This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Changes in Star Wars re-releases article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on July 22, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
This talk page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
I’ve noticed just recently that UpdateNerd tends to keep putting up negative comments and content regarding the Special Editions, and keeps limiting any attempts to balance the critiques and praises for the re-releases. A while ago I once created several citations indicating that the Emperor scene in Empire Strikes Back got a fairly positive reception from Screenrant, but it seems that for no reason my citation was reverted. I’m sorry but I’ve been away for a while because I recall that any edit I made that tried to balance the scales more seemed to have gotten reverted in favor of more negative comments and citations. For instance a source was just recently referenced for how A New Hope was already special and how it didn’t need Dewbacks in it, and another citation to parodies of certain changes from the Special Editions. I hope you all take my concerns into consideration, thanks. Mobfighter63 ( talk) 02:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently under "Release History" the opening quote attributed to George Lucas is:
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians. ... Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. ... Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten. ... Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself."
It is being misused. It should include the full quote and not what uses his words to fit a narrative that doesn't fit his intentions with the Special Editions. He's a firm believer in the artist having the right to change their work but as it stands now the quote above doesn't reflect that.
See below for the full quote for correct context:
My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation. I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I’ve come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected. The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created. A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history. People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as “when life begins” or “when it should be appropriately terminated,” but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race. These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with “fresher faces,” or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor’s lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new “original” negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved. In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten. There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste. I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest. I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation. The public’s interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work. There are those who say American law is sufficient. That’s an outrage! It’s not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of “The Maltese Falcon?” Why are films cut up and butchered? Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself. I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art–as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities. or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians. ... Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. ... Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten. ... Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself. Joe12Hawk ( talk) 05:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
That's factually incorrect actually. He was editing the films well before the Special Editions. The only difference between the time before and after is his desire to add a new scenes and effects like the Jabba and Han scene in A New Hope. The Special Editions were a chance to reissue the films for the 20th anniversary.
The quote currently abuses what he says as it shows no clarity to his actual belief that the artist has the right to do as they please with their creative work. As it stands now it only feeds into the narrative he flip flopped his opinion on the matter but that's not true. The full quote illustrates he believes the artist has the right to do as the please. Joe12Hawk ( talk) 17:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I think including the full quote may be a good thing as it may help people to discover how he's for the artist changing their work but not others. This would really help to stop the myth that's popped up as constantly I find when reading about these things the quote is as given as it is currently on here and it creates a very hostile opinion on him. If we can do anything to help show the truth of his intentions I think we're better off for it.
We need to make the article in general as least bias against him as possible and more understanding of his intentions as it gives the factual account as to why. Anything else is opinion on the matter. Joe12Hawk ( talk) 17:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Makes sense. The next best case scenario then I believe is to find the place where the quote displays what he believes and leave it at that for people to click the link to read the full quote.
I'd say the best place to begin and end is:
If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created. A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain.
It aligns with what he says in the second quote listed and illustrates his opinion remained the same. Joe12Hawk ( talk) 18:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
As it stands now throughout the entire page it does present things as though it's about anything but the changes made. Instead it seems to be more about the critical reaction to them. Joe12Hawk ( talk) 00:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
So I think it's important to present both sides of the story or no bias at all. If the page includes critical reaction it should also include George Lucas's intentions and thoughts. Joe12Hawk ( talk) 00:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes it represents the negative side of the critical reaction to the matter but not George Lucas's intentions. His intentions and meanings are long winded to get into simply but it was in a general sense due to being able to bring his vision up to what he wanted back when he was originally making the films but had to compromise due to costs and limitations in the technology at the time. It's important to note that in connection with the timeline given or the like of the changes. The full quote also blurs the line and disputes the notion that he changed his mind on the matter. It currently only shows a very narrow picture of his beliefs and makes it seem like he became hypocritical for making the changes with the quote provided as it is as it makes it seem like he believes anyone making changes is unacceptable and are "barbarians" but the actual full quote makes it clear he believes the artist has the right to change and fix their work as they so believe. Changing and slimming the quote down to where he talks about the artist having the right to do as they please goes a long way towards disputing the notion that the changes only started in 1997. It's important to give clarity on these matters. Joe12Hawk ( talk) 16:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I can also source a video of George Lucas speaking to the American Film Institute for exactly what I was saying were his reasons. It's just not letting me attach it here in this discussion but I can source it within the article. Joe12Hawk ( talk) 16:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I am on mobile. I'm typing the best I can given the means I have available to communicate. Joe12Hawk ( talk) 19:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@ UpdateNerd and I have been editing this page, including condensing long George Lucas quotes. Although I've been pondering one of these quotes for quite awhile (the one that is discussed at length in the previous topic on this page, and which has been reduced to a fraction of its previous length), I'm still not clear on what it's adding to the article. Here's the quote as it stands now:
"People who alter or destroy works of art, and our cultural heritage, for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians ... Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself."
Those who support inclusion of this quote probably do so because it shows that Lucas fiercely believes that artists get to have the final say on what is done with their art. But this page isn't about the morality of altering films, and who gets to do it. It's merely about changes to Star Wars films. In December 2022 (see above thread), @ Canterbury Tail said:
"Honestly I think all references to it should be removed. This is an article about the changes in the Star Wars re-releases, not an article on George Lucas's philosophy and beliefs on film editing and alteration. That is appropriate for the George Lucas article, this is about the films themselves and the actual changes."
I don't feel the page needs to make it clear that Lucas believes artists should have control over their work, partly because it's probably a very widely held belief by artists, and partly because my impression is that most people who decry the changes are not claiming that Lucas shouldn't have the right to alter the films. I may be wrong, but I think most of the criticism is about A) the alterations themselves, and whether people personally like or dislike them, and B) about the fact that Lucas hasn't allowed unaltered versions of the films to become available on DVD or streaming.
Additionally, the second part of the quote actually seems to support not altering films (and remember, the quote came from a speech Lucas gave to Congress in which he lambasted studios for altering films).
Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself."
Lots of people want to be able to buy and watch the films in their original, unaltered forms, which is sort of like wanting to see the past how it was, and not how it is after modifications by Lucas. The quote may confuse readers, because it seems to go against altering films, and may make it unclear what Lucas's position is on the altering of his own films.
In sum, this quote was not uttered by Lucas in the context of his own alteration of his own films. It was specifically about legislation in Congress that would make it more difficult for studios to alter films without the consent of filmmakers. We can say that the quote communicates some of Lucas's philosophy, but then we are bringing our own "original thought" into WP by deciding that the philosophy that appears to emanate from the quotes applies to this page, even though his words were not addressing the topic of this page, and were uttered years before he made major alterations to the Star Wars films. Wafflewombat ( talk) 10:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey @ UpdateNerd, I noticed you changed the Greedo and Jabba headers, but the new headers look the same as the old ones. Or is that just my computer? Wafflewombat ( talk) 07:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey @ UpdateNerd, I noticed you restored some content I removed. I apologize if my edit summaries were not clear, and I'm sorry if I deleted important information without seeking consensus. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing your thoughts on the endnote you restored, which reads: "Additionally, Stewart notes that though "the dewback model was rebuilt for the prequels ... the test model was left front-and-center in a classic film."
Could you explain why you feel this note is important? Wafflewombat ( talk) 14:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
UpdateNerd, I have a question for you about this sentence:
Lucas explained that he wanted Han to be a John Wayne-type character who allows his enemy to have the first shot before retaliating.
The endnote at the end of that sentence reads:
In Red River, John Wayne's character shoots down a vengeful man who is starting to draw his pistol.
There is no evidence that Lucas was thinking of this particular scene when he was thinking about Han's character. Neither the citation within the endnote, nor the other citation at the end of the sentence mentions that movie. Although it's unlikely, it's possible Lucas has never seen Red River, so we can't speculate or suggest that he has. I suggest we remove that endnote. Would you agree? Wafflewombat ( talk) 09:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey UpdateNerd, did you want to talk about the edit you reverted? Do you feel that it's not original research? Wafflewombat ( talk) 20:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I want to propose a re-structuring of this article. I think the sections "Relese history" and "Significant changes" should be merged into one section, which would make the article's structure resemble the structure of this article. Many people who visit the page are going to want to read about the changes themselves, and are going to skip past the "Release history" section. Right now it feels like two sections that belong together are split up for no reason. Wafflewombat ( talk) 17:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I actually just assumed this was a recent change, so I guess it never bothered me before. However, the title change occurred during the production of the first sequel, debuting with the 1981 rerelease. In other words, it's been known by the shorthand A New Hope ever since there were multiple Star Wars films. Seems preferable as a common name since this article deals with several films. If the title change actually occurred with the Special Edition, which is the beginning of the article's primary focus, then it would make sense to keep the "purity" of the title Star Wars. UpdateNerd ( talk) 01:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)