STAR WARS: EPISODE VII Pre-Release - Page 16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 

Whats that? Oh, it's the sound of creativity-in-film's death rattle. 2-3 per year? Good god. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluelouboyle 

That's ridiculous.  One every 2 years is pushing it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSaxon 

Are you all mad??? Think of all the lovely wonderful plastic toys they can sell you!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stale Elvis 

 

 

 

Are you all mad??? Think of all the lovely wonderful plastic toys they can sell you!!!

I'm going to buy as many Star Wars toys as I can and drown the head of Disney under them. Hell, even Lucas wasn't this obvious about milking his cash cow until it couldn't stand any more.

The article makes a good point though. Marvel is making 2 movies per year for the foreseeable future. Someone want to argue that Marvel's doing that wrong?  And I dare anyone to tell me that the Marvel Universe has more opportunities for interesting stories than the Star Wars Universe does.

That said, I do think that for now we don't have to worry about that. I think they will focus on this trilogy of films and make sure they get the first one right. For all the "sure thing" feeling of this, Disney won't feel like it's a "sure thing" until they have a hit. I go back to the Marvel model, until they had IronMan, they really weren't looking to go to 2 per year. You probably wouldn't see something like 2 a year for a while.

I for one would sign up for a set of Han/Chewie films. I know there's a lot of people against the recast of these characters, but I think you're blind if you think that won't EVENTUALLY happen. James Bond is probably a good example, I'm sure the first time it was frowned on, but after a while, people got used to the new guy. People didn't stop wanting to see James Bond when Roger Moore came into it, and they won't not skip a Star Wars movie with a different Han Solo.

I guess my attitude doesn't jibe with everyone here, but I continue to say "bring it on" to Star Wars movies. Some will be good, some will be bad, but the only way for one to be great is to make them. (Again look to Marvel - Iron Man 1 & 2, Incredible Hulk, Captain America, Thor, Avengers - 6 movies, maybe two I would classify as "Great", the others all varying degrees of "good" - and I would argue none were as bad as the prequels.

My problem is I foresee a future where the entire slate of studio films we get in a given year is made up of just a few franchises and their spin offs. Marvel's success troubles me greatly. This news should be the canary in the coal mine for cinema lovers everywhere. Why should studios take risks on original ideas when they know that Marvel and Star Wars movies are guaranteed profit sources?

Here's the thing: I'm not opposed to 2 Star Wars films a year if it means we get multiple different storylines going.  If the plan is to alternate Episodes 7-9 with say, a completely independent Knights of the Old Republic series, okay. Twice the chance to get a good series going.  If it stays incestually entangled in the "present" time period though, with old Luke dominating Episode 7, then a spinoff for the bounty hunter with a heart of gold that is its predetermined breakout character, with a recast young Han prequel on its heels, it's going to get exhausting really, really quickly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 
Why should studios take risks on original ideas when they know that Marvel and Star Wars movies are guaranteed profit sources?

Actually it might be a good thing - if Disney is continually churning out money-spinning Star Wars/Marvel/Pixar movies it might make other studios to up their game or even try something different.

Disney having a monopoly on the major franchises may well be a good thing for the industry, because film as an artform is not going to dissapear, people will still write and make films.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arturo RJ 

Wait does Darth Vader coming back sound really that ludicrous now?

I'm fine with it, as long as he's just a holo-poster in many younglings sleep-pods...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 

My problem is I foresee a future where the entire slate of studio films we get in a given year is made up of just a few franchises and their spin offs. Marvel's success troubles me greatly. This news should be the canary in the coal mine for cinema lovers everywhere. Why should studios take risks on original ideas when they know that Marvel and Star Wars movies are guaranteed profit sources?

That's what bothers me about the whole superhero genre. No one seems bothered that they more or less watching the same movie with different (and often not-so-different) coats of paint! At least with Star Wars the universe is broad enough that there are relatively few restrictions on the kind of stories there are to tell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

Here's the thing: I'm not opposed to 2 Star Wars films a year if it means we get multiple different storylines going.  If the plan is to alternate Episodes 7-9 with say, a completely independent Knights of the Old Republic series, okay. Twice the chance to get a good series going.  If it stays incestually entangled in the "present" time period though, with old Luke dominating Episode 7, then a spinoff for the bounty hunter with a heart of gold that is its predetermined breakout character, with a recast young Han prequel on its heels, it's going to get exhausting really, really quickly.

That's probably almost exactly what they're planning to do - the new trilogy will be crammed with seeds for possible spin offs. I don't really see why setting a movie in a different era is automatically more worthwhile, though.

It's less likely to be bogged down with shoe-horned in characters and references to other entries, and constrained by the established story points of the surrounding episodes.  Whereas if we go 1000 years to the future, it might still be crap, but it will be free to be its own crap in its own crappy way, and forced to plant its own crappy seeds for crap spin offs, rather than sifting through 1983's crap. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Harford 

My problem is I foresee a future where the entire slate of studio films we get in a given year is made up of just a few franchises and their spin offs. Marvel's success troubles me greatly. This news should be the canary in the coal mine for cinema lovers everywhere. Why should studios take risks on original ideas when they know that Marvel and Star Wars movies are guaranteed profit sources?

Aren't we already there? The problem its not just about the US market, these movies are now international money machines. (See Skyfall making $500 million before it opened in the US.)

I'll agree we still want to see original ideas / smaller movies, but the thing is, the future of cinema is not that. People won't be spending $15- $20 to go see the Crying Game. That type of cinema is going to need to find a new outlet, whether it be VOD or something else. But unfortunately what you are looking at is sort of where things are going. It's happening when people will dump there $12 on a mediocre Pirates of the Carribean sequel, but not on a mediocre John Carter.

Oh, you are just depressing me!

It's funny that we've turned to "What's worse than a new Star Wars movies?" "A bunch of new Star Wars movies!"

This is all-or-nothing thinking is getting ridiculous. The Crying Game isn't comparable to mass market blockbusters and never was. It's more comparable to 'grown up' movies like Argo and Flight, which will also make more money than John Carter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stale Elvis 

Has Fassbender been suggested by anyone on these boards for any role in these movies yet?

 

If not, I feel I may be on an alternative internet.

Oh, I got in there ages ago. Suggested him as a good pick for a Tarkin-esque type role.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stale Elvis 

And er, oh yeah...

Hm. Now that's a lot of Star Wars. Not entirely sure about that one. Not making any judgements until we start getting more details about what they have planned, but that does seem to be inviting overkill.

The article doesn't say "Star Wars films" but simply "films" which could mean anything from Willow 2 to THX22 to Red Tails 2000 to new original films.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skierpete 

The article makes a good point though. Marvel is making 2 movies per year for the foreseeable future. Someone want to argue that Marvel's doing that wrong?  And I dare anyone to tell me that the Marvel Universe has more opportunities for interesting stories than the Star Wars Universe does.

 

The Marvel Universe has more opportunities for interesting stories than the Star Wars universe. If only because the studio perception of what a Star Wars film "should be" will always include Jedi Knights, an evil empire, a honking big supervillain, a princess, et al. Just like every Star Trek movie since the Kirk days has to involve a maniacal villain plotting to destroy the Earth with a crazy superweapon. I highly doubt we're ever going to get a SW movie where no one draws a lightsaber even once, whereas the Marvel movies can fuck right off from patriotic super-soldiers or green rage-monsters to spend some time with hyper-advanced Viking alien whose brother wants to steal the throne from him. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by avian 

 

The Marvel Universe has more opportunities for interesting stories than the Star Wars universe. If only because the studio perception of what a Star Wars film "should be" will always include Jedi Knights, an evil empire, a honking big supervillain, a princess, et al.

But all Star Wars has that sets it apart from any other sci-fi franchise is lightsabers and the force. Spacehips and aliens are all interchangable between franchises.

If a movie takes place in the outer-rim and doesn't feature lightsabers and the force, whats to set it apart from any other sci-fi world?

Quote:

Originally Posted by avian 

I highly doubt we're ever going to get a SW movie where no one draws a lightsaber even once.

That pretty much sums up the problem.  There seems to be this compulsion to make everything in SW revolve around the Skywalker clan - and seriously, at this point, is there any story left to tell?  Who gives a shit if Luke grows up to be Obi Wan?  His story had closure and it can kind of be assumed he does a great job assembling a group of young Jedi and starting a new council.

But the new movies, mark my word, will be Harry Potter / Twilight in space, with Hamill in the Richard Harris role.  Hamill is cheap, he's a good actor, and now that the wrinkles have covered up the scars, he looks particularly distinguished.

I can't begin to get excited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stale Elvis 

 

 

But all Star Wars has that sets it apart from any other sci-fi franchise is lightsabers and the force. Spacehips and aliens are all interchangable between franchises.

 

If a movie takes place in the outer-rim and doesn't feature lightsabers and the force, whats to set it apart from any other sci-fi world?

You might not really "get" what makes SW special.  

Not sure if this has been posted - but during this 1983 interview with Mahrirhah Shrieahverah, about three minutes in Hamill talks about coming back to Episode 7 in 2004.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WendellEverett 

That pretty much sums up the problem.  There seems to be this compulsion to make everything in SW revolve around the Skywalker clan - and seriously, at this point, is there any story left to tell?  Who gives a shit if Luke grows up to be Obi Wan?  His story had closure and it can kind of be assumed he does a great job assembling a group of young Jedi and starting a new council.

 

But the new movies, mark my word, will be Harry Potter / Twilight in space, with Hamill in the Richard Harris role.  Hamill is cheap, he's a good actor, and now that the wrinkles have covered up the scars, he looks particularly distinguished.

 

I can't begin to get excited.

Gotta agree with this.

So far the Skywalker clan and lightsabers is the "brand".  Branding is everything in Hollywood.  It's the magic formula for printing cash.  That is what has put butts in seats since 1977 in terms of Star Wars.  A Star Wars movie without lightsabers is like Bond without a car chase.  

Michael Eisner in his Disney days said it best when Harvey Weinstein for the first time made a horror movie using the Miramax label (Scary Movie 4)...instead of the genre arm of the company, Dimension... and had beaten a Disney release at the opening weekend box office.  Eisner told Weinstein to be careful not to fuck with the "brand"...the brand at that point for Miramax being serious dramas, crime films, etc...but not genre fare like horror. “If you’re not careful with your brand, you lose the audience.” 

Disney isn't stupid.  Ep. 7-9 will feature all the familiar Star Wars tropes...finish out the Skywalker story. lightsabers and jedi aplenty.  It remains to be seen what happens after that...if they're brave enough to venture out into other aspects of the universe.  

I don't see what the big deal with a Star Wars movie having lightsabers is.  Of course they'll be there.  Doing one without them is like doing a western without horses, or as you say, Bond without the car.  It's iconography, and part of what makes the thing that thing.  But I don't think the Skywalker clan is as integral to "the brand".  Maybe it's just because the prequels fucked up that aspect so bad, but it really didn't feel like they were part of one sprawling, continuous family saga; they end with the generations not even aware the other exists, for Christ's sake.

To put it another way, yes, all the Star Wars movies have heavily featured Skywalkers.  But that wasn't the draw of the prequels.  People didn't want to see how Anakin Skywalker became Luke and Leia's father.  They wanted to see how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Fucking Vader.  And also lightsaber fights.

I guess what I mean is, is your average Star Wars movie fan who is used to seeing the Skywalker clan be the centerpiece of the films, going to accept anything else?  How well does the EU sell compared to the films?  Meaning, are there enough EU fans, who have accepted that Star Wars is one big universe independent of Skywalkers, to make Disney comfortable with playing outside that sandbox.  Admittedly I don't follow EU much...I remember Force Unleashed game trailer...it had a Vader looking bad guy and a saber wielding hero...not Skywalkers, but I guess with enough iconography to make fans comfortable.  Maybe Disney will  go that route.  Ditch the Skywalkers, but keep the sabers and bulky, dark, mechanical armor bad guys.

I made this point before, but I just don't think Disney shelled out $4 billion because they were convinced that audiences were desperate to see what Luke, Han and Leia are up to at 60.  The appeal is more basic than that.  The EU stuff (which let's hope they don't lean too heavily on) may never have reached the levels of popularity of the movies, but it's been more than proven to have legs, moving a steady stream of product for 30 years.  The only way this deal makes a lick of sense to me is if they believe they can extend that popularity by applying actual talent and budgets to expanding the world.  The Skywalker are iconic in their own right, but $4 billion is a lot of blood to be looking to pull from one (past-its-prime) stone.

Sorry to be this guy, but... 

LAWL, 16 pages. 

I wonder if Disney will include more...Female Jedi?  Maybe Leia and Han have a Daughter that becomes a...Jedi in Ep 7-9!  I cannot wait to see who will direct these films, and if Disney is able to make it's ambitious schedule of one every 2 years.  Lucas worked on a...3 year plan for each film.

I still think we're likely to see them test the water with at least one Han Solo/Boba Fett/Lando Calrissian movie once the sequel trilogy is done. I think there is enough interest in the corners of that universe to give it a go. I think there is enough interest in him as a character to bring the audience in, if it's done well.

They may work Vader into it at the same time, if they really are determined to bring him back. That would fulfill their Skywalker/lightsaber quota. At the same time, if they do a series of Han Solo films, I could see them breaking away from using the Force to heavily, since he flat-out didn't believe in it pre-Star Wars and seeing it used a lot might disprove that.

Thinking about it, I would watch the shit out of an Idris Elba Lando Calrissian movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workyticket 

Thinking about it, I would watch the shit out of an Idris Elba Lando Calrissian movie.

Holy shit. This is one of the best Star Wars ideas ever.

Elba is the new Nathan Fillion when it comes to getting fan-casted in every possible project, regardless of whether it suits him or not. "There's a black guy in this movie? Get Idris Elba!!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

Elba is the new Nathan Fillion when it comes to getting fan-casted in every possible project, regardless of whether it suits him or not. "There's a black guy in this movie? Get Idris Elba!!"

Actually, it’s “Get Idris ‘motherfuckin’ Elba!” I mean, his next movie involves him fighting giant aliens in a giant robot... and the movie is going to have to work hard to persuade me that he even needs that robot because he’s Idris ‘motherfuckin’ Elba.

Hell, they could just call the next Star Wars movie “Death Star” and Idris ‘motherfuckin’ Elba could play the title character.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

Elba is the new Nathan Fillion when it comes to getting fan-casted in every possible project, regardless of whether it suits him or not. "There's a black guy in this movie? Get Idris Elba!!"

The role would suit him. I don't fancast lightly.

Actually, I think Fassbender would make a great Lando.

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

The article doesn't say "Star Wars films" but simply "films" which could mean anything from Willow 2 to THX22 to Red Tails 2000 to new original films.

Actually, that is a fantastic catch.  The original announcement already said, A new Star Wars movie every two years. Being ignored in all this Star Wars talk is the very real possibility of Indiana Jones rising from the ashes as well.   Remember that Indiana Jones partly got made because Steven/George wanted to do a James Bond movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz 

I made this point before, but I just don't think Disney shelled out $4 billion because they were convinced that audiences were desperate to see what Luke, Han and Leia are up to at 60.  The appeal is more basic than that.  The EU stuff (which let's hope they don't lean too heavily on) may never have reached the levels of popularity of the movies, but it's been more than proven to have legs, moving a steady stream of product for 30 years.  The only way this deal makes a lick of sense to me is if they believe they can extend that popularity by applying actual talent and budgets to expanding the world.  The Skywalker are iconic in their own right, but $4 billion is a lot of blood to be looking to pull from one (past-its-prime) stone.

I agree that it is unlikely that you will get a Star Wars movie anytime soon without a lightsabre and/or Jedi. However,  About the only thing that Lucas completely nailed in the prequels were the one-on-one (or one-on-two) Jedi battles.  While I don't think they are so strongly tied to the Skywalkers, there's really only two ways that they will go with VII - IX. Option 1: Set a few years after RotJ with re-casting Han, Luke, Leia, or Option 2: Set 25 years after RotJ with Luke/Leia in minor roles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duke fleed 

I wonder if Disney will include more...Female Jedi?  Maybe Leia and Han have a Daughter that becomes a...Jedi in Ep 7-9!  I cannot wait to see who will direct these films, and if Disney is able to make it's ambitious schedule of one every 2 years.  Lucas worked on a...3 year plan for each film.

The 3-year plan was partly because it was all under one man. (Though admittedly Peter Jackson did a trilogy in 3 years, so it can be done.) I think a more realistic take on this will be that you might get Micheal Arndt writing all three, but three different directors. As others have said, I am not sure that a "visionary" director is what is needed here, which is good because its unlikely one gets the gig.

Yeah, I think you'll see more female characters. Disney is a four-quadrant business if there ever was one. Movies will need to appeal to girls as well. This is a good thing. Watching Star Wars:A New Hope, makes me realize why everyone was so gaga for Princess Leia, she was practically the only woman in the galaxy. Yeah, there were one or two others (Aunt Beru, Lady Exposition describing how to defeat the Death Star) but overall you can't help thinking Luke must have been a little PO'd when he found out the only eligible bachelorette in the galaxy was his sister!  Even though the prequels had slightly more female characters, there was really only ONE major one.  I would expect at least TWO major female characters in a new movie, and I would actually expect at least one in a villian role as well. (Disney likes it's female villians!)

God, I know there's a lot to be pessimistic about, but I can think of so many exciting ideas for these movies, I can't imagine what someone creative could do with it.

By the way, Empire.com have set up an Episode VII: Rumour Control page which they plan to update in lieu of clogging their news with speculation: http://www.empireonline.com/features/star-wars-director-rumour-control

Makes interesting reading. I wasn't aware that Abrams seems to have counted himself out of the running, and they consider Del Toro a contender. Doubt that would ever happen, but it'd be interesting (Especially once we see how Pacific Rim turns out). 

Quote:

Originally Posted by skierpete 

 

However,  About the only thing that Lucas completely nailed in the prequels were the one-on-one (or one-on-two) Jedi battles.

Gotta disagree with you on this point mate - although Nick Gillard nailed the choreography, Lucas dropped the ball on the emotional impact of the lightsaber battles.

In the OT, the lightsaber battles were peppered with relevant dialogue and emotional stakes - in the PT, apart from the death of Qui-Gon there were no emotional stakes or dialogue worth mentioning.

Lightsaber battles were just forced in the PT for the sake of that's what's expected in a Star Wars film. Hell, even the Yoda/Dooku standoff started with a force-off that degenerates into:

Dooku: "Yoda, lightsabers?"

Yoda: "15 minutes to go? Yup."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workyticket 

 

The role would suit him. I don't fancast lightly.

Would it, though? Elba's a burly guy and best at playing brooding introverts - more De Niro than Flynn. It doesn't strike me as a particularly natural fit.

I see Chiwetel Ejiofor as a more natural Lando. He's smooth as Colt 45 with a hint of menace and physicality. He's slick too so you believe he could have won Cloud City in a game of Sabacc.

The last thing we need from Star Wars is more fucking prequels with even less distance from major events and players from the OT.

But if they need a young Lando for some misguided purpose, get the fuck out of here with this Elba and Ejiofor nonsense.  There is one only one option.  The correct option.

Fassbender as Kenny Baker.

I see Tiny Lister as Lando Calrissian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stale Elvis 

 

Gotta disagree with you on this point mate - although Nick Gillard nailed the choreography, Lucas dropped the ball on the emotional impact of the lightsaber battles.

 

In the OT, the lightsaber battles were peppered with relevant dialogue and emotional stakes - in the PT, apart from the death of Qui-Gon there were no emotional stakes or dialogue worth mentioning.

 

Lightsaber battles were just forced in the PT for the sake of that's what's expected in a Star Wars film. Hell, even the Yoda/Dooku standoff started with a force-off that degenerates into:

 

Dooku: "Yoda, lightsabers?"

Yoda: "15 minutes to go? Yup."

OK - I'll rephrase - "Lucas nailed the cheoreography in the lightsaber battles."  I'll admit the emotional stakes weren't there, but this is quite possibly because you know where it's gonna conclude. (TPM battle worked best from an emotional standpoint because they COULD kill Qui-gon. InI AotC you KNOW Anikan, Obi-wan, and Yoda aren't really threatened, and then they let Dooku get away anyways. In RofS, you know exactly where there going with the battle as well.) But in all three movies, I thought the lightsaber battles were the better moments where I actually felt pulled into the movie and impressed by the action.

Let's just say any new movie with no one-on-one lightsaber battle would be a big letdown for most fans. (And can we please get a goddamn "ship jumping to lightspeed" effect!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by skierpete 

(And can we please get a goddamn "ship jumping to lightspeed" effect!)

Or just people in ships in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

 

Would it, though? Elba's a burly guy and best at playing brooding introverts - more De Niro than Flynn. It doesn't strike me as a particularly natural fit.

The guy has a natural charm though, that transcends physical size. I think he could easily pull off the swagger. Stringer in The Wire and Janek in Prometheus are both roles where he's not particularly brooding or trading off his physical side, but basing his performances around an intelligence and charisma that's anything but introverted.  Contained you could argue I guess, but I wouldn't say introverted. 

EDIT: And thinking about it, if we wanted to play the whole 'drawing parallel lines with previous characters' game think on this: Stringer Bell is a charismatic criminal who schools himself in the ways of legitimate business practice, while retaining his less-than-straight attitude. Not a massive leap, is the point I'm making. 

It's completely moot because Donald Glover is alive.

Robert Downey Jr. for Lando. It's the part he was born to play, baby.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandhay 

Robert Downey Jr. for Lando. It's the part he was born to play, baby.

"You truly belong with us lead farmers among the clouds, muthafucka!!"

Okay, I think that'd be racial inappropriateness on enough tiers to break anyone's brain. Let's do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandhay 

Robert Downey Jr. for Lando. It's the part he was born to play, baby.

Edit: Dammit Worky!

Never go full synchro-post!

Quote:

Originally Posted by skierpete 

The article makes a good point though. Marvel is making 2 movies per year for the foreseeable future. Someone want to argue that Marvel's doing that wrong?  

For now.  They really haven't been at it that long, and I would argue that this pace is unsustainable.  People will get burnt out quickly.  House of Marvel is a house of CARDS!

Ha, ha. Maybe not, don't know.  But it doesn't seem like the experiment has run long enough for anyone to brand it the new proven paradigm.  sure, the Avengers did resoundingly well.  But it was a good movie which deserved to do well of it's own accord.  I think Marvel is only a couple box office flops away from the whole thing shrinking back down to a 1 film/ 2-3 years situation.  How many suits need to get nervous before the plug is pulled?