Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun

Disney considering a Marvel and Star Wars TV channel

Recommended Posts

 

 

That's not a show, it's a fan film parody.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that total saturation might not necessarily be the best thing?

Maybe, but it's working great for Marvel.

I'm rather more concerned about what's best for consumers.

 

I mean the model's working great for the Marvel franchise on the consumer side.

 

 

Hey we can tie(haha the puns) all the replies together here with this. 

 

Alot of people only consider the OT as Star Wars and alot of Marvel fans only consider classic Marvel as the best of the best. Disney probably doesn't care about older fans, just like with Marvel tries to reinvent every 3 years. People who grew up with Spider-Man, don't recognize him. Don't be surprised if Darth Vader owns a pet kitten and does Cross Fit before the year 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That whole "certain point of view" business applies equally well to us real human beings. Whatever opinion people may have of the OT, it's just as valid as your own predilections and preferences.

I just think it's silly to have One True Star Wars. Especially when it's one of the smallest portions of the franchise. 

 

I just hope we don't get a terrible quality Star Wars show like Agents of SHIELD. ABC Productions and their quality of television is great for things like Castle, Revenge or Desperate Housewives, but I feel like they flopped with Agents, and as much as I enjoyed Daredevil on Netflix, it still had that cheaply made feel to it. I wouldn't want that happening to the Star Wars franchise. If they do decide to make SW on TV, hopefully it'll be things like a SW history show that explores the Legends EU, or behind-the-scenes of the making of SW things, or an HBO/AMC cinematic production quality TV series for people to watch.

I would expect most such Star Wars shows to be animated. (TIE Fighter anime, anyone?) It's a lot cheaper to do a lot of space travel with large numbers of ships that way. On the other hand, the original Star Wars was made on a shoestring budget, so the constraints could work for the show, if they let it. 

 

I wouldn't expect a cinematic-quality show unless it's on HBO or AMC, just because of how much money it would take to do. The Mouse has lots of money, but not infinite money. Even with their three money printing machines named Pixar, Marvel, and Star Wars. 

Edited by Vigil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That whole "certain point of view" business applies equally well to us real human beings. Whatever opinion people may have of the OT, it's just as valid as your own predilections and preferences.

 

I just think it's silly to have One True Star Wars. Especially when it's one of the smallest portions of the franchise.

 

I'm sure you do, and you're entitled to that opinion. But that doesn't invalidate the opinions of others. I really didn't want to make this thread about what constitutes the "real" Star Wars, so I won't pursue that line of thought. I just wanted to point out that having a high opinion of the media that's followed in the wake of the OT is not a reasonable justification for steering the franchise toward whatever one's pet preferences might be. You may like it, you may want more a more sympathetic perspective, but not everyone else does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That whole "certain point of view" business applies equally well to us real human beings. Whatever opinion people may have of the OT, it's just as valid as your own predilections and preferences.

 

I just think it's silly to have One True Star Wars. Especially when it's one of the smallest portions of the franchise.

 

I'm sure you do, and you're entitled to that opinion. But that doesn't invalidate the opinions of others. I really didn't want to make this thread about what constitutes the "real" Star Wars, so I won't pursue that line of thought. I just wanted to point out that having a high opinion of the media that's followed in the wake of the OT is not a reasonable justification for steering the franchise toward whatever one's pet preferences might be. You may like it, you may want more a more sympathetic perspective, but not everyone else does.

 

No matter what anybody wants, we'll just have to live with whatever it is that the Mouse ultimately gives us. 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's not a show, it's a fan film parody.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that total saturation might not necessarily be the best thing?

Maybe, but it's working great for Marvel.

 

The movies are doing great, but Marvel is killing the collectable comic book market with variant covers, revamps, and deaths.

 

 

How is this any different to the way both Marvel and DC have handled things for at least the last two decades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The day Lucas Arts was bought, I said the following "Han Solo and Wolverine movie is going to happen."  This is one step closure to that.

That'll take a while longer, since Fox has the movie rights to Wolverine. Not impossible, however, seeing as what's been going on with Spider-Man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the empire, I never read any EU stuff, but played a few games (battlefront, shadows of the empire) but I always thought of the rebels as terrorists. I guess part of it was being middle school aged when 9/11 happened, but they never really did anything to show that the rebels weren't just terrorists, and the Empire never did anything in the movies particulary heinous. I mean, they destroyed a sparsely populated planet hosting a serious terrorist cell\base/populatíon. The rebels killed at least millions if not billions of people on the death star...

 

That's why I'm pro-empire...

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it is amazing what that statement reveals about changes in the psyche of people in the U.S. Post 9/11. The original trilogy contained a significant level of referencing the U.S.A's creation mythology* along with all the WW2 baggage. In the 1970s and 1980s it was nigh on unthinkable to side with the Empire.

*Plucky band of rebels throw off the oppressive yoke of an oppressive empire and all that. You even have bad guys played by British actors to ram the point home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're going to have a Marvel/Star Wars channel, I want a sitcom set in either universe. I'm 100% serious. No powers, no huge events, no... Anything. Just 4-6 people living in those universes doing stuff and being funny.

 

Oh sure, like a comedy based on the six Admirals and Generals in the Death Star conference room, when they were still cadets in the Imperial Academy.

 

-

 

Cadet Motti [opening the carbonite freezer]:  "Hey!  Who ate my bantha burger?!"

 

Cadet Tagge:  "Sorry man!  I scored some primo Death Sticks from Jabba across the hall and I got the munchies."

 

canned laughter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a show, it's a fan film parody.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that total saturation might not necessarily be the best thing?

Maybe, but it's working great for Marvel.

 

The movies are doing great, but Marvel is killing the collectable comic book market with variant covers, revamps, and deaths.

 

How is this any different to the way both Marvel and DC have handled things for at least the last two decades?

The problem with those actions are they lose old fans trying to recreate characters, they lose fans with bad death stories, and in the 90's they killed the market with variant covers. Marvel went bankrupt after that. Now neither side has learned their lesson. Instead of seeing variant covers A-C, we are seeing(no joke) A-X.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for the empire, I never read any EU stuff, but played a few games (battlefront, shadows of the empire) but I always thought of the rebels as terrorists. I guess part of it was being middle school aged when 9/11 happened, but they never really did anything to show that the rebels weren't just terrorists, and the Empire never did anything in the movies particulary heinous. I mean, they destroyed a sparsely populated planet hosting a serious terrorist cell\base/populatíon. The rebels killed at least millions if not billions of people on the death star...

 

That's why I'm pro-empire...

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it is amazing what that statement reveals about changes in the psyche of people in the U.S. Post 9/11. The original trilogy contained a significant level of referencing the U.S.A's creation mythology* along with all the WW2 baggage. In the 1970s and 1980s it was nigh on unthinkable to side with the Empire.

*Plucky band of rebels throw off the oppressive yoke of an oppressive empire and all that. You even have bad guys played by British actors to ram the point home.

 

And possibly how much we've adjusted to good guys doing bad things. Morally grey characters are much more common now (oh hey, Game of Thrones) and it's more common to see wars depicted as much murkier than good vs evil. Back in the 70s I imagine the destruction of Alderaan, with billions of civilians on it, was more than enough to confirm that the guys that looked like bad guys were at least as evil as they looked. Nowadays, it's like it's mandatory to include at least one scene of the protagonist side committing a war crime in your war movie/series. I wonder if people are so used to the idea of good guys committing "necessary evils" that they seriously can't realize how completely evil Tarkin was for using the Death Star on a populated planet. 

 

It helps that the Empire has the coolest gear. Their infantry look way better than their Rebel counterparts, Star Destroyers are awesome, and TIE Interceptors are probably the coolest looking starfighter in the setting. The only time the Rebels even compete in the looks department is with the X-Wing. I mean, I'm pretty dedicated to the idea that Star Wars is a battle between good (Rebels, New Republic) and evil (Empire) but I still play the Empire in almost every game where it's an option. Especially if looks are the only major difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for the empire, I never read any EU stuff, but played a few games (battlefront, shadows of the empire) but I always thought of the rebels as terrorists. I guess part of it was being middle school aged when 9/11 happened, but they never really did anything to show that the rebels weren't just terrorists, and the Empire never did anything in the movies particulary heinous. I mean, they destroyed a sparsely populated planet hosting a serious terrorist cell\base/populatíon. The rebels killed at least millions if not billions of people on the death star...

 

That's why I'm pro-empire...

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it is amazing what that statement reveals about changes in the psyche of people in the U.S. Post 9/11. The original trilogy contained a significant level of referencing the U.S.A's creation mythology* along with all the WW2 baggage. In the 1970s and 1980s it was nigh on unthinkable to side with the Empire.

*Plucky band of rebels throw off the oppressive yoke of an oppressive empire and all that. You even have bad guys played by British actors to ram the point home.

 

As I get older, I can start to see the side of the movie, but it screams War on Terror to someone who's psyche was formed around the Post-911 world. I was just young enough to know what changes occurred after 9/11, but old enough that it shaped the way I looked at things in a definite, recognizable and tangible way.

 

The only reason I saw to think the empire is evil is the title crawl, where it calls them evil.

 

 

 

I imagine the destruction of Alderaan, with billions of civilians on it, was more than enough to confirm that the guys that looked like bad guys were at least as evil as they looked. 

It was intended to make them look evil. 

 

But there is a million ways to look at it.

 

I grew up Catholic, with the whole: "Life is sacred. So we kill to protect it." philosophy, while most Americans come from a more protestant background with the whole: "Life is sacred. We'd die before we'd take it." angle. 

 

Add in the WW2 parallels (Death Star = Atom Bomb, but has the opposite reaction (Rebels band together instead of submit), and it makes the Empire look sympathetic, while the Rebels look misguided. Also, Alderaan is said to be sparsely populated and host to a serious terrorist population, which while it doesn't make it a lot better, does make it better than say destroying coruscant.

Edited by Vanderbeam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 70s I imagine the destruction of Alderaan, with billions of civilians on it, was more than enough to confirm that the guys that looked like bad guys were at least as evil as they looked.

Just the name, "Stormtrooper," was enough to do that.

The Second World War was still a big presence into the 1980s. It wasn't until at least the late 90s that the image of the Nazi's elite troops was supplanted by white armoured goons in the public consciousness. In a way the loss of that association is unfortunate as it detracts from the impact of that period, but it's as inevitable really given we are now generations away from even those of us who's grandparents fought against the Axis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with those actions are they lose old fans trying to recreate characters, they lose fans with bad death stories, and in the 90's they killed the market with variant covers. Marvel went bankrupt after that. Now neither side has learned their lesson. Instead of seeing variant covers A-C, we are seeing(no joke) A-X.

 

How is having different covers somehow a bad thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As for the empire, I never read any EU stuff, but played a few games (battlefront, shadows of the empire) but I always thought of the rebels as terrorists. I guess part of it was being middle school aged when 9/11 happened, but they never really did anything to show that the rebels weren't just terrorists, and the Empire never did anything in the movies particulary heinous. I mean, they destroyed a sparsely populated planet hosting a serious terrorist cell\base/populatíon. The rebels killed at least millions if not billions of people on the death star...

 

That's why I'm pro-empire...

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it is amazing what that statement reveals about changes in the psyche of people in the U.S. Post 9/11. The original trilogy contained a significant level of referencing the U.S.A's creation mythology* along with all the WW2 baggage. In the 1970s and 1980s it was nigh on unthinkable to side with the Empire.

*Plucky band of rebels throw off the oppressive yoke of an oppressive empire and all that. You even have bad guys played by British actors to ram the point home.

 

As I get older, I can start to see the side of the movie, but it screams War on Terror to someone who's psyche was formed around the Post-911 world. I was just young enough to know what changes occurred after 9/11, but old enough that it shaped the way I looked at things in a definite, recognizable and tangible way.

 

The only reason I saw to think the empire is evil is the title crawl, where it calls them evil.

 

 

 

I imagine the destruction of Alderaan, with billions of civilians on it, was more than enough to confirm that the guys that looked like bad guys were at least as evil as they looked. 

It was intended to make them look evil. 

 

But there is a million ways to look at it.

 

I grew up Catholic, with the whole: "Life is sacred. So we kill to protect it." philosophy, while most Americans come from a more protestant background with the whole: "Life is sacred. We'd die before we'd take it." angle. 

 

Add in the WW2 parallels (Death Star = Atom Bomb, but has the opposite reaction (Rebels band together instead of submit), and it makes the Empire look sympathetic, while the Rebels look misguided. Also, Alderaan is said to be sparsely populated and host to a serious terrorist population, which while it doesn't make it a lot better, does make it better than say destroying coruscant.

 

"...I have chosen to test this station's destructive power on your home planet of Alderaan."

"NO! Alderaan is peaceful! We have no weapons! You can't possibly..."

"You would prefer another target? A MILITARY target? Then, name the system.  I grow tired of asking this, so it will be the last time: Where is the rebel base?"

"Dantooine.  They're on Dantooine."

"There, you see, Lord Vader, she can be reasonable.  Continue with the operation, you may fire when ready."

 

"WHAT?!"

"You're far too trusting. Dantooine is far to remote to make an effective demonstration, but don't worry, we will deal with your rebel friends soon enough."

 

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

"FEAR will keep the local systems in line.  Fear of this battle station."

This is a government whose head of state has just dissolved the representative council of its constituency and intends to control its population through an official "doctrine of terror" whereby it indiscriminately murders millions, if not billions, of its own citizens in order to A) test the effectiveness of its WMD, B) prove its willingness to use said WMD against its own citizens, and C) hold the lives of innocent citizens hostage as a form of interrogation against anyone accused (but not tried or convicted) of treason.

So, you're saying that you were convinced that this government is the goodguys?

I find it hard to believe that anyone raised in a western nation post 9/11 could see the Empire as anything but villains after they attacked a civilian target in an attempt to punish a military organization and effect political change through terror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As for the empire, I never read any EU stuff, but played a few games (battlefront, shadows of the empire) but I always thought of the rebels as terrorists. I guess part of it was being middle school aged when 9/11 happened, but they never really did anything to show that the rebels weren't just terrorists, and the Empire never did anything in the movies particulary heinous. I mean, they destroyed a sparsely populated planet hosting a serious terrorist cell\base/populatíon. The rebels killed at least millions if not billions of people on the death star...

 

That's why I'm pro-empire...

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but it is amazing what that statement reveals about changes in the psyche of people in the U.S. Post 9/11. The original trilogy contained a significant level of referencing the U.S.A's creation mythology* along with all the WW2 baggage. In the 1970s and 1980s it was nigh on unthinkable to side with the Empire.

*Plucky band of rebels throw off the oppressive yoke of an oppressive empire and all that. You even have bad guys played by British actors to ram the point home.

 

As I get older, I can start to see the side of the movie, but it screams War on Terror to someone who's psyche was formed around the Post-911 world. I was just young enough to know what changes occurred after 9/11, but old enough that it shaped the way I looked at things in a definite, recognizable and tangible way.

 

The only reason I saw to think the empire is evil is the title crawl, where it calls them evil.

 

 

 

I imagine the destruction of Alderaan, with billions of civilians on it, was more than enough to confirm that the guys that looked like bad guys were at least as evil as they looked. 

It was intended to make them look evil. 

 

But there is a million ways to look at it.

 

I grew up Catholic, with the whole: "Life is sacred. So we kill to protect it." philosophy, while most Americans come from a more protestant background with the whole: "Life is sacred. We'd die before we'd take it." angle. 

 

Add in the WW2 parallels (Death Star = Atom Bomb, but has the opposite reaction (Rebels band together instead of submit), and it makes the Empire look sympathetic, while the Rebels look misguided. Also, Alderaan is said to be sparsely populated and host to a serious terrorist population, which while it doesn't make it a lot better, does make it better than say destroying coruscant.

 

"...I have chosen to test this station's destructive power on your home planet of Alderaan."

"NO! Alderaan is peaceful! We have no weapons! You can't possibly..."

"You would prefer another target? A MILITARY target? Then, name the system.  I grow tired of asking this, so it will be the last time: Where is the rebel base?"

"Dantooine.  They're on Dantooine."

"There, you see, Lord Vader, she can be reasonable.  Continue with the operation, you may fire when ready."

 

"WHAT?!"

"You're far too trusting. Dantooine is far to remote to make an effective demonstration, but don't worry, we will deal with your rebel friends soon enough."

 

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun
noun: terrorism
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

"FEAR will keep the local systems in line.  Fear of this battle station."

This is a government whose head of state has just dissolved the representative council of its constituency and intends to control its population through an official "doctrine of terror" whereby it indiscriminately murders millions, if not billions, of its own citizens in order to A) test the effectiveness of its WMD, B) prove its willingness to use said WMD against its own citizens, and C) hold the lives of innocent citizens hostage as a form of interrogation against anyone accused (but not tried or convicted) of treason.

So, you're saying that you were convinced that this government is the goodguys?

I find it hard to believe that anyone raised in a western nation post 9/11 could see the Empire as anything but villains after they attacked a civilian target in an attempt to punish a military organization and effect political change through terror.

 

 

 

I believe the poster who claims the Empire is good has somehow had the ideas that any group which uses guerrilla warfare must be a terrorist force and that any non-government group which wages warfare against a government must be terrorists burned into their brain.

 

I disagree with that point of view completely but it isn't uncommon.

Edited by RogueCorona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id be happy just to see some actual SciFi on TV again

Since SGU got caned we've had none.

Sure there have been some SciFi favoured shows here and there but proper SciFi needs to have space ships, IN space and have them shooting at each other every now and then. (Not an absolute requirement, FireFly is still one of the best and Serenity has no weapons)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 And with Game of Thrones I'll remember Tywin Lannister long after I've forgotten about Joffrey (and possibly even Cersei). 

 

 

Huh? Do you mean the dwarf, Tyrion? I never saw Tywin as morally gray. He was cruel and fairly thoroughly evil. He unapologetic encouraged ruthless and sadistic behavior among his underlings. His only redeeming value is that he wasn't as much of a psychopath as his grandson. I can't recall anything about his character that was sympathetic in the least. Tywin Lanister is a pretty text book example of Lawful Evil. 

 

There's not a lot of moral ambiguity with someone that would arrange for the gang **** of the woman his son was in love with and force his son to watch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who thinks that total saturation might not necessarily be the best thing?

Well maybe this belongs in off topic but still it is loosely related. 

 

As for channels I think I share the same point of view that channels are coming more obsolete and On-demand are the future of viewing entertainment. Now I don't have cable I either stream from websites or watch YouTube videos (where you can find a lot of abandon shows that are not seen on Netflix). So a new channel well it wouldn't interest me unless it was like a YouTube thing where channels have more of a release schedule.

 

Now the trick is how will Disney monetize it. Putting it behind a subscription might not be that smart unless they come up with some real good content. Still with the announcement of a Star/Wars Marvel channel I am afraid that Disney is still using the archaic boardroom model for making their major decisions and it won't generate anything good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id be happy just to see some actual SciFi on TV again

Since SGU got caned we've had none.

Sure there have been some SciFi favoured shows here and there but proper SciFi needs to have space ships, IN space and have them shooting at each other every now and then. (Not an absolute requirement, FireFly is still one of the best and Serenity has no weapons)

 

The Expanse should scratch that itch. The books were awesome. It looks like they've made some changes to keep from making some of the main characters need to be CGI (which I think is a great idea because it keeps down production costs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The problem with those actions are they lose old fans trying to recreate characters, they lose fans with bad death stories, and in the 90's they killed the market with variant covers. Marvel went bankrupt after that. Now neither side has learned their lesson. Instead of seeing variant covers A-C, we are seeing(no joke) A-X.

 

How is having different covers somehow a bad thing?

 

 

With comic book collecting, all those covers is like the US Government printing too much money. Too many comics printed of one cover/too many different variant covers = an oversatuation of product that is less valuable. Usually there is a ratio for how many variant covers are printed versus the main cover such as - 25:1 or 50:1. Those type variants used to be worth more when say a #1 issue had only 1 to 3 variants. Take for example the 3D covers DC did. Their first print run was limited, so they are worth more. They did a second run of new 3D covers, but they waited for comic book stores to place orders before printing. That ment that more 3D covers were printed, so the second run was not worth as much.

 

In the variant world for comics, if there is a variant, it is labeled 1A. But Marvel being bought by Disney has ramped up variant covers and revamping/killing characters. Normally a new comic book would have 1-3 variants, which would be labeled 1A, 1B, 1C. For the Uncanny Avengers title, they have variants 1A through 1T. wtf

Edited by ishikabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...