Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[aiman04]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

Yes, I agree. What I'm saying is these unimportant points (like saber color) were decided for non-story based reasosn (how something looks on camera, actor preferences, etc), then lore/backstory was created after the fact. My question was... How much was put in the films to fit the backstory vs. What backstory was created after the fact to explain things put in trivially?

[Show spoiler]It's never really been brought up if they were capable of traveling outside of their own galaxy. That part is still open (IMHO).

I didn't mean to imply the heiroglyphics were put there for that reason. I'm just saying they could be tied together if G.L. wanted to do so. Just anothet instance of lore fitting something they did for other reasons.

[Show spoiler]Maybe some of us descended from the Skywalker family?

The rendezvous point in Empire was outside of the galaxy. It is possible, I always think of Dagobah as Earth in the Star Wars universe.

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by aiman04

[Show spoiler]Maybe some of us descended from the Skywalker family?

The rendezvous point in Empire was outside of the galaxy. It is possible, I always think of Dagobah as Earth in the Star Wars universe.

[Show spoiler]Funny. I always think of Tatooine as Earth. This probably came about from what that guy Don told me... When I think of Artoo & Threepio being dug up in the desert, I remember the scene in RotJ when they were plucked out of the sand after the battle on Jabba's barge.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Nope.

This:

"Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."

He made the history. He is the one making the changes.

You'd have something if he was altering someone else's work. But you don't.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

[Show spoiler]Funny. I always think of Tatooine as Earth. This probably came about from what that guy Don told me... When I think of Artoo & Threepio being dug up in the dessert, I remember the scene in RotJ when they were plucked out of the sand after the battle on Jabba's barge.

Which one? The ice cream, the pie, or the chocolate cake?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

He made the history. He is the one making the changes.

You'd have something if he was altering someone else's work. But you don't.

But why are changes to say Casablanca any of his business in the first place?

We've heard time and again in this thread that we don't get a vote, we have nothing to say about changes to Star Wars, they're not our movies.

Why not just say Lucas was wrong and that changes to Casablanca weren't any of his business?

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Which one? The ice cream, the pie, or the chocolate cake?

LOL... My bad.

Fixed.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by octagon

But why are changes to say Casablanca any of his business in the first place?

Because those filmmakers aren't around to defend their work.

And he's a helluva lot more qualified to comment on filmmaking and film history than any of you guys. Paying a ticket to see it doesn't make you experts, nor part of the industry.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

He made the history. He is the one making the changes.

You'd have something if he was altering someone else's work. But you don't.

Our


He said:

"This would be a great loss to our society."

"Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."


Not the following-

"This would be a great loss to the creator."

"The creator's history must not be allowed to be rewritten."

[octagon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Because those filmmakers aren't around to defend their work.

Are you suggesting that writers and directors have some sort of ownership stake in the films they work on simply by virtue of having worked on them?

What about cinematographers, editors or actors? Does their work need similar defense from the whims of the people who actually own the films in question?

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And he's a helluva lot more qualified to comment on filmmaking and film history than any of you guys. Paying a ticket to see it doesn't make you experts, nor part of the industry.

So basically you're saying I can't tell property owners what they may or may not do with their own property but Lucas can.

Because he's Lucas.

Seriously, wouldn't 'he was wrong about that' be a lot more intellectually consistent?

[aiman04]

This bickering will never end. Tarkin would not be happy to see this, whatever left of him.

[OG Pooh]

Originally Posted by aiman04

This bickering will never end. Tarkin would not be happy to see this, whatever left of him.

I am most displeased with their apparent lack of progress.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by octagon

Are you suggesting that writers and directors have some sort of ownership stake in the films they work on simply by virtue of having worked on them?

What about cinematographers, editors or actors? Does their work need similar defense from the whims of the people who actually own the films in question?

They ALL WORKED FOR LUCAS & LUCASFILM.

Without George Lucas there would not have been a Star Wars. Period. It wasn't some script worked on by a dozen people for a studio who then hired a director.

So basically you're saying I can't tell property owners what they may or may not do with their own property but Lucas can.

He was testifying. The property owners (who had absolutely nothing to do with those films) still do what they want. How was he wrong?

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by OG Pooh

[Show spoiler]He said the very end shows Artoo & Threepio (the only two characters present in all 9 episodes) being dug up during an archeological excavation in the desert (on Earth). Hmm, thinking about it, maybe that explains the hieroglyphics of them in Raiders?

Now that sounds like fun! Better then a bunch of teddy bears banging drums. Of course, then you'd have to think about how they got there, especially since everything in Star Wars took place in a galaxy "far, far away", but that might be a much more interesting story than the prequels.

Edit: I'm sitting here watching a documentary about Close Encounters and it turns out they put R2D2 hanging upside down on the mothership. So that's how he got here! You can probably only see it if you stop and view the frame.

(and just for the record, I'm a fan of the movies, don't mind that Lucas redid the special effects and don't hate the prequels as much as most people do. I actually thought I and especially III weren't bad, although certainly not as compelling as the original films.)

[kenkraly2004]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Now that sounds like fun! Better then a bunch of teddy bears banging drums. Of course, then you'd have to think about how they got there, especially since everything in Star Wars took place in a galaxy "far, far away", but that might be a much more interesting story than the prequels.

Edit: I'm sitting here watching a documentary about Close Encounters and it turns out they put R2D2 hanging upside down on the mothership. So that's how he got here! You can probably only see it if you stop and view the frame.

(and just for the record, I'm a fan of the movies, don't mind that Lucas redid the special effects and don't hate the prequels as much as most people do. I actually thought I and especially III weren't bad, although certainly not as compelling as the original films.)

I agree I like all 6 star wars films episode 1 was bad but not in all areas and episodes 2 and 3 are not that bad now don't get me wrong not everything in the prequels is perfect they can't be. The original star wars trilogy is my favorite of all 6 films.

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by octagon

Are you suggesting that writers and directors have some sort of ownership stake in the films they work on simply by virtue of having worked on them?

What about cinematographers, editors or actors? Does their work need similar defense from the whims of the people who actually own the films in question

Duh!

Without the writers and directors there wouldn't be a film.

Cinematographers, editors, and actors are merely helping to bring that vision into reality.

Look it's not that hard to grasp:

Someone who is the creator of something (painting, composition, sculpture, cake, film,....) has the right to change it whenever he/she pleases to do so.

However, no one else has the right to change another person's creation!

Period. Discussion finished.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

He was testifying. The property owners (who had absolutely nothing to do with those films) still do what they want. How was he wrong?

Simple. The public interest in preserving film history and protecting cultural heritage does not trump the property rights of film owners. No matter how much we might love classic films and wish to see them in their original form we don't own them.

He wasn't wrong in what he said. He was wrong in where he said it.

If he had stuck to New York Times oped pieces that would have been one thing. Making a public argument that Ted Turner should not tamper with classics is one thing.

But going to Congress? Trying to limit Ted Turner's property rights simply because you don't like what he might do with his own films?

I thought that was lame at the time and I haven't had much cause to change my mind since.

[kenkraly2004]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Duh!

Without the writers and directors there wouldn't be a film.

Cinematographers, editors, and actors are merely helping to bring that vision into reality.

Look it's not that hard to grasp:

Someone who is the creator of something (painting, composition, scupture, cake, film,....) has the right to change it whenever he/she pleases to do so.

However, no one else has the right to change another person's creation!

Period. Discussion finished.

Agree 100% percent.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Look it's not that hard to grasp:

Someone who is the creator of something (painting, composition, scupture, cake, film,....) has the right to change it whenever he/she pleases to do so.

Can an artist sell that right? If I'm buying a screenplay, for instance, can I as the buyer specify that I want *all* the rights and can you as a seller say 'sure, fine. just spell my name right on the check'?

[Bluyoda]

Originally Posted by octagon

Can an artist sell that right? If I'm buying a screenplay, for instance, can I as the buyer specify that I want *all* the rights and can you as a seller say 'sure, fine. just spell my name right on the check'?

Yes, of course. If the "artist" cares only about money, he/she shall receive nothing but money.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Bluyoda

Yes, of course. If the "artist" cares only about money, he/she shall receive nothing but money.

I'm not sure what you're saying then.

When you say no one else has the right to change another person's creation! is there an unspoken unless of course they buy it at the end of that?