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

The failure of the ST has made Disney look back at old characters, such as Boba Fett. Again, i feel this only serves to make the Star Wars Galaxy smaller and feels like a quick way to bring back the fans of the OT.

I completely agree and I would not recommend The Book of Boba Fett, which was a mess. The Mandalorian, on the other hand, is very good. To me, Disney does well where: (i) it doesn't feel obliged to include too many references to existing characters; (ii) it's comparatively "grown up", ie has some level of nuance, and isn't downright silly; and (iii) it stays away from the Skywalker family. That doesn't preclude it from making family-friendly magic space adventure - it's just got to do it well. A lot of the Force-related stuff just feels silly now. The Last Jedi jumped some very big sharks.

They can put as many women in as they like, as far as I'm concerned, so long as the stories are of good quality (which includes not being preachy for what it's worth). If there is politics there, it has been introduced by bad people for disingenuous ends that have nothing to do with Star Wars (as with all of this fake controversy, which is ultimately just about taking power). I like the idea of such people being sad.
 
I feel that the choices for the TV series have been made to woo fans of the OT. Even the Mandalorian is set shortly after RoTJ. I... don't actually have a problem with this.

On a more positive angle, what do Chrons members think Disney have done well with the franchise?
 
One thing I really liked about The Mandalorian was the way that they'd incorporated Western elements without it becoming too obvious. Likewise Rogue One and even a few bits of Boba Fett felt like different stories but set in the same world. I think it shows that the Star Wars setting can do new and interesting things and stay true to its setting.

And it's good at the "sci-fi" stuff: the spaceships, effects, shoot-outs and the like are really good. The sense of space adventure is great.
 
One thing I really liked about The Mandalorian was the way that they'd incorporated Western elements without it becoming too obvious. Likewise Rogue One and even a few bits of Boba Fett felt like different stories but set in the same world. I think it shows that the Star Wars setting can do new and interesting things and stay true to its setting.

And it's good at the "sci-fi" stuff: the spaceships, effects, shoot-outs and the like are really good. The sense of space adventure is great.

Id like to see them do Knights of the Old Republic. That for me would make a great tv series . :cool:
 
I've only seen the first series of the Mandalorian and i adore the Cowboy vibe to it. Even the music was more influenced by the old westerns of the 70's more than John Williams's soundtrack, i thought.

The Star Wars aesthetic has always been done well, even in the ST.
 
The Star Wars aesthetic has always been done well, even in the ST.
I think the aesthetics are a major failing of Disney stuff. The ships are largely derivative of 40 year old designs, adding nonsense features like red windows or bigger nacelles. The scale of the small ships has been changed to make them better toys - the Rogue One ship is way too small for its capacity when you compare its size to the Falcon or Imperial shuttle.

The locations of the OT films were wonderfully exotic - the spectacular Mayan temple in SW was replaced by the world's cheapest location in Force Awakens - RAF bunkers. In general, JJ Abrams films look cheap. The Enterprise's engine room looked like it was in a square warehouse - because it was.

And the costumes were utterly unispiring. Luke, Leia, Han, Darth, Lando, Stormtroopers, Chewie, Fett and Ben's outfits were incredibly iconic. Does anyone even remember being taken with any new movies' costumes? All I remember is Forest Whitaker's crummy bionics and how big Po's head looks.



Ooooooh; a silver stormtrooper.
 
Baylor, I must disagree.

Yes, Jar Jar is annoying. And the prequels have their problems. But the sequel trilogy* is a dissonant mess of disconnected films. The prequel trilogy fails sometimes on execution but the ideas are sound. The sequel fails all around. Too much mystery box nonsense "A good question, for another time". Sure, you're hanging a lantern on the fact you have no explanation for how item X got to location Y but that doesn't remove the problem of it making no sense.

That's before we get to the destruction of the most hopeful character in the series. Or the idiocy of needing a middle map piece. If I need to get from Glasgow to London but my map has the centre of England missing, am I really unable to find London? No, because I'm not a moron. If you know the place where the character is you know where he is! You don't need every solar system in between. Humbug.

*Disclaimer: I have not seen episode IX. Only watched VIII because my uncle died and he had it on DVD.
 
Baylor, I must disagree.

Yes, Jar Jar is annoying. And the prequels have their problems. But the sequel trilogy* is a dissonant mess of disconnected films. The prequel trilogy fails sometimes on execution but the ideas are sound. The sequel fails all around. Too much mystery box nonsense "A good question, for another time". Sure, you're hanging a lantern on the fact you have no explanation for how item X got to location Y but that doesn't remove the problem of it making no sense.

That's before we get to the destruction of the most hopeful character in the series. Or the idiocy of needing a middle map piece. If I need to get from Glasgow to London but my map has the centre of England missing, am I really unable to find London? No, because I'm not a moron. If you know the place where the character is you know where he is! You don't need every solar system in between. Humbug.

*Disclaimer: I have not seen episode IX. Only watched VIII because my uncle died and he had it on DVD.

Jar jar wasn't the only issue with the prequels. Add to to a that such idiocy as the Middichlorine gene explanation of the force , which should have left a mystery How is that Yoda and all the so called powerful Jedi Masters have not so much as a clue that Palaptine was the the Sith Lord ? And then the the fact that Master Qui Gon and Obiwan two Jedi Master had to both had some trouble defeating Sith Apprentice Darth Maul? Rubbish , all of it.

Yes , the the Abraham films were far from perfect but they were at least better then the cinema cow piles that Lucas gave us .
 
Jar jar wasn't the only issue with the prequels. Add to to a that such idiocy as the Middichlorine gene explanation of the force , which should have left a mystery How is that Yoda and all the so called powerful Jedi Masters have not so much as a clue that Palaptine was the the Sith Lord ? And then the the fact that Master Qui Gon and Obiwan two Jedi Master had to both had some trouble defeating Sith Apprentice Darth Maul? Rubbish , all of it.

Yes , the the Abraham film were far from perfect but they at least better then the cinema cow piles that Lucas gave us .

I've no issues with Jar Jar. In fact I've no issues with stuff not making sense when you really think about it, because the same is true in most films. It's usually best to buy into what the movie is telling you, and enjoy the ride.

I was annoyed with the (relatively) poor acting and terrible scripts - forgivable in a novice director and/or actors finding their feet, but not when so much money and experience is involved.

What I most disagree with are the plots and subplots. Introducing a trade embargo does not make it a family-friendly film - quite the reverse. I had trouble understanding exactly what was going on, so I'm not sure what a 6 or 7 year old will make of it. And midi-chlorians; the 'Force' was really something magical and special in the original trilogy; here it's dissected and explained away in scientific terms - why would you even want to do that?
 
I've no issues with Jar Jar. In fact I've no issues with stuff not making sense when you really think about it, because the same is true in most films. It's usually best to buy into what the movie is telling you, and enjoy the ride.

I was annoyed with the (relatively) poor acting and terrible scripts - forgivable in a novice director and/or actors finding their feet, but not when so much money and experience is involved.

What I most disagree with are the plots and subplots. Introducing a trade embargo does not make it a family-friendly film - quite the reverse. I had trouble understanding exactly what was going on, so I'm not sure what a 6 or 7 year old will make of it. And midi-chlorians; the 'Force' was really something magical and special in the original trilogy; here it's dissected and explained away in scientific terms - why would you even want to do that?
I have [distant] relatives that didn't let their children watch the original Star Wars trilogy as they were apparently Satanic and anti-Christian [the films, not the parents].
The midi-chlorians did make "The Force" biological and not mystical.
 
I feel like Disney's past ventures with Marvel movies have been a slam dunk, the writing and story progression seemed to be pretty enjoyable. Unfortunately a lot of their new stuff seems to fall a little flat IMO. I feel like the main series Star Wars trilogy that they did was really poor, the first one seemed alright but oh God those last two. But they also seem to have struck gold with The Mandolorian, and that new Andor series shows promise so I feel there's a new hope there.
 
I think that Obi Wan Kenobi explained it best:

"The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together."

It sounds far more like a natural phenomenon than a mystical entity, or something in our blood - like (for example) gravity. The thing is we don't need to know how it works, we just need to know that it does and what it can do.
 
I feel like Disney's past ventures with Marvel movies have been a slam dunk, the writing and story progression seemed to be pretty enjoyable. Unfortunately a lot of their new stuff seems to fall a little flat IMO. I feel like the main series Star Wars trilogy that they did was really poor, the first one seemed alright but oh God those last two. But they also seem to have struck gold with The Mandolorian, and that new Andor series shows promise so I feel there's a new hope there.


The prequels showed how to really mess up Star Wars big time. Whilst the sequels weren't the films many fans were looking for, at least they weren't handled as badly.

The best way to deal with the prequels and the sequels would be simply not to have made them. Having said that, I still class Rogue One as up there with ESB for the greatest Star Wars movie.
 
I'm generally quite cynical, but they have done some things right, though. Andor, The Mandalorian and Rogue One are pretty well regarded, aren't they?

I am looking forward to Disney's next movie and feel it's a shame that they aren't going ahead with the Rogue Squadron movie.
 
I think the best thing that Disney did was to take it out of the hands of George Lucas. Regardless of prequels/sequels, he was redefining the original characters and constant tinkering was making the original films something they weren't. Regardless of the changing of Han Solo's character, the notion to include an incredibly poor CGI Jabba the Hutt was quite frankly bizarre. Here was a guy who 30 years earlier had created Star Destroyers, Death Stars, and men inside costumes pretending to be androids/aliens, and they were done so well and so convincingly that we didn't question their reality. How can the same guy who did that do the 'Jabba' scene in the original movie?

We can only hope that at some point in the future Disney will realise that there is a substantial amount of money in putting out the original trilogy as they were shown in the cinema back in the day, perhaps with cleaned up images and Dolby sound. Look at what Sony did for the 50th anniversary of Lawrence of Arabia; created a stunning (and I mean stunning) 4k restoration of the original movie which made it look like it had just been filmed yesterday and not back in 1962. I'm even betting that there's money to be made in putting the original trilogy back on at the cinema, where it deserves to be experienced.

Only 4.5 years now to it's 50th milestone, so here's hoping...
 
. Here was a guy who 30 years earlier had created Star Destroyers, Death Stars, and men inside costumes pretending to be androids/aliens, and they were done so well and so convincingly that we didn't question their reality. How can the same guy who did that do the 'Jabba' scene in the original movie?
Because it wasn't the same guy. John Dykstra and Ralph McQuarrie did much of the design work for Star Wars. Lucas was more of a creative manager if we are looking at from a vantage point that examines it in context. Gary Kurtz also had influence on story decisions.
I don't think Lucas really wanted to make Star Wars--I think he was hired to do an FX-oriented film for FOX based on something B-movie related and they decided on Prince Valiant (which had been a FOX film). Lucas appears to have been unenthusiastic to do it--it was a lark to some extent, and he was more interested in the money to be generated in merchandise and theater technology.

We aren't given the real story on these things.
Indiana Jones is the Harry Steele character from Secret of the Incas, given a whip and a more humorous persona. It was a Paramount film too.
That is how the character was created. All the other stuff has to be BS. Has to be. Why would they do all sorts of alleged creative brainstorming sessions and in the end just remake a studio film?
Even the Tom Selleck screen test is weird because Harrison Ford is a deadringer for Charlton Heston in some scenes--maybe it didn't seem so obvious when they were planning it.
Back then technological innovation in FX and stunts etc was the superstar --and then after CGI came along, the brand became the focus.
None of the actors really matter--it is the brand.
The Star Wars Brand
The Indiana Jones brand
The Willow brand.

The Willow brand??

Is there a demand for the Willow brand?
I am not aware of any.
 
Because it wasn't the same guy. John Dykstra and Ralph McQuarrie did much of the design work for Star Wars. Lucas was more of a creative manager if we are looking at from a vantage point that examines it in context. Gary Kurtz also had influence on story decisions.
I don't think Lucas really wanted to make Star Wars--I think he was hired to do an FX-oriented film for FOX based on something B-movie related and they decided on Prince Valiant (which had been a FOX film). Lucas appears to have been unenthusiastic to do it--it was a lark to some extent, and he was more interested in the money to be generated in merchandise and theater technology.

We aren't given the real story on these things.
Indiana Jones is the Harry Steele character from Secret of the Incas, given a whip and a more humorous persona. It was a Paramount film too.
That is how the character was created. All the other stuff has to be BS. Has to be. Why would they do all sorts of alleged creative brainstorming sessions and in the end just remake a studio film?
Even the Tom Selleck screen test is weird because Harrison Ford is a deadringer for Charlton Heston in some scenes--maybe it didn't seem so obvious when they were planning it.
Back then technological innovation in FX and stunts etc was the superstar --and then after CGI came along, the brand became the focus.
None of the actors really matter--it is the brand.
The Star Wars Brand
The Indiana Jones brand
The Willow brand.

The Willow brand??

Is there a demand for the Willow brand?
I am not aware of any.

One of the props from Secret of the Incas made it into Raider of the Lost Ark. You can see it in the early scene when they entering the temple to get the Golden Idol.
 
Because it wasn't the same guy. John Dykstra and Ralph McQuarrie did much of the design work for Star Wars. Lucas was more of a creative manager if we are looking at from a vantage point that examines it in context. Gary Kurtz also had influence on story decisions.
I don't think Lucas really wanted to make Star Wars--I think he was hired to do an FX-oriented film for FOX based on something B-movie related and they decided on Prince Valiant (which had been a FOX film). Lucas appears to have been unenthusiastic to do it--it was a lark to some extent, and he was more interested in the money to be generated in merchandise and theater technology.

We aren't given the real story on these things.
Indiana Jones is the Harry Steele character from Secret of the Incas, given a whip and a more humorous persona. It was a Paramount film too.
That is how the character was created. All the other stuff has to be BS. Has to be. Why would they do all sorts of alleged creative brainstorming sessions and in the end just remake a studio film?
Even the Tom Selleck screen test is weird because Harrison Ford is a deadringer for Charlton Heston in some scenes--maybe it didn't seem so obvious when they were planning it.
Back then technological innovation in FX and stunts etc was the superstar --and then after CGI came along, the brand became the focus.
None of the actors really matter--it is the brand.
The Star Wars Brand
The Indiana Jones brand
The Willow brand.

The Willow brand??

Is there a demand for the Willow brand?
I am not aware of any.
I've been saying the same thing for years - SW was a composite of the talents of many artists. Lucas wanted to make Flash Gordon - a story about a guy from earth. Instead he ended up with humans seemingly divorced from any connection to earth. The alien design of fast moving doors, no-railing precipices and matter of fact violence comes from the way sets and stunts were designed as much as scripting.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top