"The root problem with "Episodes I"-"III" is their status as prequels."

The root problem with many seems to be the fact they're poorly written, acted and directed.


"It remains a mystery why Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney."

Here's the answer to the mystery: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ You can't possibly say that money has nothing at all to do with this deal. To many, Lucas is the definition of greed and money-grubbing.


"As much as Disney might want to "honor" the legacy of Star Wars, they're going to be more interested in attracting 8-year olds than 48-year olds."

This could be a problem here. Remember when Lucas tried to appeal to kids with the Ewoks and Gungans? Disney may try to do something similar here.

Episode VII can be a good film. That is, if it captures the spirit of the original. So here's hoping they don't make a kids movie and they don't make a live action cartoon. Build some models and miniatures. Do some location shooting. And for Christ's sake, don't make it about politics. Capture the cliff-hanger serial spirit of the original.

I'm surprised James didn't comment on things like:

-The rumor that Hamill, Fisher and possibly Ford could make appearances in this new trilogy.

-"Empire" and "Jedi" writer Lawrence Kasdan being recruited to write for this new trilogy. Same thing for "Little Miss Sunshine" and "Toy Story 3" writer Michael Arndt and "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" and "X-Men: The Last Stand" writer Simon Kinsberg.

-The directors James thinks could do justice for Episode VII as well as VIII and IX.

According to Entertainment Weekly, here are their top 5 tips for crafting a great new trilogy for Episodes VII - IX:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,2036439 ... 94,00.html

1. Bring back Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher as Han, Luke, and Leia — but only as supporting characters

2. Look to the novels for new plots

3. Ban all Ewoks and Gungans

4. Go easy on the phony-baloney bluescreen, please

5. Pay another visit to the underworld

He did mention Hamill and Fisher parenthetically.



I might actually get excited about Episode VII if Kasdan is doing the writing.

"As much as Disney might want to "honor" the legacy of Star Wars, they're going to be more interested in attracting 8-year olds than 48-year olds."

Uh, not exactly. Disney took a hands-off approach when they acquired Pixar and Marvel Studios... does The Avengers scream Disney to you? They're going to let Lucasfilm do their own thing, but reap the ownership benefits.

You should probably update your post whenever Lucasfilm and Disney announce the Episode VII director... which should be any day now.

I realize this is antithetical to what Star Wars fans have trained themselves to think, but I don't believe Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney out of greed. He already has more money than he could possibly know what to do with, and he's already pledged the $4 billion he made from the Disney deal to fund education.

I believe James is right: Lucas has simply gotten tired of shouldering the burden of Star Wars for various reasons. (Who wouldn't be?) It is an easy way out to accuse Lucas of being greedy, because that makes it easier for self-proclaimed Star Wars fans to justify their ludicrous antipathy for him, but in this particular case, the evidence is against it.

You might want to read this. It basically says having Lucas sell Lucasfilm now gives him a large financial incentive when it comes to taxes:

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/11/30/ ... r-wars-now

While this may be as interesting to some of you as trade policy discussions were in The Phantom Menace, a financial website claims that George Lucas had a huge financial incentive in selling the Star Wars franchise to Disney for $4.05 billion before the end of this year: taxes.

According to Seeking Alpha, "Lucas built his empire over many years and is sitting on a very large capital gain. Although Lucas has not publicly stated that tax policies had anything to do with the timing of the sale, there is speculation that it was a large factor. If outcomes from past tax policy changes are any indication of what will result this time around, then be prepared for a lot more selling between now and year-end."

"The election results are in and as expected Congress and the White House maintain status quo. As a result, certain tax codes like the capital gains and dividend and interest income tax rates are at risk of a significant increase," the site explains. "As the law currently stands, the capital gains tax rate will see the largest year-over-year increase in history. Some intelligent investors didn't wait for election results to lock in the low capital gains tax rate." And their example of such an investor? George Lucas.

And?

So in the end, as people suspected, he did it for money.

Rumor has it that this is the reason why Matthew Vaughn dropped out of directing X-Men: Days of Future Past. Does anyone think he would be a good fit to direct this?

This is an interesting piece by you, though of course I still disagree with you on whether bashing Lucas is justified or not (to me, it most certainly is- if you're going to take all of the credit, you also have to take all of the blame). The last part is something I don't think will be an issue: thanks to the prequels, expectations for the new trilogy will not be that high.

In a way, we can thank Lucas for resetting the outlook of the public to the upcoming sequel trilogy, because they couldn't really be worse than Episodes I-III. Ok, well actually they can, but it would take some mighty effort by the good people at Disney to sink further down in terms of film quality.

I gave my thoughts on Mr Vaughn in the thread in the GD forum that discusses the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney. I like him as a director, but I'm not sure that he's the one that Disney needs to bring the Star Wars franchise back from the depths it's sunk to. I think that Episode VII would have to be at the least very good to revive the franchise, much in the way that Batman Begins and Casino Royale did for their respective franchises. I'm still hoping that Disney can convince Spielberg to take a crack at it.

The factual information is that George Lucas is getting a tax break. What people suspect is largely influenced by how they already felt before the facts were known.

To quote a relevant Louis CK punchline, "The whole story really was: there once was a gay man."

And really, I'm not denying that there was a financial incentive for it. Of course there was. There'll be a financial incentive for us to go to work tomorrow. So what? That's not an indication of greed.

He basically had 3 choices: Make more Star Wars movies himself (or hire someone to do it for him, which effectively is the same thing), sell the franchise off to someone else for them to make more movies, or just sit on it and collect residuals until he dies. Do we care if he chose the 2nd on out of greed? 'Cause I don't think anyone really wanted him to pick either of the other choices.

The Disney label is a hard one to get past, but there is hope from the first Pirates of the Carribean movie. The right director can make a good mature movie that Disney will green light. I could also point out that Pixar mostly runs Disney productions, or something like that.

It does come down to the script, director, and hopefully good editing.
Script - very good writer on board. Most professionals can write better than Lucas, the TV series is very well written (Clone Wars) as example. It isn't hard to have adult and serious Star wars stories... they have been going on for over 3 years now on Cartoon Network. The series is not for kids half the time. The most brutal SW violence ever has occurred on that show.

Director - unknown. We will have to know soon because filming will HAVE to start in 2-3 months to hit the release date.

Editing - The bane of the prequels (best stuff left as extras and poor pacing) can hurt even the best script (Hobbit can drag for the non die hard) and director.

We will not have long to wait to see what happens next. Last I saw of Hamill, he was fairly overweight on a Chuck episode during the final season. If Hamill is losing weight fast, you will have your answer on whether he is in the next movie...

Ugh. I am so tired of commentaries on Star Wars and gratuitous references to "Doctor Who." How about a review for THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH? I've been waiting for the Best Picture reviews to continue, but at this pace I'm thinking it might never happen.

Whoa, chill out dude!

If you're referring to his action-worthiness, I'd actually prefer that he not be used in that fashion in the new movies.

The original actors are elder statesmen in the world of Star Wars. I believe it would be a mistake to treat their characters any differently. Let Luke, Han, and Leia age, just as their actors have, and write them as older characters who have accumulated decades of experiences and wisdom. There is no shame in them aging unless the material tries to pretend that they haven't.

I think that's one of the underlying issues with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Aside from the obligatory father/son stuff, Indy wasn't treated much differently than he was 20-some years ago. This should not have been the case, because those high-flying stunts that held together on a shoestring of credibility in the 1980s look absolutely fatuous when performed by a character old enough to be an AARP member.

Mark Hamill is still young at heart. He oozes the spirit that defined Luke Skywalker. I hope he comes back for the role, and I hope they aren't afraid to acknowledge the passage of time. One of the reasons why Star Trek: Wrath of Khan is such a massive improvement over Star Trek: the Motion Picture is that TMP ignores that Kirk has aged, while WoK embraces it.