Disney buys Lucasfilms; plans new movies

[Yodaking]

I just followed your first link to the British museum info and read the whole page. They freely admit that they do not know when the skull was made, where is was made (other then not in Mexico), who made it, or why it might have been made other then some speculation concerning antiquities fraud. Ergo, it is a mysterious item with unexplained origins. And that is just the one skull they have at their museum. Their are then other skulls in other collections around the world. Thanks for confirming what I said!

Find any links about the magic village stones of India? I don't know much about them.

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by Schulzy

The idea that Lucas has any hand in these movies at all worries me. He's proven himself to be more or less a hack these days, which is a shame. Hopefully Lucas will be far enough removed that these movies are at least watchable, unlike the prequels.

I'm fine with Lucas being a creative consultant. Lucas is at his best as an idea guy. I think the underlying problem with the prequels is that Lucas didn't have anyone with the cajones to say the way he was going was crap. He probably had that as the director of Episode 4 (look for the cheestacular deleted scene with Luke watching the battle from the surface of Tatooine, or just about any of the Episode 4 deleted scenes for that matter), and he wasn't in the director's chair for 5 and 6. It could be argued that 6 is an example of the damage he can do as a creative consultant with the decision to use Ewoks instead of Wookies, but I'm optimistic that this won't be the case this time around. With a strong director and Disney bankrolling this, I think we have a bright future, er, long time ago.

For me the thing that will be weird is not seeing the 20th Century Fox thing at the beginning of a Star Wars movie.

[ibechief]

Originally Posted by jschild

Sigh, You see, most Wikipedia articles, like that one, often have these small little blue numbers at the end of their sentences. If you click on them, it links you to this thing called "sources".

EDIT: See amazing links like these if you follow the sources...

http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_u...tal_skull.aspx

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore...al_skulls.aspx

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p53g67m845762616/

Seriously though, through the magic of the internet (what with it all being connected) you can pretty much navigate from one site to the next with a few clicks. So I'm sure with enough clicks you can navigate to credible sources via my McDonalds link as well.

The point is that just like in College, Wikipedia is not an accepted cite source for any person to use that wants to back up their position and get anything in return but "wow really, Wikipedia?"

That website is the go to place for people who have no clue what they are talking about and want to find instant material on the subject, regardless of it's truth or fabrication.

It might also be worth noting that because any small brained mammal can link a website as a note and call it cited. Even if the website has nothing to do with the material in question.

So, you basically are telling people when you cite Wikipedia "here is my position, though you will have to do the research to prove that my position is not true on your own. My source is basically just for showmanship".

Originally Posted by Yodaking

I just followed your first link to the British museum info and read the whole page. They freely admit that they do not know when the skull was made, where is was made (other then not in Mexico), who made it, or why it might have been made other then some speculation concerning antiquities fraud. Ergo, it is a mysterious item with unexplained origins. And that is just the one skull they have at their museum. Their are then other skulls in other collections around the world. Thanks for confirming what I said!

Find any links about the magic village stones of India? I don't know much about them.

I also followed his links. Specifically the link by Springerlink and found that of the two studied they only found 1 to be falsified. The other was tested and the depth of the higher hydrogen concentration proved that it could not have been carved after the pre-Columbian period.

It is obvious that the editors of that Wikipedia page had an agenda; since their sources are basically crap.

[ibechief]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

I'm fine with Lucas being a creative consultant. Lucas is at his best as an idea guy. I think the underlying problem with the prequels is that Lucas didn't have anyone with the cajones to say the way he was going was crap. He probably had that as the director of Episode 4 (look for the cheestacular deleted scene with Luke watching the battle from the surface of Tatooine, or just about any of the Episode 4 deleted scenes for that matter), and he wasn't in the director's chair for 5 and 6. It could be argued that 6 is an example of the damage he can do as a creative consultant with the decision to use Ewoks instead of Wookies, but I'm optimistic that this won't be the case this time around. With a strong director and Disney bankrolling this, I think we have a bright future, er, long time ago.

For me the thing that will be weird is not seeing the 20th Century Fox thing at the beginning of a Star Wars movie.

Can they not still use them as a distributor?

[screwDriver]

Originally Posted by jschild

I'm with Schulzy on this one.

Let's see, things wrong with 4 that 1-3 didn't have..

1. Aliens, Indy's never been about aliens but historical artifacts.

Here's another way of looking at it...

Lost Ark was Judaism.
Temple of Doom was Hinduism.
Last Crusade was Christianity.
Crystal Skull was... whoa! Tom Cruise inspired Spielberg, it's Scientology.

I'm not serious about the last one. My point was simply, it's not always about historical artifacts but it's also about the religion.

[jschild]

Originally Posted by ibechief

Seriously though, through the magic of the internet (what with it all being connected) you can pretty much navigate from one site to the next with a few clicks. So I'm sure with enough clicks you can navigate to credible sources via my McDonalds link as well.

The point is that just like in College, Wikipedia is not an accepted cite source for any person to use that wants to back up their position and get anything in return but "wow really, Wikipedia?"

That website is the go to place for people who have no clue what they are talking about and want to find instant material on the subject, regardless of it's truth or fabrication.

It might also be worth noting that because any small brained mammal can link a website as a note and call it cited. Even if the website has nothing to do with the material in question.

So, you basically are telling people when you cite Wikipedia "here is my position, though you will have to do the research to prove that my position is not true on your own. My source is basically just for showmanship".

I also followed his links. Specifically the link by Springerlink and found that of the two studied they only found 1 to be falsified. The other was tested and the depth of the higher hydrogen concentration proved that it could not have been carved after the pre-Columbian period.

It is obvious that the editors of that Wikipedia page had an agenda; since their sources are basically crap.

It's funny that you only read the abstract and NOT the actual article or you might have noticed something about the reference head.

Check out the picture in the 2nd page.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...6/fulltext.pdf

Which one looks like the crystal skulls and which one looks like something an older civilization might have made?

[Lord Pyre]

Originally Posted by Agent Minivann

I'm fine with Lucas being a creative consultant. Lucas is at his best as an idea guy.

Exactly. He created this whole universe, so I think he deserves more credit than he usually gets. He's really fed up with all the hate, I've read, which is one of the reasons he's retired. He has awesome ideas, he just can't write or direct. Empire Strikes Back wasn't directed by him, and it was my favorite. He needs a hand in it, just not in the directors chair, then it'll be perfect.

Oh, and keep him away from romance dialogue.

[Schulzy]

Originally Posted by Lord Pyre

Oh, and keep him away from romance dialogue.

Yeeesh, no kidding. The dialogue was horrible, and the fact that the two roles were horribly miscast didn't help at all. Natalie Portman is fine, just not in those movies. Hayden Christiahoweveryouspellit needs to just go away.


Last note on the Indiana Jones 4 thing and I'll shut up: as far as opinions go, liking Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is about as wrong of an opinion as you can have in my book. People have opinions, they are entitled to them but...man, really? Liking Crystal Skull?

I could go on about how the series had a successful formula, and how the practical effects of the first movies blow Crystal Skull's CGI crap out of the water, but I won't. I have school work to attend to. So in lieu of a full blown, off topic essay, I'll hit my favorite anti Crystal Skull argument.

The first Indiana Jones movies are about faith. For whatever religion Indy is hunting down an artifact for, that faith is re-affirmed by both the existence of the artifact and the power it holds. God smites those that would use the Ark's power for evil, the Holy Grail saves Indy's father and if I remember right, the stones in Temple of Doom burns the main villain...I dunno, I watch that one far less than the other two. It all boils down to why that first movie was successful, and I think the affirmation of faith is a key aspect of it. Same thing in Last Crusade. When Indy takes that step into the chasm based on faith alone - that was an awesome scene, and I wish the film had given it more attention.

You could argue that Scientology is a faith, and if anyone here subscribes to it, I'm sorry if I offend you, but...I mean, really. Any logical human being would dismiss Scientology as science fiction. Bad science fiction, even. I'm sure all the celebrities who are Scientologists are just doing it for the publicity. I seems to work pretty well for them, no? But even logical human beings are known to turn to God in some form or another. It's hard wired into our brains to believe in something greater than us. What form that God takes is up to the individual in question. The Indiana Jones movies explore those options, in the frame of a holy quest disguised as an action-adventure romp across the world.

Okay, it was an essay after all. Sue me.

[MegaSilver]

Didn't you read want someone else posted earlier in this thread? It had nothing to do with Scientology. It dealt with the most popular subject at the time the movies are set it. The first three, religious artifacts were all the rage. In Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, aliens were all the rage (Roswell, anyone?) That's it.

Also, btw, those real life Crystal Skulls are real.

[Lord Pyre]

Dude, chill. I'm not hating on you for liking 3, there's no reason to insult me for liking 4. I thoroughly enjoyed it, thinking that it was going to be crappy.

Megasilver is totally right (And I stated the same thing earlier, which you still ignored).

No, the movie isn't perfect, but I'm entitled to like any movie that I like. You know what? I like Batman and Robin. I grew up with that movie, so I have a soft spot for it. So what? Some of my favorite moves are Godfather, Miller's Crossing, Brazil... I went to school partly for film, as well, so I know a few things about movies. Just because I like one film that has MEDIOCRE reviews (Not even bad reviews), doesn't mean my opinion is wrong.

[Schulzy]

Originally Posted by MegaSilver

Didn't you read want someone else posted earlier in this thread? It had nothing to do with Scientology. It dealt with the most popular subject at the time the movies are set it. The first three, religious artifacts were all the rage. In Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, aliens were all the rage (Roswell, anyone?) That's it.

Also, btw, those real life Crystal Skulls are real.

I'm not saying the movie is about Scientology, but when I present the faith argument, people always counter-point with Scientology. I'm just heading that off as a reflex, mostly.

If the argument is that aliens were popular at the time, we see a different problem: Crystal Skull wasn't a new Indiana Jones movie because the world needs more Indiana Jones. It's a shameless cash grab tied to a hyper-popular intellectual property to draw in anyone who likes Indiana Jones even a little. Which is even worse, to be honest.

But the movie was never advertised as actually having aliens. The aliens came in at the very end of the film. They weren't a selling point. Watch this trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BgyhHBoz50

They're selling nostalgia here, with blatent appeals to fans of the first movies, the scene in the Ark warehouse, ancient ruins, yadda yadda yadda. There isn't even a shot of the alien looking skull.

Originally Posted by Lord Pyre

Dude, chill. I'm not hating on you for liking 3, there's no reason to insult me for liking 4. I thoroughly enjoyed it, thinking that it was going to be crappy.

Megasilver is totally right (And I stated the same thing earlier, which you still ignored).

No, the movie isn't perfect, but I'm entitled to like any movie that I like. You know what? I like Batman and Robin. I grew up with that movie, so I have a soft spot for it. So what? Some of my favorite moves are Godfather, Miller's Crossing, Brazil... I went to school partly for film, as well, so I know a few things about movies. Just because I like one film that has MEDIOCRE reviews (Not even bad reviews), doesn't mean my opinion is wrong.

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to poke fun, maybe, but I certainly don't actually have anything against you for enjoying Crystal Skull. My tone probably isn't coming across well via text.

I like my share of bad movies, believe me. But I'm coming at this from a fanboy perspective. If you'd never seen an Indiana Jones movie, you wouldn't know anything was wrong with Crystal Skull, and I don't fault you for not viewing the movie as an heir to the Indiana Jones legend. But I have to pick it apart.


EDITPALOOZA: In response to the "Crystal Skulls are real" thing: This is the first line of the Wiki article on the subject:

"The crystal skulls are a number of human skull hardstone carvings made of clear or milky quartz, known in art history as "rock crystal", claimed to be pre-Columbian Mesoamerican artifacts by their alleged finders..."

The key there is the word 'human.' The skull in the movie is clearly not human, nor is it even pretending to be. This counterpoint doesn't in any way serve any argument I'm trying to make, but I'm just saying that the movie doesn't even treat that subject matter with any accuracy. Granted, the Grail and the Ark can't even be proven to exist, but whatever.

All of this is muddled arguments at this point, and I'm losing focus and probably even contradicted myself once in this absolute wall of text. If I really wanted, I could make a cohesive thesis and back it up like the English major I am, but I don't have the time. Bottom line: I don't think Indiana Jones 4 is worth the plastic box it comes in. It fails on so many levels, except maybe for a commercial one, but that's the industry, unfortunately.

But man, Disney buying Lucasfilm. How about that, huh?

[Lord Pyre]

...The aliens were a plot twist... Not their fault you didn't like the twist. They sure as heck aren't going to advertise it. I didn't see it coming, and I like surprises like that. It wasn't the same old, same old.

And I hope you realize that every big budget movie is a cash grab. Every single one.