Star Wars Episode 7 - 2015
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
Kotor was tremenderously successfull without them.
But that wasn't one of the films. I don't think this sequel trilogy is going to not have Skywalkers in important roles.
I think it's possible once we get the post-sequel trilogy string of movies Disney plans to make, those will probably branch off from that 'main story.'
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
Look SW is a big brand, put Jedi into it and it will sell even without the Skywalkers.
Trek did the same with TNG and it worked.
So? Swtor had a 500 mil budget, if EA can takethat risk i don't know why Disney could not.
Trek did the same with TNG and it worked.
So? Swtor had a 500 mil budget, if EA can takethat risk i don't know why Disney could not.
I guess they could, but it's a moot point considering that they're doing Episode VII instead.
Most of it was actually for advertising. The actual production and design budget for Tortanic was quite low, which was why it bombed so badly and quickly reverted to f2p.
Can do that, do not think they're doing that, basically.
Well given that Carrie Fisher has kinda sorta confirmed that she will be in the next movie I'm close to saying I know they're doing that.
It's less about what could also work (because yes, the KOTOR games are good) and more about what they are actually doing.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
So at least we agree that it would be comercially viable.
I hate to say it, but this movie is going to have Disney playing it safe with what they know are successful ingredients and are not going to take risks. Therefore, the main character is going to be someone named Skywalker. In the unlikely even that it isn't, then the main character will at least be Luke's apprentice.
Yes, throughout the various novels, comic books and video games Star Wars has succesfully gone into any era with characters who aren't related to anyone seen in the movies. But Disney wants brand recognition, and face facts, more people know who Han Solo is than Grand Admiral Thrawn.
Yes, throughout the various novels, comic books and video games Star Wars has succesfully gone into any era with characters who aren't related to anyone seen in the movies. But Disney wants brand recognition, and face facts, more people know who Han Solo is than Grand Admiral Thrawn.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
They should do an animated Thrawn Trilogy.
Oh he is. A cultured man whose ridiculous scheme to manipulate the stupid works perfectly. What a guy.
What you're saying here doesn't make any sense to me. If you're not interested in movies that "play it safe" and that "don't take risks", why are you even talking about Star Wars VII in the first place? Why would you even think about anything that is part of an ongoing franchise?
Writing a Star Wars story with Admiral Thrawn or with a main character not named Skywalker is not taking risks, it's just putting lipstick on a pig. If you want to encourage filmmakers who take risks, there are plenty out there who need your support.
As for the whole no Skywalker/Skywalker debate, I think it's worth pointing out that most of the comics and novels that don't feature Skywalkers have mostly been smaller side stories (KOTOR is one of the few exceptions), while the big stories that get most of the hype and attention are ones focused on the Skywalkers and Solos. So while SW is not exclusively about them, they are the main focus, and I don't see any of the movies going to far off of that focus. I could see them maybe doing some spin-off movies focused on supporting characters from the new movies, but they will still probably have some kind of a connection to the Skywalker clan.
People seem to be ignoring the "hints" that these new movies will be based on Lucas' outlines, which leans prettily heavy in favor of continuing the storyline 30 years after Jedi. The news releases implied that there are room for stories after Episode IX, and those are the ones that will move beyond the Skywalker family.
Drago-Kazov
Fleet Captain
What do you mean by hype?
Books, games and comics sales?
Pretty much this. Not having your young jedi hero be related to the Skywalkers does not constitute risk-taking. Cloud Atlas (which I haven't seen) would be a recent example of a genre film that took actual risks, regardless of whether or not it's any good.
I don't see why this is such a big deal either way.
Disney has taken another safe bet in acquiring a franchise with proven film potential, as Marvel's stable of superheroes have been churning out blockbusters for the past decade. Simply making Marvel movies by itself was playing it safe creatively, and Star Wars is another kind of sure-thing property for them.
This is incorrect. The recent Marvel approach to super-heroes has achieved a level of success that supers movies had not seen before. For every success (Batman 89, Donner's Superman, Raimi's Spider-Man, and Singer's X-Men), there were several big budget flops (Fantastic Four --critical flop at least-- Daredevil, Electra, Superman Returns (critical flop), Green Lantern, Lee's Hulk, etc.
Marvel seems to have found a hero formula, but DC is still looking for one.
Not to mention every character in TOR looks like it was modelled by a member of Disney's animation team... (not that STO was any better on that front)
Such a waste; I loved the concept art and the CGI trailers.
No it's not. Superheroes are an incredibly safe bet and there's nothing at all risky about the Marvel films. Marvel has been doing better than its competitors, but it's doing better at something that had already been proven to be the material for multiple box office hits.
Yeah, some superhero films have bombed and bombed hard. There were also Westerns that flopped back when that was safe.
That is a very recent phenomenon. For years, super-hero movies could not get made because they were such a risk. Marvel as very recently (since Iron Man) found a winning formula that has yet to be replicated by DC.
If Disney messes up with Star Wars VII, the brand is in trouble. They may have a name but they need to knock it out of the park.
It is like Apple products. They have been doing extremely well for about ten years now--but if they mess up a couple of more times then they will be on the bottom again fairly quickly.
Similar threads
