Twilight Time September/October 2012 Releases (1 Viewer)

[Moe Dickstein]

Oy vey - I need to use the [sarcasm] tag.

 

[Worth]

I support Lucas' right to do anything he wants to Star Wars. It is his film, not yours

I know it's been cited before, but:

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....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 - George Lucas, 1988

 

[Moe Dickstein]

Lucas was talking about others altering works - not the artists themselves.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Moe Dickstein /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/270#post_3983504
To quote Homer Simpson, "In case you couldn't tell, I was BEING sarcastic"

If it's any consolation for you, i could tell but, i am a Brit.

 

[rsmithjr]

I support Lucas' right to do anything he wants to Star Wars. It is his film, not yours

Complicated issue.
I guess I would come down on this in the following way:
1. As the copyright owner, Lucas has the legal right to do whatever he wants to the films.
2. As the owner of my money and my screening room, I have the right to purchase or not purchase his products. My current holding on Star Wars is the widescreen LD's for the original trilogy. Sorry, no Blu-ray. (I did buy the Indiana Jones box but do miss the reflection of the snake!)
3. As to the moral rights, it is highly questionable. I believe that legal rights and moral rights are and should be very different issues in general. So, I don't feel any discomfort in suggesting that Lucas has failed a moral obligation to those who appreciated his work. Not as seriously as if he had burned the negatives of course, but a violation nevertheless.
Films are a manifestation of peoples' subconsciousness as surely as dreams. Changing a film forces us to change ourselves in some small way. This should be done with the very greatest of care.
Personally, I find myself missing changeover marks, VistaVision framing cues, bad mattes, noise and hiss on the soundtracks, as well as other more substantive changes. I generally support good stereo conversions, but still miss the old mono optical sound at the same time. Mostly I end up approving of such changes ("the defects take the modern viewer out of the film") but there is still a loss, and the balance must be a careful one.

 

[Worth]

Lucas was talking about others altering works - not the artists themselves.

I'm sure he was, but he also said this:

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

 

[Moe Dickstein]

And I believe Star Wars et. al. are still under copyright...
Robert - I agree totally with your post.
The artists should be able to do as they wish.
The public then should support or not support with their dollars.
But I do not have the right to alter art because I feel it is better for whatever reason, and while the moral argument is certainly grey, it never trumps the legal one, in my view.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Lucas has nothing on Chaplin.

 

[Worth]

Then there's also the question of who is the artist when it comes to filmmaking. Lucas didn't direct Empire or Jedi, and even though Kershner didn't object to Lucas' changes, Marquand was no longer around to voice an opion for or against them.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by Worth /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/270#post_3983540
Then there's also the question of who is the artist when it comes to filmmaking. Lucas didn't direct Empire or Jedi, and even though Kershner didn't object to Lucas' changes, Marquand was no longer around to voice an opion for or against them.

Usually, Producer > Director, especially when its a Producer like Lucas, Selznick, etc. Spartacus is in many ways Kirk Douglas the Producer's film more than Stanley Kubrick the Director's film, for example.

 

[rich_d]

Usually, Producer > Director, especially when its a Producer like Lucas, Selznick, etc. Spartacus is in many ways Kirk Douglas the Producer's film more than Stanley Kubrick the Director's film, for example.

Agreed. It's whoever has final approval of the film.

 

[John Weller]

I don't see anything wrong with Lucas, Freidkin, Savini, anyone making new versions of their work, so long as the oriignal isn't snubbed. I see no reason why disc 1 can't have director's new version and disc 2 has original version.

 

[rsmithjr]

Then there's also the question of who is the artist when it comes to filmmaking. Lucas didn't direct Empire or Jedi, and even though Kershner didn't object to Lucas' changes, Marquand was no longer around to voice an opion for or against them.

There is no one "artist" IMHO. Star Wars had a large number of creators, including all of the trades and actors. Movies are collaborative enterprises even when you have a very strong personality involved. I would argue that critics and audiences have a role in the "creative" process by shaping how the film is received and what significance it is given.

 

[rich_d]

I would argue that critics and audiences have a role in the "creative" process by shaping how the film is received and what significance it is given.

I don't see that at all. We have a reaction ... hardly a creative process.

 

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by rsmithjr /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/270#post_3983523
Complicated issue.
I guess I would come down on this in the following way:
1. As the copyright owner, Lucas has the legal right to do whatever he wants to the films.
2. As the owner of my money and my screening room, I have the right to purchase or not purchase his products. My current holding on Star Wars is the widescreen LD's for the original trilogy. Sorry, no Blu-ray. (I did buy the Indiana Jones box but do miss the reflection of the snake!)
3. As to the moral rights, it is highly questionable. I believe that legal rights and moral rights are and should be very different issues in general. So, I don't feel any discomfort in suggesting that Lucas has failed a moral obligation to those who appreciated his work. Not as seriously as if he had burned the negatives of course, but a violation nevertheless.

Couldn't agree more. If you don't like it, don't buy it. It's as simple as that. If no one bought the SW releases because of the omission of the original original trilogy in hi def, that might send a message. But lots of people grabbed the sets.

Filmmakers have the right to approve/disapprove or change their material. And we have a right to not spend money on the product if we choose not to.

That being said, I think it makes good sense to include both versions, especially for "bigger" properties. In this particular case, if the director has signed off on the appearance, I'm not going to argue that. If there was no sign off, then I'd have a problem.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Originally Posted by John Weller /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/270#post_3983544
I don't see anything wrong with Lucas, Freidkin, Savini, anyone making new versions of their work, so long as the oriignal isn't snubbed. I see no reason why disc 1 can't have director's new version and disc 2 has original version.

In a perfect world there would always be the option.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I see a big difference between changing a films content and changing a film's look, why did Tom Savini not film day for night twenty years ago, no one is asking that question.

 

[Jason_V]

Originally Posted by FoxyMulder /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/270#post_3983554
I see a big difference between changing a films content and changing a film's look, why did Tom Savini not film day for night twenty years ago, no one is asking that question.

Maybe the production schedule wouldn't let him. Maybe there were weather problems. Or location problems. Really, if we're going to get down into the trenches with that, why didn't they use real zombies and real blood instead of actors and fake blood? (Okay, I'm kidding on one part of that...)

 

[FoxyMulder]

Originally Posted by Jason_V /t/321400/twilight-time-september-october-2012-releases/270#post_3983555

Maybe the production schedule wouldn't let him. Maybe there were weather problems. Or location problems. Really, if we're going to get down into the trenches with that, why didn't they use real zombies and real blood instead of actors and fake blood? (Okay, I'm kidding on one part of that...)

Its a relevant question and i didn't see weather problems with the original scenes before they changed them, they work out the production schedule in advance of filming.

 

[rich_d]

Maybe the production schedule wouldn't let him.  Maybe there were weather problems.  Or location problems.  Really, if we're going to get down into the trenches with that, why didn't they use real zombies and real blood instead of actors and fake blood?  (Okay, I'm kidding on one part of that...)

What ... the part that they used actors?