hopjohn said:
I don't really understand why you guys are hating on Lucas. I mean it's his work and if he wants to alter it in a way the HE thinks is an improvement then I don't see what there is to get worked up over. I mean, I know I have done things whereby once they get submitted to the public I'd wished I'd done something here or there a little different. Luckily for him he has the ability and the sack to do it, despite the fact that there are huge numbers of geeks/people out there all across the globe eager to complain about HIM changing HIS work. Then when he tries to appease everyone he gets jumped all over again. Jeesh. If I were him I'd be saying the same things about you all that you are saying about him. Puzzling.
People get worked up about things other people do all the time. Why should this be any different?
Anyway, many people saw the original Star Wars trilogy, and want to see it that way still. Any change damages the nostalgia value, as any change would not be what one saw earlier. He should have realized that many people would not like the changes, no matter whether they are better or worse.
Additionally, when buying a film called "Star Wars", it would be good if one were buying what one saw earlier, because of the concept of truth in advertising. People who bought it thinking they were getting what that film was originally were understandably displeased to see that it wasn't what they were expecting. Sure, they should read the fine print on the packaging, but how much fine print should people be expected to read? How much of a change would it have to be before you would call it fraud? Suppose he changed everything, so there was nothing left from the original. Would you still have the same opinion?
Clearly, he has the legal right to do whatever he wants with his films. But that does not mean that people will be happy with his decisions. He could, for example, have decided to destroy all copies of it, and burn the negatives of the film, instead of ever putting any version of the film on DVD. Would you understand it if people would be upset with him doing that? It is his property, and legally, he would have every right to have done that instead of what he did. He could have done that if, for example, he decided that they were no good at all, and should never have been seen. If he thought that would be better, would you still be saying, "I mean it's his work and if he wants to alter it in a way the HE thinks is an improvement then I don't see what there is to get worked up over"?
So, I don't understand why you don't understand why people have been upset.
