TV Discussion The Future of Star Wars on TV

Like jabberwalkie said the issue with a live action show will always be the cost. It would have to be a much smaller scale story than what we are used to seeing in Star Wars or else the costs would be outlandish. It would have to be a story that would take place over a relatively small area. As soon as they would start trying to have space battles and planet jumping like we see in animation and movies the costs would start going through the roof.

 

The cost issue is why they NEED to do a House of Cards style show featuring a Young Palpatine. Just follow the basic story of Darth Plagueis with some continuity tweaks.

 

With the new Disney movies how many years are between them? They seem like they pick up right where the prior one leaves off. Nothing like Georges movies that has at least a year between ESB and ROTJ.

 

As of now, TLJ is the only new Star Wars movie to pick up right where its predecessor leaves off. But what has that to do with the next animated show, which is most likely set in the period between ROTJ and TFA?

 

The one compromise I can see would be fewer locations. Star Trek was Sci-fi and visited many planets on a TV budget, but generally was restricted to the same sets episode after episode, predominantly the ship or space station (in Deep Space 9). And when visiting a planet, it was usually a relatively small set interior.

We saw that kind of compromise even with the first season of Rebels though. Animation had to cut those kinds of corners too. Many stories stayed on Lothal.

I think it will be interesting to see what Star Trek will do with a Game of Thrones style budget. I expect there to be a lot of time spent on the bridge of the ship, that's pretty standard in ST. But as far as SFX go and set designs/planets, it will at least give an idea of how far that kind of budget will go in sci-fi.

With the SW films, not much time tends to be spent in one place.

With George's early talk about his Underworld series, he said it was based off 40s noir films, and it seemed like it would largely have taken place on Coruscant.

They can tell an adventure of a crew in space like Star Trek does, but it might be at the cost of making necessary simple sets planet side. Mostly interior shots done in studio rather than on location.

Or, like George's Underworld idea, it might be a matter of telling a story that can largely be told in the same location. Kind of like how Lost shot on location in Hawaii, but most scenes were on "the island." Or how Daredevil shoots in New York, but the whole story can be told in the city.

If they went back to Tunisia or something, they could plausibly shoot on location and tell a story that mostly stays on Tatooine.

Or they could revisit the Underworld idea, etc.

Star Wars is going to be expensive, definitely. But I think it can be done. I don't think background CG ships in spaceports or blaster shootouts are really going to rack up the same costs as set design. So I think a live action story would have to be more grounded into the personal stories of a limited number of characters, not the same kind of Galaxy spanning grand adventure that the films can afford to be.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

It'll probably never happen, but I would love to get a live action series. Nothing against the cartoons, but I think it's time to try a different format for TV.

 

To expensive

 

Well, that's also the reason why Roddenberry created the transporter room and the shuttle was used less: cost. Regardless, the sets are what are expensive in this case. Shows have tried to get around that before, Syfy's Sanctuary comes to mind. The sets were entirely CGI, and they looked awful and unnatural at times. Also, much of TOS Star Trek and a good deal of TNG had a lot of exposition and less actual SFX.

You don't have to look much further than DS9 to see where the money goes. Sets, ship models, and SFX. In the later seasons of DS9, you actually saw some sequences be re-used because of cost. IIRC one Bird of Prey's destruction sequence was identical to the one from Generations. Also absent in the later seasons, the Dominion War specifically, you see less to no shield effects. In fact, you saw some models in DS9 from TNG, First Contact, and Generations IIRC. Then there's Voyager, where Year of Hell was exceptionally costly because the destruction of the set and subsequent rebuilding.

I'm not sure how they're going to divide up the time in Discovery, but I'd wager it'll be something like TNG or Voyager. While there was certainly bridge time, TNG spent quite a bit of time on the holodeck and Voyager quite a bit of time in sickbay and the crew mess.

Depends on which Star Wars film you're talking about. The prequels traded more conventional sets for more elaborate costume design and special effects. Then there's also ROTS beginning sequence with the Battle of Coruscant, and that was expensive. No matter how you slice it.

Sounds like Firefly... Not that I'd complain though. Especially if it had more finish like Serenity.

Shooting on location is going to cost, so I don't think Tunisia is really in the cards. Not to mention that shooting on location adds a lot of variables to the equation to begin with, so really I would expect them to choose the studio option if they did a live action show. I'm not sure how noticeable it is, but if you look at the first season of Daredevil in particular they actually used the same warehouse location a few times. But due to lighting and angles, it gave a different impression and felt slightly different. Still, I'm not sure that a more real life based series is necessarily comparable to one like Star Wars where technology is more futuristic in nature. And when you're building a space port, that's going to take man hours and creating assets likely from scratch. No matter if that is a back ground element or not.

The balancing act is going to be how to shoot a western with enough action, on a budget that is probably a 1/10th or so of what they'd been used for the films. Shooting, explosions, and adventure are some of the things that make up Star Wars. You can't really get around that unless you start to depart from that and focus on one specific area or delve into the mythological aspect of the franchise. Just to throw out some ideas, you could have a series set around people working for the Hutts working their way up in the criminal element of the franchise or do a series around an Imperial trooper of some sort and go any number of directions from there.

The question isn't "can it be done" but rather the question is "can it be done well?"

 

I'm still waiting to see what they do with the Star Wars Underworld scripts and ideas. Some of them like Saw and the Church of the Force have already been added back into the franchise in different ways.

I don't know what's going to happen to these scripts but I'd like to see them revived somehow either as a novel series or a comic book series. I remember keeping up with news on this when I was younger in my earlier days of using the internet and it sounded awesome to me being a kid now as an adult it sounds intriguing especially when some ideas were revealed. If we aren't going to get it on TV or any live action Star Wars show on TV I would like to see these stories told somehow.

 

Well, can a 23 episode season be done well? Probably not. That's what Star Trek had to deal with though.

Inhumans is filming on location in Hawaii and is going to have to make Attilan, have Medusa and her prehensile hair. Triton and Gorgon would require a fair amount of prostheses and/or CG. Then there's a CG Lockjaw and everyone's powers.

But they're doing it as an 8 episode miniseries. So they don't have to worry about how to fill 15 more episodes worth of story, sets, sfx, etc.

Discovery is going to be a short season too. I thought it was said there'd be 13.

So I wouldn't expect a live action Star Wars show to really be more than a short season series or even just one off miniseries here and there.

If you take a budget like DS9 had spread across nearly 3x as many episodes as something like Inhumans is going to do, and then add the crunch time they had to meet a scheduled slot on a network, vs. Netflix in which all episodes are thrown online at once allowing viewers to binge, I do think the shorter seasoned, subscription based, higher budget per episode route will lead to drastically higher quality.

I do have my doubts about CBS' decision to promote their own app in the US rather than making Discovery accessible via Netflix like it's doing for the rest of the world, but successful or not, it will at least show what sci-fi​ TV can do with an HBO level budget.

The other very high TV budget sci-fi-ish show on the horizon is Inhumans, which will be put on ABC. Marvel Television was able to finance it via a partnership with IMAX and a deal to release the first two episodes on IMAX screens. And I believe I read IMAX completely covered production costs for those first two episodes, so Marvel really only paid for 6.

Neither is out yet, so I obviously can't attest to quality yet. But I think those two models and their budgets will really be indicative of what kind of hope a live action Star Wars show would have.

I have higher hopes for Inhumans' success, given it will be on ABC rather than some app nobody wants to subscribe to in addition to Netflix or Hulu. And as Marvel and ABC fall under the Disney umbrella, as LucasFilm does, that kind of co-financing for a very high budget production on network television could pave the way for ABC and LucasFilm to do something in the future.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

For seaworthy actual series it'll probably be around $1.5-2.5 million an episode. I would imagine the series to be closer to something like one of the Stargate series on Sci-fi, if you they'd want to be appeal to an adult and family audience.

The pilot episode I would imagine would have to cost somewhere around $12-15 million or more to make. Inflation aside, Stargate episodes had cost around $1-2 million to make, while each episode of the the HBO show like GOT is $6 million( or more). While the cost of more than $9 million per episode if “Marco Polo on Netflix’s is pretty crazy. If they want name actors the live action SW show would start driving prices up, even if no-name actors hit it big on the show their salaries would further inflate the production costs.

I think they should stick with an occasional mini-series and/ or just one or two animated series.

 

I don't think it's a matter of being too expensive, but rather if Disney would want to give LFL the budget to do it. I'd imagine the budget would be higher than Agents of Shield, but I'd think that they'd be capable of doing it if they utilized OT style settings. Reusing sets and filming a lot on location. That would lower the CGI budget, ensuring what CGI they do use to be top tier. Heck, 90% of the Tantive IV we saw in ANH was one "L"-shaped hallway. The Death Star corridor chases were mostly done in one long hallway. Anything they did with matte paintings in the day could effectively be done today with relatively simple CGI. A long term live action doesn't have to be super extravagant. It'd essentially be what Rebels is (simple planets, big battles reserved for season openers and finales) but in live action, and a different point in time.

 

Marvel can get away with 2+ movies a year and multiple TV shows, including cartoons because each character feels different. Different abilities, different problems, different tones, different settings.

They have cartoons on DisneyXD. They have family friendly movies. Guardians of the Galaxy feels alot different than Winter Soldier, etc. Then the Netflix series, still taking place in the same shared universe as the films, but for a much more mature audience (at least Daredevil and Luke Cage, not sure about Jessica Jones or Iron Fist).

Then there's Agents of Shield, Inhumans, Cloak and Dagger, plus the X-MEN series like Legion that Marvel partnered with FX to make.

Star Wars has a cartoon on DisneyXD. They have made two films in as many years, with reportedly a new one every year til 2020. Both films greatest strengths and weaknesses (depending on whom you ask) are that they inspire nostalgia for the originals.

Unlike Marvel, there's a lot of overlap in look and feel of these projects. Rebels, TFA, and Rogue One all have TIE Fighters and lightsaber wielding bad guys, and themes of family, etc.

While I want to see a live action series/mini series eventually, I don't know if it could/would be viable alongside a cartoon and the films.

I was actually surprised that not only did Thor Ragnarok beat TFA for most trailer views, but that The Last Jedi couldn't top it either. Especially when Thor has been perhaps the worse performing hero at the box office.

Marvel is a juggernaut right now. They are churning out a lot of content, and has partnered with Square Enix to make more serious videogames as opposed to mostly mobile games as they've been.

It's success that I don't know that Star Wars can match long term without some serious expansion to just what exactly Star Wars is. Because every saga film is about a Jedi trying to take on a Dark Side antagonist bent on galactic
domination.

Rogue One was a risk, but a fairly safe one.

Han Solo should be interesting, as it could be LucasFilm's answer to something like Guardians of the Galaxy or Ant-Man.

TFA and Marvel's comics were a huge flash in the pain. I believe Star Wars #1 was the highest selling comic of the year it was released and TFA had like the biggest global opening ever.

But now it's been dethroned by Fate of the Furious, and there's apparently more enthusiasm for the Marvel train that's been chugging along since 2008.

I think that at least through til 2020 their current plan will work fine. The alternating of saga films with spinoffs every other year will keep things going, even if some people skip the spinoffs.

There was a rumor that after that the films might take a hiatus. Something I think could be good. A live action TV series could then be used to carry the franchise for a bit with smaller scale stories.

Otherwise, I think Star Wars will really have to expand after 2020 with new characters, new story types, new tones etc. to sustain that same kind of interest that Marvel is enjoying, which makes their past nine years of wild success possible.

If what the films do is impossible to do on the small screen in live action, then perhaps LucasFilm can also brace that and instead use a live action TV format to tell a different kind of story in a different corner of the Star Wars universe.



Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

TaradosGon Star Wars is by leaps and bounds the biggest franchise going right now. Absolutely nothing can come close to it. It in no way will slow down anytime soon and will likely be almost as big twenty years from now as it is currently because of all the kids that are now becoming big fans.

It likely will get to the point where a Star Wars release is no longer considered an event like it was when they only came out once every three years and we had ten+ years inbetween trilogies. However they will always kill at the box office. I don't foresee any Star Wars film making less than 300 million domestic for probably at least ten or fifteen years (especially not with how well received the first two movies have been) if they ever drop that low.

No offense but it is a little silly for you to try to put Fate and the Furious above it and say that there is currently more enthusiasm for Marvel movies than there is for Star Wars. A Star Wars movie that didn't have any of the main three characters from the OT in it and was a complete side story made about 130 million dollars more than Captain America Civil War did and made about 50 million dollars more than the second Avengers movie.

About the only thing you could say about Star Wars is that it might be more of a North American phenomenon than it is a World Wide phenomenon. However considering it is an American made film made by a company based in America that is quite alright. And it is more important for it to be a hit in America anyway.

 

Fate and the Furious did overtake TFA's opening. Not sure how that's silly.

Star Wars hadn't been in theaters since 2005, those prior films were divisive. Audiences were going to see Han, Luke and Leia again. It had a huge opening, but not one that the 8th installment of Fast and the Furious couldn't beat.

Or that Thor Ragnarok can't get more trailer viewings for than The Last Jedi.

I would hardly say Star Wars can't be touched by anything. Jurassic World and Avengers were right up there too. The prequels were divisive. And while TFA was a box office hit for the aforementioned reasons, Rogue One was about half as much, passed up by Avengers, Civil War, Iron Man 3, Age of Ultron.

Rogue One did very well. But it also dropped off significantly from TFA's earnings. Meanwhile Marvel's all seem to be in the neighborhood of each other with some exceptions. Guardians of the Galaxy looks like it's opening weekend could overtake Rogue One. I would be surprised if Spider-Man Homecoming isn't a big hit.

Right now Star Wars is doing just fine. And I think it will be fine for their current schedule. But I would be surprised if Han Solo or that cancelled/delayed Bounty Hunter movie didn't continue to experience reduced returns.

Movies exist on a global stage now. Being an American phenomenon isn't that special. There was an article on FB awhile back about how Rogue One was not expected to perform particularly well in China as Star Wars didn't really have an affect over there in the 70s due to international relations. And so the nostalgia of it is lost on the huge audience over there.

If a Star Wars movie and Marvel movie can be made for about the same amount, and yet the latter can gross nearly 50% more, I would in no way regard Star Wars as untouchable. Especially when Star Wars has a legacy of 40 years, with films coming in waves over that time. While Marvel can perform just as good when its cinematic universe is about 9 years old.

Maybe China and the global box office is to blame, but then that also just might be a sign that when nostalgia isn't a factor, Star Wars loses a lot of its appeal.

I never argued that Star Wars is going to flop. But due to lack of variety in its stories, it might not warrant a film a year.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

Well TaradosGon we will just have to agree to disagree about the future of the Star Wars movie franchise.

But in regards to you trying to compare Fate and the Furious's box office opening to TFA's well that is a little silly when TFA didn't even open in China until almost a month after it was released in the states. Where as Fate and the Furious opened in China immediately. Take 193 million off of Fate and the Furious's box office opening and how well does it look then?

Like the people on movie talk said you don't compare worldwide totals at the very beginning of films runs. You compare them at the very end because not all of them open in the same markets at the same time. And what are the chances that Fate and the Furious will cross 2 billion worldwide like TFA did considering it has already opened in all its major markets?

 

I get the feeling the next animated show will be set after return of the jedi and the force awakens thats 30 plus years of stories of the final battles with what was left of the imperial army by they reformed into the first order........

I would rather see Lucas animation do a show about the Old Republic........

 

Disney could set a new series a 1,000 years in the future - away from the Skywalker family and Civil War. IT would give them greater freedom in creating an entirely new set of characters, stories, villains without be restricted by the films.

 

They would need to know how the ST were to end (does Rey start up a new Jedi Order or some other type of New Order) and also what episodes X-XII end up being about. I realize you are talking about a 1,000 years into the future but still even then that would still have ties to the ST and beyond if for nothing else to talk about what went on in ancient history (much like we got with a lot of Kanan and Ezra's storylines the past couple seasons).

 

The ST will end in episode IX. If a FT (future trilogy happens), it will be something completely different to ST. Might be set a 100 years a later.

Setting a franchise a 1,000 years in the future gives it complete freedom and you really don't have to worry about the past.

 

I want a show set during the Old Republic era or 1000 BBY ending with the death of Darth Bane. Imagine how creative Filoni could be with a series in that time period. They wouldn't have to rely on forced cameos anymore either

 

An animated The Old Republic show with a higher age rating would be amazing.

 

Battlestar Galactica was able to do it. Killjoys does it. Firefly did it well-enough back in the day, etc.

So I don't really buy the "it's too expensive" excuse. Maybe if you can only think of one way to do SW, but that's more of a lack of imagination than anything else.

It's a matter of picking the right kind of premise, and using your resources well.

 

History will surely proove (and has already proven) otherwise. Less is more. I do not think that 10, 20, 30 years from now people will herald Thor: Ragnorak or Avengers Age of Ultron or GOTG2 as mastepieces of film that redefined a genre. There's just too many superhero movies for any one to be that important. Star Wars is different. It is the greatest film series of all time with nothing else really coming close in terms of cultural impact and importance, not to mention success.

So "Thor: Whatever he's doing before Infinity War happens" got a bunch of trailer views. Does anybody think it will gross more than The Last Jedi? Or that it will hold the same cultural value? How can it? Fate of the Furious? The pop culture internet media loves to make a big deal of these records and things but the truth is they are comparing apples and oranges.

jamminjedi23 Completely agree with your opening weekend assessments. And on top of that, since when was money all that mattered? Transformers continues to roll in the dough but we aren't all rushing to call Star Wars dead because of it.

 

The cultural impact of Star Wars isn't going to go away even if the sequel trilogy flopped and LucasFilm closed down. To say it will be successful and have longevity due to its cultural impact, which really only stems from ANH, so a film 40 years old doesn't address the issue.

Less is more? Exactly. Hence my misgivings that a Star Wars film every year til 2020 is fine, but Iger made some comment about maybe doing it for another decade after that. It gets to be too much. Star Wars captured lightning in a bottle then went away for over a decade. Came back to huge hype, but in hindsight the prequels were to say the least divisive and not at all culturally significant.

Then it went away again (speaking solely in regards to the films) and came back over a decade later with Mark, Harrison, and Carrie to a huge opening, with a significant drop off for Rogue One. Will the sequels be profitable? No doubt. Will they be as culturally significant to a kid today thirty years from now? Who knows. In hindsight it might just be viewed like the prequels.

Will Thor outdo TLJ? Probably not. Will Infinity War? Oh highly likely.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk