zslane Posted August 8, 2018 Report Share Posted August 8, 2018 The relationship between Disney and Marvel Studios is not fundamentally different than that between Warner Bros and DC. In both cases there is a head of production in charge of overseeing the production slate (Feige for Disney, Johns for DC, until recently). In both cases the studio heads have final say in all matters, leading to varying degrees of meddling in the production process. The difference is that Disney had the good fortune to have Feige in charge of the MCU, while WB had the misfortune of having Geoff Johns in charge of the DCEU. Same basic structure, but very different results. The growing success of the MCU allowed Disney to meddle less and less, while the deteriorating state of the DCEU meant that WB felt the need to step in more and more to try and save the franchise. Success breeds confidence (and creative freedom), failure attracts corporate meddling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkonduty Posted August 9, 2018 Report Share Posted August 9, 2018 (edited) I liked Rogue One, best Star Wars movie to come out since Empire. (I haven't seen Last Jedi but have seen Force Awakens & Solo.) Looking at Kennedy's credits on imdb, well she has overseen some good movies, some bad movies, and plenty of average movies. How much creative input she had in any of them I have no idea. BUT! She is clearly very good at her job. I can tell because she has produced 94 movies to completion. This is a damn sight harder than people might think. Spielberg clearly enjoys working with her and he famously has very high standards when it comes to getting his movies made. I think it's possible to do new things in a story universe. New tones. New types of stories. In fact there is an oft quoted (by me at least) phrase I learned back in film school: "Do anything you want. Just do it well." Snyder's problem wasn't that he went all grim dark. (I'm not a fan of that sort of super hero tale, but that doesn't make it bad.) His problem was he made crap movies. On the other hand Kennedy's Star Wars movies are good. Not great, but good. There's a limitation to making these things: Studio's rarely turn out great movies as they will not (often) take the risks required to make great movies. But if the studio is willing to try to take an old franchise in new directions, that's fantastic. Too many damn remakes out there already. Edited August 9, 2018 by drunkonduty Oops, I hit "post" before finishing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted August 9, 2018 Report Share Posted August 9, 2018 If WB had been smart with the Monster Universe, they would have used the Connor character from The Mummy in all of them as the unifying theme. The guy was really likable, the librarian girl was really likable, her thieving brother was really likable. They had the foundation for something great ad blew it. And while Kennedy is skilled enough at her job, she clearly did not like the Star Wars stories and universe as they were and wanted to make big changes, none of which were good ideas. Just because you're good at something doesn't mean you're good at everything. Like I've said elsewhere, I wouldn't put Hitchcock in charge of a Marx Brothers movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted August 9, 2018 Report Share Posted August 9, 2018 My biggest problem with the recent Star Wars movies (except Rogue One which I also liked quite a lot) is that Kennedy decided to hijack the Skywalker Saga as the vehicle for this "new Star Wars for a new generation," rather than coming up with an entirely new saga in which to jerk the franchise in a direction that has produced as much fan outrage as it has box office success. Episodes 7-9 feel more like the "let's kill off the original characters and themes and make room for new characters and themes saga," rather than the final chapters of the Skywalker storyline. It's as if Kathleen Kennedy hated the old characters as much as Harrison Ford hated the Han Solo role. To be fair, I don't think she actually hated them so much as she just had complete disdain for them, having no fan/emotional connection to them, and therefore did not grasp the value of preserving their legacy as pop culture icons. Christopher R Taylor and Starlord 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted August 9, 2018 Report Share Posted August 9, 2018 2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said: If WB had been smart with the Monster Universe, they would have used the Connor character from The Mummy in all of them as the unifying theme. The guy was really likable, the librarian girl was really likable, her thieving brother was really likable. They had the foundation for something great ad blew it. And while Kennedy is skilled enough at her job, she clearly did not like the Star Wars stories and universe as they were and wanted to make big changes, none of which were good ideas. Just because you're good at something doesn't mean you're good at everything. Like I've said elsewhere, I wouldn't put Hitchcock in charge of a Marx Brothers movie. Universal was the one who was attempting to launch the Dark Universe, with their classic movie monsters in a shared world setting. While I agree with you that the Rick O'Connell character from the 1999 release of The Mummy would have been a great starting point, the movies were most likely considered to be too old to attract suitable attention by current audiences. The Dark Universe plan was also to set their movies in the current day (for better or for worse). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drunkonduty Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 I'm not aware of anywhere where Kennedy has said she doesn't like Star Wars. (Unlike Snyder's famous dislike of the super hero genre.) She may have different ideas to you and a bunch of others. Doesn't make them bad ideas. Doing it differently doesn't mean doing it bad. We'll never know what a Hitchcock directed Marx Brothers film would have looked like. It may have been great, it may have been awful. Point is, it wasn't done thus we can't make a definitive statement about it. We can only wonder what it might have been like and say "I'd like to see that, good or bad, it'd be fascinating." As to dividing the fan base and maybe costing Disney money (the only real issue the studio is worried about...) The other 3 Star Wars movies Kennedy has overseen have done very well. Sure some fans have complained. (Is it me or is the Star Wars fan base the most toxic one on the internet?) The Last Jedi in particular has had a lot of vocal criticism from toxi-fans. But it actually has a very strong following. Certainly judging by box office. So a bunch of whiny nerds are upset that it didn't live up to what ever the hell lame-arse ideas they have for the sequels? Who gives a shit. Up to this point in the narrative, not Disney. Solo didn't do well at the box office. Now Disney start worrying. Aside: I liked Solo. If anything I would have gone further away from all the old cliches. Seriously, what are the chances of Solo running into his old girlfriend? It must be a very small galaxy. And rather than Woody Harrelson's obvious betrayal, and Solo's equally obvious double-double cross, I would have liked to see Harrelson as a mentor figure going forward. But I get why they did it this way: there's a whole new generation of young (sometimes quite young) movie goers to whom all this is new and exciting. Old farts aren't the only ones in cinemas. (I'm pretty sure they're a minority.) Movie makers have to take this into consideration but sometimes even playing it safe doesn't yield dividends. So now, on the strength of this one poor showing, world wide gross about 390 million, some execs at Disney are happy to sack Kennedy despite 3 other very successful Star Wars movies. Well, that's Hollywood. I'm sure Kennedy will weather it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 The Star Wars revenues each film in succession have made less money until the latest one made none... that's a clear, obvious trend. Its die hard fans giving up, its a can't-lose license to print money failing. This isn't someone who did okay, its someone who made a disaster out of the most popular and beloved movie franchise in human history. There's no defending that. Iuz the Evil and Doc Shadow 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 Despite some criticisms, both The Force Awakens and Rogue One were generally well received by both fans and critics. There was enormous public anticipation and excitement for The Last Jedi. That was the film that changed the whole nature of the discourse. I believe the biggest problem was that the people behind the movie deliberately set out to subvert the assumptions and speculations of the fans. Like Luke said to Rey, "This is not going to go the way you think!" Characters didn't behave or interact the way everyone expected them to. Story points fans were interested and invested in, e.g. Snoke's identity and history, and Rey's parentage, were ignored or undercut. Some plot twists appeared to be inserted as "Gotcha!" surprises, like how Benicio del Toro's character was used. None of these things made the movie bad in themselves; personally I quite enjoyed it. But collectively they imply a disregard for the existing Star Wars fandom. The trust between fans and filmmakers was damaged, and that's going to be hard to rebuild. slikmar, Netzilla, Matt the Bruins and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ternaugh Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 Various sources were reporting in December 2017 that Solo: A Star Wars Story was expected to bomb and was essentially written off by Disney at that point. https://screenrant.com/han-solo-movie-bomb-disney-lucasfilm/ https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/897314/Star-Wars-Han-Solo-movie-flop-The-Last-Jedi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 Earnings of Star Wars films in order of release (earnings overall, adjusted for inflation for more accurate comparison): A New Hope: $1,651,168,600 The Empire Strikes Back: $910,134,500 Return of the Jedi: $871,930,700 The Phantom Menace: $837,192,900 Attack of the Clones: $495,652,700 Revenge of the Sith: $549,938,900 The Force Awakens: $1,002,227,000 Rogue One: $560,293,800 The Last Jedi: $626,600,800 Solo: $210,626,400 That's a pretty unpleasant downward spiral. The first film of a new series people are super excited by hoping it will bring the fun back, then it dives after that. Look at the difference between episode I and II, for example. And VIII made about half VII did. Solo, of course, was a disaster, they literally lost money on a Star Wars movie, which is just unthinkable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 13 hours ago, drunkonduty said: I'm not aware of anywhere where Kennedy has said she doesn't like Star Wars. I'm not eager to spend time chasing down citations, but Kathleen Kennedy is on record as saying that she was never into Star Wars, and that she wants to make Star Wars movies "for people like her" who never got into it before and aren't part of its existing fandom. I backed away from saying she hated the characters because, as I said before, it is more like indifference/disdain for something she has no personal connection to. I am trying to avoid words like "hate" and "dislike" when it comes to Kennedy's feelings towards Star Wars because I don't think she has/had any strong feelings towards the franchise at all. She was sort of stuck with the job of being in charge of it (she was made an offer her ego couldn't refuse), and while a great many producers in Hollywood would have been excited--if not more than a little nervous--at such a prospect, Kennedy was not, and I think it is pretty evident that she tried her best to turn it into something she could summon a modicum of personal interest in just to avoid contributing to its failure due to profound indifference. Unfortunately, that strategy has not paid off since she is being blamed for ruining the franchise anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywind Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said: Earnings of Star Wars films in order of release (earnings overall, adjusted for inflation for more accurate comparison): A New Hope: $1,651,168,600 The Empire Strikes Back: $910,134,500 Return of the Jedi: $871,930,700 The Phantom Menace: $837,192,900 Attack of the Clones: $495,652,700 Revenge of the Sith: $549,938,900 The Force Awakens: $1,002,227,000 Rogue One: $560,293,800 The Last Jedi: $626,600,800 Solo: $210,626,400 That's a pretty unpleasant downward spiral. The first film of a new series people are super excited by hoping it will bring the fun back, then it dives after that. Look at the difference between episode I and II, for example. And VIII made about half VII did. Solo, of course, was a disaster, they literally lost money on a Star Wars movie, which is just unthinkable. I think The Last Jedi spiking had to do with Fisher's death. Still $60m isn't a lot in the great scheme of Hollywood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 I think TLJ's box office performance was mostly from the pent up demand to see Luke finally return to the big screen. If disappointed fans could have gotten their money back after seeing what Rian Johnson did with the character, I'm pretty confident TLJ's total would be below Rogue One's. Hermit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher R Taylor Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 There's a huge host of reasons why Last Jedi bombed, from the creators deliberately and repeatedly insulting their audience and fans in social media to a lousy storyline to poorly written characters to ridiculous scenes to Flying Nun Leia to bombs falling in space, to psycho Luke, it goes on and on. Its just a catastrophe and the only reason it did as well as it did was first weekend interest from which people came back wishing they could have gotten their money back. Solo's numbers are a backlash, with fans furious at what was done to the franchise and disinterested viewers hearing even die hard fans say the thing sucked; why go see another Star Wars movie if even the fans didn't like the last one? The bottom line is this: don't put someone in charge of your franchise who doesn't really care for it or love its setting and characters. Don't put me in charge of the Twilight saga. Don't put Snyder in charge of Superman. This is pretty no-brainer stuff. I get it, Hollywood is thinking "well its a niche market, we need to pull in non-fans!" but all they do is annoy fans and fail to make new ones. Tracking the DC movie numbers looks the same as Star Wars: Man of Steel: $667,999,518 Batman vs Superman: $868,160,194 Justice League: $655,953,446 Wonder Woman: $821,133,378 I mean, they're making some money* but its not exactly a great trend here. And what's the outlier? Wonder Woman, made by someone who loved the character. *Justice League probably made no money, with filming budget of $300,000,000 plus another couple hundred million for publicity and overseas distribution, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 What successful movie franchise started out as a movie franchise prior to the first film? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grailknight Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, Old Man said: What successful movie franchise started out as a movie franchise prior to the first film? Just curious. The Bale Batman movies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 Lord of the Rings Iuz the Evil, Matt the Bruins and Grailknight 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuz the Evil Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 Harry Potter Starlord and Grailknight 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zslane Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 Yeah, Harry Potter is probably the best contemporary example. I don't consider a trilogy a franchise per se since it is intended to end conclusively after the third installment. Even Harry Potter, which had a "only" seven primary installments has spawned spin-offs in the same universe, extending itself into a genuine (i.e., ongoing) franchise. But I think Old Man's point is still well taken; the norm is that a franchise is what you get (long) after your first movie is so successful that it gives birth to an unending stream of sequels, spin-offs, and merchandise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cassandra Posted August 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 Police Academy. Starlord and Hermit 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted August 10, 2018 Report Share Posted August 10, 2018 10 minutes ago, Cassandra said: Police Academy. AHAHHHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHH. Steve Guttenberg is a franchise starter!!! Hermit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted August 11, 2018 Report Share Posted August 11, 2018 X-Men. ?? How many sequels, spinoffs & reboots does it have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted August 11, 2018 Report Share Posted August 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Starlord said: AHAHHHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHH. Steve Guttenberg is a franchise starter!!! Michael Winslow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza Posted August 11, 2018 Report Share Posted August 11, 2018 Also Pink Panther series might qualify for Old Man's question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted August 11, 2018 Report Share Posted August 11, 2018 Near as I can tell the vast majority of successful movie franchises either happened organically or were already successful book or TV series. That’s why it’s weird when WB talks about starting franchises before the first film is out. In fact it’s stupid. Perceptions matter, so when you talk up your franchise and the first film bombs, you don’t have an underperforming film, you have an entire failed franchise. Here, someone give me a multi billion dollar movie studio to run. I’ll show them how to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.