News Disney’s Boy Trouble: Studio Seeks Original IP to Win Back Gen-Z Men Amid Marvel, Lucasfilm Struggles

[AdventureHasAName]

Just because boomers weren’t playing with the toys didn’t mean it was just a phenomena for kids. It wouldn’t have been so overwhelmingly successful if it was just X who enjoyed it.

It's the reaction of the kids that made it a phenomena. For Baby Boomers, the longterm cultural reaction (particularly regarding spending) to Star Wars was not demonstrably different than say the Godfather or Rocky. I'd even go as far as to say that I think the Baby Boomer attachment to the Indiana Jones franchise exceeded their affection for Star Wars. My father is 78 years old, if I told him I was taking him to the Madalorian movie, he would have zero interest and actively not want to go (despite me forcing him to watch the first two seasons of the show and him generally liking it - mostly because it returned to its roots as a western in space). But if I told him there was an Indiana Jones movie in theaters, he'd want to go opening weekend.

Star Wars was built on Generation X ... ten year old boys buying Darth Vader action figures and bringing a Chewbacca lunch box to school.

 

[Willmark]

What an Xer would say about Disney?

The letters N-S-F-W come to mind…

Agreed, but they also might get a "meh"

I haven't been this entertained for quite some time with the notion that "Boomers and Xers are the same."

 

[AdventureHasAName]

What an Xer would say about Disney?

When The Last Jedi was released, I started actively hating the company.

 

[coffeefan]

34 year olds in 1977 weren’t the “prime demographic” for Star Wars…

They were likely working blue collar with a couple of kids

Applying todays standards to the past is how we get ourselves into trouble and look stupid.

Boomers were teens to young adults when the movie came out. 13 - 31yo.

 

[TP2000]

Ok, I’m a woman and some of the comments in this thread are bordering on offensive. Quality content appeals across the board to female and male audiences.

I'm not sure what is offensive about cold hard facts (box office returns, streaming viewership, sales figures, etc.) from the people Bob Iger has placed to be in charge of what were once young male demographic offerings.

Quality content appeals, that is correct, but it's obvious that a big part of Disney's "Boy Problem" is that Disney's senior leadership went down the exact same road other corporate failures like Bud Light and Cracker Barrel have recently; new execs show up who dislike their core customers and tried to reinvent their brands to appeal to a completely different customer who traditionally never bought their product. And failure is always swift and severe with that strategy.

In this case, Disney wanted girls and young women to buy Star Wars and Marvel products just as much as boys and young men previously had. That obviously didn't work, and any one who has ever spent 10 minutes in a high school's boys locker room could have told Ms. Kennedy and the other Burbank execs that.

They didn't want to do movies for boys and young men for some reason, so they tried to change the product to attract a different audience demographic. That it has failed spectacularly at the cost of Billions of dollars is not surprising to many of us. It only seems surprising to execs in Burbank who don't get out much.

 

[flynnibus]

Boomers were teens to young adults when the movie came out. 13 - 31yo.

TIL that in 1977.. 8yrs had mustaches...

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Boomers were teens to young adults when the movie came out. 13 - 31yo.

Did you misunderstand what I’m saying?

The prime demographic for a sci fi flick in 1977 was not 18-34…that’s the cosplay comic con crowd today

The end of boom was…but the first half of X were moreso

Star Wars was not cut to be for 10 year olds…no matter what George said after his crappy prequels.

You don’t put Alec Guinness on Saturday morning next to bugs bunny…

Which is why its appeal was unique. It could capture a broader range of fandom
When that was just being defined. If anyone here (and we’re all on the same side) can remember the 1980’s…the tent poles we went to see where 100% driven by Star Wars…it opened the flood gates and created modern Hollywood.

Can’t really be overstated.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Ok, I’m a woman and some of the comments in this thread are bordering on offensive. Quality content appeals across the board to female and male audiences.

The Star Wars sequels were bad because they weren’t well-written or creative or even cohesive; the worst Marvel stuff clearly was churned out without care or love of the product.

This has nothing to do with who the content is aimed at. Yes, more men like Red Dawn than women; I’m not saying there isn’t male/female centric content.

But to blame failures on trying to appeal to women is ridiculous.

The last 2 Indiana Jones flops have nothing to do with trying to appeal to women- a Lucasfilm franchise, I might add, that historically succeeded because it appealed to multiple demographics.

Plenty of girls/women loved the original Star Wars movies. They have universal appeal.

And are we honestly saying the Lion King is a boy movie? Because I was in middle school when the original came out, and all of my friends and I were obsessed. It’s Hamlet.

The mandate from above to churn stuff out en masse, per some algorithm they think promises success, has affected the Disney company across the board- we’ve all seen it at the parks.

The problem here is the reduction of quality (at great expense), in the prioritization of flashy emptiness over meaningful depth, and this is a direct result of creatives losing their power at the company.

This is what you should be attacking: that imagineers and filmmakers with talent are being marginalized, while cardboard CEOs like Iger, and non-creative backgrounds like Kennedy, are running things.

When true creatives are given the chance to run with it, rides like Tower of Terror and content like Andor is produced.

When they’re not, you get Toy Story Land and Secret Invasion.

I agree with you completely.

You know what appealed to a broad range of demographics?

Star Wars. The suggestion that it didn’t is revisionist and totally wrong.

It wasn’t “white only” and it certainly wasn’t “men only”

If you read an studies of film history…and that’s one of my niches…the archetype for the female action lead is always giving credit to two characters: Ellen Ripley and Leia organa. The portrayals were different…even with the princess Crap.

What Disney didn’t need to do was pull punches to fix an imaginary problem
In Star Wars. It looks cynical and is as bad of cultural appropriation in the 21st century you could find.

All you have to do is deliver strong characters…as MCU proved until they started pulling punches again.

Humans will like it. No restrictions on what their dna says

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm not sure what is offensive about cold hard facts (box office returns, streaming viewership, sales figures, etc.) from the people Bob Iger has placed to be in charge of what were once young male demographic offerings.

Quality content appeals, that is correct, but it's obvious that a big part of Disney's "Boy Problem" is that Disney's senior leadership went down the exact same road other corporate failures like Bud Light and Cracker Barrel have recently; new execs show up who dislike their core customers and tried to reinvent their brands to appeal to a completely different customer who traditionally never bought their product. And failure is always swift and severe with that strategy.

In this case, Disney wanted girls and young women to buy Star Wars and Marvel products just as much as boys and young men previously had. That obviously didn't work, and any one who has ever spent 10 minutes in a high school's boys locker room could have told Ms. Kennedy and the other Burbank execs that.

They didn't want to do movies for boys and young men for some reason, so they tried to change the product to attract a different audience demographic. That it has failed spectacularly at the cost of Billions of dollars is not surprising to many of us. It only seems surprising to execs in Burbank who don't get out much.

Yeah…

And I don’t LIKE that you’re completely right. But you are

I’m all for change for leveling the field…always have been. But it has always required steps…you don’t go for the gusto as fast as you can. People are still equipped with primal instincts and have to adapt.

It’s just how the planet spins.

In the end…make good stuff and it will all level out in due course

Disney sells mass consumer product…and perhaps the #1 the entire management needs to be replaced is that they are completely detached from the public. They demonstrate almost daily that they HATE their customers. It’s not good enough for what they believe to be the “tech think tank” they’re running. And those customers resent carrying them for 100 years more and more

 

[networkpro]

I'm 50 years old; tail end of Generation X.

Literally my first memory is being in a movie theater during the opening scene of Star Wars when the smaller ship is being chased by the larger imperial ship. I am told that it was at a double feature showing of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes back in 1980. I was four.

I'm 61 and the tail end of the Boomer generation. Star Wars was not the first Science Fiction movie that I had seen. Prior to Star Wars was Forbidden Planet, the whole series of the Planet of the Apes, and Logans' Run, Soylent Green, Silent Running all which were cautionary tales about the direction of both society and science. Star Wars was refreshing as it was just a few good vs evil tropes and lots of flashy lights and explosions. Even though it was a blatant rip off of Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress, it was fun and not too difficult to wrap your noggin around.

IMHO the Disney changes to Star Wars and other properties made it less fun and more of a European film style which doesn't focus on plot but rather "artistic expression" and ambiguity over an American film sequence which can introduce characters, advance the plot, or express thematic ideas within an American cultural context. Even the worst Michael (big boom) Bay film manages to do that (in the most ridiculous manner most times)

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Ok…Soylent green reference wins the thread

 

[networkpro]

And what was Star Wars modeled on? The serials of the early TV pioneers and format taken from radio. Boomers range from 1946-1964


A boomer born in 1960 was a teenager when Star Wars hit. A boomer born in 1955 was only 22. This is the prime 18-34 demographic that movie theaters were focused on.

Know why baby boomers weren't playing with action figures or dressing up in the plastic masks at halloween? Because they weren't 12. That doesn't mean they weren't fans. Literally Star Wars was a pop culture phenom. And that's not driven by 8yr olds.

I mean this topic has been written on for ages for how Star Wars changed film. The toy element and kids is there, but not the sole audience nor significance of the film and its release.

Paramount didn't change Star Trek The Motion Picture because of Star War's kid demographic...

"Pop culture" before (anti) social media was very different at least in the less than urban South. Communities were less fragmented and societal norms were more openly followed. Things people did in the next county, much less another state or geographic region were (and for a lot of things) still considered quaint and foreign. This is the same geographic region that strangers from that far off foreign land of California bought up swampland and built WDW.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

When The Last Jedi was released, I started actively hating the company.

That’s more because you’re an old Star Wars fan than you’re an Xer…

Actually it’s both. You row left oar in this boat and I’ll row right

 

[erasure fan1]

My father is 78 years old, if I told him I was taking him to the Madalorian movie, he would have zero interest and actively not want to go

My dad would have been 80 and he'd have gone to the force awakens and rogue one opening weekend. He went to see phantom menace when it came out. He loved the original trilogy.

Star Wars was built on Generation X ... ten year old boys buying Darth Vader action figures and bringing a Chewbacca lunch box to school.

I don't think there's any argument with that at all. All I'm saying is I think there's a bigger contingent of boomers that really liked star wars when it came out than you might think.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

My dad would have been 80 and he'd have gone to the force awakens and rogue one opening weekend. He went to see phantom menace when it came out. He loved the original trilogy.

I don't think there's any argument with that at all. All I'm saying is I think there's a bigger contingent of boomers that really liked star wars when it came out than you might think.

Was Star Wars the first movie with kid/adult appeal?

Prior to that Hollywood pretty much picked a lane…except maybe Wizard of oz…

And some Disney movies…Poppins would definitely suit

 

[Stripes]

I'm not sure what is offensive about cold hard facts (box office returns, streaming viewership, sales figures, etc.) from the people Bob Iger has placed to be in charge of what were once young male demographic offerings.

Quality content appeals, that is correct, but it's obvious that a big part of Disney's "Boy Problem" is that Disney's senior leadership went down the exact same road other corporate failures like Bud Light and Cracker Barrel have recently; new execs show up who dislike their core customers and tried to reinvent their brands to appeal to a completely different customer who traditionally never bought their product. And failure is always swift and severe with that strategy.

In this case, Disney wanted girls and young women to buy Star Wars and Marvel products just as much as boys and young men previously had. That obviously didn't work, and any one who has ever spent 10 minutes in a high school's boys locker room could have told Ms. Kennedy and the other Burbank execs that.

They didn't want to do movies for boys and young men for some reason, so they tried to change the product to attract a different audience demographic. That it has failed spectacularly at the cost of Billions of dollars is not surprising to many of us. It only seems surprising to execs in Burbank who don't get out much.

I mean, George Lucas himself wanted to pivot to a female focused story for episodes 7-9. Disney, and more specifically Kathy K, seemed to want to honor his wishes.

Jyn Erso is a great character in Rogue One. Mon Mothma is a great character in Andor. Bix is a great character in Andor. Wanda is a great character in Wandavision. Yelena is a great character in Thunderbolts. Sue Storm is a great character in Fantastic Four. I could go on and on. This whole anti-female characters schtick is quite sad.

 

[Mike S]

Prior to Star Wars was Forbidden Planet, the whole series of the Planet of the Apes, and Logans' Run, Soylent Green, Silent Running all which were cautionary tales about the direction of both society and science. Star Wars was refreshing as it was just a few good vs evil tropes and lots of flashy lights and explosions.

The original Planet of the Apes, another absolute classic I’m thankful my family shared with me at a young age. You think we might be in another similar cycle with Hollywood which is why the dumb fun Dinosaurs of Jurassic World cleaned up this summer? But then you’d think Superman would’ve done better than it did too.

 

[Agent H]

No offense meant to OP or anyone else in particular but I find this thread particularly annoying. All we’ve done is go down the same old list of reasons why Disney content is “unappealing” that we often discuss (and sometimes debunk) in the box office thread under the disguise of discussing this article that I’ve already voiced my distaste for.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No offense meant to OP or anyone else in particular but I find this thread particularly annoying. All we’ve done is go down the same old list of reasons why Disney content is “unappealing” that we often discuss (and sometimes debunk) in the box office thread under the disguise of discussing this article that I’ve already voiced my distaste for.

Ok…

You do understand that the thread was created about a “content problem”, right?

Where would you like it to go?

 

[Agent H]

Ok…

You do understand that the thread was created about a “content problem”, right?

Where would you like it to go?

If we have to discuss this “content problem” at all I would say it’s best suited for a couple pages of the box office thread. Again no offense meant to OP.