And MEDIUM tweaks (color correction, despeckling, repairs, etc) are parsecs different than CONTENT tweaks (character changes, robots slapsticking in poop, etc).
But they are less than twelve parsecs different.
And MEDIUM tweaks (color correction, despeckling, repairs, etc) are parsecs different than CONTENT tweaks (character changes, robots slapsticking in poop, etc).
But that’s what people wanted back then, right? Everybody was moaning over why they have to pay the cable companies for hundred of channels they didn’t want. People said they wanted ala carte.I am not looking forward to this new world where you have to subscribe to 10 different streaming services to see the desired content. I think the best advice is just to avoid them all until they do sharing agreements.
The 1977 version that I saw at the theater in 1977.Star Wars - the original from 1977 - was released theatrically five times before the Special Editions came out. 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981 and 1982. And every single time, Lucas changed things. Whether it was color correction, sound effects, even entire lines of dialogue, the movie was changed every time it was re-released. The Special Edition merely represented the largest set of changes all at once, with the aid of CGI.
And then it was changed again and again and again every time it was released on home video prior to 1997. VHS, Laserdisc, multiple times.
So tell me, which version of Star Wars do you want? The 1982 version? The 1978 version? The 1981 version? The 1977 version? Any of the home releases?
Which version is it that you think you remember as being the one true version?
I have no idea how profitable they are, but TCM is one of the best channels on cable.The "Special Editions" aren't the "Special Editions" anymore. They're the only editions. And Disney doesn't call the shots unless they feel like stepping in and overriding the desires of their subsidiaries. They don't do day-to-day micromanagement, it's not their style. Lucasfilm is still Lucasfilm. With George gone, Lucasfilm might decide on their own to release the original movies in whatever format you think you remember (they've been altered and tinkered with every time they were released in theaters and every time they were released on home video, so whatever you think you remember is probably not what everyone else remembers). But releasing those older versions - plural, for each film - to a very small but vocal subset of fans who keep insisting they want them would be expensive. Because it wouldn't be enough for them to give you the unaltered versions. No, you want cleaned-up visuals, 4K quality, color correction, and all the good stuff, but without the stupid "Jedi Rocks" song from Jabba's palace. And I know that because we already got the unaltered original movies on DVD and you guys still complained it wasn't good enough.
It's unlikely Lucasfilm will do it.
You'll have to settle for the fan edits on YouTube.
Back on topic...
Everyone has a price. Turner will set a price for the rights, and Disney will pay it. It's not complicated. Turner Broadcasting is a very, very small fish in a pond that's rapidly drying up. Cable networks? Seriously? Turner Broadcasting will be lucky if WarnerMedia doesn't cast them off in the next five years. Very few of their assets are profitable to begin with.
Star Wars - the original from 1977 - was released theatrically five times before the Special Editions came out. 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981 and 1982. And every single time, Lucas changed things. Whether it was color correction, sound effects, even entire lines of dialogue, the movie was changed every time it was re-released.
I don't understand why Disney even needs broadcast rights when they're not trying to broadcast the movies. Streaming is different from cable broadcast.
Rake Disney over the coals Turner.
There is no problem here. Removing Star Wars content from TBS/TNT prematurely isn’t going to create some demand that isn’t there. This is just for some blurb in their advertising.
Exactly. They have this now, it's called Satellite and Cable TV LOL. It's almost like people just don't want to pay. Then they will complain about ads. And that it's like amateurs are doing it. Look into how songwriters are being compensated for streams (they aren't) and it will become apparent why good songs are becoming harder to find.I laugh every time I read a comment similar to yours regarding subscription to multiple services.
It was not too long ago that a lot of members here and online elsewhere were yelling about a la carte content. Specifically buying “channels” separately. I and other got shouted down when we said that wouldn’t work out how they imagined. That it would be expensive.
Now what we have said is coming through.
Exactly. They have this now, it's called Satellite and Cable TV LOL. It's almost like people just don't want to pay. Then they will complain about ads. And that it's like amateurs are doing it. Look into how songwriters are being compensated for streams (they aren't) and it will become apparent why good songs are becoming harder to find.
Here is an idea: make 1 single streaming service that provides all movies and all series, instead of tens smaller ones. Pay 20-30-50 bucks per month and that’s it.
But no, companies have to make things so hard for the end consumers, who end up paying much more than the “default” 9,99/ month, since they need to subscribe to several different such providers...
Um, what you’re describing is basically cable TV. One provider. Many options.
I’ll be the first to admit, I really wanted streaming to take off and break the backs of the lazy cable companies, with their ridiculous prices, hundreds of junk channels, and garbage settop boxes. Lesson learned. Be careful what you wish for. The streaming future looks far worse than cable as we get nickel and dimed in order to watch one thing here and another thing there.
The only benefit I now see is that I’m not forced to pay for a bunch of things I don’t want anyway. I’d never subscribe to the Disney service. None of their content is so appealing that I’d pay a monthly fee for access. I might rent a movie every now and then, but that’s it. I’m not interested in watching Star Wars again and again. If content producers start restricting content to only their apps over services like Netflix or Hulu, I think a lot of consumers will grow tired of having to subscribe to and manage so many services that cable will start to look appealing again.
I still think it's the way to go. Provided, of course, they get rid of the 198-498 channels of junk they manage to include in these bundles.They had that. ... 200-500 channel bundled pricing.
I still think it's the way to go. Provided, of course, they get rid of the 198-498 channels of junk they manage to include in these bundles.
Um, what you’re describing is basically cable TV. One provider. Many options.
I’ll be the first to admit, I really wanted streaming to take off and break the backs of the lazy cable companies, with their ridiculous prices, hundreds of junk channels, and garbage settop boxes. Lesson learned. Be careful what you wish for. The streaming future looks far worse than cable as we get nickel and dimed in order to watch one thing here and another thing there.
The only benefit I now see is that I’m not forced to pay for a bunch of things I don’t want anyway. I’d never subscribe to the Disney service. None of their content is so appealing that I’d pay a monthly fee for access. I might rent a movie every now and then, but that’s it. I’m not interested in watching Star Wars again and again. If content producers start restricting content to only their apps over services like Netflix or Hulu, I think a lot of consumers will grow tired of having to subscribe to and manage so many services that cable will start to look appealing again.
I still think it's the way to go. Provided, of course, they get rid of the 198-498 channels of junk they manage to include in these bundles.
I cut-the-cord a long time ago, I believe it has been a decade or longer. Streaming ever since, not sure if you are doing it correctly. About 15 years ago I ripped all my DVD collection put it on an external HDD, anytime I travelled or in my house I unplugged/plugged to whatever computer and watched my collection, at that time no USB port on TV’s, so I connected my laptop to it. Too easy. I migrated to a NAS, etc. For a while now I have uploaded my collection to the cloud, it took a while however I am no longer restricted while travelling and I do not have to carry an external HDD around with me.
I understand not all have the luxury of high speed internet, however if there is a will there is a way. Complaining about it nad waiting for change to benefit the customer will only happen if people voice and action their view. No action, no change. Complaining is great as a first step, as we have identified a problem.
I should mention I have no USB sticks, external drive or SD cards, no NAS, nothing attached to my iPad Pro. It truly is liberating that I can access my media and files from anywhere bar there is an internet connection, if not use offline option.
I consider the original theatrical version that played in the theaters, of each film, to be the original theatrical releases.Star Wars - the original from 1977 - was released theatrically five times...
Which version is it that you think you remember as being the one true version?
That’s why this Disney service has zero interest to me. I might very well watch a Disney or Marvel movie on Netflix, but there’s no way I’m paying Disney for yet another service. I think consumers are going to quickly tire of having to pay multiple content providers every month for content.
The problem I have with the Disney "we'll just do it ourselves" plan is not the loss of content (not a huge Disney film-watching household here) but the precedent that it will set should it be successful.
Buyers may whine... but then just roll over and buy. This will not be different.
I agree except the "happily" part in the last sentence. Right now, many consumers are still in the delusion that some way, somehow a fat discount for us is coming... but we'll be able to get everything, maybe commercial-free.
Reality is going to make them NOT be "happily."
I agree except the "happily" part in the last sentence. Right now, many consumers are still in the delusion that some way, somehow a fat discount for us is coming... but we'll be able to get everything, maybe commercial-free.
Reality is going to make them NOT be "happily."