Re: Star Wars
 

Why would they release a 9 movie set in fall of 2019 in conjunction with Fox when they could wait a few more months and have full control of (and full profits from) everything except ANH?

Re: Star Wars
 

As mentioned before, Fox retains some distribution rights to the first 6 films until 2020. So it's possible they'll release Episode 9 as a standalone release in time for Holidays 2019, and then the next year release a box set of all 9 episodes once the rights to most of the films revert back the Lucasfilm/Disney.

Re: Star Wars
 

And right after that in 2020, announce there will be 3 more films coming in the Saga.

Re: Star Wars
 

Fast and Furious franchise then announces three more.

Re: Star Wars
 

Would have been fun if Prowse showed up at SWCO standing in the crowd while asking Lucas when the OOT would be released.

Just read that the Lucas-Prowse feud was about Prowse cashing in on unauthorized Vader appearances. Seems petty of Lucas the billionaire.

Re: Star Wars
 

Very petty but also very common. I remember reading Cassandra Peterson (Elvira) was not allowed to wear her costume at conventions because she didn't own the rights to the character.

Should come as no surprise since Lucas is known for his obsessive micro managing of the Star Wars world.

Re: Star Wars
 

Some say it's more about Prowse letting slip that Vader was Luke's father, although at the time he said it (1978) it was probably just a joke - I don't think he knew, since no other cast members seemed to.

I think it's more likely because of all the bad-mouthing Prowse did of Lucas post-1983, when Lucas decided Prowse wouldn't play the "revealed" Vader and went with actor Sebastian Shaw. Prowse didn't get "banned" from official conventions until around the time of the prequels. Of course, there were no "official" conventions until 1999 anyway.

Re: Star Wars
 

Happy Star Wars Day!

Re: Star Wars
 

May the 4th is the Reformed Star Wars Day. As an Orthodox Star Wars fan, I celebrate on May 25th.

Re: Star Wars
 

May 4th is a joke that people started to take seriously.

Re: Star Wars
 

Why would PR matter if Lucas is no longer involved in any way?

There's that harsh light of day again. Disney just don't Have the mindset.
The speculation is maddening. At this point, a "no" would almost be more satisfying. At lead it'd be an actual answer.

I'd really rather not have a set of films I want contingent on the death of a human being.

As a person, I respect Lucas tremendously. He's innovates filmmaking and totally changed the media landscape, and his donation of billions to charity is always praiseworth. He sounds like a good-hearted and giving person.

Re: Star Wars
 

PR Means Public Relations. It's not about hurting Lucas's feelings, it's about not appearing like a soulless, greedy corporate machine that bought someone's life's work and shat all over it. It's about how the general audience goer (who is unaware or unconcerned about the changes to the original trilogy) would perceive going against the wishes of the creator of a series, and how that would appear to other creative talent (producers, directors, etc.) that Disney may want to work with, or even studios/companies that Disney may want to buy.

Disney bought Pixar, but let Pixar be Pixer. Disney bought Marvel, but let Marvel keep doing what they're doing. Disney wants to keep the image of being "hands-off," and letting Lucas's hand-picked heir make what they feel is Star Wars. And they don't want Lucas getting pissing and bitching to the press, or even the press speculating Lucas being upset, and thus making audiences and other creatives upset at them, and possibly affecting their bottom line.

That said, there is a "cultural history" and "film preservation" angle to play with the original cuts of the films, and it could be argued that Disney isn't "messing" with the films by releasing the original cuts, but "restoring" them. Especially if they package them as "alternate cuts" to the "main version," i.e. the SEs. And I think Lucas could be persuaded to allow them in that form as well, as he did with the bonus DVDs.

So I don't think all hope is lost, but I do think George Lucas, and keeping him happy, is a factor Disney is taking into consideration.

Re: Star Wars
 

:up:

Re: Star Wars
 

I fall more into the second group. I don't like the prequels but its really the fact that he refuses to release the unaltered Original Trilogy that pisses me off about him. It isn't that I don't think his editions should cease to exist if those are the versions he considers definitive but to be so closed minded and basically tell people to like this my way and only my way even though you may have liked the way you saw the films originally better just makes him kind of a douche to his fans in my opinion.

It also kind of irritated me when the Blu-ray set came out and he caught criticism for his changes and he played off this woe is me attitude like he didn't know why people were upset with him. When you change your mind for the third time and include a change that was something widely made fun of/criticized in a pivotal moment (the Vader "nooooooo" at the end of Return of the Jedi) and then try and play it off like we should be the ones feeling sorry for him taking criticism it kind of felt like that was the moment where I felt like saying fuck you dude to him. In my opinion that's the worst and most insulting change to the films (even more than Greedo shooting first) because of how willfully ignorant it is.

Re: Star Wars
 

Is Harmy still working on the OOT? Think he will release 1080p versions?

Re: Star Wars
 

I've said over and over again I would gladly own all versions of the Star Wars movies, as long as I was given the chance to buy cleaned up versions of the original theatrical trilogy.

I'm not asking for my preferences to be made law, I'm simply asking for the choice.

Re: Star Wars
 

The rumor is that the "3.0" versions would be 1080p, which I guess is why he keeps incrementing the 2.x versions.
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/DES...-1977/id/49908

Back in 2012, he stated the reason for sticking with 720p was due to limitations within the sources he was using:
https://swrevisited.wordpress.com/20...ted-is-enough/

Now that there are a few "grindhouse" 1080p scans of 35mm prints of the films available, I don't know if that reasoning has changed at all. If a 35mm print is cleaned up enough, I'm not sure a "despecialized" version would even be necessary.

Re: Star Wars
 

Same here. I'll buy the damned triple-deluxe steelbooks if I get the real films included.

I really gotta track down those Harmy versions. I didn't know what keywords to use previously, but from the last few posts it looks like "revisited" and "despecialized".

Re: Star Wars
 

I think the file sizes for the Harmy MKVs would be another clue.

IIRC:
SW 2.5: 17.9 GB
ESB 2.0: 19.7 GB
ROTJ 2.5: 19.2 GB

Not sure if there is a ESB 2.5 yet from Harmy. There is also the SIlver Screen versions. I got them all from torrents but in the future for newer releases, I might get them from pay news groups since I don't like going to torrentland.

Re: Star Wars
 

I finally broke down and bought the 9-disc set. A local shop had a sealed copy for $30 and just for RotS, ESB (which honestly doesn't have any truly egregious changes and is my all time favorite), and the extras, it was impossible to pass up.

Re: Star Wars
 

I wouldn't buy it even for $1.

Re: Star Wars
 

I'm with you. I don't want the effed with OT, and the subsequent films don't exist to me. I enjoy my harmy just fine.

Re: Star Wars
 

Yeah, that'll teach them.

Re: Star Wars
 

I'm not so sure about that. I heard George Lucas is exactly $1 short to buy that new flannel shirt he's had his eye on.

Re: Star Wars
 

I've been sort of tempted many times but I just can't bring myself to buy them. It's honestly that one change above all others that pisses me off and on principle I won't buy them. I know it doesn't make a difference but I just won't.