Could Disney finally give us the remastered, unedited Star Wars we want?

[glunark]

None of which had any effect whatsoever on the story itself.

Actually Han shooting first does affect the story if you are watching for the first time.

Our introduction to Han reveals him to be opportunistic, mercenary, and ruthless, quietly and carefully orchestrating the means of Greedo's death under the table while smiling and talking to him above it, he blows him away with a Bond style quip, and not a hint of remorse, and later when he takes the money for rescuing the princess, it seems totally in character that he would take the money and run.

Having Han wait until he was shot at, before returning fire makes him look like a moron who has to wait for someone to try and kill him before he responds with deadly force, hell they might as well have made the communications board on the death star fire first, at least that would have had an excuse why it might miss.

 

[cboath]

You guys are whistling past the graveyard. It's not a question of what kind of stewards Disney is going to be for the LucasFilm archival films, it's the fact they DO NOT HAVE the right to distribute A New Hope. Fox might be willing to strike a distribution deal, but I would not be exceedingly optimistic about that. Less likely is Disney, a publicly owned company responsible to it' shareholders, will pay what Fox would demand for those rights just to satisfy I relatively small market of home video buyers who happen to be very vocal.

I'm guessing, too, that Fox can't do jack on their own. They may hold distribution right, but Disney/LFL own the film's rights. Fox would be incredibly stupid to deny them permission to distribute it because, a 'no' gets them a grand total of $0.00. Disney would be generous, IMO, to offer them 5% of the sales or something to get a deal. That gets fox a good deal of money vs nothing by saying no. Fox is in position of leverage. Hell, Disney could smear them publicly by saying 'we've done all the work but we can't give you the original cuts because Fox wants too much money' and it'd be a PR war Fox couldn't win. I'm not saying fox should just take whatever, they'll negotiate as high as they can, but in the end, they've already made tons off the movie and they stand to make more if they play nice. If they don't play nice, Disney/LFL can just hold out indefinitely and continually blame it on Fox.

Fox's effort to do this is nothing. Just signing a contract. Disney/LFL have to shell out to make the masters, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Bryancd]

.....but then again you could be very wrong

J

Yep.

 

[Bryancd]

I'm guessing, too, that Fox can't do jack on their own. They may hold distribution right, but Disney/LFL own the film's rights. Fox would be incredibly stupid to deny them permission to distribute it because, a 'no' gets them a grand total of $0.00. Disney would be generous, IMO, to offer them 5% of the sales or something to get a deal. That gets fox a good deal of money vs nothing by saying no. Fox is in position of leverage. Hell, Disney could smear them publicly by saying 'we've done all the work but we can't give you the original cuts because Fox wants too much money' and it'd be a PR war Fox couldn't win. I'm not saying fox should just take whatever, they'll negotiate as high as they can, but in the end, they've already made tons off the movie and they stand to make more if they play nice. If they don't play nice, Disney/LFL can just hold out indefinitely and continually blame it on Fox.

Fox's effort to do this is nothing. Just signing a contract. Disney/LFL have to shell out to make the masters, etc, etc, etc.

That's a good question, what are the distribution rights Fox had in independent of their financial arrangement with LucasFilm. Fox has been notoriously difficult in regards to licensing arrangements and would be less then amenable to enriching a competitor. I would love to see it, I just think the barriers of entry are too high and the potential benefit too low for Disney to really go to bat. It would be an expenditure of capital the Board of Directors would take a very hard look at. George Lucas created the current version of the films as his definitive version and it might be a tough sell to convince them to pony up the dough to release films that will look dated and appealing to a narrow audience.

 

[Jeyl]

no, that's not what I am suggesting at all. Leaving aside the longevity of physical media sales, the number of potential consumers for these is limited and the cost to Disney might be prohibitively high.

Bryan, where are you getting these numbers? Websites that don't normally report on DVD/Bluray news are reporting on this, and it's just a rumor! io9.com has an article about it, and the only time they ever talk about DVD/BluRay sets is when they're on sale. themarysue.com mentioned in in their news round up. Comicbook.com seems confident given the name of their article. Polygon.com has an article on it. And... is that... a Star Trek Forum site talking about it?!

Do I even need to bother with the Star Wars fan sites that are reporting on it? I'm going to assume you know that there are a lot of Star Wars fans all across the world, even ones that love the prequel trilogy who wouldn't hesitate to report this rumor to every other Star Wars fan. Heck, people who aren't Star Wars fans but love movies would probably want to buy the unaltered editions on DVD/BluRay because they're very important movies in general. Star Wars isn't limited to Star Wars fans.

Just... back up your "number of potential consumers" claim. This is Disney we're talking about. Not some struggling company that will collapse if one of their DVD/BluRay deals don't sell. They can survive movies flopping. No one knows what Fox would ask for, no one knows what Disney would offer and there is little to no doubt that there will be some form of negotiation where a deal can be made that would make the DVD/BluRay release of Star Wars a profit for Disney.

 

[Wolfsburg]

None of which had any effect whatsoever on the story itself. It's one thing to not like those changes for one reason or another, that's a matter of preference and that's fine, but to say it changes canon is an extreme over-exaggeration. You can make an argument for Temuera Morrison's re-dubbing of Boba Fett's lines, but since his backstory makes no difference to the plot of the OT, it really doesn't matter.

You might not mind these changes or think they are minor but to say it doesn't change the canon is wrong. Just because the overall story is not dramatically affected doesn't mean the canon isn't changed.

 

[Bryancd]

Bryan, where are you getting these numbers? Websites that don't normally report on DVD/Bluray news are reporting on this, and it's just a rumor! io9.com has an article about it, and the only time they ever talk about DVD/BluRay sets is when they're on sale. themarysue.com mentioned in in their news round up. Comicbook.com seems confident given the name of their article. Polygon.com has an article on it. And... is that... a Star Trek Forum site talking about it?!

Do I even need to bother with the Star Wars fan sites that are reporting on it? I'm going to assume you know that there are a lot of Star Wars fans all across the world, even ones that love the prequel trilogy who wouldn't hesitate to report this rumor to every other Star Wars fan. Heck, people who aren't Star Wars fans but love movies would probably want to buy the unaltered editions on DVD/BluRay because they're very important movies in general. Star Wars isn't limited to Star Wars fans.

Just... back up your "number of potential consumers" claim. This is Disney we're talking about. Not some struggling company that will collapse if one of their DVD/BluRay deals don't sell. They can survive movies flopping. No one knows what Fox would ask for, no one knows what Disney would offer and there is little to no doubt that there will be some form of negotiation where a deal can be made that would make the DVD/BluRay release of Star Wars a profit for Disney.

I didn't mention any numbers, I am suggesting the applicable potential market for the unaltered OT is marginal when you consider how many DVD and Blu-Ray releases have preceded this. You have a diminishing pool of customers as so many already own them and not all will buy again for a version they may have no emotional connection to. Disney would release these in a New York minute if they had the distribution rights, that would be a no brainer. Yes, they can try and negotiate with Fox but that cost might be prohibitive relative to what the market research they would no doubt conduct will show as the addressable market for these.

And no publicly traded company is going to go down a road if they can't see theoretical financial benefit. When John Carter flopped, the immediate impact on Disney stock at the time was material.

 

[seelsa73]

You might not mind these changes or think they are minor but to say it doesn't change the canon is wrong. Just because the overall story is not dramatically affected doesn't mean the canon isn't changed.

Then your definition of canon and mine are very different.

 

[rodneyfaile]

So the special editions can be distributed with no problem, but all of a sudden the licensing is a problem if you restore it to an unaltered version?

 

[Bryancd]

Oh, so Fox has complete distribution rights through 2020

"Fox owns distribution rights to the original Star Wars, No. 4 in the series, in perpetuity in all media worldwide. And as for the five subsequent movies, Fox has theatrical, nontheatrical, and home video rights worldwide through May 2020."

So Disney won't do anything until 2020 when they have the rights to all 6 films except ANH, which Fox retains unless they decide to sell or co-license, which I still think will be a tough hurdle to overcome. So this conversation is entirely academic for the next 6 years. Disney has new content to create completely under their control and that's where their efforts and money will be going.

Fox on the other hand can go to town over the next 6 years and take advantage of the SW pop culture onslaught Disney is about to unleash and steel these until the market is totally saturated.

 

[Wolfsburg]

Then your definition of canon and mine are very different.

Apparently so!

 

[Bryancd]

So the special editions can be distributed with no problem, but all of a sudden the licensing is a problem if you restore it to an unaltered version?

only Fox can distribute anything until 2020. The fact that these online articles reporting this story don't even seem to know that makes me even more inclined to question their veracity.

 

[rodneyfaile]

only Fox can distribute anything until 2020. The fact that these online articles reporting this story don't even seem to know that makes me even more inclined to question their veracity.

Those articles mention the distribution licensing extensively and present it as far more of an obstacle than the technical work of doing the actual restoration. It does get easier in 2020, but even then there are legal entanglements to overcome.

I think it would benefit both sides to get a new version out to capitalize on the undoubted frenzy that Episode VII will create.

I guess I am just optimistic that they will work something out, and I think an unaltered trilogy would appeal to more than just die hard fans. I think Lucas disappointed a lot of people with recent releases with silly alterations and poor image quality. Wouldn't a version marketed as "the version you grew up with" and "like you've never seen it before" sell like crazy during the holidays with Episode VII in the theaters?

 

[JediG60racer]

I'm not aware that any of these rights you mention can legally exist "in perpetuity". Pretty sure there is a statute of limitations on intellectual property, copyright, distribution, etc. The only way to extend those rights is to re-exercise them first when they expire 50 years from the original establishment date.

When I began having to deal with copyright, licensing, intellectual property, etc - the government literature I read on it limited it to 50 years, or 10 years after the death of the original rights holder (for the estate). It's possible that's changed in the last 25 years, but I still work in the field and have not seen anything come across that would seem to change those limitations.

 

[Bryancd]

Those articles mention the distribution licensing extensively and present it as far more of an obstacle than the technical work of doing the actual restoration. It does get easier in 2020, but even then there are legal entanglements to overcome.

I think it would benefit both sides to get a new version out to capitalize on the undoubted frenzy that Episode VII will create.

I guess I am just optimistic that they will work something out, and I think an unaltered trilogy would appeal to more than just die hard fans. I think Lucas disappointed a lot of people with recent releases with silly alterations and poor image quality. Wouldn't a version marketed as "the version you grew up with" and "like you've never seen it before" sell like crazy during the holidays with Episode VII in the theaters?

Disney doesn't need to pay for something they will get for free in 6 years. If anything, the hype for the franchise will be going long past 2020 based on Disney's stated long term franchise goals. They can wait Fox out. And Fox doesn't need Disney to release these over the next 6 years, they keep all the $.

 

[rodneyfaile]

Disney doesn't need to pay for something they will get for free in 6 years. If anything, the hype for the franchise will be going long past 2020 based on Disney's stated long term franchise goals. They can wait Fox out. And Fox doesn't need Disney to release these over the next 6 years, they keep all the $.

No one is denying that, but wouldn't a "new" and "better" version create more of a demand? Wouldn't more copies be sold? Wouldn't it be advantageous for something to be worked out?

 

[Bryancd]

No one is denying that, but wouldn't a "new" and "better" version create more of a demand? Wouldn't more copies be sold? Wouldn't it be advantageous for something to be worked out?

Well, this entire thread is predicated on the idea that the original version of the film OT release from Disney is imminent. It's not. And the idea that the unaltered versions are "better" is subjective. Fox can release any version they want for the next 6 years with zero involvement or revenue sharing with Disney.

 

[Jeyl]

I didn't mention any numbers, I am suggesting the applicable potential market for the unaltered OT is marginal when you consider how many DVD and Blu-Ray releases have preceded this.

Funny that you mention customers thinking that they would be buying the same product over again since the official release of the unaltered versions came coupled together with the same exact DVD that was released earlier. What could have been a low cost alternative was turned into an expensive mess.

And generally speaking, there will always be a newer and grander release of something as time goes on, even if it's on the same format. 20th Century Fox even remastered Patton and The French Connection due to the amount of criticisms the transfers have received. Sleeping Beauty is about to have it's second BluRay release. Even your champion for non-tangible mediums, Star Trek Into Darkness, is getting a BluRay re-release next month with the Imax version of the film and all the bonus content that were divided and spread across for the retailer exclusive editions. To think that Paramount is usually the worst studio when it comes to getting things right eventually.

And here's a biggie that Disney could use when they market the unaltered versions of the film. They can advertise that this is the first time that the original unaltered versions of the trilogy have been restored and remastered in High Definition. Nothing would get a viewers attention with the subtitle "For the first time..." and have it be the truth.

 

[Bryancd]

Funny that you mention customers thinking that they would be buying the same product over again since the official release of the unaltered versions came coupled together with the same exact DVD that was released earlier. What could have been a low cost alternative was turned into an expensive mess.

And generally speaking, there will always be a newer and grander release of something as time goes on, even if it's on the same format. 20th Century Fox even remastered Patton and The French Connection due to the amount of criticisms the transfers have received. Sleeping Beauty is about to have it's second BluRay release. Even your champion for non-tangible mediums, Star Trek Into Darkness, is getting a BluRay re-release next month with the Imax version of the film and all the bonus content that were divided and spread across for the retailer exclusive editions. To think that Paramount is usually the worst studio when it comes to getting things right eventually.

And here's a biggie that Disney could use when they market the unaltered versions of the film. They can advertise that this is the first time that the original unaltered versions of the trilogy have been restored and remastered in High Definition. Nothing would get a viewers attention with the subtitle "For the first time..." and have it be the truth.

Yeah, I agree with everything you said but it won't happen until 2020 and then the sticky wicket will be ANH, which really from a nostalgia stand point for the original release is the crown jewel, and Fox knows it. Now if this thread was "Fox is planning on releasing the original versions of the OT, that would be an entirely different conversation.

 

[CB2001]

Found this, sorry to be the barer of bad news: http://screenrant.com/star-wars-original-trilogy-blu-ray-rian-johnson-practical-effects/