Quote
Originally posted by: rogue_apologist
hypothetical.. What if the versions originally released were the exact same thing as the 2004 versions? Would you still have a problem with the recently released dvd's?
help me out, I'm trying to understand if it is the specific changes to the OT you don't like or if it is change in general that bothers you.
If you don't like the specific changes, thats fair enough (I personally didn't care for the audio changes on the Jaws dvd), but to not like change in general precludes the possibility that something really good may come from it.
If the versions orignally released were exactly the same as the 2004 DVDs, the fact is, I don't know what I'd do. I don't know if SW would have had the same impact on me or on pop culture in general as it did in 77, 80 and 83. That psychological conundrum aside, as Bossk said, the number of films in which both the original version and the SE (or director's cut, or whatever you want to call it) are available on DVD far outnumbers those in which only one version is available, that being the director's cut. Given the choice, I would prefer to have both. It is not only insulting to fans of the original work, but insulting to those actors and craftspersons who made contributions to the work and rightfully won awards for the groundbreaking work that was done on the films @ the time, to only release one version and claim that , as far as you're concerned, the older versions no longer exist.
So, as a recap:
Do I think GL has the right to change his work? Yes, I do.
Does it really matter if I like it? No.
Do I stand by my original statement that the only reason GL can get away with this is because he owns all copyrights as pertaining to SW? Yes, and the evidence backs me up. Just ask David Lynch, Orson Welles (RIP), David Fincher, Ridley Scott (don't get me started on Blade Runner), or any other director who has had a film ripped away from him and manipulated without his consent.