Saga Star Wars - a Galaxy Divided , Can it stand ?

In many respwcts Star Wars is going thru what Trek did when ST TNG premiered.
Many fans of Trek to this day, are deeply divided over wether Gene Roddenberrys vision of the future was carried thru or diminished by what followed the original voyages of Kirk and Spick.
Trek has survived and even has a new series that while controversial is getting a second season.
Can the Star Wars universe continue with some fans loving one era over anither or will this doom the franchise as a whole?
The one concern that I have is that Star Wars, being primarily mivie based, has less depth than Trek as it can be years between something new, as opposed ro a primarily series based franchise with more hours of storyline to choose from.

 

The problem with this discussion that I see is that Disney bought SW to make money. There is NO objective to tell a story, make great SciFi etc. George Lucas was a man that made SW his life and his business and I believe for the large part truly loved what he was doing and what he had built. Disney has just invested in the hope to make returns.

As soon as SW stops making money, is seen as too hard to profit from and a risks high or SW starts to cost them money the decision will be made by accountants and bean counters that it's not worth it.

For Disney, I believe shutting Lucasfilm could be a far easier decision than trying to work out how to make great SW movies.

 

These new Star Wars movies can only rely on nostalgia for so long before casual movie goers get bored. The sequel rehash trilogy is not expanding the universe or doing anything exciting. Say what you want about the prequels, but Lucas wasn't rehashing all of the OT's aesthetics or plot lines. Lucas did a great job with expanding the GFFA in the prequels. He did new things even if the execution wasn't all that great. Lucasfilm needs to give casual fans and movie goers something new. If they can accomplish that then I think the fan base will be one step closer to being reunited once again.

 

Shuttering Lucasfilm won’t happen for a long time. That I am certain of.

 

Not sure how long it takes really matters or that it even changes the premise of my point. However, what are your thoughts on the topic question instead of just disagreeing with my opinion in favor of yours?

 

Isn’t that most posts?

My opinion is that no the Star Wars universe will continue no matter how divided fans become.

Star Wars will continue no matter what at least until 2030.

 

This is actually what gave me hope in them delivering solid movies, if not pretty safe movies (which TFA affirmed at first). In order to extract value from a license, a firm has to deliver a product/service which consumers have demand for. Furthermore, it can't be a 1 time demand (assuming the cash received in any given time period is less than or equal to the purchase price), the product/service has to retain interest in said product for multiple periods. And generally speaking, the value of an asset is the discounted expected cash flows said asset is projected to earn over the assets life. Therefore, in order to justify a $4 billion dollar price tag, Disney would have to develop a product which consumers would clamor for for years to come in order to actually earn a profit from this franchise. Clearly, Disney thought SW worth $4 billion because they estimated it would earn at least that much, adjusted for time. On the flip side, Disney would have to employ this asset (SW) towards consumers preferences to earn this money by making appealing products.

I figured this leash of having to recoup billions of dollars, on top of the general precedent of adding to shareholder value, would ensure product quality with the SW brand. We'll see if what has happened with the franchise is adjusted for, it's likely that the projected value of the brand was estimated around a somewhat continuous trend of brand interest at the point in time in which the brand was acquired.

-A Bean Counter

 

That is a great post and I agree 110% and is very much how I have looked at the Disney purchase. I think its a surprise that maybe it's not going to be as easy to make that money as many of us first thought and I think that's where my point kicks in. It's a personal fear really, however, I suspect Disney's tolerance to absorb poor returns may be lower than many people assume.

 

Dude. It's Disney.

 

Expand, please? I don't get your point. Actually, I just edited my previous post as I think maybe my point was a little ambiguous to interpretation and absorb the wrong word.

 

Like, I don't know why you think that Disney's, who's probably the largest entertainment corporation in the world today, ability to absorb losses, or "poor returns", is lower than people think? Who could possibly have a better ability to absorb losses, like they've been shown to do in the past? Hell, why would they have bought Star Wars for 4 billion dollars if they couldn't maintain it for many years to come?

 

Yes sorry, "absorb" was a poorly chosen word. I have changed it and I wasn't meaning to bring their financial capacity into account. I have no question they have the capacity to absorb any level of loses if they were ever to become that.

 

Yeah, I mean we can only see what happens from here on out. I agree, it's probably a lot more difficult than anticipated, especially without a "Feige" leading the progression. I think this may be the result of any fallout, bringing in a creative head to map out the direction of the aggregate SW story going forward.

If SW does persistently lose money, I think retiring the brand is the most likely outcome (at least for some time to restratigize). I think it's unlikely they'd sell it off because they've been working really hard to acquire as much IP as an entertainment firm can hold (which is technically unlimited), and they probably wouldn't want a competitor to gain from it.

I've still got my fingers crossed that they've had a plan this whole time and are pulling one on us. I'd rather look like an idiot for my present thoughts and lack of confidence on the direction of SW than to not enjoy that direction.

Companies have a record of poorly performing acquisitions. In general, acquirers have a tendency to overestimate their capacity to use the acquired firm efficiently. If an acquisition (or any asset) does end up losing money, the best thing to do is cut those losses.

 

Disney won't sell Star Wars.

I literally cannot conceive of a scenario where they would even consider that.

 

Dsney's goal is to make a profit by giving the largest audience possible what they would like to see for as long as they can. This is why I was surprised when they choose to make Solo as opposed to a Vader, Luke or Yoda film , all of whom are more well known outside of ST than Han. In this respect I dont understand the current thinking of Kennedy etc as they work to move ST further.

I think much of the backlash against TLJ could have been avoided if Disney had done "Luke" instead of Solo and shown fans why he was a dejected hermit in TLJ. I happen to have been one of the fans that enjoyed TLJ a great deal but do see the point of view of those fans who would have preferred more context for where we found him.

I also hope that Luke, Yoda and others are used for more than cameos in IX to pass the torch to the next generation of heros. If Luke is not used to his full potential in IX that would be so very lame. JJ has promised to tie everything together so I do have hope...

 

I'd kill for a movie about Luke that starts at the founding of his Academy and ends rights before the start of The Last Jedi. Hell, i'd maim for any piece of media covering that stretch.

 

Yeah, I mentioned above that it's unlikely they'll sell it, but I think there are scenarios where Disney would consider selling it.

 

Well this discussion gets quite interesting when the word selling gets mentioned doesn't it? Even to my original point whoever though GL would have sold his creation? I certainly thought he was just going to let it end.

My very point is making that he had more investment than Disney. Yet he did sell it.

Personally I don't think Disney would sell as they would be terrified of someone making it into the competition to them.

 

It is very clear why Luke is the dejected hermit in TLJ. Amazes me that Star Wars fans dont understand this. The story in TFA that Luke Skywalker has vanished. He didnt tell his sister where he was and how to find him. He didnt tell who we believe is his best friend. They have theories. None of the dialogue in TFA presents it as Luke has went to search for knowledge. So why did he leave and why is he so dejected. We are presented with the fact that Luke Skywalkers new Jedi academy was wiped out when his star pupil and nephew fell to the dark side and all his other students were slaughtered. Luke failed and he failed horribly, especially in his own eyes.

None of that was what Rian Johnson added to the story. This was all setup for Rian Johnson to start from. Rian Johnson is a very talented director and story teller. Star Wars rarely does things in an illogical and magical way even though it has characters with force powers. It doesnt have the characters ignore they are humans. So Rian Johnson moves forward with Luke's story in a very logical factor. We know from TFA he shut himself off so he would not be found. He would not be waiting for someone to just come and get him and they say "Rey, lets get you trained and go save the galaxy". That just doesnt make sense. Luke shouldnt have been the happy warrior.

 

I agree with you 100%.
I thought TLJ was a great film.

I am surprised though that Disney chose to do Solo before following up on a complex and nuanced story , and to be blunt MH is not getting anu younger so the time is mow for a Luke based movie.

 

"All of this has happened before, and will happen again".

 

I'm not an expert on Star Trek, but if IIRC, Roddenberry was the one who conceived and oversaw the development of The Next Generation. And even when he had to become less involved due to his declining health, his wishes (or at least all the content that he approved, i.e: story, scripts, etc) were still respected. Everything else, sure, it's an part comparison. At least in the Trek fandom there seems to be more reverence by a significant portion of it for the content that came directly from Roddenberry, as opposed to Star Wars (sadly).

 

So say we all.

This is certainly not the first schism in SW fandom. Those who were active on this forum during the production of the original prequel trilogy likely remember how much division there was in fandom regarding the direction Lucas took with those films. Many people questioned if Lucas even knew what was best for his own saga. So called SW fans are a finicky opinionated lot. Many have delusions of grandeur about the value of their own opinions on the wellness of the franchise. And particularly about their ability to discern what is "best" for the saga as a whole.

My personal opinion is so far the House of the Mouse has done more good than bad. I'm enjoying the sequel trilogy for the very fact that it's direction, tone, look, feel, is in fact different than what has come before. I really like the cohesion they've fostered between the EU and movies. I believe they've done the franchise a real service in streamlining and making a definitive call as to what is canon. Not to mention bringing aspects of the EU to the big screen, further strengthening the bond between the movies, animation, books, comics, etc.

SW fans should consider the whole picture of what Disney has done before they have a hissy fit about aspects of the saga that seem to offend their delicate political sensibilities.

In the end my belief is it that ultimately SW can and will survive in one form or another. After all, it survived nearly 2 decades with no new films at all. It just found ways to exist in other forms of media. I'm ok with that.