Red Mosquito

turned2black wrote:

Clearly fan made. Still...

Pretty rad.

I'm watching the Star Trek movie. I hate the jumpy MTV editing. And the direction is really awkward. Star Wars needs to be grand and of scale. Epic. I hope he can do this.

So I got talked into watching the Star Wars movies for the first time a couple weeks ago. I'm about halfway through Attack Of The Clones, and so far, I think the new ones are way better than the first ones. This is the opposite of what everyone told me.

numbers wrote:So I got talked into watching the Star Wars movies for the first time a couple weeks ago. I'm about halfway through Attack Of The Clones, and so far, I think the new ones are way better than the first ones. This is the opposite of what everyone told me.

Oh wow.

numbers wrote:So I got talked into watching the Star Wars movies for the first time a couple weeks ago. I'm about halfway through Attack Of The Clones, and so far, I think the new ones are way better than the first ones. This is the opposite of what everyone told me.

Not a word of this, believe do I

Wait...there's 3 older Star Wars movies?

numbers wrote:So I got talked into watching the Star Wars movies for the first time a couple weeks ago. I'm about halfway through Attack Of The Clones, and so far, I think the new ones are way better than the first ones. This is the opposite of what everyone told me.

Yeah, and isn't it also weird how much better that Arthur remake was than the original?

durdencommatyler wrote:

turned2black wrote:

Clearly fan made. Still...

Pretty rad.

Never considered this. Perhaps Luke or his or Leias offspring, are the bad guys?

dimejinky99 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

turned2black wrote:

Clearly fan made. Still...

Pretty rad.

Never considered this. Perhaps Luke or his or Leias offspring, are the bad guys?

Would depend on how it was handled, but I don't think I'd hate that, actually.

It's a safe bet whoevers writing this is trawling the SW forums looking for seeds of ideas to run with


We just need Disney to be hands off with the overly family friendly bs to make it great story wise. It can still be a family movie without the kid gloves but some freedom is really badly needed at this point. I don't want swearing and blood. Just a little more depth and empathy for the characters.

dimejinky99 wrote:It's a safe bet whoevers writing this is trawling the SW forums looking for seeds of ideas to run with


We just need Disney to be hands off with the overly family friendly bs to make it great story wise. It can still be a family movie without the kid gloves but some freedom is really badly needed at this point. I don't want swearing and blood. Just a little more depth and empathy for the characters.

Yep.

Maybe I'm biased, but I have no problem with the original Star Wars (or any of it) being family friendly. It's the first live movie I showed my kids. My youngest was 3 when he saw it.

numbers wrote:So I got talked into watching the Star Wars movies for the first time a couple weeks ago. I'm about halfway through Attack Of The Clones, and so far, I think the new ones are way better than the first ones. This is the opposite of what everyone told me.

These smileys best represent the emotional phases I went through after reading this post.

B wrote:Maybe I'm biased, but I have no problem with the original Star Wars (or any of it) being family friendly. It's the first live movie I showed my kids. My youngest was 3 when he saw it.

It's not just you. They should be "family friendly" but they should also be "adult friendly." I think most people feel that there is more for the kids than there is for adults in the prequels.

I really don't get the Disney hate. Doesn't really seem to be justified based on their track record with Pixar and Marvel. Considering how lousy the prequels were I don't see how Disney taking over from Lucas can be anything but a positive.

bada wrote:I really don't get the Disney hate. Doesn't really seem to be justified based on their track record with Pixar and Marvel. Considering how lousy the prequels were I don't see how Disney taking over from Lucas can be anything but a positive.

agreed.

I hope to agree with that. They were pretty hands off there.

Toys though. And merch. Surely disneys play for this cant be neither than Lucas'

Unless he still owns the merch rights

bada wrote:I really don't get the Disney hate. Doesn't really seem to be justified based on their track record with Pixar and Marvel. Considering how lousy the prequels were I don't see how Disney taking over from Lucas can be anything but a positive.

The Disney-Pixar merger was brokered by somebody who favored the newer company's continued autonomy over the extremity of the potential for monetary gain (read: not George Lucas). In addition to that, the merger discussion was actually brought on by the acrimonious breakdown in previous collaborative arrangements...a breakdown that saw a new chieftain brought in whose first test was "do NOT fuck up the Pixar thing." He had every reason to step carefully, and to concede the artistic in favor of the monetary.

Even so, ever since the merger a slow but incessant effort has been initiated to blend the two, feeding Disney's weakening image at the expense of Pixar's unique brand. As an example, in marketing for Brave heavy emphasis was placed on Pixar's name, even though that movie relied heavily on Disney traditions (story of a princess facing unwelcome pressures, she's pretty tough, it's another culture, fairy tale magic, etc.) and had a number of Disney people at the top of the production side of things. Marketing for Wreck-it Ralph, on the other hand, placed Disney's name prominently...even though many of the facets of that movie (quirky choice of character and setting, 'finding your place in the world' plot, highly stylized design, etc.) were traditionally associated with Pixar and a HUGE number of the people involved (cough cough John Lasseter). We'll take a few pieces off your face and give it our name, we'll take a few pieces off our face and give it your name, and eventually people will stop paying attention to the difference.

Meanwhile, there is Pixar's newfound obsession with developing sequels...specifically, sequels to those movies for which Disney stands to make massive merchandizing bank. Is there even a chance that Planes would be in development today if Pixar had never touched Disney, or vice versa? What about Monsters University? And isn't it interesting that, at the same time all these follow-ups started landing on the docket, Brad Bird suddenly found reason to be elsewhere a lot of the time?

The problem you face when working with Disney is this: Disney will always be the number one priority. Your brand will be YOUR brand, but only to the extent that it serves the larger entity. This is not the same as saying that your brand will be your brand so long as it churns out good material.

So what about Marvel, then?

For one thing, Marvel is in general an exquisite fit for Disney. They very naturally hit on all of the primary Disney "love it"s: big spectacle, lack of ambiguity, explosive but not upsetting action, edgy but not real edgy you know because careful. Demographically expansive. Guaranteed to sell toys.

Having said that, it's worth keeping in mind that when Disney made their purchase, Marvel had already contracted distribution deals with Paramount and crafted a vision for every movie leading up to....wait for it...Iron Man 3. Part of the deal was, Disney agreed to fund production of those movies already in development, and make a shit ton of cash off them, but not be a part of the process. In many ways, we're really only just now beginning to enter the period of time when Disney is in the position to affect the Marvel universe...a universe that already suits it well and has had the chance to bring in a stupid amount of money and acclaim before Disney ever had a chance to put redactor pen to script page.

So how does Lucasfilm stand up in this equation? It's hard to say, and that's the real problem. Right now, all you really know is that a company for whom Star Wars is hardly a find on level with Scrooge McDuck's lucky dime is now in control. It is, for the first time ever, a medium-sized piece of someone's very large pie. A someone whose track record on good decisions is riddled with "if-then" statements...a someone whose first and most telling reaction to the success of the acquisition was to immediately focus on the frequency and volume of planned releases, rather than on the development of great storylines.

McParadigm wrote:

bada wrote:I really don't get the Disney hate. Doesn't really seem to be justified based on their track record with Pixar and Marvel. Considering how lousy the prequels were I don't see how Disney taking over from Lucas can be anything but a positive.

The Disney-Pixar merger was brokered by somebody who favored the newer company's continued autonomy over the extremity of the potential for monetary gain (read: not George Lucas). In addition to that, the merger discussion was actually brought on by the acrimonious breakdown in previous collaborative arrangements...a breakdown that saw a new chieftain brought in whose first test was "do NOT fuck up the Pixar thing." He had every reason to step carefully, and to concede the artistic in favor of the monetary.

Even so, ever since the merger a slow but incessant effort has been initiated to blend the two, feeding Disney's weakening image at the expense of Pixar's unique brand. As an example, in marketing for Brave heavy emphasis was placed on Pixar's name, even though that movie relied heavily on Disney traditions (story of a princess facing unwelcome pressures, she's pretty tough, it's another culture, fairy tale magic, etc.) and had a number of Disney people at the top of the production side of things. Marketing for Wreck-it Ralph, on the other hand, placed Disney's name prominently...even though many of the facets of that movie (quirky choice of character and setting, 'finding your place in the world' plot, highly stylized design, etc.) were traditionally associated with Pixar and a HUGE number of the people involved (cough cough John Lasseter). We'll take a few pieces off your face and give it our name, we'll take a few pieces off our face and give it your name, and eventually people will stop paying attention to the difference.

Meanwhile, there is Pixar's newfound obsession with developing sequels...specifically, sequels to those movies for which Disney stands to make massive merchandizing bank. Is there even a chance that Planes would be in development today if Pixar had never touched Disney, or vice versa? What about Monsters University? And isn't it interesting that, at the same time all these follow-ups started landing on the docket, Brad Bird suddenly found reason to be elsewhere a lot of the time?

The problem you face when working with Disney is this: Disney will always be the number one priority. Your brand will be YOUR brand, but only to the extent that it serves the larger entity. This is not the same as saying that your brand will be your brand so long as it churns out good material.

So what about Marvel, then?

For one thing, Marvel is in general an exquisite fit for Disney. They very naturally hit on all of the primary Disney "love it"s: big spectacle, lack of ambiguity, explosive but not upsetting action, edgy but not real edgy you know because careful. Demographically expansive. Guaranteed to sell toys.

Having said that, it's worth keeping in mind that when Disney made their purchase, Marvel had already contracted distribution deals with Paramount and crafted a vision for every movie leading up to....wait for it...Iron Man 3. Part of the deal was, Disney agreed to fund production of those movies already in development, and make a shit ton of cash off them, but not be a part of the process. In many ways, we're really only just now beginning to enter the period of time when Disney is in the position to affect the Marvel universe...a universe that already suits it well and has had the chance to bring in a stupid amount of money and acclaim before Disney ever had a chance to put redactor pen to script page.

So how does Lucasfilm stand up in this equation? It's hard to say, and that's the real problem. Right now, all you really know is that a company for whom Star Wars is hardly a find on level with Scrooge McDuck's lucky dime is now in control. It is, for the first time ever, a medium-sized piece of someone's very large pie. A someone whose track record on good decisions is riddled with "if-then" statements...a someone whose first and most telling reaction to the success of the acquisition was to immediately focus on the frequency and volume of planned releases, rather than on the development of great storylines.

Yeah I know they have been mostly hands off with Pixar and Marvel but I take that as a positive (the Pixar sequels don't bother me at all). My assumption is they will do the same with Star Wars. Put it in someones hands with a vision and let them go with it. I could be wrong....maybe the Disney execs are dying to ruin Star Wars but seeing as how Lucas already did I don't see the downside.

McP, you have such a keen eye and critical skills, I wonder why you only ever talk about the big movies. Would be interesting to see you discuss stuff other than tentpole studio movies.