TV Discussion Official Live Action Series Discussion Thread

The way I see it, oversaturation of SW material could potentially be a risk, especially if they run two similar television series simultaneously, i.e. Rebels and perhaps an Underworld series taking place during the same time period. Even if the latter series is more 'adult', it will probably still at least occasionally feature the "major players" of this time period like Vader and the Emperor and then you can potentially risk SW fatigue.

On the other hand, as I've mentioned in this post, if you set the LAS during a different time period from Rebels, then anakinfansince1983 's point about exploring a different part of the universe and a different time period should help alleviate some of that saturation risk. A different cast of characters, a different setting, and a different time period to allow us to explore different aspects of an extremely vast universe. For example they can set the new LAS sometime in between RotJ and the ST, to either adapt some existing EU stories (like the NJO) but featuring a different cast of characters during the same period (assuming they stick with most of the EU in the ST) or use this show to establish a new EU set between RotJ and Ep VII, or even between the episodes of the new trilogy, so that they can tell us some completely new stories. Of course, in this case the LAS will probably not come into fruition until at least Episode VII is released, or perhaps even after the entire trilogy has been released.

Point is, there are many possibilities for the LAS that might not risk oversaturating the SW market, particularly if Disney plays their cards right and make it distinct from Rebels, and potentially start airing it after Rebels has ended or at least has started winding down.

 

You don't want to see the Purge? The official description I read said the show will feature the Purge, and that's what has me most psyched for it by far.

 

Edit: Nevermind, Misread that.

 

I saw Jedi shot in the back across the galaxy and Anakin taking on the Jedi Temple with the 501st. There is nothing about the idea of seeing the Empire hunt down stragglers to really get me excited and it's just yet more Jedi in a show supposedly about Rebels. The Jedi are a symbol of the Old Republic, so maybe a couple of them can be killed by Vader in the very first episode to really set the tone of where the galaxy sits at this point in time. But I don't want to see reoccurring Jedi or Vader/the Empire going out and killing more and more Jedi every episode. That to me sounds like the exact opposite of what they should be doing if they want to follow a Marvel style setup with various sub-franchises in film and TV prospering.

 

The Purge isn't my thing. It's just a bunch of redshirts dying.

 

To me the question is "Are there going to Force-users?" and I want that answer to be "Yes." If there's no Purge, I don't think we're gonna get any Force-users at all (except for the likely-to-be-sparsely-used Darth Vader).

 

There is definately no need for Force-users in something that:
1. Revolves around bounty hunters and Hutts.
2. Is aimed at adults.

 

Not sure ABC is the right family for an adult star wars show but lets see how SHIELD goes first.

 

True but honestly some force pushing and lightsaber combat is not breaking the budget.

 

IMO that would be fine and preferable to having Jedi.

The prequels were pretty much about the Jedi. TCW showed The Clone Wars which involved the Jedi front and center fighting for the Republic. The OT begins with a world without Jedi. We then meet Ben, Luke gets some training, but is not engaging in any lightsaber fights or anything until ESB, where he is still fairly poorly trained. We then see the return of the Jedi in... Return of the Jedi, where Luke redeems his father and topples the Emperor, while the Rebels are out there destroying the Death Star.

To bridge TCW with where the OT begins (ANH), I think it would be best to not have any Jedi at all. To return more to the way things were in ANH, more akin to a rag tag group of heroes going up against an impossibly powerful Empire. The plight of the common man. Not the plight of the stoic Jedi generals continuing their fight against the Empire and getting wiped out during the purge. Obi-Wan resurfacing in ANH and beginning Luke's training would bring about the return to prominence of the Jedi and the downfall of the Empire.

I hope they let Rebels, following the fall of the Jedi and preceding The Return of the Jedi, be free of Jedi and let us see the plight of those rag tag heroes and how they held down the fort against the likes of Vader and Palpatine, before the coming of Luke who ultimately scores a major victory against the Empire and saves the Rebels.

 

But I don't feel like in would belong in such a show anyway.

 

It depends on your time period and demographics. If this was an HBO or Showtime show I would agree but network sure unless the model is BSG.

 

That's what I mean when I say a Star Wars show for adults.

 

Why not? We'll have two Once Upon A Time series soon...

Disney is run by very smart people who know exactly what they're doing when it comes to managing entertainment franchises. I don't think you have much to worry about.

 

For what it's worth, the Doctor Who franchise once had three separate television shows running at one time:
- Doctor Who, aimed at all ages
- Torchwood, aimed at adults
- The Sarah Jane Adventures, aimed at kids

It can be done.

 

As compelling as it is I can't imagine an SW show actually going higher than TV-14. SW I think has the image of being for kids and families which was likely one thing Disney thought was appealing. However that can change just how Marvel has everything. The more the better I guess although it should probably cover a different time period or alteast a different place in the GFFA than Rebels does to make thing less confusing to put together.

 

To be honest no matter what anyone thinks about a second television show I don't think there is a need to get very carried away about discussing it based on someone saying that 'they have a glint in their eye'.

 

Also if you read the entire little article you'll notice that the person that wrote it didn't seem to have any knowledge that there already is a star wars television show in development.

 

I suspect there won't be any significant progress on this until the executives in question are able to compare it to whatever success SHIELD enjoys. If it is a runaway hit (and chances are pretty good at it being the case), we will probably see a Star Wars show pushed through the other side of development hell relatively swiftly.

 

Will be interesting to see how much appeal a show set in the marvel universe about people who don't have superpowers will have. Regular network television also requires much higher ratings to keep shows a float then cable networks do. Two or three million viewers for a cable network is considered great but you really need nine or ten million viewers to keep a regular network show safe from cancellation.

 

One wonders why. The networks have to get used to the idea that this isn't 1972 - these days they're just another channel. And as much as I like, say, Once Upon A Time, it's clear from the quality of the CGI and sets that the network isn't spending excessive amounts of money on it. They certainly can't be spending more money per episode on it than HBO is spending on Game of Thrones or Boardwalk Empire.

Old media business models are bust. Ask Bezos - you can write to him in care of the once-mighty newspaper he just bought with his pocket change.

 

DVR's and online streaming is really what changed the landscape of network television ratings. I was a big 'Lost' fan back when it was on and paid attention to television ratings during Lost's run and back about '05/'06 you really had to get about 13 million live viewers just to crack the top 20. Then '07 or so was when DVR boxes really started becoming common place in households. People began to tape shows and then watch them later instead of watching them right when they came on. The result was the live viewing rates for pretty much every show began to really drop to the point to where the highest rated shows were only getting about 13 million live viewers.

Not sure why it is more expensive to run a television show on the main stations but it is. The stations aren't cancelling all these low rated shows just for a good chuckle they are cancelling them because they are not profitable for them (and advertisers tend not to pay attention to dvr ratings because people who watch it on their dvr are just fast forwarding through the commercials). Maybe it is because network television seasons tend to be longer than cable television seasons and that is why it is more expensive.

 

This assumes that TV executives act rationally. It's always tempting for normal working joes to believe that powerful people in charge of big enterprises act rationally - and in fact, got where they are by acting rationally - but the older I get the more I'm sure this isn't the case. Look at how old media has responded to the internet over the past twenty years - has any of that been rational? Institutional inertia, political correctness, faddishness, fear of taking chances, panic in the face of changes in the marketplace... all of these are irrational, and all are everywhere in the old media.

Anybody remember the name of the show that replaced Firefly after it got canceled? I sure don't - and whatever it was, I'm sure people aren't talking about it much ten years later.

 

Well regardless of rather or not you think tv executives act rationally doesn't change the fact that networks will keep shows on the air that are profitable for them and will cancel shows that are not profitable for them. And Firefly got canceled because it only average 4.48 million viewers an episode. That is horrible for network television and especially so back in 2002.