logo Sign In

George Lucas on 60 Minutes. — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
"And the OT can be released in both editions. Thus for Lucas "the house" would be white and for the those that prefer it to be green, it would be green. Why not give the fans the choice?"

But it's not the same house - unless he's willing to admit that copies of the original unaltered films no longer exist. If they do, then there are two different houses, and he has torn down the old one so no one can see what color it used to be.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Well, if they no long exist then Lucas is an even bigger ass then I've given him credit for being. For how in god's name could he allow the OOT to cease to exist?!? It's one thing not to release it, but to destroy it would be exceedingly stupid!
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Well, if they no long exist then Lucas is an even bigger ass then I've given him credit for being. For how in god's name could he allow the OOT to cease to exist?!? It's one thing not to release it, but to destroy it would be exceedingly stupid!
Especially when he knows he can probably charge us through the nose for it.
Author
Time
Post link
You could probably find the OVs on a bit torrent and burn them onto a DVD.

4

Author
Time
Post link
You really haven't been paying attention to the other sections of this site at all have you?

There are already like 6 different versions of the OOT on DVD out there, I own about 4 of them.
"I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
Author
Time
Post link
Yes but none of them are legal, and you I did I should have to rip a copy just to get the OOT on DVD
Author
Time
Post link
But I allready own the SW movies on both legal VHS and legal DVD, so it doesn't matter. Think about it. If they aren't "different" movies like Lucas says, then where's the harm in having "back-up" copies that happen to not have the post 1990 altercations?

4

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: TheSessler
You really haven't been paying attention to the other sections of this site at all have you?


Guilty as charged.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I still want Lucas to release the OOT on DVD.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Yes but none of them are legal


- According to George Lucas they DON'T exist anymore as the new official 2004 DVD's are what he had truly envisioned NOT what he did back in 77'- 83' - therefore they cannot be illegal since they do not exist

“My skill are no longer as Mad as the once were” RiK

Author
Time
Post link
Oh dear Lord. Your analogies fail because it is still his house. He can paint it neon pink and no one can make him do otherwise. Everyone in the neighborhood can call him up and tell him they liked it the old color, and it was better the old color, but as long as he can sleep at night with it neon pink, that's his own choice, it's his house.

I want the OT to be availible as it was seen originally. But my personal wants have nothing to do with what George Lucas can do as an artist. If he wants to repaint the mural, it's his choice, it's his painting. Providing an unaltered copy of the painting for the masses would be nice, but there is no burden upon him to do so.
The Jedi are all but extinct.......
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Rikter
Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
Yes but none of them are legal


- According to George Lucas they DON'T exist anymore as the new official 2004 DVD's are what he had truly envisioned NOT what he did back in 77'- 83' - therefore they cannot be illegal since they do not exist


How the Hell could that moron Lucas have possibly envisioned the effeminate Hayden Christensen as the ghost of Anakin Skywalker? HC was like two years old when that movie came out!

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
First off, George Lucas isn't a moron. He created the two characters that you use for you 'User Name'. Secondly, the idea of having the circle be complete with the Anakin Skywalker whose story was told in the previous chapters is probably what he says he 'envisioned' which is what he did in the theatrical ROTJ. But the person playing him changed, so he made the switcheroo.
The Jedi are all but extinct.......
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Hardcore Legend
Oh dear Lord. Your analogies fail because it is still his house. He can paint it neon pink and no one can make him do otherwise. Everyone in the neighborhood can call him up and tell him they liked it the old color, and it was better the old color, but as long as he can sleep at night with it neon pink, that's his own choice, it's his house.

I want the OT to be availible as it was seen originally. But my personal wants have nothing to do with what George Lucas can do as an artist. If he wants to repaint the mural, it's his choice, it's his painting. Providing an unaltered copy of the painting for the masses would be nice, but there is no burden upon him to do so.


You fail to listen. If you are painting a house and then selling the house, are you going to paint it the color you like or are you going to paint it the color the potential buyers might like?

It may be your house but if I don't like the color I don' t have to buy it from you. And remember there are laws limiting what you can do with your house regarding eyesoars

And I say again a house is not the same as a movie! The OT can be released in BOTH editions!

Yes, technically they are his movies so he has the legal right to do what he wants. But does that make it morally right, logical,sensible,fair or smart? No.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Hardcore Legend
Oh dear Lord. Your analogies fail because it is still his house. He can paint it neon pink and no one can make him do otherwise. Everyone in the neighborhood can call him up and tell him they liked it the old color, and it was better the old color, but as long as he can sleep at night with it neon pink, that's his own choice, it's his house.

I want the OT to be availible as it was seen originally. But my personal wants have nothing to do with what George Lucas can do as an artist. If he wants to repaint the mural, it's his choice, it's his painting. Providing an unaltered copy of the painting for the masses would be nice, but there is no burden upon him to do so.


Bullsh--

Let me give you a situation. Let's suppose you saved up money to buy a copy of Marvel vs. Capcom 2. You have a Playstation 2, so you are intent on getting that version. So you go to buy it--but for some reason, even though you find a store that has it in stock, they say you are not allowed to buy it. The reason is because this version is "no longer acknowledged" by the creators. They then tell you that if you still want the game at all, you must buy the X-Box version, because it is "definitive." It doesn't matter to these guys that you have the money to buy the Playstation 2 version, that they actually do have it in stock, or that you don't have an X-Box. You either buy "the definitive version" or you don't buy the game at all.

Fortunately, the above scenario itself hasn't happened yet (because Capcom is nowhere near as bad as George Lucas), however that's essentially what is happening here.

The "house" example does not work, because the house is for Lucas and his family and no one else. Lucas did not make Star Wars for himself, he made it for an audience. What Lucas is doing is nigh-on being a dictator, telling us precisely WHAT we're allowed to watch or spend our hard-earned money on.

I mean, by that logic, I'm not allowed to complain about how greasy and unhealthy a McDonald's burger is because "it's their burger, they can make it however they want." Yea, they're making it, but they're not the ones who are gonna have that burger running down their digestive system, and they're not the ones shelling out money to buy those burgers--the customer is.

When you support George Lucas' changes, you're essentially saying that big rich guys are allowed to control what we can see and hear. From there, they start dicking the customer around, telling them what they are and aren't allowed to buy and treating them more and more like crap, and taking this high and mighty "you should be thankful you have Star Wars at all, you swine!" stance. At this rate, George Lucas could release a Star Wars Trilogy boxed set that is nothing but blank discs and claim it's his "original vision," and there would still be people defending that as being perfectly moral and ethical and saying we should "be thankful" he released Star Wars on DVD at all.

REALITY CHECK! We're not Oliver, starving at a sweathouse and requesting more to eat (and even if we were, that scene was played up to show how inhumane such establishments were). We're customers who work hard and earn the money, and it is our decision and OURS ALONE what we choose to spend it on. If Lucas isn't going to give me the Star Wars I want, then I would rather live with just my VHS copies--and if Georgey boy hasn't released the version I like by the time those tapes degrade, then I can just live without Star Wars. It'll be a big loss, but I'd rather accept that loss than let some guy I don't even know make me his bitch.
Author
Time
Post link
I feel that somebody needs to jump to Hardcore Legend's defense here and, although I agree with all your view points (i.e, the OT should be officially released and not denied) I think that HL is correct in regards to Lucas' obligations etc, and though you might not be happy about it, don't label what he says as bullshit because it's not. And as for the legality of our unofficial OT DVDs, if we own the originals on video of Laserdisc, and we bought them legally and Lucas got royalties for them, why shouldn't we own backups? It's the same with emulated video games - if you own the original cratridge or disc, you are allowed to downloaded a 'backup'. I have legally paid for the OT Star Wars trilogy 3 times on VHS and I have also legally paid for the '97 SEs and the 2004 DVDs, so anyone who tells me my OT DVDs are illegal can kiss my ass.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
If a may put an exception here: Many municipalities "force" the residents to a particular architectural standard in order of the neighborhood to maintain it's style, so there are some cases that you can't fully control how your house will be.
But besides that, the whole house-thing analogy is not a proper one. In legal terms, yes, GL can do whatever he wants with his movie. But using a more common sense-ethical point of view, someone building his house has any right to do whatever he wants, because he will be the only one living there. That is not the case with art that it's intent is to counteract with other people. If we follow the "house" arguement to conclusion, we have to assume that GL made the SW trilogy purely for himself (like a house builder would), and therefore should not release it in theatres either.
Moreover, noone has to make the house in a way other people like, because he alone will pay for his house. On the contrary, a film is a self-funding creation. Artists make art that at least some other people have to like, because if they don't the creator will be broke and owing everybody.

The truth with SW and any other piece of art is that it doesen't affect only it's owner/creator. And if GL would be a little more straightforward to himself, he would see that nobody argues about him changing the movies, the whole issue is about releasing the original versions too. If you build a new house, you don't have to go and wreck your old residence, you can always rent it to someone.
After all, the original versions, and the support of the fans who want them is what brought him into the financial position to re-make them.
In a more artistic point of view: Many artists have created different versions of their masterpieces (Van Gogh's sunflowers, Da Vinci's Maiden of the rokcs and so on and so on...)
No one EVER destroyed or renounced the past versions, because this would be a direct insult primarily to himself, but also to the masterpiece and the peolpe that admired it.
I could understand someone not releasing his art to the public for personal reasons (like GL not releasing the OT in DVD) but denying his creation's existence (like he has so elequently stated) is another thing.
This is called ingratitude towards the people who liked his work and supported it, making him who he is today.
And now, for your feature presentation:
The Classic Re-re-re-release of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back.
In this version the word "WOOKIE" has been changed to "HAIR CHALLENGED ANIMAL" and the entire cast has been digitally replaced by Ewoks.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
I feel that somebody needs to jump to Hardcore Legend's defense here and, although I agree with all your view points (i.e, the OT should be officially released and not denied) I think that HL is correct in regards to Lucas' obligations etc, and though you might not be happy about it, don't label what he says as bullshit because it's not. And as for the legality of our unofficial OT DVDs, if we own the originals on video of Laserdisc, and we bought them legally and Lucas got royalties for them, why shouldn't we own backups? It's the same with emulated video games - if you own the original cratridge or disc, you are allowed to downloaded a 'backup'. I have legally paid for the OT Star Wars trilogy 3 times on VHS and I have also legally paid for the '97 SEs and the 2004 DVDs, so anyone who tells me my OT DVDs are illegal can kiss my ass.


Is Lucas Legally obligated to release the OOT on DVD? no. Morally,ethically obligated? yes. As for the legality of the unofficial OOT DVDs? I thing I will leave that for lawyers to answer.