George Lucas Making More Changes For Star Wars Blu-Ray Release

[Rainbow Dash]

Said it before, but if Lucas just put both versions out, i don't think there would be nearly as much backlash.  

Just look at the Original Star Trek series they put out (though most the changes made seemed to be well received by most fans).  No one really cared one way or another, because they made both available.  



And lets go back to the wonderful world of 1998

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."

[Russell]

Yeah, and he did release both versions of ET as well, which was nice.

I would like to know why you have to comment in such a way that tends to invite, and
perhaps beg confrontation?

[Doctor Who?]

Said it before, but if Lucas just put both versions out, i don't think there would be nearly as much backlash.  

Just look at the Original Star Trek series they put out (though most the changes made seemed to be well received by most fans).  No one really cared one way or another, because they made both available.  



And lets go back to the wonderful world of 1998

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."

wow.

Am I the only one who is reminded of that one Robot Chick episode where back in the 1980s aliens kidnapped Micheal Jackson and replaced him with a white guy who abuses kids in a weird plan to take over the world?

[Russell]

wow.
Am I the only one who is reminded of that one Robot Chick episode where back in the 1980s aliens kidnapped Micheal Jackson and replaced him with a white guy who abuses kids in a weird plan to take over the world?

I know what you're thinking, and I agree. 

[daltysmilth]

Hey anyone ever thought maybe it's Fox who keeps asking for all the changes and Lucas is just giving them what they want.  Maybe they don't see the point of rereleasing the movies in theaters or on DvD or Blu Ray with out new content so they just tell Lucas they want something new for each rerelease and he gives it to them because if he didn't they wouldn't release the movies at all.  Maybe this is an example of corporations being major boneheads.

Another reason this would not be the case is that 20th Century Fox no longer holds the rights to any aspect of Star Wars.  George somehow got the rights to the original trilogy from them, and he paid for the prequels entirely out of his own pocket.  The main reason he allowed Fox to distribute the prequels, as opposed to, say, Warner Bros. or Paramount, was because they'd released the original trilogy.  And let's face it, the 20th Century Fox Fanfare is almost as much a part of the music of Star Wars as the Main Title theme itself. 

The point is that Fox has very little, if any, say in how the Star Wars films get released, because George could take them to any other distributor he wanted, and they couldn't do a thing about it.

[goflyblind]

you know, if he's making all these odd and silly changes, he should just start adding waldo into backgrounds. could be great fun playing where's waldo every scene.

[Russell]

Yeah, and he did release both versions of ET as well, which was nice.

I would like to know why you have to comment in such a way that tends to invite, and
perhaps beg confrontation?

...in what way did this beg confrontation?

Hmm, nevermind, I'm sorry. It just sounded sarcastic.

[Rainbow Dash]

So apparently the picture quality is crap.

[Danecho1967]

And let's face it, the 20th Century Fox Fanfare is almost as much a part of the music of Star Wars as the Main Title theme itself. 

The fanfare even appears on the soundrack CD's.  At least, I know it was on the Phantom Mennace soundtrack.

[Doctor Who?]

And let's face it, the 20th Century Fox Fanfare is almost as much a part of the music of Star Wars as the Main Title theme itself. 

The fanfare even appears on the soundrack CD's.  At least, I know it was on the Phantom Mennace soundtrack.

It was on both my record and CD soundtrack for episode 4.

[Russell]

So apparently the picture quality is crap.

What happened there?! They forget to clean up the master like they're supposed to when
a movie normally gets put on blu-ray?

[D.B. Barnes]

I don't see the problem? Jerjerrod's out of focus because he was out of focus in the original shot--the focus is clearly on Vader.

I don't really see edge enhancement, and there's plenty of grain structure.  Blacks might be a little crushed I guess?

Not sure if it's exactly what's eliciting the negative reaction, but I would guess it has something to do with some people confusing natural, intentional grain for some sort of uncleanliness. Either that, or being conditioned to an overuse of noise reduction.

Grain, for lack of a better word...is good.

[sarcasm_made_Easy]

Why?

[mrbasehart]

Why?

Because that's the way it was shot - with plenty of grain.  Lucas is a purist about keeping his films perfectly the way they were sh-

No wait.  Why didn't he clean it up?

[doggans]

Is it really the grain that's bothering people? That's pretty funny, since there are so many After Effects tutorials out there on ADDING grain to video, in an attempt to make it look more like film.