Disney buys Lucasfilm

[Twig]

Temple of Doom is the best Indiana Jones movie and I won't hear another bad word about it!

[elmuerte]

Probably going to be hated for this, but I think the Star Wars movies are quite overrated.

[Twig]

(I think they're outright lame when critiqued at any level below the surface of "is it fun". Which is probably why I rarely bother to read much into movies of its ilk.)

EDIT: I do recall really enjoying some of the books when I was a kid, but, then, I've always preferred reading books to watching movies, so that doesn't really mean anything.

[Nappi]

Temple of Doom is the best Indiana Jones movie and I won't hear another bad word about it!

Yea! It was the best... like... at sucking!

[Ben X]

Yea! It was the best... like... at sucking!

[ThunderPeel2001]

Temple of Doom is the best Indiana Jones movie and I won't hear another bad word about it!

Shhh, you. Arnie hater.

[Ben X]

Ha ha, I just crossed the threads over from the other side!

[Luftmensch]

Probably going to be hated for this, but I think the Star Wars movies are quite overrated.

I normally do too. I mean, they're great fun, and they have a delightful universe and all, but they're pretty melodramatic and the acting isn't very good and yada-yada.

Well, a couple months ago I watched it with a girl who had never seen it before.

And it was the most exciting thing ever. Watching with someone who literally sat up and shouted "NO! NO WAY!" When vader dropped the paternal bombshell on Luke was the most amazing thing.

I wish that experience could be repeated.

[Twig]

Yea! It was the best... like... at sucking!

your mom sucks

[ThunderPeel2001]

Well, a couple months ago I watched it with a girl who had never seen it before.

And it was the most exciting thing ever. Watching with someone who literally sat up and shouted "NO! NO WAY!" When vader dropped the paternal bombshell on Luke was the most amazing thing.

I wish that experience could be repeated.

Wow, that's awesome!

[Twig]

Shhh, you. Arnie hater.

He's a really terrible actor. Even fans of the guy admit this. I guess I just didn't get in on the love early enough. I can't stand him.

[syntheticgerbil]

I used to volunteer for a nonprofit and we got money from the Lucas Foundation. I know it's hip and edgy to hate people but when someone donates $4 billion to charity sometimes it's worth it to maybe stop and think "maybe this person has just done more good in his life than everyone I have ever met, put together."

Just having a landfill full of cash doesn't automatically mean you're a saint who is not open to criticism. Every fucking fat cat out there gives some sum of money to charity. Check your favorite tyrant or bigoted pundant and tell me they don't give some of their large flowing cash to some charity or have even started one themselves. This is something you just do in the land of celebrity. To act like someone is bullet proof or can never commit a crime amongst men just because they gave some cash that helped some kids is ridiculous. That's not to say George Lucas is a good ol' Jimmy Savile, but what is there to like about Mouse money being offered to fix our public schools?

Hoatzin said the rest way better than I could ever attempt, as it was his original objection, but your attitude on this really rubbed me the wrong way.

Anyway, my only take on all of this is just being dumbfounded on where all of our antitrust laws have gone. Another major acquisition by the largest media company of all time. Why is this okay? I've seen some news articles say that the deal is not yet done because it must pass antitrust inspection, yet other articles (and the charity announcement) seem to say this is already happening for sure.

[ThunderPeel2001]

What your think about someone's personality is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he's a tyrant or bigoted. You've just put a load of words into Tychoo's mouth that weren't there.

[TychoCelchuuu]

I mean, its pretty clear he's not a tyrant (he's not in charge of the country, he just made Star Wars movies) and he's not a bigot (it took him decades to get his movie about black fighter pilots in World War II made because, in part, other people are bigots, but that doesn't reflect badly on him) but $4 billion to charity is $4 billion to charity and my original point stands: he just did more good with his life than everyone you've ever met, combined. The list of people who have given billions is not large enough to be full of tyrants and bigots. The list of people who HAVE $4 billion is tiny. Forbes says there are about 275 people with that kind of money. Like, out of the billions of people alive, less than 300 could potentially do what Lucas did. And how many of them actually HAVE done what he did?

I don't think I ever said George Lucas was bullet proof or never committed a crime amongst men. If you can point to anything bad he's done aside from making the Prequels and the Special Edition and Red Tails and Howard the Duck and the Christmas Special, then go ahead, but as bad as all of those things were, I think only the Holiday Special is bad enough to be punishable by the international court in the Hague, and even then he probably only deserves a few years in prison.

[shammack]

he just did more good with his life than everyone you've ever met, combined.

I don't have any objection to him giving the money to charity, but I strongly take issue with this statement. He threw some money that he doesn't need at a problem. The idea that this is somehow more valuable than the combined contributions of every teacher, doctor, social worker, civil servant, volunteer, and everyone else who's dedicated decades of their lives to work that directly benefits thousands of people is absurd and insulting.

[TychoCelchuuu]

Well, I mean, that $4 billion is going to buy more teachers than you've ever met. I'm not saying the people who do the real work don't matter - I'm saying that more of them are better and that $4 billion buys a lot of them.

[vimes]

Sorry to interrupt the debate on the donation of Lucas' money¹, but...

Lucas' interview contains something that strangely bugs me: he says he's transmitting the Starwars universe to a new generation of filmmakers, but I wonder if that isn't a poisonous gift.

I can understand that there are stories that rely so heavily on the existing Starwars lore that it would be impractical or even nonsensical to set them in another context. (who hasn't one of these)

But the thing is that Lucas has said several times that he built the Starwars universe because he had failed to license Flash Gordon's.

He ended up with a vastly different and arguably superior flavor that blended American serial, medieval literature and a hint of chambara. As a result - and for whatever it's worth - episode IV to VI re-branded some storytelling forms as well as moved the space-opera and blockbuster genres in new directions.

I worry that through his legacy, he's preventing such a cycle to occur again: filmmakers who grew up under Starwars' influence would probably jump at the opportunity of working within that canvas; but they'd also be restrained by it. Cannons, aesthetics and lore would weight on their ideas; when, if they couldn't use Starwars, they would have had to come up with creative ways to distinguishes themselves from it; hence allowing their ideas and the genre to blossom. If that didn't happen, the genre would conversely cannibalize itself.

At the back of my head though, I'm also wondering if it really matters: maybe 2 (3?) generations of creators have already absorbed and assimilated everything that Starwars could give for now (who knows in 40 years?) in terms of storytelling or universe crafting and have since moved on. Maybe the only ones still clinging to that particular Universe have simply a narrower perspective; and couldn't offer development anyway... I'm not sure.

¹ by the way, did you know that 4 billion is more or less Uganda's public debt?

[ThunderPeel2001]

I don't have any objection to him giving the money to charity, but I strongly take issue with this statement. He threw some money that he doesn't need at a problem. The idea that this is somehow more valuable than the combined contributions of every teacher, doctor, social worker, civil servant, volunteer, and everyone else who's dedicated decades of their lives to work that directly benefits thousands of people is absurd and insulting.

Tycho actually said: "he just did more good with his life than everyone you've ever MET, combined." What does that mean? It simply means that more people are likely to benefit from this one action, than all the support and help that's given from all the teachers and doctors you've met, combined. Which isn't such a bold statement...

That $4 billion could hire a LOT of teachers, for example. Even at the average rate in California, which has the highest average salary for teachers in the US, that's 72,700+ teachers over one year. Or for an entire 40 year career, that's 1810 teachers.

In such a career, one single primary school teacher will teach 1,200 pupils. In a secondary school, that number increases to something like 3000. That means that money has the potential to effect between 2,100,000 and 5,400,000 lives.

So it's not really such a big claim to say that this figure is more than all the doctors and teachers and civil servants and volunteers you've ever met could ever help in one lifetime, combined.

And I'm not saying that this money is going directly towards teacher's salaries. I'm not saying that this money will definitely spent wisely. I'm not even saying that it wasn't a publicity stunt in order to try and sweeten any anti-trust objections. But fuck me, on the face of it, that's an insane sum of money, with the potential to help a LOT of people.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Sorry to interrupt the debate on the donation of Lucas' money¹, but...

Lucas' interview contains something that strangely bugs me: he says he's transmitting the Starwars universe to a new generation of filmmakers, but I wonder if that isn't a poisonous gift.

I can understand that there are stories that rely so heavily on the existing Starwars lore that it would be impractical or even nonsensical to set them in another context. (who hasn't one of these)

But the thing is that Lucas has said several times that he built the Starwars universe because he had failed to license Flash Gordon's.

He ended up with a vastly different and arguably superior flavor that blended American serial, medieval literature and a hint of chambara. As a result - and for whatever it's worth - episode IV to VI re-branded some storytelling forms as well as moved the space-opera and blockbuster genres in new directions.

I worry that through his legacy, he's preventing such a cycle to occur again: filmmakers who grew up under Starwars' influence would probably jump at the opportunity of working within that canvas; but they'd also be restrained by it. Cannons, aesthetics and lore would weight on their ideas; when, if they couldn't use Starwars, they would have had to come up with creative ways to distinguishes themselves from it; hence allowing their ideas and the genre to blossom. If that didn't happen, the genre would conversely cannibalize itself.

At the back of my head though, I'm also wondering if it really matters: maybe 2 (3?) generations of creators have already absorbed and assimilated everything that Starwars could give for now (who knows in 40 years?) in terms of storytelling or universe crafting and have since moved on. Maybe the only ones still clinging to that particular Universe have simply a narrower perspective; and couldn't offer development anyway... I'm not sure.

¹ by the way, did you know that 4 billion is more or less Uganda's public debt?

I'm just waiting for the reboot!

Edit: Just a thought. I wonder if Tim Schafer could buy any IP now that Disney is holding the reigns?

[TychoCelchuuu]

It's true that if Lucas had gotten to make Flash Gordon, things probably wouldn't have turned out better, but the way I see it, the choice isn't between "new filmmakers make Star Wars movies with Disney's money" and "new filmmakers create their own sci-fi/fantasy universes with Disney's money," because I don't think Disney would ever dump money into new sci-fi films after John Carter and Mars Needs Moms tanked. The Star Wars franchise is probably the only way that, for a while, we would ever see Disney getting into the whole massive family movie sci-fi scene.

Would it be better if everyone were making Moon, Looper, Attack the Block, and District 9 rather than Star Trek, Star Wars, Dredd, Total Recall, and Starship Troopers all over again? Broadly, yes. No question about it. But would Disney be sinking money into awesome new sci-fi franchises after losing 14 zillion dollars on John Carter and Mars Needs Moms? That seems like an iffy proposition. Star Wars is a way to get some of that sweet Disney movie into making sci-fi films for families instead of action movies dressed up in space clothes.

[syntheticgerbil]

What your think about someone's personality is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he's a tyrant or bigoted. You've just put a load of words into Tychoo's mouth that weren't there.

No I didn't call Lucas either of those things. I said everyone with power has a money flow to charity basically, the worst dictators to the best smiling candidates all have a fund going. This is my basis for not giving a celebrity or big businessman an automatic free pass.

I mean, its pretty clear he's not a tyrant (he's not in charge of the country, he just made Star Wars movies) and he's not a bigot (it took him decades to get his movie about black fighter pilots in World War II made because, in part, other people are bigots, but that doesn't reflect badly on him) but $4 billion to charity is $4 billion to charity and my original point stands: he just did more good with his life than everyone you've ever met, combined. The list of people who have given billions is not large enough to be full of tyrants and bigots. The list of people who HAVE $4 billion is tiny. Forbes says there are about 275 people with that kind of money. Like, out of the billions of people alive, less than 300 could potentially do what Lucas did. And how many of them actually HAVE done what he did?

Again, you are putting a dollar value on goodness? Just throwing money around doesn't exactly make it effective or worthwhile outside of making Lucas look good.

But I guess Shammack already caught the biggest issues I had with the original sentiment.

[TychoCelchuuu]

I've volunteered hundreds of hours for schools. I work as an educator right now. I've worked on grant applications to foundations like the Lucas Foundation and in fact I'm pretty sure I worked on a grant application TO THE LUCAS FOUNDATION. Saying "oh but teachers are the real heroes" is fine and dandy but $4 billion MAKES A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE. You can't dismiss it by saying "even evil people donate to charity" or "teachers are the ones that matter" unless you've really never seen the good that this sort of money can do. Ask TEACHERS whether they think $4 billion for education is worthwhile and I imagine you won't find them calling Lucas a bigot or a tyrant.

[Orv]

The only reason the Extended Universe exists is for the Thrawn trilogy. Everything outside of that could be safely swept under a rug. If 7, 8 and 9 aren't that, I'm going to be supremely disappointed.

[TychoCelchuuu]

A lot of the video games were pretty good. TIE Fighter, Republic Commando, Dark Forces, Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight, Dark Forces 3: Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast, Dark Forces 4: Jedi Knight III: Jedi Outcast 2: Jedi Academy...

[syntheticgerbil]

You can't dismiss it by saying "even evil people donate to charity" or "teachers are the ones that matter" unless you've really never seen the good that this sort of money can do. Ask TEACHERS whether they think $4 billion for education is worthwhile and I imagine you won't find them calling Lucas a bigot or a tyrant.

First, I think you guys need to go reread what I wrote because I did not call Lucas a bigot or tyrant, but was saying charity does not make a saint. I know I'm not the best writer by far, but I'm not sure how that confusion started.

Second, not dismissing any of that. As spoken, your original statement against Hoatzin's skepticism was,

I know it's hip and edgy to hate people...

and that is my reply to your bad attitude, because the very act of donating a large sum creates shield where you people like you will paint another as a person who hates education or whatever because they cock an eyebrow at big business writing big checks. Anyone is more than welcome to have a negative reaction or just be unsure towards a kneejerk charity donation in a large sum without you having to paint them as trying to be a hipster simply by disagreeing.

Hipsters usually like to argue about something like Death Cab for Cutie before they sold out anyway.

And anyway, had Hoatzin not said anything about Gates' donations as a precursor to what could happen with Lucas/Disney money and the continued privatization of important public sectors like education in the United States, I would not have even considered it. So it's now food for thought on my end on whether or not throwing $4bil at education will make a huge difference or as Thunderpeel alluded to, but did not necessarily agree with, that it could help squeeze this acquisition past the antitrust committee. All you need is one politician who has some money to gain from corporate interest to call the help of another who does not have the same interest but needs some money for his educational reform platform for reelection wherever he is located and still education suffers.