Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by Uxi

How come Star Wars doesn't show up in NFPF's list of preserved films?

Star Wars joined in 1989.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

How difficult is this to understand?

.

So?

What language did they use? "Get lost"? Really?

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by koontz1973

I would agree that the public at large have a stake in national works of art, music, literature, and even some old films that have been elevated above the rest.

So, you're saying you don't consider film to be art.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

So, you're saying you don't consider film to be art.

Sounds like he's saying the public's right doesn't supersede the creator's. He'd generally be right in any system that doesn't call each other "comrade"

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by koontz1973

Star Wars joined in 1989.

Eh? How out of date is their list?

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Sounds like he's saying the public's right doesn't supersede the creator's. He'd generally be right in any system that doesn't call each other "comrade"

My only point is that once a work of art is released it becomes part of the cultural landscape and should be preserved as such.

Originally Posted by Uxi

Eh? How out of date is their list?

It was established in 1988. In fact it seems that 1989 was the first year films were added after going through the election process.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

My only point is that once a work of art is released it becomes part of the cultural landscape and should be preserved as such.

Not while the art's creator is still alive. At least not in the Free World.

It was established in 1988. In fact it seems that 1989 was the first year films were added after going through the election process.

Why isn't it on their list, though?

[Mr.Tibbs]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Not while the art's creator is still alive. At least not in the Free World.

How do you figure?

It is on the list.

Best Years of Our Lives, The

Casablanca

Citizen Kane

Crowd, The

Dr. Strangelove

General, The

Gone with the Wind

Grapes of Wrath, The

High Noon

Intolerance

Learning Tree, The

Maltese Falcon, The

Modern Times

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

Nanook of the North

On the Waterfront

Searchers, The

Singin' in the Rain

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Some Like It Hot

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

Sunrise

Sunset Boulevard

Vertigo

Wizard of Oz, The

Thats some lofty status surrounded by the films on that list. Thats why it needs to be preserved for those that choose not to aknowledge the prequels as Star Wars films. Also the OT is not placed on a peadastal by fanboys but by movie fans and crtics in general. The prequels were and are just mediocre films in their respective era. Do you think that any of the prequels will ever be elected into such an exclusive club? The only other SW film even worthy of that praise is TESB. Lucas later tried to have his SE cut included and they told him no.

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by Mr.Tibbs

How do you figure?

Eh? Simple fact that noone has seriously claimed Lucas didn't have the right to do his edits (before).

It is on the list

I must be searching the wrong list, then.

http://www.filmpreservation.org/pres...rough-the-nfpf

Springtime for Henry (1934), screen adaptation of Benn Levy's romantic comedy about a rich playboy
who tries to reform by taking charge of his auto manufacturing business (Museum of Modern Art).
The Squaw's Love (1911), Biograph film directed by D.W. Griffith (Museum of Modern Art).
The Starving Artist, or Realism in Art (1907), short film from the Vitagraph Company (UCLA Film &
Television Archive).
State of Scott (1946–48), celebration commemorating the town’s ingenious circumvention of
temperance laws (Davenport Public Library).
St. Mark's Place Massacre (1973), early short by Amos Poe, a leader of the No Wave Cinema
movement (New York University).

Thats some lofty status surrounded by the films on that list. Thats why it needs to be preserved for those that choose not to aknowledge the prequels as Star Wars films. Also the OT is not placed on a peadastal by fanboys but by movie fans and crtics in general. The prequels were and are just mediocre films in their respective era.

The rose colored glasses of nostalgia have no accounting for taste?

[Uxi]

You're talking about the National Film Registry. I'm looking at the NFPF's list.

As far as NFR's... yeah some good titles. But Groundhog Day and Shaft diminish the prestige a bit, though are perfectly fine movies. Star Wars definitely belongs more with them than with the former. YMMV.

[Mr.Tibbs]

Originally Posted by Uxi

You're talking about the National Film Registry. I'm looking at the NFPF's list.

As far as NFR's... yeah some good titles. But Groundhog Day and Shaft diminish the prestige a bit, though are perfectly fine movies. Star Wars definitely belongs more with them than with the former. YMMV.

Go look at the NFPF list where did you pull that from? There is not one film that I have ever heard of on that list.

[#Darren]

You're so damn right. Lucas may OWN these films, but he was only one cog out of several important cogs in the making of them. In fact as the series spiraled downward in quality after his top collaborators left (following TESB), we can see proof that he was not really the genius he appeared to be. So to me at the end of the day he OWNS them, but that's about it.

So by this logic those who say he can change them and hide the originals away forever because he owns them are not far off saying if Bill Gates BOUGHT Casabalanca, he would have every right to colourise it and destroy the original B&W negatives...

Originally Posted by octagon

I'm not sure he's being misread at all (though that's obviously difficult to say without reading his entire testimony which I'd wager exactly none of us have done).

The issue here isn't simply who should or shouldn't be allowed to make changes to films. The 'gotcha' moment here, such that it is, is when he argues that the public has a *stake* in those changes.

In this current debate preservationist appeals to film history, future generations, childhood memories and the like are routinely derided and dismissed with words to effect of 'stfu, they're HIS movies, HE can do whatever HE wants with them' and it's ironic to say the least to see that in the past Lucan himself has said 'welllll, it's not that simple...there is a public good to be considered here'.

You know what else is ironic?

He was testifying in subcommittee hearings about a bill that would have prohibited major alterations to a motion picture without the consent of the 'artistic authors' - ie the primary director and primary screenwriter.

Why is that ironic? If that bill had passed he might have needed permission slips to change Empire or Jedi

[NYorker]

Originally Posted by iDarren

You're so damn right. Lucas may OWN these films, but he was only one cog out of several important cogs in the making of them. In fact as the series spiraled downward in quality after his top collaborators left (following TESB), we can see proof that he was not really the genius he appeared to be. So to me at the end of the day he OWNS them, but that's about it.

So by this logic those who say he can change them and hide the originals away forever because he owns them are not far off saying if Bill Gates BOUGHT Casabalanca, he would have every right to colourise it and destroy the original B&W negatives...

I think you are way off here. Without Lucas there wouldn't be Star Wars, period. Bill Gates never had anything to do with Casablanca. You could debate about the varying quality all you want, you could argue about his creative decisions - but they were his decisions because they were (and still are) his movies.

And I might have missed it, but how come no one asked Lucas at the recent convention why the originals wouldn't be released? I personally now think that he will eventually release them, somewhere down the road (3-4 years).

My reason is his explanation - "it's too expensive." He didn't go out and say specifically, "once and for all, these are the versions that will be on BD, that's it. It will annoy many, for sure...then again, so did Jar Jar.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

So, you're saying you don't consider film to be art.

It is (some), but it is the little brother that we all want hidden away when the hot girl from next door comes round.

[whbinder]

Originally Posted by Uxi

I must be searching the wrong list, then.

Yes you are. Those are films which have been physically restored for public use. Not the list of films submitted to the Library of Congress.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by koontz1973

How can the public have a stake in a film which has nearly all of the principal people involved in said film are still with us.

Well, according to Lucas the public would have a stake if it were part of our 'film heritage' or 'cultural history'. I don't see where he drew any distinctions based on whether the priniciples were still around.

In fact, this quote suggests he drew no such distinction...

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000184/bio

"I am very concerned about our national heritage, and I am very concerned that films that I watched when I was young and the films that I watched throughout my life are preserved, so that my children can see them".

You seem to be suggesting that in some case old films with dead principles might be considered at least somewhat in the public domain. Fair enough.

But let's look at Casablanca (which was an excellent example, btw...not only does everybody still recognize it as a classic today, it had to be the most frequently cited film during the colorization debate in the 80s).

Star Wars (I still can't bring myself to call it A New Hope - feel free to dismiss everything I've said and will say on that basis alone) is what? 33 years old?

In 1988 Casablanca was 44 years old. Two of the four principle screenwriters were still alive and the producer (Hal B Wallis) had died less than two years earlier. It was certainly old but it was hardly a dusty relic.

As for the public being damaged...do the changes to the OT rise to the level of what Lucas called rewriting our cultural history? Would losing access to the originals constitute a 'great loss to our society'?

Eh, I dunno.

They're probably somewhere between colorizing It's a Wonderful Life and colorizing My Favorite Blonde.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by iDarren

So by this logic those who say he can change them and hide the originals away forever because he owns them are not far off saying if Bill Gates BOUGHT Casabalanca, he would have every right to colourise it and destroy the original B&W negatives...

I think I need to clarify something - I more or less agree with that logic.

They *are* Lucas' movies and he *can* do what we wants with them and not because of any creative connection but simply because he owns them.

I'm not arguing that Lucas' 1988 testimony was right. I didn't think then that the public's interest in preserving films trumped the owner's right in disposing of his property as he see fit and I don't really think so now.

When the colorization debate was raging I thought Ted Turner should make the original Casablanca available but I didn't think he was obligated to.

Similarly, I think Lucas should make theatrical editions of the OT available but if he doesn't want to it pretty much just sucks to be me.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by octagon

I think I need to clarify something - I more or less agree with that logic.

They *are* Lucas' movies and he *can* do what we wants with them and not because of any creative connection but simply because he owns them.

I'm not arguing that Lucas' 1988 testimony was right. I didn't think then that the public's interest in preserving films trumped the owner's right in disposing of his property as he see fit and I don't really think so now.

When the colorization debate was raging I thought Ted Turner should make the original Casablanca available but I didn't think he was obligated to.

Similarly, I think Lucas should make theatrical editions of the OT available but if he doesn't want to it pretty much just sucks to be me.

I think we have been debating each other when we both agree on the same points. I might not of made myself clear on some issues though.

Must make myself clearer next time.

[BillieCassin]

WOW.

Check out this article - specifically the quote by Lucas in the first section.

I think he's a talented man, and I'm far from a Lucas-hater, but geesh, the words "sell out" and "hypocrite" seem like the only words that apply.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

WOW.

Check out this article - specifically the quote by Lucas in the first section.

I think he's a talented man, and I'm far from a Lucas-hater, but geesh, the words "sell out" and "hypocrite" seem like the only words that apply.