No Right Answer: George Lucas vs George Lucas

Recommended Videos

Carboncrown

New member
Oct 17, 2009
368
0
0
I like to think that Lucas is still just driving his original agenda from way back when he made that speech. He's just gonna keep pushing until there's no choice but to make a law to prohibit this kind of shit from happening. And when he dies, every version is going to be released alongside of a documentary depicting how far was needed to go, so no one will ever forget.

...look it's either that or this:
NOTHING ELSE MAKES SENSE.
 

Rakor

New member
Mar 9, 2010
302
0
0
You watch, now that they've sold you newer and newer versions over and over again.....they'll just sell you the original in a Star Wars Classic box for even more.
 

somonels

New member
Oct 12, 2010
1,209
0
0
There shall be no discussion.
We shall simply remove the heads of the opposition and win.

Slap Lucas in the loony bin, find and destroy all non-original works, restart the space program to hollow out the moon and create a non-functional replica of the Death Star from our Moon.
Somewhere along the line we must have subjugated all the people of earth under a single rule, be it as authoritarian as it may be, but there will be world peace, with occasional blood shed by anyone who still tries to oppose you.
 

The Random One

New member
May 29, 2008
3,310
0
0
Avatar Roku said:
canadamus_prime said:
Owning Star Wars merchandise is not the same as owning shares in Star Wars. I declare that argument invalid!!
Yeah, that argument bothered me. I really don't get where he was coming from.
He kind of lost the metaphor there. The metaphor, I reckon, is that, if a story is like a company, then your emotional investment in that story is like buying stocks in that story. If that story turns out to have a poorly thought out ending that ruins the entire experience, your investment is lost, and that is like if your stocks had plummetted. His point is that the audience is as invested in a story as the creators, perhaps more, and just as stockholders have some say into what a company does, so should fans.
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
I'm going to paraphrase what Susan Arendt said in the pod cast. Do whatever you want to the movies, so long as you let me have a choice to purchase the original, unaltered ones, otherwise you're a dick.

The fact that he wants everyone to forget the original ones is what bothers me.
 

drthmik

New member
Jul 29, 2011
142
0
0
I will not say that I like anything that George Lucas has done to the films that we all love so much. However there are books that conform to the prequel trilogy that have since been published that I love and I feel that without some of these things George has done those books may not have been written.
 

Hitchmeister

New member
Nov 24, 2009
453
0
0
I just want to say. George, please throw us old school purist nerds a bone. Give us a box set of episodes 4 through 6 (we don't care about 1-3) with cleaned up visuals and nice crisp cgi effects, but all of the exact same scenes and dialog that were released theatrically. You can even leave the subtitle on Star Wars. Charge us too much for them. Let us prove with our wallets that we really do love the originals. Then do whatever you want to other releases. Just sell us our childhoods the way we want to remember them.
 

actar411

New member
Apr 14, 2010
53
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
Owning Star Wars merchandise is not the same as owning shares in Star Wars. I declare that argument invalid!!
He is referring to owning emotional shares in the Franchise. We all have watched the movies many times and have grown attached to it. I grew up watching Star Wars! I invested the hours that "normal" kids spent out doors playing catch with their dads in my living room watching these lovable movies with my own father! If I cannot sit down and watch the versions that I know and love with my kids, I will be very pissed and curse your already vile name, George Walton Lucas Jr.!
 

Marik Bentusi

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2010
541
0
21
Nicolaus99 said:
It should have been George Lucas who passed away instead of Steve Jobs. The cruelest truth here is that when Lucas DOES die, fans will likely rejoice. Not out of hate for Lucas but of love of Star Wars.
That's pretty harsh considering it's a piece of influential fiction VS a human life. And it's not like there isn't an army of suits to take his place and fuck up Star Wars some more "completing his lifework", maybe going through every sketch and cut scene, pad them out with exposition drops and make an alt universe saga.

People can be that greedy, no doubt.
 

Laxman9292

New member
Feb 6, 2009
457
0
0
emeraldrafael said:
adamthecg said:
If Vincent Van Gogh Came back from the dead and started adding to his paintings, would we be saying that its his right to do so? Of course not...

...
Actually, yeah, we would. Lets take a different artist, lets take Da Vinci. Half of his stuff looks unfinished, and if he say wnated to come back and add some colour to his <url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Leonardo_self.jpg>self Portrait, would you honestly tell him "no, stop, you cant do that!"

Now yes, you can argue that something needs to be taken from someone for fear they may harm it (say a baby from their clinically insane mother), but its an artists choice to debauch their art however they like. I mean, if they dont have the right, then why should we as the not original artist have the right to take that art and make it something else entirely (see the battlestar galatica last supper).

Just think of any, ANY bad fan fiction. thats a non original artist shitting all over the original artists creation, but those have right to exist. Just taking this extended universe thing, I've ready some TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE extended universe novels and comics, but those seem to have right to exist because "its what the fans wants, and the fans know whats best".
But see if daVinci came back determined to destroy the Mona Lisa and St. Peter's we would definitely have a problem with that. Or if he felt like drawing a Hitler stache on the Mona Lisa.

Star Wars definitely belongs to the public, not in a legal sense, but that morally it would be wrong to let the original movies be destroyed in all formats. Lucas may think of the originals as a rough draft but it was much better in my mind than the Greedo shoots first, CGI Jabba, Vader yelling "NOOOO". And as a trilogy that culturally defined millions of people we deserve to have the true originals.
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
adamthecg said:
If Vincent Van Gogh Came back from the dead and started adding to his paintings, would we be saying that its his right to do so? Of course not...
Only because of the legal issues surrounding the fact that he doesn't legally own them anymore and I'm not sure what the established rules are on reclamation of property upon resurrection.

Otherwise, I'd certainly be okay with it.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
actar411 said:
canadamus_prime said:
Owning Star Wars merchandise is not the same as owning shares in Star Wars. I declare that argument invalid!!
He is referring to owning emotional shares in the Franchise. We all have watched the movies many times and have grown attached to it. I grew up watching Star Wars! I invested the hours that "normal" kids spent out doors playing catch with their dads in my living room watching these lovable movies with my own father! If I cannot sit down and watch the versions that I know and love with my kids, I will be very pissed and curse your already vile name, George Walton Lucas Jr.!
Too bad emotional shares don't actually count for anything, certainly not in the real world they don't. Don't get me wrong, I'm don't like what he's doing to the films any more than you do, I just recognize a battle I cannot win when I see one. ...at least not with words anyway.

Incidentally, is George Lucas' middle name really Walton? 'Cause that's my surname.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Once any object goes into the Public Domain, it gains a value.

Piracy steals that value for free - you're not stealing the product, you're stealing the value.

If the creator wants to decrease the value to increase the sales, then he is engaged in fraud.

If the owner, rather than the creator, wants to do that, then he is engaged in vandalism and should be stopped.

Every writer, artist, scientist, songwriter wishes they could change those few niggling bits, but no piece of work has ever been perfected.

If Patty and Mildred J. Hill - the original writers - wanted to change the lyrics to "Happy Birthday" (and not allow any new versions), or if Time Warner changed the lyrics, they would be engaged in vandalism or fraud...Despite both of them having the rights to do so legally.

(Look it up, if you have "Happy Birthday" in a film, you must pay Time Warner upto $5,000 for its use, and then it's required to appear in the credits.)
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Signa said:
All arguments would be rendered invalid if George would just release a DVD or BluRay version of the original versions with remastering. But we won't ever get those, because Lucas is a jackass who hates his fans.
Although to be perfectly honest, I can't say I blame him. ¬_¬
 

Signa

Noisy Lurker
Legacy
Jul 16, 2008
4,749
6
43
Country
USA
canadamus_prime said:
Signa said:
All arguments would be rendered invalid if George would just release a DVD or BluRay version of the original versions with remastering. But we won't ever get those, because Lucas is a jackass who hates his fans.
Although to be perfectly honest, I can't say I blame him. ¬_¬
yes and no. I'm sure the hard-core fans have alienated him multiple times, but when it comes down to it, the ones that buy new edition after new edition (without the direct hassling) are still looking for one particular version to complete their collection. These are the people he should be catering to, because there are a lot of them. They are the ones that made him as rich as he is, and he practically owes them it. It won't be a fruitless venture either. I'd be shocked if he still didn't pull a profit after meeting demand.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
Laxman9292 said:
emeraldrafael said:
adamthecg said:
If Vincent Van Gogh Came back from the dead and started adding to his paintings, would we be saying that its his right to do so? Of course not...

...
Actually, yeah, we would. Lets take a different artist, lets take Da Vinci. Half of his stuff looks unfinished, and if he say wnated to come back and add some colour to his <url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Leonardo_self.jpg>self Portrait, would you honestly tell him "no, stop, you cant do that!"

Now yes, you can argue that something needs to be taken from someone for fear they may harm it (say a baby from their clinically insane mother), but its an artists choice to debauch their art however they like. I mean, if they dont have the right, then why should we as the not original artist have the right to take that art and make it something else entirely (see the battlestar galatica last supper).

Just think of any, ANY bad fan fiction. thats a non original artist shitting all over the original artists creation, but those have right to exist. Just taking this extended universe thing, I've ready some TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE extended universe novels and comics, but those seem to have right to exist because "its what the fans wants, and the fans know whats best".
But see if daVinci came back determined to destroy the Mona Lisa and St. Peter's we would definitely have a problem with that. Or if he felt like drawing a Hitler stache on the Mona Lisa.

Star Wars definitely belongs to the public, not in a legal sense, but that morally it would be wrong to let the original movies be destroyed in all formats. Lucas may think of the originals as a rough draft but it was much better in my mind than the Greedo shoots first, CGI Jabba, Vader yelling "NOOOO". And as a trilogy that culturally defined millions of people we deserve to have the true originals.
Morals mean nothing in the face of the law and money, and they never should. Everyone's morals are different, so you cant fall back on a logic and standpoint of something so circumstantial. Lucas is the owner legally, so he can do whatever he wants with the originals, even if it means he decides to wipe his ass with them, its his right. its as simple as that.
 

awsome117

New member
Jan 27, 2009
937
0
0
Laxman9292 said:
But see if daVinci came back determined to destroy the Mona Lisa and St. Peter's we would definitely have a problem with that. Or if he felt like drawing a Hitler stache on the Mona Lisa.

Star Wars definitely belongs to the public, not in a legal sense, but that morally it would be wrong to let the original movies be destroyed in all formats. Lucas may think of the originals as a rough draft but it was much better in my mind than the Greedo shoots first, CGI Jabba, Vader yelling "NOOOO". And as a trilogy that culturally defined millions of people we deserve to have the true originals.
The thing is, DaVinci wouldn't be destroying the work, just modifying it. Maybe he didn't want to paint it that way (assuming that rumors of his homosexuality are to be believed) and wanted to do it the way he wanted from the start.

Should we stop him because a lot of people like it that way? I would say no, because it wouldn't be what he initially wanted.

Plus I think the argument works more-so with Davinci's unfinished inventions. Basically what I said before; do we stop him because others like his work the way it is? I again say no.

And it doesn't really "belong to the public". It is available to the public yes, but surely it can't belong to everyone. It would only belong to George if anyone were to own it.

And you're argument is rendered invalid right here:
Laxman9292 said:
but it was much better in my mind...
And I'm sure (not really, but I have strong feeling about it) that's how Lucas feels with his actual, original work.

I'm sure you have a lot of ideas that would make Star Wars "better", but so does every fan, and differently.

If he wants to give out the originals, that's up to him. No one deserves it (hell half of the fans complaining shouldn't get it).

In my mind, no one should "deserve" it unless they ask nicely, and/or prove why they deserve it.