An auteur and his works

[Phil H]

Some of you may have seen that there is a current controversy over george Lucas' changes to the original Star Wars movies. Fans feel that the originator is "betraying them" by adding in dialogue and scenes that were not originally there.

I have also seen, on other discussion forums, very strong feelings expressed about George RR Martin (author of the Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire novels) over his alleged "slowness" in publishing sequels.

I find this interesting, because it seems to reflect the contemporary view that "the people" have rights over everything - whether football fams or voters. That it is their will that counts.

But surely, an author or film-maker, has a perfect right to do as he pleases with his own work (assuming he has not sold the rights, of course). If J K Rowling wants to re-write the earlier Harry Potter novels (produced when she perhaps had less freedom from editors than later) should she not be able to do so? Does she not have a right if she wished to withdraw the earlier editions from publication as her preferred version? (I hasten to add that this is an example only and I have no idea whether JK Rowling has any such intention.)

After all, an author/film-maker does not HAVE to publish a book or release a film. The "fans" are responding to that writer's/film-maker's vision. If that auteur has later thoughts and wishes to revise, should they not do so.

Because he or she sells many (maybe millions) of books does that make him/her responsible to the fans? Is some measure of artistic licence lost? Do fans acquire some rights/ownership of the franchise?

Is an author now "bound" not to disappoint fans? Must they complete a sequence of related books because - almost - a tacit "contract" has been established with readers? Is there a time factor in this?

The enthusiasm may not be what a writer aspired to achieve after all - they may simply have followed their own inner vision or creative instinct. Buy-in by readers/viewers, or a fortune made might be incidental to them. So why should they listen to fans complaints about delays or changes?

Does any of it matter?

I'd be interested in the views of other posters.

Phil

[Limehouse]

I am no great Starwars fan, but I agree that Lucas has the absolute right to make changes to the films, presuming he owns the rights to them.

When I was quite young, I remember some Bob Dylan fans having hysterics because he used an electric guitar.

Although I think it's wise for artists and such like to be mindful of the loyalty fans show to them, I think that fans should respect the right of an 'auteur' to change or develop previous works and to explore new avenues in which to express their artistry.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil. I think you might be missing the point in this instance. Star Wars isn't art, it's a product. Lucas was a one-trick pony who doesn't merely go back to the well, he lives in the well. He's merely repackaging his product. And the fans are not holding a gun to his head or seeking legal action, they're merely speaking out and providing their opinions and input, which is certainly they're right since they filled Lucas' pockets with ridiculous amounts of money, and will continue to do so as long as he keeps repackaging his products.

In short, if the fans were NOT so boisterous and obsessed as they are, Lucas would have no cause to repackage his product in the first place, and this entire discussion would be rendered moot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

In the case of star wars, it's not about "art", but about "commodity".

Did Coke have the "right" to change their recipe? Sure they did. Did consumers have the right to reject the new recipe and express their displeasure loudly? Sure they did. The latter does not in any way violate the former.

Ironically, it's the fans near obsessive embrace of Star Wars that has given Gearge Lucas the opportunity to go back and constantly recycle the same old, same old; unlike many authors who actually have to innovate and create to survive.

If your entire career is built on "giving them what they want", you have no right to complain when "they" tell you directly what it is they want (or in this case don't want). Lucas has been milking this cow for over 30 years--shouldn't the cow at least get to say "moo" once in a while?