Jump to content


Disney buys Lucasfilm for $4b, Episode VII due Dec. 18 2015 *Cast Announced 29/04/14*


Disney buys Lucasfilm - Good or Bad  

93 members have voted

  1. 1. Disney buys Lucasfilm - Good or Bad

    • Good
    • Let's wait and see
    • Bad
    • Yoda

Recommended Posts

I would not be against Thrawn being a part of the sequel trilogy... since anything Disney does will override the already established EU anyway, may as well include the best elements from it... and Thrawn is it.


I would tend to agree with this, seeing as Thrawn was one of the original EU major characters. I'm guessing that if the original cast of Star Wars is hired to do the next trilogy, the time setting of the trilogy will match the respective ages of the cast, and the movie would focus on younger characters present in the story. I'm actually really looking forward to hearing more about this, three years seems like ages from now!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 489
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I wonder if Star Wars Seven will be anything like Windows Seven- not very "user friendly". *bolts down a hyperspace lane*


Also, what about the efforts of people like Deborah Chester, who wrote the fascinating Alien Chronicles series under the Lucasarts name? Where will such writers and artists be now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but it's still too expensive to do.
That's a complete crock. Sure you can't green screen the entire thing like Lucas did for the prequels, but why the hell would you anyway? That was half the problem of the prequels. If something like Firefly could manage to have lots of FX shots of space ships and the like on a shoestring, I can't see there being any problems for a Star Wars show.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


:rofl: That was awesome.



you can't have a bunch of 50/60/70 years olds playing the parts.

While I agreed with pretty much everything else you said in this post, I wonder if Christopher Lee would have taken exception to this at the filming of ROTS?



I still get people telling me off on my YouTube videos every now-and-then for playing the games wrong. Then I tell them off for having such a narrow mind and do it in such a way so they're offended by my response. I continue to play with them for a bit by provoking them where they really defend their view and then I really insult their narrow view and how the KOTOR are role playing games and how I should be able to make whatever choices I want to make and insult them really badly and block them from being able to respond just at the right point where they are really frustrated with me. Fun stuff! :D


Oh yeah. I've done that. My vids I no longer have up there weren't much to speak of anyway but yeah, it never seems to fail that YT trolls always have some denigrating thing to say. So I would do that same thing. Usually I'd continue to pound on their comment once or twice more after blocking them.


Even better is when they try to pick on something about myself or my channel, and I go into theirs and uncover that they themselves have some embarrassing traits and use it against them. Or if they hide all their activity I usually point out what an anonymous coward they are for being such "tough people" on the internet.





(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

:lol: I've dealt with so many people who got hip replacements this year, this just put it in a totally different light. That's good stuff. Thanks.


My only hope is that their focus won't be entirely kids. I just hope whatever they do, they take it seriously.

Bingo. Probably accounts for half of the franchises I've been turned off from. As a kid I didn't like kiddish stuff, I liked the stoicism and seriousness of productions.


*cue person talking about how fans don't know what is best forthe bottom line of a business*


I tend to disagree that Ewoks were absolutely so horrible of a step (ok maybe I'm biased since I actually know somebody who played a few Ewoks, Daniel Rogers), but when the storyline gets too dumbed down, over simplified, cute, or everything just plain sugar-coated, *that's* when I start to have problems.


If people could just leave well enough alone...


I'm glad to see that the marjority of the responses have been the wait and see to positive variety. Can it be that LF isn't all cynical fanboys?


Well...Cynical but that isn't usually the first stop we make because life is too short. You know exactly what I mean.


I don't like it... despite what people think of Lucas and his treatment of Star Wars over the last few years, I always liked the fact that LucasFilm was independent.

Very much agree here.


There is something to be said and respected about being an entrepreneur who is particular about his product. One can't help but respect at least that aspect if nothing else.


I still think It's bizarre how he was willing to relinquish his leash like that... seeing how hard he fought for creative control back when he made the original Star Wars.

I agree, but what can we say? Times change and so do people, I guess. At least now he can say it's someone else's fault if it gets screwed up. :devsmoke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agreed with pretty much everything else you said in this post, I wonder if Christopher Lee would have taken exception to this at the filming of ROTS?
Lee was cast for a role that was (presumably) created with him in mind. I was referring to the original cast members reprising their roles as if no time had passed, based on the initial premise that the "postquels" would be set shortly after the OT. It obviously wouldn't make any sense in that case for them to be in the roles of characters half their ages. However, if the films were to be set 30-40 years after the OT, then yeah that actually would make sense. I guess we'll have to wait for more information about the time period/plot to emerge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IGN has just introduced some new rumors:


(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)


I personally love Aronofsky, I think he's one hell of a director. However, his movies are so different from Star Wars and action, sci-fi/fantasy themed filmes, in every way I'm not sure he's the right man for the job - or even if he would be interested in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pixar was started as a division of LucasFilm. Still irrelevant yes, but I think it's interesting anyway.


yes, and he sold it when 1) 5 million was a lot of money and 2) he need the money to pay for bad marriage. Divorce does not prove bad business man. If it did then Trump is worse at business than I give him credit for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? I enjoyed it...


My apprehension has a strange reason - There's always been this funny juxtaposition in pop culture of the in-universe evil Darth Vader in out-of-universe comical situations, where he's portrayed as an almost benevolent character. Those things have been mostly out of the character's official context, e.g. in advertisements for other products, appearances at events, etc.


I have this strange feeling that now that Star Wars is owned by Disney, that this representation of Vader will become a bit more 'official'. Like, you'll have regular costumed Darth Vaders walking around in Disneyland..


I don't know. As I said: it's a strange reason



So now that Disney owns Star Wars, does that make Princess Leia a Disney Princess now?


I've seen this joke going around a lot. Just to answer it directly, she's probably not. What's usually referred to as "Disney Princesses" are the well-known animated characters, and nothing else. Case in point: the main character from The Princess Diaries (a live action film), is a princess in the story, but is not usually considered a part of the Disney Princess 'pantheon'. Furthermore, Leia isn't an original Disney character.


Also, relevant:

Show spoiler
(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)


$4 billion dollars....Figure tells me that Lucas was pretty business savvy himself.


I am for Lucas being a consultant as long as that doesn't include dialogue writer.


Really? Disney bought Pixar for 7.4 billion 6 years ago. Yet for 4 billion they get all of Lucasfilm which includes their IP (Star Wars and Indiana Jones being the major ones), ILM which does FX for half of Hollywood, Skywalker Sound which probably does sound post-processing for 3/4 of Hollywood, LucasArts (which admittedly hasn't met its potential in a long time, but has a vast back catalogue of properties), Lucas Animation which is doing Clone Wars (and potentially other stuff) and Lucas Licensing which has merchandising and licensing deals worth a pretty penny. Additionally there is THX and a few other spin-offs, which I think Lucas may still have a controlling interest in, if not own outright, although I'm unsure if they are included in the deal.


That lot looks like a pretty good bargain for Disney. So that says to me that Lucas, far from being a savvy businessman, was simply interested in getting out, and was willing to give the lot away for a relative song.


Yes...I could care less what pixar sold for, it is completely irrelevant. Lucas took an idea and turned it into billions and then sold it for billions. I don't see most savvy business men/women do that without a couple government bailouts. :xp:



According to this, GL is remaining future-minded in all of this, and I'd say that "He's still got it."


Unlike most billion dollar corporate acquisitions where the founders’ ownership stake is actually just a small percentage, George Lucas owns 100% of Luscasfilm and its family of companies like THX, Industrial Light and Magic, LucasArts and Skywalker Sound. That means overnight, George Lucas just more than doubled his net worth from $3.3 billion to $7.3 billion! But perhaps more impressively, Lucas could earn an even bigger fortune off the deal in the coming years…


According to the official press release, Disney will pay Lucas $2 billion in cash plus 40 million shares of common stock at Tuesday’s closing price of $50 per share.


George Lucas’ decision to sell his company to Disney shares many similarities to when Steve Jobs sold Pixar to Disney in 2006 for $7.6 billion. Most people don’t realize that when Steve Jobs died, the majority of his $8.3 billion net worth was made up from from his stake in Disney, NOT Apple.


Considering the fact that Disney’s stock is up more than 32% this year, from a low of $38 to a recent 52 week high of $53 per share, Lucas’ payday could increase by hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.


Furthermore, by signing this deal prior to the December 31st 2012 expiration of the “Bush era tax cuts”, Lucas is saving himself $100 million in taxes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys! Hey, guys!


Twi'lek princesses. Entire floats of them at the Disney World parades...


Am I the only one considering this possibility?


No, you're not. Can't promise an exact granting of your wish but... this:


Show spoiler
(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)


Show spoiler
(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)


Who knows? Maybe he might draw something for you?


To be fair, I didn't have a problem with ewoks in ROTJ. My problem with Ewoks is the unbelievably bad cartoon and comic book


Well, glad I never got either one of those then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, and he sold it when 1) 5 million was a lot of money and 2) he need the money to pay for bad marriage. Divorce does not prove bad business man. If it did then Trump is worse at business than I give him credit for.


Haha I wasn't disagreeing with you I was just trying to bridge the relevant-ness gap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...