Dr_Grip
Made from concentrate
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 15,215
- Location
- HEL
- Car(s)
- 79 Opel Kadett|72 Ford Country Sedan|03 Volvo XC70
The really interesting question is how much creative control will stay with LucasFilms/LucasArts (ILM and Skywalker Sound are effects houses for hire and thus irrelevant for the creative side of things) and how much will be moved to Disney corporate HQ. AFAIK, Pixar is still being allowed to run as a seperate entity with minimal creative control from corporate Disney, while Disney's own, corporate-controlled feature film and animation divisions have both been hit or miss for the last decades, producing future classics like Tron: Legacy as well as total bombs.
As long as we don't know how they are going to handle LucasFilm/-Arts, and how much future creative control George Lucas has secured for himself, no one can tell what this means for the creative side of things.
Avengers, by the way, does not count at all as a "Disney" project: It was produced by Marvel Films indenpendently of Disney and "only" distributed by Disney (no matter that Disney took over Marvel during prodution). That's one of the oldest tricks of movie financing: sell distribution rights for a sure-fire hit to another studio - Back in 1938, for example, David O. Selznick handed distribution rights for Gone With The Wind to MGM to secure Clark Gable, who was under exclusive contract to MGM, as the male lead.
Speaking of Marvel, can any comic book geek around here fill me in on how much interference from Disney corporate they have to endure, both on the film and comic side?
Oh, and regarding the commercial side of the deal: If Disney really got the rights for all Lucas properties, trademarks and the back catalogue, $4bn was a bargain. Even without any new special releases, the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies are long-sellers like Dark Side Of The Moon: New generations of people will just keep buying them. Disney will get back $4bn from sales of these two trilogies alone. Maybe not within a year, maybe not within a decade, but in the long run, it's a safe bet.
That being said, Cowboy just jinxed it with the "bad feeling" line.
As long as we don't know how they are going to handle LucasFilm/-Arts, and how much future creative control George Lucas has secured for himself, no one can tell what this means for the creative side of things.
Avengers, by the way, does not count at all as a "Disney" project: It was produced by Marvel Films indenpendently of Disney and "only" distributed by Disney (no matter that Disney took over Marvel during prodution). That's one of the oldest tricks of movie financing: sell distribution rights for a sure-fire hit to another studio - Back in 1938, for example, David O. Selznick handed distribution rights for Gone With The Wind to MGM to secure Clark Gable, who was under exclusive contract to MGM, as the male lead.
Speaking of Marvel, can any comic book geek around here fill me in on how much interference from Disney corporate they have to endure, both on the film and comic side?
Oh, and regarding the commercial side of the deal: If Disney really got the rights for all Lucas properties, trademarks and the back catalogue, $4bn was a bargain. Even without any new special releases, the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones trilogies are long-sellers like Dark Side Of The Moon: New generations of people will just keep buying them. Disney will get back $4bn from sales of these two trilogies alone. Maybe not within a year, maybe not within a decade, but in the long run, it's a safe bet.
That being said, Cowboy just jinxed it with the "bad feeling" line.
Last edited: