ST JJ Abrams to direct Episode VII

It really depends on how strong the characters are. Do the new characters have the potential to be more iconic than Luke, Han, Leia, Darth Vader, Obi-Wan, Yoda and the Emperor for example? Is it best they keep trying to replicate those characters or just start again from scratch? In a way, I think it's inevitable that they'll remake them at some point... Perhaps they'll even turn out better?

 

Will JJ pay a lot of homage to the OT?

 

Well, there was my mistake - I thought you meant that this is way think should be - though I would that the general public allow the media to this, rather tham the media helps the public to form opinions

When it comes to art and entertainment, I am very much remove from media and critics' opinions. I don't read or listen reviews or such of that nature and, for example, I have gone to or avoided a movie based on the likes of that.

 

What I am worried is Disney might make a series of bad decision that cause the franchise to become moribund. If Disney end up being caught into an endless cycle of introducing new empires for the same bunch of protagonist and their children to face, there will be people who start to lose interest in the franchise.

Looking at EU is a good example of how the writers couldn't write themselves out of this perpetual cycle of violence, especially after the end of the NJO series. There was a noticeable lack of interest among the fandom in discussing new EU books set post NJO.


Right now, Disney knows that paying homages and trying to "recreate" the OT might sit well with the fans. However, I think this is a short term decision that might have negative long term effects. It crucial for any successful business to reinvent the formula again and again to prevent the organisation from being stale and lagging behind.

SW as a creative franchise must avoid falling into this trap if it wants to have continued success on a massive scale. New Star Wars movies needs to be different from the OT if they really want to ensure there is always something new and fresh for the audience of different generation.

 

Not sure how you do Star Wars without violence.

 

I will say one thing about JJ from his latest quick interview. He sure does look VERY pale and VERY thin. Must be grueling working on this one and the pressure must be equally grueling.

 

Lucas has created an entire galaxy for writers to play around with. You don't have to limit yourself to making more stories about new intergalactic wars every few years like what the EU authors have done. It's embarrassing when one author even notices the ridiculous amounts of wars they have wrote post ROTJ, and tries to explains this as Anakin failing to bring balance to the force.

It's even more ridiculous that almost every post ROTJ stories involves the rebellion ( and their successor in whatever form) fighting a new empire ( in whatever form).

 

They could do another Outbound Flight project or something after the NJO series. OR too Star Trek like? We needed a breather after the NJO. DNT/LOTF/FOTJ were not needed so quickly. Give us time to breath, new characters etc. I can give Legacy a pass because that came out before LOTF/FOTJ ended. That one needed more time to expand. The GA/Empire/Jedi all working together is fine imo.

 

I doubt any new characters, no matter how three-dimensional and well-developed they are, could become as iconic as Luke, Han, Vader and the rest of the main characters from the OT because, in this day and age, it would be impossible to replicate the impact those characters (and the OT as a whole) had on moviegoers when the OT came out. And if Disney decided to go the reboot route... even if it was financially successful, it won't have the same cultural impact the OT had in its day. Still, even if the new characters do not become cultural icons like the OT characters did, that doesn't mean they, and the new SW movies, won't be hugely popular and hugely profitable. If that's the case, I don't see why Disney should feel the need to reboot the entire saga at some point.

 

I suppose you have to look at cinematic history to see how probable it is. They've rebooted everything from James Bond to Battlestar Galactica... so I'm not sure why Star Wars would be left untouched. It's one of the reasons why superhero movies always seem to return to Superman, Spider-Man, Batman etc.... primarily because they are the most iconic characters and it's easier to keep re telling the same story (with the same characters) than it is to write something new than can't compete. The bad guy who gets redeemed by the love of his son... great story. Someone is going to want to re-visit that story with those characters again sooner or later.

 

IMO there's some big differences between the old and new SW franchise to consider here. First, the EU's creators had to come up with new post-Endor material without any post-Endor movies to act as cornerstones. With the ST, and the movies that will IMO inevitably follow it (possibly including a fourth trilogy), the creators of the new EU will be able to use those movies as solid bases to build the new EU on. Second, showing that Lucasfilm has learned from the EU's difficulties, there's now a Story Group in place to ensure that the new EU's content meshes better and with greater consistency than the old EU. And I have no doubt that the Story Group's members will also try to make sure that new material remains fresh and exciting. Third, given that new movies will come out only at a pace of once a year, or maybe two a year if Disney/Lucasfilm decide to accelerate the pace to match Marvel's, the movies' creators will IMO have more than enough time to insure that their works are fresh and exciting to viewers... again, with the Story Group there to insure in advance that the new EU remains consistent with what appears in the new movies.

If the whole ST is nothing but a retelling of the OT with new characters, then I would agree that the ST might come across as stale. But so far, what I've learned from Ep VII is that it will pay homage to the OT in terms of tone, not necessarily of story. And I for one welcome the return of more practical special effects so as to avoid the glut of CGI of the PT. As for reinventing the formula to avoid staleness, to reiterate, given the pace of new movie releases, the deciders for the franchise will have plenty of time to come up with new ideas and strategies for the franchise as a whole.

 

Those franchises had become stale, moribund, or hadn't had a new release in decades. In those situations, reboots are IMO justified. But if the ST, the movies that will inevitably follow it, and the spinoffs prove very popular with the fanbase and profitable for Disney on a consistent basis, why should Disney feel the need to reboot the whole franchise? Killing a reliable golden goose in the hope that the next one might lay even bigger eggs would IMO be very risky, and I doubt Disney's higher-ups would want to take that chance.

 

In 20-30 years, Star Wars will be more than a half-century old, and it's safe to assume, especially considering the production schedules we're looking at now - there will be, on average, one movie a year (if not two) and accompanying television shows.

You really think the words "moribund" or "stale" won't start to be thrown around in this 20-years-distant future that will contain 20+ Star Wars movies and shows? That some semblance of fatigue or staleness might be percieved to have set in for general audiences?

Reboots don't kill a golden goose. They revitalize. That's the whole point of them. In 20 years, you're going to have a generation for whom two (or maybe even three) trilogies will be seen as "old." In 20 years, the temptation to put ALL generations on the same footing by starting the entire Skywalker saga over with new actors, new directors, and a new take on the general story that provides just enough changes and improvements to keep everything feeling fresh yet familiar is going to be VERY enticing. Because you're inviting all generations to start Star Wars fresh, all at the same time, instead of jumping on as the train rushes through the decades.

Look at how successful Bond was with their reboot (Casino Royale). Look at how revitalized Star Trek was in 2009 with JJ's movie.

Now imagine the exponential success you could reap if you did that, but with a series as huge as Star Wars?

Plus, keep in mind - a reboot is the ONLY way that Disney/Lucasfilm gets a version of Star Wars (1977) all to themselves, without 20th Century Fox's perpetual rights hanging over it. That's going to be worth something in and of itself.

 

TFA isn't even out yet & now we are talking about a reboot...

 

Reboot talk been going the second Disney bought the property.

 

I have a feeling The Force Awakens is going to ostensibly be Disney's version of A New Hope, and there's no way Disney doesn't buy the distribution rights from Fox after the other five films revert. And I don't think Star Wars need to be rebooted. As long as it's working, there's no reason to fix it. Star Trek had pretty much run itself into the ground both cinematically and on television, it needed to be revitalized. As long as Disney doesn't mismanage the franchise, a reboot won't be necessary. And I doubt we're going to get one film a year, every year, for the next several decades. The people in charge know that's probably not the best idea in the world. If anything, Disney will likely do several films for a period of time, then not make any films for a while, then repeat. This way, each generation gets a set of movies that are distinctively theirs, and the old continuity is maintained.

Keep in mind, most reboots that work come from comics, where there's a wealth of source material to mine and adapt, spanning decades. Reboots of other franchises generally aren't nearly as successful or good as the original version; if anything, they feel more stale and overly derivative. Casino Royale was great, but it wasn't like there was anything resembling a solid continuity in the series before. It practically rebooted with every new actor, Royale just took it one step further. I'd say Abrams' 2009 Star Trek is an exception to the rule, but look at the response to Into Darkness: they started retreading hallowed ground in a new timeline and the fans reacted highly negatively. If you reboot the Skywalker story, you're going to start steamrolling over a story that means a significant amount of people and is monumentally culturally important. With Trek, you at least have Nimoy making an appearance, and it looks like Shatner might in the next film, and they wrote the reboot into the story it with time travel and alternate timelines, but I don't think such a tactic, or even a similar one, would work for Star Wars nearly as well. You also have the added bonus that Star Trek, while recognizable to a vast amount of people, has never enjoyed the immense popularity Star Wars has had since day 1; there'd be a far bigger backlash. For all intents and purposes, The Force Awakens is pulling double-duty as a sequel to Return of the Jedi that continues that storyline, and a reboot in all but name that's meant to introduce an entire generation to the series with a whole new set of characters.

 

I hope J.J. knocks it out of the park with TFA. He grew up with Star Wars like a lot of us, and has the talent to do so. I am just nervous about a lot of the news and rumors surrounding Episode VII. I am still hoping for the best though.

 

Sure, it's possible. But you'd think they'd have already bought those rights already if it was going to happen. It's not like the further away from their purchase the *less* valuable the single film that got it all started is going to become. And while The Force Awakens is obviously going to feel (and seems to be somewhat patterened, storywise, off Star Wars) like A New Hope, there's a big difference between "ostensible" and "actual," and "ACTUAL" means a serious bump in attention and money. And again, in 20+ years, it might feel like making the jump from "ostensible" to "actual" is really worth it.

But the two examples I just used (and really, the two that are the most well acclaimed critically as well as financially), didn't come from comics at all. And the guy in creative control of the former is NOW seriously involved with Lucasfilm, and likely for the long-term. I don't think that's an "exception" to the rule because the sequel didn't top the original critically or financially. I think whatever rule we're looking at was largely bolstered BY Star Trek, and precisely because it took something that was so moribund and stale, and made it so vital and well recieved for the first time in decades that when it came time to try and do something similar for Star Wars, they got THAT guy.

The rest of your post is simply enumerating the obvious risks, and I can't disagree there wouldn't be risks. There's risks inherent in any creative endeavor, and choices that can go sideways even with the best of intentions.

But I don't thinks those percieved risks are going to seem strong enough in 20+ years to prevent rebooting Star Wars.

A segment of the fandom may dislike the idea (look at how Battlestar fans reacted to the idea of a Battlestar reboot) but that doesn't come to bear anywhere NEAR as strongly as we fans like to think it does.

Reboots are the answer to the question "Wouldn't it be cool to like this thing again like we liked it before it got all old and tired?"

A 60-year old Star Wars isn't going to be a spring chicken. And I think it's a good idea to just be prepped for the possiblity (a high one, in my opinion) that you and I are going to see the day where "Star Wars" has the reset button hit.

 

This. I really doubt we'll ever have any reboots of any of the existing SW movies. As I've said before, arguments basically saying "face it, guys, it's inevitable that SW will get rebooted sooner or later" are really weak IMO.

Also, that is correct regarding Bond and Casino Royale. It was a great movie, and it was technically a reboot (mostly because we see Bond get his first two kills and become a 00 agent). But the established continuity of Bond movies was not nearly as rigid and chronological as something like SW in the first place. The Bond movies did essentially start fresh with each new actor; they just needed to do so more dramatically when Craig came on because the series had started to get a little too cheesy at times. They wanted to get more serious, and getting closer to the original source material again (especially by using the first novel) helped for that.

 

Star Wars, by it's very nature, can tell all sorts of stories without needing to reboot or reimagine anything that has come before. You can freely move around the timeline in any direction you want and have new characters, situations, events, ideas... without negating what is already established. Same goes for locations and themes. Star Wars is a huge, weird galaxy that can house pretty much anything you imagine. Not many other franchises have that sort of freedom and potential to expand. There is really no need to even consider reboots when Star Wars is concerned.
They may try to top the original characters and storylines, but not by recasting them 30 years from now, but rather by making up new storylines that may (may) turn out to be even more interesting than the OT.

I'd say we're quite safe from reboots.

 

Nah. There was a continuity. It wasn't great (and there probably shouldn't have ever really been one installed even at the half-ass level they installed one) but there was absolutely a continuity. And it got completely rebooted. There's no "technical" about it. It wasn't just trying to de-cheese the series. It was specifically about giving people a new conception of Bond, and then pulling in the old parts as it went along.

Same with Star Trek, even if they hedged their bets by introducing the plothole volcano that was Old Spock.

I also don't think my arguments are so easily distilled into "face it" and that's it, but I'm hoping the paragraphs I just coughed up onto the board weren't what you were referencing with that.

 

The Hellhammer gets a hearty too.

When I said "technical", I guess I really meant to say that it truly was a reboot. I wasn't saying it wasn't one in any sense. Likewise with the continuity, but as you yourself say it was a half-ass one.

And no, my point about the "face it" posts was not referencing yours.

 

There is tens of thousands years of history to explore in the SW universe. No need for a reboot at all.

 

You're looking at it from a storytelling perspective, which is cool. I'm looking at it from a BRANDING perspective. Which is completely different.

Lucasfilm, in 20 years, with the potential to capitalize on the brand in a way that hasn't been seen since 1977, but with the full weight of DECADES of pop-culture osmosis and absorption coming to bear on the decision, channeling all that goodwill and familiarity.

At which point "storytelling possibilities" probably move down a couple notches on the priority ladder. Especially considering someone along the way is going to point out, as I have, that "storytelling possibilities" doesn't necessarily preclude the retelling of stories we're already familiar with, or that the familiarity would be seen by most to be a positive, not a negative.

I'm not making my case for the rebooting being probable because I think Star Wars has run out of stories to tell, or that Star Wars is unable to mine its own universe for interesting takes. I'm saying someone, somewhere 20+ years in the future, is going to value the branding and the familiarity MORE than said potential, and someone's going to agree with that, and they're going to look at similar examples as the one I've brought up, and when they weigh "new stories" against "refreshing the brand," they're going to go with the latter.

Because to be honest, if the brand wasn't valued more than the storytelling possibilities, this purchase wouldn't have gone down in the first place. And you can see how strong the tether to the original trilogy is staying, not just with Rebels (and the mixing in of OT characters) but with the choice to develop sequels to Return of the Jedi (instead of pursuing completely new stories within the universe) and spinoff films that also tie directly back to those OT movies. That pull is strong.

The reason we're all as marketing savvy/marketing-focused as we are right now is likely STRONGLY due to Star Wars influence. To suggest that the people in charge of keeping that brand fresh are going to do so by never starting over, even once, after it's been proven that hitting the reset button DOES increase interest and draw in new audiences? To suggest that those caretakers are going to consider the best avenue of brand maintenance is to just allow Star Wars its storytelling equivalent of suburban sprawl?

The business is what it is and I don't see it playing out that way. It doesn't have anything to do with storytelling possibilities at all, really.

Cool! Thanks for that.

 

True, but "refreshing the brand" in this case can be achieved as easily as simply saying "Let's make a crazy new trilogy set 3000 years after OT". A downright reboot as in retelling OT/PT with different actors would probably cause more harm than good.

Star Trek, for example, has an established set of "alternate universe" rules that pretty much allow them to do as many reboots as possible, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of the Original Timeline. Bond is pretty much anarchy as far as continuity is concerned. I don't really see an OT/PT reboot generating a lot of positive feedback. There's enough resentment at the sequel/reboot mania as it is. Rebooting something as strong and huge as Star Wars would almost certainly just crown that awful trend and result in almost unanimous resentment.