Disney acquires Lucasfilm; Episode VII proposed for 2015

I agree to some extend.

I think LOTR showed that big fantasy films can still wow an audience. We'll have to see if The Hobbit Trilogy manages to do the same. But so far audiences ARE turning up. And there is a certain positive vibe going on.

So, it seems possible to wow an audience... but I wonder if SW7 will be able to do that. They can just stick lightsabres and lots of droids alone...

Originally posted by queeq
I agree to some extend.

I think LOTR showed that big fantasy films can still wow an audience. We'll have to see if The Hobbit Trilogy manages to do the same. But so far audiences ARE turning up. And there is a certain positive vibe going on.

So, it seems possible to wow an audience... but I wonder if SW7 will be able to do that. They can just stick lightsabres and lots of droids alone...

So a sexy space adventure breaking tradition and being more about action and b*tchin' visuals bursting on to the scene took everyone by surprise and was a runaway hit. And its those same conditions that don't exist anymore. We're all incredibly accepting of a vast array of genres and styles in film, so, regardless of box office success, the notion that a film will come out and do to the public imagination and pop culture now what Star Wars did back then, is sadly improbable. Thanks to the internet and nerd-acceptance, we're drowning in material from every walk of imagination and fantasy. The genre itself took us by storm, but the individual components (like the movies) are not as impactful alone as they are when taken as the parts of a sum total of sci-fi/fantasy/superhero/nerdy culture.

But as that Cracked article predicts, that trend in film is coming to a gradual end. Because it is the norm. So if Disney's new Star Wars films continue the current conventional manner of sci-fi/fantasy/superhero/nerdy movie production, it most assuredly will not have an impact. It will just be a few more among many similar films that compose an aging, increasingly static era of cinema.

It's for that reason that, despite loving the crap out of classic Star Wars, I am genuinely unenthused and even a little remorseful about the production of new films.

I personally don't remember SW in 1977 being quasi-religious en nigh-fanatical in its reception. People loved the fantasy fairy tale because it constrasted sttrongly with the more raw, realistic and politically tinted movies of the 70s. This was suddenly different, new effects, a simple fairy tale, great pop corn entertainment, coming forth from a visionary who just wanted to tell this story.

I think the whole franchise approach is indeed something that kinda ruins movies. But as always, sometimes sleeper hits break through because of its originality or vision. THat's something that has been lacking from SW the past decade-and-a-half.

Star Wars and LotR were the "things" of their time (movie-wise), Star Wars more so. There had been nothing quite like it and everyone was talking about it. Titanic was something similar. I'm not saying they were more successful than the rest, but they persisted in the cultural conscience for some time, and rather vividly. The various sexy fantasy adventures movies of the 2000s have made big splashes, definitely. But their ripples faded comparatively quickly, and quietly. The Avengers movies made a killing, but they're not exactly perma-fixed as the pop culture beacon of an era. They were just one in a long line of similar feeling films.

As for Star Wars, they'll either follow the formula laid down by modern superhero/fantasy/sci-fi films and just be run-of-the-mill, try foolishly to recreate the feel of the originals, or take them in a route that no one expects. Disney may reinvigorate the franchise, but in all likelihood they won't take any big risks on their multi-billion dollar investment. They'll appeal to as broad as base as possible. I really think these are just going to be "meh" movies. Not bad, they'll have learned from the PT, but nothing that stands out and makes you say "Wow, what a great direction they've taken with Star Wars. How memorable and unique and original, and what a change of style from what we're used to."

Like what the Call of Duty games became. CoD4 was a helluva new style and direction to take an FPS series, and it had moments and features that really stuck out. Every game since has been just upping that ante and piling on more polished, snazzy variations of the same worn-out mold. The original trilogy will likely be the CoD4 of Star Wars. Every movie that follows will just underwhelm in comparison. They'll look sharper, maybe even have some decent moments and production values, but the lightning-in-a-bottle card has already been played.

I agree with Queeq.

Who would want to see Titanic become an auto-trilogy/trilogies of trllogies franchise...? At some point the story ends.

As long as the story and characters are good, let films come out.

Also: Star Wars, whilst being "of it's time" was also almost transcendent of time. It passed the test. Especially with ESB.
Timelessness personified.
LOTR, as much as I love it, loses the 'dated' war there. And its the newest of the two.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Also: Star Wars, whilst being "of it's time" was also almost transcendent of time. It passed the test. Especially with ESB.
Timelessness personified.
LOTR, as much as I love it, loses the 'dated' war there. And its the newest of the two.

I agree. LotR was certainly sexy and entertaining. But I have only seen all 3 films 2 times, at the most. There is nothing compelling me to want to go back and watch any of those movies, again.

However, every now and again, I get the urge to go back and watch the Star Wars movies. That's obviously my subjective opinion but there are many people who feel the same as I do.

Lucien said it: "So a sexy space adventure breaking tradition and being more about action and b*tchin' visuals bursting on to the scene took everyone by surprise and was a runaway hit. And its those same conditions that don't exist anymore."

Abrams has his work cut out for him. His writing team better give us a knock out of the park.

Indeed, dadudemon. But as Is aid before: ST Into Darkness has not gotten my hopes up. Please let it not be an homage to the OT... let it be on its own, a fresh approach. Surprise us, JJ.

as far as i can see, the only hints of him taking SW7 seriously is 1-his confession that he never gave a crap about star trek until he got the job and 2- (claims) he grew up as an OT fan.

with that said, into darkness was a steaming pile of dung. khan was cool until we find out he's khan. then the whole film turned into shameless nonstop winking to wrath of khan including campy throwback scripting, while killing off a character...which turned kirks death into a ridiculous joke. and to make it more stupid they bring kirk back to life in the same f-ing movie.

if he approaches star wars with the same abysmal lack of creativity (and overall not really seeming to give a crap), its doomed.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
if he approaches star wars with the same abysmal lack of creativity (and overall not really seeming to give a crap), its doomed.

How much pull or influence does he have over the writing process?

Edit - Basically, can he read the script and say, "WTF is this bullshit? Go back and redo it, bitches."

Originally posted by queeq
Indeed, dadudemon. But as Is aid before: ST Into Darkness has not gotten my hopes up. Please let it not be an homage to the OT... let it be on its own, a fresh approach. Surprise us, JJ.

Khan was phenomenal.

Khan was okay, but he's not memorable. I've seen both of the new ST movies once and I have no intention of ever watching them again. They made so little an impression on me. That's exactly what I hope is avoided with the sequel trilogy. Abrams being an OT fan is a good start, but he may fall in to the same trap that he did with Trek: references and homages galore, story and characters kinda a bore.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I've seen both of the new ST movies once and I have no intention of ever watching them again.

👆

Same here. I did enjoy the films, however.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Abrams being an OT fan is a good start, but he may fall in to the same trap that he did with Trek: references and homages galore, story and characters kinda a bore.

This is where you and I differ. That was the most enjoyable part of the new Star Trek films for me: waiting for the next homage to be dropped. That should be telling of how bland the films would be without the "Star Trek" badge.

As someone who never watched any of the series, and has only seen about 1/4 of the films, the references went unappreciated. I got a few of them, mainly from pop culture osmosis over the years, but as someone largely uninitiated in Star Trek, the new films did nothing to make me interested in the franchise as a whole, nor the reboots as stand-alones. They're good popcorn flicks, but they do not have repeat value for me, and in the long run, I don't think they'll age well.

I really don't want the new Star Wars to be like that. I'd actually rather have a really godawful new trilogy. I can have fun making fun of it and picking it apart like an uber nerd. But if it's just yet another one of those kind of movies that's fun when you first watch it, and then you forget everything about it two months later, that'll just make me sad. Like, I wasn't a big fan of Dark Knight Rises, but for only seeing it once that movie still really stuck with me. Hopefully the ST will at least be memorable, for whatever reason.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is where you and I differ. That was the most enjoyable part of the new Star Trek films for me: waiting for the next homage to be dropped. That should be telling of how bland the films would be without the "Star Trek" badge.

I disagree. ST - ID was ALL homage, not a drop here an there, it was non-stop homage. There was hardly an original idea or scene in that film. Just about EVERYTHING was taken from the different ST series and movies. In short: a rehash of everything we've already seen in ST? Why do that? What's the point? Especially af the the first ST movie, where Abrams (and I liked this ST movie a lot personally, not being a real ST fan) because a) it worked as a popcorn movie and b) it opened up a possibility to continue ST in a new way, to boldly go where no one has gone before. And what do we get? More of the old stuff, to bluntly go where ST has gone before WHY?!!! WHY??!! Not only, as I got it, did it insult a lot of ST fans, damaging the former ST legacy, but it also showed to me that Abrams doesn't want to boldly go where no one has gone before.

And then back to SW: if he does this to Star Trek (and he did a lot, too much, of homaging in Super 8), what will we get now? There lies my fear...

Originally posted by queeq
I disagree. ST - ID was ALL homage, not a drop here an there, it was non-stop homage. There was hardly an original idea or scene in that film. Just about EVERYTHING was taken from the different ST series and movies. In short: a rehash of everything we've already seen in ST? Why do that? What's the point? Especially af the the first ST movie, where Abrams (and I liked this ST movie a lot personally, not being a real ST fan) because a) it worked as a popcorn movie and b) it opened up a possibility to continue ST in a new way, to boldly go where no one has gone before. And what do we get? More of the old stuff, to bluntly go where ST has gone before WHY?!!! WHY??!! Not only, as I got it, did it insult a lot of ST fans, damaging the former ST legacy, but it also showed to me that Abrams doesn't want to boldly go where no one has gone before.

And then back to SW: if he does this to Star Trek (and he did a lot, too much, of homaging in Super 8), what will we get now? There lies my fear...

Well, in Abrams' defense, I don't think he wrote a vast majority of those homages that made it to the final cut. Also, I don't feel that the homages were non-stop. They were definitely "here and there". Maybe to people like you who know Star Trek so well, they felt more like a drunk sister-in-law at the party that screams all of her problems to everyone. But, to the regular Star Trek fans (not Trekkies), they picked up on most of the references and got a good laugh when they remembered one. I think that's really what they were trying to do: pander to the masses who just like Star Trek (but are not rabid fans).

I do not know Star Trek very well. But I saw all the references and I was shocked how much there were. Just about every scene. It's really quite amazing.

To me, as a distant follower of Star Trek, I thought bringing up Kahn was already too much. Especially after the first movie. Why bring up the most iconic ST villain from the movies ever??? That spells out to me: no guts, no originality. The excessive amount of references that I later learned about just confirmed it.

Now, when Abrams goes out and does a thing like that with SW, which I DO know quite well, I'd be hugely disappointed.

Originally posted by queeq
I do not know Star Trek very well. But I saw all the references and I was shocked how much there were. Just about every scene. It's really quite amazing.

To me, as a distant follower of Star Trek, I thought bringing up Kahn was already too much. Especially after the first movie. Why bring up the most iconic ST villain from the movies ever??? That spells out to me: no guts, no originality. The excessive amount of references that I later learned about just confirmed it.

Now, when Abrams goes out and does a thing like that with SW, which I DO know quite well, I'd be hugely disappointed.

Oh I dunno... I'm not that much into ST. I thought the very concept of bringing Kahn up in this movie was lame. I thought he was intriguing, he is a good actor, but hearing his name was like: Oh no.... please no.... It totally ruined his part to me.

And there are some storyline glitches to his character. Things that make no sense if he is so strong and all...

Originally posted by dadudemon
How much pull or influence does he have over the writing process?

Edit - Basically, can he read the script and say, "WTF is this bullshit? Go back and redo it, bitches."

Yes, and no. The director always has the ability to suggest changes. Generally though, if we're talking about redoing portions of the script that alter the story, this sort of thing would have to be approved by the producers, in most cases.

Of course this was an exception with Lucas since he owned Lucasfilm as well as the rights to Star Wars. He was also an executive producer, so his word was the final word. I don't believe Abrams will have that same kind of power with Disney, though no doubt, he will have plenty of creative control.

Well, Disney is not MAKING it. Lucasfilm is (which is owned bij Disney), helmed by Kathleen Kennedy. I bet she has something to say about it. And she may be the life saver here after working with Spielberg so many years on a great number of successful movies. Sure, they weren't all great, but I bet she knows her stuff.