Disney is making at least three Star Wars spin-off movies IN ADDITION to the Episode VII-IX sequels

[flynnibus]

They need to remember the early eighties, between Empire (which played off the Star Wars hoopla well, and helped it to reach a crescendo) and Return of the Jedi (by which time the overload had hit, and the backlash started). By then although it was still popular, lines were becoming drawn between the geeks who would not grow up (or were too into it) and the regular people, who had started to move on. The toy lines and Christmas specials and albums and lunchboxes had become ubiquitous, and there was clearly a backlash that developed. (And even within the geek world, where later many geeks decided that you were among the great unwashed if you liked Star Wars better than the new and clearly more intelligent Star Trek: The Next Generation.)

Now think: that was only with three feature films, released three years apart (1977, 1980, 1983), and before HD at home. Now we are looking at three films, released TWO years apart, with three more related, non-sequel, films released during the off years, along with a new TV show. Can anyone else smell the backlash foaming?

I think you are blurring a few things...

1) I don't recall some huge backlash
2) you are also talking about one of the most commercialized property every... you can hit saturation and create fatigue because of that, not just the films
3) you are comparing a time when the amount of other media distractions was far less

Maybe a better comparison is when the prequels were done.

Remember at that time Lucas re-released all three films, and then the 3 new ones. That was 6 films done in succession with success.. even tho the films faced scrutiny.

The prequels had decades of pent up demand to fuel them.. but I don't think you'll see the same kind of fatigue you are eluding too. There are far more diversions and the merchandising/commercialism everyone is used to.

 

[jt04]

Obviously you don't remember the backlash that developed in the early eighties toward the SW overload of that time period, as I discussed previously. But of course the SW specials and lunchboxes that became ubiquitous my not have counted as elements of "quality" summer-esque movie fare.

Yeah, I don't remember that. Must have been a trekkie community thing. I do remember trekkies getting skewered on SNL though. That was something.

 

[prberk]

I think you are blurring a few things...

1) I don't recall some huge backlash
2) you are also talking about one of the most commercialized property every... you can hit saturation and create fatigue because of that, not just the films
3) you are comparing a time when the amount of other media distractions was far less

Maybe a better comparison is when the prequels were done.

Remember at that time Lucas re-released all three films, and then the 3 new ones. That was 6 films done in succession with success.. even tho the films faced scrutiny.

The prequels had decades of pent up demand to fuel them.. but I don't think you'll see the same kind of fatigue you are eluding too. There are far more diversions and the merchandising/commercialism everyone is used to.

I can agree with that, to a degree. And it wasn't so much of a serious backlash per se, as it was fatigue or over-saturation. There were a number of people who were proud of the fact that they had not seen Star Wars and did not care to. And others had just moved on, or thought it was not as big a deal as everyone else did.

(Of course at the time I argued with them... especially those who were against the "space" or "science fiction" thing, saying that it really was a Western in space, that the story was universal good-evil, etc.)

Yeah, I don't remember that. Must have been a trekkie community thing. I do remember trekkies getting skewered on SNL though. That was something.

Actually I was mostly referring to the fatigue and general reaction to saturation, although the Trekkies did want to separate themselves often from the Star Wars fans, seeing SW fans as the great unwashed of sci-fi fans, as opposed to the learned ones among their own ranks. And of course, the general public often thought of the Trekkies as a little weird anyway. (Hence SNL.)

Anyway, I do think that Disney can do a lot with this property; I just caution it against overload or stretching it too thing. I little built-in anticipation goes a long way. But an aversaturation of something can take away my desire for more.

 

[jt04]

I can agree with that, to a degree. And it wasn't so much of a serious backlash per se, as it was fatigue or over-saturation. There were a number of people who were proud of the fact that they had not seen Star Wars and did not care to. And others had just moved on, or thought it was not as big a deal as everyone else did.

(Of course at the time I argued with them... especially those who were against the "space" or "science fiction" thing, saying that it really was a Western in space, that the story was universal good-evil, etc.)




Actually I was mostly referring to the fatigue and general reaction to saturation, although the Trekkies did want to separate themselves often from the Star Wars fans, seeing SW fans as the great unwashed of sci-fi fans, as opposed to the learned ones among their own ranks. And of course, the general public often thought of the Trekkies as a little weird anyway. (Hence SNL.)

Anyway, I do think that Disney can do a lot with this property; I just caution it against overload or stretching it too thing. I little built-in anticipation goes a long way. But an aversaturation of something can take away my desire for more.

There is a danger of too much potentially. I would prefer Star Wars not be on television if they will have a motion picture every year. There is about to be an avalanche of content besides Star Wars for consumers far beyond what we see today. I think it will be almost impossible for any franchise too overwhelm the market though. Audiences will be much more fragmented and there will always be another choice for people to make.

Interesting times to put it mildly for the entertainment industry.

 

[danlb_2000]

Disney's Star Wars?? Please tell me that logo was fan-made and not how the upcoming films will be promoted. I'm not hating on the Disney name by any means, but some things just don't mix well on paper. The original tilogy wasn't referred to as: "George Lucas's Star Wars" or "20th Century Fox's Star Wars". While some combined names work well together ("Marvel's The Avengers"), I agree the Star Wars name needs to stand alone on it's own feet.

Yes, that was fan made, not official.

 

[prberk]

Yes, that was fan made, not official.

But not far beyond the realm of possibilities, I can imagine. As much as I love Disney, some things they do irritate me. And this tendency to put "Disney's" or now just "Disney" in front of them, is one of those things...

It just smacks of empty-headed marketing.

I used to like "Walt Disney Pictures presents..." in front of movies. Classy. But this "Disney's" is not classy. Just irritating.

 

[danlb_2000]

But not far beyond the realm of possibilities, I can imagine. As much as I love Disney, some things they do irritate me. And this tendency to put "Disney's" or now just "Disney" in front of them, is one of those things...

It just smacks of empty-headed marketing.

I used to like "Walt Disney Pictures presents..." in front of movies. Classy. But this "Disney's" is not classy. Just irritating.

They have been good about keeping their name off the Marvel stuff, and a year and a half after the acquisition you still don't see the Disney name anywhere on StarWars.com so I am optimistic that they will take the Marvel route and let Lucasfilm be a standalone brand.

 

[prberk]

They have been good about keeping their name off the Marvel stuff, and a year and a half after the acquisition you still don't see the Disney name anywhere on StarWars.com so I am optimistic that they will take the Marvel route and let Lucasfilm be a standalone brand.

On thing that is interesting to me is that, while they went to so much trouble years ago to establish the "Touchstone" and "Hollywood Pictures" labels for their more adult fare, recently they made the decision to change the name of their distribution arm from "Buena Vista Pictures Distribution" to "Walt Disney Pictures Distribution," so that even a "Touchstone" picture now has the "Walt Disney Pictures Distribution" imprint on it somewhere, even if it is at the end. At least with the "Buena Vista" dictribution imprint, they were able to keep the Walt Disney name only associated with the movies that they intended most to be associated with it. Now it is associated with anything it distributes, even if only at the end in the credits and on the posters.