[OT] George Lucas finally explains "Why?" . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
- Vaughner
- Gundam Seed: Where the boys are pretty, and the girls take advantage of it .
. . and them!
Sea Wasp
He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would get
along famously.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Freezer
win.
> Kinda speaks for itself . . .:
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
May you join Bermaga in Hell, you over-inflated asshat.
--
My name is:
____ _
/ ___| | |
| |__ _ __ ___ ___ ____ ___ _ __ | |
| __|| '__/ _ \/ _ \/_ // _ \| '__|| |
| | | | __/ __/ / /| __/| | |_|
|_| |_| \___|\___||___|\___||_| (_)
And my anti-drug is porn.
http://www.geocities.com/mysterysciencefreezer
(MSTings and other assorted brain droppings)
Fish Eye no Miko
> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> Kinda speaks for itself . . .: <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
>
> He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would get
> along famously.
Wow. Without even reading it, I know what you mean...
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"The Earth is safe! I did it, GIR! Now let's go destroy it."
_Zim, _Invader Zim_.
Fred M. Sloniker
Gonzalez) wrote:
> Kinda speaks for itself . . .:
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
I dunno. Personally, I prefer
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-9-22&res=l
Dave Baranyi
"Fred M. Sloniker" <fiz...@pioneernet.net> wrote in message
news:p34sl0tvejocptal8...@4ax.com...
That one's got my vote!
Dave Baranyi
Hand-of-Omega
> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> > Kinda speaks for itself . . .:
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
>
> He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would get
> along famously.
To my knowledge, Rice has never done this sort of thing (despite
complaining about how editorial interference changed her early
novels); if anyone, I would have said Stephen King, who *has* put out
revised editions of his novels for a while now. To say nothing of
taking what was intended to be a trilogy, and extending it into a
series of seven books...(The Dark Tower)
I find it interesting that, in the DVD commentaries and the
Entertainment Weekly interview, Lucas now says that he NEVER intended
to make nine, or even six, movies, but just the original three. He
changed his mind and did the prequels when he realized the tech was
there to fully realize the worlds and action involved...
Dex,
who might also suggest Michael Jackson as a similar case of not
knowing when to leave well enough alone...
BBA
>
> To my knowledge, Rice has never done this sort of thing (despite
> complaining about how editorial interference changed her early
> novels); if anyone, I would have said Stephen King, who *has* put out
> revised editions of his novels for a while now. To say nothing of
> taking what was intended to be a trilogy, and extending it into a
> series of seven books...(The Dark Tower)
>
I don't have it with me now, but the Afterword to the original Dark
Tower 1 only mentioned that DT would be "a much longer work"; unless he
edited *that* in the early '90s, I doubt it was ever intended to be a
trilogy.
--
Ben A.
Power corrupts. Absolute power...is pretty neat.
Blade
$4o.157704@fed1read01:
> Sea Wasp wrote:
>
>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>> Kinda speaks for itself . . .: <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
>>
>> He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would get
>> along famously.
>
> Wow. Without even reading it, I know what you mean...
Then you should have. He was pretty articulate and heartfelt on what he
did and why, and there's really no comparison between that and the
incident with Anne Rice at all.
It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand that
feeds it.
Blade
--
Also Known As: Chris McNeil, The Annoying Jerk, The Enemy of Democracy,
The Bearer Of The Long .Sig, "That Guy That Can't Write A Lunch Menu
Without Pantyhose Tarou Being In It Somewhere"
http://www.bladeandepsilon.com
- More comedy per random image gallery page than the market leaders!
http://www.bladeandepsilon.com/kaliashrine.htm
- Kalia rules. Oh yes, it's true. It's damn true.
"It's not like it's a pattern. After all, what other (Kalia from El
Hazard) creepy young girls who (Elosha from Outlaw Star) are kick-ass
powerful (Bulleta from Darkstalkers) that Blade likes (Kakurine from Evil
Zone) could anybody think of (Kalia!!!)?" - Blade defends his TOTALLY
NORMAL tastes in characters.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>Date: 10/1/2004 9:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns9576636D4...@216.196.97.142>
>
>"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in news:qlm7d.285429
>$4o.157704@fed1read01:
>
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kinda speaks for itself . . .: <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
>>>
>>> He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would get
>>> along famously.
>>
>> Wow. Without even reading it, I know what you mean...
>
>Then you should have. He was pretty articulate and heartfelt on what he
>did and why, and there's really no comparison between that and the
>incident with Anne Rice at all.
>
>It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand that
>feeds it.
>
That's not a hand that feeds; that's a boot kicking teeth in (those that are
willing to let him, anyway) . . .
Blade
news:20041002004421...@mb-m04.aol.com:
>>From: Blade kumo...@hotmail.com
>>Date: 10/1/2004 9:36 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <Xns9576636D4...@216.196.97.142>
>>
>>"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in
>>news:qlm7d.285429 $4o.157704@fed1read01:
>>
>>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>>
>>>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kinda speaks for itself . . .: <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
>>>>
>>>> He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would get
>>>> along famously.
>>>
>>> Wow. Without even reading it, I know what you mean...
>>
>>Then you should have. He was pretty articulate and heartfelt on what
>>he did and why, and there's really no comparison between that and the
>>incident with Anne Rice at all.
>>
>>It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand that
>>feeds it.
>>
>
> That's not a hand that feeds; that's a boot kicking teeth in (those
> that are
> willing to let him, anyway) . . .
Right. Actually, not right. At all.
Because George Lucas, last I checked, actually MADE those movies all
those fans love so much. MADE THEM. That's kind of the point: THEY
WOULD NOT EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR GEORGE LUCAS.
That's why he has certain rights to them that fans do not. Which was one
of the points. And it's a very good one.
That sort of attitude, and the attitude expressed by certain others in
this thread, goes a long way towards encapsulating the reasons why
virtually no entertainment industry (anime, movies, books, professional
wrestling, etc.) takes the "hard-core" fans seriously.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>Date: 10/1/2004 7:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <p34sl0tvejocptal8...@4ax.com>
There's this too!:
<http://www.itswalky.com/d/20021117.html>
David Nakamoto
news:Xns9576C7D26...@216.196.97.142...
Perhaps it's mixing up what came first. Yes, without the fans clamoring for
more, the Star Wars phenomenon, and in this case I mean only the movies,
wouldn't have been what it has become. BUT, the movie came first. Without
it, none of the change to movie going audience's preferences, movie maker's
preferences, and especially the entire Sci-Fi / Fantasy flood that has
occurred since would have come to pass, not to mention the entire Star Wars
saga.
Or does anyone here remember what the movie selections were in the decade or
so before Star Wars came out. I do. I almost never went to movies before
then. Afterwards, a totally different story.
And for those interested in another saga and money making and beloved
series, the first Star Trek movie can tip its hat to George Lucas for making
Sci-Fi movies popular again, to the extent that after years of beating
around the bush, even with that loyal and sometimes fanatic fanbase, the
studio executives were finally willing to risk making a Star Trek movie.
--
Yours Truly,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'raid if you're afraid you'll have to overlook it.
Besides, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Wasp
> Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message news:<415DDCC0...@sgeobviousinc.com>...
>
>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>> Kinda speaks for itself . . .:
>>>
>>> <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
>>
>> He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would get
>>along famously.
>
>
> To my knowledge, Rice has never done this sort of thing
Did you read the rant she put in after she got some negative reviews
on Amazon? She's apparently never done "this sort of thing" only
because it it hadn't occurred to her; her attitude is very similar.
> who might also suggest Michael Jackson as a similar case of not
> knowing when to leave well enough alone...
True dat.
Sea Wasp
> Then you should have. He was pretty articulate and heartfelt on what he
> did and why, and there's really no comparison between that and the
> incident with Anne Rice at all.
>
Ballocks. The reason the earlier films were better was essentially
that he was being edited. He objected to the editing, in essence, just
as she did.
And for him to say "What saw was like 25% of what I wanted" and then
the only notable changes being either minor special effects, one eh-eh
scene, and one incredibly stupid change indicates that he's just
talking through his hat or through a very wierd perceptual lens.
Sea Wasp
> Because George Lucas, last I checked, actually MADE those movies all
> those fans love so much. MADE THEM. That's kind of the point: THEY
> WOULD NOT EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR GEORGE LUCAS.
>
And for a whole bunch of OTHER people. Lucas' original vision was NOT
the Star Wars we got (and a good thing), and it's NOT what he's doing
now, either.
The original Star Wars was a collaborative effort, one in which OTHER
people had a strong, and overall POSITIVE, effect on the net product.
As Lucas became less subject to others' influence, the quality of his
work declined steadily. Lucas has a tin ear for dialogue (Either
Fisher or Ford said "George, you can write this shit but you can't SAY
it.", and they were right) and, like many early writers, a preference
for the sledgehammer approach. Unfortunately, he never recognized
this, or never got it out of his system. The first Star Wars was taken
from the best parts of his original outline (Which can still be found
in some places on the Net), and was not what George wrote, but what
George OUTLINED and other people kept tweaking. Empire Strikes Back
was mostly written by Leigh Brackett, who unfortunately died before
Return of the Jedi. RotJ showed some signs of what was to come, but
didn't do too badly.
Whenever Lucas has been on his own, ever since Star Wars, he's
sucked. Howard the Duck? Willow? Hello? George is decent at ideas, and
he's a MASTER of visuals -- his ability to understand what sort of
visual scenes will WORK is equal to Spielberg's eye for sentiment. But
he's TERRIBLE at writing stories.
> That's why he has certain rights to them that fans do not. Which was one
> of the points. And it's a very good one.
He has rights. No doubt about it.
That does not mean he is RIGHT when he exercises them.
Sea Wasp
> Or does anyone here remember what the movie selections were in the decade or
> so before Star Wars came out. I do. I almost never went to movies before
> then. Afterwards, a totally different story.
I don't think anyone is forgetting that. It's part of the point, in
fact. His ex-post-facto tampering damages the very products that made
the entire explosion of SF/F movies POSSIBLE.
Without Star Wars, the entire INDUSTRY really wouldn't exist. Star
Trek, okay, that WOULD have been revived eventually, but would it have
reached the scale it did? I really don't know, and I tend to doubt it.
But Lord of the Rings? No. Stargate? No. Babylon 5? Not a chance. Much
of anime as we no it? Not in your dreams.
But that just points out why the reaction is so strong. He is
tampering -- badly -- with the prior material. He has not recognized
that the STRENGTHS of the work *WERE NOT JUST HIS OWN*. Some of the
WEAKNESSES were his, and he is emphasizing those.
He is NOT, I should note, unique. This is an unfortunately common
phenomenon in SF. Asimov fell prey to the temptation. Heinlein did. I
yield to no one in my respect for these authors, but I also won't
hesitate to say that Later Heinlein SUCKED. The fact that he then
tried to tie in (well, DID tie in) his earlier work WITH his later
work SUCKED EVEN MORE. Asimov's attempt to retcon and connect
Foundation and the Robot Universe was incredibly ill-advised, and
while I didn't find it reached the level of cringeworthiness of RAH's
later stuff, it still sucked badly.
Stephen King is also similar -- he's gone and rewritten things, and
NOT improved them overall thereby.
Arthur Levesque
http://radioactivepanda.com/strip0030.htm
But check this out:
http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=18513
http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~jochambe/SpaceBallsEdit.jpg
--
/\ Arthur Levesque <fnord?> http://boog.org & http://DammitJa.net __
\B\ack King of the Potato People & shanana-Cobain <*> Urban Spaceman (oO)
\S\lash Screw the cheese-eating surrender monkeys! Sweet Transvestite /||\
\/ I was a lesbian before it was fashionable! My work here is done...
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>Date: 10/2/2004 5:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <415EA3CA...@sgeobviousinc.com>
Well, more explanation for this . . .:
<http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp09212004.shtml>
David Nakamoto
is right or wrong. Blade's point is that he has the right to do so, for
better or for worse, because it IS his property, not the fans.
--
Yours Truly,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'raid if you're afraid you'll have to overlook it.
Besides, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sea Wasp" <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
news:415EA939...@sgeobviousinc.com...
David Watson
Blade (kumo...@hotmail.com) writes:
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in news:qlm7d.285429
> $4o.157704@fed1read01:
>
>> Sea Wasp wrote:
>>
>>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kinda speaks for itself . . .: <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
>>>
>>> He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would get
>>> along famously.
>>
>> Wow. Without even reading it, I know what you mean...
>
> Then you should have. He was pretty articulate and heartfelt on what he
> did and why, and there's really no comparison between that and the
> incident with Anne Rice at all.
>
> It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand that
> feeds it.
More like the hand that went "Here's Star Wars on DVD at last--psych!"
While I'm not a fan of Star Wars myself, you can count me in as one of the
people who thinks that he should have included the original theatrical
versions of the movies in the box. Y'know, let the people who are only
buying the damn things choose which version they want to watch.
--
Dave Watson, Severed Heads Liberation Front (_Stretcher_ CD-R--sevcom.com)
Swetier Balzoff (aka Ottawa), Ontario, Canada Email--shlf [at] ncf [dot] ca
My music and anime webpage: http://www.ottawa-anime.org/~eyevocal/
Deworm yourself: http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/
Invid Fan
<bNaOiS...@cs.brown.edu> wrote:
It started as a series of short stories that he didn't know where they
were going, let along how long it would be. Eventually he blocked out
around seven novels, although it was always a case of him writing until
the ideas left and then releasing what was finished as a book. It
could have been more or less, but there was no way it was ever going to
be just three. The second book, "Drawing of the Three", was just
introducing the main characters.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
Fish Eye no Miko
My friend came up with this. MST fans might get the ref...
Weee wanna go up to George Lucas
We juust wanna aaa-ask him "Why?"
Weee wanna stick it to George Lucas
And sit on his chest
And gob on his face
And make... him... cry!
Catherine Johnson. Han shot first. d-:
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Sea Wasp
> I think you missed the point. The point is not whether Lucas's "tampering"
> is right or wrong. Blade's point is that he has the right to do so, for
> better or for worse, because it IS his property, not the fans.
No, I didn't miss the point. I even directly said: He has the right.
It doesn't make what he's doing right.
Alex Taylor
> >>>>> Kinda speaks for itself . . .: <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
> >>>>
> >>>> He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would get
> >>>> along famously.
> >>
> >>It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand that
> >>feeds it.
>
> Because George Lucas, last I checked, actually MADE those movies all
> those fans love so much. MADE THEM. That's kind of the point: THEY
> WOULD NOT EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR GEORGE LUCAS.
>
> That's why he has certain rights to them that fans do not. Which was one
> of the points. And it's a very good one.
It's comments like this that illustrate the problem:
It's like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry you saw half
a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it to be the way I
want it to be.
and:
Q: Do you pay much attention to fan reactions to your choices?
LUCAS: Not really. The movies are what the movies are. ... The thing about
science-fiction fans and "Star Wars" fans is they're very independent-
thinking people. They all think outside the box, but they all have very
strong ideas about what should happen, and they think it should be their
way. Which is fine, except I'm making the movies, so I should have it my way.
What Lucas is basically saying is, "This is MY creation, so *I* should have
absolute and sole control over it, and it doesn't matter what the consumers
think".
This is very clearly a businessman's perspective, not an artist's perspective.
One of the most important aspects of art is that it is organic: once released,
it takes on its own life, and is capable of evolving beyond the creator's
original purpose. You cannot control it after you've released it into the wild.
An artist that tries to maintain absolute control like this is doomed to fail;
and if they try to force it, something will break. (Maybe the art, or maybe
themselves or their careers.)
There is an old story that I read once. I don't remember the source, but it
went something like this:
The author of a famous novel was invited to visit a school where the literature
class was discussing his novel. After being introduced to the class, he sat
in the back and listened to the students debate the meanings and messages that
they found inside his book. After a very long and intricate discussion, the
class was eventually dismissed. The author went up to the teacher and said,
"I hate to say it, but all those things they said -- those weren't what the
book was about at all." The teacher looked back at the author, smiled, and
said, "You may be the author, but who are you to presume you know everything
about what your book means?"
The point being, of course, that, once created, an artistic work is released
from the confines of the artist's vision. It no longer exists solely in the
artist's imagination, but enters the imaginations of any who view it, and so
becomes as organic as the human psyche.
For George Lucas to jealously seize hold of it again and say "It's MINE, and
I shall control it absolutely", is not just offensive, but sad. It means
he's lost sight of something crucial. He's also doomed to fail, and I don't
know what damage he might do (to himself, not the least) in the process.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Alex Taylor http://www.cs-club.org/~alex |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Fish Eye no Miko
> For George Lucas to jealously seize hold of it again and
> say "It's MINE, and I shall control it absolutely", is not
> just offensive, but sad. It means he's lost sight of
> something crucial. He's also doomed to fail, and I don't
> know what damage he might do (to himself, not the least)
> in the process.
Sadly, I don't think he'll see that damage, though. It'll still make
money, so he'll see it as a success.
Ya know, if you don't care about (or know about) the changes, that's one
thing. But I read a (admittedly VERY unscientific) poll where many
respondents say they knew of, and where bothered by, the changes in the
DVDs, but would still buy the set. ARGH!
Also, he says that most artists consider their works unfinished. Yeah.
And...? Most of them have the integrity, once they're released them, to
leave them the hell alone. or at least keep the original intact. Which is
all most people are asking for, btw. Release the special-effect,
Greedo-shoots-first, replacing-Alec-Guinness-with-Ewan-McGregor version.
But ALSO release the originals! In fact, if he released the versions
separately, wouldn't that be best? He'd make more many (since both camps
would buy the DVDs, and some people would buy both versions), all the fans
would be happy... who'd be the loser?
And there's a point I'd like to make to Blade: As you said in another
post, yes, he did create Star Wars. And, if not for him, it would not
exist. But it works both ways... if not for the fans, a guy named Lucas
would have made a few quirky films in the 70's, one of which was a sort of
silly little space film.
I hear a lot about artists saying, "I create stuff for me, and I don't care
about what people say." I can see this point, but... it seems like at some
point, the fans DO have to matter. If you're just creating "for yourself",
and don't care what other people say, why release what you create to the
public? And, once you release something to the public, why then ignore
what the public has to say about it? Especially since the "I don't care"
usually only seems to apply when something negative is said. How often
does an artist say "I don't care that people LIKE what I do"?
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"Listen to you two, quarreling like an old married couple."
-Snape, to Remus and Sirius, _Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
Azkaban_.
Sea Wasp
Speaking as an author, it's an author's perspective. A businessman's
perspective on writing and similar pursuits is "Hey, if I can sell it
and it's legal, why the hell not." A businessman Lucas would say "Hey,
I can sell MY vision... and I can sell the original vision... and get
PAID TWICE!"
It's the too-artsy author (or too-arrogant author) who says "here's
my creation, and it's MY creation, and by golly no-one else can sully it!"
The whole "art as an organic thing" I don't buy one little bit.
AstroNerdBoy
> those fans love so much. MADE THEM. That's kind of the point: THEY
> WOULD NOT EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR GEORGE LUCAS.
>
And one could argue that if it weren't for those fans shelling out all
that money based on those "incomplete" things Lucas put out, he
wouldn't have the ability to remake them now. ;-)
For me, I like the new stuff, save for the scene in "Star Wars" where
Lucas now makes Greedo fire first. *rolls eyes* Han is a criminal,
so his killing Greedo (even though it was self defense since Greedo
was going to kill him) made since. Now, Greedo looks like an idiot
who couldn't hit the side of a barn and Han is just a lucky bastard
since Greedo SUCKS at shooting. I mean, what the smeg is someone that
bad of a shot doing working as a collection-assassin agent for Jabba?
Still, Lucas could have easily made the original for those fans who
wanted it and made some more cash.
AstroNerdBoy
> Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message news:<415DDCC0...@sgeobviousinc.com>...
> > Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> > > Kinda speaks for itself . . .:
> > >
> > > <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
> >
> > He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would get
> > along famously.
>
> To my knowledge, Rice has never done this sort of thing (despite
> complaining about how editorial interference changed her early
> novels); if anyone, I would have said Stephen King, who *has* put out
> revised editions of his novels for a while now. To say nothing of
> taking what was intended to be a trilogy, and extending it into a
> series of seven books...(The Dark Tower)
>
> I find it interesting that, in the DVD commentaries and the
> Entertainment Weekly interview, Lucas now says that he NEVER intended
> to make nine, or even six, movies, but just the original three. He
> changed his mind and did the prequels when he realized the tech was
> there to fully realize the worlds and action involved...
>
Lucas changes his explaination more than a politician trying to find
out what position will get him more money/votes. I remember back in
the day when the 9-episode thing was out there. He didn't do much (if
anything) to debunk it back then. Hell, when "Empire Strikes Back"
came out, HE slapped the "Episode 5" marker on it, then on the VHS
release, retro-added "Episode 4: A New Hope" to "Star Wars".
I've seen interviews with him where he talks about writing for "Star
Wars", then writing this whole back history to see where the
characters came from, etc. As such, he had WAY too much story for a
single movie, so had to trim it down into what became "Star Wars".
It wasn't until he authorized the publication of the sequel novels
that he began to dispute the notion of an episode 7-9 having ever been
conceived.
AstroNerdBoy
Well, there's always hope for "Spaceballs 2", assuming Mr. Brooks is
really writing it. :-D
David Nakamoto
news:EzI08Q3LwTQm-pn2-devhCvFedjVm@ifurita...
Wrong. Mozart and Beethoven and Wagner wanted it their way or no way. I
have never heard anyone say they weren't some of the greatest artists that
ever lived.
Granted that the jury is still out on whether George Lucas is anywhere near
the same category, but in terms of popularity he is, or his Star Wars is,
but this particular argument doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned.
If an artist wants everyone to have access to his or her work and modify it
to their heart's content, that's their choice. If they want to have total
control over their property, that is ALSO their choice, because in any
non-Socialist (meaning non-slavery) system of Rights, the original creator
has sole rights to do what he or she wants with his or her intellectual
property, and in Star Wars case it's Lucas.
Again, invalid, because this is the very argument to justify every variant
of every religion and philosophical system that springs up, even those that,
to most people, are far beyond the bounds of what the original
creator/author had in mind and do harm in the name of those systems of
thought.
Whether Lucas has lost sight of anything is neither here nor there. If he
has lost sight of something, then we should gently and patiently educate
him, but if he chooses to hold onto his ideas, fine, that is his right as
the creator of the material.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>Date: 10/2/2004 2:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <7e562e8e.04100...@posting.google.com>
Wouldn't be surprised if a few "Star Wars Redux" gags are thrown in!
David Nakamoto
news:MZD7d.288221$4o.237529@fed1read01...
Not necessarily. If the creator of the material thinks that the people
clamoring for this and that have no idea of what you intended to do, and
what they want conflicts with your vision, then how would you feel about
their insisting that they have a right to your material? Even if you are an
artist who doesn't care what happens to your work once it is released, this
attitude does not apply to others, such as Beethoven, Mozart, . . . or
Lucas.
Of course, I suspect that Lucas is doing this from business reasons, but
that assertion is not yet supported by enough facts. However, even if that
were true, I hold to my argument concerning whether any artist, or for that
matter anyone who creates "intellectual property" such as a scientist, has
rights to that property. The answer has to be yes, because the idea came
from him, and he gave it form and substance. If anyone else wants to add to
it, he should compensate the creator for creating it in the first place.
This being said, the creator might give up his right to the property; this
is both his right and his choice. He may want only recognition for
compensation, or acknowledgement; this is again his right and choice.
But the right, and therefore the power, remain with the creator of the
intellectual property.
Can people speak out for and against it? Of course; that is their right.
But these people don't have a say in who gets control over the property
against the original creator. The same principle operates with material
property. If someone buys a fancy car, and other people love it, is it
right to allow those others to make modifications to it without the owner's
permission?
(and for those ready to make fun of this, be warned that doing so only shows
(1) lack of thinking into this principle, and (2) callous and malicious
disregard for personal rights).
> If you're just creating "for yourself", and don't care what other people
> say, why release what you create to the public? And, once you release
> something to the public, why then ignore what the public has to say about
> it? Especially since the "I don't care" usually only seems to apply when
> something negative is said. How often does an artist say "I don't care
> that people LIKE what I do"?
There are many reasons why an artist might release something to the public.
Money, fame, recognition . . . or reaching out to a few kindred souls who
the artist knows does understand his work and its meaning. Ayn Rand was
certainly like that. Sviatoslav Richter was probably like that. There are
other reasons.
And putting it out there just to get feedback from the fickle public is
another reason, but just one of many, and NOT necessarily the reason an
artist puts his work out there.
David Nakamoto
Thank you Sea Wasp ! As an author with a very limited outlet (so far) and
struggling to make it, I agree with your statements.
Now, someone is going to write that I just contradicted myself over your
penultimate paragraph. But I agree that any artist who holds the attitude
that "no one will sullen my work" is probably extreme. But this does not
work against my contention that the original artist has a right to his work,
to do what he wants with it. This gives him the power of choice as to what
will happen to his work, which is not only his right, but the RIGHT thing to
do. For those that are having trouble with this, I refer them to my analogy
of what the situation would be with material property. If you're gong to
argue that fans has a "right" to Lucas' Star Wars, then you have just given
your envious neighbors the right to modify and use something you own that
they love but don't own. The same applies to intellectual property.
If he chooses to take total control over his work, that is his right. It is
also sad, but to paraphrase Voltaire, "I disagree with your choice, but I
will defend your right to do it."
Freezer
>>>It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand
>>>that feeds it.
>>>
>>
>> That's not a hand that feeds; that's a boot kicking teeth in
>> (those that are
>> willing to let him, anyway) . . .
>
> Right. Actually, not right. At all.
>
> Because George Lucas, last I checked, actually MADE those movies all
> those fans love so much. MADE THEM. That's kind of the point: THEY
> WOULD NOT EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR GEORGE LUCAS.
I concede that fact. And would argue that that's beside the point.
> That's why he has certain rights to them that fans do not. Which
> was one of the points. And it's a very good one.
So you'd be just a supportive if, say, Ridley Scott decided that THE
DVD version of Blade Runner would not have the theatrical ending, but
only the darker original ending?
Or if James Cameron decided that THE DVD version of "The Terminator"
would only contain the original "mega-happy" ending, not the sequel-
friendly theatrical ending?
> That sort of attitude, and the attitude expressed by certain others
> in this thread, goes a long way towards encapsulating the reasons
> why virtually no entertainment industry (anime, movies, books,
> professional wrestling, etc.) takes the "hard-core" fans seriously.
To their detriment, IMHO.
To me (and many, many others) Lucas' stance (and subsequent tinkering
with/pissing on Star Wars canon) is egotistical and borderline
spiteful.
Besides, would it have _really_ been that much trouble to include the
original scenes as extras? I don't dispute Lucas' right to do with
his product what he will. But the actions themselves seem more driven
by personal ego and the desire to "prove himself right" than anything
else.
And going back to your eariler analogy, that sounds disturbingly like
Vince McMahon...
And we all know where the wresting biz is right now...
--
My name is:
____ _
/ ___| | |
| |__ _ __ ___ ___ ____ ___ _ __ | |
| __|| '__/ _ \/ _ \/_ // _ \| '__|| |
| | | | __/ __/ / /| __/| | |_|
|_| |_| \___|\___||___|\___||_| (_)
And my anti-drug is porn.
http://www.geocities.com/mysterysciencefreezer
(MSTings and other assorted brain droppings)
David Nakamoto
news:Xns9576AE716D9AAf...@130.133.1.4...
> If I don't respond to this Blade post, the terrorists win.
>
>>>>It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand
>>>>that feeds it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not a hand that feeds; that's a boot kicking teeth in
>>> (those that are
>>> willing to let him, anyway) . . .
>>
>> Right. Actually, not right. At all.
>>
>> Because George Lucas, last I checked, actually MADE those movies all
>> those fans love so much. MADE THEM. That's kind of the point: THEY
>> WOULD NOT EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR GEORGE LUCAS.
>
> I concede that fact. And would argue that that's beside the point.
I would not. At least, and perhaps not yourself, but some of the arguments
I've read on this thread are making this the point.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>> That's why he has certain rights to them that fans do not. Which
>> was one of the points. And it's a very good one.
>
> So you'd be just a supportive if, say, Ridley Scott decided that THE
> DVD version of Blade Runner would not have the theatrical ending, but
> only the darker original ending?
>
> Or if James Cameron decided that THE DVD version of "The Terminator"
> would only contain the original "mega-happy" ending, not the sequel-
> friendly theatrical ending?
Yes, that's their right as the owners of that intellectual property. The
right gives them the sole power to choose what will happen to that property.
Again, to paraphrase Voltaire, "I disagree with what you're going with the
work, but I will defend your right to it."
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>> That sort of attitude, and the attitude expressed by certain others
>> in this thread, goes a long way towards encapsulating the reasons
>> why virtually no entertainment industry (anime, movies, books,
>> professional wrestling, etc.) takes the "hard-core" fans seriously.
>
> To their detriment, IMHO.
>
> To me (and many, many others) Lucas' stance (and subsequent tinkering
> with/pissing on Star Wars canon) is egotistical and borderline
> spiteful.
>
> Besides, would it have _really_ been that much trouble to include the
> original scenes as extras? I don't dispute Lucas' right to do with
> his product what he will. But the actions themselves seem more driven
> by personal ego and the desire to "prove himself right" than anything
> else.
>
> And going back to your eariler analogy, that sounds disturbingly like
> Vince McMahon...
>
> And we all know where the wresting biz is right now...
Perhaps. It is your viewpoint that it is to their detriment.
But, as with any decision, the question that is answered is how well one
benefits from one's decision. No one really makes any decision, or thinks
something, or says anything, that isn't in their best interests, deep down.
Now, they might forget or ignore important facts and connections, they might
not think it through thoroughly enough, they might let their darker
persuasions dictate the course, et al, but deep down they believe it is in
their best interests to do it this way or that.
Now, whatever I think of Lucas' decision is neither here nor there to the
point I'm discussing, whether fans have a "right" to anyone's property,
material or intellectual. And when it's your turn to exercise that right,
you'll do so, even if you just "give it away" and "let it organically grow".
If you created it, the right to it, and what to do with it, belongs to you,
and no one else. Same for something created by someone else; they have sole
rights to decide what to do with it.
Fish Eye no Miko
> If you're gong to argue that fans has a "right" to Lucas' Star
> Wars, then you have just given your envious neighbors the
> right to modify and use something you own that they love but don't own.
You've never heard of a neighborhood planning committee, have you? Ya
know, the people who tell you that if you live in a certain neighborhood,
you have to use such and such type plants in you front yard, and put lights
out at Christmas (two real examples from here in Tucson, btw), etc...
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"A man so mean, he once shot himself for snoring too loud."
-Crow, /Mystery Science Theater 3000/.
Hand-of-Omega
> In article <415E1F9B...@cs.brown.edu>, BBA
> <bNaOiS...@cs.brown.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hand-of-Omega wrote:
> > >
> > > To my knowledge, Rice has never done this sort of thing (despite
> > > complaining about how editorial interference changed her early
> > > novels); if anyone, I would have said Stephen King, who *has* put out
> > > revised editions of his novels for a while now. To say nothing of
> > > taking what was intended to be a trilogy, and extending it into a
> > > series of seven books...(The Dark Tower)
> > >
> >
> > I don't have it with me now, but the Afterword to the original Dark
> > Tower 1 only mentioned that DT would be "a much longer work"; unless he
> > edited *that* in the early '90s, I doubt it was ever intended to be a
> > trilogy.
>
> It started as a series of short stories that he didn't know where they
> were going, let along how long it would be. Eventually he blocked out
> around seven novels, although it was always a case of him writing until
> the ideas left and then releasing what was finished as a book. It
> could have been more or less, but there was no way it was ever going to
> be just three. The second book, "Drawing of the Three", was just
> introducing the main characters.
Ah, ok. I only read the first one, but remembered a friend of mine
who's reading all of them tell me that King had iniatially said they
were a trilogy, and how shocked he was to find book III ended on a
cliffhanger; he also told me there was an apologetic afterword from
King in that book saying how it was now going to be a longer work...
Dex
Hand-of-Omega
> Hand-of-Omega wrote:
> > Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message news:<415DDCC0...@sgeobviousinc.com>...
> >
> >>along famously.
> >
> >
> > To my knowledge, Rice has never done this sort of thing
>
> Did you read the rant she put in after she got some negative reviews
> on Amazon? She's apparently never done "this sort of thing" only
> because it it hadn't occurred to her; her attitude is very similar.
Ok, since Amazon has yanked the review she wrote, it took a little
searching, but I found the complete text. Reading through it a couple
of times, I have to say I find her attitude somewhat dissimilar to
Lucas'.
George Lucas is saying that his works were unfinished, not because of
editorial interference (in the article we're all responding to, he
says outright he made the movie his way), but because of lack of
resources and technical effects. Faced with the choice of releasing
movies he considers incomplete but that everyone fell in love with or
completing them to his own satisfaction, he chose the latter.
Anne Rice, OTOH, is saying that her works are absolutely perfect and
complete, to the last word because she brooks absolutely no editing at
all. The deficiencies some readers think they see, are simply "the
projections of their own limitations". That's right, it's *your own
fault* if you can't grasp the brilliance of her work. She then goes on
to express contempt for these "readers" and her relief that the series
that made her so wealthy and popular in the first place is over.
Now, I've been a fan of both artists' works. But I have to say that,
at least George doesn't come off like an arrogant ass. Hell, I may
disagree with much that he's done with his work, but I can at least
understand where he's coming from. I never understood Anne's diehard
refusal to be edited; even Stephen King, a much more successful author
than she, recognizes the need for another's POV ("*Everybody* gets
edited!")...
Well, anyway, aside from both being in the ironic position of "artist
who has alienated the very audience that made them popular", I don't
see their positions being that similar...
Dex,
who'd love to even *have* an audience to alienate!^~
Fish Eye no Miko
> Dex,
> who'd love to even *have* an audience to alienate!^~
Hey, man, your posts you to be sooo much better! You sold out to the MAN,
man! You used to be about the CONTENT, man! I'm so disillusioned...
Catherine Johnson, who will NOT be buying the special editions of the
H-o-G's pots.. Sure, all the corrected spelling and grammar is nice, but
all the added text colors and fancy fonts are just so lame.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>Date: 10/2/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <GcG7d.933$1g5.779@trnddc07
>
>Yes, that's their right as the owners of that intellectual property. The
>right gives them the sole power to choose what will happen to that property.
Scream that at the top of your lungs; it won't change the fact there are
people out there with copies of the original in VHS, LD, even Beta form. No
matter what George Lucas says, unless he pulls a Jay-and-Silent-Bob and goes to
each individual house (and video store) to confiscate them, he can kiss their
Greedo-did-not-shoot-first asses!
As a matter of fact, I've heard there are copies already being
bittorrented!
K. A. Pezzano
wrote:
>What Lucas is basically saying is, "This is MY creation, so *I* should have
>absolute and sole control over it, and it doesn't matter what the consumers
>think".
>
>This is very clearly a businessman's perspective, not an artist's perspective.
>
I think that's very firmly an artist's perspective, and the utter
opposite of a businessman's perspective. A businessman wouldn't say
what Lucas is saying there. Instead, he'd say "We're gonna give the
fans what they want, because that means they'll buy more of it."
Lucas, the artist, is saying "I'm gonna make what I want, and if fans
like it and buy it, that's good, but it doesn't matter to me or my art
if they don't". That sort of attitude would give a businessman the
screaming heebie-jeebies.
Widya Santoso
>Then you should have. He was pretty articulate and heartfelt on what he
>did and why, and there's really no comparison between that and the
>incident with Anne Rice at all.
>It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand that
>feeds it.
Don't you know? "Star Wars belongs to EVERYONE!" (Argument reputedly
mentioned when someone was told to cease some kind of fan activity by
LucasFilm.)
--
Widya Santoso wsan...@nyx.net +61 2 6288-0405
The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep
And miles to go before I sleep, And miles to go before I sleep
-- Stopping by woods on a Snowy Evening - Robert Frost
Widya Santoso
>That sort of attitude, and the attitude expressed by certain others in
>this thread, goes a long way towards encapsulating the reasons why
>virtually no entertainment industry (anime, movies, books, professional
>wrestling, etc.) takes the "hard-core" fans seriously.
Another, more apt, quote: "Fan-subbing HELPS the industry!!!" ?:-)
Chris Kern
To speak frankly, that's a load of bullshit. If I create something,
it's MINE, not the readers/viewers. If I want to make substantial
changes to it for a re-print or re-release, that's my prerogative, and
if people don't like it, they can continue to see the old one.
Lucas was perfectly justified in doing what he did. It's his movie,
he can do with it what he wants.
-Chris
arnold kim
Do you believe that art can be looked at and evaluated on its own merits
independent of its creator? Is it up to the author to tell us what the
story is supposed to mean? If not, then the story takes on a life
independent of its author.
Arnold Kim
arnold kim
"AstroNerdBoy" <sp...@astronerdboy.com> wrote in message
news:7e562e8e.04100...@posting.google.com...
You mean Spaceballs 3: The Search for Spaceballs 2?:)
Arnold Kim
Fish Eye no Miko
> To speak frankly, that's a load of bullshit. If I create something,
> it's MINE, not the readers/viewers. If I want to make substantial
> changes to it for a re-print or re-release, that's my prerogative,
> and if people don't like it, they can continue to see the old one.
Can they? Are the old ones still commercially available?
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
"The Earth is safe! I did it, GIR! Now let's go destroy it."
_Zim, _Invader Zim_.
Galen Musbach
<arno...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>Do you believe that art can be looked at and evaluated on its own merits
>independent of its creator? Is it up to the author to tell us what the
>story is supposed to mean? If not, then the story takes on a life
>independent of its author.
>
>Arnold Kim
Is Mount Fuji art?
-Galen
Sea Wasp
> Do you believe that art can be looked at and evaluated on its own merits
> independent of its creator?
In the same way that a Rorschach blot can be.
Is it up to the author to tell us what the
> story is supposed to mean?
If it has any True Meaning (other than "I wanted to make money, don't
get all fancy"), the author's the only one who knows it.
Chris Kern
<fis...@deadmoon.circus> posted the following:
>Chris Kern wrote:
>
>> To speak frankly, that's a load of bullshit. If I create something,
>> it's MINE, not the readers/viewers. If I want to make substantial
>> changes to it for a re-print or re-release, that's my prerogative,
>> and if people don't like it, they can continue to see the old one.
>
>Can they? Are the old ones still commercially available?
Lucas says in that interview that if people want the old versions they
can buy the VHS -- I don't know whether he's accurate or not.
-Chris
Chris Kern
>Do you believe that art can be looked at and evaluated on its own merits
>independent of its creator? Is it up to the author to tell us what the
>story is supposed to mean? If not, then the story takes on a life
>independent of its author.
I put a lot of importance on what the author says about his own work
and his own intentions. I think that if an author says something
definite about his own work, that becomes true. For instance, JRRT
said that Lord of the Rings was not an allegory of World War II,
therefore it absolutely is not, regardless of whether we might find
allegorical elements in it.
Sometimes authors/creators choose to give the readers more latitude.
For instance, Ikuhara is famously reluctant to talk about Utena in
very specific terms -- he prefers people to come up with their own
interpretations. This is also fine.
-Chris
arnold kim
"Chris Kern" <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:540vl05dv3ebv3rs2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 01:48:04 GMT, "arnold kim"
> <arno...@optonline.net> posted the following:
>
>>Do you believe that art can be looked at and evaluated on its own merits
>>independent of its creator? Is it up to the author to tell us what the
>>story is supposed to mean? If not, then the story takes on a life
>>independent of its author.
>
> I put a lot of importance on what the author says about his own work
> and his own intentions. I think that if an author says something
> definite about his own work, that becomes true. For instance, JRRT
> said that Lord of the Rings was not an allegory of World War II,
> therefore it absolutely is not, regardless of whether we might find
> allegorical elements in it.
First of all, just because an artist merely says his work is or isn't about
something doesn't necessarily mean that it's true, especially if you
consider subconscious influences. And if the author fails to make his
intentions to the reader clear in the text, then what the author thinks is
irrelevant.
Secondly, suppose you find incredible meaning and relevance in a piece of
art. Then the artist reveals that the inspiration behind the work was
monetary gain. Is the art completely meaningless to you now?
By the way, the true meaning of the sentence, "Is the art completely
meaningless to you now?" is not "a question of whether that work is of any
value to you".
Arnold Kim
arnold kim
> arnold kim wrote:
> Is it up to the author to tell us what the
>> story is supposed to mean?
>
>
> If it has any True Meaning (other than "I wanted to make money, don't get
> all fancy"), the author's the only one who knows it.
Is it possible for an artist to try, but fail, to apply that "True Meaning"
into the story? I think so.
Arnold Kim
David Nakamoto
Collective forcing its decisions on anyone is just wrong. All it protects
is mediocrity, or the most common denominator. If you don't see this, see
how you respond when you want to do something near and dear to your heart
and the Collective puts its big fist forward.
Next question.
--
Yours Truly,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'raid if you're afraid you'll have to overlook it.
Besides, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
news:EsG7d.288263$4o.223662@fed1read01...
Blade
> Blade wrote:
>
>> Then you should have. He was pretty articulate and heartfelt on what
>> he did and why, and there's really no comparison between that and the
>> incident with Anne Rice at all.
>>
>
> Ballocks. The reason the earlier films were better was essentially
The earlier films weren't better. At least, not in my opinion, which is
just as valid as yours.
> that he was being edited. He objected to the editing, in essence, just
> as she did.
She didn't object to editing. She objected to certain fan criticisms of
the book and gave out her address for unsatisfied customers to send the
book for a refund. No comparison whatsoever.
> And for him to say "What saw was like 25% of what I wanted" and
> then
> the only notable changes being either minor special effects, one eh-eh
> scene, and one incredibly stupid change indicates that he's just
> talking through his hat or through a very wierd perceptual lens.
And you would know this because of your fabulous intuition into what
George Lucas considers important, and what he considers making the films
better.
I happen to agree with you that the changes are very minor, and that the
fanboys (who clearly think they are HUGE changes) are whining over
nothing.
Which, of course, proves nothing.
Blade
--
Also Known As: Chris McNeil, The Annoying Jerk, The Enemy of Democracy,
The Bearer Of The Long .Sig, "That Guy That Can't Write A Lunch Menu
Without Pantyhose Tarou Being In It Somewhere"
http://www.bladeandepsilon.com
- More comedy per random image gallery page than the market leaders!
http://www.bladeandepsilon.com/kaliashrine.htm
- Kalia rules. Oh yes, it's true. It's damn true.
"It's not like it's a pattern. After all, what other (Kalia from El
Hazard) creepy young girls who (Elosha from Outlaw Star) are kick-ass
powerful (Bulleta from Darkstalkers) that Blade likes (Kakurine from Evil
Zone) could anybody think of (Kalia!!!)?" - Blade defends his TOTALLY
NORMAL tastes in characters.
arnold kim
"David Nakamoto" <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:TrF7d.1649$na.99@trnddc04...
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in message
> news:MZD7d.288221$4o.237529@fed1read01...
>> Alex Taylor wrote:
>>
> Can people speak out for and against it? Of course; that is their right.
> But these people don't have a say in who gets control over the property
> against the original creator. The same principle operates with material
> property. If someone buys a fancy car, and other people love it, is it
> right to allow those others to make modifications to it without the
> owner's permission?
Problem with this analogy is that people, unlike with movies, don't indulge
their passion for, say, a friend's new car by just looking at it. Loving a
movie and loving someone else's new car are not the same thing. For one
thing, you're invested in whether or not a movie meets your standards by the
fact that you're spending your time and money watching it.
Arnold Kim
Blade
> Blade wrote:
>
>> Because George Lucas, last I checked, actually MADE those movies all
>> those fans love so much. MADE THEM. That's kind of the point: THEY
>> WOULD NOT EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR GEORGE LUCAS.
>>
>
> And for a whole bunch of OTHER people. Lucas' original vision was
Every single one of those other people could have been replaced and we
would have gotten a (somewhat changed) Star Wars. -Any- one of those
people could have been removed and we still would have gotten a Star
Wars.
No Lucas = No Star Wars.
Period. End of discussion. He created it. He also has the rights to
it. And he deserves them, because he did create it.
<snip thus-created irrelevency>
>> That's why he has certain rights to them that fans do not. Which was
>> one of the points. And it's a very good one.
>
> He has rights. No doubt about it.
>
> That does not mean he is RIGHT when he exercises them.
And your opinion on the matter doesn't make him wrong.
Blade
news:EzI08Q3LwTQm-pn2-devhCvFedjVm@ifurita:
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 05:13:31 UTC, Blade <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>>> Kinda speaks for itself . . .: <http://tinyurl.com/4qttk>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> He should get together with Anne Rice. The two of them would
>> >>>> get
>> >>>> along famously.
>> >>
>> >>It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand
>> >>that feeds it.
>>
>> Because George Lucas, last I checked, actually MADE those movies all
>> those fans love so much. MADE THEM. That's kind of the point: THEY
>> WOULD NOT EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR GEORGE LUCAS.
>>
>> That's why he has certain rights to them that fans do not. Which was
>> one of the points. And it's a very good one.
>
> It's comments like this that illustrate the problem:
That's funny, given what you said later.
> It's like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I'm sorry you
> saw half a completed film and fell in love with it. But I want it
> to be the way I want it to be.
>
> and:
>
> Q: Do you pay much attention to fan reactions to your choices?
>
> LUCAS: Not really. The movies are what the movies are. ... The
> thing about science-fiction fans and "Star Wars" fans is they're
> very independent- thinking people. They all think outside the box,
> but they all have very strong ideas about what should happen, and
> they think it should be their way. Which is fine, except I'm
> making the movies, so I should have it my way.
>
>
> What Lucas is basically saying is, "This is MY creation, so *I* should
> have absolute and sole control over it, and it doesn't matter what the
> consumers think".
>
> This is very clearly a businessman's perspective, not an artist's
> perspective.
Actually, no. A businessman would be more interested in giving the
consumers what they want, and thus helping the property.
Only an artist would go back to wildly successful work and retweak it to
be more in line with what he wanted it to be. There's no reason for a
businessman to; he'd rather pump out the originals and spend the time
making a new sequel.
> One of the most important aspects of art is that it is organic: once
> released, it takes on its own life, and is capable of evolving beyond
> the creator's original purpose. You cannot control it after you've
> released it into the wild. An artist that tries to maintain absolute
> control like this is doomed to fail; and if they try to force it,
> something will break. (Maybe the art, or maybe themselves or their
> careers.)
Uh, no. A book is a book is a book. A movie is a movie is a movie.
Star Wars is what Lucas (and others) made. All the fanfiction in the
world doesn't make Star Wars one iota different; but Lucas CAN make it
different.
> There is an old story that I read once. I don't remember the source,
> but it went something like this:
>
> The author of a famous novel was invited to visit a school where the
> literature class was discussing his novel. After being introduced to
> the class, he sat in the back and listened to the students debate the
> meanings and messages that they found inside his book. After a very
> long and intricate discussion, the class was eventually dismissed.
> The author went up to the teacher and said, "I hate to say it, but all
> those things they said -- those weren't what the book was about at
> all." The teacher looked back at the author, smiled, and said, "You
> may be the author, but who are you to presume you know everything
> about what your book means?"
>
> The point being, of course, that, once created, an artistic work is
> released from the confines of the artist's vision. It no longer
Really. I've heard the exact same story.
The point I always got from it is that:
a) literature classes and teachers are mostly full of shit, and
b) they are also presumptuous little gits.
> exists solely in the artist's imagination, but enters the imaginations
> of any who view it, and so becomes as organic as the human psyche.
That's nice, and has not the slightest bit to do with the matter at hand.
You can THINK whatever you want about Star Wars, but Lucas CREATED Star
Wars. If he wants to change it, it is entirely within his rights, and
the braying of a thousand fanboys makes no difference.
> For George Lucas to jealously seize hold of it again and say "It's
> MINE, and I shall control it absolutely", is not just offensive, but
> sad. It means he's lost sight of something crucial. He's also doomed
> to fail, and I don't know what damage he might do (to himself, not the
> least) in the process.
He's not doomed to fail. In fact, he succeeded already. The Star Wars
DVDs are on the shelves. They will almost certainly be the only Star
Wars IV-VI DVDs until, at least, the point where he dies. Quite possibly
they will be the only ones in perpetuity.
And the vast majority of the audience, who are not hard-core fans, will
neither know nor care about the differences. His version is their
version.
As for the complaining few...tough for them. As he said, they can get
the old VHS versions if they want them badly enough.
Of course, since this is like the fifth time those movies have been
reedited, I'm surprised (well, not really surprised) that people are
getting so upset now. Shouldn't they be clamouring for the original
theatrical print of Episode IV? Or maybe Lucas' original storyboard put
to film? Hard to say at which point editing becomes evil, huh?
Blade
> Alex Taylor wrote:
> And there's a point I'd like to make to Blade: As you said in another
> post, yes, he did create Star Wars. And, if not for him, it would not
> exist. But it works both ways... if not for the fans, a guy named
> Lucas would have made a few quirky films in the 70's, one of which was
> a sort of silly little space film.
Here's the thing:
Lucas CREATED something.
The fans CONSUMED something.
The fans have the right to take their money elsewhere if they don't like
what Lucas produces. But they don't have the right to demand anything of
Lucas. HE created the product they enjoy. Only he has the right to
change it. I don't see how he is wrong to exercise that right.
As I noted elsewhere, this is not the first, second, or third time those
movies have been reeedited. The "original" versions people are
clamouring for are not, in fact, even the original theatrical versions
(of A New Hope, at least). They're just one particular version they
happened to see at a certain point and grow attached to. That's beside
the point, tho, just something that amuses/bugs me about the whole
situation.
Sure, it'd be nice if Lucas released the "originals", but he's under no
obligation to. The vast amount of hostility poured out towards the man
is ridiculous, and rather ungrateful, considering that if it weren't for
him, the thing they care about so much wouldn't even exist.
> I hear a lot about artists saying, "I create stuff for me, and I don't
> care about what people say." I can see this point, but... it seems
> like at some point, the fans DO have to matter. If you're just
> creating "for yourself", and don't care what other people say, why
> release what you create to the public? And, once you release
> something to the public, why then ignore what the public has to say
> about it? Especially since the "I don't care" usually only seems to
> apply when something negative is said. How often does an artist say
> "I don't care that people LIKE what I do"?
Certainly the fans matter on a level. They provide money. If Lucas
makes decisions enough fans don't like, he won't make money.
But the thing is, it's HIS call on what he does, and how much he lets
"making money" influence his decision. Not the fans. They can, to
borrow a phrase, take it or leave it.
I'll grant freely I generally detest Star Wars fandom and enjoy watching
the majority of them get pissy at everything Lucas does, but even were
that not the case I'd still support Lucas' right to do whatever he chose,
because it IS his right. if Rumiko Takahashi released a "Definitive
Ranma 1/2" that cut out Tarou, I wouldn't be happy, and I'd keep my old
copies, but I'd still never say she didn't have the right to do so, and
the new Ranma 1/2 WOULD be the official thing. That's her right, as the
person who actually CREATED something.
I have a lot of respect for creators. Not nearly so much for consumers.
Blade
news:Xns9576AE716D9AAf...@130.133.1.4:
> If I don't respond to this Blade post, the terrorists win.
>
>>>>It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand
>>>>that feeds it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not a hand that feeds; that's a boot kicking teeth in
>>> (those that are
>>> willing to let him, anyway) . . .
>>
>> Right. Actually, not right. At all.
>>
>> Because George Lucas, last I checked, actually MADE those movies all
>> those fans love so much. MADE THEM. That's kind of the point: THEY
>> WOULD NOT EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR GEORGE LUCAS.
>
> I concede that fact. And would argue that that's beside the point.
I disagree; it is the WHOLE point.
Lucas has the right to change Star Wars however he sees fit.
The fans are irrelevent. They can buy what he makes, or not. That is
the extent of their rights in the matter.
>> That's why he has certain rights to them that fans do not. Which
>> was one of the points. And it's a very good one.
>
> So you'd be just a supportive if, say, Ridley Scott decided that THE
> DVD version of Blade Runner would not have the theatrical ending, but
> only the darker original ending?
>
> Or if James Cameron decided that THE DVD version of "The Terminator"
> would only contain the original "mega-happy" ending, not the sequel-
> friendly theatrical ending?
Yes, I would. Completely and utterly supportive. And I'd support the
same for any changes to something I actually cared about, too, as
illustrated in another post.
>> That sort of attitude, and the attitude expressed by certain others
>> in this thread, goes a long way towards encapsulating the reasons
>> why virtually no entertainment industry (anime, movies, books,
>> professional wrestling, etc.) takes the "hard-core" fans seriously.
>
> To their detriment, IMHO.
Not in the slightest, IMNSHO. Hard-core fans are generally narrow-minded
and don't understand the realities of the world beyond their focii.
Those that DO understand end up becoming the entrepeneurs that the other
hard-core fans rail against.
> To me (and many, many others) Lucas' stance (and subsequent tinkering
> with/pissing on Star Wars canon) is egotistical and borderline
> spiteful.
That's nice. You can believe that if you wish. His stance is
nonetheless one he has a perfectly justified right to take.
> Besides, would it have _really_ been that much trouble to include the
> original scenes as extras? I don't dispute Lucas' right to do with
> his product what he will. But the actions themselves seem more driven
> by personal ego and the desire to "prove himself right" than anything
> else.
Whether it would be hard or not, whatever his motivations are, is
irrelevent.
He has the right to make the changes.
> And going back to your eariler analogy, that sounds disturbingly like
> Vince McMahon...
>
> And we all know where the wresting biz is right now...
Yes. Much better than it has been for the last several years. S'why I'm
watching now, and wasn't in 2001.
Vince also has the right to do what he wants with his company. You have
the right to watch/pay or not. That is your only right. Deal.
(And hard-core wrestling fans are 95% of the time even more incredibly
delusional, arrogant, and stupid than Star Wars or anime hard-core fans.
I shudder to think of the fate of an industry run by them.)
Blade
>>From: "David Nakamoto" res0...@verizon.net
>>Date: 10/2/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <GcG7d.933$1g5.779@trnddc07
>
>>
>>Yes, that's their right as the owners of that intellectual property.
>>The right gives them the sole power to choose what will happen to that
>>property.
>
> Scream that at the top of your lungs; it won't change the fact
> there are
> people out there with copies of the original in VHS, LD, even Beta
> form. No matter what George Lucas says, unless he pulls a
> Jay-and-Silent-Bob and goes to each individual house (and video store)
> to confiscate them, he can kiss their Greedo-did-not-shoot-first
> asses!
Actually, George said specifically that if people wanted the older
versions, they could get them on VHS.
> As a matter of fact, I've heard there are copies already being
> bittorrented!
And I hope the little pirates get caught and charged for their patently
illegal actions.
One of these days, I hope a lot of people wake up to the fact that you do
NOT have to get, nor do you necessarily deserve, something just because
you want it.
Forget the 80s. This is the real "me me me ME ME ME ME ME MEEEEEE!"
generation.
I hope our kids don't grow up to be such a bunch of greedy little whining
bitches.
GoldenUsagi
>That does not mean he is RIGHT when >he exercises them
>Sea Wasp
On one hand, I completely agree with you, but then, they *are* the creator and
maybe they feel that they can add to their work. But then, their original
vision was probably the best. I think I agree with you.
Example: If Tolkien were still living, and suddenly decided that Frodo and Sam
should be gay and changed it, are they gay? Yes. Should they be? Probably
not.
GoldenUsagi
Blade
news:j6M7d.25981$kq6.16...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
The meaning is what you put it in it.
And it's worth just as much as anyone else's opinion: jack squat, except
to you.
Except for the creator, whose opinion DOES mean something: it isn't quite
canon, but it's the next best thing. It is the generally accepted right
answer.
Pour l'example: I have a pet theory in Ranma that I've used in GRIT,
namely that Pantyhose Tarou is actually Akane's cousin. It's based on a
few scraps of evidence, by far the largest being that Tarou's mother
looks almost identical to Akane.
I don't think this theory is "true". IE, I'm pretty sure it wasn't what
Takahashi had in mind, so while I might use it as a fanfic idea, I would
never present it to anyone as anything other than wild speculation. It's
a possibility, a perfectly valid possibility, but there's no really SOLID
evidence supporting it.
But, if Takahashi were to do an interview where she reveals she made
Tarou's mother look like Akane because she DID plan to have there be a
relationship, but she never got around to developing it (much like I'm
sure she at least had an idea or two about Kodachi and Principal Kuno's
relationship was, but never did a story about them interacting), then I
-would- consider it true, and if I were to ever make a Ranma 1/2 info
page or some such, I would present it as fact.
That is the difference in value between the opinion of a creator, and the
opinion of myself as a fan. On the exact same amount of evidence, what
they say is right, what I say is speculation.
If an author says something is or isn't in their work, it IS or ISN'T.
LotR ISN'T an allegory for World War II. You can still look at it that
way if you choose, but then that's YOU, it's not the work.
Blade
Nope.
It is impossible for them to fail at it. If their author says the book
is, say, a metaphor for the struggle of the American black man (and means
it), then it IS.
It may be a good metaphor, a bad metaphor, or a metaphor nobody but the
author even seems to be able to see, but it is the author that has the
only definitive word on whether or not the metaphor is there. If he says
it's there, it is. How good it is isn't his call, though. ;p
The Wanderer
> ante...@aol.complex (Antonio E. Gonzalez) wrote in
> news:20041002203108...@mb-m15.aol.com:
>
>>> From: "David Nakamoto" res0...@verizon.net Date: 10/2/2004 3:45
>>> PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <GcG7d.933$1g5.779@trnddc07
>>
>>> Yes, that's their right as the owners of that intellectual
>>> property. The right gives them the sole power to choose what will
>>> happen to that property.
>>
>> Scream that at the top of your lungs; it won't change the fact
>> there are people out there with copies of the original in VHS, LD,
>> even Beta form. No matter what George Lucas says, unless he pulls
>> a Jay-and-Silent-Bob and goes to each individual house (and video
>> store) to confiscate them, he can kiss their
>> Greedo-did-not-shoot-first asses!
>
> Actually, George said specifically that if people wanted the older
> versions, they could get them on VHS.
There will come a time when this is about as useful as being able to get
them on Betamax. I suspect that the first members of the generation in
which that will happen are already being born.
What then?
Or does the likelihood that few to none of those people will know enough
to have the chance to care about it make this Not An Issue? (...in which
case this would amount to an IMO despicable "stealth conquest", but...)
>> As a matter of fact, I've heard there are copies already being
>> bittorrented!
>
> And I hope the little pirates get caught and charged for their
> patently illegal actions.
While on one level I agree with you, the law is not the be-all and
end-all. (I had a further argument developing here, but I somehow fail
to see how I was going to make it not an irrelevant tangent, so it has
been left out.)
> One of these days, I hope a lot of people wake up to the fact that
> you do NOT have to get, nor do you necessarily deserve, something
> just because you want it.
This would be a completely different argument, on a much more
meta-level, and might be interesting - but it is not one I want to get
into here and now, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to get into it at all.
(But it has so much potential...)
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
The Wanderer
> Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in
> news:415EA53F...@sgeobviousinc.com:
>> And for him to say "What saw was like 25% of what I wanted" and
>> then the only notable changes being either minor special effects,
>> one eh-eh scene, and one incredibly stupid change indicates that
>> he's just talking through his hat or through a very wierd
>> perceptual lens.
>
> And you would know this because of your fabulous intuition into what
> George Lucas considers important, and what he considers making the
> films better.
...would know which?
I would think it to be virtually inarguable that if George Lucas
perceives the small changes which were made in the Special Edition as
moving from 25% of his vision up to (say) 90% or more, then simply
because so very little *was* changed in practical terms, he is
perceiving things in a very strange way.
What alternative would you present?
> I happen to agree with you that the changes are very minor, and that
> the fanboys (who clearly think they are HUGE changes) are whining
> over nothing.
Actually, of all of the changes which were made, the only one I object
to is the Han-and-Greedo scene - because there is *no* point to it that
I can see other than to bring things in line with "the good guys can't
be dirty", which is a manifestation of the "sanitize everything for the
sake of ****" philosophy I find so abhorrent.
I also, just as a datapoint, haven't bought the DVDs and am unlikely to
- nor have I obtained copies illegally. (Although I do have (ready
access to) VHS copies from some while back.) I'm not excessively
interested in Star Wars, but I'd be glad to have high-quality copies
such as one might expect to get via DVD and would like to see some of
the changes/additions (the one ballyhooed "extra scene" springs to mind)
- but that one change, in particular, does in fact damage the piece
enough to make it Not Worth It for me. (If only because I'd have to
cringe my way through that scene every time I watched the thing.)
If that order of events had been present in the original, it probably
wouldn't bother me in the least. It's the fact that they felt the need
to go back and *change* it (badly and obviously, too, if my memory of
the one time I saw the changed scene is accurate) that I find so
objectionable.
Ethan Hammond
>
> For George Lucas to jealously seize hold of it again and say "It's MINE,
and
> I shall control it absolutely", is not just offensive, but sad. It means
> he's lost sight of something crucial. He's also doomed to fail, and I
don't
> know what damage he might do (to himself, not the least) in the process.
The sad thing about Star Wars is, no matter how shoddy the product it
still makes money. One of the marketing people at Lucas said it best,
"we could take a piece of crap and put it in a box and label it Wookie
Crap and it would still sell." I think that is true. It seems the Star
Wars
DVD has been selling very well. I was lucky and I bought the final
version of the originals before Lucas screwed with them. The one in
the blue hologram box. Lucas also put Star Wars on DVD right now
because he wants to do another super special HD version in 2007 and
because he was afraid with downloading and what not that there might
not be enough of a market for it, if he didn't do it now. Although I don't
really see the second one as being a realistic possibility.
The other thing I don't really understand about the changes made in Star
Wars is that the fans liked the movies the way they were. No one was
clamoring for changes to be made to the Star Wars movies. I think in the
case of something like Highlander 2 where the fans don't like it then it
makes
sense to change it.
I mean Steven Spielberg was afraid the shark in Jaws was going to look like
a giant floating turd, but it turned out to become the first summer
blockbuster.
That dosen't mean now he is going to go back and CGI a new shark, because
in 1975 he didn't think the shark looked good, but it did and the movie did
very
well.
The changes in Star Wars really turned me off of it. I used to read all the
novels
and be pretty into it, but they can just change what happened from one day
to the
next 1984 style and that annoys me. The events either happened one way or
they
didn't.
--
All Purpose Cultural Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Ethan Hammond
> can buy the VHS -- I don't know whether he's accurate or not.
I don't think he said they could buy the VHS, I think he said they
are on VHS. I don't know why he couldn't put the originals on the
DVD with the new version, but then again I don't know why he couldn't
had had Greedo shoot as well, if that was his original vision.
Blade
news:68idndpRn58...@comcast.com:
> Blade wrote:
>
>> Sea Wasp <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in
>> news:415EA53F...@sgeobviousinc.com:
>
>>> And for him to say "What saw was like 25% of what I wanted" and
>>> then the only notable changes being either minor special effects,
>>> one eh-eh scene, and one incredibly stupid change indicates that
>>> he's just talking through his hat or through a very wierd
>>> perceptual lens.
>>
>> And you would know this because of your fabulous intuition into what
>> George Lucas considers important, and what he considers making the
>> films better.
>
> ...would know which?
>
> I would think it to be virtually inarguable that if George Lucas
> perceives the small changes which were made in the Special Edition as
> moving from 25% of his vision up to (say) 90% or more, then simply
> because so very little *was* changed in practical terms, he is
> perceiving things in a very strange way.
>
> What alternative would you present?
Heh. My friend, please look at what you say below:
>> I happen to agree with you that the changes are very minor, and that
>> the fanboys (who clearly think they are HUGE changes) are whining
>> over nothing.
>
> Actually, of all of the changes which were made, the only one I object
> to is the Han-and-Greedo scene - because there is *no* point to it
> that I can see other than to bring things in line with "the good guys
> can't be dirty", which is a manifestation of the "sanitize everything
> for the sake of ****" philosophy I find so abhorrent.
>
> I also, just as a datapoint, haven't bought the DVDs and am unlikely
> to - nor have I obtained copies illegally. (Although I do have (ready
> access to) VHS copies from some while back.) I'm not excessively
> interested in Star Wars, but I'd be glad to have high-quality copies
> such as one might expect to get via DVD and would like to see some of
> the changes/additions (the one ballyhooed "extra scene" springs to
> mind) - but that one change, in particular, does in fact damage the
> piece enough to make it Not Worth It for me. (If only because I'd have
> to cringe my way through that scene every time I watched the thing.)
>
> If that order of events had been present in the original, it probably
> wouldn't bother me in the least. It's the fact that they felt the need
> to go back and *change* it (badly and obviously, too, if my memory of
> the one time I saw the changed scene is accurate) that I find so
> objectionable.
If one such small, insignificant event, that ONE CHANGE, "in particular,
does in fact damage the piece enough to make it Not Worth It for me",
then how can you NOT understand how several changes, seemingly small and
insignificant to others, can have a huge effect on how George Lucas
perceives his creation?
(Oh, and incidentally, it's a different change on the DVDs. Han and
Greedo shoot simultaneously.)
Blade
>> ante...@aol.complex (Antonio E. Gonzalez) wrote in
>> news:20041002203108...@mb-m15.aol.com:
>>>> property. The right gives them the sole power to choose what will
>>>> happen to that property.
>>>
>>> Scream that at the top of your lungs; it won't change the fact
>>> there are people out there with copies of the original in VHS, LD,
>>> even Beta form. No matter what George Lucas says, unless he pulls
>>> a Jay-and-Silent-Bob and goes to each individual house (and video
>>> store) to confiscate them, he can kiss their
>>> Greedo-did-not-shoot-first asses!
>>
>> Actually, George said specifically that if people wanted the older
>> versions, they could get them on VHS.
>
> There will come a time when this is about as useful as being able to
> get them on Betamax. I suspect that the first members of the
> generation in which that will happen are already being born.
>
> What then?
Then they can get copies of the old media, if they want it so badly.
> Or does the likelihood that few to none of those people will know
> enough to have the chance to care about it make this Not An Issue?
> (...in which case this would amount to an IMO despicable "stealth
> conquest", but...)
It's Lucas' decision whether or not to put out DVDs of the so-called
"original" versions. If he does not, that is perhaps regrettable to
some, but it is his decision to make nonetheless.
It isn't an issue because he's the one with the authority to make the
decision, and I can think of no reason whatsoever pressing enough to
force the issue. They're only movies. Movies only slightly different
from the ones available on DVD now.
>>> As a matter of fact, I've heard there are copies already being
>>> bittorrented!
>>
>> And I hope the little pirates get caught and charged for their
>> patently illegal actions.
>
> While on one level I agree with you, the law is not the be-all and
> end-all. (I had a further argument developing here, but I somehow fail
> to see how I was going to make it not an irrelevant tangent, so it has
> been left out.)
No, it isn't. But what they're doing is wrong, so I hope for their
punishment even though I rather doubt it will happen.
>> One of these days, I hope a lot of people wake up to the fact that
>> you do NOT have to get, nor do you necessarily deserve, something
>> just because you want it.
>
> This would be a completely different argument, on a much more
> meta-level, and might be interesting - but it is not one I want to get
> into here and now, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to get into it at
> all. (But it has so much potential...)
Quite so. This is, after all, already off-topic; I'm a little ashamed
for jumping in (but this is very much a hot-button topic for me, both
with Lucas/SW in specific, and creators vs. fans rights in general).
Such things are becoming a disturbingly high amount of my newsgroup
traffic, actually. Something I'll have to consider.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Example: If Tolkien were still living, and suddenly decided that
> Frodo and Sam should be gay and changed it, are they gay? Yes.
> Should they be? Probably not.
Wait... they're not...?
Catherine Johnson. Ok, who didn't see that one coming...?
--
fenm at cox dot net
"When Catherine thinks you're too gay, you're too gay."
-Rob Fontenot, aka The Midnight Rambler, RATMM.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Certainly the fans matter on a level. They provide money.
Wow. You really think that's all fans are? That explains a lot about your
feelings on this issue.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Blade
> Blade wrote:
>
>> Certainly the fans matter on a level. They provide money.
>
> Wow. You really think that's all fans are? That explains a lot about
> your feelings on this issue.
Yes. I really do. What else, precisely, do they provide to the final
product?
I'm an enormous fan of Orson Scott Card. His are some of the few novels
I still read. But I haven't had one iota of influence on his books, nor
should he ever change so much as a single word in a book in order to suit
me. And if I don't like the revised edition of Ender's Game, then that
doesn't make the revised edition wrong or bad; it means I can go find a
copy of the older edition, or I can go take my money and spend it
elsewhere. That is my influence. The only influence I have. The only
influence I -should- have.
Now, if OSC (or Lucas) DECIDES to care more about what fans think than
that, that's pretty much their decision. But it is a decision for THEM
to make. Not the fans. The fans didn't create squat. They are
CONSUMERS. They take what was made, they are owed nothing for it.
It seems a self-evident position to me, really. (shrug)
iira...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>"arnold kim" <arno...@optonline.net> wrote in
>news:EaM7d.25992$kq6.16...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
>
>>
>> "Sea Wasp" <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>> news:415F690C...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>>> arnold kim wrote:
>>
>>> Is it up to the author to tell us what the
>>>> story is supposed to mean?
>>>
>>>
>>> If it has any True Meaning (other than "I wanted to make money, don't
>>> get all fancy"), the author's the only one who knows it.
>>
>> Is it possible for an artist to try, but fail, to apply that "True
>> Meaning" into the story? I think so.
>
>Nope.
>
>It is impossible for them to fail at it. If their author says the book
>is, say, a metaphor for the struggle of the American black man (and means
>it), then it IS.
>
>It may be a good metaphor, a bad metaphor, or a metaphor nobody but the
>author even seems to be able to see, but it is the author that has the
>only definitive word on whether or not the metaphor is there. If he says
>it's there, it is. How good it is isn't his call, though. ;p
>
>Blade
Reminds me of a story I once read about where a college professor was
discussing a literary work, reading all sorts metaphors, messages and
what not. A member of the audience stood up and said that half the
things the professor said are all just made up by the professor and
are nowhere in the book. The professor asked how this man knew all
this. The man said that he was the author of the book and he should
know. The professor then said he had the correct viewpoint and not
the author.
Also, I read in one of the books by Christopher Tolkien that his
father kept making revisions to each edition of The Hobbit and the
Lord of the Rings. That is why all refernce books for LOTR all
cite which specific edition of the books they get their information
from.
----
Dendarii Free Mercenary Fleet
Daring rescues our specialty.
Ethan Hammond
>
> >> >>It's a sad thing that fandom feels so compelled to bite the hand
> >> >>that feeds it.
Is it not a two way street. Because Star Wars did well George Lucas was
able to make ESB and all the other movies and because there was so much
demand he was able to make Episode 1, 16 years later. I think it says
something that there is almost no buzz for Episode 3.
Chris Kern
<arno...@optonline.net> posted the following:
]\
>Is it possible for an artist to try, but fail, to apply that "True Meaning"
>into the story?
No. It is impossible for an artist to be wrong in describing the
meaning of his own creation.
-Chris
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:icadnaDJ9rR...@comcast.com:
>
>> Blade wrote:
>>> Actually, George said specifically that if people wanted the
>>> older versions, they could get them on VHS.
>>
>> There will come a time when this is about as useful as being able
>> to get them on Betamax. I suspect that the first members of the
>> generation in which that will happen are already being born.
>>
>> What then?
>
> Then they can get copies of the old media, if they want it so badly.
>
...which will do them no good, if they don't also have the ability to
play the old media. (For an example of that which is more of a stretch
than is Betamax, try the old cylindrical wax records - you can't buy
players for those *anywhere* unless you happen to find someone who has
one of the antiques and is willing to sell.)
>> Or does the likelihood that few to none of those people will know
>> enough to have the chance to care about it make this Not An Issue?
>> (...in which case this would amount to an IMO despicable "stealth
>> conquest", but...)
>
> It's Lucas' decision whether or not to put out DVDs of the so-called
> "original" versions. If he does not, that is perhaps regrettable to
> some, but it is his decision to make nonetheless.
>
> It isn't an issue because he's the one with the authority to make the
> decision, and I can think of no reason whatsoever pressing enough to
> force the issue. They're only movies. Movies only slightly
> different from the ones available on DVD now.
I would, I think, hold that the fact that people (number not specified)
enjoy the older versions more than they do the versions he considers to
be improved would be a sufficiently pressing reason. It's exactly the
same reasoning I use, at least in my own head (which is mostly where the
notion has been discussed), to say that no matter how much anyone may
dislike the dubs of certain anime the fact that there are people out
there who *do* like those dubs and even prefer them to the original
justifies keeping those dubs available.
I'm not sure I'd agree that *anyone* has the authority to take something
which people enjoy (and whose availability harms nothing else)
permanently and entirely away from them - and if I would, I very likely
wouldn't accept it purely on the grounds of artistic sensibility.
(An entire alternate line of response has been deleted, because it winds
up A) going places I'm not sure I want to and B) putting words in your
mouth.)
Sea Wasp
Is it possible for someone to screw up? Yes. Does that mean that the
real meaning changes? No. Just that he presented it poorly.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
The Wanderer
> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:68idndpRn58...@comcast.com:
>
>> Blade wrote:
>>> And you would know this because of your fabulous intuition into
>>> what George Lucas considers important, and what he considers
>>> making the films better.
>>
>> ...would know which?
>>
>> I would think it to be virtually inarguable that if George Lucas
>> perceives the small changes which were made in the Special Edition
>> as moving from 25% of his vision up to (say) 90% or more, then
>> simply because so very little *was* changed in practical terms, he
>> is perceiving things in a very strange way.
>>
>> What alternative would you present?
>
> Heh. My friend, please look at what you say below:
(Hmm. It's hard to figure out how to snip this properly. There may be
some flaws in my posting style.
I regretted the phrasing even when I wrote that. Oh, well.
> then how can you NOT understand how several changes, seemingly small
> and insignificant to others, can have a huge effect on how George
> Lucas perceives his creation?
I can see how it can have a considerable effect, yes. I do not and
perhaps cannot see how it can compensate for or offset anything like the
full 75% by which the previous versions were allegedly off from what he
desires, because the changes do not even encompass 75% of the series - I
doubt they encompass as much as 25%, even if one allows for every minor
special-effects change to count.
The vast majority of the series is not harmed by that one particular
change which bothers me. It is simply that A) I would not be able to
seamlessly avoid encountering and thus being bothered by that scene when
watching the series, and thus it has an effect on whether or not I (on
net) like the thing, and B) I do not want to support things like such
gratuitous changes, and thus I don't buy the series. It's a little like
a chip in a lovely dish: it doesn't destroy the functionality, but it's
unattractive, and even if I manage to hide it I'll still know the flaw
is there.
Lucas seems to have implied that the vast majority of the series (75%)
was off in some way, was in need of repair. (I'm aware that this is a
clunky and probably not entirely valid application of the number; it's
easier to address than is the full idea, and the general reasoning
should I think still hold.) Changing a few dozen small things here and
there does not come close to affecting enough of the series to 'justify'
claiming that it effects that much of a repair. For another analogy, if
you think of the series as like a living thing, being off by 75% would
be like having the creature covered in minor (and/or possibly major)
wounds and scars. The changes he's made resemble putting on a few
bandages and perhaps removing a few of the scars; the majority of the
problem is, unavoidably, still there.
> (Oh, and incidentally, it's a different change on the DVDs. Han and
> Greedo shoot simultaneously.)
Yes, I saw that in an earlier part of this thread. By this point it
doesn't make much of a difference for me - while there's less to object
to in terms of the result of the change, except in the "Greedo couldn't
hit the broad side of a Bantha from two paces" sense (which in this
context smacks slightly of stretching to find a complaint), the fact
that there is a change would still remind me just about as badly of the
original change and would thus still ruin the scene for me.
For another possibly interesting point, if they had made the change to
that in the first place (instead of stopping off at "Han fired back"), I
probably wouldn't have objected nearly so strongly as I did - and might
even not have objected at all, except in the sense of "why fix something
which isn't broken?". (Further comment deleted because I'm not being
able to write anything coherent.)
Ethan Hammond
>
> > Certainly the fans matter on a level. They provide money.
>
> Wow. You really think that's all fans are? That explains a lot about
your
> feelings on this issue.
Maybe he has been listening to Anno too much.
Ethan Hammond
>
> Reminds me of a story I once read about where a college professor was
> discussing a literary work, reading all sorts metaphors, messages and
> what not. A member of the audience stood up and said that half the
> things the professor said are all just made up by the professor and
> are nowhere in the book. The professor asked how this man knew all
> this. The man said that he was the author of the book and he should
> know. The professor then said he had the correct viewpoint and not
> the author.
That is why I sometimes get annoyed with my film classes. The number
one reason I believe movies are made is to make money and not for
artist reasons and some film professors will try to see all these artistic
things in a movie that really just isn't there.
> Also, I read in one of the books by Christopher Tolkien that his
> father kept making revisions to each edition of The Hobbit and the
> Lord of the Rings. That is why all refernce books for LOTR all
> cite which specific edition of the books they get their information
> from.
Hmmm, that is interesting.
The Wanderer
It is impossible for an artist to be wrong in describing the intended
meaning of his own creation. It may, however, be possible for him to be
wrong (or at least incomplete) in describing the *actual* meaning of
that creation.
This gets back again to the debate about the nature of meaning, which as
far as I'm concerned has long since reached the point where it is
obvious that it will not and perhaps cannot be resolved.
Sea Wasp
> <iira...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>Also, I read in one of the books by Christopher Tolkien that his
>>father kept making revisions to each edition of The Hobbit and the
>>Lord of the Rings. That is why all refernce books for LOTR all
>>cite which specific edition of the books they get their information
>>from.
>
>
> Hmmm, that is interesting.
My favorite bit along those lines is that the climactic scenes in
LotR were rewritten MULTIPLE times -- and were completely different
each time. There is a version of the scene in which Frodo dukes it out
with the Lord of the Nazgul in the Cracks of Doom. There's one in
which Sam pushes Gollum. Sauruman isn't the cause of the problems in
the Shire in early drafts -- Sharkey is just some punk orc. And so on.
arnold kim
> "arnold kim" <arno...@optonline.net> wrote in
> news:EaM7d.25992$kq6.16...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
>
>>
>> "Sea Wasp" <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>> news:415F690C...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>>> arnold kim wrote:
>>
>>> Is it up to the author to tell us what the
>>>> story is supposed to mean?
>>>
>>>
>>> If it has any True Meaning (other than "I wanted to make money, don't
>>> get all fancy"), the author's the only one who knows it.
>>
>> Is it possible for an artist to try, but fail, to apply that "True
>> Meaning" into the story? I think so.
>
> Nope.
>
> It is impossible for them to fail at it. If their author says the book
> is, say, a metaphor for the struggle of the American black man (and means
> it), then it IS.
For the author.
Question: what if the book is written by two authors and both have their own
opinion of what the book is "really" about?
Arnold Kim
arnold kim
What if he subconciously applies a different meaning to the story?
Arnold Kim
arnold kim
>
>> Blade wrote:
>>
>>> Because George Lucas, last I checked, actually MADE those movies all
>>> those fans love so much. MADE THEM. That's kind of the point: THEY
>>> WOULD NOT EXIST WERE IT NOT FOR GEORGE LUCAS.
>>>
>>
>> And for a whole bunch of OTHER people. Lucas' original vision was
>
> Every single one of those other people could have been replaced and we
> would have gotten a (somewhat changed) Star Wars. -Any- one of those
> people could have been removed and we still would have gotten a Star
> Wars.
>
> No Lucas = No Star Wars.
>
> Period. End of discussion. He created it. He also has the rights to
> it. And he deserves them, because he did create it.
Does Lucas have the right to change Han Solo's line, "I know," from Empire
Strikes Back? After all, he didn't write that line of dialog, Harrison Ford
did.
Arnold Kim
arnold kim
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote in
> news:5SO7d.289202$4o.159674@fed1read01:
>
>> Blade wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly the fans matter on a level. They provide money.
>>
>> Wow. You really think that's all fans are? That explains a lot about
>> your feelings on this issue.
>
> Yes. I really do. What else, precisely, do they provide to the final
> product?
>
> I'm an enormous fan of Orson Scott Card. His are some of the few novels
> I still read. But I haven't had one iota of influence on his books, nor
> should he ever change so much as a single word in a book in order to suit
> me. And if I don't like the revised edition of Ender's Game, then that
> doesn't make the revised edition wrong or bad; it means I can go find a
> copy of the older edition, or I can go take my money and spend it
> elsewhere. That is my influence. The only influence I have. The only
> influence I -should- have.
Which is true. However, I think it's fair to say that if not for the
financial success of the original Star Wars, the sequels or prequels may
never have gotten made. Money may be the only influence, but it's an
enormous one.
Arnold Kim
Disruptor
GoldenUsagi wrote:
> >He has rights. No doubt about it.
> >That does not mean he is RIGHT when >he exercises them
>
> >Sea Wasp
>
> On one hand, I completely agree with you, but then, they *are* the creator and
> maybe they feel that they can add to their work. But then, their original
> vision was probably the best. I think I agree with you.
In part I agree, but there is something that fouls up Lucas. Lucas opened his
world up to the Star Wars RPG and the EPU(ExPanded Universe line of books and
comics). He has made tons of money off of it. Now, he is going back and making
movies that delibartely contradict the EPU.
>
> Example: If Tolkien were still living, and suddenly decided that Frodo and Sam
> should be gay and changed it, are they gay? Yes. Should they be? Probably
> not.
His stuff should be in the public domain by now. Anything over 28 years or
exceeding the life of an author by more than a decade is way too long.
Sea Wasp
> His stuff should be in the public domain by now. Anything over 28 years or
> exceeding the life of an author by more than a decade is way too long.
>
There you're getting into an entirely different conversation, though.
Take it up with Disney.
David Nakamoto
news:DqX7d.28728$kq6.18...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Very true, whether you're a Hollywood money man or a
producer/director/creator.
BUT the first one got made without any fan support in a significant way.
I'm talking about when it was being conceived and produced, not when it got
to the theaters. And it's the basis of everything that followed. If it
were not for the drive of George Lucas to get it made, despite the
financial, cultural and technical obstacles, nothing else would have
followed.
So we go back to Blade's position, held also by me and a few others. Fans
are consumers. If you buy a Star Wars toy, you have the right to that toy
only, not everything connected to it. If you buy a ticket to see a movie,
you buy the right to see the movie for that one showing. You do not own
it, as most people on this thread are loudly advocating.
--
Yours Truly,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'raid if you're afraid you'll have to overlook it.
Besides, you knew the job was dangerous when you took it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Nakamoto
news:i6gvl0tokdnc11si1...@4ax.com...
The professor was an egotist, as many are. He tries to own a work in its
entirety, without having produced one shred of it, as is evident from the
last sentence, given that the entire story above is told accurately enough.
Do we find our own metaphors and ideas in any art work? Of course we do, if
we choose to do so. Can we share those with others? Of course we can, if
we choose to do so.
Can we say our metaphors and ideas derived from an art work are the authors?
No, not unless verifired by the author. Hence the arrogance of the
professor to state that he had the correct viewpoint.
Can we say that we own the work, the same as saying we have a right to
dictate how the work should be presented or expanded on, simply because we
have our own ideas about it or even just bought a copy of it? We only own
the copy in the form of a book or DVD, not the entire body of work. We only
bought a right to see the movie once on the screen, not the entire body of
work.
Can we ask for the original version? Of course, you MAY ask . . . but the
author is not obilgated to say yes. Asking is one thing, but some on this
thread are demanding to have the original released, as if they have a right
to it, which they say they do. Wrong, totally wrong.
> Also, I read in one of the books by Christopher Tolkien that his
> father kept making revisions to each edition of The Hobbit and the
> Lord of the Rings. That is why all refernce books for LOTR all
> cite which specific edition of the books they get their information
> from.
This is separate from the topic of whether Lucas has the sole rights to what
happens to the Star Wars material, but I'd like to comment on it.
This is true of any conscious artist, meaning one who is at least conscious
of his past works and how they seem now. Any work of art is a moment
captured in time. And as with life, some things change and some remain the
same. So large-scale themes may remain the same through the revisions, but
specifics may change because the artist is in a different psychic
(soul-related) place. What was correct in one time is no longer so now, or
it may be that the original was not what the author intended due to
technical difficulties, or some other reason.
In Lucas's instance, he's said time and time again that he was limited in
presenting what he considered his vision for the original Star Wars by the
special effects technology of the time, the crunch in money and time to get
it filmed for a fixed budget, and the fact that the special effects were way
behind schedule. The advances in technology have allowed him to go back and
do it closer to his original vision.
I'm sure he feels bad when he sees the original, and doesn't want that to
represent his vision of the first movie. As someone who does some arts, and
has looked back on his past accomplishments, I can certainly understand and
empathize with this feeling. If he feels that the original version of the
first Star Wars movie, and the other two that followed, is not what he
intended, and wishes to not present it again, as the creator of it all, that
is his right.
Of course, there are many reasons an author might want to revise or revisit
an earlier work. Working through one's inner soul and revisiting previous
works is just one.
Steve Harrison
<fis...@deadmoon.circus> wrote:
> Alex Taylor wrote:
>
> > For George Lucas to jealously seize hold of it again and
> > say "It's MINE, and I shall control it absolutely", is not
> > just offensive, but sad. It means he's lost sight of
> > something crucial. He's also doomed to fail, and I don't
> > know what damage he might do (to himself, not the least)
> > in the process.
>
> Sadly, I don't think he'll see that damage, though. It'll still make
> money, so he'll see it as a success.
> Ya know, if you don't care about (or know about) the changes, that's one
> thing. But I read a (admittedly VERY unscientific) poll where many
> respondents say they knew of, and where bothered by, the changes in the
> DVDs, but would still buy the set. ARGH!
> Also, he says that most artists consider their works unfinished. Yeah.
> And...? Most of them have the integrity, once they're released them, to
> leave them the hell alone. or at least keep the original intact. Which is
> all most people are asking for, btw. Release the special-effect,
> Greedo-shoots-first, replacing-Alec-Guinness-with-Ewan-McGregor version.
> But ALSO release the originals! In fact, if he released the versions
> separately, wouldn't that be best? He'd make more many (since both camps
> would buy the DVDs, and some people would buy both versions), all the fans
> would be happy... who'd be the loser?
> And there's a point I'd like to make to Blade: As you said in another
> post, yes, he did create Star Wars. And, if not for him, it would not
> exist. But it works both ways... if not for the fans, a guy named Lucas
> would have made a few quirky films in the 70's, one of which was a sort of
> silly little space film.
> I hear a lot about artists saying, "I create stuff for me, and I don't care
> about what people say." I can see this point, but... it seems like at some
> point, the fans DO have to matter. If you're just creating "for yourself",
> and don't care what other people say, why release what you create to the
> public? And, once you release something to the public, why then ignore
> what the public has to say about it? Especially since the "I don't care"
> usually only seems to apply when something negative is said. How often
> does an artist say "I don't care that people LIKE what I do"?
Ya know, this pretty much sums it all up, and sadly, there's just not
going to be moving people from one 'camp' to the other...
Here's the *business* argument I face over buying the SW DVD set...based
on Lucas' comments and just overall knowledge of 'how the beancounters
think' nowadays...
If I object that the 'original' SW movies aren't available, and I vote
with my Dollars by not buying the current release, and a significant
number of people agree with me, Lucas and Fox says "Huh...looks like we
over-estimated how popular this thing really is...guess there's no reason
to release the 'original' editions, clearly the market doesn't support
it..."
Now, if I grit my teeth, buy the set like most folks are doing (mainly for
the 4th disc, actually...I can still watch the original versions on my
widescreen VHS tapes from the early '90s release) then Lucas and Fox sit
back and see "See? sales don't lie, everyone *loves* the changes, it's
just that annoying tiny subset of fans who piss and moan about
*everything*...we don't need to release the 'original' versions after
all..."
See? with the current stated mindset, it's a lose-lose situation, from the
point of view of wanting a legit DVD release of the original, as seen in
theaters in 1977/80/83 movies. They don't *have* to do it, because they
can choose to interpet sales the way they want to prove their point.
And yet Lucas bemoans Columbia for adding a 'colorized' option on their
new Three Stooges releases....something about "the memories of youth
shouldn't be tampered with" or some such.
(not that I approve of colorizing B&W movies, I don't...but if they feel
they *have* to do it to get a broader audence, at least they're doing it
right by making it an *option*.....)
Fans don't have 'rights' in regards to what Lucas does with SW,
naturally....we're only consumers in the end, so this is ultimatly all
useless...we *already*(somehow...or Fox gave him a bazillion gazillion
Dollars to just do it) managed to force his hand, putting the SW films on
DVD before his original 2006 or thereabouts date...
I won't debate the changes...I'll just say that they prove Lucas has
forgotten everything about pacing and storytelling he might have learned
at USC, and the one change he *should* do (replacing the Ewoks with CG
versions, so instead of little people stumping around in heavy fur suits
and not really being able to *move*, the CG Ewoks could be the credible
'ghost in the forest' threat to the Imperials...OK, I'll stop now....)
isn't going to happen.... ;)
--
I've been forced to spam-trap my edress.
To email me enter 'tochiro at ix dot netcom dot com' in your 'to' field.
I apologize in advance for making communication less easy.
Fight the Spam! <*> Steve H. Yamato Guru
Blade
2dne9wp5Sc...@comcast.com:
> Blade wrote:
>
>> The Wanderer <inverse...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:icadnaDJ9rR...@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Blade wrote:
>
>>>> Actually, George said specifically that if people wanted the
>>>> older versions, they could get them on VHS.
>>>
>>> There will come a time when this is about as useful as being able
>>> to get them on Betamax. I suspect that the first members of the
>>> generation in which that will happen are already being born.
>>>
>>> What then?
>>
>> Then they can get copies of the old media, if they want it so badly.
>>
> ...which will do them no good, if they don't also have the ability to
> play the old media. (For an example of that which is more of a stretch
> than is Betamax, try the old cylindrical wax records - you can't buy
> players for those *anywhere* unless you happen to find someone who has
> one of the antiques and is willing to sell.)
Then they can do the work and spend the money to get it, if they want it so
badly.
I fail to see the problem with that, unless one is coming from the attitude
of "well, I WANT it, so I should have it easily available".
>>> Or does the likelihood that few to none of those people will know
>>> enough to have the chance to care about it make this Not An Issue?
>>> (...in which case this would amount to an IMO despicable "stealth
>>> conquest", but...)
>>
>> It's Lucas' decision whether or not to put out DVDs of the so-called
>> "original" versions. If he does not, that is perhaps regrettable to
>> some, but it is his decision to make nonetheless.
>>
>> It isn't an issue because he's the one with the authority to make the
>> decision, and I can think of no reason whatsoever pressing enough to
>> force the issue. They're only movies. Movies only slightly
>> different from the ones available on DVD now.
>
> I would, I think, hold that the fact that people (number not specified)
> enjoy the older versions more than they do the versions he considers to
> be improved would be a sufficiently pressing reason. It's exactly the
No. It isn't. It is in fact no reason at all.
> same reasoning I use, at least in my own head (which is mostly where the
> notion has been discussed), to say that no matter how much anyone may
> dislike the dubs of certain anime the fact that there are people out
> there who *do* like those dubs and even prefer them to the original
> justifies keeping those dubs available.
Let me use a relevent example.
I like the old Software Sculptors Here is Greenwood dub quite a bit. The
new DVD of Here is Greenwood has a different dub, which I do not like
nearly so much. Should I complain to the company because they didn't
include the dub I wanted? Of course not. If I want the old dub badly
enough, I will track down copies of the old VHS tapes and get it that way.
Nobody is OBLIGED to provide me exactly what I want simply because I am a
customer.
Similarly, Lucas is not OBLIGED to provide jack squat. He may suffer for
it in terms of not as many sales, but that is HIS call to make.
The only right the fan has is to buy, or not buy. They are not entitled to
get what they want, it is up to them to find what they want. If what they
want isn't easily available, then they can go to the trouble of finding it,
or do without.
This stuff is a privilige, a luxury. It isn't a right.
> I'm not sure I'd agree that *anyone* has the authority to take something
> which people enjoy (and whose availability harms nothing else)
> permanently and entirely away from them - and if I would, I very likely
> wouldn't accept it purely on the grounds of artistic sensibility.
Well, then, I'm afraid you are wrong on a legal front. And I disagree
totally on the moral one. Lucas is the creator. Without him, it wouldn't
exist. He has the right to release whatever version of Star Wars suits his
fancy, and withold whatever version doesn't. Much like Naoko Takeuchi has
the right to prevent the final Sailor Moon anime season from ever being
released commercially.
Try to take away that right, and you are saying what fans want for a series
overrules what creators want for THEIR series. And that I will never agree
with.
Blade
>
> "Blade" <kumo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95771C529F...@216.196.97.142...
>> "arnold kim" <arno...@optonline.net> wrote in
>> news:EaM7d.25992$kq6.16...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
>>
>>>
>>> "Sea Wasp" <seaobvi...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>>> news:415F690C...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>>>> arnold kim wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is it up to the author to tell us what the
>>>>> story is supposed to mean?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it has any True Meaning (other than "I wanted to make money,
>>>> don't get all fancy"), the author's the only one who knows it.
>>>
>>> Is it possible for an artist to try, but fail, to apply that "True
>>> Meaning" into the story? I think so.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> It is impossible for them to fail at it. If their author says the
>> book is, say, a metaphor for the struggle of the American black man
>> (and means it), then it IS.
>
> For the author.
No, that's what it IS. Period. End of story.
You may not like, understand, notice, or care for the metaphor, but it is
still a metaphor, for that was the intent that went into its creation.
> Question: what if the book is written by two authors and both have
> their own opinion of what the book is "really" about?
Then they're both right, at least for the parts they created.
Blade
But Harrison Ford didn't decide to have that in the final movie, George
Lucas did.
So yes, he does.
Steve Harrison
<chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> To speak frankly, that's a load of bullshit. If I create something,
> it's MINE, not the readers/viewers. If I want to make substantial
> changes to it for a re-print or re-release, that's my prerogative, and
> if people don't like it, they can continue to see the old one.
Except that this is the core issue...they can't, at least as far as legit
DVD releases...yes, they can view the old LDs, like me they can view the
old VHS tapes, so maybe that's enough to put it in your favor, your view
of 'continuing to watch the old ones'..
it's NOT like reprinting a novel and making changes (such as Larry Niven
did with Ringworld, when he discovered he had mistakenly had the Earth
spinning the wrong way....or the 'restored' Stranger in a Strange Land)
where yes, the medium is the same, only the content is altered.
>
> Lucas was perfectly justified in doing what he did. It's his movie,
> he can do with it what he wants.
Can he do what he wants? Yes, of course, it's his movies...Justified? I'm
not so sure I would use that word...but that's just me....
Blade
Naturally. And you are perfectly free to wield that influence by not
buying the DVDs.
That's the only right you have, however: to buy or not buy. You are not
OWED whatever particular version of Star Wars happens to be your
favourite. That's the whole point.
Blade
news:noUBE-03100...@sdn-ap-001ilchicp0415.dialsprint.net:
> In article <gkiul0ppu6tjl4loh...@4ax.com>, Chris Kern
> <chris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> To speak frankly, that's a load of bullshit. If I create something,
>> it's MINE, not the readers/viewers. If I want to make substantial
>> changes to it for a re-print or re-release, that's my prerogative,
>> and if people don't like it, they can continue to see the old one.
>
> Except that this is the core issue...they can't, at least as far as
> legit DVD releases...yes, they can view the old LDs, like me they can
> view the old VHS tapes, so maybe that's enough to put it in your
> favor, your view of 'continuing to watch the old ones'..
You know what? I couldn't care less if there was absolutely no way to
watch the "originals" at all. That doesn't in the slightest change the
fact Lucas is right to say he can release the versions he wants to.
You are a fan. You did not create the work. You have no right to it.
You can either buy the version that is given, or you can do without, and
Lucas thus doesn't get your money.
You do not "deserve" the older versions. You are not "owed" them. They
are MOVIES. They are ENTERTAINMENT. They are LUXURIES. It does not
harm anybody to have or not have them.
Lucas, as the creator, decides what you get. You, as the consumer,
decide whether you will buy it. You are not entitled to more than that.
You SHOULD not be entitled to more than that.
Alex Taylor
> Reminds me of a story I once read about where a college professor was
> discussing a literary work, reading all sorts metaphors, messages and
> what not. A member of the audience stood up and said that half the
> things the professor said are all just made up by the professor and
> are nowhere in the book. The professor asked how this man knew all
> this. The man said that he was the author of the book and he should
> know. The professor then said he had the correct viewpoint and not
> the author.
If the professor was talking about interpretations (and not actually
making up quotations from the book), then the professor is certainly
justified in saying his view have validity.
> Also, I read in one of the books by Christopher Tolkien that his
> father kept making revisions to each edition of The Hobbit and the
> Lord of the Rings. That is why all refernce books for LOTR all
> cite which specific edition of the books they get their information
> from.
Sort of. Lord of the Rings had a second edition released which corrected
a few minor errors, and also fixed some names and dates listed in the
appendices. There were no actual story changes.
The change to The Hobbit was a story change, and a fairly major one, but
not quite intentional. Tolkien was exchanging letters with his publisher,
discussing the problems he was having in reconciling Gollum's behaviour in
the Hobbit with the story that was developing in the Lord of the Rings.
In one letter, he enclosed an alternate version of the Gollum chapter from
The Hobbit, to illustrate the differences. From what I've read, he intended
this merely as a basis point for further discussion of the creative issues.
Tolkien was extremely surprised when his publisher actually swapped in the
rewritten chapter for the second edition of The Hobbit.
To his credit, he managed to plausibly explain the reason for 'two versions'
of The Hobbit, while maintaining the integrity of his fictional world, and
the reasons are described in the introduction to The Lord of the Rings. He
didn't try to pretend the original version never happened, or was somehow not
valid.
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Alex Taylor http://www.cs-club.org/~alex |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+