In the twelve hours since news of Disney purchasing Lucasfilm broke, I’ve heard a lot of negative feedback with regards to the new Star Wars films being made. I’ve heard a lot of things like “Hasn’t it been desecrated enough? When will it end?!?!” and “Why God why must they continue to destroy my childhood?!”

The way I see it, Disney is going into this deal with the mindset of “Ok, let’s save Star Wars.” Because, let’s be real here, it needs to be saved. In 1999, George Lucas took everything that was awesome about Star Wars, made a list, and said to himself, “Ok we don’t need any of this.” The interesting intricate story, well written fleshed out characters, and adventurous atmosphere of the original three movies were nowhere to be found in the prequels. It’s almost as if they were made by a different person. What a lot of people don’t realize is, they kind of were.

In 1977, when George Lucas was making A New Hope he was 33 years old and had only made two movies. Fox Studios was not about to let him make this huge production and allow him complete creative control. The studio reigned in some of his ideas and that really did shape Star Wars into what it was. As a writer and a director Lucas really is someone who shouldn’t be allowed to do whatever he wants because, and the proof speaks for itself, he has a lot of bad ideas. He was going to make Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to be about a Haunted Castle, but Spielberg wouldn’t let him because he knew that was a stupid idea. Then, when you look at Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, Lucas didn’t really have anything to do creatively with either of those movies. He stepped back and produced while he allowed others to write and direct.

Fast forward to 1999, George Lucas is directing not only his his first Star Wars film since 1977, but his first film in general since 1977. The difference is now; he’s been attributed with creating the Star Wars Trilogy; which, at the time, was the highest grossing film franchise ever. So who was Fox Studios to step in and tell him how to make his movies? Lucas had made them so much money, why should they step in and hinder his creative process? So they didn’t. Now here was George Lucas stepping back into a franchise which hadn’t really been his for over twenty years, and trying to figure out what was what again.

The finished product we wound up with was a set of three truly awful movies that make Oscar winning and nominated actors (Liam Neeson, Samuel L. Jackson, Natalie Portman) look like some of the worst actors ever. I really think that what happened was somewhere along the line, he forgot how to make movies. You can really see how blatantly this is the case simply by pulling any scene out of the prequels and looking at, not only the writing and acting, but also even the staging of the shots, as well as the exorbitant use of CGI. It’s “How Not to Make Movies 101 with George Lucas.” Through this he was able to make ridiculous amounts of money, and make a lot of men living in their mother’s basements very very unhappy.

Now there is talk of a seventh, a further continuation of the Star Wars Saga. This is different though, George Lucas is stepping aside, he is allowing someone else to take his franchise and continue it without him. I don’t know why people aren’t seeing the opportunity here. If this franchise was to be given to someone who is not only an adept filmmaker, but also someone who loves Star Wars, we could be seeing the best Star Wars movie since the Empire struck back. I know people are turned off by the fact that Disney is the company that now owns the rights, worried that it’s going to be even more kid-friendly than it was in the prequels, and that it’s going to be lame. To those people all I have to say is go watch The Avengers. Disney bought Marvel and that relationship seems to be working out just fine for all parties involved. All Disney’s involvement is going to mean is a virtually unlimited budget and endorsements, as well as a shelf in the Disney Store.

Personally, I staunchly believe that the perfect candidate to direct this new movie would be J.J. Abrams, only because of how well he handled Star Trek. He took a series that was dead, and made it accessible to everyone, have it get great reviews, and it made a lot of money to boot. Handing the reigns of Star Wars over to him would be the equivalent of handing Marvel over to Joss Whedon, and we all know how well that worked out.

I really do think this is something to be looked at positively. It means that our last memories of Star Wars aren’t going to involve Hayden Christiansen, and if the movie sucks… then at least George Lucas will have someone to share the blame with.

See also:

Original announcement: Disney purchasing Lucasfilm, creating more Star Wars films.
George Lucas and Mickey Mouse: A relationship decades in the making (a pictorial).
Hypable Opinion: Disney’s purchase of LucasArts offers gaming potential.
The 19 funniest, most insightful tweets about Disney purchasing Star Wars.

The final 10 episodes of Pretty Little Liars will air starting in April 2017.

The news was announced via Facebook Live by the Pretty Little Liars creator, Marlene King, along with the stars of the show, Troian Bellisario, Ashley Benson, Lucy Hale, Shay Mitchell, and Sasha Pieterse. You can still watch the video on the official Pretty Little Liars Facebook page.

The conclusion of the show has been rumored for quite a while now, with King even stating earlier in the year that season 7 would likely be the end of Pretty Little Liars “as we know it.” However, up until now, speculation continued about how the show could potentially continue past its seventh season.

Read full article

The final 10 episodes of Pretty Little Liars will air starting in April 2017.

The news was announced via Facebook Live by the Pretty Little Liars creator, Marlene King, along with the stars of the show, Troian Bellisario, Ashley Benson, Lucy Hale, Shay Mitchell, and Sasha Pieterse. You can still watch the video on the official Pretty Little Liars Facebook page.

The conclusion of the show has been rumored for quite a while now, with King even stating earlier in the year that season 7 would likely be the end of Pretty Little Liars “as we know it.” However, up until now, speculation continued about how the show could potentially continue past its seventh season.

A possible film was previously discussed as an option to end the series, but that seems to be off the table now. The series finale will now be a “two-hour, drama-filled television event.”

As for what we can expect for the final 10 episodes of Pretty Little Liars, it will “continue to be filled with homecomings and reunions.” We’ve already seen so many familiar and forgotten faces in season 7, so it will be nice to be able to say a final goodbye to even more characters.

On top of the returning characters, we can also expect a wedding! Obviously Ezria is the couple to watch for this, since they recently got engaged, but you never really know with Pretty Little Liars.

The summer finale of Pretty Little Liars season 7 is airing tomorrow, August 30, so we will have a long wait before the final 10 episodes air in April 2017.

The series finale will be followed by the premiere of Marlene King’s new series, Famous In Love. If you need a Pretty Little Liars fix after the show ends, this may be a good show for you to check out!

Famous In Love will be another one-hour drama that will supposedly “put the spotlight on the dark side of fame.” It is based on the novel of the same name, written by Rebecca Serle.

How do you feel about ‘Pretty Little Liars’ ending with season 7?

Behind-the-scenes looks at next year’s live-action Beauty and the Beast continue to leak off the animated film’s 25th Anniversary Edition, arriving in September.

Today we have four new previews. This one’s a particular doozy because we get to see a first look (sort of) at Emma Watson as Belle, who has yet to be unveiled in full. The dress she’s wearing in this concept art may be best remembered from the animated movie for its appearance in the scenes surrounding the song “Belle”:

beauty-and-the-beast-belle-emma-watson

Read full article

Behind-the-scenes looks at next year’s live-action Beauty and the Beast continue to leak off the animated film’s 25th Anniversary Edition, arriving in September.

Today we have four new previews. This one’s a particular doozy because we get to see a first look (sort of) at Emma Watson as Belle, who has yet to be unveiled in full. The dress she’s wearing in this concept art may be best remembered from the animated movie for its appearance in the scenes surrounding the song “Belle”:

beauty-and-the-beast-belle-emma-watson

Three pieces of concept art appear to have been drawn up for the costume department. We’re also getting a look at Gaston (Luke Evans) and Mrs. Potts (Emma Thompson):

beauty-and-the-beast-mrs-potts

beauty-and-the-beast-gaston

Finally, we have a shot of Luke Evans and a woman rehearsing a dance scene that appears to take place on top of a table. In the background you can see additional concept art depicting Mrs. Potts (in kettle form), Chip, and a piano (who might be played by Stanley Tucci and named Cadenza):

beauty-and-the-beast-belle

Last week we got to see several other first looks from this same behind-the-scenes featurette, including Dan Stevens as the Beast (human form), Cogsworth, and Lumière.

At this rate, the whole behind-the-scenes look may be spoiled by the time the Beauty and the Beast 25th Anniversary Edition is released to the world on September 20.

The live-action Beauty and the Beast arrives this March and is directed by Bill Condon.

Report: Warner Bros. wants Daniel Radcliffe to return for ‘Cursed Child’ movie

File this one under: Crazy rumor that's also somehow... plausible? (But it's probably not gonna happen.)

10:49 am EDT, August 29, 2016

If Warner Bros. are indeed working on a movie version of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, they’ll likely be looking to bring back the o.g. Harry himself, Daniel Radcliffe.

At least that’s the hot buzz from NY Daily News, whose “Tinseltown sources” also say that a movie version of the play could arrive as early as 2020, and that it might evolve into a trilogy about Harry and his son Albus.

Daniel Radcliffe — the same Daniel Radcliffe who proclaimed in 2010 that “I’m working very hard to establish myself as an actor outside of this series,” and who hasn’t even been to see Cursed Child yet — is reportedly Warner Bros.’ choice to play Harry in the series, which (as unlikely as it is to actually happen) may very well be true.

Read full article

If Warner Bros. are indeed working on a movie version of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, they’ll likely be looking to bring back the o.g. Harry himself, Daniel Radcliffe.

At least that’s the hot buzz from NY Daily News, whose “Tinseltown sources” also say that a movie version of the play could arrive as early as 2020, and that it might evolve into a trilogy about Harry and his son Albus.

Daniel Radcliffe — the same Daniel Radcliffe who proclaimed in 2010 that “I’m working very hard to establish myself as an actor outside of this series,” and who hasn’t even been to see Cursed Child yet — is reportedly Warner Bros.’ choice to play Harry in the series, which (as unlikely as it is to actually happen) may very well be true.

After all, as amazing as Jamie Parker is as Harry Potter on stage, Warner Bros., must be aware that most Harry Potter fans won’t be able to see the play live, and therefore wouldn’t necessarily be as hyped about a ‘Harry Potter movie’ that didn’t star the actors from the original movie series.

Related: Have you read all of Hypable’s original Cursed Child coverage? (There’s a lot!)

As NY Daily News notes, however, Radcliffe is very much doing his own thing, with even the sources admitting that he’d “need some persuading” before agreeing to reprise the role he’s trying very hard to distance himself from.

Aside from this small inconvenience, there are plenty of other reasons why this would not — and perhaps should not — work out.

First of all, Dan Radcliffe is currently 27 years old, and if Warner Bros. was really planning the Cursed Child movie for 2020, he’d have to play the part of a 36-40-year-old Harry in the movie at age >30. We all remember how awkward the Deathly Hallows epilogue turned out, and we’re sure there aren’t many of us who’d want an hours-long version of that (for not to mention the possibility that they’d split this story into two movies).

Second, once they got Radcliffe back, they’d have to get everyone else, too. You couldn’t just have the original Harry back while introducing a brand new Hermione, Ron, Draco, Ginny, etc.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly: Daniel Radcliffe is not Harry Potter. While movie fans will probably always see Radcliffe’s face when thinking about the character, he existed on the pages of the novel series first, which means a potential Cursed Child movie wouldn’t be recasting anyone if they went with new actors — they’d simply pick a new, older set of actors to embody the iconic characters.

Having seen the play on stage, this writer would personally much rather see the original Cursed Child cast reprise their roles for any eventual movie version that Warner Bros. puts together. A lot of the play’s success hinges on these actors’ performances and chemistry, and it’d be a shame to lose that magic on screen.

Would you want to see Daniel Radcliffe back as Harry Potter in a ‘Cursed Child’ movie?