ST Disney, Star Wars and the "Industry".

No, that schedule makes sense for Marvel. There's only so many Marvel characters that Disney can do movies on until you get down to your "Ant-Mans" and whatever.

So Marvel is finite, unless Disney wants to create new characters for the Avengers to replace the current actors and the character they're currently portraying (which I imagine they can easily do). Otherwise, no, you're going to have to continually reboot the Avengers once the current actors get too old to play their parts. So you're going to have to have a new Captain America and Ironman and so on... Or yes, either reboot it or continue on with new actors in the same roles, whichever one Disney feels will work best. So yeah, it makes sense to get everything they can out of the current actors. Moreover, we all know Disney's going to have to eventually get someone to takeover for Robert Downy Jr., so at that point we'll know if they'll reboot everything or just continue on with a new actor as Ironman, or a third option is to give the Avengers a rest for a period.

Star Wars is different because it's not finite. I assume most of us feel that Star Wars can exist without Han, Luke and Leia. This of course will be put to the test with the Sequel Trilogy, but I think most believe it can be done. So, and I'm obviously not saying anything new here, but Star Wars can go on forever and is not reliant on having a "Captain America" or "Ironman," or a Han, Luke and Leia in Star Wars' case to anchor it. So the metrics are different with Star Wars.

So Disney can easily do a batch of 6 or 7 Star Wars movies, then pause for a handful of years, and then do another batch of movies with a new set of characters.

And this is what will happen. I have foreseen it. [And I'm doing this on my iPad, so insert smiley face here]

 

The merchandising madness began mostly after Star Wars became a smash hit in the cinemas, but I am sure you know that.

 

Which is fine, because that's not all that Star Wars, as it was, was all about. Not by a long shot. This sensibility where Star Wars is always seen as being cutting-edge emerged from a situation in the mid-1970s when there were no visual effects firms at all capable of doing the original ANH, nor had anyone in a filmgoing audience been exposed to effects of that quality. It was easy for the film to establish a reputation as being a cutting-edge technological advancement when there really were few to almost NO films of that standard already out there. And the effects then HAD to be of a higher standard than was out there then if the film was going to work at all. But now? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of effects firms out there and they all do work of a high standard, for the most part. For this reason alone, there's not much of a chance for Episode VII to be groundbreaking when there's very little ground left to break to just get your story told.

And as far as "cultural phenomenons" go, the fact is that that stopped for Star Wars in 1999; that was the last time I truly remember the franchise being a cultural event. That happened because it was out of the public eye for sixteen years; it's utterly unrealistic to expect that could ever happen now, and that's fine too. Why should Star Wars hog that spotlight forever? Wasn't years at a time enough? And haven't there been films since that have pushed the envelope in ways that Star Wars, by its very design, simply can't do? To even try would be to risk making Star Wars into something it's not; and that's more important to me now than whether it advances film technology or not. All the technological advancement in the world makes no difference if the film it supports is badly done. A good film matters more, as it always has, than the technical means used to make it.

So what will Star Wars be now? What it's supposed to be now: an entertaining and (hopefully) educational and/or enlightening story, about characters we find either likeable and/or interesting, which takes its audience to emotional highs and/or lows and leaves them at the end feeling like they got their money's worth. But that's what Star Wars ALWAYS was, and what it's ALWAYS supposed to be, first and foremost, regardless of what technological methods are used to make it. Why, I ask rhetorically, should that be considered a lesser goal than to advance effects technology? If that's the priority (and I'm not saying it is for Darth PJ, just to be clear), then that's a complete 180-degree misinterpretation of how films in general are supposed to work, to say nothing of Star Wars in particular. And I only need to quote G-Walt himself (back when he had his head still screwed on right) to assert this truth: "Special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story. People have a tendency to confuse them as an end to themselves. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing."

 

I think you are convulting quite a simple point I was making... namely that people need to keep expecatations in check. We had/have massive expectations about these movies and as much as people try and intelecutalise them, they work on a quite simple level (which isn't to say they are not intelligent and well cradfted films). I don't know about you but I got into Star Wars by seeing that expance of a yellow alien planet, with the biggest spaceship I'd ever seen flying overhead. It was the visuals that got me hooked (plus the sound and score). Again, of course there's more to it than that... but people do want to be wowed by bombast and effects... and my point was that is much harder to do these days. You mention the effects being a 'tool'... which is true... but conversley, where would Star Wars be without groundbreaking and great visuals/effects? They'd certainly be lesser works IMHO... and I think history would view them as lesser if ANH had the same calibre of effects as Battlestar Galactica.

 

I don't think Disney has done anything as embarrassingly shameless as Lucas' releasing TCW's crappy tv pilot in theaters. At least Disney puts it's crappy spin offs and made for tv sequels where they belong; direct to video.

I also want to know what artistic purpose the Ewok movies and Droids cartoons served. LMAO

 

I'm not sure why you think a cinematic release for TCW is "shameless" unless you have zero understanding of how these things work. Seems to me they released TWC in cinemas because... 1) They believed the calibre of animation was worth a cinematic release. 2) They thought it would be good PR for the show... Not sure how "shameless" comes into it... :/

 

The theatrical releases of:

• 102 Dalmatians
• Snow Dogs
• The Princess Diaries 2
• The Haunted Mansion

Come to mind.

I never once suggested or implied everything Lucasfilm ever produced was amazing, so this has zip to do with my point.

My point was that Disney has a FAR stronger history of milking things into the ground than Lucasfilms ever approached.

 

I don't like the word "shameless" but fact is that it was nothing more than a cash grab because it was originally going to be on TV then they decided "hey let's take the first 3 episodes and charge people $10 to see it!" So it was cobbled together at the last minute into a feature film instead of TV shows. The production values were nowhere near major motion picture quality. It was nothing more than paying money to watch TV at the theater.

 

Unless you have the data to hand (and I'm not denying you haven't), your statement seems to assume that... 1) There's an agreed criteria/definition (certainly one that I'm not aware of) that outlines the required production values associated with a cinema release. 2) "Paying money to watch TV in the theatre" is a compulsory rather than voluntary act. 3) That this isn't about business.

 

Kind of like the pilot for the original Battlestar Galactica being released theatrically.


As far as whether TCW was a "shameless" cash grab, I can't say.

But it was a very sound business decision. The thing was made pretty cheaply for a contemporary animated film with a theatrical run, made back over 7x it's budget in the theaters alone (nevermind merch and home media hauls), and launched off the TV show in as big and pronounced a way possible.

 

One man's "sound business decision" is another man's "cash grab." You admit it was made very cheaply and I agree: The production value was not the quality of what would be expected from a feature film. It's actually a bit embarrassing when you look at what Pixar was doing during the same time period.

I don't begrudge them their right to make a dollar and a cent, I'm just saying it's silly the way people treat Lucas as some high minded, benevolent deity not interested in making money whereas Disney is an evil, greedy, corporate spawn of satan. Lucas had a cash cow and he did plenty of milking of his own.

 

Neither are many other films that end up on the silver screen.

 

Actually, I’m afraid I don’t understand. How does continually bringing up the worst aspects of the Star Wars films (rather than forgetting about/ignoring them) improve public perception of the franchise?

I mean, if I were massively concerned with what everyone thought of Star Wars, I would talk all the time about how great the Original Trilogy was, and the highlights of the Expanded Universe. The last thing I would do is remind them about the prequels.

Of course, I’m not a Star Wars fan, just an enthusiast who really likes certain films and enjoys discussing their themes and implications, so I guess I just don’t “get” these things.

The ironic thing is, as a Star Wars enthusiast, I’m just not capable of ignoring what happens to the Star Wars films series and what happens around it. Ergo, that making a film a year for the sake of it, with no artistic rhyme or reason, has the potential to be mediocre.

And you know what? George Lucas doesn’t enter into it. I’d feel the same if he was doing it as I do with KK, JJ and co at the helm. Maybe now that he’s barely involved in Star Wars, we as a fandom (and surrounding enthusiasm) can get past him and look at the actual issues involved?

 

True, but I hold Star Wars to a higher standard (which I think all of us probably do). Even the low-budget E4 was a ground-breaking movie in so many ways. I don't care if Will Ferrell's newest movie is low quality crap, but I sure don't want to see that from Star Wars. And the Clone Wars movie, when compared to other animated motion pictures of the day, was low quality crap.

 

I do talk about the original trilogy all the time. But others here are in a prequel mindset 24/7, constantly reminding me of crappy prophecy plots or the overly strong Jedi focus.

Fair enough. Though I find it weird that I see these complaints more often after the Disney deal, as if there was no reason to complain before with the crappy novels, books, and 3D conversions. Additionally, the complaints are about movies that are not even in the cinema. It is almost as if some have an agenda to bash KK and JJ so that Lucas looks better in comparison.
But it doesn't work. If JJ and KK produce crap, I won't love Lucas any more because of that. I will still find his attitude and especially his political views reprehensible. I might just turn my back on the entirety of Star Wars and tell everyone who asks how much this franchise sucks and why.

 

I'm sorry but TCW movie is not "low quality crap" (and I don't even like TCW movie). Sure, I agree, it has the production values best suited to television (as that's how it was conceived)... but just because 'they' thought it made good business sense to give it a cinematic release doesn't magically make the technical merits/application of it "crap".

 

Political views? I've been a fan for decades and I couldn't tell you two things about George Lucas' political views. Is there some big controversy here that I've managed to miss?

And what would George's personal politics have to do with Star Wars? Unless you're suggesting you loathe the newer SW films because you believe George used them to further some nefarious political agenda?

 

Ding Ding Ding!

But just to keep the thread from derailing, perhaps Lucas' political views (which I'm in COMPLETE agreement with you on, by the way), should be reserved for PMs. I'm certainly not against discussing them; I just don't know if THIS thread is the spot.

 

Yes to both.

George Lucas is anti-democratic.

https://partners.nytimes.com/library/film/032199lucas-wars-excerpts.html

Most important statement:
"That's sort of why I say a benevolent despot is the ideal ruler. He can actually get things done. The idea that power corrupts is very true and it's a big human who can get past that."

 

Okay, I have to ask: who has an agenda to make Lucas look better?

To be perfectly honest, the only agendas I see in regards to George Lucas are ones to criticise him. Any scepticism about the new films is pounced upon as if it were a personal endorsement of George Lucas.

That's why I called for the fans here to get over George Lucas and look at the actual movies and the decisions behind them. I'm not here to discuss Lucas, I'm here to discuss Star Wars.

 

Obviously the decisions behind the previous movies - and the ST ones - have all to do with George Lucas.

 

But we're not discussing the previous movies. We're discussing the new ones. Films written by Lawrence Kasdan and Simon Kinsberg, directed by JJ Abrams and produced by Kathleen Kennedy. The only connection we have to Lucas is some vague talk about treatments, which for all we know have been altered beyond all recognition.

Star Wars and George Lucas are no longer synonymous. No one person is synonymous with Star Wars any more. So we have to move beyond individuals and look at the collective consciousness driving the franchise.

 

Everyone and their mothers is talking about KK and JJ and Kasdan and Kinberg. But we also talk about Lucas because it would be insane to not talk about the guy who delivered the treatments on which the new movies are based upon.

Deal with it.

 

I'm willing to bet there are more references to Lucas in this forum than every one of these people combined.

I find it hard to deal with constantly being attacked because any unease with the new production strategy is interpreted as crying over GL's departure.