Disney Buys Lucasfilm (and other stories)

[BlankCanvasDJ]

Originally Posted by Giant Tope

Though the comparison isn't as relevant as the subject matter of the video, I think this sorta talks about why I personally think it won't really work.

You're right, nobody's interested in seeing older stars in action roles.

[Rather Dashing]

I think the difference is that the "older action star" is a very distinct kind of "old badass" thing, but Indy at various points just feels "old". He's settling down, he's sort of grumpily pulled into a younger man's adventure, and he's being the fussing dad throughout the whole thing. Indiana Jones spends a lot of that film not being an "old badass", but just being...old.

[BlankCanvasDJ]

And I think that was the one interesting part of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. We've seen Indy young (in some cases, very young) so it was refreshing to see him old.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by Giant Tope

Along with this, I really wouldn't want them shoehorning the original actors for the sake of novelty, which is what it'd seem like. Could it work? Anything is possible, but I'm not really counting on it.

Novelty. That's the word I was looking for. I was trying to figure out how to word my opinion about Mark and Carrie being cast and couldn't think of the right word because "fan service" didn't sound right.

So, yes, I totally agree with this.

Originally Posted by Secret Fawful

This is full of shit because he fully ignores the appeal of this movie to OLDER men, like my Dad. My Dad prefers Crystal Skull because it has an older Indy still kicking ass and still being awesome. It's the same reason older men love John Wayne and still like Clint Eastwood. Indy doesn't just belong to the young. Older people want to feel like it can still be awesome to be old.

Star Wars should be about the story and the character interactions. It's a movie for all ages; not just a nostalgia trip for older people and not just a tool to get younger people into the franchise. Casting older actors simply as a tactic to appeal to an older demographic is a dumb reason when it comes to something like Star Wars.

They also shouldn't make a Star Wars movie just because they can. Indiana Jones didn't need a fourth movie, and Crystal Skull felt like they made a movie because they didn't have any other ideas so why not?


I'm not saying I feel about Disney making a new Star Wars movie as I did about Lucas and Spielberg making Indy 4. I think Disney is making a new Star Wars movie because it's about damn time Star Wars was good again.


But you know what I keep thinking about with Disney buying Star Wars? Disney might now remaster and release, in all it's awesomeness, the ORIGINAL Original Trilogy!

[BlankCanvasDJ]

But it isn't novelty and it isn't a tactic. The films are about those characters. It's not novelty that Bruce Willis still plays John McClane, or that Al Pacino still played Michael Corleone in Godfather III. The films are about those characters so of course you want the original people playing them. A novelty or tactic would be to re-cast to appeal to a younger audience.

[Shadowknight1]

Originally Posted by BlankCanvasDJ

But it isn't novelty and it isn't a tactic. The films are about those characters. It's not novelty that Bruce Willis still plays John McClane, or that Al Pacino still played Michael Corleone in Godfather III. The films are about those characters so of course you want the original people playing them. A novelty or tactic would be to re-cast to appeal to a younger audience.

Eh. It worked for Star Trek.

[Chyron8472]

Indeed.




...Fascinating.

[Jokieman]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

Novelty. That's the word I was looking for. I was trying to figure out how to word my opinion about Mark and Carrie being cast and couldn't think of the right word because "fan service" didn't sound right.

So, yes, I totally agree with this.





Star Wars should be about the story and the character interactions. It's a movie for all ages; not just a nostalgia trip for older people and not just a tool to get younger people into the franchise. Casting older actors simply as a tactic to appeal to an older demographic is a dumb reason when it comes to something like Star Wars.

They also shouldn't make a Star Wars movie just because they can. Indiana Jones didn't need a fourth movie, and Crystal Skull felt like they made a movie because they didn't have any other ideas so why not?


I'm not saying I feel about Disney making a new Star Wars movie as I did about Lucas and Spielberg making Indy 4. I think Disney is making a new Star Wars movie because it's about damn time Star Wars was good again.


But you know what I keep thinking about with Disney buying Star Wars? Disney might now remaster and release, in all it's awesomeness, the ORIGINAL Original Trilogy!

Indiana Jones could have had a 4th movie, a 5th movie, a 6th movie. Evidence of the Mummy's success proves that adventures set in that time frame when a lot of the world was still new and unexplored appeals to people as long as it is a decent adventure.

The story behind the Crystal Skull sucked, that was it. But I liked it for the characters. Though I admit to being a sucker for Indiana Jones AND The Mummy series. I'd like to see them do more if the story is good and the casting is right.

Maybe not necessarily those two series, but perhaps a new one.

[Alcoremortis]

You know, it just occurred to me that if Disney had bought LucasArts a little bit earlier, there might have been a chance of Guybrush or Kyle Katarn or someone like that showing up in Wreck-It Ralph.

They probably wouldn't have, but I tend to think about these things when I've got a blinding headache.

[Rather Dashing]

My guess is even if they owned LucasArts before the first Wreck-It Ralph script draft was finished, it's really unlikely that anybody on the team for that movie would have any idea what LucasArts adventure games were and, more importantly, it wouldn't really jive with the movie's arcade theme.

[Alcoremortis]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

My guess is even if they owned LucasArts before the first Wreck-It Ralph script draft was finished, it's really unlikely that anybody on the team for that movie would have any idea what LucasArts adventure games were and, more importantly, it wouldn't really jive with the movie's arcade theme.

Curse you and your logical reality!

[Secret Fawful]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

I think the difference is that the "older action star" is a very distinct kind of "old badass" thing, but Indy at various points just feels "old". He's settling down, he's sort of grumpily pulled into a younger man's adventure, and he's being the fussing dad throughout the whole thing. Indiana Jones spends a lot of that film not being an "old badass", but just being...old.

The point, though, was that he was becoming more like his Dad. But he still had plenty of badass moments. Which is fine, because in spite of his scholarly, humorless nature, Henry Jones Sr. was also capable of being a badass at times.

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

Star Wars should be about the story and the character interactions. It's a movie for all ages; not just a nostalgia trip for older people and not just a tool to get younger people into the franchise. Casting older actors simply as a tactic to appeal to an older demographic is a dumb reason when it comes to something like Star Wars.

I wasn't really talking about Star Wars, just Indy. Harrison Ford really should be looking at John Wayne's career in terms of how to handle his own image.
People my Dad's age could hardly care about Star Wars, so I agree with all of you guys on this. And the Plinkett review made a lot of good points- but that particular one is one I do not agree with.

[Shadowknight1]

Originally Posted by Secret Fawful

The point, though, was that he was becoming more like his Dad. But he still had plenty of badass moments. Which is fine, because in spite of his scholarly, humorless nature, Henry Jones Sr. was also capable of being a badass at times.

[Darth Marsden]

Back onto LucasArts, here's a quote from the forthcoming Entertainment Weekly that's... interesting:

Lucasfilm’s co-chairman and soon-to-be president, Kathleen Kennedy, has told employees she wants the company to produce two or three films a year (it’s averaged fewer than four per decade), and first up is Star Wars: Episode VII for 2015, which will pick up sometime after Darth Vader gave his life to overthrow (figuratively and literally) the Emperor and save Luke in 1983’s Episode VI— Return of the Jedi. Yes, the plan is to return to the characters in the first trilogy (1977–83). Whether the original actors will have significant roles or merely be on hand to pass the baton to a new generation of actors—something Lucasfilm tried with mixed success with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Disney with TRON: Legacy—is unclear.

[Shadowknight1]

Interesting? I call it nothing that we haven't already figured out.

[Darth Marsden]

Kathleen Kennedy has told employees she wants the company to produce two or three films a year.

That's... that's a hell of a step up from what they've done before.

[Chyron8472]

Is that a normal number for a production company to have?

[Alcoremortis]

Originally Posted by Darth Marsden

Kathleen Kennedy has told employees she wants the company to produce two or three films a year.

That's... that's a hell of a step up from what they've done before.

If they're going to produce two or three films a year, why not just make a live-action, high-budget TV show and have more freedom (and time) to play around with characterization and long-arching plot elements?

[corruptbiggins]

Originally Posted by Alcoremortis

If they're going to produce two or three films a year, why not just make a live-action, high-budget TV show and have more freedom (and time) to play around with characterization and long-arching plot elements?

I think a live action Star Wars tv series is still in the works.

[LuigiHann]

I don't really know how the industry works, but I can't picture a high-budget television show generating nearly as much income as a small handful of blockbuster films. The Star Wars license could generate more interest than usual, but it's been pretty much consistent that high-cost sci-fi shows fail because they never get enough viewers to justify the cost of production.