Is George Lucas a scumbag?

[Darren Daring]

So, what now? We kill Lucas?

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

So, what now? We kill Lucas?

If I met him in real life I'd start shaking and crying.
Then I'd slap his wattle.

 

[Darren Daring]

In rage or awe?

 

[Daisy]

Ok Daisy, let me think of a good example for you, and everyone else.

Let's say Stephen King pulled The Shining from the shelves of every book store, and replaced it with a new and improved version of the story. It's practically the same word for word, except that certain scenes have been taken out, and new scenes added in. Say Stephen King decided it would be best for the guy (what's his face) to actually survive, as well as the black dude. Say he thought that maybe instead of a (what's the name of that bat he had? a roche bat or something? I dunno...), maybe the guy had a big steel pipe instead. Y'know, changes like that.

It's a little different, because fans of the original would most likely have the original in their collection. However, what about all the people yet to read The Shining and intend to get it from the book shops? They'd be treated to a completely altered version.

Say that Stephen King fans kicked up a fuss. Say they caught onto his sly scheme and said he's only doing this for money, but King insisted that it's just his artistic interpretation. The original Shining no longer exists, this new one is now the true book.

So years later, King fans give in, new fans have no other choice but to buy the altered version, and then WHAM!! King releases the original again.

How is the scenario described anything other than disgusting?

Daisy, I think you need to read 1984 again. In 1984, did the Party or did it not go over old works of fiction and non-fiction and alter them as they saw fit, and destroy the original works?

The only difference is, is that it's the creator of the work doing it. Going back and altering his work (for the sake of money and nothing else, you are naive if you think there is any other reason), and making sure there is no legal way to purchase the original work. And then, ZING!! He releases the original work again.

Once a creator has released his work to the public, I think it is highly unethical to go back and alter it. Release another version, yes that's fine. Add to it, yes that's fine. But don't alter the work itself.

If Stephen King wanted to do so, it's his prerogative. Would I like it? No. (Well, actually I wouldn't care because I don't read Stephen King, but I'll pretend.) I would, however, fight to the death for his right to do so.

Another example of how this happens all the time in publishing. Books on Tape and CD are abridged versions... frequently they don't even make a complete version (for some things they do, but not all). That means if you want to hear Stephen King READ The Shining... you don't have the option to get the original book, only the modified/edited version. And do you not realize that as the popularity of 'e-books' rises, this issues is going to be exactly the same. Stephen King may decide that he wants to do a little re-editing on the book before it's released as an e-book, and not ever release 'the original' in that format. This is the same thing.

As for 1984... it's THE PARTY forcing the changes and destroying the originals. It is absolutely NOT analogous to an artist revising their own work later on at their own discression. It's only censorship if someone OTHER THAN the creator forces the modifications.

I'm guessing you don't have any artistic abilities as your so willing to take away artists' autonomy.

P.S. The Party also didn't go back and re-release the originals for financial gain. Just another little hole in your anaology.

P.P.S. Also, remember that fans of the Original Trilogy had copies of that version on VHS or LaserDisc, so just like the Stephen King fans would, they had the original, just not in the format they wanted. And if the director/author changed it later, why should he be forced to allow new fans to view his 'out-dated vision'? He shouldn't.

 

[kainedamo]

If Stephen King wanted to do so, it's his prerogative. Would I like it? No. (Well, actually I wouldn't care because I don't read Stephen King, but I'll pretend.) I would, however, fight to the death for his right to do so.

Bull. Political correctness gone completely bananas. You'd fight to the death so some guy can jerk his fans around?? I'm all for creative freedom. But I think that once you've released something, you leave it alone. I'm not saying we should make it law or anything, I'm just saying it's unethical. So unethical, that so few people have done anything like what Lucas has done.

Sure, there is a big difference between the Party editing things, and a creator going back and editing his work. But this idea is the same - once you edit a piece of work and attempt to destroy the original, you are denying that work for people of the future. And I think that is a massive, massive shame. In a way, it's altering a truth, and making a new truth.

How else can I explain this.

Right, what you say about King and audio tapes. The original is still available. It may not be available in audio form, but the original source material is there for anyone that wishes to do so.

Lucas had said again and again the altered trilogy is the true trilogy. If he was telling the truth (debatable), that means that if he had his way, then once the VHS copies were no longer viewable, the original Star Wars trilogy would no longer exist!!!

And you see nothing wrong with that??

 

[Mr Sparkle]

all this information about Lucas ripping off kirby is new to me.
but it is inkeeping with George's innability to come up with original names.

 

[ZER0C00L]

people have been buying the original trilogy for years now on DVD's that people copied from the Laser Discs. Lucas wants more money from the fans that are going to that instead of the rereleased travesty.