However that may be, it does not fit with Lucas' words when he condemned the colorization of others' films. To save myself some typing, here is a post from
another thread:
According to Lucas' testimony before Congress, it is the public interest that is paramount, not the interest of the creator of the work.
I might also add, it is somewhat dishonest to change a film and then sell it under the original title. One is not selling what one is claiming to sell, but something different. I personally think that all films that differ from the original theatrical release should be required to carry a large warning label, detailing how it is different (i.e., different aspect ratio, added scenes, removed scenes, altered effects, etc.). As things are, buying something called "Star Wars" does not guarantee much of what it is that one will actually be buying, as it may be altered as much as the copyright owner desires. And yet this is not considered to be fraud. It is curious, if I sell some object that is different from what I claim it is (such as coated lead when I have claimed to be selling solid gold), I can go to jail, but this does not seem to apply to films and other such things.
Not sure I follow your logic when you conclude that, based on that first quote, George Lucas doesn't have any respect for the human race.
Remember: when you're talking about the colorized movies, it wasn't the artists making the changes. It was a corporation that bought the movies and altered them. My guess is that in almost all cases, the artists weren't even consulted about altering them.
In the case of Star Wars, it is the artist who is changing his work. In the sense of the Star Wars movies, Lucas is the artist. He's also the corporation. But first and foremost, he is the artist.
An artist is free to play with his works any dang way he pleases. In fact, almost all do. I saw Robert Bly speak once, and he claimed that he changes his poems every times he reads them. He does it on purpose because he feels it keeps them vital. And he changes them on the spot, based on his mood or the vibe he's getting from his audience or whatever... So should he be burdened with having to warn his audience that the poems he's reading will have been modified each time he reads them? Would he have to annotate each variation from the original?
It doesn't make sense. It's his poem.
Or take a rock and roll band playing live... should they have to post that the mix you're about to hear at their concert is not the same as the mix that you heard when you bought the studio album? Should they interrupt their performance each time what they play deviates from what you have on your record?
Of course not. That'd be ludicrous. Yet, if you take your argument to its logical conclusion, this is where you end up.
Novels get re-written. They get corrected or edited or re-written between editions. But you very rarely see what the corrections are listed anywhere. Should they be forced to mention those things? All you typically see is information that this novel is the 4th or 5th edition and that it was printed on such and such a date.
The fact that the movies are coming out on Blu Ray and that they spent a ton of time re-processing the shots and the audio to improve them was a decision left totally up to the artist. But, to continue the novel metaphor a little further, you already have the information that the movie you're buying on Blu Ray is not the same movie that you have on VHS. Look at the dates on the covers.
But it's just like a book: each edition has its own date. The dates on the Blu Ray has a different date than the date on your VHS tape.
The good thing about all this is, of course, you don't have to buy the movies.
