# George Lucas and the Right To Change Art Whenever You Feel Like It



## Guest (Sep 7, 2011)

This morning, I wrote a blog post on the subject of art and who gets to change it.

Check it out: http://www.zdrobinson.com/2011/09/brief-okay-long-aside.html

Let me know if you agree/disagree/don't care.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

You know, there's an old saying, you never get a second chance at making a first impression. But unless he ridded the Ewoks and viking funeral from _Revenge of the Jedi_, l'll going to let Star Wars stay in my memory of the 80s.


----------



## DD Graphix (Jul 15, 2011)

My personal definition of a true artist (versus a copyist or a drafter) is that a true artist is always moving forward, always changing, always seeking to better him or herself. A true artist gets bored by doing the same thing over and over. A true artist always pushes boundaries and explores the edge of their capability, without worrying too much about whether other people will "get it" or "like it."

If Lucas wants to change his own work, then I say go for it.


----------



## JimJ (Mar 3, 2009)

IMO, the issue has never been the changes that Lucas makes. The issue is the fact that he refuses to release the unaltered versions (and, no, crappy non-anamorphic versions don't count). He could put Jar-Jar musical numbers in every scene for all I care, just give me the option of watching the version that I want. Look at the Blu-Ray release of Blade Runner. I think there are 5 versions of the film on there. The Alien Anthology set has multiple versions of each film. This is really all the fan base is asking for and it could be easily done. Of course he has the right to screw with the movies all he wants, AND he has the right to hold back the original versions. I also have the right to think that that is a dick move.

Also, the latest change ("NOOOOO!) really rubs me the wrong way. He has to know how unpopular Vader's "NO" was in episode 3. So he then injects it into the OT, in one of the most important scenes? To me, that seems like he's just antagonizing his own fans now.



DD Graphix said:


> My personal definition of a true artist (versus a copyist or a drafter) is that a true artist is always moving forward, always changing, always seeking to better him or herself. A true artist gets bored by doing the same thing over and over.


So, wouldn't a true artist make a new movie, rather than constantly adding unnecessary crap to movies that are over 3 decades old?


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2011)

JimJ said:


> IMO, the issue has never been the changes that Lucas makes. The issue is the fact that he refuses to release the unaltered versions (and, no, crappy non-anamorphic versions don't count). He could put Jar-Jar musical numbers in every scene for all I care, just give me the option of watching the version that I want. Look at the Blu-Ray release of Blade Runner. I think there are 5 versions of the film on there. The Alien Anthology set has multiple versions of each film. This is really all the fan base is asking for and it could be easily done. Of course he has the right to screw with the movies all he wants, AND he has the right to hold back the original versions. I also have the right to think that that is a dick move.
> 
> Also, the latest change ("NOOOOO!) really rubs me the wrong way. He has to know how unpopular Vader's "NO" was in episode 3. So he then injects it into the OT, in one of the most important scenes? To me, that seems like he's just antagonizing his own fans now.
> So, wouldn't a true artist make a new movie, rather than constantly adding unnecessary crap to movies that are over 3 decades old?


The issue with Lucas is he earnestly believes that art is never finished, just abandoned. So since he has the means, he'd gonna go back and finish his art. I understand that. But I don't understand the vitriol over the "NOOOO!" scene -- either in ROTS or ROTJ. Both add a layer of emotion to the character. I know people want to think of Vader as just a mean jerk who kicks butt, but that's not very interesting for a character arc. It's far better to understand his motive for turning bad (eg. the death of his wife - "NOOOOO!") or redeeming himself (eg. watching his son die - "NOOOOO!"). Both are fine to me.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

JimJ said:


> IMO, the issue has never been the changes that Lucas makes. The issue is the fact that he refuses to release the unaltered versions (and, no, crappy non-anamorphic versions don't count). He could put Jar-Jar musical numbers in every scene for all I care, just give me the option of watching the version that I want. Look at the Blu-Ray release of Blade Runner. I think there are 5 versions of the film on there. The Alien Anthology set has multiple versions of each film. This is really all the fan base is asking for and it could be easily done. Of course he has the right to screw with the movies all he wants, AND he has the right to hold back the original versions. I also have the right to think that that is a dick move.
> 
> Also, the latest change ("NOOOOO!) really rubs me the wrong way. He has to know how unpopular Vader's "NO" was in episode 3. So he then injects it into the OT, in one of the most important scenes? To me, that seems like he's just antagonizing his own fans now.
> So, wouldn't a true artist make a new movie, rather than constantly adding unnecessary crap to movies that are over 3 decades old?


Yeah, really. I'd love to see a good transfer of the unaltered versions. I've had it with Star Wars, though. And I'm saying this as someone who loved Star Wars all throughout the '80s as a kid, even when it became unpopular.(Yes, it did.) But I've finally had my fill of Star Wars, and I think I'm going to take about a ten year break from it. George Lucas is like Michael Jackson with plastic surgery. He's just going to keep tinkering with those movies until they've become some weird, unrecognizable things that are painful to look at.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

It might not be so bad if the changes weren't so stupid.  The infamous Greedo scene, for example.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

And this is why we bought the versions that did have the original theatrical release included. We will not buy new editions, and these will be the only versions we expose our son to.

OK, George, you always wanted these creatures on Tatoonie and Jabba. But the thing with Greedo? Han was a smuggler, he was not a nice guy. Money and then Leia are what kept him around.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I thought the real original releases were not on DVD anywhere. I still have a VHS set, and I would like to get it transferred to DVD.


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

Feh. I never thought it was that big of a deal. He can change it if he wants to.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

R. M. Reed said:


> I thought the real original releases were not on DVD anywhere. I still have a VHS set, and I would like to get it transferred to DVD.


http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Two-Disc-Widescreen-Theatrical/dp/B000FQJAIW/ref=sr_1_7?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1315424341&sr=1-7

All 3 of the original movies were released on DVD this way


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I don't think there is any question that artists have the _right_ to change their work (assuming they have retained the copyright to that work). The only question if and when they do change it, is whether it was a good thing to do; and that will always be subjective and in the mind of the beholder.

Beethoven ultimately wrote 4 different versions of the overture to "Fidelio" (often referred to as the "Lenore" overtures). Nobody in the music world seems particularly upset that he didn't stop after the first one. However, it's true that music directors still have access to all 4 versions, so if they prefer, say, Lenore #2, they can choose to perform that one.

Stephen King reissued _The Stand_ with many, many more pages that the originally published version. No one seems to question his right to do so, though they may question whether or not it was an improvement. (I have no idea, as I couldn't get past the first chapter or so.)

Yes, Lucas has the right to change Star Wars all he wants to, and to choose which versions he will release for publication. Personally, I have minimal interest in seeing these "improvements," as to my tastes Lucas has become, over the last couple decades, a control freak obsessed with technology, who has forgotten that movie-making is a collaborative process that requires the successful integration of the director with the script writers and the actors, not just a contrived story and a few recognizable actors thrown in as a basis for lots of spectacular technical effects.


----------



## A. S. Warwick (Jan 14, 2011)

Han shot first!  That is all I have to say.


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

Someone had a thread earlier about whether characters at some point should or should not be tinkered with. I think the problem regarding the new stuff is not just Lucas being greedy (emphasis on the just) but also the inability for him to let his characters go. As he does the prequels, he realized certain things he wanted to add and thought he could retinker with the old ones without difficulty. He neglected to remember that after thirty-forty years, the characters have a fan base as opposed to him or the movie as a whole. Now this could all be speculation and maybe he is only after a few more bucks. But I swear if he edits it to where JarJar becomes a Jedi, messa gonna be mad.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2011)

dkazemi said:


> Someone had a thread earlier about whether characters at some point should or should not be tinkered with. I think the problem regarding the new stuff is not just Lucas being greedy (emphasis on the just) but also the inability for him to let his characters go. As he does the prequels, he realized certain things he wanted to add and thought he could retinker with the old ones without difficulty. He neglected to remember that after thirty-forty years, *the characters have a fan base as opposed to him or the movie as a whole.* Now this could all be speculation and maybe he is only after a few more bucks. But I swear if he edits it to where JarJar becomes a Jedi, messa gonna be mad.


This line of reasoning is irrelevant. That was the point of my post: that whether the beholder believes he or she has a claim to the art or not, it is ultimately up to the creator to let go or change.

In this case, I think it is a case of Lucas merely wanting to make the series as complete as possible. I'm okay with that completely. And I'm okay with him never releasing the originals. In his mind, those movies were incomplete and are no longer accurate. I happen to agree with him. But I'm a true fan!


----------



## Michael R. Hicks (Oct 29, 2008)

Well, all I can say is that I loved the originally released trilogy, but was taken aback by with the edits Lucas made later (I won't speak of the second trilogy, because it never took hold for me - too much silliness and terrible acting). Sure, he has the right to change it, because he holds the rights. That certainly isn't in question. But while we got the DVD 6-pack, we definitely won't be buying any more...


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

This seems to be a good time to share this:






First heard the song when the band performed on G4TV's Attack of the Show in 2006


----------



## rayhensley (Apr 16, 2011)

DD Graphix said:


> My personal definition of a true artist (versus a copyist or a drafter) is that a true artist is always moving forward, always changing, always seeking to better him or herself. A true artist gets bored by doing the same thing over and over. A true artist always pushes boundaries and explores the edge of their capability, without worrying too much about whether other people will "get it" or "like it."


Wonderfully put, friend!


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

mom133d (aka Liz) said:


> And this is why we bought the versions that did have the original theatrical release included. We will not buy new editions, and these will be the only versions we expose our son to.
> 
> OK, George, you always wanted these creatures on Tatoonie and Jabba. But the thing with Greedo? Han was a smuggler, he was not a nice guy. Money and then Leia are what kept him around.


The most tasteful "enhancements" were made to The Empire Strikes back. Making the walls in cloud city into windows, adding the Wampa ice creature, things like that. Much of the stuff on the first movie as well as Return of the Jedi looks so out of place.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Z.D. Robinson said:


> This line of reasoning is irrelevant. That was the point of my post: that whether the beholder believes he or she has a claim to the art or not, it is ultimately up to the creator to let go or change.
> 
> In this case, I think it is a case of Lucas merely wanting to make the series as complete as possible. I'm okay with that completely. And I'm okay with him never releasing the originals. In his mind, those movies were incomplete and are no longer accurate. I happen to agree with him. But I'm a true fan!


I wouldn't say it's irrelevant. The art exists in the world. To many it means something and to change it is to change the meaning.

I'm a trekkie and not a nerf-herder  so I'm not some Jedi purist - I just think that whether or not Lucas feels the movies are complete, changing them from the original without leaving the original in place kinda makes him the ultimate fanboy proving he knows best. He does have the advantage of owning the rights to the movies so legally he can do as he pleases - that's not in dispute - it's just a little creepy that he's that attached to his baby that he keeps going back to it.


----------



## Cindy Borgne (Mar 21, 2011)

I don't think it's necessary for him to be making these small changes, but it doesn't bother me. I also think that these changes will draw attention to the way it was before to those who have seen the movies more than once. In other words, most people. 

It also makes me wonder when enough will be enough? Technology is always improving, so when does one stop? I suppose 30 years from now there might be a remake of the whole series.


----------



## Alle Meine Entchen (Dec 6, 2009)

Here's a handy chart to help you sort thru your star wars feeling:


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

PatrickWalts said:


> The most tasteful "enhancements" were made to The Empire Strikes back. Making the walls in cloud city into windows, adding the Wampa ice creature, things like that. Much of the stuff on the first movie as well as Return of the Jedi looks so out of place.


That's true, and I'm not a fanboi that has memorized how each and every scene looks, I barely noticed those changes. And honestly, the creatures on Tatoonie aren't that bad. But the added Jabba scene just doesn't seem to flow with the rest of the movie. Its like those deleted scenes in other movies, kinda cool, but you understand why it was cut.


----------



## Elijah Joon (Mar 11, 2011)

There's the irony that George Lucas was one of the Hollywood filmmakers to actually speak before Congress to protest against the alterations to iconic films in American culture, and urged the importance of preserving the films intact for future generations the way they were introduced to the older generations without any changes made to "update" them to modern times, colorize black and white films, etc.

Decades later, Lucas does a complete about-face and never looked back when it comes to tweaking the Star Wars movies...


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

The way I see it, it's his art and he can do with it what he wants.  As consumers, we don't have to buy it.  The original versions are out there and available.  Maybe not on Blu Ray, but they are available.


----------



## The Fussy Librarian (May 3, 2011)

Funny that we only seem to get worked up about when a director makes changes to a film.

Musicians have revised their songs since humans started singing. Playwrights have updated their works to reflect the times since before Shakespeare was in short pants.

What do I care if Lucas wants to tinker (yet again) with his films? Maybe someday he'll release a version of "Revenge of the Jedi" that I actually LIKE.


----------



## PatrickWalts (Jul 22, 2011)

balaspa said:


> The way I see it, it's his art and he can do with it what he wants. As consumers, we don't have to buy it. The original versions are out there and available. Maybe not on Blu Ray, but they are available.


Yes. On VHS and Laserdisc at select garage sales.


----------



## Erick Flaig (Oct 25, 2010)

Lucas' favorite art is done by the Bureau of Printing and Engraving.  

It's all about the money, (fan)boys!

If you think it's about art for art's sake, track down the "Star Wars Christmas Special."


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Nobody is questioning Lucas' _right_ to make these changes. What a lot of fans are questioning is his _taste level._ (Thank you Heidi Klum: "I question your taste level, George Lucas!") The vast majority of his changes are not considered improvements by the "fan boys." (I assume that term is not used as a compliment.) It's not a question of "can" but of "should." What exactly is Lucas satisfying except his own gargantuan ego? A man named Scott Ross (founder of The Digital Domain, the company that did effects for "Terminator 2," "Titanic," etc.; and before starting The Digital Domain ran the Skywalker Ranch) once spoke at my school when I was in college. He said he stopped working for Lucas because Lucas thought he was God. On Skywalker Ranch he most certainly is. But Lucas is a legend in his own mind more than anywhere else. He is a man with a remarkably small body of work to his name. And the vast majority of that body of work was done in collaboration with other writers and directors. ("Empire Strikes Back," "Return of the Jedi." "Indiana Jones" is more Spielberg than anyone else.) What Lucas was very smart about was financing the original "Star Wars" himself and _licensing_ it to Fox for distribution instead of selling it, which is what most production companies do. That allowed him to keep full rights to the films - and now (because really the man has no new ideas) - he just keeps living in and changing the past.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

DYB said:


> ...he just keeps living in and changing the past.


I think that's what bothers me the most (when I think about it at all, which I normally dont't  ). I wonder what good _new_ films he might be able to produce if he were to quit fiddling with the past and instead invest his wealth and considerable technical abilities (though I question his artistry, these days) in original projects and collaborations, instead of miring himself in this single story.

So, when is he going to edit "American Graffiti" and "fix" it by adding additional CGI characters and changing the colors of some of the cars?


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Lucas is currently working on a non-Star Wars film based on the Tuskeegee airmen. I heard him first talk about this movie back in 99'. But it seems Lucas' inability to leave anything alone is ruining that production too. Last time he threw a hissyfit over one of his projects, he ruined Indiana Jones 4. I've got no hope that he won't continue to tinker with the SW movies including the prequels.


----------



## Brem (Jun 29, 2011)

I see it like this, if it's good and people love it enough already, than there's no point to mess with it. I haven't watched the edited versions of the movies yet, but I'll check them out. I doubt some edited scenes will bother me, but who knows I may be wrong.


----------



## Bryan R. Dennis (May 19, 2011)

As long as the original theatrical releases are available on DVD I have no problem with special editions. By comparison, when a music artist releases a new version of their old song, an acoustic version for instance, no one gets mad. They could release Citizen Kane in color for all I care. As long as the original black and white is available, I wouldn't protest.


----------



## Guest (Sep 12, 2011)

Here's the thing though: If the artist chooses to alter his work and then hold up the new piece and say, "This is the finished product; that other thing was just a sketch", why can't Lucas do the same thing as his movie? I think he sees the original movies as incomplete, and he doesn't want them out there anymore. It's like an author who doesn't want a first draft of a book -- filled with mistakes and typos -- to be for sale alongside the finished version.

And for those that will instinctively say "But it was the original movies that were good!" that's a total crock! You mean to tell me that if he released Episode IV in 1977 with Greedo shooting first then the whole movie would suck? Seriously? You think the minor changes he's made over the years completely RUIN the entire movies? If so, I think you're blowing it all out of proportion!


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

JimJ said:


> IMO, the issue has never been the changes that Lucas makes. The issue is the fact that he refuses to release the unaltered versions (and, no, crappy non-anamorphic versions don't count). He could put Jar-Jar musical numbers in every scene for all I care, just give me the option of watching the version that I want.


I agree with this 100%. Why not make available an original version and a Director's Cut (or in this case, Umpteenth Director's Cut)?


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

Bryan R. Dennis said:


> As long as the original theatrical releases are available on DVD I have no problem with special editions. By comparison, when a music artist releases a new version of their old song, an acoustic version for instance, no one gets mad. They could release Citizen Kane in color for all I care. As long as the original black and white is available, I wouldn't protest.


That's kinda the point as well. The original theatrical release no longer exists. He destroyed it while making his tweeks for the re-release. The copies on the "Special Edition" DVD set that I have all came from laser disc. The film no longer exists "on film". If he offered the original and the new ones, I wouldn't have a problem. Well, not as much. 



Z.D. Robinson said:


> Here's the thing though: If the artist chooses to alter his work and then hold up the new piece and say, "This is the finished product; that other thing was just a sketch", why can't Lucas do the same thing as his movie? I think he sees the original movies as incomplete, and he doesn't want them out there anymore. It's like an author who doesn't want a first draft of a book -- filled with mistakes and typos -- to be for sale alongside the finished version.
> 
> And for those that will instinctively say "But it was the original movies that were good!" that's a total crock! You mean to tell me that if he released Episode IV in 1977 with Greedo shooting first then the whole movie would suck? Seriously? You think the minor changes he's made over the years completely RUIN the entire movies? If so, I think you're blowing it all out of proportion!


From all the stories I've ever heard both Sting and Prince are prefectionists that rival Lucas. But they don't yank older versions of their songs and act as if they never existed. Do I feel the changes have RUINED the original trilogy? No, but I do feel as if my childhood has been stripped of something precious. I don't think I'll let my son watch E.T. either, unless we get our hands on the original theatrical release. Changing the guns to walkie talkies changes the meaning, much like making Greedo shot first.

Would a painter or similiar artist be allowed to alter his work that has been on display? Even if the technology/technique didn't exist when he first made it and he would have used this if it did? I can hear Andy Warhol now...Wait I didn't have Photoshop when I first made it. Its filters allow me to do what I *really* envisioned.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I have always heard that the scene with Jabba the Hut in the first movie that was cut out had a completely different looking Jabba. When it was put back in the special edition they changed him to the slug look we know and love. I have always wanted to see what he originally looked like.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

R. M. Reed said:


> I have always heard that the scene with Jabba the Hut in the first movie that was cut out had a completely different looking Jabba. When it was put back in the special edition they changed him to the slug look we know and love. I have always wanted to see what he originally looked like.


Here you go.


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

Sigh, now I feel really nerdy because I know what the scene was. Jabba was played by a heavy set man with a thick Irish (or was it something else?). That is why Solo can walk behind him.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

dkazemi said:


> Sigh, now I feel really nerdy because I know what the scene was. Jabba was played by a heavy set man with a thick Irish (or was it something else?). That is why Solo can walk behind him.


Despite Lucas' attempts to make it look seamless, you can tell the footage was digitally altered to make Solo step on Jabba's Tail. Definitely a bit of Star Wars Trivia that might escape viewers who didn't watch the original release.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

e. flaig said:


> If you think it's about art for art's sake, track down the "Star Wars Christmas Special."


I've seen the "Christmas Special." In fact, I have it somewhere on an old VHS. It's scarier than "The Exorcist," "Jaws" and "Halloween" put together.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Kevis Hendrickson said:


> Here you go.


Really? I remember magazines from back in the day that said Jabba was an alien who looked kind of like a camel. I never heard that it was a human actor.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

DYB said:


> I've seen the "Christmas Special." In fact, I have it somewhere on an old VHS. It's scarier than "The Exorcist," "Jaws" and "Halloween" put together.


Its also on youtube, or was earlier this year.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

R. M. Reed said:


> Really? I remember magazines from back in the day that said Jabba was an alien who looked kind of like a camel. I never heard that it was a human actor.


I think during the re-release, Lucas was saying that he had an actor stand-in for Jabba during filming, that he was always supposed to be some non-human, but he didn't have the technology. or he's re-writing the past (midiclorians anyone?)


----------



## RedTash (Aug 14, 2011)

He's definitely successful enough to do whatever he wants, but the more he reveals his taste, the less I like his work.  He did so much better on a smaller budget.  Going to check out your blog now.


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I found the Jabba clip on YouTube. I can see why it was cut.


----------



## Michael A. Boyadjian (Jul 23, 2011)

My two cents: Lucas has every right to tweak his films, but he should also be sharp enough to avoid tampering with the elements of Star Wars that work perfectly fine as they are. Some of the changes he made all the way up through the 2004 editions were positive, but there were also plenty of changes that were negative. One would have hoped he'd gotten the hang of it by now.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2011)

Michael A. Boyadjian said:


> My two cents: Lucas has every right to tweak his films, but he should also be sharp enough to avoid tampering with the elements of Star Wars that work perfectly fine as they are. Some of the changes he made all the way up through the 2004 editions were positive, but *there were also plenty of changes that were negative.* One would have hoped he'd gotten the hang of it by now.


I'm sure you realize this is an opinion. lol And I don't see any change that was negative, just some that I don't prefer or see the necessity. That doesn't make it a negative for me. The musical number in ROTJ is the only addition that I think is completely silly. Everything else he did does a good job of tying the saga together, in my view.


----------

