The OT could get rebooted at some point, but I don't see the point of doing that any time soon. Superhero movies get rebooted in order to keep up with the times. The "Superman" films that had Christopher Reeve very obviously reflected the late 1970s and early-to-mid 1980s. The OT is timeless; it does not reflect any particular time. However . . .

. . . maybe in 20 years or so, Hamill, Ford, Fisher, etc. will all be dead, and new generations may relate better to new actors playing the roles of Luke, Han, Leia, and so forth. If that happens, they could try remaking the OT, but even then I think it would be highly risky doing so. There is no way that a remake could ever have the same kind of response that the original films had. If the moviemakers weren't real careful and kept in mind the things that made the OT such a phenomenal hit, the entire remade trilogy could become a failure. It would still make a lot of money regardless, but the success or failure of something as big as a Star Wars movie can't be measured solely in terms of dollars and cents.

Instead of remaking the OT, why not recast Luke, Han, and Leia but do original stories that take place around the OT time period? They could do movies that occur during or after the OT time period. I think that would be far less risky than remaking the OT.

Just say no to an OT reboot!

 

Everything you say is subjective, you may have loved it but I found Avengers boring, while The Dark Knight despite Heath Ledger stealing the show is no where near as good as made out to be, particuarly the last 30 mins which is like a different film pasted on to it. Thor and Captain America were mediocre and forgettable films and only really bought out to introduce the characters for the Avengers.

 

That's what they & Marvel are doing with the Avengers. Separte movies then bring them all together in one. And repeat.

 

Is 2 years enough time to make the ST movies? It has always been 3 for each one prior to this.

And Lucasfilm will have to start work on a spin-off pretty soon if they want it out by 2017 and also do Episode VIII (plus the next spin-off for 2019).

There's enough material to get it done, I hope it will be worth it. Given what Disney has done recently with LucasArts & TCW I was starting to lose faith in this deal.

 

No offense, but um - duh. There is NO movie that is objectively excellent. People poo-poo the Oscar winner every year for crying out loud. There will be people who hate every new Star Wars installment, there will be people who love every new Star Wars installment, and there will be people in between. My point was that the timing between films won't have anything to do with it for most people, and the people who do complain about the timeline are probably looking for something to complain about.

 

I'm loving this news! I'm thrilled at the prospect of a new, different SW film every year into the foreseeable future. I ardently disagree with those who believe an abundance of SW will somehow cheapen the property, for a number of reasons (some of which have been noted in this thread):

1. Because Disney's marketing dept. is smart, each of the movies will undoubtedly be variegated and singular enough to avoid the feeling of "same-old, same-old" with each new film. Alternating from episode to standalone ensures this.

2. Marvel Studios has produced one or two Avengers-related films a year since 2008, and this has not "cheapened" the Marvel films or reduced their cultural cache. This isn't even counting the Spidey or X-Men movies, which are set in the same universe.

3. I can decide to watch the films or not. If I'm not interested in a Sy Snootles movie, I don't have to go see it. BAM! Instant de-cheapening.

4. I love Star Wars enough to welcome each new installment with hope and fannish adulation. Even if a given film proves to be disappointing, that will be a strike against that particular film and not a "cheapening" of the entire franchise.

5. Star Wars movies are awesome! I rest my case.

 

I think the idea is to have completely different production teams working on different films at the same time. This is the LOTR model, if you will, where scenes from three different movies might be shot on a given day in different locations and/or sound stages.

In a sense Disney has been doing this for decades, overseeing different animated productions that developed simultaneously under different teams of creative, production and technical personnel. One good example of this is The Black Cauldron and The Great Mouse Detective, which were released a year apart and developed simultaneously through the early 80s. TBC is beautifully animated but doesn't make much sense narratively, while TGMD is a satisfying little gem with comparatively simple artistry on display.

 

Technologies have advanced. What it took LFL to do in 2 years will take only 1 now. So yes, it is.

 

Who knows, we might finally get that Cad Bane spinoff?

 

Man, I am so excited about this! A film every year? Awesome!

Seriously, Disney needs to get around to buying up all the other cool film franchises out there. I mean, there's so much lost potential that could benefit from the Disney magic.

For example:

* Citizen Kane. Why stop with Kane's death? There's a whole world out there that hasn't been explored yet. And other time periods - we could see the people who first invented newspapers. And of course, there's the spin-off films. Origins movies for Jedediah, Gettys. We could have a whole film trilogy about Susan's decision to go back into showbusiness!
* Dr Strangelove. The film ends with nuclear war starting - can you say sequel hook!?! Post-apocalyptic wastelands, mutants, battles over resources, the possibilities are endless. And what's with Peter Sellers playing all those roles? Let's get recasting so that we can have a prequel - sorry, three prequels, of course - where Dr Strangelove and President Muffley meet for the first time. I mean, we need to know what's wrong with Strangelove's hand. It's bad storytelling not to cover that.
* Rear Window. There's the obvious - the film outright tells us that Jeff has covered war zones etc, again, why have we not got his Origins film already? And of course, there's the film itself: all these people in the other apartments, just begging for spin-offs covering their POV during the murder. But the big guns? 1998 remake. Christopher Reeve in the lead role. Who cares that Warner Bros owns the DC rights - surely, they'll see how awesome a Superman/Rear Window crossover would be!

Wow, I haven't been this excited since I was a kid. It's like companies are finally realising how awesome their own films, and we, the audience, are the ones who are going to reap the benefits. The future's bright my friends.

 

^ I'm really not good at online wit. Is that sarcasm? Please take no offense, BTW.

 

No offence taken, I assure you.

 

We'll have more SW movies released between 2015 and 2021 then we had in the 40 years before that, and people don't think that's overkill? SW is not Marvel. Those characters started out in their individual stories and then were brought together into one franchise. That's why you have people who are just a fan of Spidey or Iron Man or Wolverine and don't necessarily care about crossovers or other characters. SW has always been ONE franchise. If they made a James Bond or a Batman movie every year, people would become sick of them. Yes, SW covers a larger time period and has more characters than those, but the same principle holds true that you can have too much of a good thing.

 

We already hit that point.

Also, to add to my previous points (and everyone else's) regarding Marvel and LOTR, I'll add in a more realistic comparison - Harry Potter. Harry Potter has actually beaten Star Wars at this point as the highest grossing franchise, and they were released in this manner:

Sorcerer's Stone: 2001
Chamber of Secrets: 2002
Prisoner of Azkaban: 2004
Goblet of Fire: 2005
Order of the Phoenix: 2007
Half-Blood Prince: 2009 (originally 2008)
Deathly Hallows I: 2010
Deathly Hallows II: 2011

Consistent in quality and made massive amounts of money and were released nearly annually. 8 films in 9 years.

 

That's not an appropriate comparison at all. The Harry Potter films were all adaptations of an existing book series, which was explicitly written with a single story arc spanning all of them. They were also produced in chronological order, and at no point was there ever any intention (as far as we are publicly aware) to go beyond the book adaptations.

Warner Bros never said "we're just going to keep producing Harry Potter films once a year ad infinitum".

 

I'm actually nostalgic for that period. No one complained or bashed or "geek"-labeled STAR WARS at all. That said, Lucas was never "unproductive", and the mention of his name in connection to stuff like Jurassic Park was more alluring to the public than joke-stoking.
As for everything else, I see people are still blaming this all on Disney as if George Lucas just innocently approached them with an idea to give to charity by selling his company, and everything else became Disney's choice to make with it. These arrangements were made, and reported, and mentioned in the videos Kathleen Kennedy videos.

 

I myself am hoping for a "Shadow of the Empire" trilogy in there.

 

Also worth noting, the HP movies had nowhere near as many new creatures, locations, and characters per film as Star Wars does. HP had the luxury of reusing many sets, as much of the series took place in the same locations. Also, creating a new movie every year/other year was necessary as the kids were growing up fast. In the books they age 7 years, and in the real world the actors aged around 10 years.

 

Star Trek is the best comparison. Like SW it has a huge universe of characters and stories to draw from, but that doesn't mean people want a new ST movie every year. The original series of movies before the reboot made it to 10, but only half of those were decent movies and they were coming out every 2-3 years. Releasing a new SW movie every year means they'll probably run it into the ground a lot quicker than that. They should worry about Episodes VII-IX first, and then make the spin-offs if there's demand for them (which there will be if the ST lives up to expectations),

 

I'm aware of that, however I'm referring to how they ended up being released. No one called them "milked" or felt they were getting "too much at once."

 

With so many movies coming out and in rapid development I would think some are going to suck. Some of course may be animated and aimed at children and so won't appeal to a lot of us anyway.

But the good thing about spin-offs is that you can always ignore them. I dislike Wolverine Origins but I own all the other X-Men movies so I simply pretend it never happened (and will do the same if The Wolverine is also bad). So long as the ST movies are decent and can fit in with the previous 6 movies I'll be happy.
I can keep the 9 film Saga box and then have the Boba Fett movie and other spin-offs separate.

I like the Nolan & Burton Batman movies, I can ignore the Schumacher versions and be happy.

 

I agree that spin-offs will be easier to ignore if they're disappointing, but as I said earlier I really hope that the same level of attention gets given to any live action theatrical release movie with the SW name on it. I no longer have concerns about yearly movies diluting the franchise, but I do have concerns that bad SW movies would hurt the name. Having said that, I remain optimistic that the ST and the spin-offs can all be done well and not disappoint.