Right now, The Last Jedi is sitting at a 96% favorable score on Rotten Tomatoes, among top critics. But it has earned just a 57% favorable score among audience members surveyed by the website, which presumably includes many "super fans" who weeks ago bought tickets to see the movie before noon on its first official day of release.
Personally, I think The Last Jedi is the best of all the Star Wars films, and over time, the audience rating for the film will grow to match the critics' rating. But this current disconnect got me wondering — what would critics and the general public think of this movie if it had been made to garner a 95%-plus approval rating from the franchise's most dedicated fans?
Would that movie also have gotten a 96% approval from critics? Would it stand the test of time?
This is the challenge that faces the caretakers of a franchise. And, despite the popularity of Star Wars, I don't know that there is in this world a more popular and lucrative "franchise," if you will, than the Disney theme parks. What other entertainment franchise drew 140 million paid attendees last year? Disney theme parks did.
As large as that number is, Disney wants it to go up. To do that, it must continue to expand what it offers at its theme parks. That's not just new rides and shows. Disney must offer new types of experiences, aimed at different audiences than it has attracted before — different products, at different price points, for different fans. You can't keep dishing up the same meal and attract new diners.
But the trouble with expanding the menu is that some (or a lot) of the old diners can feel left out. People who liked the franchise just the way it was might not like to see it expand or, heaven forbid, change direction. And let's just put it out there — some fans might not like having to share the bandwagon with all those different people now climbing aboard. Tribalism runs strong in the human race, whatever the form or function of the tribe.
So whether you are running a theme park, filming a Star Wars movie, writing a new Harry Potter story, or doing anything else to maintain and extend a popular, established franchise, you face this challenge. How can you attract new fans without losing the old ones?
The answer might seem simplistic — just keep doing what attracted the old fans in the first place. The basic principles of great entertainment endure: create engaging characters and interesting locations and use them to tell powerful stories. But in any franchises, at some point, fan loyalty to those specific characters, locations, and story beats will make introducing new ones difficult, if not impossible. The fan base's loyalty ceases being a financial asset and threatens to become a creative curse.
At that point, the best creators... take a risk. They change things anyway. They not only bring in fresh characters and story arcs, they might dispatch old ones. More than that, though, they will play with audiences' expectations for the franchise. They feint.
Heck, they might even take a second-rate Tower of Terror and turn it into a Guardians of the Galaxy ride.
(*Update, 12/16: Adding a couple of graphs here to extend the argument.)
This raises the additional challenge for theme park designers in that they often must balance the needs of multiple franchises when developing attractions. In the case of Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout!, Disney's Imagineers had to service five potentially distinct "franchises": Guardians of the Galaxy, Marvel, the park's Hollywood Land, Disney California Adventure as a park, and the Disney theme parks in general. Disney served the Disney Parks franchise by choosing to remove an underdeveloped IP (The Twilight Zone) in favor of a more currently popular one (Guardians). Now, that decision weakened the theme of Hollywood Land — perhaps suggesting that Disney intends to scrap that theme, as well. It also muddled the theme of California Adventure, but strengthened the park by giving it a much stronger, higher rated, and more popular attraction.
As for Guardians, Disney protected and extended that franchise with an experience that amplifies its spirit without undercutting its narrative or its timeline. That's a tough assignment. Remember when Star Tours put you face to face with Darth Vader, then sent you to the aftermath of the battle of Jakku? I know that a lot of fans got sick of Universal's Shrek 4D over the years, but that show provided one of the better examples of a theme park attraction extending a franchise's narrative in a supportive, not contradictory, fashion.
No one is batting 1.000 here. That creates a powerful financial incentive for companies to play to safe and not take creative risks. Just slap the franchise logo on a roller coaster, keep making the same films — hitting the same beats, and never let your characters develop. Milk a franchises as long as you can, and when it collapses from creative neglect, move on to the next. No one will blame you for that failure.
Taking creative risks with an established franchise ultimately demonstrates an act of faith — a faith that you, as a creative leader, are, indeed, doing what attracted the old fans in the first place. That you are, still, creating engaging characters and interesting locations and using them to tell powerful stories. And that, by doing this, those old fans... eventually... will forgive you and maintain their loyalty — even as a new generation of fans climbs aboard the bandwagon.
Yes, sometimes the creative risks ultimately fail. (No, the Tiki Room did not need New Management.) Fans are under no obligation to return to a franchise that they feel has left them behind. It's your loyalty, your time, and your money. Do what you want. But the next time a franchise you love tries something you think foolish or stupid... don't use that as an excuse to jump into modern social media's perpetual outrage machine. Take a day, a week, or a season before you jump off the bandwagon, then see how you feel then.
Maybe it didn't work, and it is time to bail. But maybe it did, and it worked in ways that you never would have anticipated. (Hello, Mission Breakout!) Either way, I am glad for creators who are willing to take these chances.
Because nothing is worse than a story without a twist, or a world that never even tries to change for the better.
Tweet
For those who haven't seen the show, Bars only go on Bar Rescue because they're losing money hand over fist. For those of you who have seen the show, you've probably screamed along side me "WHAT CUSTOMERS?"
Ultimately when making any decision to change, you need to balance your old customers against your new ones. A lot of Trekkies hate Discovery... I'm not a Trekkie but have seen the series (Babylon 5 Forever!) but I thought it was clearly the best Trek there is.
With a property like Star Wars, its hard to lose a Long time fan. They suffered through the Second Lucas Trillogy and are still there. Its a matter of appealing to lapsed fans and non-fans-who-liked the movie, and I haven't heard a bad word against the movie.
I don't put stock in reader click-vote figures... They're too easy to manipulate.
Theme parks are also technology driven as well as having instantly recognisable and popular IPs so the marrying of both to produce WOW factor attractions is an absolute must for continued attendance growth, retaining the core and growing the new.
With both Disney and Universal pledging $multi-billion investments over the coming years, their theme park franchises will only go from strength to strength with brand loyaly increasing.
Personally, I wish they had taken a more daring approach to the new trilogy from square one, as TFA practically squashed my desire to know what happens next. I genuinely don't like any of the new characters, despite the fact that I think the actors are fantastic. And while Rogue One seemed to be a well made film, it's the only movie I've ever shut off 30 minutes into it's run time. Nobody had to tell me what was going to happen. I knew they were all going to die and I've never had the lingering question "How did they steal the plans to the Death Star?". I get that Disney needs to recoup that $4 billion investment, but I think it would be wise to maintain the main story without all the spinoffs. Boba Fett was much better with an air of mystery before the prequels demystified so much of what made him cool. I guess what I'm saying is that Star Wars could use some of that "Economy of story telling" that makes so many Disney films endlessly rewatchable classics.
Storm Troopers marching defanged through Walt Disney World? Meh.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
