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

We're going round in circles, agree to disagree and leave it there.

 

I can tell you that Marvel movies outside US are not that big thing they are in the US.
What makes SW epic, worldwide. is that you get 3 movies every 15 years. A trilogy for each generation.
RJ trilogy will make money meanwhile.
But there's not chance that ep. X will come in less than 10/15 years.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 17, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 17, 2017 ---

I can tell you that Marvel movies outside US are not that big thing they are in the US.
What makes SW epic, worldwide. is that you get 3 "saga" movies every 15 years. A trilogy for each generation.
RJ's trilogy will make money meanwhile.
But - imo - there's not chance that ep. X will come in less than 10/15 years.
And the more RJ trilogy will be distant in time, place and themes from the "Saga" the
more the "Saga" will last as that something unique, epic that defines the "Saga".

 

me addressing your points isn't going in circles

do you really think there is only 1 story to tell post Episode IX?

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 17, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 17, 2017 ---

59% of Avengers box officewa s outside the USA. 67% of Avengers 2. 66% of Ironman 3 etc...

Rogue One, 49% was foreign. 54% for TFA.

ARe we sure Star Wars has more appeal world wide?

 

To be fair, there could be a million stories to tell post-IX.

But that doesn’t mean that any of them have to be X, XI and XII, etc.

 

I never said they HAVE to be X +

However what sense does it make to Disney to end Episode IX in such a wya they CAN'T Do Episode X?

 

“I certainly foresee movies past nine. Whether or not we carry on the Skywalker saga… you know, George always intended nine movies, and whether we continue that or not is something we’re talking about right now. If the story warrants it, we’ll absolutely do it. If it actually inspires new ideas, then we’ll probably head in that direction. We just don’t know yet.”

Clearly, the idea that the Skywalker saga could end was up for discussion. As KK points out, 9 films was the limit to what Lucas really envisioned. What's more, this quote of course precedes the conclusion of the ST and any indication that the Skywalker saga will end would of course be a major spoiler for what is to happen. However, with the news that RJ is going to create a new trilogy, based on new characters - something disconnected to the Skywalker Saga (unlike Rebels, Rogue One and the Han Solo spin-off), it's fair to say that upon finding RJ, they found their answer to the above question. For Star Wars to survive, it has to move past the Skywalker story, otherwise all future films (barring low key standalones) would be restrained by the Skywalker family. These two articles below also make this point reasonably well:

http://www.realclearlife.com/movies...y-rian-johnson-will-go-beyond-skywalker-saga/

https://screenrant.com/star-wars-skywalker-saga-ending/

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 17, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 17, 2017 ---

Because if Skywalker's are around, then you can't make a large scale film without referencing the Skywalker family - explaining what they're up to etc. People will expect them to be around and if they're not, exposition will be required to explain why. And even then, people will be debating when the Skywalker will make an appearance instead of investing properly in the new characters. The Skywalker's will be a distraction. And an unnecessary one. We love the Skywalker's because we love the characters of Vader, Luke, Leia etc. We love them because of the family story. We don't love them just because they are called Skywalker. So it is entirely vacuous to suggest they are needed for future Star Wars films. The only reason to use them is to riff off of their family history - and after the ST that will have been done to death.

 

YOu go to great lengths to avoid simply stating what the benefit to Disney would be. It almost seems like you're aware that there isn't one........

And yes you can make movies that don't involve them while they exist. I've given you many examples of other franchises doing this and even other moveis and tv shows in the Star Wars canon that does this. Going by Anger Tomatoes, Captain America 2 is one of Marvels most liked films (3rd highest rated) and it made 3/4 of a billion dollars. No one was upset that there was no update on what Hulk, Ironman & Thor were doing and they didn't help Steve out - no one but you cares about this issue. Its been PROVEN that audiences can, will and do accept in these large, shared worlds that characters don't always have to cross over and be involved in everything. Its a non-issue.

 

I've stated the benefit in literally every single post I have made: it prevents the story from getting dull & predictable, allows greater freedom for the new story writers and doesn't risk the legacy of the Skywalker saga.

You gave me Rebels and Rogue One - two stories that are Skywalker heavy and dependent upon the Skywalker saga story.

 

Prove Episode X about Rey Skywalker and/or her children/grand children (Whatever) would HAVE to be dull and predictable. Prove that the ONLY POSSIBLE option for them to retell Anakins story.

No they don't. This is where you try to change your argument to if Vader once looked at planet its involvement ties it to the Skyawlkers which will completely and totally ruin and dominate any movie its featured in. How much screen time do Luke, Anakin and leia have combined in Rogue One? How many episodes are they in, combined, in Rebels?

And my point still stands - Audiences were NOT turned off the lack of Avengers in Captain America 2. The movie was well thought off and did very well at the box office. No one cared - why would Rey Skywalker be any different? Why would that person who can accept Tony Stark isn't there to help Steve save New York and enjoy the movie have Star Wars ruined over the question of where Rey is?

 

We’ve been over this plenty of times, and you’re starting to going in circles.

Yes, Disney is a business, and businesses need to make a profit to excel (as Disney have been in every medium that they’re involved in for as long as I can remember), but the very question that you keep throwing everyone else’s way (Why wouldn’t Disney make an Episode X?) is a rhetoric defence of the argument that there should be an Episode X by its very nature.

If you’re not a Disney shareholder, then I’m not so sure why you’d be so interested in them being so resolute and focused about making money; instead, surely, your argument should be about why an Episode X, XI and XII might be necessary outside of rhetorical arguments depending on money (which, by the way, they already make plenty of)?

 

Wow. This thread has become quite the battlefield. Forget the OT, I guess there are always wars within the Star Wars fandom. But all jokes aside, there are some very valid points raised. Namely, Snazel's point about the shareholders. Star Wars is a brand. It, like every other property, exists as a vehicle to make money. And LF, like KK, has to abide by these shareholders and their wishes.

That isn't to say that well-made movies cannot be made, for as Snazel pointed out; they aren't mutually exclusive. What this announcement tells me is that LF is that they are thinking ahead in that they want to avoid brand dilution and diminishing returns. As for what that means for the Skywalkers going forward, we are just going to wait and see what happens with this ST.

Because, as I stated; I am indifferent if the Skywalkers continue or not. I want new material, but that isn't mutually exclusive to not having the Skywalkers. If anything, I just want some good stories. And really, aside from RO; I haven't had that in the movies. But I am most hopeful that will change with TLJ.

 

No - if you're going to restate my question just copy it so its correct.

"However what sense does it make to Disney to end Episode IX in such a wya they CAN'T Do Episode X?" is different then "why wouldn't Disney make an Episode X".

Would you like to try again dealing with what I actually said and mean?

 

If they don't base it around Darth Vader's legacy (as the ST is), then what would it be about and why use the Skywalker name? Like I said, if they go down this path they will diminish the Skywalker saga, using the name for the sake of it. However, the Skywalker history will loom large - and the same questions will be asked, the same issues will be raised. There will be no end to it.

If the Skywalker's didn't exist, would these stories exist? But the point really is that the Skywalker's are in the series and their status is explained. Vader is running the Empire - his presence is explained and he is even in the series. Like I say, if you have any story on a large scale, which a trilogy would be, you have to explain where the Skywalker's are. This is a very simple point. Again, Rogue One was a similar story and again links directly to the actions of the Skywalker family. We see what the current Skywalker family is up to.

The new writers and filmmakers want to make new stories, LFL want to make new stories. In order to go ahead and do that with complete freedom, you cannot have Skywalker's around. And again, the MCU is utterly different from the SW universe and I personally watch each of those films and wait to hear the reason why the other guys aren't helping out!

 

Yes, this is the point - you can have new stories, new characters, new material etc.... while the Skywalker family exists and is sitting there for Disney/Lucasfulm go play with again in the future if they want.

 

If the Skywalker's are killed of and new trilogies made that end up bombing, I'm sure they could concoct a way of bringing back the Skywalker's if they had to.
"We've cloned Vader!" or "Luke had a secret secret child".

 

I won't tell anyone that they are wrong, but until we get facts, my hopes for Rey's lineage remain...

 

Then try and imagine this series of films (the ST), about the First Order taking over the galaxy, and not having the Skywalker's, who are alive, mentioned.

You won't be able to.

 

Your lack of imagination does not = no possible story exists.

I've given you lots of examples, backed up with evidence, of larger, shared worlds working just fine when they don't include every character in every movie. Even in someone like Captain America were a powerful hero might been able to end things quicker and eaiser. Where is you evidence? You're claiming they CAN"T tella story without going back to a Skywalker if they exist - PROVE IT. Give me the evidence that audiences won't accept it and that it won't work. Cause right now, all the evidence shows that you're the only one it would bother.

In order to go ahead and do that with complete freedom, you cannot have Skywalker's around - Prove it - citation needed.

 

They'll never kill off the Skywalkers, so bringing the line back will never be an issue.