Disney acquires Lucasfilm

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
It's sad that we live in the post Dark Knight age, a time when anything resembling innocence and lightheartedness (aka Disney) must be ridiculed and crushed. The cult of Walt Disney hate and of Disney Hate in general is sad, sad, sad.

tumblr_m55q1nfne91r1e9x6o1_500.jpg
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:

If we keep going down this route people will eventually hate the original Indy films for not being gritty or realistic enough.

What's wrong with a film being innocent or lighthearted?

Did you really hate Disney films that much growing up? Why do they offend you so much now?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
What's wrong with a film being innocent or lighthearted?

Disney was the purveyor of some deeply disturbing storylines.

Dumbo's mother committed to an 'asylum'. Bambi's mother dead.

bambi's+mother.bmp


Nope.

bambi__s_mother_death.jpg



Raiders112390 said:
Did you really hate Disney films that much growing up? Why do they offend you so much now?

They didn't, and they don't.

It's Stewie who hates Disney. I'm the one who hates Disney-tool Shia.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
The hate is strong within you.
---
It's sad that we live in the post Dark Knight age, a time when anything resembling innocence and lightheartedness (aka Disney) must be ridiculed and crushed. The cult of Walt Disney hate and of Disney Hate in general is sad, sad, sad.
Montana Smith said:
It's Stewie who hates Disney. I'm the one who hates Disney-tool Shia.
I don't hate Disney! I have over 50 Disney titles in my video collection and own a few books & magazines about their art & imagineering.

I hate the merge of Lucasfilm & Disney!(n) It's a bitter thing to swallow.

♫♪♫
"Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."
 

ROB98374

Active member
I love the Disney Pirates of the Caribbean movies. Prince of Persia, National Treasure and John Carter were all fun movies too. I think that if Disney decides to make a new Indiana Jones movie, it would be a success.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Stoo said:
I don't hate Disney! I have over 50 Disney titles in my video collection and own a few books & magazines about their art & imagineering.

I hate the merge of Lucasfilm & Disney!(n) It's a bitter thing to swallow.

♫♪♫
"Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."

But why do you so hate the merge of Lucasfilm and Disney?

Let me give you my argument:

I think the sale of Lucasfilm is actually better for Lucasfilm--and it's fans--than it is for Disney.

Lucasfilm, before the sale, was dead. George Lucas had affirmed and reaffirmed his decision to retire from filmmaking. He was tired of being hated, in his own words. He talked, pretty vaguely and not often, about the idea of a fifth Indiana Jones, but didn't seem really passionate or overly invested in the idea. Outside of that, the long awaited Clone Wars series had floundered and didn't seem like it was going to actually be.

Lucasfilm had no major projects going on, nor did LucasArts.

George Lucas, over and over, reaffirmed his position that the original theatrical editions of the original Star Wars trilogy, would never see a re-release or be remastered. They would cease to be.

Indy 5 as I said, was pretty much a vaguely, barely discussed item. Not really of importance to Lucas or anyone at his company.

Disney on the other hand is an incredibly active company which does not simply depend on the whimsy of one man; It has pretty creatively autonomous subsidiaries; All of it's branches--Touchstone, Pixar, Marvel--are always busy with some project or another, and all of those divisions offer up very different creative products. Disney is not some monolith dominated by family friendly films.

I mean films such as Pretty Woman, The Dead Poets Society, The Royal Tennenbaums, Con Air, Armageddon, andd Good Morning Vietnam were created by Disney and released under their Touchstone Pictures banner. Not exactly goofy childish fare there.

The merger could breathe new life into Lucasfilm. As with Marvel and Pixar, Lucasfilm will probably be allowed to do it's own thing, for the most part--no executive meddling. The company won't have to rely on a weary old man whose ego is stubbed, to continue. The Star Wars franchaise and it's future no longer rely solely on a man who is impossibly stubborn and refuses creative counsel or help. It is now passed to new, younger, more open minded hands--And perhaps from those hands, we will get fine products.

Indy's future is in doubt, but then again, it was also in doubt prior to the merger. And given Harrison's increasing age, and Spielberg'sl list of projects down the pipeline, along with Lucas' lack of passion in getting a story down for them, a fifth film starring Harrison probably would not have happened even if the sale hadn't happened.

Lucas' involvement in his Star Wars and Indy is now relegated to that of a creative adviser, basically--a role he served when he made great films. He wasn't directly responsible for 2/3rds of the original Star Wars trilogy (He neither wrote the scripts of nor directed Empire and Jedi) and didn't put his hand heavily onto Indiana Jones outside of offering up a basic storyline until KOTCs.

As evidenced by the prequels and KOTCS, when given more creative control, Lucas' films aren't as good.

We'll get a Star Wars sequel trilogy--Something a segment of fans have wanted since the '80s, and in new, perhaps better hands.

We'll probably get the Clone Wars television series.

We'll likely at some point get an Indy reboot series, which may be good or poor, but can be ignored if one pleases.

We might even get new Star Wars and perhaps even Indiana Jones based games in the coming years.

And perhaps, we might get to finally see the original Star Wars trilogy cleaned up on Blu Ray, at some point--whether after Fox's legal ownership of those films ends in 2020 or perhaps sooner if Disney and Fox can work out a deal. It is too profitable a proposition to pass up.

I don't see any of the above ever happening if Lucasfilm hadn't been sold. Things were stagnant, and were probably going to remain so given Lucas' exhaustion, self pity and victim complex.

Now, will these projects pan out, will they be good? Yet to be seen, but I'd hedge my bets on them being good since Lucas' role is only that of an consultant or adviser.

I don't see it being anything of a downside for Lucasfilm fans. Where was the company going post Red Tails with Lucas at the helm?
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
But why do you so hate the merge of Lucasfilm and Disney?

Let me give you my argument:
Raiders112390, I know what your stance is (sort of) because I read & REMEMBER what you write. However, you do contradict yourself, which is often confusing.

Perhaps you weren't following it...but a still-going thread that I started last year voices my opinion rather loudly: Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection.

When it comes to characters whom I adore, I tend to be a purist. In a nutshell, my aversion pretty much boils down to artistic integrity being sacrificed for the almighty dollar & the compromise for ca$h. (I'm not pretending that Indy & "Star Wars" are solely, adult-based films but they certainly contain elements which are unsuitable for good 'ol, wholesome Disney).

At this point, I must quote what you said just a few day ago because it reflects, greatly, on this dicussion:

Raiders112390 said:
...it is sad to see Disney moving away from both the spirit and name of it's founding father.

It's sad that we live in the post Dark Knight age, a time when anything resembling innocence and lightheartedness (aka Disney) must be ridiculed and crushed.

If we keep going down this route people will eventually hate the original Indy films for not being gritty or realistic enough.

What's wrong with a film being innocent or lighthearted?

This is the VERY CRUX OF THE SITUATION:
-Disney moving away from lighthearted innocence.
-Lucasfilm moving away from grittiness.

Both parties have been heading down those respective directions for a while now and the paths have been detrimental to each company's original, artistic integrity. For me, this has been painful to witness. (You, yourself, were disgusted by the state of the Disney Channel.:rolleyes:...How many fans were disappointed that Indy never fired his gun in "Skull"?:gun:)

I'm not pretending that Indy & "Star Wars" are solely, adult-based films but they certainly contain elements which are unsuitable for good 'ol, wholesome Disney.

Raiders112390 said:
Disney is not some monolith dominated by family friendly films.

I mean films such as Pretty Woman, The Dead Poets Society, The Royal Tennenbaums, Con Air, Armageddon, andd Good Morning Vietnam were created by Disney and released under their Touchstone Pictures banner. Not exactly goofy childish fare there.
HELLO?:confused: Mere days ago, you were championing Disney's lighthearted & innocent spirit. Now you're attempting to assert that Disney isn't just for kids?:rolleyes: You're contradicting yourself, Raiders112390!:whip:

The average Joe & Jane Public probably don't know who owns Touchstone & Miramax. For the majority of people all over the world, the name, Disney, probably doesn't conjure up mental images of prostitutes, foul language, heroin use, etc. Are there any "Pretty Woman" & "Pulp Fiction" attractions in the Disney parks? ("Hey, let's make rides about our hooker & heroin movies!")

I've been a lover of "Star Wars" since '77 and Indy since '81 but don't RABIDLY CRAVE for anymore movies because what has been already made is much more than enough to be content with. Folks who desire more toys & products to consume are dancing with glee because they haven't learned how to be satisfied & patient. Instant gratification is for chumps! I'm not one of them.

Hope that helps explain my position, Raiders112390.:cool:
 

No Ticket

New member
Stoo said:
Raiders112390, I know what your stance is (sort of) because I read & REMEMBER what you write. However, you do contradict yourself, which is often confusing.

Perhaps you weren't following it...but a still-going thread that I started last year voices my opinion rather loudly: Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection.

When it comes to characters whom I adore, I tend to be a purist. In a nutshell, my aversion pretty much boils down to artistic integrity being sacrificed for the almighty dollar & the compromise for ca$h. (I'm not pretending that Indy & "Star Wars" are solely, adult-based films but they certainly contain elements which are unsuitable for good 'ol, wholesome Disney).

At this point, I must quote what you said just a few day ago because it reflects, greatly, on this dicussion:



This is the VERY CRUX OF THE SITUATION:
-Disney moving away from lighthearted innocence.
-Lucasfilm moving away from grittiness.

Both parties have been heading down those respective directions for a while now and the paths have been detrimental to each company's original, artistic integrity. For me, this has been painful to witness. (You, yourself, were disgusted by the state of the Disney Channel.:rolleyes:...How many fans were disappointed that Indy never fired his gun in "Skull"?:gun:)

I'm not pretending that Indy & "Star Wars" are solely, adult-based films but they certainly contain elements which are unsuitable for good 'ol, wholesome Disney.

HELLO?:confused: Mere days ago, you were championing Disney's lighthearted & innocent spirit. Now you're attempting to assert that Disney isn't just for kids?:rolleyes: You're contradicting yourself, Raiders112390!:whip:

The average Joe & Jane Public probably don't know who owns Touchstone & Miramax. For the majority of people all over the world, the name, Disney, probably doesn't conjure up mental images of prostitutes, foul language, heroin use, etc. Are there any "Pretty Woman" & "Pulp Fiction" attractions in the Disney parks? ("Hey, let's make rides about our hooker & heroin movies!")

I've been a lover of "Star Wars" since '77 and Indy since '81 but don't RABIDLY CRAVE for anymore movies because what has been already made is much more than enough to be content with. Folks who desire more toys & products to consume are dancing with glee because they haven't learned how to be satisfied & patient. Instant gratification is for chumps! I'm not one of them.

Hope that helps explain my position, Raiders112390.:cool:


Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Disney isn't going to do anything Lucas hasn't already done.

- The films are likely not going to be as "kid friendly" as the prequels were. They will probably end up in tone similar to that of Pirates or something, which is similar to the original trilogy anyway.

- They will still make millions of dollars worth of toys. Lucas has been doing that since 1977. What's new?

- There will still be rides at Disney that feature either Indiana Jones or Star Wars. Hello Star Tours & Stunt Spectacular. It won't bother me if they add some more.


Lucas donated most of the money from the acquisition. I don't think it was about money. Lucasfilm was something that, while he was active in his career, he wanted to be removed from Hollywood. But it's all his. He probably knew that for Star Wars to live on he'd have to give it up to capable hands. He sold it to Disney because Disney can keep it going long after he is retired and long after he is dead. It would have continued on through him as it is now just the same until he's gone and then we would have had nothing else anymore.

I don't look at it as more to consume. I like the stories and the universe of both Star Wars and Indy. So do many others. I don't see a need to let it die when so many people love it. I think this is where George was coming from and I think it's why he decided to do what he did.

As far as this new trilogy goes, I'm excited at the prospect of others writing and directing because hey... it worked for Empire Strikes Back. And in the case of Indy 5. I don't think it is or was ever going to happen anyway. I think the Indy franchise was doomed to drift into obscurity after KOTCS. Sadly. Perhaps Disney will pump some life into it eventually years down the line.
 
Nice explanation, clear concise and consistent...what I really wanted to say though was...isn't this:
Stoo said:
Are there any "Pretty Woman" & "Pulp Fiction" attractions in the Disney parks? ("Hey, let's make rides about our hooker & heroin movies!")

Las Vegas?

:hat:
 
Mickiana said:
Does anyone know how long the acquisition was in the pipeline? Could it have been pre 2008 or at least pre Indy4 production? We will probably never know, but if it was so, maybe this accounts for the more family friendly Indy we saw then? It's just my suspicious mind, but the idea of George tailoring an eventually very profitable Indy4 for family friendly viewing would have only made Lucasfilm more attractive for acquisition by Disney. As I write this, many other options come to mind so regard it as the vaguest of ponderings.

I think this explains many things, ties it all up nicely. From Jar Jar the lynchpin of Galactic oppression to Indy the "Wacky" Archaeologist.

I wouldn't doubt that the sale was on the table before Lucas announced the prequels...
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I think this explains many things, ties it all up nicely. From Jar Jar the lynchpin of Galactic oppression to Indy the "Wacky" Archaeologist.

I wouldn't doubt that the sale was on the table before Lucas announced the prequels...

Conspiracy theorists will tell you that Disney operatives have been putting lead into Lucas' drinking water since the early 1990s.

As the Big Beard regressed back into childhood he began to unknowingly Disneyfy his major brands...
 

kongisking

Active member
No Ticket said:
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Disney isn't going to do anything Lucas hasn't already done.

- The films are likely not going to be as "kid friendly" as the prequels were. They will probably end up in tone similar to that of Pirates or something, which is similar to the original trilogy anyway.

- They will still make millions of dollars worth of toys. Lucas has been doing that since 1977. What's new?

- There will still be rides at Disney that feature either Indiana Jones or Star Wars. Hello Star Tours & Stunt Spectacular. It won't bother me if they add some more.


Lucas donated most of the money from the acquisition. I don't think it was about money. Lucasfilm was something that, while he was active in his career, he wanted to be removed from Hollywood. But it's all his. He probably knew that for Star Wars to live on he'd have to give it up to capable hands. He sold it to Disney because Disney can keep it going long after he is retired and long after he is dead. It would have continued on through him as it is now just the same until he's gone and then we would have had nothing else anymore.

I don't look at it as more to consume. I like the stories and the universe of both Star Wars and Indy. So do many others. I don't see a need to let it die when so many people love it. I think this is where George was coming from and I think it's why he decided to do what he did.

As far as this new trilogy goes, I'm excited at the prospect of others writing and directing because hey... it worked for Empire Strikes Back. And in the case of Indy 5. I don't think it is or was ever going to happen anyway. I think the Indy franchise was doomed to drift into obscurity after KOTCS. Sadly. Perhaps Disney will pump some life into it eventually years down the line.

Terrific post, No Ticket. I fully agree with all of it. :hat:
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
As opposed to opening a new thread on the next two Star Wars films after the 7th film, I think I'll place this info here and possibly in the star wars 7 thread...

So it is being widely speculated and confirmed in some places that Lawrence Kasdan has been hired to write the screenplay for either Star Wars 8 or 9 as well as co-producing both...

At first this sounded a bit like fan boy hooey, but now several legitimate sources are just about confirming it, including a friend of mine that has been 99% accurate on information he sends my way.

http://www.slashfilm.com/disney-loo...cript-star-wars-episodes-8-and-9/#more-149265
 

Stoo

Well-known member
No Ticket said:
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Disney isn't going to do anything Lucas hasn't already done.

- The films are likely not going to be as "kid friendly" as the prequels were. They will probably end up in tone similar to that of Pirates or something, which is similar to the original trilogy anyway.
Perhaps...but perhaps not. At this point, we don't know how they will tackle it. "Pirates" is similar in tone to the original trilogy???:confused: Good Lord, I saw a bit of one on TV and the scene was so zany, it was wackier than Mutt & Spalko's swordfight in "Skull". (It was a scene with a big, wooden wheel-thing with guys fighting on it while rolling through a jungle. The scene was so silly that I switched channels.) If that's the tone Disney would aim for, I wouldn't like it.(n)
No Ticket said:
- They will still make millions of dollars worth of toys. Lucas has been doing that since 1977. What's new?
Make that 1978, No Ticket. There was "Star Wars" merchandise in 1977 but no toys.;) Nothing is new about making million$ of dollar$ on toys but CNN International reported that Disney has plans to "more aggressively pursue" the merchandising of Star Wars. How much more aggressive can it get?

Boba Fett Bubble Bath?
Darth Maul Diapers?
Anakin Skywalker Acne Cream?
Aunt Beru Kitchen Blender?
Padme Maxi-Pads?
How about Tatooine Toilet Paper?
No Ticket said:
- There will still be rides at Disney that feature either Indiana Jones or Star Wars. Hello Star Tours & Stunt Spectacular. It won't bother me if they add some more.
The rides had no business being in the parks to begin with! Disney executives: "Hey, let's make rides about films we never made!":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: (Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.:()
No Ticket said:
Lucas donated most of the money from the acquisition. I don't think it was about money.
I'm well aware of Lucas' charity. When I spoke of the almighty dollar, I meant Disney. This latest generation of Disney has become like The Blob; an unstoppable, enormous mass roaming about with freewill, enveloping everything in its path and growing larger in the process. Is Disney's aim to dominate ALL of North American pop culture?

To Disney, this acquisition is obviously about money, which is why they'll be milking the ca$h cow that is "Star Wars" while leaving Indy in the freezer.(n)
No Ticket said:
He probably knew that for Star Wars to live on he'd have to give it up to capable hands. He sold it to Disney because Disney can keep it going long after he is retired and long after he is dead. It would have continued on through him as it is now just the same until he's gone and then we would have had nothing else anymore.

I don't look at it as more to consume. I like the stories and the universe of both Star Wars and Indy. So do many others. I don't see a need to let it die when so many people love it. I think this is where George was coming from and I think it's why he decided to do what he did.
Does the world really NEED more "Star Wars"? Is 65+ hours of movies & TV shows not enough?:confused:
No Ticket said:
As far as this new trilogy goes, I'm excited at the prospect of others writing and directing because hey... it worked for Empire Strikes Back. And in the case of Indy 5. I don't think it is or was ever going to happen anyway. I think the Indy franchise was doomed to drift into obscurity after KOTCS. Sadly. Perhaps Disney will pump some life into it eventually years down the line.
Having others direct "Star Wars" movies is not an issue because that's how the first 2 sequels were done. However, having a different director on an Indy movie would be sacreligious in my eyes. Story-wise, I'm not keen on Eps. 7-9 or future Indy films being developed/overseen by someone other than Lucas (as good or bad as his ideas may be).

Analogy:
No Ticket, you like The Beatles. Imagine if Michael Jackson had bought more than just the publishing rights to The Beatles song catalogue. Imagine if he owned their name, etc. and had other musicians write/perform/record new songs and released an album, selling it as The Beatles. (Paul, George & Ringo's only input would've been as creative consultants). A ridiculous notion, yes? The same situation is happening with the Disney buyout.

This mentality of "Star Wars-&-Indy-will-be-better-out-of-Lucas'-hands" is nauseating.:sick:
featofstrength said it best in post #188:
featofstrength said:
These are the kinds of brainless "Any Star Wars is good Star Wars" zombies we have to suffer with the inevitable Disny sh*tfest. Elitism with no valid arguments or sense of humor about the subject they pledge their love to.
(y)
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
The Pirates of the Caribbean series is no more zany than Temple of Doom and much less zany than Crystal Skull. It is much in line with the classic swashbuckling films The Mark of Zorro, Captain Blood, The Adventures of Robin Hood , etc.

What does it matter to you if there's more toys? You do realize there was already crazy stuff like Leia shampoo bottles and Leia sex dolls before the Disney sale, right? See Carrie Fisher's "Wishful Drinking." And if again, if more toys bother you, simply don't buy them. Let the kids who play with toys enjoy them.

As for the rides, why does it matter to you? Lucas entered into a partnership with them for the rides, tons of people enjoy them?

Disney is and always has been a business, Stoo. I'm people said the same thing back in 1966 when Walt himself wanted to build an actual CITY which the company would control. Disney has always been expanding and growing and in the '80s there was this same moral panic when Disney launched Touchstone, that Disney was drifting from it's roots and I'm sure when Disney came to own ESPN, ABC, Miramax, the Muppets, people felt as you do. But Disney is an amazing company--has been for nearly 90 years with some stumbles.

In terms of expansion, need I remind you that before he died, Jim Henson was involved in a deal to sell his entire works to Disney, as he felt they'd be in good hands forever? The only thing which stopped that deal from happening was his sudden unexpected death.

It depends--Does the world NEED more Star Wars? No. But did the world NEED Star Wars or Indiana Jones to begin with? No. Films are not needed and do not need to justify their existence. But are there people who want and have wanted to see more Star Wars? Yes. And if there is demand, there is usually someone willing to fulfil that demand. Just because you're not one of those who doesn't want Star Wars to continue, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen for those who do.
If you don't want more Star Wars films, there is a simple solution to that: Don't watch them. I don't watch films that I have no interest in.

Why is Indy being directed by someone else blasphemous? Spielberg himself considered the idea back in the '90s. He was dragged, kicking and screaming, into Indy 4. He didn't want to do it and felt that that part of his life was over and he'd go on and mature as a filmmaker and if there ever was a fourth Indiana Jones film, he'd maybe produce it and have "some young kid" direct it. But Lucas, Ford, and eventually the public pushed the idea at him. If Spielberg could conceive of the idea of someone else directing Indy, why can't you?

For the time being Lucas will still be around as a story consultant and is acting in much the same way as he did on the original Star Wars trilogy: Providing the story and drafts with the story being fleshed out and put on screen by others. Eventually he'll die and maybe the series will be rebooted; maybe it won't.

Either way, Indy isn't really high on Disney's list of priorities right now. And Lucas didn't seem to be that passionate about doing a fifth film, and Harrison is 70. So regarding Indy, there's not much change from what would've been had Lucas not sold.

Why is it OK for Lucas to perhaps do something horrible to Indy, but the possibility of someone else maybe doing good is haram?

It's not the same situation at all. The Beatles were real, living people. Having MJ release an album as "The Beatles" would be identity theft. Indy, and all of the cast of Star Wars, are fictional characters. Not real. Not living beings. Characters and the like are bought and sold all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPIsSNEUmc4

Let me ask you, Stoo: Why do you hate Disney? And you call it a monster--would you prefer it were tried under anti-trust laws and broken apart? Why do you feel so passionately against the sale? Are you a fan of the Star Wars Special Editions and their changes? Can Lucas do no wrong in your eyes?
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
Raiders112390 said:
The Pirates of the Caribbean series is no more zany than Temple of Doom and much less zany than Crystal Skull. It is much in line with the classic swashbuckling films The Mark of Zorro, Captain Blood, The Adventures of Robin Hood , etc.
"Mark of Zorro", "Captain Blood", "Adventures of Robin Hood" don't have any squid-faced, barnacle-encrusted villains nor does "Temple of Doom". How are guys with octopus faces 'much less zany' than an alien in "Crystal Skull"?
Raiders112390 said:
What does it matter to you if there's more toys? You do realize there was already crazy stuff like Leia shampoo bottles and Leia sex dolls before the Disney sale, right? See Carrie Fisher's "Wishful Drinking." And if again, if more toys bother you, simply don't buy them. Let the kids who play with toys enjoy them.
The last toy I bought was in 1982 (and I've seen the Carrie Fisher thing). Anyway, I'm talking about merchandise in general, not just toys. There already are tonnes of SW merchandise everywhere imaginable and, as you say, some of it is crazy stuff. You're reinforcing my point. Disney wants to go crazier!:eek: If you can't see the unsavoury aspect of "more aggressively" merchandising Star Wars, then I don't know what else to say. When Disney proceeds with their marketing plans, they'll have you seeing "Star Wars" in your soup.(n)
Raiders112390 said:
As for the rides, why does it matter to you? Lucas entered into a partnership with them for the rides, tons of people enjoy them?
See this thread: Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection
Raiders112390 said:
Disney is and always has been a business, Stoo. I'm people said the same thing back in 1966 when Walt himself wanted to build an actual CITY which the company would control. Disney has always been expanding and growing and in the '80s there was this same moral panic when Disney launched Touchstone, that Disney was drifting from it's roots and I'm sure when Disney came to own ESPN, ABC, Miramax, the Muppets, people felt as you do. But Disney is an amazing company--has been for nearly 90 years with some stumbles.
I never said that Disney wasn't amazing, however, expanding & growing is admirable when it's done by a company's own merit. Buying other pre-established properties like The Muppets, Marvel Comics and Lucasfilm is not admirable. It's a safe & easy way to rake in ca$h and not creative nor innovative at all. Disney's buy-outs betray everything that made them a success in the first place: Creativity and innovation.

1966?:confused: That's the year Walt died. You probably meant 1955, when Disneyland opened.;)
Raiders112390 said:
It depends--Does the world NEED more Star Wars? No. But did the world NEED Star Wars or Indiana Jones to begin with? No. Films are not needed and do not need to justify their existence. But are there people who want and have wanted to see more Star Wars? Yes. And if there is demand, there is usually someone willing to fulfil that demand. Just because you're not one of those who doesn't want Star Wars to continue, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen for those who do.
If you don't want more Star Wars films, there is a simple solution to that: Don't watch them. I don't watch films that I have no interest in.
I don't mind "Star Wars" continuing but also don't crave for more. (65+ hours worth is more than enough to keep me happy.) The bottom line is that I'm against Disney's name being attached to the series.
Raiders112390 said:
Why is Indy being directed by someone else blasphemous? Spielberg himself considered the idea back in the '90s. He was dragged, kicking and screaming, into Indy 4. He didn't want to do it and felt that that part of his life was over and he'd go on and mature as a filmmaker and if there ever was a fourth Indiana Jones film, he'd maybe produce it and have "some young kid" direct it. But Lucas, Ford, and eventually the public pushed the idea at him. If Spielberg could conceive of the idea of someone else directing Indy, why can't you?
Spielberg has said, repeatedly, that he would like to direct Indy 5. The movies have been a team effort. Replacing Spielberg would be akin to replacing Harrison Ford.
Raiders112390 said:
For the time being Lucas will still be around as a story consultant and is acting in much the same way as he did on the original Star Wars trilogy: Providing the story and drafts with the story being fleshed out and put on screen by others.
What?!?:confused: George DIRECTED "Star Wars"! And his involvement with the sequels was much, MUCH more than just providing the stories. Don't downplay his role.
Raiders112390 said:
Why is it OK for Lucas to perhaps do something horrible to Indy, but the possibility of someone else maybe doing good is haram?
Simply because they are Lucas' creations and he is still alive. If people think your posts here at The Raven could be improved, would you sell your screen name so that someone else can post as Raiders112390 and make them better?
Raiders112390 said:
It's not the same situation at all. The Beatles were real, living people. Having MJ release an album as "The Beatles" would be identity theft. Indy, and all of the cast of Star Wars, are fictional characters. Not real. Not living beings. Characters and the like are bought and sold all the time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPIsSNEUmc4
It would, indeed, be a very similar situation.
- Lucas is a real, living person just like John, Paul, George & Ringo are/were.
- Star Wars/Indiana Jones and The Beatles are NAMES for their creative output.
- Lucas put his characters into films instead of songs.
- John, Paul, George & Ringo created stories & fictional characters. (Rocky Raccoon, Eleanor Rigby, Dr. Robert, Bungalow Bill, Mean Mr. Mustard, Polythene Pam, Mr. Kite and Sgt. Pepper, etc.)
Raiders112390 said:
Are you a fan of the Star Wars Special Editions and their changes? Can Lucas do no wrong in your eyes?
Yes, of course George can do wrong. He sold his empire to Disney and, in my eyes, that is wrong.

As for the Special Editions, see my reply to you from 10 days ago in this thread: George Lucas tweaks Star Wars yet again

Read it again and figure things out from there.
Raiders112390 said:
Let me ask you, Stoo: Why do you hate Disney? And you call it a monster--would you prefer it were tried under anti-trust laws and broken apart? Why do you feel so passionately against the sale?
1) I never called Disney a "monster". I compared the company to The Blob.
2) Why are you asking me those same questions again? Did you forget my replies from 10 days ago? Posts #206 & #209.

Have you ever seen 'Mr. Short-Term Memory' with Tom Hanks on "Saturday Night Live"? (If you did, maybe you forgot about it.):p

MrShortTermMemory.jpg
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Stoo said:
"...I never said that Disney wasn't amazing, however, expanding & growing is admirable when it's done by a company's own merit. Buying other pre-established properties like The Muppets, Marvel Comics and Lucasfilm is not admirable. It's a safe & easy way to rake in ca$h and not creative nor innovative at all. Disney's buy-outs betray everything that made them a success in the first place: Creativity and innovation...

Tell that to the Grimm Brothers, Carlo Collodi, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Helen Aberson, Felix Salten, Washington Irving, Charles Perrault, Lewis Carroll, J. M. Barrie, Charles Perrault, Rudyard Kipling, A. A. Milne, Charles Dickens, Hans Christian Andersen, and a host of other artists the Company has 'acquired' its 'rights' from. :p

No, raiders, I'm not arguing for you. Just making a poignant point.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
Tell that to the Grimm Brothers, Carlo Collodi, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Helen Aberson, Felix Salten, Washington Irving, Charles Perrault, Lewis Carroll, J. M. Barrie, Charles Perrault, Rudyard Kipling, A. A. Milne, Charles Dickens, Hans Christian Andersen, and a host of other artists the Company has 'acquired' its 'rights' from. :p

No, raiders, I'm not arguing for you. Just making a poignant point.
I countered this point before in the Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection thread but I'll do it again here.;)

All those literary stories that Disney adapted into animations featured their own, unique renderings of the characters and environments. Disney created their own version of the look & appearance.

Whereas, acquiring The Muppets, Marvel & Lucasfilm delivers everything in a package. Those characters all have a pre-defined look that Disney had no part in creating.
 
Top