Speculation Indispensable character/event/concept references in Ep. VII

Will there be? And would it be?

Theoretically speaking, the only characters that would make sense as absolute must-haves would be Luke and the droids: Luke, because he has to hand the baton to the central character of the ST; the droids, because it was always the convention that R2-D2 and C-3PO would be in all of the films - perhaps the only absolute constants through all three trilogies. But that's it. Those are the only absolutes. All else is gravy. The new films don't NEED to reference anyone else in order to work, depending on how they're written. They don't even particularly need to reference any character's absense or explain it away, either.

How many characters from the PT were referenced in the OT? Not many, when you get right down to it. Bail Organa was not mentioned by name in Episode IV; neither was Palpatine/Sidious; no mention of Mace; no mention of Jar Jar; no mention of Ahsoka; no mention of Maul; no mention of Tyranus/Dooku; no mention, in fact, of a LOT of characters who had become prominent and important to the PT story. Why? Because they simply weren't necessary to telling the OT (if one discounts the real-world reason that the OT was written before the PT, of course). You'd be surprised, even amazed, by just how few characters from the OT may actually be essential to telling the ST. Now, if we're just saying "I want to see these other characters because I like them and have a personal investment in them (as anyone would, I might add), and so I want to see how they ended up," well, that's understandable, but if it gets in the way of telling an effective story, they shouldn't be there in any way, shape or form.

An example: the things that made Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull not work are legion, and have been listed by people much wiser than I, so I won't go deeply into it. But, again just for discussion's sake, if I felt the film would have been better by omitting even that single shot in which Indy makes reference to his dad and Marcus dying, I would rather the film be better and have the fates of those characters be a mystery. For the record, in my opinion that's not one of the things that made the film bad in my eyes, because it was used to make a point: Indy had reached a stage in life where he felt life was taking more from him than it was giving to him, and by the end he learned that life in fact does give as much as it takes away from you if you choose to let it give things to you. It's one of the best concepts of the film, practically lost amid the refrigerator-nuking and vine-swinging and chasing and treasure-hunting and all that jazz. BUT, if I felt for a moment that it DID harm the film, I'd remove it, Sean Connery and Denholm Elliot fans be damned.

Same here with Episodes VII-IX. What matters to me is having these films be the best they can possibly be; my interest is in not being horribly disappointed again. If having Han or Chewbacca or even Leia in it will harm that product, I'd just as soon not have them in it. If they're essential to the plot, they should be in it; if they're not, they shouldn't. If even mentioning them or their fates is made into a significant and effective plot point, then they should do it, but if it threatens to disrupt the flow of the film, they shouldn't even be mentioned. Arndt can and should treat these characters with the respect they've earned, true enough, but he can't and shouldn't be so precious with these characters as to shoehorn them in pointlessly to try to make me happy, because he won't.

 

Awesomely conceived post, my friend! Very informative.

So, I'll take a stab:

The Trio - Jaina & Jaicen Solo & Nomi Skywalker. We start to see the "sisters" journey
The Attachments - Chewie = Leia as Han's wife takes over Chewie's role as companion and orders Chewie to transfer his "life debt" to the children. And 1 new sidekick.
The Bards - R2 & 3PO of course

The Villains:

Sith - A Sith witch = Hell-bent on resurrecting the Dark Side (without the rule of two) = the wicked step-mother-esque theme

 

I'm sorry but not only does this not make any sense it is completely unrealistic. A SAGA builds upon the past themes and elements of the hero's adventure, doesn't ignore them completely. Also, the OT is chronilogically closer in time to the ST. It makes ZERO sense NOT to reference those events.

 

What a great strawman you've discovered.

Notice how General Immodet said "not too much references", not "it should ignore them completely".

You can build on themes without actually explicitly referencing them. They can reference them subtly, so that only people who know the story well will pick up on it, while others who are unfamiliar with it won't know what they're missing and won't care because it's not vital to the current plot atm. If you make references with the subtlety of a sledgehammer....well, it usually isn't well received by oldbies and will only leave newbies feeling inadequately informed.

They did this well enough with the PT. People who had seen the OT could go "aha!" while people who hadn't were blissfully oblivious.

Subtlety is key.

 

I respectfully disagree. If these films do not address Leia and Han that will be a glaring hole which is a major flaw. By virtue of the fact that these films are sequels certain elements must be wrapped up. Leia and Han are among those. While the OT didn't directly address some of the characters from the PT (probably because they came out first) it did address Bail, Obi-Wan, Anakin, Yoda, Anakin's children, and the Emperor.

There was no need to address Maul, Mace, Ahsoka, Dooku, they were not paramount to the Skywalker saga as revealed in the OT. But the OT did address the minimal amount.

A minimal addressing will require that viewers are told what has happened to Leia, Han (by extension Chewbacca), the fall out of the Empire being destroyed (i.e. the state of the galactic government, etc.)

If they choose not to address Han, Leia, etc. the films will be flawed. It would be like an Avengers sequel not addressing a change in roster that removed Thor and Iron Man. Viewers would be more than disappointed, they'd be confused how this all works.

 

Not a strawman. Reading comperhension is your friend. LOL

Notice how the General said, "If they want to attract an audience, they will probably not talk of events and characters that/who are not relevant." Since his previous statment was about the OT I take this to apply as well. In which case he advocates not making references to the OT.

But then if s/he had a problem with what I said s/he should be the one to address it. What are you, the nerd Gestapppo? Just get to goose stepping your way out of the conversation. It doesn't concern you.

 

In reference to your bolded part: he doesn't say that there shouldn't be references to the OT, just not references to things that aren't "relevant".
Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

Yeah, and as I said, he was referring to the OT so what in the OT qualifies as "events and characters that/who are not relevant."

Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

Wow. The way this discussion has turned, it looks like the two of you are going to need all the friends you can get...

 

Wow, I have seldomly seen so many quotes together in one text box!
No offence taken.
And yeah, I am male.

In my opinion, they should not reference to events and characters that/who are not relevant.
I think everyone understands what I mean when I say that some characters/events are more/less important than other characters/events.
Normal people (who are not into fandom) should also be able to understand what is going on.
There are lots of characters/events of the OT that will be irrelevant to people watching Episode 7.
They should not mention things that are of little importance to the story.
Why the hell would they reference to the death of Tarkin or to the day Luke met Ben Kenobi?
Even referencing to major battles (such as the Battle of Yavin) will probably be completely irrelevant.

A couple of examples:
-) If Boba Fett does not appear in Episode 7, he should not be mentioned.
-) In Episode 1, Jabba the Hutt made a brief appearence. The fans were thrilled to see their favourite Hutt again. However, those who had not seen the PT, were also perfectly capable of understand the story of Episode 1 in general.

Well, I tried to make a point here. Hopefully, you will understand what I mean.

 

I agree with the basic premise of this. I think you have to avoid insignificant events or side stories that will confuse the novice viewers. These films are more for general movie goers than hard core fans. I do think there is a certain minimum that must be met however, since it is a sequel.

I don't think it is good storytelling (to fans or general viewers) to not address the state of the galactic government, the fate of Han, Leia, and Luke, the state of Jedi in the GFFA, etc. in the next film.

For instance, you cannot leave hanging Yoda's words of "there is another" once you make a sequel. By not making a sequel you leave it up to a viewer's imagination, but once you endeavor to continue the saga with a sequel you have a responsibility as the storyteller to close up certain elements such as "there is another" or the completion of the Skywalker saga, etc.

 

lol, you know this is a forum, right?

This isn't your facebook page.

 

Okay, so you are referring to the OT when you say:

That wasn't quite clear to me but I thought you were. In this case I still say I don't think your post makes sense. The story is a generational saga that directly references things (events/characters) from the past, especially in this case 6 episodes. It is episodic. It is space opera. People are such fans because of the connective tissue that ties all the stories together.

However, I also agree, and think it's obvious, that small details that aren't necessarily relevent be mentioned. I think mentioning Boba Fett just for the Hell of it could be done wrong and awkward, but it could be a good setup for a moment of humor also. (IE him going out like a punk.) The death of Tarkin isn't a detail anyone would mention. The destruction of the Death Star I & II are major events Tarkin was associated with.

Really everythingf rom the first 6 movies is fair game for Episode 7 and I don't have qualms with detailed references and I guess I can't see why anyone would.

 

Subtelty is the key, indeed!

Reprises of musical themes (for example, Yoda's theme was used again in Episode 1 when Yoda told Obi-Wan he was to be knighted) and recurring quotes (such as 'I have a bad feeling about this') can also been seen as references.

 

What makes Star Wars Star Wars?
It is kind of difficult to explain. I think everyone may have another opinion on this subject.

 

Even things such as flying through an asteroid field can be seen as references.