What is Cinema in 10 years? .... It's a screen in front of you... Same as it is now... And every movie today is either a remake, spin-off, a ripoff...or bad sequals.. NOTHING is original anymore..
Nothing was ever original. Stories are retellings, just with new characters, new locations, and some quarky universe rules. This isn't a bad thing per say. And I think the real problem is not the lack of originality, but a lack of solid story structure. You can tell the same story 100 times over and as long as each one takes on its own different narrative angle but keeps the story beats and has good writing, you probably would not blink an eye. Spread that out over 100 years and I can bet you you would not notice they are similar unless either someone pointed it out or after for 6th or 7th film.
What the heck? Why bash Furiousa and Dune part 2? George Miller Created the Mad Max IP and I believe he has the right to expand on it just like Lucas did with Star Wars. As for Dune... come on bro, you can't seriously expect an adaption of Dune to be done with just one movie. Hell, the book itself is almost 900 pages long, so I don't see that happening, unless you prefer they never made a film adaptation in the first place.
I think I saw something like this before. Iger and company run Disney into the ground and then Iger, the board ( maybe BlackRock) come to the rescue and offer to buy out the stock and "save" Disney.
6:15 - Okay, I know everyone likes blasting these movies because they were supposed to be "Star Wars" films and were re-written to be their own thing but they are not that bad. Funny enough Part Two felt better than Part One. But hay, that be my opinion. I get it.
4:40 - I will also note that I don't think sequels are bad. Keeping an IP alive isn't bad. Poor writing and allowing the material to be treated as if the brand itself will make all the money is what is bad. I have said it my whole life is that Star Wars is a rich IP for expanded world-building and storytelling. It could fit in every genera in some way, shape, or form and I think that IS a good thing. You just need to handle it right. And Disney only appears to get that half right.
The film industry is one of the slowest industries to change. It was highly believed it would end when live audio could be recorded. It was believed it would end again with CGI. The list goes on. The only thing each technological age of Film has proved is that it takes nearly a generation for the industry to adapt to the new environment. But more importantly, (currently at 2:23) I think where George may be hinting is the broken methods the Industry relies on to sustain itself. My understanding of the Film Industry is that it is extremely dependent on two things. Investors, and release revenue. And I also believe this is a double edged sword against their favor because fixing the issue is... a challenge. To say the least. Given how reliant they are on release returns on their productions, you would think the solution to their financial state is to aim to release the best stories they can possibly write and aim for longevity. The counter problem that getting a film to stay relevant and worth the time for longer than 3 months is a pain. Not every film can be as good as The Lord of the Rings. I mean, Game of Thrones was mostly great but how often do people re-watch that? Lord of the Rings is still fantastic and I watch it every year, but I also own a copy so they are not getting any returns on my re-watches. Streaming felt like a good alternative for distribution where subscriptions could make income more consistent, but re-watches don't change the income the platform makes. So enter adds. But most people skip adds the moment they can so they get the minimum returns on those. So yea... unless you are cranking out blockbuster gemstones every time you produce content, consistent income is scarce. Which is why investors are a standard. But investors make demands to give you their money. And guess what, investors are not exactly known to be educated in storytelling. Look up the educational framework for any role other than a screenwriter, and no one else in the industry is "required" to have any studies in storytelling. Which, you might be thinking "this should be fine. The screenwriter is the one writing the script." And on a good day I would agree, except there are many other people on a production team that are allowed to contribute or modify the script. Up to and potentially removing the entire script and writing their own (directors). And if that was not a problem already, bonus points, anyone above the director role has the ability to interfere in the screenplay. So if you are a director being hired by a company to produce a film, whoever you answer to can just walk in and say "We want X, Y, and Z in this film" and now it has to be there even if it is a determent to the film. Now, I will note, this is not all black and white. There are some people who are in good spots who can control or prevent these issues from being a problem. Some people just have enough influence. Others have a high enough reputation that they will be left to their devices. But these people are far and few and while you would think experience would make these people better, it does not. And as amiable as it is to want to fix or address these issues, the only way I can see it being done is to start new studios from the ground up and look for ways to get around the problems that plague the industry. Otherwise, yea, George is right, it is going to be more of the same and if we are lucky we will see a new generation of studios come together and the old ones will fade into the background when their systems can't keep up. The hardest part to solve in all of this is income. If there was a way for studios to avoid having to rely on Investors, I think that would be a solid start. The second hardest is going to be in protecting the scripts from being meddled with by too many people. And I think the simple fix is that the Writer and Director are the only ones able to authorize changes and the directors need to be required to be educated in storytelling. And if they are not, then give more control to the writer. Anyone above the director needs to be hands off unless they can prove they have the knowledge base to be meddling with the script.
5:30 - Bad examples. Consistency is not a bad thing and Star Wars tends to get grilled for not being consistent. If anything, Ashoka's seen there reinforces the training session with Luke and Kenobi.
6:20 - Yo... don't throw Dune under the rug. As far as I know it will at most be three movies but I have also not heard a single bad thing about Dune 1 & 2. They are very good movies.
3:38 - I know this is George, but lets be real. Take his statements as they are. These are not shots specific to Star Wars. These are real problems with the industry as a whole and he isn't wrong sadly. The Industry is a shadow of what it was once capable of.
6:13 - This was actually a good film. I have seen it already. Also, these Planet of the Apes movies are a reboot series that are not continuations of the originals and the series is at 4 installments not 9 installments. (I get some people don't like the series and to each their own, but the Planet of the Apes modern reboot has been preforming well and selling well)
Lucas needs to watch some A24 films, there are some great experimental films being released. Zone of Interest, Poor Things, Civil War, Everything Everywhere All at Once. And Kinds of Kindness coming out along with the new Demi Moore film The Substance.
6:06 - Okay, War of the Rohirrim is not a bad idea. It would be nice to get some good material set in Middle-Earth again and I do hope this one does well. Like Star Wars, Middle-Earth has a ton of production potential. All comes down to how it is handled.
The only films to handle Middle Earth well are Peter Jackson's _The Lord of the Rings,_ while his attempt at _The Hobbit_ was rather awful, and by all accounts, Amazon's _The Rings of Power_ is woke trash. I honestly don't expect it to get better from here.
@@Durwood71 True, but the people who made Rings of Power and The hobbit are not the same people who are making War of the Rohirrim. If it were, I wouldn't hesitate to consider it a probable failure. Different people, different minds, different takes. Star Wars after all hit several bad notes and then came around with Andor and the first two seasons of The Mandalorian. Arguably the best we have had sense the sequels. And depending on your take, Rogue One was up there too in positive reception regarding quality. Past failures of an IP do not guarantee future failures of an IP. And I am not one to judge the probability of 1 team based on the failure of a previous team either. So, in this case I will wait for the trailer, give it a careful watch, and that will give me my first inkling on the probability of a good or bad production. Take it with a gain of sault of course because good movies have had bad trailers before.
it was pretty tough to hear him say "Creating magic Is not for amateurs" a couple months ago, especially because, you know, he started off as an amateur film maker
