Lucas has no right to alter these films…
-
MirkoS — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 01:41 AM)
- No, Lucas has no right. Under law he does, but from a ethical standpoint he does not. Your analogy comparison is flawed. A more apt one would be you buy a Porsche, you drive and love it for years, gaining experiences from it that affect you deeply, then Porsche comes into your garage one day and changes the car that you paid for because they own the copyright for that vehicle. Would you be OK with that? THEY created it, right? By your logic they can do what they want with it.
Of course this is different as when you buy a car you are paying for manufacturing and material costs, so in effect you own it as property whereas with a movie you are paying license to view it as the property itself is worth billions. So your comparison is faulty on a fundamental level, but my example still demonstrates the principle at play.
Art defines our cultural identity and heritage. All who create it are beholden to those as they supersede personal ownership once they enter the public consciousness. The owner cannot reach into that identity and heritage and attempt to replace it because they "own" it. They are small fries at that point.
- No, Lucas has no right. Under law he does, but from a ethical standpoint he does not. Your analogy comparison is flawed. A more apt one would be you buy a Porsche, you drive and love it for years, gaining experiences from it that affect you deeply, then Porsche comes into your garage one day and changes the car that you paid for because they own the copyright for that vehicle. Would you be OK with that? THEY created it, right? By your logic they can do what they want with it.
-
danimal09752 — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 08:55 PM)
Babble on all you want. The owner CAN and if they so choose WILL change it. You bought a $20 dvd. Lucasfilm pays millions upon millions to make the films. They own the copyright. They can do whatever they hell they want as far as changes (and same goes for Lucas when he owned them). You can whine and moan about it all day snowflake, but you (or the general public at large) does not own squat as far as these filmsso you have no say. You can argue that every way imaginable.but at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is they can do whatever they please legallyand you can't stop it. So stop whining.
-
MirkoS — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 10:04 PM)
This topic has completely flown over your head.
I'm not contesting the technicality of copyright or ownership of property. I'm speaking from an ethical viewpoint. If you are content with any artist going back and replacing their work after it has held immense impact and relevance upon our greater culture, that's your perogative. You can hide behind ownership all you wish, just like Lucas does, because frankly, you've made it apparent you're incapable of arguing on any grounds anything other than adhering to this technicality instead of pulling back and debating in greater context . -
no_just_no — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 11:38 AM)
http://www.slashfilm.com/george-lucas-speaks-altering-films-1988/
Lucas is a hypocrite. End of story ladies and gentleman. -
danimal09752 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 09:10 PM)
You carry on about things flying over my head..and then proceed to continue bashing George Lucas. He DOESN'T own these films. Hasn't for YEARS. That seems to have gone right over your head. And ethically? Who's ethics? Yours? Ethically the owners felt it was fine. End of the day, that's all that matters. Bands remaster classic, massive hit albums all the timethus tweeking an existing well known piece of art. Movies are released all the time in directors cuts and so onwhich is tweeking them from the original versions. It happens ALL THE TIME nimrod. The only reason I went in depth on the legal side of it is because you keep on going on and on like a damn fool about how they don't have the right to do so. They DO have that right whether you like it or not..and Lucas was far from the only one to do it. Get the hell over it.
-
MirkoS — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 11:21 PM)
You are offering no argument stemming from original thoughtit's obviously very simplistic for you: creator=owner because the law says so, so they can do what they want. You adhere to legality and predicate your position on it when my point encompasses a discussion as to WHY it should be law or not. So
what
if it's the law? Lucas has the right legally, but anyone who actually reads my post should understand what I'm arguing is he has no grounds from an ethical/moral standpoint. I've argued that art shouldn't be able to be altered and replaced once it's released to the public as it then enters something far greater than what initially birthed it, as my chef analogy demonstrates. It only belongs to the creator at that point in terms of financial compensation due to copyright. Ownership with art enters a questionable grey area once it's gone public. And newsflash: the law is not necessarily a reflection on what is moral or ethical.
That out of the way, can we actually have a debate now that transcends legality instead of you coming in here with your condescending tone and juvenile insults resorting to absolutism in a subject that in reality is not so cut and dry?
Who's ethics? Are you aware of this? You should read it, and note the speaker. I especially enjoyed this part:
"American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history."
-George Lucas
http://www.slashfilm.com/george-lucas-speaks-altering-films-1988/
So yea, these ethics are not mine at all and your only response has been "
it's the law, period, stop whining, get over it, blah blah blah
" as if that's supposed to convince me. I'm simply standing on one side. But at least I'm putting forth an argument instead of citing legality full stop as if that's somehow the end-all-be-all knockout punch. It's not.
And no, it doesn't happen all the time. Far as I'm aware Director's Cuts don't replace the films, or if they have, tell me which ones. Hence the term, "Director's Cut". And they do not change the originals.only add omitted scenes. They are also complimentary. I'd have no issue if Lucas allowed the Special Editions to exist alongside the unaltered ones and even considered them cannon. Hell, he could change them into new My Little Ponies in outer space for all I care as long as we got to keep the originals. But that's not the case.
Citing the law is a statement of fact, it's something I'm well aware of, and is not an argument. Why are you here to tell me something I already know? I didn't think a disclaimer was needed in my OP so people wouldn't waste my time telling me so, but apparently was mistaken. -
danimal09752 — 9 years ago(January 08, 2017 07:01 AM)
I don't need to offer argument. I don't need to win you over with some slick retort. You own nothing of these films. You've got every excuse why Lucas (who again hasn't owned these films for YEARS and can't tinker with them) shouldn't tinker with them. The law is the only fact that is needed. Disney CAN and should they decide to, WILL tinker with these films. You can run around whining about how butt hurt you are that they were tinkered with. Did it piss people off when Lucas did it? Sure. We all get that. There were changes I liked and changes I didn't like. But nobody's stopping them. They OWN these films. Not you. Not me. Not fan boys. Regardless of your feelings on art.
-
mcdemuth — 9 years ago(January 05, 2017 09:24 PM)
I thought Lucas, now Disney, owns the films & I thought the films were copyrighted.
The last I heard, anyone who puts up a film on "Youtube", without the permission of the owners, is committing "piracy" and that is "illegal".
(Forgive me for possibly using incorrect terms, I am not a lawyer.)
At least that is what all those warnings say at the beginning of every DVD/Blu-Ray I purchase say 'You can't even upload a "scene" from the movie!"
So what is the deal with these "Despecialized Editions"?
And if it is legal Can I order a copy on Blu-ray? -
Kruleworld — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 12:46 AM)
So what is the deal with these "Despecialized Editions"?
And if it is legal..
legally if you own the disk (genuine one) you are permitted to consume it as you see fit, within reason, like copying to play it on your ipod or playing it from a file on your computer.
Since you've already purchased a legit copy, a downloaded version isn't going to get you into big trouble, as courts have made allowances for how you consume that which you've paid for. Harmy sort of uses this to skirt around the issue.
Can I order a copy on Blu-ray?
No, but Lucasfilm has been pretty bloody-minded about letting non-special editions exist, even though i'm sure they'd be well within their rights to take them and sell them and pay Harmy nothing for all his work. You'll have to wade though the sewage that is torrent to find them.
"He's dusted, busted and disgusted, but he's ok" -
Karl Aksel — 5 years ago(August 01, 2020 08:40 PM)
I should specify that this limited edition was issued in 2006 (this is also when I bought them). The theatrical release are sourced from the 1993 laserdiscs.
I'm replying to my own post because posts on movie-boards still can't be edited.