Discussion How many new SW films should there be PER YEAR?

I also wanted to point out that 9 movies a year would be cool, just as long as if they are done right, but I did not vote because numbers don't nearly count as quality.

 

If there's an active live-action series on Disney's new streaming service, one film per year is good. If there isn't, then two-per-year is fine with me if they're sufficiently different enough (e.g. Old Republic film + standalone "horror" film in the vein of Predator).

I don't think anyone would ever want more than 2 per year, nor would that ever happen no matter how successful the movies were (it would cannabilize Disney's other tentpoles).

 

I want 4 Star Wars movies a year.

Now will the public want it? Probably not. But the question is "how many new Star Wars movies a year should there be." and coming from the most important source, me, I want 4.

 

I feel the same. One for every season, till I die. No more after that cause I don't want to miss any.

 

1 movie a year, so that I can anticipate each film to the fullest and appreciate it months on later. Do it on repeat, it worked from 2015 to 2017, it failed in 2018 and hope it will work once again from 2019 and beyond.

Take it steady, keep on improving the movies, give out quality products and let the world anticipate it with a good marketing plan. That's all Star Wars need to succeed and grow.

 

One per year - at the most. The stories also have to be compelling enough to warrant a film.

 

One per year would be the maximum for me. I wouldn't mind the odd break or going one every two or three years either.

It would be nice if they managed to release a great game now and then though. There are some books and comics, but games have been extremely lacking lately. I want something that tells a great story, like the KOTORs or the Jedi Knights, or something that combines interesting game-play with some story and other kind of depth, like TIE Fighter did. Great looking multiplayer-shooters don't cut it for me. Gameplay like that might give some nice hours of mindless fun, but that pales in comparison to getting actual story-depth. Shooting some stuff that respawns, be it on the ground or in space, just doesn't compare to fulfilling an actual mission or story-line. A small throw-in, like the story-mode of Battlefront 2, just doesn't cut it.

This kind of stuff fills the breaks between the movies just nicely, and it would be great if there were more of it.

 

They were masking loads of money when releasing one a year. So...why change that? One a year.

 

*edited...it was posted elsewhere (sorry!)

 

I would prefer one every three years while in a trilogy. 5-10 year waits between trilogies.

 

I want lots per year, but I think we will see a star wars film yearly or bi-yearly in theaters. I think Disney will put up more smaller budget films on their streaming service to fill in the gaps between theater releases.

 

I actually want one a month. But one a year is probably more sensible.

 

One movie per year...every Christmas season.
We'll be getting plenty of other SW content on the Disney Streaming network.

 

365.

 

I also want mention is there might be some standalones star wars movies to and exclusively to Disney streaming but I am only estimating.

 

One a year at the absolute most. Part of what makes Star Wars so special through the years is the anticipation and build up to each new film. It left a lot of time for people to speculate and create massive hype for the films. While I personally think one every two year would be the best, I don't see this as a feasible option based on the direction the franchise is taking. I an watch Star Wars all the time, but I think it will lose some of the magic that makes it special/ an event if they start cranking out multiple movies a year.

 

3 per year if they are good and connected.

 

One movie every three years like the original ones. Build up the anticipation and don't dilute it.

My judgement would be the box office takings for Solo have been partly a consequence of coming out so soon after TLJ. If there had been a three year gap from TLJ to Solo, with no change to the latter's content, I reckon it would have had a significantly higher box office take. Also, however, its performance was probably partly because of the reaction of hard core fans to the controversial story and themes of TLJ.

 

Let's strike a balance and go with 8 a year.

On a serious note, I really liked having one to look forward to in December. That kind of became my one-man wolfpack Christmas ritual the last couple of years. I'm going to miss that this year. So that would be my preference, one every year in December, alternating between Rian Johnson's trilogy, an anthology film, and the Benioff/Weiss series (not necessarily in that order).

 

I would like 1 movie per year. What I am preparing for? Disney to announce that they will be continuing future standalone anthologies, like Kenobi, on their upcoming streaming service exclusively; with the traditional big scale Star Wars Sagas, being released in Theatres every 2 years. We will see though.

 

SOMEONE ACTUALLY VOTED FOR MORE THAN 8 MOVIES A YEAR!

 

Voted for less than 1. They'll never be able to sustain more than 1 or even 1 per year without severe apathy and degradation pretty quickly.

 

Ideally, one film right before the Christmas holidays.
But knowing all the plans ahead (new series + new trilogy + whatever stand alone films they wanna make), I think 2 or 3 per year isn't too bad.

But they really need to take a peek at how Marvel is doing it.
In a matter of a year, the MCU has added 5 films to its roster, all of them making great profits, plus all the TV shows between ABC, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

But more than one light-saber fight a year is too much? Nah. They just need to make good films.

 

A few a year with a few TV shows going on at the same time; maybe a mini-series here and there. Varying budgets, have some with an indie feel that aren't massively expensive.

The problem with Solo was the bloated budget along with the bad idea of having back stories with the bloated budget. I have said all along they need to come up with something better than these fan-friendly back stories if they are going to spend massive amounts of money on the movies (thus requiring huge attendance to make a profit). Marvel is built on comics that are about a particular character, but that was never what SW was about; SW always was more egalitarian. I think the idea that particular character movies would be big is based on fan input, but again, money is mostly not made from fans. The GA associates SW with a collection of characters, and it is at this point a proven failure to expect them to flock to the theaters for a back story.

I think it is premature to assume that Solo's low box office was based on fatigue. That is nothing more than a guess; there isn't any strong evidence that the idea is true. And again, the box office wouldn't have been a problem without the ridiculous bloated budget. It became the most expensive SW film ever made, yet there was minimal promotion and it was the film you could least expect to make a big profit.

In any case, there is no reason IMO that they couldn't increase the output of live action SW.

OK, but it isn't about the fan base, but getting the GA to attend the movie. Although very philosophically productive, nothing in the post has convincing evidence in terms of directly refuting the idea that if Marvel can get people to go to the theater more than once a year to see a movie (or make a particular selection when they go to the movies), so can SW.

I agree with the poster you are quoting; I think it comes down to coming out with a product that has enough of a hook to sell to you greater audience. ​

 

What if....
What if Star Wars really went back to its roots, and became a weekly serial. A one hour minimovie that you went to see each week, each month, at the cinema. Maybe one theatre in each city showed it, and each episode wasn't too huge of a budget.

But the hardcore fans would go, and cosplay it up, like the old Blues Brothers or Rocky Horror fans would.

This might burn out quickly, but it'd be fun for a year.