George Lucas and I have this love-hate relationship. Okay, so he probably doesn't know I exist. But I feel like he's had an influential role in my life. I mean, what would my childhood have been without the exciting escapades of Luke Skywalker and Indiana Jones?
The amazing thing about George is his ability to stay "relevant" through several decades, despite his rehashing of the same old battered and overdone story lines. When I think of his portfolio of films, he's really only told two, albeit long winded, stories -- Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars. Sure, George's ability to stretch the basic action/adventure premise of these two films into a run of more than ten films is nothing short of brilliant, if not only from a entrepreneurial point of view.
But the films were only the catalyst. There was also The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles TV series, the numerous Lucasfilm video games, the Clone Wars cartoon series -- on and on it went. But looming largest of them all was: the toys. George knew the money was in the merchandise.
Part of the deal with Star Wars was that George got to hold onto the merchandising rights. And it paid healthy dividends. Thanks to these two franchises and their bountiful produce, my buddy George Lucas is worth an estimated $3 billion today.
I can't think of any film that capitalized on the untapped resources of childhood allowances more than Star Wars. Up until 1978, there simply wasn't a movie/toy connection. At least not on the level George had unleashed. And what's more, walk into any big box store today and you'll still find rows of these products lining the shelves -- packages almost identical to the ones launched over 30 years ago.
I worry that George has let the figurative merchandising genie out of the bottle. I don't think it's a grand Capitalist conspiracy by him or Hollywood to milk every child and parent out of their hard earned money. But I do see an explosion of movie and television related merchandise, started by George and championed by companies like Disney and Pixar (a division of Lucasfilm and now owned by Disney), that seems to brand everything in sight with the faces of our most beloved fictional characters.
However there is a more disturbing trend. This is the blatant and obvious use of entertainment for the sole purpose of promoting products to kids. Not to name name's, but the whole Beyblade phenomenon kind of worries me. As much as my kids love the toys, the show is nothing but a shameless self-promoting thirty minute advertisement with the sole purpose of enticing an emerging generation to buy their products.
In fact, the Japanese seem to have this corner of the market covered. The other two popular Japanese youth related products, Pokéman and Bakugan, are also heavily co-dependent on their related television shows. The onscreen world is simply an extension of the child's play world the products themselves promote, and vice versa. Maybe the nature of profit oriented societies like Japan or the US are more receptive to the intertwining of entertainment primarily for the benefit of commerce.
This hypothesis leads me back to the concept of using a film as vehicle for merchandising. I suppose we've come to expect this activity to a certain extent. And the two essential elements -- film and its accompanying "stuff" -- are clearly going to be part and parcel in any new child oriented movie or television production for the indefinite future. But the deliberate blurring of this boundary between art and commerce, entertainment and consumerism -- is a fairly recent innovation and I believe, purposely understated.
Not that art and entertainment have been or have to be exclusive from commerce. That's not what I'm saying here. But I do see an emerging trend of specifically tailored advertising-oriented entertainment geared towards a younger demographic who aren't aware (or don't care) that they're being targeted.
Every generation of artists and entertainers have in general sought to be compensated for their works and effort. I'm sure those who witnessed Shakespeare's plays paid a pence or two to take in the performances, but the emphasis to this day remains the celebration of the art itself, not what can be capitalized or gained from it. To concoct a storyline in the name of "entertainment" for the sole purpose of selling associated merchandise seems a suspect activity in the least.
As Shakespeare wrote in Romeo and Juliet: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." In translation, let's call these things for what they are. I for one do not want to see the entertainment my family watches diluted by such meaningless dribble.
The amazing thing about George is his ability to stay "relevant" through several decades, despite his rehashing of the same old battered and overdone story lines. When I think of his portfolio of films, he's really only told two, albeit long winded, stories -- Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars. Sure, George's ability to stretch the basic action/adventure premise of these two films into a run of more than ten films is nothing short of brilliant, if not only from a entrepreneurial point of view.
But the films were only the catalyst. There was also The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles TV series, the numerous Lucasfilm video games, the Clone Wars cartoon series -- on and on it went. But looming largest of them all was: the toys. George knew the money was in the merchandise.
Part of the deal with Star Wars was that George got to hold onto the merchandising rights. And it paid healthy dividends. Thanks to these two franchises and their bountiful produce, my buddy George Lucas is worth an estimated $3 billion today.
I can't think of any film that capitalized on the untapped resources of childhood allowances more than Star Wars. Up until 1978, there simply wasn't a movie/toy connection. At least not on the level George had unleashed. And what's more, walk into any big box store today and you'll still find rows of these products lining the shelves -- packages almost identical to the ones launched over 30 years ago.
I worry that George has let the figurative merchandising genie out of the bottle. I don't think it's a grand Capitalist conspiracy by him or Hollywood to milk every child and parent out of their hard earned money. But I do see an explosion of movie and television related merchandise, started by George and championed by companies like Disney and Pixar (a division of Lucasfilm and now owned by Disney), that seems to brand everything in sight with the faces of our most beloved fictional characters.
However there is a more disturbing trend. This is the blatant and obvious use of entertainment for the sole purpose of promoting products to kids. Not to name name's, but the whole Beyblade phenomenon kind of worries me. As much as my kids love the toys, the show is nothing but a shameless self-promoting thirty minute advertisement with the sole purpose of enticing an emerging generation to buy their products.
In fact, the Japanese seem to have this corner of the market covered. The other two popular Japanese youth related products, Pokéman and Bakugan, are also heavily co-dependent on their related television shows. The onscreen world is simply an extension of the child's play world the products themselves promote, and vice versa. Maybe the nature of profit oriented societies like Japan or the US are more receptive to the intertwining of entertainment primarily for the benefit of commerce.
This hypothesis leads me back to the concept of using a film as vehicle for merchandising. I suppose we've come to expect this activity to a certain extent. And the two essential elements -- film and its accompanying "stuff" -- are clearly going to be part and parcel in any new child oriented movie or television production for the indefinite future. But the deliberate blurring of this boundary between art and commerce, entertainment and consumerism -- is a fairly recent innovation and I believe, purposely understated.
Not that art and entertainment have been or have to be exclusive from commerce. That's not what I'm saying here. But I do see an emerging trend of specifically tailored advertising-oriented entertainment geared towards a younger demographic who aren't aware (or don't care) that they're being targeted.
Every generation of artists and entertainers have in general sought to be compensated for their works and effort. I'm sure those who witnessed Shakespeare's plays paid a pence or two to take in the performances, but the emphasis to this day remains the celebration of the art itself, not what can be capitalized or gained from it. To concoct a storyline in the name of "entertainment" for the sole purpose of selling associated merchandise seems a suspect activity in the least.
As Shakespeare wrote in Romeo and Juliet: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." In translation, let's call these things for what they are. I for one do not want to see the entertainment my family watches diluted by such meaningless dribble.
No comments:
Post a Comment