Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (USE SPOILER TAGS!)

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Ryan0503

He already has ... Skywalker wine I believe its called

Originally Posted by Beast

Too late, Skywalker Vineyards already produces wine.

http://skywalkervineyards.com/wines/index.html

But it's gotta have the Diseny logo attached!

[tigertron]

Originally Posted by Wally Q

Considering Whedon has next to zero visual flair and he can't bother to hire a cinematographer who can shoot an action film, I'd prefer they keep him as far away as possible.

I take it you've not seen Serenity?

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by rickah88

But it's gotta have the Diseny logo attached!

Ha ha ha ... you gotta wait for the special edition bottle

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by ryan0503

ha ha ha ... You gotta wait for the special edition bottle

:d

[Wally Q]

Originally Posted by tigertron

I take it you've not seen Serenity?

Yeah, I'm one of 1,000 people who saw it in theaters but it isn't on the same league of ambition as Star Wars was cinematically; Avengers is a better idea of where Whedon is now as a visual artist and he struck out in that regards. Avengers had a phenomenal script but I couldn't make heads or tails of the action sequences. He also left visual continuity out of the picture when all four elements finally met in the film.

If we're talking screenplay, I'd have no problem with Joss writing. But I'd rather give Andrew Stanton another chance at honing his live action skills more than I would Whedon. I hope Joss steps up more and really films the hell out of Avengers 2 and go with a D.P. who knows how to film action.

[Nicky and Sue]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

I was simply using the term that Nicky and Sue had already used. Since Avatar, the sales of 3D tickets have declined and last year's Brave received only 38% of its total from 3D tickets, which is a record low. I'm not against people who like 3D, and I can even understand why people love it, I'm just trying to make a point - there are people who whine about 3D without facts, and there are people who claim that it's "here to stay, so get used to it." Both of those statements could be as true as the other, but the statistics show us that 3D attendance isn't doing that well at the moment.

Anyway, Star Wars might change that; a beloved brand that might just encourage people to part with a bit more of their cash to see it in 3D.

My perspective is that movies with a 3D alternative don't need to outsell the 2D screenings in order to be classed as valid & successful. 3D is a supplement within the film industry.

If some 3D fan out there is saying "I want every film in 3D and ill only watch the 3D version if theres a movie with it" of course thats fairly silly, and very rare.

The 3D revival by Cameron was NOT intented to replace 2D, and yet here we go...the biggest complaint among naysayers is they think this was some kind of push to eliminate 2D by studios promoting 3D, and they relish saying its failed based on numbers within 3 years??? Its dumb..

I'm merely saying 3D as an OPTION is here to stay. Any company with a budget, a fitting film & a director wanting 3D optional for their vision will accomodate it. Star Wars will definitelty utilize it. 3D sales won't eliminate even if they taper off "hype" numbers..There will still be a cinema room in a theatre that can do 3D screenings. And you have to factor in the poor use of 3D as part of why it can't possibly equal 2D sales so far.

I think 3D will become much less a gimmick or cash cow as a reportable entity because it is more like a fact of technology this time around. PIXAR makes their movies in 3D space on a computer, because ALL CGI is created in a 3D space! And you guessed it, all 3D movies have mass amounts of that usage.

Bottom line, I think you are right. Star Wars re-releases and the new movies will likely boost 3D numbers. Not that I'm one for using that to measure whether 3D is valid to be used

[JavaJulien]

Originally Posted by tigertron

To be honest, I don't know if they'd be that bothered since they'd be raking in a ton of money anyway. Having Spielburg could work in their favour and give them even more money, since A) he'll make a great trilogy, B) the critics are more likely to praise it, thus encouraging those who didn't like the prequels to go and see it.

And they've collaborated with Tim Burton twice, and he has no issues sticking his name at the front of his movies.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by JavaJulien

And they've collaborated with Tim Burton twice, and he has no issues sticking his name at the front of his movies.

A Tim Burton Star Wars?

[Show spoiler]

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Beast

Again... you don't understand what I'm saying. Everything that the company is... is housed there.

Ideas don't live in a house, they live in the mind. Star Wars films were shot all over the world, they don't *need* to be edited at Skywalker Ranch. I imagine any comfortable Avid bay would do.

And again, it's not really a merger. Just like with Marvel... Disney isn't going to change how things currently operate.

Lucas has been downgraded to a consultant. He has no power, just a chunk of Disney stock. Disney can fire Kathleen Kennedy if they want to. Sounds like a merger to me. Or more precisely, an acquisition.

Did you see Marvel's offices in New York close up and move to California or Florida? No. Not likely to differ here either.

Marvel didn't make movies in-house, they contracted with studios to make their movies. Marvel doesn't have sound stages, editing bays, recording studios, mix theaters. Lucas made his own movies. His facilities are redundant as Disney has production facilities of their own. I don't think you really understand what just happened.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Ideas don't live in a house, they live in the mind. Star Wars films were shot all over the world, they don't *need* to be edited at Skywalker Ranch. I imagine any comfortable Avid bay would do.

I agree and while we could easily get s* movies it should be a nice change of pace to have someone else running the show. Also we're far enough in with marvel that they know if things are done right they can just pile the cash. I mean Avengers hit 2 billion, a bad/average star wars movie can make a billion easy, so if they really knock one out of the park, they might be able to offset what they paid in 1 or 2 movies which is amazing to think about.

I just don't know how everyone isn't excited to see a fresh take on movies to merch.

Only thing I'm worried about is you could get some dummy who tries to do his own thing and makes an awful movie, but because Disney will keep investing in the franchise (unlike Lucas who had the power to let it stagnate if he wanted) we're bound to get quality at some point

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Ideas don't live in a house, they live in the mind. Star Wars films were shot all over the world, they don't *need* to be edited at Skywalker Ranch. I imagine any comfortable Avid bay would do.



Lucas has been downgraded to a consultant. He has no power, just a chunk of Disney stock. Disney can fire Kathleen Kennedy if they want to. Sounds like a merger to me. Or more precisely, an acquisition.



Marvel didn't make movies in-house, they contracted with studios to make their movies. Marvel doesn't have sound stages, editing bays, recording studios, mix theaters. Lucas made his own movies. His facilities are redundant as Disney has production facilities of their own. I don't think you really understand what just happened.

I thought Marvel started making movies in house when they opened Marvel Studios??

[JavaJulien]

Originally Posted by EricJ

A Tim Burton Star Wars?

[Show spoiler]

I wasn't suggesting Tim Burton as a Director. I was mentioning him in response to a statement that Disney doesn't like to associate with big name directors.

[Beast]

Ernest...

You don't seem to really get exactly what Lucasfilm consists of. It's not just a bunch of office buildings with workers. They're not going to just gut Lucasfilm and swallow the company up into the soulless Disney Gestalt organism. The very fact that Kathleen Kennedy is going to be in charge of Lucasfilm and Lucas is still involved going forwards proves that. You seem to think that all Disney bought is the idea of Star Wars. Not true at all.

And you seem to think that all Marvel is just their movies. You do realize they make comic books right? Marvel still exists as a for the most part, independent arm of Disney. They didn't relocate from New York after the purchase and move everything with the company. And as noted for the thousandth time, they're pretty hands off. Marvel didn't close up shop or even change it's day to day activites. Same thing here.

[yhzmr]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

No, dude. Disney owns the house and everything in it. They didn't just buy a house, they bought everything inside of that house. Disney owns Star Wars now.

I heard speculation that Lucas made the deal with Disney now in anticipation of taxes going up next year.

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by Beast

Ernest...

You don't seem to really get exactly what Lucasfilm consists of. It's not just a bunch of office buildings with workers. They're not going to just gut Lucasfilm and swallow the company up into the soulless Disney Gestalt organism. The very fact that Kathleen Kennedy is going to be in charge of Lucasfilm and Lucas is still involved going forwards proves that. You seem to think that all Disney bought is the idea of Star Wars. Not true at all.

And you seem to think that all Marvel is just their movies. You do realize they make comic books right? Marvel still exists as a for the most part, independent arm of Disney. They didn't relocate from New York after the purchase and move everything with the company. And as noted for the thousandth time, they're pretty hands off. Marvel didn't close up shop or even change it's day to day activites. Same thing here.

Disney also owns ABC and ESPN ... both company's still operate as their own company

[Nicky and Sue]

Originally Posted by supersix4

know they don't have creative power. They'll act like they're listening if he makes suggestions, but if anyone thinks they paid 4billion to let him run the show as a consultant/ board member then they've got another thing coming.

I wouldn't imagine he someone they would ignore though.. It's George Lucas, the creator. Sure, they don't need to listen to him technically. They will. And sometimes his opinion will ring true, and sometimes it won't in the producers/directors view.

It will finally be collaborative like in 1977 and 80. What most people consider the two best Star Wars films - He had to collaborate with artists and a mass of opinions equal to his power in hollywood at the time.

This is a good thing for the future films.

I don't think anyone said George is going to "run the show" from a consultant position (neither Disney, Kathleen, Goerge, or people here), or that his position means he still owns the property. He made a sound choice to entrust it to Disney with their ownership. And I firmly believe part of the deal would have been a kind of "verbal" assurance Lucasfilm culture would be upheld. After all it is a fiscal powerhouse as far as independant studios go. None better.

Now it is a fiscal subsidiary making money for Disney. Disney will merely want the same profits as when it was independant plus the movies to recoup the billions invested. Then it's all gravy to them for the next 5 decades for whatever they ask in direction

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Ryan0503

Disney also owns ABC and ESPN ... both company's still operate as their own company

Exactly. They may be all part of the same "Family", but for the most part they're their own thing.

[Nicky and Sue]

We are talking in realities. Using precedent and what has been said by all parties in a public venue to determine our speculations.

Ernest is talking in literal meanings. Using "what could be" plus bizarre sweeping statements like "I don't think you understand what just happened" which ironically I think about his take on all this Disney/Lucasfilm speculation.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by Nicky and Sue

I wouldn't imagine he someone they would ignore though.. It's George Lucas, the creator.

Creating something only gets you so far, and had he still had a controlling interest in the franchise they'd be forced to work with him, but he doesn't and I doubt they'd have bought say a 49% share in it. He turned over the keys and if they take his idea's it'll be nice for him, but trust me that kind of catering will only go so far when you spend the kind of money Disney did.

[mrpink134]

I found this