Did Lucasfilm advertise the 2004 DVD boxset as...

additional changes added to the '97 SE with no originaltrilogy? Nowhere on the boxes or in the advertising to my memory did they state them as such. But the boxset did state: "All three classic films digitally restored and remastered". If I was an average Joe not into Star Wars buying the DVDs for someone else, I would interpret that statement as the original theatrical releases.

I wish there were laws requiring film companies to preserve and restore original versions of their movies that aired in theaters before making changes to them for "updated" media releases to the consumer public. I wish the law required them to include the original versions with updated versions using seamless branching. That would force them to restore the original version in equal quality to the updated versions because seamless branching only works when different versions are identical except for the changes.

I don't know what the typical size of an HD movie is, but you could also have the law requiring them to utilize the full capacity of the disk space for each movie so if there is not enough room for seamless branching require them to put them all on separate disks in equal quality. I wish the law also would require them to state what changes have been made etc.

Well, technically there are laws about false advertising, which it really was, but I guess it's not a big enough deal to get anyone in charge to do anything about it. The dvd of THX1138 is actually worse when it comes to misrepresenting what's in the package. "The movie has been restored!" Huh? Restored to what?

They never advertised it as anything but "The Star Wars Trilogy," IIRC, but they did acknowledge in interviews/press releases that it would be the Special Editions and not the originals.

HOWEVER, I don't think they ever said that additional changes were being made.  When the Hayden-in-ROTJ shot was leaked a few weeks early, most people thought it was a fake, and that Lucas would never do something like that.  Obviously, they were wrong.

And despite me being a purist, I hate the idea of bringing the "law" into it, especially as in your last paragraph which is just ridiculous.

I remember buying the '04 set because I saw the '97 SE in the theatres, owned them on VHS and while not ideal, I could live w/ those changes.  But I read some things on the internet a few days before I purchased the set that had unnerved me (Hayden?!?  Coloring and sound issues?!?) but I, like many others, thought that it was some sort of a cruel joke.  I picked up the set because they were selling fast in my area but left it unopened...a friend had bought the set and was going to keep them either way, so he watched the movies and confirmed my deepest, darkest fears LOL

I returned the set for a full refund and never looked back; I didn't even bother with the GOUT because I knew that would be crap too.  It's amazing how much SW sucks now and how little of a business sense Luca$ has.  I know people may argue that fact and say that he made millions off of the current business model, but I firmly believe that he could make even more if he did things right and offered the seemingly limitless choices that are available w/ the SW franchise...and satisfy what ALL of the fans across the spectrum want...

ChainsawAsh said:

And despite me being a purist, I hate the idea of bringing the "law" into it, especially as in your last paragraph which is just ridiculous.

Yep.

ChainsawAsh said:

They never advertised it as anything but "The Star Wars Trilogy," IIRC, but they did acknowledge in interviews/press releases that it would be the Special Editions and not the originals.

HOWEVER, I don't think they ever said that additional changes were being made.  When the Hayden-in-ROTJ shot was leaked a few weeks early, most people thought it was a fake, and that Lucas would never do something like that.  Obviously, they were wrong.

And despite me being a purist, I hate the idea of bringing the "law" into it, especially as in your last paragraph which is just ridiculous.

ChainsawAsh, what is so ridiculous about my idea to require film companies to include original theatrical release versions with updated versions in equal quality on blu-ray and DVD?  What's wrong with having a few common sense requirements like stating changes made and labeling versions properly? I don't see why this is an unreasonable law to be in place and I wonder why there are no standards for film? With the internet it has made these requirements unnecessary as people can jump on imdb and many other movie websites and find all the information they need about versions of movies.

Most movie companies have enough common sense to make their movie in the best possible quality when released on media, currently DVD and blu-ray. But unfortunately Lucasfilm doesn't have the desire to do that. It's is also the movie company with the most loved and successful film franchise in history. If I wanted to make plea for this law where do I start?

Ghostbusters said:

If I wanted to make plea for this law where do I start?

www.ridiculouslawideas.com?

I guess all the pan/scan/editing disclaimers etc. is something the industry agreed to do as self-regulating, but Lucas is above that. A situation like this is just too retarded to get the law involved, you can't make it illegal to be douchey. (The press for the blu-ray box is just the latest example. "Hey, nerds! Pre-order this thing without even knowing what's on it!")

What about a film that underwent severe cuts due to censorship upon its initial release?  By your law, if the studio is able to restore the cuts and release the film uncensored, they would have to include the censored version too, since that's what appeared in theaters on its initial run.  That would just cause too many headaches.

What if you've already released the original theatrical cut, then you have a director's cut you want to release?  By your law, you'd have to include the theatrical cut with the director's cut, even if the theatrical cut had had a prior release.

The government doesn't need to be involved in everything.  A law such as that would cause a lot more headaches than you seem to anticipate.

And a law requiring them to utilize the full capacity of the disc?  That's stupid.  That limits a lot of what you can do with extra features, commentaries, picture-in-picture commentaries, lossless audio mixes, etc.  Plus, most films don't need the full capacity of the disc.  Requiring them to use it is wasteful.

A copyright is rendered null and void upon the death of the copyright holder, with the work immediately falling into the public domain.

Faceless corporations cannot hold a copyright; only individuals can own a copyright.

Those are the laws I'd like to see come into effect. 

Oh dear God, I wish that were the case.

That's another thing that's a big gray area when it comes to film, though - with so many people that work on it, who owns the copyright?  The director?  The screenwriter?  The producer?  The film studio?

ChainsawAsh said:

What about a film that underwent severe cuts due to censorship upon its initial release?  By your law, if the studio is able to restore the cuts and release the film uncensored, they would have to include the censored version too, since that's what appeared in theaters on its initial run.  That would just cause too many headaches.

What if you've already released the original theatrical cut, then you have a director's cut you want to release?  By your law, you'd have to include the theatrical cut with the director's cut, even if the theatrical cut had had a prior release.

The government doesn't need to be involved in everything.  A law such as that would cause a lot more headaches than you seem to anticipate.

And a law requiring them to utilize the full capacity of the disc?  That's stupid.  That limits a lot of what you can do with extra features, commentaries, picture-in-picture commentaries, lossless audio mixes, etc.  Plus, most films don't need the full capacity of the disc.  Requiring them to use it is wasteful.

ChainsawAsh, you're blowing this out of proportion. I'm not saying every version of movies released has to include the original version, just ONE version with current and future media formats. They can sell them seperately too, but I feel there is too many different versions of movies these days. I think the law should include demands to consolidate versions of movies into less releases. Look at how many times the Star Wars Trilogy has been released. First the 2004 set, then the 2005 set that didn't include the bonus disk, then the infamous disks sold separately in 2006 with GOUT and then the 2008 OT sold again in a barebone set. I'm actually not sure what the 2008 set contained. I'll have to get back on that. But my point is that Star Wars and many other films series have been released too many times. Maybe we should call this a film standard petition run buy the Institution of Film? Not necessarily a law run by the government? Could that work? I'm going to PM you a question that is completely unrelated  ChainsawAsh. 

But double-dipping is just economics.  It makes the studio more money, so why wouldn't they do that?  If consumers buy into it, that's their problem, but I see no reason why it should be illegal.

Ghostbusters is starting to remind me of BadAssKeith.

ChainsawAsh said:

But double-dipping is just economics.  It makes the studio more money, so why wouldn't they do that?  If consumers buy into it, that's their problem, but I see no reason why it should be illegal.

I'm not saying it should be illegal, just annoying.

ChainsawAsh said:

Oh dear God, I wish that were the case.

That's another thing that's a big gray area when it comes to film, though - with so many people that work on it, who owns the copyright?  The director?  The screenwriter?  The producer?  The film studio?

 I believe that in most cases, the studio owns the copywrite to the film itself, and except in special cases, to the characters and situations as well.

TV's Frink said:

Ghostbusters is starting to remind me of BadAssKeith.

That was some of the funniest shit I've ever read. I have to admit, I've had the same thoughts and temptations hes had, but I'm not mentally unstable, well at least my shrink hasn't said that yet.

I disagree with any law that tells someone what they must do with their intellectual property. As much as I enjoyed the 1985 pro wrestling comedy "Body Slam" I don't presume that the owners of that piece of entertainment are obligated to preserve it or present it to me in any high quality format, if at all.

However, I think a rule that packaging must honestly proclaim what is in it, both in food and DVDs is a fair rule, especially in the case of "Star Wars" where LFL has intentionally created so much public confusion.

I demand Body Slam on Blu-ray, unaltered.

TheBoost said:

I disagree with any law that tells someone what they must do with their intellectual property. As much as I enjoyed the 1985 pro wrestling comedy "Body Slam" I don't presume that the owners of that piece of entertainment are obligated to preserve it or present it to me in any high quality format, if at all.

However, I think a rule that packaging must honestly proclaim what is in it, both in food and DVDs is a fair rule, especially in the case of "Star Wars" where LFL has intentionally created so much public confusion.

I think what this all comes down to, at the end of the day, is that those films AREN'T purely "Lucas' intellectual property" - he wasn't like some sort of composer responsible for each last note, and the last two movies... well, do I need to go on? Empire was basically Kershner's work. He did meddle with that one the least, though... 

So, if anything should become a discussion at congress or whatever - if it ain't already - is the concept of "intellectual property" and its possible abuse.

twooffour said:

TheBoost said:

I disagree with any law that tells someone what they must do with their intellectual property. As much as I enjoyed the 1985 pro wrestling comedy "Body Slam" I don't presume that the owners of that piece of entertainment are obligated to preserve it or present it to me in any high quality format, if at all.

However, I think a rule that packaging must honestly proclaim what is in it, both in food and DVDs is a fair rule, especially in the case of "Star Wars" where LFL has intentionally created so much public confusion.

 

I think what this all comes down to, at the end of the day, is that those films AREN'T purely "Lucas' intellectual property" - he wasn't like some sort of composer responsible for each last note, and the last two movies... well, do I need to go on? Empire was basically Kershner's work. He did meddle with that one the least, though... 

 

So, if anything should become a discussion at congress or whatever - if it ain't already - is the concept of "intellectual property" and its possible abuse.

Well said twooffour

+1