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 ]