re: Star Wars
 

Stephen King took Rage OOP because several school shootings were tied to it:
http://www.businessinsider.com/schoo...shelves-2014-3

The original version of the "Riddles in the Dark" is available as a supplement in some editions of The Hobbit (such as the annotated version). The rest of the edits were relatively minor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hobbit#Revisions

For The Lord of the Rings, revisions again were minor, and we've subsequently seen publication of early drafts of the novel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lor..._and_revisions


Blade Runner is interesting, because for a long time the only version available on DVD was the so-called "Director's Cut." However, then the Final Cut was released on DVD/HD DVD/Blu-ray, Ridley Scott included not only the Final Cut, but every previously released version of the film, including a rarely seen Workprint version. So there was no suppression of any previous version, even ones Ridley Scott no longer considered his true vision.

re: Star Wars
 

DVD and Blu-ray are great formats for presenting multiple versions of films. If you look earlier in this thread you'll see me describe my ideal Star Wars release.

I'm not entitled to have Lucas or Disney or Fox release my ideal Star Wars Blu. I have zero problems when it comes to understanding this.

re: Star Wars
 

Shakespeare has already been altered numerous times; it's alright, because we still have the original version.

How do you reconcile that thought with George Lucas's own claim that "a copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history"? He was talking specifically about films and film preservation in that quote, you know.

Here's another quote from that speech:

re: Star Wars
 

I don't think anyone here feels that they're "entitled" to their "ideal Star Wars Blu." Most of us would like the original versions to be released though, and there is an argument about preservation of an artifact of our cultural history though.

Keep in mind that the Library of Congress' National Film Registry added Star Wars a few years back, and asked for a film print of the original version for archival and film preservation purposes. Lucas refused to give them anything but the SE version, which they declined. This wasn't a home video release, but a single print that would be rarely seen, only held onto as part of an archive of our cultural heritage. Lucas basically thumbed his nose at the highest honor our country can give to a film:
http://savestarwars.com/lucas-nfr.html

re: Star Wars
 

Star Wars will never be lost. It's my understanding that anyone who wants to see it can arrange to see it at the Library of Congress or track down a theatrical print or a DVD or whatever. Again, there's a huge difference between sending the Censorship Gestapo across the world to erase all traces of something and deciding against making a consumer-friendly version.

And in this case I firmly disagree with the young Lucas's quote. I'd argue against it. If I make the artistic and/or financial investment in a film I want the right to cut it up and alter it and turn it inside out and make it unrecognizable if I want. Not everyone is in a position to expect that but Lucas played his cards right and got it pre-Disney that was that.

re: Star Wars
 

Nope. Library of Congress does not have a copy they can loan out or let people view:
Lucas also forbid any screenings of the original versions. Most theatrical prints private collectors have were gotten illegally, and only a few clandestine screenings of the original versions have been done in the past few years.

Legally, you have the right. However, once you release a version of the film to the public, especially a wide release, there are those that feel that ethically you should at least keep that particular version available, in addition to any further revisions you make.

Almost every other home video release of a film has released the original version of the film; sometimes in tandem with a newer version, sometimes as a separate release. Pretty near every other director has seen the value in letting the original theatrical version still circulate. Lucas is pretty much the only one who doggedly tried to restrict the release of the original theatrical version so much.

re: Star Wars
 

Slightly different issue - since this last flareup, there haven't been any denials from Disney or Fox (that I'm aware of). Does this mean anything or is just not on their radar?

re: Star Wars
 

Nice story over on The Atlantic website today:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...to-see/379184/

re: Star Wars
 

Yeah, it was linked to a few hours ago.

Not this particular story. You may be thinking of this Polygon article from last week:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/18/603...alized-edition

The Atlantic article is new in that it actually contains an interview with Harmy. I'm guessing the Atlantic article was actually partially inspired by the Polygon article, or at least the revived rumors of an official release.


The lack of a denial doesn't really mean anything. Disney, Fox, and Lucasfilm aren't going to make official responses to rumors unless they hit some sort of critical mass where they have to respond.

I think that until they have some concrete official information which they want to publicly release, they'd probably rather not release any information that can be misconstrued as disinformation. I'm sure they'd rather be 100% sure of what things will be before any official announcement.

re: Star Wars
 

I doubt Disney is going to make any announcement denying the UOT is being released.

"Disney would like to comment on recent online reports that Lucasfilm is working on releasing Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi in their original theatrical versions on blu-ray and digital. These reports are false, you are stuck with Lucas' shit versions for eternity. Thank you, Bob Iger"

re: Star Wars
 

Key difference is that most plays aren't recorded and released but are performed numerous times by different theater companies and performers. Films get released generally speaking in one version to the general public so most people come to know a theatrical release of a film. No one is asking anything outrageous of Lucas. I and I'm sure others would be fine with him making all the changes he wants but there's absolutely no reason to not give us the theatrical versions of the trilogy as well. He can go on with his bullshit about how they weren't completed back then, but frankly that story is hard to believe when he's modified the original trilogy not once but three different times to date. In this day and age with the technology that is available there's absolutely no reason he can't release the original version that some of us want and his "definitive" (for now) versions other than being an stubborn asshole.

re: Star Wars
 

Who here says we're entitled to the OOT? All I'm saying is that until Disney releases a high quality version of the OOT, I'm done spending money on Star Wars products.

Additionally, I would say that Guru Askew's argument is fundamentally flawed, because it assumes that art is the sole province of the artist and at any point before or after release, the artist can do what they want to the artwork. I disagree with that. A major component of art is that interaction with the audience. Once you release a work of art, it's no longer just yours. Without that, you're just wanking in the dark. Feel free to make whatever changes you like before you show the public, but once you do, you have to realize that any changes you make are now affecting not just the work of art itself, but all the audience as well.

Does that mean Lucas doesn't have the RIGHT to change his movies? No, he owned them, he could make whatever changes he wants. But it does make him an asshole to suppress the versions that the audience (or a portion of the audience) prefers. And it does diminish him as an artist. However, I'm sure at some point Disney will release a good quality version of the OOT and then it won't matter, because Guru Askew can watch the existing Blu-rays with all the shit changes that rightly make most people want to vomit, and the rest of us can watch the versions we know are superior. But it doesn't make Lucas less of a dickwad.

The key difference is also that no one would ever mess with a priceless work of art in an art museum. You can Google Nighthawks and Photoshop it until you're blue in the face, but you don't see someone ever messing with the canvas. Again, as long as there's one copy of a book, reproducing it is easy. Film isn't the same, especially when the negatives are hacked to hell and screenings are actively denied. No one, Lucas least of all, expects anything released on home video to last forever, especially given that he's changed it at least three times. Besides which, Kodak will be gone by year's end anyway :sad:, so film will probably not be used for much of anything besides archival purposes going forward. Film preservation is different than a book, there's so much more work involved. And it's fucking insulting that a fan with a cheap laptop is willing to do this for no charge in his basement when major studios and creators aren't. Shows the passion these things which "don't exist any more" or were "incomplete versions" can inspire. Now where're that GBU mono, Fox?

re: Star Wars
 

That's the thing: there is a significant precedent for artists modifying their own paintings and using multiple copies of the same painting as an opportunity to change/improve.

That was the whole point of my first post earlier today: history would be on the side of Lucas modifying these things. The sense of entitlement is relatively new.

re: Star Wars
 

Having a sense of entitlement is kind of a silly way to put it. It was released that way originally and there's no reason other than Lucas' own stubbornness that multiple versions can't be released on Blu-ray/DVD/Streaming. Plus most artists who decide to change their works don't refuse to have the original version available as well.

re: Star Wars
 

So are you saying that we should all buy whichever version of Star Wars Lucas prefers and we aren't allowed to express our own preferences on the matter? As I said, Lucas can do whatever the fuck he wants with those movies. He can replace every shot of Han Solo with video of his gaping asshole, I don't care. But the only Star Wars content I'm interested in purchasing going forward is the OOT. I didn't buy the existing Blu-rays, and will not do so in the future. I don't buy Star Wars merchandise because I'm not interested in supporting a franchise that so clearly doesn't respect its fanbase. Does that make me entitled? Or does that simply mean I'm free as a consumer to make those decisions?

re: Star Wars
 

How often have the people of "history" been proven to be shortsighted dumb fucks? How often have you heard the phrase "don't let history repeat itself."

re: Star Wars
 

I find this newest round of arguments kind of amusing seeing as how Lucas no longer owns the films. What George Lucas will or won't do is pretty irrelevant at this point. That said, here's my two cents:

Lucas unequivocally had the legal right to do what he wanted with the films. They were his. Whether he had the moral right is a different question. And when I say that, I refer to the moral right to suppress the originals. Not the moral right to make a special edition. I have no problem with that. It happens all the time.

While comparing them to the Gestapo is silly, Lucasfilm did order the return and/or destruction of all theatrical prints of the original trilogy. Lucasfilm did prevent theaters from showing the original versions. Sure there are some copies still out there, but that's only because it wouldn't be worth their time to track them all down. The fact that they wouldn't provide the print to the National Film Registry tells you all you need to know.

However, what Lucas did was not unprecedented. It's just the most high profile/current example. Charlie Chaplin did the same thing with The Gold Rush. Let's not pretend that Lucas has committed some sort of egregious crime unseen before in the annals of human history.

What all of this really comes down to is two facts:

1. The Star Wars films are some of the most popular films of all time.
2. The special editions do not improve the films (at least in any significant way) and in some cases make them worse.

If either one of those statements were not true, then there wouldn't be even a fraction of the uproar over all of this.

re: Star Wars
 

Lucas (now Disney) can do what he/they want with the films. I can choose to go the bootleg route, and not give them anymore money.

There is obviously more of a demand for these original films, than there is for other changed artwork. What companies will do is weigh the demand against what they want to do. I can think of three Disney examples alone.

Star Wars - Big Demand, not any reason to keep OOT in vault other than the Lucas didn't want it. I expect it will get released at some point. Heavily bootlegged, with many fan made "original" versions floating out there.

Song Of The South - Pretty Big Demand, certainly some people would love to see this released, but Disney has a worry over racial stuff. Disney has a valid point in NOT releasing this. Could be released with a preface/warning type thing, but probably won't be. Pretty heavily bootlegged.

Fantasia - 99% complete version available. Sure some minor edits to remove some racial looking centaurs and possibly one or two other changes. Disney again has the right to be worried about this release if they left it completely unedited. So they make the changes, very few care, no bootlegs that I know of, but I'm sure someone would like it.

So 3 cases of movies, but it really comes down to the demand. People/websites are noticing and calling out for the original release of Star Wars. Is there a business reason (like the racial stuff) that Disney won't want to do it? I doubt it. And I think Harmy is helping Disney realize there is a market for the unaltered trilogy. And I will buy it, even if it includes Lucas' versions once they figure that out.

re: Star Wars
 

There's not nearly the amount of demand for Song of the South as there is for Star Wars.

re: Star Wars
 

I think Song of the South compares more to the Looney Tunes sets that have racially insensitive shorts included. WB gave us some, but they're sitting on the restored Censored 11. Completely different ballgame than Star Wars.

re: Star Wars
 

Wow. In addition to being a control freak of epic proportions, George Lucas is a colossal hypocrite.

George Lucas in 1988:

re: Star Wars
 

I can't believe this has never been called out before!!!

re: Star Wars
 

I can't believe it's not butter!