Did Disney Jump the Shark with Star Wars?

[Anderton]

Looks that way. They're not going to do a Boba Fett movie after all (although I'd like to know who thought that was a good idea in the first place). "Solo" didn't do well, and it probably shouldn't have. "The Last Jedi" followed the formula - nasty universe overlord, plucky fighters, Big Things that Blow Up Entire Planets, family tree complications - but that formula isn't exactly novel any more. Kylo Ren is no Darth Vader, and Adam Driver is no James Earl Jones...he seems more like Marilyn Manson in a new gig.

 

We get the usual great CGI and horrific acting that we've come to know and love with Star Wars, but where's the soul and the center?

 

No matter what you thought of the prequels, in retrospect, they look like Shakespeare compared to Disney's offerings. Sure, they had all kinds of faults - Hayden Christensen's acting, Jar Jar Binks, wooden dialog, a waste of Natalie Portman's talents, etc, etc. But there were deeper subtexts about politics, trade, and conflict among the powerful. You knew that at least George Lucas was stretching, trying to come up with something beyond the usual space opera. And for all the flaws, I think he did.

 

Of course, I understand that sequels often don't stand up to the originals. But it doesn't have to be that way, unless the sequels don't offer anything new. After "The Force Awakens" (which was basically a remix of previous Star Wars storylines), I was willing to cut Disney some slack because they faced the difficult task of appealing to those who saw Star Wars the first time around, and those who were new to it. And then came Rogue One, which I thought was excellent on numerous levels.

 

But the one-two-three punch of "The Last Jedi," where Luke Skywalker has become the grumpy old man who says "get off my lawn," to "Solo," which had none of the nuances Harrison Ford brought to the character or storyline (not to mention one of the most annoying soundtracks of modern times), and now killing another spinoff...seems to me that the Star Wars team is creatively bankrupt.

[nat whilk II]

By way of direct response, I pretty much agree. I did similarly admire Rogue One (my main gripe being that the Big Fight sequence went on way too long.) I was disappointed at many levels with The Last Jedi. Way too many characters, too many story lines, for one. And poor Carrie Fisher...we all want to honor her contribution, but it was painful to watch her just barely get through her lines.

 

I give the new movies some credit for having jettisoned the silly, childish, comic-relief roles like Jar Jar and the Ewoks, etc. And Daisy Ridley is fantastic IMHO - such a natural as as Rey. That's what I wanted more than anything from The Last Jedi was to see her character brought along. That sort of happened as an aside in the film - but I think her development should be the centerpiece.

 

The new Star Wars have some interesting ideas. It's always been the ideas that have made Star Wars movies work. Not the spectacular fight sequences, not the pounding tympani and brass of William's scores. The problem is letting all the flashy machinery get in the way of the fundamental drama of the mystical warriors caught between the dark side and the good side. They tried with Kylo Ren, to revisit the gifted young man lured by the dark side. But they mostly just showed him to us, rather than developed him for us. The earlier prequels failed, too, with Anakin's turn to the dark side - it just wasn't convincing. Bad acting and a bad script I credit for that failure.

 

I haven't written it off quite yet - Disney certainly has a history of making some terrific films....I just feel like some tougher editing, some sticking to basics, less check-the-box list of tropes having to be visited, would do the franchise a world of good.

 

nat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[t_e_l_e]

what did you expect? was lucas any better?

 

i stopped watching after phantom menance, and not because of jarjar, maybe i'm the only one who found him a bit funny in an otherwise empty plot without a real story to tell...

who needs an explaination for the force? and why must it be a symbiosis with smallest life forms *facepalm*...

 

i'm a proud owner of the original cinema version dvd of IV V and VI, and haven't seen II or III and never wanting to do so

friends tell me VII and VIII are better but haven't seen them either

 

george lucas started to exploit star wars with his remastering of the original ones, just to use more and better CGI and to make more money and imho disney just continues....

 

but for me, i don't care about the best CGI in the world, if there is no story to be told behind.

lucas had an interview around phantom menance coming out in the rolling stone, were he stated his ultimate goal would be doing films without actors, cause they make it complicated to transfer his ideas in his head to the movie, an all CGI movie, with no humans involved and mostly like no stoy anymore, just special effects.....

[Mandolin Picker]

As CGI became better and better, and the explosions and special effects became more realistic (and unbelievable), the worse the stories have become. To me one of the best films ever made was the original "12 Angry Men". Filmed in black and white. The majority of the film taking place in the jury room and adjoining rest room. No special effects. No explosions. No wizardry. But great writing and superb acting.

 

Early film making was (generally) substance over flash. Today, it seems the flash is all anyone cares about.

[Notes_Norton]

IMHO After the first one, the rest were all pretty much the same. Almost like watching a TV series.

 

And the first one was just cowboys and Indians in space.

 

But judging by their popularity, I'm in the minority.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[Vito Corleone]

IMHO After the first one, the rest were all pretty much the same. Almost like watching a TV series.

 

And the first one was just cowboys and Indians in space.

 

But judging by their popularity, I'm in the minority.

 

Not once you understand that those are the same reasons that they are so popular.

[Vito Corleone]

As CGI became better and better, and the explosions and special effects became more realistic (and unbelievable), the worse the stories have become. To me one of the best films ever made was the original "12 Angry Men". Filmed in black and white. The majority of the film taking place in the jury room and adjoining rest room. No special effects. No explosions. No wizardry. But great writing and superb acting.

 

Early film making was (generally) substance over flash. Today, it seems the flash is all anyone cares about.

 

People have been saying the same thing since the advent of talkies.

[Mandolin Picker]

 

People have been saying the same thing since the advent of talkies.

 

But digital is different. CGI made special effects easy to do. Too easy and too cheap. Before if you wanted to blow up a building, you either had to create a model of the building and use special filming techniques or you blew up the real building. Either way it took a lot of time and money for a 5-second shot. Because of that, the special effects in these movies were almost always critical to the scene.

 

Today, you can blow up an entire city block, a continent or the world with a click of a mouse button. Again it is cheap and easy - too cheap and too easy. As a result we have special effects being created when they aren't even needed. Lucas did it with Star Wars in the re-release. The original movie's special effects were done with models and computer controlled cameras. Expensive and time consuming. So each effect added something to the story. In the re-release the special effects Lucas inserted added nothing to the story line. In fact many believe they took something away from the original story. But he did it because it was cheap and easy.

 

That is different from the silent to the talkies. There was a lot of time and expense added when sound came into use. Because of that, dialog had to be good. You couldn't afford to mess it up. Same going from black and white to color. Big expense involved. Digital changed all of that.

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

But digital is different. CGI made special effects easy to do. Too easy and too cheap. Before if you wanted to blow up a building, you either had to create a model of the building and use special filming techniques or you blew up the real building. Either way it took a lot of time and money for a 5-second shot. Because of that, the special effects in these movies were almost always critical to the scene.

 

Today, you can blow up an entire city block, a continent or the world with a click of a mouse button. Again it is cheap and easy - too cheap and too easy. As a result we have special effects being created when they aren't even needed. Lucas did it with Star Wars in the re-release. The original movie's special effects were done with models and computer controlled cameras. Expensive and time consuming. So each effect added something to the story. In the re-release the special effects Lucas inserted added nothing to the story line. In fact many believe they took something away from the original story. But he did it because it was cheap and easy.

 

That is different from the silent to the talkies. There was a lot of time and expense added when sound came into use. Because of that, dialog had to be good. You couldn't afford to mess it up. Same going from black and white to color. Big expense involved. Digital changed all of that.

 

 

My point is that this stuff is cyclical. New technological advances come along and those become so popular that other stuff gets left behind. Until the technology becomes so common place that now the other stuff needs to catch back up again.

 

It actually wasn't much different from silent to the talkies. Sadly, most of the silent era films are now lost, but in the last few years they were putting out grand works of cinematic art. Then when talkies came, all that mattered was sound. But the technology was such that it meant the actors had to largely stand in place while a microphone was placed in a plant or some such. Suddenly there was no place for all that great cinematography while movies were all shot with everyone standing around in one room as much as possible. It took awhile for the technology of sound to catch up with the technology of film which got left behind for a a few years.

 

And there still are a lot of good movies being made. (I just saw "First Man" which I thought was a great movie on all levels.) The big epic action movies were rarely among the best in terms of writing and acting. Are the Star Wars films any worse than, say, "The Ten Commandments"?

 

I think the worst thing happening to such films isn't CGI (which, by the way, isn't that cheap. Those movies are WAY expensive to make!) it's that the biggest money-makers are the movies that can be sold overseas. So action movies with simple dialogue that doesn't get lost in translation are going to be where the studios are most willing to invest.

 

I've never been a big fan of the genre and I can't even really comment much on the Star Wars movies because I've never liked them and seen very few of them. But there's a reason why they keep cranking out all those Marvel Comics movies and Fast and the Furious. The USA isn't even really their primary concern anymore.

 

BTW, the first Star Wars was made for $11 million. (About $47 million today.) "The Last Jedi" cost $317 million. I know it's not ALL spent on special effects, but still. I don't think they are cheap to do. And some 54% of it's $1.3+ billion gross was overseas.

 

Still, I can't help watching one of these big-budget action movies ("Black Panther" was the last one I bothered to sit through) and think "couldn't they have spent a BIT more on making sure the story line made more sense and some better dialogue?"

 

 

[nat whilk II]

The Star Wars franchise has always required a certain amount of forgiveness from viewers. Part of the charm is that the films lurch between ridiculous parts worthy of Mystery Science Theater, and great parts as worthy as the best parts of Lord of the Rings. Who doesn't enjoy, as a viewer, getting to be both the scatching, superior critic during some parts, and under the spell in a galaxy far,far, away in other parts?

 

BTW - watched the Solo film for the first time last night. After having heard nothing but bad news about the film in the media, expectations were low. And greatly exceeded....I thought it was well done and a whole lot of fun to watch. The plot was a bit too switchy, ok - and the girl was kinda bland. But they kept the CGI withing reasonable bounds for one thing. And once you stop pouting that it's not Harrison Ford, the kid playing Solo I thought did an excellent job. A bit more like a young Jack Nicholson than a young Harrison Ford - which works!

 

I read one review that said "flawed film with some good parts" and thought that pretty much makes it fit right in there with the rest of the franchise.

 

nat

 

 

 

[AlamoJoe]

A lot of on point, valid arguments...Beginning with the OP. Anyone expecting high art plot wise from the movies is missing the point. They are all good against evil. That's it. They are all popcorn movies, Escapism. Entertainment. All the franchise movies have been entertaining. They've all done well enough financially, or they would not still be making them.

I thought Rouge One was a pretty interesting film. I mean...It was Titanic...Everybody good died...But that in itself was interesting.

 

Mandolin Picker...a guy whose opinions I respect.. Is mistaken about one thing...CGI is not cheap to make...It would be markedly cheaper to blow real stuff up than to code CGI.

 

Of course...finding a planet to blow up might be a challenge. We've only got one close by, and we all live on it.

 

[sventvkg]

Disney screwed this franchise up in every single way. I’m not going to get into the SJW or political crap that they pulled which really pissed the fans off. I will say that completely changing characters and not giving the fans what they want is the real issue. These movies were made for fans more than casual observer‘s and many of us have been massive fans for 40 years and Disney’s handling of the franchise, Kathleen Kennedy specifically, and Rian Johnson, have been The antithesis of anything a reasonable person would expect.

[Mandolin Picker]

Did some looking into the CGI being cheaper and it appears that it is a 'wash' concerning which is more expensive when working on a major motion picture. Here is a link that we find that does a pretty good job explaining it. As with most things it depends on what type of effect you want whether as to whether CGI is more expensive or not.

 

• it's generally cheaper shooting a car on a sound stage with a green screen behind it than it is to shoot a moving car, unless there's no dialogue in the scene.
  
• Other visual effects, such as motion-capture and rendering done for Green Lantern's outfit, are extremely time consuming, and even amongst professionals, not everybody is capable of delivering what you want, and the one's that are will likely charge you that much more.
  

 

 

https://www.quora.com/Is-CGI-more-or-less-expensive-than-the-equivalent-physical-non-CGI-effects-when-feasible

 

 

One thing I will note is that were it not for low cost CGI (CGI that can be produced on a home PC), we would not have the abundance of fan films that we see today. For example, take a look at the number of Star Trek fan films listed on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions). They all feature CGI effects, many that rival what's on TV and in the movies today. Most of these are effects are either green screen or full shot CGI only. However, the productions (and effects) so good that Paramount has clamped down on these films based on copyright.

 

In the same way that the computer has allowed the home studio to be capable of producing professional records at a significantly reduced cost, the same home computer is doing the same in the film making industry.

 

[Notes_Norton]

IMHO with too many films produced today the bare thread of a plot is there to support the fantastic FX.

 

I prefer a movie where the FX supports a good plot.

 

Insights and incites by Notes

[Phil O'Keefe]

I love escapism and "fun" movies, but I'd rather have a great plot too... and the plots have been less and less satisfying in the Star Wars franchise IMHO.

 

 

 

[Vito Corleone]

I love escapism and "fun" movies, but I'd rather have a great plot too... and the plots have been less and less satisfying in the Star Wars franchise IMHO.

 

 

 

I think part of it has become that there is only so much you can do in a 2 hour movie. It seems movies are either story-driven or effects-driven. Rarely are they able to provide both without one sacrificing for the other.

 

Which is one reason why television has become so much more dominant in recent years, IMO. Once producers realized that your story doesn't need to tidily wrap up in 42 minutes (counting for commercials) we now see most of the best work from the best writers, actors and directors in the business coming on the small screen. Storylines that unfold over a 10-episode "season" on a Netflix, Amazon or HBO show like "Ozark", "Goliath", "Big Little Lies", or "Marvelous Mrs. Maizel", or over several seasons on something like "Breaking Bad" allow for character development and plotline subtleties that rival books rather than what can be done in any movie.

 

And even over a series of movies --- the 9+ hours (or whatever it is) of "The Lord of the Rings" movies were great. But the 70+ hours (or whatever it will end up being) of "Game of Thrones"? Pretty hard to beat that.

[nat whilk II]

 

I think part of it has become that there is only so much you can do in a 2 hour movie. It seems movies are either story-driven or effects-driven. Rarely are they able to provide both without one sacrificing for the other.

 

Which is one reason why television has become so much more dominant in recent years, IMO. Once producers realized that your story doesn't need to tidily wrap up in 42 minutes (counting for commercials) we now see most of the best work from the best writers, actors and directors in the business coming on the small screen. Storylines that unfold over a 10-episode "season" on a Netflix, Amazon or HBO show like "Ozark", "Goliath", "Big Little Lies", or "Marvelous Mrs. Maizel", or over several seasons on something like "Breaking Bad" allow for character development and plotline subtleties that rival books rather than what can be done in any movie.

 

And even over a series of movies --- the 9+ hours (or whatever it is) of "The Lord of the Rings" movies were great. But the 70+ hours (or whatever it will end up being) of "Game of Thrones"? Pretty hard to beat that.

 

 

Great comment. The episodic TV format is tried and true - interesting how viewer expectations differ between movies and TV series. Easier to let a dull episode slide with TV as a viewer - we seem to tolerate the occasional inept or irritating characters better - more of what we like to come, so we can wait. Game of Thrones, indeed. I just finished reading the five books for I think the 5th time. I would never have gotten through that huge,meandering, dull 4th installment A Feast For Crows if it wasn't part of a larger series that maintained my interest. Same principle...you get more over time if you tolerate the filler.

 

TV is truly in a golden era that surpasses everything the format has provided since the beginnings. "TV" or "television" is certainly a misnomer. But since we all know what it means.....

 

Movies will probably just keep leaning toward the blockbuster thing - make use of the big screen, the big sound, the whole "submit to the event" vibe. Only two hours give or take to wow 'em....so blow stuff up bang.

 

Just curious - all you untold millions who read threads here - how many of you have an Alamo Drafthouse in your town? It's such an Austin institution, it seems weird to think that it's doing the corporate everywhere thing...I still love the place, 'tho (even 'tho I have to wear earplugs sometimes.)

 

nat

 

[Vito Corleone]

 

 

Great comment. The episodic TV format is tried and true - interesting how viewer expectations differ between movies and TV series. Easier to let a dull episode slide with TV as a viewer - we seem to tolerate the occasional inept or irritating characters better - more of what we like to come, so we can wait. Game of Thrones, indeed. I just finished reading the five books for I think the 5th time. I would never have gotten through that huge,meandering, dull 4th installment A Feast For Crows if it wasn't part of a larger series that maintained my interest. Same principle...you get more over time if you tolerate the filler.

 

TV is truly in a golden era that surpasses everything the format has provided since the beginnings. "TV" or "television" is certainly a misnomer. But since we all know what it means.....

 

Movies will probably just keep leaning toward the blockbuster thing - make use of the big screen, the big sound, the whole "submit to the event" vibe. Only two hours give or take to wow 'em....so blow stuff up bang.

 

Just curious - all you untold millions who read threads here - how many of you have an Alamo Drafthouse in your town? It's such an Austin institution, it seems weird to think that it's doing the corporate everywhere thing...I still love the place, 'tho (even 'tho I have to wear earplugs sometimes.)

 

nat

 

There’s still something fun about going to the movies. I have a nice beautiful big TV in my house with a great sounding surround sound system, so I don’t ever feel like I’m missing anything by waiting for a movie to come to me, but there’s still something the wife and I like about going out to the theater. And now that they have nicer seats and serve beer and wine? It’s good just to get out of the house.

 

But as good as some movies still are, we vastly prefer what TV has to offer these days. Still have a couple of episodes of “Better Call Saul” to finish up. And that new Amazon show with Julia Roberts that I think drops tomorrow looks interesting.

 

You’re right that we are truly in a golden age for television. How far it has come in just the last 10-15 years is astounding. Was it maybe “The Sopranos” that first raised the bar? And with the big players now looking to get into providing content and competing with Amazon and Netflix I expect it to keep getting even better.

[RockViolin]

My son, now 12, is pretty hard into Star Wars. Star Wars sheets, blankets, a Star Wars kite hanging from the ceiling, no small fortune and the better part of my gear allowance in Star Wars Legos, etc. etc. He agrees with you, Craig. He's been saying for some time that he thinks Disney is ruining it. I wasn't sure if it was just something he'd picked up, or if he really felt that way. But on further inquiry, he was rather articulate and convincing about it, though not so much as you and some who have posted here. I've been non plussed for the most part. The wooden performances, with Rei being the exception, are what stuck with me most. We just watched "Solo" a few weeks ago and we both thought it got kind of a bum rap though.

 

Well, that's the way isn't it? Milk it till it's dead or somewhere long past. And when all else fails I'm guessing, bring back the dead.

 

We have hulu, and what TV we can get the old fashioned way, (rabbit ears). Remakes of McGyver, and Magnum P.I. ? I wonder if it's the zest to bring all the new tools to bear, or if they're really that at a loss to come up with ideas that stand on their own and are truly new. I suppose I'll be seeing a new version of The Honeymooners pretty soon. Maybe they'll even bring back Captain Kangaroo.

 

What I'd really like to know is why there are multiple Lego versions of the Millennium Falcon... and no Starship Enterprise?!

 

 

 

[manitoba]

 

There’s still something fun about going to the movies. I have a nice beautiful big TV in my house with a great sounding surround sound system, so I don’t ever feel like I’m missing anything by waiting for a movie to come to me, but there’s still something the wife and I like about going out to the theater. And now that they have nicer seats and serve beer and wine? It’s good just to get out of the house.

 

I strongly agree with this.

 

There's something special about seeing a film in a theatre. The environment - the size of the screen and the unapologetically in-your-face sound system (something that I'm sure the people reading a music forum will appreciate) make the most of the experience. And the audience - just like listening to music at concert is an entirely different experience than listening at home, watching a film in a theatre with scores of other people creates the atmosphere that comes with any collective experience. It's basically like going to church. It adds emotional heft.

 

The results are spectacular. I can watch the best films ever made at home and barely be moved, but stick me in a theatre and even the most maudlin crap get me tearing up.

 

I often wonder what it would be like to see the best TV shows in this kind of environment...how they'd translate. Would be interesting.

 

 

 

As far as Star Wars is concerned, I think the decline is real.

 

I'm not sure that agree with the OP that the prequels were better than originally given credit for (I distinctly remember laughing when Anakin is dismembered at the end of Episode 3--what was supposed to be the beating emotional heart of the entire series struck me as too close to the Black Knight scene in Monty Python's Holy Grail! That can't be a good thing!), but Episode I was better than I remembered. I saw it again a few years ago and it came off rather well. Yeah, Jar Jar and his people are horrible but the rest of it was really solid. Lots of Liam Neeson and no Hayden Christensen sure didn't hurt. The big pod race scene was especially good because I'd seen Ben Hur--it was a beautiful homage that I just didn't get the first time around. And the movie is bookended with great action scenes. It was good. To tie in with my first statements, it's just about the only movie I can think of that impressed me more watching it at home on TV.

[Anderton]

 

I strongly agree with this.

 

There's something special about seeing a film in a theatre. The environment - the size of the screen and the unapologetically in-your-face sound system (something that I'm sure the people reading a music forum will appreciate) make the most of the experience. And the audience - just like listening to music at concert is an entirely different experience than listening at home, watching a film in a theatre with scores of other people creates the atmosphere that comes with any collective experience. It's basically like going to church. It adds emotional heft.

 

The results are spectacular. I can watch the best films ever made at home and barely be moved, but stick me in a theatre and even the most maudlin crap get me tearing up.

 

These days I do everything possible to see movies in IMAX. I saw The Last Jedi here in Nashville, then in LA with my daughter. I couldn't understand why the IMAX in LA, film capital of the world, was inferior. I was told that theaters built from the ground up for IMAX (which was the case in Nashville) are better the ones that are retrofitted for IMAX (as in LA).

 

And yes, I agree...the ritual of going to a movie helps make it something special. Now, if I could just get them to turn the volume down a bit