Disney buys Lucasfilm!

Metrostar said:

Been reading a few posts and thinking a bit. Decided that I am out.

Love the original trilogy. Got three fan edits of eps 1-3 that I really like. I really can't do any more star wars. just count me out. To me, it's all complete and anything else is just stuff I don't need.

I hope it all goes well for those of you that want more.

Click to expand...

Best of luck to you in avoiding the new films, though I've gotta think that they are going to be better than the PT, fanedit or not.

reave said:

Best of luck to you in avoiding the new films, though I've gotta think that they are going to be better than the PT, fanedit or not.

Click to expand...

Thanks! Example: I never saw those batman films 1989-1997. It was hard going, especially for the first one. It was everywhere. I never saw the Toy Story trilogy either. I'm a stubborn bastard. Once my mind is made up, I just move on to something else. There will be PLENTY of other films to watch and hopefully fanedit.org wont turn into disneystarwarsfilms.org and i will still have lot's of other threads to read! :-D

Exclusive first look at Episode VII here!

The first thing I thought when I heard that was “more Jar Jar, more Ewoks.”

Dom, I’m glad that you changed your mind on this, but you’re the not only person to express such a sentiment. I’ve seen a lot of this online, and frankly, it baffles me. The Ewoks haven’t been in anything since 1986, and Jar Jar’s role got significantly reduced with each movie. There’s no reason whatsoever to think that we’ll see more of either of them in the upcoming films.

I guess people are worried about Disney “cute-ifying” the franchise, but if they didn’t do that with Marvel, why on earth would they do it now?

I know l8wrtr shares some similar sentiments, but there is sooo much good in the PT. Everyone looks down on EP1 but fails to see what worked.

Honestly, other than John Williams’ music, I can’t think of a single thing that worked consistently throughout the movies. People say that the prequels had good ideas that just weren’t well executed, but I can’t even think of any ideas that were any good.

Put aside Gungans and midichlorians for a minute—was it a good idea to have every Stormtrooper everywhere be a carbon copy of Boba Fett? Was it a wise idea to have Anakin start killing younglings over one bad dream about Padme nodding her head to one side? Was it a strong dramatic choice to make the Jedi’s power based on things in their biology and then not allow them to procreate? Furthermore, to make such a big deal out of the Jedi not marrying, and then to dismiss it with a throwaway line of dialogue in the next movie? Was it a good idea to have Yoda run away from a battle that was evenly matched?

All that being said, it’s true that I might never have noticed how bad the ideas were if they had been executed better. I’m hoping that Kathleen Kennedy and company have the authority to make judgment calls about some of George’s ideas for 7, 8, and 9. I have no doubt that they’ll at least be executed in a more sensible fashion.

I have to say... the strangest thing happening from this whole thing is.... George Lucas is loved and respected again.

Aside from my rant above, I completely agree. I love and respect George again, because he’s passing off the franchise to those who have the potential to make it awesome again. I really respect him because he donated all the money to charity. I never thought he could do anything at this point to earn my favor back, but he sure did.

I'd prefer a happy ending.
I like dark movies as much as the next guy, but ending a 9 movies saga (or even the 6 we have by the way) that is mostly made for kids, with an uncertain, mysterious and dark ending. I'm not sure about that.

Yeah, I completely agree. If this is a trilogy of trilogies, then I want Ep. 9 to be happy and hopeful. For that matter, movies have been too cynical lately. We need to return to the joy and the fun of the original trilogy.

I would suggest David Yates (HP 5,6,7,8);

Many people have suggested this online, in this thread, on Facebook, in other forums, and on news sites like Entertainment Weekly. All I can say is, good heavens, no!

Am I the only one who sees that he made the Harry Potter movies jump the shark? We went from the best film in the series (Goblet of Fire) to arguably the worst film (Order of the Phoenix). And while there were some minor improvements here and there, the series never fully recovered from the damage he did. Characters’ motivations became incomprehensible; the story was often incoherent; and story-told-through-special-effects became special-effects-at-the-expense-of-story. I would rather have no new Star Wars at all than have David Yates direct; he’s almost as bad as Lucas.

I do like the idea of Mike Newell or Alfonso Cauron, though. They both did excellent HP entries.

On a side note, the hosts of the ForceCast (an otherwise excellent show, with a couple of great guys hosting) speculated that Spielberg would direct the next film. This is a silly thought, and it won’t happen, nor do I want it to. Spielberg hasn’t made a really good action/fantasy film since Jurassic Park 20 years ago. The last Lucas/Spielberg collaboration, Indy IV, was hugely unsatisfying. Lucas even had the nerve to blame Spielberg and Harrison Ford for how bad it was, which makes me think Spielberg is less likely to want to work with him again.

At any rate, Spielberg had wanted to direct a Star Wars movie at one time, but I think that ship has sailed. Spielberg is more focused on other projects, which is as it should be.

How sad is everyone knowing that Star Wars 7 won't open with the Fox Fanfare?

The weird thing is that the Slashfilm article (while very good and informative overall) bizarrely said something to the effect of, “Fox will be involved, but the Fox logo won’t be used.” That’s nuts. If Fox can claim any rights to be involved at this point, then the Fox logo is going to be used, either before or after the Disney logo. Everyone wants it. If Fox isn’t involved, then no harm, no foul. But audiences would hit the roof if Fox is involved but the logo is skipped anyway. (Having more than one company’s logo before a movie has happened before; for instance, Fox and Paramount both have a logo at the beginning of Titanic.)

Speaking of logos, I really enjoy the fan logos posted on this thread. My favorite is the one with Cloud City in it. Of course, it’s kind of funny that everyone is using the blue logo, which Disney hasn’t been using for several years now. But I guess that’s easier to imitate in Photoshop than the current one.

POTC are some of the most overrated POS films to ever hit the screen.

So we’ve got one person voting against Gore Verbinski, but tons of people in this thread are voting for Elliot/Rossio as screenwriters. Personally, I think that the writers are mostly to blame for the faults in those movies. Verbinski was more of a journeyman. He could probably do well with Star Wars. But this is less of saying that I want Verbinski and more of saying that I don’t want Elliot/Rossio.

Yes; Mark Hamill didn't do very well at all as Luke. Fortunately, for the prequels, Lucas was able to find an actor worthy of his writing, Hayden Christensen.

ROTFL!!! Captain K for the win! Yes, I never understand the hard time that Mark Hammill gets for his acting. A well-respected actor like Samuel L. Jackson (who I like, too) couldn’t do a thing without a good director to guide him in Star Wars. Hammill did an amazing job in the same situation.

I never saw the Toy Story trilogy either.

So, what’s it like, deliberately robbing yourself of all happiness and joy in the universe? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)

TomH1138 said:

I never saw the Toy Story trilogy either.

So, what’s it like, deliberately robbing yourself of all happiness and joy in the universe? (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)

Click to expand...

Well, I will always have Krzysztof Kieślowski's Three Colors Trilogy for that. :thumb:

Am I the only one who sees that he made the Harry Potter movies jump the shark? We went from the best film in the series (Goblet of Fire) to arguably the worst film (Order of the Phoenix).

Click to expand...

You're on drugs. Goblet of Fire was a mess, and Order of the Phoenix was beautiful. That said, I'd much rather prefer Alfonso Cauron.

Spielberg hasn’t made a really good action/fantasy film since Jurassic Park 20 years ago.

Click to expand...

Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can. Some of Spielberg's best movies came from the last 15 years.

So we’ve got one person voting against Gore Verbinski, but tons of people in this thread are voting for Elliot/Rossio as screenwriters.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised how much hate Verbinski gets, the only two movies of his I have seen and disliked were POTC 2 and 3, and I have a feeling Disney management is to blame. Disney wanted bigger blockbusters and went ahead with a special effects but dumb movie pair and we got stuck with PotC2/3.

Did no one see Rango, it looked great?

I would only be for Elliot/Rossio if there is a third writer involved like Shane Black, Tom Stoppard, Edgar Wright, or John Logan. From what everyone is saying Logan elevated two of Bond's worst writers to the point they released a masterpiece. Elliot/Rossio would be there to write the fun, swashbuckling adventure, and then it needs a third writer to make it smart, and make sure it makes sense. Aladdin, Men in Black, The Mask of Zorro, and Shrek are all great examples of what Elliot/Rossio can do. (Russo is the second most successful screenwriter of all time in terms of domestic box office receipts.)

wabid said:

Did no one see Rango, it looked great?

Click to expand...

Rango was pretty damn good.

wabid said:

You're on drugs. Goblet of Fire was a mess, and Order of the Phoenix was beautiful. That said, I'd much rather prefer Alfonso Cauron.

Click to expand...

Tell me, what color are the walls in your padded cell? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

But seriously, though: I was never confused about what was going on or where my emotions and sympathy lay in Goblet of Fire. I enjoyed the imaginative stuff; I laughed at the funny parts; I found the action scenes very exciting and tense; and I was heartbroken at the end. There were many morally complex moments, but I understood the implications behind them and they resonated with me. But in Order of the Phoenix, I didn't know who was doing what to whom and why, more than half the time.

One example: The Dursleys hate Harry and blame him for every minor annoyance, even when it's not his fault. So one day, Harry and Dudley get attacked by Dementors. Harry brings home the Dursleys' precious son half-dead, who promptly blames Harry for what happened. And then . . . at the end of the movie, we're supposed to believe that Harry is happily on his way back to the Dursleys, like nothing ever happened.

The Dursleys would never let Harry back in the house after that. They'd sue him, if they didn't try to kill him themselves! And I heard from others that Dudley does get better in the book, but we never actually see that in the movie. And even if he did, they would never take a chance on something like that happening again. Their behavior makes absolutely no sense in the film.

Another example: Harry and Cho Chang have been developing feelings for each other since the events of the previous story. She joins "Dumbledore's Army." And then, suddenly, in one scene, one of the characters says, "Boy, it's a shame that Cho betrayed us all like that," and everyone agrees, and the movie just goes on.

Um, hello? What the frack? When did THAT happen? That would be a valuable thing to, you know, see onscreen for ourselves. Rather than having characters explain it, why not show us the moment where Cho actually betrays them, and help the audience to understand why?

That's the kind of thing I mean when I say that OotP was a mess and GoF was not. You're entitled to think otherwise, but sometimes, I think that a completely different cut of OotP was sent to my theater than to everyone else's.

wabid said:

Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can. Some of Spielberg's best movies came from the last 15 years.

Click to expand...

I didn't say that Spielberg hadn't made any good movies in the past 20 years; I said he hadn't made any good fantasies. He's made terrific historical dramas, such as Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. He's made excellent comedy-dramas such as Catch Me if You Can and The Terminal. (I guess you consider Ryan and Catch to be action movies, so I guess that's part of the confusion.) But has he made a great movie in the vein of E.T., Jaws, Jurassic Park, or Raiders of the Lost Ark? In my opinion, no.

Minority Report was all right. It was a great concept, there were some imaginative ideas in the telling, and there were some great chase scenes. But the movie is about a third longer than it needs to be, and some of the plot elements at the end were completely incomprehensible. If you liked it better, that's fine. But I wasn't forgetting that movie when I said that I hadn't been impressed with Spielberg's fantasy movies of late.

Tintin was a cute and charming film, certainly. But, honestly, was it groundbreaking in any of the ways that the other movies I described were? Would the film have been significantly different if, say, Chris Columbus or Brett friggin' Ratner had directed it? I can't say that it would.

Again, you're entitled to think otherwise. But these are my opinions, and I'm sticking with them.

Sooooo . . . Star Wars talk, anyone?

TomH1138 said:

That's the kind of thing I mean when I say that OotP was a mess and GoF was not. You're entitled to think otherwise, but sometimes, I think that a completely different cut of OotP was sent to my theater than to everyone else's.

Click to expand...

Actually, you tend to be in the majority, while Wabid and I are the rare OotP lovers. The truth is, Goblet did make more sense, because everything was spelled out for you... but it killed some of the magic of the movie. Order really was a beautiful, stylistic film with an amazing screenplay, but it expected viewers to read into it a bit more if they hadn't read the books. It was the perfect in between for book fans and people who only watch the films.

The truth is, and people are going to have to realize this - Cuaron (and Kloves, to a lesser degree) are the single biggest reason that David Yates' HP films struggled. Azkaban is supposed to set up the entire back story for everything - How Harry's parents were betrayed, Snape hating the maurauders, most of Harry's emotional connections in the wizarding world... Because Cuaron opted for feel as opposed to substance, the entire backstory of Harry Potter was slimmed down and streamlined to a point that couldn't be saved later on without having to completely go back and re explain. It's not that he presented things subtly - he completely left things out because they didn't fit with the cookie cutter view of the film he had. If you read Kloves' original script, it alluded to most of the things that are missing, and Cuaron removed snippets of backstory line by line. We were reduced to a film where Lupin was REALLY good friends with Lily, as opposed to being best friends with James, Sirius, and Peter.

That carries over to Order of the Phoenix, because you're less clear on everyone's relationships. Newell used Sirius in GOF as a source of information for Harry, as opposed to someone he felt he could confide in. What kind of supportive parent says "You don't have a choice, so deal with it. Keep your friends close." In the book, he lives in Hogsmeade as a dog, living off of rats, just so he can be close to Harry. He is at the castle after Harry fights Voldemort, distraught with worry... Instead, in the film he kinda fits in as an older brother/friend... Yates and Goldenberg were the perfect compliment.

Sorry... touchy subject

Count me in as someone else who loved OotP. An Minority Report. And War of the Worlds. And Tintin.

Does anyone have a good recipe for Alfredo sauce?

But in Order of the Phoenix, I didn't know who was doing what to whom and why, more than half the time.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't blame Yates half as much as Michael Goldenberg. Steve Kloves wrote the other 7 Harry Potter movies. I know this thread is moving fast, and it is unreasonable to expect people to read every post. But twice or thrice now I've said, Star Wars needs a VISUAL director not a storyteller. OotP was visually stunning. It was a huge leap for moviemaking and the Harry Potter series. I think a lot of this has to do with 2005-2007 being a time for huge change in hollywood in general.

It is why I think Gore Verbinski would be fine with John Logan, Ted Elliott & Terry Rossio at the helm. I think most people would agree Lucas would have been a fine director were he able to sense terrible acting and get more emotional takes from people. Lucas should never be writing the dialog. Given Disney's track record, I don't think they will be handing the Director complete control or free reign of the project like Lucas enjoyed, or like Nolan with Batman, and Abrams with Star Trek. The project will be tightly controlled from the top.

Cuaron (and Kloves, to a lesser degree) are the single biggest reason that David Yates' HP films struggled.

Click to expand...

That is a very interesting interpretation. Oddly enough, if looking at fan approval it seems Cuaron made the right choices for short term success. Azkaban is the second highest rated Harry Potter movie after Hallows 2.

Do I need to change the title of the thread to "Disney Buys Lucasfilm/Discussion of Every Movie Franchise"?

I also felt that the newest American Pie movie was a real return to form for the franchise.

In other words, while I understand why you wouldn't want to bother to separate the yolk and white, I find that whipping the whites actually does quite a bit to help fluff up the pancakes.

In conclusion, it's clear from the Marvel series, all the merchandising and every official toy release that assemble Rumble is red and Frenzy is blue.

Now, back on topic. Do you think that it's likely that Nimoy will make a cameo in this one too?

It's sudo-related. Alan Horn helmed WB when it made Harry Potter/Batman and now he is steering Disney. I think it's fair to discuss how past management decisions allow us to predict future ones. And the Verbinski/Bruckheimer/Elliott/Rossio team have been working mainly with Disney. So discussion of Harry Potter and Pirates of the Caribbean are directly relevant to how Disney runs things.

Something interesting I read concerning Pirates 5.

Disney has a wishlist of directors they would like to direct, as Rob Marshall has not yet accepted nor declined to direct. The list includes Tim Burton, Sam Raimi, Alfonso Cuaron, Shawn Levy, Chris Weitz, and original Pirates director Gore Verbinski.

Click to expand...

Chris Weitz directed American Pie soo... that is fair game.

And another tidbit in the Lone Ranger article.

The Elliot/Rossio script had a supernatural tone, and has since been rewritten by Justin Haythe.

Click to expand...

Disney is fully aware these guys need a third to keep them from jumping off the deep end.

Godfather III sucks. Ghostbusters III is still in development hell (thank the maker). Nobody has ever thought about doing Blues Brothers 3 (thank Belushi). I'm still patiently waiting for Wayne's World 3.

All of these movies can be traced back to SW VII in a "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" way. Francis Ford Coppola is homies with George. Ackroyd or Murray have starred in a Disney movie at some point in their careers. Wayne and Garth were rumored to make a cameo in SW VII*.


*Bullshit rumor unverified.

nightstalkerpoet said:

The truth is, and people are going to have to realize this - Cuaron (and Kloves, to a lesser degree) are the single biggest reason that David Yates' HP films struggled.... If you read Kloves' original script, it alluded to most of the things that are missing, and Cuaron removed snippets of backstory line by line.

Click to expand...

Thou hast identified the problem, but not its cause. In the grand scheme of things, nearly all of the interesting drama occurred in the backstory, with the present-day post-Goblet stories becoming less and less interesting.

James and Sirius vying for Lily's affections? Backstory.
Lupin struggling with his werewolf side, while trying to remain a hero? Backstory.
Wormtail taking revenge on his crappy friends for giving him that name? Backstory.
Sirius deciding to be good, a true Vader-kills-Palps moment? Backstory.
Voldy hatching a diabolical scheme to attain immortality? Backstory.



... Harry, Hermione and He-Ginny not having any romantic rivalry between themselves, not being betrayed by any of their friends, nor having to decide whether a former enemy who claims to have reformed is telling the truth, and going on an extended scavenger hunt? Years 5-7 for ya!

Cuaron knew to tell an interesting story in the present. JKR fumbled that same task.

Neglify said:

Do I need to change the title of the thread to "Disney Buys Lucasfilm/Discussion of Every Movie Franchise"?

Click to expand...

I love how this thread selectively ignores certain posts and aims to 'stay on target' when they're not serious enough. On the other side of the coin, having to extraneously examine every single piece of this development. :-D

The discussion of Harry Potter was born out of a common thread across the internet - that Alfonso Cuaron is a top choice for the Star Wars ST, and many base this on his handling of Prisoner of Azkaban. My point was that While Azkaban may work to tell it's story, it fails to set up the rest of the films in the series. This is particularly disheartening when you consider the idea of him directing the first in a trilogy of movies, because if he streamlines it and seals it nearly air tight storywise at the end like POA, the transition to the next film could be severely lacking. With that said, Star Wars films, while connected at their core, have continually been disjointed by progression of time, so this may not be as detrimental as it was to the HP films.

Yates did manage to come at each of the HP films he directed with a different approach, which could be invaluable to Star Wars - ANH is very different from ESB, and both feel different than RotJ. Common themes are applied, but they each have a flavor. This "flavor" was provided by three different directors, but left RotJ slightly disjointed. It would be nice to have someone like Yates who can provide that singularly, while also keeping keeping a general flow between them.

As for Harry Potter, I think your criticism of Cuaron is unfounded. Prisoner of Azkaban (movie) was released in 2004, and Deathly Hallows (the book) was released in 2007. How was he suppose to know those details were important?

The new Star Wars won't be huge novels which need to be trimmed and condensed. The first movie wont be put out without a somewhat clear idea of where the series is going. I don't think Cuaron would have as much say in what gets edited in/out of the movie. He would be a monkey delivering the pictures the studio asks for.

I have been bringing up Harry Potter (along with Avengers) because I think it represents the management style which will follow for Star Wars (and really did before in the PT.) The series is bigger than the director, and the director can be easily replaced.