Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicky and Sue
You are making as many assumptions as me, but you are using generic "corportate" jargain to do it. This type of talk is meaningless to me. You must have context or you are just in that psuedo intellectual territory.
|
I'm not really making assumptions though. I've been part of the corporate world in the past and that is the nature of acquisitions. Based on the events that just took place and the statements from Iger, Lucas, and Kennedy, this information is easily gleaned from what we've heard so far. My jargon is hardly "corportate". This talk may be meaningless
to you, but it's hardly meaningless. It's just the nature of the corporate world. You have to have been there to understand some of it. There's nothing "pseudo intellectual" about it.
Quote:
|
and I have to say your condecension isn't necesary.
|
My condescension, although I haven't noticed any, only stems from what I get from you. I've seen many of your posts here laced with condescension. In this thread, the Indiana Jones thread, the Terminator remastered thread. You seem to make a lot of condescending posts to those with whom you disagree. Your comments in the Indy and Terminator threads when addressing those who didn't like the altered color timing shows that. Go back and reread them. I only give back to people what they give to me or what I see them giving to others.
Quote:
|
Claiming you are a corporate person and have friends in the biz? Pointless. I have no way of knowing this without a rediculous excercise, so thats why just keep it to opinions in these matters. You don't know the core of Disney structure and culture so no point using generic insider knowledge because I could refute it's relevance all day.
|
I have been a "corporate person" in the past, which gives me a level of experience you don't have. Who I've worked for and with may surprise you. On the other hand, when did I post anything about "friends in the biz" or name drop? Go back and reread my posts.
With respect to corporate knowledge and experience, you don't have to know, I know. I have a lot of experience in that area. You obviously don't. Just because you have difficulty with corporate "jargon" and concepts doesn't mean I need to stay away from it. I really haven't expressed anything outside of layman's terms anyway. I wouldn't expect you to simplify for me whatever it is you do or have done in the past, in terms of career type.
I also don't think you could refute, with any facts or truth, anything I post all day. More condescension.
With respect to Disney, while every corporation is different, most follow a traditional structure, even when it comes to relationships and planning with their subsidiaries. Some take a role that involves micromanagement immediately. Others take a lighter role for a time. No one takes a completely hands off approach. I don't know why you're in denial on this one. It's as if you can't admit to the fact that George is moving away from Star Wars. As a longtime fan, this bothers you. That's understandable. It doesn't change the fact of the matter. In the presentation, Iger expressed goals for Lucasfilm and areas Disney wants to push into with respect to Star Wars. It was stated that Kennedy will report to Alan Horn, and Iger is easily inferred from that as well. In other words, Disney will meet with Kennedy and they'll give her a set of goals and numbers they want to achieve and they'll expect her to run it and succeed. If she doesn't and fails, as Ernest Rister basically said, that's when the hammer will come down and that will lead to "involvement". No mystery here.
Quote:
|
I hate to keep using it but his statement "You don't understand what just happened" was really sweeping if it wasn't specific! So I choose to take it that he meant it in certainties, which is actually giving him credit because some pointless broad statement is an empty shirt all day.
|
Your misunderstanding of such a simple statement shocks me, frankly. He was pointing out to another member that they don't undertstand the nature of a buyout/acquisition. He was basically making it clear that an acquisition is not just some situation where a company hands over billions and says "business as usual". It doesn't work that way. Disney's presentation is all the proof you need. They've set goals, she'll be told to implement those goals to a level they expect, and she'll set a business strategy in place to achieve Disney's desires. They'll hold her accountable.
Quote:
|
I still believe he meant that we all thought lucas would be there forever and Disney couldn't do anything legally. (hah) Stating that "we don't understand what just happened" would be an instant cautionary remark that Lucas will be gone before we believe and have been told.
|
No, he didn't mean that. He was making it clear to people that it just wasn't going to be business as usual. As for Lucas, he himself made it clear he's moving on in life. Lucas gave the cautionary statements, not to mention, the cautionary action(the sale). I think some don't understand that.
Quote:
|
Furthermore I simply don't believe Disney execs would be that pig headed to throw out lucas treatments on 7,8 and 9. Since Kathleen made it clear she is working with Lucas on the treatments with "writers" that will be the plan she "reports" to Iger and such about. In no way does generic examples in corporate structure out of context speak to the negation of the public statements.
|
No one said they were throwing them out. I simply don't believe they exist in any meaningful way. I base this on Kennedy and Lucas's statements. She said she hopes to keep Lucas on her shoulder. He says he's working on a hologram. Meaning: he won't be there. Lucas said she had material from novels and comics to draw from. Kennedy stated that she's hired writers to work on "ideas" and a script. Translation: they don't have much. In my opinion, they have a very, very broad outline on VII from him and not much more. Without anything in script form, there's no telling what they'll really come up with. It could be far and away from any outline he may have provided.
Any "generic" statements on corporate structure have been supported by the public statements. Nothing is out of context.
Quote:
|
You said many times only if Kennedy fails would they act? Which I agree with..then you agreed with me that all star wars movies succeed. Therefore she wouldn't be able to fail in the eyes of Disney if they make money like normal, so there would be similar Lucas involvement on 8 and 9, in that scenario. How can you make the valid assumption that all star wars movies do well and then think "anything could happen"?
|
It's quite simple. All Star Wars films succeed financially. But, all Star Wars films have had George Lucas heavily involved. The man Star Wars sprang from. The man who created it. Now that is gone. He won't be writing the script, producing, or directing, therefore, the success and subjective quality of these new films isn't guaranteed anymore. Oh, the new one will do well out of sheer curiosity and excitement, regardless of quality. The concept of the built-in fanbase, I call it. The real yardstick will be the opinions of the fanbase following the film and the success of VIII. Without Lucas at the helm, there's no guarantee anymore. No matter your opinion of him, when you take the creative force out of the script or the director role, it leaves many questions.
Quote:
With regard to Kennedy, who again has been handpicked by George (which Disney would respect!) and she is a powerhouse even without his endorsement, AND she wants george to be part of it by way of stories and advice?
It all points to what the public statement affirms.
|
Of course Kennedy has been successful. No one doubts that. I don't recall anyone here criticizing her, only making mention of her duties and responsibilities, and who she'll be working for. Kennedy's terrific career has been built around producing/executive producing, which, when it comes to films, is more of an executive/business/organizational role than a creative one. She's very successful but this is Star Wars, she'll have to pick the proper writers, producer, and director. I wish her well. Kennedy and George's public statement reaffirms what I've stated. George gave a broad, and seemingly vague treatment, and he's moving on in life, by his own words! He won't be the creative force behind these films.
Quote:
Star wars will be finanically successful as always is (regardless of star wars fans disappointment), Disney will have no financial reason to disagree with Kennedy having Lucas' treatments continue the established saga, and will be reviewed when "NEW" areas are embarked upon. Which speculating could be after #9, or even #12, and that timeline will take us to 2021+.
I'd imagine by then Lucas wouldn't even "consult" on things, but his treatments in some form (even if reworked, would be just like the original trilogy was) would have been a part of Star Wars.
|
As I've said above, VII will do well for the reasons I mentioned and it may turn out to be great as well. VIII is not guaranteed if VII is bad. As an executive, Kennedy will be reviewed on a regular basis. That's the way it works. I really think your overblowing Lucas's influence on these new films. A broad treatment does not a film make. They've hired writers to come up with "ideas" and they don't even have a script and George has stated he's moving on to another stage in life.
Quote:
|
That is within the definition of the lucas hater moniker. So again I aimed my "staw man" argument correctly at you. While you may not FEEL you are a hater you appear that way with everything you say. You may have no similarities to the majority of them in behaviour/intensity but your beliefs are exactly the same.
|
This is really laughable. Let me get this straight. The gist of my posts, with respect to the movies, is my expression of uncertainty about future films due to Lucas not being involved. In your mind, that makes me a Lucas "hater"? Wouldn't my reservations about the upcoming films' quality, due to Lucas's disengagement, express just the opposite sentiment? Wow. Remember when you said my condescension wasn't necessary? Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. When I hear terms like "hater" and "basher" on the internet, it makes me think I'm dealing with a 14-year-old fanboy who can't stand to hear anything negative or critical of his sacred cows. I'm about as far away from "hater" as you can get. Hilarious. I find that when someone can't refute points, they throw out terms like "hater". It sounds quite childish. As for straw men, you shouldn't admit to using them, it confirms to the other person you can't refute anything they say.
Nothing I've said points to me being a hater. You're really clueless if you believe that. My beliefs? Like what? Point out
specific examples from my posts, if you can. And remember, be
specific and not
general. Two words you had difficulty telling apart in our encounter in the Indy thread...
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
you never know when you might need the other 2 billion 
Linear Mode
