Something I leaned today...

[Skull]

I'm posting it here because this topic is relate to good movies...


I was joking with a coworker about Obama's new job speech (which is comming soon), and is being reproted that the speech isnt new or complete and then I said maybe his writing staff is George Lucas since all George can do is redress Star Wars every 10 years...


Then the coworker informed me that George Lucas was against the colorization of black and white movies and took it to congress in the late 1980's... Holy Smack in the Face!!!, I did not know this!

So I looked it up and there found this:

http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagainstspecialedition.html

Here is the George Lucas speech to congress in protesting the colorization of black and white movies:

"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. Tommorrow, 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.

WOW I feel like Linda Blair, my head is spinning!!!

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."

Besides George Lucas, Steven Spielberg also protested the colorization... So how can these two directors protest colorization of black and white films while they also basterized their films... WTF?


I understand there a new 3D version of Star Wars comming soon... (which I'm not wasting my money/time to see)

[Rev. Powell]

There's no contradiction there.  Lucas is opposed to people other than the artist themselves tinkering with the films.  He believes that it's his sole right as creator of STAR WARS to mess up his own film as he sees fit.

[Skull]

There's no contradiction there.  Lucas is opposed to people other than the artist themselves tinkering with the films.  He believes that it's his sole right as creator of STAR WARS to mess up his own film as he sees fit.

The contradiction is as George Lucas says: Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

Star Wars (1977 version) is a historic movie (that effected cultural history for the later 1970's and early 1980's) and so he is rewritting history.

[Rev. Powell]

There's no contradiction there.  Lucas is opposed to people other than the artist themselves tinkering with the films.  He believes that it's his sole right as creator of STAR WARS to mess up his own film as he sees fit.

The contradiction is as George Lucas says: Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

Star Wars (1977 version) is a historic movie (that effected cultural history for the later 1970's and early 1980's) and so he is rewritting history.

He doesn't mean "our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten," he means it must not be rewritten "for profit or as an exercise of power" and the law should protect "filmmakers from having their lifework distorted" [by others].  What he is saying is that corporations who happen to own a copyright shouldn't be allowed to alter films to make them more popular, because that's the sole right of the artist.  That's why he uses the legal term "moral rights" and why he uses the example of THE MALTESE FALCON being colorized against John Huston's protests.

Think of it: if you wrote a novel and ten years later wanted to change the ending because you decided it sucked, I assume you would have no problem doing so.  If the publisher, however, decided to rewrite the conclusion to give it a happy ending without your consent because they thought it would sell better, then you'd probably be outraged.  The second case is what Lucas is talking about.

I'm not saying what Lucas is doing in altering the STAR WARS movies is right, by the way.  I'm just saying he's not being hypocritical based on the statements above.

[tracy]

I'm against coloring these black and white movies....even if it's your own film. Granted...if it's your film then you can alter it any way you like. I sure don't have to like it,though.

[Flick James]

Rev is correct, as he tends to be regarding the letter of the law. GL is still an a***ole, though.

 

[Skull]

Sorry I have a problem with this.

First, George Lucas doesnt own Star Wars, he didnt have the 10 million dollars to make the movie and he didnt have the "power" to force the theaters to push Star Wars in the early release.

Is Star Wars his creation... Yes...

Does he own Star Wars... No...

Why? He sold the movie to the public as a finished material.

Lets assume that Leonardo Da Vinci was alive today and he completed the Mona Lisa 10 years ago and sold it. Does Leonardo Da Vinci has the right to retake the Mona Lisa from the owner and draw a Moustache? According to George Lucas he does... On the other hand, if I actually own the Mona Lisa and decides to draw a Moustache on the painting I'm a barbarian (according to George Lucas).

Remakes can be annoying but at least I can give them credit for attempting to start over from the ground up, what George Lucas is doing is against all logical reason for a filmmaker and an artist, he is exercising a concept of sloth filmmaking that is cheating fans of the orginal series, actors and technicians. He is in fact rewriting history and getting away with it by saying that he's the artist of the film and can do whatever he wants.

[Rev. Powell]

Sorry I have a problem with this.

First, George Lucas doesnt own Star Wars, he didnt have the 10 million dollars to make the movie and he didnt have the "power" to force the theaters to push Star Wars in the early release.

Is Star Wars his creation... Yes...

Does he own Star Wars... No...

Why? He sold the movie to the public as a finished material.

Lets assume that Leonardo Da Vinci was alive today and he completed the Mona Lisa 10 years ago and sold it. Does Leonardo Da Vinci has the right to retake the Mona Lisa from the owner and draw a Moustache? According to George Lucas he does... On the other hand, if I actually own the Mona Lisa and decides to draw a Moustache on the painting I'm a barbarian (according to George Lucas).

Remakes can be annoying but at least I can give them credit for attempting to start over from the ground up, what George Lucas is doing is against all logical reason for a filmmaker and an artist, he is exercising a concept of sloth filmmaking that is cheating fans of the orginal series, actors and technicians. He is in fact rewriting history and getting away with it by saying that he's the artist of the film and can do whatever he wants.

The issue of whether an artist owns his own work or whether (in some sense) the public "owns" it once it's released is an interesting question.  As a creative sort myself I have a lot of sympathy with the artists, though I know they often show bad judgement.

But to be clear, Lucas isn't going into your house and taking your old SW tapes and DVDs and copying over them with the new versions.  He's just re-releasing the movies with some minor alterations that he believes make them better films.  I think the changes are bad and unnecessary.  But to be honest, I feel absolutely zero moral outrage about it.

[Zapranoth]

I think that Lucas could have made his point much more concisely.

.... He could have just stood before congress and screamed an operatic NOOOOooOOOOOOoOOOOOOoOOOOOooOOOO!!!!

[tracy]

I think that Lucas could have made his point much more concisely.

.... He could have just stood before congress and screamed an operatic NOOOOooOOOOOOoOOOOOOoOOOOOooOOOO!!!!

"Just say no!"
Works every time.

[voltron]

Like others have said, I agree with some of Lucas' points, but at the same time, I really don't agree with his politics regarding his own films. I am by no means a Star Wars freak, but as far as I'm concerned altering the films....? What is the point? Is he doing it as an attempt to stay current, or is he just dissatisfied with his artistic choices? In a wierd way this reminds me of the band Hypocrisy. They released an album called Catch 22 years back and it was not well recieved by the metal community in general. So what does mainman Pete Tagtregren do? He re-records the entire album! I don't know, I just don't get it.

[BTM]

I can give you an even BETTER quote from George Lucas.

"A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing."
 -shortly after the orignal Star Wars was released.

[Zapranoth]

There's a J Geils Band song that sums it all up for George Lucas.  I shall now regale you with the intro-free version of it, in the interests of time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPAj19vHPNc&feature=related
	Small | Large

[Mofo Rising]

George Lucas is just kind of crappy in general.

When he started he was kind of this weirdo who swallowed Joseph Campbell's "Hero With a Thousand Faces" whole. I've got some problems with that work. I don't think discovering story structure necessitates a mythic resonance. So this upstart Lucas demanding it was a bit odd.

Then he made Star Wars. I love Star Wars. I love it, like any child of the '80s. I love it without reservation.

But that's all George Lucas ever did. The rest of what we remember him for is pretty much him teaming up with Spielberg. Spielberg, for all his populist nonsense, is a powerhouse. Lucas was just along for the ride.

What we have in Lucas is an old man continually attacking the one thing that brought him to the public eye, and still thinking that his thoughts are important. Star Wars left Lucas behind long ago.

Here's one word that should make you mad at Lucas and question him for the rest of your life. Midichlorians.

Lucas is an idiot. He made an incredible trilogy. Did I mention I love Star Wars unreservedly? But he should have left well enough alone, especially as there are so many talented people expounding upon his one success.