I want to believe.

Believe it or not, George isn't at home.

To do not trust to hope. It's forsaken for these fans.

Fantasia is simply in the Disney vault, it gets released every ten years or so with minor edits. Disney is not embarrassed by it.

We will never see Song of the South ever released again by Disney. It's fully evident they plan to sit on it until the copyright runs out. Disney is hyper-sensitive about PC concerns, they have the most valuable children's brand in the entire world. Anything that threatens it gets permanently removed from the market. They might have gotten away releasing it in the '90s but there are too many interest groups that would protest it in 2014.

What hurts Song of the South is that it has been effectively whitewashed from history. Few people under the age of 40 have ever seen it except in brief clips, killing demand except in fanatic Disney circles.

Disney should license Song of the South out to Criterion for those who want it. That way it can be released for collectors who care about it, and done so in a way that it isn't released under the Disney brand and won't end up on the shelves of Walmart and Target or marketed at children.

I'm sure that Criterion would be all over it.

As long as SotS is under copyright Disney can't wash their hands completely of a release. People aren't stupid, if someone releases it before then it'll be no secret that Disney authorized the release and is being paid a licensing fee. The only politically safe course of action is to sit on it as long as they can.

Of course, the inevitable "I saw this in theaters decades ago and now demand my high-quality archival home version" class action could be a huge gamechanger.

Disney should just give it to Criterion and donate their licensing fee.

They could donate the proceeds without involving Criterion and they could donate more money than any home video release would ever generate without batting an eye.

It's this simple: the group of people who would potentially be offended and alienated by this release dwarfs the group that would appreciate it. The potential controversy it could generate among the general public dwarfs any good will it would generate among film enthusiasts.

Giving it to Criterion would limit the offended group and please the film enthusiasts. It doesn't have to be Criterion. How about Twilight Time?

. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces,"

and Lucas did just that in Jedi by replacing the original Anakin Skywalker actor w Hayden Christianson

How does it limit the intended group? Disney knows the licensing/merchandising game. When a Disney book or a toy somehow offends people who is named in the news story, the publisher or toy company or Disney? If Disney allows a potentially-offensive movie to be released the people who are offended are going to turn to Disney. They aren't going to care if it was licensed to a third party.

Your scenario would be interpreted three ways:

1: It's Disney, period. How the uninformed would see it and how the media would treat it.

2: It's not Disney, it's Criterion, Twilight Time etc. which absolves Disney from any controversy.

3: Even if a 3rd party released it Disney still approved it.

The thing is, 1 and 3 are factual. They are quantifiably correct. #2, on the other hand, is simply false. If Song of the South is given a legitimate, legal release while it is controlled by Disney they're exposed to the controversy. If I was a Disney shareholder I'd support the decision to suppress Song of the South 100%.

To bring this all back full circle: I do not feel entitled to have a huge corporation open itself up to a huge amount of controversy so I can own a copy of a film.

Have Disney ever outsourced a release of any kind to anyone?

In the early days of DVD they licensed titles to Anchor Bay. Recently they licensed three Wes Anderson films to Criterion for Blu-ray releases.

There were a few Disney-controlled Criterions in the DVD days too (including those 3 Wes Anderson titles) but they were all manufactured and distributed by Disney.

Mill Creek distributes a lot of Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures stuff that Disney isn't interested in distributing themselves.

It limits the amount of people who would possibly be offended because most retailers do not carry Criterion blu-rays and dvd's. You don't have to worry about some uniformed mother who shops at walmart and thinks that it's some harmless film for her kids. Fantagraphics is releasing all the old Mickey and Donald comics, which contain some racially insensitive material. It seems like they could do the same with SOTS. I don't feel entitled to own the film. I just think it's silly that they're sitting on it.

Not to mention Touchstone & Hollywood Pictures films have been released by Criterion too.

Yes. The Chasing Amy Criterion DVD, as an example.

Would a news article care if you couldn't easily get it? Would someone offended by it really care that you had to go on Amazon to order it? Obviously not.

You think it's silly that a huge corporation that is known for its family-friendly image is sitting on an obscure movie that could be a political problem? You're just being stubborn.

When I say that it had limited potential sales-wise and is likely to be a controversial release do you think I'm wrong?

Chasing Amy, Armageddon, The Rock and the three Wes Anderson's were actually more of an example of Disney contracting Criterion to produce their own DVDs as opposed to licensing their movies out to Criterion. That's why they could generally be found in Targets and Walmarts when other Criterions weren't.

I guess I wasn't clear enough in my descriptions and people thought I was saying SOTS had similar demand as SW.

SW OOT - Massive Huge Demand
SOTS - Moderate Demand (mostly among Disney Fans that know of it)
Fantasia - Almost No Demand (for the uncensored version)

Hmm, plus there're the Boy Meets World releases didn't finish which eventually went to someone else. Reruns of that show are seriously addictive. Fe-hee-hee-heney! So has Disney ever outsourced a Disney proper release though rather than one through their subsidiaries? I guess it'd amount to the same thing, but I can't see them releasing something with the Disney logo on it even through someone else, especially when it's controversial. Remember the subtle changes made to Aladdin or TLM? Disney don't want any blot marks on their flawless record for parents. That being said, if they did do it, which they won't, it'd probably outsourced very exclusively and only available as a mail-order special or something. But I doubt the demand for that would be enough to justify the risk to their reputation, much less the money. SW, maybe, at least that doesn't run the risk of any potential racial stereotypes, though I'm still not convinced that the market is big enough to sustain the cost it'd be to restore them. But I'd love to be wrong. As far as Fantasia, file that with the others in the list of stuff Disney want to make damn sure their soccer moms and kids don't see. The changes, though frustrating, are at least minor, and they're damn sure never reversing them. And unless I can invent a time machine and a transporter to go and see pristine 35mm prints of countless movies opening night, it's one of those things they'll just never get released that way.

Several Disney-branded movies (as opposed to Touchstone/Hollywood Pictures/Miramax titles) were licensed to Anchor Bay at one time.

http://www.amazon.com/COMPLETE-LIST-.../1OXQ0VWGDO52K

http://www.amazon.com/COMPLETE-LIST-.../2AA401L8FED7N

Restoring Star Wars wouldn't be worth the money? I highly doubt that. Never mind the disc sales; an exclusive rights deal with Netflix would more than cover it.

I honestly have never understood the whole argument that it would cost too much to restore the original trilogy. It pretty much is all restored and just the changed parts would have to be changed back. Shouldn't be that hard or costly and just seems like some bullshit Lucas excuse.

Aside from that, films that are far less "popular" are restored for Bluray all the time. Just look at all the stuff labels like Criterion or Scream Factory puts out. (No offense intended, I also enjoy titles off the beaten path.)

Plus not to mention didn't someone (I think maybe Robert Harris of Digital Bits) offer to cover the restoration costs?