wouldn't mind darth maul getting his own spin off movie

they've had 20 years of books and comics.i'm sure they'll figure something out.

i have the falcon lego set, just cause it looks sweet

they are Star Trekking it with the Ep 7 and will not be basing it on anything previously published

so they are just winging it? or should i say x-winging it!

george stepped down in advance of selling at least a year ago, so i'd say no

wingin' it worked well for them for A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back

I've figured for years (and I think Vox said this in the movie thread) that where Star Wars would ultimately go was as a brand identity for a large number of movies taking place in its "universe." If you think of it that way, there is no practical limit to how many "Star Wars" movies could be made (indeed, all the books/comic books/etc. prove this).

I just thought it would be Lucas's kids, and not Disney, in charge of it all.

Here's hoping they do totaly remakes of 1-3, being more careful to fit the continuity of 4-6. Imagine if we had a prequel trilogy we could love, and send the ones Lucas did to the dustbin where they belong?

I think I just saw a glimpse of heaven.

I just hope they don't turn it over to JJ Abrams and he makes it all moderny with stupid lens flares and stuff. Just make it look like the first movies plz.

Where do I send my Willow II spec script?

Seems to me if you want to capture the spirit of IV-VI, you can't use CGI.

I'd like to see someone not try to recapture anything, just make a good movie using modern technology and blow my doors off. I hate to keep going back to the Marvel movies but they are the modern template for doing this right (and Star Trek).

Take well worn characters in a well worn universe and hand them over to creative people who know how to put asses in seats and cut them loose. The Avengers should the the inspiration going into these movies, only I attribute a huge portion of the success of those movies to the actual Marvel comics writers and creators that were brought in to advise and guide those movies. I'm not sure Star Wars has that.

I'd be fine if the first six movies were just "history" that paints the backdrop for a new adventure and the sequels barely tied in. I might even prefer that.

And Dear God, do NOT consult fans.

If fans had it their way Episode 1 would have been a foul mouthed blood soaked crapfest starring Boba Fett on the back of a Tauntan riding around in the Millenium Falcon.

VoxOrion wrote:I'd like to see someone not try to recapture anything, just make a good movie using modern technology and blow my doors off.

There is a degree of "magic" in the original movies, right? Some of that is probably due to special effects that transcended what was available at the time. There was also some cool cinematography, good acting, and a great straightforward story of good vs evil. The prequels didn't possess a lot of these things.

Good acting/writing/etc is the hallmark of any good movie, so I'm not sure how that relates. I can't imagine an attempt to re-capture anything being successful.

star wars without lucas directing/writing is amazing; SEE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

VoxOrion wrote:Take well worn characters in a well worn universe

On a different note, the thing that was so great about Star Wars and its "original" sequels, when you look back on it, was... well, that they were original.

Here was an entirely new idea, created solely for the screen. Not an adaptation. Not a remake.

The best thing for Star Wars would be for people to just let them be. They were products of the 1970s and early 1980s; for all their "timelessness," you losing something about them if you lose the context in which they appeared: on the heels of bleak dystopic future movies like 2001 and even Lucas's own THX 1138, and, culturally, on the heels of probably the worst period in American history outside of the Civil War (1968-1976). And here it suddenly was, Star Wars, this fun, optimistic film that totally inverted the dire hopelessness of 1970s cinema while at the same time being very firmly rooted in other aspects of that 70s culture. It's time to give a NEW George Lucas - a kid with a new idea, a new way of doing things - a shot, not go back to this well one more time.

Remember when Hollywood took chances on new ideas?

Neither do I.

i do

The Dude wrote:i do

Not surprised, since you abide.

well come on, you can't think it's any different than when Hollywood was putting out 40 disaster movies a year out, or a ton of detective movies.

"Inception" was cool, "Inglourious Basterds", "Black Swan", all are pretty good original Hollywood movies

Largely speaking, Hollywood has never been original (because it's a business), from swashbucklers to Marx Brothers copycats to musicals to gritty cop dramas.

Even Inglorious Bastards is a raunchy modern take on Where Eagles Dare. Tarantino's whole career is based on rehash + his added flavor.

It's not a zero sum game. You would not get some $150 million dollar epic from some unknown if Disney weren't funding Episode 7.

The Dude wrote:well come on, you can't think it's any different than when Hollywood was putting out 40 disaster movies a year out, or a ton of detective movies.

"Inception" was cool, "Inglourious Basterds", "Black Swan", all are pretty good original Hollywood movies

I mean, yeah, things were always better "when I was a kid." I realize things are never as bad in the moment as the cranks would have it, nor were they as good in the past as people would have you believe.

I can't empirically prove this, but it does seem like Hollywood is less interested in giving reasonable budgets to new ideas/directors than they were in the 70s (which was, admittedly, a weird time and perhaps an exception in the history of the movie biz rather than the rule).