can you answer CHICAGO question?
Rhea Engler
for the Chicago DVD, fullscreen does not lose any of the picture -
IS THIS TRUE??
Thanks.
abcedminded
news:180820031730194602%n...@spam.invalid...
> In article <B%b0b.2255$n94.2237@fed1read04>, Rhea Engler
>
> I don't know how Chicago was shot. If, like many 1.85:1 films, its
> fullscreen version is created by opening up the top and bottom of the
> screen (which had previously been 'masked' for widescreen projection),
> well, that's part of the picture you were never meant to see anyway.
> The basic gist of it is: Whatever ratio you see in the theater is
> gospel. If you see any more on home video, you shouldn't. If you see
> any less, don't accept that either. Theatrical aspect ratio reigns
> supreme.
"Whatever you see in the theater is gospel". I think I might have
an exception.
What do you say about Kubrick's films--such as The Shining, Full Metal
Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut--that he insisted be
released "fullscreen" (not "pan and scan") on video? They
aren't available on video or DVD in the original theatrical
aspect ratio. It seems Kubrick had beliefs about how these
films should be seen on the >home< television screen and
had the power to ensure that they would not be released
except according to his wishes. Just as he chose the aspect
ratio for his theatrical releases, he chose a different aspect
ratio for home viewing. And they're his films. Isn't this
decision also "gospel"?
abcedminded
> In article <ICg0b.672$HB4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>, abcedminded
> <abced...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> > What do you say about Kubrick's films--such as The Shining, Full Metal
> > Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut--that he insisted be
> > released "fullscreen" (not "pan and scan") on video?
>
Thought (past tense).
My comment was about what was considered "gospel". The
director chose the appropriate aspect ratio for theatrical
release--what was referred to as "gospel", so why shouldn't
his choice for home release--another artistic choice--also be
considered gospel?
>
> > They
> > aren't available on video or DVD in the original theatrical
> > aspect ratio.
>
> The special edition DVDs are.
No they are not. The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes
Wide Shut are only available in academy ratio.
>
> > It seems Kubrick had beliefs about how these
> > films should be seen on the >home< television screen and
> > had the power to ensure that they would not be released
> > except according to his wishes. Just as he chose the aspect
> > ratio for his theatrical releases, he chose a different aspect
> > ratio for home viewing. And they're his films. Isn't this
> > decision also "gospel"?
>
> Not to me, they're not. I have a widescreen TV, and I want it used to
> its potential.
I think we'll see the release of these films in their proper aspect
ratio for jus this reason. Kubrick's decisions were based on his
thoughts about existing technology. Not what we're enjoying
today (and later)
>
> --
> ³There are no mistakes in love.²
> - Patty Smyth
Dick Sidbury
>
> "Whatever you see in the theater is gospel". I think I might have
> an exception.
>
> What do you say about Kubrick's films--such as The Shining, Full Metal
> Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut--that he insisted be
> released "fullscreen" (not "pan and scan") on video? They
> aren't available on video or DVD in the original theatrical
> aspect ratio. It seems Kubrick had beliefs about how these
> films should be seen on the >home< television screen and
> had the power to ensure that they would not be released
> except according to his wishes. Just as he chose the aspect
> ratio for his theatrical releases, he chose a different aspect
> ratio for home viewing. And they're his films. Isn't this
> decision also "gospel"?
>
>
approximation of what was available in the theater as my finances will
allow. So O(Theater)AR is what I'm interested in.
IMHO
YMMV
dick
john
kubrick was an awesome director but he was wierd as hell.
his thoughts on this were idiotic.
tvs are widescreen now.. time to release the movies the way we want to see
them.
"Dick Sidbury" <DrJames...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bht9al$2rt5f$1...@ID-109339.news.uni-berlin.de...
jayembee
>with full screen you are missing 1/3 of the movie
Not where those three Kubrick films were concerned. No part of the
image is being cropped off in order to present the image full screen.
Just the opposite in fact. All three films (THE SHINING, FULL METAL
JACKET, and EYES WIDE SHUT) were -- like the vast majority of 1.66:1,
1.78:1, and 1.85:1 films -- shot full frame. A mask is applied during
projection at the theater to matte off the top and bottom of the image
to create the widescreen ratio. The part of the image cropped off by
the mattes is not meant to be seen, and the director and DOP compose
their shots so that all of the elements they want you to see is within
the 1.85:1 (or 1.66:1, or whatever) frame.
When telecined to create the video, no mattes are applied, so you're
actually seeing more picture in the fullscreen versions than you would
in the widescreen versions. As I said, you're not really meant to see
that extra picture, but that's a separate issue.
Basically, if you want to see them in widescreen the way they were
shown theatrically, just take two pieces of cardboard, and place them
over your TV screen to matte off the top sixth and bottom sixth of the
picture, and that's what you'd see if they were widescreen transfers.
(And yes, I know they wouldn't be anamorphic that way, but I'm only
talking in terms of the ratio here, not resolution.)
>kubrick was an awesome director but he was wierd as hell.
Most awesome directors are.
>his thoughts on this were idiotic.
Or carefully considered.
>tvs are widescreen now.. time to release the movies the way we want to see
>them.
I find it interesting that many widescreen advocates will argue that
one of the reasons that widescreen is right and proper is because it's
the way that the director meant the film to be seen. But when a
director decides against widescreen when it comes to home video, he's
seen as a quack and his feelings on the matter are dismissed.
-- jayembee
abcedminded
news:9fx0b.10757$nf3.4043@fed1read07...
> with full screen you are missing 1/3 of the movie
> kubrick was an awesome director but he was wierd as hell.
> his thoughts on this were idiotic.
> tvs are widescreen now.. time to release the movies the way we want to see
> them.
Kubrick's full screen versions are not missing 1/3 the
picture. They preserve the picture in the matted widescreen
frame and open it up at the top and bottom--the parts that
would be masked by the matting.
I agree that TVs are widescreen now, and I'm confident that
Kubrick would have changed his mind had he lived to see
how newer technologies develop.
Brad Snowder
Spielberg's coma-inducing "A.I." That was the darkest
day for film reviewers since they all banded together
and pretended that "Eyes Wide Shut" didn't suck."
Jeff Giles, Newsweek
Kubrick did some great work but then I saw EWS and...sorry but the emperor
is buck naked.
--
Brad Snowder
Western Washington University Planetarium
http://www.wwu.edu/~skywise
Mike Kohary
>
> I find it interesting that many widescreen advocates will argue that
> one of the reasons that widescreen is right and proper is because it's
> the way that the director meant the film to be seen. But when a
> director decides against widescreen when it comes to home video, he's
> seen as a quack and his feelings on the matter are dismissed.
The director doesn't get to choose how I watch a movie in my home. I want
to see it how it was ideally projected in the theater - period. Anything
Kubrick has to say on the subject is less than meaningless to me.
Mike
PhilM...@webtv.net
preferred full screen version of his films over OAR.At the
time,however,it was probably an aesthetically correct and bold
decision,widescreen didn't look that great when 25" and smaller TV's and
VCR's.
The technology has changed greatly with larger TV's and widescreen
TV's and of course anamorphic DVD,and I'm sure Kubrick would have
changed his mind if he hadn't died,or maybe not,he was eccentric if
nothing else.
And yes,"Eyes Wide Shut" wasn't great,or even good,but Kubrick had
far more hits than misses.After "2001","Clockwork",and "Full Metal
Jacket",he could have made "Gigli' and still been one of the most
influential directors ever....
jayembee
> The director doesn't get to choose how I watch a movie in
> my home. I want to see it how it was ideally projected in
> the theater - period. Anything Kubrick has to say on the
> subject is less than meaningless to me.
Which is pretty much the position of people who want fullscreen
all the time (well, the first and third sentences, anyway).
But that's really beside the point, which is that if anyone
is going to decide to disregard a director's wishes when those
wishes are contrary to what one wants, then he or she shouldn't
use the "it's the way the director intended" argument to
advocate widescreen.
-- jayembee
jayembee
> "Critics quibbled with "Moulin Rouge" then praised
> Spielberg's coma-inducing "A.I." That was the darkest
> day for film reviewers since they all banded together
> and pretended that "Eyes Wide Shut" didn't suck."
> Jeff Giles, Newsweek
>
> Kubrick did some great work but then I saw EWS and...
> sorry but the emperor is buck naked.
Which is far too dismissive a comment, as it invalidates
those who hold the opposite opinion. It's one thing to say
"I don't agree with those who like EWS". It's a whole other
thing to say, "People who like EWS do so because they don't
want to admit that the emperor is nekkid."
While I wouldn't place EWS at the top of Kubrick's oeuvre,
I still think it's a wonderful film. On the other hand, I
can't stand his version of LOLITA, which most critics and
cineastes praise to high heaven. Go figure.
(And I think FULL METAL JACKET is vastly overrated: dynamite
first half, falls apart in the second half.)
So it's not just that anyone who likes EWS has blinders when
it comes to Kubrick.
-- jayembee
Mike Kohary
news:d3aeee5b.03082...@posting.google.com...
> "Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The director doesn't get to choose how I watch a movie in
> > my home. I want to see it how it was ideally projected in
> > the theater - period. Anything Kubrick has to say on the
> > subject is less than meaningless to me.
>
> Which is pretty much the position of people who want fullscreen
> all the time (well, the first and third sentences, anyway).
Unfortunately for you, the first and third sentences don't remain in context
without the second sentence, rendering your point moot. :)
> But that's really beside the point, which is that if anyone
> is going to decide to disregard a director's wishes when those
> wishes are contrary to what one wants, then he or she shouldn't
> use the "it's the way the director intended" argument to
> advocate widescreen.
Fortunately for me, that's not the argument I use. I'm a purist - I want to
see a film the way it was first released. It's that simple. Directors'
intentions mean little to me, whether that be about displaying their film
full-screen on TV a la Kubrick, or wholesale revision a la Lucas.
Mike
ra...@vt.edu
It's all good as long as some nimrod doesn't try to sell
me a "widescreen" version of "Young Frankenstein." ;-)
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Dick Sidbury
> It's all good as long as some nimrod doesn't try to sell
> me a "widescreen" version of "Young Frankenstein." ;-)
>
it's my favorite Mel Brooks movie, and a good buy these days at 12 or 13
dollars probably.
dick
ra...@vt.edu
Sigh. It was a joke, sort of. "Young Frankenstein" was deliberately
shot in Academy ratio to mimic the original "Frankenstein". It
should not be shown wide screen. I would certainly find it odd
if someone masked it for a video transfer.
Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.
Cujoe
want to
> see a film the way it was first released. It's that simple. Directors'
> intentions mean little to me, whether that be about displaying their film
> full-screen on TV a la Kubrick, or wholesale revision a la Lucas.
>
> Mike
I don't want to get too far off subject AND I realize that the
discussion has been about aspect ratio, but...
I don't think we can use the term "a film the way it was released" as a
guideline. If you want to include the film's "content", it's not that
simple.
Many films original theatrical release was not what the director wanted
due to Hollywood's 2 hour "limitation" and other factors such as censorship.
Jim Cameron's long versions of "Aliens", "The Abyss", and even
"Terminator 2" were much better than the original theatrical release.
You can also include many more movies in this category (Leone's "Once
Upon a Time in America" for example).
I realize that this 2 hour thing has been greatly relaxed in recent
years, but the point is: I'm not sure we can use the original release as
gospel anymore. What with extended versions (I know, some are just crap)
and new scenes (e.g., Lord of the Rings)and deleted scenes, etcetcetc...
Cujoe
Dick Sidbury
of Aliens is better), but *I* still want as one option the ability to
see the original release in as close to ideal theatrical form as
possible in my home.
dick
Mike Kohary
news:3F5221D3...@comcast.net...
> > Fortunately for me, that's not the argument I use. I'm a purist - I
> want to
> > see a film the way it was first released. It's that simple.
Directors'
> > intentions mean little to me, whether that be about displaying their
film
> > full-screen on TV a la Kubrick, or wholesale revision a la Lucas.
> >
> > Mike
>
> I don't want to get too far off subject AND I realize that the
> discussion has been about aspect ratio, but...
>
> I don't think we can use the term "a film the way it was released" as a
> guideline.
That's the short version, but let me elaborate a bit and put it another way:
I want to see a film the way it would be displayed in an imaginary theater
where everything is ideal - ideal aspect ratio, ideal brightness, ideal
color saturation, etc etc etc all as intended by the director for theatrical
display.
> If you want to include the film's "content", it's not that
> simple.
> Many films original theatrical release was not what the director wanted
> due to Hollywood's 2 hour "limitation" and other factors such as
censorship.
> Jim Cameron's long versions of "Aliens", "The Abyss", and even
> "Terminator 2" were much better than the original theatrical release.
I disagree on all 3 of those (the originals are superior), and also find we
get into a lot of revisionism when it comes to altering content later on.
Are you sure that's how Cameron wanted his films? Or did he decide that
later, once they were successful and he knew he had the clout to needlessly
expand what was once tightly edited? What about George Lucas? Didn't his
regret at having Han Solo fire first come later? Didn't Spielberg express
regret about men carrying guns in E.T., years later? That's revisionism,
and I don't abide by it - that's why I say "a film the way it was released"
(and under ideal projection conditions). There are a couple of exceptions
to that, where the studios truly butchered an otherwise great film to the
point of mediocrity (Blade Runner, Brazil), and the director's cuts restore
an *original* vision without revisionism, but mostly I don't care for
so-called "director's cuts", which are for the most "revised films".
Having said all of that, I don't dismiss your point entirely. I know that
many films aren't released as the director truly intended. But this is
well-known and worked around by most directors. It's not uncommon for art
of all kinds to be compromised by outside factors and factions, and it's
just the nature of things. For the most part, great art still remains great
art, and the rest of it remains crap. :) I think most directors probably
get what they want for the most part and aren't quite as restricted as many
of us imagine.
> You can also include many more movies in this category (Leone's "Once
> Upon a Time in America" for example).
> I realize that this 2 hour thing has been greatly relaxed in recent
> years, but the point is: I'm not sure we can use the original release as
> gospel anymore. What with extended versions (I know, some are just crap)
> and new scenes (e.g., Lord of the Rings)and deleted scenes, etcetcetc...
The LOTR trilogy is a good example of films that are conceived in two ways
simultaneously, in a theatrical version and an expanded version, and all
versions are made readily available. That's exactly how it should be. My
complaint is when films are altered, and then only the altered versions are
made available, a la Kubrick and by all reports Lucas.
Mike
Cujoe
find we
> get into a lot of revisionism when it comes to altering content later on.
> Are you sure that's how Cameron wanted his films? Or did he decide that
> later, once they were successful and he knew he had the clout to
needlessly
> expand what was once tightly edited? What about George Lucas?
Didn't his
> regret at having Han Solo fire first come later? Didn't Spielberg
express
> regret about men carrying guns in E.T., years later? That's revisionism,
> and I don't abide by it - that's why I say "a film the way it was
released"
> (and under ideal projection conditions). There are a couple of
exceptions
> to that, where the studios truly butchered an otherwise great film to the
> point of mediocrity (Blade Runner, Brazil), and the director's cuts
restore
> an *original* vision without revisionism, but mostly I don't care for
> so-called "director's cuts", which are for the most "revised films".
Quite surprised, really, that you found the originals to Aliens, The
Abyss and T2 "superior" to the extended versions. In these 3 versions
especially, I found the extended versions had much more depth and helped
fill in some of the gaps - as well fulfilling the intention of the
director. Cameron did not revisit/revision these films - the scenes
added were done during the original production.
On the other hand, I 100% agree with you about Lucas and Speilberg -
they are/were revisionist (remember the "special edition" of Close
Encounters?!). And the silly release with new digital effects that Lucas
did with Star Wars? These 2 people specifically took perfectionism to a
new low. In the case of Speilberg (and others) they essentially tried to
"change" the story line. The directors I spoke of tried to "enhance" the
story line.
However, enough rambling, we're off topic here - this subject is worthy
of its own thread...
>
> Having said all of that, I don't dismiss your point entirely. I know
that
> many films aren't released as the director truly intended. But this is
> well-known and worked around by most directors. It's not uncommon
for art
> of all kinds to be compromised by outside factors and factions, and it's
> just the nature of things. For the most part, great art still
remains great
> art, and the rest of it remains crap. :) I think most directors
probably
> get what they want for the most part and aren't quite as restricted
as many
> of us imagine.
PhilM...@webtv.net
added scenes are awfull and look totally out of place, Michael Mann even
throws in the old time crime movie cliche of having our hero being just
swell to a underprivileged minority and/or handicapped guy proving what
a regular Joe he is. It throws off the taunt pacing of the theatrical
cut, which unfortuneatly isn't available on DVD.
I know a lot of people like the DC of "Das Boot", that's another
movie where I'd like to see the theatrical cut available. The DC takes a
little too long to get to the action imho.....
Mike Kohary
>
> Quite surprised, really, that you found the originals to Aliens, The
> Abyss and T2 "superior" to the extended versions. In these 3 versions
> especially, I found the extended versions had much more depth and helped
> fill in some of the gaps - as well fulfilling the intention of the
> director. Cameron did not revisit/revision these films - the scenes
> added were done during the original production.
Yeah, I know he filmed those sequences originally. I guess I could say he
revised the editing, whereas Spielberg and Lucas have gone back later to
revise their films overall. I don't like Cameron's extended films...I think
they're bloated and reintroduce things better left on the cutting room
floor. For example, the sentry guns in Aliens are "cool", but unnecessary,
and break up the previously tight editing of that whole sequence. They
really have nothing to do with the rest of the movie, and I find the whole
thing distracting. The additional exposition added to The Abyss and T2 is
heavy-handed and obvious, and serve more to defeat the intended message than
anything else. This is especially true of T2, where the added material is
just plain corny. The little speech given to Ed Harris at the end of Abyss
is also rather cringe-inducing. Cameron's forte is action, suspense and
melodrama, and he should stick to those things and not try anything too
profound. :) Just my opinion...
> On the other hand, I 100% agree with you about Lucas and Speilberg -
> they are/were revisionist (remember the "special edition" of Close
> Encounters?!). And the silly release with new digital effects that Lucas
> did with Star Wars? These 2 people specifically took perfectionism to a
> new low. In the case of Speilberg (and others) they essentially tried to
> "change" the story line.
Yeah. I really hate that these guys do this to their otherwise wonderful
movies. At least Spielberg has generally given us the option to watch the
original releases, and has even demonstrated that he understands the
importance of preserving his original titles (such as when he went to bat
for the ET regular edition, insisting that Universal include the original as
well as the revised version on the same release). Lucas, unfortunately,
doesn't seem to "get it", and still plans to stifle the original Star Wars
films that millions thrived on.
> However, enough rambling, we're off topic here - this subject is worthy
> of its own thread...
Yes, of course you're right. :)
Mike
Dick Sidbury
> In article <bj5kcb$c7e$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Lucas, unfortunately, doesn't seem to "get it", and still plans to
>>stifle the original Star Wars films that millions thrived on.
>
>
> originally; the originals had been edited for length at the insistence
> of the studio.
Then please explain why Greedo shoots first in the special edition and
not in the original version. The time has to the same (within a second
or so) and I can't believe that special effects made any difference.
dick
Hank Shiffman
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <bj5ugr$fi9kj$1...@ID-109339.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Dick Sidbury <DrJames...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>Lucas, unfortunately, doesn't seem to "get it", and still plans to
> > >>stifle the original Star Wars films that millions thrived on.
> > >
> > >
> > > The ones released in 1997 and subsequent are what Lucas had in mind
> > > originally; the originals had been edited for length at the
> > > insistence of the studio.
> >
> > Then please explain why Greedo shoots first in the special edition
> > and not in the original version. The time has to the same (within a
> > second or so) and I can't believe that special effects made any
> > difference.
>
> Then why bring up special effects for that scene? the only reason
> special effects were needed for the scene I described is that Lucas
> changed Jaba from a human to a worm between episodes 4 and 5--it was
> easy to do because Jaba was not seen in episode 4.
>
> Greedo shooting first makes more sense; I don't know why it wasn't that
> way in the original, other than to save a bit of time--a second here,
> and a second there, and pretty soon you're talking full minutes.
More sense? I'd dispute that. To me, Han shooting first makes sense.
Greedo announces he's going to shoot Han. So Han takes the threat
seriously and shoots him. The change makes Han seem less bloodthirsty,
which I'm sure is why it was made. But it's ridiculous; it makes Han
into the sort of moral soul who would never have survived in that
environment. Let the other guy shoot first and then, assuming you're
faster and more accurate, live to tell about it? Yeah, right.
--
Hank Shiffman http://www.disordered.org
Have Opinion, Will Travel ha...@disordered.org
Mountain View, California
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <bj5kcb$c7e$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Lucas, unfortunately, doesn't seem to "get it", and still plans to
>> stifle the original Star Wars films that millions thrived on.
>
>The ones released in 1997 and subsequent are what Lucas had in mind
>originally; the originals had been edited for length at the insistence
>of the studio.
That's simply incorrect. Where did you get that information? The
fact is, George Lucas had full creative control over Star Wars, and it
was made just as he wanted to make it at the time (within financial
restraints, of course).
>Of course, there were changes; originally, Jaba the Hut was going to be
>a human being, and if he had not been cut from the original of Episode
>4, he would have been human in 5 and 6.
This is true. Lucas decided better of it, knowing he wanted Jabba to
be a beast, but he was unable to technically pull it off at the time,
so he axed the scene. I would give you this one scene, and only this
one scene, as an example of part of Lucas' original vision that he
wanted to correct in the Special Editions.
But all the other changes to the original trilogy easily fall into the
"revision" category - from Greedo shooting first (which looks
ridiculous, by the way) to the spiffed up special effects (removing
much of John Dykstra's original Oscar-winning work). I'm sure he
would have liked to have access to CGI effects at the time, but the
fact is that he didn't, and with a lot of ingenuity he created one of
the greatest sci-fi epics of all time in spite of that. He's wrong to
go back and revise these films, but that's his prerogative, so there
it is. What I object to is if he stifles the originals - that's *not*
his prerogative (even if it is his legal right), and I and millions of
others will be mad as hell if he goes through with it.
Hopefully he'll see the light and release the original versions along
with whatever else he releases (word is that he's going to revise the
Special Editions, making Extra Special Editions, I suppose. At what
point does it simply become ridiculous?)
Mike
--
"On second thought, let's not | Mike Kohary
go to Camelot. It is a silly | mko...@earthlink.net
place." | http://www.kohary.com
Cinema Paradiso http://www.kohary.com/movies
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <bj5ugr$fi9kj$1...@ID-109339.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Dick Sidbury <DrJames...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > The ones released in 1997 and subsequent are what Lucas had in mind
>> > originally; the originals had been edited for length at the
>> > insistence of the studio.
>>
>> Then please explain why Greedo shoots first in the special edition
>> and not in the original version.
>
>Greedo shooting first makes more sense; I don't know why it wasn't that
>way in the original, other than to save a bit of time--a second here,
>and a second there, and pretty soon you're talking full minutes.
That's all beside the point. Dick has it exactly right - if Lucas had
originally wanted Greedo to shoot first, he would have done that.
Instead, he didn't. That scene is proof that Lucas is revising
post-fact, not revising to complete an original vision. He came to
regret that Han Solo shoots first *later*.
Hank Shiffman
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <gpbdlv8vfj6uerocg...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > That's all beside the point. Dick has it exactly right - if Lucas had
> > originally wanted Greedo to shoot first, he would have done that.
> > Instead, he didn't. That scene is proof that Lucas is revising
> > post-fact, not revising to complete an original vision. He came to
> > regret that Han Solo shoots first *later*.
>
> So, I guess you think that the uncut version of Stranger in a Strange
> Land shouldn't have been published in the 1990s?
Non sequitur. Heinlein created an uncut version. An edited version was
published. Thirty odd years later his original version was published.
In addition to the earlier published edition.
But that's not what Lucas has done. He's rewriting his work long after
its original release, changing decisions made at the time. And now
wants to declare that his new, kinder and gentler version is the only
edition anyone should be able to get.
He may have the legal right; I suppose he does. I still think it stinks.
Oh and by the way, I found the uncut SIASL to be interesting and
entertaining. But it's no improvement on the original published
version. Editing is often for the best.
Dick Sidbury
> In article <gpbdlv8vfj6uerocg...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>That's all beside the point. Dick has it exactly right - if Lucas had
>>originally wanted Greedo to shoot first, he would have done that.
>>Instead, he didn't. That scene is proof that Lucas is revising
>>post-fact, not revising to complete an original vision. He came to
>>regret that Han Solo shoots first *later*.
>
>
> Land shouldn't have been published in the 1990s?
>
available? If so then it's ok with me. As far as I'm concerned, Lucas
can revise all he wants to, but ethically the "real" version of Star
Wars (Not Episode IV) and the other two movies should be available in
high quality authorized copies.
dick
-- who has a laser disk player, the original series and just got a DVD
burner.
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <gpbdlv8vfj6uerocg...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> That's all beside the point. Dick has it exactly right - if Lucas had
>> originally wanted Greedo to shoot first, he would have done that.
>> Instead, he didn't. That scene is proof that Lucas is revising
>> post-fact, not revising to complete an original vision. He came to
>> regret that Han Solo shoots first *later*.
>
>So, I guess you think that the uncut version of Stranger in a Strange
>Land shouldn't have been published in the 1990s?
I don't know enough about the book to render a judgement on that.
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>> As far as I'm concerned, Lucas can revise all he wants to, but
>> ethically the "real" version of Star Wars (Not Episode IV) and the
>> other two movies should be available in high quality authorized
>> copies.
>
>Why? If he has total creative control, as some have suggested, then why
>shouldn't he make available only that which he believes he should make
>available?
Because Star Wars (1977) is a piece of artistic and cinematic history
that deserves preservation in its original form.
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <2rldlv0u2e8ajb80p...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Because Star Wars (1977) is a piece of artistic and cinematic history
>> that deserves preservation in its original form.
>
>Even if the person who created it doesn't want it to be? He doesn't get
>anything to say about it?
Yes. It's not up to him.
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <loldlvoo29ea2inuo...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >> That's all beside the point. Dick has it exactly right - if Lucas
>> >> had originally wanted Greedo to shoot first, he would have done
>> >> that. Instead, he didn't. That scene is proof that Lucas is
>> >> revising post-fact, not revising to complete an original vision.
>> >> He came to regret that Han Solo shoots first *later*.
>> >
>> >So, I guess you think that the uncut version of Stranger in a
>> >Strange Land shouldn't have been published in the 1990s?
>>
>> I don't know enough about the book to render a judgement on that.
>
>Does one have to know anything about it? It was published in 1959 and
>won the Hugo for best novel of the year.
>
>Some 35 or so later, it was republished, but with material that had been
>omitted from the original publishing.
>
>That makes it very analogous to the situation with Star Wars.
No it doesn't. George Lucas created *new* material for Star Wars, not
merely insert old material that didn't make it the first time around.
Hank Shiffman
Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 00:07:33 -0700, Michelle Steiner
> <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <loldlvoo29ea2inuo...@4ax.com>,
> > Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >> That's all beside the point. Dick has it exactly right - if Lucas
> >> >> had originally wanted Greedo to shoot first, he would have done
> >> >> that. Instead, he didn't. That scene is proof that Lucas is
> >> >> revising post-fact, not revising to complete an original vision.
> >> >> He came to regret that Han Solo shoots first *later*.
> >> >
> >> >So, I guess you think that the uncut version of Stranger in a
> >> >Strange Land shouldn't have been published in the 1990s?
> >>
> >> I don't know enough about the book to render a judgement on that.
> >
> >Does one have to know anything about it? It was published in 1959 and
> >won the Hugo for best novel of the year.
> >
> >Some 35 or so later, it was republished, but with material that had been
> >omitted from the original publishing.
> >
> >That makes it very analogous to the situation with Star Wars.
>
> No it doesn't. George Lucas created *new* material for Star Wars, not
> merely insert old material that didn't make it the first time around.
And he's preventing the original from being made available. That's
another significant difference between Star Wars and SIASL. The uncut
SIASL didn't displace the original published version. But Lucas is
determined that his new and improved version be the only one available.
Hank Shiffman
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <hank-D76F69.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> Hank Shiffman <ha...@disordered.org> wrote:
>
> > And he's preventing the original from being made available. That's
> > another significant difference between Star Wars and SIASL. The
> > uncut SIASL didn't displace the original published version. But
> > Lucas is determined that his new and improved version be the only one
> > available.
>
> The original was never released on VCR or DVD?
The original was released on videotape and on laserdisc. The original
trilogy is still available on tape. I discount tape versions; I won't
buy anything on tape. It has not been released on DVD.
Hank Shiffman
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <hank-207CB7.1...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> Hank Shiffman <ha...@disordered.org> wrote:
>
> > > > And he's preventing the original from being made available.
> > > > That's another significant difference between Star Wars and
> > > > SIASL. The uncut SIASL didn't displace the original published
> > > > version. But Lucas is determined that his new and improved
> > > > version be the only one available.
> > >
> > > The original was never released on VCR or DVD?
> >
> > The original was released on videotape and on laserdisc. The
> > original trilogy is still available on tape. I discount tape
> > versions; I won't buy anything on tape. It has not been released on
> > DVD.
>
> Ok, then the situations are analogous; the original SIASL is out of
> print, and so is the original Star Wars--but they both exist. Lucas is
> not going to be able to recall all the VCR tapes and laser disks.
Not true. According the Barnes & Noble, you can get both the original
SIASL ($7.99 in paperback) and the uncut version ($15.25). Amazon lists
only one version. But it's the original release, not the newer uncut
version. So it is not analogous at all.
To reiterate: the version of SIASL that most everybody read is still in
print and still available. But the version of Star Wars that I saw in
theaters isn't, at least on the preferred medium for watching a movie at
home.
Dick Sidbury
> In article <hank-74DEF8.1...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> Hank Shiffman <ha...@disordered.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Not true. According the Barnes & Noble, you can get both the
>>original SIASL ($7.99 in paperback) and the uncut version ($15.25).
>>Amazon lists only one version. But it's the original release, not
>>the newer uncut version. So it is not analogous at all.
>
>
> think that puts it in the class of the Star Wars Laser Disk.
>
Can you tell me a retail outlet where I can buy a wide screen version of
Star Wars -- the one that was in the theaters in 1977?
dick
-- or for that matter, any outlet
Hank Shiffman
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <hank-74DEF8.1...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> Hank Shiffman <ha...@disordered.org> wrote:
>
> > Not true. According the Barnes & Noble, you can get both the
> > original SIASL ($7.99 in paperback) and the uncut version ($15.25).
> > Amazon lists only one version. But it's the original release, not
> > the newer uncut version. So it is not analogous at all.
>
> The $7.99 one was published in 1976 according to the B&N web site; I
> think that puts it in the class of the Star Wars Laser Disk.
Why? Date of publication doesn't mean date of last printing. The book
is still available; if stores ran out, they'd print more. Oh, and
Amazon shows the same book with the same cover as having a January, 2003
publication date as a reissue. So the 1976 date is likely just a
difference in which date the two firms choose to show.
The Star Wars laserdisc, on the other hand, is out of print. There will
be no more made. And anybody who doesn't already own a laserdisc player
isn't likely to buy one at this point.
Do you really not see a difference? Or are you arguing the point purely
for the entertainment value?
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <smkelv4b94mej7sjf...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >Even if the person who created it doesn't want it to be? He doesn't get
>> >anything to say about it?
>>
>> Yes. It's not up to him.
>
>Why not? He owns it.
I already explained why: Star Wars (1977) is an important piece of
cinematic and artistic history, and it deserves to be preserved in its
original state.
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <hank-D76F69.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> Hank Shiffman <ha...@disordered.org> wrote:
>
>> And he's preventing the original from being made available. That's
>> another significant difference between Star Wars and SIASL. The
>> uncut SIASL didn't displace the original published version. But
>> Lucas is determined that his new and improved version be the only one
>> available.
>
>The original was never released on VCR or DVD?
On VHS, yes. On DVD, no, and he says it won't be. That's the
complaint.
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <nnkelvoumc1097h9b...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >That makes it very analogous to the situation with Star Wars.
>>
>> No it doesn't. George Lucas created *new* material for Star Wars,
>> not merely insert old material that didn't make it the first time
>> around.
>
>He did both. The new material is stuff he wanted in the original, but
>the state of the technology at the time prohibited it or made it too
>expensive.
Right. Therefore, he created *new* material in an attempt to recreate
what he might have wanted to create in the first place. Or something
like that. :)
Anyway, the point is moot. The Special Editions are "revised"
versions of the originals, any which way you slice it, and he plans to
stifle the originals. That's patently wrong, and I hope he comes to
his senses on the subject.
PhilM...@webtv.net
pitifull CGI Jabba more power to him, but I for one find it hard to
believe that he has so little regard for the millions of folks like me
who piled into theaters and made him millions in the seventies,and who
also gave him the power to be the 600 lb gorilla he is today who can go
back and fine tune his movies all he wants.
But hey,respect guys like me and their wants (and theres lots of us
if you read the boards) and their spending dollars. I want to see "Star
Wars", the movie I saw at age 13, where Han Solo shoots first(something
that nobody but George Lucas had a problem with,Greedo WAS gonna kill
him), the hustle and bustle of Mos Eisely was suggested instead of
shown(badly), and where the spaceships had matte boxes around them and
were plastic models lovingly photographed and blown up real good.I've
always wondered how John Dykstra feels about HIS artistic work and
vision being revised.
And doesn't Lucas realize "Phantom Menace" and "Clones" aren't being
loved and fondly worshipped NOW, much less thirty years down the road, a
tenth as much as "Star Wars"?
OK, the artiste can clean up the matte boxes if he wants.......
Dick Sidbury
points with which I fully agree are snipped...
> And doesn't Lucas realize "Phantom Menace" and "Clones" aren't being
> loved and fondly worshipped NOW, much less thirty years down the road, a
> tenth as much as "Star Wars"?
Well my nephew, who's about 8 thinks Clones is the greatest movie ever
made and watches the DVD that his mom bought several times each week. I
think there is not as much difference between the originals and the
current versions as most fans believe because they, for the most part,
were kids at the time ahd had a different frame of reference.
dick
-- and I fully agree that the originals are better but not 10x or 100x
... as others have claimed
Dick Sidbury
> In article <bj8mr1$gpjbj$1...@ID-109339.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Dick Sidbury <DrJames...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Can you tell me a retail outlet where I can buy a wide screen version of
>>Star Wars -- the one that was in the theaters in 1977?
>>
>>dick
>>-- or for that matter, any outlet
>
>
> 852
>
ebay is not a retail outlet. And I don't think this particular laser
disk is of the 1977 movie, but I could be wrong.
dick
Dick Sidbury
> In article <bj920h$g1gqg$2...@ID-109339.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Dick Sidbury <DrJames...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Can you tell me a retail outlet where I can buy a wide screen version of
>>>>Star Wars -- the one that was in the theaters in 1977?
>>>>
>>>>dick
>>>>-- or for that matter, any outlet
>>>
>>>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3346142242&category=18
>>>852
>>
>>ebay is not a retail outlet. And I don't think this particular laser
>>disk is of the 1977 movie, but I could be wrong.
>
>
> qualifies as coming under the umbrella of "any outlet."
>
And you're buying a used copy of something that's no longer available in
the retail market.
> If the Laser Disk is not of the 1977 movie, then what movie is it of?
> Were they still making Laser Disks in 1997?
>
When you play it, does it say Episode IV? If it does then it's not the
1997 movie.
Does anyone know if there were any commercially released versions of
Star Wars (in the US) that don't say Episode IV?
dick
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <2nsflvc299b793lno...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Yes. It's not up to him.
>> >
>> >Why not? He owns it.
>>
>> I already explained why: Star Wars (1977) is an important piece of
>> cinematic and artistic history, and it deserves to be preserved in
>> its original state.
>
>He is the artist; he gets to call the shots.
Doesn't make it right.
Mike Kohary
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>Well, actually, I think it's a meaningless difference. I believe that a
>creator over a piece of art should have absolute control over his
>creation.
Then you're just arguing on a technicality. That's pretty lame,
really.
Derek Gee
news:3qsflvceo7nq0ioj5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 12:12:53 -0700, Michelle Steiner
> <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <hank-D76F69.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
> > Hank Shiffman <ha...@disordered.org> wrote:
> >
> >> And he's preventing the original from being made available. That's
> >> another significant difference between Star Wars and SIASL. The
> >> uncut SIASL didn't displace the original published version. But
> >> Lucas is determined that his new and improved version be the only one
> >> available.
> >
> >The original was never released on VCR or DVD?
>
> On VHS, yes. On DVD, no, and he says it won't be. That's the
> complaint.
If you want to get technical - the original release of Star Wars, the one
without Episode IV in the roll at the beginning and a slightly different
sound mix has never been legally available on video in any format ever.
Derek
Dick Sidbury
> In article <bja2o0$g7in4$1...@ID-109339.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Dick Sidbury <DrJames...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>If the Laser Disk is not of the 1977 movie, then what movie is it
>>>of? Were they still making Laser Disks in 1997?
>>>
>>
>>When you play it, does it say Episode IV? If it does then it's not
>>the 1997 movie.
>
>
>
> But even if that were the only change, would you still object?
>
Yes. but I'm not sure that the word "object" is the right word here. If
I could get a copy of the original with the Episode IV removed I'd be
happy. But even with the Episode IV leader (and I think a few very
minor changes from the original, but I could be wrong about this) I
would not object to this change. I know this sounds inconsistent but
that's the way I feel (sort of like academy ratio vs 1.33).
I grant Lucas his legal right to change the movie anyway he wants. I
just feel that his original implementation is much better than his (so
called) original vision.
dick
-- and that's what I saw in theaters ages ago.
Mike Kohary
news:17950-3F...@storefull-2314.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> OK, the artiste can clean up the matte boxes if he wants.......
That's a good example of restoration, as opposed to revision. Hopefully,
Lucas will come to his senses and not only release the original versions,
but give them full-scale restoration as well.
Mike
Mike Kohary
news:michelle-1A5EC3...@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <0q7hlvclqtniuvigh...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >He is the artist; he gets to call the shots.
> >
> > Doesn't make it right.
>
Of course it's according to me - who else? I speak for myself. And do you
plan to continue asking simplistic questions or making flat assertions, or
are you actually going to state a position and then support it with
well-reasoned argumentation?
To repeat myself for the third time: Star Wars (1977) is an important piece
of cinematic and artistic history, and it deserves to be preserved in its
original state, irregardless of how George Lucas feels about that. An
artist should have control over the creation of his work, yes, and Lucas has
had that with the entire Star Wars series (contrary to what you first
stated). However, that does not necessarily include control over the
distribution of said work. Once a work is released, it belongs to the
audience as much as the artist.
Now, an artist should have the full benefit and opportunity to profit from
the distribution of his work, and to generally control the distribution of
his work. That's what copyright is all about, and I fully support that.
But I submit that it's immoral to release a work, and then withhold it
*forever*, with no intention of ever releasing it again. Lucas is the
artist, but he does not have the moral right to decide that the millions
upon millions of people who experienced the cinematic revelation that was
Star Wars (1977) will never get to see it again.
Judging from the numerous factual errors that you've introduced to this
thread so far, I wonder how much you actually know about Star Wars and its
history. If you disagree with my position and care to rebut, please try to
do it with more than one sentence, and please try to do your research first
(or ask if you want to know something you don't currently know).
Mike
Mike Kohary
>
> > To repeat myself for the third time: Star Wars (1977) is an important
piece
> > of cinematic and artistic history, and it deserves to be preserved in
its
> > original state, irregardless of how George Lucas feels about that.
>
Again, yes, says me. Who else? It's my opinion, after all. These pithy
types of responses do nothing to support your argument.
> > An artist should have control over the creation of his work, yes, and
> > Lucas has had that with the entire Star Wars series (contrary to what
> > you first stated).
>
> You mean that the studio gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted
> at whatever it might cost?
He had a budget, like every other director. Aside from that, he had
complete creative control over Star Wars. He had so much control over these
films that he, and not the studio, owns the rights to them.
> > However, that does not necessarily include control over the
> > distribution of said work. Once a work is released, it belongs to
> > the audience as much as the artist.
>
> The audience can dictate where the movie will be shown, how often, and
> when? That is distribution.
That's not what I said. Without an audience, a work of art is useless and
pointless to anyone but the artist. In that regard, works of art belong
partly to the audience once they're shared with that audience - art
appreciation is always a collaboration between artist and audience. Star
Wars became a phenom because of its audience, and the phenom that it became
is indelibly tied to the overall artistic merit of the product. The
audience is definitely a part of that.
> > Now, an artist should have the full benefit and opportunity to profit
> > from the distribution of his work, and to generally control the
> > distribution of his work. That's what copyright is all about, and I
> > fully support that. But I submit that it's immoral to release a work,
> > and then withhold it *forever*, with no intention of ever releasing
> > it again.
>
> You have the right to that opinion. Unfortunately for you, there is no
> basis in law or ethics for that opinion.
There doesn't need to be a legal basis, since I'm not making a legal
argument. The ethics I've explained - it isn't fair to the millions who
made Star Wars was it is to withhold it forever. Not until Lucas decides
he'd like to release it, but forever.
What you're suggesting is that book burning is ok, as long as its the author
that's burning the book. I think that's a veritable crime.
> > Lucas is the artist, but he does not have the moral right to decide
> > that the millions upon millions of people who experienced the
> > cinematic revelation that was Star Wars (1977) will never get to see
> > it again.
>
> Sure he does. If he had presented it as a stage production, he would
> have the right never to allow it to be produced again.
It's not a stage production, so that's a red herring. Further, I'm not
disputing he has the right to do whatever he wants, so that is also a red
herring. I'm discussing what's right, not rights.
> > Judging from the numerous factual errors that you've introduced to
> > this thread so far, I wonder how much you actually know about Star
> > Wars and its history.
>
> Contrary to your beliefs, disagreeing with you does not constitute
> factual errors.
It has nothing to do with our disagreement. You stated that Lucas had to
cut Star Wars down for time demands made by the studio - that's false. You
have (to your credit) asked numerous questions that have indicated you don't
know basic factual information about Star Wars and its history (for example,
whether or not it has been released to DVD, or whether or not it has ever
been released in its original format). It just seems to me that, given your
level of knowledge on this particular topic, you should do a little more
listening and a little less concluding. If you're speaking from a purely
philosophical standpoint, which it seems that you are, you should be open to
considering the unique circumstances tied to this series of films.
> Ah yes, you are the all knowing Oz; all must bow to your superior
> knowledge. Your opinion is supreme above all, and is to be equated with
> fact.
Again, pithy, but without substance. Stick to the argument and leave the ad
hominem behind.
> The bottom line is that Lucas gets to call the shots, and whether you
> like it or I like it doesn't matter unless it affects his income--and
> there has been no appreciable effect upon that.
This is a non-sequiter, because no one has said that Lucas doesn't get to
call the shots. Of course he does - he owns the rights to his films. At
issue is whether or not it's right to permanently withhold these films from
distribution (in effect, burning the book). Yet I also detect in your tone
(be that as it may on the internet) that you feel none of us have the right
to complain about any of this, and you wish we'd just shut up about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that because Lucas has
all the rights in this case, we should just be quiet and take it. Of course
that's silly - we can speak out about it if we want to, whether it has any
effect or not. But I'm wagering it will have an effect. Lucas is an
intelligent man who has consistently demonstrated a certain amount of
concern and care for the fans of his films, and I have faith that he'll see
the light when he hears enough voices. Democracy baby - it's a wonderful
thing.
Mike
Mike Kohary
> In article <bjlm96$ee2$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > There doesn't need to be a legal basis, since I'm not making a legal
> > argument. The ethics I've explained - it isn't fair to the millions
> > who made Star Wars was it is to withhold it forever. Not until Lucas
> > decides he'd like to release it, but forever.
>
> outcry from the millions.
That's what you're partially hearing in this newsgroup. Many, many people
are upset about this. There's even an online petition that's been very
successful at gathering signatures and comment, over 37,000 to date:
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/
Hopefully it will have some effect. The fans are speaking.
> > What you're suggesting is that book burning is ok, as long as its the
> > author that's burning the book. I think that's a veritable crime.
>
> No, I'm not saying that. The owner of the physical media is entitled
> to burn it; I have the right to burn any book I own (provided I follow
> the fire and pollution codes); no one else has that right. The author,
> though, so long he hasn't signed away his right, has the right to
> prevent republication of the book.
Speaking figuratively, how does that differ in effect from burning the book?
Preventing republication of a previously released work is wrong, because it
unfairly deprives the audience of that work.
> > > Sure he does. If he had presented it as a stage production, he
> > > would have the right never to allow it to be produced again.
> >
> > It's not a stage production, so that's a red herring. Further, I'm
> > not disputing he has the right to do whatever he wants, so that is
> > also a red herring. I'm discussing what's right, not rights.
>
> It seems to me that you are insisting that you get to dictate to others
> what is right.
I'm expressing my opinion.
> > > > Judging from the numerous factual errors that you've introduced
> > > > to this thread so far, I wonder how much you actually know about
> > > > Star Wars and its history.
> > >
> > > Contrary to your beliefs, disagreeing with you does not constitute
> > > factual errors.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with our disagreement. You stated that Lucas
> > had to cut Star Wars down for time demands made by the studio -
> > that's false.
>
> OK, then why did he cut it down? Why didn't he leave Jaba the Hut in
> the original production?
Because he didn't have the time, money or technology to complete the
sequence the way he envisioned it. It wasn't due to studio demands - he had
complete creative control (which isn't really as rare as a lot of people
like to think).
> > You have (to your credit) asked numerous questions that have
> > indicated you don't know basic factual information about Star Wars
> > and its history (for example, whether or not it has been released to
> > DVD, or whether or not it has ever been released in its original
> > format).
>
> Er, no; I have been asking questions to get you to clarify your position.
So then you know that Star Wars has *never* been released in it's original
format to any medium, ever. The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi
have been, but not to DVD.
> > > Ah yes, you are the all knowing Oz; all must bow to your superior
> > > knowledge. Your opinion is supreme above all, and is to be equated
> > > with fact.
> >
> > Again, pithy, but without substance. Stick to the argument and leave
> > the ad hominem behind.
>
> Oh, so you are the only one allowed to engage in ad hominem? Anyway, it
> wasn't ad hominem; it was a sarcastic summary of how you present
> yourself.
I haven't engaged in any ad hominem attacks. As for the conviction of my
opinion, the best way to deal with that is to either concede, or present a
better counter-argument. Sarcasm certainly isn't going to sway anyone,
least of all me.
> > > The bottom line is that Lucas gets to call the shots, and whether
> > > you like it or I like it doesn't matter unless it affects his
> > > income--and there has been no appreciable effect upon that.
> >
> > This is a non-sequiter, because no one has said that Lucas doesn't
> > get to call the shots.
>
> I'm sorry; I was thinking that you were trying to dictate what he should
> do, and chastizing him for not doing it.
Yes, I am, but that is different from claiming he doesn't have the right to
do what he wants. What he can legally do and what he should do are two
different things.
> Since I was wrong about that,
> and you agree that he can and may prevent the original version from
> being release, we don't have anything further to discuss on the matter.
Why? Is it only a technical discussion on that level? Is that the
important issue here? Do you think that because a person *can* do
something, any debate stops at that point? Talk about missing the forest
for the trees - that's a surprisingly narrow-minded viewpoint to take about
anything.
> > Yet I also detect in your tone (be that as it may on the internet)
> > that you feel none of us have the right to complain about any of
> > this, and you wish we'd just shut up about it. Correct me if I'm
> > wrong, but you seem to be saying that because Lucas has all the
> > rights in this case, we should just be quiet and take it.
>
> Oh, you have the right to complain about it, but you should realize that
> no one has the obligation to listen to your complaints or to pay them
> any heed.
Then I'm curious what you're responding to these posts at all for. If you
only care about this on the most superficial level, why respond at all?
Just ignore these types of posts and move on.
> > Lucas is an intelligent man who has consistently demonstrated a
> > certain amount of concern and care for the fans of his films, and I
> > have faith that he'll see the light when he hears enough voices.
>
> Well, thus far, there haven't been enough voices.
We don't know that yet.
Mike
Mike Kohary
> In article <bjn6dc$csi$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > You say it isn't fair to the millions; thus far, I've not heard an
> > > outcry from the millions.
> >
> > That's what you're partially hearing in this newsgroup. Many, many
people
> > are upset about this.
>
>
> > There's even an online petition that's been very
> > successful at gathering signatures and comment, over 37,000 to date:
>
It's a common axiom that for every 1 complaint you receive, there are 10 or
20 more that have the same complaint and didn't speak up. In this
newsgroup, you're only going to hear from a handful of people - there are
only a handful of people in here. :) On the internet, again, only a small
percentage of people with the complaint are actually going to speak up. But
Lucas knows better than to think that's all the people that care.
The point is to make him think about it, and hopefully come around. He
hasn't said anything definitive one way or the other yet, so it seems to me
that there is room for persuasion. It never hurts to try.
> > > No, I'm not saying that. The owner of the physical media is
> > > entitled to burn it; I have the right to burn any book I own
> > > (provided I follow the fire and pollution codes); no one else has
> > > that right. The author, though, so long he hasn't signed away his
> > > right, has the right to prevent republication of the book.
> >
> > Speaking figuratively, how does that differ in effect from burning
> > the book?
>
> It does not affect existing copies.
In this case, there are no existing copies.
> > > OK, then why did he cut it down? Why didn't he leave Jaba the Hut in
> > > the original production?
> >
> > Because he didn't have the time, money or technology to complete the
> > sequence the way he envisioned it.
>
> And now he does, so he's doing it. But that doesn't answer the second
> question. Jaba the Hut existed in the original movie, but got cut. Why
> did it get cut?
This is really a side issue, but the answer is the same - lack of time,
money and technology. He had a person stand in for Jabba and shot the scene
anyway, true, but that's not what he wanted, and in the end he made the
decision not to make that particular compromise, opting to axe the scene
entirely.
Interesting trivia, but not really germane to this discussion.
> > It wasn't due to studio demands - he had complete creative control
> > (which isn't really as rare as a lot of people like to think).
>
> As soon as the studio imposed a budget, that infringed on his creative
> control.
Every artist works on a budget, so this is moot. It's just one of the
limitations that all artists have to work with - financial resources aren't
infinite.
> Also, studios still can and do impose time restraints. Chris
> Columbus had to fight the studio to let him make the LOTR movies as long
> as they are--and he still had to cut out scenes to fit time constraints.
You mean Peter Jackson. And it's still not germane to this discussion,
because George Lucas had complete creative control. He asked for it and he
got it. In fact, the studio wanted to limit the risk in their investment,
which is why Lucas himself owns the properties (and now bankrolls his own
films). I'm sure Fox would love to go back and do that deal over again.
> > So then you know that Star Wars has *never* been released in it's
> > original format to any medium, ever. The Empire Strikes Back and
> > Return of the Jedi have been, but not to DVD.
>
> I consider appending "Chapter 4" to the title so trivial as to
> constitute original format.
Perhaps, but even that version has not been released to DVD.
> > > Since I was wrong about that, and you agree that he can and may
> > > prevent the original version from being release, we don't have
> > > anything further to discuss on the matter.
> >
> > Why? Is it only a technical discussion on that level? Is that the
> > important issue here? Do you think that because a person *can* do
> > something, any debate stops at that point? Talk about missing the
> > forest for the trees - that's a surprisingly narrow-minded viewpoint
> > to take about anything.
>
> No; it's because your entire argument is based upon what you think is
> fair or not, and that is entirely subjective and not conducive to
> meaningful discussion. And that is why we have been going around in
> circles.
We've been going around in circles because you refuse to acknowledge that
another person's complaint has merit, even if you don't share the same
complaint.
> > > Oh, you have the right to complain about it, but you should realize
> > > that no one has the obligation to listen to your complaints or to
> > > pay them any heed.
> >
> > Then I'm curious what you're responding to these posts at all for.
> > If you only care about this on the most superficial level, why
> > respond at all?
>
> Just because I'm not obligated to pay them any heed doesn't mean that I
> can't respond to them.
Of course you can, but why are you? What's your point? You haven't really
made one, you know.
> > > > Lucas is an intelligent man who has consistently demonstrated a
> > > > certain amount of concern and care for the fans of his films, and
> > > > I have faith that he'll see the light when he hears enough
> > > > voices.
> > >
> > > Well, thus far, there haven't been enough voices.
> >
> > We don't know that yet.
>
> Yes, we do know that thus far, there haven't been enough voices.
The films aren't due for release on DVD for another couple of years. We
won't know until the announcement comes whether there have been enough
voices or not. For all we know, Lucas has already decided, based on
feedback, to release his originals after all.
Mike
Mike Kohary
> In article <bjniut$7u1$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > And now he does, so he's doing it. But that doesn't answer the
> > > second question. Jaba the Hut existed in the original movie, but
> > > got cut. Why did it get cut?
> >
> > This is really a side issue, but the answer is the same - lack of
> > time, money and technology. He had a person stand in for Jabba and
> > shot the scene anyway, true, but that's not what he wanted, and in
> > the end he made the decision not to make that particular compromise,
> > opting to axe the scene entirely.
>
That's incorrect. What's your source?
> > Interesting trivia, but not really germane to this discussion.
>
> It's not trivia, and it is most germane.
It's not germane, because we're discussing the potential release of the
original versions on DVD. On that topic, it doesn't really matter what
other versions are out there, or why they were made. Interesting for
another discussion, perhaps, but not particularly germane to this one.
> > > > It wasn't due to studio demands - he had complete creative control
> > > > (which isn't really as rare as a lot of people like to think).
> > >
> > > As soon as the studio imposed a budget, that infringed on his creative
> > > control.
> >
> > Every artist works on a budget, so this is moot.
>
> I see that you have a rationalization for everything that disputes your
> agenda.
>
> > It's just one of the limitations that all artists have to work with -
> > financial resources aren't infinite.
>
> Therefore, contrary to your pronouncement, he did not have complete
> creative control.
No artist has "absolute and complete" creative control, so if that's what
you meant with your original question, then of course the answer is "no".
But in that respect, Lucas is no different from any other artist. Resources
are finite, and all artists have limits they must work within.
What I thought you meant was a more reasonable definition of "creative
control"; i.e. generally being in charge of the project without external
interference. Within the normal confines of finite resources that every
artist has to deal with, Lucas was able to pretty much do what he wanted to,
without the studio or anyone else telling him what to do. Quite literally,
he was the boss on the project, and made all final decisions. Most people
who aren't being overly-literal would consider that "complete creative
control".
Anyway, enough of this stuff. It's obfuscating and distracting from the
real issue. Let's talk about that instead:
> > > > So then you know that Star Wars has *never* been released in it's
> > > > original format to any medium, ever. The Empire Strikes Back and
> > > > Return of the Jedi have been, but not to DVD.
> > >
> > > I consider appending "Chapter 4" to the title so trivial as to
> > > constitute original format.
> >
> > Perhaps, but even that version has not been released to DVD.
>
> But it has been released on other media.
Which is also not germane to this discussion. DVD is superior to all other
current media, and it's important that the original Star Wars trilogy is
released to DVD.
> > We've been going around in circles because you refuse to acknowledge
> > that another person's complaint has merit, even if you don't share
> > the same complaint.
>
> I acknowledge that complaints have merit only when I believe that they
> have merit. I do not believe that yours has any merit.
It may not be an issue that's important to you, personally, but it does have
merit.
Here's the argument as articulated by http://www.originaltrilogy.com/:
(to George Lucas) "While we appreciate your creative viewpoint on the
evolution of the films, we respectfully submit that there is tremendous
importance in the original theatrical prints of the Star Wars Trilogy. Above
and beyond the nostalgic value that they hold for millions of fans the world
over, Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi are
landmark films that represent watershed moments in motion picture history.
To preserve the original, award-winning work of the many artisans, sound
technicians, craftsmen, and special effects artists is to do justice to
their priceless contributions.
Undeniably, these movies are also cultural placeholders for millions of film
fans. The impact that the original Star Wars Trilogy made on countless
numbers of children, young people, and grownups everywhere is indisputable.
Preserving the unaltered theatrical release forms of these movies and making
them available to your public is of utmost importance.
...
An entire generation grew up with these movies and loves them dearly. They
have created treasured memories and will always hold a place in our lives.
We hope that you take to heart the hopes and wishes of the undersigned as
well as the countless others who feel the same."
I think that's very well-stated, and demonstrates a great deal of merit.
Allowing films to fade into obscurity and eventual destruction is a crime
against art. It certainly shouldn't happen to some of the greatest films of
all time.
> > > Just because I'm not obligated to pay them any heed doesn't mean
> > > that I can't respond to them.
> >
> > Of course you can, but why are you? What's your point? You haven't
> > really made one, you know.
>
> Your refusal to acknowledge my point does not mean that I don't have one.
>
> My point, as I've reiterated more than once, is that Lucas has the right
> to decide what versions of his works, which he owns full rights to, to
> release, and that his is the only operable opinion in the matter.
That's not much of a point, since no one disputes that. What I want to know
is, why is this a point of contention for you? What does it gain you to
argue *against* the release of the original trilogy? Don't you believe that
historical preservation is important? How does it hurt you to have the
original trilogy released, or to have people argue for its release?
> And I ask again, what does this have to do with _Chicago_?
Nothing. The thread morphed into this. Happens all the time on Usenet.
Change the subject header if you want.
Mike
Mike Kohary
> In article <bjsp8e$oeq$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> arguing for Lucas' right to decide what he wants to release. If he
> released the original and suppressed the remake, I'd be arguing that
> that is his right and perogative.
>
> I am arguing against those who have the chutzpah to believe that they
> can dictate to an artist what he should and should not produce.
Ok, fair enough. For the record, though I may speak strongly about the
subject, it's because I feel strongly about the subject. I was 8 when I saw
Star Wars, and I can safely say it had a large impact on me. I am not
trying to dictate, I'm trying to persuade, and if I sound otherwise, I
apologize.
As originaltrilogy.com puts it: "Currently, George Lucas has no plans to
release the original theatrical cuts of Episodes IV, V, and VI on DVD. To be
replaced by completed versions of the Special Editions released in 1997,
these classic pieces of science fiction and film history will be allowed to
fade away into obscurity. Our goal is to persuade Mr. Lucas to reconsider
his decision." That seems pretty reasonable to me.
> > > And I ask again, what does this have to do with _Chicago_?
> >
> > Nothing. The thread morphed into this. Happens all the time on
> > Usenet. Change the subject header if you want.
>
> What did it Morph from? My curiousity is piqued. Does the DVD of
> Chicago lack scenes that were in the theatrical release? Does it have
> added scenes that weren't in the theatrical release?
Um, I don't remember any more. ;) Googling it up, the original question
was whether the fullscreen version of Chicago lost any picture. This led to
an exchange about director's intent with regards to Kubrick (he preferred
fullscreen viewing of his films on TV), which led to my statement that, as a
purist, I care little about a director's intent - I want theatrical
versions. This led to an exchange about director's cuts, which led to the
Star Wars Special Editions, and you joined in on that, and here we are.
Isn't Usenet wonderful? ;)
Here's the entire thread:
Mike
Mike Kohary
> In article <bjt5q6$3iv$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Ok, fair enough. For the record, though I may speak strongly about
> > the subject, it's because I feel strongly about the subject. I was 8
> > when I saw Star Wars, and I can safely say it had a large impact on
> > me. I am not trying to dictate, I'm trying to persuade, and if I
> > sound otherwise, I apologize.
>
> I was bored by it, but a friend encouraged me to see it again, and the
> second time was a charm.
>
> Personally, I would like to see both versions released--preferably on
> the same DVD or set. But that's Lucas's call, really.
It is indeed his call. Hopefully he can be persuaded to do as you suggest,
which is all I and others like me are asking for.
I knew we could reach an amiable conclusion to this thread. :)
Mike
Dick Sidbury
>
> It is indeed his call. Hopefully he can be persuaded to do as you suggest,
> which is all I and others like me are asking for.
>
> I knew we could reach an amiable conclusion to this thread. :)
>
have come to a common agreement, but in my community and I'm sure in
many others, buildings can be designated as historical landmarks. A
neighbor's home was so designated and now he (the owner) can't make any
substantial changes to his house without approval of the historical society.
This is somewhat analogous to the reverse of the Star Wars situation.
I'm curious as to your take on this. I have very mixed feelings on it,
while I'm solidly in Mike's corner with respect to the Original Trilogy.
dick
-- and, Michelle, I think they have this kind of situation in the city
of CHICAGO :)
jere7my tho?rpe
"Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
> news:michelle-D8EFFA...@news.west.cox.net...
> > No; at the time, he envisioned Jaba as a human being.
>
> That's incorrect. What's your source?
Jabba was humanoid, at least, in the 1978 comic adaptation of Star
Wars -- sort of jowly and yellow and furry, which would have been easy
to do with makeup (or, to go the other way, it would have been easy to
make him giant and sluglike in the comic). I believe he was humanoid in
the novelization, too, but I could be misremembering.
----j7y
--
**************************************************************************
jere7my tho?rpe / 734-769-0913 "There is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There
>>> j...@liws.org <<< is no spoon." "SPOON!" "There is no
invert liws to reply via email spoon." "SPOON!" -- The Tick vs. Neo
Mike Kohary
wrote:
>In article <bjsp8e$oeq$0...@pita.alt.net>,
> "Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
>> news:michelle-D8EFFA...@news.west.cox.net...
>
>> > No; at the time, he envisioned Jaba as a human being.
>>
>> That's incorrect. What's your source?
>
> Jabba was humanoid, at least, in the 1978 comic adaptation of Star
>Wars -- sort of jowly and yellow and furry, which would have been easy
>to do with makeup (or, to go the other way, it would have been easy to
>make him giant and sluglike in the comic).
It's interesting you bring that up - that's true. In fact, the comic
(which I have right here) contains every deleted scene from the movie,
including some actual "screen time" for Biggs on Tatooine.
The reason that Jabba is humanoid in the comic book is because he was
humanoid in the scene that Lucas shot (and presumably, the comic was
working off an advance screening of Star Wars that must have included
all scenes, even those that were eventually deleted). Lucas could
have just left the scene in there as it was, and that would have been
Jabba, I suppose. But Lucas has said that one of the reasons he ended
up cutting that scene out is because, even though he filmed it with a
humanoid as Jabba, that's not what he really wanted. He wanted a
creature, and since he didn't have the time, budget or technology to
make it happen the way he envisioned it, he decided to cut the scene
and revisit Jabba later if he got a chance to do any more movies.
It's a compromise he chose not to make, in other words. Sorry, I
don't have a reference handy for that, but I've read that story many
times over and am pretty sure that's what happened.
Bill Vermillion
Mike Kohary <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
>news:michelle-F0DCB4...@news.west.cox.net...
>> > You have (to your credit) asked numerous questions that have
>> > indicated you don't know basic factual information about
>> > Star Wars and its history (for example, whether or not it
>> > has been released to DVD, or whether or not it has ever been
>> > released in its original format).
>> Er, no; I have been asking questions to get you to clarify
>> your position.
>So then you know that Star Wars has *never* been released in
>it's original format to any medium, ever. The Empire Strikes
>Back and Return of the Jedi have been, but not to DVD.
I'd swear my Japanese import LD of SW is almost original - if you
ignore the Japanese subtitles. WS long before the US versions were
released in that format. My CED is a PnS - but one of the better
looing ones that format ever had.
As to the modification from the orignal - since at a previous
poster stated it was the film that started a new genre and was a
landmark. I would think it should be preserved - for such things
as research, and historical import. If Lucas wishes to tamper with
it for showing in the modern world so be it - as long as the
original is still available for access - though perhaps not general
release.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Bill Vermillion
Hank Shiffman <ha...@disordered.org> wrote:
>In article <michelle-1EEC60...@news.west.cox.net>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <hank-D76F69.0...@news.fu-berlin.de>,
>> Hank Shiffman <ha...@disordered.org> wrote:
>> > And he's preventing the original from being made available.
>> > That's another significant difference between Star Wars
>> > and SIASL. The uncut SIASL didn't displace the original
>> > published version. But Lucas is determined that his new and
>> > improved version be the only one available.
>> The original was never released on VCR or DVD?
>The original was released on videotape and on laserdisc. The original
>trilogy is still available on tape. I discount tape versions; I won't
>buy anything on tape. It has not been released on DVD.
While DVD is a clear winner and I have almost never bought any VHS
tapes in my life - I have purchased two - even on special order -
this past year - as the content was not available on any other
format at all. And these were fairly recent though niche market
productions.
Having the content - even if it is on a poor format - is better
than not having it at all IMO.
Bill Vermillion
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <bj920h$g1gqg$2...@ID-109339.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Dick Sidbury <DrJames...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>Can you tell me a retail outlet where I can buy a wide screen version of
>> >>Star Wars -- the one that was in the theaters in 1977?
>> >>
>> >>dick
>> >>-- or for that matter, any outlet
>> >
>> > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3346142242&category=18
>> > 852
>>
>> ebay is not a retail outlet. And I don't think this particular laser
>> disk is of the 1977 movie, but I could be wrong.
>You did say "or for that matter, any outlet." I believe that ebay
>qualifies as coming under the umbrella of "any outlet."
>If the Laser Disk is not of the 1977 movie, then what movie is it of?
>Were they still making Laser Disks in 1997?
Last laster disks were made in 2001 along with a final run of
high-end players.
I also have The Phantom Menace on wide-screen letter box and
to my eye it's picture is nicer than the DVD - which seems
overhanced. I have both and did AB compares.
Bill
Mike Kohary
news:bjtjnq$lvhqe$1...@ID-109339.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> I hate to poke a pair of snakes with a stick when it appears that they
> have come to a common agreement, but in my community and I'm sure in
> many others, buildings can be designated as historical landmarks. A
> neighbor's home was so designated and now he (the owner) can't make any
> substantial changes to his house without approval of the historical
society.
>
> This is somewhat analogous to the reverse of the Star Wars situation.
> I'm curious as to your take on this. I have very mixed feelings on it,
> while I'm solidly in Mike's corner with respect to the Original Trilogy.
There is an organization that designates films as important for preservation
purposes, though I can't remember what they're called. (Anyone?) Each
year, they choose a few new films, and then I believe they work to restore
and preserve those films for archival purposes. I even believe that Star
Wars is on that list, though I could be wrong about that.
My take? It's a tricky balance between the rights of the artist weighed
against the benefit to society of the art. In the end, art should never be
allowed to be destroyed - the benefit of the art outweighs the right of the
individual artist. When you consider the contribution of great art to
culture, and the fact that great art will outlive all of us many times over,
art is bigger and more important than any individual.
That's one extreme, but Lucas' proposal for his films amounts to destroying
the original Star Wars trilogy. If push came to shove, I don't believe that
should be allowed to happen. In 200 years, people should be allowed to
experience Star Wars the way that people in 1977 experienced it.
Mike
Mike Kohary
news:HL7IG...@wjv.com...
>
> >So then you know that Star Wars has *never* been released in
> >it's original format to any medium, ever. The Empire Strikes
> >Back and Return of the Jedi have been, but not to DVD.
>
> I'd swear my Japanese import LD of SW is almost original - if you
> ignore the Japanese subtitles.
Does it have "A NEW HOPE" on the scrolling text? Then it's not truly the
original.
I actually don't mind if it says "A NEW HOPE" or not - I'd still consider
that release the "original" for all intents and purposes. But DVD provides
the great opportunity for seamless branching, and allowing the viewer to see
all different forms of the film.
Mike