Disney says it is buying `Star Wars' maker Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion from George Lucas.It's like, how much more weak could this sauce be? And the answer is none. None more weak.
In a statement announcing the deal Tuesday, Lucas says, "It's now time for me to pass `Star Wars' on to a new generation of filmmakers."
Disney called Star Wars an "evergreen" media property today. But the prospect of keeping the Star Wars series going ad infinitum, and expanding it to regions and age groups in which it isn't already well known or loved, is far from a sure bet with consumers. It essentially amounts to wagering that die-hards will continue to flock to anything with the Star Wars name on it, while also betting that new movies will draw a younger generation that didn't grow up on Millenium Falcon references.posted by Egg Shen at 3:23 PM on October 30, 2012 [3 favorites]
Disney can't rely on old intellectual property — it needs Lucasfilm to keep throwing off cash to justify its $4 billion price tag. But with aging cultural cachet (the first Star Wars came out 35 years ago) and a consumer base that has lots of other popular franchises clamoring for its attention, it's hard to think that the marketing machine of a decade ago can keep chugging along at pace. As this chart from Box Office Mojo points out, recent Star Wars movies have underperformed older ones by a significant margin. Why would newer ones, released by Disney, fare any better? ...
If Disney can't keep a parade of Star Wars sequels from suffering diminishing returns, its "evergreen" acquisition may be more like a wilting flower. And if Disney knows it overpaid, or even senses it might have, then burying the news makes all the sense in the world.
A further comment Lucas made at that 1999 press conference noted the "nine year commitment" required to make a Star Wars trilogy. The theme of the commitment required, and his age, were the subject of his remarks in following years about why his position had changed about the sequel trilogy. In 2002, he described his past answers about the sequels in this way: "Basically what I said as a joke was, 'Maybe when Harrison and Carrie are in their 70s, we'll come back and do another version.' The thing I didn't realize then, and that I do realize now very clearly, is that not only would they be in their 70s, but I would be in my 70s too."What I suspect is that he originally planned for nine movies, started making the prequels then realized he would be old by the time the sequels would be made, so then back-tracked.
1. grittyI'm not sure what yours is, but it sounds entirely different from mine based on our minimal exchange.
harsh, coarse, rough and unrefined, as in film depictions that portray life as it truly is, without false distortions, stylizations, or idealizations. Often, the realism is exaggerated such that the culture or society being portrayed appears more coarse than it really is.
From director Pete Docter (“Up,” “Monsters, Inc.”) and producer Jonas Rivera (“Up”), the inventive new film will take you to a place that everyone knows, but no one has ever seen: the world inside the human mind.Oh shit. Can you say Psychonauts: The Movie?
« Older "Pretty much everyone interested in dinosaurs, in ... | Gimp Monkeys: 'We are climbers... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by infinitywaltz at 1:08 PM on October 30, 2012 [185 favorites]