Future and potential Star Wars films - news and speculation

thegreengoblin

Tony EH wrote: »

Why is this bunkum continually repeated? Every Star Wars film apart from Diswars was released in May.

May 25 1977
May 21 1980
May 25 1983
May 19 1999
May 16 2002
May 17 2005

The release date has bugger all to do with Solo's failure.

Different context though. It's not the May release date itself that was the issue for me but the fact it came out so soon after The Last Jedi and the sh!tstorm that created. Had they waited until Christmas I think Solo would have performed better.

Anyway, if this news is true I'm happy enough. Though I would definitely have preferred a Kenobi film with Ewan McGregor rather than Solo, even if there's no 'need' for either film.

pixelburp

It probably makes sense and would do no harm for Disney to step back and take stock of the franchise; the spin-offs started a conversation about just how strong the appetite for Star Wars really was, and perhaps the answer wasn't quite as definitive a yes as the Mouse House had hoped.

Maybe Disney thought it could be the MCU Part II, a bi-annual series of films, but of course the Marvel movies earned the right to become blockbuster mainstays, built off the back of intro films and rich, well-established characters who had preexisting arcs in their comics. When a new MCU film comes out, it broadly stands on its own merits, characters and story. Star Wars has the reverse problem; cinematic baggage constrained around the literal destinies of 3, 4 specific characters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, but Star Wars as a thing relies more on aesthetics than any characters or themes, unlike other pop culture entities whose universes consist more of settings or props - simple tools for enabling its characters to have stories or adventures. Star Wars arguably suffocates because its not expansive enough an idea to breakout from the shopping list of visual motifs (lightsabers, x-wings, etc. etc) mandated to be 'a Star Wars' film.

The extent of its theme amounts to 'rebels vs. empire', and that's an incredibly limited premise to try and stretch into a series of films.

Tony EH

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Different context though. It's not the May release date itself that was the issue for me but the fact it came out so soon after The Last Jedi and the sh!tstorm that created. Had they waited until Christmas I think Solo would have performed better.

It's a question of quality and choice of story.

Diswars has been inconsistent, quality wise and their character/story choices have been poor.

Had the film's been universally liked, "franchise fatigue" and "maybe it's because it was released in May" wouldn't be heard of. They all just silly excuses and avoiding the obvious.

Personally, I don't see 'Solo' doing that much better, even if released at Christmas. Nobody wanted the film, fan and casual alike. There should have been a gigantic red flag thrown up, when people (especially the fans) greeted the news of an origin film about Han Solo with a resounding meh.

That was the problem.

thegreengoblin wrote: »

Anyway, if this news is true I'm happy enough. Though I would definitely have preferred a Kenobi film with Ewan McGregor rather than Solo, even if there's no 'need' for either film.

I think most fans would have been happy with a Kenobi film, but only if McGregor wa on board and that wasn't a definite - even less so now that 'Solo' has tanked. But what they would have done with it, story wise, is anyone's guess. Have it too low key and casuals will moan about "low stakes". have too actiony and fans will be questioning the impacts on the established timeline.

Films using any of the old characters are an absolute minefield and probably should be dodged altogether.

I'll say it again, Disney haven't a clue what to do with Star Wars and their attempts to Marvelise it is backfiring spectacularly.

salmocab

Have to say I’d like to see some movies in the universe but not involving skywalkers or even Jedi. Would preferred to have seen Solo when he was in the academy so maybe some stories from within the empire could be good.

nix

Id say McGregor would jump on board if the script was right, but i dont think it would ever be.. Not much of a story to be told between the events of ROTS and ANH of aul Ben on Tattoine, would be fairly boring.. and any efforts to make it super exciting would seem shoe horned and out of place IMO..

Agent Coulson

Reports today that Obi-Wan Kenobi film will just go straight to the Disney streaming channel and not get cinema release.

homerun_homer

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Reports today that Obi-Wan Kenobi film will just go straight to the Disney streaming channel and not get cinema release.

This is unlike anything I've heard on the rumour mill. Where's this coming from? Going direct to streaming will be another nail in the Star Wars coffin.

Sounds like this is on hold, McGregor is now tied up with other stuff and looks more and more likely that Kathleen Kennedy is soon to get the boot, if not stepping down in September. I don't imagine any movies getting announced until this mess is cleared.

Sad Professor

Keri Russell cast in Episode IX. Role involves "action-heavy fight scenes".

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/star-wars-episode-ix-keri-russell-1202861343/

pixelburp

Only seen her in The Americans (though I'd say to many she's most famous for Felicity), she's a good actor with decent presence.

Sad Professor

I'm thinking she's probably playing one of the Knights of Ren.

Slydice

SimonTemplar

Sad Professor wrote: »

Keri Russell cast in Episode IX. Role involves "action-heavy fight scenes".

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/star-wars-episode-ix-keri-russell-1202861343/

She'll be playing someone in the Resistance but she will turn out to be a First Order spy all along

As all seriousness, she's a great actor and judging by her performance in The Americans, she'll be great at the action too.

pixelburp

More speculation - albeit with some degree of believability via the Hollywood Reporter - is saying Billy Dee Williams will be returning for Episode IX.

Commence speculation as to what Lando has been doing all this time! I suspect he found a quiet little part of the galaxy to simply drink, gamble and forget his woes; news of his best frenemy passing might stir him into helping the latest mandated, nascent rebellion.

Slydice

Boom!

pixelburp

So Bob Iger has admitted that perhaps releasing one Star Wars film per year isn't going to work, and taken responsibility for the decision. Reading between the lines it sounds like there'll be nothing until Episode IX and after that is a case of "wait and see".

Honestly, this is probably for the best & Disney way overestimated the audience's hunger for the franchise.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bob-iger-disneys-streaming-service-james-gunn-star-wars-slowdown-1145493

Many believe Disney should pump the breaks and not put out a Star Wars movie each year.

I made the timing decision, and as I look back, I think the mistake that I made — I take the blame — was a little too much, too fast. You can expect some slowdown, but that doesn't mean we're not going to make films. J.J. [Abrams] is busy making [Episode] IX. We have creative entities, including [Game of Thrones creators David] Benioff and [D.B.] Weiss, who are developing sagas of their own, which we haven't been specific about. And we are just at the point where we're going to start making decisions about what comes next after J.J.'s. But I think we're going to be a little bit more careful about volume and timing. And the buck stops here on that.

Tony EH

I don't think it's a question of overestimating the hunger. It's more akin to somebody wanting a fillet and getting a salad instead.

Disney are pushing a product that a lot of fans just don't want. They're going back to their favourite steakhouse and finding out that it's just Waldorf on the menu.

Disney saturated a market they thought was a sure winner. Fans will buy anything right?

Maybe, with less films shoved out of the factory each year, they might put a bit more effort into their stories and characters.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't think it's a question of overestimating the hunger. It's more akin to somebody wanting a fillet and getting a salad instead.

Disney are pushing a product that a lot of fans just don't want. They're going back to their favourite steakhouse and finding out that it's just Waldorf on the menu.

I’d say more akin to visiting a restaurant you went to on holidays as a child decades ago and throwing a tantrum that the food doesn’t taste the same as you remembered.

Iger is right that they miscalculated on the timing and quantity of the movies. Solo epitomizes the problem, it was a movie there wasn’t a demand for and was then released 5 months after another Star Wars movie around savage competition. They expected it to be a success when it was always going to struggle. Happy to see them scaling back a bit on the movies but would be happy if they kept going forward with some TV.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

I’d say more akin to visiting a restaurant you went to on holidays as a child decades ago and throwing a tantrum that the food doesn’t taste the same as you remembered.

This suggests that what's on the menu now is as good, and it's just not.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Iger is right that they miscalculated on the timing and quantity of the movies. Solo epitomizes the problem, it was a movie there wasn’t a demand for and was then released 5 months after another Star Wars movie around savage competition. They expected it to be a success when it was always going to struggle. Happy to see them scaling back a bit on the movies but would be happy if they kept going forward with some TV.

'Solo' epitomises the problem alright. It was a duff movie that nobody wanted to see. A real damp squib if ever there was one.

I'm happy too to see them scaling back, because what's been delivered so far ain't doing it. But, it's not just about allowing the film's time to breathe. They have more significant problems than that.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

This suggests that what's on the menu now is as good, and it's just not.

More suggesting that you are unable to objectively and rationally compare what you enjoyed decades ago to what you are consuming now.

I bowed out of this conversation about a week after the release of TLJ, I can’t believe you still haven’t let it go 10 months later. I’m not going down this rabbit hole again.

pixelburp

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't think it's a question of overestimating the hunger. It's more akin to somebody wanting a fillet and getting a salad instead.

Disney are pushing a product that a lot of fans just don't want. They're going back to their favourite steakhouse and finding out that it's just Waldorf on the menu.

Disney saturated a market they thought was a sure winner. Fans will buy anything right?

Maybe, with less films shoved out of the factory each year, they might put a bit more effort into their stories and characters.

Ah I don't think there's a silver bullet explanation that explains all the failures so far with the Disney Star Wars venture; to be fair I don't believe the studio has made any of these movies entirely in bad faith (ala Sony and their Ghostbusters / Spider Man reboots). Part of me thinks that in all their enthusiasm in bagging the biggest SciFi IP in hollywood, mixed with the heady success of the MCU, Iger & co. green lit every Star Wars brainfart without thinking about if it would work. All for the pursuit of that cheddar cheese of course, but modern day Disney has been a very successful, intelligent machine.

Defunkd

Foxtrol wrote: »

Solo epitomizes the problem, it was a movie there wasn’t a demand for and was then released 5 months after another Star Wars movie around savage competition.

I'd disagree with you regarding demand for a Solo movie. I think there was huge appetite for expansion and exploration of the SW universe - especially Han Solo. The books and comics have a serious following and many of them are engrossing. Many of the fan films on youtube get lots of views and good reviews; even the yt channels dedicated to SW have very healthy viewer numbers and subscribers. (The Stupendous Wave made over $120,000 USD last year for uploading 2 X 4min vids a week) It's not all middle-aged men trying to recapture their youth either, a lot of younger fans are more knowledgeable than those who were alive around the time of the original, so no, i don't think it's because the appetite isn't there.

I think what the studio is churning out doesn't appeal to the fans. It entertains those who want chewing gum for the eyes, not those who know more about the franchise than the owners. The prequels were a let down; the new trilogy seems to be exhausting the goodwill of the fans despite sitting on a goldmine of untapped potential that they don't know how to capitalise on.
Box office competition is a lame excuse. Cinema goers love having more than one good film to go and see and it's not like the bad old days where a trip to a film was a once-a-month treat or something that had to be saved up for. The problem with the cinema is that there isn't enough quality material being shown, imo.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

More suggesting that you are unable to objectively and rationally compare what you enjoyed decades ago to what you are consuming now.

I bowed out of this conversation about a week after the release of TLJ, I can’t believe you still haven’t let it go 10 months later. I’m not going down this rabbit hole again.

Then don't.

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

Ah I don't think there's a silver bullet explanation that explains all the failures so far with the Disney Star Wars venture; to be fair I don't believe the studio has made any of these movies entirely in bad faith (ala Sony and their Ghostbusters / Spider Man reboots). Part of me thinks that in all their enthusiasm in bagging the biggest SciFi IP in hollywood, mixed with the heady success of the MCU, Iger & co. green lit every Star Wars brainfart without thinking about if it would work. All for the pursuit of that cheddar cheese of course, but modern day Disney has been a very successful, intelligent machine.

Neither do I. I think it's a quite complex series of missteps that Disney have taken. As for "bad faith", I think it has more to do with simply not knowing how to proceed with what they've got, rather than any "bad faith", which leads to the missteps. They got the thing they passed over in 1977 and tried to Marvelise it, but failed. They just don't really know how to treat this stuff and then when fans aren't happy with their product, they call them names, which compounds the issue. Although, I think Iger has stepped in too put an end to that particular nonsense as well.

Disney should really have had the balls to go their own way. Instead they chickened out and tried to link their trilogy to the original trilogy, by reusing a plot, rehashing designs and dragging three famous stars into the mix. But, in doing that, they just created a rod for their own back in many respects. Diswars should have concentrated on a couple of protagonists, Rey and her journey of discovery and Finn, with his defection and fight against his former comrades. Everybody else is just getting in the way and not allowing those characters to breathe or grow in a convincing way, which is why they feel so terribly lightweight and disappointing.

johnnyskeleton

Tony EH wrote: »

Disney should really have had the balls to go their own way. Instead they chickened out and tried to link their trilogy to the original trilogy, by reusing a plot, rehashing designs and dragging three famous stars into the mix. But, in doing that, they just created a rod for their own back in many respects. Diswars should have concentrated on a couple of protagonists, Rey and her journey of discovery and Finn, with his defection and fight against his former comrades. Everybody else is just getting in the way and not allowing those characters to breathe or grow in a convincing way, which is why they feel so terribly lightweight and disappointing.

I really liked the Force Awakens. A lot of people criticised it for being a rehash of the original but, to be honest, a rehash of the original series seemed like a good idea to me and it was two hours of fun star warsiness that was great to watch.

I also liked Rogue One. It was a different take on Star Wars, focussing on smaller plot lines etc.

The Last Jedi was a terrible movie, and myself and my friends who watched it couldn't quite figure out what went wrong. Having seen a few fan reviews (some of them are unnecessarily long, going through every point etc) and thought about it, youre right that it is basically poor characterisation. I cared about the characters in the Force Awakens, albeit from a 2 hours to turn off my brain and munch popcorn kinda way. I stopped caring about any of them in the Last Jedi, it was so poor.

Maybe the next one is going to be better, but I'm not even sure that they can make it good, given what they've done to it in the Last Jedi.

Tony EH

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I really liked the Force Awakens. A lot of people criticised it for being a rehash of the original but, to be honest, a rehash of the original series seemed like a good idea to me and it was two hours of fun star warsiness that was great to watch.

It was ok, but it felt hollow coming out of the cinema. My mates flat out disliked it. I basically thought it was ok. But, just ok.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I also liked Rogue One. It was a different take on Star Wars, focussing on smaller plot lines etc.

'Rogue One' was the best thing Star Wars, since 1983 and frankly, it's the fault of that film, that I still give a crap. :pac:

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The Last Jedi was a terrible movie, and myself and my friends who watched it couldn't quite figure out what went wrong. Having seen a few fan reviews (some of them are unnecessarily long, going through every point etc) and thought about it, youre right that it is basically poor characterisation. I cared about the characters in the Force Awakens, albeit from a 2 hours to turn off my brain and munch popcorn kinda way. I stopped caring about any of them in the Last Jedi, it was so poor.

Maybe the next one is going to be better, but I'm not even sure that they can make it good, given what they've done to it in the Last Jedi.

'The Last Jedi' didn't build on anything from the previous movie. It just chucked it away. For all it's faults, 'The Force Awakens' set up some real good swings that the writer of Ep.VIII could have run with. But Johnson wasn't interested. And I don't buy all of this "subvert expectations" bollocks. The vast majority of people's expectation out of 'The Last Jedi' was to be simply entertained by a good story, which it fails at terribly.

As for the characters, I can't say that I really cared all that much for them. They were never in any real peril and Rey was just excellent at everything she did right out of the box. In 'The Last Jedi', she's still excellent. Absolutely nothing has been expanded on and the drama was zero. There was just nothing to give a crap about, which is why a lot of folk are really meh about Ep.IX. We all know Rey is going to save the day and everything will be hunky dory and all without a single real challenge or obstacle in her way.

Maybe the next will be better, but how will it fix the mess this trilogy is in? I think it's just too late for that now. More than likely, we'll just get a wrap up film and it'll be done.

And none of them will want to touch Star Wars again.

nix

A lot of people criticise TFA as just a rehash of a new hope and them just playing it safe. Where to me, and many others im sure, they were reforging the past to a new, continuing on the story of the last trilogy while also making it the grounds of an introductory movie to those new to star wars.

It was necessary, and if you ask me, they done a great job. There is always something each of us would nit pick and say they would change in these new movies, but to me, TFA had a good mix of everything from past movies and new content and it just worked.

TLJ was where they needed to put in alot of work and creativity and plan carefully. But all they did was wing it as they went along and the director just done the total opposite to what a lot expected the general flow to go, it was Rian Johnson showing the world how much he could drop the ball from scene to scene. He made no effort to tell a fluid/creative tale. He just set the table to what a lot would have predicted, and then just flipped the table and filmed it.. :rolleyes:

They should just step away from movies altogether for like the next decade, focus on a TV show and computer games. If they must do more movies, then set it not so long ago in a galaxy further away (or well before) with all new characters...And not ****ing Yoda in jedi highschool :mad::pac:

Gbear

nix wrote: »

A lot of people criticise TFA as just a rehash of a new hope and them just playing it safe. Where to me, and many others im sure, they were reforging the past to a new, continuing on the story of the last trilogy while also making it the grounds of an introductory movie to those new to star wars.

The safeness or rehashness weren't a problem in my eyes, really.
They could've done a beat for beat remake from a plot perspective, and I wouldn't have given a **** so long as it was a good jumping off point for episode 8 and I knew what was going on in the galaxy. With new characters, how it was shot, modern CGI and a fresh take on the galaxy, the plot would fade into the background, where it's largely supposed to stay in a film like this.

The problem is it kinda didn't go anywhere and it set the scene for the new trilogy really poorly.

Whatever your other criticisms of TLJ, from a plot perspective, Johnson was handed a bomb, that was at best too open-ended to satisfy everyone, and at worst, difficult to properly follow up at all.

You don't know what the Resistance is, what happened to the Republic, really (it's supposed to be thousands of systems - where's everyone else?), what the First Order are, where they're from, how much of a threat they are, who Snoke is, etc. Also, what was Luke up to, that wouldn't make him either an asshole or impotent?
You don't need to establish everything perfectly, but it shouldn't have been Johnson's job to try and establish the general state of the game.

We're now going into Episode 9 with the kind of set up we should've had going into episode 8 - at the very least we know who the good guys and the bad guys are.

Abrams seems a good director of actors, has an eye for a spectacle, but as far as writing goes, he seems to just fling ideas at the wall and see what sticks. For one off films that's probably fine, and possibly even the final episode in a trilogy where someone else has put some constraints on his plot, but at the start of a trilogy, you need to put a bit more craft into world building.

Conall Cernach

I think with TFA it was clear that Abrams didn't quite "get" Star Wars much in the same way as he didn't quite get Star Trek. Sure everything was visually pleasing but the pacing was rushed and a lot of the "feel" of Star Wars was missing (again like in his Star trek movies).

With Rian Johnson I felt that he got Star Wars more than Abrams but he just didn't like it. In TLJ I thought the Star Warsy bits were good but his flipping of expectations etc. was poor. The less said about the side trek to the casino the better.

With Abrams taking the helm again for IX I'm sure we'll get a fast paced, "fun", action movie that while it won't leave us with empty bellies it won't be exactly nourishing.

Tony EH

nix wrote: »

A lot of people criticise TFA as just a rehash of a new hope and them just playing it safe. Where to me, and many others im sure, they were reforging the past to a new, continuing on the story of the last trilogy while also making it the grounds of an introductory movie to those new to star wars.

It was necessary, and if you ask me, they done a great job. There is always something each of us would nit pick and say they would change in these new movies, but to me, TFA had a good mix of everything from past movies and new content and it just worked.

It didn't really peak my excitement, I have to say. Nor do I think it was necessary either to be soooo like the 1977 film. But, it did leave me interested in Ep. VIII.

nix wrote: »

TLJ was where they needed to put in alot of work and creativity and plan carefully. But all they did was wing it as they went along and the director just done the total opposite to what a lot expected the general flow to go, it was Rian Johnson showing the world how much he could drop the ball from scene to scene. He made no effort to tell a fluid/creative tale. He just set the table to what a lot would have predicted, and then just flipped the table and filmed it.. :rolleyes:

Abrams may be a shallow director, but at least he set up a few story beats for Johnson to work with. I'd argue that 'The Force Awakens' should have ended with Rey going off to look for Luke and not with the cliffhanger it did, which would have allowed for more of a lengthy transition from VII to VIII <- important, because much of Star Wars happens off screen in between movies. But, Johnson had some stuff to work with...

• who was Snoke, where did he come from, why was he responsible for recruiting Kylo, what was so appealing to him for Kylo, why was Luke on Ach-To (he shouldn't be there "to die")
• Perhaps Luke knows about Rey, maybe he saved her from his school after Kylo burnt it down and killed the other kids.
• Luke then trains Rey in a meaningful fashion and explains Snoke etc.
• Rey and Luke forge a plan to deal with Kylo, but she's convinced she can turn him back somehow and defies Luke to run off to try. Rey and Luke part on uncertain terms, but Luke gives her the ancient Jedi texts, telling her to study them and they'll help her.
• Perhaps Kylo then gives her a different version of what happened to him and she's not so sure whether to trust Luke any more.
• The film ends with Rey's loyalty in the balance and her running away from both Luke and Kylo.
• Meanwhile, there's a secondary plot involving an ongoing battle on some New Republic planet, between the Resistance/New Republic and the First Order, where Finn and Poe can be used in a more satisfying manner. That subplot ends with a massive defeat for the New Republic after weeks of hard fighting and the Resistance has to retreat to some fallback planet.

There's your film, right there. Character's set up in TFA are meaningfully expanded upon and explained. The Resistance are still in a realistic fight against a First Order who isn't just magically in control of the galaxy, but are instead still fighting for that control.

For Ep.IX, we again see that some time has passed. Perhaps a good few months. The resistance have got their shit together after getting their asses kicked and Finn and Poe are dispatched to find Rey. Rey meanwhile has been doing as Luke has said and has been training and studying the texts he gave her and is now ready to bring the fight to Kylo Ren and the First Order.

The three films should have enough time to take place over a year or more, where the conflict between the New Republic and the First Order feels realistic and Rey's growth and training to a point where the audience can buy into her, can happen.

buried

Tony EH wrote: »

Abrams may be a shallow director, but at least he set up a few story beats for Johnson to work with. I'd argue that 'The Force Awakens' should have ended with Rey going off to look for Luke and not with the cliffhanger it did, which would have allowed for more of a lengthy transition from VII to VIII <- important, because much of Star Wars happens off screen in between movies. But, Johnson had some stuff to work with...

• who was Snoke, where did he come from, why was he responsible for recruiting Kylo, what was so appealing to him for Kylo, why was Luke on Ach-To (he shouldn't be there "to die")
• Perhaps Luke knows about Rey, maybe he saved her from his school after Kylo burnt it down and killed the other kids.
• Luke then trains Rey in a meaningful fashion and explains Snoke etc.
• Rey and Luke forge a plan to deal with Kylo, but she's convinced she can turn him back somehow and defies Luke to run off to try. Rey and Luke part on uncertain terms, but Luke gives her the ancient Jedi texts, telling her to study them and they'll help her.
• Perhaps Kylo then gives her a different version of what happened to him and she's not so sure whether to trust Luke any more.
• The film ends with Rey's loyalty in the balance and her running away from both Luke and Kylo.
• Meanwhile, there's a secondary plot involving an ongoing battle on some New Republic planet, between the Resistance/New Republic and the First Order, where Finn and Poe can be used in a more satisfying manner. That subplot ends with a massive defeat for the New Republic after weeks of hard fighting and the Resistance has to retreat to some fallback planet.

There's your film, right there.

See, this is what I don't understand about this whole mess, all these potential story points are great ideas there. So, how did Disney with all its great track record for story creation, heart filled plot build and good characters allow the actual mess that was the finished film to go ahead? It was like a total genuine p!ss-pull, all of it. There is literally no way in Hell Disney would allow one of its own stand-alone big animation films to have such a similar really bad script, plot and character build in those films. It's like if they had made Toy Story, then they'd make Toy Story 2 and kill off all the characters in that sequel then expect everyone to go see Toy Story 3. Who signed off on this plan? Were they on bad synthetic drugs? Or did they genuinely want to kill it? Its really strange to me.