Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorkmcleod
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2012
    I'm pretty sure that Disney didn't buy the company to get LucasArts, the videogame branch--it laid off a third of its employees and went through four or five managers in about 8 years.
    • CommentAuthorFlabyo
    • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2012 edited
    Ultimately the 'name' of the studio is less important than the people within it. Admitedly this is only the case 'inside' the industry.

    Games is the same, people endlessly talk about how studio X needs to recapture it's glory, when the bulk of it's glory actually comes from team Y who've all long since left to work for studio Z...

    If Disney don't want ILM? Then the good people will go elsewhere. Sure, no other studio has the same name recognition with the public, but they're not selling their services to the public, they're selling them to Hollywood, and they know it's people not company.
  1.  (10885.3)
    I almost welcome ILM not being able to do as much effects work. There are a lot of great smaller VFX companies that'll have the opportunity to step up to features (for more than crowd replication and scenery replacement, anyway).
    • CommentAuthorSteadyUP
    • CommentTimeNov 4th 2012 edited
    On ILM - the reports I've read from the Disney stockholders conference call specifically stated that "Disney does not want to change anything about how they operate." For what that's worth.
    • CommentTimeNov 4th 2012
    Disney has been pretty good about keeping their hands off of profitable subsidiaries - presumably because they don't want to wreck whatever it is that is making it profitable.
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2012
    Wait... Leia's a Jedi now right?

    Old Carrie Fisher with Jedi powers and a lightsabre being badass? Not directed by Lucas?

    Sort of want.
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2012
    "Disney does not want to change anything about how they operate." For what that's worth.

    Just like Rupert Murdick did not want to change the Wall Street Journal when he wanted to buy it, but he did.

    I break down the sale like this -

    Lucas is pushing 70 and looking for retirement. He has three children, only one, Katie Lucas, has an active role in the company. Katie is one of the writers for Clone Wars. His other daughter is an MMA fighter and his son is just turning 18. It's obvious that Amanda has no interest in the company and Jett's interests are unclear.

    Lucas has always felt a responsibility to his community and the world at large. He does a lot of philanthropic work and has been known to give away parts of his technology for free providing that they are used for human advancement and well-being.

    So I put the general breakdown like this, he wants out of the game and time to enjoy life. He also wants to give away large portions of his money, and when he dies, money is much easier to break into three pieces than control of a company. Plus, if the next three movies get screwed up, then he can say that it wasn't his fault, and if they are great he can say that he was a genius for selling it to Disney.

    Personally, I wish he would have picked any other company besides Disney. In my honest opinion, Disney is one of the most evil corporations in this world. If I had to guess why, it's because of the tie-in opportunities. Disney might be the only company that can compete with George when it comes to selling movie tie-ins, and I am sure that George kept a back end deal in place for merchandise sales. If he didn't then he was an idiot to sell for 4 billion.
    • CommentAuthor256
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2012 edited
    Apparently, the directory of the next Star Wars movie will be Michael Arndt. Arndt wrote the screenplay for Little Miss Sunshine, rewrote Toy Story 3, and is writing the next Hunger Games movie. The above link claims that "Kathleen Kennedy and George Lucas have begun story conferences with Arndt", potentially dashing hopes that the franchise will escape the Lucas Touch.

    More speculation and rumour here.

    Also: @Scribe: "Disney is one of the most evil corporations in this world".


    Monsanto, I'd call evil. Dow Chemical, Raytheon, ConAgra, Union Carbide, arguably Coca-Cola (primarily for their pollution of developing countries, rather than selling an innately unhealthy product), any number of shamelessly despoiling coal, oil, gas, and timber companies, ditto.

    But Disney I struggle to see as anything worse than soulless promoters of (increasingly?) banal pap.

    edit: although I'll agree that their manipulation of copyright law is immoral enough to qualify.
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2012
    I don't think it's a bad thing that Lucas TOUCHES it. He's fine as an ideas man and as the progenitor of the world itself. I hope and believe (for now) that the problem of Lucas being at the reins and surrounded by Yes Men is not what will happen this time around. If nothing else then because Lucas has expressed a lot of displeasure with the fan "feedback" he's got on the prequilogy. Yeah, that's what I've decided to call it. Hopefully, that's made him go off the whole idea of control. Less control = less culpability.
  2.  (10885.10)
    When Lucas wrote the original Star Wars (Journal of the Whills), he was really wanting to re-make Flash Gordon. It was like creating Velcro, or potato chips, pure accident. He aped what he could from the Gordon serials and added a dash of spaghetti-western and ta-da Instant Star Wars.