Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond (Archive)' started by Echo-07, Nov 23, 2012.
I hope they do not do this! Especially if they release one every three years!
Fair enough. You bring up some good points, like why didn't they reveal this plan if it was in efefct? They did say every 2 or 3 years.
However, keep in mind that GL HAD to do the 3 year plan because he was in total control of everything. Basically he was independently producing these movies. Now that a HUGE conglomerate like Disney has taken over they have the deep pockets to be able to fund a massive production like LOTR all simultaneously.
But you're right, I think Lucasfilm/Dinsey would have announced they were going to film a trilogy at once like LOTR and release in subsequent years if that was the plan.
I don't know....I never watched them.
You should... But no, they didn't feel rushed at all.
As for the ST, I could definitely see Disney doing this, but I have a feeling they would stick to the two year interval, rather than one a year. More time to build revenue off of all of the merchandising in between films while riding on the hype...
LOTR is a masterwork. I hope the producers put in half the work and detail PJ did for that trilogy. Pure Awesomeness!
Well yes. They were very rushed. Big chunks of the movie were being written and rewritten all during production, with new script pages being tossed under the doors of the actors on a regular basis. This was partly because of the two movie script being turned into a three movie script. The director was rushing from set to set, trying to manage two to three different units of filming simultaneously. In reality, he relied heavily on the support of his co-writer wife, other producers and assistant directors to actively direct chunks of the movies. And we're not talking second unit stunt work. Each of the three movies required comprehensive reshoots and pickup photography.
There were very important decisions about the distribution of scenes among the 2nd and 3rd movies being made very late in the game. This led to the character of Saruman basically just been written out with an ADRed line, with his fate left to a clumsily assembled Extended cut. The third movie suffered from having to compensate for the extra content of TTT, like the entire Balrog segment. The post production on those movies was such a horserace that the director never saw a final cut of ROTK until the public premiere.
Decisions like the look of the Balrog and the nature of the Ent attack on Orthanc were made very late in post production for each movie. There's a reason PJ dreaded getting back in the director's chair for more Middle Earth adventures.
If the story is complete then I guess you can, but it's leaves you less opportunity to develop/change things over time. You are locking yourself in.
Live, Love, Learn & Laugh
You know, I was very impressed with the first one at the time, in particular with (some of) the changes that they decided to make. The way the prologue is told; showing Saruman building an army in real time rather than flashback, and so on. Then I watched the 1978 animated Bakshi version... and as sub-par as it is, everything that I liked about Jackson's "Fellowship" that didn't come straight out of the book was present in the Bakshi movie. Everything. Some dialogue and shots ("Proudfeet!") were also literally taken from that. I suspect that the third movie was such a mess because Jackson didn't have an example to look to.
Well, technically... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079802/
I don't know what that says about your theory. I haven't seen the animated Return of the King, but I hear that it's a mess.
By the way, LOTR weren't the only films made back-to-back; the "Matrix" sequels and the "Pirates of the Caribbean" sequels were also shot back-to-back. I don't know of any others.
do the POTC way,shoot and release Episode VII and then shoot episode VIII and IX back to back. that way you have the remaining time to work on special effects and reshoots if needed.
I've never even heard of that! I'll have to check it out at some point. When I'm really, really, really bored.
Back to the Future sequels.
It would certainly be economical to film all three back to back (Matrix, Kill Bill, and Back To The Future as examples) plus creatively I think everyone on board would still be in the same "Star Wars" headspace since the longer production schedule would allow more time to be invested in the characters. I'm in support of this approach.
I wouldn't mind if they took this approach. I always liked the whole "Lord of the Rings style" continuous story, each one picking up right where the other left off...
Could be interesting. I think it would make people more...emotionally invested in the story, since it's really just one, split up into three parts.
Well that's the problem. Star Wars trilogies tend to be broken up by several years between movies. We enjoy seeing the actors aging with the roles. The whole point of shooting back to back is to save resources in cases of reused sets, costumes, and props, for stories that do not have large time jumps between movies. Imagine ESB and ROTJ being shot back to the back. The only thing being reused would be the Falcon set, the X-wing set, and the Dagobah set, right? But we would lose getting to see Luke aging three years and getting a really bad haircut.
I agree that the "back-to-back" approach seems to lend itself particularly well for movies where one continues right after the other one leaves off, but I don't see that being a necessity. Star Wars traditionally has some years in between installments, and I expect this to hold true for the ST... Though if so, this probably will make it more difficult for the actors.
...And we don't wanna miss out on THAT, now do we?!
Back to the Future II and III. Dino seems to be the innovator with this type of filming. 3 Muskateers and 4 Muskateers. Although I'm not sure that was intended there was a huge stink when two films came out and I believe the actors sued because they believed they only filmed and paid for one film. Superman I and II started filming together but filming on II was stopped and picked up later.
If you look at the examples given of trilogies/sequels filmed back to back - LOTR, Matrix & Pirates of the Caribbean - I hope LF do not take this approach. I'm not here for a trilogy where only the first film is impressive (in the case of LOTR & Matrix) and enjoyable (in the case of PotC).
The plot and the script MUST be meticulously conceived and translated. This means MORE time and LESS pressure. No last minute decisions mistakes.
Only the first LOTR film is impressive?
Concerning TTT, every scene with the Ents was boring and silly and felt unorganised mixed with the Battle For Helm's Deep (which was impressive, yes). Jackson left out many chapters, and scraped the few he included over the whole movie "like butter stretched over too much bread". There were parts that were impressive, and I enjoyed it overall.
I enjoyed both the LOTR and Pirates trilogies which is all I ask for. Some people takes these stories too seriously.
We wouldn't be here if we didn't take certain movies too seriously.
The Pirates sequels made lots of money, but they took a nosedive in quality. Ditto with the Matrix sequels which got progressively worse. The Back to the Future sequels made less money than the original and were not as good. The only exception was Lord of the Rings.