recut of Star Wars 2 - Cut of the Clones

Just imagine if these people put this kind of time and effort into doing something original, that real people might actually see. I know there are those who believe that these fan editors are doing the fans a service, but it is, in fact, nothing but an extended wanking session. It serves no purpose whatsoever. It's actually several steps below making fan trailers like World's Finest and Grayson; those at least take some vision to pull off. Re-editing someone else's work is something a chimp could do.

Your definition of "public domain" does not match that of the law. There is the notion of "fair use", which protects works of parody or satire, but simply re-editing somebody elses feature film because it doesn't match up to your fanboy desires does not come under that heading.

Please show me an example of George Lucas re-editing somebody else's movie without permission.

Actually, there's nothing illegal about re-editing your own movies. The only grey area is in distribution. People re-edit their own movies all the time; they use their fast-forward button.

I'm sure it is technically illegal, under copyright laws. Not to mention the fact that the whole point is that this guy is distributing it as well.

Fast forwarding a movie is not the same as editing it. You're editing your experience of it, not the movie itself.

If these crybabies just used their fast-forward button - or better yet, just stopped watching the movies if they bother them so much - the world would be a happier place.

Trouble is, they can't let go. They don't like the new Star Wars movies, but don't have the backbone to just deal with it and move on. They're the worst kind of nerd.

Being that there was just the ruling in favor of editing movies for content (the name of the company is escaping me at the moment, but they were selling expurgated versions of popular movies on DVD) as a precedent, why wouldn't it be ok?

If there is a talented enough editor to pare it down to a tighter, more concise film, why should we get upset about it? It's not like we're talking about Once Upon a Time in America here.

Even if Uwe Boll edited it together as a montage of the worst bits of dialogue, cut together with the score from Caddyshack, it should be ok. It's not the artist's original vision, but I'm sure Quincy Jones didn't have Ludacris in mind when he wrote Soul Bossa Nova (or whatever the Austin Powers theme is...) The edit will never replace the original, and Lucas's original artistic decisions will always be available.

To see a different point of view is kind of interesting I think.

Ludacris didn't rewrite parts of Soul Bossa Nova and then distribute it saying "I did it better!"

Again, that's more in line of parody. What we're talking is someone saying "I don't like that, so I'm going to change it." AOTC has no credibility really, so I'll give a different example.

Someone comes along, and says 'I don't like the ape makeup in 2001, I'll replace them with CGI cause it'll look better.' Would that be okay?

Legally or artistically? If MGM came out with "2001. Updated for the New Millenium!" with CGI apes and the original were no longer available, then that would be an artistic corruption.

If you were to do it at home, and make it available to people for free as "2001, Fett's monkey edit." I don't think there's a problem with that.

The key is that the original is still available.

Wow, does THIS argument really need to happen again? There were at least 2 or 3 threads devoted to it a couple weeks ago. Can we just discuss the clone edit and how that might or might not even make a better movie instead of these vague and half-assed pitches about artistic freedom and copyright? Those other threads should have shown already that it's not an issue that's going to be hammered out or even enlightened on a message board.

Also, why is it always said that with the time used to edit the movie and make their own version, that time could have been spent making their own fan film?

Making a fan film takes a lot more than a couple of clicks to edit a DVD. Thats like saying they should have done brain surgery instead of making the Phantom Edit.

But the quality of Attack of the Clones is?

You're right. That's virgin territory for debate.

I'd much rather debate the weird proprietary ownership that nerds feel they're entitled to on the subjects of their obsession.

To be honest, I'm not sure there is a real discussion. Sure, the editing isn't great, but then, if we're talking about making a film better, editing is one of a ton of problems AOTC has. The only way AOTC would ever be a good movie was if it was remade, period. Again, this links into my feelings on the whole remaking saga. I say just let it be. Like TPM, AOTC was another dent in my heart. But it's history. It's over. I also absolutely hated the way the Trek series was ended, but it's over. It's dead. I think we'd all be a lot healthier if we just took that stormtrooper's advice and moved along, instead of endlessly waxing lyrical over the whys and the could have beens of the prequels.

I think Dix also makes a good point. Make your own film. Go out, create your own story, and make some art yourself, instead of coming along and deciding you can make someone else's better. This is the kind of stuff Hollywood is practising en masse now, so it doesn't help when so much of the fan community is busy trying to recapture something that never existed in the first place instead of perhaps trying to create something new.

I'd steer clear of that too, but I'd be interested in seeing this edit and talking to other people who had seen it about what they thought worked or didn't. Then again, I'll probably never download this thing and I didn't have that many problems with Clones as it was, so who cares? I just hate to see the creative rights issue brought back up, and framed incorrectly at that.

You know, we all look at films and say "I could do it better" and it never gets any easier to do just that when it's just a matter of cutting.

Honestly, it tears me up that Minority Report would be a classic if it ended when Tom Cruise went into the prison. But it's not my movie. I didn't spend two years making it. If you think you're just as entitled as a filmmaker who's taken two years of their life to make two hours of movie, then you're insane.

You want to make better movies? Then make them. But don't go bogarting the work of other filmmakers to appease your own sense of entitlement.

Agreed. Then again, I don't even think a chimp would lower himself to fucking with someone else's work that took the original creator, and his team, three-plus years to accomplish.

Hey, whether a film is good or not , and whether you like it or not, is irrevelant. I hated TPM, but thought that the guy who did the Phantom Edit is a pretentious moron.
I guess if you want to mutilate your copy of a film that is your business, but make one step toward any kind of distriubution and you are stepping into deep shit.
As the people who starting selling the Phantom Edit found out when the papers from Lucas's lawyers came around.
What gets to me is the pretentiousness of the people who do this. To hear the Phantom Edit talk about his "Art" you would think he is Orson Welles making Citizen Kane. This is the kind of wannabeism that is ruining fandom.

I agree with Dan Whitehead that this idea that fans have that they have some kind of ownership rights of the object of their obsession is truly bizarre.

Look, the artistic worth of the Prequels is not the issue here. You might think they are masterpieces, you might think they are pieces of shit, but Lucas made them, he paid for them, he can do what he wants with them , and has the right to fight back if his property rights are being violated. Lucas is a lot more tolerent then a lot of the industry is. His attitude toward the Phantom Edit was on of amusement until some Nimrod starting selling copies of them. Then he stepped down, hard, as was his perfect right to do.
Copyright laws apply regardless of quality. And if you want the legal system involved in trying to decide the artistic worth of something,you are crazy.

It's one thing to intrepert a work of art.with the creator's permission. That is pretty much what happens with every performance of a song, every time a play is performed. There is not way the composer of a song or the writer of a play can monitor every performance of his work for artistic merit. But he is getting compensation for that through his licence fee. Write for performance art, you have to figure some performances of your work are gonna be bad. But you can insist that you get paid for your permission.

Using a sample, with permission, to be a part of an all-new creative work is a completely different situation. These fools aren't creating anything new - they're just arrogantly interfering with somebody elses work because it failed to live up to their fanboy expectations. It's this idea that they can somehow impeach Lucas as the owner of Star Wars just to salve their own feelings of raging adolescent betrayal. It's not only illegal, it's deeply unhealthy.

The continued existence of the original has nothing to do with it.