News Dismal Q3 Earnings

TeddyinMO

Well-Known Member
Don't forget that Kathleen Kennedy, along with her hires for The Lucasfilm Story Group, threw out the majority of the EU as not being canon. So basically they're saying those thousands of characters/stories don't exist. She/they shot Lucasfilm in the foot by doing so.
They said they weren’t canon, so they weren’t tied to them and some of the craziness that had come from the lackluster controls Lucas had on them. That doesn’t mean they can’t mine them and use the stories in a way that makes them canon. They’ve been doing that to some degree with the novels lately, and I suspect that is where they will go for the movies in the future.
 

Ravenclaw78

Well-Known Member
Don't forget that Kathleen Kennedy, along with her hires for The Lucasfilm Story Group, threw out the majority of the EU as not being canon. So basically they're saying those thousands of characters/stories don't exist. She/they shot Lucasfilm in the foot by doing so.

The EU was a mess. There wasn't even any internal consistency anymore, after decades of hundreds of authors churning out books by the dozen, much less room for Disney to tell new stories that audiences without intimate familiarity with the EU would be able to follow. They had no choice but to throw it all out and start over. Since then, they've carefully added back a number of characters and plotlines from the EU in ways that don't conflict with the stories they've told, and they'll continue to do that.
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
They said they weren’t canon, so they weren’t tied to them and some of the craziness that had come from the lackluster controls Lucas had on them. That doesn’t mean they can’t mine them and use the stories in a way that makes them canon. They’ve been doing that to some degree with the novels lately, and I suspect that is where they will go for the movies in the future.
I certainly hope so. I DO think there's a way back for Star Wars, but I also think that way back would require something major in the way of acknowledgement that there have been mistakes made.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
A week ago, when I informed everyone that Disney's stock was soon to suffer for the first time due to lower Domestic Park revenues and poor performance of Star Wars Galaxy's Edge... the above was your response. You were one of a few to openly dismiss what I was saying and ridicule the exact thing that was revealed one week later.

Since the lion king is this quarter as is most of GE's revenue so far we won't really know until the November report.
 

TeddyinMO

Well-Known Member
I certainly hope so. I DO think there's a way back for Star Wars, but I also think that way back would require something major in the way of acknowledgement that there have been mistakes made.
I actually believe that’s what’s happening now. I suspect the stand alone movies that were out there were all OT focused (Obi wan, Boba Fett). I think after Solo, they are rethinking that approach and that’s why we have the current break after Ep IX. But The Mandalorian could even be the start of the future. You take a familiar, but not actual OT character (Boba Fett-like) lead and send him to whole new worlds. That opens up the galaxy for future exploration!
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
A week ago, when I informed everyone that Disney's stock was soon to suffer for the first time due to lower Domestic Park revenues and poor performance of Star Wars Galaxy's Edge... the above was your response. You were one of a few to openly dismiss what I was saying and ridicule the exact thing that was revealed one week later.
Galaxy's Edge had little to do with the missing of the revenue targets. This was about Fox, not parks. Repeating the same untruth over and over again doesn't make it any more true.

And after just one day the stock is back up 2.25%, recovering half its losses from the day before. The Street must be freaking out over Galaxy's Edge. 🙄
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DDLand

Well-Known Member
Here’s the interesting thing about Marvel and Star Wars…

If you go back to the release of Iron Man in 2008 (DIS bought Marvel in 2009, but several MCU films were released by Paramount following that, so it’s easiest to start there), Star Wars has done well comparatively at the box office. There have now been 26 films released between Star Wars and the MCU. Star Wars finishes 1, 6, 7 and 22 on the domestic box office list if included with the MCU. Yet, Kathleen Kennedy gets blasted, while Kevin Feige gets universally praised (deservedly so, so please don’t think I’m knocking him).

Now, if you look at the global numbers, the picture does change a bit – although not as much as I expected. TFA drops from 1 to 2; TLJ drops from 6 to 7; Rogue 1 drops from 7 to 12 and Solo drops from 22 to 25. Considering Solo and R1 have a direct ties to the original trilogy, which has a much lower international presence, it is logical that they’d not do as well globally. In other words, if you look at the success of Kennedy compared to Feige, she is doing just fine. With only four movies, she has three of the top 7 domestically and 3 of the top 12 internationally in this makeshift Disney-owned universe.

Now, does this mean that Solo didn’t under-perform? Of course not. But it did about as well domestically as Dr. Strange and Ant Man and the Wasp, which was released the same summer. It just didn’t translate internationally like those did.

So, I am not so sure that I’d write off Star Wars yet. I just think Disney needs to look at how to get the non-Skywalker films to translate better internationally. One solution for that would be to look beyond the OT and explore some of the EU, which can certainly be mined for gold. Find stories that will translate in China and other countries that are related enough to the Universe that they work both domestically and internationally. The MCU has excelled in this area in recent years. I think Star Wars still can too.

I also think that if Solo had been released at Christmas instead of May, it easily jumps by $100 million domestically and is up by Thor: Ragnorak domestically (although it doesn’t change anything internationally). It got eaten alive by the TLJ, Black Panther and Infinity War aftermath. (Yes, this is just my opinion.)

And, no matter what you think of any of these movies/franchises, I think it’s pretty obvious Bob Iger is quite happy he made these purchases!



DOMESTIC BOX OFFICE (BOX OFFICE MOJO)

1​
Star Wars: The Force AwakensBV
$936,662,225
4,134​
2​
Avengers: EndgameBV
$857,615,351
4,662​
3​
Black PantherBV
$700,059,566
4,084​
4​
Avengers: Infinity WarBV
$678,815,482
4,474​
5​
Marvel's The AvengersBV
$623,357,910
4,349​
6​
Star Wars: The Last JediBV
$620,181,382
4,232​
7​
Rogue One: A Star Wars StoryBV
$532,177,324
4,157​
8​
Avengers: Age of UltronBV
$459,005,868
4,276​
9​
Captain Marvel BV
$426,829,839
3/8/2019
4,310​
10​
Iron Man 3BV
$409,013,994
4,253​
11​
Captain America: Civil WarBV
$408,084,349
5/6/2016
4,226​
12​
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2BV
$389,813,101
4,347​
13​
Spider-Man: Far from HomeSony
$363,442,286
7/2/2019
4,634​
14​
Spider-Man: HomecomingSony
$334,201,140
4,348​
15​
Guardians of the GalaxyBV
$333,176,600
4,088​
16​
Iron ManPar.
$318,412,101
4,154​
17​
Thor: RagnarokBV
$315,058,289
11/3/2017
4,080​
18​
Iron Man 2Par.
$312,433,331
4,390​
19​
Captain America: The Winter SoldierBV
$259,766,572
4/4/2014
3,938​
20​
Doctor StrangeBV
$232,641,920
11/4/2016
3,882​
21​
Ant Man and the WaspBV
$216,648,740
4,206​
22​
Solo: A Star Wars StoryBV
$213,767,512
5/25/2018
4,381​
23​
Thor: The Dark WorldBV
$206,362,140
3,841​
24​
ThorPar.
$181,030,624
5/6/2011
3,963​
25​
Ant-ManBV
$180,202,163
3,868​
26​
Captain America: The First AvengerPar.
$176,654,505
3,715​






WORLDWIDE BOX OFFICE (BOX OFFICE MOJO)



1​
Avengers: EndgameBV
2,794,800,000​
4,662​
2​
Star Wars: The Force AwakensBV
$2,068,200,000​
4,134​
3​
Avengers: Infinity WarBV
2,048,400,000​
4,474​
4​
Marvel's The AvengersBV
1,518,800,000​
4,349​
5​
Avengers: Age of UltronBV
1,405,400,000​
4,276​
6​
Black PantherBV
1,346,900,000​
4,020​
7​
Star Wars: The Last JediBV
1,332,500,000​
4,232​
8​
Iron Man 3BV
1,214,800,000​
4,253​
9​
Captain America: Civil WarBV
1,153,300,000​
5/6/2016
4,226​
10​
Captain Marvel BV
1,128,300,000​
3/8/2019
4,310​
11​
Spider-Man: Far from HomeSony
1,078,400,000​
7/2/2019
4,634​
12​
Rogue One: A Star Wars StoryBV
1,056,100,000​
4,157​
13​
Spider-Man: HomecomingSony
880,200,000​
4,348​
14​
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2BV
863,800,000​
4,347​
15​
Thor: RagnarokBV
854,000,000​
11/3/2017
4,080​
16​
Guardians of the GalaxyBV
773,300,000​
4,080​
17​
Captain America: The Winter SoldierBV
714,300,000​
4/4/2014
3,938​
18​
Doctor StrangeBV
677,700,000​
11/4/2016
3,882​
19​
Thor: The Dark WorldBV
644,600,000​
3,841​
20​
Iron Man 2Par.
623,900,000​
4,380​
21​
Ant Man and the WaspBV
622,700,000​
4,206​
22​
Iron ManPar.
585,200,000​
4,105​
23​
Ant-ManBV
519,300,000​
3,856​
24​
ThorPar.
449,300,000​
5/6/2011
3,955​
25​
Solo: A Star Wars StoryBV
392,900,000​
5/25/2018
4,381​
26​
Captain America: The First AvengerPar.
370,600,000​
3,715​

The difference between Star Wars and Marvel is the starting point. Marvel Studios was essentially a licensor of IP, that decided to bring production in house with mediocre IP in Hollywood’s eyes. The odds of this underfunded experiment working were limited. While Marvel did have a loyal fan base, that fan base wouldn’t be enough. It would have to push niche characters into the mainstream. This was crazy.

But it worked.

Arguably Iger’s greatest genius was seeing the potential of Marvel early on. While I think Walt Disney Co lost some of its soul, no one can argue with what Marvel has become. It went from a fairly successful niche film studio to a blockbuster creating juggernaut in only a few years under Disney.

Kevin gets credit because his films just keep doing better and better due to natural momentum. There’s no anticipation or pent up demand, and no real nostalgia. But new heroes can go from 0 to 1 billion in a flash. If you were to plot the graph of MCU films, the average gross would be trending up over time. Compare the average Phase 1 gross, to the average Phase 3 gross and it’s not even close. Then throw in the fact that they’re making more movies than ever before, and you just begin to see Marvel’s strength. And all indications show everything is on track to continue. While I’m somewhat skeptical Marvel can keep doing what it’s been doing, Kevin might just be able to pull it off.

Compare that to Kennedy and Co. They had three things to do:
1) Reintroduce Star Wars to the mainstream, and get the next generation hooked
2) Broaden what “Star Wars” meant from 6 movies to a full fledged film franchise
3) Introduce Star Wars to China

The results are not encouraging. While number 1 seemed promising initially, it’s hit some resistance (pun intended). Toy sales are declining and box office gross was down substantially FA to LJ. Endgame disproved the idea sequels have to perform worse. Blue Ray sales were slammed. All red flags. While it’s too soon to speak definitively, this is troubling. A good Episode 9 can fix this thing though.

Rogue One also showed encouraging results, but Solo crushed their new hope. Solo represented something like a ~60% decline in box office from Rogue One. Why? Star Ware fatigue is one answer. That was not supposed to happen.

Finally, Star Wars has failed to make any headway into China. While Marvel has built a following from scratch, Star Wars is only losing ground. This lucrative market is super important for Disney, but a non factor Star Wars.

So one unclear grade, and the other two are fails. Hmm, why should anyone be worried?

Edit: I’d be remiss not to mention the management problems...
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
The difference between Star Wars and Marvel is the starting point. Marvel Studios was essentially a licensor of IP, that decided to bring production in house with mediocre IP in Hollywood’s eyes. The odds of this underfunded experiment working were limited. While Marvel did have a loyal fan base, that fan base wouldn’t be enough. It would have to push niche characters into the mainstream. This was crazy.

But it worked.

Arguably Iger’s greatest genius was seeing the potential of Marvel early on. While I think Walt Disney Co lost some of its soul, no one can argue with what Marvel has become. It went from a fairly successful niche film studio to a blockbuster creating juggernaut in only a few years under Disney.

Kevin gets credit because his films just keep doing better and better due to natural momentum. There’s no anticipation or pent up demand, and no real nostalgia. But new heroes can go from 0 to 1 billion in a flash. If you were to plot the graph of MCU films, the average gross would be trending up over time. Compare the average Phase 1 gross, to the average Phase 3 gross and it’s not even close. Then throw in the fact that they’re making more movies than ever before, and you just begin to see Marvel’s strength. And all indications show everything is on track to continue. While I’m somewhat skeptical Marvel can keep doing what it’s been doing, Kevin might just be able to pull it off.

Compare that to Kennedy and Co. They had three things to do:
1) Reintroduce Star Wars to the mainstream, and get the next generation hooked
2) Broaden what “Star Wars” meant from 6 movies to a full fledged film franchise
3) Introduce Star Wars to China

The results are not encouraging. While number 1 seemed promising initially, it’s hit some resistance (pun intended). Toy sales are declining and box office gross was down substantially FA to LJ. Endgame disproved the idea sequels have to perform worse. Blue Ray sales were slammed. All red flags. While it’s too soon to speak definitively, this is troubling. A good Episode 9 can fix this thing though.

Rogue One also showed encouraging results, but Solo crushed their new hope. Solo represented something like a ~60% decline in box office from Rogue One. Why? Star Ware fatigue is one answer. That was not supposed to happen.

Finally, Star Wars has failed to make any headway into China. While Marvel has built a following from scratch, Star Wars is only losing ground. This lucrative market is super important for Disney, but a non factor Star Wars.

So one unclear grade, and the other two are fails. Hmm, why should anyone be worried?

Edit: I’d be remiss not to mention the management problems...
The only one I think you can clearly label a failure is #3. #1 is pretty much a success. With two high grossing movies, two very popular animated series, etc, Star Wars does appeal to a new generation. It's the older generation (of which I am part) that there is some discontent.

#2 is a bit more complicated. I don't think you can label it a failure yet. It's too early in that game. Remember, after Iron Man came Hulk. And Iron Man 2. It was only with Avengers that the MCU really took off. Star wars has one success and one failure in this category. They need time to figure out the formula for success in this regard.

#3, not sure how they can right the ship here...
 

Villains0501

Well-Known Member
The only one I think you can clearly label a failure is #3. #1 is pretty much a success. With two high grossing movies, two very popular animated series, etc, Star Wars does appeal to a new generation. It's the older generation (of which I am part) that there is some discontent.

#2 is a bit more complicated. I don't think you can label it a failure yet. It's too early in that game. Remember, after Iron Man came Hulk. And Iron Man 2. It was only with Avengers that the MCU really took off. Star wars has one success and one failure in this category. They need time to figure out the formula for success in this regard.

#3, not sure how they can right the ship here...

You're making very strong assumptions about this supposed new generational appeal. I can't say for certain whether a majority of Americans under the age of 18 like the new ST - no one can. We're strictly relying on anecdotal evidence. But reports of declining toy sales from Hasbro and now declining SW merchandise sales overall suggest the opposite of what you're saying. That's bad news for a franchise whose bread and butter is Merchandising! Merchandising!

I agree that they're still finding their footing with the franchise. Stopping production on the spin-off films was a blow to the prestige of the brand. It showed that Star Wars was not invincible at the BO. There was a time when other studios would run away scared from SW opening weekends. Now, for example, Universal feels confident launching its new Cats movie monstrosity against IX. Maybe high-budget TV is the answer now for visual stories outside the episodic films?

And I think China might be lost to them for another generation...

Look, I haven't like the direction of the ST films at all. I think they're boring, repetitive, and a missed opportunity overall. But I concede Disney was in a tricky spot with a notoriously fickle franchise that only has a success rate of about 33%, eight saga films in (one universally beloved trilogy, two divisive sister trilogies). I don't think the soft reboot approach was necessary or very wise, but I get where they were coming from. But I think for the health and long term sustainability of the brand, a new, riskier storytelling approach is needed - and I think we're getting that, if some of JJ’s recent comments about IX pan out.
 
Last edited:

RoysCabin

Well-Known Member
If there's a lesson here concerning Star Wars, I'd argue it's simply that a content company like Disney, which is clearly what they've become, can't just look at all IP as having the same qualities and potential for mass production.

In other words, Star Wars isn't Marvel, and it isn't Potter, and it isn't any number of other properties that translate well either in modern cinemas or in modern theme parks. It's still highly successful in many, many ways, of course, but it was created under completely different circumstances: it was born in a particular time and place (both physically and culturally) that it's more tied to than something like Marvel's universe, it began life as a standalone film and not as a series of ongoing monthly comics or a planned multi-part epic (no matter how much Lucas liked to say he always saw it as a 9 episode series), it also was born in the medium of film instead of print, and it's not a franchise that places a premium on locations and tangible world building.

Basically, if you want Star Wars to perform at the box office like the MCU, where you can pump out movie after movie each year and just watch the profits roll in bigger and bigger, you have to first recognize that it's not designed like that in the first place. Marvel has decades of material and characters to draw from, again due to its nature as a monthly publisher and the ongoing serial nature of most comic book superheroes. Star Wars was never like that: it was a single film that spawned two sequels, various extended universe material of wildly inconsistent quality (though I appreciate they brought Grand Admiral Thrawn back), and then had an absolutely awful prequel trilogy later on. Much of the supposed "deep lore" people attach to it is often just dialogue that had to get thrown in to make characters feel more fleshed out...like, consider the Solo movie depicting Han making "the Kessel run"...who cares about the Kessel run?! It was a throwaway line in the original movie to allow Han to brag about his ugly ship, not some mythical moment absolutely needed in an origins movie. There's also the consideration of wanting Star Wars to be "timeless", so it can constantly appeal to new generations of fans; it certainly can, I say that as someone born two years after Return of the Jedi was released, but whereas something like Marvel constantly reinvents itself over the years in terms of tone and how it approaches modern audiences, the original Star Wars was very much of its cultural time and place, so it might not be as "evergreen" as some have assumed with younger audiences.

Similarly, it's not a franchise focused on unique, fleshed out places. Star Wars is the series that has "the desert planet", "the ice planet", "the forest moon", "the swamp planet", etc.; people like me who grew up reading a lot about Star Wars know the names of those places, but the average fan doesn't care, and more importantly the movies themselves don't spend a lot of time developing these locations, either, because they're secondary to the events of the plot. This is a strike against Star Wars as themed area material; not totally disqualifying, mind you, as I'm sure the completed GE will be just fine, but it can't hope to compete with something like Potter, where everything from the buildings, to the shops, to the food, to the drinks, to every tangible thing you could want to experience is focused on in great detail in the books and films, and thus become destinations for park goers.

You know what would fit these qualities? Something like Tolkien's Middle Earth; tons of lore to draw from and make tons of stories around, plus a high attention to detail concerning locations, foods, scents, music, and other place-making elements that would contribute to themed area entertainment. But Star Wars isn't that, never was that, and trying to act like it can be that the same as any other property is a fundamental misreading of what Star Wars has always been.

Aaaaaaaall of that said...I still think people whine too much about the sequel trilogy; I'm really not ever sympathetic to the whole "ruining muh childhood!" argument, and there was always this nasty undercurrent among a lot of the loudest negative voices that I've been very uncomfortable associating with at all. I'm sorry, the prequels were just so bad, so the worst I can muster against the new ones is "they're kind of pointless". For the past couple of years I've framed it that, as a guy in his mid-30s, I'm of an age where I could grow up loving the original Star Wars trilogy, really disliking the prequel trilogy, and just being bored with the new trilogy.
 

eddie104

Well-Known Member
If there's a lesson here concerning Star Wars, I'd argue it's simply that a content company like Disney, which is clearly what they've become, can't just look at all IP as having the same qualities and potential for mass production.

In other words, Star Wars isn't Marvel, and it isn't Potter, and it isn't any number of other properties that translate well either in modern cinemas or in modern theme parks. It's still highly successful in many, many ways, of course, but it was created under completely different circumstances: it was born in a particular time and place (both physically and culturally) that it's more tied to than something like Marvel's universe, it began life as a standalone film and not as a series of ongoing monthly comics or a planned multi-part epic (no matter how much Lucas liked to say he always saw it as a 9 episode series), it also was born in the medium of film instead of print, and it's not a franchise that places a premium on locations and tangible world building.

Basically, if you want Star Wars to perform at the box office like the MCU, where you can pump out movie after movie each year and just watch the profits roll in bigger and bigger, you have to first recognize that it's not designed like that in the first place. Marvel has decades of material and characters to draw from, again due to its nature as a monthly publisher and the ongoing serial nature of most comic book superheroes. Star Wars was never like that: it was a single film that spawned two sequels, various extended universe material of wildly inconsistent quality (though I appreciate they brought Grand Admiral Thrawn back), and then had an absolutely awful prequel trilogy later on. Much of the supposed "deep lore" people attach to it is often just dialogue that had to get thrown in to make characters feel more fleshed out...like, consider the Solo movie depicting Han making "the Kessel run"...who cares about the Kessel run?! It was a throwaway line in the original movie to allow Han to brag about his ugly ship, not some mythical moment absolutely needed in an origins movie. There's also the consideration of wanting Star Wars to be "timeless", so it can constantly appeal to new generations of fans; it certainly can, I say that as someone born two years after Return of the Jedi was released, but whereas something like Marvel constantly reinvents itself over the years in terms of tone and how it approaches modern audiences, the original Star Wars was very much of its cultural time and place, so it might not be as "evergreen" as some have assumed with younger audiences.

Similarly, it's not a franchise focused on unique, fleshed out places. Star Wars is the series that has "the desert planet", "the ice planet", "the forest moon", "the swamp planet", etc.; people like me who grew up reading a lot about Star Wars know the names of those places, but the average fan doesn't care, and more importantly the movies themselves don't spend a lot of time developing these locations, either, because they're secondary to the events of the plot. This is a strike against Star Wars as themed area material; not totally disqualifying, mind you, as I'm sure the completed GE will be just fine, but it can't hope to compete with something like Potter, where everything from the buildings, to the shops, to the food, to the drinks, to every tangible thing you could want to experience is focused on in great detail in the books and films, and thus become destinations for park goers.

You know what would fit these qualities? Something like Tolkien's Middle Earth; tons of lore to draw from and make tons of stories around, plus a high attention to detail concerning locations, foods, scents, music, and other place-making elements that would contribute to themed area entertainment. But Star Wars isn't that, never was that, and trying to act like it can be that the same as any other property is a fundamental misreading of what Star Wars has always been.

Aaaaaaaall of that said...I still think people whine too much about the sequel trilogy; I'm really not ever sympathetic to the whole "ruining muh childhood!" argument, and there was always this nasty undercurrent among a lot of the loudest negative voices that I've been very uncomfortable associating with at all. I'm sorry, the prequels were just so bad, so the worst I can muster against the new ones is "they're kind of pointless". For the past couple of years I've framed it that, as a guy in his mid-30s, I'm of an age where I could grow up loving the original Star Wars trilogy, really disliking the prequel trilogy, and just being bored with the new trilogy.
Wow what a wonderful post and agree with pretty much everything you wrote. 👍
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Let's see. Themepark attendance goes down in the quarter Galaxy Edge partially opened in Disneyland on May 31. That was 2 months without it and one with it plus annual passholders blacked out. It will partially open at WDW on August 29 but passholders will have previews before it opend.

What happened prior to the opening. Daily ticket buyers in Disneyland waited until it opened causing lower paid attendance in April and May but for the quarter paid ticket sales increased over last year but not as much as Disney wanted. Now at WDW attendance was also down. Why? Because WDW is tourist dependent and they are waiting until GE opens. Will the insane crowds show up when it partially opens? No, it will go up but many prople will wait until the land is fully open. The WDW attendance nay go down in July and August but rebound in September.

What does this show and what can be learned. Here, I will go to the Universal Press Conference from earlier this month. They said they are not giving an opening date because they do not want prople to stop coming during the construction period. In otherwords, they know that attendance will go down before the new park opens since smart people will postpone their trips. So no one should be surprised what happened to Disney's park attendance this year. In fact it should be looked at positively because if it didn't drop it would show people don't care about GE. Universal said it, they expect their attendance to go down in the period right before their new gate opens.
 
Last edited:

eliza61nyc

Well-Known Member
Have not read all the chatter but what's interesting is, this argument is so eerily the same one that was made when Pandora was announced and opened. everyone (including me) swore it was going to bomb, that it was not HP, it was a mediocre movie yada yada yada.
yet it turned out to be a huge hit in AK. On the other hand, Toy story was a huge hit and the ride and land is mediocre at best.

I'll wait until SW:GE opens up and I experience it before passing judgement
 

LuvtheGoof

DVC Guru
Premium Member
I'll wait until SW:GE opens up and I experience it before passing judgement
That's not allowed around here. You must bash everything new that Disney does, because everyone knows that it is going to suck. :cautious: /sarcasm

We are the same way. We'll wait until something is actually finished and we can experience it in person before making any judgements.
 

DDLand

Well-Known Member
If there's a lesson here concerning Star Wars, I'd argue it's simply that a content company like Disney, which is clearly what they've become, can't just look at all IP as having the same qualities and potential for mass production.

In other words, Star Wars isn't Marvel, and it isn't Potter, and it isn't any number of other properties that translate well either in modern cinemas or in modern theme parks. It's still highly successful in many, many ways, of course, but it was created under completely different circumstances: it was born in a particular time and place (both physically and culturally) that it's more tied to than something like Marvel's universe, it began life as a standalone film and not as a series of ongoing monthly comics or a planned multi-part epic (no matter how much Lucas liked to say he always saw it as a 9 episode series), it also was born in the medium of film instead of print, and it's not a franchise that places a premium on locations and tangible world building.

Basically, if you want Star Wars to perform at the box office like the MCU, where you can pump out movie after movie each year and just watch the profits roll in bigger and bigger, you have to first recognize that it's not designed like that in the first place. Marvel has decades of material and characters to draw from, again due to its nature as a monthly publisher and the ongoing serial nature of most comic book superheroes. Star Wars was never like that: it was a single film that spawned two sequels, various extended universe material of wildly inconsistent quality (though I appreciate they brought Grand Admiral Thrawn back), and then had an absolutely awful prequel trilogy later on. Much of the supposed "deep lore" people attach to it is often just dialogue that had to get thrown in to make characters feel more fleshed out...like, consider the Solo movie depicting Han making "the Kessel run"...who cares about the Kessel run?! It was a throwaway line in the original movie to allow Han to brag about his ugly ship, not some mythical moment absolutely needed in an origins movie. There's also the consideration of wanting Star Wars to be "timeless", so it can constantly appeal to new generations of fans; it certainly can, I say that as someone born two years after Return of the Jedi was released, but whereas something like Marvel constantly reinvents itself over the years in terms of tone and how it approaches modern audiences, the original Star Wars was very much of its cultural time and place, so it might not be as "evergreen" as some have assumed with younger audiences.

Similarly, it's not a franchise focused on unique, fleshed out places. Star Wars is the series that has "the desert planet", "the ice planet", "the forest moon", "the swamp planet", etc.; people like me who grew up reading a lot about Star Wars know the names of those places, but the average fan doesn't care, and more importantly the movies themselves don't spend a lot of time developing these locations, either, because they're secondary to the events of the plot. This is a strike against Star Wars as themed area material; not totally disqualifying, mind you, as I'm sure the completed GE will be just fine, but it can't hope to compete with something like Potter, where everything from the buildings, to the shops, to the food, to the drinks, to every tangible thing you could want to experience is focused on in great detail in the books and films, and thus become destinations for park goers.

You know what would fit these qualities? Something like Tolkien's Middle Earth; tons of lore to draw from and make tons of stories around, plus a high attention to detail concerning locations, foods, scents, music, and other place-making elements that would contribute to themed area entertainment. But Star Wars isn't that, never was that, and trying to act like it can be that the same as any other property is a fundamental misreading of what Star Wars has always been.

Aaaaaaaall of that said...I still think people whine too much about the sequel trilogy; I'm really not ever sympathetic to the whole "ruining muh childhood!" argument, and there was always this nasty undercurrent among a lot of the loudest negative voices that I've been very uncomfortable associating with at all. I'm sorry, the prequels were just so bad, so the worst I can muster against the new ones is "they're kind of pointless". For the past couple of years I've framed it that, as a guy in his mid-30s, I'm of an age where I could grow up loving the original Star Wars trilogy, really disliking the prequel trilogy, and just being bored with the new trilogy.
I think this is absolutely true.

If I had to put my finger on why the Prequels and Sequels haven’t generated positive buzz, it’s because they missed the reason Star Wars was popular in the first place. Was Star Wars popular because of space ships and aliens? Was it the setting that engrossed the audience and drew them in? Was it the space battles or Storm Troopers? Was it the force?

Of course all of that helped, but at the end of the day that’s not why Star Wars became the legend it is today. It was about a common guy that everyone could identify with, getting thrust into a crazy world. Before long he would be fighting besides a furry monster (sorry Chewie), a smuggler, a princess, and a space wizard. It was about unlikely friends saving the galaxy with idealism and hope.

People really liked all the ships, guns, and aliens. But what made Star Wars into a cultural icon was its story and characters who enamored the world.

So yes, maybe movies and tv shows in the same universe as Luke, Leah, and Han would be interesting, but that’s not Star Wars. Star Wars is about those three coming together to do impossible things. It’s bold to say, but they ARE Star Wars.

So boring characters with Tie Fighters and Storm Troopers won’t cut it. I’m not sure how you can recapture what those three had. You might not be able too. But we’ll continue to see Disney stumble around trying to understand why their “next Marvel” isn’t performing well.

It’s about characters and story, not setting.
 

trainplane3

Well-Known Member
Don't forget that Kathleen Kennedy, along with her hires for The Lucasfilm Story Group, threw out the majority of the EU as not being canon. So basically they're saying those thousands of characters/stories don't exist. She/they shot Lucasfilm in the foot by doing so.
Honestly, it was for the best though. If you dive into the EU you would find it's a hilarious mess of fan stories that got signed off by 'Ol Georgie to make a buck. Personal favorites are a ship the size of a B-Wing that could destroy stars, a thing that would hurl asteroids at planets to break them apart (built by the Hutts because they need planet erasing weapons too), some guy named "Lord Shadowspawn", and IG-88 taking over the computers of the Death Star 2 right before it gets destroyed.

Look at some of this stuff and you won't blame Disney for nuking the EU (and this isn't including characters either):
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Superweapon/Legends
 

ImperfectPixie

Well-Known Member
Honestly, it was for the best though. If you dive into the EU you would find it's a hilarious mess of fan stories that got signed off by 'Ol Georgie to make a buck. Personal favorites are a ship the size of a B-Wing that could destroy stars, a thing that would hurl asteroids at planets to break them apart (built by the Hutts because they need planet erasing weapons too), some guy named "Lord Shadowspawn", and IG-88 taking over the computers of the Death Star 2 right before it gets destroyed.

Look at some of this stuff and you won't blame Disney for nuking the EU (and this isn't including characters either):
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Superweapon/Legends
Oh, I absolutely think they should be choosy about what they use, but I was under the impression they weren't choosy at all and basically tossed almost everything.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom