The Shrine

Looks like Lawrence Kasdan, the writer of Empire and Jedi (that's good), and J.J. Abrahams (that's bad) are taking over writing duties for Episode 7 from Michael Arndt, the writer of Toy Story 3 and Little Miss Sunshine

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/10/24/j ... lay-duties

Like the article says, when you have two guys established guys taking over from a very established writer like that, it ain't because they're just polishing the script (that's bad)

Good (+1) + Bad (-1) + Bad (-1) = -1 overall for this sequel. Hurts even more when you're rolling the dice ;-)

Whatever. Can't be worse than prequel trilogy.

I don't really care for Arndt considering he has next to no writing credits and his only science fiction credit is Oblivion (which wasn't bad but Moon did the same story a million times better just with no Tom Cruise or sexy female leads). I think they're doing themselves a favor by not including him. Toy Story 3 is good but it's kind of a shoddy kids movie imo... as a single childless male. Little Miss Sunshine is cutesie and I liked it quite a bit at the time, but nothing about this guy shouts WE MUST HAVE HIM WRITE STAR WARS. Also judging a film based on something so vague when the movie is years away from release... -1 this thread.

*eye rolls at Zeus film logic going to work early* ;p

Why do we care at this point? Lucas already totally fucked the series with the prequels. I'm not even going to bother unless a bunch of reviews start gushing over it.

Even so, it would just be a totally different series in the same universe. All of the original actors are too old (or not living) to jump into this series, so it's almost not even Star Wars at this point.

It's like trying to read God Emperor of Dune.

Shrinweck wrote:I don't really care for Arndt considering he has next to no writing credits and his only science fiction credit is Oblivion (which wasn't bad but Moon did the same story a million times better just with no Tom Cruise or sexy female leads). I think they're doing themselves a favor by not including him. Toy Story 3 is good but it's kind of a shoddy kids movie imo... as a single childless male. Little Miss Sunshine is cutesie and I liked it quite a bit at the time, but nothing about this guy shouts WE MUST HAVE HIM WRITE STAR WARS. Also judging a film based on something so vague when the movie is years away from release... -1 this thread.

Right, he also right a far-better-than-it-shoulda-been sci-fi film, too. Forgot about that

You're a madman. Toy Story 3 was incredible and essentially loved by everyone who has a beating heart (99% Fresh rating and $1B at the box office if I'm not mistaken). Right up there with Wall-E, Monsters Inc., Finding Nemo, and its prequels as reminders of what Pixar is actually capable of. We seem to have forgotten that over the last few years

It has nothing to do with HE MUST WRITE STAR WARS. He was a good, established screenwriter who's being replaced by people who are not necessarily better. That's never a good thing as it usually points issues with the script and/or to someone trying to instill their vision into something. The one thing I do NOT want is Abrahms thinking he can turn Star Wars into an Abrahms film. My entire hope for this film rests with Kathleen Kennedy eliminating the Abrahms-ing of Star Wars. This is a blow against that hope.

Eric wrote:*eye rolls at Zeus film logic going to work early* ;p

You'll never hear my opinion of the film. Might as well soak in my opinion of its development :-)

Blotus wrote:Whatever. Can't be worse than prequel trilogy.

I'm afraid Abrahms will seriously challenge that assertion

I didn't say Toy Story 3 was a shitty movie. I said it was a shoddy kids movie. I've heard multiple parents describe how disturbing the end of the movie with the conveyer belt was for their children (and it's rated G for Pete's sake). And then there's the odd ass villain bouncing back and forth between being on their side in a confusing way. And then there's how the villain gets punished in the end which I could go into more if I'd seen the movie more recently. I just remember having mixed feelings about his outcome.

And then there's the overall storyline about a kid going to college and moving on with his life, which I'm not going to say is beyond a child, the ones who aren't idiots aren't idiots after all, but is clearly for adults. This kind of storyline is a practice that makes Pixar movies good, certainly, but this movie felt more like it was for us then them.

Also this guy is an established popcorn blockbuster writer. As far as I can tell from his resumé Little Miss Sunshine was a fluke (and certainly not comparable to Star Wars). There's a certain amount of Blockbuster-iness in the Star Wars films that should certainly be preserved, but... Oblivion? Hunger Games' sequel? I'm sure they're good in their respective ways, but I don't want Star Wars to be written by that guy.

Shrinweck wrote:I didn't say Toy Story 3 was a shitty movie. I said it was a shoddy kids movie. I've heard multiple parents describe how disturbing the end of the movie with the conveyer belt was for their children (and it's rated G for Pete's sake). And then there's the odd ass villain bouncing back and forth between being on their side in a confusing way. And then there's how the villain gets punished in the end which I could go into more if I'd seen the movie more recently. I just remember having mixed feelings about his outcome.

I think people underestimate how smart kids are. It's my son's favorite movie, and he understand the plot just fine. I think despite the dark tones of parts of the movie, it was the best Toy Story movie of the three.

Remember that the first movie was about Sid blowing up toys with firecrackers and making these Frankenstein toys with different parts, while the rest of the gang thought that Woody killed Buzz.

My kids all adore Toy Story, all of them, including the shorts and TV specials (they keep watching the one that aired last week). They never got confused/annoyed/scared at anything, they sit there and watch the heck out of them all.

Don't forget, the franchise is 12 years old now. It had to be a story that appealed both ways since so much of the audience is older. And it did a very good job of that. Tons of depth in the characters and story and easily one of Pixar's best. And a good Pixar film appeals to people from the ages of 5 to 55. That's why Cars is so polarizing. Kids adore it while adults hate it because it's so kiddie. You never hear complaints like that of their best films that I mentioned before.

OK, I'll break my rule: Oblivion was quite good, actually. Very surprisingly so considering. It never played down to its audience, the story was fresh and interesting, no over-acting or over-dramatic scenes....it was a very solid sci-fi flick. One of the better ones this decade (it's not like we're inundated with a deluge of excellent sci-fi flicks, but still). And it shocked me that it was. We watched that just to get it over with because we were curious but thought it would be shit (my bud and I do that with films we are afraid of seeing but too curious to let go). But it was really solid.

So, this guy has written 3 movies that have been released. One (his first) he wins and Oscar for and is known for its story; the second is one of the best overall children's movies of all time with a particularly good script; the third is a very strong sci-fi film that was WAAAY better than it appears to be and one of the better sci-fi flicks in a while. And you don't want this guy writing your Star Wars movie because........?

I already said why. Oblivion was just a Tom Cruise, big budget rewrite of what already was a fantastic film called Moon - the exact opposite of being fresh. It's impossible to be impressed with Oblivion if you watch Moon first. Oblivion wasn't bad but that's only because the source material was so damned good. Also Academy Awards aren't measuring sticks for your future shit not stinking.

In any case I don't want Star Wars to be anything like Oblivion. It's a completely new movie with new characters compared to what Arndt was working on, making me think that this is a good move. You wouldn't start from square one otherwise. They already paid the guy and (some of? he'd had months in any case) the work was done. Standard "He's terrific!" Hollywood stuff was said, but clearly something about the script wasn't up to snuff.

I think Kasdan being a part of things overrules anything else here. Look at Abrams actual writing credits. Everything there is good (ignore the creator credits for Lost and remember he only actually wrote for the first season which was AMAZING). What is it exactly you hold against the guy, again? If anything the thing to worry about here is how the production/release hasn't gotten gotten pushed back at all. Keep him away from the lens flare effects during post production and it should be golden.

Abrahms can't direct. He can write fine, he has great ideas. Some of the best, actually. He just need someone else to execute them (I stopped watching Lost after 24 eps because I couldn't stand it anymore) because he's just not capable of doing it himself. If he were just the writer and there was a capable director doing it? I'd probably be OK with that. Abrahms has proven he is not that capable of a director IMO and I think I've seen every film he's directed.

I saw the first half of Moon about 2 years ago or so (great movie, I just had to leave and never tried again; still have it on my HDD). Oblivion is sort of the same but not really. Moon was more like Solaris than Oblivion. Oblivion isn't quite as old-school in its sci-fi as Moon. What I mean by that is old-school sci-fi is all about soaking in atmosphere, not a huge amount of plot going on. Great when done well but there's a TON of people who won't tolerate it. Oblivion had shades of that but not nearly as much.

Why does Star Wars automatically become like Oblivion just because Arndt is involved? All I mean by that is he wrote a better-than-it-should-have-been sci-fi flick. So the guy knows how to write in the genre. A good writer who's proven he can write sci-fi well (not all of them can), what's wrong with that?

And that's the point. We already had a good writer who has proved he can do a good sci-fi flick being replaced by people who haven't necessarily proven they're better (go back and see what the 1983 impressions of Jedi were sometime, Kasdan ain't infallable...but I still don't mind him). This is not something that's sitting well with me as there appears to be no reason for it other than maybe those I described before. I hope I'm wrong, I really do. But it don't bode well

Zeus wrote:Moon was more like Solaris than Oblivion. Oblivion isn't quite as old-school in its sci-fi as Moon. What I mean by that is old-school sci-fi is all about soaking in atmosphere, not a huge amount of plot going on. Great when done well but there's a TON of people who won't tolerate it. Oblivion had shades of that but not nearly as much.

Old school as in it's not an ACTION PACKED PLOSION fest? Moon didn't have the budget of Oblivion. Neither did Solaris. True, the newer remake did, but it was based on a much older film.

SineSwiper wrote:

Zeus wrote:Moon was more like Solaris than Oblivion. Oblivion isn't quite as old-school in its sci-fi as Moon. What I mean by that is old-school sci-fi is all about soaking in atmosphere, not a huge amount of plot going on. Great when done well but there's a TON of people who won't tolerate it. Oblivion had shades of that but not nearly as much.

Old school as in it's not an ACTION PACKED PLOSION fest? Moon didn't have the budget of Oblivion. Neither did Solaris. True, the newer remake did, but it was based on a much older film.

Written stories, too. Old-school sci-fi just had a different style before Star Wars. Even Alien wasn't exactly this fast-moving, action-fest. Moon is of that style. So are Solaris and Oblivion, regardless of their budgets

While I doubt Abrams will go this direction, Star Wars shouldn't have to lean on its Disney budget to be good. Star Wars is good because of the way it awakens the imagination and is influenced by a lot of cool shit in our world turned into future-y sci-fi stuff. I think Abrams at least understands that. It needs to be on a scale that's similar to a little person that comes from nothing and takes down an empire. It shouldn't be about some brat that comes into super powers and abuses them. Redemption has a place in Star Wars but it needs to be more Luke and less Anakin.

Even way back in the day, Star Wars had a huge budget. The special effects guys were doing the work on Star Wars after their day jobs and Lucas had to forego his director's fee (in exchange for the IP rights) because Fox was concerned about the huge budget and he wanted to make them happy (they thought the IP rights were worthless).

More like Luke and less like Anakin? So more like Lucas and less like Lucas? :-)

More of a story stepped in Japanese film influence and less about some whiny asshole :D

11 million isn't what I would call a huge budget even back then. It's hardly indie, but it's limiting. Compared to Phantom Menace which had literally over ten times that budget. Close Encounters had twenty million and A Bridge Too Far cost twenty-six and they came out the same year.

Star Wars is its own thing, now. Ain't nothin' influencing that no more.

The special effects that were being done were all done after hours one the SE artists' own time. They wanted to build something (that's how ILM came to be, after all). So there's coin that wasn't spent that should somehow be counted. And considering you had no stars at all (the actors were all unknowns then aside from Ford who had all of 1 movie under his belt that anyone heard of), a newbie director with a small-budget cult hit (that Ford was in), and a whole new genre, $11M was a pretty big budget for 1976. Add to that the fact that Fox was this tiny little studio putting a lot of its eggs in one basket and you can see why Lucas had to take a paycut and exchange salary for IP rights to get the film made