Aye, I cannot disagree. My decision to ditch Star Wars branded media directly followed from the decision to hire JJ Abrams for the Disney Star Wars movies after his Star Trek had so blatantly mauled its source materials. While I appreciate that media corporations do not care about faithful adaptation, consistency, or continuity, when they neglect these concerns it always comes back to bite them on the ass sooner or later.
However, it has to be acknowledged that by milking the space cow so heavily with a seemingly endless run of Star Wars-branded movies, Disney and post-Lucas Lucasfilm could have nobbled the franchise without Abram's help.
But the JJ Abrams and Alex Kurtzmans must be called out. If they get credit, they must also get blame. Kathleen Kennedy, Rian Johnson - etc. Rogue One director & Ron Howard served up passable to an even 'good' example of how to handle a beloved, complex franchise. Yes, Howard did clean-up for Miller & Lord, the guys fired, and while Solo wasn't profitable, it's not a truly 'bad' movie.
Endless glut of both D+ and P+ content is dizzingly overwhelming, the main cause of fan frustration.
Aye, well having paid $4B for Lucasfilm, you can understand wanting to get money from it... which doesn't excuse the mishandling of the franchise, of course.
Paramount is a more interesting case. Star Trek and Mission: Impossible are their only major franchises, and the latter having partnered with Tom Cruise is now painted into a corner. But overmilking a franchise is always a sign of creative weakness.
I often think about how the production constraints for network television created the lasting franchises like Doctor Who and Star Trek... removing those constraints has not fostered creativity. My big problem with streaming TV is that it has too few constraints and so it tends to lack ingenuity. Even the hits, like Stranger Things, are at heart derivative...
Aye, I cannot disagree. My decision to ditch Star Wars branded media directly followed from the decision to hire JJ Abrams for the Disney Star Wars movies after his Star Trek had so blatantly mauled its source materials. While I appreciate that media corporations do not care about faithful adaptation, consistency, or continuity, when they neglect these concerns it always comes back to bite them on the ass sooner or later.
However, it has to be acknowledged that by milking the space cow so heavily with a seemingly endless run of Star Wars-branded movies, Disney and post-Lucas Lucasfilm could have nobbled the franchise without Abram's help.
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
As Paramount endlessly milks that Trekkin cow.
But the JJ Abrams and Alex Kurtzmans must be called out. If they get credit, they must also get blame. Kathleen Kennedy, Rian Johnson - etc. Rogue One director & Ron Howard served up passable to an even 'good' example of how to handle a beloved, complex franchise. Yes, Howard did clean-up for Miller & Lord, the guys fired, and while Solo wasn't profitable, it's not a truly 'bad' movie.
Endless glut of both D+ and P+ content is dizzingly overwhelming, the main cause of fan frustration.
Aye, well having paid $4B for Lucasfilm, you can understand wanting to get money from it... which doesn't excuse the mishandling of the franchise, of course.
Paramount is a more interesting case. Star Trek and Mission: Impossible are their only major franchises, and the latter having partnered with Tom Cruise is now painted into a corner. But overmilking a franchise is always a sign of creative weakness.
I often think about how the production constraints for network television created the lasting franchises like Doctor Who and Star Trek... removing those constraints has not fostered creativity. My big problem with streaming TV is that it has too few constraints and so it tends to lack ingenuity. Even the hits, like Stranger Things, are at heart derivative...