Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Fox do the distribution? Not sure exactly. I thought they only distributed the film itself. I'm not sure how all that works. But I do assume that Lucas would incure some costs, millions or not, if the classic versions were to be released.
Another argument I've seen made though is that if the originals were released, they wouldn't sell because they are "outdated" or that they would misrepresent his vision and lose him money somehow. Granted this is not a commonly made argument, but at least a few people seem to think that releasing the originals would be a "loss" rather than a sure-fire profit maker.You know what? I don't that that is entirely impossible. I don't think it wouldn't sell, but I think it is possible that the demand for such things is limited to some extent to the older generation of hardcore fans. I don't think the casual fan much cares one way or the other (if they did, the current DVD sales wouldn't have been so huge) and there is an entire new generation of young fans who are growing up with the prequels (and on digital effects in general) and only really know about the updated versions. And likely these new fans would not want a version where the effects are somewhat (very?) dated. So I guess I suspect that if the classic versions were released on DVD tomorrow it wouldn't all of a sudden overtake the current DVD version sales.
But it is more commonly argued, as you've shown that Lucas MUST be in it for the artistic integrity since he's selflessly passing up this "money-making opportunity" with the originals. Of course why should we think Lucas is one to do that? He's released the same movies enough times over the past 20 years. I think he is a brillaint business man, but I do think that he genuinely cares for Star Wars itself as a piece of art. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
In fact he's now re-releasing the same exact movies once again, with fewer extras, on DVD, for more or less the same price in a different box! Figure that one out!Probably to shut up people who bitch and moan about getting older versions. :D
That should give you hope that he may one day release the originals...
One theory advanced back in the day was he was continually re-releasing the original movies to RAISE MONEY for the Prequels, because they were so expensive and such a big risk ('top star wars? never!'). And here the Phantom Menace has (by most counts) surpassed the original Star Wars in $$$ made (not sure if that's adjusted for inflation or not, but it's pretty impressive, given how most fans consider it the weakest of the series). Number 5 all time according to Box Office Mojo. Star Wars is number 2, but that includes grosses from all versions. ROTS is number 7. Interestingly, they use the example of E.T. to explain the multiple editions part...
Matters little since you can purchase the theatrical versions on DVD right now. The cat's already out of the bag. Lots of directors and artists feel they wish they could go back, etc, but most know to leave well enough alone. And in Jackson's case, he wisely provided both versions, so fans have a choice.My point was he was another example of a director who would like to go back an alter his original works.
My main beef is with an artist who lets their work become as world famous as Lucas has made his, What do you mean "lets"? Should he have prevented it from being famous somehow? Should he not promote it?
then changes it and doesn't allow anyone to see the original version that became so ingrained in the public consciousness. I'm all for them releasing a million revisions if they want, He lets me watch them. I got them when he said it was the last chance. :)
but the original I think belongs to the world as much as it does the artist, morally.I don't.
I think the artist has a complete moral ownership over his own work, and I think most artists would resent the implication that they answer to the audience of the work. I have a right to view/listen/read such a thing as made available by the creator. I can express an opinion about what I want and like or dislike, but the artist has the final say.
That is true. On the other hand, consumers of commercial products do consider themselves to have a moral right to tell a company what they can and cannot do with their products they've spent money on. They only have the right to complain if what they bought is either disfunctional or does not perform as indicated by the creator. They do not have a right to complain if they bought something expecting it to be something that the creator never claimed it was. That is their own fault. The creator can also apply rules and restrictions on the use of the product (software for example). When the buyer makes the purchase and uses it, they have technically agreed to these conditions. If they don't like the product or the conditions, they don't have to buy it.
Can people complain about Windows because Bill Gates holds the moral rights to create it as he chooses? They can morally complain about Windows if it does not function as advertised (crashes or doesn't have advertised features). They do not have a right to complain that it doesn't do something it was never intended or advertised as being able to do. They can have and express an opinion of what should be added or changed on Windows, but they have no moral right to make that change. That decision belongs to Gates. If people don't like it, they don't have to buy it.
Do people have the right to complain about GM cars and trucks because the manufacturers take pride in their work and own patents? Etc.Again, only if it doesn't function as advertised. They can't complain that their truck isn't as fast as a Porche after they bought it, because it was never advertised as doing so. They can say they want a truck that goes that fast, but it is up to GM to decide if they should make one.
I think there's a bit of a double standard hereI don't. We pay money for Lucas's films and we get something in return. "Contract" completed.
that because it's art for sale, the consumers aren't allowed to complain or have a say about it. Are only art critics allowed to criticize art? A valid question.Consumers can complain and criticise until they are blue in the face, and have every right to do so. Doesn't mean the artist has to accomidate those requests.
Right, but you're just one person. If thousands and tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, or millions of fans demand something, what is the artists responsibility? To do what he feels is best for his art.
These are the fans who've made him wealthy and famous for love of his art. So what? It's not like they haven't gotten something in return. Lucas offers films and products, and we decide if we want to pay money for them. When we give him money, we get something back. That is all he owes us.
Does he have any loyalty to them for their loyalty to him? Maybe (I think so). But we are in no position to demand loyalty. If he does, it is because of how he feels about the fans, not because he is obligated to because they bought some of his stuff.
That's more credit than many give them! Kudos.I'm a fan too you know. :)
I see what you're saying there. If nobody, not a single one wanted the originals, then it would be a moot point. A historian might argue it's still desirable to have the original version of "Birth of a Nation" in a vault somewhere, rather than some colorized version with speech added and CG horses (hypothetically speaking here of course!) purely for purposes of history, but there's a lot to be said for demand.I don't think there is anything to be said for demand. If me and a few million of my buddies demand that Star Wars be updated so that all the characters be replaced with penguins, should we get what we want? And at what number does demand achieve a moral right to get what they want from the artist? Does he have to drop whatever he is doing and provide it?
It's just harder when the version you like has been out of print for 8 years, and only exists on obsolete and/or decaying stock. But that's the same with anything. Older versions of anything, especially those out of stock or print, become harder to find with time. Again, the original artist or publisher is not morally obligated to make such things available until the end of time.
With the swiftly approaching death of VHS, even that option will no longer be available. So Lucas is basically making it difficult for anyone but DVD owners who like the 2004 Editions to have their liking.He isn't making it any more difficult than any other artist who has come up with a new edition using a new format. Mediums become obselete and many works are not updated to the newest, like old tapes and VHS to CDs and DVDs. The artist is not morally obligated to release all his old versions of everything every time a new format comes along.
Do you mean publishers refuse to release public domain works? No. I said public memory, which I intended to be the same as your term "public conciousness." Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Not every work is in demand of course, but at least copies of them exist.Just like there are copies of the classic trilogy that exist. For example, here. (
http://cgi.ebay.com/STAR-WARS-TRILOGY-VHS-ORIGINAL-VINTAGE-RARE-1ST-EDITION_W0QQitemZ6438645798QQcategoryZ309QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem) :)
A modern day book is no more longer lasting if you take care of it than an older book that was treated fairly. A VHS tape on the other hand wears out a little bit each time you watch it. But they do degrade over time and with use (spins get warn, pages do decay). Same as VHS. So if I can't get my favorite first edition of a book in electronic format, should the author be morally obligated to provide it for me? I don't think so.
A DVD will supposedly last for generations if treated carefully and can be easily copied onto another digital format with 0% loss. So I think that's a big difference. DVD is a better format, sure. But all the filmmakers out there are not obligated to transcribe everything they have done to a new format every time one comes along.