SPECULATION Rey's lineage and the end of the Skywalker saga?

Epic trilogy doesn't have to = universe saving stakes. I mean, wouldn't they just be repeating themselves at that point?

Why must it end? Thats the beauty of a generatinoal story, it can keep reinventing itself as it moves forward.

You've yet to explain the benefit in ending the possiblity of the Skywalkers continuing.

 

If you ask me, the marvel films are silly for that exact reason. They aren't great mythological works and just the wet dream of a teenage boy. Rebels exists as a story because of the Empire - that came to be because of Vader...and his shadow looks over this whole period. The Skywalker family has invaded that series too.

And again, standalone films don't require Skywalker's (centrally) as they're smaller films. A new trilogy that we know will be devoid of Skywalker's, will be epic in nature and thus their lack of involvement won't make sense.

because RJ doesn't want to create The skywalker saga's younger brother. He will want to create something that is epic and on the scale we're used to. He just clearly wants free reign and to be able to create something new. He can't do that with Skywalker's running about.

You implied risk by saying removing the Skywalker's might have Disney lacking in the future. I don't see that at all. Star Wars is more than the Skywalker's - it's a huge galaxy, it's the force, it's the visual style etc. The Vader story has been well and truly told now. What benefit would there be? RJ can will have the freedom to write any story on any scale. He can't do that if Vader's progeny are about. It won't make sense. And he'll be constantly bugged about questions regarding the family and when they will show up. By the time he has made this trilogy, no doubt the hope will be his characters appeal as much as the Skywalker's and their story could span another trilogy or two.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 14, 2017 ---

The Skywalker trilogy was about stopping someone taking over the galaxy. RJs could be about dominating the force or preventing complete destruction or yes, repeat the same idea. It with different characters providing new original tales.

And if you're saying that these future films can be completely new, why does it need Skywalker's? The skywalker story was all about Vader. If these future episodes including Skywalker's aren't connected to him in some way then what is the point? Besides, Skywalker's cannot be separated from their power and history. These two powerful elements will dictate their story and any others in the galaxy if they're around.

 

It’s called creator’s intent. Does it benefit Disney specifically to create X - C? Heck yes. They’re a company.

But the argument here clearly isn’t about the benefits for Disney to continue producing Saga entries forever; to do so would put them very firmly in the shadow of George Lucas, well, forever.

Fact: George handed Lucasfilm over to Kathleen Kennedy to complete VII - IX.

Fact: though George might have gone back in this in the time of the prequel trilogy’s production, he made very clear reference to having ideas for a VII - IX. There was never any mention by him of X - XII.

Fact: the only reason for George selling Lucasfilm to Disney was to see the sequel trilogy be completed.

There are far too many unknowns here, and there could well be for a long time to come, for anyone to make a strong case for or against X - XII until they’re confirmed to be on their way.

It’s pretty likely that there are clauses in the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney which dictates that nothing can be changed about George’s entries in the Skywalker Saga (i.e. no theatrical cut of the OT, no remakes of the PT, etc.), and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if there was something along the lines of “...the Skywalker Saga ends with IX.”

I mean, ever wonder why VII - XII weren’t announced right off the bat? Or why there seems to be such a heavy focus on Disney growing the brand away from the Skywalker Saga?

This is a massive galaxy, with potentially unlimited storytelling possibilities. Stories can be told as either standalone films or trilogies without necessarily being part of the Skywalker Saga and could still have major success at the box office.

I’m with @master_shaitan on this one.

This is the Skywalker Saga and was retrofitted by George with the prequels to revolve around Anakin Skywalker. The Skywalker story should not be one that goes on for eternity.

 

is star wars rebels a small stand alone story?

 

No, it's a cartoon about the Empire that Vader helped create. It includes Vader himself and characters straight out of the Skywalker saga. The last season closed with Kenobi watching over Luke and making it very clear to Ezra that this was the most vital duty. Are you telling me that the storyline in Rebels isn't directly and thoroughly influenced by the Skywalker's? Really?

 

So you're not really interested in anything new, you want the same old star wars story just without the sur-name Skywalker.

I nevr implied risk - you're trying to avoid the quesitn by changing it - and you sitll haven't answered.

If you REALLy believe star wars is more then the skywalkers and the universe is huge then you can accept an epic storyline taking place where the characters don't need to run to the skywalkers for help. If you can't, you're refusing too for the sake of this argument.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 14, 2017 ---

Thats it. We're done here. You agree with me.

Oh, your facts aren't facts.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 14, 2017 ---

since when can a cartoon not be epic?

Rebels isn't part of the skywalker saga. You're expanding that definition to include anything a skywalker touched is silly.

Any story in the future of this universe will be influeced by the Skywalkers as well - a future Jedi order, fall out from the Empire, the nature of the sith etc...

 

I'm at a loss to how you deduce this from my post when I am in fact saying the complete opposite.
The Skywalker family isn't just a name - it is a history and a power that dictates whatever film they're in. Any new epic trilogy, if they're alive, cannot ignore them.
I want something completely new - something that doesn't lead back to the story of Darth Vader.

I did answer it. I said exactly what the benefit would be story-wise to not have the Skywalker's around. If you're saying that there isn't a risk, then what is the problem with the Skywalker's dying?

As I have said numerous times - I could see a small standalone film that doesn't require the Skywalker's involvement should they still be around. I cannot for the life of me however see a new trilogy that has any relevance being made that could ignore the Skywalker family if they were still around.

 

Where did I say a cartoon couldn't be epic. It's reasonably large scale but is tied directly to the Skywalker's. You're making my point for me old chap.
The story of Rebels is clearly influenced by the Skywalker's. They're fighting the Empire. They fight Vader. They come across Kenobi and Luke. RJ wants to create a wholly new story without any of this stuff. You're showing how these stories, in the Skywalker period, are greatly influenced and/or dictated by the family.

 

You said you want a big epic, universe threating story. Thats what we've gotten 3 times already. The only difference you want is the main characters to hav a different last name. And of course they can be ignored - watch Civil War, you'll understand.

The problem for Disney is they can never go back to that well, there is zero benefit in that for them. They can move all over this huge universe you pointed out they have, not include any Skywalkers - and then come back if/when they want too. That situation is the best for them.

great - you lack imagination. Not all of us do. Its really quite simple - the story happens away from the Skywalkers and they aren't involved.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 14, 2017 ---

no its not. I suggest you try watching it.

 

You're blatantly ignoring my points about Skywalker power and history.
You're the one saying you want new Skywalker stories just for the sake of carrying on the name!

No, they can't. If there is a big threat, of whatever nature RJ decides is worthwhile, and the Skywalker's are around - they'd sense it and they'd be involved. They'd be called upon. The audience will constantly wonder where the hell they are.

I lack imagination? You're the one saying Skywalker's are needed to keep the franchise ticking over.
I'm the one imagining new stories about new characters in new situations...

This is getting weird.

 

In my opinion this argument will be academic in about a months time when Rey is proven not to be a Skywalker (by birth anyway). That will round off and put an end to the Skywalker saga, as again in my opinion; it should be.

Every story has to end somewhere and I think 9 is where they will do it. Of course it will be sad however it will be sadder if they continue to milk it for all it's worth and ultimately die a stale and trodden death 3 films later.

Personally I welcome the change and look forward to seeing what RJ can do when given a completely blank slate.

And if you find yourself doubting the ability of a story not surrounding the Skywalker's just look at KOTOR. Granted they were only video games but the characters and story were just as compelling and engaging. Some of my favourite SW characters of all time came from that story; Revan, HK 47 and Bastila to name just a few.

 

Rebels is about a group of characters fighting the EMPIRE.
The Empire was co created by Darth Vader.

Seriously, you're not making any sense here.

 

LMAO - that doesn't = the Skywalker saga.

If Luke trains Rey, and Rey keeps the Jedi going in the future, no movie int he future that includes Jedi would meet your requirements of not having Skywalkers. The only trype of movie that could possibly fit this standard is a prequel to TPM.

You're ridiculous - you've tried to introduce this concept of risk to avoid answernig (you still haven't) my quesitn about the benefits of cutting off future possibilities. You're now saying anything a Skywalker touched makes it part of the SKywalker Saga and somehow unusable for Johnson or something - when you have to go to such silly lengths.....you probably don't have a good argument.

This boils down to ONE simple issue. They are making a new trilogy seperate from the Skywalker Saga (that DOESN'T mean that Skywalker character can't or won't show up, mind you) - which is basically all we know about it right now. You want them to end the Skywalker family in episode IX because you think any trilogy will HAVE to include them, but you're wrong about this. They can easily do a series of movies that don't include the Skywalkers - Rebels is proof of this. It is a big, long story that isn't about them. So what is the benefit of ending the family line and cutting off the possiblity of them going back and doing episode X whenever they feel like it?

Don't bring up risk, don't go on about how they can't make an epic story with REy Skywalker kicking around in a completely different part of the huge galaxy, don't let "what you want to see" be your argument. What is the benefit for them limiting their story telling options moving forward?

 

What? I didn't say it = SS. I said that the Skywalker's loom over any story that is told within their period - especially anything that isn't some small standalone film. My point being that if RJ created a saga within the Skywalker lifetime then they will have to be involved. Just like how Rebels, your example, is about a group of new characters fighting the Empire. An Empire that wouldn't have risen were it not for Vader. Vader is in Rebels. His power is greatly feared. And now even Kenobi and Luke's story has been dragged into it.

It actually makes my argument stronger.

What? If the Skywalker's are dead, then they won't be involved and the story can go in a new direction. You're really confusing me here.

Thanks. I have answred it - I said that if the Skywalker's survive then any trilogy based in the future, likely RJ's, would be bogged down by the family and not be able to create an original tale (that RJ clearly plans). That's the benefit. And so I will ask you - if you didn't say there would be a risk and thus don't think there is a risk, why complain about the Skywalker's being killed off?

Show me one quote where I said that. I'll wait.
What I actually said was that the Skywalker family influences and/or dictates any story (of a large scale) that exists within their time period.

If Rebels is your great example of this, then I rest my case.
It's about the Empire and has the influence of the Skywalker family throughout.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 14, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 14, 2017 ---

Thought so. I'm off to bed.

 

Acknowledging that Disney wants to make money doesn’t mean that I agree with your opinion that “X - XII will make money, therefore there must be X - XII.”

Rogue One is proof that there is money to be made outside of the Skywalker Saga.

Your argument seems to be that Disney only wants to make maximum profits from each film, which is true, but then wouldn’t they just be releasing Skywalker Saga entries year-in and year-out, or not bothering with the risk of the standalone films?

The key factor that you’ve completely forgotten about is Kathleen Kennedy and Lucasfilm. TFA broke all sorts of records, and was only the second film to gross over $2 billion worldwide in its initial run. RO joined the $1 billion club with a group of new primary protagonists and antagonists.

Disney might be paying the bills, but Lucasfilm likely have carte blanche to do pretty much whatever they want in terms of content output (as if they didn’t before) after their success at the box office.

If Disney turns around to Kennedy or her successor after IX and says “we’d like another trilogy: X - XII”, then sure, Kennedy would be inclined to go along with it, but I think it’s worth mentioning that Disney completely trust Lucasfilm to continue branching out the universe and making them money, so X - XII likely won’t come about because of Disney’s input when one considers their current stance.

If Solo, the Kenobi standalone and RJ’s trilogy all bomb at the box office, then it’s another story. But the chances of that happening seem minimal.

Lucasfilm currently very much holds all of the cards regarding the creation of a trilogy set in the Skywalker Saga after IX.

I think you might want to read up on why Lucas handed the future of the second most valuable media franchise to Kathleen Kennedy of all people

I know that I have evidence supporting my facts, so I’d love to see what evidence you could dig up which was to the contrary.

I’m going to pick up on VII - IX being the final trilogy specifically, seeing as that’s the hardest one to find evidence about. I trust you to do some simple research and learn that George entrusted Kennedy with Lucasfilm to spearhead his vision coming to fruition.

There were only two other entertainment companies who could have possibly purchased Lucasfilm - Sony and Microsoft - but George specifically chose Disney, as he thought that they could tell his story best.

In the videos released on Star Wars’ YouTube account, George said this:

*it’s worth noting that in a number of interviews, George referred to I - IX as a trilogy (of trilogies): with this knowledge, it’s clear that he is referring to VII - IX being the end of the Skywalker Saga. It’s telling, too, that there is specific mention to ideas, characters, books and all kinds of things, but no reference to further entries in the Skywalker Saga, in making Star Wars for the next hundred years.

From an interview with Gene Siskel on the Chicago CBS News promoting Return of the Jedi, way back in 1983, Mark Hamill revealed that George had already contacted him regarding the future of his role as Luke Skywalker:

An interview with George from Starlog, issue 127, February 1988:

The “first three”, obviously, referring to the prequels, and the “other three” referring to the sequels.

 

Except they don't have to include the Skywalkers if they don't want too. Its really not that hard. And no, nothing makes this argument strong.

Wow - using your type argument confuses you LMAO - and you think your argument is strong.

But you're 100% wrong - they can just not include the Skywalkers in Johnson's story. I didn't say anything abotu risk - risk only came up because you're unable to point out any benefit of killing them off and need to change the argument.

You now seem to have an unhinged hatred of anything Skywalker that is completely clouding your judgement about anything.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 15, 2017 ---

When you agree with me on the main reason why they won't end the saga in such a way they can't continue it....ya it means you agree with. And I don't believe Is aid X+ MUST be made.

How much did Rogue One make compared to TFA? And no, that isn't my argument. My argument is there is benefit to them in cutting off the greatest source of revenue this franchise they give them just because Shaitan has a hatred for the family.

You're assuming Lucasfilm has no desire to ever revisit the Skywalker family after Episode IX, they are not driven by profit motive at all, AND that Disney leaves them 100% alone- citation needed for all 3 claims

LMAO - you know a trilogy means 3 right? That quote from the video isn't evidence of what you'r saying. If they had said "thats the end of the Skywalker Saga" - then you'd have a point. And going back to what Lucas said in the 80's? LMAO - he said said it was 12 at point, then 3, then 6.....he changes his mind on that stuff every other week.
http://www.inafarawaygalaxy.com/2014/01/is-it-true-that-george-lucas-wanted-to.html

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 15, 2017 ---

 

Yes, I know that a trilogy means three [related entries in a media; trilogy does not mean three]. Did I not just say that George was referring to the prequels (i.e. THE TRILOGY) when he said “first three”, and the sequels (i.e. THE TRILOGY) when he said “other three”?

And as I just said, this...

...is not in reference to IX being the end of the trilogy. No duh is IX the end of the sequel trilogy.

As I just said, George repeatedly referenced the entire Skywalker Saga as a trilogy: when he was saying that VII, VIII and IX are the end of the trilogy, he was referring to the end of the Skywalker Saga, not IX being the end of the sequel trilogy.

And I’ll happily tell you what you’re clouded about, and remove that rating: you’re reading many of my opinions as facts, when the way it’s written very much emphasises that these are not facts. I consistently use the word “likely” - i.e. it’s probably, not certain: it’s not a fact - and yet you ask for citations. The one time I didn’t - Disney seems to trust LFL enough to make the calls - is already evident anyhow: LFL chose to bring RJ back on board to create a new trilogy.

 

If Rey lives but isn't a Skywalker, how does the situation change? She is still an ultra-powerful Jedi/Force user. Wouldn't the same logic - the heroes would just go to the powerful Skywalker character - still apply to her if her last name was Smith?

 

I'm 100% wrong? LoL.
Nice dodge again by the way. Will you ever answer questions after people take the time to answer your queries? I suspect not.
You can't "just not include the Skywalker's in Johnson's story", if his story is on an epic scale (which any trilogy clearly would be). As we have seen with even the smaller stories set with Skywalker's in that period, they get involved and are essentially behind the action that takes place.

I don't hate the Skywalker's. I love them. Hence why I don't want their story ruined.

Again, re Risk:

If there is no risk in killing off the Skywalker's, then what is the problem in doing it? The benefit is freeing up future writers from having to include them. Stop pretending you didn't imply risk.

When something impacts the galaxy as a whole, as an epic trilogy story would, and a Skywalker is around - then it would make no sense for them not to be involved. They're too powerful to just ignore such events. The Skywalker family came to be in the first place to settle galactic events. That the origin of their power. It will be the same for as long as they live.

When the OT was made, the Jedi were too old and weak to fight. Then when the PT was made, it was added in that they knew they couldn't bring peace and had to rely on Luke. Not sure if you missed it or not, but that was actually the main story of the OT for the Jedi.

That was a small event, that Qui Gon let play out to see what was actually going on. A completely different scenario to what I am talking about here.

A) We don't know how powerful she is
B) We don't know the origins of her power
C) We don't know if she will survive the trilogy
D) She might have the power of the Skywalker family, but she doesn't have their history and provides a means of diverting away from that over-used story