In the effort of being honest, I have an admission to make. One that will make the words that follow seem like sour grapes.

I “applied” to work at Cracked.com.

Applied in the sense that I signed up for their developmental workshop message boards, where writers can pitch stories that might one day make the website and get them paid. I haven’t submitted anything yet (and probably won’t after this) because I was trying to come up with the perfect pitch. One that was factually correct, stood up on its own, and made its argument forcefully yet logically.

JF Sargent. No, really.

As it turns out, that wasn’t really necessary. JF Sargent, who just happens to the be the moderator of that above workshop, posted an article on the site last week called, “5 Reasons Superhero Movies Are a Bubble That Will Soon Burst.” In it, he compares the popularity of comic book films to the “New Hollywood” era of film making, the period from 1967 to about 1982 where young filmmakers made a big splash and changed the face of cinema. The five “reasons” are five similarities Sargent thinks he sees between the two eras. His theory is because the “New Hollywood” era of film making flamed out, surely the superhero film era is also on its way there.

On the surface, it seems like it has the makings of a well researched piece of film criticism, one so logically sound that it can not be questioned. I mean, if Sargent proves that  one era hit the same number of landmarks in  the exact same way as another era did, why, certainly if first era dies, the other one will die in the same way, right?

Well, it might, if Sargent hadn’t made any glaring factual errors, fudged facts and history, and used subjective logic and “proof” all along the way. There are so many glitches  that his arguments go from sounding the definitive death knell for the comic book film to being what appears to be a sad bit of “wishful thinking” journalism.

How many? Well, let’s make a list of our own by going through his text. And we don’t have to wait long. It starts with the lead paragraph:

If you’re a lover of comic books, fantasy novels, or sci-fi, you should be in heaven right now. All of Hollywood caters to your tastes. Hell, if you’re under 20 years old, you don’t even remember what it’s like not to have Hollywood throw $2 billion worth of blockbuster movies at you every summer (while the rest of us remember that as recently as 1994 they made a Fantastic Four movie so bad, it couldn’t even be released).

1. The poor quality of the Fantastic Four film played little to no role in the project being shelved.

I explained as much here, but let me give you the pertinent graph:

There are two schools of thought over why the film was not released. One was that Constantin never intended to release the film at all, and essentially lied to all parties involved in the production just so the film could be made. Another says that Avi Arad, who would become head of Marvel Studios two years after the film was due to be released and helped usher in the success Marvel has had in recent years, paid Constantin and Concorde to shelve the movie because he didn’t want such a cheap production to taint the brand. Regardless, the film was never released either here or abroad, and only exists in a popular bootleg version you can find at most comic book conventions.

Granted, the film was shot for $1 million dollars, a sum way under what it would take to make a good FF film. It was cheap and it looked it. But the main factors at play seem to be the ones mentioned above. And Arad’s reason for putting the film on ice, as described on the very Wikipedia page Sargent linked to, seems less about how bad it was, but how little money was spent on it.

This might be splitting hairs, but it goes to establishing Sargent’s bona fides. The fact that he just casually mentions that the ’94 FF film was shelved was because it was awful, without even presenting an existing opposing point of view, shows a tendency to present only the “facts” that support his argument. Not a good start.

And while we’re here:

2. Sargent uses Wikipedia as a source. A lot.

Not long ago I was in college. I wrote a lot of papers. Wikipedia was strongly frowned upon as a source of information. Why? Because it is crowd-sourced. Anybody can edit an article there,and you can have it say whatever you want. Therefore, it’s not always very trustworthy to back up your arguments. Granted, some of Wikipedia”s articles are sourced, but in that case its better to use the original source.

Sargent’s list begins in earnest by stating both eras began with a surprise box office hit out of the blue. For “New Hollywood,” it was 1967′s Bonnie and Clyde. For the comic book era? It was a bunch of films that came out in the early 2000′s that overcame the superhero film-light 1990s. Let me let him tell you:

This changed in 2000 and 2001 when X-Men, Spider-Man, and the first The Lord of the Rings came out. Remember that back then those geek-centric movies were all pretty risky investments for the studios. Not only was this the first time that either of those Marvel superheroes would be seen on screen, but the last superhero movie to come out at that time had been Batman & Robin, which, you know, we’d rather not talk about. As for The Lord of the Rings, the last attempt at an adaptation was a godawful cartoon that was made in the 1980s.

3. Spider-Man came out on May 3, 2002.

Before you call me a nitpicker, here me out. The reason I make an issue out of this is because it is key to Sargent’s comparison that each era begin with a “big bang” if you will–one or more films that were a surprise success. Now, since the “New Hollywood” era is traced back to just one film, it suits Sargent’s argument better if the three “superhero” films came out in quick succession. But they didn’t. It took three years for all the films mentioned to come out.  And really, there were only two that are legit, and they came out two years apart. More on that later. But Spider-Man definitely came out in 2002, even Wikipedia got that right.

4. What about Blade?

If Sargent was looking for a comic book film that fit his analogy to a T, Blade is it. It was the first film where Marvel took a more active role in the production of the film, marking a new attention towards fidelity to the source material that Sargent marks as a trademark of the superhero film era. It was also an unknown property without a huge built in audience, so it was not a lock that it would be a success. But it was, it debuted at #1 at the box office just like Sargent’s other examples and made a sizable profit. If there was a film that ushered in the era of the superhero movie, it was Blade.

Why didn’t Sargent use Blade as the start of the superhero movie era? Perhaps he just didn’t know that Blade was a superhero. Or, maybe, for his point to work, for the narrative he was trying to create to gel, he had to create some distance the “last” comic book film, Batman and Robin, and the comic book film’s resurgence. Blade wouldn’t work here because it was released in 1998 and Batman and Robin was released in 1997. That would have meant the superhero film bounced back just 14 months after it’s nadir. And that weakens Sargent’s point almost completely.

Some of you might argue that Blade is not a superhero. He’s a vampire who fights vampires with his vampire powers. That is totally different than a superhero who fights supervillains with superpowers! Okay, but what about…

5. Frodo Baggins, Superhero!?!!?

Listen, determining who is and who isn’t a superhero is a popular topic of debate in comic shops across the country. Is the Punisher a superhero? Someone will that because he wears a costume, yes. Others will say that he doesn’t have any powers, so no. Then someone will bring up Batman, who wears a costume but has no powers, is he a superhero? Someone will say yes because he fights super-powered villains. But, the Punisher fought super-powered villains…well, you get the idea. If your loved one goes to their local comic shop and doesn’t come back for hours, it’s probably because they got sucked into one of these kinds of conversations.

But if you were to go into that shop and say that your favorite superhero was good ol’ Frodo, all sides of the argument would stop fighting amongst themselves,unite, and start arguing against you.

I mean, granted, Frodo has a ring that makes him invisible, and he hangs out with wizards, but he resides in the fantasy/sword and sorcery genre, not the superhero genre. And while fans of one genre often are fans of the other, the genres are not interchangeable. It would be a huge stretch of logic to consider them so.

But Sargent needs big films and big franchises to provide the tools to work with. So, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, and Star Wars become superhero movies, even though they really aren’t. For the casual reader, this probably won’t matter much. But to fans of the superhero film, the inclusion of these films invalidates Sargent’s argument from the get go. Because he’s not railing against the superhero film, he’s really railing against a larger target–the geek culture film. But I guess that wouldn’t generate as many hits.

6. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Crow, The Mask, and Men in Black all came out in the 1990s.

Sargent likes to paint the 1990s as such:

In the ’90s, all of the major money-maker movies were Die Hard knockoffs (Con Air, Broken Arrow, Face/Off), sober explorations of tragedies (Dances With Wolves, Schindler’s List, Titanic), Adam Sandler being a dumbass, and Tom Hanks doing things that usually didn’t involve having superpowers.

First off, not including Speed in the list of Die-Hard knockoffs is a crime. It was Die Hard on a frikkin bus for goodness sakes!

Second, Sargent intends to show that the 90s were a dry period for the superhero movie. But they really weren’t. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Crow, The Mask, and Men in Black all could be considered superhero films (if Frodo’s a superhero, then so is Agent J). They all came from comic books. All their lead characters fought crime in different ways. And all of them were box office hits in the comic book film unfriendly 1990s. Each one had at least one sequel, which is more than you can say for Sargent’s examples. And, lest we for get, Batman Returns, Batman Forever and, yes, Batman and Robin all were released in the 90s and all made a profit (yes, even Batman and Robin, when worldwide grosses are added in).

As even most casual Star Wars fans probably know, writer/director George Lucas’ initial screenplay drafts for what would become known as Star Wars (and then later Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope) were vastly different from what audiences finally saw starting in 1977. And if you have had the occassion to read any of the three complete drafts and one short treatment that Lucas wrote (they’re just a Google away), you’ll see elements of what finally made it to the screen but in unfamiliar configurations.

Dark Horse Comics will be taking that early script and adapting it into an eight-issue miniseries starting this September. In their nearly two decade run as the publisher of Star Wars comics, Dark Horse has put out numerous series exploring the width of the Star Wars galaxy and the depth of its history. It has even published a few looks at how the classic trilogy of films may have played out if one little thing happened differently. But this is some real out-of-the-box thinking from the publisher and I am excited to see what they will deliver.

Here is the bulk of Dark Horse’s announcement as well as the first page of art from the first issue.

It’s no April Fools’ prank! Dark Horse is honored to announce a dream project: working with J.W. Rinzler, executive editor at LucasBooks, and artist Mike Mayhew (Avengers) to adapt the rough-draft original screenplay which spawned the biggest franchise in film history!

Three years before his 1977 film, George Lucas put down on paper his first story set in a galaxy far, far away—a tale of fantastic adventures, daring escapes, “lazer swords,” romance, and monsters. A story of Jedi Annikin Starkiller and General Luke Skywalker, an alien named Han Solo, and evil Sith Knights. The screenplay was titled The Star Wars!

“I’m not sure where I first read about The Star Wars—it was years and years ago—but the idea of Luke Skywalker being an older Jedi General, and Han Solo being a six-foot-tall lizard, turned my Star Wars fan brain on its side,” said longtime Star Wars editor Randy Stradley. “I always assumed this would be one of those stories that would be ‘lost to history,’ so getting to work on bringing it to life is kinda like a dream come true.”

“While researching in the Lucasfilm Archives I’ve found many treasures—but one which truly astounded me was George’s rough draft forThe Star Wars. His first complete imaginings were hallucinating to read—mind blowing,” said writer J.W. Rinzler. “While working with George on another book project, I once asked if we could adapt his rough draft. He was hesitant. Years later, with Dark Horse’s invaluable help, we showed him a few drawn and colored pages of what it might look like. He gave us the okay.”

Originally conceived in 1974, The Star Wars has been the subject of rumor and legend in the fan community throughout the history of the galaxy far, far away. Now, Lucas has seen fit to grant Dark Horse the right to adapt this fabled story into an eight-issue comic series launching in September!

In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, we’ll talk about the first three of the best “superhero” films that only appeared in comics after the films were released. 

Fair warning, you might have issue with these three film franchises being covered in the next three installments being called “superhero” movies. I’m here to make the case they are. But even if you don’t buy my argument, you have to admit the connection between these films and the world of comics is a tangible one.

These franchises have a lot in common. Each received life in comics after its first film opened, and the world of comics played a part in their creation to some extent. Each franchise was started by directors whose talent made them the biggest names in the film world. And each franchise was a case of diminishing returns after the big splash made by the first installment.

Some might ask, “Why is RoboCop on the list and the other famous Orion release of the ’80s, The Terminator, not? Couldn’t that film be considered an unofficial comic book film?” Yes, it could. But the ties between RoboCop and comics are a little bit stronger.

Director Paul Verhoeven has admitted in a 2002 interview with Dutch website XI Online that RoboCop, Verhoeven’s first major American film, was inspired by British comic book character, Judge Dredd, and you can see it, too. RoboCop takes place in a similar dystopian near-future as Dredd, is offered as the last word in law enforcement like Dredd, and often acts as judge, jury and executioner, too, like Dredd. But I don’t think the comic book inspirations end there.

In 1974, Marvel Comics came up with a character called Deathlok. He was a soldier named Luther Manning from a dystopian future version of Detroit, Michigan who is fatally injured in battle. Before he dies, his body is retrieved and what can be saved is rebuilt into a cyborg by an evil corporation with the intent of using the man-machine to work towards their interests. He eventually gains independence and fights against his programming. RoboCop is Alex Murphy, a police officer in a dystopian future version of Detroit, Michigan who is fatally injured in the line of duty. Before he dies, his body is retrieved and what can be saved is rebuilt into a cyborg by an evil corporation with the intent of using the man-machine to work towards their interests. He eventually gains independence and fights against his programming.

Now, this could be a big coincidence, but if the powers that be were inspired by a comic with limited exposure in the U.S. at the time, they could have very well been familiar with the rather obscure Deathlok. Nothing has been said officially if Deathlok inspired RoboCop, so this is all speculation. But it is worth thinking about.

Regardless of the inspiration, RoboCop was an awesome film, well ahead of its time. On one level, it works as a great futuristic sci-fi action film. On another level, it is a cutting piece of satire of the era that still rings true today. Some of the jabs are obvious—television, commercials and the need for consumer products, others are more subtle—the jingoism of Regan’s America, the corporatization of public services, and violence in film (satire which was lost on the MPAA, who made director Verhoeven tone down the violence in order to avoid an X Rating, and many audience members).

The film was well received critically and financially, which means sequels. But director Verhoeven and writers Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner would not be returning for RoboCop 2.

But this did not seem like much of a problem. To replace Verhoeven, the powers that be chose Irvin Kershner. It might be a stylistic step down, but Kershner did direct The Empire Strikes Back, the much lauded second installment in the Star Wars franchise. For writing, they turned to the world of comics. They looked towards a name that was getting a lot of attention for a series that covered a lot of the same themes as RoboCop. The book was The Dark Knight Returns and the writer was Frank Miller.

On paper, this seemed like a project that while not being as good as the original, it would be good in its own right. However, on film, 1990’s RoboCop 2 was a resounding disappointment.

Judging by how bad his writing would eventually become, it would be easy to blame Frank Miller for how bad these sequels turned out. However, Miller has stated that the producers rewrote his script to an absurd level and what was on the screen only had traces of what he originally wrote.  His original script was adapted into comic book form in 2003 by Avatar Press.  It proved that he was right. Oh, Miller’s version was bad, just bad in a different way, but practically the only thing that remained the same in both versions was the introduction of a new cyborg officer (named…RoboCop 2! Hilarity!) and an even more war-torn Detroit.

Where Miller’s version and the version that made it to the screen went wrong was that both failed to grasp what made the original so great. Instead of uberviolence that pointed out the absurdity of movie violence, it was the type of gratuitous violence the first film mocked. Instead of biting satire, it was ham-fisted mockery of easy pop culture targets. Instead of shocking us with the depravity that humans can stoop to, it gives us a twelve-year-old drug lord and expects us to be shocked.

Miller did get something out of it. He was able to visit the set everyday to learn the art of filmmaking. He also garnered the first of what would be a string of cameos in feature films.

While the film was a critical failure, it made enough money to garner another sequel. Miller was brought back to write RoboCop 3, and he accepted the job thinking this time would be different and he would finally be able to reintroduce plot points that were removed from his script for RoboCop 2. He was wrong. While some elements Miller wanted made their way in—the forcible relocation of Old Detroit residents, the use of mercenaries to supplement the Detroit police force—his script was changed even more this time around, due to the way the character morphed through in his appearances in other media.

After the success of the first RoboCop, the franchise branched out into other medium. It became a Marvel comic book which presented a more kid friendly version of the character and ran from 1990-1993. Marvel, through its Marvel Productions arm, also produced a syndicated cartoon in 1988 which, while darker than the other cartoon fare of the time, was considerably less violent and gory than the film. The property also made its way into the world of video games, again with much of its content toned down.

The result was that the RoboCop brand became, well, more kid friendly. The producers of the film franchise recognized this and decided to make RoboCop 3 a more kid-accessible PG-13.

Peter Weller, who was excellent in the role of RoboCop, is gone for this installment, replaced by Robert John Burke. Nancy Allen stayed for a few scenes before getting herself killed off. The violence was toned down and kid-friendly plot elements such as a jet pack for RoboCop and robo-ninjas as his enemies put the final nail in removing all traces of what made the first film great.

There has been a remake in the works since 2005. Director Darren Aronofsky was briefly attached to the project before Jose Padilha was chosen to take over the reins. This should be coming out later in the year that this post will run, so I’ll just have to add to it as time goes by.

Next up, Sam Raimi examines the superhero archetype years before he directed Spider-Man.

Yesterday, we learned that one of the rumored standalone Star Wars films that Disney was developing was set to be centered around the Jedi Master Yoda. Disney didn’t confirm this specific detail, but did admit that they were indeed developing some standalone films in addition to the new sequel trilogy announce last October. Now comes word of two more possible subjects for solo films – roguish smuggler Han Solo and armored bounty hunter Boba Fett.

Entertainment Weekly had the scoop from their own anonymous sources, and they caution that with things still in the early stages of development details could change. As it stands now, though, the plan is for a young Han Solo movie set in the time period between Star Wars Episode III and IV, while the Boba Fett film would be slotted into the space either between Episode IV and V or between Episodes V and VI.

Obviously, a young Han Solo film would require some new casting, though I suppose that Harrison Ford could come back if some sort of framing device were needed. The Expanded Universe of Star Wars novels and comics have fleshed out Han’s background with a short career in the Imperial Navy that ended with him freeing Chewbacca and other wookies from slavery and fleeing into the galactic underworld to live as a smuggler. That’s certainly some fertile grounds for a story if whoever is developing the script chooses not to head off in their own direction story-wise. Noted Star Wars author Timothy Zahn recently published a Han Solo adventure set between Episodes IV and V titled Scoundrels, but EW’s sources state that the film is not an adaptation of the book.

Given that Boba Fett is a clone of his father Jango, played by Temuera Morrison in Episode II – Attack Of The Clones, I suppose it is possible that the actor could come back to play his own son. And given that Boba saw his own father’s death at the hands of the Jedi, there is plenty of potential for some high drama to be played out in a solo film.

There is no word yet as to whether the two known standalone film writers Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinberg are working on either of these projects, the aforementioned Yoda film or are scripting other ones yet to be revealed.

Captain America director Joe Johnston, who designed Boba Fett’s armor back when he was a special effects artist at Lucasfilm, has stated that he would love to direct a Boba Fett film, though that was way back in the summer of 2011. Coincidence or was Johnston already hinting that he knew George Lucas was thinking about selling his Star Wars empire to Disney and that there would be new films?

It’s nothing that we hadn’t really known already, but Disney CEO Bob Iger confirmed to CNBC this afternoon that the studio was indeed developing some standalone Star Wars films in addition to the officially announced new trilogy that was first unveiled back in October.

There has been speculation about some stand-alone films that are in development. I can confirm to you today that, in fact, we are working on a few stand-alone films. Larry Kasdan and Simon Kinberg are both working on films derived from great Star Wars characters that are not part of the overall saga. We still plan to make Episodes 7, 8, and 9, roughly over a six-year period of time, starting in 2015. There are going to be a few other films released in that time, too.”

While he doesn’t confirm this morning’s rumor that one of those films would center on Jedi Master Yoda, his statement that the films will be “derived from great Star Wars characters” certainly doesn’t preclude it either.

The real interesting part of Iger’s announcement is that the standalone films will start to be released in the same time frame of the new trilogy. Previously ever one assumed that they wouldn’t be produced until after the new trilogy was completed, somewhere around 2020 or later. That does leave open the possibility that some side story branching off from the main sequel trilogy could be the subject of one of the standalone films as well. Imagine, perhaps, a Jedi artifact is discovered and becomes something key in the new trilogy. A standalone film could fill out its backstory by detailing an adventure involving it and Yoda for example. There are some interesting possibilities suggested here, especially if you look at the success another Disney corporate sibling, Marvel Studios, has had with their unique approach to franchise management.

Here’s the complete CNBC interview with Iger.

We know that Disney is looking at their acquisition of Lucasfilm as a way to not only launch a new Star Wars trilogy but keep the franchise going beyond that with a new film every two to three years in perpetuity. We even know that while Michael Arndt is working on the screenplays for the new trilogy, Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinberg are working on scripts for two of these possible standalone features.

Now we have another piece of the standalone film puzzle, as AintItCool is reporting that one of the films being developed centers around the character of Jedi Master Yoda. Harry doesn’t have any further information, not even whose script is the Yoda project, though my money would be on Kasdan’s.

Although some might dismiss Yoda as supporting character not capable of fronting a solo film, I think it is an inspired choice. With a centuries-long lifespan, there is a lot of Star Wars galaxy history where the story can be set. We could have a story about a young Yoda learning the ways of the Force as a fledgling padawan, Yoda mentoring a young Qui-Gon Jinn or even see him leading troops into battle during the Clone Wars. Hopefully, we won’t just get a two hour version of This Old Dagobah Mud Hut.

And since Yoda is a CG creation, he is a very practical choice to lead a movie. Barring recasting, a tricky proposition at best, time is the big enemy to revisiting past Star Wars characters in a new film. By the time this new trilogy is finished, Harrison Ford will be nearly 80. Is he going to want to do a Han Solo, errr, solo film at that point?

So what other characters migt be under consideration for their own feature? Harry seems to think that Lucas has been talking up a Jabba the Hutt film, which, with him also being a CG created character, would also fit in with some of the reasoning of going with Yoda for a standalone film.

We probably won’t be seeing these standalone films until after the new trilogy is complete, so look forward to seeing Yoda, Jabba or anyone else in action sometime after 2020 or so.

Lucasfilm has put a halt to their plans to theatrically release all six Star Wars films visually remastered for 3D.

In a statement, the Disney subsidiary stated that it was cancelling the 3D releases of Star Wars: Episode II – Attack Of The Clones and Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge Of The Sith in order to “focus 100 percent of our efforts on Star Wars: Episode VII in order to ensure the best possible experience for our fans.”

The 3D rerelease of Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace hit theaters last February and the remaining two prequel films were scheduled for release this coming October and November. The Phantom Menace‘s $43 million box office was only a tenth of what the film pulled in when it was first released in 1999. I would not be surprised if that might have played a part in the decision. In fact, I guessed that something like this could happen back in June 2011 if the box office receipts weren’t up to snuff. (I also wasn’t thrilled that the conversions were being handled by the same production house that did the post-conversion for the Clash Of The Titans remake.)

Although the original Star Wars trilogy was covered in Disney’s original announcement, no release date had been announced for them.

It’s not known how much conversion work has already been done on Episode II and III, though I would suspect that it will be quietly completed, if only so Disney has the conversions ready for an eventual home video release if 3D television manages to take off.

Well, that was fun to speculate about while it lasted.

Zack Snyder’s reps have told The Hollywood Reporter that the Man Of Steel director is not developing a Star Wars film for Disney and Lucasfilm.

While he is super flattered because he is a huge fan, Zack is not involved in any way with the new Star Wars. He is currently in post on his two films, Man of Steel and 300: Battle of Artemisia.

The rep further clarified that he is not working on any of the three installments of the recently announced sequel trilogy or any standalone spinoff films.

Earlier today, Vulture reported a story from anonymous sources within Disney that Snyder was in the process of developing a standalone Star Wars film whose storyline would be inspired by Akira Kurosawa’s classic The Seven Samurai. While it certainly sounded like it could be a fun idea, I guess it looks like that is all that it will be.

Unless, of course, Snyder’s reps are lying. Remember that Vulture was ultimately right about Michael Arndt handling the writing chores for Star Wars: Episode VII.

Zack Snyder is developing a Star Wars film from Lucasfilm/Disney but it will not be the already announced Star Wars: Episode VII.

Vulture is reporting that the film will actually be a standalone adventure drawing its inspiration from Akira Kurosawa’s classic The Seven Samurai, centering on a group of Jedi Knights on a mission. Additionally, the film will not carry an episode number but may be set in the post-Original Trilogy timeframe that the recently announced trilogy of films will be set.

If this film does turn out to be set concurrently with the upcoming sequel trilogy, it suggest that the Jedi Order has been reestablished. While this is something that has been established in the Expanded universe novels, the future films aren’t necessarily beholden to the continuity of the books and comics series.

Disney isn’t commenting on the report, unsurprisingly, but I can’t imagine that we would see this film any time soon. Episode VII is tentatively scheduled for a 2015 release. Presumably the studio would want to release the other two installments of the new trilogy on their announced every-twoto-three-years schedule before going to any standalone films, which would put the first available slot that this film could occupy in 2021.

The Seven Samurai has already been adapted into a couple of different genres, becoming the classic western The Magnificent Seven and the Roger Corman sci-fi pic Battle Beyond The Stars.

There are no other details right now, though I would expect that there will be a flurry of quotes from Snyder this summer once he starts doing the publicity rounds for Man Of Steel.

To say that last week’s announcement that Disney was acquiring George Lucas’s Lucasfilm empire for the price of $4 billion rocked movie fandom and their corner of the internet would be an understatement. But amidst the excitement of the announcement, there were some voices that were dubious if not downright negative about the news. To those we offer the following reasons why

1. – We are getting new Star Wars films. Kind of obvious, but let’s face it, after the battering that he took from fans over the infamous changing of the Han/Greedo confrontation for the Star Wars: Special Edition and over the course of creating the prequel films, Lucas was never going to make another live action Star Wars film. He just did not want to put himself through that ringer again and I can’t say that I would blame him. True, he did waffle back and forth as to whether he had a six or nine film series planned, but by the time Episode III – Revenge Of The Sith came out, he was done. And his adamant statement that he is stopping at six and that the franchise was always going to be the story of Anakin’s fall and eventual redemption at the hands of his son Luke , had more than a tinge of weariness to it.

2. – George Lucas will not be too involved with these movies. One of the major complaints that have been leveled at the prequel trilogy is that while Lucas may have a great imagination for creating these worlds in a galaxy far, far away, he is not that strong a storyteller and that while his best work had come in collaboration with others, he was surrounded by people who were afraid to voice a dissenting opinion to anything he proposed. That may or may not be an accurate read of the situation, but as pretty much the sole writer and the director of the prequel trilogy, ultimately the responsibility for the prequel films’ deficiencies must be laid at his feet. With Lucas only contributing a story treatment that will get further developed by outside writers, much in the way the screenplays for The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi were written by others from an outline by Lucas, I think we stand a good chance to have strong storytelling returning to the franchise.

Furthermore, look at much of the Expanded Universe material that has come out that fans have liked more than the prequels – The Clone Wars animated series, many of the novels and comics and the Knights Of The Old Republic video game series. This was all created with very minimal to no input from Lucas, so perhaps him just hanging back with the honorific title of “Creative Consultant” isn’t such a bad idea. And that leads to -

3. – The possibilities fresh blood has to offer. How many filmmakers working today were inspired in their career choice by seeing the Star Wars films in their youth? And how many of them probably have a Star Wars story that they would love to tell? Granted, there is a certain tier of director that would probably pass on doing a Star Wars film for whatever reason. I can appreciate that taking one on could seem very daunting.

But let your imagination run riot for a moment and think about what a Star Wars film from the likes of Brad Bird (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol), Gore Verbinski (Pirates Of The Caribbean), Jon Favreau (Iron Man) or Rupert Wyatt (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes) could be like. How about a Star Wars film from someone like Attack The Block director Joe Cornish? Maybe Joss Whedon could do one after he finishes off overseeing the next couple of years of Marvel’s films. How about one from Hong Kong director Tsui Hark, who has stated that his work has been influenced heavily by the original Star Wars films? A friend of mine has always wanted to see a Boba Fett film directed by John Woo, and now, why not? The possibilities are endless.

4. – Disney knows how to manage their companies and knows when to leave well enough alone. Take a look at Disney’s handling of Marvel Entertainment and Pixar, or perhaps I should say non-handling. Outside of Disney pulling back very comics licensing agreements from other publishers and reassigning them to Marvel, it appears as if they have been hands off since they bought the company in 2009. The result – a billion dollar franchise in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Likewise, Disney has pretty much allowed Pixar to continue working in the same way that they always have. They recognize that the animation studio’s unique corporate culture has produced some amazing results and have let them continue as they have always worked.

While it is yet to be seen how much latitude Disney will give Lucasfilm, the company’s new president Kathleen Kennedy has an incredible track record as a producer for Steven Spielberg and others with ET, the Jurassic Park and the Back To The Future trilogies on her resume, so I think that they’ll leave her to her own devices for the time being.

5. – Maybe one last really good Indiana Jones film. Disney has been very vocal about the fact that the reason they were acquiring Lucasfilm was for the Star Wars brand and that everything else in the deal was a nice extra. But one of nicer extras is the Indiana Jones franchise. And while the franchise does come with some legal ties to distributor Paramount Pictures that would need to be addressed, there is some room for Disney to negotiate some sort of deal that would be beneficial to all. But would director Steven Spielberg and star Harrison Ford want to come back for a fifth installment? Given that in their post-Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull interviews they expressed some dissatisfaction with portions of the film that were derived from Lucas’s input, I would think that they would be interested in coming back to close out the franchise on their own terms.