Star Wars stand-alone film named.

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Anacronian
Padawan Learner
Posts: 430
Joined: 2011-09-04 11:47pm

Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Anacronian »

Rogue One is the name.
This morning at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco, across the street from Lucasfilm, Disney chairman and CEO Bob Iger hosted a shareholder meeting where he announced news regarding the first Star Wars stand-alone movie as well as Star Wars: Episode VIII.

Rogue One is the title for the first film in a unique series of big-screen adventures that explores the characters and events beyond the core Star Wars saga. Rogue One will be directed by Gareth Edwards (Monsters, Godzilla) and written by Oscar nominee Chris Weitz (Cinderella, About a Boy, Antz). The first actress cast is Felicity Jones, who garnered an Academy Award nomination and critical acclaim for her performance in The Theory of Everything. The idea for the story of Rogue One came from John Knoll, an Academy Award-winning visual effects supervisor and chief creative officer at Industrial Light & Magic. He will executive produce along with Simon Emanuel (The Dark Knight Rises, Fast & Furious 6) and Jason McGatlin (Tintin, War of the Worlds). Kathleen Kennedy and Tony To (Band of Brothers, The Pacific) are on board to produce and John Swartz (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) will co-produce. The film starts shooting this summer in London and is due for release on December 16, 2016.

In addition, Iger confirmed that Rian Johnson will write and direct Star Wars: Episode VIII. The film, which continues the saga after the events of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, is set for release on May 26, 2017 — forty years and a day after the release of Star Wars: A New Hope in 1977. Johnson is widely considered one of cinema’s most gifted young filmmakers, having directed the modern sci-fi classic, Looper, as well as Brick and The Brothers Bloom. He was also behind the camera for three episodes of the critically-acclaimed TV series Breaking Bad, including “Ozymandias,” which series creator Vince Gilligan named as the best installment of the show. Kathleen Kennedy and Ram Bergman, producer of Looper, Don Jon, Brick, and The Brothers Bloom, are on board to produce, and J.J. Abrams will serve as executive producer.
Linky
Homo sapiens! What an inventive, invincible species! It's only been a few million years since they crawled up out of the mud and learned to walk. Puny, defenseless bipeds. They've survived flood, famine and plague. They've survived cosmic wars and holocausts. And now, here they are, out among the stars, waiting to begin a new life. Ready to outsit eternity. They're indomitable... indomitable. ~ Dr.Who
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11948
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Star Wars Spinoff film named.

Post by Crazedwraith »

if only Aaron Allston was still around and writing, I'd be optimistic.
User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Gaidin »

I'm fine with it. In fact, I wouldn't want Aaron Allston anyway. I say the next thing not knowing his full bibliography, but I'd want a good screenwriter instead. Give me a good screenwriter, a good producer, a good director, not necessarily any jedi(in fact, no jedi if possible), drop this anywhere in the timeline feasibly appropriate for said material, and have a field day.

I can't be more clear than the next thing I say...

Treat this shit like Marvel.
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Adam Reynolds »

Crazedwraith wrote:if only Aaron Allston was still around and writing, I'd be optimistic.
I wonder if any of his influence will find its way into the story? Somehow I doubt it(he also wrote Wraith Squadron rather than Rouge sqaudron). He certainly knew how to write the dynamic of a fighter squadron well. It is interesting that someone from ILM came up with the story concept. I have a feeling it won't feature Wedge. Or if it did he would almost certainly be recast. Though the idea of a group of characters involved in combat both on the ground and in fighters would allow for rather diverse action sequences.

Count me as somewhat optimistic about both the standalone and episodes VIII and IX. Godzilla, despite having a rather stupid plot, was well directed. Looper and Brick were good, though Looper had significant plot holes caused by the use of time travel. Fortunately this shouldn't be a problem with the new movies. I just hope that Kasden consults significantly for the writing of the latter two films to keep the proper continuity. I get the impression that the first film introduces the new characters and serves as a sendoff to the originals and the second and third films are mostly about the new characters with the original characters as supporting roles, assuming they all live(my money is that Han dies).
Gaidin wrote:Treat this shit like Marvel.
I think that's the idea. Though unlike Marvel the SW galaxy is big enough that the standalone movies hopefully will have a smaller scale and thus the question of where the main characters are can be resolved more neatly. It was rather odd in both Iron Man 3 and Cap 2 where the rest of the Avengers were. The Jedi question could also be resolved rather neatly if it took place after ROTJ as there was only Luke and one Jedi in a galaxy the size of SW is rather ineffective.

My idea for a story taking place after ROTJ initially is that it is mostly a group of normals trying to keep the peace in the galaxy without either the Force powers of Jedi or the overwhelming force of the Empire. This film might be something like that, assuming it takes place after ROTJ.
User avatar
Borgholio
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6297
Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Borgholio »

Well the Rebellion was supposedly galaxy-wide. It didn't all center around Yavin or Hoth. There have to be plenty of stories to tell about things happening elsewhere in the Empire.
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
User avatar
Iroscato
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: 2011-02-07 03:04pm
Location: Great Britain (It's great, honestly!)

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Iroscato »

Thing that frustrates me with SW in general is...they have an entire galaxy - not even our own one at that - to play with, and tens of thousands of years to work inside, but they focus on this teeny tiny slice of time and space and center almost the entire franchise around it.
Show us a movie set 50,000 years further along in time, with the stories of the OT only the most faintly whispered of legends among thousands like it. THAT would surprise me, and I would love to see the evolution of the SW universe in that timeframe make itself apparent. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I'd love for something like that to happen.
Yeah, I've always taken the subtext of the Birther movement to be, "The rules don't count here! This is different! HE'S BLACK! BLACK, I SAY! ARE YOU ALL BLIND!?

- Raw Shark

Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent.

- SirNitram (RIP)
User avatar
Balrog
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2258
Joined: 2002-12-29 09:29pm
Location: Fortress of Angband

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Balrog »

An Old Republic movie might be a bit much at this point, but hopefully this is a sign that they will start playing in the larger sandbox and we will get stories which don't revolve around the same set of characters.
'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come!'
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Durin's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face.
'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. 'Now I understand.' He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. 'What an evil fortune! And I am already weary.'
- J.R.R Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
User avatar
Tychu
Jedi Master
Posts: 1260
Joined: 2002-07-28 01:20am
Location: Deer Park, Long Island, New York
Contact:

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Tychu »

As long as it fits somewhere in the timeline and is canon. I don't want a "What If…Spider-Man was Indian" story. Disney needs to know Star Wars isn't Marvel.

Besides that, I wont worry about it until I know the story. Same feeling I have for Episode VII
"Boring Conversation anyway" Han Solo

"What kinda archeologist carries a weapon........Bad Example" Colonel Jack O'Neil

"My name is Olo... Hans Olo" -Dr. Daniel Jackson

"Well you did make the Farmingdale Run in less than 12 parsecs" --Personal Quote

"Just popped out for lunch" - Rowan Atkinson as Mr. Bean
User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 10413
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: CIC, Battlestar Temeraire

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Eternal_Freedom »

Chimaera wrote:Thing that frustrates me with SW in general is...they have an entire galaxy - not even our own one at that - to play with, and tens of thousands of years to work inside, but they focus on this teeny tiny slice of time and space and center almost the entire franchise around it.
Show us a movie set 50,000 years further along in time, with the stories of the OT only the most faintly whispered of legends among thousands like it. THAT would surprise me, and I would love to see the evolution of the SW universe in that timeframe make itself apparent. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I'd love for something like that to happen.
See, the problem with that idea is that you aren't really doing a SW film. You're doing a far-future galaxy-wide space opera that just happens to vaguely remember the OT events. Hell, that could well be our galaxy 50,000 years into the future, where ancient fictional films are regarded as myths that maybe/possibly happened.
Baltar: "I don't want to miss a moment of the last Battlestar's destruction!"
Centurion: "Sir, I really think you should look at the other Battlestar."
Baltar: "What are you babbling about other...it's impossible!"
Centurion: "No. It is a Battlestar."

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.
User avatar
Iroscato
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: 2011-02-07 03:04pm
Location: Great Britain (It's great, honestly!)

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Iroscato »

Eternal_Freedom wrote:
Chimaera wrote:Thing that frustrates me with SW in general is...they have an entire galaxy - not even our own one at that - to play with, and tens of thousands of years to work inside, but they focus on this teeny tiny slice of time and space and center almost the entire franchise around it.
Show us a movie set 50,000 years further along in time, with the stories of the OT only the most faintly whispered of legends among thousands like it. THAT would surprise me, and I would love to see the evolution of the SW universe in that timeframe make itself apparent. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I'd love for something like that to happen.
See, the problem with that idea is that you aren't really doing a SW film. You're doing a far-future galaxy-wide space opera that just happens to vaguely remember the OT events. Hell, that could well be our galaxy 50,000 years into the future, where ancient fictional films are regarded as myths that maybe/possibly happened.
Not necessarily. It could still be recognisable as SW. A grand adventure, a cheeky sense of humour, lightsabres, force users, hyperdrives, a 'lived-in' feel. Just streamline some of the tech and update it appropriately, but put in enough familiar elements and it would still retain the SW feel.
Yeah, I've always taken the subtext of the Birther movement to be, "The rules don't count here! This is different! HE'S BLACK! BLACK, I SAY! ARE YOU ALL BLIND!?

- Raw Shark

Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent.

- SirNitram (RIP)
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16427
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Batman »

It's a movie franchise, and that means they need the audience to relate to the characters. You're not going to relate to a character that dies of old age 15 minutes into the movie. Or their kids who die of old age 15 minutes later. Telling a multi-millennia story essentially means individual characters become irrelevant. Guess what? The audience wants characters to be relevant. Who knew.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Purple »

Chimaera wrote:Not necessarily. It could still be recognisable as SW. A grand adventure, a cheeky sense of humour, lightsabres, force users, hyperdrives, a 'lived-in' feel. Just streamline some of the tech and update it appropriately, but put in enough familiar elements and it would still retain the SW feel.
The problem with that is the fact that for most people SW is not about any of those things. It's about being within that slice of time. If you went and made a movie based on said KOTOR (which I chose as an example because the two eras are massively similar) I can't imagine you'd get a good reception simply because a lot of fans would scream it's not SW enough.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
User avatar
Iroscato
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: 2011-02-07 03:04pm
Location: Great Britain (It's great, honestly!)

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Iroscato »

Batman wrote:It's a movie franchise, and that means they need the audience to relate to the characters. You're not going to relate to a character that dies of old age 15 minutes into the movie. Or their kids who die of old age 15 minutes later. Telling a multi-millennia story essentially means individual characters become irrelevant. Guess what? The audience wants characters to be relevant. Who knew.
I understand this, and I agree with it to a point, but imagine the audience of 1977 going to see the original movie. The wise old hermit that they've barely gotten to know is cut down by the Evil Guy they've barely met. The entire franchise was brand new, yet it became the second-most seen film of all time at the cinema IIRC.
I understand that was nearly 40 years ago and the landscape has changed vastly in that time, but it would just be a cool thing to see, the evolution of this universe after a massive timeskip.
I bet it would still make a shit-ton of money, having the Star Wars brand on it and all.
Yeah, I've always taken the subtext of the Birther movement to be, "The rules don't count here! This is different! HE'S BLACK! BLACK, I SAY! ARE YOU ALL BLIND!?

- Raw Shark

Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent.

- SirNitram (RIP)
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Adam Reynolds »

Chimaera wrote:Thing that frustrates me with SW in general is...they have an entire galaxy - not even our own one at that - to play with, and tens of thousands of years to work inside, but they focus on this teeny tiny slice of time and space and center almost the entire franchise around it.
That isn't any different than reality in which a massive number of stories(both real and fictional) have taken place during WW2 in contrast to the rest of history. WW2 is one of the most overrepresented periods in history from film. How is the SW galaxy any different?
Show us a movie set 50,000 years further along in time, with the stories of the OT only the most faintly whispered of legends among thousands like it. THAT would surprise me, and I would love to see the evolution of the SW universe in that timeframe make itself apparent. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I'd love for something like that to happen.
Taking such a massive jump in time actually ruins what I've always thought was one of the greatest aspects of SW, the fact that the setting is genuinely timeless. Where else can you see cavalry charges, armored assaults, close quarters dogfights, epic sword fights, and wild west style gunslingers all in the same story? The beauty of Star Wars is that it draws from the entire breadth of history and applies it to the story in new and creative ways. And despite the occasional misstep, the Clone Wars series shows that you can feature virtually any genre within Star Wars.
Channel72
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2068
Joined: 2010-02-03 05:28pm
Location: New York

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Channel72 »

Chimaera wrote:Thing that frustrates me with SW in general is...they have an entire galaxy - not even our own one at that - to play with, and tens of thousands of years to work inside, but they focus on this teeny tiny slice of time and space and center almost the entire franchise around it.
Show us a movie set 50,000 years further along in time, with the stories of the OT only the most faintly whispered of legends among thousands like it. THAT would surprise me, and I would love to see the evolution of the SW universe in that timeframe make itself apparent. I can't speak for anyone else of course, but I'd love for something like that to happen.
The average Star Wars fan and/or movie-going member of the general public doesn't care about the expansive "Star Wars Universe". They care about Luke Skywalker and Han Solo and Darth Vader, and other characters they know. Stand-alone stories would probably at least have to be peripherally related to the adventures of these characters, at least until the stand alone stories become well-liked enough to stand on their own.
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Adam Reynolds »

Channel72 wrote:The average Star Wars fan and/or movie-going member of the general public doesn't care about the expansive "Star Wars Universe". They care about Luke Skywalker and Han Solo and Darth Vader, and other characters they know. Stand-alone stories would probably at least have to be peripherally related to the adventures of these characters, at least until the stand alone stories become well-liked enough to stand on their own.
Though perhaps not representative of the general population, Knights of the Old Republic was extremely popular and praised for reinterpreting the tropes of Star Wars to an RPG setting. Though even it had significant connections to the films: the Wookie ally, the not-Millennium Falcon, the wounded Sith Lord, ect.
User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13016
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Havok »

Extremely popular among Star Wars Geeks, not just regular Star Wars fans who only get as far as the movies.
Image
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"
User avatar
Soontir C'boath
SG-14: Fuck the Medic!
Posts: 6852
Joined: 2002-07-06 12:15am
Location: Queens, NYC I DON'T FUCKING CARE IF MANHATTEN IS CONSIDERED NYC!! I'M IN IT ASSHOLE!!!
Contact:

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Soontir C'boath »

Seems a rather easy simplification to make. People can move on as we see with Star Trek, James Bond, Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes, etc. It is not like material such as the Clone Wars series didn't introduce new characters the next generation of kids can latch on too. Star Wars came out in 1977 and Ford, Fisher, Hamil, etc and Ep. VII will be their last hurrah as it should be for them old geezers. Disney will and should have to change it up to something different if they want to keep making money off of it.
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Adam Reynolds »

Havok wrote:Extremely popular among Star Wars Geeks, not just regular Star Wars fans who only get as far as the movies.
It was popular among people who played video games as well, not merely Star Wars fans.
Soontir C'boath wrote:Seems a rather easy simplification to make. People can move on as we see with Star Trek, James Bond, Doctor Who, Sherlock Holmes, etc. It is not like material such as the Clone Wars series didn't introduce new characters the next generation of kids can latch on too. Star Wars came out in 1977 and Ford, Fisher, Hamil, etc and Ep. VII will be their last hurrah as it should be for them old geezers. Disney will and should have to change it up to something different if they want to keep making money off of it.
Depending on whether you believe the rumors, it is likely that at least one or two of the original cast members will have a role in the sequel. Though in general it appears that even in the first film, the new characters are the main focus. Spoiler
Supposedly Luke only appears in the ending of the film, with Rey becoming his new apprentice and returning his lightsaber. So it appears he takes the Yoda route and becomes the main teacher during the second film.
Spoiler
Leia is apparently the new leader of the Rebel Alliance and thus presumably also has a role in the sequels somewhat, though likely isn't as big of a character.
Spoiler
Han on the other hand, appears to take the Obi-Wan role and is killed by the Sith Kylo Ren.This is after serving as the main mentor to the new characters.
User avatar
Borgholio
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6297
Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Borgholio »

I demand to know where you got those spoilers, especially the last one.
You will be assimilated...bunghole!
User avatar
RogueIce
_______
Posts: 13387
Joined: 2003-01-05 01:36am
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by RogueIce »

Rumor sites, so treat them with a couple truckloads worth of salt.
Image
"How can I wait unknowing?
This is the price of war,
We rise with noble intentions,
And we risk all that is pure..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, Forever (Rome: Total War)

"On and on, through the years,
The war continues on..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, We Are All One (Medieval 2: Total War)
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Adam Reynolds »

Borgholio wrote:I demand to know where you got those spoilers, especially the last one.
It's the site Making Star Wars. I forgot that I had only posted a link in a different thread.
RogueIce wrote:Rumor sites, so treat them with a couple truckloads worth of salt.
I had the impression this site.was above average on that front.
User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4179
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Mange »

Adamskywalker007 wrote:I had the impression this site.was above average on that front.
It is.
User avatar
Irbis
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2262
Joined: 2011-07-15 05:31pm

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Irbis »

Channel72 wrote:The average Star Wars fan and/or movie-going member of the general public doesn't care about the expansive "Star Wars Universe". They care about Luke Skywalker and Han Solo and Darth Vader, and other characters they know.
So enlighten me, where exactly Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were in Prequel trilogy, Clone Wars movie and both TV series, again? Or for that matter, SW Rebels? Oh, wait, these must not be Star Wars enough or something :roll:
Havok wrote:Extremely popular among Star Wars Geeks, not just regular Star Wars fans who only get as far as the movies.
So 10 million copies both KotORs sold were bought by Star Wars Geeks? Wow, that's a lot of them :lol:
User avatar
Purple
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5233
Joined: 2010-04-20 08:31am
Location: In a purple cube orbiting this planet. Hijacking satellites for an internet connection.

Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.

Post by Purple »

Irbis wrote:So enlighten me, where exactly Luke Skywalker and Han Solo were in Prequel trilogy, Clone Wars movie
In the making. Both featured Darth Vader as a prominent character after all.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.

You win. There, I have said it.

Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Post Reply