Star Wars, Disney and myth-making - The Economist · PDF fileStar Wars, Disney and myth-making...
-
Upload
truonghuong -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
Transcript of Star Wars, Disney and myth-making - The Economist · PDF fileStar Wars, Disney and myth-making...
Star Wars, Disney and
myth-makingRead this and more, free with
The Economist
Star Wars, Disney and
myth-makingFrom the print edition
Star Wars, Disney andmyth-making
How one company came to master thebusiness of storytelling
From a galaxy far, far away to a cinema just down the
road: “The Force Awakens”, the newest instalment of
the Star Wars saga, is inescapable this Christmas. The
first Star Wars title since Lucasfilm, the owner of the
franchise, was acquired by Disney in 2012 for $4.1
billion, it represents more than just the revival of a
beloved science-fiction series. It is the latest example
of the way Disney has prospered over the past decade
from a series of shrewd acquisitions (see article).
Having bought Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm, Disney
has skilfully capitalised on their intellectual
property—and in so doing, cemented its position as
the market leader in the industrialisation of
mythology.
Disney's success rests on tropes,technology and toys
The Economist
Its success rests on its mastery of the three elements
of modern myth-making: tropes, technology and toys.
From Homer to Han Solo
Start with the tropes. Disney properties, which
include everything from “Thor” to “Toy Story”, draw
on well-worn devices of mythic structure to give their
stories cultural resonance. Walt Disney himself had an
intuitive grasp of the power of fables. George Lucas,
the creator of Star Wars, is an avid student of the
work of Joseph Campbell, an American comparative
mythologist who outlined the “monomyth” structure
in which a hero answers a call, is assisted by a mentor
figure, voyages to another world, survives various
trials and emerges triumphant. Both film-makers
merrily plundered ancient mythology and folklore.
The Marvel universe goes even further, directly
appropriating chunks of Greco-Roman and Norse
mythology. (This makes Disney’s enthusiasm for fierce
enforcement of intellectual-property laws, and the
seemingly perpetual extension of copyright,
somewhat ironic.)
The internal mechanics of myths may not have
changed much over the ages, but the technology used
to impart them certainly has. That highlights Disney’s
second area of expertise. In Homer’s day, legends
were passed on in the form of dactylic hexameters;
modern myth-makers prefer computer graphics,
special effects, 3D projection, surround sound and
internet video distribution, among other things.
When Disney bought Lucasfilm it did not just acquire
the Star Wars franchise; it also gained Industrial Light
& Magic, one of the best special-effects houses in the
business, whose high-tech wizardry is as vital to
Marvel’s Avengers films as it is to the Star Wars epics.
And when Disney was left behind by the shift to
digital animation, it cannily revitalised its own film-
making brand by buying Pixar, a firm as pioneering in
its field as Walt Disney had been in hand-drawn
animation. Moreover, modern myths come in multiple
media formats. The Marvel and Star Wars fantasy
universes are chronicled in interlocking films,
television series, books, graphic novels and video
games. Marvel’s plans are mapped out until the
mid-2020s.
But these days myths are also expected to take
physical form as toys, merchandise and theme-park
rides. This is the third myth-making ingredient.
Again, Walt Disney led the way, licensing Mickey
Mouse and other characters starting in the 1930s, and
opening the original Disneyland park in 1955. Mr
Lucas took cinema-related merchandise into a new
dimension, accepting a pay cut as director in return
for all the merchandising rights to Star Wars—a deal
that was to earn him billions. Those rights now
belong to Disney, and it is making the most of them:
sales of “The Force Awakens” merchandise, from toys
to clothing, are expected to be worth up to $5 billion
alone in the coming year. In all, more than $32
billion-worth of Star Wars merchandise has been sold
since 1977, according to NPD Group, a market-
research firm. Even Harry Potter and James Bond are
scruffy-looking nerf-herders by comparison.
More than $32 billion-worth of StarWars merchandise has been soldsince 1977
The Economist
Those other franchises are reminders that Disney’s
approach is not unique. Other studios are doing their
best to imitate its approach. But Disney has some of
the most valuable properties and exploits them to
their fullest potential. It is particularly good at
refreshing and repackaging its franchises to
encourage adults to revisit their childhood favourites
and, in the process, to introduce them to their own
children. This was one reason why Pixar, whose films
are known for their cross-generational appeal, was
such a natural fit. Now the next generation is being
introduced to Star Wars by their nostalgic parents. At
the same time, Disney has extended its franchises by
adding sub-brands that appeal to particular age
groups: children’s television series spun off from Star
Wars, for example, or darker, more adult tales from
the Marvel universe, such as the “Daredevil” and
“Jessica Jones” series on Netflix.
Do, or do not—there is no try
What explains the power of all this modern-day
mythology? There is more to it than archetypal
storytelling, clever technology and powerful
marketing. In part, it may fill a void left by the
decline of religion in a more secular world. But it also
provides an expression for today’s fears. The original
“Star Wars” film, in which a band of plucky rebels
defeat a technological superpower, was a none-too-
subtle inversion of the Vietnam war. The Marvel
universe, originally a product of the cold-war era, has
adapted well on screen to a post-9/11 world of
surveillance and the conspiratorial mistrust of
governments, large corporations and the power of
technology. In uncertain times, when governments
and military might seem unable to keep people safe or
stay honest, audiences take comfort in the idea of
superheroes who ride to the rescue. Modern myths
also have the power to unify people across
generations, social groups and cultures, creating
frameworks of shared references even as other forms
of media consumption become ever more fragmented.
Ultimately, however, these modern myths are so
compelling because they tap primordial human
urges—for refuge, redemption and harmony. In this
respect they are like social-media platforms, which
use technology to industrialise social interaction.
Similarly, modern myth-making, reliant though it is
on new tools and techniques, is really just pushing
the same old buttons in stone-age brains. That is
something that Walt Disney understood
instinctively—and that the company he founded is
now exploiting so proficiently.
Disney's modern myth-making reallyjust pushes the same old buttons instone-age brains
The Economist
Subscribe now to The Economist, and gain fullaccess to more reads like this across digital andprint
A trusted filter onworld affairsThe Economist is a smart guide to theforces that shape our future, providingvigorous analysis from a globalperspective.
If it matters in our world, we cover it - andcover it well.
Click through to explore more of TheEconomist, or to try a 12 week trialsubscription
Subscribe to The Economist and enjoy great savings
Flip this page to continue exploring your starter pack from The Economist
Paris climate talks: Deal doneFrom the blogs
The Paris agreementmarks anunprecedentedpolitical recognitionof the risks of climatechange
The nations gathered made a historicstep down a very long road
“History is here,” declared François Hollande, France’s
president. The UN climate conference in Paris had run
over its original deadline, and the final text had yet
to be seen, but the mood among the negotiators and
ministers he was addressing was buoyant. And for the
rest of a long day bonhomie kept on breaking out.
China’s special representative for climate change, Xie
Zhenhua, gave Nicholas Stern, a British economist, a
jolly embrace. When Laurent Fabius, the French
foreign minister, gaveled the agreement through in
the evening there were cheers, tears and shouts of
jubilation.
"When the French foreignminister gaveled theagreement through in theevening there were cheers,tears and shouts ofjubilation"
The “Paris agreement”, negotiated under the aegis of
the UN, aims to hold the increase in the global
average temperature to “well below 2°C above pre-
industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the
temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial
levels”—a more ambitious goal than had been
expected. Similar ambition was apparent in the
agreement’s explicit goal of having as much
greenhouse gas coming out of the atmosphere as
going into it in the second half of the century.
In many procedural ways, too, the agreement
surpassed what had been anticipated, delivering a
range of compromises that all parties could live with
and a lot of observers welcomed. Before the
negotiations E3G, an activist think-tank, outlined
three classes of possible outcome: a lowest common-
denominator “Le zombie”; a so-so “comme-çi,
comme-ça”; and an all out “Va va voom”. After seeing
the agreement, it put it in the last category.
The Paris climate agreement wasmore "Va va voom" than mostanticipated
The Economist
None of this vooming changed the fact that current
efforts being made to fight climate change fall a very
long way short of Paris’s ambitious goals. The world is
nearly 1°C warmer than it was in the 18th century.
The efforts outlined in the pledges on climate
action—“intended nationally determined
contributions” that 186 of the countries at the Paris
negotiations have provided—are more in line with a
total warming of 3°C than one of less than 2°C, the
limit that was written into previous UN documents,
let alone 1.5°C.
According to John Schellnhuber, head of the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research, delivering a
warming of “well below” 2°C requires that global
carbon-dioxide emissions peak “well before 2030”
and “should be eliminated as soon as possible after
2050”. That would represent a rate of
“decarbonisation” (a word not to be found in the
agreement, thanks to the sensitivities of Saudi Arabia
and some other countries) far greater than the world
has yet seen.
There are processes in the agreement designed to
ratchet up the level of global action, but although
they are more demanding than some had expected,
they are not in themselves enough to make good the
current gap. The agreement requires countries to act
on climate change, and to increase their actions over
time, but it says nothing concrete about how much
anyone has to do. The hope is that with the whole
world now on a settled course, with ever better
technology and with a much greater flow of financing
to developing countries, the ambition of these
contributions, which will be revisited after
“stocktakes” every five years, will quickly grow. The
first such reckoning will be in 2018.
Genuine concern about the climate, public opinion
and international pressure produced the pledges that
were made for Paris. The hope is that similar bottom-
up processes, rather than unenforceable UN
mandates, will drive up the level of action in decades
to come. The process should be helped by a more
predictable stream of money from richer countries to
poorer ones—as should efforts to adapt to the
climate change that is not avoided. The Paris
agreement requires a flow of $100 billion a year from
developed countries to developing countries by 2020,
with the sum to be revisited in 2025. It also requires
them to make their plans for this money clear every
couple of years.
The Paris agreement requires a flowof $100 billion a year to developingcountries
The Economist
Throughout the Paris conference, developed
countries said they accepted their obligation to lead
such efforts. One of the products of the two weeks of
negotiations was that the agreement now
“encourages” other nations to pitch in, too, should
they be well-enough off to do so. This may not sound
a big deal. But a sharp distinction between developed
and developing countries has long been a sticking
point in climate negotiations, with large developing
countries like China (the world’s biggest emitter of
carbon dioxide) and India keen not to be treated in
the same way as developed countries. The wording
that encourages them to play a role in finance is one
of a number of ways the Paris agreement found to
move beyond that distinction. The fact that all
nations are to make contributions on an increasingly
equal basis was what justified Mr Hollande’s praise of
the agreement as the first of its kind to be universal.
Mr Hollande was proud of the achievement, and he
had reason. France, which had the presidency of the
UN negotiations, managed the talks with a sure hand.
The ground had been well prepared by its diplomats,
led by Laurence Tubiana, the climate ambassador; the
talks were kept open enough that all parties felt their
voices were heard, but Mr Fabius moved things along
firmly when necessary. It was a far cry from the
botched mess of the Copenhagen climate summit six
years ago.
The Paris agreement marks anunprecedented political recognitionof the risks of climate change
The Economist
The Paris agreement marks an unprecedented
political recognition of the risks of climate change.
Indeed, that is the lens through which to view its
rather impractical-looking interest in the 1.5°C limit.
It served to underline the urgency that more
vulnerable nations feel about the issue, and to raise
the stakes, even if, in practice, it will do little to
increase the level of action in the near term.
Delegates from low-lying islands threatened with
flooding from rising sea levels could not travel home
having signed a suicide pact. As the foreign minister
of the Marshall Islands, Tony de Brum, noted: “Our
chance for survival is not lost.”
And yoked to the political progress is an economic
transition. Perhaps the most significant effect of the
Paris agreement in the next few years will be the
signal it sends to investors: the united governments
of the world say that the age of fossil fuels has
started drawing to a close. That does not mean that
they are necessarily right, nor that the closing will
not be much more drawn out than the Marshall
Islands and other such states would wish. But after
Paris, the belief that governments are going to stay
the course on their stated green strategies will feel a
bit better founded—and the idea of investing in a
coal mine will seem more risky.
Brexit: A real possibiltyAn Economist video
Why do a third ofBritons want to leavethe EU?
Brexit could be a real possibility
Six months ago the chances that Britain would leave
the European Union—Brexit—were remote. Today,
largely because of Europe’s migration crisis and the
interminable euro mess, the polls have narrowed. Why
do a third of Britons want to leave the EU?
Will Britain leave the EuropeanUnion?
Yes
No
See results
World in 2016What are your predictions for
the year ahead?
The World in 2016
2016 can be summed up in three words:woes, women & wins. That's ourprediction, but what's yours? Answer our2016 polls and tell us what you think2016 will bring
US ElectionsThe 2016 contest will be a tough one. But who will
claim victory?
Who will be the next president of theUnited States?
Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton
Ted Cruz
Jeb Bush
None of the above
See results
Iran and the WorldIn The World in 2016, Federica Mogherini, the
European Union’s high representative for foreign
policy, argues that the deal with Iran points the way
to wider breakthroughs in the region. But will it hold
up?
Will the 2015 Iran nuclear deal lastin 2016?
Certainly, the deal is solid
No way, the deal's foundations are
shaky
Potentially, but a lot will depend on
Iran's relations with its neighbours
See results
Curing the Big "C"Few things are more certain in 2016 than reports of a
scientific breakthrough in cancer, one that some will
describe as a possible cure. But will the world finally
find a cure that works in 2016?
Will 2016 see a cure for cancer?
No, the world is still a long way from
finding a cure
Yes, new approaches are changing
the way we fight cancer and will lead to a
cure
See results
China's EconomyChina enters 2016 unmistakably shakier than a year
ago, with questions about the competence of the
government after its financial mismanagement in
2015. Many Chinese are a little less certain than they
were that the future is bright and prosperous. That
could lead to greater volatility in 2016.
Will we see a year of market turmoilin China?
Yes, the 2015 market crash was just
the beginning
No, China's economy is sound
No, but China will struggle to
maintain it's once stellar growth rate in
2016
See results
Brazil's Olympics2016 is an Olympic year, with the games due to be
hosted in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. But which country
will claim the biggest haul of coveted medals?
Which country will win the mostmedals at the 2016 Olympic Games?
China
Russia
United States
None of the above
See results
You can find more analysis of The World 2016, along
with our predictions on these topics here.
Reusable rocketsFrom the print edition
Reusable rockets
Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin brings spacetourism a step closer to reality
Sometimes the dark horses are the ones to watch. On
November 23rd Blue Origin, a publicity-shy rocketry
firm owned by Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon,
announced that it had achieved something
spectacular. Not only did its New Shepard craft make
it safely back to Earth after a brief sojourn in
space—so, too, did the BE-3 rocket booster that
launched New Shepard. After separating from the
spacecraft, the rocket fell back to Earth. At around
1.5km from the ground, it reignited its engines,
slowing its fall and making a controlled, gentle
landing (pictured). To quote the firm’s triumphant
press release: “Now safely tucked away at our launch
site in West Texas is the rarest of beasts, a used
rocket.”
Truly the rarest of beasts—a usedrocket
The Economist
At the moment, space rockets are one-shot machines.
After boosting their payload to the required speed
and altitude, they fall back to Earth—often breaking
up in the atmosphere on the way. That is one reason
why space flight is so eye-wateringly expensive. It is
a bit like blowing up your car after every trip and
having to buy a new one. Rocket scientists have been
trying to make their rockets reusable for decades. The
closest they have come, until now, was the Space
Shuttle. But even this (besides being far more
expensive than an ordinary rocket) was only partly
reusable, with the giant external fuel tank being
discarded after each launch.
Blue Origin’s machine is thus a technical triumph.
Unlike the Shuttle’s solid-fuelled boosters, which
relied on parachutes to splash down into the ocean
(whence they had to be recovered by America’s navy),
Blue Origin’s machine landed itself like the rockets of
science fiction, by firing its engines and balancing on
its exhaust until it had safely touched down.
The BE-3’s flight is a publicity coup. SpaceX, a more
established (and less camera-shy) rocketry firm
founded by Elon Musk, another internet billionaire,
has also been working on reusable rockets. The most
recent versions of its Falcon machines are designed to
land themselves on uncrewed ocean-going platforms.
SpaceX has come close to pulling that off several
times, but so far all its efforts have failed; the most
recent attempt, in April, ended in a fireball. Now Mr
Bezos’s firm has beaten Mr Musk’s to the punch.
Of course, this comparison is not quite fair. Blue
Origin’s focus, at least for now, is on space tourism.
The idea is to take a handful of paying customers on a
joyride to the edge of space, rather than to heave
things all the way into orbit, as SpaceX’s rockets are
designed to do—a task for which much higher speed
is required. The New Shepard squeaked into space on
a technicality. Its maximum altitude on this flight
was 100.5km, a hair’s breadth above the 100km that
(arbitrarily) is held to be where space begins.
"Flying rockets is notoriouslydifficult. But Blue Origin hasmade it look easy"
Blue Origin’s competitor in that market is not SpaceX,
but Virgin Galactic, another orbital-tourism firm,
which suffered a serious setback last year when one of
its spaceships crashed on a test flight, killing one of
its two pilots. SpaceX, in contrast, is already flying all
the way into orbit, and is doing so for real money. Its
craft both deliver supplies to the International Space
Station and launch satellites for paying customers.
None of this, though, detracts from Blue Origin’s
achievement. Mr Musk has estimated that reusable
rockets could cut the cost of a space launch by an
order of magnitude or more. Flying rockets is
notoriously difficult, and flying them backwards is
even harder. But Blue Origin has made it look easy.
The Yakuza: Inside the
syndicateAn Economist documentary film
The Yakuza
In 2011 a Belgian photographer was allowed entry into one of Japan’sYakuza families. Over two years, he captured the lives of those living inthe underworld.
Inside the Syndicate
"After 10 months of negotiation, I was introduced to theGodfather himself"
Japan's Yakuza: Inside the syndicate
Bond v BondAn Economist DailyChart
Bond v Bond
The return of 007
Ah, my dear fellow…so we meet again. “Spectre”, the
24th Bond film will be released in Britain today, on
October 26th, and is expected to draw yet more fans
to the once-flagging film franchise. Our
popular “Booze, bonks and bodies” appraisal of the
James Bond actors returns too (you might say it only
lives twice) which was first published in 2012 before
the release of the 23rd instalment, “Skyfall”. That last
Bond outing went on to become the most successful
of the franchise to date, surpassing 1965's
“Thunderball”, the only other Bond film that has
grossed (in today’s money) over $1 billion (£630m) at
the box office.
Described as a sexist, misogynistic dinosaur by his
boss, M, the Bond who was often caught with more
than his hands up has swapped conquests for kills,
much to the audience's satisfaction. Daniel Craig, the
sixth and current Bond, has been the most successful
yet. His films as 007 have taken an average $835m at
the box office. But the production budgets have
ballooned as well. The first three Bond movies in the
1960s grossed over 30 times their production costs.
While performing well at the box office, the most
recent three in the series have brought in just four
times their production budgets. Much stays the same,
from bow-ties to baccarat, Aston Martins to the
Walther PPK and a healthy mix of gadgets and witty
one-liners. The stiff-arsed Brit may no longer give a
damn whether his trademark Martini is shaken or
stirred, but he is still saving the world in his own
distinctive way. Mr Bond, it's good to see you again.
We have been expecting you.
24 & Ready to dieFrom Economist Films
24 & Ready to die
Emily is 24 years old and physicallyhealthy. But she wants her doctors toend her life.
Why would a physically healthy 24 year old ask her
doctors to end her life? Watch Emily's story in 24 &
Ready to die, a documentary from Economist Films
Should doctor assisted-dying belegal?
Yes, everyone should have the right
to end their life
No, doctor assisted-dying should not
be legal in any case
In some cases, yes, but not for those
suffering mental illness
See results
The world's most 'liveable'
citiesAn Economist Graphic Detail
The world's most'liveable' cities
While residents of Melbourne enjoy another year in
the world’s most liveable city, according to the 2015
Global Liveability Ranking from our corporate cousin
the Economist Intelligence Unit, spare a thought for
those who live in the 57 cities that have steadily
deteriorated over the last five years.
The ranking, which considers 30 factors related to
things like safety, healthcare, educational resources,
infrastructure and environment in 140 cities, shows
that since 2010 average liveability across the world
has fallen by 1%, led by a 2.2% fall in the score for
stability and safety. Ongoing conflicts in Syria,
Ukraine and Libya have been compounded by terrorist
shootings in France and Tunisia as well as civil unrest
in America. In Athens, austerity rather than unrest
has weighed on the provision of public services, while
Kiev saw the sharpest fall over the last 12 months and
is now among the ten least liveable cities ranked.
The most liveable places, notes the EIU, tend to be
“mid-sized cities in wealthier countries with a
relatively low population density”, which explains the
low ranking of near-megacities like London and New
York and goes some way to explaining Melbourne’s
continued place in the sun.
Melbourne holds its place in the sunas the world's most liveable city
The Economist
Do you speak 2016?From The World in 2016
Do you speak 2016?
"Netflix and chill" is so last year, and Facebook have confirmed that "LOL"is in decline. So what do you think the buzzwords of 2016 will be?
It is impossible to know what new words will become fashionable in the year ahead:
some of the buzzwords of 2016 have not yet been coined. But a few of the trends
likely to shape the year are apparent, and they provide hints about the vocabulary
that may be in vogue.
Technology is a reliable source of new words. Many of them jump from noun to verb,
as “fax”, “e-mail”, “Google” and “Facebook” did. Whichever social network, say Slack
(office-workers) or This (long-form journalism aficionados), becomes a breakout
darling can expect its name to become an ordinary verb (“Slack me later”). One to
watch is Venmo, which lets people send each other small payments (“Just venmo
me”).
Some companies fight the "genericide" of their trademarks,but they are powerless to stop it
The Economist
Some companies fight the “genericide” of their trademarks. Adobe, for example,
campaigned to replace “to photoshop” with “to enhance using Adobe® Photoshop®
software”. But they are powerless to stop it.
Punkt, a Swiss gadget-maker, is soon to release a high-style phone that makes calls
and sends texts, nothing more; should such phones catch on, might their users
ironically flaunt their “dumbphones”? Google has pushed back the release of a phone
with modular, upgradable parts (camera, processor, screen) into 2016. Google calls
this “Project Ara”, but should the phone catch on, “modphone” could be a handy
portmanteau.
Word of mouth
Office workers will keep mangling the language with words that shouldn’t exist:
“millennialisation” might join “ideation” and “learnings” in corporate-speak in
2016. Those in jobs with high legal stakes have learned that e-mail can wind up in
court, so some have taken to using “LDL” (let’s discuss live) to avoid writing
anything potentially damning. Will it spread? Perhaps, but investigators are keen
followers of such phrases, too, and can use them to search for suspicious activity.
"Netflix and Chill" is so last year, and LOL is in decline. Doyou speak 2016?
The Economist
Forecasting youth slang is especially hard. In a wired world, words move from cant to
cool-kid code to even-your-grandmother-uses-it faster than you can say “wicked”.
Facebook has confirmed that “LOL” is already in decline.
“Netflix and chill” became known in 2015 for a sexual hookup, but when such things
become too widely known, they lose their frisson. These fads often start in
subcultures like black-American or gay groups, before making their way to the
mainstream: “throwing shade” for a put-down, for example, or “ratchet” for a trashy
but arrogant type. So pay attention to those communities for the next big
thing—maybe “throwing pillows”, for a weak punch—though by the time you’ve
heard of it they may have moved on.
Turn over a new leaf. Then keep on turning
Star Wars, Disney andmyth-making
Cookies Terms [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Privacy [ 1 ] [ 2 ]