Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Subject: Star War live action series - The Mandalorian
The MCU is a very different beast. It's wide variety of characters and settings comfortably allows for 2-3 movies each year - and it doesn't really require any of them to be a big crossover. We're just spoiled in that respect
Star Wars? For the first 19 years of my life, I only had 5 films, including the two Ewok ones (which I have a soft spot for, bobbins as they are). By my mid-20's, that was 8 movies.
But it's all essentially a single narrative (barring the Ewok movies). And that can't really sustain the Marvel Model of at least one every year. It's not what the fanbase is used to, and dare I say it, isn't what the wider public really want.
The TV series at least offer us something we're more accepting of as a wider audience. Decent budget, bingeable sci-fi drama. A potential fill for the void that Game of Thrones is about to leave in my life, and the life of others.
The comparison to the MCU is usually about two things; Disney's expectations, and how modern interconnected-narrative franchises need to be run based on pretty much the only example that's managed to get it right and keep getting it right.
Disney didn't buy Star Wars to put out one movie every 3-5 years, and honestly I don't think their original plan was unrealistic at all - I was quite happy with the idea of alternating years of three big blowout linked movies and three side stories not bound to those trilogies, and I suspect it was a model they could have easily sold to the public at large; full-on fans have been consuming tons of extra content for years, making some of that additional movies wouldn't have altered that, and general audiences would just not bother with the ones that grabbed them in the same way your typical cinemagoer only bothers with one or two MCU movies a year, and some only bother with the "big event" ones. The problem is, while that isn't on the level of Marvel's mental 3-4 movies a year, it's still attempting to position Star Wars as a "brand" that you go and see because it's Star Wars, not because it has Luke Skywalker or Leia or Rey in it, and that means it needed a similar approach - a singular vision to drive the broader project. A flexible vision, a vision that can accommodate other perspectives and voices, which can adapt to shifts in the marketplace and audience perceptions & preferences, but a single guiding hand on the tiller who could define exactly what "Star Wars" would mean in terms of the pitch to audiences and ensure everyone who came on board coloured mostly within those lines.
What Kennedy tried to do instead was the Warner Brother approach - pitch it to everyone as a big interconnected "world", but then leave individual filmmakers pretty much to their own devices. It's pretty evident that model doesn't work, since it creates an "expectation gap" between what a lot of people think they're going to get when they fork over for a ticket, and what they actually get in any given case; some people don't mind that, many more do, and a fair number mind it quite a lot.
All that said, while I don't think doing Star Wars on the telly is the only way to pump it out regularly without causing "fatigue"(a largely mythical phenomenon), I do think it's pretty much the only move they have at this stage. Switching the focus to the small screen ensures they're still getting at least some value out of the franchise by driving subs to Disney+, and gives them breathing room to decide what to do, whether that's to try and wait-out the backlash and then proceed with a modified version of the prior planned slate, or to let things die down a bit and then do some personnel changes for ostensibly unrelated reasons.
In the end though, I don't really care how I get my Star Wars, so long as it actually feels like Star Wars, I just want it, so as long as the telly is good and keeps coming they can leave the franchise out of the cinema forever as far as I'm concerned.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Subject: Star War live action series - The Mandalorian
Yeah, the franchise fatigue angle is just plain BS and the Marvel universe proves it. If you have a large IP with lots of characters, you can sustain multiple releases per year as long as the stories and characters are written to be engaging; that isn't the case with Disney (Star) Wars. The problem isn't the number of movies that came out with but rather the quality of the ones that did for alot of fans like myself. I'm hoping that the Mandalorian breaks that streak.
See, I don't think the MCU approach would work for Star Wars on the big screen.
The stakes of each movie are just too high, traditionally. I think that's at least partially reflected in Solo. It just doesn't tie into anything, and didn't really add to anything.
But. If they did a Crimson Dawn TV series? Far more interesting, and a better scale for smuggling shenanigans. Plus, there's always the opportunity to bring in Han, Chewie, Lando et al for episodes. With hours to play with, even if it's a 'we'll start with one season, specific beginning, middle and end for the story, and see how it goes' you can just tell a far, far richer story than you can with a film. And given the reveal at the end of Solo, I am some way convinced they've got plans up their sleeves for just that. It also helps cement Solo somewhat in the wider canon, rather than being somewhat throwaway (but still enjoyable, don't get me wrong). Consider how much The Clone Wars tv series did for the prequel era. It was nothing short of superb, despite the odd bum note. Far better job exposing the hypocricy of the Jedi order, and demonstrating just how solidly Palpatine had planned it all out. 5 seasons, some unfinished stories and an extra one. Luvverly. We saw the Galaxy as never before, and the whole of Star Wars benefitted (especially when they used Rebels to tie up plot threads. Very satisfying).
Heck, nail your TV series, and there's the opportunity to translate the endings to the Big Screen. Potentially. Dunno if that's been done before, I suspect not. But the option is there.
Now I'm not going to touch on Resistance, as I've not seen it. And I cannot for the life of me find a legitimate media to let me see it! Role on Disney+ I guess
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/15 15:17:10
warboss wrote: Yeah, the franchise fatigue angle is just plain BS and the Marvel universe proves it. If you have a large IP with lots of characters, you can sustain multiple releases per year as long as the stories and characters are written to be engaging; that isn't the case with Disney (Star) Wars.
It's precisely because the movies focus on different characters and stories that it's able to avoid franchise fatigue (though we might see a change in the waters post Endgame) while Star Wars seems to struggle precisely because they're unwilling to make the leap of faith neccesary, instead resorting to half-steps.
Rogue One introduces new characters with their own adventure and offsets it by clinging as hard as it can to the mainline movies with actor and theme cameos of prequel trilogy actors and CGI recreations of OT actors, Solo tries to have its own adventure divorced from the actual mainline movies but keeping some of the central characters.
But in much the same way people's attitudes towards the marvel movies would be very different if every single one of them involved Captain America prominently and tied every villain to Hydra, the instinct to push the 'grand unified project' early risks stifling the franchise before it gets off the ground.
With that in mind, the Mandalorian is an opportunity to truly branch out. If they can resist the urge to make the primary antagonists imperial remnants scooping up resources to found the First Order with, they can take the time to build up the setting to make it clear its a big wide galaxy where people who aren't named Skywalker live.
I've heard it said that she can melt you with her eyes.
Subject: Re:Star War live action series - The Mandalorian
Star Wars in cinemas haven't interested me in a while. Of the newest 4 films I've only liked one of them (Rogue One), with one of them being ok (A New Hope 2), one being basically fine but unnecessary (Solo) and one being utter drek (TLJ).
TV is where SW has kept me interested. I cannot wait for Clone Wars to return, and after a rocky super kid-i-fied start, Rebels turned into a great show. This Mandalorian show, from all that's been leaked, looks fantastic, and the pedigree of the people behind it is excellent (and no Rian Johnson, always a bonus!).
So screw the movies. The future of SW is television.