Disney buys Lucasfilm, Star Wars Episode VII due in 2015

[BlodwynPig]

introducing Ricky Gervais as Jabba the Hut

[Jerzy Bondov]

Fucking Star Wars has sold out. I'm going to throw away my Darth Vader shampoo bottle and my Ewoks Sing Motown CD.

[momatt]

I'm keeping an open mind, but this will definitely be totally arsing tosswank.
It will be less enjoyable than seeing Han Solo's rotting corpse being gang-raped by a bunch of laughing Gungans.

I think it will work out. Disney can deliver very high quality (and they're not going to cut any corners with this franchise), and they bought Marvel and got good results. Plus less involvement from Lucas and co. can only be a good thing.

This is a fair point.  I really liked the new Tron film, kept forgetting it was Disney.

Carrie, Harrison and Mark need cameos at least.

[Replies From View]

I love the idea that anything worse could be done to the Star Wars franchise.  If anything this presumably raises hope for a decent release of the pre-fucked Original Star Wars Trilogy, unless Lucas' estate have imposed a trade embargo on that particular avenue even once he's died.

This is a bit like waiting for Alban Berg's wife to die so that a completed version of the opera Lulu could happen!

[Wet Blanket]

George Lucas is a fascinating individual, in so far as he must be unique in managing to make billions from never giving his fans what they want.

If this sale sees the original Star Wars trilogy, free of all the mid-90s tinkering, back in the public domain then I for one will forgive Disney for all the Muppets films between Christmas Carol and the new one.

Even though I'm not really a fan of the Star Wars saga, it pisses me off that not only can you not buy the originals in decent quality on DVD, but even rep cinemas are banned from showing old prints. I heard that even the US Library of Congress, when it asked for a print for its National Film Registry archive, was told it could only have the 1997 version.

[Old Nehamkin]

If this sale sees the original Star Wars trilogy, free of all the mid-90s tinkering, back in the public domain then I for one will forgive Disney for all the Muppets films between Christmas Carol and the new one.

Dismiss Muppet Treasure Island at your own peril mate.

[Replies From View]

Even though I'm not really a fan of the Star Wars saga, it pisses me off that not only can you not buy the originals in decent quality on DVD, but even rep cinemas are banned from showing old prints. I heard that even the US Library of Congress, when it asked for a print for its National Film Registry archive, was told it could only have the 1997 version.

Same situation here.  I never particularly enjoyed Star Wars but I get annoyed by Lucas' ability/desire to control how his films can be historically archived.  Didn't he create the originals by cutting up the original Star Wars negatives?  An extraordinarily obsessive level of control to prevent the originals existing.  Once he's gone I suspect some higher quality prints will emerge from the woodwork (these things do tend to happen secretly), but it's the principle that while he's alive he can refuse to accept the importance of Star Wars as it originally was, with all the influence it had.

I suppose he must see the original versions as nothing but historical curiosities, but the effects still have the same impact they always had, whereas the special editions are even more dated - stuck as they are in a 1997 bubble that makes them seem derivative of movies like Roger Rabbit and Jurassic Park.  Why is he so afraid of people seeing the originals, even for historical reasons?  What's his creative justification for blocking them?  Does he think they diminish what Star Wars is?  It's barmy.

What other precedents are there for this kind of control?  Alban Berg's Lulu is the only one I can think of, where his wife became convinced that no other hand should complete his opera, and blocked anyone from doing it (but they did, behind her back, and as soon as she died the completed version was released).  Any others?  I suppose it's relatively common for original manuscripts of books to be burned, but these aren't normally released to the public where they have an influence before being destroyed.

[daf]

If this sale sees the original Star Wars trilogy, free of all the mid-90s tinkering, back in the public domain then I for one will forgive Disney for all the Muppets films between Christmas Carol and the new one.

Even though I'm not really a fan of the Star Wars saga, it pisses me off that not only can you not buy the originals in decent quality on DVD . . .

The least they can do is an anamorphic version - it's ridiculous that you can only see it in letterboxed 4:3!

And no negatives is no excuse - plenty of Blu rays are derived from prints - look at the hodge-podge of scrappy sources for Metropolis!

[Wet Blanket]

The only similar precedent I can think of is Stanley Kubrick's obsessive suppression of Clockwork Orange in the UK, which even saw the Scala cinema bankrupted when he sued them for showing a bootleg print. I think Lucas's lawyers have proved themselves equally hostile to indie cinemas trying the same trick.

As I understand it, Technicolor prints don't degrade or fade to the same extent as other film-stocks, and there are certainly decent 35mm prints of the originals in collectors' circles, so it's not a lost film in the same way as The Magnificent Ambersons or something.

He was vocal in his opposition to colourisation of classic b&w movies in the 1980s, but doesn't see any correlation in his own behaviour. I don't buy the oft-used defence that they're his movies and he can do what he wants with them either. You can't put something in the public domain that people grow to love and identify with as their own, then take it away from them, replacing it with an approximate that you're happier with. He can re-release as many new versions as he wants, but Jesus, leave the option to enjoy the original as its first audience remembered it.

Anyway, they're not his films anymore.

[Replies From View]

Anyway, they're not his films anymore.

It'd be interesting to see what caveats Lucas and his estate have put on Disney regarding the Star Wars franchise (I assume there will be some?).  Estates can and do go against the wishes of the people they represent when decent cases are put forward to do so, though.  It's hard to imagine that anyone other than George sees any sanity in these limitations.

[Wet Blanket]

It'd be interesting to see what caveats Lucas and his estate have put on Disney regarding the Star Wars franchise (I assume there will be some?).  Estates can and do go against the wishes of the people they represent when decent cases are put forward to do so, though.  It's hard to imagine that anyone other than George sees any sanity in these limitations.

Funnily enough, I've just been reading through some of them:

1. All known extant negatives and prints of the original releases be holed up in a led-lined vault with Song of the South and all those questionable 1930s cartoons where Mickey Mouse and pals are all racist and that.

2. Mr George Lucas retains the rights to implement any changes to the released versions of Star Wars, including but not restricted to the introduction of CGI rocks, cartoon characters pissing about in the background of famous scenes, and the pasting of Justin Beiber's head over that of Alec Guinness if necessary.

3. Options are to be made available for the funding of two more Lucas-helmed spin-offs from the hugely successful and not-at-all critically panned Red Tails.

4. Mr Lucas is allowed full merchandising rights to Walt Disney's cryogenically frozen head. 

[Nuclear Optimism]

According to Den of Geek and something called Bleeding Cool, Disney haven't acquired the distribution rights to the existing SW films, so there's nothing to suggest they'll release the "original" originals (which apparently don't exist any more anyway).

When Lucas screened the old negatives (or internegatives, or masters, or whatever the fuck they're called, you know what I mean) in anticipation of embarking upon the Special Editions, they had greatly deteriorated.[nb]

Leon Briggs, a former veteran of Disney Lab who was brought in to restore Star Wars, says that 10-15% of the original color had faded, but judging by some of the examples shown it was at least double that in some cases. In addition, the negative was discovered to have been in a state of disrepair for other reasons--the popularity of the film meant that the negative was handled and printed many times over the previous two decades, and it was marked with dirt and scratches, more than is normal, with some theatrical prints struck directly from it; with the last wide theatrical showing in 1981 the negative had been okay back then, but by the mid-90s the damage that was acceptable in subsequent home video versions would not hold up when projected on a theatrical screen. "They made far too many release prints off the original neg," Kennedy says. "After 20th Century Fox reprinted Star Wars from the negative, we saw all the various levels of quality we could get out of the original cut, and we discovered some interesting and frightening things."

[/nb] Presumably private reels will have suffered the same fate, so they're no use either. Although they restored these elements (it was actually a pretty shoddy job), many think that they did it as part and parcel of the SE changes; ie. they didn't make a clean version of the original incarnations before they put the changes in. If this is true, then there are no restored version of the originals, and the original elements were sacrificed to make the SE.[nb]

Had the film remained like this, we would have a restored version of Star Wars, perfectly matching the original release but with pristine quality, even to the point where it was better than what could have been possible back then (as with the higher quality optical transitions). However, this was only part of the process of making what was eventually called "The Special Edition." ILM was working on many dozens of new shots, and an even larger amount of enhanced shots, using digital effects to re-do, expand, re-edit and otherwise alter many scenes in the film. When these were completed, they apparently were printed onto film and re-cut into the negative, replacing the original negs, which were undoubtedly put back into storage. As a result, the negative for Star Wars is filled with CGI-laden modern alterations. When Lucas says that the original version physically does not exist, this is what he really means--the negative is conformed to the Special Edition.

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/savingstarwars.html

[/nb] Allegedly.

Lucas' deal with Fox doesn't look to change in any way, so don't go getting your hopes up for pristine Blu-ray editions of the original trilogy in their original versions – it's really not likely to happen at all. The Lucas-Fox pact will have Han shooting second at least until... well, at least until somebody other than George Lucas is making the big decisions. Not to get morbid, but I remember what it took for Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange to get "unbanned" in the UK, and that was Kubrick passing away.

Distribution rights to the upcoming films will sit entirely with Disney. This means that any future complete edition boxset will require some kind of deal making by both studios, though that "full set" concept seems to have lost a lot of currency tonight with the promise of new Star Wars every couple-few years for generations to come.

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/10/30/fox-retain-rights-to-all-existing-star-wars-films/

[Replies From View]

Not to get morbid, but I remember what it took for Stanley Kubrick's Clockwork Orange to get "unbanned" in the UK, and that was Kubrick passing away.

Not to continue a morbid theme, but bring it on!!!

[kitsofan34]

So what's the difference between the original versions of the trilogy and the 1997 versions?

[Kane Jones]

*sits back, rolls up sleeves and prepares to be entertained*

[Nuclear Optimism]

Not to continue a morbid theme, but bring it on!!!

Yeah, but even if he dies and the company who hold the distributions rights agree a deal with Disney to release the pre-SE films, there is no guarantee that there will be any good quality prints from which to strike a Blu-Ray, as even Lucasfilm's originals (may) have been cut up to incorporate the SE additions. A high quality, complete copy of the theatrical originals might not exist any more, with the best version having been essentially destroyed (or so it would seem).

So what's the difference between the original versions of the trilogy and the 1997 versions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases

[Replies From View]

So what's the difference between the original versions of the trilogy and the 1997 versions?

The one difference?  Creative intention, probably.  Some sites like this list the changes in quite good visual detail:  http://www.dvdactive.com/editorial/articles/star-wars-the-changes-part-one.html[nb]Comparing stills from the original theatrical editions and the 1997 Special Editions, as well as the later DVD and Blu-Ray editions, so this is probably the best place to go.

But in a nutshell you have scenes altered or remade entirely with new special effects, for example:

1977:


1997:


2004:



1977:


1997:



Pointless additional scenes featuring new CGI that wreck the pace of the movie, for example:

The 1997 Special Edition:


Modified for the 2004 DVD but still shit:



And scenes fundamentally changed because Lucas thought it'd be a good idea, such as one where he thought Han Solo shouldn't shoot before being shot at:

1977 - Han shoots Greedo:


1997 - Greedo shoots first; dodgy CGI to make it look like Han is dodging the shot!


2004 - they shoot at the same time, with Han still dodging Greedo's shot:



Edit:  bugger.  Looks like you're going to have to visit that site anyway.  Or at least right click on the images and open them in their own tabs.[/nb], but for fans of the theatrical editions I don't think the differences stop at what you can see there. 

It's more like comparing films from the 70s and 80s, that have not only special effects unique to their time but also specific rhythms and moods, with films like Independence Day that feel derivative and have fairly standard late 90s CGI.  And the overriding concern is that there's no choice to see the originals - this isn't like E.T. having an optional Special Edition - the originals, with all the recognised historical influence they had on cinema, have been erased and replaced with the new ones.

Yeah, but even if he dies and the company who hold the distributions rights agree a deal with Disney to release the pre-SE films, there is no guarantee that there will be any good quality prints from which to strike a Blu-Ray, as even Lucasfilm's originals (may) have been cut up to incorporate the SE additions. A high quality, complete copy of the theatrical originals might not exist any more, with the best version having been essentially destroyed.

Let's cross that bridge when we get to it.  First, we must pray for George Lucas' swift death.

[Nuclear Optimism]

The Wikipedia article for changes to Star Wars releases is longer that the article for A New Hope.

[momatt]

So what's the difference between the original versions of the trilogy and the 1997 versions?

How long have you got?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_changes_in_Star_Wars_re-releases

[Wet Blanket]

Yeah, but even if he dies and the company who hold the distributions rights agree a deal with Disney to release the pre-SE films, there is no guarantee that there will be any good quality prints from which to strike a Blu-Ray, as even Lucasfilm's originals (may) have been cut up to incorporate the SE additions.

There is definitely a technicolor 35mm print of Star Wars; it was screened by a naughty cinema a couple of years ago...

Photos etc. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/302634/senator-theatre-farewell-screenings-of-star-wars-technicolor-ib-print

The video is also good and offers a lovely peek at the old BBFC U certificate.

They could restore a distribution print couldn't they? That's how really ancient films make it to DVD, so a mega-bucks pic like that, distributed to thousands of cinemas will surely offer a wealth of raw material

[Nuclear Optimism]

Oh cool.

[Replies From View]

There is definitely a technicolor 35mm print of Star Wars; it was screened by a naughty cinema a couple of years ago...

Photos etc. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/302634/senator-theatre-farewell-screenings-of-star-wars-technicolor-ib-print

The video is also good and offers a lovely peek at the old BBFC U certificate.

They could restore a distribution print couldn't they? That's how really ancient films make it to DVD, so a mega-bucks pic like that, distributed to thousands of cinemas will surely offer a wealth of raw material

That's great.  I'm going to assume that some professionals are already secretly restoring and mastering this for release in the future, once George Lucas has finally died (come on!!!) and legal matters are tidied up.

[Replies From View]

I don't know if you like these guys (I do) but they've just done a new podcast on Disney buying Lucasfilm:

http://www.downinfront.net/

[VegaLA]

It's weird to think that there's never, to my knowledge, been a Star Wars theme park. Until 2019 or as soon as they can get it chucked together...

Ahhhh...that explains why they bullozed Loara High School yesterday. Wheeeeee...........

[Big Jack McBastard]

That 'John Carter' was good n'all, that was Disney.

My initial reaction was quite a loud "What the fuck?!" when it came on the radio, while I was in a shop. I wonder if the never said <cos they're not legally allowed to> Yodaphone campaign was the thing that finally broke Georges mind: "No more milk for me, that's enough now, I've actually had enough..."

I'll be compelled to watch it in the cinema regardless of any preconceptions I might muster between now and then, it is inevitable.

They could just utterly take the piss, troll everyone and they'd still easily make an earth shattering sum of cash, they could do a few teasers, quick flashes of something that looks impressive as the lure but then the entirety of the real film is a fat hairy arse shitting onto a plate in HD and then a Star Wars sticker is slapped on the side of the steaming IMAX-massive chod. Bang. End of the film. They'd still easily make tens of millions.

[El Unicornio, mang]

There is definitely a technicolor 35mm print of Star Wars; it was screened by a naughty cinema a couple of years ago...

Photos etc. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/302634/senator-theatre-farewell-screenings-of-star-wars-technicolor-ib-print

The video is also good and offers a lovely peek at the old BBFC U certificate.

They could restore a distribution print couldn't they? That's how really ancient films make it to DVD, so a mega-bucks pic like that, distributed to thousands of cinemas will surely offer a wealth of raw material

That's cool but I don't think I could sit in a cinema where people cheer every time anything happens. They were even cheering at the BBFC certificate!

[Replies From View]

They were even cheering at the BBFC certificate!

That's because they're Americans, and to them we're a civilisation that hasn't even discovered boats yet.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

I don't really care about Star Wars, but Lucas's attitude to the original versions of the films is disgusting. It's an act of wanton cultural vandalism.

[Wet Blanket]

That's cool but I don't think I could sit in a cinema where people cheer every time anything happens. They were even cheering at the BBFC certificate!

Yeah I thought that. You can hear in the audience chatter that someone's brought a shouty baby as well.

[303]