Rogue One [Official Info] Gareth Edwards to Direct first Spin Off !

Cold hard fact: Hating the PT is a popular opinion. Talented and untalented people share it. Eliminating them from the pool of potential ST/spinoff creators isn't just silly, it's severely limiting. I enjoy the PT but they are far from flawless.

Now in Weitz's defense, being a writer-for-hire on a crap book the studio is exploiting for a quick cash grab is a thankless job. Plenty of other indie talent has been screwed over by the studio, so I can't hold it against him.

On the other hand, he co-wrote/directed About A Boy, which was original, clever, funny and had realistic characters and Hugh Grant's best performance in years.

It's funny to hold a bad film from 15 years ago over Weitz, while leaving About A Boy, In Good Company, A Single Man, etc., unmentioned. Don't slam the guy's entire filmography just because he doesn't share a love of the PT.

So no, Kennedy isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel here. Weitz is capable of good filmmaking, and Lucas neither needs nor is concerned about fans defending him from complaints like Weitz's.

 

But I honestly don't understand the hate for the prequels. They're really not all that bad. After taking a break from SW for a while and watching the prequels without fanboy goggles, I really did see they're not bad at all. The dialogue isn't as corny or terrible as people make it out to be on boards like IMDb, the acting isn't wooden either. Sure, sometimes it can be a smidge cringeworthy, but that also applied to the OT as well. They were far from Oscar-caliber acting at points. And the CGI complaint, again, is a tad overplayed. Just view that practical effects thread in the PT board and you'll see it wasn't just green screen after green screen.

You'd think people would move on from 10-15 years ago and realize the movies are not bad at all, as critic reviews will point out. Sith holds an 80%, Clones a 67%, and Phantom (before 3D) had a 65ish% approval. These do not scream "horrible films that should be forgotten!". These films have a lot of memorable moments, and some that far exceed the OT in some ways (Order 66 is probably the most sad and heart breaking moment in any SW film). The prequels have a much more diverse set of characters that feels like a real world, with all the different species introduced. And the music.... Duel of the Fates is top notch, Jedi Temple March is brilliant, I could go on.

To me, all 6 films are on equal footing. Each film has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I think most people look through nostalgic glasses too much and dismiss anything that's not "Empire Strikes Back"....

 

The spinoffs may have a smaller budget or be smaller in scale, but they won't be made "on the cheap" by any means.

And picking writers from the dregs? I'm sure this wasn't the intention - that wouldn't make sense. Not intending the film to be the best it can be nullifies the very point of making the spinoffs.

I didn't care about Whitta's opinion of the Prequels - I just didn't like the decietfulness surrounding the issue. That doesn't mean that he couldn't do a good job - there isn't sufficient in his listed filmography to fairly judge his talents.

Weitz's is very opposite - he waste away his as much of his life moaning on Twitter all he wants* - but there is more than enough in his IMDB page to question how he was even considered, let alone hired.

* I simply can't wrap my head around the irony of the writer of The Klumps criticising anyone else work.

Yes, that is quite correct. I wasn't aware people were concerned that this would be the case.

Guys like Whitta and Weitz don't have that kind of power in this situation - the story is already developed and they are there to write the script.

If the story calls for Prequel references, there is nothing they can do about it if they wanted to.

As I said above, I don't care about their personal opinions. Weitz's could have been gushing his adoration for TPM and deep affection for Jar Jar on Twitter - it matters not.

It is his own work that counts.

I didn't mention The Klumps and overlook the others - Klumps was specifically mentioned simply because it was named by another poster and stands out as a horrendous example. Myself, I mentioned Weitz's entire filmography and said none of it inspires confidence that he is capable of producing a great script.

 

I was speaking in general to the idea that "this guy said something I disagree with so here is some selective highlighting to delegitimize the value of his opinion." It's a common tact, but more emotional than credible, IMO.

I didn't see you do that, Hoggs. The question of whether he's qualified is perfectly valid one. Personally, I think he is. Whether this is one of his good films remains to be seen, but with Kennedy as the EP I'm optimistic.

Back on topic: I am put off by the view that only certain kinds of Star Wars fans should be allowed near the new canon. In other words, only the truly true fans can have an influence, while all others should be excluded and declared anathema. If I want an insular, homogenized Sequel Trilogy, that's the way to do it. But I want variety, new ideas and creative stories, from people unafraid of striking out in a direction they believe in. More Kershners and Kurtzs, please.

Anyway, that's my view.

 

I don't think anyone was being selective about Weitz's filmography at all.

I don't think of it as a person being "qualified" - how does a writer become "qualified"? I don't think such a thing is possible - how would you judge it? every writer pops out a dud in the middle of god work.

You didn't see me do what?

Discussing Weitz is on topic - the thread is about Edwards and the first spinoff.

Yes, you are absolutely correct in this paragraph. The writers and directors shouldn't be a certain type of Star Wars "fan" (or love all the movies, TV series, etc.)

Variety and new ideas are exactly what will keep Star Wars going. The last thing any franchise needs is to run be controlled or influenced by fan opinion.

 

I didn't see you dismiss the value of a dissenting opinion. I did see Weitz's early work brought up to discredit his opinion as a fellow fan in this thread, but not by you.

How do you judge if a writer is qualified? Well, how about the critical and popular reception of their work? Seems a fair metric. I admit that Weitz is mixed in that respect, but his record combined with Kennedy's gives me hope.

Good point about the "topic."

 

Sorry, I was very sleepy and thought I'd lost track of the discussion When it comes to movies and other art, dissenting opinion is vital, however, criticism needs to be constructive. Prequel "bashing" is not and is in most cases just people on a bandwagon who cannot back up what they say. It is also an internet "thing".

While I have only glimpsed a small sample of Weitz's Twitter comments, the "opinions" did seem to be just "bashing" - neither constructive nor original.I would prefer a screenwriter who is capable of original thought in voicing an opinion - be that opinion negative or positive.

I was more questioning the word "qualified" itself - would seem to imply that a certain educational route needs to be taken or the person to have achieved a certain number of goals in their career.

When it comes to art and entertainment, the person on the street has as much potential as the film student or acting class graduate - not demising film and acting studies.

The writer of The Klumps is as entitled to criticise TPM as much as wirer of Shawshank is - how they say it is important though.

 

I don't think I explained that right

Weitz's work varies from terrible to mediocre, but that doesn't mean Weitz isn't allowed to discuss another writers work - I couldn't write a screenplay (good or bad) to save my life, but I'm just as entitled to discuss a movie and it's script as much as any one.

What Weitz is not entitled to do is to "bash" another persons work - even a good writer shouldn't do that.

The other point I wanted to make was that I'm kind of tired of those involved waxing lyrical about growing up with Star Wars, being inspired at a young age, etc.

The writers, directors (of the spinoffs) and actors don't need to be gushing fanboys or fangirls. They don't even need to have seen any Star Wars before. They only need to care about the movie they are tasked with making.

A writer can either be given a plot outline (or create one themselves) site it out free of any knowledge of Star Wars, then meet with the story group to make the proper story adjustments to fit into the GFFA. For example, task a writer with making a WWII type movie set in space, he writes it unbiased and later the story group turn certain characters into aliens.

Same for a director and actors.

 

I've changed my mind on Gareth Edwards. I haven't seen any of his movies, so I suppose I had no right to disagree with the choice in the first place, but now I've come around to it.

From what I've heard from you guys, Monsters is apparently a pretty good film. It also got generally positive reviews from critics, even with a very small budget and as Edwards' directorial debut. What excites me most about this though, is that despite being his first film, Monsters is probably as good, if not better than any movie the great Irvin Kershner directed before Empire Strikes Back. Yep, Edwards' first ever movie got better reviews than most or all of Kershner's twelve movies prior to ESB. Kershner's sixth movie that had James Bond, A.K.A., one of the hottest actors in the world at the time in Sean mother****ing Connery, made less money in the box office and got worse reviews than Edwards' first movie.

That's pretty crazy, when you look at how epic ESB was. I may sound like a Kershner-basher, but ESB is my favourite Star Wars, or even any, movie ever. You guys who hate on Edwards need to have more faith, because this could turn out to be a great movie. Yeah, Gary Whitta sucks, but at least he's been replaced by a more capable writer in Chris Weitz. He may have directed a Twilight movie, but he's only handling the writing for this movie. In fact, he's been nominated for an Academy Award before for his screenwriting. As long as the story doesn't suck, I think this could turn out to be a good film.

 

While I wouldn't put Monsters or Godzilla in a list of my top ten favourite movies, I enjoyed them and would happily rewash them anytime.

And they were interesting enough that I look forward to seeing what Edwards would do with a Star Wars story. Yes, there wasn't enough Godzilla in Godzilla or Monsters in Monsters but he was making the movies from the human point of view. Honestly speaking, as fun as more Godzilla would have been, I still think I would be rating it exactly the same here.

I didn't like that Whitta didn't have the integrity to just stand by his comments, his actual filmography may not be a true reflection of his talent - screenwriters often work on a movie that they don't get credit for. Just because Weitz has a longer list of credits is no indication that he is a superior writer to Whitta.

Personally, a scan of Weitz's credits show mediocre (at best) talent.

 

I enjoyed Godzilla a helluva lot more than Eyes of Laura Mars.

 

http://makingstarwars.net/2015/02/m...nd-alone-spin-off-shooting-ways-away-appears/

 

It makes sense that filming would commence in April/May since it is essentially following the same schedule as The Force Awakens and released in December 2016, right? Just a year later. We'll probably get casting info in April and filming in May-September/October. In 2016 we can expect the same to happen with Episode VIII, no?

 

I don't know If you guys remember but Earlier In the year I posted that I rented on Xfinity On-Demand Gareth Edward's Godzilla but my On-Demand was acting up and Jumping and Pix-elating, so at the time I could not do a proper review. Well I finally rented Godzilla from Netflix and I thought It was much better then the 1998 Godzilla, It was a really fun Popcorn Flick that I would have gladly payed a matinee price at my Local Regal or at the very least payed $3.00 at my local Discount theater. I also loved the Alexandre Desplat Musical Score!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Wait what happened in regards to Weitz? The name is new to me, I think I missed something - sounds like another controversy? Can someone explain for me please?

 

Chris Weitz is the screenwriter hired to finish work on the first standalone film after Whitta's departure.

He has criticized the Phantom Menace extensively on Twitter, and generated similar reactions to Gary Whitta's comments about the prequels and George Lucas.

Personally, I feel their situations are very different. Whitta's comments seemed more vitriolic to me, and he went in and edited out his remarks and his legal/managerial representation accused folks who were reportingn what he'd said accurately of publishing lies and falsehoods, crying defamation of character and libel. The reaction of his official representatives was nuts. Weitz on the other hand said what he said, harshly, but without the apparent entitlement and disproportionate rage I saw in Whitta's comments.

But both of the screenwriters for the project have bad-mouthed the prequels, which has gotten some people reasonably worked up.

 

Yes, but the important issue here is Weitz's ability as a writer - I don't see talent anywhere in his credits.

 

Thanks!

 

About a Boy is a fantastic film with superb characters.

 

can some one post what Whitta said about the Prequels or post a link to what he said?

 

I disagree.

And if I may use the arguement that was used to defend Weitz when The Klumps was mentioned - one movie over a decade ago

I don't see any thing in guys work that indicates he can write an entertaining script - and fortunately the story is already in place.

I would imagine that Edwards himself is going to write the final draft - this is the only thing that makes sense.

I wouldn't worry about that - he is gone now.

 

And I disagree with you. I honestly do think "About a Boy" is a pretty well written film.

 

I don't remember ever saying I disliked "About A Boy " I never saw It? can you refresh my memory on what I said?