I guess this is the big question to ask when dealing with the whole subject of the SE vs the OT. Claims of revisionist historian tendencies don't factor in because GL isn't denying the existance or validity of the O-OT. In the opinion of the panal here, what exactly constitutes ownership of a property or idea that is intended for public consumption? Does control and ownership of a publicly well accepted and popular intellectual property remain with the originator/bankroller/rights holder? Or should the public, which is directly responsible for the success of the property despite the "brilliance" of the idea, have a say in the fate of that property?

I'll kick it off with an example drawn from my own field, music. I am a songwriter and performer, and I'd like to think that this will actually MEAN something for me someday. Imagine I write a song that, for whatever reason, becomes a huge hit and makes me a "shitload of money!"(Lonestar - Spaceballs) Now there is a bassline in the song, but for some reason (the recording quality, the actual composition of the line, the sound of the amp, etc....) I was never happy with it. I payed for the recording of the song, I wrote the song, I recorded it myslef on tape in my own studio. Sure, there were engineers and studio musicians, guitar and drum techs, people to maintain the gear for me, but they are all there becuase I payed them to be there. Everybody has their input on the song at some level, so there is a spirit of collaboration, but ultimately it is a collaboration on MY project and not a group inspiration. Some time goes by and technology becomes available that will allow me to transfer my original recording tape to a higher quality format. Wow. In doing this, I realize it is now possible to fix the problem I always had with that damn bassline. But the song has been so popular, an people have become so attatched to that bassline, despite how I feel about it. But I go ahead and I re-record the line, and in doing so, I feel that I have finally gotten the song the way I want it to be. But what about the older version everyone loves?

My feeling, being a creatively driven individual, is that an artists first job is to please himself.(no masturbation comments please, unless they are RIDICULOUSELY funny) Why should anyone have to live with work they feel is sub-standard if thet have the ability to fix it? True enough it can be said that those minor blemishes are what gives a piece it's charecter, but what good does that POV do if those blemishes truely diminish the work in the eyes of the author?

As far as the public goes; entertainment products like music and films are a big part of our culture. Everyoen has some experiance wit ha piece of art-entertainment that they can scarcely concieve of life without it's existance. (HELLOO) However, I beleive our role in their existance is bottem tier. When you partake of one of these products, no matter what impact the art contained in teh product has on you, your investment in them is nothing more than the money you spend and the time you give to it. Your purchase of a CD or movie ticket or piece of related merchandise doe not give you any sort of partial ownership of tht idea, no matter how much money you spent on it. The author, while respecting and being grateful to you, is ultimately not responsible for your attatchment to a piece. While you may or may not continue to listen to my song, it will always be MY song, my child, my loving evil spawn, my ghosts shadow chasing me throughout time. The attatchement of even the most die hard fan will never reach the level of attatchment enjoyed(despised) by the person who bore it. In the end, we didn't make Star Wars, we just made it popular. We also made Britney Spears and the Macarana popular, so that just goes to show how much WE know.

Sorry to be so long winded, but as you can tell, I have somewhat ofa vested interest in this particualr argument. Can't WAIT to read your ideas!

Well I think they do factor in and are very relevant to the question you ask. I'm fairly certain that the dvd releases do not mention the changes on the packaging. It is simply 'Star Wars'. That's fair enough, but it does imply a wish to paper over the originals rather than to simply say 'look att the cool new stuff I've added'. Then there was that film festival that wanted to do a retrospective of classic films and wanted to show '77 Star Wars. Lucas denied. Historically, the '97 SE released version had no place in the festival and yet that is all Lucas would allow. That very much stinks of revisionist historian tendencies. He wants to deny the originals as much as possible. That may well be his right, but it is very relevant to the question you ask.



Yes, is the simply answer to this. Until copyright lapses (the law changes all the time but I think it is still 75 years after Lucas' death), control and ownership remains with the copyright holder. The public has no say in that. That is the way it is with regards to the law.

So he can do whatever the hell he likes with them, and he does.

Same with you and your baseline. You can of course do what you like with it but you just have to be prepared that fans of the old baseline will call you 'Ol' Fat Neck' and the like. They'll discuss how you used to be better in the old days and that maybe you weren't actually the genius they thought you were. Maybe you got lucky, just had good people around you.

And, if you do indeed butcher that baseline, they could well be right.

Dogg.

The only difference between the SW films and the Beatles' Let it Be and Let it Be ... Naked is that Let it Be is still available to purchase in "original" form. But what people are complaining about here is no different than if people were complaining about the "revisionist" Let it Be ... Naked album and how its "destroying" all that they've known for 30 years.

Good posts you guys, especially Dogg_Thang, but I still dissagree with the revisionist line of thinking. The SE changes were well publicised when they were initially released. IN fact, that was the whole point of the re-release ad campaign. I do wish that there would have been more mention of teh changes in the DVD's commentaries, just to further acknowledge them, but GL, BB, and DM do mention them at different times, so it's not as if they are being entirely clandestine about them. As far as the film festival goes, it can still be argued that, despite the alterations, the film was still shot in '76, and therefore it is essentially the same movie. There have been numerous restorations and alterations of Fritz Langs 'Metropolis' over the years, yet no one is claiming that the original edited release is more vaid that the newer release with the restored footage. And if FL wanted to go in and add some extra whatever to his movie, I wonder if there would be the same kind of outcry. This is, of course, all academic considering FL is dead. No one else would dare to presume they know better how his work should be since hs is no longer around.

The Beatles example is fantastic, and very relevant to this conversation. The difference is, of course, that both versions of 'Let it Be' are still available. But look at it like this; the mstering process on '...Naked' has produced a much better soundign CD than the original. There is a marked difference in clarity and sonic detail between. Now do the remainging Beatles owe fans of the original a new master that is up to par with the later release? This argument is totally tempered by the fact that you can still get almost the entire original Beatles catalouge on CD along with the newer releases. But take this into account; the Beatles still get radio airplay. There are BEatles tribute bands, many books abotu them, and everytime one of them dies or does anything the Beatles myth gets drudged up again. With Star Wars, the only time we all get going about it again is when something new gets released. Gl has to pretty much be sure he keeps Star Wars out in the public eye. Star Wars, I regret to say, does not have the kind of self sustainging mythology about it that the Beatles or The Doors or Jimi Hendrix does. The only way for these movies to sustain is to get younger audiences involved in them. I know many people that are way to young to have seen any of the movies when they were the apex of technical achievement who would call them corny if they saw them in the orginal form. before anyone can get into the whole myth side of the films they need to be able to just enjoy watching them. As horrible a movie as it was, if you put ANH next to Chronicles of Riddick it would just look old and dull(I still think COR was a BAD BAD movie though). I think it's a better idea to move ahead and try to get he movies to sustain and be relevant with a younger audience who will continue to pas them along then to put effort into restoring the older version to siut what is, admittedly, a very vocal minority. While I like the idea of Han Solo blasting the living shit out of Greed simply because he deserved it, the average ten year old isn't really going to care. And if the experiance of seein the movies isn't up to par with the newest FX tripe crossing the TV screen, he isn't going to want to watch either.

That was a really great response Dogg, I really had to dig for that. I don't argue your feelings at all and I really respect your point of view. I really look foreward to your next response. And to the rest of you, thanks for participating, and please keep the thoughts coming!

^^ I agree.

But you're forgetting that Let it Be ... Naked is not only remastered but also completely re-engineered. They've taken out all the Spectre string parts and reduced it to a "raw" album, more along the lines of how the, what were for all intents & purposes, four solo artists had originally created it. So, the mixes and version everybody knew and loved were all of a sudden uprooted, given the once over and released again - exactly the same music, yet now constructed completely different.



The Beatles wanting to make this album what they "originally envisioned"? Going back and re-compositing the work with the original elements restored better than the original?

Sounds a lot like the thing we hear complaints about from many SW enthusiasts - with the glaring exception that they can't buy their "Original Versions" like you can with the Beatles.

I have the Naked album. I don't own the original. Not because I don't like the original, just because Naked is good enough.


Seriously you people are taking this a bit too far. They are just movies, grow up.

I have both Let it Be and Naked and whaddya know - they're both great.

Well Kit, WE were having a discussion on the merits of artistic ownership of a pop cutlture item an the limits of the creative control an artist should or should not exercise over his creation. If we were talking about anything more "grown up" we'd be trading recipes and telling eachother which brand of household cleaner is best to get your babies shit stain out of the carpet in the front room. It isn't really necessary for you to inform us that they are just movies as that is not the topic of discussion here. If you have any thoughts on teh topic at hand, the group can only benefit from your sharing them with us.

GL has every right to do whatever he wants with his movies. If he wanted to put in a scene where Yoda and Luke eat each others shit, it would be his decision and his right. You don't have to like it, but that is the way the cookies crumbles.

hahahahaha...i just pictured that