http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20146942
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...9_starwars.jpg
Always expected an Episode VII to be released eventually but never thought it'd involve Mickey Mouse. Not sure what I think about the notion of at least 3 more films and then one every couple of years.
As I said in the WTF thread, it didn't surprise me. The 2 companies had been working extremely close these past few years. You could purchase Star Wars merch in disney, and the picture you included seems to be from in front of their Star Tours ride.
The fact that they announced episode 7 in the same meeting, and lucas will still be involved, gives me pause as to the quality of the next installment, but I can hope against hope. Maybe one day they will shift the focus of the movies to any other part of the star wars universe other than what they have done into the ground with 1-6.
Holy fuck, that was out of nowhere. Too bad theforce.net seems to be non-responsive, I want to browse their forums and enjoy the howls of consternation and outrage from hardcore star wars fans.
Some random thoughts I've seen pop up on reddit, facebook and various comments
Disney Princess Leia, is she part of the gang now?
What about Monkey Island?
Star Wars Kingdom Hearts (+ Marvel)
Star Wars Land at Disney parks
Maybe we will finally get the original theatrical releases on Bluray?
Disney can be attributed for saving Marvel's movie attempts (but also caused Cars 2).
It explains why recently every other week a new Marvel movie seems to be released. Been more in the last 3 years than the last 30 I swear.
They put out more Marvel movies 03-05, and it shows. Elektra, Punisher, Man-Thing. Marvel was heading down a bad road before Disney stepped in 09.
Yes there were movies 03-05 but then it slowed to almost a complete stop. Recently each of the Avenger's seems to have had an "origin" movie and then the Avengers film, Spiderman has been rebooted and so many are in the pipeline including again virtually each of the Avengers (and the whole), Spiderman and new X-Men etc ... its well and truly stepped up a gear.
But Facebook is valued ten times more? :confused:
http://www.insidearm.com/wp-content/...oap-bubble.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Thats the point :bulb:, Marvel was failing on the big screen, they were ready to abandon the movie attempt. When Disney stepped in in late 09 Marvel only had 1 movie for that year, Wolverine, and 1 for '10, Iron Man 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Under Disney the Marvel movies aren't coming out any faster than they did under Marvel's earlier attempts. 3 a year for '11-'13, same rate as 03-08 (except 06)Quote:
Recently each of the Avenger's seems to have had an "origin" movie and then the Avengers film, Spiderman has been rebooted and so many are in the pipeline including again virtually each of the Avengers (and the whole), Spiderman and new X-Men etc ... its well and truly stepped up a gear.
Spider-man movie rights are owned by Sony, and their decision to reboot it was largely motivated by keeping the rights to it. X-Men is owned by Fox. Marvel signed away a lot of rights around their various properties early on, a move they came to regret as quality slipped. The Avengers plan actually predates the Disney buy-out though. In short, I don't think the Disney purchase really did much to the movies - Iron Man was successful enough without them. It has had an effect on their television plans though, and it is motivating them to try to get back rights to Spider-Man and the X-Men from Sony & Fox.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
By a wide margin, I remember that being the dream with the original Hulk, and them sticking to it so bad that they ended up rebooting The Hulk (during a writers strike!) alongside Iron Man. But I don't think we would have seen an Avengers if more than one of Iron Man 2, Thor or Captain America had failed. Those all came about with enough time for Disney to put in their creative input, but no I don't know how much they may have dicked around with the original storyboards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Sorta like how Battleship has put Wizard's other movie dreams in jeopardy.
I sense a disturbance in the Force...as if millions of Neckbeards cried out iin anguish.
I was about to post a diatribe on how much Disney had fucked up Pixar when they took it over, cancelling innovative new projects they were working on and forcing through cash-guaranteed sequels (Cars 2, Toy Story 3) instead.
But then Lucasfilm already fucked itself with Episodes I, II & III, so ...
I spose Episode VII could feature Luke and Leia bursting into kiddy-friendly song with lots of animals and birdies joining in, which would only improve matters ?
I'm just hoping for Grand Admiral Thrawn and Co.
It doesn't take too big of a leap of imagination to see Ewoks in the Disney Store.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
You could already buy plush star wars toys in the Orlando Disney. Downtown Disney had its own area in the toys department setup with star wars toys.
The prequals were so bad I can't imagine how Disney involvement could make 7-9 fundamentally worse. Pixar does OK under Disney and the Marvel movies are pretty good, so why despair? The only really bad news here is that Lucas will still be involved....
Odd that they announced this in the middle of a giant natural disaster. You would think they would wait a bit, but it's almost like they want to bury the news.
I'm wondering if this is because Disney feels they might be criticized for overpaying. Then again, $4 billion is probably a lower number than most would have expected. Because LucasArts has always been 100% private, the actual revenue numbers have always been secret.
I can only conclude from this that the Star Wars franchise + LucasArts productions (which works with Pixar) is surprisingly unprofitable.
Then again, only a company like Disney could really squeeze cash out of something like LucasArts with rides, toys and the other cross-marketing stuffs they excel at.
You don't renege on the press, especially when your announcement needs to come before others (such as donating most the $4 billion to charity). Google also announced their new Nexus products during the same time. I hope you aren't trying to say they wanted that buried :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:haha: are you serious? :haha:Quote:
I can only conclude from this that the Star Wars franchise + LucasArts productions (which works with Pixar) is surprisingly unprofitable.
I wonder how you balance this with the idea that Lucas is donating most of this $4 billion to education. Meaning Star Wars has possibly done more good for humanity than almost any work of art in history.
Its been known for a few years now that Lucas wanted out, he has mentioned in a few interviews of retiring but wanting the story to continue. Who better to continue and protect the IP than Disney?
side note: Marvel's reported revenue in 2007 was $125.7 million, and was also purchased by Disney for $4 billion.
There are requirements for market-sensitive disclosures, you can't just put the genie back in the bottle without causing knock on effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
No, it does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Disney cancelled a number of innovative projects Pixar were working on when they were taken over. Disney has instead insisted on prequels and sequels which are less risky in the box-office.
So we have Cars 2
Toy Story 3, with 4 (a prequel) mooted
Finding Nemo 2, in production
Monsters University, a prequel, in production
The only non-sequel/prequel Pixar/Disney have created from the drawing board since the takeover is Brave, which was bland and mediocre, and had none of the life and brilliance of Pixar-only creations.
Disney has stifled the renowned creativity of Pixar in favour of furthering the money-spinning capabilities of the existing franchises.
What about Up? Was that already written because I thought that was one of the greatest Pixar movies, the start where you see the old man and his widow's life in a few minutes is one of the best sad/romantic bits of any Disney/Pixar movie.
EDIT: I believe another original story had been in the pipeline but got cancelled due to a rival releasing Rio with a similar storyline. Had Disney stuck with that there'd be complaints about it not being original anymore.
EDIT2: They've got more original stories on the way too - and Disney not Pixar owned the rights to Toy Story anyway and was threatening to release a Toy Story 3 prior to their acquisition of Pixar. I wasn't convinced of the idea of a Toy Story 3 but I thought it was a great movie - and again a real tear-jerker at times. Not embarrassed to admit I did let a tear or two out during that one.
Heh, I cried openly watching Wall-E. Still do after several viewings. :cry:
Up I understand was written before Disney took over, as was Wall-E (both released after the takeover) but I can't find where I'd read that now.
Up, agreed, was a good one, and yes the brief telling of the protagonist's marriage to his wife, life with her then her death was very moving.
They were preparing a film titled 'Newt' for 2012 release, but that was the one that was too similar to Rio.
Toy Story 3 was ok. Toy Story 4, if it happens as per rumour, we'll wait and see. It does whiff of trying to eke as much out of existing stories and pushing them much too far though. Flogging horses.
As with Nemo. It was a fantastic story as it was, nicely wrapped up at the end (they found him!). Making Nemo 2 is pants.
I think sequels are part and parcel of the movie (and in general entertainment) industry. I don't think the issue is Disney per se but rather simply that Pixar has matured from a new developer, to a mature one with existing IP. Even had Disney not bought Pixar after nearly 20 years in the feature film business there'd be sequels/prequels/spin-offs coming now.
Some sequels are as good or better as what came before it and some stories end up being much better as part of a trilogy especially than just on their own:
The Godfather may be one of the greatest films, but so is The Godfather Part II. If anything II was greater than the original, not going to say the same on III though.
Back to the Future is one of my favourite trilogies of all time, BTTF Part III (the one in the wild west) was an excellent movie. I don't think I'd enjoy BTTF anywhere near as much in hindsight had the subsequent parts not finished and further developed the story.
Star Wars again was made to last by the trilogy. The Empire Strikes Back to me is possibly better than the original.
1. Cars 1 should never have been made, that wasn't Disney. (was it?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
2. Toy Story 3 was an excellant film, especially for a 2nd sequel.
3. Brave was an excellant film. Not sure where you come up with bland and mediocre. :confused:
Heard about Monsters prequel. The original wasn't all that great a film - liked it but it wasn't The Incredibles. Might be good though... hard to say at this point.
Nemo 2 is news for me. Hadn't heard....
Edit: That opening sequence in Up was fantastic, I agree Rand. Extremely well done....
I'm not sure what you think Disney could possibly do to the Star Wars franchise that it hasn't done to itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Star Wars episodes IV, V, and VI were always a trilogy, so V and VI weren't sequels. The entire story had been written before any of the movies were made.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That would be like implying The Two Towers and The Return of the King were sequels to The Fellowship of the Ring, when of course as we know Tolkien wrote it as a single story, divided into three episodes.
BTTF, the first was by far the best. II and III which were indeed proper sequels created after the fact, I thought were a bit meh. More flogging horses.
Godfather II is indeed the movie that people cite as the reason why we should have sequels, being so good as it was.
I'd add Alien and Aliens to that. Alien, the 1st in that franchise, was an excellent movie, but Aliens was better, and is on my list of top 10 of all time.
So my point, if I have one, isn't necessarily against the whole idea of sequels/prequels, it's of sequels/prequels at the expense of fresh, new movies, with new characters. And of sequels/prequels which are clearly just 'cashing-in', and are shit as a result.
New movies are a higher risk, less guarantee at the box office. So it's not a surprise that a corporate giant like Disney prefers the box-office guarantees that sequels/prequels bring, it's just disappointing. Another example of commercialism trumping creativity and new ideas.
Cars was indeed entirely Pixar, and is the only disappointment (bar sequels/prequels) to have emerged from the minds of the Pixar team's normal story-telling brilliance. Commercially successful, but critically panned. It wasn't an enjoyable movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Yep agreed, The Incredibles was fantastic, and Monsters Inc wasn't quite up there. Kids seemed to really enjoy Monsters though.Quote:
Heard about Monsters prequel. The original wasn't all that great a film - liked it but it wasn't The Incredibles.
The moment from The Incredibles when Elastigirl is closing in on the evil genius's island in the private jet, with the missile closing in on her, and her mayday mayday call "there are children on this aircraft" was genuinely frightening. Edge of the seat. :up:
Agreed. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Already gave my thoughts on that above ... :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timbuk2
Agreed, I don't think it's deliberate. But then again the financial markets were closed, and "closing date" of these things is usually somewhat flexible so arguably it could have waited just a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
