Star wars episode 7: Coming soon?

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I didn't say you should "chase the superfans." I'm asking who the movie is being made for, and why.

What you wrote is kind of all over the map. It's somewhere between "make fans happy" and "make money" and "make whatever seems great to you and let the chips fall where they may."

Seems to me that Lucas thought he was doing the third thing; who's to say he was wrong for doing so, and on what basis?

It just seems strange to cite fan dissatisfaction for how awful the financially successful prequels were, and then have a "so what?" attitude toward fans at the prospect of their dissatisfaction with the upcoming sequels.

My theory on I, II, III is Lucas consciously targeted a 'younger' market, the inclusion of the 'child' throughout the whole of EP-1, to me was designed to appeal to 8-12 year olds of the market. I think Lucas 'banked' on the parents of said 8-12 to bring in a 'nostalgia' audience, but his prime targets were the kids. Six years later those 8-12 year olds are now 14-18, and so the film targets an older audience (and attendant PG-13 rating...).

These films never were for 'fans' of the originals in any detail... Had they been, the probably would have spent a 'first act' on the childhood of Anakin' and then moved on to the teen and young adult of Anakin and his descent into The Dark Side, and all PG-13. (Does Lucas have an R rated film other than "THX 1138"(1971)?)

 

[David Jimerson]

I don't think pleasing anyone is necessarily any studio's motivation to do anything. Enticing people to go out and buy a ticket is. Selling an entertaining world so fans and newbies alike will be enticed to go out and buy some tickets and toys is the general level game here. Making money and enticing people are one in the same, really. And I don't think studios weigh the reactions of superfans too heavily. It's certainly a vocal market but not necessarily a large one considering the overall potential gross.

As such, the prequels were smashing successes, and anyone - not just superfans, but anyone - who complains about them is only whining.

Which is a point of view almost no one shares. It's about more than money. Those who think the movies ought to made aren't worried about Disney's bottom line. If you want a new movie, you want it for a reason, and my question is, why would one group of fans' reasons be more legit than anothers'?

Or, bringing it around to my original question, why would their complaints be something you can wave aside, at the same time as saying your complaints about the prequels are legit?

 

[David Jimerson]

My theory on I, II, III is Lucas consciously targeted a 'younger' market, the inclusion of the 'child' throughout the whole of EP-1, to me was designed to appeal to 8-12 year olds of the market. I think Lucas 'banked' on the parents of said 8-12 to bring in a 'nostalgia' audience, but his prime targets were the kids. Six years later those 8-12 year olds are now 14-18, and so the film targets an older audience (and attendant PG-13 rating...).

These films never were for 'fans' of the originals in any detail... Had they been, the probably would have spent a 'first act' on the childhood of Anakin' and then moved on to the teen and young adult of Anakin and his descent into The Dark Side, and all PG-13. (Does Lucas have an R rated film other than "THX 1138"(1971)?)

It may well be. The question is, who's to say he was wrong for doing so? It's not even about a studio making money. Star Wars is his creation, so what does it matter what anyone else thinks? And if it does, who gets to say who's in that group?

 

[vcassel]

As such, the prequels were smashing successes, and anyone - not just superfans, but anyone - who complains about them is only whining.

I don't know who said it was only whining. But I don't see why complaints about a franchise that makes a ton of money would be high up on the ladder of considerations.

Which is a point of view almost no one shares.

It's certainly not a quantifiable POV.

It's about more than money. Those who think the movies ought to made aren't worried about Disney's bottom line. If you want a new movie, you want it for a reason,...

I imagine that most of the movie going public doesn't necessarily want a movie to be made. In fact, if not for trades and the internet, they'd never know that most movies were even in production until they saw the trailer. Instead, it's the studio's job to sell a product. And we all know that a studio can sell a movie as something completely different than it is for better or worse, but that's besides the point.

and my question is, why would one group of fans' reasons be more legit than anothers'?

Or, bringing it around to my original question, why would their complaints be something you can wave aside, at the same time as saying your complaints about the prequels are legit?

I don't know. I mean, I didn't love the prequels or anything. The dialogue and acting was mostly hackneyed. But I enjoyed them for what they were at the time. They were some visual bang for my buck and I haven't bothered with them since.

But I don't think that a movie gets made for any fan's reasons. I mean, maybe, but it's not a trend. It's not like the fans can put out their own Star Wars films (but didn't some fans put out a Star Trek film a few years back?) It's the studio's job to sell you on their reasons for making it. Their why. And they'll certainly feel the success or failure of that financially.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

It may well be. The question is, who's to say he was wrong for doing so? It's not even about a studio making money. Star Wars is his creation, so what does it matter what anyone else thinks? And if it does, who gets to say who's in that group?

Well... obviously... the owner of the property gets to make the choices... and obviously in Lucas' case... his choices have put him into a $4B 'easy street' position...

This may not satisfy 'fans'... in the case of Zack Snyder and "Sucker Punch"(2011), post hoc claims by Snyder that this was a 'parody' of the genre... didn't boost the film's 'appreciation' among Snyder fans... nor did it garner any 'acclaim' outside of the genre of phantasy action with babilicousness...

 

[Barry_Green]

As such, the prequels were smashing successes, and anyone - not just superfans, but anyone - who complains about them is only whining.

Wow. I didn't know the elections for supreme arbitrator of the value of all opinions in the universe had already been held... sorry, I'll try to keep up with current events closer.

I think there are many, many people who can justifiably complain about the prequels without descending into the category of "whining".

But, regarding this whole debate, it's irrelevant and pointless, because nothing we can do will influence anything that will come it. It will be whatever it will be. I still express optimism that now that George is out of the way, the sequels have a chance of being substantially better. Not guaranteed to be better, but there's certainly a chance.

If that opinion is not shared, that's okay -- I shall cling to my little paltry ray of hope and, in true Disney style, wish upon a star, and maybe, just maybe, something enjoyable and not palpably idiotic will emerge to call itself Episode VII. And if my hopes are dashed and crushed? Well, no big deal, been there and done that with everything that was labeled a "prequel" before.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Wow. I didn't know the elections for supreme arbitrator of the value of all opinions in the universe had already been held... sorry, I'll try to keep up with current events closer.

I think there are many, many people who can justifiably complain about the prequels without descending into the category of "whining".

But, regarding this whole debate, it's irrelevant and pointless, because nothing we can do will influence anything that will come it. It will be whatever it will be. I still express optimism that now that George is out of the way, the sequels have a chance of being substantially better. Not guaranteed to be better, but there's certainly a chance.

If that opinion is not shared, that's okay -- I shall cling to my little paltry ray of hope and, in true Disney style, wish upon a star, and maybe, just maybe, something enjoyable and not palpably idiotic will emerge to call itself Episode VII. And if my hopes are dashed and crushed? Well, no big deal, been there and done that with everything that was labeled a "prequel" before.

I can't think of one good thing George Lucas has done in the last two decades, in terms of storytelling. He has advanced VFX, Sound, technology, marketing, and a whole bunch of other things... but as a director, a filmmaker he should probably have stepped down closer to his prime and not given us Howard the Duck, ruined Indiana Jones, or for that matter the first three prequels. Those (Ep 1-3) weren't films, those were video game sequences tied together with boring conversations. That is a harsh statement to make and a little monday morning couch quarterbacking, but hey. There was magic about the oldest three Starwars and that magic was completely gone in the newest three. The only joy I felt from the new films was residual magic from my love from the first. If Ep 1-3 had nothing to do with the original star wars, I would have thought they were OK at best. Remove all the back-story and memories from the first star wars films and think about the new ones. Are they really good?

I'm excited to see someone new take StarWars, simply because the road we are on now will not end well. It's either a new approach or nothing forever more. Considering it's a billion dollar franchise, I'd say we'll see the StarWars universe expand until it's fizzled all the way out... Especially now it's owned by DIS.

If you want the best argument for why Episode 1 is such a travesty, look no further than this man. http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/

 

[David Jimerson]

Wow. I didn't know the elections for supreme arbitrator of the value of all opinions in the universe had already been held... sorry, I'll try to keep up with current events closer.

I didn't say anything remotely like that. I was just going by the idea that the only reason for a sequel (or any movie, I guess) is to make money from it and from merchandising, and to position it so that you maximize both. I said immediately afterward that hardly anyone agrees with that. The rest of my post should have made it more than clear.

I think there are many, many people who can justifiably complain about the prequels without descending into the category of "whining".

But, regarding this whole debate, it's irrelevant and pointless, because nothing we can do will influence anything that will come it. It will be whatever it will be. I still express optimism that now that George is out of the way, the sequels have a chance of being substantially better. Not guaranteed to be better, but there's certainly a chance.

If that opinion is not shared, that's okay -- I shall cling to my little paltry ray of hope and, in true Disney style, wish upon a star, and maybe, just maybe, something enjoyable and not palpably idiotic will emerge to call itself Episode VII. And if my hopes are dashed and crushed? Well, no big deal, been there and done that with everything that was labeled a "prequel" before.

I'm not trying to influence anything, and the last thing I'm trying to do is say anyone's opinion on the (or any) movie is right or wrong.

In fact, I'm saying exactly the opposite. What I was seeing to various degrees was the attitude that some people's opinions don't matter, or at the very least can -- and should! -- be safely discounted. (What else does "so what?" mean?)

I think that's just plain wrong. Which is why I asked why a new Star Wars movie should be made, and for whom. If not for the fans, because they want one, then what?

What I don't get at all is how anyone reads me as saying that the Disney sequels will be bad, or that they shouldn't be done.

 

[David Jimerson]

I don't know who said it was only whining. But I don't see why complaints about a franchise that makes a ton of money would be high up on the ladder of considerations.


It's certainly not a quantifiable POV.



I imagine that most of the movie going public doesn't necessarily want a movie to be made. In fact, if not for trades and the internet, they'd never know that most movies were even in production until they saw the trailer. Instead, it's the studio's job to sell a product. And we all know that a studio can sell a movie as something completely different than it is for better or worse, but that's besides the point.



I don't know. I mean, I didn't love the prequels or anything. The dialogue and acting was mostly hackneyed. But I enjoyed them for what they were at the time. They were some visual bang for my buck and I haven't bothered with them since.

But I don't think that a movie gets made for any fan's reasons. I mean, maybe, but it's not a trend. It's not like the fans can put out their own Star Wars films (but didn't some fans put out a Star Trek film a few years back?) It's the studio's job to sell you on their reasons for making it. Their why. And they'll certainly feel the success or failure of that financially.

As I said, I don't think you'll get much agreement at all that fan expectation should play little to no part in the creation of a movie based on an existing property with a large fan base.

 

[Ted Ramasola]

Well, here is a good news from the Lucas sale to Disney!
He plans to donate most of the proceeds to charity focusing on education. If this is true, then he has MORE of my respect.
http://todayentertainment.today.com/_news/2012/11/01/14861162-george-lucas-donating-disney-sale-billions-to-charity?lite#__utma=14933801.1363319999.1342431594.1351788768.1351827085.389&__utmb=14933801.1.10.1351827085&__utmc=14933801&__utmx=-&__utmz=14933801.1350698934.336.5.utmcsr=facebook.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=14933801.|8=Earned%20By=msnbc%7Ccover=1^12=Landing%20Content=Mixed=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=www.nbcnews.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Mixed=1&__utmk=148083127

According to this article, it is the same foundation that Lucas used to make a $175 million donation to his alma mater USC in 2006.

 

[Ted Ramasola]

On a lighter tone this is an "official" Darth Vader in Disney vid.

 

[Paul F]

George has always had a focus on education. Especially for young children. He has always had projects for education, but you never hear about them. The Young Indiana Jones series was specifically made to be a basis for teaching children. Star Wars is specifically made for young children. So its no surprise he would put the $4b towards education. He has billions now, he doesn't need more.

The fact that many are disappointed by the second set of Star Wars is because they are no longer children. The second sets' success show that a new generation enjoyed them just as much as we enjoyed the first set when we were young.

What is disappointing for me is that his children didn't take over the Lucasfilm legacy. I'm wonder why that is. It was a major surprise to me that he sold the company rather than pass it on to the kids. Perhaps they just aren't interested in movies. The other thing I'm concerned about are all the Lucasfilm employees. Skywalker Sound, Industrial Light and Magic, Lucasfilm Games, and the others; I just don't see a place for those divisions at Disney (perhaps Games has a place). Recall that Disney shut down ImageMovers, also located in Marin county. Disney spent $4b for the Star Wars franchise and the rest will likely fall by the wayside. An end to a dream to have an extraordinary facility for independent filmakers at Skywalker Ranch. I wonder what will become of it.

 

[dioxholster]

His parents were teachers, right?

 

[Egg Born Son]

On a lighter tone this is an "official" Darth Vader in Disney vid.

The musical parody makes that video. Hilarious.

Also raises a point, the stormtrooper union will be backing this takeover. As is clear from this video things are looking up for the poor expendable troopies. Still can't go on the rides, only watch Vader but once the union wins them new helmets that let them eat their fairy floss, things are looking up!

 

[Batutta]

His parents were teachers, right?

No, his father owned a stationary store.

 

[David Jimerson]

I'll throw a couple of names in, who as far as I know are available to do it: Jon Favreau and Kenneth Branagh.

That's only because we can't dig up Irvin Kirschner.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

Vader would totally go to Disney World!

 

[ThisHideousReplica]

In a perfect world, Peter Jackson really would be amazing but how about this for a left field choice...

KATHRYN BIGELOW

Strange Days (large scale sci-fi) + Hurt Locker (action, gear) + the weird, almost psychedelic elements of Point Break and Near Dark (the force)

Able and willing to hit all the requisite blockbuster beats, but not too reverent of the material, someone up for a cool, revisionist take.

As someone said earlier, one of the many, many, many wrong turns Ep 1-3 made was gearing them to kids. Let's be honest, Star Wars fans are adults. That's the base and it would probably be best to appeal to the base. And even as a kid, one of the great things about those original movies was, even though there were a lot of kid elements in them, they felt, weirdly, like a grown up world.

 

[adkimery]

In a perfect world, Peter Jackson really would be amazing but how about this for a left field choice...

KATHRYN BIGELOW

Strange Days (large scale sci-fi) + Hurt Locker (action, gear) + the weird, almost psychedelic elements of Point Break and Near Dark (the force)

As someone said earlier, one of the many, many, many wrong turns Ep 1-3 made was gearing them to kids. Let's be honest, Star Wars fans are adults. That's the base and it would probably be best to appeal to the base. And even as a kid, one of the great things about those original movies was, even though there were a lot of kid elements in them, they felt, weirdly, like a grown up world.

Merchandising is spelled k-i-d-s and Lucas didn't hang onto to the merchandising rights so he could get rich selling action figures and lunch boxes to adult toy collectors. A failure of 1-3 was not making them enjoyable for kids of all ages (and there are certainly a number of films targeted at kids that still can appeal to adults).

 

[ThisHideousReplica]

No, that's true. I know this will never happen.

Though you could argue that, in this case merchandising is actually spelled n-e-r-d-s and they wouldn't find it terribly difficult to get rid of $200 star wars era thingamajigs. Just the bearbricks alone!

(and obviously I'm a nerd)