Star Wars Episode 7 - 2015

[FPAlpha]

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

Let me ask something.

While people are eager to see a new directorial vision for Star Wars - as am I, is there anyone else a stickler that the future films continue with the same stylistic consistency of the other films?

All the other films had elements that tied them together:

- all the individual films took place over a short time span, regardless of the amount of time between the films

- no flashbacks or flash-forwards (Lucas sort of bent this rule showing Anakin's dreams in Episode 3, but he didn't break it)

- 40's style wipes to transition to new scenes

- each film would conclude with a scene or montage that had no dialogue whatsoever, and was carried by a musical theme

- music itself was as important to carrying the films even as much as sound and dialogue. Even scenes where no music was used was a musical decision.

And there are others as well.

As much as I want to see a new director bring some kind of a new vision - preferably a bit grittier - to the franchise, I would be leery of anyone straying away from the staples above that in all the past films. I say this primarily for the continuation films (episodes 7-9) but wouldn't mind so much of a change in format for films that would be made after, so loing as they aren't numbered episodes.

I couldn't care less about Star Wars traditions and what made those movies so good if the new movies are good (for whatever reason).

Compare it to the Bond movies.. i absolutely loathe the Brosnan Bonds (though i like him in the role) on the same level as the Prequels. They were typical modern age Bond movies with gadgets, larger than life villains, stupid plots etc but we got the Craig Bonds.. a reboot of the entire franchise that only kept a few cornerstones to be able to call him Bond and make him recognizable and i rate Casino Royale as one of the best Bonds.. maybe the best Bond movie (will see Skyfall pretty soon).

I don't care about the word crawl in the beginning, time frames of the movies or something else as long as they tell an engaging story with good actors that plays out well. I don't want flash anymore.. i want substance.

I want the magic back that made the originals iconic movies.. their stories were not anything groundbreaking or clever, the actors were not Oscar material (nor did they get oscar worthy scripts to work with) but the whole sum of all the parts together made them an awesome ride.. something the people will enjoy decades or maybe even centuries from now.

The Prequels were more concerned with huge, cgi-ed action scenes but forgot to have a soul.. if the new team can inject some soul into the new movies i will be one happy fan.

[DarthTom]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

if the new team can inject some soul into the new movies i will be one happy fan.

Plus you'll have the added bonus no doubt of feeling the whole experience in an ongoing basis at Paris Disneyland.

[KalEl]

Zombie Seeker wrote:

---

Yes, because seeing an older couple together on screen is so disgusting.

I said nothing of an old couple, but Carrie Fisher is disgusting. Han Solo is the type of character that I just don't imagine as old. I imagine him dying a hero in the aftermath of ROTJ. A statue of Han would be great a holorecording of him would be even better, but I just don't envision him living on. Lea, I could see as a diplomat, a leader, or former chancellor, but man, she is not looking good. Luke being older is fine and can work because of the Obiwan/ Yoda connection, plus Count Duku/ Lord Sidous being older.

Here's another question: what kind of fighting and action are we going to see, the new style or the old slower style? Also, the ship designs; will they be closer to Padme's style or old style. All of this has to be addressed as to how the fall of the Empire has effected things. Think about the late 70s-mid 80s with the USSR on the brink of collapse 30-40 nyears after WW2. How did the fall of Germany effect the word? How did the collapse of the USSR effect the world? How has terrorism effected the world? These themes can play out in the Star Wars universe and if done right, can be really good.

[Deckerd]

So you equate a woman with "not looking good" (presumably as young and fit) with "disgusting"? Did I pick that up correctly? Men into middle age are "fine" but women are disgusting.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Frau Blucher wrote:

---

Men into middle age are "fine" ...

Well, I wouldn't go that far. Some of 'em.

[Flake]

I am not sure what to think about this announcement yet... because we do not know wtf the new trilogy will be about.

Personally I want to see Han Solo, Chewie, Luke & Leia and everything that made the OT great except for Vader/Emperor/Empire of course.

Now the options here are recast those characters or Avatar style CGI where they recreate those characters in 3D with mo-cap technology. I remember reading somewhere that their heads where scanned in the early 90s? Don't ask me where I saw that... its probably not true anyway !

Fingers crossed they are good this time !

[Temis the Vorta]

Frau Blucher wrote:

---

So you equate a woman with "not looking good" (presumably as young and fit) with "disgusting"? Did I pick that up correctly? Men into middle age are "fine" but women are disgusting.

Sure, that attitude is contemptible, but it also applies to men when it comes to the type of films that Disney is going to want to make. Can anyone honestly envision Disney opting to launch big budget movies in a huge franchise, and not making sure the leads are young and pretty?

Fischer, Ford, and Hammil might get cameos or a small role like Nimoy did in Abrams' Star Trek, but there is too much money at stake not to recast with young, pretty actors who will put butts in seats.

(The alternative is young, pretty actors playing all new characters, but that's a bigger risk and corporations usually can be counted on to take the least risky path.)

Disney can't possibly have failed to notice Paramount's recent success with another degraded space opera franchise badly in need of a smart revival, tossing out what doesn't work and keeping the core of what does.

The most obvious route to $$$ is what Abrams did: recast the big, famous roles with young actors, and be damn careful about it because you're dealing with icons. Establish the new actors in the roles and then use it as a path to making money indefinitely.

Abrams may stop Star Trek after three movies (that's ok, it really belongs on TV anyway) but Disney could keep making movies indefinitely. They use the recast OT characters in three movies to re-establish the movie franchise and then move on to other characters, who have been introduced in the previous movies to establish continuity.

[Skywalker]

Star Trek needed the recast and reboot more than Star Wars does, though. People will go and see a new Star Wars movie--which are always events--no matter what. Otherwise Episode III would not have made as much money as it did on the heels of Episodes I and II.

Recasting the Big Three is not as likely as moving the story forward and focusing it on the next generation is.

[Temis the Vorta]

Here's some new fodder for discussion: is Hollywood overdoing the fantasy-action franchise thing?

Someone could start by addressing a question that was posed yesterday to Disney CEO Bob Iger, but that he mostly sidestepped: To paraphrase, he was asked whether there’s a risk that Hollywood may run into trouble by feeding audiences too many superhero/sci-fi/fantasy films. Susquehanna Financial Group’s Vasily Karasyov made a case last year that as theaters become inundated with these computer-animated extravaganzas — especially featuring comic book superheroes — “risk of underperformance increases and upside surprises become progressively less likely.”

My gut reaction: if anything loses out, it will be lower-tier superhero movies. Star Wars has its own unique quality and there will be demand for it regardless. Guardians of the Galaxy, not so much.

[KalEl]

Frau Blucher wrote:

---

So you equate a woman with "not looking good" (presumably as young and fit) with "disgusting"? Did I pick that up correctly? Men into middle age are "fine" but women are disgusting.

No, I equate fat, old, wrinkly and ugly as disgusting. Harrison Ford still looks ok as an action star, even though he's old. Carrie Fisher does not. Mark Hammil as Luke Skywalker, the only Jedi left after ROTJ and I'd imagine, the HJIC, would almost have to be in Episode 7. I don't want to see old fat guys whipping around the Galaxy. I think Hammil could pull of the "wise old man" look and would be necessary to pass the torch. If Han Solo has an old War General look like Harrison Ford did in Cowboys and Aliens, I think that he could pull that off, but really, I don't think Carrie Fisher is atractive to me, so if you do, that's fine. The reality is, they are going to hire a bunch of young actors, with hopefully Mark Hammil and maybe Harrison Ford. I doubt Billy Dee Williams and the rest of the older gang will be there.

Temis the Friendly Ghost wrote:

---

Sure, that attitude is contemptible, but it also applies to men when it comes to the type of films that Disney is going to want to make. Can anyone honestly envision Disney opting to launch big budget movies in a huge franchise, and not making sure the leads are young and pretty?

Fischer, Ford, and Hammil might get cameos or a small role like Nimoy did in Abrams' Star Trek, but there is too much money at stake not to recast with young, pretty actors who will put butts in seats.

(The alternative is young, pretty actors playing all new characters, but that's a bigger risk and corporations usually can be counted on to take the least risky path.)

Disney can't possibly have failed to notice Paramount's recent success with another degraded space opera franchise badly in need of a smart revival, tossing out what doesn't work and keeping the core of what does.

The most obvious route to $$$ is what Abrams did: recast the big, famous roles with young actors, and be damn careful about it because you're dealing with icons. Establish the new actors in the roles and then use it as a path to making money indefinitely.

Abrams may stop Star Trek after three movies (that's ok, it really belongs on TV anyway) but Disney could keep making movies indefinitely. They use the recast OT characters in three movies to re-establish the movie franchise and then move on to other characters, who have been introduced in the previous movies to establish continuity.

I doubt they will reboot Star Wars, but they will have a young cast and you're right, men want to see a young pretty girl, not a fat old lady. If there is one original cast member other than Anthony Daniels, it will be Mark Hammil. The rest will be younger. There are plenty of older actresses who I do find atractive, Carrie Fisher is not one of them.

[Temis the Vorta]

Jar Jar Binks wrote:

---

Star Trek needed the recast and reboot more than Star Wars would, though. People will go and see a new Star Wars movie--which are always events--no matter what.

I've been mulling that very question, but I think Star Wars is more dependent on its big name characters than Star Trek, which has diversified beyond merely Kirk & Spock over the years. The average person could probably name some other characters like Picard, Data and Worf, but ask then for Star Wars characters beyond the ones in the movies, and you'll get a blank stare.

Remember, both franchises are in the same boat, they must appeal to a large, global, casual audience who has never read a tie in novel and has no idea about anything that hasn't been produced for movies or TV.

Envision two marketing campaigns. One says "Star Wars" and has a bunch of people nobody recognizes. The other says "Star Wars" and has a young blond guy with a lightsaber, a young brunette woman with cinnabuns and a guy wearing a gunslinger looking outfit. Which does a better job of grabbing the attention of the causal passerby?

And keep in mind the article I posted a bit above this one - Star Wars is not a slam dunk. It will have a lot of competition, some of it from Disney. The appetite for action-fantasy movies is large but not infinite.

[Skywalker]

Temis the Friendly Ghost wrote:

---

Remember, both franchises are in the same boat, they must appeal to a large, global, casual audience who has never read a tie in novel and has no idea about anything that hasn't been produced for movies or TV.

Star Wars really isn't in the same boat as Star Trek. Start up the John Williams theme, show some Jedi kicking ass with lightsabers, a few shots of an epic space battle here and there, and most people will be sold on that alone. The casual, global audience doesn't really view the PT with the same disdain as do angry fanboys. There hasn't already been five TV shows and ten movies to drive the franchise into the ground. People's awareness of and desire for more Star Wars hasn't waned. The reaction to this news makes that clear.

[KalEl]

Jar Jar Binks wrote:

---

Star Wars really isn't in the same boat as Star Trek. Start up the John Williams theme, show some Jedi kicking ass with lightsabers, a few shots of an epic space battle here and there, and most people will be sold on that alone. The casual, global audience doesn't really view the PT with the same disdain as do angry fanboys. There hasn't already been five TV shows and ten movies to drive the franchise into the ground. People's awareness of and desire for more Star Wars hasn't waned. The reaction to this news makes that clear.

Star Wars was in the same with Star trek maybe around the late 80s-mid 90s. Star Wars is so huge now, it's an unstoppable machine. Most of the people I know who are just casual fans, love the PT. You figure, the kids who watched the PT are now in their twenties, they love the trilogies and they will be happy to see more. Star Trek is on life support and the 09 film is a distant memory for most. If this next movie sucks, Star Trek will be shelved indefinitely. If Episode 7 sucks, people will just wait for Episode 8. People love light sabers and Jedi mind tricks a laser battles, they don't care so much for pointy eared guys dishing out philosophy and utopian societies that seek out new civilizations. That may be sad, but it's true.

[Holdfast]

Temis: as long as there are lightsabers, Jedi fighting with them, and the accepted sound effects/music, the global casual audience will totally get that this new movie is Star Wars. Those aspects are much more recognisable & important than Luke, Leia or Han. Hell, I'd suggest that even R2D2/C3PO are more strongly visually linked to SW than the three human heroes. Of course, suited Vader & Yoda are the characters most strongly associated with SW. I have no doubt they'll find a way to get Yoda in the EpVII (Force Ghost), and probably Vader-in-suit too (flashback sequence).

[Saul]

How about bringing back Mace Windu for episode 7?

Oh and.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=xUbH1SEsqiE

face palm.