Disney says the Lucasfilm deal would be "dilutive" (cut) its per-share profit in 2013, 2014, and "accretive" (add) to profit in 2015.
IvySlayer wrote: » Films are made by committee nowadays to be fair. They needed a safe film, which is what Force Awakens was. I would love Jon Favreau to get a shot at directing one.
david75 wrote: » this next one is gonna be accused of being too different I reckon.
david75 wrote: » I think Rians gonna do an amazing job. In fact all these people complaining it was too like the original, this next one is gonna be accused of being too different I reckon.
Kidchameleon wrote: » I saw a quote from Rian saying he was going to "break the mould". Cant link but a google search will bring it up. Time travel maybe?
david75 wrote: » Kasdan said 'it's a weird thing' Isaac 'much darker/more intimate feels like an independent film' Boyega said 'bigger and darker' From that alone you can see it'll be a modern version of 'dark' but seen through a Star Wars filter. Intriguing.
Myrddin wrote: » So if the prequels were never made, we'd all be a lot more harsh on Ep 7? Hmm, can't say I agree...I enjoyed it for what it was, a thoroughly enjoyable Star Wars romp...just as much as I enjoyed it for setting the record straight. Ok, we can all admit it was damn near a reboot than a sequel, but again, I enjoyed the hell out of it (twice now). Lest we also forget, it's only one part out of a trilogy, so there were more questions raised in it than were answered - I reckon we can really only judge the whole thing after Ep 9
Tony EH wrote: » Well, I think the assessment would be more realistic (not necessarily "harsh"), if the prequels had been better films, or just not made at all. Seriously, there has been a awful lot of guff over 'The Force Awakens', which I agree, is much more of a reboot (or a direct riff) of the original 'Star Wars'. True, it's part one of a trilogy, so we can be better judges when that trilogy is complete. But as a film in and of itself, it really is just a retread of the 1977 movie to a large degree and that's my issue with it. The questions it raises aren't problems for me. That's part and parcel of a three act setting. Hopefully, now that they've got the copycat thing out of their system, Disney can let the writers and directors go their own route with the next couple of films. If Episode VIII and IX are "reboots" of 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi', I think a lot of fans are going to start asking awkward questions.
david75 wrote: » Episode 8 may well be the best of the entire series, and that's just based on director choice and if that leaked description of what they've filmed here is even remotely true.
david75 wrote: » Initially I was all its all Star Wars give it to me.
david75 wrote: » Now that I look at it I think they're using Han and the inevitable Oni Wan films to introduce us to new stories.
david75 wrote: » Be honest. If they announced a slew of new films with brand new characters, what would happen? Be honest. Melt down on the hardcore fan base and gen pop wouldn't buy it.
david75 wrote: » Has to be this way. Slowly land it. Anything that expands too quickly fails faster.
NIMAN wrote: » What leaked description?
Tony EH wrote: » Mmmm, I got burned by that attitude in 1999 when they announced 'The Phantom Menace'. I forgave it and got burned again when 'Attack of the Clones' turned out to be even worse somehow. By the time of 'Revenge of the Sith', I didn't care any more. Star Wars was a busted franchise. I hesitantly approached 'The Force Awakens', which turned out to be OK. Just below 'Return of the Jedi' for me. But, importantly, it showed that somebody at Disney understood Star Wars to a certain degree and it looks like they're eager to "not mention the war" as it were and forget the prequels, so that gave me some hope for future films in the series. If it had been utterly wretched, I would have been done, regardless of any promise of better things to come. This is the problem. You can't have Han Solo played by anyone other than Harrison Ford. It'll just be like somebody playing Harrison Ford playing Han Solo and it'll suck badly. The problem is that we've already seen Han Solo as a relatively young man in the 1977 film, we've seen him in early middle age in 1983 and we've seen him as an old man in the 2015 film. Having somebody else play him will just come off as an impostor. Not to mention the fact that it's a completely unnecessary edition to the franchise. Not if they're good films. People don't reject the prequel trilogy because they weren't like Star Wars. They rejected them because they were utter ****e. Many, many people who hate them now tried to like them, against their better judgement. But there's only so far that delusion can go. The lovers of the original trilogy WERE the ones who paid the money to go and see them in the cinema. The audience was built in because of people like me who adored the original films and we're still willing to give Star Wars a chance. However, if Disney announced films that featured new characters but set in the familiar Star Wars universe, the audience would still go and see them. What matters is if the films are good films. Not that they have familiar characters. One of the absolute worst sins of the prequels was the completely unnecessary shoehorning of of the likes of C3PO, R2D2 and Boba Fett into those films. Terrible, terrible ideas. Sure, you play it safe. IMHO, they played far TOO safe with 'The Force Awakens', but if the next two are good and there are a few standalone films worth watching, then Disney will have done their job. Disney know that there's a built in audience of millions for this franchise. That's why the bought it. So they can well afford to try some new things. They simply just don't have to screw it up.
Tony EH wrote: » "Different" can be good. 'The Empire Strikes Back' is quite "different" to 'Star Wars', but yeh, if some things can be a little too different, like 'Alien Resurrection'. I think Disney are too smart for that kind of misstep though. Unlike others on here, I'm not completely sold on the idea of Rian Johnson at the reigns, just like I wasn't sold on JJ Abrams doing VII. My worries were some what vindicated too as there is a little too much "JJ" in that film. To me he's a mimic director. Of the five films he's directed, four have been films ripped straight from already firmly established series and the other was his take on a Spielberg movie. I've yet to see him helm anything truly original. However, unlike Abrams, Johnson has some pictures he directed in his small back catalog that I like. Do I think he's the right person for a Star Wars film? Mmmmm *shrug*. Then again, I wouldn't have thought that Irvin Kershner was in line for one either, given his previous efforts, and he turned out the greatest film of the entire franchise. On the cameo for Ehrenreich in 'Rogue One', that'll jar with me for certain. There's simply no way around it. That's unfortunate to say the least. It's destined to be a scene that will drag the film down, like the unnecessary and frankly stupid Rathtar scene in 'The Force Awakens'. Not needed and ultimately very damaging to the end product. A McGregor "Obi Wan" film can work and you're correct, it's definitely going to happen. But it'll depend on the story. Kenobi's 20 year story previous to 'Star Wars' was sitting around on Tatooine watching after Luke Skywalker. But, seeing as Disney are chucking out all of the expanded universe out the window, they probably think themselves free to do just about bloody well what they want to do. As I said earlier, I wouldn't mind a Kyle Katarn film, or a Mara Jade one. There's somebody that could be in a great Star Wars film. It could focus on her turn from being the Emperor's Hand to joining the Rebellion too. I can't see that happening though, as there's waaaay too much good guy focus in Star Wars and viewing things from the Empire's perspective, albeit temporarily, would get Disney execs in a tizzy, no doubt, as they'd think it would "damage" the more sensitive children in the audience and slightly lower their, already, obscene profits margins. We'll probably get an R2D2 origin story instead and it'll turn out that Grand Moff Tarkin built him as a kid. :rolleyes:
py2006 wrote: » Ok sorry for dragging this up.... Did we ever get a satisfying explanation as to Poe's disappearance and reappearance?? Or do you think it will be addressed in 8?? Seems too significant to be ignored.
david75 wrote: » It's explained in the Novel and really doesn't need explanation in the film. He makes his way to a village and gets a lift off the planet and back to the resistance. Really not special.
Slydice wrote: » I think it was almost originally intended to just have him as died there (or maybe it's another part of the film) but that he impressed JJ so much, they reworked his character into the movie.
david75 wrote: » One last spot. Nobody in the entire world has said the words JJ Abrams and lens flare in the same sentence for at least 7 months now
david75 wrote: » Interesting bit of gossip. Abrams fought hard to get to do the Star Trek reboot and made it in a Star Wars style, in order to get the job off Disney to make the new Star Wars movie.
