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.
if only Aaron Allston was still around and writing, I'd be optimistic.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-12 05:34pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-12 06:09pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-12 08:16pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-13 12:20am
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-13 12:28am
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-13 10:42am
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
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-13 07:05pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-13 07:08pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-13 07:33pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-13 07:39pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-13 09:03pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-14 05:30am
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-14 03:41pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-03-14 11:17pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-04-02 06:52am
by Havok
Extremely popular among Star Wars Geeks, not just regular Star Wars fans who only get as far as the movies.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-04-02 10:01am
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-04-02 04:07pm
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-04-02 04:27pm
by Borgholio
I demand to know where you got those spoilers, especially the last one.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-04-03 02:11am
by RogueIce
Rumor sites, so treat them with a couple truckloads worth of salt.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-04-03 02:17am
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.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-04-03 06:31am
by Mange
Adamskywalker007 wrote:I had the impression this site.was above average on that front.
It is.
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-04-08 07:44am
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
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
Re: Star Wars stand-alone film named.
Posted: 2015-04-08 09:27am
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.
