‘Quiet Place’ Writers Turned Down Star Wars, Tells Lucasfilm To Start New Franchises

[bferr1972]

Originally Posted by Shingster

I do agree it's a bit of a weird situation for these writers to complain about the lack of original output tough, the studio showing enough faith and interest in their ability to help create a new series for them, but you throw some shade their way instead? It could all be a load of BS tough made to generate some public criticism.

I wonder what their principled stand says to other writers and directors in Hollywood who have worked with Lucasfilm. Is some indirect shade being thrown their way, too?

Star Wars is more than a franchise, as we all know. And it's inspired generations of filmmakers for decades. If these writers say Star Wars is "not in their DNA," that's fine, but that means I wouldn't want them within 1,000 miles of it anyway.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by bferr1972

I wonder what their principled stand says to other writers and directors in Hollywood who have worked with Lucasfilm. Is some indirect shade being thrown their way, too?

Star Wars is more than a franchise, as we all know. And it's inspired generations of filmmakers over decades. If these writers say it's "not in their DNA," then I wouldn't want them within 1,000 miles of it.

And the amount of shade, if any, depends greatly on which article you read.

I don't really have any trouble believing these guys pitched whatever cool takes on Indy and Star Wars they might have but I have quite a bit more trouble swallowing the idea that they went in there and read Lucasfilm execs the riot act right to their faces. Right to their very faces, I say!!!

I can certainly understand why the idea of these two guys wagging their fingers in Kathleen Kennedy's face is appealing in certain circles but it doesn't really ring true to me.

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by bferr1972

Producing original content, yes, none of which has yielded any new franchises, which I think is at the root of the AQP writers' observation.

However, my comparison was sincere and not meant to be "glib, entirely spurious and vague." IMO, Lucasfilm as currently constituted is nothing more than a steward for the legacy of its founder, carrying on the projects he created as best as they are able. Any new projects created under their aegis will likely have nothing to do with that man and his legacy, and thus could just as well be produced by any other studio in Hollywood. In my mind, Lucasfilm is synonymous with Star Wars and Indiana Jones; asking them to do something different would be akin to asking Marvel to make something other than superhero movies.

100% agree. And I think that's exactly why Disney invested far too much in 2 franchises that essentially lived and died on their talent.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by kemcha

There are more than a few that come to mind: Guillermo del Toro, David Fincher, Brad Bird come to mind, after Disney took ownership of Lucasfilm. Even J.J. Abrams initially turned down Star Wars Episode VII. From what I also heard, Kennedy didn't want Abrams directing The Force Awakens. The division over The Last Jedi, among fans, was possibly the reason why Abrams was asked to return to direct the last film in the saga.

There are other directors who have turned down Disney/Lucasfilm for a Star Wars film that I wasn't able to compile in enough time. But, there are also actors who have turned down roles in Kennedy's Star Wars franchise as well. The fact that we now have writers turning down Lucasfilm seems to indicate that the studio's problems might be larger than before.



The division over The Force Awakens has been growing ever since The Last Jedi was released. Before TLJ, the common complaint was that TLJ was a remake of A New Hope and nobody can mistake the similarities between the two films. Solo isn't that bad of a film but, and this may be a leap, that Solo may have suffered at the box office as a direct result of The Last Jedi.

Rogue One seems to be the only real success that Lucasfilm has under the Disney banner. It's not like Disney Star Wars can't produce great content. They did this with Rogue One and Star Wars: Rebels. The Mandalorian has the potential to be a great live action series if the producers, writers and directors can stay away from the social justice aspect that plagued TLJ.

I just think that Lucasfilm needs to start winning back the trust of Star Wars fans because no matter how they feel about the Star Wars fan community, it's that very same community they need to make future films, television shows and streaming projects successful.

Some people didn't like TLJ and the way things are going we're soon to discover that RJ shot bambi's mother. All of this is pure conjecture based on your reaction to one movie. Rogue One is the only successsful film?

The biggest red herring you've landed here is JJ Abrams. He was reluctant to get on board with Star Wars because he had other "commitments". Paramount threatened to sue him but I think it's been resolved now.


It's fairly cut and dried. The two writers of A Quiet Place didn't want to work on a Star Wars movie in the Star Wars universe and would have preferred if Disney would develop something different. Something the writers created themselves, no doubt. That's what they said.

Everything else that's beeb said about this is the same old wishful thinking, like Kennedy's and Rian's firing that's taken two years to still not happen.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

You gotta admit it sucks when the studios that dump 200 million dollars into the same crap are afraid to take a chance on something new for 50 million. You cannibalize the art to the point in which no one will show up for your garbage eventually. So yeah, there's a point to what they're saying. The fact that Lucasfilm is reaching out to others to figure out what to do shows they have no clue what they are doing.

Yeah, it's clear Disney's franchises are in shambles and on life support. Their Marvel, live-action translations of their animated classics and Star Wars films clearly make no money and have no fans whatsoever.

I don't like their company but Disney hires good talent and I like what they have been putting out. Lots of people just like to complain. Don't like what Disney puts out? Then watch something else.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

You aint kidding. Its unfortunately simple: People keep flocking to theaters to see the same movies over and over. Like superhero films, derivative horror films and of course everyones favs - reboots, remakes and redos.

Until the movie-going public demands new and/or more from studios and keeps buying tickets.... you arent getting much new stuff. Its too risky for a studio to take a chance when they can just do yet another stupid superhero origin story or cheesey horror film which will make eleventy billion trillion.



Beautifully stated. Its like ex-NFL head coaches turning down coaching jobs with certain teams due to the owners of those teams being known to be trouble and/or are seen as problematic for the franchise in general. Disney/Kennedy have that reputation at this stage. So, some feel its better to stay away.

There's tons and tons and tons of new stuff. Go find it. Not everything is reboots. I watched "In Fashion" a couple weeks ago. Stunningly original film. The Shape of Water was mesmerizing and was nominated for a bunch of awards. Snowpiercer was very unique. Under the Skin was something very original. Just watched Witches in the Woods this past weekend - very tense film. Sure many of these don't get major theatrical releases, but they're out there. People whine that there's no original films out there but that's just not true. If all you do is see the biggest, most expensive, heavily marketed films, then that's you're own fault. I enjoy big blockbusters. I also enjoy low-budget films. As long as I'm entertained, I'm happy. And there's plenty out there to entertain you.

Go find it.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by mar3o

There's tons and tons and tons of new stuff. Go find it. Not everything is reboots. I watched "In Fashion" a couple weeks ago. Stunningly original film. The Shape of Water was mesmerizing and was nominated for a bunch of awards. Snowpiercer was very unique. Under the Skin was something very original. Just watched Witches in the Woods this past weekend - very tense film. Sure many of these don't get major theatrical releases, but they're out there. People whine that there's no original films out there but that's just not true. If all you do is see the biggest, most expensive, heavily marketed films, then that's you're own fault. I enjoy big blockbusters. I also enjoy low-budget films. As long as I'm entertained, I'm happy. And there's plenty out there to entertain you.

Go find it.

Yeah, I know. Its out there and some of it is good and some isnt. I hunt down independent films when I can or things that arent marketed heavily. I actually dont go see much at the theater these days. Not into the MCU avengers stuff at all.

I just think people are generally tired of things being rebooted/reloaded/whatever. It is happening a lot.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

I sounded like your post was a criticism/opinion of A Quiet Place. But, AQP isn't based nor built upon an existing or previous IP, so there's that.

AQP is a satisfactory popcorn flick with broad appeal, but in my opinion, does not represent breakthrough filmmaking in any form. So, sure, one can say it's not established IP, but it is a melange of established ideas, writing and cinematic technique.

Which is perfectly OK by me, and to be clear, I enjoyed AGP as a night out at the movies with the family.

That said, to walk into a private meeting with Lucasfilm and speak to 'original' ideas when your box office success has absolutely nothing to do with original filmmaking, well, that's between you and Lucasfilm.

To take your 'complaint' to a public forum and suggest that you, standing on the shoulders of giants, stood up to Lucusfilm and schooled them how to run their business, well, that smacks of hubris and hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by J-Mart

Is it hypocrisy though? It seems like AQP is becoming a new franchise, a new series at the very least.

It is to me when you pretend that your original 'ideas' represent breakthrough filmmaking, when they are in fact no more than someone else's work in a new package.

Based on AQP, I would suggest these two have no 'original' ideas. If they did, why not present them in the context of two established franchises?

After all, not only is that the brief, that's a unique challenge all it's own.

You want to develop 'new ideas' and related franchises?

Walk away from AQP 2, put your money where your mouth is and show the world your capacity for original filmmaking.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Yeah, I know. Its out there and some of it is good and some isnt. I hunt down independent films when I can or things that arent marketed heavily. I actually dont go see much at the theater these days. Not into the MCU avengers stuff at all.

I just think people are generally tired of things being rebooted/reloaded/whatever. It is happening a lot.

Are you really so sure about people being "generally tired of things being rebooted/reloaded/whatever?"

Top 10 Domestic Grosses so far this year:

1 -- Avengers: Endgame

2 -- The Lion King (2019)

3 -- Toy Story 4

4 -- Captain Marvel

5 -- Spider-Man: Far From Home

6 -- Aladdin (2019)

7 -- Us

8 -- John Wick: Chapter 3

9 -- Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw

10 -- How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World


Us is the only fully original film of the 10.

[Martoto]

"They're staying in droves!"

[mwynn]

Sticking to the false narrative of no original movies, and no one wants to see remakes or sequels is fascinating. Even though it is proven wrong every time, it is still brought up. Why?

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Sticking to the false narrative of no original movies, and no one wants to see remakes or sequels is fascinating. Even though it is proven wrong every time, it is still brought up. Why?

If you can use it as another way to continue threadcrapping about LFL and certain people involved with it, why let facts and hypocrisy hold you back?

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Sticking to the false narrative of no original movies, and no one wants to see remakes or sequels is fascinating. Even though it is proven wrong every time, it is still brought up. Why?

Originally Posted by Martoto

If you can use it as another way to continue threadcrapping about LFL and certain people involved with it, why let facts and hypocrisy hold you back?

Are you accusing those with legit concerns of threadcrapping?

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Are you really so sure about people being "generally tired of things being rebooted/reloaded/whatever?"

Top 10 Domestic Grosses so far this year:

1 -- Avengers: Endgame

2 -- The Lion King (2019)

3 -- Toy Story 4

4 -- Captain Marvel

5 -- Spider-Man: Far From Home

6 -- Aladdin (2019)

7 -- Us

8 -- John Wick: Chapter 3

9 -- Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw

10 -- How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World


Us is the only fully original film of the 10.

Look - whenever most remakes or reboots are announced, there is a large number of posters here and elsewhere that dont really care for the idea. Most on your list arent straight up remakes or reboots anyways. Bad list to prove your point. Some are certainly sequels but I didnt mention those. Sequels are different from reboots or remakes. You know that.

Oh and if one or more of them are remakes of some obscure, unknown original from like the 1940's then those dont count either since no one cares or has seen the original. So dont go playing that card either.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by CelluloidPal

Are you accusing those with legit concerns of threadcrapping?

No. Just the people who continue to define the issue, as a dearth of original ideas/movies, then acknowledge that there are original ideas/movies to watch out there, and who have stated that generally people have grown tired of franchises and blockbusters in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and phrase this complaint and many others like it, in post after post after post, in the context of one studio.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Look - whenever most remakes or reboots are announced, there is a large number of posters here and elsewhere that dont really care for the idea. Most on your list arent straight up remakes or reboots anyways. Bad list to prove your point. Some are certainly sequels but I didnt mention those. Sequels are different from reboots or remakes. You know that.

Oh and if one or more of them are remakes of some obscure, unknown original from like the 1940's then those dont count either since no one cares or has seen the original. So dont go playing that card either.

Yes. But you also know that people often lump these tentpole films into the same stew as remakes and reboots. I don't think that's even up for argument. And I don't believe that I listed any remakes of films from the 40s. Films like Aladdin was a remake of a '92 animated film, while The Lion King was a live action version of a '94 animated film (not to mention Shakespeare's "Hamlet" for that matter). A Star Is Born from last year was a remake of the '37, '54, and '76 versions. Then you have films like Carrie, Night of the Living Dead, Pride and Prejudice, Beauty and the Beast -- ALL of which received multiple remakes.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Yes. But you also know that people often lump these tentpole films into the same stew as remakes and reboots. I don't think that's even up for argument. And I don't believe that I listed any remakes of films from the 40s. Films like Aladdin was a remake of a '92 animated film, while The Lion King was a live action version of a '94 animated film (not to mention Shakespeare's "Hamlet" for that matter). A Star Is Born from last year was a remake of the '37, '54, and '76 versions. Then you have films like Carrie, Night of the Living Dead, Pride and Prejudice, Beauty and the Beast -- ALL of which received multiple remakes.

Oh they do lump them in and its not realistic. I dont think we are that far off here and I appreciate your sensible replies. . Aladdin was a remake but at least it was live-action so there is a slight difference. Now, I dont see the point of these Disney cartoon remakes into live action but whatever they wanna do, right? If you want to watch Aladdin.... then just watch the perfectly good animated one! Thats how I see it. I didnt even realize A Star Is Born was made that many times. Geesh.

Honestly, isnt everything really a remake of some Shakespearean concept or old Viking Norse legends?

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Oh they do lump them in and its not realistic. I dont think we are that far off here and I appreciate your sensible replies.

Honestly, isnt everything really a remake of some Shakespearean concept or old Viking Norse legends?

Pretty much, yes. Anything with a remotely linear timeline, is a comedy, history, tragedy, or romance is, yes, probably working off of a Shakespeare-inspired concept. Or Greek or Roman or Viking, yes.

[CelluloidPal]

Originally Posted by Martoto

No, just the people who continue to define the issue as a dearth of original ideas, then acknowledge that there are original ideas, and who have stated that generally people have grown tired of franchises and blockbusters in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and phrase their complaints in the context of one studio.

Okay, I gotcha.
As much as we talk about original ideas or lack thereof, this is a matter of perception. When the MCU and Disney remakes get all of the press and when studios are so quick to greenlight the next superhero property, there's the perception that original ideas aren't out there. I don't think people aren't showing up to them but, in some cases, not enough are showing up to them building the numbers The Lion King got, for example. There are other factors that fit into this as well.
As for the franchise/blockbuster fatigue, there's some evidence of it slowing down or the blockbuster isn't what it used to be. The ones that were set to deliver, didn't get it done.
As for LFL, they can't be blamed totally for all of this but they can't be let off the hook either.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Oh they do lump them in and its not realistic. I dont think we are that far off here and I appreciate your sensible replies. . Aladdin was a remake but at least it was live-action so there is a slight difference. Now, I dont see the point of these Disney cartoon remakes into live action but whatever they wanna do, right? If you want to watch Aladdin.... then just watch the perfectly good animated one! Thats how I see it. I didnt even realize A Star Is Born was made that many times. Geesh.

Honestly, isnt everything really a remake of some Shakespearean concept or old Viking Norse legends?

To be fair to the series of A Star Is Born films, yes it's 4 versions. OTOH, it's 4 versions over 85 years. That's almost 10 years longer than the average lifespan in the United States. So, to most people like me (51), the only ones which dropped during my life are the '76 and '19 versions (both of which I saw in the theater, and both of which I really liked, btw). IOW, it's not like they're coming out with a new one every few years, or something.

It's just a great story, and a very popular property.