Rumor Examiner.com Reports Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher returning as Luke and Leia in 'Star Wars VII'

I wasn't really saying I preferred one or another as far as Luke having a biological son or not. The problem is two fold:

a)On the one hand, you can make Luke celibate. Therefore, making him the last of the Skywalkers. That can kinda make sense if episode 7-9 is indeed the last of the Skywalker arc(I think it is). But, you have no one carrying the name which every trilogy has always had some representation of the name Skywalker. It kinda defies the "symmetry" aspect. But this scenario is certainly the easiest to write off the bat. Han/Leia union is already established in the original trilogy for likely offspring. But I don't think people will be too happy that there is no Skywalker character in the ensemble of new characters.

b)Luke has a child. But then you have a pesky problem of explaining of who the mother is, a character we haven't met. One way you can handle it is by having her being deceased by the time of episode 7. A writer would have to be VERY careful on how they approach this scenario. You can't just simply just do some exposition dialogue. Her presence will have to be felt for her to have any real meaning(even though we wouldn't have gotten to meet her). You could show significant personality problems with Luke losing his wife. Perhaps a strained relationship between Luke and his child etc over her.

The other approach is that she is alive. But then you run into an issue because you have very small amount of screen time that you can devote to establishing this character. Honestly, I can't see how you could give her any more screen time than Aunt Beru. Those establishing scenes would have to be very economical as well as effective to at least give her passive acceptance from the audience.

Then the question is: What the hell do you do with her?

Personally, I think if you are going to keep her around she has to have an impact on the character of Luke. What I means is perhaps if Luke found love between episodes 6-7, he didn't want to be a Jedi Knight anymore. Perhaps when we met Luke in episode 7, he has retired his lightsaber and went back to being a farmer.

I think, overall, its kinda "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

 

Yes. I think you've done an excellent job of summing up the challenges of writing this new story.

To my mind, the most natural progression from the OT -- and the most in-line with things Lucas himself has said over the years about what happens to the Big 3 -- is to have the main character(s) be the offspring of Han and Leia, with Uncle Luke in the Ben Kenobi role as the mentor who will guide them into becoming Jedi knights. There are a lot of ways you could write this to inject some conflict into the story, but it still leave us with the problem of no new Skywalkers to carry on the name.

If Luke does have a son, the problems are all as you describe. Either Luke's wife has died offscreen, which is a dramatic cheat, or else she is still alive which creates a new problem. Assuming all of the Big 3 return, this makes a cast that is already a bit crowded with older characters (assuming Lando and Chewie don't come back) even more crowded. Ultimately these films must be about the younger generation, so the older characters actually get in the way after awhile. In true mythological fashion, at least one parental figure (*cough*Han*cough*) will surely die in the first film. Assuming Luke is the main Jedi mentor, what do you do with Leia and Mrs. Luke? How many parental figures can you kill in one film? They have to be gotten out of the story somehow. The fewer "old generation" characters you start with, the fewer you have to worry about getting rid of later.

Arndt is a very good writer. It will be interesting to see how he solves this.

 

To Darth Chiznuk: Yes, we all bring our own interpretations and it's fun to get different points of view. So while I never saw any father-son overtones in the PT, obviously a lot of other people have and perhaps that is what Lucas intended. I'll think about it. As for the ladies, I was just trying to point out that the female characters overall are a bit too much on the passive side in the SW films. But both women do have some strong moments, and hopefully the women in the ST will have even more.

 

Well, its very easy to get rid of Han/Leia. They are kinda of a package deal anyway(they share the same theme). I would assume if Han dies, Leia dies with him. I mean a pretty simple send off is the two getting killed in a heroic/sentimental fashion.

I guess you could turn Luke into a package deal with Mrs.Skywalker as well, so they would be sharing screen time. As far as making her deceased as a "cheat"; its only really a cheat if she doesn't have any impact. If her death has major effect on a pre-existing character(even if we don't meet her), its not really a cheat. Her presence is still felt. Of course, acting wise, that can be a lot to ask from Mark Hammil.

Its not insurmountable. A good writer can figure it out. The issue is going to be pacing.

 

Agree with pretty much everything you say here, except that I do think it's a bit of a dramatic cheat if Luke's wife dies offscreen before the story even begins. Good writing can get around that, but considering that Luke is an iconic character that we watched grow up (speaking as an old fogey who was around when the O-OT came out), the woman who finally won Luke's heart and gave birth to his child is somebody the audience will be wishing they could have met.

I'm also starting to think they will kill off two classic characters in the first movie. Han and Leia is the most obvious combination.

To my mind, the main issue is going to be creating conflict and the resulting character arcs. Not conflict with the bad guys, that's easy. Conflict within and between the main characters. Doesn't have to be major or heavy, but there should at least be some tension.

 

There is another way this is can be approached. I'll call it the "David Marcus"(Star Trek 2 reference) approach. The opening narrative episode 7 starts with Luke's son/Mrs.Skywalker. Luke, himself, is some sort of mythical character who had a falling out with Mrs.Skywalker. She didn't want her kid to become a Jedi Knight, so she raised Skywalker jr herself(with Luke probably showing up periodically).

Thus the journey of Luke's son could be reconnecting with his extended family and the narrative going through him in the film. So that through the film, all players come into place. But, Mrs.Skywalker(being a new character)does get more screen time and narrative weight. We meet her as well as the new Skywalker, together.

The only problem with this approach is that we aren't really getting the functional father/son relationship which would be the logical conclusion to the father/son theme. Its still kinda dysfunctional.

 

I'm so stoked over all of this news. The band is getting back together, ladies and gentlemen!

 

I'll keep it short, because, again, Chiznuk has beaten me to the punch.

To your first point, I would say that just because Anakin never flat-out states "Gee, I sure wish I had a Daddy" doesn't mean that the effects of not having one in his life isn't written all over his choices and impulses.

To your second statement, I'll just allow Anakin to speak for me. First, said straight to Obi-Wan: "You're the closest thing I have to a father." Later, Anakin says to Padme (regarding Kenobi): "He's like my father." These quotes are from the second movie, the story which depicts the critical time in which Anakin starts to show cracks in his armor. By the third movie, Darth Sidious is shown going to great pains to separate Obi-Wan from Anakin (twice - the second time going as far as offering up the leader of his CIS' droid army to make it happen) for the very reason that the only time Anakin is not vulnerable to the Dark Lord's influence is when Obi-Wan's guidance is present.

Finally, father-sons is, indeed, addressed all throughout the first three films, it's simply a matter of spending some time with these films (which, to your credit, you admit you've not really done much of), digging beneath the superficial layer of the surface and reflecting on their message. The PT is much richer than many folks give it crdeit for (shhh - but don't tell anyone I said so. As a child of the OT, I'm not really supposed to be saying nice things about the PT like that).

By the way, I've enjoyed talking with you about this. Kind of rare for a brand-new poster.

 

It's addressed throughout the entire saga? How on earth does that make the PT deep or 'rich'?

 

DP

 

I'm not sure I understand what there is to gain from your questions? I and others have already gone to lengths giving our interpretations on the father/son theme as it relates to all six films. Disagree if you like, but don't ask me to continue restating things I've already laid out in my enjoyable discussions with Left_Bun.

As to your second question, I could just as easily ask how this type of exploration and variation on a theme would not enrich the movie-goer's experience. If you don't see it, that's fine, of course, but as my statement that I find the PT to be much richer than others give it credit for is a subjective one, I'm not particularly obliged to defend such an assertion.

 

Just as an aside, I sure was excited to read ETOnline's interview with Mark Hamill posted here today.

We finally have confirmation from the horse's mouth that Mark was asked if he would be interested in reprising his role.

 

My first comment was rhetorical, I was suggesting that the 'father-son' theme is addressed throughout the entire saga, not simply in the 'first three films'.
My second comment was asking how the 'first three films' explored the theme any further than the level it was explored to in the original trilogy which led you to say the following: 'The PT is much richer than many folks give it crdeit for'

 

I see. Well, then, it would appear we are in agreement regarding your first point.

As to your second, I think you may have misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply that the father/son theme was taken 'further' in the PT than in the OT, but that it was, indeed, there (just that it was explored in a different manner than in IV-VI).

My "richer than folks give it credit for" line is just another way of saying that there are those who don't see that, or other, themes in the PT. Many feel I-III are flimsy films and if only given a cursory evaluation, I could see that.

 

To Zuckuss:

Yes, a "David Marcus" scenario is definitely possible. Or Luke could find out he has a son he didn't know about. Yeah, it's been done a zillion times, but that's partly because there's a lot of drama in that type of story. Either way, I still think giving Luke a living wife/lover creates another "old generation" character who, story-wise, ultimately gets in the way of the young leads. But we'll see.

If the lead character is the son of Han and Leia, that problem goes away. We know Han isn't so crazy about the force. Let's say the son has force powers -- but he hasn't developed them and pursued the path of becoming a Jedi because he knows daddy Han doesn't approve and Solo Jr. wants his father's approval (for the moment, we'll assume Leia stayed in politics and never developed her force gifts either). But there is another father-figure, his uncle and spiritual father, Luke, who is a Jedi. Solo Jr. feels the pull, wants to become a Jedi, but is afraid of losing daddy's love. Lots of internal tension and drama in that scenario. Lots of father-son stuff. Then at some point Han accepts the inevitable and gives Junior his approval, right before he and Leia die in some big self-sacrificing moment.

Of course this doesn't give Leia much to do, but with good writing she could play a pivotal role. But it also leaves the pesky problem of no young Skywalkers to carry on the name.

I don't mind dysfunctional. Drama-wise, dysfunctional relationships are good. But I don't want the new trilogy to be too dark.

 

Thank you for the quotes. That's exactly what I was looking for. I stand corrected. Though I still think the father-son dynamics are much stronger in the OT.

And thanks for the compliment. I've been lurking for awhile, if that counts for anything. And I've enjoyed this discussion as well.

 

There is another way of doing this. But it requires an EXTREME falling out between Han/Leia(Which I don't think will happen). Han basically abandons Leia/Child to go back to his old life. Leia, completely resents Han, and takes the Skywalker name. Luke essentially acts as surrogate father. The kid would also have pretty serious resentment for Han as well. Basically, the idea of the "dead beat dad."

The Skywalker name is getting passed on directly from Leia instead of Luke.

But that could be kinda of clumsy. Plus, it kinda turns Han into a real SOB. Not to mention, it kinda undermines Han's arc through the original trilogy. That is, caring about other people. It would come off as a bit "out of character."

 

Well, wait a minute. In leaving Naboo for Coruscant she's just following Qui-Gon's advice; in proposing a vote of no confidence in Valurom she's following Palpatine's advice. She doesn't "take charge," so to speak, until she decides to leave Coruscant for Naboo. She, then, is the one who takes the initiative in approaching the gungans; she is the one who hatches the plan of having the gungans drag out the droid armies, have the fighters attack the droid control ship and have separate groups of combatants (led by herself and her decoy) try and capture the Viceroy, and she's the one who succeeds in capturing the Viceroy.

 

Well speaking as a Han fan, and a Han & Leia fan, I'd rather not see this story for selfish reasons. But it's a good dramatic story, with lots of angst. And it's not uncommon for a major character to suddenly "backslide" at the start of a new sequel because, let's face it, the writers must come up with new conflict and there's not much conflict when a character is happy and has his act together.

Another problem is that it would make the fallout between Han & Leia a major emotional focal point of the movie. The main angst/drama should be with the younger characters. But it's an interesting idea.

 

The biggest news to emerge is that it's Mark, Carrie and Harrison or their characters won't appear. There won't be any re-casting of the Big 3 (Big 4 because by extension, I doubt they'd recast Lando.) That's pretty huge news. The EW interview is negotiation posturing--Mark and Carrie will be in E7 (they have nothing else going on.) If they join the film, Harrison will likely jump onboard too.

 

I think you've nailed it re the Hero's Journey. Our young protagonist (again, I'm assuming a son) has to go on some kind of journey of self-discovery. If he has been training to be a Jedi since infancy and then steps right into the profession he always knew he was destined for, there is no drama or tension in that. The screenplay must find some way to inject drama and tension, give him fears and doubts as he begins his journey into the world of trials and lessons.

Your story would accomplish that very well. I think my story would accomplish that too. In any event, there's a lot of potential dramatic tension in the looming legacy of Anakin/Darth, and the fear that having force-powers could turn Skywalker/Solo Jr into a monster.