Rumors that Disney is in negotiations to sell Star Wars back to George Lucas!

[mdmost]

This is another thing - I don't mind them bringing back Palpatine or having Rey be his granddaughter, but they should have laid the groundwork for that from the first movie! But they killed Snoke in TLJ so I guess they felt they needed a new villain if Kylo was gonna turn back.

The Dark Empire comics did this so much better though. It was a mystery threat that was then revealed to be Palpatine as a younger clone of himself. I didn't mind Snoke being killed off because he wasn't the real villain of the trilogy. It was always Kylo Ren and how he would go towards a path of his redemption. JJ's moustache twirling Emperor Palpatine stand-in needed to be removed pretty early IMO because then he was just the Emperor...again. Almost word for word.

Little did the OP know that this would turn into a giant nerd fest.

 

[nancipants]

See, this is why I argued in another thread that you can't gatekeep Star Wars fans. There's just too much content and fans from multiple generations. Everyone likes different things and it's all okay as long as we're not jerks to each other.

But the guy in the original video just wanted to be a jerk.

 

[mdmost]

See, this is why I argued in another thread that you can't gatekeep Star Wars fans. There's just too much content and fans from multiple generations. Everyone likes different things and it's all okay as long as we're not jerks to each other.

But the guy in the original video just wanted to be a jerk.

Well you can't but I'll argue Star Wars fans just need to understand that your ownership of the content only applies to what you've already seen. You don't get a say in the content going forward. You simply can watch it or not watch it. The new content should have no bearing on how you feel about the things you saw previously. My dislike of how the sequels turned out doesn't denigrate my love for the originals at all. It doesn't undo how I feel about the originals. But I also will never be that 7 year old boy who walked out of Return of the Jedi again. Nostalgia is a hell of a drug and I really feel it holds creative content back.

Social media just amplifies the hateful voices and allows them to spread much faster than when your anger at a storyline was contained on a chat group or the letters to the editor portion of a Star Wars magazine. I think that's where this has all gone off the rails. Then you have non-stop outrage YouTube videos of people who wanted their version of Star Wars to be what was on screen. So they look for someone to blame or they hate people because it's not "their Star Wars" which is code for them being angry at diversity. The most toxic of the fans have the loudest voices. But when you see any of the Star Wars Celebrations, there's nothing but cheers for people who make and star in the content.

 

[NotUrsula]

It wasn't really a Toy Story movie. It borrowed from the concept, but it wasn't the fantastic and whimsical bunch of talking toys that we all know and loved. It was a whole different concept. I saw it, but I waited til it was on TV. It takes a lot to get us to the theater, as toddler parents.

Come to think of it, maybe that's part of the problem? Traditionally, Disney movies cater to small children. Since COVID, everyone's gotten used to being able to see these things in the comfort of their own homes. These theater-only releases stink. There is no way I'm taking a 2.5 year old to the movies, and it's hard for us to find a sitter. Most parents I know would much rather watch a new release in their living room, where they don't have to worry about their children getting bored or wanting to leave or making constant demands for $20 boxes of popcorn. So unless it's something like Guardians, which we dragged ourselves out to see in the theater and which loses a lot on a smaller screen, we're just gonna wait. I think drops in movie revenue might be due at least in one small part to changes in habits. I can't imagine Disney makes as much if we watch Lightyear as part of our Disney+ subscription as it does if we go see it in a theater at release. Also, a movie is judged as a bomb or not based on the first weekend or week of revenue, and the PR just spins off that. Not only is it rare for us to get to a theater, but it's also nearly impossible for us to see a movie in the first week of release. It takes us that long to find a sitter.

FWIW, I *liked* Lightyear, and I have always hated the Toy Story franchise, and especially TS3 with that horrible Sheriff-from-Cool-Hand-Luke bear. (I also liked Tomorrowland, which I suppose truly qualifies me as an oddity.) Also, FWIW, ours is a serious cinéaste household, complete with subscriptions to Film Comment, Animation, Cineaste Magazine and Jump Cut. (And my DH treasures his full run collection of the late, lamented Cinefantastique.)

Disney's problem when it comes to original IP is that the marketing of the Princesses has convinced today's school-aged boys that "Disney" is not for them, and they balk at liking any Disney Pictures release that isn't associated with IP that hooked them on a character before age 4 (e.g. before their sophisticated Kindergarten friends informed them that boys don't watch shows with princesses in them.) Besides that, school-aged boys today don't really watch movies much; the only media they really get excited for is games. This is why Mario is such a big hit; it is appealing to young adults who were once Mario addicts, and who are amused by the idea of a nostalgia-filled night out. IMO, the best hope for new Disney IP in the short term is to resurrect the Touchstone concept, and aim live-action theatrical releases squarely at young adults (especially comedies and suspense films, which are the best date movies, and which lend themselves nicely to serials. They also don't cost the earth to make, thanks to lack of special effects.) Drop the live-action remakes of hit animated films -- masterpieces don't need to be tinkered with. For the school-aged audiences, refocus on animation, and focus on the girls, where past success has proven that money will be made. Drop the hoop-jumping to try to reach boys with films; if you want to reach young boys, then go back to the gaming well. Also, pay attention to book sales; buy the IP for book series that circulate well in school libraries; that's a great source for live-action films for the school-age market.

Now then, if your supposition about young parents and theatrical releases is true, then the next thing we'll probably see is special "premiere weekend pass" access to new animated children's releases on D+, which would be accordingly high-priced, and an equal flop. *Most* adults (my film-nut family and other oddballs like us excepted) don't get can't-wait-to-see-it excited about films aimed at small children, and kids that age can't yet read a calendar, so they are not counting down the days. Most parents of preschool kids really are not likely to pay extra to get a 3-day jump on the newest animated "G" feature. In today's post-pandemic market, little kids are just not an audience for single theatrical releases, so I think their better strategy for the little ones is to initially release new IP as limited-run shorts on Disney+, and accompany it with member surveys that will ask parents which new shows that they and their kids liked most. Then make feature-length films (with lots of merch tie-ins, of course) of the ones that test well.

 

[BrianL]

FWIW, I *liked* Lightyear, and I have always hated the Toy Story franchise, and especially TS3 with that horrible Sheriff-from-Cool-Hand-Luke bear. (I also liked Tomorrowland, which I suppose truly qualifies me as an oddity.) Also, FWIW, ours is a serious cinéaste household, complete with subscriptions to Film Comment, Animation, Cineaste Magazine and Jump Cut. (And my DH treasures his full run collection of the late, lamented Cinefantastique.)

I absolutely LOVE Tomorrowland!

 

[nancipants]

I know how Disney can make a ton of money.

Distribute a Bluey movie.

 

[mdmost]

Disney's problem when it comes to original IP is that the marketing of the Princesses has convinced today's school-aged boys that "Disney" is not for them, and they balk at liking any Disney Pictures release that isn't associated with IP that hooked them on a character before age 4 (e.g. before their sophisticated Kindergarten friends informed them that boys don't watch shows with princesses in them.) Besides that, school-aged boys today don't really watch movies much; the only media they really get excited for is games. This is why Mario is such a big hit; it is appealing to young adults who were once Mario addicts, and who are amused by the idea of a nostalgia-filled night out. IMO, the best hope for new Disney IP in the short term is to resurrect the Touchstone concept, and aim live-action theatrical releases squarely at young adults (especially comedies and suspense films, which are the best date movies, and which lend themselves nicely to serials. They also don't cost the earth to make, thanks to lack of special effects.) Drop the live-action remakes of hit animated films -- masterpieces don't need to be tinkered with. For the school-aged audiences, refocus on animation, and focus on the girls, where past success has proven that money will be made. Drop the hoop-jumping to try to reach boys with films; if you want to reach young boys, then go back to the gaming well. Also, pay attention to book sales; buy the IP for book series that circulate well in school libraries; that's a great source for live-action films for the school-age market.

Shot for shot live action remakes need to stop. Twists on the existing stories like Maleficent and Cruella are what I'd be more on board with. But yes on the Touchstone concept. Those were some of the strongest movies for teens in the late 80s and early 90s. I think we're just to a point where originality isn't something Disney is going to strive for. They are so worried that it's just safer to go with a sequel or a remake. But that's showing to be a losing proposition.

 

[BrianL]

Short for short live action remakes need to stop. Twists on the existing stories like Maleficent and Cruella are what I'd be more on board with. But yes on the Touchstone concept. Those were some of the strongest movies for teens in the late 80s and early 90s. I think we're just to a point where originality isn't something Disney is going to strive for. They are so worried that it's just safer to go with a sequel or a remake. But that's showing to be a losing proposition.

It is safer to go with a remake because that's what audiences want. The real problem is that budgets are out-of-control. When a movie has to make a billion dollars just to break-even, they want to make them as safe as they possibly can. Even that's not working universally either. I totally agree witht eh Touchstone style idea - make more adventurous films with a modest budget. Even if they don't hit big, they can still make profit. There really are no mid-tier movies anymore, everything is either a low-budget indie film or a super-expensive mega-blockbuster in the making. The only place you really find modest budgets and respectable profit is in the horror genre.

 

[mdmost]

It is safer to go with a remake because that's what audiences want. The real problem is that budgets are out-of-control. When a movie has to make a billion dollars just to break-even, they want to make them as safe as they possibly can. Even that's not working universally either. I totally agree witht eh Touchstone style idea - make more adventurous films with a modest budget. Even if they don't hit big, they can still make profit. There really are no mid-tier movies anymore, everything is either a low-budget indie film or a super-expensive mega-blockbuster in the making. The only place you really find modest budgets and respectable profit is in the horror genre.

But then a lot of middle tier budgeted movies are going to streaming now. I think Disney+ will ultimately be iger's biggest folly. It completely reset how audiences saw their way to take in Disney cinematic content. And now it's hard to put that genie back in the bottle. You don't have that option for Super Mario Brothers, Top Gun, or Across the Spider-verse. You have to go to the theater to see those.

I feel like we've hit the wall on remakes. We enjoyed the Little Mermaid because Halle Bailey was really good. But that wasn't exactly a movie that needed to be remade. Just like Moana, Lilo and Stitch, a Mufasa prequel. Hercules at least could tread some new ground or at least a portion that's more of a throwback with a Greek mythology epic.

 

[BrianL]

Yes - the streaming implosion is hurting the most. Honestly, Disney+ needed to be a comprehensive repository of catalog titles, with new titles being added only AFTER theatrical and home video sales. That race for all of htis expensive original context was a folly. I think they can salvage it, but they have to change strategy - change what is fundamentally is (possily rebrand), and move forward with supporting exhibition.

 

[greeneyedchick]

They used to have a bit of a balance - sequels/remakes along with a few new IP's. I think since Covid studios are even more risk averse than they used to be and are just going with the "sure" things. For decades TV always came up with some new series (that was not related to any previous IP) that caught on in a big way, why can't movies and streaming continue that tradition?

Netflix made a few good shows that I liked, but then they cancelled them after a season or 2. Netflix doesn't give the new shows time to gather an audience. Breaking Bad wasn't a hit until Netflix picked it up. I don't think Manifest was either. But then they make things like 1908 and give it 2 months before cancelling it. They need to keep it on the service for at least a year to give people time to get into it.

 

[RivShore]

So this discussion has come back around to something Brian and I discussed over on the shareholder thread:

https://www.disboards.com/threads/d...tock-info-only.3881254/page-130#post-64829449

Exactly. I thought Disney+ was going to be a complete repository of all things Disney. If all they had was that, I wouldn't even care if they made "originals" (though I would expect new movies to find their way to it eventually). The fact that they are still missing several catalog titles is frustrating.

Also, they didn't remove Avatar becuase ot the sequel but because of the re-release to theaters and minor changes were made. It's a small distinction though.

It's looking like D+ will be forced into something closer to what you've outlined with the cost cutting and now the writer's strike.

From a shareholder standpoint, I really like the idea of filling it with owned library content, at almost no cost; push movies to D+ after theaters or after pay/network runs if that will drive more revenue, again very little incremental cost; and maybe do one high quality event series a year from Marvel and SW. Those should bring in a bunch of short term subscribers, some of whom will end up keeping the subscription long term.

There, we fixed D+ for them. Now Disney, would you like us to find your next CEO? LOL

 

[starlite_]

I will go with the thought that ultimately the sequel trilogy just really didn't need to happen. I get why it did and I was excited as well but the Skywalker journey came to a very fitting conclusion in Return of the Jedi. It went from a hopeful look at the future to a bitter reality in the ST. Maybe I'm just getting sentimental but I didn't need Star Wars to get even darker and bleak. The struggle didn't need to be repeated. I would've much preferred a ST with Han and Leia's kid and maybe Luke gets married along the way (to Mara Jade) and has his own child. Then we see them as late teens and you reset the story with two Jedi teenagers. You have the older characters play their supporting roles against a new threat that has nothing to do with an Empire. You have Luke become the Obi Wan character. You could've had one be tempted by the Dark Side. But yes, ultimately we got A New Hope redux, a dash of Empire redux, and a full blown Jedi redux. Outside of Rey, Finn, and Ben, it was a really wasted opportunity. I think the biggest problem with making any Star Wars sequels is you had such great post-OT novels that painted a much better vision of Star Wars. The Timothy Zahn novels were fantastic and I'm thrilled Ahsoka will be borrowing from them.

And I will never forgive JJ for this, which I think is Oscar Isaac's best bit of acting ever because I don't know how anyone could deliver this line without just walking off the set.

This so much. I rolled my eyes so hard when somehow the villain was the exact same one. Again. It was soo dumb, I still cringe when I think about it tbh. Tho it's kinda funny watching all the shows try to make it seem possible. It's like patching an oil leak with a bandaid.

 

[NotUrsula]

It is safer to go with a remake because that's what audiences want. The real problem is that budgets are out-of-control. When a movie has to make a billion dollars just to break-even, they want to make them as safe as they possibly can. Even that's not working universally either. I totally agree witht eh Touchstone style idea - make more adventurous films with a modest budget. Even if they don't hit big, they can still make profit. There really are no mid-tier movies anymore, everything is either a low-budget indie film or a super-expensive mega-blockbuster in the making. The only place you really find modest budgets and respectable profit is in the horror genre.

You're right about budgets, but that's part of the problem with the live-action remakes: the special-effects budget. You can do anything in animation, but to make that same action happen in live-action often requires a crap-ton of special effects work, and it ain't cheap.

I'm all for live-action films right now to recoup some losses, but not remakes (although DD & I were saying yesterday that the one Disney animated film that might benefit from being re-done live action is Hunchback of Notre Dame. Don't make it for kids, though; that plot of that one deserves a grown-up approach, and yes, a revised title.) Disney needs to find some decent books to adapt and make some regular no-special-effects movies while the Next Big Animated Hit is in production; release them under another division name if that works, but quit with the expensive live adaptations of films that were well-nigh perfect in animated form.

 

[Pyxie]

Lucas is 79 years old. He isn't making movies any more and he certainly doesn't want to get back into Star Wars at his age. Just a rumor from people who somehow think that everything they don't like about the way SW is going will be fixed if Lucas just gets back in the game.

Remember when everyone hated Lucas after the prequels?

(Replied before I saw people already made this point.)

 

[HokieRaven5]

I know how Disney can make a ton of money.

Distribute a Bluey movie.

I might even bring my kids to it…

 

[nancipants]

View attachment 766162

I might even bring my kids to it…

I mean, they can totally make a “oh no, it’s got songs” inside joke.

 

[yitbos96bb]

Could be but you can't deny that Disney is in a world of hurt financially. Those facts are known and when a company is between a rock and a hard spot they scramble to stay alive. Iger has run this company into the ground and we are about to see the results of a train wreck that has been his tenure.

Except Disney is not near financial death by a long shot. They have some write downs that have hurt stock prices but that doesn't mean the company is in dire financial straits. More layoffs would happen before selling IPs.

Even if they were to reach near financial death, so much more IP would get sold off first including things like The Simpsons.

Too much ridiculous fanboyism. Same thing happened when the prequels came out. The world was ending with the fanboys.

 

[BrianL]

Except Disney is not near financial death by a long shot. They have some write downs that have hurt stock prices but that doesn't mean the company is in dire financial straits. More layoffs would happen before selling IPs.

Even if they were to reach near financial death, so much more IP would get sold off first including things like The Simpsons.

Too much ridiculous fanboyism. Same thing happened when the prequels came out. The world was ending with the fanboys.

Yeah, it's certainly a rough patch, but the company has had them before. It's not dire and will likely correct. It is a stark contrast to just a few years ago when they were riding high both financially and creatively.

This too shall pass.

 

[starlite_]

You're right about budgets, but that's part of the problem with the live-action remakes: the special-effects budget. You can do anything in animation, but to make that same action happen in live-action often requires a crap-ton of special effects work, and it ain't cheap.

I'm all for live-action films right now to recoup some losses, but not remakes (although DD & I were saying yesterday that the one Disney animated film that might benefit from being re-done live action is Hunchback of Notre Dame. Don't make it for kids, though; that plot of that one deserves a grown-up approach, and yes, a revised title.) Disney needs to find some decent books to adapt and make some regular no-special-effects movies while the Next Big Animated Hit is in production; release them under another division name if that works, but quit with the expensive live adaptations of films that were well-nigh perfect in animated form.

For a live action Hunchback I 100% recommend the musical. It's amazing, songs are great. We saw a performance with Quasi being played by a deaf actor. He would "sing" in ASL while another performer sang out loud. It's honestly the best musical I've seen.