'm not so sure. It's Ralph's design, but it's Ralph's design at George's basic description, which which George is now messing. This could actually be an argument why, legalities be damned, the continued messing with the films is ethically improper and a betrayal of the artists' work -- because the films are collaborative efforts, and not SOLELY the ethical property of George Lucas. Lucas isn't the sole artist, so he should not have the sole right (again, ethically speaking) to later add stuff to the designs.

Anyway, that's what I can come up with midway through my first cup of coffee at 7am. :)
 
Ok , Ill try to understand the Lucas doesnt own the rights argument.

Are you against all changes done since the release? Should a filmmaker be able to clean up his film before a rerelease? Can he or she delete misstakes like microphones showing? If yes, who decides which ones?

There were different cinema versions with different sounds when Star Wars was first released. Would they all be considered property of the public?

Basically what I ask is who, if not Lucas, decides on changes in his films?
 
And which version of the original do you save? The 70mm version, the scope 35, the flat 35 for TV, the 16mm version with the mono soundtrack?

There are at least five versions I've seen.

Now who gets to decide.
 
You don't consider the Oscars or being on the Library Of Congress preservation list to be a system of judging cultural value?

So are we moving from films being like houses to the Oscar jury deciding which films arent allowed to be tinkered with? :confused
 
Back
Top