If the topic of this article confuses you, welcome back Rip Van Winkle. Disney bought Star Wars (plus everything else) from George Lucas, and they're putting new SW movies on the fast track. SW7 is going to get a $250 million production budget, easy, and Disney needs it to be good to make that money back. Lucas is out, so you need a real creator to come in and make the whole thing new and cool again. If my last name was Disney and I was calling the shots, these would be my calls, in order:
Why Bird? - Do I even need to elaborate here? Look up any of those films on Rotten Tomatoes. This guy is batting a thousand. It's true that he's only made one live action movie, but who cares? His blend of computer experience from his animated features and practical effects with Tom Cruise make him the perfect choice for this job.
Why Not Bird? - Unfortunately, he's probably booked. He's got this super-secret project going already with Disney and Damon Lindelof code-named 1952. It was supposed to be the next big thing out of the Mouse House until Star Wars became the next big thing. There's been some speculation that 1952 is Star Wars VII, and the timeline works out pretty well with when it was announced and when the negotiations between Disney and Lucas began. Unfortunately, I'm guessing that's just a coincidence and this will end up being one of those obvious pairings where the timing just didn't work.
Why Blomkamp? - His first film is the Star Wars of the last decade. It was done on a shoestring budget, with groundbreaking special effects, by a director no one had ever heard of. It created a new species in the span of a couple of hours and made them feel real. Imagine if Neill had the time and money to make a dozen unique Christophers from different species. Then compare that to Jar Jar.
Why Not Blomkamp? - He's young, and Disney probably won't even get to see his second finished product before making a decision. This wouldn't stop me, but the bigger the organization, the more conservative their decisions, and there's definitely some risk here.
Why Cuaron - He made the best Harry Potter movie. He's got experience with stories that hinge on central female figures, which I think will be necessary for the future of the Wars (not a lot of ladies in the previous films). He's also been the writer on most of his films, so he has the ability to mold and improve the story he's given.
Why Not Cuaron - He films skew dark. He supposedly had no interest in sticking with the HP franchise, which might be an issues if Disney is looking for a single vision to produce a trilogy.
Why Affleck? - He's the fasted rising star in the directing world right now. He would definitely bring a new feel to the entire brand. SW7 could be his Batman Begins.
Why Not Affleck? - He was supposedly offered the Justice League movie, and turned it down. He also has no genre experience, which might prove overwhelming with something on the scope of SW.
Why Johnson? - Looper was incredible. It built a world. It had interesting ideas. It had style.
Why Not Johnson? - He's probably too cool to work on SW. It would keep him from making original movies for three years, at a minimum, and I get the feeling that would be a deal breaker for him.
Why Jones? - Like Johnson, he's a rising star of original sci-fi flicks. Moon was weird and indie, but Source Code was a smart take on a studio actioner.
Why Not Jones? - He's got the double whammy of little experience and being too cool. Disney won't ask, and he'd say no if they did. But what if...
Why Favreau? - In many respects, Iron Man is the film that got us into this mess in the first place. If Marvel's first solo movie didn't do well, maybe they're never bought up by Disney. If Disney never buys Marvel, are they willing to jump on Lucasfilm. Who knows. Probably. Favreau also made Elf, and Elf is awesome.
Why Not Favreau? - Cowboys & Aliens. Next...
Why Boyle? - He introduced us to the fast zombie. He's got an Oscar, and was nominated for another. He...is friends with Ewan McGregor?
Why Not Boyle? - His films are all over the place, and I'm guessing that's on purpose. SW would give him a lot of cred to make his own movies down the road, but he's already got a lot of that, and SW won't be winning him any Oscars.
Why Verbinski? - Four words: amusement park ride movie. Gore took that ridiculous notion, and made one of the best adventure movies of the last two decades. The Pirates sequels didn't quite live up to the original, but they still made a ton of money. Oh, all of that money also went to Disney. Can't forget that.
Why Not Verbinski? - He's wrapping up The Lone Ranger for Disney now, and it's a production that's been plagued with problems. The people choosing the new SW director will know the truth behind those rumors, and how much blame should be placed on Gore. It would also be quite a time crunch to finish post-production and start pre-production on SW at the same time.
Why Johnston? - Two words: Boba Fett. Well, actually, I've got a few more words. Johnston worked for Lucas back in the day, and he designed Boba Fett. He also made The Rocketeer and Captain America, both great adventure films. If he could transition from those solo stories to the (presumably) ensemble adventure of SW, we'd have a great baseline. Plus, you know he had all kinds of cool ideas back when he was low man on the totem pole.
Why Not Johnston? - He had no interest in making Captain America sequels. If he didn't want to get locked into that, he probably wouldn't want to be stuck in a galaxy far, far away for a decade. Maybe the idea of going back to where he started would be enough to counter that impulse.
So what do you think? Did I miss someone obvious? Is your favorite on my list? Are you so mad that I left Whedon, Nolan and Abrams off, even though deep down you know there's no way any of them are getting the call? Let me know in the comments, or send us an email at FullyIntegratedGeeks at Gmail dot Com.
