Star Wars live action show on hold according to rebel scum article.

Its been reported by more than just them.

Apparently, Lucas didn't make enough billions of dollars last year.

This just goes to show that it is all just a money making scheme, not art. Lucas is literally a billionaire. And his company profits annually in the billions. But if he has to lose one or two million to make actual films--god help him. Better make more Jar Jar Binks colouring books. It's pretty sickening, how ridiculous it has all gotten.

Good. I hope this falls through. I've had enough Temeura Fett and CGI-overload to last me several lifetimes. 

zombie84 said:

Its been reported by more than just them.

Apparently, Lucas didn't make enough billions of dollars last year.

This just goes to show that it is all just a money making scheme, not art. Lucas is literally a billionaire. And his company profits annually in the billions. But if he has to lose one or two million to make actual films--god help him. Better make more Jar Jar Binks colouring books. It's pretty sickening, how ridiculous it has all gotten.

How many other artists do we expect to work and provide us with entertainment at a loss of millions of their personal money?

Do you really think he will LOSE money? Really?

No, it's a matter of: I thought I would net 129 million from this, but with the extra expenses I will only net 27 million. Re-think it to be cheaper boys!

Also, you have to look at it in the big picture. Lucasfilm is a comglomerate studio. When a studio makes a blockbuster, they don't actually make much money off of it. In fact, most of the time they lose money. But they don't just get profit from the boxoffice. Transformers 2 may not bring any profit from the box office, even with its $400 million worldwide receits, but its okay because you have a video game, two action figure lines, a novelization line, an soundtrack album, pez dispensers, t-shirts, posters, trading cards, bubble gum, pepsi tie-ins, mcdonalds happy meals and other material that makes up for it, plus DVD and homevideo. Thats built in to the profit planning from the beginning, and its the reason why studios make these kinds of films. Moreover, you have to look at the bigger picture: even if Transformers 2 is a collosal failure even with all of its anscillary protection, it's just one of ten properties you will have on the marketplace that year. Three or four might fail, three or four might break even, but the one or two successes carries over and so you still end up breaking even or coming out ahead.

Sorry, I don't buy this "he's providing us with entertainment as his personal loss" bullshit. He just realised his profit margins weren't as big as he was used to. He's just cheap. He was the same way on the prequels. Think about how many people are going to CV this year. Every single one of those people will drop between $10-$100 on various products related to this thing. Plus you have all the other non-hardcores, plus all the advertising revenue and network purchasing that will likely pay for the show as it because it is freaking Star Wars.

Cheap Lucas, was Cheap.

Mess it up again and I'ma gonna ignore you.

zombie84 said:

Do you really think he will LOSE money? Really?

No, it's a matter of: I thought I would net 129 million from this, but with the extra expenses I will only net 27 million. Re-think it to be cheaper boys!

Sorry, I don't buy this "he's providing us with entertainment as his personal loss" bullshit. He just realised his profit margins weren't as big as he was used to. He's just cheap. He was the same way on the prequels. Think about how many people are going to CV this year. Every single one of those people will drop between $10-$100 on various products related to this thing. Plus you have all the other non-hardcores, plus all the advertising revenue and network purchasing that will likely pay for the show as it because it is freaking Star Wars.

When Lucas makes a product, its cuz he's a greedy money grubbing bastard. When he DOESN'T make a product, it's because he's a greedy money grubbing bastard.

When he's hands-on, they suck because he's a talentless hack. When he's hands-off he's an even worse money grubbing lazy bastard, and still a talentless hack who's now exploitative to boot.

For the TV show, Lucas wants to make a movie-quality spectacle on a TV budget for TV. He doesn't currently think he can do that. Regardless of your opinion on how profitable it might be, I don't see why he's obligated to do so to prove his 'artist' nature.

TheBoost said:

zombie84 said:

Do you really think he will LOSE money? Really?

No, it's a matter of: I thought I would net 129 million from this, but with the extra expenses I will only net 27 million. Re-think it to be cheaper boys!

Sorry, I don't buy this "he's providing us with entertainment as his personal loss" bullshit. He just realised his profit margins weren't as big as he was used to. He's just cheap. He was the same way on the prequels. Think about how many people are going to CV this year. Every single one of those people will drop between $10-$100 on various products related to this thing. Plus you have all the other non-hardcores, plus all the advertising revenue and network purchasing that will likely pay for the show as it because it is freaking Star Wars.

When Lucas makes a product, its cuz he's a greedy money grubbing bastard. When he DOESN'T make a product, it's because he's a greedy money grubbing bastard.

 Don't pull the Lucas Can't Win card, there is a difference here. He tried to make the product, but when he realized the profit margins weren't big enough he put it on hold until they could figure out how to make more money.

Money isn't an issue with Lucas. He's a billionaire. Can mere mortals like us even grasp what that means, how much money that is? But besides that, lets say he was just a regular producer. This is Star Wars. Its going to make its weight in gold. As for the technology--I know Lucas wants to make very high quality shows, technically speaking, so that its basically like an hourly feature film. Which would mean a lot of special effects. But look at the last two seasons of Battlestar Galactica. It's been done. Probably Star Wars would require more than that even, maybe, but the Star Wars audience is about five times the size of the Battlestar audience. Again: it's not about "can we do it". It can be done, and they can make a lot of money off of it. Its more about "can we do it for this amount of profit percentage".

See, if he really cared, it wouldn't matter if they only get $120 million in returns for every $100 million spent. But he wants to get $200 million returns for every $100 million spent. Why? There's no practical purpose since he's a freaking mulit-billionaire. It just becomes its own game. "How cheap can we make it? How much profit can we make?" Its the monopoly syndrome. I remember Lucas saying in 1998 or so that you can tell a director's talent by if he can make a $50 million movie look like a $200 million dollar movie. Not whether he can actually make a good movie. But this is what Lucas has come to value. Running a billion-dollar corporation for twenty years sorts of changes the way you think about everything.

Maybe it is just as well that this doesn't get made.  I'm tired of Lucas's hari kari of Star Wars.

zombie84 said:

 Money isn't an issue with Lucas. He's a billionaire. Can mere mortals like us even grasp what that means, how much money that is? But besides that, lets say he was just a regular producer. This is Star Wars. Its going to make its weight in gold. As for the technology--I know Lucas wants to make very high quality shows, technically speaking, so that its basically like an hourly feature film. Which would mean a lot of special effects. But look at the last two seasons of Battlestar Galactica. It's been done. Probably Star Wars would require more than that even, maybe, but the Star Wars audience is about five times the size of the Battlestar audience. Again: it's not about "can we do it". It can be done, and they can make a lot of money off of it. Its more about "can we do it for this amount of profit percentage".

See, if he really cared, it wouldn't matter if they only get $120 million in returns for every $100 million spent. But he wants to get $200 million returns for every $100 million spent. Why? There's no practical purpose since he's a freaking mulit-billionaire. It just becomes its own game. "How cheap can we make it? How much profit can we make?"

So yes, Lucas has more money than he could ever spend. You claim he has no 'practical purpose' for money.

Let's think about that.

Since he doesn't NEED to make any projects, whether for a 10% net profit of a 3,000% net profit, and since you insist that "Star Wars" will cut a profi, what is the exact cut off that shows Lucas "cares"? Is it a 5% profit? A one dollar profit? What is the fair profit for focusing his energy, time, talent, resources, and wealth on?

I have a hard time expecting a ground-breaking 40 year industry veteran to be on par with they guy who plays Jim Crocce songs at my local coffee house saying "Man, I'm glad I got 8 bucks tonight, but I'd do this for free."

(And to be fair, the production values on "Battlestar" aren't even near CLOSE to what "Star Wars" would be. Remember they did whole episodes where you didn't have to see spaceships in order to save cash. Not just avoiding space combat, but avoiding showing space at all. Not to mention the same sets, costumes, and every outdoor scene was miraculously in the same copse of trees.

And I can only imagine how ruthlessly guys like us would tear a "Star Wars" TV show apart if the special effects were one iota short of what we expected. We'd call Lucas a lazy cheap money grubbing bastard!)

Lucas saying in 1998 or so that you can tell a director's talent by if he can make a $50 million movie look like a $200 million dollar movie. Not whether he can actually make a good movie

Lucas has ALWAYS been about the technical side of film making. Always. This is nothing new. Watch THX 1138:Digital Labrynth. Watch the OT. Watch Radioland Murders or Young Indy. Listen to him talk. Aside from his wierd Joseph Cambell obsession 90% of what Lucas has to say has been about the visual and technical side of film. The technical aspects have always been what really got him going. Always. This is not some new idea he has now that he's rich and evil.

Given that the modern filmmaking world would in large part not exist without Lucas's efforts, even though I wish the PT was a better group of films, I can't act like Lucas's viewpoint is wholly without merit.

twister111 said:

 

TheBoost said:

How many other artists do we expect to work and provide us with entertainment at a loss of millions of their personal money?

Haim Saban
Definition - Man who became a billionaire off the selling of properties including Power Rangers. He has recently rebought Power Rangers for 100 million and, released a dvd exclusive at Comic Con. That dvd exclusive is said to be the original first episode before the recent Disney reversioninig. He's also going to produce a live action season 18 of Power Rangers while reairing the original episodes. This is all very risky finacially given Power Rangers isn't as beloved as Star Wars. Oh, yeah and, he also plans to release the series on DVD and, Blu-ray. Presumably the original versions. Plus, there's plans in the works for a possible new Power Rangers movie.

 

But he obviously is trying to recoup the investment.

If Saban DIDN'T buy Power Rangers back because he didn't think the property would be profitable enough, would we fault him for that? Would that somehow prove he's greedy and doesn't care.

Erikstormtrooper said:

If he has money to give away, his refusal to do things like release the OOT make no sense. Until of course, you realize it has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with ego.

Has Lucas ever claimed the suppression of the OOT was due to money? Hasn't he always been pretty clear it's about ego and "his vision"?

"Sorry you fell in love with a half-done movie" and stuff like that?

(to be clear, I think it's a douchy thing to do, but I don't remember him ever saying it was about money)

Here's what I don't understand - why is it so bad if he makes the show?  So what if he makes his show or doesn't?  Does it bring us any closer to the OOT?  Does it change how great the OOT is? 

I say go ahead and make the show.  If it somehow turns out to be good, hooray, and if it sucks, it's no skin off my back.

TheBoost said:

zombie84 said:

 Money isn't an issue with Lucas. He's a billionaire. Can mere mortals like us even grasp what that means, how much money that is? But besides that, lets say he was just a regular producer. This is Star Wars. Its going to make its weight in gold. As for the technology--I know Lucas wants to make very high quality shows, technically speaking, so that its basically like an hourly feature film. Which would mean a lot of special effects. But look at the last two seasons of Battlestar Galactica. It's been done. Probably Star Wars would require more than that even, maybe, but the Star Wars audience is about five times the size of the Battlestar audience. Again: it's not about "can we do it". It can be done, and they can make a lot of money off of it. Its more about "can we do it for this amount of profit percentage".

See, if he really cared, it wouldn't matter if they only get $120 million in returns for every $100 million spent. But he wants to get $200 million returns for every $100 million spent. Why? There's no practical purpose since he's a freaking mulit-billionaire. It just becomes its own game. "How cheap can we make it? How much profit can we make?"

So yes, Lucas has more money than he could ever spend. You claim he has no 'practical purpose' for money.

Let's think about that.

Since he doesn't NEED to make any projects, whether for a 10% net profit of a 3,000% net profit, and since you insist that "Star Wars" will cut a profi, what is the exact cut off that shows Lucas "cares"? Is it a 5% profit? A one dollar profit? What is the fair profit for focusing his energy, time, talent, resources, and wealth on?

Its not about assigning it a fixed number. You seem to be missing the point that a billionaire is complaining he doesn't have enough money to make a show profitable when it is guaranteed to at leas be somewhat profitable. It just speaks of such a greed-oriented outlook, and that rubs me the wrong way.

(And to be fair, the production values on "Battlestar" aren't even near CLOSE to what "Star Wars" would be. Remember they did whole episodes where you didn't have to see spaceships in order to save cash. Not just avoiding space combat, but avoiding showing space at all. Not to mention the same sets, costumes, and every outdoor scene was miraculously in the same copse of trees.

That's true, but I doubt every single SWLA episode will feature ten different brand-new environs each episode. The way it was described about following side-characters, if for instance it followed a band of smugglers we could see their ship being a common set, like on Firefly. It's hard to know exactly how elaborate or intimate it will be, but TV shows have common characters and therefore common environs and sets.

More importantly, if we would peg the Star Wars audience as being 2-3 times larger than the Battlestar Galactica audience (this is a conservative figure, IMO) it would translate to about 2-3 times the budget, which would be quite formidable. And BG was hugely profitable at that ratio, one of the biggest hits the SF network ever had. So, at 2-3 times the scope of the latter BG episodes, Lucas would be making a killing. And here he is complaining he doesn't want to go ahead until he can make it more profitable? What's the point? Its just pointless greed.

I don't actually care very much about the show. If it happens, fine, I hope it turns out well. If it doesn't, oh well, who cares. But I just cannot fathom that Lucas could say he's put it on hold because he doesn't have the money for it. Does he really care that little, with all his billions of dollars? It's a very disheartening mindset to see displayed.

Lucas saying in 1998 or so that you can tell a director's talent by if he can make a $50 million movie look like a $200 million dollar movie. Not whether he can actually make a good movie

Lucas has ALWAYS been about the technical side of film making. Always. This is nothing new. Watch THX 1138:Digital Labrynth. Watch the OT. Watch Radioland Murders or Young Indy. Listen to him talk. Aside from his wierd Joseph Cambell obsession 90% of what Lucas has to say has been about the visual and technical side of film. The technical aspects have always been what really got him going. Always. This is not some new idea he has now that he's rich and evil.

Given that the modern filmmaking world would in large part not exist without Lucas's efforts, even though I wish the PT was a better group of films, I can't act like Lucas's viewpoint is wholly without merit.

 I never said anything about technicality. I know Lucas is a technical director, always was and always will be. My point was to highlight his financial-oriented point of view. Instead of valuing good filmmaking, he values high profit. It seems to be the opposite of what the film industry should be, but highlights the very worst aspect of what the film industry often is. 

I guess the bottom line is that for a mulit-billionaire to be so concerned about profit when the show is guaranteed to be at least modestly profitable, it just smacks of unnecessary greed, and it frustrates me that this is really what the bottom line has come to mean for Lucas and his projects.

Also, it kinda saddens me that this really interesting filmmaker (at least, I think--he never gets a chance to demonstrate it) spends his time creating what he frames as a money-making series instead of doing something that he cares about so much that he doesn't care about how much money it loses because he's a gifted filmmaker with more money at his disposal than many small countries and can do absolutely anything he wants. But he spends his time making merchandising spin-offs that has him concerned with profit ratios instead. I don't get it. Make something you believe in and will sacrifice to see it made, not something that you think will be impressive on the financial books.

Maybe he wants to get its profit high so he has more money to give to charity, that's just not what it seems like.

Davnes007 said:

TV's Frink said:

Here's what I don't understand - why is it so bad if he makes the show?  So what if he makes his show or doesn't?  Does it bring us any closer to the OOT?  Does it change how great the OOT is? 

I say go ahead and make the show.  If it somehow turns out to be good, hooray, and if it sucks, it's no skin off my back.

 

It has nothing to do with making the show.....It has to with making the show cheaply.

 

But my point still remains - who cares?  So what if it sucks?