Is The Disney Company a hoarder that destroys our favorite franchises?

[Greg Cox]

To say nothing of how they "rebooted" Phantom of the Opera with Claude Rains in 1943.

And again with Herbert Lom in the sixties, and the many subsequent remakes since then.

At this point, honestly, the Broadway musical has pretty much eclipsed the original silent movie as far as the general public is concerned.

 

[suarezguy]

I think Robert Meyer Burnett had a more nuanced argument lately about Star Wars. He suggests that all franchises have a maximum cultural expiration date and that Star Wars has reached it. I think there's a case to be made for that. You might also say the same thing about Star Trek, frankly.

I think a good marker for that is when the new product starts really trying to outright remake past installments or even if not remake them still seem too similar to them (i.e. Nemesis, 09 and ID of The Wrath of Khan (and 09 of Nemesis), the Star Wars film sequels de-canonizing the novel sequels but telling a broadly similar story to what they did).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I am not forced to watch any remake or reboot.. i couldn't care less if Star Wars would be remade by Uwe Boll as i would only check it out for a short while to confirm my suspsicions and if they turn out to be right turn it off and probably put in the Holy Trilogy and relive my childhood.

I have the same attitude towards BSG.

I didn't much care for the remake, but it's still a valid way of telling the story (don't give me any of this GINO crap ) and it didn't cause the original series to vanish into the ether. So it's all good.

That said, I do hope that if an even newer BSG turns up, it sticks more to the flavor of the original (one of the reasons I didn't like the remake is that the characters were just too much like us - Colonial civilization was pretty much a carbon copy of our own. And don't even get me started on how exactly the hell "All Along The Watchtower" got written in the Colonies and then agaiin on Earth ) .

And I'm seriously liking the idea that every iteration of BSG that has ever existed, and ever will exist, takes place in the same universe..."all of this has happened before, all of this will happen again".

 

[suarezguy]

Some people feel threatened when the new thing becomes more popular and more widely recognised than the old thing.

That often-enough is associated with putting down the older version, The Thing 82 of the original, Batman 89 of the Adam West show, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Amazing Spider-Man and Homecoming of the Raimi films, the television The Shining and film It.

A botched sequel or remake doesn't "ruin" the original.

Although rarer, one response to criticism of the SW ST is that the original films had bad writing or awful writing.

The Matrix was also arguably very hurt, if not pretty tarnished, by its sequels.

 

[mos6507]

To say nothing of how they "rebooted" Phantom of the Opera with Claude Rains in 1943.

There is a distinct difference between remaking isolated movies decades apart and what's going on now which is trying to create an endless assembly line of movies in a cinematic universe. Pretty much anything in excess can wear out its welcome.

 

[Greg Cox]

There is a distinct difference between remaking isolated movies decades apart and what's going on now which is trying to create an endless assembly line of movies in a cinematic universe. Pretty much anything in excess can wear out its welcome.

I don't know. How many "Ma and Pa Kettle" and "Francis the Talking Mule" movies did Hollywood churn out back in the day? Not to mention The Thin Man, The Pink Panther, Charlie Chan, Mister Moto, Torchy Blaine, Tarzan, The Falcon, Mexican Spitfire, and any number of "assembly-line" movie series.

 

[ScottJ85]

Although rarer, one response to criticism of the SW ST is that the original films had bad writing or awful writing.

I've seen that before, though the version I've heard is typically a little more nuanced - not that the original trilogy had bad or lazy writing, just that many of the criticisms of the sequel trilogy apply equally to the originals and the prequels.

 

[mos6507]

I don't know. How many "Ma and Pa Kettle" and "Francis the Talking Mule" movies did Hollywood churn out back in the day? Not to mention The Thin Man, The Pink Panther, Charlie Chan, Mister Moto, Torchy Blaine, Tarzan, The Falcon, Mexican Spitfire, and any number of "assembly-line" movie series.

Just proves my theory. They're not making them anymore, are they? They ran out of steam. Disney didn't pay 4 billion for Star Wars in order for it to peter out.

 

[suarezguy]

I believe the Pink Panther and Tarzan sequels and thus series became regarded as being embarrassing, the early films were later separated in perception and again recognized as being very good but it took a long time for that separation and re-evaluation to happen.

 

[Mudd]

There's not so much an expiration date as a matter of generational relevance. There are folks for whom the introduction and rise of a property is part of their own growth and aging - they were here before the thing existed, they encountered it new, they watched it unfold - and then there are the following generations that encounter the thing as an existing part of the popular culture landscape. At that point it's more fixed in terms of format and formula, and new things are incorporating whatever durable contributions were made by that property into their own narratives.

 

[Armus]

I think Robert Meyer Burnett had a more nuanced argument lately about Star Wars. He suggests that all franchises have a maximum cultural expiration date and that Star Wars has reached it. I think there's a case to be made for that. You might also say the same thing about Star Trek, frankly.

The sequel trilogy reflects a straining to try to continue Star Wars in a meaningful way. The pendulum swung in two different directions--direct homage with The Force Awakens and cynical subverting of expectations (and political soapboxing) in The Last Jedi. Either way, the result simply doesn't resonate even close to what the original Star Wars films did from 77-83. They just don't. It reaches the point of diminishing returns. And everything I hear about Episode 9 screams "try hard". A cavalcade of force ghosts and openings of mystery boxes, all sound and fury signifying nothing.

There's only so many times you can watch a lightsaber battle or some revelation that somebody is a father/brother/sister/boyfriend before it gets stale, especially since Star Wars itself merely took a bunch of tropes from decades past, dusted them off, and mashed them together and presented them to a new generation that hadn't been exposed to them yet.

And the same thing will happen to the MCU. You eventually wear out a genre after a while. We've had, what, 20 years or so of the modern comic book movie craze. I don't know where the genre will peak but it's probably a safe bet that Endgame's grosses will never be matched in the foreseeable future.

Anything done in excess will wear out its welcome, period, even when done well. Even Bob Iger hinted at SW franchise fatigue, did he not?

Note that the first Star Wars movies were special because you had to wait three years for each one and sci-fi movies (and TV) during that period were much more uncommon than today. Today there is sooo much competition for entertainment that even tent-pole movies just don't impress nearly as much as they used to, hence we had a string of under-performers or outright bombs this summer.

The seeds of failure for the sequel trilogy really started with JJ insisting that the old actors be utilized as much as possible. Passing the torch is really hard to do well. The more you give the old guard to do, the more you prevent the new characters from asserting themselves. For instance, Harrison Ford really carried most of The Force Awakens. But the logistical need to get the old guard off the stage leads to some contrived situations like unceremoniously offing Ford or Luke dissolving from exhaustion. It just doesn't flow naturally. When Obi-Wan died in A New Hope, we had just met him. He was not an old actor that the fans remembered from prior Star Wars movies decades earlier, so that sort of thing worked far better. It's just really hard to establish a steady continuation, one generation to the next, which is something CBS is going to have to tackle next with Picard.

The New SW movies would have better if they hadn't forced in the old characters and then killed them off in the worse possible way. I have nothing against Disney as I do the state of Hollywood as a whole for the last several decades. There are still good dramas and independent films being made but on the whole the big studio movies bore me. I hated the SW prequels and the new Disney SW movies haven't impressed me. If things continue on their current trajectory there will be a point of diminishing returns. If that makes me a snob so be it. I don't mind that there are tons of people who enjoy what bores me. I don't like going on and on about things I don't enjoy. But as someone who likes movies I can't help bemoaning what I see as a slow cultural decay. At some point Comic book movies, endless sequels and reboots won't make the money they have been making. I saw an interview with Bret Easton Ellis where he said mainstream Hollywood is just Marvel and animation now, and that the successful screenwriters of the 90s and 2000s are out of the business. According to him there used to a large pool of writers writing movies for adults.

 

[Gov Kodos]

There's not so much an expiration date as a matter of generational relevance. There are folks for whom the introduction and rise of a property is part of their own growth and aging - they were here before the thing existed, they encountered it new, they watched it unfold - and then there are the following generations that encounter the thing as an existing part of the popular culture landscape. At that point it's more fixed in terms of format and formula, and new things are incorporating whatever durable contributions were made by that property into their own narratives.

Yup.

Just proves my theory. They're not making them anymore, are they? They ran out of steam. Disney didn't pay 4 billion for Star Wars in order for it to peter out.

Nope.

Following from Serveaux's point newer generations come along and don't see the relevance in old folks stuff and want something new. That new thing can be a rejuvenation like Spaghetti westerns. Once looked on as a joke compared to Hollywood, they later became the new thing- antiheroes and wildly successful. Other times the new thing can be an old genre that's long fallen to the wayside like Gothic horror that was tired out by the 70s yet has made a resurgence with things like Penny Dreadful.

That's what remade Tony Bennett.

 

[Greg Cox]

Pirate movies were pretty much box-office poison (Swashbuckler, Cutthroat Island, etc.) until Disney reinvented them with Pirates of the Caribbean, based on a theme park ride of all things.

And musicals seem to be gradually making a comeback . . . .

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And musicals seem to be gradually making a comeback . . . .

I've heard talk of a COME FROM AWAY feature film.

Not sure how I feel about that...I've seen it on stage 4 times (3 in Toronto, one in NYC) and it was great, but I don't know how a film version would work. Unless they just filmed the stage show, of course.

 

[mos6507]

Pirate movies were pretty much box-office poison

Because there was a gap in the middle. That is why Disney needs to "rest" Star Wars.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Just proves my theory. They're not making them anymore, are they? They ran out of steam. Disney didn't pay 4 billion for Star Wars in order for it to peter out.

Uh huh...

Because there was a gap in the middle. That is why Disney needs to "rest" Star Wars.

Uh huh...

So on one hand they should keep making them but on the other they should stop. Interesting problem in logic.

 

[Campe]

Because there was a gap in the middle. That is why Disney needs to "rest" Star Wars.

I don't think anyone is going to argue that the movie a year pattern between TFA and Solo was a mistake. It was too much too quick. But "rest?" Nah.

 

[ScottJ85]

The entire franchise was resting from the release of ROTS onwards and no the EU doesn’t count.

 

[theenglish]

Because there was a gap in the middle. That is why Disney needs to "rest" Star Wars.

We already had two long breaks. I disagree that having the extra films were a bad decision. Solo under performed but I don't think that was due to over saturation. Many were not ready for a new actor to play Han Solo perhaps, or perhaps Disney should have stuck to releasing the films at Christmas time. Let's see what happens this December.

 

[JD]

The New SW movies would have better if they hadn't forced in the old characters and then killed them off in the worse possible way. I have nothing against Disney as I do the state of Hollywood as a whole for the last several decades. There are still good dramas and independent films being made but on the whole the big studio movies bore me. I hated the SW prequels and the new Disney SW movies haven't impressed me. If things continue on their current trajectory there will be a point of diminishing returns. If that makes me a snob so be it. I don't mind that there are tons of people who enjoy what bores me. I don't like going on and on about things I don't enjoy. But as someone who likes movies I can't help bemoaning what I see as a slow cultural decay. At some point Comic book movies, endless sequels and reboots won't make the money they have been making. I saw an interview with Bret Easton Ellis where he said mainstream Hollywood is just Marvel and animation now, and that the successful screenwriters of the 90s and 2000s are out of the business. According to him there used to a large pool of writers writing movies for adults.

The kind of stuff you are talking about is still out there, it's just on TV now instead of in the movie theaters.
Like I said before, TV is now the place to go for the deeper stories with a heavier emphasis on characters and plot, while movies are about spectacle.