ST Poll: Is the ST the conclusion of the Saga?

But then why didn't he come back already? That is the part that makes no sense to me. If he has the means to come back, it seems he would have come back and got revenge on Palp. Maybe taken Vader (his "son"?) as his apprentice?

The way I see it, if you dilute too much, then it becomes an anybody can do anything anytime kind of deal; there is little of the "dramatic tension" that people talk about here. Got killed? No problem, you only seemed dead and can come back. Are we going to add beaming up, time travel, everything from other Sci-Fi's until it becomes a total crapshoot? That's my perspective on that whole thing; I don't like the idea of going crazy outside of what we've already seen of SW powers.

 

But isn't he a part of the Sith? If it were truly a "destiny," he would be destroyed too wouldn't he? That would mean it wasn't a destiny if he were able to alter it. If it were a destiny to destroy Palp that would make more sense.

I am sure you could create a scenario, since it is make believe, but a good scenario for SW, and one that Lucas will actually use is another matter. All we have from the movies is a story told basically as a ruse to suck Anakin in; in its content, it is told as an irony of a master that tries hard to master death, but cannot master it for himself and is killed by his own apprentice. I wouldn't honestly find it very believable given how visionary Palp is that he would not be able to tell that he didn't get the job done in killing his master; since he knows of his master's work, he would have taken extra care to get the killing done right. I am sure it would have been like a beheading or something; otherwise Plag wakes up and kills him.

I think we will know more about this when we truly understand what "the Prophecy," "Balance to the Force" and "the Chosen One" mean, because we have only speculation. When you talk about destiny or prophecy, that sounds like things are predetermined, so you get into the question- is the future fluid, or is it predetermined? I would tend to think we get at least some answers to those questions in the ST.

 

Plagueis people have different theories on how he might survive or return. I'm in the he never died camp, but sensed the coming of the Chosen One and let the Chosen One destroy Palp for him. And Plagueis is only just barely in my top ten wanted villain list, so I wish people would stop saying my preference is for him to return. I simply think it could work, but I'd rather see other things (if I was the writer).

My take on Plagueis is that he fooled Palpatine into believing he was dead. The easiest way was to let Palp kill a Plagueis clone in his sleep.

Another option is something the Plagueis book brings up: Plagueis could slow his two hearts down so slowly that he seemed to be dead. He might have let Palp attack him, but played dead. Then some other body is destroyed since Palpatine doesn't destroy it himself and whoever's in that Sith Urn in Palp's office is not Plagueis.

It's important to admit our lack of knowledge of what actually happens to Plagueis. We as the audience or reader have limited information. There is no omniscient narrator telling us what happened. Instead, we are told from the POV of Palpatine, who may be fooled himself or even lying. This epistemological lack is important to recognize: even Plagueis's "death" is written in the book from Palp's POV. Writers only choose a limited POV like this for one reason: to create ambiguity. This is an intentional choice by the writer and editor(s).

Why would Plagueis remain hidden? Simple. For one, he was already injured and might want the time to heal himself, which is something he does via midichlorian manipulation. Second, he wants to try to avoid the Chosen One, who is supposed to destroy the Sith. Third, he has always planned on letting his apprentice do the dangerous work of destroying the Jedi and Republic. By the time of the ST, he will be strong again, the Chosen One will be dead, and the Republic and Jedi will be relatively weak. Plagueis also doesn't believe in the Rule of Two. He might be building an army somewhere in the Outer Rim during his absence.

 

You are right that we have limited info on him in the movie; but that could also be because that is all the info we need for the story at hand (the PT).

I still struggle with all of these explanations, mainly because of Palp himself- I don't buy that he kills a clone and is unable to feel the difference in the force when his master is or isn't dead. If he didn't see it right away, I think at some point in the OT he comes to the realization that his old master lives, "feels it in the force." But obviously, others feel differently.

 

Even when Palp supposedly kills Plagueis, he's unsure for a moment that he's really killed him. Maybe someone will post the text.

Anyway, I think a Sith apprentice or neo Sith are as valid options as Plagueis. They're probably more probable because easier to explain (perhaps).

Almost any return of the Sith carries the possibility of confusing the audience or straining narrative logic. If we choose an apprentice, people can ask, Why didn't Luke or Anakin know about them until the ST? If we choose neo Sith, we can ask the same question, as well as, Where did they learn to become Sith?

Most of these problems are unavoidable in a trilogy that's attempting to continue a Saga that was supposedly over. Which suggests to me we're either going to have to suspend our disbelief and be charitable fans, or perhaps we'll have a non-Sith villain. But even that might prove problematic to the pre-existing narrative. In short, I doubt there is a perfect solution.

 

There are 2 absolute certainties- we will see:

1) Stars

2) Wars

#2 would seem to rule out a family drama with the Skywalkers; there must be a conflict. And it wouldn't be a real conflict if there is no bad force user, otherwise Luke just finds and assassinates their leader. So I am think we are limited to that. But I like this situation, because it is so unknown what we will get; it will be exciting for the non-spoiler crowd such as myself who plan to hide out once the cast is announced.

 

I understand what ur saying Echo, but I'd like to point out that neither James Bond, Wolverine, nor The Avengers have episode numbers before the titles. They are all stand alone films (that have the option to be viewed in timeline order - well, apart from James Bond, I don't think a timeline really exists there)

NO NO NO NO NO. HIS ASHES ARE IN AN URN!!!!!!!
(I'm taking the mickey)

 

I know I'm a bit late on this, but I'd like to address a few of these points.

Sorry but this is another quote that has been consistently taken out of context and is a prime example of why I hate internet journalism. Ever since the Spin-offs were announced by Bob Iger in a video with CNBC, every website on the internet printed the quote, "derived from great 'Star Wars' characters that are not part of the overall saga." This is a very misleading selection of words. I watched the video myself, and what he actually said was, "Larry Kasdan and Simon Kinberg are both working on films, derived from great Star Wars characters, that are not part of the overall saga." There was a very distinct pause after the word characters so as to indicate that he was talking about the films not being part of the overall saga (in other words, spin-off films that don't have episode numbers), which makes a whole lot more sense than the characters not being part of the overall saga. What does that even mean? I saw a lot of people doing backflips to make sense of that question after the announcement was made and it was really a lot of nonsense. The films not being part of the overall saga is the only interpretation of that statement that makes any sense at all, and when you actually hear him say it, it should be pretty obvious what he meant.

Really I can't for the life of me understand how so many people just take portions of these quotes and interpret them completely out of context. I've seen this happen a lot and it drives me crazy. I'm not accusing you of this Echo. I'm guessing you're just going on a vague memory of the general consensus about what he said at the time, but this has been bugging me for a long time and I just had to get that out of my system.

(And yes, this means that I accept that at least this first wave of spin-offs will likely be about characters from the existing saga and not unrelated setups for a new one as I would hope, although it is interesting to contrast this with what KK said about them.)

I guess this is just a difference of opinion but I find it interesting because I feel exactly the opposite. To me, assuming that this one story is the most important story in the entire history of the GFFA and should therefore go on indefinitely is a lot more myopic than wanting to expand beyond those boundaries and tell a number of other stories in different eras which could potentially be just as big if not bigger than this one.

Again I feel the opposite. If you drag this one storyline on for too long I think it will inevitably lose all sense of importance and urgency, whereas a fresh new story set much later in the timeline has the potential to be much more exciting because anything can happen and you don't run nearly the risk of audience fatigue that you would by stretching this one story out forever.

First of all, no one is suggesting that they will shut down the franchise after the ST. What we're saying is simply that there are other stories to tell in this universe that could hold every bit as much importance as this one in the long run and they are worth exploring too. If anything, the statement about 100 years worth of movies only backs up this interpretation. The problem with setting up cliffhangers in every subsequent episode, and the thing that makes this situation different from something like a TV show, is that for the audience to go along with it they have to feel like they're in good hands and that whoever is telling the story has an endgame. In your scenario there's no endgame, and the audience will eventually get very tired of that. I know I would.

It also poses an even more significant problem, which is that in this scenario you have to have seen every episode to know what's going on. People can do this with a TV show, but it just doesn't work the same way for movies. With something like the James Bond series, they can get away with having so many movies because only the current ones matter. People can see the others if they're big enough fans, but they don't have to in order do understand the story because there isn't a continuing story, only a small handful of characters and sometimes organizations who the audience doesn't even need to know before going into each film. If you try to make 20 films in a franchise where you have to have seen the previous ones in order to understand the story, then you're going to lose all but the most hardcore audience in a big way, and it sounds like they intend to make far more movies even than that.

Think about this. Anytime they finish a saga, you can bookend it and put it on the shelf to be viewed as a whole anytime you want, which is satisfying to fans. And anytime they start a new one, the audience can come in with no baggage or need to have seen anything else beforehand, which means you're going to draw much larger audiences and continue to draw larger audiences for generations to come. The more episodes you have in the same saga, the fewer new viewers you'll get, because they'll start to feel alienated by sheer size of it and be more likely to be turned off from bothering with any of it. This way they can either go in fresh without feeling like they've missed anything, or you can show them one completed story and if they like that they'll be pumped for the next one. It really just seems like simple mathematics to me.

Edit: Also, you keep talking about spin-offs and stories set in the past, and I do think we'll get those, but you're ignoring the fact the future is totally open for exploration. And not just the immediate future but potentially millions of years worth or more of the future, when there's so much that can still happen that would make this particular conflict look like child's play. As long as you don't set these stories too close together, you can up the stakes in each new story without the audience feeling like the previous story is being undermined. And in the end, they can all fit together to tell the entire history of a whole galactic civilization, which is an incredibly exciting notion to me.

I hope it doesn't feel like I'm attacking you. I like you. I just think in this case that you're wrong.

 

Compelling arguments for Plagueis

I'm torn on this because both sides make such good arguments. Dra---, for the record I would like to see some new villains as well, however, my gut instinct (taken for what it's worth) says that Plagueis and/or (both) Sidious is the main pupet master again.

 

Mystery Roach - Bravo sir

 

Mystery Roach -

I voted *no*, they will make saga movies indefinitely. Word on the street, Lucas gave Disney plot lines for over 100 films. More than likely spinoffs, but still... SW would eventually get stale without Saga-proper advancement. EU and Spin Off films would be lateral moves as opposed to forward momentum.

 

Yeah, I was using George W / Al Gore fuzzy math. And I agree it's assumable that counted toward expanded product lines.

Do you agree that the main narrative saga will continue to move forward after 9, or do you think it stops at the end of this trilogy? Just wondering.

 

I know you asked Chiznuk, but I think there can be multiple main narrative sagas. I just don't see any reason why this one has to be the most important thing that happens in the whole history of the GFFA.

 

Evolution

 

Here's my vision. After completing this saga as a trilogy of trilogies, they then expand on that concept to make a trilogy of sagas using the same basic idea. Just as ANH hinted at a history that we hadn't yet seen, so does TPM. So now we jump back a thousand years with a prequel saga and tell the story of why the Sith went into hiding and sought revenge against the Jedi. Keep Bane (a Lucas creation) but throw out the EU and start from scratch in that era. We can even deal with the origin of the Prophecy. Nice and neat. We know the ultimate outcome but very little else and nothing about any of the characters, so I don't think the drama will be lessened by the fact that they're technically prequels.

Then once that story is complete, jump ahead a thousand years after the current saga. There's been a millennium of peace but now a new threat to the galaxy emerges. Do the Sith return again or is it something else? I don't know or really care, but the three sagas would be separate stories and yet still connect together to tell one seamless history.

Star Wars has always used repetition on micro/macro scales so this would just take that idea once step further into the macro level. I think it would be a perfectly poetic way to expand on this universe. And of course along the way there can be TV shows, Spin-offs, books, comics, video games, etc. to fill out each of these eras and possibly even some times in between. I've said before that they could keep jumping around to keep telling sagas in different time periods, but now that I think about it, three is enough as long as each one is given equal attention and weight. Also, they said they foresaw about 40 more years of life in Star Wars and that pretty much fits with this idea. I don't want to get my hopes up that this is where they're going with it, but I think it would be brilliant if they did.

 

I like your ideas Roach.

And I'm actually in agreement with you, up to a certain point.

Prequels... Prequels, IMO, are the devil. From a conceptual standpoint, they are far out and exciting; in execution not so much. I'm not bashing I-III here. Prequels indirectly rewrite previously established canon. Period. For this reason, they are more annoying than entertaining; because now you have to come to terms with fluid situations that were previously on permanent footing. Flashbacks have been a big no-no in Hollywood for decades. It was considered poor storytelling by both critics and writers alike. Prequels are full length film flashbacks if tied too closely to their source material.

Christopher Nolan's, "Memento", tore the roof off that notion. ABC"s, "Lost", successfully used flashbacks as part of the narrative the first three seasons for purposes of character enhancement. For the most part, these two examples have been the exception to the norm. I don't mind character enhancement, showing something new about an established character. But when a prequel significantly alters the previously concluded tale, it's a poor man's Twilight Zone. Manufactured irony.

Temple of Doom was a prequel. It too worked because it didn't harm or change Raiders. In fact, it's so removed from Raiders, many today don't realize it was not a sequel.

Hoping to not contradict myself, I do like your idea of jumping way back in history to do a series of movies. Though, these films should not infringe in any way upon the *now* 9 part saga. It should be it's own story. It should not be a revision of saga history. Plot points like, "the pure-blood Sith are really Yoda species, the Jedi are really the Sith and the Sith are really the Jedi, there was another group of Sith that escaped Bane -where are they? how does that work with the Prophecy dammit????, the first Jedi Council was really established by Darth Bane, etc., all such "cool" ideas would ultimately do a disservice to the saga as a whole. Let establishments stand. Allow them the dignity they deserve.

Look across the street at Star Trek. Their continuity became so convoluted the last two TV series', JJ had to push the "alternate reality" button to make new movies. Unless, yes, he jumped the franchise way into the future.

I think we can branch out; but I also believe there should be some type of tree trunk to the branches that keeps the franchise moving upward. The mainline I'm envisioning doesn't even have to follow the now dogmatic formula of a trilogy. Just drop a "saga true" film every so often as one offs.There needs to be an anchor. IMO, that would help SW to avoid the cliched spinoff hell that other franchises have managed to get stuck in over decades.

 

I like your vision because it represents the established pattern. The pattern that Lucas himself established. The OT (the middle trilogy) was first, just as "The Skywalker Nine Part Saga" would be the OS (Original Saga). Then the writers can begin a nine part prequel saga (PS). The events in the OS would only be tangentially related, not a direct bearing on the events and outcomes, but very broad outlines within the two sagas. Then move on to the SS (Sequel Saga), with the same plans in place. Perfect. Many new stories and characters. 18 more films. A very full GFFA.

 

Imagine.

All the spin-offs and TV shows that are created as a result of these new sagas. Think how many wonderful shows like Star Wars: The Clone Wars or Star Wars Rebels that will start as a result of these new films in the Star Wars universe. All those new characters, new worlds, new societies, new events that are just mentioned and not touched upon in the movies that can be explored more in the new EU. It's amazing how much richer the Star Wars universe will be if it goes something like what you just said.

And you know what? I wouldn't be surprised if it went exactly like that.

 

Slow it down. It's not even out.

 

I too love the idea of a trilogy of sagas, each one being three parts. There's a definite symmetry there, and Star Wars has always emphasized symmetries. With the ST, we can conclude the nine-episode Skywalker Saga, and then the franchise would be free to move on in different directions, like the idea of a prequel saga set thousands of years in the past and a sequel saga set sometime in the future, both featuring different sets of characters than the Skywalker Saga, with only subtle relationships outside of being set in the same galaxy, but in different points of history. The Star Wars universe is a living entity, constantly evolving, with its history being filled out by numerous writers, authors, and storytellers. That's also why I love so much of the pre-PT EU so much. They focus on areas of the SW universe apart from the Skywalkers, so that it doesn't look like the whole galaxy revolves around the Skywalkers, so that it doesn't seem like the Skywalker story is the only one that really matters. We have more than 25k years of history prior to the OT, and endless story possibilities for a prequel saga. The same can be said about a sequel saga, set perhaps hundreds of years after the ST.

It would be a shame if the franchise always chose to focus on following the Skywalker family indefinitely at the expense of other characters. It's a huge galaxy, with a limitless number of stories to tell. Please take advantage of this, Disney!

 

So, basically, something like this overall framework?

Prologue I
Prologue II
Prologue III
-
Episode I - The Phantom Menace
Episode II - Attack of the Clones
Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
-
Episode IV - A New Hope
Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
Episode VI - Return of the Jedi
-
Episode VII
Episode VIII
Episode IX
-
Epilogue I
Epilogue II
Epilogue III

That's kind of my inner-version of the overall Saga myself.