Should We Be Worried By One Star Wars Film a Year?
Disney recently unveiled its plans for annual Star Wars movies from 2015 onwards. But maybe we shouldn't be too alarmed, Simon writes...
Disney recently unveiled its plans for annual Star Wars movies from 2015 onwards. But maybe we shouldn't be too alarmed, Simon writes...
Yesterday, news broke that Disney was planning to get some relatively swift returns on its $4bn investment in Lucasfilm and the Star Wars franchise. It had been little secret that Star Wars: Episode VII was on its way, although the confirmation that we should expect it in the summer of 2015 was new. It's also been little secret that Disney was not just interested in a fresh trilogy of films - Episodes VII, VIII and IX - but that it was also thinking about a series of spin-off movies too.
Disney chief Alan Horn has revealed that the plan is to release the new trilogy in 2015, 2017 and 2019, with the alternate years - 2016, 2018 and 2020 - getting a standalone movie of some sort. Unless things go radically wrong, you can safely assume that the cycle - or 'phase', as we think we're supposed to call things - will start again at that point.
Some very obvious accusations have been levelled, with a degree of justification, at Disney in the light of the news. Surely, runs the argument, this is Disney milking Star Wars? Furthermore, isn't there a quality control issue here? How can Disney make a film a year, and keep the standards high?
Well, notwithstanding the fact that the standard hasn't been particularly high with regards Star Wars films for many decades, I can't help but wonder if Disney's plan here is really all that sinister.
Granted, a film a year doesn't inspire confidence. Earlier this week, in fact, I penned a piece questioning the shortening gaps between movie sequels. But might Star Wars be different, not least because these won't really be sequels per se? Because if we've learned one thing from Disney's stewardship of the Marvel universe, it's that there's room for a lot of films, each with their own identity.
Appreciating that superhero saturation point is surely getting closer, Marvel Studios now brings us two films a year. Furthermore, it's using those films we now hear to explore differing genres a little more. There's an acceptance that you need a bit more than an origin story and a CG villain to beat (yep, that's The Amazing Spider-Man I'm glaring at there), and the idea that elements of political thriller are being woven into Captain America: The Winter Soldier, for example, are encouraging. Furthermore, who knows just what shape Guardians Of The Galaxy will come out in. It's a different story, within a broader universe, and there appears to be room for it.
Where Marvel has particularly triumphed is in taking gambles on filmmakers, and then backing them. If you were launching a superhero movie in the 90s, then chances are that Kenneth Branagh, Alan Taylor, Shane Black and the Russo brothers wouldn't have been on your list of possibles. Especially so James Gunn. Yet these are the people Marvel is backing, as it seeks distinctive voices to work with its material.
So why can't Star Wars be the same? The main trilogy is, I'd presume, going to be the focus of JJ Abrams and writer Michael Arndt for some time to come now. But the Star Wars universe, as has been demonstrated by the breadth of books, games, comics and television adventures, is vast. Lots of different stories, and lots of different types of stories, have been told within it. And there's no reason that can't translate to the big screen, digging into this collection of existing storytelling where necessary.
Because here's the thing: these annual Star Wars movies aren't going to be a succession of sequels. A spin-off movie can be handed over to a filmmaker independent of the main trilogy, and given room of its own. If Disney is being particularly bold, which I suspect it isn't, might it even try one or two lower budget, smaller dramas, just set against this rich, fictional backdrop?
At the very least, the new Lucasfilm, headed up by Kathleen Kennedy, has made savvy appointments thus far. Lawrence Kasdan, Simon Kinberg and Michael Arndt are all strong writers. JJ Abrams is a choice of director that most seem to be happy with. And as long as it gives itself enough room in advance to nurture and develop projects within the Star Wars universe, the fact alone that we're set to get a film a year set within it isn't necessarily a cause for massive alarm.
Granted, there's an element of devil's advocate about all of that, and there's still the possibility that this, while not killing the golden goose, might be enough to give it a particularly bad limp. Disney has to marry up satiating shareholders that want to see returns on that $4bn sooner rather than later, and resurrecting and maintaining a cinematic franchise that could, if managed properly, secure a bloody good Christmas party on the Disney lot for a long time to come.
So I'd say this: don't write this annual Star Wars movie idea off yet. Instead, let's hope that Disney follows its Marvel ideology to an extent here, and actively seeks out interesting people to tell interesting stories. You never know, it might just work...
Disney chief Alan Horn has revealed that the plan is to release the new trilogy in 2015, 2017 and 2019, with the alternate years - 2016, 2018 and 2020 - getting a standalone movie of some sort. Unless things go radically wrong, you can safely assume that the cycle - or 'phase', as we think we're supposed to call things - will start again at that point.
Some very obvious accusations have been levelled, with a degree of justification, at Disney in the light of the news. Surely, runs the argument, this is Disney milking Star Wars? Furthermore, isn't there a quality control issue here? How can Disney make a film a year, and keep the standards high?
Well, notwithstanding the fact that the standard hasn't been particularly high with regards Star Wars films for many decades, I can't help but wonder if Disney's plan here is really all that sinister.
Granted, a film a year doesn't inspire confidence. Earlier this week, in fact, I penned a piece questioning the shortening gaps between movie sequels. But might Star Wars be different, not least because these won't really be sequels per se? Because if we've learned one thing from Disney's stewardship of the Marvel universe, it's that there's room for a lot of films, each with their own identity.
Appreciating that superhero saturation point is surely getting closer, Marvel Studios now brings us two films a year. Furthermore, it's using those films we now hear to explore differing genres a little more. There's an acceptance that you need a bit more than an origin story and a CG villain to beat (yep, that's The Amazing Spider-Man I'm glaring at there), and the idea that elements of political thriller are being woven into Captain America: The Winter Soldier, for example, are encouraging. Furthermore, who knows just what shape Guardians Of The Galaxy will come out in. It's a different story, within a broader universe, and there appears to be room for it.
Where Marvel has particularly triumphed is in taking gambles on filmmakers, and then backing them. If you were launching a superhero movie in the 90s, then chances are that Kenneth Branagh, Alan Taylor, Shane Black and the Russo brothers wouldn't have been on your list of possibles. Especially so James Gunn. Yet these are the people Marvel is backing, as it seeks distinctive voices to work with its material.
So why can't Star Wars be the same? The main trilogy is, I'd presume, going to be the focus of JJ Abrams and writer Michael Arndt for some time to come now. But the Star Wars universe, as has been demonstrated by the breadth of books, games, comics and television adventures, is vast. Lots of different stories, and lots of different types of stories, have been told within it. And there's no reason that can't translate to the big screen, digging into this collection of existing storytelling where necessary.
Because here's the thing: these annual Star Wars movies aren't going to be a succession of sequels. A spin-off movie can be handed over to a filmmaker independent of the main trilogy, and given room of its own. If Disney is being particularly bold, which I suspect it isn't, might it even try one or two lower budget, smaller dramas, just set against this rich, fictional backdrop?
At the very least, the new Lucasfilm, headed up by Kathleen Kennedy, has made savvy appointments thus far. Lawrence Kasdan, Simon Kinberg and Michael Arndt are all strong writers. JJ Abrams is a choice of director that most seem to be happy with. And as long as it gives itself enough room in advance to nurture and develop projects within the Star Wars universe, the fact alone that we're set to get a film a year set within it isn't necessarily a cause for massive alarm.
Granted, there's an element of devil's advocate about all of that, and there's still the possibility that this, while not killing the golden goose, might be enough to give it a particularly bad limp. Disney has to marry up satiating shareholders that want to see returns on that $4bn sooner rather than later, and resurrecting and maintaining a cinematic franchise that could, if managed properly, secure a bloody good Christmas party on the Disney lot for a long time to come.
So I'd say this: don't write this annual Star Wars movie idea off yet. Instead, let's hope that Disney follows its Marvel ideology to an extent here, and actively seeks out interesting people to tell interesting stories. You never know, it might just work...
No comments:
Post a Comment