Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday September 13 2017, @01:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the dark-side-or-a-new-hope dept.

It was announced last week that Colin Trevorrow will no longer direct Star Wars: Episode IX. In finding his replacement, Lucasfilm turned to a familiar face... J. J. Abrams:

J.J. Abrams, who launched a new era of Star Wars with The Force Awakens in 2015, is returning to complete the sequel trilogy as writer and director of Star Wars: Episode IX. Abrams will co-write the film with Chris Terrio. Star Wars: Episode IX will be produced by Kathleen Kennedy, Michelle Rejwan, Abrams, Bad Robot, and Lucasfilm.

The release date has been moved from May 24, 2019 to December 20, 2019.

Also at Entertainment Tonight. Here's another article about Trevorrow's firing.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday September 13 2017, @06:39PM (3 children)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @06:39PM (#567372)

    The problem is that Hollywood doesn't exist to create art. Occasionally they bankroll somebody who creates art, purely by chance. Hollywood exists to make money.

    No, this isn't the problem at all. Hollywood has *always* existed to make money; that's nothing new. What's changed is that Hollywood is now far more risk-averse. They'd rather bankroll a remake or franchise installment because it's virtually guaranteed to make a profit, even if it isn't a huge profit, than a totally original production that could either totally flop or be a gigantic hit like 1977's Star Wars.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by tomtomtom on Wednesday September 13 2017, @09:50PM (2 children)

    by tomtomtom (340) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @09:50PM (#567492)

    No, this isn't the problem at all. Hollywood has *always* existed to make money; that's nothing new. What's changed is that Hollywood is now far more risk-averse. They'd rather bankroll a remake or franchise installment because it's virtually guaranteed to make a profit, even if it isn't a huge profit, than a totally original production that could either totally flop or be a gigantic hit like 1977's Star Wars.

    ... and I'd wager that this in turn is because the budget for an average film is now so much bigger and is funded in large part by external sources of capital.

    In the old days of the studio system, all the money came from the studio - in effect a few individuals who were deeply involved in the day-to-day running of the business/industry - so they *could* take risks. Many of them went bankrupt as a result. Nowadays, (mainstream) films are funded largely by bond investors and banks, who naturally would like to see a more certain return on their money, given that the "upside" to their investment is "you get your money back". Those investors exert significant influence on which films get made and which don't. I'm sure that the studios have a much less variable bottom line as a result (though perhaps on average lower), but they do this by giving the audiences a large number of mediocre films instead of (at least financially) a few which do incredibly well and many which make a loss.

    • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:31PM (1 child)

      by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday September 13 2017, @11:31PM (#567528) Homepage Journal

      Yes but the trouble in turn is that the investors only seem to care about immediate, short term profits over the long term health of a franchise. They're happy to trash it and cheapen the brand as long as that one movie makes a profit. The same kind of short term approach goes for most other industries as well and for politics.

      While we're talking about remakes (and reboots which are just as bad), I'm just waiting for them to remake E.T. They consider that movie sacred, but they'll still do it when they run out other things to redo.

      --
      If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
      • (Score: 2) by tomtomtom on Thursday September 14 2017, @09:14AM

        by tomtomtom (340) on Thursday September 14 2017, @09:14AM (#567705)

        Yes - many investments are in individual movies not a franchise/studio/whatever so why would they care about the franchise value? There's no benefit to them because even if they have the opportunity to invest in the next movie in a franchise/series, they get little to no benefit from having invested in the previous movie(s) - so they are simply individual independent investment decisions.