The Matrix, Inception, Shaymalan's first few movies - they do it. Like Lucas, these creators have to put up and prove they're worth investing in. I can't think of a single story where an angel came down and greeted a young filmmaker with a huge budget before that filmmaker proved himself some how. Tarantino, Lucas, Wachowskis, Nolan... Every one of them put asses in seats one way or the other before their "break".

I think Moz is right, and I think the wild success of Star Wars is part of the reason--that is, Star Wars was such a phenomenal money maker, it raised the stakes--budgets got bigger, but so did expectations. So it became harder to actually take a bet on something new and different like the original Star Wars. And if you did, you'd never cast unknowns. You'll cast Liam Neeson, Ewan MacGregor and Natalie Portman.

I think Where Eagles Dare has much, much more to do with Dirty Dozen than Basterds

TenuredVulture wrote:I think Moz is right, and I think the wild success of Star Wars is part of the reason--that is, Star Wars was such a phenomenal money maker, it raised the stakes--budgets got bigger, but so did expectations. So it became harder to actually take a bet on something new and different like the original Star Wars. And if you did, you'd never cast unknowns. You'll cast Liam Neeson, Ewan MacGregor and Natalie Portman.

But, like Vox pointed out, Hollywood has never been original. Plus, adding stars to a proven formula is just gravy

mozartpc27 wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Take well worn characters in a well worn universe

On a different note, the thing that was so great about Star Wars and its "original" sequels, when you look back on it, was... well, that they were original.

Here was an entirely new idea, created solely for the screen. Not an adaptation. Not a remake.

Star Wars was heavily influenced by the Flash Gordon serials of the 30's. Stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I0lo42gcgM&t=19m55s

bleh wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Take well worn characters in a well worn universe

On a different note, the thing that was so great about Star Wars and its "original" sequels, when you look back on it, was... well, that they were original.

Here was an entirely new idea, created solely for the screen. Not an adaptation. Not a remake.

Star Wars was heavily influenced by the Flash Gordon serials of the 30's. Stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I0lo42gcgM&t=19m55s

Yes, I know. "Entirely new" was going too far. What I meant was that it was not an existing property.

Creation requires influence, tattoo it on your brain

i doubt theyd cast natalie portman to reprise her dead character

WheelsFellOff wrote:I think Han and Leia have kids and people fight robots and aliens and rebuild the Jedi and stuff.

Luke down on The farm, Han and Leia looking at houses across the galaxy, which bots get turned into nannies, etc. possibilities are endless.

Really, the toys and trinkets are the cash cow. Lucas is a master of making coin from his efforts. Licensing king. Disney knows this game and can add to its cash pile from related licensing.

i wonder what mark hamill is doing nowadays

very successful voiceover guy for cartoons

The Dude wrote:very successful voiceover guy for cartoons

Most famously, the Joker in Batman the Animated Series.

It's always been a business, but the nature of the business changes. Certainly, since the 70s, how we see movies has changed. If you want people in theaters (rather than watching at home through netflix or a pirate copy) then you make movies where the theatrical experience beats the crap out of the home viewing experience.

bleh wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Take well worn characters in a well worn universe

On a different note, the thing that was so great about Star Wars and its "original" sequels, when you look back on it, was... well, that they were original.

Here was an entirely new idea, created solely for the screen. Not an adaptation. Not a remake.

Star Wars was heavily influenced by the Flash Gordon serials of the 30's. Stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I0lo42gcgM&t=19m55s

And Dune. But Lucas has never been reluctant to admit either of those influences. He especially loves the pulp serials--so much so that he did the Indiana Jones movies.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

bleh wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:Take well worn characters in a well worn universe

On a different note, the thing that was so great about Star Wars and its "original" sequels, when you look back on it, was... well, that they were original.

Here was an entirely new idea, created solely for the screen. Not an adaptation. Not a remake.

Star Wars was heavily influenced by the Flash Gordon serials of the 30's. Stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I0lo42gcgM&t=19m55s

And Dune. But Lucas has never been reluctant to admit either of those influences. He especially loves the pulp serials--so much so that he did the Indiana Jones movies.

I thought Star Wars was not just influenced, but in part an homage to the movies of Lucas's youth.

It was. In the original script, the story of Luke Skywalker (IIRC, then called "Starkiller") was an excerpt from the "Journal of the Whills," which was a record of the history of the galaxy.

Apparently the deal does include LucasArts and ILM?

Yes, but I don't think they're expected to be "incorporated" into Disney the way Pixar was. They're expected to remain independent.

Also, wasn't Portman a relative unknown before Episode 1?

Relative to now, sure, but she was in The Professional. And Mars Attacks!, which is my barometer for popularity in 1996

WheelsFellOff wrote:LucasArts

and what does this all mean for Maniac Mansion and Zak McKracken?