Star Wars: Episode VII to be directed by J.J. Abrams **NON SPOILER THREAD** — Page 101

Tobar said:

ratpack1961 said:

Kathleen Kennedy has worked with Spielberg for the last twenty years to create forgetable audience pictures with very few good exceptions.

 Just a small list of films Kathleen has produced:

Raiders of the Lost Ark

E.T.

Gremlins

The Color Purple

Back to the Future

Empire of the Sun

Schindler's List

Jurassic Park

Alot of those films are more then 20 years old and I had mentioned yeah there are a few exceptions.  I really meant to refer to films like War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park 3, Twister, Signs...

Films meant for big opening weekends and then forgotten soon after.  Thats the exact kind of thinking that would go into having the original OT as the main cast.  Great marketing hype but not good for the overall picture.

Ageism is something I don't want to see. Prejudice is a terrible thing, and ageism is a form of prejudice.

Something to remember: If you have all new characters, it's a different intellectual property in all but name.

Despite the rumors, I still don't believe that the big three will be the only focus.  I think it's more likely that Arndt really sidelined them, and Abrams just wants to make sure that they have more presence.  This will still be the film where they pass the torch, but it will be a gradual transition.  I'm betting the younger cast will still see equal or even more of the action, while the older cast deals with more of the social & political elements of the plot.

Also, regarding the age-ism, it's important to note that many people that were introduced to Star Wars back in the late 70s and 80s are still interested in the original cast and want to see them have one more shot at saving the day.  I'm only 26 and I'm incredibly excited to see Luke, Han, and Leia get back into some action.  We won't be seeing them in any mind-numbing prequel style acrobatics, but I'm sure as hell they can believably defend themselves during an intense skirmish.  And the younger generation will be there to support them the whole way, while also drawing in the younger audience.  You can tell from the casting rumors alone that this movie is going to be chock full of supporting cast members anyways.

I'm willing to bet that there will be two different stories going on.  One following Luke, one following a younger character.  The two stories will then tie together at the climax of the film.  There is no doubt in my mind that both generations will have close to equal parts in the plot, they will just be juggling different issues.

One thing I don't want to see is, "The Force is out of balance again. Put it back into balance."

darklordoftech said:

One thing I don't want to see is, "The Force is out of balance again. Put it back into balance."

No disagreement here.  The force was turned into a moral compass during the prequels.  As if balancing the force would suddenly solve all the problems in the galaxy.  I hope the sequels don't fall into such lazy tropes.

ratpack1961 said:

To have an episode of star wars to be about three old people running around the universe just doesn't work, at least in theory.  Old cliffhanger serials that star wars was based on kept the cast usually pretty young.  Personally I was fine with seeing some young new characters and Luke as a mentor.  I think thats what Arndt wanted and it kept with the concept of what these movies are about.  Escapism for kids/teens that adults wont detest.

 I agree with you that there is a chance that putting old Luke, Leia and Han on screen could be an utter disaster, as I'm sure there will be alot of monday-morning QB'ing on what was the right approach.

But I still think that fans are taking it too literally about the 'Big 3' being a huge part of Episode 7 thinking that this will be a carbon copy of Star Wars in 1977, whereas I don't see it that way.  My view is you can still have Luke, Leia and Han have prominent roles in Episode 7 while passing the torch to the next generation of Skywalker kids and its still comes off as respectable.

Why cant Leia be the Supreme Chancellor (aka Vallorum, Palpatine in the PT)?  I can't see them having Carrie Fisher running around for 2 hours like she did in 1977, but she could be a strong political force in the re-built republic after Episode 6, along with showing off some force skills to her kids to show that true power Luke said she had in Return of the Jedi.

Why cant Luke be the Head of the Jedi Order (aka Yoda in the PT)?  I think Hamill can pull off some lightsaber action scenes, teaching his kids or Han/Leia's kids about the force.  Heck, if old man Ian McKellan can pull of the action scenes as Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, why can't Mark Hamill who is only in his 60's?

Now Han Solo is where it gets tricky?  Ford is the only role of the 'Big 3' where it is more a crowd pleaser then relevant to the story.  But I think if they can create a great death scene (aka Spock's death in Star Trek II), by means of saving his kids or something relevant to saving someone else from death, that could be powerful.  The end of Episode 7 could have Luke/Leia and the Skywalker kids at the funeral of Han Solo (aka QuiGon in Episode I), which would be sort of eerie that we finally get to see the death of one of the most beloved characters from the OT.

Now Abrams/Kennedy could just try to please the crowd and give us Han/Luke/Leia from Episode IV circa 2015, but I just don't think that would work.  I do think if they get creative, the passing of the torch could please ALL of the SW fanbases and set Episode 8 and 9 up real well.

I really hope that if we have to suffer the offspring of the big three, they at least cast them as early twenty somethings and not obnoxious teens

buddy-x-wing said:

I really hope that if we have to suffer the offspring of the big three, they at least cast them as early twenty somethings and not obnoxious teens

 I agree.  Everytime you cast a teenager in any movie, there is a risk that they won't be able to pull it off and it will be a turnoff to the audience.  I love T2, but can't stand Edward Furlong as a young John Connor.   I always thought if Lucas centered the PT around an early 30's Obiwan and a early-mid 20's Anakin for 3 movies, it would have worked better. 

I think they can go the route of early-mid 20's, and that way you can hire actors with alittle more experience and won't have to worry about them being whiny teenage brats. 

I also don't want to see any implications of a galaxy that's doomed for all time. Let the poor galaxy have some permanent progress.

I think all of our little rules about what makes it good/not good, should/must/can never happen, have to go in the trash. We're looking at maybe EIGHT movies in ten years, it's a totally new animal now. The director will have to just go with his gut and ignore us or it'll be a total clown show.

Baronlando said:

I think all of our little rules about what makes it good/not good, should/must/can never happen, have to go in the trash. We're looking at maybe EIGHT movies in ten years, it's a totally new animal now. The director will have to just go with his gut and ignore us or it'll be a total clown show.

Not that I don't necessarily agree, but that's like telling the public to stop voting, because we aren't informed enough to understand government policy.  It's still an important part of the process to keep the audience feeling involved and relevant.

Not to mention that the writers, director, producers, and many others who are involved go through a similar process in deciding what to do with these films.  It all starts with discussion.  They just don't have years to bounce ideas off of one another like we do.  But I'm sure they have just as much fun discussing these things as we do.  And as a testament to this particular site, I think we are probably the most modest in terms of what we would like to see.  These forums are made of amateur film makers, story fanatics, and star wars fans.  I think we're actually pretty good at developing, critiquing, and discussing ideas.

CO said:

I love T2, but can't stand Edward Furlong as a young John Connor.

 I can't stand Edward Furlong as anyone.

I wonder what the political themes of episodes 7-9 will be.

Although I don't oppose political themes throughout the story, I hope they keep most of the actual politics off screen.  They will need to establish the political climate of the galaxy post ROTJ, but once they do so, keep the focus on the struggle of the protagonists.

Surely the antagonist's goals will have clear and serious political repercussions, but they need to express that through the characters, rather than through senate meetings and boring exposition.  And I think J.J. is just the guy to do that effectively.

SilverWook said:

I think it's safe to say we aren't getting a G rated SW film. ;)

Is it out of the realm of possibility Disney might release this under one of their other labels? (Which they have done in the past, with edgier fare like Who Framed Roger Rabbit?)  Or simply have the Lucasfilm logo at the beginning?

The PG-13 Pirates of the Caribbean movies have gone out under the Disney banner though.

 Good question SilverWook. I'm going to have to think about this.

skyjedi2005 said:

I did not hate  Furlong in T2, i did hate him in that horrid 3-D movie as well as Arnold.  It was totally phoned in with a bad story as well and supposedly written and directed by Cameron.  Some even called it his T3.

As for star wars what audience is Disney shooting for PG?

 I assume they want the broadest possible audience so there is little hope the sequel trilogy will be adult in any way.

I doubt Disney would even do  what Lucas did on Revenge of the Sith with the violence on the volcano planet when Skywalker loses all his limbs and burns in the lava. Securing a PG-13 rating.

 They managed to do it with The Avengers with an all adult cast , without toning it down for the Kids, and I would think that STAR WARS would have a bigger built in fan base. I doubt Disney would be stupid enough ignore the market that made Star Wars part of their lives for the last 30 years.

I think the backlash to Jar Jar in episode 1 would've taught everyone within the Star Wars camp a valuable lesson about dumbing down the brand.