Potential problems with the spinoffs, in general

I guess you could say Marvel "pulled it off" but i expect better quality for Star Wars movies than i do Marvel movies. Also, for the spin off movies i don't want them to make some all connected thin narrative tie in for the spin offs. At that point it just feels like you're watching a commercial for another movie that won't come out for years "Ironman 2" .

As for over-saturated i don't think it will effect the average moviegoing audience but it will start effect the fans, i'm already burnt out on Marvel, If the Star Wars movies are really good it will take longer but it will eventually catch up to me.

 

I'll mirror Max Rebo's comment about Disney not really having that issue with the Marvel universe, but with this added: Star Wars has always been special in that non-fans seem to always have a difficult time understanding even just the OT-PT release schedule. I can't tell you how many times I've had to say something like "We'll watch the first ones... well, not the first ones, but the first ones made" or "These movies come before the others, but the others came first." It boggles everyone's mind it seems.

All this time that I've heard of spin-offs, and I haven't seen any word or thing that would make me think it had to inherently be released in a theater. I kind of figured Disney would do them as a TV movie they premier on XD or another Disney-owned channel and then eventually release to DVD/Blu-ray.

Though that said, it would make me worry about the quality of the films. Not being made for the theater could make them sub-par for the series (think all the Ewok movies). Perhaps over-saturation in the theater isn't necessarily a bad thing, though it does seem incredibly ambitious.

Not sure about that. It might burn out the general movie-goer pretty quickly. The thing with Marvel is that they have a bunch of different story-lines with different characters to portray. I mean, I could go to see The Guardians of the Galaxy and not feel like I was watching The Avengers or any of the constituent character films (Iron Man, Thor, etc.), and even the bulk of those character films are essentially independent of the others (from a certain point of view).

Star Wars has a hurdle in that the spin-offs will inherently be much more connected to the main series if not simply due to the fact that the bulk of Star Wars films are all in that one story arc. It'd be more difficult to get something "fresh" in the way Marvel can, at least to the point of view of the Average Joe.

I agree with you on the fans part though. Even if that rumor of "a movie every year until 2030" proved true, it might take me a loooong time to get burnt on it if I find them all enjoyable. I mean, it's Star Wars.

 

I remember a discussion somewhere on here in which the question posed was "Do any of the Big Three die in VII?" It got around to the rumor that Han is the one who bites it, and I brought up speculation that the rumored release time of the Solo film could point to when they could potentially kill off Han.

That rumor still seems to persist, and honestly I could somewhat see them using his death in one of the films (I think we determined it might be in VIII) as a vehicle to fuel interest from both existing fans and newcomers alike at a story revolving around him. Aside from that, I'd figure they'd be banking on fans like us to drum up mainstream support for any spin-off. Could work, might not.

I'd also have the imagine they might try to style it as more adventurous and somewhat lacking most of the seriousness of the main series. The mood they go for as well as what actor they settle on will play a large part in any general interest in the film.

 

Is it just me, or does this appear to be saying two completely different and potentially conflicting things?

Seems to me that either the spin-off films will not carry characters in and out of the saga episodes, OR they can be origin stories. Both at the same time? Not so much.

Personally, I hope they avoid origin stories altogether. I thought that those were some of the weakest aspects of the PT (did we really need to see Boba Fett and Darth Vader as mop headed little tykes?) and I just cringe at the thought of an entire movie revolving around a Muppet Baby version of Han Solo. Even if they avoid showing him as a kid, I just think that there are far too many opportunities to screw up Han's character and far too little potential for a compelling story for it to be worth the gamble.

If they were to simply take the world that George Lucas created and create new stories and new characters that exist parallel to the events of the core saga rather than as a direct tie-in, I think there's a lot more potential there for something engaging and memorable. As much as I think that the Rebels cartoon is as dull as day old dishwater, I like the general idea of creating new characters and setting them loose in the GFFA.

What about the GFFA version of an old-school private eye? I always thought they should have incorporated somebody like that as the more worldly "Han" character in the PT, but since they didn't then why not go for it with a stand-alone film?

IMHO, they have a great opportunity here to do more than just the usual cross-pollination thing like they've done with the Marvel films. Stand-alone films that truly stand alone can easily take off into series of their own if they happen to hit on something that resonates with the audience. I'm all for continuity between the core saga trilogies. It makes a great deal of sense to include older versions of characters from the previous trilogy in the new trilogy to pass the torch. But I don't think that the stand-alone films necessarily need to all be just stories that are ancillary to the core saga. Why not try to pave out new hyperspace lanes rather than just using the same one over and over again?

(As always, your mileage may vary...)

 

Three words:

Marvel Cinematic Universe

 

The thing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe is, they're springboarding off of an existing canon in which everything revolves around The Avengers. Guardians of the Galaxy stepped outside of that box, but my understanding is that they're still talking about eventually tying that storyline in with The Avengers. (And BTW, I think this approach has worked very well for the MCU.)

If LFL is actually looking to make the Star Wars spin-off films true stand-alone films, though, then it's my hope that they take a slightly different approach and don't feel the need to tie everything in with the core saga storyline. It would allow for a lot more freedom to tell new stories, and would balance out the rather hamfisted "what a small universe!" approach that Lucas took with the PT, where Anakin/Vader built Threepio, Boba Fett's father was Grandpappy Stormtrooper, Yoda and Chewie were old war buddies, and so on.

IMHO, it would be fun to see storylines develop with characters who never end up crossing paths with the core saga characters, but whose lives are affected by the same galactic events. It would create a lot more breathing room for the franchise, and could end up making Star Wars that much richer an overall experience.

 

I don't disagree I would love to see new characters and other aspects of the galaxy. But I love how they tied the Fetts in and I don't really see the problem with Yoda meeting Chewie. Even if I wanted a different treatment of the Fett man. Isn't he one of the characters that is and always has been red meat for a spin off. Good Lord the adventures of Han Solo would be epic.

 

If I NEVER see another "Muppet Babies" version of a classic Star Wars character, it will be too soon.

I certainly never needed to see Darth Vader or Boba Fett recast as precocious young children, and the fact that we came so close to seeing Han Solo as a little kid raised by Wookiees in ROTS still sets my skin on edge to this day.

Please, no more origin stories for classic SW characters! There is SO much to be done in that world, so many new worlds to explore, new people to meet and new adventures to go on. Why get hung up in all these origin movies for established characters? It'd just end up looking like a cheap cash grab.

A bounty hunter adventure? Why not? It wouldn't be anything earth-shattering, but it could be fun if it's done right. But Han Solo as a kid? Oy... At that point I'd start getting a wee bit concerned that the next spin-off flick would be Star Wars: That Time When Yoda and Chewbacca Went to the Pod Races On Malastare With Zany, Madcap Results.

 

I'll say it again: it's going to be very difficult to market "Star Wars: A Brand New Made Up Character Nobody Knows" as opposed to "Star Wars: Han Solo" etc.

 

I think the rabid fans would eat up anything star wars, even if it is wholly original.

 

And what percentage of the movie market do you think that probably is?

 

Personally, I think the spinoffs will be remembered well. If the rumors are true about a bounty hunter team-up+Death Star heist, a Han Solo origins, a Red Squadron film, some Obi-Wan exile year movies, they will add to the canon really well, as most also will add back-story to the OT, which in truth, has very little now, much like the other eras of Star Wars. I don't see these movies making billions, but even if they don't, if they are surprising and well-done like Inception, I see them being in effect much like The Clone Wars or any other Star Wars media.

 

Other than a few nods here and there to "a much larger world." The MCU is relatively unconnected meaning they share space and some back ground characters or even the occasional McGuffin. If they do Spin-offs they would be relatively unconnected stories that share a galaxy and some characters.

I mean what degree of separation from the trilogies is enough. Is an astromech going to be R2 fan service? Or if in a bounty hunter movie one or more of the many many bounty hunters from both trilogies are seen is that too connected?

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that George Lucas planned 12 films, 3 trilogies plus 3 stand alone stories. There's a high chance then that atleast the first three 'stand alone' films are these, especially when you can consider the speed with which the first one has moved, like VII there's a good chance the story already existed in some form. If we're lucky then [cross fingers] they won't be 'random hey lets have a Solo/Yoda/Obiwan story' but something that sheds light onto the main Saga narrative.

 

I will agree that a lightly trained monkey could market a movie that is a rehash of a popular Star Wars character.

But the notion that the public will only go to see something familiar is ridiculous. Especially for something like Star Wars. Run a trailer showing spaceships, lightsabers, aliens and explosions and slug "STAR WARS!!" at the end of it and you've got people's attention right there.

Are you seriously telling me that if Disney made, say, a "Knights of the Old Republic" movie, their marketing teams would be pulling their hair out trying to figure out how to sell the public on the thing?

 

No no no I think something like that would definitely work, but I think it's going to be more difficult to get the masses to come to a movie about some character the creative team cooked up that has no relation to the other movies and once it's over, that character is basically over.