Nick1Ø66

💯 Yep. Massive miscalculation. Poor decisions likely made while they were riding high on TFA's box office, and misreading what it meant. It should have been Tatooine if they were going to go that route. Sure, feature characters, rides etc. from all three trilogies, but lean heavily on the most iconic characters, ships, etc. There's a reason Mickey is all over Disney Land/World. I mean, I guess the idea was to make everything about the ST to appeal to the next generation, but focusing almost exclusively on that was a massive mistake. One of many that demonstrates how mishandled the franchise has been by Disney. In any event, I agree, I'm not sure the way they are repurposing the Galaxy's Edge is enough. Too little too late. The easiest thing for them to do, it seems to me, would be to repurpose Batuu as Tatooine and rethink the whole approach, but that would involve a lot of money and a closure, so obviously that's not going to happen. This is something I don't think even Disney will attempt. At least while Lucas is alive. I think they'd remake the PT or ST before they did the OT. And doubt they'd do those either. That said, here's what I do think could happen. Cinema is changing, and the way people experience media is rapidly evolving. I think the days of simply sitting in a cinema and passively watching a movie, as a mass cultural event, are numbered. I think the experience will become much more immersive, and eventually more interactive. Video games are already much more profitable than movies. So I could see the OT "remade" in the sense that eventually the technology is going to be there to completely recreate it, including the performances, via GGI & AI, and turn it into an immersive, interactive environment. You'll either be completely immersed in that world as a spectator or NPC, or you'll be Luke Skywalker or any other character. More like a much less advanced holodeck. Who know's exactly what form it will take, but it's coming.

Sure. And I'm not saying a rock music soundtrack will necessarily make the film bad. I'm not even to say that this point the film will be bad. Gerwig's a good director, and there are some indications from the bio that suggest to me she might treat the subject matter with more sensitivity that one might expect. I've just checked my expectations because I'm skeptical that anyone in today's Hollywood can produce an adaptation of these particular books that at least keep the spirit of the material intact, especially for a mass audience. We'll see. I'm at about the same place. Immense respect for Lewis and these books. But they never really captured my imagination in the way LOTR did. I'm actually more interested in Lewis and some of his non-fiction work than I am in Narnia. Hmmmmm. For me, it's easier to me to spot something I'm not going to like than something I definitely will. I've been fooled into thinking a film might be good from the trailer, and it ended up sucking (e.g. Matrix 4), but I've never seen a trailer and thought "this film is going to suck" and it turned out good. Honestly, I don't know what to think of the Gerwig film at this point. It will be interested to see what the trailer looks like. I think it's valid to compare them. They have a shared literary lineage, shared myth structure and shared moral worldview. I think the fact that Tolkien and Lewis were friends, contemporaries at Oxford, part of the same literary circle, both committed Christians, and both created works of fantasy that were informed by their faith makes the books ripe for comparison. Some of the thematic similarities between the books are striking. Obviously, they're very different books, but given that the "roots" of the stories share so much, it's those differences that make comparing them useful. For example, both use the "ordinary innocent" an entry into the fantasy world (Bilbo and the Pevensie children), but in very different way. Tolkien's world building is slow, linguistically rich and deeply historical. Lewis's is fast moving and based on symbolism. Both have deeply Christian themes, but Lewis's are much more allegorical than Tolkiens. Both are concerned with the struggle of good vs. evil, but in a mythic/cosmic sense, not personal. Both are concerned deeply with courage and redemption. And loss. Both use quests and prophecies as plot drivers. I mean, the list goes on. Obviously, these comparisons have their limits, but all art appreciation in one way or another is based on comparison, and I think it's natural to do so in this case, and its their differences that make comparing them interesting. For example, there are some epic fantasy books that are just direct rip-offs of Tolkien...in that case, you're just comparing whichever you personally prefer, which is, since it's pretentious latin quotes day at JWFAN, de gustibus non est disputandum. 😜

It is indeed f*cking awesome. Great flick. But it couldn’t be more different than Narnia, and any comparison on these grounds is pretty specious. It would be like saying Interstellar’s score would work for Star Wars because they’re both sci-fi flicks. I really wish this whole "we can't be skeptical of a movie that's not out yet" rubbish would go away. If someone announced the next Lord of the Rings movie would be set in space with a disco soundtrack composed of Giorgi Moroder outtakes, would it be OK to express skepticism? The whole reason studios put out trailers and leak info on a film is to get people excited for the film. So getting excited for a movie is perfectly OK, but expressing concern or skepticism somehow makes one a cynic?

This much is certain. What's uncertain is exactly who this is made for?

Just as Lewis intended.

I'm pretty much in the same place. A while ago, I did sort of a self-inventory of my fandom of some of these franchises, and in terms of Star Wars, I came to two conclusions: I'm not really a "Star Wars" fan. I'm a fan of the OT. And really when it comes down to it, mostly '77 & '80. That fandom is largely based on nostalgia, and the way those two films make me feel, then and now. Otherwise, do I really care about what's going on with STARWARS™, the new characters, films, shows, etc? No, not really. I have some mild interest in it, but don't feel invested in it much at all. I still love watching SW & ESB, and it's not just nostalgia, I truly love and appreciate them as masterpieces of cinema. They're great movies, and for me two of the most important works of art in my life. But beyond that? I think Disney has stripped mined the franchise of most of what made it special in the first place, and there's nothing for me to do but turn my head away.

I watch the version with the scary guns.

I don't know. I think I'd miss the Earth too much, I'd miss my wife. And it's lonely out in space.

Yeah. The only thing that forces a course correction is when the brand weakens enough that the ecosystem starts to feel it. There are some indications that Disney is slowly trying to make some changes, e.g. changing the branding on Galaxy's Edge. But in terms of the films and TV shows, this ship doesn't exactly turn on a dime, a lot of that stuff was already in the pipeline, and it's going to take time. Will whatever they do be enough? I think it's more than just a marketing problem with Star Wars. In terms of quality content, I have zero confidence in Dave Filolni to work any magic with the franchise, I think his approach is fundamentally flawed. They're just not going to capture lightning in a bottle again with Star Wars or the MCU, IMO. They'll have the hit film here and there, but mostly, those days are gone. As we discussed before, I think Star Wars will eventually just become cultural architecture, like Mickey Mouse. That doesn't mean it still can't be profitable for Disney. The amount of money Mickey & Friends (legacy characters alone) makes for Disney via merchandise & licensising dwarfs what Star Wars does. And the Disney parks are full of those characters and branding, yet there are zero Mickey blockbuster films or TV shows.

Actually, I'm taking the piss as well. There's nothing wrong with this...E.T. is about childhood wonder, and if that's how you saw it as a child, and you hold on to that, it's awesome. I hold on to the Clone Wars of my imagination the first time I saw Kenobi talk about them in his dessert adobe. The beauty of art is that we all interpret it in our own way. Perhaps Spielberg intended on that ambiguity. A child's interpretation of what happens in E.T. probably has a lot more truth than any adults.

Well wouldn't interpreting it literally mean Nedry actually had fingers made of butter? Or fingers made of Butterfingers? Saying "Nedry has butter fingers" IS a metaphor!

You guys are saying Keys and Elliot met before isn't a metaphor? "met-before"..."met-aphor". Connect the dots people.

Of course it's metaphorical. Why is this even a discussion? Keys is a mirror for an older Elliot. He's stand in for Spielberg and every adult in the audience who hasn't lost their sense of wonder. "His being here is a miracle, Elliott...I'm glad he met you first."

Comparing Star Wars to Obsession or Backrooms is interesting from a purely "number of tickets sold", standpoint, but it's almost besides the point. Apples and oranges. There’s really not much mystery here...Disney isn’t blindly lighting money on fire. There's a reason they seem willing to tolerate flops and low rated TV shows. Sure, they absolutely do lose money on individual Star Wars and MCU projects, sometimes a lot, but the reason they keep cranking them out is because the franchise‑ecosystem model changes what “loss” even means. A flop film doesn’t kill them the way it would a traditional studio, because the movie itself isn’t the product. The IP is. Everyone always says, "but merchandise!". And that's true, but there's lot more to it than that. Disney keeps these brands constantly in the public eye because every new release, even a mediocre one, feeds the larger machine..yes, merchandise, and Disney+ retention, and theme parks, licensing, video games, publishing, global TV rights, the whole vertically integrated empire. That’s where the real money is. A weak movie can still be a net positive for the franchise, even if it’s a net negative for the film division. This is exactly what separates Disney from the (rapidly vanishing) old‑school studios that still live or die by box office receipts and post‑theatrical sales. Those studios need each film to turn a profit. Disney doesn’t. They just need the IP to stay culturally relevant enough to keep the rest of the ecosystem humming. And no, the franchise model isn’t really about story or “shared universes” in the way fans like to imagine. It’s a business architecture designed to amortize costs, cross‑promote characters, and keep the brand evergreen across every revenue stream imaginable. The art is secondary. The synergy is the point. Of course, the downside is obvious...when the business model rewards constant output, there’s less incentive to make anything truly great. As long as Disney keeps serving up dog food and enough consumers keep eating it up like it’s filet mignon, the cycle continues. The only thing that forces a course correction is when the brand weakens enough that the ecosystem starts to feel it. But the core truth remains: Disney can tolerate more flops than anyone else because they’re not selling movies. They’re selling a self‑sustaining IP economy.