|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 4, 2020 12:39:20 GMT -5
So Disney's Star Wars trilogy has come to an end. The last movie had a...mixed reaction. Some liked it, others didn't. Some felt it did capture the old Star Wars feel, others say that it leaned too heavily on nostalgia and didn't really present a well thought out storyline.
It is interesting a Star Wars TV series enjoy better reception now than the movies. But no matter whether you enjoyed or didn't enjoy the movie, here's a thought, if you are one of those top Disney executives, what will you do next with the brand? How will you fix it? Does it even need to be fixed?
|
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jan 4, 2020 14:08:04 GMT -5
So Disney's Star Wars trilogy has come to an end. The last movie had a...mixed reaction. Some liked it, others didn't. Some felt it did capture the old Star Wars feel, others say that it leaned too heavily on nostalgia and didn't really present a well thought out storyline. It is interesting a Star Wars TV series enjoy better reception now than the movies. But no matter whether you enjoyed or didn't enjoy the movie, here's a thought, if you are one of those top Disney executives, what will you do next with the brand? How will you fix it? Does it even need to be fixed? Personally, I would "reboot" the sequels like they do with superhero franchises that have fallen on hard times. Recast Luke, Leia, Han, etc. with great young actors and adapt the Thrawn trilogy to the big screen. This does mean retconning the last three movies, but I think that's a necessary cost. In the meantime, continue to develop good Star Wars stories and characters in other mediums (TV, video games, books, etc.). For video games specifically, I think Disney needs to license the IP to other companies when its deal with EA expires in 2023. Letting EA have an exclusive license for 10 years was a major mistake. I've heard good things about the newest Star Wars game, but there was a gap of like 15 years since the last truly great Star Wars games in the early 2000s. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 4, 2020 15:59:13 GMT -5
Those were pretty good. Not surprising considering that Timothy Zahn wrote them. But there are many more interesting SF stories that could be told if they were bold enough to let "Star Wars" fade into history. Of course, it doesn't work that way. Disney has made a huge investment in the Star Wars brand and they are going to want to earn that money back. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2020 19:16:58 GMT -5
Exploring the extended universe would be fun... not sure what specifically
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 4, 2020 19:31:01 GMT -5
Those were pretty good. Not surprising considering that Timothy Zahn wrote them. But there are many more interesting SF stories that could be told if they were bold enough to let "Star Wars" fade into history. Of course, it doesn't work that way. Disney has made a huge investment in the Star Wars brand and they are going to want to earn that money back. Yeah, there a lot of interesting SF stories out there. But I think the demand for science fiction is big enough such that Star Wars don't have a monopoly on the genre (and I suppose, Star Wars is more space opera/space western than strictly science fiction anyway). If Disney does not want to make any SF movies for fear of diminishing their own Star Wars brand, I am pretty sure other studios will make them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2020 19:37:32 GMT -5
lets have a trilogy for baby yoda and porgs
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 4, 2020 19:37:57 GMT -5
So Disney's Star Wars trilogy has come to an end. The last movie had a...mixed reaction. Some liked it, others didn't. Some felt it did capture the old Star Wars feel, others say that it leaned too heavily on nostalgia and didn't really present a well thought out storyline. It is interesting a Star Wars TV series enjoy better reception now than the movies. But no matter whether you enjoyed or didn't enjoy the movie, here's a thought, if you are one of those top Disney executives, what will you do next with the brand? How will you fix it? Does it even need to be fixed? Personally, I would "reboot" the sequels like they do with superhero franchises that have fallen on hard times. Recast Luke, Leia, Han, etc. with great young actors and adapt the Thrawn trilogy to the big screen. This does mean retconning the last three movies, but I think that's a necessary cost. In the meantime, continue to develop good Star Wars stories and characters in other mediums (TV, video games, books, etc.). For video games specifically, I think Disney needs to license the IP to other companies when its deal with EA expires in 2023. Letting EA have an exclusive license for 10 years was a major mistake. I've heard good things about the newest Star Wars game, but there was a gap of like 15 years since the last truly great Star Wars games in the early 2000s. The extended universe does have some cool stories I agree, although George Lucas never treated them as canon and neither did Disney. Because the prequels and Disney trilogy conflicted with some of the extended universe stories if I remember. As for reboot, sure, but recasting Luke, Hans and Leia will be real tricky, never mind trying to outdo the original films, that is going to be extremely challenging, to put it mildly. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jan 4, 2020 19:56:48 GMT -5
Personally, I would "reboot" the sequels like they do with superhero franchises that have fallen on hard times. Recast Luke, Leia, Han, etc. with great young actors and adapt the Thrawn trilogy to the big screen. This does mean retconning the last three movies, but I think that's a necessary cost. In the meantime, continue to develop good Star Wars stories and characters in other mediums (TV, video games, books, etc.). For video games specifically, I think Disney needs to license the IP to other companies when its deal with EA expires in 2023. Letting EA have an exclusive license for 10 years was a major mistake. I've heard good things about the newest Star Wars game, but there was a gap of like 15 years since the last truly great Star Wars games in the early 2000s. The extended universe does have some cool stories I agree, although George Lucas never treated them as canon and neither did Disney. Because the prequels and Disney trilogy conflicted with some of the extended universe stories if I remember. As for reboot, sure, but recasting Luke, Hans and Leia will be real tricky, never mind trying to outdo the original films, that is going to be extremely challenging, to put it mildly. Sure, I don't think it's easy no matter what they do. They've blown a lot of the initial goodwill they accrued when they acquired the rights from Lucas. It's true that they did retcon the expanded universe, but my proposal involves retconning the new movies and unretconning the Thrawn trilogy. The reason I would go with the Thrawn trilogy is because it's such a rock-solid story that I think it would be the most likely to produce good new Star Wars movies. Part of the reason I like those books so much is that I felt like I was reading a natural continuation of the central Star Wars story (i.e. the original trilogy), not watching a derivative version of it. Some of the greatest Star Wars characters (e.g. Grand Admiral Thrawn, Mara Jade, etc.) were introduced in those books. Certainly, you are correct that there is some inherent risk in the casting process that could end poorly (see: Hayden Christensen). Alternatively, they could of course go with an entirely different story that doesn't involve the main characters at all (e.g. KOTOR or something original). That would be my second preference. |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 4, 2020 21:06:03 GMT -5
The reason I would go with the Thrawn trilogy is because it's such a rock-solid story that I think it would be the most likely to produce good new Star Wars movies. Part of the reason I like those books so much is that I felt like I was reading a natural continuation of the central Star Wars story (i.e. the original trilogy), not watching a derivative version of it. Some of the greatest Star Wars characters (e.g. Grand Admiral Thrawn, Mara Jade, etc.) were introduced in those books. As I said, this is pretty simple to explain: Timothy Zahn is a good writer. Have you read other novels by him? |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jan 4, 2020 21:21:15 GMT -5
The reason I would go with the Thrawn trilogy is because it's such a rock-solid story that I think it would be the most likely to produce good new Star Wars movies. Part of the reason I like those books so much is that I felt like I was reading a natural continuation of the central Star Wars story (i.e. the original trilogy), not watching a derivative version of it. Some of the greatest Star Wars characters (e.g. Grand Admiral Thrawn, Mara Jade, etc.) were introduced in those books. As I said, this is pretty simple to explain: Timothy Zahn is a good writer. Have you read other novels by him? I have only read his Star Wars novels and apparently not all of them (I read the first five--I didn't realize he had written more). |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 4, 2020 23:12:29 GMT -5
The "Conqueror's" series was very good. He also wrote a Alistair MacLean tribute called The Icarus Hunt that was better than most actual MacLean novels. His Quadrail series started out as a classic noir detective story and kind of morphed into more of a Hitchcock-inspired thriller vein.
A few of his standalone novels that I have read also really stick with me. Deadman Switch involves a star system with incredibly valuable resources but every ship that tries to enter or leave it is unable to do so -- until one time a ship that tried happened to have the pilot die just as the attempt began. Somehow the dead pilot was able to fly the ship to the system. As to how they got back, it involved drawing straws.... So now every ship that travels there carries two condemned prisoners, one to be the pilot inbound and one to be the pilot outbound. But as the novel starts, the protagonist discovers that the intended outbound prisoner/pilot is actually innocent of the crime he was convicted of.
Another one of his novels I remember was Angelmass. A singularity is discovered that emits strange particles that influence people to behave morally and ethically good. It becomes a requirement for anyone in important leadership positions to have an "angel" particle. However, not everybody trusts these "angels". And as for the angelmass itself, well what happens if you draw positively charged particles away from something? It becomes negatively charged. So if you draw "good" particles away from something, what does it become?
Anyway, he's a good writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 5, 2020 7:56:12 GMT -5
The extended universe does have some cool stories I agree, although George Lucas never treated them as canon and neither did Disney. Because the prequels and Disney trilogy conflicted with some of the extended universe stories if I remember. As for reboot, sure, but recasting Luke, Hans and Leia will be real tricky, never mind trying to outdo the original films, that is going to be extremely challenging, to put it mildly. Their approach was wrong I think. They should have settled on a master storyline for the whole trilogy rather than adopt the "make-it-up-as-we-go-along approach" that has divided the fans and critics. Then gradually unveil the twist and turns in the plot in the 2nd and 3rd movie. That might have presented a more coherent plot and more indepth characters, who knows. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jan 5, 2020 11:54:01 GMT -5
They've blown a lot of the initial goodwill they accrued when they acquired the rights from Lucas. Their approach was wrong I think. They should have settled on a master storyline for the whole trilogy rather than adopt the "make-it-up-as-we-go-along approach" that has divided the fans and critics. Then gadually unveil the twist and turns in the plot in the 2nd and 3rd movie. That might have presented a more coherent plot and more indepth characters, who knows. Yeah, I agree that they took the wrong approach. In The Force Awakens, they seemed to think they could just rehash the original trilogy (particularly A New Hope) with some new characters. And granted, that did kind of work for a little while (TFA made a ton of money and got favorable initial reviews) until people started to think about it. And then with The Last Jedi, they had a different director who made a movie that had some interesting ideas but also had a completely different vision that turned out to be pretty polarizing. Plus, there are just some legitimately terrible scenes (basically everything that didn't involve the Rey/Luke/Kylo plot, though the casino planet was the worst--I felt like I was watching an episode of CSI Las Vegas or something). And then Rise of Skywalker was trying to retcon TLJ while also trying to wrap of the story in a satisfying way (it failed in my view). Structurally, it was a mess.
I agree that a master storyline would have been a good idea, and I think it would have been smart to have a single director handle this. When the Batman franchise was at its nadir following the failure of Batman and Robin, Warner Brothers hired Christopher Nolan to revitalize the franchise. And he was incredibly successful, producing three great movies, the last two of which made over a billion at the box office each. I think Nolan or someone like him could have really revitalized Star Wars too, but JJ Abrams was not the right choice, and having Rian Johnson direct the middle movie exacerbated the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Jan 5, 2020 12:02:45 GMT -5
Their approach was wrong I think. They should have settled on a master storyline for the whole trilogy rather than adopt the "make-it-up-as-we-go-along approach" that has divided the fans and critics. Then gadually unveil the twist and turns in the plot in the 2nd and 3rd movie. That might have presented a more coherent plot and more indepth characters, who knows. Yeah, I agree that they took the wrong approach. In The Force Awakens, they seemed to think they could just rehash the original trilogy (particularly A New Hope) with some new characters. And granted, that did kind of work for a little while (TFA made a ton of money and got favorable initial reviews) until people started to think about it. And then with The Last Jedi, they had a different director who made a movie that had some interesting ideas but also had a completely different vision that turned out to be pretty polarizing. Plus, there are just some legitimately terrible scenes (basically everything that didn't involve the Rey/Luke/Kylo plot, though the casino planet was the worst--I felt like I was watching an episode of CSI Las Vegas or something). And then Rise of Skywalker was trying to retcon TLJ while also trying to wrap of the story in a satisfying way (it failed in my view). Structurally, it was a mess. I agree that a master storyline would have been a good idea, and I think it would have been smart to have a single director handle this. When the Batman franchise was at its nadir following the failure of Batman and Robin, Warner Brothers hired Christopher Nolan to revitalize the franchise. And he was incredibly successful, producing three great movies, the last two of which made over a billion at the box office each. I think Nolan or someone like him could have really revitalized Star Wars too, but JJ Abrams was not the right choice, and having Rian Johnson direct the middle movie exacerbated the problem.
Good points. I do think though it is possible to have different directors so long as they and the studio agree they are working off a planned blueprint (the master storyline). I mean the Harry Potter franchise had several different directors, yet the story as a whole gels together well because it was Rowling who provided the overarching plot to follow. |
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Jan 5, 2020 12:13:03 GMT -5
Yeah, I agree that they took the wrong approach. In The Force Awakens, they seemed to think they could just rehash the original trilogy (particularly A New Hope) with some new characters. And granted, that did kind of work for a little while (TFA made a ton of money and got favorable initial reviews) until people started to think about it. And then with The Last Jedi, they had a different director who made a movie that had some interesting ideas but also had a completely different vision that turned out to be pretty polarizing. Plus, there are just some legitimately terrible scenes (basically everything that didn't involve the Rey/Luke/Kylo plot, though the casino planet was the worst--I felt like I was watching an episode of CSI Las Vegas or something). And then Rise of Skywalker was trying to retcon TLJ while also trying to wrap of the story in a satisfying way (it failed in my view). Structurally, it was a mess. I agree that a master storyline would have been a good idea, and I think it would have been smart to have a single director handle this. When the Batman franchise was at its nadir following the failure of Batman and Robin, Warner Brothers hired Christopher Nolan to revitalize the franchise. And he was incredibly successful, producing three great movies, the last two of which made over a billion at the box office each. I think Nolan or someone like him could have really revitalized Star Wars too, but JJ Abrams was not the right choice, and having Rian Johnson direct the middle movie exacerbated the problem.
Good points. I do think though it is possible to have different directors so long as they and the studio agree they are working off a planned blueprint (the master storyline). I mean the Harry Potter franchise had several different directors, yet the story as a whole gels together well because it was Rowling who provided the overarching plot to follow. Sure, I didn't mean to suggest it was necessary to have the same director. After all, the original trilogy had three directors, but all three movies are all faithful to Lucas' vision for the story. This is in contrast to The Last Jedi, which felt like it was in a different storyline from The Force Awakens. I do think it's a bit easier to do this when adapting a story (e.g. Harry Potter). Just look at Game of Thrones. The first four seasons are the best in large part because their source material is the first three books, which are also the best in the series. The fifth and sixth seasons were adapted from the weaker fourth and fifth books, and there was a corresponding drop in quality. And then the last two seasons were completely without a blueprint and were a mess. But honestly, the main thing is just to have the right person in charge. It's like hiring the right coach to revitalize a once-proud program. |
|
