If Yoda and Obi-Wan didn’t know each other, how would Obi-Wan be able to tell Luke where to find him?
Lucas wouldn’t have risked to end the PT with an R rated movie. That would have severely reduced his ticket and toy sales.
I’m also very interested to see the MPAA and BBFC ratings for this. At least with BBFC we’ll know if anything gets censored for a lower rating, but it’s entirely possible we’d never find out if the same is true here in the US.
If censorship happens, it’ll most likely be from the MPAA here in the US firsr, then that censored cut will be the “official” cut and would be the version that gets sent to the BBFC and other countries. So if the BBFC cuts anything, it’s possible that it would actually be twice-censored…
I can’t imagine that any
DisneyStar Wars movie would contain a shred of content warranting an R rating.
WYSHS
I thought the non-spoiler thread was for discussion of official material, like trailers, so that the rest of the forum stays clean for anyone who doesn’t want to know anything about the movie before seeing it. And the spoiler thread is also for discussion of leaked plot details and such.
Hillarious 😐
Also, shouldn’t trailers and other promo stuff be kept in the non-spoiler thread of the corresponding movie? I think some people might want to go into the theater without having seen any of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI7nhSIuHg4
The Star-Spangled Banner from the point of view of a professional musician. Very interesting.
I don’t like haikus. I mean, what’s the point, really? Limericks are fine.
WYSHS
The only thing I can think of (and this applies to the entire trilogy) is for it to be R rating material.
Mind you, I love the OT as it is. However, I always imagine an alternate universe where the lightsaber doesn’t cauterize wounds, blasters result in bloody sprays, the Rancor graphically devours its victims, Jabba’s eyes pop out when Leia kills him, etc. Obviously I would never expect exploitation-type violence, just something in the line of Conan, the Alien franchise or John Carpenter’s films.
Essentially such a scenario would have prevented the franchise to become what it is now, albeit the films would still get a much deserved cult following.
While I don’t see how weapons utilizing superheated plasma could leave behind bloody injuries, this.
I also would’ve liked some more sexual content in the series. I’m not saying we needed any sex scenes, but some nudity wouldn’t have hurt.
With all these elements, I probably wouldn’t have been able to watch Star Wars as a kid. I wouldn’t have played with Star Wars Legos, I would have never watched the DVDs and noticed how they are not the same movies I’ve seen for years. I wouldn’t have hated CGI dinosaurs and I would have never visited OT.com. I probably wouldn’t be interested in movies and moviemaking as much and I wouldn’t have watched films like 2001, Blade Runner, Alien or Robocop. Even if my interest in classic sci-fi movies would have been sparked by something else, Star Wars probably wouldn’t be my all-time favorite movie.
So, no. Star Wars doesn’t need isn’t improved by these things.
This one is also quite good:
Stay on topic.
Name one person on here who is a Disney apologist, because I don’t know of any.
Definition of Disney apologist:
one who speaks or writes without constantly criticizing Disney.
Apparently, everyone except for Alderaan is a Disney apologist here. Who would have thought?
And many millions more liked the movie the way it is. If you argue with numbers, at least make sure the numbers actually support your point.
This is a very favorable interpretation. Here’s another take:
It’s not a re-mix, it’s a re-creation. Any differences to the actual theatrical cut are small, and they are unintentional. It’s not putting anything in a new context. Just because there is no home video release of the OUT does (sadly) not mean it’s not protected by copyright. The educational part of this project could be achieved by showing a selected few scenes.
Copyright law as a whole should be changed so that copyright holders also have the responsibility to preserve their work for future generations. It’s not worth going to court over some stupid ebay sells and risk to shut the whole fan-edit scene down.
Thank you, Frank Your Majesty!
As “fair use” is defined as “the use of LIMITED AMOUNTS of copyrighted material”, I am not even sure that it can be invoked here, even though it is only broadcast in a family circle: it is not a “limited amount” of copyright material, but an entire work.
Fair use can be recognized even when only one of the four criteria is met (from the wiki article: “However, courts have occasionally found use of an entire work to be fair use”). And if you show your edits only to your family, the strongest point in favor of fair use is that you don’t interfer with any hypothetical sales. No company is going to sue you if they don’t think they are losing any money because of you. And no court will spend time discussing such a case.
I’m not a lawyer but I have access to google and wikipedia.
Exclusive rights
There are six basic rights protected by copyright. The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
- To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
- To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
- To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
- To publicly perform the work, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
- To publicly display the work, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work.
- To digitally transmit sound recordings by means of digital audio transmission.
A violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder is a copyright infringement, unless fair use (or a similar affirmative defense) applies.
Fair use
Fair use is the use of limited amounts of copyrighted material in such a way as to not be an infringement. It is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107, and states that “the fair use of a copyrighted work … is not an infringement of copyright.” The section lists four factors that must be assessed to determine whether a particular use is fair. There are no bright-line rules regarding fair use and each determination is made on an individualized case-by-case basis.
- Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are more likely to be fair use. This does not mean that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair use or that all commercial uses are not fair. Instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
- Nature of the copyrighted work: Using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.
- Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. Using a large portion of the copyrighted work is less likely to be fair use. However, courts have occasionally found use of an entire work to be fair use, and in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair use because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.
- Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.
In addition to these four factors, the statute also allows courts to consider any other factors that may be relevant to the fair use analysis. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on the specific facts of that case. There is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.
The justification of the fair use doctrine turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. “The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test… If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original–if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings-- this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.”
Making a fan-edit interferes with point 2 of “exclusive rights”, however, if you made this fan-edit for yourself and you watch it only with your family, you’d have a very strong case that this is covered by “fair use” as you’re not interfering with anyones business. (See point 4 of fair use.)
This doesn’t hold up anymore when you share your edit with thousands of people. Besides the altered scenes, a fan-edit also consists of many scenes found in the original work, which interferes with point 3 of “fair use” and distributing your fan-edit therefore violates point 3 of “exclusive rights”, as you’re also providing the unaltered scenes to the public. (Obvisouly, you’re always interfering with point 2 of “fair use”.)
You could make the claim that your edit is transformative (see point 1 under “fair use”) and has additional value over the original work, but if this argument was easily accepted in court, we would’nt have to have this discussion right now. Fan-preservations can by definition not be transformative, as their goal is precisely not to change a work of art, so no luck in that departement.
The only thing this community has left is point 1 under “fair use”, which is “non-commercial use”, but that alone isn’t enough in court. And this is the only difference to the people selling fan-edits on ebay. And in the eyes of the law, this difference is minuscule. Drawing the attention of authorities to these sellers also means drawing their attention to the creators of fan-edits.
Harmy isn’t publicly distributing his projects himself. Thus he isn’t responsible for the objective breach in copyright because someone else posted his work. Get it?
But Harmy is publicly distributing his project himself. He posts about it and he (indirectly) tells people how to get it. And at one point the files had to go from his computer to some file hosting service. Do you really think any judge would accept “well, someone broke into my computer and stole the files whenever I finished a new version of the movie, but I have never contacted the police about it.” as an excuse?
@LordHaseo
I got the whole tutaminus thing from Jensari 1 on Youtube. Nevertheless, Vader could just absorb it using his lightsaber or could continuously disrupt Sidous’s concentration by using telekinesis thusly preventing him from using force lightning.
But can’t Vader use ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA to block Sidious’s Kamehameha‽
See here.
Yes.
Sooner or later, every thread becomes a 4K Restoration thread. That’s one of the laws of thermodynamics.
It’s also one of the ways scientists suggest the universe might end, which seems plausible.
(I put ANH lower because it uses more varied styles that don’t fit as well with the saga as a whole while TESB, TPM, and ROTJ are more thematically unified)
I completely disagree. For me, Star Wars has the perfect score, every piece is unique and memorable. From Empire onward, there are a few outstanding pieces, while most of the music just blends in and isn’t nearly as prominent as in Star Wars.
How is “solid but maybe slightly unoriginal new movies and no OOT” worse than “bad new movies or no new movies at all and still no OOT”?
Some other sites have a “shoutbox”, which is similar to IRC in look and feel, but no way to know who’s actually there unless they say something.
So, basically the Random Thoughts Thread?
true, but it happens sometimes in society (Germany 1930s and the South of the USA) that ideas from the Nazis/KKK are more popular then the ideas of MLK. In order to make sure MLK’s freedom of Speech is protected in such an era, we protect the Nazis/KKK(unless they become violent and/or break the law).
You seem to think that the Nazis would respect your freedom of speech as much as you respect theirs. Was MLK’s freedom of speech protected in 1940s Germany? No, they abolished freedom of speech as soon as they could.
EDIT: now fixed 😦
If 4K becomes a movie enthusiast niche format, then a new scan of the SE might not be a compelling selling point.
I always called my aunt’s husband ‘uncle’.