criterionforum.org

I’d sell my soul to the damn devil if this Fox acquisition meant that might finally get the original cuts of the original trilogy, but all signs still point to “no.”

hanshotfirst1138 wrote:I’d sell my soul to the damn devil if this Fox acquisition meant that might finally get the original cuts of the original trilogy, but all signs still point to “no.”

I've seen this being batted about for years now, since Disney bought Lucasfilm, that it "will" or "may" get everyone the unaltered original trilogy. This is complete nonsense to me. I mean, do people realize that Disney is the most consistently censorious studio in the history of Hollywood? These are people who have tried to whitewash the antisemitism of their founder, tried to bury films they made decades ago that don't conform to today's social norms, and will stop at nothing to cut and remove any footage from any film that anyone ever complains about.

Think about it: What films do we know (off the top of my head) that Disney has altered or censored from their original theatrical forms? In chronological order:

Fantasia
Saludos Amigos (cut for smoking, released uncut in 2008)
Make Mine Music (cut for gunplay, last released uncut on PAL DVD in the UK)
Song of the South
Melody Time (cut for smoking in US (or all NTSC?) DVD versions)
The Rescuers
The Black Cauldron
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
The Little Mermaid
Aladdin
The Lion King

And that, to my knowledge, is just the films that have serious alterations from their original forms that are uniquely Disney. Otherwise, they have been infamous for removing the RKO logos from their RKO-distributed films (many of which are the all-time Disney classics, though Bambi finally has it back in the latest Blu-ray), changing aspect ratios for various releases, and also, guilty of questionable remastering techniques, even before their Blu-rays.

Yet people continue to hold out hope that this studio, which prides itself on making "safe", "family" films, and exploiting generations of children's fantasies for all kinds of financial gain, is going to go against the will of a powerful Hollywood director, and release uncut versions of three decades-old films, when those versions are both contrary to various films that followed, and in some instances infamously less family-friendly ("Han shot first") than the currently available editions.

I honestly think we would have had a much better chance of seeing the uncut original trilogy, had the films gone to any other studio, or even, just stayed at Fox (without Fox being sold to Disney) until after Lucas had died.

McCrutchy wrote:These are people who have tried to whitewash the antisemitism of their founder, tried to bury films they made decades ago that don't conform to today's social norms, and will stop at nothing to cut and remove any footage from any film that anyone ever complains about.

I agree with the rest of your point but the persistent allegation that Disney was an anti-Semite is mostly unfair; his association with the Motion Picture Alliance is damning but in that regard he was joined by many, many Hollywood luminaries who seldom face this accusation. The 1941 strike did change him and not for the better, but the lurid manner in which the rumors about him personally are presented is mostly baseless. I highly suggest reading Michael Barrier's The Animated Man, a tough minded and critical biography, though even Neal Gabler's book from about ten years ago -- which generally upheld the "dark prince of Hollywood" image -- dismisses it, which means that even when looking for dirt he couldn't find it. To me, Disney's participation with HUAC is troubling enough without this added element, and I've never known the company to really do anything to hide that.

Sorry for the derail, everyone.

McCrutchy wrote:

hanshotfirst1138 wrote:I’d sell my soul to the damn devil if this Fox acquisition meant that might finally get the original cuts of the original trilogy, but all signs still point to “no.”

I've seen this being batted about for years now, since Disney bought Lucasfilm, that it "will" or "may" get everyone the unaltered original trilogy. This is complete nonsense to me. I mean, do people realize that Disney is the most consistently censorious studio in the history of Hollywood? These are people who have tried to whitewash the antisemitism of their founder, tried to bury films they made decades ago that don't conform to today's social norms, and will stop at nothing to cut and remove any footage from any film that anyone ever complains about.

Think about it: What films do we know (off the top of my head) that Disney has altered or censored from their original theatrical forms? In chronological order:

Fantasia
Saludos Amigos (cut for smoking, released uncut in 2008)
Make Mine Music (cut for gunplay, last released uncut on PAL DVD in the UK)
Song of the South
Melody Time (cut for smoking in US (or all NTSC?) DVD versions)
The Rescuers
The Black Cauldron
Who Framed Roger Rabbit
The Little Mermaid
Aladdin
The Lion King

And that, to my knowledge, is just the films that have serious alterations from their original forms that are uniquely Disney. Otherwise, they have been infamous for removing the RKO logos from their RKO-distributed films (many of which are the all-time Disney classics, though Bambi finally has it back in the latest Blu-ray), changing aspect ratios for various releases, and also, guilty of questionable remastering techniques, even before their Blu-rays.

Yet people continue to hold out hope that this studio, which prides itself on making "safe", "family" films, and exploiting generations of children's fantasies for all kinds of financial gain, is going to go against the will of a powerful Hollywood director, and release uncut versions of three decades-old films, when those versions are both contrary to various films that followed, and in some instances infamously less family-friendly ("Han shot first") than the currently available editions.

I honestly think we would have had a much better chance of seeing the uncut original trilogy, had the films gone to any other studio, or even, just stayed at Fox (without Fox being sold to Disney) until after Lucas had died.

There’s nothing racial or objectionable in the original trilogy though. It’s simply that Lucas was blocking the release because it didn’t represent his “original vision.” Disney can and have done some gorgeous restorations.

dustybooks wrote:

McCrutchy wrote:These are people who have tried to whitewash the antisemitism of their founder, tried to bury films they made decades ago that don't conform to today's social norms, and will stop at nothing to cut and remove any footage from any film that anyone ever complains about.

I agree with the rest of your point but the persistent allegation that Disney was an anti-Semite is mostly unfair; his association with the Motion Picture Alliance is damning but in that regard he was joined by many, many Hollywood luminaries who seldom face this accusation. The 1941 strike did change him and not for the better, but the lurid manner in which the rumors about him personally are presented is mostly baseless. I highly suggest reading Michael Barrier's The Animated Man, a tough minded and critical biography, though even Neal Gabler's book from about ten years ago -- which generally upheld the "dark prince of Hollywood" image -- dismisses it, which means that even when looking for dirt he couldn't find it. To me, Disney's participation with HUAC is troubling enough without this added element, and I've never known the company to really do anything to hide that.

Sorry for the derail, everyone.

Its also worth noting that the Disney Treasures series actually did release a lot of Disney's more controversial work untouched, including their World War II shorts and crude Silly Symphonies such as Cannibal Capers.

According to Ewan McGregor, “There’s a lot of talk, and I’d be happy to play him again, but I don’t know anything more than you do.”

Source

Perfect cure for fatigue: make like 100 more movies

We'll finally get some much needed alien nudity and sex with this!

Spoiler

Oh my God please no more Star Wars than we already have.

Big Ben wrote:We'll finally get some much needed alien nudity and sex with this!

Spoiler

Oh my God please no more Star Wars than we already have.

Flaccid alien penis and obvious merkins over female pubic areas? SIGN ME UP FOR STAR WARS!

Now, bring on nudity in Pixar films, too. I know there's more than one reason they call him "Woody".

The marketing reason for this is pretty clear but the obvious doubts I'm seeing online are also pretty clear. No doubt Disney will make them work within that PG-13 and 12 ratings framework so people expecting some hot Wookiee action or gore may want to reconsider. I cannot fathom how they're going to do this. It's all that hot marketing action they're going to get that really matters to them. At this point I wouldn't be shocked to see any number of show-runners have projects greenlit if it can bring in the big bucks.

But Star Wars fans will turn social media into a toxic waste dump anyway so I'll just pretend for now that that won't happen.

Big Ben wrote:The marketing reason for this is pretty clear but the obvious doubts I'm seeing online are also pretty clear. No doubt Disney will make them work within that PG-13 and 12 ratings framework so people expecting some hot Wookiee action or gore may want to reconsider. I cannot fathom how they're going to do this. It's all that hot marketing action they're going to get that really matters to them. At this point I wouldn't be shocked to see any number of show-runners have projects greenlit if it can bring in the big bucks.

But Star Wars fans will turn social media into a toxic waste dump anyway so I'll just pretend for now that that won't happen.

The only way I could see it happening is if the movies continue to make less and less, while still being profitable, and the likes of Deadpool 2 (and other related R-rated films) make a ton of money. Then I could see Disney ease into it by allowing the violence to be upped, and go from there. In an era where WB are going almost R-rated, and Paramount are greenlighting an Quentin-Tarantino-directed R-rated Star Trek picture, I think anything is possible, but a lot of things would have to fall into place, and obviously, the most important being that the PG-13 films would need to continue diminishing returns.

Disney will not green light an R-rated Star Wars movie. It just won’t happen, no matter how well DEADPOOL does. It’s Disney, for crying out loud.

I missed this last year - anybody else here catch this? The Sgt. Pepper album is an eerily natural fit for A New Hope. Amazing effort and love went into making this.

Meh, I’ve heard better song parodies during Robin Quivers news segments on Howard Stern.

Anyway, this is the Star Wars song parody you’re looking for...

In case you are one of the 15 or so people who feel there isn't enough Star Wars content in the works:

Jon Faverau (not the neoliberal podcaster, the auteur behind Cowboys vs. Aliens) to write and direct a live-action Star Wars TV series for Disney's upcoming streaming platform

mfunk9786 wrote:Jon Faverau (not the neoliberal podcaster

lol I appreciate this clarification.

I would not rule out anything at this point, people have gone completely insane

Disney has their own exclusive streaming service? Remember when they touted these services as a way to unplug from cable? All you gotta do is pay for Netflix, Prime, Filmstruck, Hulu, HBO Now, Apple’s upcoming service, and now Disney.

As long as people keep paying for these a la carte services, there's just so much more money to be made for a company like Disney to do it themselves and make 100% of the profit from it, rather than getting a relatively tiny slice of the Netflix pie. I wouldn't be surprised if we see Netflix go to only including their original content if it continues to be successful in the next few years.

mfunk9786 wrote:I would not rule out anything at this point, people have gone completely insane

Strong agree.

Luke M wrote:Disney has their own exclusive streaming service? Remember when they touted these services as a way to unplug from cable? All you gotta do is pay for Netflix, Prime, Filmstruck, Hulu, HBO Now, Apple’s upcoming service, and now Disney.

I'm finding it easier to manage these services financially, than having to deal with the headaches a cable company will sometimes bring. Especially considering it's easy to cancel one or more for a few months in favor of having some others for a little while, which I have tended to do a lot with these outlets.

bearcuborg wrote:Anyway, this is the Star Wars song parody you’re looking for...

I can't figure out what song they're supposed to be parodying.

Margaret Atwood: Star Wars Probably Inspired 9/11

Let's see... yep, all checks out. Nothing to debate there.

I've gotten pretty used to seeing nuclear takes online but that one took my breath away.