logo Sign In

DanielB

This user has been banned.

User Group
Banned Members
Join date
15-Jul-2004
Last activity
5-Oct-2005
Posts
594

Post History

Post
#79450
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79450/action/topic#79450
Time
I would define original as anything made up using only the available original sound and picture material. You can do pretty much anything with it, I see it as all part of the original painting, and that some inevitably gets covered depending on the frame you choose and how it's positioned. I know that's an incredibly loose definition, but by crikey it will do. Anything made up of 100% unaltered original material will do fine. I know the one thing you can argue over is the "A New Hope" crawl - but then it may well have been an original element anyway. So long as the material was made prior to the theatrical release, I consider it original material.

Lucas can have a few minor differences, IF he's using the original material. That I'm fine with. Ergo I'm fine with all the versions up to 1993. If he was to make more changes that differed significantly from the theatrical versions, then I'd call that a directors cut, and yes he should also release a theatrical print. However that definition does not fit the 1997 or 2004 versions for the simple reason that they all use newly created material. For this reason they are completely separate movies. They are not a different cut of the original movies, they can't be because they couldn't have been cut together that way in 1977, 80 or 83. A different cut of a movie is basically a cut that could have been put together at the time of the original release, using all the material available.

Simple right? An Original Empire Strikes Back movie is one that uses exclusively material that was created PRE-1980, including material not exclusively created for it - so long as the material was intended for use in the film. Anything else is not a true Original Empire Strikes Back movie. If it contains material created after 1980 then it is a new movie that simply uses some older material. Zion (and thankyou Zion for at least having the sense to advertise the fact on the discs they are not original) is using original material, and newly created 2004 material that he is creating for the release; ergo it is not an original Star Wars movie.

MeBeJedi I just spent the better part of an hour deleting spyware shit that my 12-year-old brother infected the PC with. You seem to be the kind of person that would claim it is your right to put in an EULA "we will put some invasive software on your PC" - without actually saying it like that, and making it seem more normal, and then use bait-software to infect people with invasive software that earns you revenue. That of course is not your right, and it is a completely illegal contract under Australian law. To explain this to you so you'd actually understand would take hours, so I'll give you the basic picture.

Let's say that you are hospitalised. The doctor comes up to you with a document for you to sign. I don't know medical terminology, but the doctor might say "This document basically says you agree to a surpovilliar tretrycardia, and that you understand this basic operation is going to take place under the effect of a local anaesthetic". You sign it in good faith and wake up 7 hours later to see your leg missing. You didn't know you agreed to have your leg cut off - that would be an illegal contract (meaning in the High Court of Australia you would successfully win your case against the hospital). This is because although you signed the document, and although the name of the operation was used - the doctor had failed to explain to you what it meant. You cannot sign something you don't understand and be legally binded to it.

Although, as I said explaining the full scope of this would take hours, it basically means that as far as I am concerned EULA's are not legal documents unless it can be proven they are read, understood and agreed to. If you install a software that you understand is all you are installing, and it ends up instaling more software - that is illegal.

It's like when you walk into a shop and there's a sign that says "It is a condition of entry into this store that all bags be presented upon leaving". That sign is not a legal document, even when you read it and understand it. If you walk into the shop without agreeing to it, then you cannot be binded to it. They can say to you on your way in "by entering this store, do you agree to present your bags upon leaving?" And if you say "yes, i do" - then, and only then would it actually be a legal document. The shop does not have a legal right to look into your possessions. Neither does police, unless they have grounds to suspect you of a crime.

Another example might be that there is a sign saying "we are not responsible for motor vehicle theft or damage incurred to your vehicle while parking in this carpark". While it is technically legal, the scope to which it implies is not. For instance, if the on-duty parking-box boy spots someone smash a car window, hot wire the car and leave - and does nothing, then you do have legal grounds to sue the operators of the carpark. If he didn't see it, well you'd be out of luck there - unless you can prove that 1. you didn't read the sign and 2. you had reasonable grounds to believe that your car would be looked after. This might apply if you drove to a hotel, and let one of the hotel's employees park your car (just as an example I can think of).

As you can see I'm all for personal rights. I'm not capitalistic, I do not believe in censorship - in the government controlling the media etc - and I do believe that film history is important and will become more important in the years to come.
Post
#79368
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79368/action/topic#79368
Time
S64, i continue to agree with you. Zion the differences between the 1993 versions and the theatrical versions is all based on original material - not new stuff. Lucas didn't shoot new shots, or make new effects, or digitally edit anything. It's like taking the old picasso out of the 1977 frame and sitting it in a new 1993 one that shows slightly more of the left and right boarders - you're just seeing a little more of the original painting.

To put it another way, in 7 years time you will still think of yourself as being the same person, although every single molecule in your body will be different to the ones currently there. The molecules that currently make up your body will all be discarded and scattered everywhere.

And MeBeJedi - you claimed it was your right. You're the one who made that claim, deal with it. DarthS, small changes made using the original material and nothing else do not tend to bother me. It's just looking at the same thing in a different way.
Post
#79331
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79331/action/topic#79331
Time
Zion:

Your augment is mute. You are asking Lucas to release his work unaltered. Let's - for augments sake - say "his work" refers to an important artistic painting, such as a Picasso. We're not talking about filters run over it to improve the quality of the photo-shot (because, let's face it when photographing painting for printing you do need to run scratch and dust removal templates - but that's hardly the scope of what I'm talking about here, which is deliberate change such as physically painting over Picasso's work).

Lucas won't release his work that he controls unedited. He has physically painted over the original Picasso painting. While it could be cleaned and restored back to its previous state, since Lucas controls it that is how it now is. He's changed a few details that bothered him. Now let's say that limited unaltered prints were available before Lucas got his brush to it, and that they are hard to come by. One of them is in your possession and you have the ability to produce 3rd generation prints from them. The artistic community is rallying to have the original preserved and released. They make a petition. It says "We want Lucas to release the Picasso work in his control unaltered to the artistic community for historical reasons". You sign the petition.

Then, instead of producing 3rd-generation uncensored prints, you decide that there is a couple of things about the painting that bother you. For instance, Picasso drew the floor in and shadows on three out of the four figures, so you add the fourth shadow. And that is how you are going to release your prints. This, Zion, is more-or-less what you are doing with the star wars trilogy. You're expecting Lucas to do something you will not do.

MeBeJedi:

There are plenty of artists that would re-use their canvases, what's your point? So what if Picasso might have painted over something he didn't like (if he did re use canvases, I don't know), it's not like he painted over someone else’s work, or even his own work that had become historically important.

-edit-

Oh and by the way, you do not have the right to "do whatever I want with my transfer on my computer". It is illegal. It is not your right, and that you believe it is your right does not make it so.
Post
#79261
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79261/action/topic#79261
Time
Thanks Zion for discussing this civilly. However some points remain, and I shall get to them shortly. The first thing I will do is restate the argument of changes from theatrical to 1993.

Firstly, all were made from original material. None of the material was digitally tampered with. The one exception to this is the title crawl on ANH which was replaced with something new. However since it was replaced BEFORE the entire trilogy was complete and shown theatrically I'm willing to forgive this.

Zion, here it is. If you're saying I can't ask you to release your restoration unaltered - then it is hypercritical of you to ask Lucas to do so. I don't care what you say. If Lucas owned a Picasso (yes, I'm going to keep using Picasso) and refused to release prints of it - how do you think the art community would react to you and MebeJedi editing your prints of the painting and then distributing it? What you are saying is equivalent to "it always bothered me that Picasso only half drew the guy on the left, and that in the entire image he's the only one where Picasso didn't paint neatly into the lines - so that's all I fixed"?

Please see sense.
Post
#79259
Topic
Censorship of the original films
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79259/action/topic#79259
Time
So tellan, obviously ife I control a Picasso I can:

  • Fix the colours, after all picasso would have used a more vibrant red, if it was on his pallet.
  • Fix the imperfections that have been bothering me.
  • ...More of MY paint on Picasso's paiting...

    And then distribute that altered work, correct?

    Skeg, that is basically my argument. Film history - I'm trying to say - is like any other artistic history - like paint. And no, censorship is not stoping something from being seen, but rather controlling what is being seen. You can ban something - that isn't strickly speaking censorship. But if you say "yes, you can show this so long as it's like THIS" - that is censorship.
    • Post
    #79198
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79198/action/topic#79198
    Time
    Reply to MeBeJedi:
    Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
    First of all, "capitalistic censorship"?!? I was going to put these on MySpleen, you moron. I'm willing to forget you called me that, despite the fact that I did post a warning explicitly stating that that the post might rattle you up.
    Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
    Secondly, you are not going to change my mind or transfer in any way, shape or form. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post.
    That is what Lucas would say.Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
    What's the point, since I'm going to make my transfer MY way. If YOU don't like it, too bad, BUT DON'T COME IN HERE BITCHING AND WHINING BECAUSE YOU AREN'T GETTING THE VERSION YOU WANT!
    That is what Lucas would say.
    Post
    #79197
    Topic
    Censorship of the original films
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79197/action/topic#79197
    Time
    Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
    For all your talk of "censorship", I can't get over how much you are trying to censor my version.

  • A Jehovah Witness would say "I can't get over how much you are trying to censor our Bible".
  • "I can't get over how much you are trying to censor my version of the Noddy books."
  • "I can't get over how much you are trying to censor our version of The Sound of Music."
  • "I can't get over how much you are trying to control our Region Protection Control."
  • "I can't get over how much you are trying to limit our control of the media."

    In answer to you calling my posts "trolling" and threatening to get Jay onto me, let me quote this from mverta's original posting:Originally posted by: Jay
    I'm going to let this post stand for now, but it's crossing the line a bit. Why?

    The 2004 editions are a completely new product. You can buy them in the store.
    • I thought this forum was about preservation? So does Jay. The difference between Lucas and Mverta, MeBeJedi and Zion isn't much. They all want new fresh digital effects. They all want to do it their way. The only real difference that I can see is that the end product will look different from each one.

    Why don't I want all-new digital effects? Why am I happy with the imperfect originals?

    Because that is how they were made. I don't want to re-paint other's work. I don't want to be given re-painted or edited work. I want to enjoy their original art. Movies, books, music, paintings - are all art. Most artists go through different artistic periods - that is if they continue to produce art. This is the case with Picasso, it is too the case with Lucas. If he had made the prequels at the time the originals were made they'd have been very different. Letting modern-day Lucas edit classic-day Lucas' work with new material is the problem, it is why we don't have the originals currently available in a home-video format.

    This site was made, as far as I know, to say to Lucas "we want to see and enjoy your original, unaltered work". Lucas has seen this site. And he's decided that he wants to do it his way. He might look at these message boards and discover people don't really want to enjoy his work anyway. They all want to do it their own individual ways, separate to his original ways or his current ways.

    Well, I for one do not want to see it YOUR way MeBeJedi. And I don't want to see it YOUR way either Zion. And I don't want to see it YOUR way Mverta. And if you're going to make your own version with fresh digital effects Laserman, well then I don't want to see it your way either.

    In fact I don't want to see it Jay's way, I don't want to see it Spider's way, I don't want to see it Rikter's way, I don't want to see it Dr_Gonzo's way - and I don't want to see it My way either.

    Would the man who made Star Wars please stand up? Please stand up.
    Post
    #79119
    Topic
    ***The MeBeJedi feedback thread ***
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/79119/action/topic#79119
    Time
    Warning: The following material may offend some people. It contains well thought-out arguments against selfish capitalistic censorship, and should be read with extreme caution. The material in this post will challenge what you strongly believe in, and may change your mind on something which was very important to you.

    Zion. Let Me Put It This Way: IF I had a picasso, the original painting and I've kept it preserved for art lovers to see, would it be right of me to "fix the part that bothered me"?

    Would that be preserving Picasso's work? More To The Point: Would it be preserving the painting?

    Enid Blyton was the author of Noddy. She has since passed away. Her work should have been preserved, instead it was edited to "make it better" by the capitalistic censoring morons who thought having the Golliwog character in it was raciest. Alright, fine. If YOU wrote the noddy books TODAY you would do it differently, but these were written at a DIFFERNT time in a DIFFERENT culture, and right or wrong her work shouldn't be censored.

    That what this is about, it's not about what specific changes you want to make. If you want to make your own specific version like MagnoliaFan - go for gold, make it into your own artistic take of the Star Wars Trilogy - however THAT does not preserve the original trilogy and neither does this. Just like me painting a collage of Picasso paintings into one doesn't preserve Picasso's work, it's just my own inventive input made using his creations.

    ADigitalMan, to answer your question. Do people look at original art for any particular reason? Why do people look at picassos rather than MY IMPROVED "picasso paintings"? Are you telling me, if Picasso painted a dull looking picture, and I made it look better you would prefer to look at my version of it rather than picasso's original?

    "Episode IV: A New Hope" is not a MAJOR concern for two main reasons. The first is that it was released theatrically in that form before the entire trilogy was completed, and the second is that Lucas did honestly intended it that way from the beginning.

    LD Man I don't have the time or the resources to make that option viable right now. Though I would like to, we don't get everything we want - and we can't do everything we want to ourselves. As I've said before, no painting is perfect, we don't want them to be and we shouldn't change them to be so. They reflect something about that time, they capture a presence. As do movies. Do you want to watch the Elephant Man as it is, as it was made Theatrically - or do you want to watch an "improved" colourized version? Do you want to watch the original Terminator with all-new improved digital effects? Do you want to watch The Star Wars Trilogy with all new digital effects?

    Well, it seems that you do. As does MeBeJedi and Zion. You all want brand new digital effects, so long as YOU are in control of them. So much for respecting originality. And the only difference between you and Lucas is the choices you make with the digital changes. I'll now share with you consequences of censoring work:

  • Jehova Witnesses exist because they read from censored scripture.
  • Enid Blyton's Noddy books were censored after her death.
  • In South Korea they thought "The Sound of Music" was too long, so they censored it by removing all the songs.
  • RPC (Region Protection Control) exists to limit consumers ability to play back legally acquired material.
  • In many countries governments control the media.
  • Censorship is who people are when they aren't themselves.

    Notice yet how it is capitalistic? I'm not the bad guy. The censors are.
    • Post
    #78785
    Topic
    ***The MeBeJedi feedback thread ***
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/78785/action/topic#78785
    Time
    Let me explain this to you Mebejedi, and Zion. Editing work is censoring it. David Lynch directed Dune right? He's credited as director for the Theatrical version - even though it isn't exactly how he wanted it. But you won't find him credited on the 3-hour TV version, because Lynch was opposed to it. So rather than saying "so bloody what, we made the theatrical version the way we wanted over you, we're going to do it again" - they said "yes, okay we'll acknowledge that this isn't your movie". I mean how capatalistic would it be to destroy the thatrical print and then just make available the 3-hour tv version?

    I like director's cuts. Made from the original material. Anything else is re-making the movie peice by peice no matter how small. Although Lucas would probably argue that his original theatrical versions are not unauthorised versions, they are still the orignal authorized versions. You are just creating different unauthorised versions, like the tv version of dune. Except that it was an authorised version since it was made by the owner (studio). How can you cherish originality in edited forms? I know that the 1993/1995 LD's aren't theatrical - but at least they were made only from original material.
    Post
    #78784
    Topic
    .: Moth3r's PAL DVD project :.
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/78784/action/topic#78784
    Time
    That's a silly idea.

    There are already PAL-to-NTSC issues. NTSC people will just loose out, they should watch it in PAL. All your Brittish and Australian telivision is shot in 25fps anyway, which means NTSC has a worse pulldown applied than the regular 2:1. This also applies to movies like Aliens which was shot in 25fps and shown at that rate theatrically. It's pointless trying to pioneer a "universal" system. Just release the NTSC (true 30fps) stuff in NTS, the PAL stuff in PAL and create a new format for 24fps Film.
    Post
    #78519
    Topic
    ***The "SPIDER" Trilogy DVD Info and Feedback Thread***
    Link
    https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/78519/action/topic#78519
    Time
    Yeah, always wrap in a peice of paper, don't use a box. I use bubble-wrap too (you wouldn't believe how much I have) since you never know what it's going to be sitting under. Since I'm lazy I usually print the address onto the paper too, of course this I do for international postage which I have to go to the post office (because they are by law required to check my ID). In Australia I can use prepaid envalopes that are cheaper than individual postage would be (they cost $1.20 each, cost of posting the discs would usually be 3 stamps/$1.50).

    When posting international stuff (come to think of it) at least half the time my ID does not get checked, I just fill in the customs form and they don't ask for any ID. I assume they just stick the "ID Checked" sticker on anyway once I've left. Maybe it's because they see me all the time. Who can say? Of course I've posted many different things to many different countries so I know the regulations, rules, "red tape" so to speak. But it's nice when you're served by one of those lazy lazy bogans that can see you've got non-printed material, but doesn't even ask you to fill out a customs form.