Re: can you answer CHICAGO question?

"Michelle Steiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > To repeat myself for the third time:  Star Wars (1977) is an important
piece
> > of cinematic and artistic history, and it deserves to be preserved in
its
> > original state, irregardless of how George Lucas feels about that.
>
> Says you.

Again, yes, says me.  Who else?  It's my opinion, after all.  These pithy
types of responses do nothing to support your argument.

> > An artist should have control over the creation of his work, yes, and
> > Lucas has had that with the entire Star Wars series (contrary to what
> > you first stated).
>
> You mean that the studio gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted
> at whatever it might cost?

He had a budget, like every other director.  Aside from that, he had
complete creative control over Star Wars.  He had so much control over these
films that he, and not the studio, owns the rights to them.

> > However, that does not necessarily include control over the
> > distribution of said work.  Once a work is released, it belongs to
> > the audience as much as the artist.
>
> The audience can dictate where the movie will be shown, how often, and
> when?  That is distribution.

That's not what I said.  Without an audience, a work of art is useless and
pointless to anyone but the artist.  In that regard, works of art belong
partly to the audience once they're shared with that audience - art
appreciation is always a collaboration between artist and audience.  Star
Wars became a phenom because of its audience, and the phenom that it became
is indelibly tied to the overall artistic merit of the product.  The
audience is definitely a part of that.

> > Now, an artist should have the full benefit and opportunity to profit
> > from the distribution of his work, and to generally control the
> > distribution of his work.  That's what copyright is all about, and I
> > fully support that. But I submit that it's immoral to release a work,
> > and then withhold it *forever*, with no intention of ever releasing
> > it again.
>
> You have the right to that opinion.  Unfortunately for you, there is no
> basis in law or ethics for that opinion.

There doesn't need to be a legal basis, since I'm not making a legal
argument.  The ethics I've explained - it isn't fair to the millions who
made Star Wars was it is to withhold it forever.  Not until Lucas decides
he'd like to release it, but forever.

What you're suggesting is that book burning is ok, as long as its the author
that's burning the book.  I think that's a veritable crime.

> > Lucas is the artist, but he does not have the moral right to decide
> > that the millions upon millions of people who experienced the
> > cinematic revelation that was Star Wars (1977) will never get to see
> > it again.
>
> Sure he does.  If he had presented it as a stage production, he would
> have the right never to allow it to be produced again.

It's not a stage production, so that's a red herring.  Further, I'm not
disputing he has the right to do whatever he wants, so that is also a red
herring.  I'm discussing what's right, not rights.

> > Judging from the numerous factual errors that you've introduced to
> > this thread so far, I wonder how much you actually know about Star
> > Wars and its history.
>
> Contrary to your beliefs, disagreeing with you does not constitute
> factual errors.

It has nothing to do with our disagreement.  You stated that Lucas had to
cut Star Wars down for time demands made by the studio - that's false.  You
have (to your credit) asked numerous questions that have indicated you don't
know basic factual information about Star Wars and its history (for example,
whether or not it has been released to DVD, or whether or not it has ever
been released in its original format).  It just seems to me that, given your
level of knowledge on this particular topic, you should do a little more
listening and a little less concluding.  If you're speaking from a purely
philosophical standpoint, which it seems that you are, you should be open to
considering the unique circumstances tied to this series of films.

> Ah yes, you are the all knowing Oz; all must bow to your superior
> knowledge.  Your opinion is supreme above all, and is to be equated with
> fact.

Again, pithy, but without substance.  Stick to the argument and leave the ad
hominem behind.

> The bottom line is that Lucas gets to call the shots, and whether you
> like it or I like it doesn't matter unless it affects his income--and
> there has been no appreciable effect upon that.

This is a non-sequiter, because no one has said that Lucas doesn't get to
call the shots.  Of course he does - he owns the rights to his films.  At
issue is whether or not it's right to permanently withhold these films from
distribution (in effect, burning the book).  Yet I also detect in your tone
(be that as it may on the internet) that you feel none of us have the right
to complain about any of this, and you wish we'd just shut up about it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that because Lucas has
all the rights in this case, we should just be quiet and take it.  Of course
that's silly - we can speak out about it if we want to, whether it has any
effect or not.  But I'm wagering it will have an effect.  Lucas is an
intelligent man who has consistently demonstrated a certain amount of
concern and care for the fans of his films, and I have faith that he'll see
the light when he hears enough voices.  Democracy baby - it's a wonderful
thing.

Mike