The Briefing Room
General Category => Sports/Entertainment/MSM/Social Media => Topic started by: Machiavelli on June 09, 2018, 10:49:01 pm
-
Kevin Lincoln
Polygon
June 7, 2018
Imagining a world where George Lucas’ space fantasy didn’t revolutionize Hollywood
Despite the decades that have passed since its release, it would be hard to argue that any film is as relevant to the way movies are made today than George Lucas’ 1977 space opera, Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope...
What would the last four decades look like if George Lucas had never made Star Wars at all?
Here’s one possibility...
Read the whole thing. (https://www.polygon.com/2018/6/7/17432928/star-wars-george-lucas-history)
-
That's a fun game of time travel hypotheticals we will never know. Some of those suppositions are grossly absurd - but hey - that's what you get when playing Dr. Who.
I think Solo tanked because it was only 5 months after the release of The Last Jedi - a film that polarized the fan base and did not really do much to grab new fans younger than 8 - and right on the heels of Infinity War (which has made more than 2 Billion since April 27th) and one week after Deadpool 2 came out. I think audiences were tapped out in terms of the amount of money they were willing to spend at the movies in such a short timeframe.
Solo I thought was a great, fun, lighthearted and solid adventure in-the-spirit of the original movies. Of course no one was demanding an original story for Han Solo, and it came about only because of the success of Rogue One and because Lawrence Kasdan (Screenplay author of the Empire Strikes Back and Jedi wanted to write it.) Star Wars fatigue is setting in, and that is because Disney treats it as nothing more than a cash cow that they want to milk as often as possible.
Star Wars was successful after long periods of quiet between generations and the hunger for something new growing as parents raised their kids on the originals. Disney needs to let the franchise rest - but they have no intentions of doing so.
-
That's a fun game of time travel hypotheticals we will never know. Some of those suppositions are grossly absurd - but hey - that's what you get when playing Dr. Who.
I think Solo tanked because it was only 5 months after the release of The Last Jedi - a film that polarized the fan base and did not really do much to grab new fans younger than 8 - and right on the heels of Infinity War (which has made more than 2 Billion since April 27th) and one week after Deadpool 2 came out. I think audiences were tapped out in terms of the amount of money they were willing to spend at the movies in such a short timeframe.
Solo I thought was a great, fun, lighthearted and solid adventure in-the-spirit of the original movies. Of course no one was demanding an original story for Han Solo, and it came about only because of the success of Rogue One and because Lawrence Kasdan (Screenplay author of the Empire Strikes Back and Jedi wanted to write it.) Star Wars fatigue is setting in, and that is because Disney treats it as nothing more than a cash cow that they want to milk as often as possible.
Star Wars was successful after long periods of quiet between generations and the hunger for something new growing as parents raised their kids on the originals. Disney needs to let the franchise rest - but they have no intentions of doing so.
I doubt they can afford to after what they paid Lucas.
-
That's a fun game of time travel hypotheticals we will never know. Some of those suppositions are grossly absurd - but hey - that's what you get when playing Dr. Who.
I think Solo tanked because it was only 5 months after the release of The Last Jedi - a film that polarized the fan base and did not really do much to grab new fans younger than 8 - and right on the heels of Infinity War (which has made more than 2 Billion since April 27th) and one week after Deadpool 2 came out. I think audiences were tapped out in terms of the amount of money they were willing to spend at the movies in such a short timeframe.
Solo I thought was a great, fun, lighthearted and solid adventure in-the-spirit of the original movies. Of course no one was demanding an original story for Han Solo, and it came about only because of the success of Rogue One and because Lawrence Kasdan (Screenplay author of the Empire Strikes Back and Jedi wanted to write it.) Star Wars fatigue is setting in, and that is because Disney treats it as nothing more than a cash cow that they want to milk as often as possible.
Star Wars was successful after long periods of quiet between generations and the hunger for something new growing as parents raised their kids on the originals. Disney needs to let the franchise rest - but they have no intentions of doing so.
:thumbsup:
-
We never would have gotten stuck with this:
Star Wars Holiday Special
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJDAmBQ1u2g#)
-
I doubt they can afford to after what they paid Lucas.
Disney already made back the 4 Billion dollars they paid for Lucasfilm and then some. The Force Awakens, Rogue One and The Last Jedi made well over 4 billion.
Disney thinks they can do to Star Wars what they did for Marvel. But , it's not going to work that way because there are not dozens and dozens of already established characters in comics that no one has seen on the big screen. But milk it as a cash cow, is what Disney intends to do. Which means the quality of these films are going to likely going down as they rush one movie after another after another to glut the market in toys, merchandize and movie grosses.
I think Solo is proving that their marketing strategy is a bust.
-
I’m a Trekkie.
Ping @Hopalong Ginsberg
Trek ping!!!
-
We never would have gotten stuck with this:
Star Wars Holiday Special
Okay, that's SACRILEGE. We only mention the Boba Fett cartoon from that. We DO NOT mention Star Wars, Bea Arthur and Harvey Korman in the same sentence ... EVER!
-
I’m a Trekkie.
Ping @Hopalong Ginsberg
Trek ping!!!
Didja haftoo?
I mean... we Star Wars junkies don't go crash Trek threads and fling Huttese and lightsabers in your faces just to troll the thread.
A little decorum please.
After all, unlike you guys, we do not believe Star Wars is reality.
(https://bmj2k.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/trek-2.jpg)
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/10/34/43/2214112/5/920x920.jpg)
We Star Wars nuts do not take our space fantasy beyond cosplay. And we do cosplay better than anyone!
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BEgyQ_y2--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/17xa9x9bjq2umjpg.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/eb/6b/17/eb6b174bbb12faad1009822375f1612d.jpg)
-
Disney already made back the 4 Billion dollars they paid for Lucasfilm and then some. The Force Awakens, Rogue One and The Last Jedi made well over 4 billion.
GROSSED well over $4B.
-
GROSSED well over $4B.
The money they got from licensing covered all the production expenses of those three movies with several million to spare.
They got their investment back what they paid.
-
Back when Star Wars was cool, girls still had cooties and Suzanne Somers was still on Three's Company.
(https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/images/Suzanne-Somers-93742177.jpg)
-
I've still never seen a Star Wars movie (nor a Star Trek movie, for that matter). Somehow, I've survived. :pondering:
-
I've still never seen a Star Wars movie (nor a Star Trek movie, for that matter). Somehow, I've survived. :pondering:
Yes, but less awestruck and inspired in life by industrial light and magic.
-
Back when Star Wars was cool, girls still had cooties and Suzanne Somers was still on Three's Company.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/nuqDNAYXEBZte/giphy.gif)
I don't think so....
-
Yes, but less awestruck and inspired in life by industrial light and magic.
Meh.
;)
-
The money they got from licensing covered all the production expenses of those three movies with several million to spare.
They got their investment back what they paid.
(https://i.chzbgr.com/original/2801123840/h33909D53/)
-
We never would have gotten stuck with this:
Star Wars Holiday Special
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJDAmBQ1u2g#)
You're going to trigger @Cyber Liberty.
-
The special effects would have us still looking for the string.....
(http://application.denofgeek.com/images/m/75spaceships/main/zarkovship.jpg)
-
You're going to trigger @Cyber Liberty.
🤣
-
🤣
Probst to you!
-
The money they got from licensing covered all the production expenses of those three movies with several million to spare.
They got their investment back what they paid.
They got back what they put into making the three movies, and then some. But that still leaves them a couple billion short of breaking even on the purchase price of the franchise.
-
Gee whiz folks, here's a possibility if SWs was never made. Maybe Hollywood doesn't become Hollyweird and actually started producing decent movies after the eighties instead of the unmitigated garbage current spewed forth from the Masters of Muck.
But in reality, if SWs was a hit or not, we'd still be seeing garbage.
The writer, who sounds like a typical liberal SJW, assumes that movies now are just great instead of being what they are, stinkingly terrible on average.
Plus, he makes the mistake of thinking if A didn't happen, then B wouldn't happen.
It's like the people who think if Jackie Robinson hadn't broken the color barrier in ML baseball in 1947, there'd still be no blacks in the majors.
Or if the south had won the Civil War, we'd still have slavery there.
If talking movies hadn't been successful in 1927, we'd still have silent flicks.
You get my point.
If Lucas's SWs films hadn't been successful, most likely we'd still be seeing the junk currently on display in movie theaters.
Lucas didn't make SWs in a void. He was/is a product of current technology. If he didn't do what he did with modern tech/methods, somebody else would have.
The writer's theory is bunk.
-
Gee whiz folks, here's a possibility if SWs was never made. Maybe Hollywood doesn't become Hollyweird and actually started producing decent movies after the eighties instead of the unmitigated garbage current spewed forth from the Masters of Muck.
But in reality, if SWs was a hit or not, we'd still be seeing garbage.
The writer, who sounds like a typical liberal SJW, assumes that movies now are just great instead of being what they are, stinkingly terrible on average.
Plus, he makes the mistake of thinking if A didn't happen, then B wouldn't happen.
It's like the people who think if Jackie Robinson hadn't broken the color barrier in ML baseball in 1947, there'd still be no blacks in the majors.
Or if the south had won the Civil War, we'd still have slavery there.
If talking movies hadn't been successful in 1927, we'd still have silent flicks.
You get my point.
If Lucas's SWs films hadn't been successful, most likely we'd still be seeing the junk currently on display in movie theaters.
Lucas didn't make SWs in a void. He was/is a product of current technology. If he didn't do what he did with modern tech/methods, somebody else would have.
The writer's theory is bunk.
Hollywierd would still be putting out dreck by the mile.
Hollywierd started putting out blatant "message" movies in the 80s, (well, the '70s, too), and maybe they thought the rest of the world was on board with their uberLieberal fantasy world that we'd suspend disbelief long enough to buy the social messaging, but that just left little enough to watch. Beyond shoot-em-ups of one variety or another, be it set in the dusty fantasy world of the "Wild West", or in a galaxy far, far, away, the movies which remained the most palatable and even, on occasion, enjoyable were those which had a clear moral conflict, be it resisting the 'bad guy' or the evil empire, possibly all a metaphor for the Communist bloc, and often incorporating into the evil ones the simple totalitarian means utilized by other totalitarians, if on a galactic basis, or the evils of individuals or small groups perpetrated upon others. At least the "Anti-heroes' were fighting for something which was morally understandable.
Less watchable flicks either did that job badly, or took off into the social justice space, a wasteland in which moral values are judged by who has them and the group they identify with, rather than the immutable principles of right vs wrong.
Movies have ever manipulated the emotions of their audience, such is the power of a well crafted story, a character you can identify with, a quest or grievance you can embrace, all skillfully displayed on the big screen with plot twists which reach in and pluck the heartstrings or stimulate the adrenaline rush. This is truly the stuff that dreams--and nightmares--are made of; the escape from everyday life we seek when we plunk down the hard earned money for a ticket, buy some overpriced popcorn, and maybe a drink that would cause riots if gas was priced similarly by the gallon at a gas pump.
I saw Buck Rogers in the 25th Century the same year Star Wars came out, before I saw Star Wars, and noted the special effects were indeed 'special', but not in a good way. Later that year I settled into a small town theater seat and watched the first Star Wars movie. Wow.
Okay, spaceships were maneuvering like fighter planes in the absence of atmosphere, which made no sense, but I suspended disbelief in awe of the quality of the effects otherwise. Not until The Expanse did I see a space battle that, well, made sense to my poor physics laced brain, but that aside, the difference was as striking at the difference between laughing at the string holding up the rocket to seeing the gunfight scenes in Peckinpah's Billy the Kid . Finally, something which required relatively little suspension of disbelief had come to the Sci-fi screen, perhaps saving that suspension for other elements of the plot.
The end result was that instead of sending messages (Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament or the aliens will destroy your planet and you, too), the elements of a good (and ongoing) story were present, the theme of good versus evil, no matter what your polarity (maybe someone was really rooting for the dark lords and Darth Vader), and the idea that if the evil empire is prevailing, you can do something about it all appealed to me, and held that that which was universally good remained as such, across the boundaries of civilizations, species, and the vast gulf of space.
With a show like that, you tended to forget how expensive the pop and popcorn were and just enjoy.
Sadly, Disney will likely do what Disney does. Initial efforts may well be nearly on par with the old crew, but with time, the accountants will step in, and corners will be cut. Look at the relative quality of the animation from Snow White to Beauty and the Beast, and you see the slide that even among relatively classical tales have suffered in the name of filling the pockets of the rat. If Disney doesn't manage to wreck the franchise with the latest in social justice undertones, it may yet survive.
-
I not only don't like modern animation, I don't like Pixar either. In fact, I detest Pixar.
I have no huge dislike for SWs or the sequels. I just couldn't get into it. However, I was a huge original Star Trek fan, so I have no inherent dislike for that genre/type of movie.
Modern westerns are a chore to get through. I've seen a number of remakes, like "3:10 to Yuma", and they stink.
I don't know if you could consider the original "Westworld" a western or just a science-fiction flick, but I liked it. I rooted for Richard Benjamin's character to kill the Yul Brynner gunslinger-robot.
I like moves where there are good people and bad people. I do get the idea that not everything is either good or bad..the shades of gray thing.
But modern moviemakers just can't help themselves injecting their politics or sexual biases into their movies.
The wife and I tried to watch the new "Westworld" on HBO, but it is so irritating, I couldn't stand it midway through the first episode. It is actually boring as h*ll even with all the fake blood and gore.
Once again Hollyweird takes something that worked and wrecks it.
-
I not only don't like modern animation, I don't like Pixar either. In fact, I detest Pixar.
I have no huge dislike for SWs or the sequels. I just couldn't get into it. However, I was a huge original Star Trek fan, so I have no inherent dislike for that genre/type of movie.
Modern westerns are a chore to get through. I've seen a number of remakes, like "3:10 to Yuma", and they stink.
I don't know if you could consider the original "Westworld" a western or just a science-fiction flick, but I liked it. I rooted for Richard Benjamin's character to kill the Yul Brynner gunslinger-robot.
I like moves where there are good people and bad people. I do get the idea that not everything is either good or bad..the shades of gray thing.
But modern moviemakers just can't help themselves injecting their politics or sexual biases into their movies.
The wife and I tried to watch the new "Westworld" on HBO, but it is so irritating, I couldn't stand it midway through the first episode. It is actually boring as h*ll even with all the fake blood and gore.
Once again Hollyweird takes something that worked and wrecks it.
I'm with you in that I like movies where the lines between good and evil are more in synch with Biblical good vs evil. The old epics of De Mille and movies like Spartacus and Ben Hur (I like the one with Charlton Hesston best) were good stuff, too. The last good 'western'was set in Australia, imho, (Quigley Down Under) although the Snowy River movies aren't bad (some great riding in those) and they, too are in Australia.
Some gore made a point, but too much and it's just a red lens. Keep in mind that the real spaltterflick classics, from Psycho to Night of the Living Dead and the Texas Chainsaw Massacres were all in black and white.
As for modern animation, well, cartoons people feel nostalgic for now were a step down from the old Loony Toons of the day, and from Roger Ramjet and Speed Racer, those went down hill. With current CGI capabilities, there is no excuse for slop. That said, the ability to do that CGI leaves the movie once again dependent on the story line, and that is the weakest point in Hollywood. The forcible injection of political themes, gender bias, and gratuitous (as in irrelevant to the plot) sexual deviancy completely unnecessary to the plot leaves so many stories sullied, like dog crap on a golf green. Who wants to watch that, much less pay to?
When Hollywood sticks with themes people can readily identify with without having to dust off and uncomfortably inflate their 'diversity' tolerances in defiance of their morals, the bottom line does better, all else being equal.