Iger and Chapek Livid With Lucasfilm

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Advertisement
Disney has a habit of running its own franchises into the ground through over-exposure and/or lackluster sequels (Pirates, HSM, Narnia, Tron etc).

In hindsight, should we have been surprised they did the same with Star Wars?
They did already if we’re honest?

We’re talking about them muscling in on Star treks market now...
 

brianstl

Well-Known Member
The biggest problem for Disney Star Wars is they didn't know their audience when it came to main movie series. I understand the thought behind changing direction of the franchise and turning the focus away from Luke, Leia, Han, etc. The mistake was forcing that throughout the sequel trilogy instead of using the films slots that became Rogue One and Solo for that purpose. The vast majority of their audience wanted a satisfying and rewarding conclusion to the stories of Leia, Luke and Han from the sequels. They didn't get that and as a result many turned on everything new in the series. If our old heroes would have got some kind of send off similar to Tony Stark's in the Avengers series the sequels would have made much more money. Plus, a character like Rey would have been much better received across all of the fan base.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
This tidbit from Igers book is quite telling. Early development of the sequel trilogy sounds like it was a disaster and essentially destroyed any relationship Disney had with Lucas. One of their early meetings with George organized by Kennedy no less makes It sound like they ambushed him. They had already decided what they didn't want his ideas before they even spoke to him. And the meeting was only a formality. The last line is interesting. Iger says George felt betrayed. But by who I wonder. Kennedy or Iger? hmm. I feel like Iger is throwing out a lot of hints here.
Hey, remember when how glad we were when we all first heard that Disney rejected George Lucas's ideas for the sequels because we all hated Lucas for the direction he took Star Wars in the prequels?

And remember how we're now taking umbrage that George Lucas's ideas for the sequels were rejected because we're grasping at straws to hate Kathleen Kennedy and so we created a narrative that she betrayed St. George?

Fun times.

"The films were designed for 12-year-olds. I said that right from the very, very beginning and the very first interviews I did for A New Hope. It’s just that they were so popular with everybody, that everybody forgot that," he said. "Then when I came back to do Phantom Menace, it was 20 years later. So if you were 10 years old when you saw A New Hope, you would be 30 years old when you saw Phantom Menace. So you weren’t a kid anymore. I think you were kind of embarrassed, and what you thought was a really fantastic movie for a 12-year-old wasn’t that great for a grownup. I think that was the main cause of the fall of Episodes I, II, and III. Believe me, it took a beating." -George Lucas​
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Hey, remember when how glad we were when we all first heard that Disney rejected George Lucas's ideas for the sequels because we all hated Lucas for the direction he took Star Wars in the prequels?

And remember how we're now taking umbrage that George Lucas's ideas for the sequels were rejected because we're grasping at straws to hate Kathleen Kennedy and so we created a narrative that she betrayed St. George?

Fun times.

"The films were designed for 12-year-olds. I said that right from the very, very beginning and the very first interviews I did for A New Hope. It’s just that they were so popular with everybody, that everybody forgot that," he said. "Then when I came back to do Phantom Menace, it was 20 years later. So if you were 10 years old when you saw A New Hope, you would be 30 years old when you saw Phantom Menace. So you weren’t a kid anymore. I think you were kind of embarrassed, and what you thought was a really fantastic movie for a 12-year-old wasn’t that great for a grownup. I think that was the main cause of the fall of Episodes I, II, and III. Believe me, it took a beating." -George Lucas​
Oh I remember.

I just wasn’t aware it was a binary choice between 2 bad options
 

doctornick

Well-Known Member
I could see Favreau as the head of LFL. He's not just a competent director, he's a competent producer and executive. I can see him in the president role more than anyone else right now. We'd be luck to have him.
What has done as a "competent producer and executive"? Legit question because from what I see, he's mainly been an actor/director/occasional screenwriter.

I really like his work, so this isn't meant as any sort of dig. I just don't see the experience that reflects skills typical for a studio head. Doesn't mean he couldn't do it, of course.
 

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
George Lucas never liked her, so he hired her. Iger never liked her, so he renewed her contract. Everyone who works at LucasFilm never liked her. Every bad thing LucasFilm has done is totally on her and her alone. Every good thing LucasFilm has done is because she had absolutely zero to do with it. Successful projects like The Mandalorian were done secretly without her permission or knowledge as head of LucasFilm. She doesn't get fired because Iger's afraid a small cadre of folks at LucasFilm will say bad things about him and we know Iger would never do anything that brings criticism even though there are people at LucasFilm who want her to go so he keeps renewing her contract.... umm... where was I? Oh yeah, she was seen running from a grassy knoll in Dallas and she was in Wuhan last November forcing people to drink raw bat blood.
Agreed. Are you familiar with Star Trek fandom and history at all? Rick Berman was the head of all things Trek for most of TNG all the way through to the end of Enterprise and Nemesis. Same deal. Every bad decision, every downturn in ratings or box office, every misstep was laid at Berman's feet. Everything people liked was the responsibility of someone else. Michael Piller, Ron Moore, Ira Steven Behr, you'll see those names get showered with praise. Meanwhile, Berman gets crapped on.
 

Tom P.

Well-Known Member
Hey, remember when how glad we were when we all first heard that Disney rejected George Lucas's ideas for the sequels because we all hated Lucas for the direction he took Star Wars in the prequels?

And remember how we're now taking umbrage that George Lucas's ideas for the sequels were rejected because we're grasping at straws to hate Kathleen Kennedy and so we created a narrative that she betrayed St. George?

Fun times.

"The films were designed for 12-year-olds. I said that right from the very, very beginning and the very first interviews I did for A New Hope. It’s just that they were so popular with everybody, that everybody forgot that," he said. "Then when I came back to do Phantom Menace, it was 20 years later. So if you were 10 years old when you saw A New Hope, you would be 30 years old when you saw Phantom Menace. So you weren’t a kid anymore. I think you were kind of embarrassed, and what you thought was a really fantastic movie for a 12-year-old wasn’t that great for a grownup. I think that was the main cause of the fall of Episodes I, II, and III. Believe me, it took a beating." -George Lucas​
I am totally and completely fine with George Lucas guiding the creative direction of the franchise. I just do not think he should ever direct any of the films. He is a horrible, horrible director.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
The Disney Gallery series is pretty informative of their new direction. Favreau and Filoni are obviously very heavily running Star Wars moving forward.

Favreau very much seems to be using Mandalorian as a stomping ground to safely test out, groom, mentor and educate potential future directors.

Taika the first 'graduate'. It seems much smarter to onboard talent this way then to throw a feature film at them and realize they tonally can't hack it or actually can't direct such a large endeavour.

Whatever everyone's thoughts on all the movies, it very much feels to me like that chapter in Lucasfilm has closed.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
I am totally and completely fine with George Lucas guiding the creative direction of the franchise. I just do not think he should ever direct any of the films. He is a horrible, horrible director.
Don't let him write them either. If you described the prequels to someone, just in terms of the overall story beats etc., they would sound like pretty good movies -- I would go so far as to say their underlying premise was vastly superior to the sequel trilogy, but the sequel trilogy are better films because they were made with competence. But the actual scripts themselves (for the prequels, that is) are horrendous.

As you said, sure, let him guide the overall creative direction but have other creatives actually write the scripts and direct the films. That way you can get something more like Empire Strikes Back, which is by far the best film of the 9, while avoiding something as terrible as Attack of the Clones.

I don't think putting Lucas back in charge would be the best decision, though.
 

Darkprime

Well-Known Member
Empire strikes back had Irvin Kershner direct and Lucas only produced and as a result most people consider it the best in the original trilogy. Lucas should have stuck around and been the Kevin Feige of his universe. Guiding directors to create his vision. It seemed to work for the original trilogy.
 

britain

Well-Known Member
You don’t understand...I don’t like the look of Kennedy’s defense of Johnson after they turned the ship due south.

He’s a good director for other stuff...best not venture into the Star Wars neighborhood Again

And as far as Waititi goes...best be studying on what “not to do”...as opposed to which Led Zeppelin songs to use
Solo could have used some Led Zeppelin in it.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
Empire strikes back had Irvin Kershner direct and Lucas only produced and as a result most people consider it the best in the original trilogy. Lucas should have stuck around and been the Kevin Feige of his universe. Guiding directors to create his vision. It seemed to work for the original trilogy.
I would wager a good some of money that Gary Kurtz, the executive producer of American Graffiti, Star Wars, and The Empire Strikes Back is a big reason by the OT, and in particular episodes IV and V, are so wildly successful.

I think Lucas gets far too much credit for the story aspect of the movies that should be reallocated to Kurtz.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I would wager a good some of money that Gary Kurtz, the executive producer of American Graffiti, Star Wars, and The Empire Strikes Back is a big reason by the OT, and in particular episodes IV and V, are so wildly successful.

I think Lucas gets far too much credit for the story aspect of the movies that should be reallocated to Kurtz.
For once we are in total agreement...

Kurtz was the biggest stabilizing force in the OT. The products and sequence of events speak for themselves.

They never reconciled after Lucas demanded they make Return of the Merchandising.

John Dykstra and the editors were key figures as well to the success
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I don't view Taika Waititi as a graduate. He was very much already a proven commodity in directing, writing, and acting by the time The Mandalorian came about.
Waititi has less cred than abrams did to this point...the fact he’s a comedian makes me a tad nervous. That’s not what’s missing.

I don’t think the director matters as much as who writes the damn story. It cannot be mandated from Burbank and then under total control of the director...

That is basically a twist on the same arrangement as the prequels. Results based industry.

Needs to be story driven before any shenanigans for eye candy.
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Waititi has less cred than abrams did to this point...the fact he’s a comedian makes me a tad nervous. That’s not what’s missing.
I don't think that's true, at least as far as movies go (television is a different story). Waititi has an Oscar win and a best picture nomination and more critical acclaim than JJ Abrams has ever received.

I'd say he has significantly more cred right now than Abrams did before he directed Force Awakens.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I don't think that's true, at least as far as movies go (television is a different story). Waititi has an Oscar win and a best picture nomination and more critical acclaim than JJ Abrams has ever received.

I'd say he has significantly more cred right now than Abrams did before he directed Force Awakens.
Well...I wouldn’t say either are “unaccomplished”

Abrams had a major screenplay to his credit at age 25...very successful Tv shows...and contributions to huge Hollywood franchises prior...

Then he wrote a script about Luke Skywalker with no Y chromosome who goes to a “bigger” Death Star 😳

Jojo rabbit beefs up waititi’s resume substantially...but that was just a few months ago
 

UNCgolf

Well-Known Member
Well...I wouldn’t say either are “unaccomplished”

Abrams had a major screenplay to his credit at age 25...very successful Tv shows...and contributions to huge Hollywood franchises prior...

Then he wrote a script about Luke Skywalker with no Y chromosome who goes to a “bigger” Death Star 😳

Jojo rabbit beefs up waititi’s resume substantially...but that was just a few months ago
Yeah, but Abrams did not have much critical success with any of his movies (except Star Trek, oddly enough, which is almost certainly why he was handed the keys to Star Wars), including the ones he only wrote early in his career. As I said, the TV side is different.

Jojo Rabbit definitely beefed up his resume, but Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We Do in the Shadows were already critical darlings, and Thor Ragnarok was very successful as a big budget tentpole movie.
 
Top Bottom