Disney Buys Lucasfilm (and other stories)

145791018

Comments

  • edited November 2012
    Again, so what? I'm not saying Luke should still be doing backflips and Leia should still be wearing the gold bikini, I'm saying they should be playing Luke and Leia in their fifties. Why is it so bad that they look like they're in their fifties? This idea that the characters should have somehow magically kept their good looks and slim figures, or magically aged as well as Sean Connery is ridiculous. Show them aged and out of shape. Have other, younger characters do the heavy lifting in the action scenes (though aged and out of shape didn't stop them from putting Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee into action scenes). There's nothing wrong with seeing the characters aged - in fact, it's a major theme in the series. If the prequels had actually been filmed first, would you have been upset when IV-VI came out that Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen now look like Alec Guinness and Sebastian Shaw?
  • edited November 2012
    Again, so what? I'm not saying Luke should still be doing backflips and Leia should still be wearing the gold bikini, I'm saying they should be playing Luke and Leia in their fifties. Why is it so bad that they look like they're in their fifties? This idea that the characters should have somehow magically kept their good looks and slim figures, or magically aged as well as Sean Connery is ridiculous. Show them aged and out of shape. Have other, younger characters do the heavy lifting in the action scenes (though aged and out of shape didn't stop them from putting Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee into action scenes). There's nothing wrong with seeing the characters aged - in fact, it's a major theme in the series. If the prequels had actually been filmed first, would you have been upset when IV-VI came out that Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen now look like Alec Guinness and Sebastian Shaw?

    Oh Gee. Fat Jedi? How do you think that would look on screen? This is Star Wars we're talking about. In this time frame, even Leia would be a Jedi. Star Wars is as much about a look as it is anything else. And Fat Stars aren't it.

    Whether they were capable of losing the weight to do the films, who knows. And that is IF they want to do it. Carrie Fisher has said herself that she is NOT an actor. she is a Personality. Big Difference. Mark Hamill has stated he did not want to do more Star Wars Films and he has misgivings about Disney being the company to produce them. Though to be honest I am sure both of them would do it for the paycheck.


    Harrison Ford is another matter entirely, as he certainly does not need the paycheck.
  • edited November 2012
    So you're whole reason for not wanting to see the original cast in a new Star Wars movie is... fat jedi.
  • edited November 2012
    So you're whole reason for not wanting to see the original cast in a new Star Wars movie is... fat jedi.

    I'm with you. I think it'd be an interesting take on the Star Wars universe to see where the Galaxy has gone in 30 years.
  • edited November 2012
    I like the idea of the Yuzzhan Vong and Chewbacca dying as well. I mean, holy shit. The idea of Palpatine building his force because of a mysterious force beyond that galaxy was a damn awesome idea. It pisses me off Lucas is too proud of his own ideas to use that.
  • edited November 2012
    They could always do a Nic Cage and have the effects team give 'em CGI six-packs.

    nicolas-cage-ghost-rider.jpg

    [Shudders at the memory]
  • edited November 2012
    I think it'd make sense to have a mostly-new cast with one of the original cast members in an Obi-Wan (of the original trilogy) type role. Luke would make the most sense from a narrative standpoint but they could make it work with other characters.

    The only way I could see Darth Vader coming back in any logical way would be if some other character (presumably an all-new character) put on a suit like that and started claiming to be Darth Vader, and there's some mystery around whether or not the real Darth Vader has been resurrected or if it's an imposter, but he fools enough people to take command of some number of imperial forces. It could work. Or it could be dumb.
  • edited November 2012
    LuigiHann wrote: »
    I think it'd make sense to have a mostly-new cast with one of the original cast members in an Obi-Wan (of the original trilogy) type role. Luke would make the most sense from a narrative standpoint but they could make it work with other characters.

    The only way I could see Darth Vader coming back in any logical way would be if some other character (presumably an all-new character) put on a suit like that and started claiming to be Darth Vader, and there's some mystery around whether or not the real Darth Vader has been resurrected or if it's an imposter, but he fools enough people to take command of some number of imperial forces. It could work. Or it could be dumb.

    Turns out it was Greedo the whole time, planning an elaborate revenge against an aging Han Solo.

    Then Solo kills him in a final confrontation, and he turns to the new guy and says "I told you kid. I always shoot first!".
  • edited November 2012
    It'll turn out fake Vader is Luke's long lost brother and then the prequels will get an edit.
  • edited November 2012
    Not exactly Star Wars related but i thought i would show this video i found on Youtube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzueL0-KfEA&feature=BFa&list=WLA1E6ACA177BA20CC
  • edited November 2012
    I laughed. Good find.
  • edited November 2012
    That was really clever. It reminded me of the Animaniacs and the Marx Brothers.
  • edited November 2012
    Actually i found it on Facebook. Doug Walker found the video and he posted a link to it on his Facebook, still.. i was going to show you guys earlier but i had completely forgot and then when i was looking through my watch later box on Youtube i just remembered about the video
  • edited November 2012
    So you're whole reason for not wanting to see the original cast in a new Star Wars movie is... fat jedi.

    Though the comparison isn't as relevant as the subject matter of the video, I think this sorta talks about why I personally think it won't really work. Along with this, I really wouldn't want them shoehorning the original actors for the sake of novelty, which is what it'd seem like. Could it work? Anything is possible, but I'm not really counting on it.
  • edited November 2012
    So you're whole reason for not wanting to see the original cast in a new Star Wars movie is... fat jedi.
    Giant Tope wrote: »
    Though the comparison isn't as relevant as the subject matter of the video, I think this sorta talks about why I personally think it won't really work. Along with this, I really wouldn't want them shoehorning the original actors for the sake of novelty, which is what it'd seem like. Could it work? Anything is possible, but I'm not really counting on it.

    It's funny how his description of Indiana Jones so perfectly matches my life.
  • edited November 2012
    I'm still displeased from when my cousin told me they killed off Chewbacca in one of the books.
  • edited November 2012
    Giant Tope wrote: »
    Though the comparison isn't as relevant as the subject matter of the video, I think this sorta talks about why I personally think it won't really work. Along with this, I really wouldn't want them shoehorning the original actors for the sake of novelty, which is what it'd seem like. Could it work? Anything is possible, but I'm not really counting on it.

    This is full of shit because he fully ignores the appeal of this movie to OLDER men, like my Dad. My Dad prefers Crystal Skull because it has an older Indy still kicking ass and still being awesome. It's the same reason older men love John Wayne and still like Clint Eastwood. Indy doesn't just belong to the young. Older people want to feel like it can still be awesome to be old.
  • edited November 2012
    He never said it was only for young men. He was talking about men in general.
  • edited November 2012
    Giant Tope wrote: »
    He never said it was only for young men. He was talking about men in general.

    You would pick that out and ignore the rest.
  • edited November 2012
    I think the difference is that the "older action star" is a very distinct kind of "old badass" thing, but Indy at various points just feels "old". He's settling down, he's sort of grumpily pulled into a younger man's adventure, and he's being the fussing dad throughout the whole thing. Indiana Jones spends a lot of that film not being an "old badass", but just being...old.
  • edited November 2012
    And I think that was the one interesting part of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. We've seen Indy young (in some cases, very young) so it was refreshing to see him old.
  • edited November 2012
    Giant Tope wrote: »
    Along with this, I really wouldn't want them shoehorning the original actors for the sake of novelty, which is what it'd seem like. Could it work? Anything is possible, but I'm not really counting on it.
    Novelty. That's the word I was looking for. I was trying to figure out how to word my opinion about Mark and Carrie being cast and couldn't think of the right word because "fan service" didn't sound right.

    So, yes, I totally agree with this.


    This is full of shit because he fully ignores the appeal of this movie to OLDER men, like my Dad. My Dad prefers Crystal Skull because it has an older Indy still kicking ass and still being awesome. It's the same reason older men love John Wayne and still like Clint Eastwood. Indy doesn't just belong to the young. Older people want to feel like it can still be awesome to be old.

    Star Wars should be about the story and the character interactions. It's a movie for all ages; not just a nostalgia trip for older people and not just a tool to get younger people into the franchise. Casting older actors simply as a tactic to appeal to an older demographic is a dumb reason when it comes to something like Star Wars.

    They also shouldn't make a Star Wars movie just because they can. Indiana Jones didn't need a fourth movie, and Crystal Skull felt like they made a movie because they didn't have any other ideas so why not?


    I'm not saying I feel about Disney making a new Star Wars movie as I did about Lucas and Spielberg making Indy 4. I think Disney is making a new Star Wars movie because it's about damn time Star Wars was good again.


    But you know what I keep thinking about with Disney buying Star Wars? Disney might now remaster and release, in all it's awesomeness, the ORIGINAL Original Trilogy!
  • edited November 2012
    But it isn't novelty and it isn't a tactic. The films are about those characters. It's not novelty that Bruce Willis still plays John McClane, or that Al Pacino still played Michael Corleone in Godfather III. The films are about those characters so of course you want the original people playing them. A novelty or tactic would be to re-cast to appeal to a younger audience.
  • edited November 2012
    But it isn't novelty and it isn't a tactic. The films are about those characters. It's not novelty that Bruce Willis still plays John McClane, or that Al Pacino still played Michael Corleone in Godfather III. The films are about those characters so of course you want the original people playing them. A novelty or tactic would be to re-cast to appeal to a younger audience.

    Eh. It worked for Star Trek.
  • edited November 2012
    Indeed.




    ...Fascinating.
  • edited November 2012
    Chyron8472 wrote: »
    Novelty. That's the word I was looking for. I was trying to figure out how to word my opinion about Mark and Carrie being cast and couldn't think of the right word because "fan service" didn't sound right.

    So, yes, I totally agree with this.





    Star Wars should be about the story and the character interactions. It's a movie for all ages; not just a nostalgia trip for older people and not just a tool to get younger people into the franchise. Casting older actors simply as a tactic to appeal to an older demographic is a dumb reason when it comes to something like Star Wars.

    They also shouldn't make a Star Wars movie just because they can. Indiana Jones didn't need a fourth movie, and Crystal Skull felt like they made a movie because they didn't have any other ideas so why not?


    I'm not saying I feel about Disney making a new Star Wars movie as I did about Lucas and Spielberg making Indy 4. I think Disney is making a new Star Wars movie because it's about damn time Star Wars was good again.


    But you know what I keep thinking about with Disney buying Star Wars? Disney might now remaster and release, in all it's awesomeness, the ORIGINAL Original Trilogy!

    Indiana Jones could have had a 4th movie, a 5th movie, a 6th movie. Evidence of the Mummy's success proves that adventures set in that time frame when a lot of the world was still new and unexplored appeals to people as long as it is a decent adventure.

    The story behind the Crystal Skull sucked, that was it. But I liked it for the characters. Though I admit to being a sucker for Indiana Jones AND The Mummy series. I'd like to see them do more if the story is good and the casting is right.

    Maybe not necessarily those two series, but perhaps a new one.
  • edited November 2012
    You know, it just occurred to me that if Disney had bought LucasArts a little bit earlier, there might have been a chance of Guybrush or Kyle Katarn or someone like that showing up in Wreck-It Ralph.

    They probably wouldn't have, but I tend to think about these things when I've got a blinding headache.
  • edited November 2012
    My guess is even if they owned LucasArts before the first Wreck-It Ralph script draft was finished, it's really unlikely that anybody on the team for that movie would have any idea what LucasArts adventure games were and, more importantly, it wouldn't really jive with the movie's arcade theme.
  • edited November 2012
    My guess is even if they owned LucasArts before the first Wreck-It Ralph script draft was finished, it's really unlikely that anybody on the team for that movie would have any idea what LucasArts adventure games were and, more importantly, it wouldn't really jive with the movie's arcade theme.

    Curse you and your logical reality!
  • edited November 2012
    I think the difference is that the "older action star" is a very distinct kind of "old badass" thing, but Indy at various points just feels "old". He's settling down, he's sort of grumpily pulled into a younger man's adventure, and he's being the fussing dad throughout the whole thing. Indiana Jones spends a lot of that film not being an "old badass", but just being...old.

    The point, though, was that he was becoming more like his Dad. But he still had plenty of badass moments. Which is fine, because in spite of his scholarly, humorless nature, Henry Jones Sr. was also capable of being a badass at times.
    Chyron8472 wrote: »
    Star Wars should be about the story and the character interactions. It's a movie for all ages; not just a nostalgia trip for older people and not just a tool to get younger people into the franchise. Casting older actors simply as a tactic to appeal to an older demographic is a dumb reason when it comes to something like Star Wars.
    I wasn't really talking about Star Wars, just Indy. Harrison Ford really should be looking at John Wayne's career in terms of how to handle his own image.
    People my Dad's age could hardly care about Star Wars, so I agree with all of you guys on this. And the Plinkett review made a lot of good points- but that particular one is one I do not agree with.
  • edited November 2012
    The point, though, was that he was becoming more like his Dad. But he still had plenty of badass moments. Which is fine, because in spite of his scholarly, humorless nature, Henry Jones Sr. was also capable of being a badass at times.

    608002-henry_jones_1_super.jpg
  • edited November 2012
    Back onto LucasArts, here's a quote from the forthcoming Entertainment Weekly that's... interesting:
    Lucasfilm’s co-chairman and soon-to-be president, Kathleen Kennedy, has told employees she wants the company to produce two or three films a year (it’s averaged fewer than four per decade), and first up is Star Wars: Episode VII for 2015, which will pick up sometime after Darth Vader gave his life to overthrow (figuratively and literally) the Emperor and save Luke in 1983’s Episode VI— Return of the Jedi. Yes, the plan is to return to the characters in the first trilogy (1977–83). Whether the original actors will have significant roles or merely be on hand to pass the baton to a new generation of actors—something Lucasfilm tried with mixed success with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Disney with TRON: Legacy—is unclear.
  • edited November 2012
    Interesting? I call it nothing that we haven't already figured out.
  • edited November 2012
    Kathleen Kennedy has told employees she wants the company to produce two or three films a year.

    That's... that's a hell of a step up from what they've done before.
  • edited November 2012
    Is that a normal number for a production company to have?
  • edited November 2012
    Kathleen Kennedy has told employees she wants the company to produce two or three films a year.

    That's... that's a hell of a step up from what they've done before.

    If they're going to produce two or three films a year, why not just make a live-action, high-budget TV show and have more freedom (and time) to play around with characterization and long-arching plot elements?
  • edited November 2012
    If they're going to produce two or three films a year, why not just make a live-action, high-budget TV show and have more freedom (and time) to play around with characterization and long-arching plot elements?

    I think a live action Star Wars tv series is still in the works.
  • edited November 2012
    I don't really know how the industry works, but I can't picture a high-budget television show generating nearly as much income as a small handful of blockbuster films. The Star Wars license could generate more interest than usual, but it's been pretty much consistent that high-cost sci-fi shows fail because they never get enough viewers to justify the cost of production.
  • edited November 2012
    It wouldn't have to be super high budget. If it was supposed to take place around the same time as the original trilogy, I doubt anyone would really complain if it was only slightly prettier than that.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.