Re: can you answer CHICAGO question?

"Michelle Steiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  "Mike Kohary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > You say it isn't fair to the millions; thus far, I've not heard an
> > > outcry from the millions.
> >
> > That's what you're partially hearing in this newsgroup.  Many, many
people
> > are upset about this.
>
> From fewer than a handful of people.
>
> > There's even an online petition that's been very
> > successful at gathering signatures and comment, over 37,000 to date:
>
> That is a drop in the bucket.

It's a common axiom that for every 1 complaint you receive, there are 10 or
20 more that have the same complaint and didn't speak up.  In this
newsgroup, you're only going to hear from a handful of people - there are
only a handful of people in here.  :)  On the internet, again, only a small
percentage of people with the complaint are actually going to speak up.  But
Lucas knows better than to think that's all the people that care.

The point is to make him think about it, and hopefully come around.  He
hasn't said anything definitive one way or the other yet, so it seems to me
that there is room for persuasion.  It never hurts to try.

> > > No, I'm not saying that.  The owner of the physical media is
> > > entitled to burn it; I have the right to burn any book I own
> > > (provided I follow the fire and pollution codes); no one else has
> > > that right.  The author, though, so long he hasn't signed away his
> > > right, has the right to prevent republication of the book.
> >
> > Speaking figuratively, how does that differ in effect from burning
> > the book?
>
> It does not affect existing copies.

In this case, there are no existing copies.

> > > OK, then why did he cut it down?  Why didn't he leave Jaba the Hut in
> > > the original production?
> >
> > Because he didn't have the time, money or technology to complete the
> > sequence the way he envisioned it.
>
> And now he does, so he's doing it.  But that doesn't answer the second
> question.  Jaba the Hut existed in the original movie, but got cut.  Why
> did it get cut?

This is really a side issue, but the answer is the same - lack of time,
money and technology.  He had a person stand in for Jabba and shot the scene
anyway, true, but that's not what he wanted, and in the end he made the
decision not to make that particular compromise, opting to axe the scene
entirely.

Interesting trivia, but not really germane to this discussion.

> > It wasn't due to studio demands - he had complete creative control
> > (which isn't really as rare as a lot of people like to think).
>
> As soon as the studio imposed a budget, that infringed on his creative
> control.

Every artist works on a budget, so this is moot.  It's just one of the
limitations that all artists have to work with - financial resources aren't
infinite.

> Also, studios still can and do impose time restraints.  Chris
> Columbus had to fight the studio to let him make the LOTR movies as long
> as they are--and he still had to cut out scenes to fit time constraints.

You mean Peter Jackson.  And it's still not germane to this discussion,
because George Lucas had complete creative control.  He asked for it and he
got it.  In fact, the studio wanted to limit the risk in their investment,
which is why Lucas himself owns the properties (and now bankrolls his own
films).  I'm sure Fox would love to go back and do that deal over again.

> > So then you know that Star Wars has *never* been released in it's
> > original format to any medium, ever.  The Empire Strikes Back and
> > Return of the Jedi have been, but not to DVD.
>
> I consider appending "Chapter 4" to the title so trivial as to
> constitute original format.

Perhaps, but even that version has not been released to DVD.

> > > Since I was wrong about that, and you agree that he can and may
> > > prevent the original version from being release, we don't have
> > > anything further to discuss on the matter.
> >
> > Why?  Is it only a technical discussion on that level?  Is that the
> > important issue here?  Do you think that because a person *can* do
> > something, any debate stops at that point?  Talk about missing the
> > forest for the trees - that's a surprisingly narrow-minded viewpoint
> > to take about anything.
>
> No; it's because your entire argument is based upon what you think is
> fair or not, and that is entirely subjective and not conducive to
> meaningful discussion.  And that is why we have been going around in
> circles.

We've been going around in circles because you refuse to acknowledge that
another person's complaint has merit, even if you don't share the same
complaint.

> > > Oh, you have the right to complain about it, but you should realize
> > > that no one has the obligation to listen to your complaints or to
> > > pay them any heed.
> >
> > Then I'm curious what you're responding to these posts at all for.
> > If you only care about this on the most superficial level, why
> > respond at all?
>
> Just because I'm not obligated to pay them any heed doesn't mean that I
> can't respond to them.

Of course you can, but why are you?  What's your point?  You haven't really
made one, you know.

> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Well, thus far, there haven't been enough voices.
> >
> > We don't know that yet.
>
> Yes, we do know that thus far, there haven't been enough voices.

The films aren't due for release on DVD for another couple of years.  We
won't know until the announcement comes whether there have been enough
voices or not.  For all we know, Lucas has already decided, based on
feedback, to release his originals after all.

Mike