Disney acquires Lucasfilm
- Thread starter Attila the Professor
- Start date
AndyLGR
Active member
I'd like to think the new SW trilogy is going to be akin to the process on ESB and ROTJ. Of course Lucas was very hands on with both these films, despite the fact that he didn't direct them. But I'd hope that Kathleen Kennedy will still be tapping in to the people and knowledge that made the OT special and at least keep the spirit of the originals. But overall I'm willing to withhold judgement until we see the films. Disney should be well aware of the box office potential and legacy of SW. As mentioned its been handed to them on a plate (a very expensive plate), so I would hope that they don't tinker too much with it. And if they come up with the goods, ie good Star Wars films, does it matter that its made by Disney or anyone else for that matter? After all its the end product that I will judge not necessarily the business goings on behind the scenes.
TBH I'm more worried about the future of the Indy franchise over the SW films. Especially if Harrison is deemed too old to play him again or there is no story in works. Then we're looking at a long wait for a reboot or something like that.
Just out of interest Stoo, will you give the brand new SW movie a go at the cinema?
TBH I'm more worried about the future of the Indy franchise over the SW films. Especially if Harrison is deemed too old to play him again or there is no story in works. Then we're looking at a long wait for a reboot or something like that.
Just out of interest Stoo, will you give the brand new SW movie a go at the cinema?
Last edited:
Montana Smith
Active member
Mickiana said:
Might explain why Bumface Baba was so grumpy in the cantina.
Stoo
Well-known member
Ah, I see. That's obviously what he was referring to. I did not know that plans for Epcot went back that far & were that ambitious. Thanks for the clarification, Attila.Attila the Professor said:
Regardless, I can't see how Walt's idea for Epcot is relevant to this debate. It's not as if Disney wanted to buy an actual, pre-existing city.
Quite frankly, I don't have much confidence in Kathleen Kennedy taking the helm of Lucasfilm. People have been disappointed by George for so many reasons in the past but handing over the reins to his company is the ultimate disappointment, for me.AndyLGR said:
Oh, absolutely, Andy. I will even buy the new ones, too, even if they are bad. I own ALL of the films & TV shows (expect for the "Ewoks" cartoons. Yes, I have all the "Droids" cartoons, Ewok movies and the "Holiday Special"). I'll just close my eyes when the Disney logo comes on.AndyLGR said:
Indeed, the future of Indy is the most detrimental aspect of the acquistion. I wasn't waiting with bated breath for Indy 5 but all hope for a new one with Ford has been now been smashed.
Ha! Too right. I've been there and Vegas is Disneyland for adults, especially with that live show of the full-sized, pirate ship battle at the Treasure Island casino. At this rate, Disney should buy the entire Las Vegas Strip. Instead of having Snow White walking around, they can have Julia Roberts "Pretty Woman" look-alikes at every street corner.Rocket Surgeon re: quote from me about Disney rides based on their hooker & heroin movies said:
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
Stoo said:
Oh! What is the disposition of the Star Wars Holiday Special?!
Can we expect it (and the Streisand gay bashing) on a future release?
Stoo
Well-known member
That's a very good question, Rocket. Many SW folks would buy a legit release of the "Holiday Special". (Heck, I paid $50 for a good copy of it in the '90s.) Although, releasing it would probably involve many more legal entaglements than getting the Indy films from Paramount since it wasn't a Lucasfilm production.Rocket Surgeon said:
Nevertheless, I can foresee a tug-o'-war between Disney & Kathleen over it.
Kathleen: "George doesn't want it to be seen."
Disney: "We want to make money. We want it and we're going to get it. We OWN YOU and you will obey our command!"
(As for the Babs clip, I very much doubt it.)
Stoo said:That's a very good question, Rocket. Many SW folks would buy a legit release of the "Holiday Special". (Heck, I paid $50 for a good copy of it in the '90s.) Although, releasing it would probably involve many more legal entaglements than getting the Indy films from Paramount since it wasn't a Lucasfilm production.
Nevertheless, I can foresee a tug-o'-war between Disney & Kathleen over it.
Kathleen: "George doesn't want it to be seen."
Disney: "We want to make money. We want it and we're going to get it. We OWN YOU and you will obey our command!"
(As for the Babs clip, I very much doubt it.)
Stoo, just answer the question, finally: Do you think Disney should be tried with anti-trust laws as a monopoly, split apart piecemeal, with the Disney name fading away? You have a serious Disney hate boner as much as you try to deny it.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XpTwcnA9nYw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Rocket Surgeon said:
May the day come when Disney is dismantled into little pieces and it's films fall out of print forever. Horrible, wrecthed, naughty company. They should've left Lucas alone to rape the original films some more and the Star Wars fans wouldn't have to destroy Disney.
Seriously though, Star Wars fans are just as irrational, thoughtless and mentally ill as the Chris Nolan fanbase. You know nothing about the movie at all, but have already decided that it's going to be crap even before it enters production, somehow all of George Lucas' tinkering with the originals and his creation of the prequels is forgotten or forgiven, and Disney is now treated like it's Hitler and as if all it's ever made were cartoon films for kids. Somehow all of their classic films which delighted the world are forgotten, and even all the mature films they made are swept under the rug, just to bash the company for buying Lucasfilm.
Last edited:
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
It's a Trap!Raiders112390 said:
Lucas is actually taking over Disney!
Disney has bought a poison well, tis true.
It'll be some kind of kiss to bring them back
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
Raiders112390 said:
What ISN'T crap that has turned to crap?
Montana Smith
Active member
Raiders112390 said:
You sound quite hysterical.
"Please, sit down before you fall down."
Rocket Surgeon said:
It's not over until the fat man farts.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
Raiders112390 said:
You wrote:
What's been made by others since 1996 that ISN'T crap?
Rocket Surgeon said:
Let's see:
SPIELBERG
Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Band of Brothers (2002)
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Munich (2005)
Lincoln (2012)
DISNEY
Hercules (1997)
Starship Troopers (1997)
Mulan (1998)
Armageddon (1998)
The 13th Warrior (1998)
Mission to Mars (2000)
Unbreakable (2000)
Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? (2001)
The Royal Tennenbaums (2001)
Lilo and Stitch (2002)
Monsters, Inc Series (2002-present)
Pirates of the Caribbean series (2003-present)
National Treasure series (2004-present)
The Chronicles of Narnia series (2005-2008)
Cars series (2006-present)
Princess and the Frog (2008)
Tangled (2011)
The Avengers (2012)
Last edited:
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
Laddie, what the hell are you talking about?!Raiders112390 said:
You posted:
OK, so Spielberg is clearly associated with him fine, but who thinks:
...are crap?
As far as DISNEY, what's the Lucas association? ILM?
In any event, I'm unaware of most of these being crap...
Though some certainly are...but because of Lucas?!
Vance
New member
Raiders112390 said:
One of the big things that people forget was that Ken Williams, the husband of Sierra's creative lead, and its CEO, actually hated gaming and never saw Sierra as anything more than a particularly profitable hobby for his wife (for a few years, anyway) ...
But he had no acumen for the gaming business, really, outside of his wife's creativity with their products. He got lucky, grew fast, and didn't have the skills to keep the company going when it hit its first slump.
I really don't see Disney having the same problem.
Vance said:
What are you talking about? Towards the end, before Sierra was sold for the first time, Ken was actually getting MORE into gaming. What I mean is, he stopped being the day-to-day leader of Sierra (He remained CEO and Chairman, but appointed an executive to President and COO), so he could focus on creative affairs. He visited every subsidiary they had every three months for a one month review of every game in production and went over the games and tweaked them....Almost micromanaging, really. I've read Walt Disney stepped down as the Chairman of Disney in 1960 for the same reason, to focus on the creative end of the business.
I think Ken had acumen. Under him, Sierra went from him and his wife in 1980 to having 1,500 employees in 1996 (they were sold in July '96, beforehand they were independent) and being the market share leader in the computer game industry. They only hit their slump when they were sold to CUC, whose leaders turned out to be a bunch of Enron style crooks. Bob Davidson (head of Davidson & Associates, an education game company which also owned Blizzard) was appointed head of CUC Software, which Sierra and Davidson and Blizzard were all under.
Where it gets bad is that Ken sort of left the company in limbo after the sale. He was still the CEO, but not really, (He claims he quit as CEO the day the sale to CUC was finished yet publicly referred to himself as the CEO of Sierra for almost a year later and other companies even refer meeting with him as head of Sierra after he claims he quit) and didn't appoint any successor, and got involved into "turf wars" with Davidson over the way Sierra products were to be sold and marketed etc. After the sale he sort of left the company in limbo and made for no real transition process. Before the sale though, they were well in the black and were pretty much the big guys in their field....That speaks of acumen to me.