ST If Luke is married, what 50-60 year old actress would you cast?

Lucas himself said in an interview in 1988 Luke Skywalker would have a romantic interest in the sequal trilogy.... and others in the know have said for decades now the Skywalker name carries on to a new generation in the sequal trilogy. These two these combinde imply Luke Skywalker will have offspring and either have a steady girlfriend whom he had a kid with or he has a wife... in either case this thread is for casting her, not really debating if she should exsist.

 

I said something like this in another thread once upon a time:

Prequel Trilogy: Anakin's Rise and Fall
Original Trilogy: Anakin's Redemption
Sequel Trilogy: Anakin's Legacy

Luke's knowledge of what it does or doesn't mean to be a Jedi is based on whatever Yoda and Obi-Wan have passed on along with whatever information he's managed to gather between the end of ROTJ and the beginning of Episode VII regardless of what it meant to be a Jedi prior to the end of ROTS. I'm sure Luke knows he shouldn't allow himself to be distracted from either being a Jedi or restoring the Jedi Order, but that doesn't mean renouncing all worldly things like an Ascetic. Being a Jedi doesn't mean living in a hut on the top of a mountain and telling people to piss off because he's trying to meditate.

If Luke meets someone he connects with on an emotional level and can commit to and that person connects and commits to Luke in return, there's no reason he shouldn't be allowed to share his life with them. Emotions aren't automatically bad, it's how we let them mess with our heads that screws things up.

 

This. She'd be perfect. She's sweet (in a Dutch kind of way) and looks like she could hold her own against evil.

 

I think it will be better if Luke wasn't married and spent years in exile, instead.

 

only since the reform, or about 1,000 years (Ithink that's when it was). This also led to the Jedi's downfall. Yoda realized that the Jedi made mistakes by the end of the PT, no reason why Luke would repeat those mistakes.

Way too much emphasis on Anakin. More Like:

Prequel Trilogy: Anakin's Rise and Fall (Tragedy of Darth Vader)
Original Trilogy: Luke's Hero's Journey (which includes Anakin's Redemption)
Sequel Trilogy: Luke's Legacy (rebuilding the Jedi order)

 

I see someone bought into the whole PT rebranding attempt.

So, the OT, with Luke as the main character and "From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker" was focused on Anakin? BS. I'd also like a quote on that, because I have all kinds of quotes the OT was about Luke and his Hero's Journey. Not to mention that there was a whole traveling Exhibit in 2001 on that subject.

Besides, how could the OT be about Anakin when in IV Vader wasn't even Anakin and he wasn't even redeemed in the first few drafts of RotJ.

Read the Rinzler books, the OT is Luke's journey. Luke redeeming Anakin is a part of his journey.

 

No it doesn't. That was one arc, Anakin's. That in no way makes him the Saga. His arc was 1-6. Luke's is 4-9. Offspring 7-9. Skywalker Saga is 1-9. No way Anakin was the main character of 4-9

more like

PT= Anakin (Luke's father), OT=Luke, ST= Luke and Leia's offspring (Luke's children).

EDIT-----

I also want to say that you are right, there are multiple storylines. One is Anakin as CO betraying the Jedi, enslaving the galaxy, and ultimately finding redemption by destroying the Sith, and another is Luke saving the galaxy, redeeming his father, and rebuilding the Jedi Order.

 

Uh... Anakin was in the OT too, just as Luke will be in the ST too. Plus Anakins actions in the PT effecting the OT should be no different than Lukes actions in the OT effecting the ST just in a LS way.

The absence of details about the ST doesn't disprove the notion than Luke might have just as an important and central role in it was Vader had in the OT. Just was we had Anakin in I-III and Vader through III-VI, we're likely to have boyhood Luke in IV-V and Jedi Luke VI-IX. So far of what little is known, the ST will be treating Luke just as the OT treated Vader... this implies both are as central and important to the overall saga.

 

Lucas changes his opinion as often as his underwear.

First the OT was the story of Luke Skywalker according to him.
Then it was supposedly about Anakin (despite Vader being, you know, the villain, and Luke the protagonist).
Now the saga is supposed to be about "Skywalkers".

I'm wondering. What superfluous label will the saga (another superfluous label) receive next?

The world of advertising is a funny one indeed.

 

Sorry but your different pov has just been

 

If underlying actions are your criteria for central character in the Saga, then that character must be Palpatine. Everything was set in motion and resulted from him. Anakin would've remained a slave if Palpatine hadn't started the blockade of Naboo.

For that matter, maybe Plaguies is the central character since he created Anakin and trained Palpatine, setting everything in motion.

The PT showed you Anakin making the wrong choice.
The OT showed the consequences that resulted from that choice and Luke making the right choice.
The ST will show the consequences/benefits that result from Luke making the right choice.

 

Maybe midichlorians are the focus point of the saga. No life = no saga.

Just kidding.

 

Andie McDowell (but her acting chops were never that strong)
Kristen Thomas Scott
Jodi Foster
Julian Moore
I am sure there are others I am forgetting.
Sigourney (sp?) Weaver is too tall (for Hamill...but then again camera angle could be used)

 

Mara Jade has a past as an assassin,spy,sith, just and all around kick ass so who ever they get must have the look and athletic ablilities to act this out.

 

Fastback...

Then there is only one woman to select; my ex-girlfriend - Dina Meyer - okay, she is not actually my ex....but you know....I can imagine can't I?

 

No, he doesn't have that look at all. Nice try though, move along, move along.

 

I've read this whole thread and am shocked to see that NO ONE mentioned Diane Lane. Shocked. She would be perfect.