Continuing its strategy of delivering exceptional creative content to audiences around the world, The Walt Disney Company (NYSE: DIS [FREE Stock Trend Analysis]) has agreed to acquire Lucasfilm Ltd. in a stock and cash transaction. Lucasfilm is 100% owned by Lucasfilm Chairman and Founder, George Lucas.
Under the terms of the agreement and based on the closing price of Disney stock on October 26, 2012, the transaction value is $4.05 billion, with Disney paying approximately half of the consideration in cash and issuing approximately 40 million shares at closing. The final consideration will be subject to customary post-closing balance sheet adjustments.
“Lucasfilm reflects the extraordinary passion, vision, and storytelling of its founder, George Lucas,” said Robert A. Iger, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Walt Disney Company. “This transaction combines a world-class portfolio of content including Star Wars, one of the greatest family entertainment franchises of all time, with Disney's unique and unparalleled creativity across multiple platforms, businesses, and markets to generate sustained growth and drive significant long-term value.”
“For the past 35 years, one of my greatest pleasures has been to see Star Wars passed from one generation to the next,” said George Lucas, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lucasfilm. “It's now time for me to pass Star Wars on to a new generation of filmmakers. I've always believed that Star Wars could live beyond me, and I thought it was important to set up the transition during my lifetime. I'm confident that with Lucasfilm under the leadership of Kathleen Kennedy, and having a new home within the Disney organization, Star Wars will certainly live on and flourish for many generations to come. Disney's reach and experience give Lucasfilm the opportunity to blaze new trails in film, television, interactive media, theme parks, live entertainment, and consumer products.”
LOS ANGELES — Disney is paying $4.05 billion to buy Lucasfilm Ltd., the production company behind "Star Wars," from its chairman and founder, George Lucas.
It's also making a seventh movie in the "Star Wars" series.
The Walt Disney Co. announced the agreement to make the purchase in cash and stock Tuesday.
Disney added that "Star Wars Episode 7" is scheduled for release in 2015.
The deal brings Lucasfilm under the Disney banner with other brands including Pixar, Marvel, ESPN and ABC.
Kathleen Kennedy, the current co-chairman of Lucasfilm, will become its president and report to Walt Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn. Lucas will be creative consultant on new "Star Wars" films.
Lucas said in a statement, "It's now time for me to pass 'Star Wars' on to a new generation of filmmakers.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Not sure if I'm excited or terrified.... this could be a disaster on par with our spiritual liege...
That's actually the best thing for the Star Wars franchise...
Disney rarely makes bad movies...
No they just run franchises into the ground in the name of making money, have you heard of Pirates of the Caribbean perhaps? I'm not saying Lucas is any better, he's not, but I'm not optimistic about one of my favorite franchises chances in the gloved hands of the mouse.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Not sure if I'm excited or terrified.... this could be a disaster on par with our spiritual liege...
That's actually the best thing for the Star Wars franchise...
Disney rarely makes bad movies...
No they just run franchises into the ground in the name of making money, have you heard of Pirates of the Caribbean perhaps? I'm not saying Lucas is any better, he's not, but I'm not optimistic about one of my favorite franchises chances in the gloved hands of the mouse.
Bah... I disagree...
I enjoy just about every non-chick Disney flick...
I think redoing the originals would be a bad idea. Even if they're disney's best work ever, every nerd in history will hate them before they even see it and the interwebs will be full of bloggers posting about how evil disney is for ruining their childhood.
I'd rather see em do all new movies.. maybe an old republic movie? or what happened after jedi? or a movie about how little furry midgets can drop logs and rocks on combat walkers and destroy them, especially if they can fly little leather & twig hang gliders.
Bring it on Disney. Star Wars needs someone besides George at the head of the table. Star Wars has mostly been crap in the last decade. As for those saying Disney will run it into the ground, jeez people Star Wars has already been ran into the ground. It needs someone to dig it up, dust the crap off of it and make it something great again.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Wedge Antilles and Rogue Squadron, call Michael Stackpole and Aaron Allison for the writing team! You even have a Jedi in Corran Horn
Disney planning a new Star Wars film every 2-3 years, beyond the planned Episodes 7-9 no word on Indy, ILM and Skywalker Sound confirmed to be part of the purchase but ILM will NOT be restricted in any way and can continue their operations as normal.
Lord Scythican wrote: By the way, this is the same Disney that has brought us all of the Avengers goodness we have been enjoying over the last few years...just saying.
Squigsquasher wrote: Meh. It could be worse. Yuki Oshima could be writing the new Star Wars films...
Provided they keep the 7th film in the style of the infinitely superior prequels, and not the god-awful original trilogy we should be fine.
Not sure if trolling...
I guess in a way I could agree with you. If the new movies looked like the prequels (the style) instead of the original trilogy then it would look great. Just don't have the writing of the prequels.
Lord Scythican wrote: By the way, this is the same Disney that has brought us all of the Avengers goodness we have been enjoying over the last few years...just saying.
I can't really bring myself to care...oh because I hate George.
Lucas said in a statement, "It's now time for me to roll around in a pile of money wearing nothing but a flannel shirt. Feth Star Wars fans I have always hated them and done my level best to piss them off every few years. Nerfherders.
Oh come on. The writing in the originals was so cheesey. The prequel writing style and storyline was so much better, especially The Phantom Menace, easily the best of the films. Plus it brought us the best Star Wars character ever, Jar Jar Binks.
Squigsquasher wrote: Oh come on. The writing in the originals was so cheesey. The prequel writing style and storyline was so much better, especially The Phantom Menace, easily the best of the films. Plus it brought us the best Star Wars character ever, Jar Jar Binks.
Squigsquasher wrote: Oh come on. The writing in the originals was so cheesey. The prequel writing style and storyline was so much better, especially The Phantom Menace, easily the best of the films. Plus it brought us the best Star Wars character ever, Jar Jar Binks.
I get the sarcasm but the writing in the originals was actually cheesy, sorry. They make Enid Blyton look like Shakespeare. Not that there was anything wrong with that, they were enjoyable films.
Squigsquasher wrote: Oh come on. The writing in the originals was so cheesey. The prequel writing style and storyline was so much better, especially The Phantom Menace, easily the best of the films. Plus it brought us the best Star Wars character ever, Jar Jar Binks.
Let me guess...you are under 20 right? Well it is not your fault. If you were born in 1992 and your first date was with Jar Jar, then you can't be blamed for your opinion. It isn't your fault you were not born in 1980 and watched Return of the Jedi on HBO when you were 5.
Glorioski wrote: God forbid they churn out a load of films with plot lines little more advanced than fairy tales with the main aim: selling a ton of merchandise.
Well, I have seen Disney movies and I have walked past a Disney store.
I can see where Lucas and Disney are finding common ground.
Squigsquasher wrote: Oh come on. The writing in the originals was so cheesey. The prequel writing style and storyline was so much better, especially The Phantom Menace, easily the best of the films. Plus it brought us the best Star Wars character ever, Jar Jar Binks.
Let me guess...you are under 20 right? Well it is not your fault. If you were born in 1992 and your first date was with Jar Jar, then you can't be blamed for your opinion. It isn't your fault you were not born in 1980 and watched Return of the Jedi on HBO when you were 5.
Yes I am under 20, but fear not. CuddlySquig's Troll Trap was accurate. I was trolling.
I didn't mind Phantom Menace though. Even Jar Jar wasn't THAT bad. Slightly irritating, but not annoying enough to warrent whole sites dedicated to hating him.
Squigsquasher wrote: Oh come on. The writing in the originals was so cheesey. The prequel writing style and storyline was so much better, especially The Phantom Menace, easily the best of the films. Plus it brought us the best Star Wars character ever, Jar Jar Binks.
Let me guess...you are under 20 right? Well it is not your fault. If you were born in 1992 and your first date was with Jar Jar, then you can't be blamed for your opinion. It isn't your fault you were not born in 1980 and watched Return of the Jedi on HBO when you were 5.
Yes I am under 20, but fear not. CuddlySquig's Troll Trap was accurate. I was trolling.
I didn't mind Phantom Menace though. Even Jar Jar wasn't THAT bad. Slightly irritating, but not annoying enough to warrent whole sites dedicated to hating him.
Awesome! I knew you was, that was why I didn't get pissy. I hope you took my comments with good humor!
*Opens troll trap to let Squisquasher out*
To be honest, Jar Jar was pretty amusing to me when I was 10, when Phantom Menace first came out. Problem is, I'm not 10 anymore. Maybe Disney's acquisition is based on the success of that Clone Wars cartoon show that's going on.
Harriticus wrote: Disney has done a great job with Marvel and helped them out of their slump, coming out with a great series of movies.
This I'm not so confident with. Episode 7 is totally unnecessary. Hell even the prequels were largely unnecessary.
You wouldn't believe how many people are oblivious to that fact. I am reading facebook comments right now, and the majority of the people believe they will make it all Mickey Mouse like. They forget the impressions The Avengers gave them.
*Opens troll trap to let Squisquasher out*
To be honest, Jar Jar was pretty amusing to me when I was 10, when Phantom Menace first came out. Problem is, I'm not 10 anymore. Maybe Disney's acquisition is based on the success of that Clone Wars cartoon show that's going on.
But Jar Jar is slowing gaining that nostalgia feeling for me.
As long as they release the original trilogy, like it was before George Lucas revisited them I'll be happy other than that I don't give a feth about what Disney does with the franchise.
d-usa wrote: Disney can milk a franchise dry, so we might be able to see Star Wars 13 - The Midichlorians, a straight to DVD animated musical.
They can't possibly milk it any worse that what has already happened. Seriously start today and see how many variant Darth Vader action figures you can collect. I bet you spend your salary from next year on them
Well my jaw hit just hit the floor when I read this on another site.
I of course have mixed feelings, but I can't deny that a small grin appeared on my face when I saw Episode VII - 2015.
Please, please, please don't cock it up.
Incidentally, I've just watched Red Tails, the perfect example of what can go wrong and what can go right with a Lucas project. God awful script but awesome dog fighting scenes.
As long as all the new Star Wars prequels are done in the style of X-Men First Class, where every female character appears half naked at least once this whole thing should turn out fine.
I used to be in an abusive relationship, but then I gave up on Lucas.
Until we get a trailer for Episode VII I doubt I'll be able to muster anything greater than detached amusement at the situation, and even then Star Wars stopped being an opening night event for me some time ago.
Glorioski wrote: As long as all the new Star Wars prequels are done in the style of X-Men First Class, where every female character appears half naked at least once this whole thing should turn out fine.
Cheesecat wrote: As long as they release the original trilogy, like it was before George Lucas revisited them I'll be happy other than that I don't give a feth about what Disney does with the franchise.
Yeah, this is probably the best thing that could happen from this deal. Now that Lucas and his idiotic "this is the final version of my film, so screw you" attitude aren't standing in the way of a proper release of the original versions of the movies we might actually get HD copies instead of that awful dvd release a while back. Supposedly undamaged copies of the film still exist and are just waiting for Disney to sense the money potential and make it happen.
As for new movies, just no. I could see the potential in new movies in general, the universe is certainly large enough for more stories to happen as long as they're willing to get away from the established characters. However, when a new movie is due in less than three years, and new ones ever 2-3 years after that it's almost guaranteed to be a rush job direct-to-dvd attempt to exploit the remaining "buy everything with 'Star Wars' on the box" fans as efficiently as possible.
Glorioski wrote: As long as all the new Star Wars prequels are done in the style of X-Men First Class, where every female character appears half naked at least once this whole thing should turn out fine.
I take this news with a dose of fear, dread and a little New Hope!
Initial Plot for episodes 7 - 9
Captain Jack Sparrow discovers a hidden afinity for the force guided by a mysterious midget with large ears, a tail and a squeeky voice. Converts the Black Pearl using volcanic glass and plenty of tar for sealant thus enabling intergalatic travel.
He travels the galaxy searching for his missing father (spolier: jedi father) chased by the devious Darth <insert villianous british baddy name here> who is intent to foil his hilarious schemes.
2-1 On for Johnny Depp to have a leading role, Bill Nighy is a shoe in as well. Outside shot at Buzz Lightyear being a rebel fighter.
Well I thought Revenge of the Sith was a good movie. The other two had some good moments but very disappointed.
As someone that was 6 years old and watched the first starwars in a drive in theater in 1977 (Back when drive ins were cool), and basically grew up with episodes IV-VI I am quite interested to see what they do with the long anticipated episodes VII-IX.
I really hope they DO NOT use the same stars, Ford, Fisher and Hamill. I prefer that they continue the story only a few years after episode VI. I don't want to see a 60 year old Han solo.
generalgrog wrote: Well I thought Revenge of the Sith was a good movie. The other two had some good moments but very disappointed.
As someone that was 6 years old and watched the first starwars in a drive in theater in 1977 (Back when drive ins were cool), and basically grew up with episodes IV-VI I am quite interested to see what they do with the long anticipated episodes VII-IX.
I really hope they DO NOT use the same stars, Ford, Fisher and Hamill. I prefer that they continue the story only a few years after episode VI. I don't want to see a 60 year old Han solo.
GG
They can't bring Hamill back if they wanted to, it's why you don't see him in acting but you do see him in voice acting, his face got slagged some time after ROTJ, car accident I think.
generalgrog wrote: Well I thought Revenge of the Sith was a good movie. The other two had some good moments but very disappointed.
As someone that was 6 years old and watched the first starwars in a drive in theater in 1977 (Back when drive ins were cool), and basically grew up with episodes IV-VI I am quite interested to see what they do with the long anticipated episodes VII-IX.
I really hope they DO NOT use the same stars, Ford, Fisher and Hamill. I prefer that they continue the story only a few years after episode VI. I don't want to see a 60 year old Han solo.
GG
They can't bring Hamill back if they wanted to, it's why you don't see him in acting but you do see him in voice acting, his face got slagged some time after ROTJ, car accident I think.
I wouldn't mind cameos from them though.
Yeah but that can be explained with a Lightsaber fight.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: They can't bring Hamill back if they wanted to, it's why you don't see him in acting but you do see him in voice acting, his face got slagged some time after ROTJ, car accident I think.
The accident was between Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.
Edit: According to Wiki, it was on the day before the final shooting of Star Wars. They had to use a double for the shots.
generalgrog wrote: Well I thought Revenge of the Sith was a good movie. The other two had some good moments but very disappointed.
As someone that was 6 years old and watched the first starwars in a drive in theater in 1977 (Back when drive ins were cool), and basically grew up with episodes IV-VI I am quite interested to see what they do with the long anticipated episodes VII-IX.
I really hope they DO NOT use the same stars, Ford, Fisher and Hamill. I prefer that they continue the story only a few years after episode VI. I don't want to see a 60 year old Han solo.
GG
They can't bring Hamill back if they wanted to, it's why you don't see him in acting but you do see him in voice acting, his face got slagged some time after ROTJ, car accident I think.
I wouldn't mind cameos from them though.
Yeah but that can be explained with a Lightsaber fight.
Medium of Death wrote: I'd prefer an entirely new re-boot of the franchise. So much potential wasted.
The only movie i'd be upset with being remade is Empire, and even then I could get over it.
They dont need to remake anything. Star Wars is a massive, massive universe. They can simply pick another time period and make a whole new story and give it its own style.
I really don't see why people are anything other than cautiously optimistic. Sure, there's potential for a huge screwup - but under Lucas, the potential for further films was exactly squat. This gives new film makers a chance to make a mark on the universe, with the massive financial backing of Disney. They know the audience is there for more proper Star Wars movies, they're not going to ruin that chance with cross overs they know will only fail.They just bought a license to print money, so you can bet they know how to do it well. And you can bet that they know doing it well isn't putting Jack Sparrow with a light saber in the movie.
Medium of Death wrote: Hamill could easily be the Yoda of the new trilogy if they want him to be.
Now that would be awesome. Give him a beard, get rid of his hand and have him live on dagaboh. After what I have heard from Mark as the joker, I bet he would make a nice quirky jedi living in a swamp.
As a current Disney cast member I think its a good move, They could bring a whole new light to the series that no one else has done and for all the people crying keep in mind disney owns marvel ya know that company that made The Avengers
Medium of Death wrote: Hamill could easily be the Yoda of the new trilogy if they want him to be.
Now that would be awesome. Give him a beard, get rid of his hand and have him live on dagaboh. After what I have heard from Mark as the joker, I bet he would make a nice quirky jedi living in a swamp.
OR they could bring back Ford as an old smuggler showing a new kid the ropes. Jedi? Bah, more smuggling and Twi'lek slave girls.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: They can't bring Hamill back if they wanted to, it's why you don't see him in acting but you do see him in voice acting, his face got slagged some time after ROTJ, car accident I think.
The accident was between Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.
Edit: According to Wiki, it was on the day before the final shooting of Star Wars. They had to use a double for the shots.
Yeah, it was supposedly the reason for the Wampa attack scene at the start of Empire... they had to explain the face.
d-usa wrote: Stuff like Bobba Fett getting his own origin movie could be something positive.
You are just awful. Simply awful.
I'll admit I was a bit hesitant to see this buyout. Then I was reminded that Disney now owned Marvel and thus were responsible for Avengers, and suddenly I was a lot less hesitant. Most of Lucas Films and ILM and stuff is staying as is. Lucas's co-pres. of LucasFilms is becoming the sole head, answering directly to Disney. Hopefully with Lucas out of the directing chair, the next movies will fair better than the prequel trilogy.
Medium of Death wrote: Hamill could easily be the Yoda of the new trilogy if they want him to be.
I went straight to "Hollow him out and shove someones hand up his ass" with that.
I think we need a good solid story set in an era they haven't touched yet. No connections, character wise with anything else they have going on. A fresh start - Great Hyperspace War, maybe?
-Loki- wrote: I really don't see why people are anything other than cautiously optimistic.
Because of the stated release schedule of the first new film coming in 2013 and new ones every 2-3 years after that. That looks alarmingly like the movies are going to be a rush job to cash in on the fan base as fast as possible, on top of the extremely high potential for everyone to just get tired of Star Wars after seeing movie after movie after movie. The universe has a lot of potential, and Disney's plan looks like it's going to use it all up as quickly as possible in the name of short-term profits.
-Loki- wrote: I really don't see why people are anything other than cautiously optimistic.
Because of the stated release schedule of the first new film coming in 2013 and new ones every 2-3 years after that. That looks alarmingly like the movies are going to be a rush job to cash in on the fan base as fast as possible, on top of the extremely high potential for everyone to just get tired of Star Wars after seeing movie after movie after movie. The universe has a lot of potential, and Disney's plan looks like it's going to use it all up as quickly as possible in the name of short-term profits.
Unless I misread that... the first one is in 2015... so, that's plenty of time to develop a good movie.
Its interesting that with Disney's attempt to make a new Sci-fi epic in John Carter failing, it might have spurned on this action.
In my mind I'm happy to see where they go with it, and it cannot really be much worse than George's meddling with the films in recent years. Instead of doing what fans have been talking about for years, which was the fabled follow on trilogy.
My hopes for the new trilogy.
CGI faces for the original actors on stand ins (Tron legacy already proved the tech is almost there on seamless level.)
Have a adult Asoka turn up as another Jedi survivor, that has stayed hidden during the rebellion.
More Wedge, and allow the Boba crawled out story to stand for the new films.
No one knows yet as far as I'm aware, and if Disney take over, who knows where they'd go. However a female jedi who has proven a popular character in the series might be too good to miss.
Of course I'll not overly mind either way, but I'd like to see it, mainly as Shaak Ti is one of my fave Jedi, and I'd really like to see Ahsoka fully grown in a similar vein.
Bromsy wrote: I think they'd be better served by a whole new timeframe/setting.
Old Republic could be fun, plenty of material to exploit, plenty of sith to fight, etc.
I'm still supporting Wedge Antilles and Rogue Squadron, no to minimal Jedi, a solid group dynamic of fighter jockies in snub fighters taking on the evil empire and kicking serious gak. Give Joss Whedon the reigns (no one handles a group dynamic like Joss, everything he has EVER done proves this), bring in Stackpole and Allison on the writing and I will literally fly out to Disney HQ and grovel at the feet of disney execs.
That's just a fanboy's hopes and dreams though, I have a higher chance of winning the lottery daily for the next three weeks then that happening
Disney hatched on to a new business plan a few years ago. They realised there's basically stuff all money in movies - you get some big hits and some big misses, and pretty much end up where you started. The real money is in merchandise, and if you focus on building really big franchises and nothing else then even if the box office doesn't justify the cost of making the movie and the huge cost of hyping the movie, then the merchandise sales over
The first effort under this new vision was John Carter, and the whole theory has been under review since then.
I'm guessing the new plan is to just buy ready made merchandise products, and to start that with the biggest merchandising cash cow of them all, Star Wars. I expect we'll see new movies with new alien, robots and spaceships rolling out every couple of years, each with a dozen games spread across all platforms, and toy versions of absolutely everything, and constantly grinding all of this stuff out until we're all finally sick of it.
Mind you, waiting for people to get sick of the selling of Star Wars stuff is like waiting for GW price rises to finally stop us buying their stuff.
sebster wrote: Disney hatched on to a new business plan a few years ago. They realised there's basically stuff all money in movies - you get some big hits and some big misses, and pretty much end up where you started. The real money is in merchandise, and if you focus on building really big franchises and nothing else then even if the box office doesn't justify the cost of making the movie and the huge cost of hyping the movie, then the merchandise sales over
The first effort under this new vision was John Carter, and the whole theory has been under review since then.
I'm guessing the new plan is to just buy ready made merchandise products, and to start that with the biggest merchandising cash cow of them all, Star Wars. I expect we'll see new movies with new alien, robots and spaceships rolling out every couple of years, each with a dozen games spread across all platforms, and toy versions of absolutely everything, and constantly grinding all of this stuff out until we're all finally sick of it.
Mind you, waiting for people to get sick of the selling of Star Wars stuff is like waiting for GW price rises to finally stop us buying their stuff.
USMCdeathmachine wrote: As a current Disney cast member I think its a good move, They could bring a whole new light to the series that no one else has done and for all the people crying keep in mind disney owns marvel ya know that company that made The Avengers
The revolutionary part of that deal was Disney granting Marvel basically free reign to make its movies as it pleased. Disney did this because it new what Marvel needed was money and access to merchandising contacts... the one thing it had was a wealth of writers and creatives types that knew how to make superhero stories. As such, Disney made the sensible, but remarkably rare in Hollywood decision, to stay out of plotting and storyline elements, and let Marvel fo that.
On the other hand, those strengths don't really exist with Star Wars. At this point you can't really point at anyone and say 'that person knows how to write a Star Wars story'. I mean, there's been some good stuff written since the original trilogy, but most of those folk aren't there anymore, or have written plenty of drek as well.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure what a good, commercial story would be in Star Wars anymore.
Oh gak the battle of coruscant would be EPIC to see on film! Hundred of capital ships, thousands of snub fighters, untold amounts of infantry deploying to the surface...
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Oh gak the battle of coruscant would be EPIC to see on film! Hundred of capital ships, thousands of snub fighters, untold amounts of infantry deploying to the surface...
I just want to see a fething Super Star Destroyer pull itself out of Coruscant's surface...
That's all... if they can pull that off...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: They can't bring the Vong in yet because its to far in the future.
If you haven't read the series... don't click this:
Spoiler:
But Chewie dies... they're need to milk his character!
Peregrine wrote: That looks alarmingly like the movies are going to be a rush job to cash in on the fan base as fast as possible, on top of the extremely high potential for everyone to just get tired of Star Wars after seeing movie after movie after movie. The universe has a lot of potential, and Disney's plan looks like it's going to use it all up as quickly as possible in the name of short-term profits.
As above, how is it a rush job if they're taking until 2015 for the first movie, and using the same release schedule that all of the other movies stuck to?
As for people getting tired of Star Wars, just don't want them anymore.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Oh gak the battle of coruscant would be EPIC to see on film! Hundred of capital ships, thousands of snub fighters, untold amounts of infantry deploying to the surface...
Excuse me for not understanding, but didn't we do that particular battle in the third episode?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Oh gak the battle of coruscant would be EPIC to see on film! Hundred of capital ships, thousands of snub fighters, untold amounts of infantry deploying to the surface...
Excuse me for not understanding, but didn't we do that particular battle in the third episode?
No... he's talking about after Return of the Jedi... there's an epic battle that the New Republic conquered Coruscant
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Oh gak the battle of coruscant would be EPIC to see on film! Hundred of capital ships, thousands of snub fighters, untold amounts of infantry deploying to the surface...
Excuse me for not understanding, but didn't we do that particular battle in the third episode?
No... he's talking about after Return of the Jedi... there's an epic battle that the New Republic conquered Coruscant
Exactly, and third episode of what? Quit talking crazy man
-Loki- wrote: As above, how is it a rush job if they're taking until 2015 for the first movie, and using the same release schedule that all of the other movies stuck to?
Because it's such an important movie, and they're just starting on it (and may not for a while as they finish the ownership transition). I'm well aware that they could produce a new Star Wars movie by late 2015, but can they produce a good Star Wars movie? Or will it get rushed out to meet the 2015 deadline?
As for people getting tired of Star Wars, just don't want them anymore.
The point is that the faster you release something the easier it is for people to get tired of it, especially as you use up your best ideas and have to start settling for less just to keep up your schedule. The first Star Wars film in a decade is a major event. The 10th "every 2-3 years for the foreseeable future" Star Wars film in a row is very easily going to be just another milking of the cash cow while most people are tired of it and stopped watching. Just look at what happened with Star Trek, the only thing that saved the franchise was when they stopped making more new movies/shows for a while and then re-launched everything with a new movie.
On the other hand, a slower, more sustainable release schedule has less risk of burnout and better chances of making quality movies and keeping the universe alive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I'm still supporting Wedge Antilles and Rogue Squadron, no to minimal Jedi, a solid group dynamic of fighter jockies in snub fighters taking on the evil empire and kicking serious gak. Give Joss Whedon the reigns (no one handles a group dynamic like Joss, everything he has EVER done proves this), bring in Stackpole and Allison on the writing and I will literally fly out to Disney HQ and grovel at the feet of disney execs.
This, especially with the Wraith Squadron books, which added an element of humor that wasn't really in the Rogue books.
I know some people hare the story arc...but bring on the Yuuzan Vong! The death of a MAJOR SW character, the damage done to the Solo family, and an alien race immune to The Force? Yes, please. The nice thing about choosing that storyline, it's adult oriented, bloody, tragic, and there are tons of books covering the whole arc-they have lots of wiggle room.
Exactly. The remarkable thing, both with GW and Star Wars, is how even once people get really bitter about how shameless the selling is they keep buying.
timetowaste85 wrote: I know some people hare the story arc...but bring on the Yuuzan Vong! The death of a MAJOR SW character, the damage done to the Solo family, and an alien race immune to The Force? Yes, please. The nice thing about choosing that storyline, it's adult oriented, bloody, tragic, and there are tons of books covering the whole arc-they have lots of wiggle room.
DIsney would probably tone it down, they still want it to be appealing to children.
d-usa wrote: Probably something that keeps the mythology of Star Wars, but not the storyline.
Sure, but what's the mythology at this point?
The problem, to me, is that the elements that made the original story work, an evil empire, a small ensemble of brave heroes, temptation to the dark side, a father/son conflict, and kick ass battle scenes... of those the only one you can repeat without feeling like you're just retelling a lesser version of the original story is the last. So you either tell a new kind of story in the same universe, and get something that isn't really Star Wars, or you retell Star Wars but not as well.
Both approaches have been taken in different Star Wars stories, and while they weren't all good, the better stuff worked well enough for fans to devour. But if all Disney wanted was to keep cashing in on the existing fans, they wouldn't have paid that premium for Lucasfilms. What they want is some new stories in their films that'll make Star Wars even bigger than it is now.
I think there's probably hundreds of EU books out there that tell good enough stories set in the Star Wars world, but I doubt all of them combined did as much to make people love Star Wars as Luke looking out at the moons in the first movie. And I'm not completely convinced there's another story in Star Wars that'll ever do that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No... he's talking about after Return of the Jedi... there's an epic battle that the New Republic conquered Coruscant
But isn't that just another big battle? I mean, at this point does it really matter if there's a hundred or a hundred million CGI ships flashing across the screen?
timetowaste85 wrote: I know some people hare the story arc...but bring on the Yuuzan Vong! The death of a MAJOR SW character, the damage done to the Solo family, and an alien race immune to The Force? Yes, please. The nice thing about choosing that storyline, it's adult oriented, bloody, tragic, and there are tons of books covering the whole arc-they have lots of wiggle room.
DIsney would probably tone it down, they still want it to be appealing to children.
Thrawn trilogy might be good.
They can still do Thrawn... but, the problem is, they'll probably need new actors.
Question to Dakkanauts: Would you be okay with new actors playing Luke/Han/etc..?? To me, that'd be the only way to go... either that, or go different route.
whembly wrote: No... he's talking about after Return of the Jedi... there's an epic battle that the New Republic conquered Coruscant
But isn't that just another big battle? I mean, at this point does it really matter if there's a hundred or a hundred million CGI ships flashing across the screen?
What's the story?
Honestly... I don't remember... I don't think that was ever fleshed out (New Republic taking over Coruscant).
As to point?
Is there ever? What more to you need than flying ships with laser guns and dude fighting with lightsabres?
Disney still have to follow the timeline right? As in they can't bring in a new race into the SW universe to try to conquer all....like Posleen as example
I'm totally ok with Disney purchasing Star Wars. Think of it this way: We get more Si-Fi movies, made with budgets that cannot be matched. At the very least, we'll get a movie with incredible CGI and a half decent plot.
I'm cautiously optimistic. At least George is finally giving someone else a chance! There's a lot of universe to play with, hopefully they can make at least a few good films out of it.
A few other people have mentioned it and I know it's unlikely, but a Rogue Squadron film would be off the hook.
whembly wrote: Honestly... I don't remember... I don't think that was ever fleshed out (New Republic taking over Coruscant).
It was rhetorical, I meant 'is there a story there good enough to actually make a movie that people will love, and will make them love Star Wars?'
My point is that if you want big space battles, well thanks to CGI we get those things all the time. The effect is we're basically immune to the spectacle, and not impressed when things are just made bigger. We know you can make one spaceship, then cut and paste and have 5,000 spaceships. It doesn't wow people.
Put that in a story that people love though, and then you've got something.
Is there ever? What more to you need than flying ships with laser guns and dude fighting with lightsabres?
In that I don't really want to sit through another round of prequel quality movies, yeah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Disney still have to follow the timeline right? As in they can't bring in a new race into the SW universe to try to conquer all....like Posleen as example
Disney don't have to follow it. Nor did Lucas, as he was always that while he might take stuff from the EU, the EU couldn't restrict him when he told stories he wanted to tell.
But when Disney bought up Marvel they were actually pretty respectful of Marvel creative, and have given them free hand to build their own movie brand, and tell the stories they believed would work. Time will tell on how Disney treat Lucasfilm.
I mean.. the new A-team movie... the actors NAILED their characters.
Yeah, but there you've got 'bunch of yahoos get into a situation and set up elaborate plans involving lots of explosions to get out of it'. It's a classic 80s action story (I'd argue the new A-Team movie was way more faithful to 80s action movies than the Expendables was). I mean that's a timeless story that actually hadn't been told very well for a while.
But what's the Star Wars story that can get told at this point?
And Id love more SW Movies. Rouge Squadron or Thrawn seem like logical places to go with it. Maybe even Sal-Solo?(Human League) As long as they dont go off on their own, im good. If they make a whole timeline obsolete though... Well ill still watch it.... Maybe even like it........ But id be crying inside..
Compel wrote: Well, Bond has ended up with 23 films in 50 years...
Not the best example.
There were what? Five of them that were any good (not counting ANY of the Daniel Craig ones - or Roger Moore or George Lazenby ).
So maybe one good one every 10 years then. Not 3-5 years between them.
No Dianiel Craig or Roger Moore bond films are any good? No. If you are going to word your subjective opinion as a statement at least refrain from doing it against popular opinion.
Compel wrote: Well, Bond has ended up with 23 films in 50 years...
saw a bond film once, hated it.
yup, probably the only guy who does not like bond movies.
The problem is that Bond films vary so greatly in quality that seeing one and dismissing them all is like saying you tried Khorne Flakes once and now you know you hate pancakes.
Ahtman wrote: I used to be in an abusive relationship, but then I gave up on Lucas.
Until we get a trailer for Episode VII I doubt I'll be able to muster anything greater than detached amusement at the situation, and even then Star Wars stopped being an opening night event for me some time ago.
Agreed. There is great potential for a good series of films, but the dog poo fest that was the second series puts me off without proof.
But lets remember, they didn't buy Lucasfilm just for the Star Wars movies. They bought it for the special effects juggernaut that is Lucasfilms.
So the entertainment industry hasn’t quite finished exploding over the news that Disney had bought Lucasfilm and are planning new Star Wars movies but more news kept coming via the Disney Conference Call with Bob Iger.
The first bit of news is that Disney are buying treatments for the next 3 movies.
We’re going to concentrate on the Star wars franchise. What we’re buying… is a pretty extensive & detailed treatment for the next 3 movies
This means that Disney are buying an already existing treatment from Lucasfilm. It will be interesting to see if these were scribed by Lucas himself or if they were from a new writer, and if so, who that write is. Lucas only has a minor role now in the future installments, but if these are his stories, then his special influence may be felt for a little while longer.
The next bit of news was all “legalese” but gives some clarity for that ‘other’ property in the Lucasfilm lockers.
There are very little encumbrance to make and distribute films going forward and exploit characters on multiple platforms…There are some encumbrances with Indiana Jones and that is from Paramount … We didn’t ascribe any value to the Indiana Jones franchise. It doesn’t factor into the equation with this acquisition.
But they assured everyone that:
There are far fewer encumbrances from when we bought Marvel.
And just to finish up, here is something that may excite you cartoon enthusiasts. By which I mean Brendon.
We really like Star Wars‘ potential on TV as well, and we think Disney will be a great home for that.We really like the idea of Star Wars on Disney XD
So where does that leave the live action Star Wars drama we have been hearing about? Maybe it will get a new breath of life. It will be interesting to see if we hear anything about this in the near future or if Disney see how Episode 7, or whatever it is, works out first.
This is one of the biggest entertainment deals in history, so expect to see news cropping up regularly for a while yet as everyone tries to get their head around what this all means.
Fox retain rights for the existing films, which presumably would rule out any complete collectors edition as/when.
But given the potential number of films, TV shows etc etc might not really matter.
.. or we'll get caught up in a legal quagmire much like the old 60s batman Tv show
.. so I guess it looks like Han will still be shooting first for quite some time.
... and no official release for the Holiday special either ? ... Having seen it, i can assure you that is a good thing for humanity as a whole.
" I always said I wasn’t going to do any more and that’s true because I’m not doing any more. " .. henceforth this shall be known as the Lucas defense !
To use a phrase, this is the biggest load of horse gak I've heard in a long time. It's another nail in the coffin of cinema. We're effectively saying we don't want new ideas, innovation or up and coming talent. No, all we want is a franchise milked until it's dry, merchandise rights flogged left right and centre, and stories that a five year old could probably come up with.
The future of cinema seems to be sequels, prequels, and re-boots. Orson Welles must be spinning in his grave.
Flashman mentioned earlier something about Redtails - great action scenes, gak dialouge. That pretty much sums up his career.
It's no surprise that Empire strikes back is the best SW, as he had nothing to do with it. Between Lucas and SW fanboys, it's a wonder modern cinema is still alive. The whole thing is beyond parody! Rant over. Again!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: To use a phrase, this is the biggest load of horse gak I've heard in a long time. It's another nail in the coffin of cinema. We're effectively saying we don't want new ideas, innovation or up and coming talent. No, all we want is a franchise milked until it's dry, merchandise rights flogged left right and centre, and stories that a five year old could probably come up with.
The future of cinema seems to be sequels, prequels, and re-boots. Orson Welles must be spinning in his grave.
Flashman mentioned earlier something about Redtails - great action scenes, gak dialouge. That pretty much sums up his career.
It's no surprise that Empire strikes back is the best SW, as he had nothing to do with it. Between Lucas and SW fanboys, it's a wonder modern cinema is still alive. The whole thing is beyond parody! Rant over. Again!
Does everybody remember the music shop sign in Wayne's World that said stairway denied?
Well if I ever start running a comic book/CCG/wargaming store then there will be a star wars denied sign hanging over the front door. I might open in the USA so I can shoot anybody that disagrees with me!!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Does everybody remember the music shop sign in Wayne's World that said stairway denied?
Well if I ever start running a comic book/CCG/wargaming store then there will be a star wars denied sign hanging over the front door. I might open in the USA so I can shoot anybody that disagrees with me!!
... I wouldn't mention this to the bank when applying for your business loan.
reds8n, you need to get with the times. It's 2012, Bank is a dirty word. It's credit unions, and loan sharks!
Back OT. I've seen footage of Lucas signing the documents. He says he want to focus on new projects (or words to that effect) So we can look forward to another substandard Indiana Jones, a reboot of howard the duck, and another cringe fest that was redtails....Damn you Lucas!!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: reds8n, you need to get with the times. It's 2012, Bank is a dirty word. It's credit unions, and loan sharks!
Back OT. I've seen footage of Lucas signing the documents. He says he want to focus on new projects (or words to that effect) So we can look forward to another substandard Indiana Jones, a reboot of howard the duck, and another cringe fest that was redtails....Damn you Lucas!!
So long as Episode 7 is just as awesome as TOT, then I'll be super-duper happy.
It's like Chelsea winning the champion's league, or Bruce Willis with hair on his head, or George W Bush winning the nobel prize for quantum physics. It's unnatural!
To use a Leslie Nelson phrase, I'd rather be caught in the gears of a combine than watch howard the duck.
For the 7h movie, I'm betting that they will skip to the Yuuzhan Vong wars because there is not really a full scale war going on until then, and people want mega super action and explosions.
Well, let me stop you in your tracks. I said I'd give up on GW, and I did. I play flames of war, buy my paints from Vallejo, and when I do play warhammer fantasy I use the new knights from fireforge as Brettonians.
Star Wars/Disney, is no different. I will do a one man boycott, complete with protest, outside my local cinema if need be!!
I just have this urge to shout grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! and run down the street lashing out at people. Sadly, due to my girth, I can't run for that long these days!!
I would love for them to to do the Darth Bane series but after Batman that could be more difficult (Especially as Tom hardy would be great as darth Bane as well )
But as a general rule I do prefer the old republic stuff compared to the post Jedi stuff
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, let me stop you in your tracks. I said I'd give up on GW, and I did. I play flames of war, buy my paints from Vallejo, and when I do play warhammer fantasy I use the new knights from fireforge as Brettonians.
Star Wars/Disney, is no different. I will do a one man boycott, complete with protest, outside my local cinema if need be!!
I just have this urge to shout grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! and run down the street lashing out at people. Sadly, due to my girth, I can't run for that long these days!!
Red, I think you're on to something. Even the front page of the Star Wars site is currently advertising the "Skywalker Saga." I'd guess whatever comes next will not be part of the "Skywalker Saga."
This is going to either be really good or really bad, no middle ground.
I also think they will (and need to) develop fresh material. The Expanded Universe is its own continuity and if it's retconned then oh well. Lord knows the Marvel movies retcon and establish their own continuity vs. the comics.
Testify wrote: It's amazing how much hate there is for the prequals. Disregarding Jar-Jar Binks and Christian Hayden there's no noticable difference in quality.
Script and direction basically. The basic prequel storyline was fine (if over complicated) and the visuals were well executed (though I'd have preferred less CGI and more sets/model work). It was let down by the dialogue and the performances of (normally fine) actors which are the fault of the director and screenwriter (guess who).
Even Jar Jar might have been tolerable if he was given proper dialogue (or even no dialogue ala Chewbacca) and wasn't acting the fool every time he was screen. His one good scene is with Natalie Portman when he says the Gungans have a huge army and that's why there is distrust between them and the Naboo.
Testify wrote: It's amazing how much hate there is for the prequals. Disregarding Jar-Jar Binks and Christian Hayden there's no noticable difference in quality.
Script and direction basically. The basic prequel storyline was fine (if over complicated) and the visuals were well executed (though I'd have preferred less CGI and more sets/model work). It was let down by the dialogue and the performances of (normally fine) actors which are the fault of the director and screenwriter (guess who).
Even Jar Jar might have been tolerable if he was given proper dialogue (or even no dialogue ala Chewbacca) and wasn't acting the fool every time he was screen. His one good scene is with Natalie Portman when he says the Gungans have a huge army and that's why there is distrust between them and the Naboo.
Also none of the prequels make any fething sense. Heres a more in depth look at why the prequels are hated.
Thinking about it a few things they could do for a 7th movie.
Dark Empire Luke teams up with a cloned Palpatine to find out why his father went to the dark side. This is where Luke learns to master the dark side of the force while everyone else runs from the Hutts.
Not a bad idea and supposedly one they thought to do before for a movie. Although it has been many years since any of the original actors played their parts and this particular story is based 6yrs after RotJ.
Thrawn trilogy. A really good story to introduce new characters in to the mix...but once again, takes place only a few years after RotJ and still has some of the original characters.
Legacy Era. Set over 30yrs after the 6th movie and focused a lot on the other characters, some of them being children of the original characters. This has the most potential for a 7th movie and possible new launch pad for more to come.
Testify wrote: It's amazing how much hate there is for the prequals. Disregarding Jar-Jar Binks and Christian Hayden there's no noticable difference in quality.
Script and direction basically. The basic prequel storyline was fine (if over complicated) and the visuals were well executed (though I'd have preferred less CGI and more sets/model work). It was let down by the dialogue and the performances of (normally fine) actors which are the fault of the director and screenwriter (guess who).
Even Jar Jar might have been tolerable if he was given proper dialogue (or even no dialogue ala Chewbacca) and wasn't acting the fool every time he was screen. His one good scene is with Natalie Portman when he says the Gungans have a huge army and that's why there is distrust between them and the Naboo.
Also none of the prequels make any fething sense. Heres a more in depth look at why the prequels are hated.
...all that proves is that the internet is full of vitriolic bs. The prequels are fine, maybe not as good as the originals for the reasons pointed out above, but nothing worth all this nerd-rage.
Hell the light-sabre battles alone are phenominal. The ones in the originals were just rubbish...yes they were more theatrical, but they were boring as hell.
Testify wrote: It's amazing how much hate there is for the prequals. Disregarding Jar-Jar Binks and Christian Hayden there's no noticable difference in quality.
Script and direction basically. The basic prequel storyline was fine (if over complicated) and the visuals were well executed (though I'd have preferred less CGI and more sets/model work). It was let down by the dialogue and the performances of (normally fine) actors which are the fault of the director and screenwriter (guess who).
Even Jar Jar might have been tolerable if he was given proper dialogue (or even no dialogue ala Chewbacca) and wasn't acting the fool every time he was screen. His one good scene is with Natalie Portman when he says the Gungans have a huge army and that's why there is distrust between them and the Naboo.
Also none of the prequels make any fething sense. Heres a more in depth look at why the prequels are hated.
...all that proves is that the internet is full of vitriolic bs. The prequels are fine, maybe not as good as the originals for the reasons pointed out above, but nothing worth all this nerd-rage.
Hell the light-sabre battles alone are phenominal. The ones in the originals were just rubbish...yes they were more theatrical, but they were boring as hell.
Honestly I dislike the new light sabre battles they're cold and emotionless, the choreography looks to clean and professional, it doesn't feel like a real battle at all. In this scene you can tell Luke doesn't want to hurt his father by how defensive he is with his light sabre and by jumping and
away and hiding from him, but as Darth Vader taunts him, Luke succumbs to his anger and starts wailing his weapon at him causing him to loose accuracy and control at the same time and eventuality cutting Vader's arm off you can see the power of Dark Side how succumbing to anger
hate can be a powerful thing. Where in this Star Wars 2 battle the screen is clutterwith gak making it too busy and cluttered for your brain to get a sense of what's going on, Jedi flawlessly cut though all the droids destroying any tension in the scene therefore making it boring to watch.
Am I the only one that think there is ZERO chance the storyline is going to be something we already know? Like the Thrawn series or anything really.
I can only see a whole new story made up for this. Most kids haven't read a lot of Star Wars books from 90's and I'm sure they're well aware of potential nerd-rage boycotts if they alter a known story too much.
The most powerful comparison is between the opening of Star Wars and The Phantom Menace, as pointed out by Red Letter Media.
We have a totally flat opening where boring emotionless characters talk about trade, blockades, and taxes.
Versus
Which tells us without any boring, flat dialogue - without any dialogue at all, exactly how desperate and outgunned the rebels are. It shows us the overwhelming might of the Empire, and once again to borrow from red letter media, is such a brilliantly filmed scene that George Lucas had nothing to do with it, and probably fought to keep it out of the movie. And that's the real problem, you don't let your idea man control the entire process. His nonsense needs to be winnowed down into good ideas.
I think they'd be foolish to completely ignore the EU. There's some good stuff there after all. They can take some things from the EU that longtime fans like and enjoy, but that the general public is completely unaware of and reinvent it at their leisure. I think the Thawn Trilogy or Legacy of Force could easily be crafted into a very good series of films.
Nevertheless, today E! and The Wrap both have the first of what will be untold millions of tiny clues to be pored over, if Lucas has his way, for the next 100 years, beginning with the assertion that Star Wars: Episodes 7 through 9 will all be based on "an original story"—not Timothy Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy, as many have suggested or even demanded, and likely not anything else that's been deemed official canon in the Star Wars Expanded Universe. Ergo, your extensive knowledge of all things Joruus C'Baoth and ysalamiri is useless, except for the purposes of getting people to have sex with you.
Instead, it will be based on "nothing you've ever seen or read before"—that is, unless you're Dale Pollock, author of the unauthorized Lucas biography Skywalking, who claims he already read Lucas' plans for 12 overall Star Wars films, back when George Lucas was still talking to him. If you believe Pollock—and you assume that nothing has changed since the 1980s—Episodes 7 through 9 are the "three most exciting stories" of the entire saga, containing "propulsive action, really interesting new worlds, [and] new characters," which is just vague enough to be accurate. However, he also claims that they concern a Luke Skywalker "in his 30s and 40s," meaning the series would have to recast the role if they went in this direction, and everyone would then probably start freaking out about that.
But again, that's presuming that these treatments are still in play, even as new Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy recently said they were just now sitting down with writers to really hammer things out, while other sources have also told The Hollywood Reporter that one of Disney's plans could involve turning Star Wars into "an Avengers-style movie universe," one that would go beyond the next trilogy into spinoff movies focusing on individual characters. These assertions definitely suggest that there's obviously still a lot of new, very fresh decisions being made, well beyond what Pollock may or may not have read 30 years ago, and possibly beyond what Lucas (who, we remind, is no longer in charge) may have had in mind
I don't see why they couldn't have the best of both worlds. - A bit like what the Marvel films are compared to the comics. Make a new story with the best / most memorable parts from the comics and sticking to their spirit.
Like, have Thrawn there as a big bad, the noghri events (mostly because of Thrawns final scene), but not the same story line as the trilogy.
Testify wrote: Hell the light-sabre battles alone are phenominal. The ones in the originals were just rubbish...yes they were more theatrical, but they were boring as hell.
This part shows why you're wrong. The most important thing at ~7:45.
Star Wars are not what they are because of lightsaber fights. It never was an action move, why try to change it into one?
Just like Star Trek is not about fight scenes
I can't for the life of me imagine anyone who has eyes can think the prequels are better movies, and I think the original is a bit overrated, RotJ borders on ridiculous, with only Empire being an great bit of cinema. Everything about them is sub par. The special effects don't even hold up all that well. The dialogue is atrocious, the acting wooden (barring moments from Obi Wan), and the light saber battles are over-choreographed; they are sound and fury signifying nothing; they lack emotion or catharsis. To top of this turd Sunday the only remotely interesting characters are killed off in the first prequel: Qui-Gon and Darth Maul.
Certainly one can like them better, as liking something has rarely anything to do with the quality of a thing. I mean, I like Balls of Fury and it is a terrible movie.
Ahtman wrote: Certainly one can like them better, as liking something has rarely anything to do with the quality of a thing. I mean, I like Balls of Fury and it is a terrible movie.
When you're talking about personal opinion, for most people I would think that liking something better would make it better. If I like RotS better than RotJ, then from my point of view RotS is the better movie.
A great many things depend on your point of view, or so I've heard.
Ahtman wrote: Certainly one can like them better, as liking something has rarely anything to do with the quality of a thing. I mean, I like Balls of Fury and it is a terrible movie.
When you're talking about personal opinion, for most people I would think that liking something better would make it better. If I like RotS better than RotJ, then from my point of view RotS is the better movie.
And yet, it doesn't actually work that way. I can appreciate the Mona Lisa for a myriad of reasons and think it is an important work, and yet not really like it that much personally. I guess it is a more sophisticated understanding between the viewer and the viewed, but I see no reason to pretend that staying at a surface level appreciation should be held as equally worthwhile as serious consideration and understanding of a work in a given medium.
And this also may be a shock to some, but there are actually also some objective qualities to things that laymen think are entirely subjective, such as cinema.
Ahtman wrote: And this also may be a shock to some, but there are actually also some objective qualities to things that laymen think are entirely subjective, such as cinema.
Which is relevant if you're a movie critic. Much less so for everyone else.
I watch movies for entertainment. As such, my criteria for determining whether or not a movie is better than another is whether or not it entertained me more than the other.
'Saving Private Ryan' might have been a cinematic masterpiece so far as movie critics are concerned... but the Princess Bride is still a better movie in my opinion, because I actually enjoyed watching it and don't consider it a huge, wasted chunk of an afternoon that I will just never get back...
The technical brilliance of a movie is not always directly proportional to its value as entertainment. So 'better' comes down to just what you are rating it for.
Cheesecat wrote: Honestly I dislike the new light sabre battles they're cold and emotionless, the choreography looks to clean and professional, it doesn't feel like a real battle at all.
They're Jedi. They're the professional swordsmen of the era, and completely emotionally controlled. The fact that they're emotionaless, perfectly clean fights is, well, how it should be.
Cheesecat wrote: In this scene you can tell Luke doesn't want to hurt his father by how defensive he is with his light sabre and by jumping and away and hiding from him, but as Darth Vader taunts him, Luke succumbs to his anger and starts wailing his weapon at him causing him to loose accuracy and control at the same time and eventuality cutting Vader's arm off you can see the power of Dark Side how succumbing to anger
He's a naive apprentice, still unable to control his emotions, pretty much still untrained as a swordsman in a fight with his father who he doesn't want to kill.
So basically you hate the prequel fights for being exactly what they should be and love the OT fights because they're exactly what they should be?
Cheesecat wrote: Honestly I dislike the new light sabre battles they're cold and emotionless, the choreography looks to clean and professional, it doesn't feel like a real battle at all.
They're Jedi. They're the professional swordsmen of the era, and completely emotionally controlled. The fact that they're emotionaless, perfectly clean fights is, well, how it should be.
Except there is three appeals for an audience when you're trying to keep them involved with the scene emotion, imagination and morality, If there's nothing that get's at your emotions in a movie then the audience will get bored, the audience's relationship should always be considered if
I lost all respect for George after RotS. Anakins silly turning scene was so utterly stupid. He goes from crying "what have I done" to "I'll do whatever you ask me to" in the span of, what, three seconds?
Ahtman wrote: And this also may be a shock to some, but there are actually also some objective qualities to things that laymen think are entirely subjective, such as cinema.
Which is relevant if you're a movie critic. Much less so for everyone else.
I watch movies for entertainment. As such, my criteria for determining whether or not a movie is better than another is whether or not it entertained me more than the other.
'Saving Private Ryan' might have been a cinematic masterpiece so far as movie critics are concerned... but the Princess Bride is still a better movie in my opinion, because I actually enjoyed watching it and don't consider it a huge, wasted chunk of an afternoon that I will just never get back...
The technical brilliance of a movie is not always directly proportional to its value as entertainment. So 'better' comes down to just what you are rating it for.
But don't you ever question why you found a movie entertaining?
Sure. I'm not questioning that there are ways of judging whether or not a movie is good... just the idea that whether or not you enjoyed a movie is completely separate to whether or not the movie is good. To me, those two things are intrinsically linked. If I enjoyed it, it was good. If I didn't, it wasn't.
insaniak wrote: Sure. I'm not questioning that there are ways of judging whether or not a movie is good... just the idea that whether or not you enjoyed a movie is completely separate to whether or not the movie is good. To me, those two things are intrinsically linked. If I enjoyed it, it was good. If I didn't, it wasn't.
Yup... that's how I see it.
John Carter was universally panned as a bad movie...but I enjoyed it!
insaniak wrote: Sure. I'm not questioning that there are ways of judging whether or not a movie is good... just the idea that whether or not you enjoyed a movie is completely separate to whether or not the movie is good. To me, those two things are intrinsically linked. If I enjoyed it, it was good. If I didn't, it wasn't.
I think it's possible to separate enjoyment and quality (maybe not completely though) but I do think enjoyment will give a certain bias towards the thing you're qualifying.
Ahtman wrote: The problem is that Bond films vary so greatly in quality that seeing one and dismissing them all is like saying you tried Khorne Flakes once and now you know you hate pancakes.
Yeah, fair point & great analogy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: But lets remember, they didn't buy Lucasfilm just for the Star Wars movies. They bought it for the special effects juggernaut that is Lucasfilms.
Given Disney already own state of the art CGI with Pixar and the like, I think Lucasfilm's technical credentials are more a nice bonus than the reason for the deal.
I think it's mostly for the merchandising. Disney is on record as pretty strongly arguing that films with huge merchandise potential is where the money is at.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: To use a phrase, this is the biggest load of horse gak I've heard in a long time. It's another nail in the coffin of cinema. We're effectively saying we don't want new ideas, innovation or up and coming talent. No, all we want is a franchise milked until it's dry, merchandise rights flogged left right and centre, and stories that a five year old could probably come up with.
The future of cinema seems to be sequels, prequels, and re-boots. Orson Welles must be spinning in his grave.
Uh, they're giving us constant reboot and sequels because that's what people keep turning up in cinemas to watch.
Hollywood looks at the numbers, and does what the numbers tell them. I mean, look at all the people who tromped into each episode of the Star Wars prequels. Fool me once, fool me twice and oh look here I am watching the third movie in this line of gakky sequels. Look at all the merchandise that is still getting sold.
Hollywood is giving people what they want, so don't blame them. Blame the people going to watch this rubbish.
Galdos wrote: And they did exactly what Im worried about,
They are going to ignore the EU. Hopefully they wont contradict it but I have low hopes
Beyond occasionally giving EU characters cameos, Lucas has been pretty much for as long as there has been an EU, so that's not really going to change anything.
If you consider the EU as a completely separate setting that just sometimes crosses over, it's much less irritating. Although I have also over the years derived a certain amount of amusement out of the various writers' attempts to plug EU plot holes created by Lucas just ignoring the ongoing storylines.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Does everybody remember the music shop sign in Wayne's World that said stairway denied?
Well if I ever start running a comic book/CCG/wargaming store then there will be a star wars denied sign hanging over the front door. I might open in the USA so I can shoot anybody that disagrees with me!!
Yeah, the best way to build a loyal customer base is to be elitist and exclusionary. I predict wild success for your future business venture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Well, let me stop you in your tracks. I said I'd give up on GW, and I did. I play flames of war, buy my paints from Vallejo, and when I do play warhammer fantasy I use the new knights from fireforge as Brettonians.
Star Wars/Disney, is no different. I will do a one man boycott, complete with protest, outside my local cinema if need be!!
I just have this urge to shout grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! and run down the street lashing out at people. Sadly, due to my girth, I can't run for that long these days!!
Not liking a product and then not buying it isn't a boycott. That's just being a consumer. I mean, I don't boycott Warmachine, I just don't buy it because it's not the game for me.
Boycott is when, you know, you actually would like to buy that product, but don't because of something. Like all those people who boycotted Nestle because they convinced women in Africa to use their baby formula rather than breastfeed. I'm sure they did really want Quik or a chocolate bar or something, but didn't buy them.
Ahtman wrote: The problem is that Bond films vary so greatly in quality that seeing one and dismissing them all is like saying you tried Khorne Flakes once and now you know you hate pancakes.
Yeah, fair point & great analogy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: But lets remember, they didn't buy Lucasfilm just for the Star Wars movies. They bought it for the special effects juggernaut that is Lucasfilms.
Given Disney already own state of the art CGI with Pixar and the like, I think Lucasfilm's technical credentials are more a nice bonus than the reason for the deal.
I think it's mostly for the merchandising. Disney is on record as pretty strongly arguing that films with huge merchandise potential is where the money is at.
Pixar was originally a LucasFilm company as well I think.
But I think Pixar is more an animation studio that does some amazing effects, while Industrial Light & Magic is a full blown special effects company. They also get Skywalker Sounds and a computer game branch.
sebster wrote: Uh, they're giving us constant reboot and sequels because that's what people keep turning up in cinemas to watch.
And really, why is it a problem?
Before cinema, storytellers told and retold the same stories for generations. I wonder how many Aboriginal teenagers sat around complaining about having to sit through yet another retelling of the Rainbow Serpent story...?
The awesome thing about reboots is that they give you choice. I can watch this version of Batman, or I can watch that version of Batman. And if they make yet another version of Batman, and I'm sick of seeing new Batman stories (crazy, I know, but bear with me) I can just choose to stick with the movies I already have and not watch the new one.
Personally, I find it really interesting to see how different filmakers interpret the same source material. I said for years after the craziness that came after Tim Burton's Batman movies that they should have gone down the road of doing each movie with a different director and different cast... That would have been much cooler than what we got instead.
I could see a similar thing working really well with Star Wars. Explore different settings with different directors... It's a big galaxy, and there would be all sorts of coolness that could result.
Grey Templar wrote: How bout the Vong wars where the Jedi keep getting their butts kicked
And it never really worked as Star Wars. Look, here's a bunch of guys who are totally more badass than Jedis and have special rules that make them immune to Jedi works as fan fiction, kind of, but is a long way from commerical level Star Wars.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: It's amazing how much hate there is for the prequals. Disregarding Jar-Jar Binks and Christian Hayden there's no noticable difference in quality.
If the new films were of the same quality as the prequals I think we'd be grand.
Seriously? You can't see the difference between a small group of adventurers, in over their heads in one near death experience after the next, eventually overthrowing an evil empire, and how that works as pulp storytelling... and an ineffective religious order struggling to uncover a murky plot that will eventually show they've been on the wrong side for three movies, and how that doesn't work as pulp storytelling?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Testify wrote: ...all that proves is that the internet is full of vitriolic bs. The prequels are fine, maybe not as good as the originals for the reasons pointed out above, but nothing worth all this nerd-rage.
Hell the light-sabre battles alone are phenominal. The ones in the originals were just rubbish...yes they were more theatrical, but they were boring as hell.
"The new movies are fine, I like the fights"... and you're calling other people nerds?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Pixar was originally a LucasFilm company as well I think.
But I think Pixar is more an animation studio that does some amazing effects, while Industrial Light & Magic is a full blown special effects company. They also get Skywalker Sounds and a computer game branch.
Sure thing, but seriously, go to your local toy store. Count how much Star Wars crap there is.
It's nice to have the revenue stream from a top end special effects company, and every so often one of the Star Wars games is good. But I wonder if all that stuff combined matches the profits on plastic lightsabres and darth maul masks, let alone Star Wars lego?
sebster wrote: Uh, they're giving us constant reboot and sequels because that's what people keep turning up in cinemas to watch.
And really, why is it a problem?
Before cinema, storytellers told and retold the same stories for generations. I wonder how many Aboriginal teenagers sat around complaining about having to sit through yet another retelling of the Rainbow Serpent story...?
It's even funnier that people claim this is a new thing in Hollywood. Hollywood has always been about telling the same stories over and over again. Hell, the Maltese Falcon is a remake.
And like you said, if you don't like it, don't watch it. There's loads of movies made every year that aren't franchise drivel. It's just that they might not star someone really famous, or might not have three car chases and four scenes where the hero shoots at least 20 people.
I could see a similar thing working really well with Star Wars. Explore different settings with different directors... It's a big galaxy, and there would be all sorts of coolness that could result.
I actually think that's the big problem with Star Wars. It's fine to do that stuff in secondary media like books and computer games, but for the big screen where you want to be making your money back on a AAA production and expand the brand, then you really need to have Jedi, you need to have pulp adventure storytelling, and you need to have good vs evil and a story of temptation.
Compare that to Batman, which you mentioned. Batman really can change it up in tone and approach, and still be recognisably Batman. Star Wars is a lot more fickle, I think.
ILM is one of the best visual effects companies in the industry and on it's own is an excellent acquisition for disney, especially considering ILM pioneered special effects... pretty much as we know them today. Pixar is an animation house, not a special effects shop, they sometimes use similar tools but the job's pretty different I'd imagine.
Yeah, that in and of itself is probably a major part of the investment. Owning the rights to the most successful merchandise franchise is icing on the cake.
Its like Disney can have their cake and eat it too.
Disney has to make 4 billion off of this to make their money back, so there should be at least one good project out of this. But I'm not a gambling man.
I got soooo bored with Indiana movies that I didn't even watch the last one. The others were ok, although they did get progressivly less good and were a little predictable.
insaniak wrote:Sure. I'm not questioning that there are ways of judging whether or not a movie is good... just the idea that whether or not you enjoyed a movie is completely separate to whether or not the movie is good. To me, those two things are intrinsically linked. If I enjoyed it, it was good. If I didn't, it wasn't.
I love the film Samurai Cop. I find it to be consistently one of the funniest movies ever made.
However, even I can admit that by absolutely nobody's standards is this film good. Like, at all. In fact, this is one of the worst movies ever made. It's worse than Troll 2. Seriously. We are talking Plan 9 -levels of awful.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, that in and of itself is probably a major part of the investment. Owning the rights to the most successful merchandise franchise is icing on the cake.
Seriously, it's the other way around.
I don't think people really understand the scale of things here - a special effects house that works on some in-house properties and charges out for work on other films is not on the same scale as one of the largest toy lines in the world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think Disney has plenty of merch money by itself already.
Sure, but there's no such thing as 'too much'. In fact, if you're very good at something, such as developing and selling merchandise based off of your film properties, then business 101 tells you to take that core strength and expand on it, either by making more successful film properties, or by buying other people's successful properties.
It's called playing to your strengths.
Disney tried the former, by making new movies that were high cost, but had massive merchandise potential. The first film in this new strategy was John Carter. They've now given up on that strategy, from the look of things, and are instead just buying other people's strategies.
sebster wrote: Disney tried the former, by making new movies that were high cost, but had massive merchandise potential. The first film in this new strategy was John Carter. They've now given up on that strategy, from the look of things, and are instead just buying other people's strategies.
Between the Disney Stores, Toy Aisles filled with Disney related products, Disney branded clothing, and the realized merchadising from their Avengers Franchise I think they didn't have to buy LucasFilms to get merchendise and a couple extra things that are nice but not a deal breaker.
d-usa wrote: Between the Disney Stores, Toy Aisles filled with Disney related products, Disney branded clothing, and the realized merchadising from their Avengers Franchise I think they didn't have to buy LucasFilms to get merchendise and a couple extra things that are nice but not a deal breaker.
What? I just explained that 'oh I think we've got enough money coming in from that kind of thing' is not how business works.
You think there's people around the boardroom table at Toyota saying 'well we already make lots of money from cars, maybe we shouldn't make any new types of cars'?
It doesn't work that way. You figure out what your core skill is, and you do more of that, and when you've got a lot of that... you get more of it. And then more. And then after that, you keep getting more of it.
Disney is well aware that their core business strategy is to leverage all kinds of products out of existing film properties. In buying Star Wars they are buying the grandpappy of all film merchandising properties.
Sorry, the John Carter mention had me confused and thinking that you were talking about "new movies for merch" as a new concept. Sorry for that on my part.
But in the end I think we are just arguing over a minor detail. They got two things: A lot of production facilities and resources, and movie franchices with merchandising volume. I think all we really disagree on is which part of the deal was the meat and which part was the potatoes and gravy.
All joking aside, merch is the core of this purchase. Nothing compares to merchandise rights. The box office and DVD sales of the Star Wars franchise probably amount to less than 10% of the empire. The rest comes from merchandise and licensing rights.
Modern movie franchises are aimed at maximizing merchandising; the box office really doesn't mean much anymore. The film itself is generall considered just a commercial for the toy lines now, and it's been this way for at least a decade.
EDIT: ILM wasn't even the gravy. Merch rights were the meat, Lucasarts was the potatoes, the film franchises were the gravy and ILM was maybe the inedible garnish that makes the plate look nice.
azazel the cat wrote: wasn't even the gravy. Merch rights were the meat, Lucasarts was the potatoes, the film franchises were the gravy and ILM was maybe the inedible garnish that makes the plate look nice.
azazel the cat wrote: wasn't even the gravy. Merch rights were the meat, Lucasarts was the potatoes, the film franchises were the gravy and ILM was maybe the inedible garnish that makes the plate look nice.
his one might take Derren Brown, Eddie Fitzgerald or Hannibal Lecter to really perfectly read between the lines but Mark Hamill has been speaking about his meeting with George Lucas, this summer, in which the bearded one revealed his new Star Wars plans.
The meeting, it seems, was between Lucas, Hamill and Carrie Fisher. The question, perhaps, is why.
Here’s Hamill:
He asked Carrie and I to have lunch with him and we did. I thought he was going to talk about either his retirement or the Star Wars TV series that I’ve heard about – which I don’t think we were going to be involved in anyway, because that takes place between the prequels and the ones we were in and, if Luke were in them, he’d be anywhere from a toddler to a teenager so they’d get an age-appropriate actor—or the 3-D releases. So when he said, “We decided we’re going to do Episodes VII, VIII, and IX,” I was just gobsmacked. “What? Are you nuts?!”
I can see both sides of it. Because in a way, there was a beginning, a middle, and an end and we all lived happily ever after and that’s the way it should be—and it’s great that people have fond memories, if they do have fond memories. But on the other hand, there’s this ravenous desire on the part of the true believers to have more and more and more material.
I’ll make a bet with you now. Lucas wants Hamill and Fisher to come back. That doesn’t mean they will, but I’m convinced that he wants them too. The bits I’ve bolded in the quote above underline why I’m so convinced.
That’s right, I’m the new Hannibal Lect… Eddie Fitzg… Derren Brown.
There’s a bit more from Hamill at Entertainment Weekly, but it essentially amounts to “I didn’t know Disney were part of it, I can’t say anything more until we know more. Congratulations George!”
Let’s try to focus in on what we know for a fact about the upcoming Star Wars movies. We’ll start with the outer-ring of information, then step-by-step get to the most certain of details, sorting this fact from fiction.
We will begin with people not in the inner circle. The people next door, as it were.
The Wrap have spoken to Dale Pollock, author of an unauthorized George Lucas biography. He has apparently read outlines for twelve Star Wars movies but was obliged to sign an NDA.
Still, he’s doing a little bit of disclosing. He said:
The three most exciting stories were 7, 8 and 9. They had propulsive action, really interesting new worlds, new characters. I remember thinking, ‘I want to see these 3 movies.
And that’s what he would of said on the eve of Phantom Menace being released, honest.
He’s not the only one to have seen these outlines, or outlines like them. JW Rinzler works as “an executive editor” at Lucasfilm and published his own blogpost that comments on the multi-movie arcs that Lucas has planned. Not to say, mind, that these plans still stand.
Here’s a quote on the big arc from Mark Hamill that Rinzler dates to 2004:
You know, when I first did this, it was four trilogies. Twelve movies! Out on the desert, any time between setups… lots of free time. And George was talking about this whole thing… ‘Um, how’d you like to be in Episode IX?’ ‘When is that going to be?’ ‘2011.’
I said, ‘Well, what do you want me to do?’ He said, ‘You’ll just be like a cameo. You’ll be like Obi-Wan handing the lightsaber down to the next new hope.’
This clashes with Pollock’s belief that the new films would feature Luke Skywalker “in his 30s or 40s.” Lucas’ plans obviously keep shifting – something I think is actually obvious enough just from watching the original trilogy.
Rinzler shared this template that dates back to the beginning:
… the original trilogy occupied Episodes VI, VII, and VIII; a Clone Wars trilogy took up Episodes II, III, and IV, while Episode I was a “prelude,” Episodes IX through XI were simply left blank – and Episode XII was the “conclusion.”
But things had changed by 1979. Here’s what Lucas said on the set of The Empire Strikes Back:
The first script was one of six original stories I had written in the form of two trilogies. After the success of Star Wars, I added another trilogy. So now there are nine stories. The original two trilogies were conceived of as six films of which the first film was number four.
And that was the sanctioned gospel in recent years too.
Interestingly, Lucas first talked about handing the reigns over to another filmmaker while making Return of the Jedi:
I’m only doing this because I started it and now I have to finish it. The next trilogy will be all someone else’s vision.
It’s arguably a real disappoint that plan didn’t work out. Will Lucas be good to his promise to walk away this time? Well, they’re not his toys any more. He’s sold them to Disney. Perhaps he won’t be able to change his mind so easily.
The current plans for the next film are officially secret right now, but E! Online have spoken to an unnamed body at Lucasfilm who tells them, of Episode Seven:
It’s an original story.
Meaning: not adapted from a Timothy Zahn book or videogame plot or an episode of Droids or bit of fanfic from a scary online forum.
Who is this secret source? It doesn’t really matter, it was pretty clear for anybody listening closely to the conference calls and video press releases with Lucas, Kathleen Kennedy and Bob Iger yesterday that the new films will be new stories. What wasn’t clear was how detailed Lucas’ treatments for these new stories actually are.
The treatments do seem to exist as Iger said Disney had purchased them, but they also seem sketchy as Kennedy said they were still hearing ideas from writers.
But there seems to be one solid fact about episodes seven, eight and nine. One narrative component that marks out the basic strategy; they’re going to pay off the story of episodes one through six, but then actually close the book on that saga for once and for all.
In the video below, Lucas says:
Once Kathy came onbaord we started working with writers, we started working on the whole processes of doing the films. We’ve got a plan for seven, eight and nine which is the end of the trilogy and other films also. We’ve a large group of ideas, and characters and books and all kinds of things. We could go on making Star Wars for the next hundred years.
They have been working with writers already.
Seven eight and nine are going to close out the saga – he says ‘trilogy’ but we know what he means.
Other films will come but not be part of that saga.
Amongst the source material they’ll be drawing on, somewhere in the mix, are books. Presumably the existing, published books by Timothy Zahn and so on.
Straight from the horse’s mouth.
Just as a footnote, it’s worth noting that the official Star Wars channel has released this “special video presentation” alongside their Disney deal videos. Are they giving us a hint? I think so, I really do.
George Lucas has just been outed as a very grand philanthropist. A spokesperson for Lucasfilm have told The Hollywood Reporter that “the bulk” $4 billion of Lucas’ payday for signing his empire over to Disney will be paid into a charitable foundation focused primarily on educational issues.
Well, mental high five, George. You’ve done good.
Lucas issued a statement in 2010 with a pledge to support education. It’s this he’s now actually following through with, and to an even greater tune than he could manage before – and let’s be honest, he’s not been short of a bob or two for a good while now.
Here’s the full text of what Lucas said:
Storytellers are teachers and communicators who speak a universal language. That was Homer’s primary role, and both Plato and Aristotle used narratives and dialogues as a means of educating. Good storytelling is based on truths and insights, and a good storyteller is ultimately a teacher – using the arts as a means of making education emotionally meaningful. These are all tools at our educational system’s disposal, but too often we aren’t making use of them.
When I was in high school, I felt like I was in a vacuum, biding time. I was curious, but bored. It was not an atmosphere conducive to learning. I was fortunate that I found my path and my language.
It’s scary to think of our education system as little better than an assembly line with producing diplomas as its only goal. Once I had the means to effect change in this arena, it became my passion to do so – to promote active, life-long learning. I believe in the artisan school of learning, through apprenticeships and Aristotelian questions and discussion. This level of engagement dates back to the beginning of human life, but it’s still the best way of doing things. There have to be universal standards – particularly in education – and while it
seems unwieldy, there is a willingness among educators to share their best practices.
Ultimately, that is why I created Edutopia and the George Lucas Educational Foundation.
The focus of GLEF has been to share educational innovations – cooperative and project learning, mentorship, parental involvement, and technological advances. This all comes straight from those on the front lines, from teachers who are putting these methods into practice. We are the facilitators. Our goal has been to showcase bold
successes and inspire others to further increase the appetite for education. Our hope is that administrators, teachers, and parents will see the power of these collective efforts and join the fight for wider
reforms.
But reform is just the beginning. We need to build new foundations, fostering independent thought and a desire to keep learning. Our students need to come away with more than just survival skills, and more than just what is required to complete the program. We need to promote critical thinking and emotional intelligence. We need to focus
on building an education system that promotes different types of learning, different types of development, and different types of assessment. We have an opportunity and an obligation to prepare our children for the real world, for dealing with others in practical, project-based environments. It’s about working together and building character – being compassionate, empathetic, and civil as a means to a greater end.
As technology changes, so do students. So should classrooms, and so should our methods of teaching. In a few short years, connectivity has gone from a technological novelty to a daily necessity. It’s how our culture communicates, and our children are at the forefront of its use. Understanding those tools – and how to integrate them into learning – is an integral step in defining our future.
My pledge is to the process; as long as I have the resources at my disposal, I will seek to raise the bar for future generations of students of all ages.
I am dedicating the majority of my wealth to improving education. It is the key to the survival of the human race. We have to plan for our collective future – and the first step begins with the social, emotional, and intellectual tools we provide to our children. As humans, our greatest tool for survival is our ability to think and to
adapt – as educators, storytellers, and communicators our responsibility is to continue to do so.
... well.. fair play to him, that's a pretty cool thing to do with his money.
Sebster wrote: Uh, they're giving us constant reboot and sequels because that's what people keep turning up in cinemas to watch.
Hollywood looks at the numbers, and does what the numbers tell them. I mean, look at all the people who tromped into each episode of the Star Wars prequels. Fool me once, fool me twice and oh look here I am watching the third movie in this line of gakky sequels. Look at all the merchandise that is still getting sold.
Hollywood is giving people what they want, so don't blame them. Blame the people going to watch this rubbish.
I do blame the people!!
Sebster wrote: Yeah, the best way to build a loyal customer base is to be elitist and exclusionary. I predict wild success for your future business venture.
Games Workshop have been doing it for years. I did say 'if' I ever open a game store. The key word is if. If I become POTUS, if I marry Kelly Brook. If... You get the general gist.
The end result will probably be average to mediocre films, that get shot down by critics, but make millions in action figure/lego sales. French cinema it will not be.
All this hype about nothing of any real substance reminds me of an important event happening in a few days time. Can anybody remind me what it is
Is anyone else having as much fun as me because they keep reading EU as European Union by mistake? It makes for some jolly amusing posts, let me tell you.
I particularly liked the idea of European Union 'fanbois.' Although I'm willing to bet the Conservatives wouldn't.
htj wrote: Is anyone else having as much fun as me because they keep reading EU as European Union by mistake? It makes for some jolly amusing posts, let me tell you.
I particularly liked the idea of European Union 'fanbois.' Although I'm willing to bet the Conservatives wouldn't.
htj wrote: Is anyone else having as much fun as me because they keep reading EU as European Union by mistake? It makes for some jolly amusing posts, let me tell you.
I particularly liked the idea of European Union 'fanbois.' Although I'm willing to bet the Conservatives wouldn't.
What has Lucas given us recently? Indiana Jones & the crystal skulls, and he butchered Red Tails. Before that?
Let's face facts while Lucas can come up with some great original material he's hasn't been able to make good movies in decades.
Q What has Disney done recently?
A The bought out Marvel Studios.
Q What did they do with Marvel Studio?
A They left them the feth alone. Disney learned from Pixar that Pixar does it's best work when left alone, and as long as they keep grossing buckets of money leave Pixar alone. Apply that lesson to Marvel Studios and what do you get?
d-usa wrote: Sorry, the John Carter mention had me confused and thinking that you were talking about "new movies for merch" as a new concept. Sorry for that on my part.
Not a problem, I probably didn't make the two things as distinct as I should have.
My point was just that, in looking to expand Disney's merchandising ability, the company hatched on a scheme to release a handful of big budget, high profile movies, and not have the traditional smaller releases around it. The first movie in that new business model was John Carter... and it's woeful performance probably ended that business model right then and there. So instead they're just buying up an established merchandising machine in Star Wars... anything other stuff that comes along with that is gravy.
But in the end I think we are just arguing over a minor detail. They got two things: A lot of production facilities and resources, and movie franchices with merchandising volume. I think all we really disagree on is which part of the deal was the meat and which part was the potatoes and gravy.
Yeah, that's the point up for debate. And I'm saying merchandising rights are a way bigger deal than production facilities. Especially Star Wars merchandising rights.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azazel the cat wrote: All joking aside, merch is the core of this purchase. Nothing compares to merchandise rights. The box office and DVD sales of the Star Wars franchise probably amount to less than 10% of the empire. The rest comes from merchandise and licensing rights.
Modern movie franchises are aimed at maximizing merchandising; the box office really doesn't mean much anymore. The film itself is generall considered just a commercial for the toy lines now, and it's been this way for at least a decade.
EDIT: ILM wasn't even the gravy. Merch rights were the meat, Lucasarts was the potatoes, the film franchises were the gravy and ILM was maybe the inedible garnish that makes the plate look nice.
Games Workshop have been doing it for years. I did say 'if' I ever open a game store. The key word is if. If I become POTUS, if I marry Kelly Brook. If... You get the general gist.
My answer was more than a little harsh, sorry about that.
The end result will probably be average to mediocre films, that get shot down by critics, but make millions in action figure/lego sales. French cinema it will not be.
Pretty much.
Meanwhile, have you noticed how much crowd pleasing pap the French have been putting out in the last couple of years. It seems even they got bored with complex adult relationships where everyone sighs all the time and spouts little metaphors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote: Let's face facts while Lucas can come up with some great original material he's hasn't been able to make good movies in decades.
Q What has Disney done recently?
A The bought out Marvel Studios.
Q What did they do with Marvel Studio?
A They left them the feth alone. Disney learned from Pixar that Pixar does it's best work when left alone, and as long as they keep grossing buckets of money leave Pixar alone. Apply that lesson to Marvel Studios and what do you get?
Lucasfilm was just saved from George Lucas.
Sure, but there's a basic difference in what is being bought. Marvel had an established, still successful creative team with a bunch of stories that were ripe for telling on the big screen. The last great Star Wars story was told three decades ago, and I'd be buggered if I can think of anything that would even half work as a new story.
Now, I agree with you that 'oh no that's the death of Star Wars I don't want no Mickey Mouse in my Star Wars' is equally wrong and just non-sensical, but I think any hope that this will lead to new Star Wars movies that are anything like the success Disney has had with Marvel is wildly optimistic.
A fair few people did. Now putting aside whether you're wrong and your taste is bad and you should feel bad (but seriously, you're wrong and your taste is bad and you should feel bad ), the film didn't do what Disney needed it to do. It made $280 million at the box office, which is actually not that bad on a production budget of $250 million (put it down as a hefty loss, but hardly a catastropic one), but there was just no related sales.
The problem actually started to show up a year before release - Disney was shopping the movie around at the various toy trade fairs, and getting no interest. The toy companies could see what Disney had missed - no-one was going to buy action figures of Taylor Kitsch and those monster designs.
Now compare that to The Phantom Menace. That film genuinely sucked, underperformed its box office from early estimates by many hundreds of millions (though still made a whopping big profit)... but the real story is in the sales afterwards. Look at all the computer games that were tied in to it, look at the Darth Maul masks, and the plastic light sabers, and the action figures. That's real money.
There's also a massive chunk of money in all the film production assets that Lucas Film, Skywalker Sound. ILM, Lucas Arts, etc hold as a collective.
The toy fancise is pretty epic, but what Lucas Film signifies in the film industtry is absolutely titanic and gives Disney massive reach beyond just Star Wars. Between Disney and the Lucas production elements there aren't too many films that were already tied to them, now by bringing everything in house they are going to literally be profiting from every action or special effects driven movie which long term is worth far more than the inital 4 billion.
It's an incredible move and is going to make Disney insane amounts of money independant of Star Wars.
Also I liked John Carter, most people expected it to be a mordern action movie when it's entire concept is to be a throwback homage to the 30s-40s. I understand why most people don't care for it, but it's a great movie if you follow film history.
paulson games wrote: There's also a massive chunk of money in all the film production assets that Lucas Film, Skywalker Sound. ILM, Lucas Arts, etc hold as a collective.
The toy fancise is pretty epic, but what Lucas Film signifies in the film industtry is absolutely titanic and gives Disney massive reach beyond just Star Wars. Between Disney and the Lucas production elements there aren't too many films that were already tied to them, now by bringing everything in house they are going to literally be profiting from every action or special effects driven movie which long term is worth far more than the inital 4 billion.
It's an incredible move and is going to make Disney insane amounts of money independant of Star Wars.
No, seriously, numbers matter. Star Wars merchandise grosses $1.5 billion a year. The production elements of Lucasarts aren't anywhere near that.
I think you're confusing the merchandising with other figures, based on Bloomberg's article: "If released today, the last three “Star Wars” films would have each generated $1.5 billion on average when adjusting for inflation, the expanded movie market. Sales of related merchandise will total about $215 million this year, and Lucasfilm earned $550 million in operating profit in 2005, when the last movie, “Revenge of the Sith,” came out, Disney said in its statement."
Big differance between 215 million for the merch and the 1.5 billion you are claming. (NY Times also cites the yearly merch total as being $215mil)
The $550 million in profit came from one movie. (and ILM is a seperate entity not calculated in that figure) If you look at the average big budget special effects movies drop 80 million or more into special effects, much of that budget goes to ILM. If ILM does several films a year thats a huge chunk of additional profit they make off record setters movies like Titanic, Avatar, etc. Plus it also slashes their in house costs for Disney films, like the Pirates movies for example.
The purchase of Lucasfilm and ILM gives them a huge indirect reach into the profits of future blockbuster movies regardless of if they are under the disney label or not.
Disney, Lucasfilm and ILM by extension have been basically printing money together for a long time. Now that George is getting up there in years it makes total sense they are bring everything under one roof so it doesn't get split up by his retirement or passing. If they can keep their quality at where it is or better then it's a good thing for the industry. If they loosen their grip and let things slide and get lazy it'll have very negative effects on the entire film industry. That's why this merger is such a big deal.
Somebody on the radio was saying that Disney haven't had an original idea in their entire history. Their early success was built on fairy tales, they took over Pixal and Marvel, and now they've got Star Wars. There's a lesson here...
I have one word to say: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
Somebody on the radio was saying that Disney haven't had an original idea in their entire history. Their early success was built on fairy tales, they took over Pixal and Marvel, and now they've got Star Wars. There's a lesson here...
True, Disney buys other people's original ideas.
Although Mickey Mouse and all his friends are original. The only original ideas Disney will ever have, but thats ok.
Grey Templar, Walt was a racist and an anti-semite! Modern Disney has gone to great lengths to airbrush him out of their history If anything, some people at Disney were glad the day he died!
I agree with what rockerbikie said. Let's have a collective noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Grey Templar, Walt was a racist and an anti-semite! Modern Disney has gone to great lengths to airbrush him out of their history If anything, some people at Disney were glad the day he died!
I agree with what rockerbikie said. Let's have a collective noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Yes, let's get angry over something when we haven't even seen the results.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Grey Templar, Walt was a racist and an anti-semite! Modern Disney has gone to great lengths to airbrush him out of their history If anything, some people at Disney were glad the day he died!
I agree with what rockerbikie said. Let's have a collective noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Yes, let's get angry over something when we haven't even seen the results.
This is the same company which said the Jonas Brothers and Highschool Musical are ok... nothing good will come out of it.
So something I recently learned. Disney IS Touchstone Pictures, and you've enjoyed at least ONE of their movies in the last few years, probably more.
Armageddon, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Pretty Woman, Good Morning Vietnam, Remember The Titans, The Santa Clause, Hidalgo (a personal favorite), The Rocketeer (old school sci fi action), War Horse, The Prestige, Miracle at St. Anna (criminally underrated war movie), Surrogates, Bruce Almighty, Shanghai Noon, Reign of Fire, Gone in 60 Seconds, High Fidelity, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Unbreakable, Pearl Harbor, Bubble Boy, Starship Troopers (for camp credit), The Waterboy and of course for all you goth whiners, The Nightmare Before Christmas is ALSO a Disney film.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Grey Templar, Walt was a racist and an anti-semite! Modern Disney has gone to great lengths to airbrush him out of their history If anything, some people at Disney were glad the day he died!
I agree with what rockerbikie said. Let's have a collective noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
Yes, let's get angry over something when we haven't even seen the results.
This is the same company which said the Jonas Brothers and Highschool Musical are ok... nothing good will come out of it.
And they also said Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Avengers, Iron Man, The Incredibles, The Lion King, Duck Tales, Gargoyles are ok so what's your fething point?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So something I recently learned. Disney IS Touchstone Pictures, and you've enjoyed at least ONE of their movies in the last few years, probably more.
Armageddon, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Pretty Woman, Good Morning Vietnam, Remember The Titans, The Santa Clause, Hidalgo (a personal favorite), The Rocketeer (old school sci fi action), War Horse, The Prestige, Miracle at St. Anna (criminally underrated war movie), Surrogates, Bruce Almighty, Shanghai Noon, Reign of Fire, Gone in 60 Seconds, High Fidelity, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Unbreakable, Pearl Harbor, Bubble Boy, Starship Troopers (for camp credit), The Waterboy and of course for all you goth whiners, The Nightmare Before Christmas is ALSO a Disney film.
Yeah there's a few good ones there but also a LOT of bad. Pretty Woman, War Horse, High Fidelity, and the Santa Clause don't really give me Star Wars hope.
But at the same time they did Tron so.
I think what they make will be overall solid. Don't expect anything remotely dark though. The enemy will be droids I guarantee. Best way of adding battles and explosions without offending the younglings with death.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So something I recently learned. Disney IS Touchstone Pictures, and you've enjoyed at least ONE of their movies in the last few years, probably more.
Armageddon, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Pretty Woman, Good Morning Vietnam, Remember The Titans, The Santa Clause, Hidalgo (a personal favorite), The Rocketeer (old school sci fi action), War Horse, The Prestige, Miracle at St. Anna (criminally underrated war movie), Surrogates, Bruce Almighty, Shanghai Noon, Reign of Fire, Gone in 60 Seconds, High Fidelity, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Unbreakable, Pearl Harbor, Bubble Boy, Starship Troopers (for camp credit), The Waterboy and of course for all you goth whiners, The Nightmare Before Christmas is ALSO a Disney film.
Yeah there's a few good ones there but also a LOT of bad. Pretty Woman, War Horse, High Fidelity, and the Santa Clause don't really give me Star Wars hope.
But at the same time they did Tron so.
I think what they make will be overall solid. Don't expect anything remotely dark though. The enemy will be droids I guarantee. Best way of adding battles and explosions without offending the younglings with death.
But grotesque depictions of death does nothing but benefit society, seeing blood and gore makes kids want to become doctors, seeing criminal activity makes kids want to become lawyers or police officers, seeing substance abuse makes kids want to become scientists.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So something I recently learned. Disney IS Touchstone Pictures, and you've enjoyed at least ONE of their movies in the last few years, probably more.
Armageddon, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Pretty Woman, Good Morning Vietnam, Remember The Titans, The Santa Clause, Hidalgo (a personal favorite), The Rocketeer (old school sci fi action), War Horse, The Prestige, Miracle at St. Anna (criminally underrated war movie), Surrogates, Bruce Almighty, Shanghai Noon, Reign of Fire, Gone in 60 Seconds, High Fidelity, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Unbreakable, Pearl Harbor, Bubble Boy, Starship Troopers (for camp credit), The Waterboy and of course for all you goth whiners, The Nightmare Before Christmas is ALSO a Disney film.
Yeah there's a few good ones there but also a LOT of bad. Pretty Woman, War Horse, High Fidelity, and the Santa Clause don't really give me Star Wars hope.
But at the same time they did Tron so.
I think what they make will be overall solid. Don't expect anything remotely dark though. The enemy will be droids I guarantee. Best way of adding battles and explosions without offending the younglings with death.
Disney's been involved with the Diehard franchise.... I'm jest saying, and those are all good movies, Santa Clause is pretty much the only one of them that's kid friendly to boot. Disney handles material for "mature adults" all the time, so I'm sure they can handle starwars which is targeted somewhere in between adults and kids and always has been.
paulson games wrote: I think you're confusing the merchandising with other figures, based on Bloomberg's article: "If released today, the last three “Star Wars” films would have each generated $1.5 billion on average when adjusting for inflation, the expanded movie market. Sales of related merchandise will total about $215 million this year, and Lucasfilm earned $550 million in operating profit in 2005, when the last movie, “Revenge of the Sith,” came out, Disney said in its statement."
Big differance between 215 million for the merch and the 1.5 billion you are claming. (NY Times also cites the yearly merch total as being $215mil)
No, I'm basing it off the statement in the Forbes article "According to John Singh, a spokesman for Lucasfilm, Star Wars merchandise and videogames earned $1.5 billion in revenue last year".
If you look at the average big budget special effects movies drop 80 million or more into special effects, much of that budget goes to ILM. If ILM does several films a year thats a huge chunk of additional profit they make off record setters movies like Titanic, Avatar, etc. Plus it also slashes their in house costs for Disney films, like the Pirates movies for example.
There are a number of movies every year with big budgets, and much of that is spent on special effects. But even if we pretend that the special effects budget for every other movie went to ILM, it still doesn't come close to the merchandising value of Star Wars.
Disney, Lucasfilm and ILM by extension have been basically printing money together for a long time. Now that George is getting up there in years it makes total sense they are bring everything under one roof so it doesn't get split up by his retirement or passing.
Did you see the other piece of news, where Disney is in talks for the purchase of Hasbro. It's consistent with the strategy of buying major merchandising companies.
I mean, seriously, as far as corporate strategy goes this couldn't be clearer.
Somebody on the radio was saying that Disney haven't had an original idea in their entire history. Their early success was built on fairy tales, they took over Pixal and Marvel, and now they've got Star Wars. There's a lesson here...
Yeah. The hope is that they learnt from Marvel, and are willing to give their creative types a lot of freedom in planning out their film schedule, and in making those films.
The problem, I think, is that Marvel had a wealth of comic book stories that were ripe for translation for the big screen, whereas Star Wars has one story that is big screen material (the original trilogy), and a bunch of other stories that work well in easier to please markets (computer games, penny dreadful novels).
I would honestly be surprised if these new Star Wars movies have much of a story to tell.
This Star Wars trilogy WILL make money. People will like it, and even if they don't they WILL still go watch it.
Star Wars is like Crack. Once you get hooked there's nothing for it. Its going to happen. Except now instead of lining the pockets of George Flukus it will go into the massive entertainment factory that is Disney. Thereby ensuring we will have Star Wars for the next couple centuries.
Although Mickey Mouse and all his friends are original. The only original ideas Disney will ever have, but thats ok.
The company really went downhill after Walt died.
Well, while buying other people's ideas is nothing to be proud of, it is a lot better than standard operating practice under Walt Disney, which was to take fairy tales existing in public domain, tell the story and then attempt to assume IP over that story wherever possible.
My friends and I got through most of that movie by cracking jokes, and ended up rolling on the ground in laughter when the guy started giving the speach about safety and seatbelts at the end. People think that was a good movie?
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Yeah there's a few good ones there but also a LOT of bad. Pretty Woman, War Horse, High Fidelity, and the Santa Clause don't really give me Star Wars hope.
But at the same time they did Tron so.
None of that means a thing.
The days of studio heads taking control of individual films and making sure the films coming out under their logo had a certain level of quality and a certain consistancy in tone ended in the 60s.
What matters is who worked on a movie, and I can tell you that all the people that came together to make Pretty Woman or War Horse or whatever went their seperate ways afterwards, and whether or not they ended up working on another Disney movie would be entirey coincidental. It's likely that Julia Roberts didn't even know that final studio control was coming from an organisation owned by Disney.
This Star Wars trilogy WILL make money. People will like it, and even if they don't they WILL still go watch it.
Star Wars is like Crack. Once you get hooked there's nothing for it. Its going to happen. Except now instead of lining the pockets of George Flukus it will go into the massive entertainment factory that is Disney. Thereby ensuring we will have Star Wars for the next couple centuries.
Absolutely.
What I hate most of all is I'll see a preview, it'll play that music, have some cool images... and I'll be tempted. Then I'll read some puff piece, and even knowing it was basically corporate advertising, it'll still make me think the movie might be okay. And so I'll go see it.
Bromsy wrote: Guh, you just reminded me Surrogates exists. What a stupid film.
Stupid and pointless, definitely.
It had a good idea behind it, but just didn't quite seem to know what to do with it.
It had a vaguely interesting concept, which was completely shat upon by whoever got involved after that. I mean, Luddite reservations over which the Federal Government ceded any authority and allowed the abeyance of a bunch of laws including destruction of personal property and such. Just stupid.
Ahtman wrote: It had a good idea behind it, but just didn't quite seem to know what to do with it.
Yeah, an interesting idea that was let down by a completely terrible script.
They were obviously trying to make some kind of commentary on people today pulling back from risk, and trying to have it so that when Bruce Willis realised that by living through a surrogate he was missing out on life, the audience was meant to realise our safe lives meant we were too. And in a better script, that might have worked, but instead they just said 'surrogates don't give as much stimulus as real life'... which basically meant the only thing being criticised was the fictional technology that won't ever exist in the real world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: It's put off as worse then it was, but it wasn't Platoon or Big Red One for sure.
It was pretty awful. I like Spike Lee, and thought it was great to show black soldiers in WWII, so I picked this one out for me and my mates to watch. I ended up apologising for that movie for a long time...
I mean, how many movies were we watching? There was the racist white commanders sending black troops off with indifference, then there was the magic little kid, then there was the unit trapped in a small town, then there was the Nazis hunting that one partisan, then there was the towns people, and finally that plot about the run away Nazi who saw the massacre, and it was all framed by this murder investigation. And to end with scene on the beach, and the speach inventing seat belts or whatever that guy was going on about.
I'm honestly surprised the film isn't more notorious.
Stolen from a recent article I read about Spike Lee films.
After a strong run of films in the ’00s (25th Hour, Inside Man, When The Levees Broke), Lee’s 2008 WWII film, Miracle At St. Anna, was a botch of the first order: a movie that telegraphs its leadenness in its first 10 minutes, and departs two-and-a-half hours later having left behind two or three memorable scenes. (And even the worst Spike Lee Joints have more than three memorable scenes.) St. Anna starts with a crime in the ’80s, then jumps back to Italy in 1944, when a band of “Buffalo Soldiers” were being used to bait the Nazis in Italy. The film tells the story of one platoon that gets involved in a standoff between the local fascists, the partisan rebels, and the Nazis. On paper, all of this sounds like a fine idea for a movie, but Terence Blanchard’s relentlessly mournful score, the routine-to-the-point-of-cliché battle scenes, and the broad comic relief all prove hard to endure. St. Anna stabilizes after a damn near excruciating first hour, and becomes merely a middling war movie with a heightened social consciousness. But for long stretches, the film plays like School Daze transplanted to the European front, with the token militant, the token uplift-the-race type, and the token buffoon all marching desultorily toward Checkpoint Irony.
Ahtman wrote: Stolen from a recent article I read about Spike Lee films.
Yeah, Spike Lee really was just bizarrely off his game. I mean, after what was probably his most disciplined effort with Inside Man, it was really surprising to end up watching a movie with so many unnecessary sub-plots barely linked together.
generalgrog wrote: I'm curious, besides this 4.5 Billion..how much money has Lucas made form Star Wars since 1977?
My Google Fu isn't working...
GG
Prior to this deal, according to Forbes as of March this year, Lucas was worth somewhere between three and four billion. Most of that has come from various Star Wars products.
Another Forbes article said Star Wars has generated about $20 billion in Star Wars revenue over the course of its life.
Don't let disney claim credit for TRON, they tried pretty hard to see it crash and burn. The original that is, not the steaming pile that is the new one.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course the question now is what is George going to do with all that money? He won't be making star wars movies anymore.
He said he is giving a lot of it to charity and scholarship funds. Lucas also said he would somehow still manage on just a billion or two laying around, at least until winter arrives.
*reads title*
)
