Jump to content

Taika Waititi to Direct New ‘Star Wars’ Film


Jay

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pieter Boelen said:

Indiana Jones would've been perfect for the James Bond approach. There's no overarching story.

 

No, there isn't, but that doesn't mean the trick doesn't get old after a while. Better to quit before it does.

 

Plus, Indiana Jones has something that I don't recall seeing in any Bond film: it has an entry which acts as a farewell to the character, that being Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. Its not a culmination of some overarching story, but it IS clearly a farewell to Indy, and you couldn't ask for a better one.

 

Any new Indy film only cheapens The Last Crusade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

No, there isn't, but that doesn't mean the trick doesn't get old after a while. Better to quit before it does.

There's 20+ Bond films and only 4 Indy ones.

There's no need for the concept and character to be old just yet.

 

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Plus, Indiana Jones has something that I don't recall seeing in any Bond film: it has an entry which acts as a farewell to the character, that being Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. Its not a culmination of some overarching story, but it IS clearly a farewell to Indy, and you couldn't ask for a better one.

I never really saw it as a goodbye.

It could've been if Indy's troubled relation with his father was a long-running thing through prior films.

But it was only introduced in Last Crusade itself.

 

Riding off into the sunset alone isn't good enough either.

I'm used to the Lucky Luke comic books where EVERY story ends like that.

Doesn't mean there can't be another.

And indeed there are plenty others.

 

Or is it the "Last" in the title that marks it as a final entry?

But Indy was never on a Crusade; his father was.

So while it'd be the last story for Senior (and the first), it doesn't have to apply to Junior for me.

 

Did I miss any other elements that mark it as a true goodbye?

 

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Any new Indy film only cheapens The Last Crusade.

We're already past that point.

And I'd say KotCS does more of a job saying goodbye to the character than Last Crusade does.

Especially by bringing back Marion and having that wedding.

(Note that I didn't say good job.)

 

For me, the issues with KotCS aren't at all related to "existing after LC".

It's because there are plenty of needlessly stupid story elements in there.

And the execution was lacking in many areas as well.

And even then, it's not as bad as it could've been ("Saucer Men From Mars", anyone?!?).

 

1 hour ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Just can't picture Indy as an almost 60 year old franchise. 

And I can't picture Indy in the 60's.

I much prefer an earlier time setting.

Which, unfortunately, would require a recasting of Harrison Ford.

 

I'd be sorry to lose Ford as he did a stellar job and probably nobody will be better.

But I'd settle for another actor doing a reasonable job if it means more Indy fun.

 

The elements are simple enough:

- Adventure

- Archeology

- A touch of the mystical

- A period setting

- An iconic outfit, with hat, gun and whip

- Various locations across the world, including some exotic (globe-trotting)

- Some bunch of bad guys

- Some side-kicks and a love interest

- Creepy crawlies

- Exciting action scenes

- Some humour (but nothing excessively retarded)

- A upbeat orchestral score featuring the Raiders March here and there

 

As far as I can tell, Lucas and Spielberg are overthinking the franchise.

Searching for a 'perfect McGuffin' when there are a gazillion things that could work.

 

It also didn't help that Lucas insisted since 1994 at least on aliens.

And Spielberg plus Ford were not keen on that (and rightly so!).

Then there was Spielberg's attention on more serious fare.

Combined, this led to a pointless development hell.

Even though they easily could've kept making perfectly decent Indy movies all throughout the 90's.

 

Really a missed opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Pieter Boelen said:

There's 20+ Bond films and only 4 Indy ones.

There's no need for the concept and character to be old just yet.

 

And how many of those Bond films are actually any good?

 

16 minutes ago, Pieter Boelen said:

We're already past that point.[...] For me, the issues with KotCS aren't at all related to "existing after LC". It's because there are plenty of needlessly stupid story elements in there.

 

We are indeed past this point, and the attempt to continue Indy's "story" past The Last Crusade proved itself to be a failed experiment; which is why its time to cut our loses and let this series die.

 

As for the issues with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, its more to do with the fact that action movies shouldn't really star people in their sixties.

 

16 minutes ago, Pieter Boelen said:

I never really saw it as a goodbye.

 

Steven Spielberg sure did. 

 

To me, the very introduction of a father, and the meta-aspect of it being Connnery, as well as opening with a flashback to Indy's childhood all speak to the finality of The Last Crusade: the film is all about going back to the beginning of Indiana Jones - as a character, as a concept and an action hero - in order to bid him goodbye at the end.

 

Again, its final not in the sense of a culmination of a story, but just as a farewell to the character. The riding-off into the sunset fits with that incredibly well. The other two films didn't have anything like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Pieter Boelen said:

 

It also didn't help that Lucas insisted since 1994 at least on aliens.

And Spielberg plus Ford were not keen on that (and rightly so!).

Then there was Spielberg's attention on more serious fare.

Combined, this led to a pointless development hell.

Even though they easily could've kept making perfectly decent Indy movies all throughout the 90's.

 

That's the sad thing. They simply overthought it. The recipe isn't so damn hard for these things that you need 19 years to come up with a basic storyline for a dumb adventure movie.

 

And it was the fact that KOCS took so long to make that only made their job even harder. The expectations were through the roof after 2 decades and, naturally, people were disappointed. Yeah, the movie was terrible, but it'd be ancient history now if the exact same movie came out in the late 90s and they just kept making a new sequel every decade.

 

Put simply, something changed in Spielberg after Schindler's List and he was seemingly incapable of making "fun" popcorn movies without overthinking it. These movies really aren't that hard; research a cool historical artifact, throw Indy into some life-threatening situation in remote locations, have a few cool Bond-esque action scenes, layer on the fun John Williams score and people will walk out happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, crumbs said:

If they made the same movie in the late 90s, nobody would have cared

 

It wouldn't have the issue of Ford's advanced age, but it still would have worked to the effect of cheapening the end of The Last Crusade.

 

A fourth Indy film OF ANY KIND should never have seen the light of day. Its not just that the movie we got is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: that just adds insult to injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

A fourth Indy film OF ANY KIND should never have seen the light of day.

 

I disagree, they could have kept going and easily had 6 films by now (only one film per decade since TLC, hardly overkill). They're just pulpy adventure films. This isn't some holy trinity trilogy, they were just 3 totally unrelated action/adventure films that were heaps of fun. Why not keep making those if you can keep inventing new situations and exploring different countries/artifacts/cultures?

 

I would have loved to see Indy hiking the mountains of Nepal, exploring ancient temples in China, trekking through the Outback, living with local tribes in Africa, the possibilities are endless. It's a totally different ballpark to the likes of Bond which is a bit stricter because it's locked to the spy genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, crumbs said:

They're just pulpy adventure films. This isn't some holy trinity trilogy, they were just 3 totally unrelated action/adventure films

 

Like I said, The Last Crusade isn't a concluding film in the sense that its a resolution to a trilogy's worth of story. But it is a concluding film in the sense that its a goodbye to Indy.

 

If The Last Crusade wasn't made the way it was made, sure, Indy could have carried on, although naturally it would become stale at some point. But seeing as how The Last Crusade was indeed made the way that it was - that being, as a concluding film - they should have stopped there and let Indy live-on in our imaginations.

 

13 minutes ago, crumbs said:

had 6 films by now (only one film per decade since TLC, hardly overkill).

 

But then, you'd still run into the issue of Ford's age. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was almost guarenteed to be bad, given the age of its hero, and Indy 5 is a surefire dud given that its action hero will be pushing 80.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TLC is the most sentimental of the 3 films, if that's what you're referring to. It's basically a drama between an estranged son and his dad, if you really boil it down. If it was the final film, I don't think anyone would have complained, because it's a nostalgic and heartwarming film to watch.

 

That said, each film remains a perfectly self-contained story. You can watch them in any order, they all deal with separate topics, characters and situations. There's no reason they couldn't keep telling new stories that dealt with other aspects of Indy's life as he grew older and moved past the war and his youthful adventures.

 

If Spielberg continued the more dramatic/less pulpy approach from TLC with further sequels, they could have explored another growth arc by revisiting the character every ten years through the 50s, 60s and 70s. Unfortunately they missed the boat by waiting so long and building up everyone's expectations too high, resulting in all the backlash over KOCS. I think the change in time periods alone would have stopped things from becoming stale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, crumbs said:

There's no reason they couldn't keep telling new stories

 

They clearly got so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should.

 

Again, this quite beside how Kingdom of the Crystal Skull turned out. There should never have a fourth Indy film in any shape or form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

What fourth Indy film? I only own three.

 

 

 

A fourth one would look out of place in my DVD collection, as it wouldn't be part of the existing three movie boxset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

And how many of those Bond films are actually any good?

Definitely less than all. Perhaps half or so?

But a good new one does come along every once in a while.

After the Moore's got too silly, there were a couple of good Brosnan ones again.

(Before those got increasingly silly too...)

 

Difficult to judge though for me as I was never as invested in Bond as I am in Indy.

They're fun enough movies; but mostly forgettable.

Unlike Indiana Jones, which always stayed with me.

 

45 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

We are indeed past this point, and the attempt to continue Indy's "story" past The Last Crusade proved itself to be a failed experiment; which is why its time to cut our loses and let this series die.

If none ever is made again, I'll certainly understand.

But I'd be sorry to see the character of Indiana Jones, and the concept of those movies, be left behind.

There is still plenty of untapped potential there.

 

45 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

As for the issues with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, its more to do with the fact that action movies shouldn't really star people in their sixties.

Compared to the other problems with that film, I'd say Ford's age is a complete non-issue.

The CGI had nothing to do with that. The gophers/fridge/aliens didn't either.

 

But indeed, it would've been better had there been less of a wait since Last Crusade.

 

45 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Steven Spielberg sure did. 

True.

But as much as I love Spielberg, it could've been HIS final Indy film; without it being THE final Indy film.

 

45 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

To me, the very introduction of a father, and the meta-aspect of it being Connnery, as well as opening with a flashback to Indy's childhood all speak to the finality of The Last Crusade: the film is all about going back to the beginning of Indiana Jones - as a character, as a concept and an action hero - in order to bid him goodbye at the end.

Indeed the flashback element is an uncommon one in the series.

It would be weird for the series to continue without any of the subsequent films having a similar 'young Indy' importance.

 

But it did allow to tell a more personal story.

With a bit more depth to it than Raiders or Temple of Doom.

Which isn't even remotely necessary for those sort of films.

Even though it worked wonders in this case.

 

45 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Again, its final not in the sense of a culmination of a story, but just as a farewell to the character. The riding-off into the sunset fits with that incredibly well. The other two films didn't have anything like that.

Raiders had a pretty self-contained ending too.

I suppose it's only Temple of Doom that had a pretty generic finale (guy gets girl; end of story).

 

None of the trilogy had much of a sequel-hook.

They could've all served as final entry.

But none of them absolutely needs to be either.

 

38 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Put simply, something changed in Spielberg after Schindler's List and he was seemingly incapable of making "fun" popcorn movies without overthinking it.

Real shame.

Those dark, serious movies hardly ever really connect with me.

And while I understand the importance of Schindler's List, many of Spielberg's other more serious fare just leave me with a feeling of 'sure; whatever'.

I haven't even bothered watching them all yet.

 

I prefer something inspiring in my films. And for me, a well-done Indiana Jones style film works wonders for that.

 

36 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

It wouldn't have the issue of Ford's advanced age, but it still would have worked to the effect of cheapening the end of The Last Crusade.

I suppose I'll never quite understand that.

Last Crusade would always remain being the exact same film that it was.

Any 'cheapening' can only be in the personal perception.

 

For me, I love LC as much as I did prior to the release of KotCS.

Maybe even more, knowing now that it turned out so much better than part 4.

 

32 minutes ago, crumbs said:

It's a totally different ballpark to the likes of Bond which is a bit stricter because it's locked to the spy genre.

Agreed.

I really don't understand why that kept going, when Indy could not.

Indy is relatively formulaic, but still much less so than Bond necessarily has to be.

 

29 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

If The Last Crusade wasn't made the way it was made, sure, Indy could have carried on, although naturally it would become stale at some point. But seeing as how The Last Crusade was indeed made the way that it was - that being, as a concluding film - they should have stopped there and let Indy live-on in our imaginations.

In my imagination, there can be plenty more films.

Or books. Or an animated series. :P

 

29 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

But then, you'd still run into the issue of Ford's age. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a bad movie largely because its actuib hero is pushing seventy, and Indy 5 is guarenteed to be bad, with its hero pushing eighty.

"Largely"?

 

Ford was pretty excellent in Call of the Wild earlier this year.

I really enjoyed that and I could almost see it as an "Indy light" sort of story.

 

An Indy V with Ford could indeed be tricky because at some point his age does become an issue.

But if they do another 'Young Indy' opening and have the movie be half-half with a passing of the torch back to the beginning, I could see that working.

Then the Last Crusade exception also wouldn't be so uncommon anymore and we'd have a free gamepark for the James Bond approach in the future.

 

19 minutes ago, crumbs said:

I think the change in time periods alone would have stopped things from becoming stale.

On the one hand... true.

On the other, I don't think the 1920's to 1940's have any reason to be stale any time soon.

There's so much to explore there.

 

Going outside that could eventually start to feel like a different sort of franchise.

And some of that can already be noticed in KotCS with its focus on the ("new") time period itself at its opening.

It would be weird to have an Indy film in a world without Nazi's/Commies as "big bad" and where most of the map has already been explored.

The introduction of technology, for me, really works against the character.

And so the 'Space Race' time period isn't a great fit as far as I'm concerned.

 

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

They clearly got so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they stop to think if they should.

Hehe; I appreciate the reference!

 

And that reminds me... I could absolutely see Indiana Jones in a "Lost World" sort of setting working beautifully.

A bit like: Adventurers of Dino Island

 

And we haven't had an Arctic setting yet either, which is also ripe with adventure potential.

 

(Oops, that became quite the long post. Couldn't keep up with you guys, so had to keep adding... :lol: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Pieter Boelen said:

Compared to the other problems with that film, I'd say Ford's age is a complete non-issue.

 

What?! How can the age of the hero in an ACTION-adventure film NOT be an issue?

 

It was a huge issue, and it all but guarenteed from the outset that the film will suck. Watching this elderly man get out of all of these life-and-death situations was ridiculous, even when it wasn't poorly-staged or smothered in obvious-CGI.

 

It also affected the writing, in that for a lot of the action scenes they needed to write around Jones, and hence we get the prominence of the infernal Mutt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

What?! How can the age of the hero in an ACTION-adventure film NOT be an issue?

Because I watched that movie and while a lot of things did bother me, that wasn't one of them.

Ford is a good actor and his acting was perfectly fine. Certainly compared to those other things.

 

Doesn't mean a younger Ford wouldn't have been preferable.

And it's also the reason why I'm open to a recasting for the character.

Age; and the time setting.

 

13 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

It was a huge issue, and it all but guarenteed from the outset that the film will suck. Watching this elderly man get out of all of these life-and-death situations was ridiculous, even when it wasn't poorly-staged or smothered in obvious-CGI.

They could've put easily put some actual archaeological field work in the story.

That would've made perfect sense also for an older Indy and would have given some believable grounding.

 

15 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

It also affected the writing, in that for a lot of the action scenes they needed to write around Jones, and hence we get the prominence of the infernal Mutt.

Surely could've been handled differently.

I didn't mind him so much in general.

 

Shame though that in the new motorcycle chase, Indy was just on the back doing not much of anything.

And Williams' music was so light and fluffy that the scene didn't have any impact either.

Stranger yet; we see Mutt bring his motorcycle along to Peru and then... not be used whatsoever.

 

Instead there's sudden fencing (acceptable, if only Indy had gotten the chance to do some fire-fighting in-between).

And a Tarzan monkey scene that really didn't need to be there.

 

None of that is because of Ford's age.

I see the reason being that Lucas insisted on aliens and 'nuking the fridge', which had been in the drafts since 1994.

And Spielberg and/or Ford were never truly behind that. So since Lucas didn't give up on those, eventually they caved.

But that meant they couldn't take the story seriously anymore and Spielberg figured he might as well have ridiculous over-the-top fun with things instead.

 

Which is too bad, because Indiana Jones was always quite a grounded, down-to-earth, mostly believable kind of character.

Even Last Crusade, which was the most comedic of the set, still had that sense of being comedic without being a comedy (or a parody).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

They released a fanfic starring an older Indy and the kid from Transformers back in 2008.

 

Yeah, I should really talk about it as the "supposedly-fourth Indy film."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Almost all the problems with KOCS boil down to that godawful script.

Not disagreeing.

But having since various other story treatments, the one we got seems to me the LEAST bad of the bunch.

Which doesn't make it actually good though.

 

For me, the true source of the problems boil down to having a non-Indy concept in the first place.

And having some stupid story elements being forced into every draft of the script; no matter how different they otherwise are.

 

Some of those are a direct result of the time period.

The 50s/60s were no longer 'the age of archaeology' (Tutankhamen was the 20's/30's) but were 'Space Race' instead.

Which doesn't have a whole lot to do with the ancient world and therefore doesn't fit the character very well.

 

Lucas insisted on 'going with the period' instead of 'sticking with the character concept'.

That's understandable. But also unfortunate. Because it tries to make Indiana Jones something it's not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, crumbs said:
  • excessive CGI
  •  

 

There's lots of laughable CGI in the movie, the worst offender being Shia swinging in the jungle with clearly digital monkeys. Not only the scene is idiotic, but the CGI looks like something from 2001, not 2008. Can't believe this thing costed $180m to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

 

There's lots of laughable CGI in the movie, the worst offender being Shia swinging in the jungle with clearly digital monkeys. Not only the scene is idiotic, but the CGI looks like something from 2001, not 2008. Can't believe this thing costed $180m to make.

 

It's pretty incredible how bad the CGI looks, when Spielberg films generally have excellent CGI. Almost wonder if this was a stylistic choice, to make all the effects shots look obvious? Like, as an intentional homage to the older trilogy (and that era of films from the 60s). 

 

Awful decision if so. It's shocking that ILM were responsible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m generally less sensitive to issues to do with effects: if the story works, I don’t care how smothered it is with bad effects (CG, practical or optical). It’s not like the effects for the opening of the Ark or the rear-projection in the airplane chase of The Last Crusade are at all photorealistic...
 

But to me, the story of the supposedly-fourth Indy film is hamstrung by Ford’s age, and seeing this action hero as this old man is really kind of pathetic. It is, to my mind, the biggest issue with the film, and one that doomed it from the outset. It would have taken a miracle for it to turn out well, and alas...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta say that I also don't see how Ford's age won't be an issue in Indy 5. I'd imagine it was why Han wasn't involved in anything too physically taxing in The Force Awakens. 

We could end up in a similar situation to A View To A Kill, where the 58 year old Moore was frequently and very obviously 'doubled'.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll just make a CGI Ford. Nobody will notice the difference, except for everyone else than the filmmakers.

 

14 hours ago, Chen G. said:

But to me, the story of the supposedly-fourth Indy film is hamstrung by Ford’s age, and seeing this action hero as this old man is really kind of pathetic. 

 

I don't understand why you feel that. It's ageism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

I'd imagine it was why Han wasn't involved in anything too physically taxing in The Force Awakens. 

 

And in The Force Awakens, Han is a supporting character, and more of a mentor-figure than an action hero. The same could not be said for the role of Indiana Jones, for which an aged Ford just cannot (and indeed, in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, could not) do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why they couldn't try a different approach with the character; something less action-focused and more of a private investigator role (think Humphrey Bogart in his film noir roles), inspecting some nefarious foreign activities (like Nazis searching for artifacts in Cairo).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jurassic Shark said:

That would actually be cool. And shot in B&W!

 

Absolutely, it would be very effective if they moved into that film noir genre. Would also suit Kaminski's visual style a lot better than whatever he was attempting in KOCS.

 

V36Z4YY.jpg

 

There's no reason Ford/Spielberg couldn't pull off an espionage take on the series, set to the backdrop of the Cold War. Isn't the whole point of the Indy films that they change to reflect the time period they're based in?

 

Set the prologue during the Cuban Missile Crisis then have the main story take place around the start of the Vietnam War. Only the most unimaginative writer couldn't come up with an interesting globe-trotting adventure story set in that time period and reflecting that genre. Which makes it all the more puzzling that highly-paid professional writers are incapable of cracking this nut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, crumbs said:

Which makes it all the more puzzling that highly-paid professional writers are incapable of cracking this nut.

 

I think the problem arises when too many people demand to have their say on the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crumbs said:

I don't see why they couldn't try a different approach with the character; something less action-focused and more of a private investigator role

 

Umm, because that's not Indiana Jones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

Isn't the whole point of the Indy films that they change to reflect the time period they're based in?

That only really started with the fourth film.

The first three seem to be set in a very similar period with similar style.

(Ish.)

 

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

Set the prologue during the Cuban Missile Crisis then have the main story take place around the start of the Vietnam War. Only the most unimaginative writer couldn't come up with an interesting globe-trotting adventure story set in that time period and reflecting that genre.

That sounds pretty decent to me.

 

1 hour ago, crumbs said:

Which makes it all the more puzzling that highly-paid professional writers are incapable of cracking this nut.

Indeed that one does not make sense to me.

But even in the books, a whole bunch jump off the deep end for some reason.

 

17 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Umm, because that's not Indiana Jones?

It's more Indiana Jones than sci-fi and aliens are.

And the mystery could be spread across the globe and related to an archeaological artifact.

(With that trademark touch of mysticism.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet all three are manifestly action-adventure: not spy thrillers. That IS Indiana Jones.

 

If it no longer stars Ford, no longer scored by Williams, no longer directed by Spielberg, no longer with a story by George Lucas and no longer even in the same genre - well, you might as well just come up with a new series alltogether, instead of bending an existing one so out-of-shape only to retain the name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Yet all three are manifestly action-adventure: not spy thrillers. That IS Indiana Jones.

James Bond are spy thrillers, right?

I don't think crumbs was suggesting that for Indy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the topic ;)

I would absolutely love it if we have a Luke Skywalker centered story played by Sébastien Stan and him being hunted by Mara Jade. :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

These are all just clickbait aggregations of quotes from the one single Vanity Fair article that you and Jay keep posting.  Why not just link back to the original instead of these awful sites like CBR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Stu said:

These are all just clickbait aggregations of quotes from the one single Vanity Fair article that you and Jay keep posting.  Why not just link back to the original instead of these awful sites like CBR

That is the least clickbait title I’ve ever seen, and it’s also accurate to the quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Waititi said this about his upcoming film:

 

Quote

“Look, I think for the ‘Star Wars’ universe to expand, it has to expand,” Waititi told Total Film about his yet-to-be-titled movie. “I don’t think that I’m any use in the ‘Star Wars’ universe making a film where everyone’s like, ‘Oh great, well that’s the blueprints to the Millennium Falcon, ah that’s Chewbacca’s grandmother.'”

Waititi, who was tapped for a “Star Wars” installment with a December 2025 release date, added, “That all stands alone, that’s great, though I would like to take something new and create some new characters and just expand the world, otherwise it feels like it’s a very small story.”

 

https://www.indiewire.com/2022/06/taika-waititi-star-wars-new-characters-1234733709/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's right.  EVERYTHING they've made after TROS is a prequel.  Prequels can still expand, but there are real constraints.  I hope he can breathe new life into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to have a Star Wars film set after TROS with no link to any of the characters from the Skywalker saga. Maybe a fun cameo but that's it.

 

I would love to see the world after TROS and more planets than just Tatooine etc.

I'm one of the people who has kinda had enough of Tatooine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JNHFan2000 said:

It would be nice to have a Star Wars film set after TROS with no link to any of the characters from the Skywalker saga. Maybe a fun cameo but that's it.

Maybe Jar Jar Binks carrying around a little cute alien that contains the re-incarnated spirit of Palpatine, trying to infiltrate the new galactic senat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something I've been thinking about from the moment Taika was announced to direct and co-write his own Star Wars movie. With John Williams' Star Wars days (on film at least) behind him, the future allows for more composers to enter the film sandbox. The Disney+ shows have allowed different composers to test out their own styles and take the franchise's musical sound in directions beyond just emulating Williams. For better or for worse. It's always fun to speculate who is going to take on the baton next. For Taika's film, there's only 1 obvious choice. 


After providing a BAFTA nominated score for Jojo Rabbit, scoring Thor: Love and Thunder, and being confirmed to score Next Goal Wins, I think it's very safe to assume that Michael Giacchino will end up scoring Taika's film. In addition to him and Taika being a package deal now, Giacchino simply makes the most sense to carry on the Star Wars musical legacy from John Williams. Now I'm aware that a lot of folks up in here aren't nearly as big Giacchino fans as I am (he sits as my 3rd favorite of all-time right under Danny Elfman and the big JW himself). Despite all that, I think he's the best choice. Very few modern mainstream film composer value themes and leitmotifs as much as Giacchino does, as a large majority of his scores are built entirely around them. He knows how to strike a balance between referring to old themes while also developing his own. Plus, the man knows how to make people cry and isn't that what we all want? And I think him scoring major features for multiple sections of the Walt Disney Company makes him the company's most valuable composer, just as Alan Menken and Randy Newman were before him. And of course the Rogue One connection, but that's besides the point. 


As of the making of this post, we have no insight as to what Taika's movie is even about. All we have to go on is Taika's involvement, his co-writer, and the fact that it exists. If we go off of Taika's past work, it'll ultimately be a movie about relationships. I can picture large, sweeping, romantic melodies combined with high-octane action cues. I think his score for Super 8 is a good starting point. There's a very small chance I could be wrong. Maybe Taika will end up picking someone else because Giacchino is too busy. Brad Bird's got a new movie soon, there's always a seat for him at Pixar, and who knows what other director will become his next main guy. Despite all that, I think we should accept the possibility now. Whether you're excited about that possibility or not is up to you. We got a year to find out I suppose. Lol

On a slightly smaller note, y'all may want to accept the possibility that Hans Zimmer will score Rogue Squadron. He almost did Solo and he's good friends with Patty Jenkins. Just saying, prepare yourself for that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.