tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post788318597381399379..comments2023-11-05T06:37:16.480-05:00Comments on Nilbog's Storybook Land: Doublesaber is the New JetpackThe Nilboghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03902509798047158212noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-61781449390262572652014-02-13T21:29:04.079-05:002014-02-13T21:29:04.079-05:00Maul was an interesting looking character. And ma...Maul was an interesting looking character. And made quite a badass as a nemesis for both Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan. Actually, I found him more useful as a character than Boba Fett in the OT. But . . . once Obi-Wan bumped him off, I didn't miss him. As far as I was concerned, he had served his purpose in the Saga. Resurrecting him for "THE CLONE WARS" didn't make sense to me. And I wish that Lucas had not resurrect him in the first place.RosiePhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11217705824689269830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-78832416902709530372014-01-24T16:41:09.422-05:002014-01-24T16:41:09.422-05:00(I should also add, for what it's worth, that ...(I should also add, for what it's worth, that I'm actually not a big fan of the film version of LSOH either way, so I'm not arguing for the inherent superiority of a particular version. My position on the film is, naturally, that both cuts should be preserved- one in the name of respecting the artist's vision, and one in the name of preserving artistic history. Not-coincidentally, this is also my same position on Star Wars)T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-42692288850215993612014-01-24T16:24:54.536-05:002014-01-24T16:24:54.536-05:00(also, slight tangent- the reason that the revised...(also, slight tangent- the reason that the revised ending fits the tone better is because they edited the film to better fit the revised ending. A lot of people are under the impression the only thing that changed about the film was the ending, when a lot of other scenes and cuts happened elsewhere. You can actually find a video on YouTube and vimeo that collects all the cuts from another (color) workprint copy)T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-64328067946162932612014-01-24T16:21:59.915-05:002014-01-24T16:21:59.915-05:00You do know they restored the workprint ending to ...You do know they restored the workprint ending to LSOH and released it on the Blu-Ray, right? Happened last October, I think.<br /><br />But anyways, in my comment I did state they were differing examples, so I was specifically addressing your comment that no one seemed to really care about them as much with the exception of Blade Runner. The example which is more pressing (and the one that wasn't addressed) are films that haven't yet been released on Blu-Ray, or worse yet, DVD, which is a huge bugbear for a lot of film fanatics and I think adequately supports my argument that it's not just Lucas-bashers that support releasing the original versions for posterity.T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-87116657122505808622014-01-24T15:53:20.912-05:002014-01-24T15:53:20.912-05:00Thief is an entirely different story, since the st...Thief is an entirely different story, since the studio cut together what was left when Williams ran out of money, so it's Williams fighting for his right as an artist to show the movie his way (seeing as he worked on it for the better part of a generation).<br /><br />As for Little Shop, while I've met people who prefer the original ending, the public never saw the filmed version outside of the test audiences. While Frank Oz preferred the darker ending, rather than stick with it he decided to go with the happy ending for general release (which, in my opinion, fits the tone better). If Frank wanted to, he could update and restore the original ending and push to release it edited into the final film. Instead, he doesn't care enough.<br /><br />So neither of these examples fit what's going on with Lucas, who is updating his own stories and catching flak for it.The Nilboghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03902509798047158212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-368283748878900092014-01-24T15:40:33.025-05:002014-01-24T15:40:33.025-05:00" the mere fact that this level of outcry has..." the mere fact that this level of outcry has not been levied at ANY of the other films/books you've mentioned (except MAYBE Blade Runner)"<br /><br />You haven't seen people up in arms over LSOH and Thief and the Cobbler? I mean, I don't know what to say except that this might be a case of just not following the same circles, since people I know who care about those are *hugely* passionate about the original cuts- esp. any film fanatics that are upset about films that haven't yet been released on DVD.<br /><br />I think the only reason Star Wars might seem to get more attention is simply the fact that it's bigger and more popular, and thus attracts a wider base than a more obscure film like Thief and the Cobbler would. So there's more people concerned about Star Wars than other films, but I can guarantee you the passion is still the same, at least for the people who actually know what they're talking about and aren't Lucas bashers who latch on to an issue merely to get angry about something (of which, unfortunately, there typically are in these kinds of cases).T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-25999502118759725442014-01-24T07:43:42.430-05:002014-01-24T07:43:42.430-05:00Well, that'll teach me to go to bed at a reaso...Well, that'll teach me to go to bed at a reasonable hour.<br /><br />We've been over this time and again, in threads much more suited. I have a few things to say, then I think we all need to drop it.<br /><br />Hartwell, while I have no doubt that your intentions are noble, the mere fact that this level of outcry has not been levied at ANY of the other films/books you've mentioned (except MAYBE Blade Runner) tells me that most preservationists are like Anon said - only interested in preserving the version they like. Your heart is in the right place, andI respect that, but I still feel your position is wrong for all the reasons stated previously.<br /><br />On the subject of Kersh, who is a great artist in his own right and contributed mightily to the Saga both as a director and mentor, I must reiterate that in the case of ESB he was hired to bring Lucas' vision to the screen. Sure, George gave him free reign, but he didn't take that as far as he could because he knew it was George's story in George's universe and he had the utmost respect for the original artist. That is what gives Lucas the moral and legal right to the final cut - of which the least amount of changes were made and was decidedly NOT a critical darling until at least a decade in retrospect.<br /><br />And that's all I have to say about that.The Nilboghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03902509798047158212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-39957326517382862592014-01-24T02:56:52.606-05:002014-01-24T02:56:52.606-05:00"It must be because the filmmaker had transfo..."It must be because the filmmaker had transformed into a dictatorial madman who refused to listen to anyone."<br /><br />Since when did I say that? Like I said, I've long felt the problem with Lucas is the absolute hellish shoots he had to endure through Star Wars and ESB, and thus when he returned to directing after a 20-year hiatus he took care to ensure the process would be as safe and easily controlled as possible. That doesn't mean he was dictatorial or a madman, just that he took care to make sure everything went his way and often fell into some blind spots with that.<br /><br />And I mean, I can back this up with evidence. I watched an editing doc a while back where Lucas is going on about how great a lot of modern editing software is because you can "create the whole movie in the editing room". He goes on to advocate the advantages of being able to do most all of the film purely through the editing, and it's clearly how he would prefer to make a film- in a very controlled environment where he can have absolute say in how things are run and not be waylaid by production problems like he was before.<br /><br />It's in the way he edits, the way the scenes themselves are approached- the absolute bog-standard way the scenes are shot and blocked, the fact that a good majority of scenes are shot in total greenscreen. It allows Lucas the ability to have the final say on everything and not be weighed down by real-life concerns.<br /><br />And I should clarify, I'm not being hateful or even condescending here. I can *totally* understand how a guy can prefer an experience like that after the tribulations he had to suffer through with Star Wars. I can more than tell you- if I had to go through that shoot and came out of it with diabetes and a divorce, I can guarantee that I wouldn't return to directing until the technology was good enough that I can make the movie I want without having to go through that again. It makes total sense, and I don't begrudge Lucas a bit for going at it that way. I just don't think it led to making very good movies, is all.T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-9451950322016991082014-01-24T02:48:53.247-05:002014-01-24T02:48:53.247-05:00"Kersh and Marquand were artists for hire&quo..."Kersh and Marquand were artists for hire"<br /><br />You're still using that term, and it's still inaccurate for Kershner (I already made exception for Marquand), who was by and large given free reign on the direction and told it was his film. Yeah, like I said, legally it's Lucas's decision to cut it, but I was never arguing that. I'm arguing- if it's the "artist's vision" that has to be respected, and the director is *the* artist on a film, why are we defaulting to Lucas here despite the actual creative side of the direction on ESB being down to Kershner? At the very least, shouldn't *this* be the film where both artist's final say on their cuts is adequately preserved in equivalent formats for audiences to choose from?T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-15722588163221340792014-01-24T02:45:29.488-05:002014-01-24T02:45:29.488-05:00IIRC, evidence suggests the copies in the LoC aren...IIRC, evidence suggests the copies in the LoC aren't being properly preserved and are actually deteriorating.<br /><br />But it's not actually available to the public- oh, sure, they have the now-out-of-print DVDs from 2006 (that aren't actually restorations at all but non-anamorphic transfers of the Laserdisc qualities, and noticeably suffer in comparison to the newly-restored anamorphic SE versions), but if you want to watch it in the best available format? You have to default to the SEs. It is impossible for anyone to be able to watch the original versions in the currently accepted 'best format', which is honestly not that big a request. *That's* not preservation- that's going "you have it" and stopping it there. By that standard, the original ending to LSOH was "preserved" before the DVD restoration because we had the grainy black-and-white workprint. The original version of The Hobbit is "preserved" because the original book still exists, albeit in rare copies that cost upwards of a thousand dollars to obtain. Anything released on VHS that still shockingly hasn't been restored to DVD is still "preserved"<br /><br />Preservation isn't just about making sure it exists. It's making sure it's available for the public at large in actually decent formats (and I'm sorry, but a crappy out-of-print laserdisc transfer from 2006 is by 2014 not a decent format), not for a silly concept like fan ownership, but *cultural* ownership. This is our culture, to be preserved and passed down, not hoarded by an elite few who dictate what version of that culture we must choose to enjoy.T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-13222382400020369442014-01-24T01:55:56.195-05:002014-01-24T01:55:56.195-05:00So the bottom line is this: Lucas gets to decide w...So the bottom line is this: Lucas gets to decide what IS and IS NOT Star Wars, not the fans. Until he dies, the films are works in progress. While he’s alive, they’re not yet artifacts that must be preserved like they were created by the ancients. They’re not yet museum pieces. I know 30 years might seem like ancient history to some, but its not. These films have been constantly evolving since the day of their first release and they’ll continue to do so. Fans don’t get to decide the moment and the version in which they’re finally carved in stone. Lucas gets to decide that. He’s the artist. That’s how Lucas appears to see it and that’s how I see it.<br /><br />I don’t agree with the preservation argument. Lucas can release these films in a manner he sees fit. Fans who like the older versions can hang on to their copies until they or the copies wear out. In a battle between what the fans want and what the artist want, I’ll side with the artist every time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-77082634438601933702014-01-24T01:46:46.075-05:002014-01-24T01:46:46.075-05:00For one, Lucas was very involved with ROTJ, direc...For one, Lucas was very involved with ROTJ, directing many scenes himself including all the throne room scenes. Again it is his art and it should be presented the way he wants it. Fans, culture, what have you do not get a say. He doesn't owe anyone to release OOT versions. <br /><br />Simply put, the whole “preservation” argument for wanting Lucas to release the original theatrical cuts of the 4-6 trilogy is BS. Those cuts of the films ARE preserved. They’re in the Library of Congress, they’re on video, they’re on the Internet, they’re never going to go away. Future generations will ALWAYS be able to see the theatrical version of the Han/Greedo shoot out. You want to see it? It will take one Google search and five seconds before it’s on your screen. Enjoy.<br /><br />So enough with the “preservation” crapola. “Preservationists” need to just man-up and admit that what they really want is prevent Lucas from exercising his artistic rights. But that doesn’t sound nearly as noble, does it.<br /><br />What the “preservation” argument is designed to mask is something else entirely: fan ownership of Star Wars. It’s a term that lends moral nobility and academic legitimacy to a more primal “gimme, gimme” want. It’s not about “preservation,” it’s about exhibition. It’s about forcing George Lucas — who is still alive, by the way — to edit and exhibit his films according to the demands of a small group of hyper-obsessed fans. They don’t like Greedo shooting 7 frames before Han, so they want a high-resolution, bookshelf copy for their basement archives that conforms to their preference. They don’t care about “preservation”, they just don’t want to see the changes Lucas made to his art. Lucas, however, has every right — legally AND morally — to exhibit his films as he sees fit. They’re HIS movies. HIS story. What he’s doing is no different from what artists for centuries — from cavemen to Shakespeare to Tolkien — have done: update and revise their works during their lifetime.<br /><br />It’s his material and he’s been altering them for decades. The 1977 version of “Star Wars” has never been on home video. Ever. Yet somehow the republic has survived. Just how perfect do the home video versions need to be? The DVD copies from 2006 still look great on my plasma. In many ways they look BETTER than the scratched and faded prints I saw in theaters in 77, 80 and 83. This isn’t about preservation at all. It’s about “we like this version better.” Well, sorry, you only get to vote with your wallet. <br /><br />When it comes to TESB and ROTJ, Lucas always the right to had final cut in contracts. They were his stories. Kersh and Marquand were artists for hire, and Lucas was the principle creative executive on the projects. They’re his films to alter. In the case of the Indy movies, Lucas defers to Spielberg out of respect and mutual agreement. That’s his decision to make.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-92039873679598745572014-01-24T01:23:40.875-05:002014-01-24T01:23:40.875-05:00Personally I always considered TESB to be the weak...Personally I always considered TESB to be the weakest of the 3 OT films, and probably the most overhyped of them. Many critics still rated ANH the highest in 1997 when the SE was released. I even believe TPM is a better film, but it is all opinion. <br /><br />I never said anything about creators losing their creations happens all the time. Not sure where you get that from? However, it really sucks when it does happen and not something one wants to repeat. I can understand Lucas being a "control freak" to maintain control. Oh, he’s a control freak, but he’s no more or less a control freak than any other Hollywood filmmaker. Control is the name of the game, and for Lucas he learned the lesson of maintaining control after American Graffiti. The hateboy control freak accusation is really just an attempt to rationalize how Lucas could make 3 films they really like (ANH, TESB and Raiders) and four films they really hate (TPM, AOTC, ROTS and Kingdom). If the same filmmaker is responsible for all those films, it can’t be that their own unrealistic expectations and mistaken assumptions are responsible for why they don’t like some of them (coincidentally, the later ones). It must be because the filmmaker had transformed into a dictatorial madman who refused to listen to anyone. In the behind the scenes footage from the making of the prequels, Lucas is often seen seeking opinions and advice.<br />Hardly a control freak. There are also those, like John Knoll at ILM, who are seen telling Lucas, “I don’t know how I can make this work.” What is clear is that people seemed very trusting and, yes, deferential, to Lucas’ point of view. And for good reason: Lucas had earned that trust over a long and successful career. Did people challenge his ideas? Yes, but not with hostility. They also clearly respect the fact that Lucas is the boss and has the final say — which is as it should be. He’s earned it. <br /><br />Lucas managed to get most of what he wanted and the film’s success earned him even more critical and financial capital. He used that capital to buy himself more freedom.<br /><br />I would also never deny the contributions of collaborators like Kurtz, Kershner and M. Lucas. But to say that they, or any other crew member, were somehow more responsible for Lucas’ success than himself is false.There are incalculable variables that go into the decision-making process over the span of 40-year career. Fans should be more respectful of that reality. <br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-64973955731348788152014-01-23T23:21:46.515-05:002014-01-23T23:21:46.515-05:00Whoops, looks like I forgot to finish a sentence t...Whoops, looks like I forgot to finish a sentence there. That third paragraph should read "And it's honestly not an unreasonable request to make that one of the highest-grossing and most influential and game-changing films of all time should be preserved in its original form and available to the general public."<br /><br />Again- I don't give two flips about the special editions. I used to, but they're there and they're not going anywhere and since I'm not gonna watch them anyways I don't see why I should fuss about a load of decisions I happen not to agree with. So I don't like them, big deal. I'll spend my energies elsewhere. What *matters* is that I actually don't have the choice to watch the preserved originals, and that's a choice that should be available to the public at large. And it's not. *That's* the issue at hand.T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-25185484323938561992014-01-23T23:16:31.477-05:002014-01-23T23:16:31.477-05:00Allright, my comment ended up being a lot longer t...Allright, my comment ended up being a lot longer than it was supposed to be (my apologies- I can pontificate like no other, it seems), so here's the stuff that's specific to the "OOT", something I'm sure will spawn a thread all its own (though, Nilbog, feel free to nip this discussion in the bud- I know we've been at this before and, it being something I'm very very passionate about, has the tendency of derailing this topic even further than it has. Just let me know ahead of time if you're planning on deleting the comment so I can save it elsewhere, since I may need it preserved for my own personal reasons).<br /><br />"Or the angry fans who want the OOT versions of the films released, they don't care about respecting an artist's vision. They just want Star Wars to be the way they want it, and not apprecate it for what it is."<br /><br />The key thing to understand about the arguments here is that it's not a matter of preserving artistic vision (like it would be in a case like Blade Runner, Little Shop of Horrors, Thief and the Cobbler, etc.), but rather one of preserving our cultural history. The Star Wars that premiered in 1977 and promptly changed the face of cinema forever is manifestly not A New Hope, or the New Hopes of '97, 2006, 2013, etc. And no one is suggesting that the other versions should be erased (well, okay, some people actually are suggesting that, but let's ignore them because it's a stupid position), merely that the originals be preserved *as well*. And it's honestly not a<br /><br />Also, the 'artist's vision' argument doesn't hold much water when you remember Lucas doesn't have artistic control over ESB or ROTJ. Yeah, you can make arguments in the case of Marquand, but Lucas still acted in the mode of producer for those films and thus doesn't get to hold creative control over the original directors. Again, I have no issue with him releasing his own cut of the films, but if you're concerned about respecting artistic vision, why are you not concerned with respecting the artistic vision of Kershner and Marquand and preserving their cuts as well as Lucas's?<br /><br />It'd be like Spielberg releasing his cut of Poltergeist. Yeah, it's fine and dandy and it'd probably be great, but Hooper's cut needs to be preserved as well, at the very least in the name of film preservation- which is, again, the thing that underpins this entire conversation. It's not about 'not respecting an artist's vision' or 'wanting Star Wars to be the way they want it', it's about preserving an important artifact of our cultural history.T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-5656578434970281052014-01-23T23:12:45.820-05:002014-01-23T23:12:45.820-05:00Allright, so the thing to understand is that I'...Allright, so the thing to understand is that I'm not trying to seriously argue that people have been shafted credit for their work on the films. Of course not. Even in the egregious examples I've listed, people like Coon and Cusick have always gotten legal credit for their positions. That's not the issue. The issue is when a single creator gets an overwhelming amount of focus that actively elides their contributions- not legally, but culturally. No one aside from film and SW enthusiasts know the names of Ralph McQuarrie, Ben Burtt, or John Dykstra. Many of them don't even know Gary Katz, Lawrence Kasdan, or Irvin Kershner. But Lucas is a household name, and I guarantee you you ask your general everyman who did x on Star Wars the answer is probably gonna be Lucas.<br /><br />Now, is it fair that Lucas gets absolved of credit in some cases, where artists other than him get more than they perhaps deserve? Of course it's not. It's the same issue going the other way, but both are worth fighting against (also, incidentally, that's an argument to popularity re: the polls and how Star Wars and ESB compare. Star Wars will always be the more popular purely because it was the first, but ESB has long been the critical darling- I can direct you to the Ebert/Siskel from I think '93 (possibly ;97), and the consensus is that it's the strongest. Neither piece of evidence, of course, has any impact on the argument "which one is better", just evidence of how the populace and the critics treat each film).<br /><br />"being a control freak is wise, so you don't have your creation taken from you."<br /><br />It's also called being a bad collaborator. Lot of people don't like working with too-controlling directors (and I don't really know where you get this idea that creators lose their content left right and center- it happens, unfortunately more often than it should and it's terrible, but it's not nearly as pervasive a tendency as you seem to think).<br /><br />"Just look at the EU where they sometimes try to alter Star Wars to their vision instead of trying to keep it true to Lucas's vision."<br /><br />...as they should. Lucas isn't the one writing those stories, but he's also knowingly distanced himself from them and though he's free to reject them as he wishes, the writers also shouldn't be hamstrung by arbitrary notions of what Lucas would want.T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-19444483404474062222014-01-23T20:41:09.569-05:002014-01-23T20:41:09.569-05:00"Terry Nation is a little different since he ..."Terry Nation is a little different since he created the Dalaks for someone else's universe, not his own. It is shamful that other writers didn't respect his wishes"<br /><br />Ah, but he didn't. He created extremely generic space Nazi monsters that were then rewritten by David Whitaker (the script editor of the time) and given absolute phenomenal designs by Raymond Cusick, which is what made them so popular. And this isn't a "oh, well, they were just finishers of his ideas and he was still the creator"- Everything that made the Daleks popular and influential can be directly traced back to other writers and creators.<br /><br />But of course, being credited as "the creator of the Daleks", Nation would go on to make as much money off of them as inhumanly possible, actively discredit the work of other contributors, and try and set down his own 'official' history, often throwing out popular stories that happened not to be written by him.<br /><br />He's the Bob Kane of Doctor Who, basically. And to say he created the Daleks, while legally true, is also massively inaccurate from any other perspective.<br /><br />I'll post on the Lucas-specific stuff a bit later.T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-25955015923461449752014-01-23T16:25:39.089-05:002014-01-23T16:25:39.089-05:00"I see, where the primary discussions on the ...<br /><br />"I see, where the primary discussions on the qualities of each film ultimately come down to Lucas's involvement, or where other artists are simply described as "finishers" to his ideas, cogs in the machine of his "vision". It's a view that to me almost treats other artists as incidental to the success of the film- that they wouldn't have amounted to anything without Lucas there to pull them together. And just speaking personally, I abhor a viewpoint that treats artists like that."<br /><br />Usually I see this line of thinking used to berate Lucas, that the less involved he is, the "better" the film. This is often used as the excuse why TESB is considered the best film. Though I can remember ANH was considered the best until about 8 years ago, and still often polls better. That the hateboys just use this to rationalize their hate and to explain how a man who made films they did like could also make films they don't. That it isn't really just their opinions (which it is). As proof he is a hack who got lucky, which is asinine. <br /><br />We really would not know how sucessful these artists would have been without Lucas's project. Some would probably have just joined up with other's projects or started their own. But unless we have a time machine to go alter the past to see the results, we will never know for sure. However what we do know is that without Lucas, we would not be talking about Star Wars today. That these other artists would not have had Star Wars for their springboard. They may have found other springboards to sucess, or maybe not, without Star Wars but who knows. <br /><br />Personally I can not even see how the artists have been treated as incidental and just view that statement as bizarre. Yes they helped to bring to life the films, and even made it possible, but that doesn't give them artistic claim over Star Wars. They sold their talent and skill to help create the films. They helped make Star Wars great, but they are still finishers to Lucas's vision. However Lucas knows how to pick the talented people. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-90268899703376734682014-01-23T16:24:52.684-05:002014-01-23T16:24:52.684-05:00. "I'm reluctant to give credit *in parti.... "I'm reluctant to give credit *in particular areas*, to be clear. And it's not because I'm distrustful of Lucas, it's that I'm distrustful of the approach a lot of art and particularly shared universes get where they have One Appointed Creator Forever and Always Who Created The Sun The Moon and The Earth and Thus Gets All Credit. It's a disease that infects Wars via Lucas, Trek via Roddenberry, the Daleks via Terry Nation, etc. And I fight against that viewpoint because it erases the fact of art (well, specifically film/television/etc.) as a primarily collaborative medium, where a universe comes out of the minds of many people."<br /><br />I disagree that way of thinking is a diease that infects. Lucas created Star Wars so he knows best what Star Wars is. Terry Nation is a little different since he created the Dalaks for someone else's universe, not his own. It is shamful that other writers didn't respect his wishes, no matter how popular the new version is, an appeal to popularity.<br /><br />"Very very fortunately, Lucas is not the person Roddenberry was, who'll take credit for things that simply aren't his and not acknowledge the people who got him where is is today. No, Lucas is all things considered a pretty great guy, and though I think he has a bit of a control freak side to him, he's still not going to override other people and seriously act like The One True Creator. But unfortunately, he doesn't have to. The Fans do that for him, and that's why I fight against that view. It's a view so inaccurate that even Lucas doesn't seem to purport it"<br /><br />Lucas has made statements that contradicts what you have said. He has stated that with Star Wars, his word is the gospel, and everything else is gossip. He has also stated at times he considers his films to be a different universe than the EU. He also views the films as his, and that bing the creator can alter them as he sees fit. Art is not a democracyit is a dictatorship. <br /><br />In film and TV, control is everything. If you don't have control, your art can be taken away, hijacked from you. Something Lucas, Walt Disney, and Terry Nation know all too well. In this case, being a control freak is wise, so you don't have your creation taken from you. Just look at the EU where they sometimes try to alter Star Wars to their vision instead of trying to keep it true to Lucas's vision. Or the angry fans who want the OOT versions of the films released, they don't care about respecting an artist's vision. They just want Star Wars to be the way they want it, and not apprecate it for what it is. Which is part of the reason I hate the ideas of "correct art". <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-21878859690625490092014-01-23T11:22:33.650-05:002014-01-23T11:22:33.650-05:00*immensely.*immensely.The Nilboghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03902509798047158212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-78505116627922401562014-01-23T11:14:46.835-05:002014-01-23T11:14:46.835-05:00It is all too easy to get details confused in the ...It is all too easy to get details confused in the heat of battle which can lead to contradictions popping up. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-60180693728336970752014-01-23T06:23:18.208-05:002014-01-23T06:23:18.208-05:00Most of what you've said and your general deme...Most of what you've said and your general demeanor does paint a picture of that age range. I remember myself at that age being not so different from you (I've mellowed considerably since then).<br /><br />That being said age and maturity are two different things, and while one is supposed to come with the other, that's not always the case.<br /><br />While we disagree to the point where it drives me up the wall, and he often comes off as the last source of knowledge, the fact that Hartwell more than once admits and apologizes when he misspeaks - and even the fact that he tries his best to debate civilly - does show good maturity, and I give him all the credit in the world.<br /><br />Argue against his ideas if you will. I'm often immebsely thankful for the help. But leave the man himself out of it. This goes in all directions.The Nilboghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03902509798047158212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-33334680333778509952014-01-23T06:07:45.477-05:002014-01-23T06:07:45.477-05:00You certainly appear to contradict yourself often,...You certainly appear to contradict yourself often, but as I too sometimes have trouble voicing my own thoughts correctly, I won't condemn you for being confusing.The Nilboghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03902509798047158212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-73118839359422531072014-01-23T02:57:45.232-05:002014-01-23T02:57:45.232-05:00It's the singularity that I object to. This id...It's the singularity that I object to. This idea that if you're working for someone else, your intrinsically only bringing *their* vision to life, and not working to bring something of their own to it as well. Simply put, that's not how collaboration works.<br /><br />And I should hope I contradict myself at points, since it avers the fact I am human and thus prone to error and/or shifts in opinions. I don't believe I've actually ever contradicted my points through this discussion, though I'd be happy to clear up any inconsistencies.T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5543195171933661664.post-5860355099106401762014-01-23T02:54:02.776-05:002014-01-23T02:54:02.776-05:00I haven't said if his knowledge is correct or ...I haven't said if his knowledge is correct or not, just that I'm curious to its existence.T. Hartwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13602995118108914316noreply@blogger.com