Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
On the other hand, try to see it from his perspective. He was the one who put everything on the line to make the O-OT in the first place. Mortgaging his property, waiving his directorial fees, working himself into a nervous breakdown in an attempt to make the original Star Wars. The money we gave him for bringing ANH to the world wasn't really spent on the sequels, it was spent on the original film. He then took the money he made from that (the really freaking hard way) and put all of it back into ESB and his companies that helped him make it. When we bought into that movie, we weren't giving Lucas money to make ROTJ, we were giving him his invested money back plus profit because he gave us ESB. And so on and so forth. It seems to me like with each film in this series, Lucas brought the film to the table first, and we in turn rewarded him with our money and support. So it's not like he was ever really operating at a deficet with us.
On the other hand, try to see it from his perspective. He was the one who put everything on the line to make the O-OT in the first place. Mortgaging his property, waiving his directorial fees, working himself into a nervous breakdown in an attempt to make the original Star Wars. The money we gave him for bringing ANH to the world wasn't really spent on the sequels, it was spent on the original film. He then took the money he made from that (the really freaking hard way) and put all of it back into ESB and his companies that helped him make it. When we bought into that movie, we weren't giving Lucas money to make ROTJ, we were giving him his invested money back plus profit because he gave us ESB. And so on and so forth. It seems to me like with each film in this series, Lucas brought the film to the table first, and we in turn rewarded him with our money and support. So it's not like he was ever really operating at a deficet with us.
I am a huge supporter of property rights and I don't fault George Lucas on any legal basis. My argument centers on respecting art from an ethical standpoint. His property rights do not give him the moral right to overlook the millions of fans who enjoyed the original versions of his films. Nor do his property rights give him the moral right to erase a lot of the beautiful work performed by other people to help create the original version of his films. His behavior is irrational and wrong.