It just seems to be it would be way more likely that Disney would just want to release one box set.
It just seems to be it would be way more likely that Disney would just want to release one box set.
I know…they hate money after all.
It just seems to be it would be way more likely that Disney would just want to release one box set.
I know…they hate money after all.
Well, releasing two would likely double manufacturing costs. Providing one single mega set with all the features that we want would likely increase their profits. Disney isn’t running a charity.
Yeah, 200 g of plastic for the discs and packaging are super expensive, Disney can’t handle that.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
It just seems to be it would be way more likely that Disney would just want to release one box set.
I know…they hate money after all.
Well, releasing two would likely double manufacturing costs. Providing one single mega set with all the features that we want would likely increase their profits.
I’m pretty sure this is why you aren’t a businessman.
It just seems to be it would be way more likely that Disney would just want to release one box set.
I know…they hate money after all.
Well, releasing two would likely double manufacturing costs. Providing one single mega set with all the features that we want would likely increase their profits.
I’m pretty sure this is why you aren’t a businessman.
We just need to know the manufacturing cost of a box set and see if doubling that would decrease their profits. It seems to me that it would, in spite of any extra sales.
Pressing discs costs nothing. Double that and it’s still nothing. The two most expensive parts about these releases would be doing the actual restorations and advertising the final product, add a nice profit on top of it and you have the final price.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
Furthermore, we have countless of examples of double, triple, and quadruple releases. If it did not increase profits, no one would ever do it. And yet it happens all the time.
Another reason for one pack is that it would reduce confusion. Maybe people would be confused by the two Star Wars boxes on the same shelf.
I think it would be most likely that we’d get one big set with tons of special features with the 2011 cuts and OUT. Alongside that, we would get individual two disc releases with the two cuts, and then a barebones release that just has the two cuts.
I wonder if it will just be on sale for “one time only” (like the GOUT) or would it be continuously available.
…The same reason Blade Runner wasn’t only released as a deluxe box? For the exact reasons that I explained, that some people who would have no interest in buying a deluxe box would buy the OUT? And Disney likes money so they don’t want to limit their target demographics?
That’s not the strategy they used for the mac n cheetos.
The Person in Question
Just got an email saying this has been canceled for unstated reasons.
VADER!? WHERE THE HELL IS MY MOCHA LATTE? -Palpy on a very bad day.
“George didn’t think there was any future in dead Han toys.”-Harrison Ford
YT channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/DamnFoolIdealisticCrusader
I got an email recently that tickets were available in my area. Must’ve only cancelled some venues.
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
I got an email recently that tickets were available in my area. Must’ve only cancelled some venues.
Same here, a lot of venues were cancelled. The rest proceed with the digital SE… I am probably not doing this.
So were they indeed originally intending to show film print versions of '97?
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
So were they indeed originally intending to show film print versions of '97?
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
I’m curious about this as well. Did they not officially state at one point that they were showing the '97 prints? I wouldn’t put it past someone not nearly as knowledgeable about the various versions to have simply jumped to the conclusion of it being the '97 versions (not 2011) and also thinking “prints” (when it’s actually dcp).
Still, IIRC they said “ultra rare screenings of the '97 35mm prints,” which seemed to spell things out in no uncertain terms.
They said original’97 at one point, but nothing about prints. They later removed’97 and just said digital SEs
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
Yeah their language has been revised over time. Either they were corrected by someone and revised the wording, or else they were accurate each time and truly did change plans as to what they were showing. I have no insight into which it was.
I have no insider knowledge so this is pure speculation. But based on my experience with the Alamo drafthouse (a movie theater by movie lovers for movie lovers if ever there was one), I’d guess they knew exactly what they were saying with each revision. They often have special 35mm screenings and they always make a big deal out of it. I know they didn’t ever specify 35mm for this particular event, but I’d bet they knew what they were talking about regarding which version they were showing. My guess based on what we’ve seen is they originally had plans to show 35mm prints from 97 (and they probably had access to them already) but then Lucasfilm poo-pooed their plans and insisted that they show the latest digital version or nothing.
Lucasfilm has a long history of being like that. The Library of Congress once thought about screening their original 1977 copyright deposit print of Star Wars at their Packard Campus theater. They were well within their rights b/c legally they can publicly screen any film in their collection without any studio permission. I can’t remember if Lucasfilm made any request or if the library just made the decision on their own, but in the end they decided not to screen it b/c they knew Lucasfilm only wanted the SE shown publicly. They made this choice b/c they have a really good relationship with Lucasfilm, who has always been one of the most cooperative and helpful studios when it came to acquiring materials for the library (OOT aside…) and they did not want to break that trust or damage that relationship.
I have no insider knowledge so this is pure speculation. But based on my experience with the Alamo drafthouse (a movie theater by movie lovers for movie lovers if ever there was one), I’d guess they knew exactly what they were saying with each revision. They often have special 35mm screenings and they always make a big deal out of it. I know they didn’t ever specify 35mm for this particular event, but I’d bet they knew what they were talking about regarding which version they were showing. My guess based on what we’ve seen is they originally had plans to show 35mm prints from 97 (and they probably had access to them already) but then Lucasfilm poo-pooed their plans and insisted that they show the latest digital version or nothing.
Lucasfilm has a long history of being like that. The Library of Congress once thought about screening their original 1977 copyright deposit print of Star Wars at their Packard Campus theater. They were well within their rights b/c legally they can publicly screen any film in their collection without any studio permission. I can’t remember if Lucasfilm made any request or if the library just made the decision on their own, but in the end they decided not to screen it b/c they knew Lucasfilm only wanted the SE shown publicly. They made this choice b/c they have a really good relationship with Lucasfilm, who has always been one of the most cooperative and helpful studios when it came to acquiring materials for the library (OOT aside…) and they did not want to break that trust or damage that relationship.
And honestly, if this were the plan all along, I doubt they would have bothered to specify the version in the advertisements.
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
The AFI Silver is going to be showing the OT the first weekend in September as part of a John Williams series. They’re playing what feels like practically every movie he ever scored over the next couple months, some of which I had no idea he was even involved with (they’re doing a Valley of the Dolls double feature tomorrow).
I bring this up because the OT will be on dcp, whereas they were definitely still showing the '97 prints just a couple years ago. Between this and the roadshow news, I’m starting to think Lucasfilm has pulled them from circulation entirely.
And at what point does a standard exhibition 35mm film print become noticeably deteriorated? Is there a chance they are just deemed too old? Or is it more likely costs? (or of course some internal reason)
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
No they’re not too old. I watched 35mm prints of Monster Zero and War of the Gargantuas at the Alamo drafthouse Denver last summer and they were from the original US release in 1970. Both were showing various stages of fading to red, but both were still very watchable and for the most part had plenty of color left in them.
Also, I had my hands on 35mm prints of the 97 SE just a few years ago and they still looked brand new. Granted they had been professionally stored and refrigerated, but I can’t imagine even privately held copies would look much worse unless they had been seriously abused.