**RUMOR** Original theatrical cut of the OT to be released on blu ray!! — Page 13

moviefreakedmind said:

I agree that it's possible Lucas and Disney agreed that the SE has to be recognized as the "official" version (whatever that means) or something but I don't think Disney would agree to give him control over what they can and cant release. Also, I think the likelihood of George putting it in the contract that the OUT can't be released is the equivalent of him putting it in the fine print that Episode VII has to have gunguns in it. 

 I don't think he'd have anything in the contract that says "The UOT can never be released".  I'm not even sure that would be legally enforceable (I'm a lawyer), because it would depend on how you define the "UOT".  I do think it's possible, however, that there's something in there that he must sign off or approve any future changes to the existing films.  It happens all the time in creative acquisitions...we're not talking about buying a auto parts company. Again, George may just not care any more.  I do think we'll get something.

My guess is that we're getting total radio silence from Disney because they don't want to announce anything at all until the time is right. They want it to be a grand announcement, press release style.

There are so many variables to consider, it makes my head spin:

-The 3D conversions. Could this be a big reason for the 4k restoration? Also, wasn't there a demo shown of AotC in 3D at a convention in Germany? I've said it before and I'll say it again, RotS is already pretty three-dimensional just in regular 2D. I wouldn't be surprised if they put out those last two prequels in 3D, even if it's a short run to get them out of the way for the OT. I'd be equally unsurprised if they simply skipped the remaining prequels. Or maybe they've completely lost interest in the 3D versions, who knows? A theatrical re-release kinda seems like a no-brainer, though, especially with Episode VII around the corner.

-What to include or not include in a home video release. The films are yet to be released individually on blu-ray. This presents an opportunity for the blu-ray equivalent of the '06 dvd, only without the bullshit this time. The question is, do they go the simple route and include only the most recent version and the original version or do they include the '97 version as well? Or do they keep it even simpler than that and just release a 3-disc OOT set?

-The situation with Fox. Does Disney release it through them or do they pay Fox to license it out? Fox is making money either way. Could this prevent Disney from giving a hoot about the existing movies? We've heard rumors that they're only focused on the new stuff. The existing blu-rays from Fox aren't going anywhere. Still, I would think they'd want to make a finished, polished, mastered-in-4k version of the movies before the new movies come out.

.... And about a million other variables that Disney is no doubt considering right now.

moviefreakedmind said:

To me the idea of Disney ignoring the current movies is about as likely as hearing Luke ask for Leia's midichlorian count in Ep. VII. Star Wars has been, and always will be, on the shelves in stores. It's one of the highest selling home video movies of all time, and it would make no sense to not want to sell it in stores for no reason. IN FACT! (I'm a bit excited because I just thought of this) - I wouldn't be surprised if Disney want's a new set out there so that the current blu ray set doesn't read, "The Complete Saga". The old Indy DVD set read, "The Complete Adventures," and the three movies were re-released before Crystal Skull came out, this time being advertised as, "The Adventure Collection," instead so that people knew their old boxed sets were no longer the comprehensive Indiana Jones set. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens again. Also, Disney makes money on Home Video releases, and it's always a given to re-release your movies in a new boxed set when revisiting an old franchise like this. 

Wow, I hadn't even thought of that!

It was only "the complete saga" for like a year and change before they announced Episode VII. They'd probably want those off the shelves by the time Episode VII hits blu-ray at the very latest. Think of the confusion that would cause!

The "Save Star Wars" man has high hopes for this rumor, he posted a video on his youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwjQDw2_8s

moviefreakedmind said:

I wouldn't worry about the problems that plague Disney releases are an issue with the Star Wars films. 

 Of course. All we have to worry about then are the problems that plague Lucasfilm releases. :)

bkev said:

To clarify: the reason I'm saying this isn't specifically related to the animation department, although you're right in guessing that's what inspires my skepticism about it. All that needs to be remembered is that Disney is a profit-oriented company. I simply don't see them thinking there's a need for it. Star Wars prints money either way if the SE box-sets are any indication. Unless they take up Robert Harris's offer of a free restoration, or consult with mverta, I seriously doubt they'll think it's worth the investment.

Well Lucasfilm is still going to be in charge of Star Wars, Disney is just their parent company now. The people at Lucasfilm will probably be fairly independent for now, and they're also going to want to make as much money as possible because if they aren't making enough money then Disney will probably put new people in charge. One of the ways they'll want to make money is by selling DVD's/Blu Rays, and if they think the OUT is a good way to re-sell the films so soon after the last release, they'll do it. As it was mentioned earlier (not sure if it was in this thread or the 4K thread) Disney will want to release the films again on Blu Ray to get rid of that "Complete Saga" set. The OUT would be the best incentive to double dip and get the films again. There really aren't anymore features they could give us at this point.

moviefreakedmind said:

Well, other than the changes of course, the SE's looked pretty good for the time when they were released in '97 in my opinion.

 I don't think there is any such thing as "looking good for the time". People's ability to distinguish between what looks real and what looks fake hasn't ever changed as far as anyone knows, much less in the past 17 years.

MaximRecoil said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Well, other than the changes of course, the SE's looked pretty good for the time when they were released in '97 in my opinion.

 I don't think there is any such thing as "looking good for the time". People's ability to distinguish between what looks real and what looks fake hasn't ever changed as far as anyone knows, much less in the past 17 years.

 Well, people's standards change. Look at a PSOne game. It looks terrible by todays standards, but back in the day it was state-of-the-art! Same with Toy Story (although not so bad as the PSOne game)!

If we're talking about movies, "looking good for the time" relies on what people will accept in a movie without taking them out of it. A sort of "suspension of disbelief", if you will.

Without a doubt, special effects age. In 1997, the effects were state-of-the-art, and people could look at them without breaking their suspension of disbelief. Nowadays, that isn't the case.

moviefreakedmind said:

Handman said:

MaximRecoil said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Well, other than the changes of course, the SE's looked pretty good for the time when they were released in '97 in my opinion.

 I don't think there is any such thing as "looking good for the time". People's ability to distinguish between what looks real and what looks fake hasn't ever changed as far as anyone knows, much less in the past 17 years.

 Well, people's standards change. Look at a PSOne game. It looks terrible by todays standards, but back in the day it was state-of-the-art! Same with Toy Story (although not so bad as the PSOne game)!

If we're talking about movies, "looking good for the time" relies on what people will accept in a movie without taking them out of it. A sort of "suspension of disbelief", if you will.

Without a doubt, special effects age. In 1997, the effects were state-of-the-art, and people could look at them without breaking their suspension of disbelief. Nowadays, that isn't the case.

 You're right, and some of the SE CGI looked ok at the time, but CGI Jabba looked horrendous from the beginning. I remember not even looking forward to that scene when I saw it in the trailer because it looked so cheap and poorly done.

 Yeah, Jabba is an exception. That always looked bad.

Handman said:

Well, people's standards change. Look at a PSOne game. It looks terrible by todays standards, but back in the day it was state-of-the-art! Same with Toy Story (although not so bad as the PSOne game)!

I thought PlayStation games looked terrible from day one, just as I did with all of the early 3D games, even in the arcade, such as Virtua Fighter and Tekken. The only games that looked good on the PlayStation were the few 2D games, such as Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, and only then on a standard resolution (~15 kHz) CRT display.

If we're talking about movies, "looking good for the time" relies on what people will accept in a movie without taking them out of it. A sort of "suspension of disbelief", if you will.

All of the CGI character/critter additions in the '97 SE stuck out like a sore thumb, because they looked cartoonish in an otherwise live-action movie; i.e., the Who Framed Roger Rabbit? effect, minus it being part of the premise as in that movie.

As far as Toy Story goes, it looked good enough that it could be seen as an artistic/stylistic choice (such as a particular style of hand-drawing chosen for a cartoon or comic strip). The characters/objects weren't all jagged polygons like in a PlayStation game, which screams of "technical limitations" rather than "artistic/stylistic choice". The CGI in the '97 SE wasn't jagged polygons either, but the problem there was that it was trying (and miserably failing) to pass for reality, which Toy Story obviously wasn't trying to do.

Without a doubt, special effects age. In 1997, the effects were state-of-the-art, and people could look at them without breaking their suspension of disbelief. Nowadays, that isn't the case.

They could make a lot of types of special effects look more believable in '97 as compared to '77-'83, but they were still a long way from being able to create realistic looking people or critters entirely from CGI. If they'd just stuck to things like digital recompositing and enhancing the look of certain explosions, that would be a different story.

Well, I also think that the rumor itself fits with what we know, but that's not saying much since we know very little. That being said, the fact that they mentioned delays and the negative being a bit complicated are good signs I suppose. Some people keep saying things like, "they didn't even mention Fox, there's no way it's true," but Fox hardly plays a part in this. I mean, Fox wouldn't be involved in any way with the restoration, they just have to distribute the films. As for the credibility of comicbook.com, I have no idea. I have noticed though, that most sites online aren't saying that the rumor is unbelievable because it came from comicbook.com, but then again most of those same sites are saying it'll never happen because Fox owns all the original movies (I'm looking at you Badass Digest), or that Lucas somehow has veto power over Disney's business decisions, so what do they know?

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

MaximRecoil said:

They could make a lot of types of special effects look more believable in '97 as compared to '77-'83, but they were still a long way from being able to create realistic looking people or critters entirely from CGI.

I don't know, Jurassic Park was 4 years earlier, was much more ambtious, and looked 10 times better.  I think the challenge was that they were trying to add CGI to a 20-year old film, and a deleted scene at that.  Just a bad idea to being with.  Yes, Jabba always looked awful.

 That's because Jurassic Park used few, if any, 100% CGI critters. Most of it was animatronics with perhaps some CGI enhancement. And if there were any 100% CGI critters, they were helped tremendously by dark lighting and other filming techniques (which also helped the look of the animatronics).