"“To me, it [the original Star Wars trilogy] doesn’t really exist anymore. It’s like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I’m sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it.” - George Lucas, 2004
It is insane how much George Lucas has edited the original Star Wars trilogy. I think no movies have had more edits over time than Star Wars.
> It’s like this is the movie I wanted it to be, and I’m sorry you saw half a completed film and fell in love with it.” - George Lucas, 2004
I don't begrudge any director the freedom to go back and revise their work to more perfectly realize their creative vision. The problem is when they try to erase the original released version of an historically significant film by making it completely unavailable. George had no issue accepting the accolades and billions of dollars from the original trilogy. It's fine to later release his 'perfect vision' but in today's digital media era, there's zero reason or justification to make the originals unavailable. Be proud of what your younger self made and let fans decide which they version they want to watch.
I'm not just being post-hoc selective here. I think original theatrical releases of classics should remain available even in cases like Blade Runner where the OG theatrical release is a widely-hated, critically panned abomination made by a clueless executive producer without the involvement of the director, writer or main star and released over their strong objections. It is objectively awful and by far the worst release of the film - but I still believe even that miserable train wreck should remain available forever (perhaps with appropriate warning labels :-), even if only as a cautionary tale to future clueless executive producers).
This opinion rubs me the wrong way. I don't think you meant it like this, but it really feels like when someone creates something, they now have some obligation to society, should society deem it good enough.
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing to support this idea. If I make something, I can change it however I want, as many times as I want, and throw away old copies - even if you really really liked those old copies. It's my art, not yours.
Maybe one could make the argument that George Lucas is not the only artist here, and I'd agree with that, but to imply that society is owed something that someone created of their own volition, simply because society happens to like it, feels wrong. He can change it however he wants until the day he dies, as far as I'm concerned.
> they now have some obligation to society, should society deem it good enough.
I was expressing a wish or, perhaps an ideal, not an obligation. I don't think there's any implied ethical, moral or legal duty on a creator to do what their patrons or fans want. As an amatuer filmmaker who's also worked in the industry creating technology for cinematic storytelling, I'm as pro-creator as can be.
And, full-disclosure, my feelings about Star Wars are 'complicated'. In 1977 I'd just become a teenager when I saw Star Wars at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood. It not only rocked my world, it made me want to be a filmmaker and changed the course of my life. Turns out I was better at software than filmmaking. Fortunately, as film became digital, my interests collided :-).
Decades later my software was used extensively to make several Star Wars films including hundreds of shots in Phantom Menace. I was at the ranch many times during production and was back at the Chinese theater for the premiere of TPM - almost exactly 22 years to the day after my life was changed in that theater. Prior to the premiere I'd only seen storyboards and individual shots so, going in, my expectations were as sky-high as any fan. But, like many hardcore fans, I felt let down by Phantom Menace. Did George owe fans the film they wanted him to make? Nope, not at all. He made the film he wanted to make. Even though I was disappointed by TPM, it hasn't changed how much I respect George. He's still a remarkable filmmaker.
thewizzardofnl · · focus · HN ↗
It is insane how much George Lucas has edited the original Star Wars trilogy. I think no movies have had more edits over time than Star Wars.
mrandish · · focus · HN ↗
I don't begrudge any director the freedom to go back and revise their work to more perfectly realize their creative vision. The problem is when they try to erase the original released version of an historically significant film by making it completely unavailable. George had no issue accepting the accolades and billions of dollars from the original trilogy. It's fine to later release his 'perfect vision' but in today's digital media era, there's zero reason or justification to make the originals unavailable. Be proud of what your younger self made and let fans decide which they version they want to watch.
I'm not just being post-hoc selective here. I think original theatrical releases of classics should remain available even in cases like Blade Runner where the OG theatrical release is a widely-hated, critically panned abomination made by a clueless executive producer without the involvement of the director, writer or main star and released over their strong objections. It is objectively awful and by far the worst release of the film - but I still believe even that miserable train wreck should remain available forever (perhaps with appropriate warning labels :-), even if only as a cautionary tale to future clueless executive producers).
kulahan · · focus · HN ↗
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing to support this idea. If I make something, I can change it however I want, as many times as I want, and throw away old copies - even if you really really liked those old copies. It's my art, not yours.
Maybe one could make the argument that George Lucas is not the only artist here, and I'd agree with that, but to imply that society is owed something that someone created of their own volition, simply because society happens to like it, feels wrong. He can change it however he wants until the day he dies, as far as I'm concerned.
After that day, I think the argument changes.
mrandish · · focus · HN ↗
You're correct. I did not.
> they now have some obligation to society, should society deem it good enough.
I was expressing a wish or, perhaps an ideal, not an obligation. I don't think there's any implied ethical, moral or legal duty on a creator to do what their patrons or fans want. As an amatuer filmmaker who's also worked in the industry creating technology for cinematic storytelling, I'm as pro-creator as can be.
And, full-disclosure, my feelings about Star Wars are 'complicated'. In 1977 I'd just become a teenager when I saw Star Wars at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood. It not only rocked my world, it made me want to be a filmmaker and changed the course of my life. Turns out I was better at software than filmmaking. Fortunately, as film became digital, my interests collided :-).
Decades later my software was used extensively to make several Star Wars films including hundreds of shots in Phantom Menace. I was at the ranch many times during production and was back at the Chinese theater for the premiere of TPM - almost exactly 22 years to the day after my life was changed in that theater. Prior to the premiere I'd only seen storyboards and individual shots so, going in, my expectations were as sky-high as any fan. But, like many hardcore fans, I felt let down by Phantom Menace. Did George owe fans the film they wanted him to make? Nope, not at all. He made the film he wanted to make. Even though I was disappointed by TPM, it hasn't changed how much I respect George. He's still a remarkable filmmaker.