This essay was written as a piece of reception studies for my MLitt Film & Television Studies.
The
Betrayed Fan Feeling Optimistic; Disney’s Buyout of Lucasfilm.
The Star Wars
film franchise has a strong and committed fan base, who has followed the
stories of the Jedi universe since the first film release in 1977. This has not
been an easy relationship for George Lucas, its creator, and the vast fan base,
who hold Star Wars very close to
their hearts. Many grew up with the original trilogy, shaping their lives and
holding an extremely important place in work, play and love. These fans feel a
true ownership over the text and so the importance of George Lucas’ creative
decisions has often come into question.
The fan reaction to the prospect of a prequel
trilogy was met with much excitement, however on the release of The Phantom Menace (1999), much hyped
for its use of digital special effects, filming and projection, there was a
great sense of disappointment. The fan reaction to the subsequent prequel
trilogy created a new discourse surrounding Star
Wars, vilifying George Lucas for ‘ruining’ their beloved text, with the
extreme phrase “George Lucas raped my childhood” becoming a common lament. Fan
reaction shaped this discourse into popular opinion. It is now a common opinion
to ‘hate’ the prequel trilogy, but to hold the original in high regard.
At the end of 2012 it was announced that Lucasfilm
had been bought by Disney, along with the rights to Star Wars and Indiana Jones.
Disney announced a plan to release a sequel trilogy from 2015 and to release
subsequent films every few year for the foreseeable future, with spin off
origin stories for existing characters and further sequels, at a pace likened
to the James Bond franchise.
This news was met with a mixed reception. There is
a sense of excitement but a muted one. By looking at opinions from fans, I want
to see how reaction to the news differs from the events surrounding the
prequel, and if any lessons have been learned. As there is a large worldwide
discourse around Star Wars my focus
will be on opinion pieces from David Mitchell, a prominent comedian and writer,
and Simon Brew of DenofGeek.com. Star
Wars is such a mass appreciated text that I felt finding opinion in general
public spaces online, as opposed to specific Star Wars fansites, would show a broad and universal result. By
looking at pieces written by prominent contributors to the Guardian and on
general fan website Den of Geek, I would find a range of ‘official’ opinions as
well as those in the comments, agreeing or disagreeing with sentiments shared.
This worked as a good place to collect fan reception of the news, in reaction
to a piece of writing. Simon Brew’s piece is obviously from the point of view
of an online fan space, speaking to already engaged and interested fans or “geeks”
visiting the Den of Geek site. David Mitchell’s piece written found on the
Guardian online widened the audience to newspaper readership and further to
Mitchell’s audience as a comedian and frequent TV panel show personality. These
examples do not intend to cast the net over all available opinions, but give interesting
case studies of some of the reception to the news.
Jar Jar
Binks and Bulging Pockets
Star Wars has had a long and varied history. George Lucas’s
original trilogy brought in a loyal and active fan base, who grew up watching
the films and formed many friendships through this shared interest. For that
generation Star Wars became a huge
phenomenon and whether you grew up to write Leia/Han fanfic and run the message
boards or just get your beloved action figures down from the attic every now
and then, it was a very important part of many people’s lives. Will Brooker
discusses this with actor Simon Pegg, who wrote in many references to the
trilogy in his series Spaced (1999-2001).
Pegg reiterates greatly what is felt by many of these fans: “Star Wars was extremely important in my
development as a child. It stimulated my imagination, increased my vocabulary,
informed my notion of morality. My friendships were, to an extent, influenced
by it at an early age… It was a social touchstone, an ice breaker, a common
ground, shared by so many” (Brooker, 2002, 82).
With Return
of the Jedi released in May 1983 marking the supposed end of the saga, fans
did not let up in their love and appreciation of the films. They continued to
enjoy creating fan fiction, attending screenings and conventions, some
following the novels of the Expanded Universe, others holding sacred the
original text. The story was over, but certainly not dead, and it was the Star Wars fans who kept it alive for all
those years. Brooker explains it was “up to the longtime fans to become
curators of the mythos, to keep it alive, to cherish it, and to sustain it both
through their financial investment in all the secondary texts… and in some
cases by participating in folk activity…”(Brooker, 2002, 88). There was
therefore much excitement and anticipation when the news broke of plans for a
prequel trilogy starting with the release of The Phantom Menace in 1999.
Brooker writes about ‘the fan betrayed’ and the
reaction to episode one of the new trilogy. He reasons that with the ‘anticipation’ and extensive wait
building up to the release of a new Star
Wars film there were bound to be some disappointed fans, as well as those
with “a feeling of outright betrayal” (Ibid. 79). Fans felt ‘let down’ by what
is now agreed to be an extremely disappointing trilogy; its reliance on CGI
special effects and the dumbing-down of narrative to include characters such as
Jar Jar Binks are amongst the most prevalent criticisms. Fans argued that this
was not simply a case of growing old and trying to view a child’s film without
the nostalgia attached, as Pegg maintains, “What lay at the heart of the first
films was a very human story… Twenty-three years down the line and Lucas
clearly believes it was the fireworks that lined his bulging pockets. Or maybe
he just doesn’t give a shit” (Ibid. 83). Fans feel personally offended by
Lucas’s treatment of the series.
Matt Hills has investigated the fan hatred of Jar
Jar Binks and the rejection of The
Phantom Menace as too ‘childish’:
“This
community is powerfully invested in defending its own sense of an ‘adult’ Star Wars against the encroaching
interests and investments of ‘another generation’. It thus relies on discourse
of childishness, cartoonishness and low-cultural commercialism to construct Jar
Jar Binks as a low-Other. Although the Jar Jar haters continually seek to put
away childish things, and hence to claim their adult fan ownership of the Star Wars universe, their imperial claim
remains open to counter-discourses and to new rebel forces” (Hills, 2003,
88-89).
This need to enforce the credibility of Star Wars and to defend it from notions
of ‘childishness’ is a driving force in the fan hatred of Jar Jar Binks. This
could be seen as slightly contradictory as most of these fans first enjoyed the
original trilogy as children. However as grownups, there is a desire to
distance Star Wars from immaturity
and to present an argument, which is not solely based in pettiness. Brooker
discusses this as “the “eyes of a child” gambit”, a defence of Lucas for
creating a film aimed at children, which therefore should be enjoyed for its
‘simple pleasures’ without so much ‘cynicism’ (Brooker, 2002, 83).
This is however not a defence taken up by the vast
majority of fans. Brooker explains there is a balance in dues between the fan’s
anger at Lucas and their ‘gratitude’ for his original creation: “But just as
fans owe a lifelong debt to Lucas for his founding role in the fantasies that
shaped their childhood, so he is perceived as owing a debt to the fans, and to
have reneged on it with The Phantom
Menace” (Ibid. 84). Alec Austin discusses ‘the implicit contract’ between
producers and audiences, relying on expectations of a text to have been met or
‘exceeded’ in order to guarantee the ‘audiences’ satisfaction’ (Austin, 2013).
Austin explains that viewing this relationship as a ‘contract’ allows an
understanding of why an audience will ‘accept some content choices’ and yet
‘reject’ or take offence to others (Ibid.). Clearly Star Wars fans felt Lucas had let down his side of the ‘implicit
contract’. Austin warns that a ‘violation’ of this contract can end up
‘alienating’ an audience, and as the audience holds the power to cease viewing
or even attempt a ‘boycott’, it is in a producer’s interest to uphold this
contract (Ibid.).
While Lucas certainly made a great deal
of profit to add to his ‘bulging pockets’, the discontent of the fans could not
be ignored. William Proctor argues that it should not be ignored, citing fan
discontent with the Batman films of
the 1990s, which were commercially, but not critically amongst fans, a success.
He argues that the ‘sheer volume of fan discontent’ put the franchise into
‘hibernation’ for nearly ten years before coming back with the darker and more
serious Dark Knight Trilogy (2005-2012),
giving the fans exactly what they had been asking for. He maintains that
producers should listen to fans as:
“fandom clearly has a voice and, at times, the
volume is turned up so loud that the stability of the Hollywood hegemony can be
loosened from its axis. In short, the ‘powers that be’, at the top of the
spectrum, take note of the cacophony of voices bellowing from beneath”
(Proctor, 2013, 222).
This negative approach to a text could seem strange
from those calling themselves fans, however as Jonathan Gray notes in his work
on ‘anti-fans’ and ‘non fans’, the protests against The Phantom Menace could be therapeutic:
“Fans may hate the current status quo, but their
intense feelings and continued contribution to fan discourse stem from
pleasurable engagement with the diegetic past. Negative discourse in these
instances compartmentalizes dissatisfaction with part of the text so fans may
continue enjoying other elements of it” (Gray, 2007, 294).
The discontent with The Phantom Menace and the rest of the prequel trilogy is such
common opinion now that references to the films’ let down are ever present in
popular television. Brooker discusses with Simon Pegg his use of references to
the hatred of Jar Jar Binks in his series Spaced.
Pegg insists, “I was expressing something felt by a lot of other people and
have been rewarded by thanks from many and disgruntlement from a few. I feel
qualified to say the things I said and it felt good” (Brooker, 2002, 82).
References also frequently turn up in The
Big Bang Theory (2007-) where calling someone “The Jar Jar Binks” of their
group is meant as a major insult (Star
Wars Fanpedia). An episode of The
Simpsons (1989-) entitled ‘Co-dependent’s Day’ (2004) spoofs Star Wars as Cosmic Wars, with Bart and Lisa encouraged by Marge to write a
complaint letter to the George Lucas spoof character, after seeing The Gathering Shadow with the character
‘Jim-Jam’, to explain to him that better special effects do not make for a
better story (Ibid.). Even in an episode of the animated series Powerpuff Girls (1998-2005) a character
named “Bubbles says "Junk!" as she throws a Jar Jar Binks action
figure over her shoulder” (Ibid.). The recurrent use of jokes and references to
The Phantom Menace and its characters
in television gives us an idea of how deeply embedded this opinion is in
society at large.
“Mickey
Mouse- Jedi Knight? …bring it on”
As Star Wars
is such a widely beloved saga, with its audiences’ tempestuous relationship
with the prequel trilogy so engrained in popular media, I felt the use of a
prominent and publicly accessible review would be a good starting point in
mapping the reaction to Disney’s buyout of Lucasfilm. David Mitchell, writing
on The Guardian/Observer website
comes to a conclusion of resignation and optimism at the announced continuation
of the saga.
Mitchell examines George Lucas’s appearance in the
press shot for the news, standing amongst Disney characters dressed in Star Wars costumes, wielding a light
sabre with a “facial expression somewhere between exhaustion, sorrow and
bafflement” (Mitchell, 2012). Mitchell’s critique of Lucas in this photo gives
the reader a sense of the mocking of the billionaire filmmaker, criticising his
choice not to smile along with Mickey Mouse’s signature grin. This mirrors
opinion of Lucas as having lost his touch, particularly when it comes to
pleasing his fans. Reference is made to an interview Lucas gave the New York Times where he complained: “Why
would I make any more when everybody yells at you all the time?” Mitchell
points out criticism is part of a lot of people’s work when he quips: “I think
we can rule out his writing a column for the Guardian website any time soon” (Ibid.) This start to the article
highlights the general consensus that Lucas is no longer particularly deserving
of respect from his fans. Mitchell forms the opinion that a ‘Disneyfied’ Star Wars is no real threat to the
‘beloved space stories of my childhood’ as since then, ‘Jesus has desecrated
his own altar and then set up a money-changer in his own temple’ (Ibid.).
Mitchell very humorously sets up the view that as Stars Wars has already effectively been ruined, there is no more
harm that could be done: “They might make an entertaining film about a duck in
space. It would be a lot edgier than Jar Jar Binks.” The article ends with a
nod to the contentious relationship between fans and Jar Jar Binks, which
further emphasises how badly wrong fans believe Star Wars has already gone.
In the
comments section there is a lively debate on the potential positivity of
Disney’s control over Star Wars. There
are those who are optimistic and have come to terms with the saga’s history:
“For me, more Star Wars is never going to be a bad
thing. Star Wars is such a rich universe, like it or not there is the potential
for many more movies, and in fact those movies could be far more varied and
imaginative than the Bond series, which is essentially the same movie made over
and over again. Considering anyone could direct, we're likely to witness some
spectacular movies and some terrible ones. But then again, we already have.
There will probably never be another one as bad as Episode 1, and never one as
good as Episode V” (Madeye47, Mitchell,
2012).
The recognition that there has already been ‘good’
and ‘bad’ films in the franchise’s history brings about an acceptance of its
future, and an optimistic consideration of the vast wealth of material in the
Expanded Universe that provides much potential content, meaning the same
stories will not have to be revisited as with James Bond. There is a sense that fans have come to accept their
emotional response to the prequel trilogy, and can how consider them
objectively as ‘bad’ films and as an unfortunate part of the saga’s lifetime.
There is also the expected abuse of Lucas, showing
that feelings have not changed, although with some added humour to give some
sense of this fan having moved on:
“Lucas needs to be paraded around the city in a
wheel barrow so all the 30-somethings whose lives he has ruined can get the
chance to jab at him with their old Star Wars figures” (samthedog, Mitchell,
2012).
To counter this however there is some sympathy for
Lucas’s situation:
“Poor Lucas […] It's honestly sad to see him say
that, that he don't want to make anymore for fear of being yelled at. Because
he will, no matter what he does. It is strange how the fans hate the creator of
the thing they are the fan of, as if the canon would be best served if none of
it had ever been put to film […]
PPS Fuck Jar-Jar Binks though, and post-Fantasia
Mickey” (OlaMarvin. Mitchell, 2012).
This commenter does feel sympathy for George Lucas
as a film creator and laments the lack of appreciation for him. However, as is
popular opinion, OlaMarvin ends their post with a dig a Jar Jar Binks, showing
that no matter how much compassion or respect a fan may have for Lucas, there
is just no forgiving him the creation of this character.
In a piece on Den of Geek, “a well-tolerated home
for news, reviews, features, rants and bad jokes, all for those on the nerdier
side of life”(DenofGeek.com), about how the deal will be good for Star Wars this positive outlook is
continued. Simon Brew writes, “This is a chance for someone to walk into the
universe that George Lucas created, and genuinely inject it with something new
and exciting again. It's arguably the best thing to happen to Star Wars in
nearly three decades” (Brew, 2012). There appears to be a consensus that the
problem with the franchise is its creator, and his departure from it brings
positivity. Brew also says of Lucas, “It felt like he’d fallen out of love with
Star Wars too” (Ibid.). This chance
to rekindle the love affair with Star
Wars and give it ‘fresh life’ is an exciting prospect for a fandom growing
worried about its stagnant text. Brew exclaims, “Heck, all of a sudden, it
feels fun to talk about a modern Star
Wars movie again.”
Brew refers to the trust instilled in Disney after
its successful handling of the Marvel universe, and this is something that
comes up a lot in the comments. Disney have proven themselves to fans by
successfully producing films like The
Avengers (2012) and The Muppets (2011), giving Star Wars fans a certain confidence in their abilities:
“After
allowing this monumental news to sink in, I'm feeling pretty positive about
this. Marvel Studios was bought up by Disney and look at the Avengers! By
handing it over to new talent, Lucas is finally realising the potential of his
massive universe on a cinematic scale, rather than limiting it to the tale of the
Skywalkers. This could quite possibly save Star Wars as a film series. Granted,
it could fudge it up further. But I'm holding out for the positive. I can't
wait for 2015. At the least, this will be very interesting” (Rhys Handley,
Brew, 2012).
With the proof of the pudding in The Avengers these fans feel they have a
genuine reason to be optimistic. Even if there is a chance they will ‘fudge it
up’ this is not putting many fans off, as at least it could be ‘interesting’. Most
commenters agree with the positivity of the buyout and it seems this is the
case across the fandom:
“I'm a massive Star Wars fan and read a lot of
forums on the subject... EVERYONE, myself included is relieved that Lucas is
handing over to Kennedy to make another trilogy […] I'm seeing very little
negativity towards the idea!” (Mikey Rees-Antonio, Brew, 2012).
There is some concern however over the future and
dignity of the extensive Expanded Universe, which takes the form of many
novels, comics, computer games and animated series. For some fans only the
films are part of official canon, for others this extends to the wealth of
secondary texts. With Disney planning a new trilogy starting in 2015 and
proposed spin offs and origin stories, some apprehension is being felt by fans
loyal to the EU:
“The problem, of course, is that any new movie
could completely trample the established canon of the 100+ novels of the
Expanded Universe -- which, arguably, is where the heart of the Star Wars story
moved a long, long time ago by writers much more talented than George Lucas [...]
The millions of die hard Star Wars fans who have not limited themselves to the
2 hour ease of simply watching a movie, but are in fact avid readers, will have
their hearts broken if any new movie crushes the printed lore upon which the EU
is based” (Grand Master Mispir, Brew, 2012).
Grand Master Mispir here elevates him/herself to a
position of a better or ‘truer’ fan, by snidely belittling the fans who only go
as far as the ‘ease’ of watching the films and do not ‘avidly’ read the
secondary texts. There is surprisingly little backlash against this comment,
with only Bodanki chiming
in, “I hope to god that Disney pee all over the "EU" tripe from a
great height.....Terrible, terrible stories, all of them” (Bodanki, Brew, 2012).
Most commenters have a little fun imagining what will come and speculating on
areas of the EU, which Disney might end up using. While Grand Master Mispir is
concerned about the preciousness and integrity of the EU, most of the fans
commenting seem ready to embrace whatever comes next, happy to see their
much-loved saga brought back to life, whatever the consequences.
Proctor cites a conversation with Hills, where he
discusses the ‘affective mapping’ of fan responses. Hills argues:
“When
a beloved fan object becomes, literally, a ‘transitional object’, with a new
phase or new hope being offered to audiences, then this seems to very much
become a moment of heightened fan feeling, and anxiety. In a sense, what’s
important about this sort of news, and its consumption by always-on, 24/7
fandom, is that it highlights not just how fans “pre-read”, but how they
respond to projected and counterfactual texts.
It’s almost as if fandom starts to exist in a quantum undecidable state:
whether one feels excitement, indifference or optimism depends, in a large
part, on the version of Star Wars
that’s been imagined and projected” (Proctor, 2013, 206).
This explains the differing in opinions between
commenters, with some imagining a future where their beloved Expanded Universe
is ‘trampled’ on, others projecting an exciting array of avenues Disney could
go down, and many feeling ‘indifference’ as to them no more harm can be done.
Brooker discusses the ‘gushers’ and ‘bashers’ as a
way of defining two opposing sets of opinion amongst fans. The ‘gushers’ being
those who love and defend The Phantom
Menace and George Lucas against the ‘bashers’ who resolutely hate it and
its creator (Brooker, 2002, 85). While Brooker states that there were “approximately
as many basher-led as gusher threads”(Ibid.) there definitely seems to be a
greater balance in popular opinion towards the basher point of view. In light
of the prospect of new Star Wars
films there seems to be a swing to a more positive outlook, with many staying
in the middle ground of indifference, although the war of the gushers/bashers
could be reignited if Disney’s Episode VII is anything less than exceptional.
Similarly, Gray looks at how opposing factions of
opinion within a fandom can create different senses of its history: “Discursive
attempts to retrospectively define golden ages and all-time lows aggravate this
fragmentation of antagonistic fan communities” (Gray, 2007,289). Certainly many
fans will see the original trilogy as the ‘golden age’ of Star Wars and The Phantom
Menace as its ‘all-time low’, but there is plenty of time for new golden
ages and all-time lows to be formed in upcoming Disney creations. Likewise for
different generations of the fandom these ‘golden ages’ could be entirely
different, with children who first experienced Star Wars on the big screen with the prequel trilogy feeling a
strong sense of nostalgia towards that time. The Phantom Menace generation could soon be echoing those of the
original trilogy when the new film comes out in 2015, expressing their
disappointment in a film aimed at children and not at the adult fans. There is
a sense that things could come full circle, with each new generation that is
presented with a new Star Wars release
defining this as their ‘golden age’. As Gray notes: “Thus, fan interpretation
is constantly shifting, never unified or maintaining the same values over time.
Despised eras may later become beloved if they retrospectively satisfy the
meta-textual desires of the dominant fan interests” (Ibid. 290-1).
With the fate of Star Wars now resting in Disney’s hands, they would be foolish to
ignore the value of the ‘implicit contract’. With Disney’s long history of
success, and trust being placed in them due to their approved handling of The Avengers, there is certainly every
chance they will give the fans what they want or at least something that will
please them. Austin cites science fiction writer Larry Niven, “who described
the reader as “entitled to be entertained, instructed, amused; maybe all three.
If he quits in the middle, or puts the book down feeling that his time has been
wasted, you’re in violation [of the implicit contract]”” (Austin, 2013). Only
time will tell whether this ‘contract’ is honoured and whether a new ‘golden
age’ is a possibility. For now there seems to be plenty of optimism mixing in
with the resigned indifference and even a little bit of excitement for what is
to come.
References
Austin, A., 2013. The
Implicit Contract. [online essay] Available at:
[Accessed 19 December 2013].
Bradshaw, P., 2012. Star Wars 7: return of the Jedi- again. The Guardian [online] 31 October.
Available at:
[Accessed 19 December 2013].
Brew, S., 2012. Why the Disney/Lucasfilm deal is good for Star
Wars. DenofGeek.com, [online] 30
October. Available at:
[Accessed 19 December 2013].
Brooker, W., 2002. Using
the Force: Creativity, Community and Star Wars Fans. New York: Continuum.
DenofGeek.com, About
Us. [online] Available at:
[Accessed 19 December 2013].
Gilbey, R., 2012. Gilbey on Film: Disney saves Star Wars
from its creator. New Statesman, [online]
2 November. Available at:
[Accessed 19 December 2013].
Hills, M., 2003. Putting Away Childish Things: Jar Jar Binks
and the ‘Virtual Star’ as an Object of Fan Loathing. In T. Austin and M.
Barker, eds 2002. Contemporary Hollywood
Stardom. London: Arnold. Ch. 4.
Jenkins, H., 2009. Textual
Poachers: Television Fans & Participatory Culture. 2nd ed.
New York: Routledge.
Johnson, D., 2007. Fan-tagonims: Faction, Institutions, and
Constitutive Hegemonies of Fandom. In J. Gray, C. Sandvoss and C. Harrington,
eds 2007. Fandom: Identities and
Communities in a Mediated World. New York: New York University Press.
List of references to Star Wars in
television. Star Wars Fanpedia. [online]
Available at:
Mitchell, D., 2012. Mickey Mouse- Jedi Knight? I Never
thought I’d say this, but bring it on. The
Guardian/The Observer, [online] 4 November. Available at:
[Accessed 19 December 2013].
Proctor, W., 2013. ‘Holy crap, more Star Wars! More Star Wars? What
if they’re crap?’: Disney, Lucasfilm and Star
Wars online fandom in the 21st Century. Participations, [online] Available at:
[Accessed 19 December 2013].
The Star Wars Collector’s Bible. [online] Available at:
[Accessed 19 December 2013].
No comments:
Post a Comment