Movie Star Wars - Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker - Spoilers and Rumors

[Richard Pryor]

Just look at 20 years of EU that was trapped under the weight of those three characters and couldn't narratively progress. They needed to die.

Yeah I'm glad we got rid of that weight so we could progress to killing Palpatine again.

Say what you like about the EU, the fact is that Disney brought back two of the things I remember being mocked the most about it for being too comic bookish (clone Palpatine and robot leg Maul).

Can't comment too much though as I still haven't seen Rise of Skywalker (despite JackOutback's claim that everybody would watch it opening weekend).

 

[glenferry23]

Ten times out of ten I’d take continuing the stories of Luke/Han/Leia over what we ended up getting.

The new characters we just nowhere near compelling enough, I mean how many times do we have to listen to Finn yelling “whoo!! Reyyyyy!!!! Yeahhhh!!!” before you start to question whether that amount of screen time could’ve been better served elsewhere.

 

[JackOutback]

Luke had to die to pave the way for stories of new Jedi without his character looming over everything. The actors are too old to continue, so more adventures from them was a non starter. The deaths of Han and Luke were both excellent. Leia’s was crap but forced upon them.

Also, a movie in which all the OT characters happily sailed off into the sunset with all the new characters would have been derided as cheesy and lame (and rightfully so; these films had the difficulty of being for kids while being targeted primarily at 30-50 year old fans who would have laughed at a fairytale finish).

 

[glenferry23]

I keep hearing about paving the way for “new stories”. It’s a cop out. Good writing/filmmaking should be able to do both. It doesn’t have to be one or the other - only a Sith deals in absolutes.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

I keep hearing about paving the way for “new stories”. It’s a cop out. Good writing/filmmaking should be able to do both. It doesn’t have to be one or the other - only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Rogue One is a textbook example of how you can do a terrific Star Wars story without (for the most part, Han, Leia and Luke)

Granted the Darth Vader slaughter scene is probably the best scene ever, but the point remains valid.

Also I loved seeing Cgi Tarkin and Ponda Baba and Dr Evazan again..

Don't get why fans hated the CGI Tarkin so much, It made the movie even more special.

 

[quotemokc]

TFA should have been set at least 100 years after ROJ

 

[Exe Gesis]

TFA should have been set at least 100 years after ROJ

Maybe then luke, the jedi, and the force could plausibly be almost a myth. Maybe.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Hypothetically speaking, if they made a movie abour Grand Admiral Thrawn (whom would have to be the most popular expanded universe character by far) which actor would be best to play him ?

If it is an original story based on Timothy Zahn's terrific original book and the comic book series (which I have read on Amazon Kindle), I would say Jason Momoa would be ideal, given Thrawn's origins seemed be somewhat similar to the Hunter Ronan Dex, Momoa played on Stargate Atlantis.

At the very least, I firmly believe Thrawn should be played by an actor with an Indigenous/Native background, be it a Cherokee or Maori actor etc.

 

[SM]

Yeah I'm glad we got rid of that weight so we could progress to killing Palpatine again.

Say what you like about the EU, the fact is that Disney brought back two of the things I remember being mocked the most about it for being too comic bookish (clone Palpatine and robot leg Maul).

Can't comment too much though as I still haven't seen Rise of Skywalker (despite JackOutback's claim that everybody would watch it opening weekend).

Not saying they were killed so that we could have IX. They were killed so the future of storytelling in this Universe won't continuously revolve around those three characters.

 

[SM]

I keep hearing about paving the way for “new stories”. It’s a cop out. Good writing/filmmaking should be able to do both. It doesn’t have to be one or the other - only a Sith deals in absolutes.

That's not really a fair point when the evidence is there to the contrary (Star Wars being constrained by pandering to those three characters).

There's plenty of phenomenal books and games and stories in SW without those three characters but they sell and market much more poorly than those that have them.

 

[edgie]

Just look at 20 years of EU that was trapped under the weight of those three characters and couldn't narratively progress. They needed to die.

The EU was essentially a free for all.

Disney era isn't. They could have managed their continued survival without leaning on them.

The prequels didn't lean on Yoda despite him being only one of like, four characters that people already knew.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

Luke had to die to pave the way for stories of new Jedi without his character looming over everything. The actors are too old to continue, so more adventures from them was a non starter. The deaths of Han and Luke were both excellent. Leia’s was crap but forced upon them.

Also, a movie in which all the OT characters happily sailed off into the sunset with all the new characters would have been derided as cheesy and lame (and rightfully so; these films had the difficulty of being for kids while being targeted primarily at 30-50 year old fans who would have laughed at a fairytale finish).

No it wouldn't.

There's no reason his character couldn't lead a new generation of Jedi. Matter of fact that's exactly what TLJ was getting at, before it shifted in to reverse.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

Not saying they were killed so that we could have IX. They were killed so the future of storytelling in this Universe won't continuously revolve around those three characters.

It's that this is somehow accepted as fact, like it simply wasn't possible to make a film work without them.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

Hypothetically speaking, if they made a movie abour Grand Admiral Thrawn (whom would have to be the most popular expanded universe character by far) which actor would be best to play him ?

If it is an original story based on Timothy Zahn's terrific original book and the comic book series (which I have read on Amazon Kindle), I would say Jason Momoa would be ideal, given Thrawn's origins seemed be somewhat similar to the Hunter Ronan Dex, Momoa played on Stargate Atlantis.

At the very least, I firmly believe Thrawn should be played by an actor with an Indigenous/Native background, be it a Cherokee or Maori actor etc.

Seeing as WB are trying to keep the DCEU together whilst making a standalone outside universe Joker flick, I mean, I guess it isn't impossible to have a cake and eat it too...

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[SM]

The EU was essentially a free for all.

Disney era isn't. They could have managed their continued survival without leaning on them.

The prequels didn't lean on Yoda despite him being only one of like, four characters that people already knew.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

No, the prequels leant on Anakin and Obi-Wan, so that's probably a bad example.

 

[SM]

It's that this is somehow accepted as fact, like it simply wasn't possible to make a film work without them.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

Did I say that?

 

[edgie]

No, the prequels leant on Anakin and Obi-Wan, so that's probably a bad example.

Well, they kinda had to. That was the point of the story. That's why I didn't include them.

I used Yoda as an example as he was a side character in the OT that they had the option to lean on, but didn't until the last film when it needed to.

The ST could have used the familiar faces in small roles and have them peripheral, but it didn't know how, so it gave us some screentime then killed them all.

Hypothetically speaking, there's no reason Han couldn't have performed Lando's role in a film. Would that have really broken the sequels?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[edgie]

Did I say that?

Thought so.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[Xtreme]

Just look at 20 years of EU that was trapped under the weight of those three characters and couldn't narratively progress. They needed to die.

 

[atlas1]

The ST could have used the familiar faces in small roles and have them peripheral, but it didn't know how, so it gave us some screentime then killed them all.

Hypothetically speaking, there's no reason Han couldn't have performed Lando's role in a film. Would that have really broken the sequels?

It wouldn't have. There are directors/writers around that could've made it work but I suspect the corporate Disney suits were scared of not using nostalgia and the original trio as key attractions.

 

[JackOutback]

There would be writers/directors that could have used Luke/Leia/Han in small roles and potentially pull it off. But they would have been a lot harder to find. Because the simple truth is, once any one of them walked on to the screen, people would have wanted more of them. And not delivering would have disappointed fans. Because Star Wars IS Luke, Han and Leia.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

The new characters we just nowhere near compelling enough

While that is largely true, it isn't completely true. Kylo was a fantastic character, very compelling, and played to perfection by Driver.

Finn had so much potential. I liked the idea of a reformed Stormtrooper. But, yes - by the end of the series his constant yelling and cheerleading was so tiresome and the subplot in the last film with him being force sensitive was barely touched upon. Terrible character.

They ought to have built up a larger rivalry between Finn-Phasma, made her an actual character, and had their showdown in the last film.

 

[quotemokc]

A great point that I saw brought up.

Finn had been brought up as a Stormtrooper for pretty much his entire life, yet he talks like a normal street kid.

 

[edgie]

The way the ST wanted to give Han, Luke, then Leia a movie each then kill the first two, was another example of directionless foot in each camp approach that defined the trilogy.

Milk them for the fans then get rid of them because you don't actually want them around.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

 

[SM]

Thought so.

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk

I said they needed to die to open up future story telling in all formats. Rogue One exists (with a Leia cameo) as a movie that doesn't have them in it so quite clearly it's possible to make a movie without them..