(12-22-2015 12:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I totally agree. Half way through "The Phantom Menace" I found myself daydreaming that Darth Maul would put a quick end to Jar Jar Binks.

There is a fan cut of the scene where the watercraft goes over the waterfall (I assume that it's in Phantom Menace, I have only watched it the one time) that cuts out Jar Jar's (I assume) clumsy but lucky escape so that it looks like Jar Jar has gone over the waterfall and fallen to his doom.

If only ... it would also be an upgrade to Clone Wars if Senator Binks did not make a regular appearance.

(12-21-2015 11:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 06:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 03:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 12:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 11:55 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Personally I think Disney probably paid too much for Lucasfilms, since I cannot imagine anyone else was going to pay anythign close to it, but they are the one company that was best poised to profit so much on the franchise, in a way no other Studio, or Lucas himself could never do.

I don't think it was a question of Disney overbidding in a bidding war. Based on an article I read, it was all about Iger gradually convincing Lucas to sell instead of holding onto it, so Disney probably figured they had to offer a ginormous amount or Lucas would not have sold at all. And, as you mention, Disney will easily make a net profit off of the franchise that exceeds the $4 billion they paid Lucas.

Frankly, Disney got a bargain on both Lucasfilms and Marvel. Anyone that thought that they had overpaid several years ago weren't looking at the big picture of the top-to-bottom branding that those properties provide beyond movies (i.e. merchandising, theme park tie-ins, etc.). When you combine those two properties with the Disney Princesses, the company basically has a stranglehold on the wallets of parents of all boys and girls for the foreseeable future.

Marvel was a slam-dunk acquisition, like Pixar, especially since Disney didn't have much in the way of sequel-type blockbuster properties (e.g., Harry Potter).

But the jury is still out on Lucas, even with this huge movie out right now. Too early to tell.

Hmmmm... I don't know if Marvel was really as much of a slam dunk at the time. (Yes to Pixar as a slam dunk - they had Toy Story, Cars and other properties already in the bag which fit perfectly with Disney.) Remember that Marvel had sold off the movie rights to what were considered to be their best assets (i.e. Spider-Man, X-Men), so people were questioning how much Disney could really monetize the Marvel purchase.

Good point about Disney and Marvel. Disney didn't (and still doesn't) own Spider-man or the X-men but made a huge profit off it anyway.

(12-21-2015 11:42 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Hmmmm... I don't know if Marvel was really as much of a slam dunk at the time. (Yes to Pixar as a slam dunk - they had Toy Story, Cars and other properties already in the bag which fit perfectly with Disney.) Remember that Marvel had sold off the movie rights to what were considered to be their best assets (i.e. Spider-Man, X-Men), so people were questioning how much Disney could really monetize the Marvel purchase.

You make a good point, because to a generation of fans, Disney/Marvel has legitimately made Iron Man the biggest star in the Marvel Universe, and a bigger star than Spider-Man, and Wolverine, something that probably would have been laughed at during any point in the last 50 years. To some, I can see Iron Man now might even be seen as a bigger star than Superman or Batman due to the success of their movies.

(12-22-2015 03:06 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  For instance in the original release it did not have "episode 4" or "A New Hope" as a subtitle. That was added in the 1981 rerelease. So even back then he was making changes.

I think that is an acceptable change. Similar to Back to the Future adding "To be Continued" at the end of the first movie in video releases, after they decided a second and third movie was going to be made.

(12-20-2015 10:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Disney stock will be up again on Monday because the "new news" will be SW7 having more than twice the first-weekend gross of the previous highest-grossing movie, which, more importantly than a box office record, validates Iger's moves in buying Lucasfilm, Pixar, and Marvel and turning them into even more prolific cash machines than they were before.

And, I agree that Disney/ESPN are more likely than any other company to figure out how to best profit off of whatever TV model comes after cable. The only good reason to sell is if someone thinks that no content provider is going to be able to make that much money as cable diminishes in importance.

People want to view edited streams from cameras & microphones that are pointed at interesting things and people doing interesting things.

The demand for that is going up and is going to keep going up.

Thus, some smart guys in rooms somewhere will figure out how to make at least as much money as cable companies were making during whenever "peak cable" happened. If not more money.

It will happen. Bet your bottom dollar.


I just don't believe that people are giving up video entertainment in droves. Do not believe it.

When it's 9pm on a weekday, the chores are done, dinner's done, kids are in bed, you're tired and you know you have to go to bed at 10 for the next day ..... what the hell else are you going to do?? Sit around and read books? Paint your fingernails?

You're going to watch something. That's life.

(12-21-2015 09:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 07:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-20-2015 07:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The headline is silly. Back when Marvel was independent, the same pattern happened around Spiderman's release - the stock surged ahead of the movie's release, and began to tumble on the first day the movie was in theaters. This is what happens when fanboys start trading stocks.

Except Disney is a cable company that is losing subcribers. 45% of their bottom line is the cable business.

That's putting it way too strongly, as it means that 55% of their bottom line is something else. Disney would be a $30 Billion Revenue/$7 Billion Operating Income firm even if its entire media/cable operation vanished tomorrow.

That said, trouble in their cable segment isn't good news for any conferences hoping that ESPN will be bidding lavishly for their media rights or creating conference networks with them in the next couple of years.

People want to view video of college football games. The demand is there -- obviously, as people are paying what they're currently paying to view them.

So, there's zero incentive for conference to accept less than what they're currently getting for the rights to said video.


If companies won't pay for those rights, then people don't get the video. They can pay for a ticket, if they want to see it badly enough.

Then we'll see what the real truth of the matter is.

(12-21-2015 05:04 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-21-2015 04:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am not a big Start Wars fan (it's just a movie I saw as a kid to me), but were the special edition version not better than the original video releases? I thought they were remastered, with some extended scenes? Were they not like most DVD's that allow you to watch the original version and the "extended version," I.e. the version before it was edited to make it better?

Nooooooooo. I wish that were just the case. George Lucas, with his infinite tinkering, believed that his movies were not "complete". So, he went back and inserted CGI characters (as they didn't have that type of technology when the films were originally made), swapped out some actors in some cases, changed up the musical score in several places (including the very final scene in Return of the Jedi in a glaring manner) and even flat-out re-did scenes in other instances. (Just Google "Han shot first".) This was not just about extended scenes - he literally CHANGED the movies.

At the same time, Lucas purposely did NOT include the original versions at all in any Blu-ray or DVD releases. The last time that the original versions that we saw when we were kids were released were on video cassettes nearly 20 years ago.

I have no issue with Lucas going back and doing what he wanted with the movies as a general matter - those were his creations. However, his refusal to acknowledge that there is an entire world out there that just wants to watch how the movies looked in 1977, 1980 and 1983 has been grating. It was more about his attitude that somehow the original versions were "bad" (despite netting him $4.1 billion) and that we're somehow supposed to like the Special Editions better. Disney now owns the property, and my hope is that within a few years, that will be reversed (because it's truly easy money - there are LOTS of people that will buy those original versions immediately).

Reminds me a lot with Spielberg taking the guns out of the E.T. bike chase scenes.

Sorry, but that was absolutely bulls__t.

And I'm not a gun person, either. At that time, and in that circumstance, that (guns out) WOULD have been the reaction.

He was wrong to change it.