Rumour that Disney will have to sell Lucas Film and some parks to pay for Hulu

[Zardnaar]

New stories are fine been getting them since 1991.

Unlike legends they botched the sequel. Overall they're batting better than legends at 50/50.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Star Wars was a cow-cash but any recent choises haven't been right.

It is not going to be sold but if Disney faces the backrupt. If Disney showed intentions to sell SW, that would be a very bad sign for the shareholders.

The best years of Disney ended time ago. The menace of bankrupt is closer to become real.

Any suggestion? SW to be licenced to Hasbro, and WotC publishing a new SWd20 but totally rebooted, adding some force-adept factions, and some game-live show in the new D&D channel. Other option could be a Transformers-Star Wars crossover.

 

[Clint_L]

Star Wars was a cow-cash but any recent choises haven't been right.

It is not going to be sold but if Disney faces the backrupt. If Disney showed intentions to sell SW, that would be a very bad sign for the shareholders.

The best years of Disney ended time ago. The menace of bankrupt is closer to become real.

Any suggestion? SW to be licenced to Hasbro, and WotC publishing a new SWd20 but totally rebooted, adding some force-adept factions, and some game-live show in the new D&D channel. Other option could be a Transformers-Star Wars crossover.

Well, let's actually look at Disney's Star Wars record.

Force Awakens was a massive, monocultural success - by far the biggest domestic box office of all time, with outstanding reviews from critics and audiences. Last Jedi was a huge film that probably did even better with critics, when you look at the substance of the reviews, but was somewhat divisive with the fandom (for mostly the wrong reasons, IMO, though I agree that making Luke old and bitter on top of making Han Solo old and bitter was the wrong choice and not necessary for what the film wanted to accomplish). Rise of Skywalker tried to course correct and is a complete narrative mess that got terrible reviews and pleased no one.

Rogue One was a pleasant surprise that (mostly) got the franchise away from needing to be all about Skywalkers, did huge box office, and got positive reviews. Solo was a mess that apparently existed just to explain one line of silly dialogue from the original movie ("see, George Lucas wasn't using the word "parsec" wrong!"). Also, it explained why Han calls Chewbacca, "Chewie" - phew! I had always wondered! Did shockingly poorly at the box office for a Star Wars film, showing that the franchise is not bulletproof.

Mandalorian is fun, family entertainment, with a basic, sometimes nonsensical plot but an absolutely ironclad central dynamic between the gunslinger and the kid. It's basically the Disney version of True Grit, which is a fun concept. Boba Fett has, let's face it, a lead actor who should never, ever, have been a lead actor in this sort of show, and only becomes watchable when it turns back into The Mandalorian. Again, the plot is thick as bricks. Obi-wan still has a dumb plot, but no show built around Ewan MacGregor is going to be bad, and the final battle was a great pay-off. Andor is the only thing in the entire franchise written 100% for adults, and I think it is one of the ten best TV series ever made, but still, somewhat divisive (give it a few years).

Then I think there's some animated stuff - not my bag.

Overall, that's a pretty successful track record. Some definite misses, but also some massive hits. It's crazy to suggest that Disney has not made its money back, even setting aside the merchandising (Baby Yoda alone probably justified half the cost of buying Lucasfilm).

Also this anti-Disney propaganda (going bankrupt! etc.) is being driven by other stuff, IMO.

 

[Orius]

Unfortunately, this is probably just unfounded rumors playing to wishful thinking born from hatred of the Rat of Burbank. A shame too given my utter contempt of both Disney and streaming.

Comparing Star Wars and Star Trek makes no sense, apples and oranges. Is Last Jedi better than most Star Trek movies? Yes, because there are only 4 good Star Trek movies, but even good Star Wars and good Star Trek are doing different things. It's like trying to compare a romantic comedy and a horror movie head to head, they have different artistic goals and criteria. Just because both have "Star" in the title is misleading.

Star Trek and Star Wars come from different influences in science fiction. Star Trek was inspired by Forbidden Planet, thus tends towards philosophical drama, while Star Wars was inspired by Flash Gordon and 30's serials and is much more a space opera fairy tale.

The two best Star Trek films are the best because they aren't primarily action films, but character studies about their respective captains. Wrath of Khan starts off with the Kobiyashi Maru sequence and a little later moves to Kirk celebrating his 50th birthday, and a good part of the film is about Kirk reflecting on his life and how he deals with no-win situations. First Contact looks at how Picard was affected by the Borg, and explicitly draws comparisons to Moby Dick as Picard gets more obsessed with stopping them, though this film does run a somewhat lighter B plot with Zephram Cochrane which helps to give all the cast members something to do, something the TOS films can be weak at. Both films have action sequences, but they're also tempered by drama and suspense. Trek films do poorly when trying to do more standard action movies because that's not really what Trek is about.

It's a little easier for Star Wars because they can do the action blockbuster, in fact the original films helped codify the blockbuster. But they're not limited to that, Empire is often thought of as the best and while it has its action sequences, there's a lot of suspense throughout the film. And Yoda's teachings on the Force add some philosophical depth to the film, but it pretty much all goes over Luke's head. Star Wars has the capability to be more than just mindless space opera action, but the important thing is to remember that it' the sort of setting that tends to be somewhat black and white and is occasionally cornball and obvious. That I think was the major weakness of The Last Jedi, in that it dipped into a lot of moral ambiguity and constantly subverted expectations. That might be in vogue for creators but it's not a great fit for Star Wars, and even outside of Star Wars it's not necessarily what an audience really wants.

.

One only has to look at Disney to know that whenever they touch something, they drastically change it.

If by drastically changing it, you mean turning it to crap, I wholeheartedly agree. To be fair, their classic fairy tale adaptations do have reasons for changing things up. But the most part, I can't stand what Disney does, and there's only one mental image related to the corporation, and I use that term with all its negative connotations, that fills my cold heart with and warm and fuzzy feelings:

 

[Parmandur]

Unfortunately, this is probably just unfounded rumors playing to wishful thinking born from hatred of the Rat of Burbank. A shame too given my utter contempt of both Disney and streaming.




Star Trek and Star Wars come from different influences in science fiction. Star Trek was inspired by Forbidden Planet, thus tends towards philosophical drama, while Star Wars was inspired by Flash Gordon and 30's serials and is much more a space opera fairy tale.

The two best Star Trek films are the best because they aren't primarily action films, but character studies about their respective captains. Wrath of Khan starts off with the Kobiyashi Maru sequence and a little later moves to Kirk celebrating his 50th birthday, and a good part of the film is about Kirk reflecting on his life and how he deals with no-win situations. First Contact looks at how Picard was affected by the Borg, and explicitly draws comparisons to Moby Dick as Picard gets more obsessed with stopping them, though this film does run a somewhat lighter B plot with Zephram Cochrane which helps to give all the cast members something to do, something the TOS films can be weak at. Both films have action sequences, but they're also tempered by drama and suspense. Trek films do poorly when trying to do more standard action movies because that's not really what Trek is about.

It's a little easier for Star Wars because they can do the action blockbuster, in fact the original films helped codify the blockbuster. But they're not limited to that, Empire is often thought of as the best and while it has its action sequences, there's a lot of suspense throughout the film. And Yoda's teachings on the Force add some philosophical depth to the film, but it pretty much all goes over Luke's head. Star Wars has the capability to be more than just mindless space opera action, but the important thing is to remember that it' the sort of setting that tends to be somewhat black and white and is occasionally cornball and obvious. That I think was the major weakness of The Last Jedi, in that it dipped into a lot of moral ambiguity and constantly subverted expectations. That might be in vogue for creators but it's not a great fit for Star Wars, and even outside of Star Wars it's not necessarily what an audience really wants.




If by drastically changing it, you mean turning it to crap, I wholeheartedly agree. To be fair, their classic fairy tale adaptations do have reasons for changing things up. But the most part, I can't stand what Disney does, and there's only one mental image related to the corporation, and I use that term with all its negative connotations, that fills my cold heart with and warm and fuzzy feelings:

View attachment 287996

Yes, the four good Star Trek films (Khan, Whales, Undiscovered Cointry, and Firsr Contact) as well as the fairly medicore Insurrection all do the right thong.by being feature length episodes of a speculative fiction Star Trek show.

I think you are right that some of the negativity towards Last Jedi comes from moral ambiguity, but the best analysis I have seen of it in a critical (but not toxic) light is from Brandon Sanderson, who looked at the film from the perspective of failing to set up expectations with promises early on and hence not providing a fully satisfactory sense of progress due to a lack of clarity of the goals of the plot.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Do you remember when you are watching a movie and then you can know what will happen in the end? Disney has fired people.

Star Trek is more about exploration and social interaction, investigation and diplomatic skills. SW is more action but also some touch of "philosophy". Obi-Wand and Yoda were most iconic mentor figures within speculative fiction. Star Trek may be closer to purer sci-fi but SW is better to sell merchandising.

And one of the worst mistakes in the entertaiment industry is not staying ideologically neutral.

Are they earning enough money with Disney+? Willow has been cancelled. The Star Wars hotel has failed.

And marvel comics, the paper printed version, aren't being sold so good like previous years. But readers would rather buying manga.

You should remember a lot of things could be happening behind the curtains.

And please, Spanish imperative verb has got singular and plural. It is not "Oye primos" but "¡oye primo!", or "oid(me) primos" or better "oigan primos". Haven't hired a cultural consultant? What horrible gramatical mistake! And "Terremotos High" is not a funny name. It is like "mentioning the noose in the hanged man's house". That new cartoon show should need a "reshot".

Seriously, Disney should be worring about its survival. There is a lot of haters, but not always is against the tallest poppy because by fault of other actions.

 

[MoonSong]

In the end, what matters the most to SW success isn't movie tickets, nor critical reception. What defines its success is how much merch -and particularly toys- does it sell to children.

 

[Hatmatter]

It should have been a no brainer that Disney would not stay true to the storylines or characters established by Lucas in Star Wars.

Hi Grey Lord. I read this kind of thing a lot, but it does not accord with my observations. I do not think there has been a film as "true to the storylines or characters established by Lucas" as Rogue One. At the same time, there has been no group of Star Wars films that has wildly diverted from those storylines or characters as the Prequels did (which are Lucas-at-work unfettered by any outside influences). Those three films (Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, & Revenge of the Sith) do not accord with either the (strongly) inferred timeline from the original trilogy nor do they accord with actual content (e.g. Leia having memories of her "real" mother).

And when I write that I do include Last Jedi and The Rise of Skywalker, which I actually think continue the development of the characters in a far more logical and coherent way than the Prequels retroactively dealt with the characters (e.g. Luke Skywalker in Last of the Jedi and Rise of Skywalker and Han Solo in The Force Awakens make FAR more sense to me than the depiction of Anakin in the Prequels based on the Darth Vader we observed in the original trilogy.).

The films from The Force Awakens on seem to be the work of Lucasfilm, its head (Kennedy), and the filmmakers they hire. I have not heard of anecdotes or reports of Disney figures such as Iger or Alan Horn altering or influencing the content of the film. Obviously, Disney (Iger, Horn, etc.) wanted hit films, so I am sure there is always some kind of subtle influence that leans in the populist/popular direction in order to maximize revenue, but that would be present with any corporate structure. Such an influence was there with 20th Century Fox when Lucasfilm worked with them and, frankly, it is an influence strongly present in Lucasfilm itself, both now and in the 1970s and 1980s. I mean, think about how Lucas suggested to Francis Ford Coppola to actually change the ending of Tucker, diverting it away from the historical reality, so that audiences would like it more! And that was in 1988. Coppola, of course, did not comply.

 

[MGibster]

Oh yeah! I knew the first one was massively popular. I remember how everyone was talking about it that whole year.

Given how successful the first movie was, I was always surprised that it didn't have much of a cultural footprint. I realize francises like Star Wars and Star Trek have had a lot more time to build (and lose) their fanbase, but even among my friends who love science fiction, nobody talks about Avatar.

 

[ReshiIRE]

I have not seen the second Avatar - take this into account with this comment.

Avatar's cultural impact can be clearly seen (and speculated) in how

1) it popularised 3D in films to an absurd degree, where we still the occasional 3D release of certain films even if they don't really work anymore.

2) there are entire sections across theme parks dedicated to Pandora and the world of Avatar.

3) it was a huge technical marvel that significantly contributed to increasing CGI usage - while the Star Wars prequels got there first, Avatar proved for certain that you could practically have the entire world be CGI in your film and it would work, and be successful

4) I think the aesthetic has been carried forward - Avatar being so bright probably had an impact on the better use of colour across media afterwards. The truly gray and brown days of video games, for example, started to fade after 2010 - while a different genre, I wouldn't be surprised if Avatar's success as something bright and beautiful helped

The thing is, however, is that Avatar's plot, characters and general writing is pretty formulaic and generic; I don't think it was ever going to be influential in that manner, and thus I think that's why it doesn't appeal to quite a lot of Sci-Fi fans.