Could it be facts prove Star Wars is just not the draw is used to be?

[Master Yoda]

If there was embarassment over the effects after 5 years, I'd say they were a victim of their own success. ILM pioneered the effects industry in those days, and the advances they themselves made between ep IV and ep VI were amazing. What's sad is that you can no longer get the original three movies in their historical ground-breaking form, since Lucas re-did them.

I'll sell you my VHS copies.

 

[Bairstow]

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney released the original versions on blu-ray (or whatever the format is at that point) once the next film is ready to roll.
I mean, the market is there. Why wouldn't they?

 

[Master Yoda]

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney released the original versions on blu-ray (or whatever the format is at that point) once the next film is ready to roll.
I mean, the market is there. Why wouldn't they?

I am not sure there really is. Sure, there is a vocal section of the fan base that is asking for it, but I am not really sure if there are enough to justify releasing it. I know I have no interest in a Blu-Ray copy of the original format.

 

[OrderMuppet]

I'm trying to imagine what kind of action/sci-fi movie Goldman would have been watching in the mid-'80s that would make him "embarrassed" by the special effects and acting in Star Wars. Predator? Aliens? Beetelejuice?

Not sure, but I distinctly recall he used the word "embarrassed." It stuck out. I read that bit over twice because it surprised me so much. Obviously, that's just his [1983] opinion; I thought it was relevant to this discussion because it sounded as though he didn't expect it to go the distance, history-wise. Funny how these things seem in retrospect.

Edit: Here is the passage I mentioned. He talks about special effects elsewhere, so I confess to misremembering them in the same blurb.
I am continually dumbfounded by the effects of time. I recently looked at three movies, one I saw alone, La Dolce Vita, and two accompanied by teenagers: Star Wars and Bambi.
I was never crazy about Star Wars when it came out, but I loved the excitement of the audience reaction. This time, the audience reaction was actually this: embarrassment.
The young people I saw it with thought it was corny and badly acted, but their embarrassment was because this was the same movie they had gone berserk over, seeing it again and again, just five years before.
(If anyone is curious, he goes on to praise Bambi. )

I love Star Wars so I obviously disagree that it is corny and badly acted. I guess my point was that Harry Potter may go through a similar period of passé and then be elevated back to greatness by the next generation--or not. Star Wars may have as large a fanbase in 25 years as it does now...or not. Avatar may climb to a "Top howevermany American movies" position by then... or not. To wrap it up with something Goldman says earlier in the book, "...the single most important fact, perhaps, of the entire movie industry: nobody knows anything."

 

[MOXOMUMD]

The movies are still being rerun on cable; I'm not sure if the last one has even reached [basic] cable yet.
\

It hasn't. My theory is ABCFamily will wait until the holiday season and then make it one of the premieres during their 25 Days of Christmas.

 

[flynnibus]

I'd be really interested if anyone out there has numbers on whether or not younger kids are reading Harry Potter now that there isn't a media cycle feeding it. Obviously, Potter lives on to all those who read the books and watched the movies, but I think it would be an interesting study to find out if people who were too young before are now seeking it out or if they're on to other things.

Wizards, magic, creatures, etc... doesn't matter if you've never read the books.. those concepts are almost universal and people will relate even if they don't get all the specific references.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney released the original versions on blu-ray (or whatever the format is at that point) once the next film is ready to roll.
I mean, the market is there. Why wouldn't they?

What was really frustrating was I was watching my old VHS of Episode 6. It was on TV that night, and I went upstairs and my mother had it on. I realized the tapes needed to be replaced.

But they no longer sell them on DVD!!! I've got a blue ray player, but I wanted to be able to watch them on my laptop and such. I ended up buying them on blue ray since I could get them for $30 (all three on Bestbuy.com, in store pickup, no shipping cost) but it was still frustrating because I would have prefered DVD

 

[lazyboy97o]

I wouldn't be surprised if Disney released the original versions on blu-ray (or whatever the format is at that point) once the next film is ready to roll.
I mean, the market is there. Why wouldn't they?

I am not sure there really is. Sure, there is a vocal section of the fan base that is asking for it, but I am not really sure if there are enough to justify releasing it. I know I have no interest in a Blu-Ray copy of the original format.

With Disney embracing digital distribution it'd be much easier and less costly to release the original versions.

 

[juniorthomas]

Wizards, magic, creatures, etc... doesn't matter if you've never read the books.. those concepts are almost universal and people will relate even if they don't get all the specific references.

I get that, but what you're describing sounds like it would apply more to people already in the parks. If you're already there you'd certainly take a flier out and take a look at the HP properties on site. If you're trying to decide between Universal and Disney, and you haven't read the books, I feel like wizards may not be enough.

 

[juniorthomas]

I would guess that we're probably still too close to tell. For instance, younger siblings will have easy access to their older siblings' book copies, to which the initial owners are still too attached to banish to the attic/basement/giveaway bin. The movies are still being rerun on cable; I'm not sure if the last one has even reached [basic] cable yet.

I was reading William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade (published 1983) last night and he had some interesting comments on Star Wars (ep IV). The section was about movie endurance over time, and he specifically mentioned that he and some friends watched Star Wars again (~5 years after initial release) and felt "embarrassed" by the special effects, the acting, etc. (I tried to find the exact passage online to paste here; no luck. Maybe when I go home tonight I'll type it out.) They probably would not have believed, in 1980-whatever, that it would still have such a following in 2013, be rerun frequently on cable, be in the top 20 of AFI's "100 years, 100 movies" list... It's safe to say that most popular stuff inevitably goes through a passé phase and who knows whether or not any one franchise/trend will be the one-in-a-hundred to come out the other side.

Edited because I got my roman numerals backwards. :\

Good points all around. Only time will tell.

Also:

"I am continually dumbfounded by the effects of time. I recently looked at three movies, one I saw alone, La Dolce Vita, and two accompanied by teenagers: Star Wars and Bambi.

I was never crazy about Star Wars when it came out, but I loved the excitement of the audience reaction. This time, the audience reaction was actually this: embarrassment.

The young people I saw it with thought it was corny and badly acted, but their embarrassment was because this was the same movie that had gone berserk over, seeing it again and again, just five years before.

...

None of this is to indicate that (a) I'm remotely correct in my judgment or (b) if I see it again twenty years from now I won't find it a masterpiece again." (149-50)

 

[doctornick]

Disney has a bad habit of killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Examples? The only one I can really think of is the Pirates movies. You could possibly argue it with all the home video sequels of classic films, but those are so under the radar/out of mainstream that I don't think they have any appreciable impact on the original movies. The Pixar sequels have all be excellent and enhanced the franchises, except Cars 2 but that I don't think harmed anything, just was a mediocre offering.

I know you cited Marvel earlier in the thread, which I'd personally disagree with -- I think by having different movies based on different characters but with some commonality, they are very effectively exploring the subject matter to the mainstream audience. If anything, I hope they plan to expand their offerings to more characters and wish they could get some back that they don't control (I know X-men and Spider Man aren't going to happen, but perhaps Fox's plans for the Fantastic Four reboot might fall through).

 

[Disneyhead'71]

Examples? The only one I can really think of is the Pirates movies. You could possibly argue it with all the home video sequels of classic films, but those are so under the radar/out of mainstream that I don't think they have any appreciable impact on the original movies. The Pixar sequels have all be excellent and enhanced the franchises, except Cars 2 but that I don't think harmed anything, just was a mediocre offering.

I know you cited Marvel earlier in the thread, which I'd personally disagree with -- I think by having different movies based on different characters but with some commonality, they are very effectively exploring the subject matter to the mainstream audience. If anything, I hope they plan to expand their offerings to more characters and wish they could get some back that they don't control (I know X-men and Spider Man aren't going to happen, but perhaps Fox's plans for the Fantastic Four reboot might fall through).

I was thinking "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?"

"If once a week makes us a lot of money, just think how much we will make if we air it twice a night, every night of the week. We will be ...huh..huh..Millionaires..huh..huh.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I was thinking "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?"

"If once a week makes us a lot of money, just think how much we will make if we air it twice a night, every night of the week. We will be ...huh..huh..Millionaires..huh..huh.

Or the way Stitch was shoved on to everything.

 

[flynnibus]

I get that, but what you're describing sounds like it would apply more to people already in the parks. If you're already there you'd certainly take a flier out and take a look at the HP properties on site. If you're trying to decide between Universal and Disney, and you haven't read the books, I feel like wizards may not be enough.

You know what brings people to a property? When other people tell them they had a amazing time and they should go. The vast majority of people couldn't tell you what every attraction and its backstory is.. they just know 'they should go there'. When talking about longevity.. that is far more valuable than a pull from the branding.

If you have an amazing attraction that is approachable to people.. that alone will create pull for future guests. The point is even if the HP literature fails to draw people on it's name alone, the environments and attractions can still resonate with people. That's all that's necessary. Case in point.. Splash Mountain.

 

[doctornick]

You know what brings people to a property? When other people tell them they had a amazing time and they should go. The vast majority of people couldn't tell you what every attraction and its backstory is.. they just know 'they should go there'. When talking about longevity.. that is far more valuable than a pull from the branding.

If you have an amazing attraction that is approachable to people.. that alone will create pull for future guests. The point is even if the HP literature fails to draw people on it's name alone, the environments and attractions can still resonate with people. That's all that's necessary. Case in point.. Splash Mountain.

I think you see it with Cars Land too. A lot of people have never seen the movies or have seen them but don't care for them but still walk away impressed with the land. A well done attraction/land should be able to thrive no matter what the popularity of the source material (or despite not being based on other IP).

 

[flynnibus]

I think you see it with Cars Land too. A lot of people have never seen the movies or have seen them but don't care for them but still walk away impressed with the land. A well done attraction/land should be able to thrive no matter what the popularity of the source material (or despite not being based on other IP).

But in that line of thinking.. I think you overstepped by just a bit.. the 'popularity of the source 'material' in these cases goes beyond the SPECIFIC source. Just like wizards, magic, castles are going to be accessible to people and enjoyable regardless if they know of HP.. carsland will continue to work because it's based on americana, 50s nostalgia, puns, etc. Things that people will connect with regardless of Cars the movie. That's what makes these franchises so powerful and primed to hold up well - the franchises themselves are based on popular genres. It's not that 'this is a really cool ride!!' independent of the source material.. for a great ride the story needs to be relevant too - but that the source material is based on proven concepts that will connect with the guests regardless because of the broad appeal of the root material.

It's why things like the HM, POTC, etc worked without being based on a specific 'winning franchise' - they were rooted in widely known genres. Same as Radiator Springs is.. as is Harry Potter.

 

[The Empress Lilly]

Or the way Stitch was shoved on to everything.

On the upside, Stitch was a movie character who was then appropriated by marketing and merchandising.


Ten years later, it's marketing and merchandise who develop characters and order movies based on them, such as the merchandise vehicle franchises of Cars and Pixies.

 

[juniorthomas]

You know what brings people to a property? When other people tell them they had a amazing time and they should go. The vast majority of people couldn't tell you what every attraction and its backstory is.. they just know 'they should go there'. When talking about longevity.. that is far more valuable than a pull from the branding.

If you have an amazing attraction that is approachable to people.. that alone will create pull for future guests. The point is even if the HP literature fails to draw people on it's name alone, the environments and attractions can still resonate with people. That's all that's necessary. Case in point.. Splash Mountain.

I just feel like the majority of people who go to HP are people who are already at Universal, as opposed to people who are going there specifically for HP. Take that with a grain of salt - that's not based on any hard statistics. Just a gut feeling.

 

[flynnibus]

I just feel like the majority of people who go to HP are people who are already at Universal, as opposed to people who are going there specifically for HP. Take that with a grain of salt - that's not based on any hard statistics. Just a gut feeling.

Well obviously if you are there... you're going to go see the 'hot new thing' regardless if that attraction is why you came in the first place. But to think the rest is 'by default' would be ignoring the massive attendance boost the property saw after the WWOHP was opened. That wasn't coincidence

 

[juniorthomas]

Well obviously if you are there... you're going to go see the 'hot new thing' regardless if that attraction is why you came in the first place. But to think the rest is 'by default' would be ignoring the massive attendance boost the property saw after the WWOHP was opened. That wasn't coincidence

No it wasn't at all. I'm thinking more of now, a few years after it opened. The novelty of the hot new thing has long since passed.