Just saw this video today and thought of this thread. Opinions?

Disney should just scan the separation masters for the originals, color time to match original technicolor prints, and then release it and make absolute bank. When theaters come back, they'd make hundreds of millions in people going to see the "original" star wars in all its glory.

Just saw this video today and thought of this thread. Opinions?

Thanks for posting. I didn't know about Project 4K77. If anyone has a link, send it to me.

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

If that's your argument, the other side is true as well. BEFORE a piece enters the public domain, its existence is the purview of its creator, not the public. (Lucas clears that bar with the original Star Wars. And Sam and Max does too.)

Whether one can and whether one should are two different things, and Lucas's destruction of the original Star Wars is widely regarded as a travesty, regardless of whether he could. And one should recognize the reasons why it's a travesty, even if you're the creator. Ridley Scott does. George Lucas does not.

Again, I feel like you're telling me (as an ostensible creator) what I'm allowed to do or not do with my creation, and I'm gonna push back really hard on that. You do NOT have that right.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's not what I'm telling you. BTW, I do have the right to tell you what's allowed, but because I'm not a copyright attorney, I'd probably be wrong.

You can be unhappy with what I do - I was as unhappy as you were with what Lucas did to the original trilogy. But you STILL don't have the right to say he can't do it.

Fortunately, I never said he can't do it. (Let's not confuse it by saying what I have to right to say. I have the right to say George Lucas can't do a lot of things, but my words have no legal authority.)

I'm not sure the rest of the argument matters to me. Yes, I understand the difference between what I'm allowed to do, and what society thinks I SHOULD do, and I understand that in many cases, I choose to do what society wants me to do, even though I'm ALLOWED to do something else, because I live in that society, and their opinion matters to me. But that's 100% completely separate from you being able to TELL me what to do, if the accepted (legal) rules differ from your desire. I get that you're arguing the 'should' and I'm arguing the 'can' - but that's not going to change.

I agree with you about the can. If you get that I'm arguing the should, what is the issue? I haven't said anything against artist's legal rights to their work. I haven't said that an artist has to do anything simply because it's what I think I they should do. Cody's post was about how what devs choose to do with their work makes preservation of original versions more difficult (in the case of video games), and I agree with him. Society actually seems to take the other view, so I don't understand your rhetoric around what you assume is my presumptuous authority. I've shared my opinions, not royal edicts.

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

If that's your argument, the other side is true as well. BEFORE a piece enters the public domain, its existence is the purview of its creator, not the public. (Lucas clears that bar with the original Star Wars. And Sam and Max does too.)

Whether one can and whether one should are two different things, and Lucas's destruction of the original Star Wars is widely regarded as a travesty, regardless of whether he could. And one should recognize the reasons why it's a travesty, even if you're the creator. Ridley Scott does. George Lucas does not.

Again, I feel like you're telling me (as an ostensible creator) what I'm allowed to do or not do with my creation, and I'm gonna push back really hard on that. You do NOT have that right.

You can be unhappy with what I do - I was as unhappy as you were with what Lucas did to the original trilogy. But you STILL don't have the right to say he can't do it.

I'm not sure the rest of the argument matters to me. Yes, I understand the difference between what I'm allowed to do, and what society thinks I SHOULD do, and I understand that in many cases, I choose to do what society wants me to do, even though I'm ALLOWED to do something else, because I live in that society, and their opinion matters to me. But that's 100% completely separate from you being able to TELL me what to do, if the accepted (legal) rules differ from your desire. I get that you're arguing the 'should' and I'm arguing the 'can' - but that's not going to change.

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

If that's your argument, the other side is true as well. BEFORE a piece enters the public domain, its existence is the purview of its creator, not the public. (Lucas clears that bar with the original Star Wars. And Sam and Max does too.)

Whether one can and whether one should are two different things, and Lucas's destruction of the original Star Wars is widely regarded as a travesty, regardless of whether he could. And one should recognize the reasons why it's a travesty, even if you're the creator. Ridley Scott does. George Lucas does not.

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

If that's your argument, the other side is true as well. BEFORE a piece enters the public domain, its existence is the purview of its creator, not the public. (Lucas clears that bar with the original Star Wars. And Sam and Max does too.)

Much depends on the impact of the art in question and its role as an historical artifact. I agree with Cody in principle, but I don’t care as much as he does about preserving video games—not this one in particular anyway. If Terry Pratchett wants to destroy works that haven’t seen the light of day, that’s his business. When George Luxus decides that the 1977 version of Star Wars shouldn’t exist, that’s a whole different bag.

I'll reiterate my "good thing I'm not creative" standpoint. I'm horrified by what Lucas decided to do with Star Wars, but at the end of the day, it was his. Which means (imo, of course) his to destroy. Monet did it, Georgia O'Keefe did it, Francis Bacon did it.

It's a tragedy... but it's not my place to say it shouldn't be done. (That isn't to say I don't wish it weren't done.)

When you say it's not your place to say it shouldn't be done, I think you're saying you have no right to stop him, which is true, but that doesn't mean we can't decry his choice, and his failure to recognize that his work is bigger and more important in the grand scheme of things than his ego (or should be).

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

I don't believe that a piece of art can transcend its creator (in the sense that the creator loses rights towards it).

Art that lasts beyond its creator by definition transcends its creator. Bob Dylan just sold his catalog. Seventy-five years after he dies no one will own it.

You seem to assume that I have something against artists revising their work or controlling what work they decide to release. Not at all. I don't mind that Ridley Scott has 372 versions of his movies. There's fiction I love that was revised over the years and had several versions published. You can still access all versions. The ability to play all versions of games is hampered by technology. That's a concern for preservationists, and I think that's the original point of this thread.

Birth of A Nation is still studied and analyzed by historians and filmmakers to this day. It came out in 1915. That is just one example.

According to that movie's Wikipedia page:

For many years, The Birth of a Nation was poorly represented in home media and restorations. This stemmed from several factors, one of which was the fact that Griffith and others had frequently reworked the film, leaving no definitive version. According to the silent film website Brenton Film, many home media releases of the film consisted of "poor quality DVDs with different edits, scores, running speeds and usually in definitely unoriginal black and white".[130]

One of the earliest high-quality home versions was film preservationist David Shepard's 1992 transfer of a 16mm print for VHS and LaserDisc release via Image Entertainment. A short documentary, The Making of The Birth of a Nation, newly produced and narrated by Shepard, was also included. Both were released on DVD by Image in 1998 and the United Kingdom's Eureka Entertainment in 2000.[130]

In other words, the lack of preservation efforts at the time of its release did not affect its recognition as a significant film. Arguably, were it not preserved in the forms it was, that would have been indicative of its lack of significance. Apparently its sequel wasn't very significant - it was not preserved and is considered a "lost film".

That's literally what the thread is about. People doing remasters and not understanding what that really should entail.

There’s the rub. Do they not understand or do they just not agree with your assessment of what a remaster should be? That’s my point. You can argue until you’re blue, that doesn’t make you correct.

Cody is taking what it means in regard to other art forms and applying it to games. When you remaster an album or a film, the goal is preserve or enhance the fidelity of the original. The goal is not to change its content.

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

I always thought the public domain existed to ensure that creatives could utilize older works in newer works, seeing as everything creative is, at its heart, a remix of things that came before.

This is the modern interpretation of it, but not when it was originally drafted. You are right, and that's why I said ostensibly. But the original intent still holds value.

Live games are, by definition, unpreservable.

Not at all.

Like yes, you are not going to get the authentic experience of playing Megaman on a CRT, but look at what the Megaman Legacy Colelction did. They took each game, and literally ported it from NES assembly to C. Now, you can take that C code and run Megaman anywhere. You can always update the code for modern systems in as good an approximation as possible (the game even has the option to slow down and flicker as it would on a NES, because the hardware limitations are known and can be simulated in the C code).

There are also emulators which will run on any modern hardware. You have things like FPGA consoles that could play old games.

Any of these (assuming the emulator runs well) are as close as you can get to the original and preserve it moving forward.

That's literally what the thread is about. People doing remasters and not understanding what that really should entail.

There’s the rub. Do they not understand or do they just not agree with your assessment of what a remaster should be? That’s my point. You can argue until you’re blue, that doesn’t make you correct.

I'm firmly of the belief that if I create something, what I do with it is my prerogative. It might be stolen from me, it might grow and gain new life based on the actions of others (against my will, even)... but if I want to destroy it, I can. It's mine to destroy.

Not if it becomes a significant part of culture. At that point preservation is the imperative. This is ostensibly why things are supposed to enter the public domain after a time.

I always thought the public domain existed to ensure that creatives could utilize older works in newer works, seeing as everything creative is, at its heart, a remix of things that came before.

I also am of the opinion that it is a sort of hubris to think that we can dictate to future historians what was important to us. Star Wars has a been around for 40 years - in another 40 years who knows how its significance (let alone the minutiae of the details of the movies themselves) will have waxed or waned.

Birth of A Nation is still studied and analyzed by historians and filmmakers to this day. It came out in 1915. That is just one example.

Artifacts are important to understanding history precisely because they are the original things--not descriptions or interpretations of things filtered through the generations in-between. History is and always will be an imperfect and incomplete version of the truth, but evidence from the actual time gets us closer to knowing what the reality was like. Art, as your said in your first post, is integral evidence.

To your earlier comment about Star Wars, I do agree that destroying the original negatives sucks and sits on the border of what I'm comfortable with; it's a real tragedy. I don't think that analogy is fair when compared to digital works, however.

The original version of Destiny has been destroyed. Digital is not necessarily exempt.

Live games are, by definition, unpreservable. Preservation, as much as we as a society may wish it, isn't something we have a right to. We have a right to preserve the copies of something that we own, but if something is created that is guaranteed to degrade over time, preservation is impossible from the outset; I don't think any law will or should be enacted to force creatives to only create preservable works, either.

To your earlier comment about Star Wars, I do agree that destroying the original negatives sucks and sits on the border of what I'm comfortable with; it's a real tragedy. I don't think that analogy is fair when compared to digital works, however.

The original version of Destiny has been destroyed. Digital is not necessarily exempt.

It was 100% unethical.

To do the remasters, he had to cut the original finished negative to conform it to the special edition. This means he literally destroyed the original version of those movies. They do not exist anymore in their negative form, and CANNOT exist anymore as recutting the negative was destructive. As an extremely influential and important piece of culture, it can no longer be preserved.

There are separation masters that still exist (somewhere), so there is at least the possibility of creating a faithful remaster. But it is unlikely.

I understand what was done, I'm more interested in the argument for it being unethical.

Because it destroyed the original, which is a cornerstone of cinema and culture.

Do you no longer own or have a right to your art after it is released?

To some extent no, because it becomes part of the larger cultural collective. You obviously have certain legal and moral rights, but you can't go into someone's home and take back the book you wrote just because you want to change it.

Agreed. I also believe a creator has a right to change whatever they like in the copies they sell afterward.

There's leeway for things like director's cuts and stuff, so long as it supplements rather than replaces the original, and there was some kind of reason the original didn't match your initial intent (publisher/studio interference, censorship, etc).

In fact if they'd have branded it like a "Director's Cut" I probably would not be having this conversation.

Really this comes down to your personal definition of remaster, which is sort of pedantic? Remasters have just as much capability to supplant an original work as remakes. I've never played FF7 and my only experience with it will be the remake, and that's my choice.

To your earlier comment about Star Wars, I do agree that destroying the original negatives sucks and sits on the border of what I'm comfortable with; it's a real tragedy. I don't think that analogy is fair when compared to digital works, however.

Words mean things, and I don't think that the people undertaking remasters seem to understand what that really entails. You are essentially an art restorationist when you do a remaster.

Apparently not. Very few video games called “remasters” are doing what you describe here, so that’s obviously not true. That you think it should be true does not make it so.

That's literally what the thread is about. People doing remasters and not understanding what that really should entail.