Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII - Spoilers Allowed' started by Diggs, Nov 8, 2012.
One of the reasons I liked ROTS is because they threw the Senate out.. literally.
Avengers is a kid flick. Its a great one, but its a kid flick. People need to stop treating that phrase like a pejorative.
I have yet to see The Avengers, but in Australia it was rated M, i.e. recommended for ages 15+. That hardly suggests a "kid flick".
I would say it's teens and older.
What people think is or isn't appropriate based on moral taboos about violence is related to the emotional maturity and complexity of a film how? And since when aren't fifteen year olds kids? I know twenty five year olds that are still kids.
When is "emotional maturity and complexity of a film" related to its target audience? Compare, say, Toy Story 3 with Die Hard 4 (or Rambo, or P.S. I Love You) and tell me which is more complex, then note which is targeted at adults.
Why are you assuming that target audience has anything to do with my argument, and why do you assume I consider Die Hard 4 to be adult fare? Also, why does everyone keep thinking that "kids movie" is a pejorative classification of quality? There are great kids movies and terrible kids movies. Toy Story 3 is a really good kids movie, Die Hard 4 is a terrible one (although maybe "mentally arrested adult movie" is better than kids movie in that case).
With the news that Michael Arndt is now writing the screenplay, I'm feeling rather confident about it. Toy Story 3 was a very good movie in typical Pixar fashion, catering to both children and adults which Star Wars has done also. I'm now interested to see if Luke, Han and Leia will feature.
I never got around to watching "Little Miss Sunshine", but now I have no excuse to miss it! Arndt seems like a really brilliant guy!
It's already been confirmed I believe they well, along with other fan favorites.
Sorry if this has been answered, but as i undestand it, Michael Arndt will only do a screenplay. So, does this mean Episode VII will not be based on a star wars novel? If i'm not wrong, the OT movies were based on novels. Episode IV was based on Alan Dean Foster's 1976 novel: Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalke. Episode V was based on 1980 Donald F. Glut novel, and Episode VI was based on 1983 James Kahn novel...
So, wouldn't it be wise that Michael Arndt bases his screenplay on a novel too? I think those three writers haven't done much more related to Star Wars, but do you think there are 3 great quality novels in the "New Republic Era" that Michael Arndt can rely on?
Well to be fair to Arndt and all involved - it isn't just brilliant because of his writing.
The entire cast and crew are fantastic. It is one of those movie where everything came together perfectly.
No, those were novelizations of a screenplay, which we can also look forward to for Episode 7. It will be based on Arndt's script and whatever visuals might be provided to the writer.
The Star Wars movies are not based on novels. Those books you mention are adaptations of the screenplays.
Thanks guys, i always thought it was the other way. Usually in movies, the novels are made before than the screenplays.
But still, do you think it would be wise if Michael bases a little on a novel of the New Republic Era?
Arndt will most likely be writting a screen play based on a story/outline by George Lucas.
They have stated it's going to be an "original story", but I wouldn't be surprised to see them pull in characters or settings from the EU. I would not be surprised if they don't touch it at all either.
Are novelizations not done that much these days? I know when I was a kid, back during the OT, all the big blockbusters would have novelizations done.
The novelisations are still done for a lot of movies, but the interest in them is not what it was back in the day.
I can remember, for me anyway, that the novelisation was a viral part of the movie release. I really enjoyed reading them to see how the film changed or dropped certain ideas in filming or editing and to get more of a backstory to the characters.
It's a curious creature, the novelization. "Hey, let's turn this movie into a book!"
Sorry - I completely misread your post.T
So, if it's not based on a novel, then the writer is really important. The writer of the OT was George Lucas, and he surely delivered, (in the Phantom Menace he lost some of his magic). So, i hope Michael Arnd can be as good as the "young" George Lucas.
I loved Toy Story 3. Loved. If Michael Arndt is responsible for two pivotal scenes where (1) the toys are about to die in the incinerator and (2) when Andy finds Woody on the bottom of the box at the end of the film, then I have very little to no worries about the screenplay for SW Ep VII.
We don't know that for sure. His screenplay was based on the story by Lassiter, et al. It's similar to what he's doing for Episode VII, I suppose.
He is a very talented writer and I look forward to this movie even more now.
For clarity, Alderaan, there are two kinds of books you see when it comes to movies. Novels that are adapted into screenplays which are then filmed (i.e. Harry Potter, The Lovely Bones, The Life of Pi, Dracula to name but a few) or novelisations written after the screenplays have been written and which are based on films (i.e. Star Wars, TPM, the Alien novelisation, etc). Splinter of the Mind's Eye and the majority of the EU are just straight novels with no film version either way.