Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Kill me
12
Kill me
2010-01-22, 8:12 PM #41
Originally posted by Antony:
George Lucas owns Star Wars. He can change it and re-release it how ever much he wants to.


We already know this. Why is this being brought up over and over? No one is arguing over Lucas' legal rights.

Quote:
so I don't really see why people ***** about Lucas doing things to Star Wars when he thinks the movies are better with the changes.


What, we shouldn't share opinions on these changes or something? Maybe because people think, judging from previous editing history with Lucas and Star Wars, that these change may not produce good results?
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2010-01-22, 8:16 PM #42
Actually, France was more like, "What the **** sculptor guy, why would we want that copper monstrosity? Oh, I know. Lets give to the Americans. OMG! Look! They put it in New York City! Hahahahahahaha!"
2010-01-22, 8:31 PM #43
Originally posted by Jon`C:
I've heard this argument before and I've never understood it. At a certain point after someone has created something, it ceases to be his own intellectual property and is an inextricable element of the society it was given to. This is the reason copyright duration used to be - and should be - quite short. George Lucas made a contribution to modern culture. People who feel that contribution was especially significant are going to feel strongly about him making changes to it, and they should feel strongly about it.

Think about it this way: the French made the Statue of Liberty. Should the French be allowed to 'remake' it? Turn it into a postmodernist statue of molten wreckage, for instance? If people objected, possibly because it's a landmark and a symbol of America, would you call them crybabies? Apparently you would.



He's not really changing the films. The old films still exist.
2010-01-22, 8:41 PM #44
Originally posted by ECHOMAN:
Why is this being brought up over and over? No one is arguing over Lucas' legal rights.

Why is a sense of entitlement displayed over and over?
>>untie shoes
2010-01-22, 10:07 PM #45
Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
He's not really changing the films. The old films still exist.
Yeahhhhh.... sure, for certain values of 'exist.'

It's illegal to give your friend a copy of the original version, because George Lucas holds the exclusive copyright.

It's illegal to show an audience the original version, because your copy is not licensed for public exhibition.

It's illegal to circumvent the copy protection on your THX-enhanced VHS cassette so you can play it with a modern home theater.

Kind of a pointless argument since George Lucas did, eventually, release the unmodified version of the trilogy on DVD... but for a long time he didn't, and your options were basically zilch. You'd watch the Special Edition trilogy, and you'd like it, or you can **** off. Awesome.
2010-01-23, 11:16 AM #46
So if you guys can watch 3D films and TV shows without glasses (technology is already in development), would you guys be more willing to watch them?
2010-01-23, 11:39 AM #47
The technology isn't just in development, it's available. But it forces the viewer to sit within a very narrow range in order to get the 3D effect. It couldn't work any other way.
12

↑ Up to the top!