Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[stvn1974]

I also don't see Disney spending $4.8 billion on something that could never completely own. Pretty sure we have absolutely no idea of who owns what and for how long or any idea about what are in contracts.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Can someone here help me out on something? If you have the DVD releases of the (mostly) unaltered original trilogy, can you check the end credits to see if they still read Copyright: 20th Century Fox, or if -- like the 2004 DVD and the recent Blu-Ray release, they now read Copyright 1997 Lucasfilm Ltd."? I figure they'll still read as Fox, as its the old laserdisc master. But what they hey, I'm curious.

Many thanks if someone can check that for me (I'd do it myself, but down own them).

Gimme a couple minutes Ernest, I'll rustle up some stills for you. I'm just as keen as you to put Faraci in his place.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Gimme a couple minutes Ernest, I'll rustle up some stills for you. I'm just as keen as you to put Faraci in his place.

Not looking to put anybody in their place...I just know Star Wars now carries a LucasFilm copyright. Faraci said:

Disney can't stop Fox from releasing anything. Disney can't make Fox release anything. Fox owns these movies in that no one else can release them in theaters or home video. The movie itself - every frame of it - is owned by Fox. The characters and ideas and merch are all owned by Disney, but the actual motion picture of STAR WARS is now and always will be owned by Fox.

That's wildly inaccurate. LucasFilm can't stop Fox from releasing anything? We'd be neck deep in copies of the original trilogy on Blu-Ray if that were true. LucasFilm can't make Fox release anything? Strange since they have a signed distribution deal.

"Hey, distribution partner, with whom I have a signed agreement! Here's my newspapers! Please distribute them as we agreed!"

"Naaah. Not feeling it today."

And all of this ignores the recent credits of the film state the copyright is registered to LucasFilm.

[Geoff D]

Original 1977 Star Wars, which carries a Fox copyright because it was a Fox picture. But, as we know, even this reverted to LFL as part of the deal to distribute (but not own ) the prequels, though Fox were canny enough to hang on the distribution rights to the first movie in perpetuity.



Original 1980 Empire, which carries a Lucasfilm Ltd (LFL) copyright, as it well should because Lucas financed the picture himself. Ergo, it's owned by LFL not Fox.



Original 1983 Jedi, which also carries a LFL copyright because it is they who own the film.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Thanks. Devin Faraci is insisting that Fox still owns Star Wars, but Star Wars hasn't carried a Fox copyright since at least 2002 (copyright for Star Wars reads 1997). I was curious to see if they had altered the credits for the UOT DVD release, even though I figured it was unlikely since it was a port of the old THX laserdiscs.

Also found this...old article from the LA Times in 1998 that reported some insider comments, stating Fox had given Star Wars back to LucasFilm in exchange for rights to distribute the Prequels.

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr...iness/fi-35475

Originally Posted by KaineKinetic

This is what I've been saying. People just ignore my posts...

It does not say Fox gave Episode IV back to Lucasfilm, the article states:

Lucas owns the entire franchise except for the original film, which Fox financed for about $10 million. Though executives from Fox and Lucas' San Rafael, Calif.-based Lucasfilm Ltd. declined to elaborate on most specifics of the deal, one source hinted that in exchange for a much-lower-than-usual (likely less than 10%) distribution fee on the films plus the rights to debut "Episode I" on its Fox TV network, Fox gave Lucas the rights to the original "Star Wars," making his empire complete.

Last sentence: one source hinted that in exchange for a much-lower-than-usual (likely less than 10%) distribution fee on the films plus the rights to debut "Episode I" on its Fox TV network, Fox gave Lucas the rights to the original "Star Wars," making his empire complete.

Here is a likely albeit thin, razor thin scenario:

A deal similar to the Scream/Shout! agreements for Halloween 6 and Nightbreed.

Miramax granted a license to Scream! for the Producer's Cut of Halloween 6 giving them exclusive Blu-ray distribution on that.

Warner also granted Scream! an exclusive distribution deal for the R rated theatrical version of Nightbreed.

Disney could have made a deal where they will distribute the original theatrical versions on Blu-ray only while Fox will handle distribution of the special edition versions on DVD, Blu-ray, Digital Format, and in theaters. But of course, this is a very thin possibility but not outside the realm of tiny possibility.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Original 1977 Star Wars, which carries a Fox copyright because it was a Fox picture. But, as we know, even this reverted to LFL as part of the deal to distribute (but not own ) the prequels, though Fox were canny enough to hang on the distribution rights to the first movie in perpetuity.

Thanks for the screengrabs of the DVDs. The credits for Star Wars on the Blu-Ray clearly say 1997 LucasFilm Ltd. I don't know how someone can own a copyright but not own the movie.

Here's more from Mr. Faraci:

"Fox owns THE MOVIES. The characters, concepts, etc belong to Lucasfilm. They could probably remake STAR WARS if they wanted. They can do nothing with the actual 1977 STAR WARS (or any special edition variation) itself. The actual movie - the thing you look at when you watch a movie - is owned now and forever by Fox."

Doesn't make any sense.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

That's wildly inaccurate. LucasFilm can't stop Fox from releasing anything? We'd be neck deep in copies of the original trilogy on Blu-Ray if that were true. LucasFilm can't make Fox release anything? Strange since they have a signed distribution deal.

"Hey, distribution partner, with whom I have a signed agreement! Here's my newspapers! Please distribute them as we agreed!"

"Naaah. Not feeling it today."

And all of this ignores the recent credits of the film state the copyright is registered to LucasFilm.

Exactly! The point is that LFL create it, Fox distribute it. While LFL itself has changed hands from Lucas to Disney, which means more fingers in the corporate pie, the terms of the deal have simply not changed. If LFL want to release something, Fox will oblige them. Do Fox have the right to say no? I suppose so, which is what Faraci's arguing, but with only six years left on the deal to distribute the other five movies they would be CRAZY to refuse to release the OT out of spite. Last time I checked, big corporations like money.

Here's the copyright from the 2004 DVD, based off of the 1997 SE:

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

It does not say Fox gave Episode IV back to Lucasfilm, the article states:



Last sentence: one source hinted that in exchange for a much-lower-than-usual (likely less than 10%) distribution fee on the films plus the rights to debut "Episode I" on its Fox TV network, Fox gave Lucas the rights to the original "Star Wars," making his empire complete.

You're right, the article merely hints at it. But the LFL copyright post-1997 isn't so much a hint, more a party political broadcast.

LFL owns the Star Wars movies, all of them. It really is that simple.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I don't know how someone can own a copyright but not own the movie.

Simple. It happens all the time, The Expendable films are copyrighted by Millenium Films but US distribution and ownership is through Lionsgate. Kevin Smith's film's are copyrighted by View Askew Productions but distribution and ownership of these are spread across different companies.

Lucasfilm can own the copyright to the films he makes, which he does. But ownership of THX 1138 falls to Warner Brothers same for Indiana Jones, as copyright owner he does have a say in how his films are handled. Which is why we have such long waits for DVD and Blu-ray.

In the case of Indiana Jones, its a little different. Copyright is shared between Lucasflm and Paramount which is why Disney is going to pay a fee to Paramount for any future IJ films even though Disney bought out distribution rights. Disney also pays Paramount a fee for the Marvel films up to Iron Man 3 despite taking over ownership.

Now again, as copyright holder, Lucasfilm could allow Disney to handle the original theatrical versions while Fox, in keeping with the original deal in place, the special edition versions.

[Joshitaka]

I'm not a lawyer, but I am familiar with copyright law due to some songwriting experience. Owning the copyrights of a work of art is not exactly the same as owning the distribution rights. For instance, John Smith writes a song and sends a copy to the Library of Congress for copyright purposes. Later, John Smith signs a record contract with Columbia records, and includes the aforementioned song on his album. The copyright belongs to John Smith (and he will get royalties for any sales), but the distribution rights belong to Columbia records. Occasionally artists will get a bad deal and sign over the rights to their work. I'm guessing part of the original deal between Lucas and Fox was that, if they were going to green light his picture, he would have to allow them ownership of copyrights. That would explain why the original cut of the film features says Fox owns the copyright. Whatever deal was signed later that accounts for Empire and Return belonging to Lucasfilm, that would account for the change in copyright credit in subsequent versions (ie 1997 special edition). It would not change distribution rights.

In summary: Owning a copyright to a work of art means it belongs to you and you get royalties for any sale of that work. Owning distribution rights to a work of art means you are in charge of producing copies of that work and selling them. They are not the same thing.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Simple. It happens all the time, The Expendable films are copyrighted by Millenium Films but US distribution and ownership is through Lionsgate. Kevin Smith's film's are copyrighted by View Askew Productions but distribution and ownership of these are spread across different companies.

Lucasfilm can own the copyright to the films he makes, which he does. But ownership of THX 1138 falls to Warner Brothers same for Indiana Jones, as copyright owner he does have a say in how his films are handled. Which is why we have such long waits for DVD and Blu-ray.

In the case of Indiana Jones, its a little different. Copyright is shared between Lucasflm and Paramount which is why Disney is going to pay a fee to Paramount for any future IJ films even though Disney bought out distribution rights. Disney also pays Paramount a fee for the Marvel films up to Iron Man 3 despite taking over ownership.

Now again, as copyright holder, Lucasfilm could allow Disney to handle the original theatrical versions while Fox, in keeping with the original deal in place, the special edition versions.

Not talking about distribution -- I'm talking about the HMFIC who actually owns the rights to the film. Starting from the camera negative.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Joshitaka

I'm not a lawyer, but I am familiar with copyright law due to some songwriting experience. Owning the copyrights of a work of art is not exactly the same as owning the distribution rights. For instance, John Smith writes a song and sends a copy to the Library of Congress for copyright purposes. Later, John Smith signs a record contract with Columbia records, and includes the aforementioned song on his album. The copyright belongs to John Smith (and he will get royalties for any sales), but the distribution rights belong to Columbia records. Occasionally artists will get a bad deal and sign over the rights to their work. I'm guessing part of the original deal between Lucas and Fox was that, if they were going to green light his picture, he would have to allow them ownership of copyrights. That would explain why the original cut of the film features says Fox owns the copyright. Whatever deal was signed later that accounts for Empire and Return belonging to Lucasfilm, that would account for the change in copyright credit in subsequent versions (ie 1997 special edition). It would not change distribution rights.

I agree with that, but a small correction: it wasn't anything so lofty as Lucas "allowing" Fox to have the copyright on the first film. Lucas had a few $$$ and a little bit of clout after the success of Graffiti but he didn't have an empire, he was still basically a director for hire so there was no quibbling: he was making the film for Fox using their money. But where the sequels and all the ancillary rights (characters, toys, spinoffs etc) differed is that Lucas put all that stuff in his original SW contract, i.e. it would all be his - provided that the movie was a success in the first place, natch.

In summary: Owning a copyright to a work of art means it belongs to you and you get royalties for any sale of that work. Owning distribution rights to a work of art means you are in charge of producing copies of that work and selling them. They are not the same thing.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Not talking about distribution -- I'm talking about the HMFIC who actually owns the rights to the film. Starting from the camera negative.

Just had to google that.

[rbg08]

If the rumors hold true, I can finally retire my 90's VHS set. I hope the original trilogy is released separately from the prequels. I'd be willing to pay $30 to have the original unaltered set to go along with the newer versions. I see value in both.

I prefer the original versions, but my kids have only seen the current blu-ray versions. For them, the older versions will only look outdated. I don't mind most of the changes in the current blu-ray version. Han shooting first was the only thing I believe shouldn't have been changed and still bothers me today.

Disney buying Lucas Films was probably the best thing to happen to Star Wars since ROTJ. Can't wait for Episode VII!

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by rbg08

I prefer the original versions, but my kids have only seen the current blu-ray versions. For them, the older versions will only look outdated. I don't mind most of the changes in the current blu-ray version. Han shooting first was the only thing I believe shouldn't have been changed and still bothers me today.

With that in mind, I wonder how well the original VFX will hold up in 4K. I mean, they were blown up to 70mm with no complaints so aside from some obvious fudges (like the vaseline under the landspeeder) they really should look fantastic, better than even Lucas himself may have ever seen them, what with the negative fading over the years and various shitty home video transfers.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

With that in mind, I wonder how well the original VFX will hold up in 4K. I mean, they were blown up to 70mm with no complaints so aside from some obvious fudges (like the vaseline under the landspeeder) they really should look fantastic, better than even Lucas himself may have ever seen them, what with the negative fading over the years and various shitty home video transfers.

Agreed, I don't think there will be any real issues.

[Geoff D]

You know what the irony is though? Lucas himself may have given the go-ahead for the project. The timing of the Lowry restoration (sometime in 2012) against the sale of LFL (announced Oct 2012 IIRC ) is just too tight for me for Disney to have done it under their auspices. The due diligence and whatnot on the sale must've taken a while to complete prior to October, granted, so I wonder if Bob Iger got in George's ear while this was going on and sweet-talked him into restoring the originals. Perhaps the prospect of four billion simoleans also had something to do with it.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by rbg08

I'd be willing to pay $30 to have the original unaltered set to go along with the newer versions.

$30 will be the low end price, if we're lucky. Ot maybe the Black Friday price.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

$30 will be the low end price, if we're lucky. Ot maybe the Black Friday price.

I would pay 300.00

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by rbg08

If the rumors hold true, I can finally retire my 90's VHS set. I hope the original trilogy is released separately from the prequels. I'd be willing to pay $30 to have the original unaltered set to go along with the newer versions. I see value in both.

I prefer the original versions, but my kids have only seen the current blu-ray versions. For them, the older versions will only look outdated. I don't mind most of the changes in the current blu-ray version. Han shooting first was the only thing I believe shouldn't have been changed and still bothers me today.

Disney buying Lucas Films was probably the best thing to happen to Star Wars since ROTJ. Can't wait for Episode VII!

That's one thing I don't understand with these films. Several say the OT are outdated. So what! So is 2001, Planet of the Apes, Jaws, The Exorcist, Blade Runner, Alien etc..they are what they were back then. Why should Star WARS be any different? I just don't get that.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

$30 will be the low end price, if we're lucky. Ot maybe the Black Friday price.

I expect $79.99 MSRP, with most places selling for $59.99 while offering $10 off coupons and whatnot.

Given how important these films are and how long we've all waited, I think $50 will be a steal.

Day one for me for sure...even if I have to pay $100.