A Star Wars fan group is trying to preserve the original theatrical cut of the original trilogy and George Lucas certainly won't be happy with it.

cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/11492759

The original trilogy of Star Wars films, spearheaded by George Lucas were critical and commercial successes. However, in 1997 Lucas released the “Special Edition” of the films for the trilogy’s 20th anniversary, which featured extensive changes to the original theatrical cuts.

The original cuts have since become scarce. However, a group of Star Wars fans, known as Team Negative One have reportedly almost completely digitally restored the original cuts in 4K using 35-millimeter prints of the original trilogy.

The project is headed by Robert Williams, who along with his team have spent almost a decade restoring the films.

“They’re not really upset that he made the changes, because some of them are pretty cool and actually make the films better. They’re really upset that he didn’t also release the original version alongside it. Just put two discs in the box. We’d have been happy.”

Williams made the above statement to The New York Times, explaining the motivation behind preserving the original cuts of the trilogy. However, the publication also noted that Team Negative One’s activities were not authorized as they worked with film reels meant to be destroyed or returned. Hence, the legality of Team Negative One’s restored versions of the original trilogy is questionable.

…

Given Lucas’ strong feelings about the Special Editions, it is evident that the filmmaker would be unhappy with fans trying to preserve the original cuts, which he referred to as “rough drafts” in the past.

According to reports, Lucas allegedly voiced his disappointment with fans demanding a high-resolution release of the original cuts in the following words:

“Grow up. These are my movies, not yours.”

Similarly, when the National Film Registry aimed to preserve 1977’s Star Wars (later retitled Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope), Lucas reportedly refused to provide them with a copy of the original theatrical release.

Lucas stated that he would no longer authorize the original version’s release, reaffirming that he did not intend for the audience to view the theatrical cuts. After Disney acquired the franchise, Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy also stated that Lucas’s changes to the theatrical cuts would remain untouched. Hence, it is safe to say that Lucas would certainly be unhappy with fans still trying to preserve the original cuts.

  • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
    83·
    6 months ago

    No George, you piece of shit, the films belong to the Public Domain and we’re graciously allowing you to profit from them for a bit. If you’re gonna bitch about it we can revoke your privilege!

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        121·
        6 months ago

        All works are inherently public domain: copyright isn’t property, which is why it expiring isn’t an unconstitutional “taking.” Congress merely chooses to temporarily remove it from the public domain and grant control back to the Creator for a while, as an incentive to create more works. It’s a power Congress has, not an obligation: they don’t have to do it, and if they didn’t, all works would be public domain from day 1.

        It’s ironic: publishers claim copies are “licensed, not sold,” but that’s a lie; individual copies are property, and are sold. The real “licensed, not sold” is Congress granting the temporary monopoly privilege itself.

          • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            6 months ago

            The same thing Thomas Jefferson smoked, I guess? I’m not saying anything much different than what he wrote in this letter explaining his philosophical underpinning of the Copyright (and Patent) Clause. I won’t quote all the relevant parts for reasons of brevity, but here’s the most important bit:

            It has been pretended by some (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions; & not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. but while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural, and even an hereditary right to inventions. it is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. by an universal law indeed, whatever, whether fixed or moveable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property, for the moment, of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation the property goes with it. stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. it would be curious then if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. if nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the reciever cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me.