Disney buying Lucasfilm for $4 billion! More Star Wars movies coming!

[jonesy]

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/disney-buying-lucas-films-for-4-billion/

Another Star Wars film in the works for 2015 with more to come.

I think the bigger news here is that the deal includes Industrial Light & Magic. Disney now owns ILM.

As for the Star Wars movie, I'm going to stay as neutral about it as I can until there's something to actually see. There's no way to know what direction they'll go and Lucas is still signed on as a consultant (whatever that means here).

 

[Umbran]

How much the prequels contributed to the growing of the franchise vs. possibly blunting efforts that were going on already anyway remains to be seen. Certainly they made a fair bit of money in their own right, but not like the original trilogy (especially relative to their budgets.) No matter how you cut it, the prequels were not nearly as successful as the original...

Given that, adjusted for inflation, the original Star Wars is the #2 box office hit of all time does make it a tad difficult to match the originals. I'd rank any expectation to do so as unreasonable.

But, the prequels are all themselves in the Top 100 movie grosses of all time, even adjusted for inflation.

...the franchise had already come back to life before the prequels came out.

See above - nothing between the series of movies brought in money like a Top 100 movie. While I have no quotes, I'm pretty sure the Thrawn books weren't selling Legos and plastic lightsabers at anywhere near the rate seen today.

With any luck, the franchise will continue for decades and we'll get tons of movies, James Bond style, as well as continued video games, LEGO sets, novels and who knows whatever else merchandizing. And we'll look back at the era of the prequels as a bit of a low point, like the Roger Moore films, that only lasted temporarily.

In general, I agree, with the exception that Roger Moore's Bond is far, far more entertaining than the psychopathic bullet-spewing jerk they have on the screen now. That's not a comment on Daniel Craig, who I know can act, just how the movies are now written as mindless brutal violence-fests. YMMV.

 

[Desdichado]

In general, I agree, with the exception that Roger Moore's Bond is far, far more entertaining than the psychopathic bullet-spewing jerk they have on the screen now. That's not a comment on Daniel Craig, who I know can act, just how the movies are now written as mindless brutal violence-fests. YMMV.

And obviously does; I think the Daniel Craig Bond are the best Bond movies ever made, and the Daniel Craig Bond is the most interesting Bond ever as well.

 

[billd91]

In general, I agree, with the exception that Roger Moore's Bond is far, far more entertaining than the psychopathic bullet-spewing jerk they have on the screen now. That's not a comment on Daniel Craig, who I know can act, just how the movies are now written as mindless brutal violence-fests. YMMV.

You're talking crazy.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Was it not Babylon 5 that had Disney Planet.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

And obviously does; I think the Daniel Craig Bond are the best Bond movies ever made, and the Daniel Craig Bond is the most interesting Bond ever as well.

"After Sean Connery." You forgot to add that.

 

[Starman]

If I had to wager money, I'd say that the new movies will take place a generation or two after RotJ. Some of the original actors will have minor roles introducing and sending off the new characters. There will be some inspiration from the EU, but it will mostly be new stuff. I'm rather neutral on this news until more concrete info comes out about writer(s), director, and so on.

One thing I do think would be cool is animated versions of the Thrawn trilogy. Then you don't have to worry about the original actors being too old. Hell, even if you can't sign them for the film, you can find talented voice actors who will sound nearly identical.

 

[tuxgeo]

< snip >
And Leia as a Disney princess!!

Already conceptualized by Amy Mebberson on tumblr -- both Princess Padme and Princess Leia. (The drawings are five years old? She did those five years ago? Was Disney planning this purchase that long ago, or was Amy just that wishful/prescient?)

Edit to add: How many years to an Academy Award Nomination for Best Song, for "Trust Your Feelings (You Know It Is True)"?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Star Wars, Episode 7: TIE Fighter Willy

Star Wars, Episode 8: The Jedi's Apprentice

Star Wars, Episode 9: Hoth White and the Seven Ewoks

 

[Orius]

There were moments, the biggest in my mind was Doku's attempt to lure Obi-Wan to his side by revealing that a Darth Sidious had taken control of the Republic. What a colossal twist that would have been if Doku was really some sort of Knight Templar / Ends Justify the Means type character who started a civil war to destroy the last Sith Lord. Sadly, no

It's not too bad anyway, the main plot is that Palpatine is manipulating both sides here to undermine and eventually take control of the Republic. So he's publicly running the Republic as the chanceloor, while his apprentice is pulling the strings of the opposition.

As for biggest plot holes, I think the whole secret marriage between Padme and Anakin is up there very high. They've been together in Sith for something like 3 years, and nobody suspects anything, especially since Obi-Wan seemed to pick up on Anakin's feelings in AotC? The Jedi really were getting pretty dense. And there's no galactic paparazzi or anything who suspect something is going on between two very important and well-known people? Padme gets pregnant and no one suspects Anakin is the father with all the time they spend together until Obi-Wan figures it out on Mustafar? I sort of understand that Lucas was trying to go for a forbidden relationship angle here and he's imitating the style of classic movies, but some of that stuff doesn't really work today (which is why movies don't do things like say, Jar-Jar.), and Lucas's weak dialogue doesn't help matters either, unfortunately (the dialogue really kills the whole romance plot in Clones, which is unfortunate since he rest of the movie isn't really all that bad).

In general, I agree, with the exception that Roger Moore's Bond is far, far more entertaining than the psychopathic bullet-spewing jerk they have on the screen now. That's not a comment on Daniel Craig, who I know can act, just how the movies are now written as mindless brutal violence-fests. YMMV.

Moore seems to have the highest proportion of silly Bond movies like Moonraker. Too much 70's goofiness in them to take most of them seriously. Plus he's hard to take seriously as a Bond, he always seemed too wussy to me. Brosnan I think had an excellent balance of class and cold blood which he brought to the role, but unfortunately hs last movie was Die Another Day which accomplished the task of making the worst of Moore's Bond films look good by comparison.