Star Wars Episode 7 - 2015

[ManOnTheWave]

Avengers strategy for Star Wars?

Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that one possibility being considered is an Avengers-style movie universe with not only Lucas' planned final trio of films but offshoot movies focusing on individual characters.*

So, use the OT characters in the first three movies to draw the audience back in and re-establish the movie franchise. Any number if new characters could be introduced during the trilogy, and if they're popular enough, they get individual movies as well.

I could see Hamill coming back as a framing device - old Luke reminscing - then the action procedes to the younger Luke. However, this puts even more pressure on the recast Luke to look a whole lot like Hammil and it also gives away the game that he survives to the end of the new trilogy.

Wasn't there a rumor that Lucas wanted to make an early life of Yoda movie right after ROTS? He may be thinking along those lines.

 

[sojourner]

^Doesn't fit with "Episode 7".

 

[davejames]

I do like the idea of spinoff movies with new characters. That will go a long way towards the bigger universe of the original movie instead of everything being centered on the Skywalkers.

Yeah, I definitely like the idea of expanding the universe beyond just the Skywalkers (although really, it wasn't until the prequels that it started feeling that confined in the first place).

And I'd probably refrain from centering it on the Jedis as well. I think we've seen MORE than enough of them for awhile.

 

[DigificWriter]

The amount of confusion that seems to exist with regards to what this new Sequel Trilogy will constitute is starting to border on the absurd. It is particularly bad over at the forums for TheForce.Net.

I urge anyone who hasn't yet to go watch the 'The Future of Star Wars' video that can be found by going to the official Star Wars website because it provides a lot of insight into not only the decision to sell Lucasfilm to Disney, but also the decision to bring Kathleen Kennedy over to Lucasfilm and the decision to go forward with this new Sequel Trilogy and other future SW filmic properties.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I urge anyone who hasn't yet to go watch the 'The Future of Star Wars' video that can be found by going to the official Star Wars website because it provides a lot of insight into not only the decision to sell Lucasfilm to Disney, but also the decision to bring Kathleen Kennedy over to Lucasfilm and the decision to go forward with this new Sequel Trilogy and other future SW filmic properties.

Cool vid, thanks!

The amount of confusion that seems to exist with regards to what this new Sequel Trilogy will constitute is starting to border on the absurd. It is particularly bad over at the forums for TheForce.Net.

I don't ever remember a time when discussion at TFN were anything but "absurd" - it's a veritable hive of scum and villainy.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I've already explained where I got my "crazy idea" but I'll go over it again in summary:

1. Disney just paid 4 billions dollars for the rights to a brand called Star Wars.

2. Ask the common person on the street to name something they associate with Star Wars. You'll get Death Star, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, maybe a few other names. So that's actually what the brand Star Wars means to the potential audience, eg, the people willing to plunk down $12 to see new movies. That short list of names is actually what Disney paid $4 billion for. If I spent $4 billion on something, I sure would want to make full use of it!

3. Disney is a profit-driven corporation that makes rational business decisions of how best to leverage their intellectual property. That means they will do the most obvious thing, namely drag in all the sub-brands of Star Wars that they can conceivably rationalize. Luke is definitely in. I wouldn't put it past them to try to figure out how to revive ole Darth too. Maybe for Episode 9?

4. Mark Hamill might have a cameo but big budget movies are made for a youth-skewing audience. Hamill is too old and wrinkly to appeal to this audience as the main draw. So the main draw will be someone young and handsome. The audience is going to want to see Luke as a Jedi in his prime, swinging a lightsaber. not an old wrinkly guy huddled in a robe.

5. QED, they will recast their main draw (Luke Skywaker) with someone young and attractive, who fits various brand qualities such as being a white male etc. This is the most likely path to making huge piles of money for Disney shareholders, which is the reason Disney exists in the first place.

Oh yeah and

6. Sure, Disney can also invent original characters for the Star Wars universe, but the sensible approach is to weave them into stories with the OT characters, and then launch further movies with the new characters after the OT characters have been used to draw in the audience. There's plenty of time for all that, but now is the time to leverage the known elements of the brand, and then start expanding.

This wouldn't be a reboot but a continuation. The in-universe characters would "ignore" the idea that Luke et al look "different."

Eonline seems to agree with me, they're already doing fantasy re-casting. Anton Yelchin? Liam Helmworth is too muscular but the others, hmm. Michael Pitt has the right looks and can act. Josh Hutcherson has got the sweet-kid aspect. Terrible photo of Garrett Hedlund, but he seems to look the most like Marl Hamill.

 

[Booji]

Problem is, the story is not supposed to be about a young Luke. There will be a 20-30 year time skip and Luke will be old. Hence, no recasting.

 

[MacLeod]

Me, I'm calling BS on this. Even if they started filming right this minute, there's no way they could get a film ready for release by 2015. Blockbusters, SW films especially, take years to make.

The modern moviemaking process disagrees. They could start filming by mid-2013 at the earliest and easily have the movie done in time.

Agreed.

Say 6 months pre-production work, another 3-4 months filming and a years post production and they can make a Christmas 2015 release. After all they could in theory relase it on 31-12-15 and it would still technically be a 2015 release.

 

[Kegg]

2. Ask the common person on the street to name something they associate with Star Wars. You'll get Death Star, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, maybe a few other names. So that's actually what the brand Star Wars means to the potential audience, eg, the people willing to plunk down $12 to see new movies.

Therefore, this is exactly why Disney is remaking the original trilogy instead of pursuing a sequel trilogy.

You see that's probably one of the biggest problems with this logic right there, Temis, when its conclusion is directly opposite to what little we know about these films. All we know right now is it's Episodes 7, 8 and 9 - a sequel trilogy.

A sequel trilogy where the principal parts are recast versions of the original characters to skew younger and then provide arbitrary retcons to bring dead ones back too (like Vader) is just a deeply confused remake.

So you're working on a footing that does not make sense for this movie.

And then:

4. Mark Hamill might have a cameo but big budget movies are made for a youth-skewing audience. Hamill is too old and wrinkly to appeal to this audience as the main draw.

Not sure how many times I or anyone else has to say this. Nobody is suggesting that Mark Hamill will be the main draw. At least nobody I've seen.

I've repatedly suggested that his role is most likely analogus to Obi-Wan in the original trilogy or if one prefers, Leonard Nimoy in Abrams' Star Trek film. He's a mentor character who's there to pass the torch to the hot young telegenic things who will be the primary focus of these movies.

Now someday maybe Star Wars really will go back to basics and give us a retelling of the days when Luke met Obi-Wan, they met Han, visited a space station, picked up a girl, and then blew up the same (station, not girl) later that week. But that's, clearly, not this movie.

Eonline seems to agree with me, they're already doing fantasy re-casting.

'Seems' is probably the operable word.

Before we get started, it's entirely possible that the original Luke, Mark Hamill, could return for the next installment, especially if the filmmakers envision an Episode VII that takes place a few decades after the group's last victory. [...] "I don't think fans would relish seeing other people stepping into those roles." But that's exactly what might happen, especially if the filmmakers want to pick up the story immediately, or soon after, it leaves off.

They look like they're avoiding putting their money either way to me.

 

[sojourner]

I've already explained where I got my "crazy idea" but I'll go over it again in summary:<snip>

The thing you keep missing is that when people think of Luke they immediately picture Mark Hamill. Recasting is a bigger risk than aging the character to match the actor when doing a continuing story. It can work well for a reboot, but that's not happening here.

And Eonline agrees if you actually read the article all the way through.

 

[Photoman15]

There is NO WAY that Disney is remaking the OT. Not happening. First, it would be called Episode IV, not VII. Second, I'll bet it's in the contract that something like this cannot happen in Lucas' lifetime.

 

[Peacemaker]

I would like to thank Temmis for the string of nonsequiturs. These speak for themselves. The premises are assertions without real argument, the conclusions do not flow from the premises, and at least one turns on a straw man with respect to what's been in particularly argued here. When you can string together a less question begging set of premises and show your conclusions logically follow, get back to us.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

2. Ask the common person on the street to name something they associate with Star Wars. You'll get Death Star, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, maybe a few other names. So that's actually what the brand Star Wars means to the potential audience,

That all depends on who you ask. If you asked my 12 year old that question he'd answer "Anikan Skywalker, Obi-Wan, R2-D2 and Padme"

 

[Guy Gardener]

Did the Mormons get a kick back from this, after all they were the original money behind Star Wars?

What about Sir Alec Guiness' %1 (of everything) in perpetuity?

 

[Turtletrekker]

2. Ask the common person on the street to name something they associate with Star Wars. You'll get Death Star, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, maybe a few other names. So that's actually what the brand Star Wars means to the potential audience,

That all depends on who you ask. If you asked my 12 year old that question he'd answer "Anikan Skywalker, Obi-Wan, R2-D2 and Padme"

Bingo. This is exactly what I said in a rant on Facebook. Please, indulge me...

Well, the announcement that George Lucas has sold LucasFilm Ltd. and all of its properties to Disney was a bit of a shock, as was the rapid announcement of Episodes 7,8,9 and beyond. I have to admit having a whole range of mixed reactions. From the intial shock, to horror, grief, then leveling out into acceptance... and the realization that this is NOT a bad thing. Disney buying out Pixar or Marvel Studios has not affect any of their productions, and I doubt that it will affect any of Lucasfilms. And let's be honest, Disney couldn't possibly "Disney-fy" Star Wars any more than Lucas himself has.

With Lucas' announcement of his intention to retire and let the franchise continue without him, he has acknowledged that Star Wars is bigger then he himself. Isn't that what we, the fans, have hoped for? Couldn't the prequels have only been better if Lucas had been less hands-on and allowed others to carry the burdens of scrip- witing and directing? He has admitted in hindsight that Episodes 1 and 2 should have been one movie, with Episode 2 being Clone Wars focused. Imagine if he had actually listened to others who said the same at the time?

With Lucas' admission that Star Wars is bigger than he himself, now perhaps it's time that we, the fans need to do the same.

When we were kids, the original Star Wars movies were magic to us. It took us to places never imagined or dreamed and they continue to do so to this very day. When Lucas would dare to tinker with our memories, we would cry "blasphemy!" and defile his name ("George Lucas raped my childhood") all the while never bothering to thank him for giving us the magic in the first place. The truth is, we will always have those movies (Well, maybe not the original theatrical cuts, but that's another rant entirely). That will always be OUR magic.

As horrifying as it might be for some of us older folk to acknowledge, the truth of the matter is that to the kids who grew up on those prequels, THAT is what "Star Wars" is to them. THAT is THEIR magic. The OT are just some old movies that their parents keep talking about, but aren't nearly as fun to watch. I wonder if that what was Lucas was thinking of with his decision to give us "Special Editions" of the originals. That children yet unborn would look at them and not see magic.

I think about my friends who now have young kids and realize that episodes 7,8, and 9 and the Disney-original features beyond, will be THEIR Star Wars. That will be their magic. Who are we to deny them that? Star Wars is bigger than all of us. It cannot be contained by a single generation. Star Wars binds us. It pentrates us. It holds the galaxy together. And it will continue to do so. As it should be.

Despite the quality of the prequels, I will tell you this-- as I sat in the theater watching all three of them, I was ten years old again, enraptured. That was a good feeling. I look forward to being ten again.

Did Han shoot first? Who cares? Thank you for the magic, George. Enjoy your retirement. Good luck, Kathleen Kennedy. You're going to need it. (-;

To the rest of you.. take care my friends, and may the Force be with you... ALWAYS.

 

[Blue_Trek]

This is how Luke Skywalker should look for Episode 7

http://my.spill.com/photo/mark-hamill-beard-badass?context=user

 

[sojourner]

Lol, loved the comment there, "My god! Mark Hamill is slowly morphing into William H. Macy!"

 

[theenglish]

2. Ask the common person on the street to name something they associate with Star Wars. You'll get Death Star, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, maybe a few other names. So that's actually what the brand Star Wars means to the potential audience,

That all depends on who you ask. If you asked my 12 year old that question he'd answer "Anikan Skywalker, Obi-Wan, R2-D2 and Padme"

This is probably true for anyone twenty and under.

 

[Skywalker]

This is how Luke Skywalker should look for Episode 7

http://my.spill.com/photo/mark-hamill-beard-badass?context=user

Yeah, the beard definitely gives him a more wizened and mentorly look. Hopefully he has one in Episode VII.

2. Ask the common person on the street to name something they associate with Star Wars. You'll get Death Star, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, maybe a few other names. So that's actually what the brand Star Wars means to the potential audience,

That all depends on who you ask. If you asked my 12 year old that question he'd answer "Anikan Skywalker, Obi-Wan, R2-D2 and Padme"

This is probably true for anyone twenty and under.

It's definitely true of my nine year old nephew. The prequels are his Star Wars, not the originals.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

You know, I kinda dig the Luke-as-Obi-Wan angle for a new flick. It's kind of poetic.