George Lucas's 1988 speech about altering films

[Hordakfan]

On March 3rd 1988 when Ted Turner was colorizing black and white movies with new technology, Lucas and some other directors were disgusted by this idea and went to Congress and Lucas made this unique inspiring speech about film preservation and the AFI with NFR was born.

"My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.
I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.
The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.
A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.
People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.
These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.
In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.
There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.
I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.
I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.
The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.
There are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of "The Maltese Falcon?" Why are films cut up and butchered?
Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.
I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art--as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities."

 

[TheVileOne]

People change their minds over time. We may not like it, but it's not illegal either.

 

[Hordakfan]

Would the 1988 Lucas hate the Lucas now and call him a gangster or barbarian?

 

[Teelie]

I would like to believe he would if only to show his 1988 self was genuine.

 

[Warhammer]

Damn, "barbarian" and "egotistical gangster." Then 9 years later...

 

[godisawesome]

As someone else put it on another article, Lucas isn't obsessed with altering films. He's a little enamored of altering his own films. Considering what apparently happened to his first few films, he might have changed some of his Star Wars stuff just to prove that he still controlled them, and at least one change was the result of wanting the movie to still be PG instead of PG-13 (the whole Han shot first thing). This speech probably has much more invective coming from the idea of someone who's not the artist making major alterations to a masterpiece when no one's around to stop him.

Having said that...

Ah, the taste of sweet irony...

 

[Teelie]

I see what you're saying but it is still splitting hairs and he wasn't the director or writer on two of them (and arguably even the first; his wife was omitted from credit despite doing at least half the work). Lucas worsened his films with some of the changes. He also refused to release the unaltered ones for several years.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm not going to defend the man, but the alterations on the Original Star Wars films haven't aged well. Jabba looks like crap in A New Hope. What..was he going to alter something every 10 years? (In which kinda did.)

It's like when is enough?

 

[Randy Savage]

I think Lucas is entitled to change his mind, but I know this is somewhat of a hot button issue among fans.

 

[Octoberist]

it's an argument that will go around in circles, to be frank.

 

[Teelie]

I think Lucas is entitled to change his mind, but I know this is somewhat of a hot button issue among fans.

There is changing your mind, then there is what Lucas did. It was more than a 180 degree change of thought. He went whole-heartedly into altering his movies, movies he knew were considered classics already and did it out of vanity. I think that's worse than anything some "egotistical gangster" did.

His own quotes with mine in parenthesis:

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history. (so long as Disney has it's way, Star Wars won't be open domain until our grandchildren are adults. So much for public domain. And I am so not exaggerating the expiration on this)

[...]

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians [...] (so says George "the barbarian" Lucas, creator of the Special Editions)

[...]

Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," (Hello Obi Wan) or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires.

[...]

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. (Special Editions) This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten. (unless you want to make a profit and release altered versions of the film)

[...]

Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself. (I say again, Special Editions)

 

[sueb1863]

My impression is that he's talking about people altering other peoples' works, not creators altering their own works. He probably sees no conflict.

The Han shot first thing was over a PG vs. PG-13 rating? First I've heard of that. I wouldn't think a rating would be that important since most people ignore them anyway. So they had to change it to a self defense reaction?

 

[Blitzkrieg Bop]

It was wrong Ted Turner to color The Magnificent Ambersons. However, George Lucas had every right to do whatever he wanted to Star Wars and its subsequent followups.

 

[titansupes]

'88 Lucas = Anakin.
'99 onwards Lucas = Vader.

 

[Teelie]

My impression is that he's talking about people altering other peoples' works, not creators altering their own works. He probably sees no conflict.

The Han shot first thing was over a PG vs. PG-13 rating? First I've heard of that. I wouldn't think a rating would be that important since most people ignore them anyway. So they had to change it to a self defense reaction?

And somehow that makes it okay? If Orsen Welles wanted to change something in Citizen Kane later that totally flips the movie on its head, he has that right?

I don't buy that.

 

[sueb1863]

I didn't say it made it okay. I said that's what I think he was talking about there and why he wouldn't see any conflict between his words and his treatment of his own works, because he's the one doing the changing, not someone else years and years later.

I've never been a fan of the changes, especially the Han scene.

 

[Gort Baringa]

I liked what the late Ray Harryhausen did with some great films available on DVD: the original She, H.G. Well's Things to Come, and Vincent Price in House on Haunted Hill. All three DVDs also included the original black & white version. I have no problem with this and I would like to be able to get colourized copies of James Whale's Man in the Iron Mask and Errol Flynn in Captain Blood, both of which have had a colour version. I also have a colourized version of Tyrone Power in the Mark of Zorro. It is excellent! Is there a colour version of the original King Kong available?

 

[Drizzle]

at least one change was the result of wanting the movie to still be PG instead of PG-13 (the whole Han shot first thing).

I thought that was done to make Han look like more of a "good guy". I didn't think that had to do with the rating, especially when the movie had more graphic stuff like the charred corpses of Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru and the bloody arm at the cantina.

'88 Lucas = Anakin.
'99 onwards Lucas = Vader.

I'm not sure I like that analogy, only because Vader is cooler than Anakin.

 

[redhawk23]

I see what you're saying but it is still splitting hairs and he wasn't the director or writer on two of them (and arguably even the first; his wife was omitted from credit despite doing at least half the work). Lucas worsened his films with some of the changes. He also refused to release the unaltered ones for several years.

You know, that's a solid point that rarely gets brought up.

 

[Victarion]

George Lucas is the last person you should look to as an authoratative voice on George Lucas. Barbarians are awesome. Bravo George Hackas.

 

[jmc]

Lucas had the right to do whatever he wanted to his own work. Whether he should have comes down to what you think tweaking work does to the integrity of the original piece. I'm of the opinion that once you've finished a piece you move on, even if you're not happy with the outcome 100%, because ultimately you learn something from the experience.

 

[Hordakfan]

There is changing your mind, then there is what Lucas did. It was more than a 180 degree change of thought. He went whole-heartedly into altering his movies, movies he knew were considered classics already and did it out of vanity. I think that's worse than anything some "egotistical gangster" did.

His own quotes with mine in parenthesis:

I liked what the late Ray Harryhausen did with some great films available on DVD: the original She, H.G. Well's Things to Come, and Vincent Price in House on Haunted Hill. All three DVDs also included the original black & white version. I have no problem with this and I would like to be able to get colourized copies of James Whale's Man in the Iron Mask and Errol Flynn in Captain Blood, both of which have had a colour version. I also have a colourized version of Tyrone Power in the Mark of Zorro. It is excellent! Is there a colour version of the original King Kong available?

Nope only black and white.

Do you think Lucas became a egostistical gangster and barbarian by the late 90s of not releasing the original unmolested cuts on DVD and blu-ray and did more stupid changes? it's the same goddamn excuse with "to fit it in with the prequels" oh don't get me started on that abomination, ok i thought Episode III was decent until the stupid "noooo" at the end but it was a fine addition to SW but the last 2 *fart*. And with him doing more tweaking on DVD in 2004 he said "this is the version that will be seen within a hundred years" he is just greedy and really hates the fans, it's like carving Obama on Mount Rushmore or like trying to digitally alter King Kong (1933) with a CGI ape in place of a stop motion version of Kong and the only version that would be around is the digital version instead of the original version, very disrespectful to art.

I just think it's terrible to replace Sabastian Shaw with Hayden, it's like digitally altering "It's a Wonderful Life" with Vince Vaugn in place of James Stewart, very very very disrespectful. Not to mention more added crap on the blu-ray like Ewoks that blink, digitally altering Jabba's door in Jedi and Vader screaming "nooooo" in the trilogy on BD, it's unacceptable.

I mean be glad Spielberg didn't become an egostistical gangster or barbarian like Lucas when Spielberg made the SE to ET in 2002 as he put out a 2-disc set on DVD that has both cuts and now only the unscrewed with theatrical cut in beautiful restoration on blu-ray as Spielberg is alot smarter than Lucas and he even slammed Lucas in 2011 when the SW BDs came out to tell him to let sleeping dogs lie and leave the films alone. Spielberg is good about preserving our cultural hertiage and i'm glad he didn't try to alter Raiders of the Lost Ark.

But let's all be glad Lucas is finally gone and away from his company and sold it to Disney with someone else in charge being Kathleen Kennedy. Let's all write letters to Disney, Fox and Lucasfilm to have them join together for a boxset collection of the original untampered original cuts on BD with beautiful HD restorations as Kathleen Kennedy is no stranger to film preservation as she helped Spielberg restore Schindler's List and ET on blu-ray to make them look glorious.

 

[dark_b]

did Lucas kill an entire nation ? what did this man do to deserve so much hate. hhhhhhhhh

 

[Raiden]

I think Star Wars fans like me deserve to own the unaltered original trilogy on blu-ray. Lucas can have his special editions, but we should have the the movies as they were made originally.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I think Star Wars fans like me deserve to own the unaltered original trilogy on blu-ray. Lucas can have his special editions, but we should have the the movies as they were made originally.

^ This, and aside from Lucas being a hypocrite at times, yeah he certainly can be but that doesn't make me hate the man.