Disney Announces ANOTHER Star Wars Trilogy from Game of Thrones Writers
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:08 pm
Just what we need!
Also separate from all the "fill in" movies like Rogue One and Solo too. LolThese new films will be separate from both the episodic Skywalker saga and the recently-announced trilogy being developed by Rian Johnson, writer-director of Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
That's the trap of catering to nostalgia 24/7...what genuinely "new" products for today's generations of kids will be still be remembered 20 or 30 years from now? I somehow doubt that there'll be a demand to see a 55-year-old Jennifer Lawrence suiting up for a belated Hunger Games sequel in 2042. Yeah, a lot of the stuff we grew up with was already cribbed from earlier sources (adventure serials for Raiders, Flash Gordon, Tolkien and Kurosawa for Star Wars), but they at least crafted solid stories with engaging characters. Once the current big Marvel actors have finished up their contracts, who's really going to be showing up for increasingly marginal characters like Ant-Man or Dr. Strange? Right now, those characters can be folded into the larger "Marvelverse", but 10 years from now, who's going to be up for a third or fourth entry of those particular characters? And even when something fresh and original does come out, it's immediately fast-tracked for a sequel, thus turning it into yet more corporate "product". I loved Baby Driver, but have no interest in an already-planned sequel to a movie that was a perfectly constructed "One & Done" experience. And they're making a sequel to Sicario?! Great little thriller, but...why? Did it make that much money that I wasn't aware of? Did it do gangbusters business in China?AndyDursin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:21 pm Continuous reboots and sequels are easy ways to make money in the short term but will be bad for the industry in the long term. Once nerds grow old, the audience will go with them. They are catering to the crowd that's there now but not cultivating the future with the mediocre retreads they are serving up.
Exactly. Or a STAR WARS movie with Rey 30 years from now.That's the trap of catering to nostalgia 24/7...what genuinely "new" products for today's generations of kids will be still be remembered 20 or 30 years from now? I somehow doubt that there'll be a demand to see a 55-year-old Jennifer Lawrence suiting up for a belated Hunger Games sequel in 2042.
Sometimes you see people use that as an argument to justify the reboots of today, but its not really accurate, because you have to remember those serials were grade B budgeted (or less) cheapies a lot of the time. When STAR WARS and RAIDERS came out, it was the first time audiences had really seen that kind of Saturday Matinee adventure done on the scale of a truly high budget production with cutting edge FX and symphonic Williams scores. There was humor but it wasn't camp. It treated the subject seriously while still having fun. The roots were in the past but the product was FRESH, it wasn't something that had been done to death or was presented in that kind of way ever before.Yeah, a lot of the stuff we grew up with was already cribbed from earlier sources (adventure serials for Raiders, Flash Gordon, Tolkien and Kurosawa for Star Wars), but they at least crafted solid stories with engaging characters.
I'm surprised also but if you crunch the numbers I guess it makes sense, $30 mil budget and $84 mil international gross. Doesn't look like much but when factoring in home video/on-demand/etc., the profit is probably beyond 3x the production cost so that's money in the bank. There are plenty of really massive-budgeted films that never get to the 3x multiplier, which is why we don't see sequels to them.And they're making a sequel to Sicario?! Great little thriller, but...why? Did it make that much money that I wasn't aware of? Did it do gangbusters business in China?
Look at the Independence Day sequel...the original movie itself was a wan retread of Star Wars and 70's disaster flicks, given a then-contemporary CGI polish. Shorn of that technical innovation two decades later, and there was NOTHING left for audiences to hold onto...not the paper-thin characterizations, nor the grand-scale Disater Porn sequences that still had a novelty factor in 1996 (finally, a disaster movie where the collapsing buildings don't look like paper mache model kits!) but, by 2016, had been done to death.AndyDursin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:04 am In terms of the whole "nostalgia" thing -- I think that's the lamest excuse Hollywood has for feeding people this crap. They keep saying they are "giving people what they want" but I disagree. They are frankly OUT OF IDEAS. STAR WARS is making money -- well great, it's STAR WARS. It doesn't take much. Beyond that, so many of these attempted remakes have fizzled totally.
Nah I like the prequels. Guilty as charged! lol. In fact I like them even more now after three of these Disney products.Hell, even the Star Wars prequels suffered from this...the anticipation of what Lucas would do with the recently discovered miracle of CGI was off the charts, but by the end of Phantom Menace, even those who admired the technical achievements of the film realized they were just an expensive coat of paint slapped onto a thin, confusing narrative populated by dull characters who had none of the scrappy charm of the OT.
This is an excellent point. This is also why movies (even huge, smash hit ones) vanish from theaters in under two months...why pay another $10-$16 for a second viewing in theaters when it will be on an extras-crammed, high-quality Blu-Ray for the same price four months from now? It used to mean something to have the "theatrical experience" (proper aspect ratio, multi-channel sound, huge screen, not "edited for content" for an ABC showing four years later) in the era when a crummy VHS tape with bad tracking was the only way to see a film after it left theaters, but when a reasonably large HD TV and decent surround sound setup can be had for under a thousand bucks, it's becoming less and less of an "event" to see a movie at the theater...to say nothing of the piss-poor offerings at the ticket counter!Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:21 pm Toy sales are never going to be that great as back then for the simple reason that back then, the toys were sold in the pre-home video era and were the only way for kids to re-experience the film after it was gone from theaters forever (and would be years away from being on TV). Today's kids can just watch the film over and over and not feel compelled to use their imaginations in the same way.
Thirty years ago, you'd buy a movie soundtrack to re-live the experience, because each movie would have a score (or collection of songs) unique to it, but now, with 90% of film music all sounding the same...AndyDursin wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:54 pmI definitely agree with the larger point on movie tieins and even soundtracks being hugely diminished as the years have progressed and viewing habits have changed. Those things were souvenirs of the film for people to relive the movie when it wasn't available to them outside the theater. A relic of a bygone time increasingly...much like the whole concept of theatrical rereleases which started dying out with the coming of home video in the early mid 80s too.