ST Disney, Star Wars and the "Industry".

This x1000.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

Ya, superhero movies suck. That's why we get 3 or 4 a year and they all make hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

OK.

 

No one is saying that superhero movies suck. We are just saying that they don't have the depth and don't resonate like the 6 Star Wars films do. TA might be fun, but there is no myth there. No depth on a mythical level. As simple and fun as ANH was, it had that mythical depth or at least the beginnings of it that was expanded upon as the saga moved forward.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

That's because "The Avengers" and the Marvel Cinematic Universe were not created as modern day myths like "Star Wars" was. They're created as a means of showing off the intellectual properties that Marvel owns and reaching an audience that they cannot with comics.

 

Not to turn this into a "Star Wars vs. superheroes" thread, but I also think part of why the Star Wars movies have a resonance that Marvel movies don't is because in Star Wars movies, things only happen once. Yes, Lucas went back and tweaked the presentation, but it's not the same thing. For superheroes... in our terms, it's as though everything ever made is EU. You can either accept that your favorite stories will decay and lose relevance, or you can go the "it all happened, it's all canon to me" route and have a timeline where Dr. Doom has always been defeated like 50 times in the last five years.

Spider-Man is a great role, and he's had great adventures, but plenty of actors will inhabit the role of Spider-Man in the future, and he'll have plenty of other adventures that contradict his current ones. I thought the Nolan Batman movies were terrific. Spider-Man 2 was amazing. But the fact is, they will never be even remotely as definitive or enduring, storyline-wise, as Star Wars. I mean, Dark Knight Rises came out in 2012, and they've already recast the role and given Batman a new storyline for a 2016 movie that will not be compatible with the Nolanverse. And in a lot of ways, it's good that comic-book superheroes work like that. It lets you show the same characters updated for new fans. It makes it easy to let go of past mistakes. But the downside is that individual movies never have that same lasting importance that Star Wars movies do. There are going to be more Spider-Man origin stories, but the destruction of the Death Star will only ever happen one way. I never find myself thinking, "What did it mean in Spider-Man 2 when Dr. Octopus said..." because it no longer matters. No new movies are going to carry forward that story, ever.

It won't take a virtuoso performance from Abrams to make Star Wars more than a product on certain levels. Star Wars just works in a way that equips its movies with more importance than the latest Avengers or the like.

 

They will use a similar approach.

Remember that it's an industry.

You know that more people in our world feel the same way regarding Star Wars....but are big time Marvel fans ?

The Avengers have been a steady franchise (in comics at least) since 1963.....and while they don't name drop Joseph Campbell every 2 minutes.....they have depth, resonance and won the race of the longest lasting appeal.

Marvel movies are a success story and Disney will want to duplicate that with SW.

 

Episodes 4 and 5 are literally considered 2 of the best movies ever. That's, like, of all time. It's not fair to compare the most recent superhero movie to E4, say it doesn't match up, then conclude that means the superhero movie is shallow and lacking.

We're on a Star Wars forum, so there is a certain bias in favor of all things Star Wars here, but I'll tell you this: If you asked the average movie goer which movie had more depth and resonance, Avengers or Phantom Menace, you'd hear a lot more "Avengers" responses than not.

 

yeah I don't like the SW vs Comic book comparison, they are not the same and cant be categorized the same, comics NEED to reinvent their heroes because their target audience gets older, then younger. Some of us still read comics-I still do-but don't collect them like I did as a boy; in that regard I can see why Disney targeted the younger audience with Ep1-3, which I was fine with EP1-withstanding. I'm hoping Ep7-9 will target this same audience-in their late teens early 20's and the films will reflect this target demographic

 

And I'm pretty sure that the most anticipated movie of 2015 for the average moviegoers is The Avengers 2, not SW.

It doesn't mean they are better movies...who care when you are a fan........I'm a fan of both franchises so I'm very thrilled to live in today's world....I grew up with SW movies AND marvel comics.

 

YMMV, but IMM Marvel, (insert other comic book franchise here), and the like are not Star Wars. Therefore they do not even merit being mentioned in the same discussion as Star Wars. Of course as noted previously, films based on those comic books have grossed billions, so obviously film going audiences feel differently. I still like MO better.

 

I'm not so sure about that, at least is 50/50 but I think is SW the most anticipated (Original 3 is back, is not written and directed by Lucas, new characters)

 

well last week's poll on comingsoon had The Avengers 2 winning.....but I agree.....it doesn't mean anything...

It's not that I care.......people are currently really into marvel movies.....I can't blame them....Marvel are having a good run and The Avengers are the pinnacle of that run......

SW is not currently building on anything....so I can't blame the voters......they only heard about the casting !

 

I voted that poll also, when I voted SW was upfront. Oh well, we'll see the real test at the box-office.

I agree, the movies are good and entertaining, but I found them very overhyped and overrated.

 

I agree with you but I'm really not worried in the least.

What we are really talking about is the difference between Star Wars as independent movies done by the originator and now the corporate ones being done by imitators that will follow.

The thing is though Lucas did the six that he wanted to do and those are all he was going to do and they will always stand above the others in that they were made by the creator of the whole thing. Like Sherlock Holmes there are the ones done by ACD and then the ones done by everyone else.

So keeping in mind that those 6 originals are the true ultimate canon of Star Wars then the others are just extras that hopefully we think will be pretty good. Some probably won't be to someone. A Boba Fett movie doesn't do a thing for me but hey! I never expected one to ever be made so it's just an bonus and if it's decent all the better.

 

I suspect Star Wars and superhero films will be relegated to the same level for me once the Disney era and its film a year plan really kicks off. Yeah, Star Wars was always about merchandising and releasing a billion new products a year, but at least on the screen itself the series still managed to be a unique event, made by many but truly created/guided by one. Not that I won't be entertained by some of these films, but overall I wish the sequels, spinoffs, reboots, and never-ending stream of releases could've been saved for the superheroes. I think I'd rather see films in an alternate universe where Star Wars ended with six films and artists like Abrams and Arndt were given reign to create their own space epics as opposed to contributing to Disney's 40 year franchise plan.

 

Well he actually said he had outlines for 7-9 and some other movies. That's all they are though outlines. Someone can use the same outline but the transition from that to a treatment then broken down into a story in board and animatic form then into a script then into a shoot then into an edited movie can produce very different movies though the root premise can still be recognized.

That is true to a point though Star Wars really isn't ensemble driven. Really it was Luke and everyone else and outside of TPM which was the split between Qui-Gon, Padme, Anakin and Jar Jar both II and III were really Anakin and how everything else relates to him.

Even Avengers was ultimately Stark at the centre though the others did get their own time but were not of the same importance. I can see some kind of ensemble type feel being used to some degree especially in this first film with the OT characters in a more Qui-Gon like role with the newcomers in more support roles but their are just too many protagonists to split everything up nevermind if they also want antagonists to get more screen time. As far as the Saga goes it's only in III and V and to a degree in VI that we really get more of the antagonists POV.

 

True. Star Wars has always been written by a guy who loves classical mythos and spirituality. It resonate with the audience because it does not limit itself to a simply story about a hero saving the day. The successor to Lucas's empire isn't really Disney but Kennedy. Admittedly she is a good producer and is probably a good story teller in her own right, but I'm not sure she can ever understand Star Wars as well as George Lucas ever did.

She chose to hire Abrams over all the other directors out there, which is someone that have yet to show he is good at understanding classical mythos and invoking a sense of spirituality in the film. Until Disney and Kennedy find a storyteller on par and better than Geroge Lucas to helm the story of the Star Wars saga, I have doubts whether the new Star Wars movies produced by Disney can match the original 6 films.

 

I don't get all the Marvel comparisons in this thread. Marvel is still a huge franchise which is pushing D-list characters and properties to the cinemas and making boatloads of cash off of it. I'd say Star Wars could use a bit of that magic. As long as the spinoffs are clearly separated from the Episodes (like what Marvel has done), I don't think people will get tired of the universe.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

There's more to it than that in the MCU films. "Iron Man" series is about how an arrogant and slightly naive businessman learns that the world is more morally gray than he first thought and has chosen to make it a better place, by not making weapons of war anymore. He has the suits which he wears and controls and will not wind up in the hands of people that he cannot trust, nor can be copied so easily. "Captain America" is the story of a good man who only wants to help people, because he doesn't like bullies and is given the means to do so. And now finds himself in a world which has lost its way and needs guidance once more. "Thor" has all kinds of mythic qualities such as a character being born divinely. Having a conflict with his father and brother. Falling from grace and learning humility. Finding redemption by changing who he is in order to become the man that his father envisions. "The Incredible Hulk" has a man who is struggling against his darker nature which can bring about destruction and chaos if he cannot control himself. "The Avengers" just has all of them teaming together because their lives have intersected.

 

I'm not saying Marvel don't have it in abundance, but the new creative team led by Kennedy have yet to show they are able to match Lucas in storytelling. Is Kennedy or Abrams a better story teller than Lucas?

 

Consider that Kennedy has produced a lot of films that went on to be huge blockbusters, yes. Consider that she was a sounding board for Spielberg on almost all of his movies. As to Abrams, so far he's had a few hit television shows. And of the feature films that he's directed since 2002, pretty much all of them have been hits, I'd say yes. Now, do they have a grasp on the material? Kennedy has because Lucas was the one who picked her to run his company and she's admitted to keeping in touch with him. Abrams? Well, he's got Kasdan on his side and he's talked to Lucas about the development of the story and the universe.

So odds are favorable. Especially with Abrams in comparison to "Star Trek". He didn't have as much interaction with veteran Trek storytellers like he does with Lucas. He had Nimoy, but I'm not sure how much he picked his brain during filming. Probably not as much during the writing phase, especially since they were racing the deadline for the writer's strike.

 

I find the story in Star Trek to be very problematic and disengaging for me as a person who never watched any new Star Trek films before. Kennedy has yet to receive any writing credits despite being heavily invoked in many of Spielberg's film. There is a difference between bouncing off the ideas of someone else, and being able to craft a story independently. We know that Ep 7,8 and 9 is based on the story treatment written by Lucas. But what happens after that? Who will be the new guy to write more story treatment for the spin-offs and many other Star Wars film?

 

Regardless, he's proven a box office draw and this time he's working with a writer who is far better than Orci and Kurtzman.

She's not getting a writing credit. She's got a producer's credit and she has a long list of films that she produced.

Whoever gets hired for the job that proves his or her mettle.

 

It's frankly frightening that Abrams had such a long working relationship with Orci and Kurtzman.