Re: can you answer CHICAGO question?

"Dick Sidbury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> I hate to poke a pair of snakes with a stick when it appears that they
> have come to a common agreement, but in my community and I'm sure in
> many others, buildings can be designated as historical landmarks. A
> neighbor's home was so designated and now he (the owner) can't make any
> substantial changes to his house without approval of the historical
society.
>
> This is somewhat analogous to the reverse of the Star Wars situation.
> I'm curious as to your take on this.  I have very mixed feelings on it,
> while I'm solidly in Mike's corner with respect to the Original Trilogy.

There is an organization that designates films as important for preservation
purposes, though I can't remember what they're called.  (Anyone?)  Each
year, they choose a few new films, and then I believe they work to restore
and preserve those films for archival purposes.  I even believe that Star
Wars is on that list, though I could be wrong about that.

My take?  It's a tricky balance between the rights of the artist weighed
against the benefit to society of the art.  In the end, art should never be
allowed to be destroyed - the benefit of the art outweighs the right of the
individual artist.  When you consider the contribution of great art to
culture, and the fact that great art will outlive all of us many times over,
art is bigger and more important than any individual.

That's one extreme, but Lucas' proposal for his films amounts to destroying
the original Star Wars trilogy.  If push came to shove, I don't believe that
should be allowed to happen.  In 200 years, people should be allowed to
experience Star Wars the way that people in 1977 experienced it.

Mike