|
Post by ])-Kyle "Wild Child" Gibney-([ on Mar 23, 2024 4:22:14 GMT 1
Thoughts? I also kind of found it surprising. Maybe it's better the devil you know or Lucas struck some deal with Iger? Ike is concerning though
I wouldnt mind seeing Peltz on there. I mean it cant get any worse right? Also Ike can now see the error of his ways but can he leave the personal grievances aside?
|
|
|
Post by Chalice_Of_Evil on Mar 23, 2024 7:20:20 GMT 1
He already joined the Dark Side when he made the Prequels.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA CAT! on Mar 23, 2024 19:16:08 GMT 1
All I'm certain of is my preference for quality over quantity. I don't care a lick about profits. It's a coincidence that the Star Wars movies I like the most had lineups around the block before I was born. In a way, I expect people who generally pore over the facts and figures to be business/econ majors. You don't need to even see the movies to talk about what they're talking about, which is the behind the scenes game of thrones over seats on a board. I'm not unimpressed with how much they know. Clearly there's an interesting in it, but to me, they're talking about people whose names are in the credits I skip. The people they're talking about are like the crust of the pizza, whereas my interest tends to end when the toppings do. I thought Lucas was long retired and just lends his name.
My takeaway on the side of art is no product is a guarantee, let alone Star Wars. The studios signed over merchandising rights to Lucas because of how little faith they had in it. I believe he was on vacation during its premier. Then it took off and became a surprise juggernaut to the point where it changed how merchandising stipulations are negotiated. Star Wars, despite its omnipresence in pop-culture, took off because it stayed true to itself. Movies shouldn't coddle fans; they should challenge and risk offending them. Even that is no guarantee of results, but it's a more promising beginning than copying formulas, even successful ones. Star Wars launched on the back of the Vietnam War. The exact same movie (Star Wars) released today wouldn't have the same context. Maybe that's a discussion for these gentlemen. I'm not sure am equipped to participate in the conversation they're having, re the facts, figures and details about people behind the scenes, but I'm even less sure they're interested in talking about Star Wars.
I'm not totally unsympathetic to what they're saying. Star Wars got some of its best work out before it was too big to fail. There's something about their discussion that seems very entitled though. Maybe it's the way it links profits to quality, but I maintain profits are not the proof of quality I require. They can say a lot about society from a sociological point of view, but plenty of good movies fail initially to make money. Cult classics that found their fame and profits later are in a class all their own.
Interesting video though. I watched it all.
|
|
|
Post by ])-Kyle "Wild Child" Gibney-([ on Mar 23, 2024 22:16:07 GMT 1
All I'm certain of is my preference for quality over quantity. I don't care a lick about profits. It's a coincidence that the Star Wars movies I like the most had lineups around the block before I was born. In a way, I expect people who generally pore over the facts and figures to be business/econ majors. You don't need to even see the movies to talk about what they're talking about, which is the behind the scenes game of thrones over seats on a board. I'm not unimpressed with how much they know. Clearly there's an interesting in it, but to me, they're talking about people whose names are in the credits I skip. The people they're talking about are like the crust of the pizza, whereas my interest tends to end when the toppings do. I thought Lucas was long retired and just lends his name.
My takeaway on the side of art is no product is a guarantee, let alone Star Wars. The studios signed over merchandising rights to Lucas because of how little faith they had in it. I believe he was on vacation during its premier. Then it took off and became a surprise juggernaut to the point where it changed how merchandising stipulations are negotiated. Star Wars, despite its omnipresence in pop-culture, took off because it stayed true to itself. Movies shouldn't coddle fans; they should challenge and risk offending them. Even that is no guarantee of results, but it's a more promising beginning than copying formulas, even successful ones. Star Wars launched on the back of the Vietnam War. The exact same movie (Star Wars) released today wouldn't have the same context. Maybe that's a discussion for these gentlemen. I'm not sure am equipped to participate in the conversation they're having, re the facts, figures and details about people behind the scenes, but I'm even less sure they're interested in talking about Star Wars.
I'm not totally unsympathetic to what they're saying. Star Wars got some of its best work out before it was too big to fail. There's something about their discussion that seems very entitled though. Maybe it's the way it links profits to quality, but I maintain profits are not the proof of quality I require. They can say a lot about society from a sociological point of view, but plenty of good movies fail initially to make money. Cult classics that found their fame and profits later are in a class all their own.
Interesting video though. I watched it all.
Oh theyre interested in Star Wars too. As this has to do with the direction of the company and that affects Star Wars, that is why they are discussing it. Oh and obviously George Lucas
|
|