What are Your Thoughts on Disney's Ownership of the Marvel And Star Wars Franchises ?

You’ll have to make do with fandom stuff such as this
Dr Doom would very handily destroy Darth Vader.
 
Offering audiences more of the same and, crappy movies stories, I can see why audiences would stay away from these films.

Disney made the same "making new friends and learning the meaning of family as they go on the adventure of a lifetime and follow their heart"* film over and over again for decades and coined it. Why would they stop now?



*Disney trailer bingo card.
 
Thought piece of recent Disney woes...

It's actually quite nice to read a piece of journalism that isn't blaming the failure of a film on some political nonsense or inane conspiracy, but simply on the fact that the films weren't very good. I find this quite reassuring, from the point of view of journalism and public taste. I am also reassured that it wasn't down to Hillary Clinton's cabal of satanic bisexual lizardmen, because they sound scary.
 
The Marvels didn't fare so well at the box office .
 
I've been on the fence about Star Wars: Outlaw, but i think i'll pass on it now.

It's not on Steam. The game will also require you to be connected to the internet throughout, which i don't like the idea of. I'm also quite appalled with the pricing, which has three tiers, ($70, $100 and $130). It's a money grab, pure and simple.

Shame as i was really looking forward to a Days Gone or HZD experience set within the Star Wars Universe.
 
I don’t really watch Marvel (don’t make an argument about this…) however I do watch Star Wars. I’m fine with the latest 3 by Disney, and the series are all fairly good (not so much Ashoka…). The thing that changed the most is the fact that aliens (like ewoks and so on) haven't been featured so largely in the films which is kinda sad. I know there’s quite a few differing opinions on the emperor coming back, I’m fine with it myself, but I can understand why people would prefer the original sagas.
 
I've been on the fence about Star Wars: Outlaw, but i think i'll pass on it now.

It's not on Steam. The game will also require you to be connected to the internet throughout, which i don't like the idea of. I'm also quite appalled with the pricing, which has three tiers, ($70, $100 and $130). It's a money grab, pure and simple.

Shame as i was really looking forward to a Days Gone or HZD experience set within the Star Wars Universe.

Ive no interest in this game and no interest in streaming tv shows or films . It's just not worth it .
 
I don’t really watch Marvel (don’t make an argument about this…) however I do watch Star Wars. I’m fine with the latest 3 by Disney, and the series are all fairly good (not so much Ashoka…). The thing that changed the most is the fact that aliens (like ewoks and so on) haven't been featured so largely in the films which is kinda sad. I know there’s quite a few differing opinions on the emperor coming back, I’m fine with it myself, but I can understand why people would prefer the original sagas.

Nostalgia
 
Constant online requirement is nuts. Last week I had some brief interruptions to the internet with my PS5 (watching videos). That was tedious. But if you can't play a single player game you own because always-online was imposed pointlessly that'd be infuriating.
 
I read somewhere that they plan to make something like 20+ movies and TV shows. That's inevitable as franchise owners need to milk their intellectual property for whatever it's worth.
 
As long as the writing is there and the stories interesting, people will keep watching. There have been 60? 70? years of hospital, legal and police shows on TV, and longer if you include film, and people keep watching.
 
The lack of good stories is the main problem for me. Disney were the undisputed champions of a great story, but they seem to be pinning their hopes on giving the audience more of what they think we want to see.

Ahsoka is a great example of this... lazyness. Loads of lightsabre fights and space battles that were actually quite boring. These sequences should be used sparingly, in my opinion in order to make them more exciting. They had three leads; Ahsoka had no agency in her own show, Hera did nothing and i found Sabine to be positivly irritating. I really wanted to like this show but it just had too much nonsense.

The Acolyte appears to be getting a lot of flack online at the moment. I really like the idea of making content for other communities, such as the LGB community or minorities. I'm hoping it'll have a good story and prove the naysayers wrong.

Andor was brilliant. No lightsabre duels, no space battles. The story carried the series and i cannot wait for series 2 to be released.

It's unfortunate, but Disney's handling of Lucasfilm means that i'm not sure whether i can consider myself a Star Wars fan anymore.
 
Thought piece of recent Disney woes...

This laurel-resting complacency was in stark contrast with the boldness of Barbie and Oppenheimer. One of these films flitted between time periods as it examined why the human race was determined to destroy itself. The other used a children's doll to mock the patriarchy, and finished with a visit to a gynaecologist. David Fear at Rolling Stone called Barbie "the most subversive blockbuster of the 21st Century". And Disney? The Mouse House was selling more of the same old stuff, and audiences weren't buying it.


lol They are saying that the public wants social engineering politics, not adventure escapism. I don't believe that for a split second. They thought the same in the late 1960s.
People did not want their choices limited to Guess Who's Coming To Dinner and In the Heat of the Night.
It's like saying people only want one flavor of ice cream.

The Flash and Mission Impossible didn't do so well either and like Indiana Jones--the concepts are tired and the hero is old.
It's not that they are doing the same old concepts--they are experimenting--putting a 70-year-old as the star of an action film with big $$$ technological aid is cutting-edge experimental not "tried and true."


"There have been 60? 70? years of hospital, legal and police shows on TV, and longer if you include film, and people keep watching."

*I think there's a difference with that--because it is a real-life situation and the drama of it--or the appeal of the actors and characters carry the show. Human interest stories.
Star Wars has a bigger hill to climb because the concept is make-believe with little real world structures and superheroes are too unearthly to be comparable to cops or nurses or cowboys. A single character being shot might make for the whole drama and suspense.
An entire planet can be destroyed in a SW movie and no one thinks twice about it.
It's like the Wild Wild West lasted for 4 seasons while Star Trek quit after 3--and had the same producer in the last season--but the requirements for each show are so different.
The WWW was limited to the same desert and town and only had two characters--while ST could be set on a planet or the ship--they are not any episodes of the WWW set on the train.
 
Last edited:
lol They are saying that the public wants social engineering politics, not adventure escapism. I don't believe that for a split second. They thought the same in the late 1960s.
I agree it is silly to note that two good movies have social elements and conclude that is the reason for their success. Maybe it is as simple as Barbie was good and Flash is crap.

Mission Impossible was good, and I recommend it. But it wasn't an event like the other two became. And it didn't do badly, either.


But part of the key to the Barbenheimer thing may be that there was a social benefit to seeing the films that there wasn't for other films. Kind of a watercooler thing.
 
This laurel-resting complacency was in stark contrast with the boldness of Barbie and Oppenheimer. One of these films flitted between time periods as it examined why the human race was determined to destroy itself. The other used a children's doll to mock the patriarchy, and finished with a visit to a gynaecologist. David Fear at Rolling Stone called Barbie "the most subversive blockbuster of the 21st Century". And Disney? The Mouse House was selling more of the same old stuff, and audiences weren't buying it.


lol They are saying that the public wants social engineering politics, not adventure escapism. I don't believe that for a split second. They thought the same in the late 1960s.
People did not want their choices limited to Guess Who's Coming To Dinner and In the Heat of the Night.
It's like saying people only want one flavor of ice cream.

The Flash and Mission Impossible didn't do so well either and like Indiana Jones--the concepts are tired and the hero is old.
It's not that they are doing the same old concepts--they are experimenting--putting a 70-year-old as the star of an action film with big $$$ technological aid is cutting-edge experimental not "tried and true."


"There have been 60? 70? years of hospital, legal and police shows on TV, and longer if you include film, and people keep watching."

*I think there's a difference with that--because it is a real-life situation and the drama of it--or the appeal of the actors and characters carry the show. Human interest stories.
Star Wars has a bigger hill to climb because the concept is make-believe with little real world structures and superheroes are too unearthly to be comparable to cops or nurses or cowboys. A single character being shot might make for the whole drama and suspense.
An entire planet can be destroyed in a SW movie and no one thinks twice about it.
It's like the Wild Wild West lasted for 4 seasons while Star Trek quit after 3--and had the same producer in the last season--but the requirements for each show are so different.
The WWW was limited to the same desert and town and only had two characters--while ST could be set on a planet or the ship--they are not any episodes of the WWW set on the train.

Ive not seen either the Flash or Million Impossible so I can't say much on them As to India Jones and the Dial of Destiny what they should have done was recast Indiana Jones with a younger actor and set the film in the early 1930's . If James Mangold has been allowed to do that, we might have gotten a better film .
 
There's not much you can do to keep any franchise going except to rehash material, focus on secondary characters, and rehash characters and material, and in several instances borrow ideas from other franchises, which notably is one basis of Star Wars: Flash Gordon, pirate movies, Dam Busters, Hidden Fortress, inspired by Joseph Campbell, etc.

Sometimes, it works for a season or two, as seen in Mandalorian, and sometimes something notable comes along, like the ending of Rogue One.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top