Discussion in 'Star Wars: Episode VII and Beyond (Archive)' started by clone3131, Dec 10, 2012.
PT has Luke born- OT has Luke's growth into being a hero- ST might have the climax of Luke's career?
I'm sure this is what will happen. I'm just disagreeing with people who think the sequel trilogy would be set like 100 years after or something like that. Also I don't agree that Star Wars "Jumps several decades." Episode 3 and 4 are only 20 years apart, correct?
The idea is that R2-D2 and C-3PO will be in all movies, so there'll be at least some overlapping minor characters regardless of how far in the future the ST will be set. Anyway, Star Wars is a 6-story saga now that midway jumps several decades to feature a whole new main cast; which order you view them in doesn't even matter here as it jumps regardless.
You only jumped 20 years between the PT and OT. Luke was a baby, then a teenager. You featured MANY of the PT characters in the OT.
Star Wars WAS a 6 story saga, you are now making it a 9 part story...thats my point. If you number this 7-9, it has to continue the story. Otherwise, just start another story with a #1...
And I guess my argument would be why do you need all the old characters to continue that story. A storyline can be bigger than just the characters set in them. Again I genuinely do not see this happening, but your main argument is a seriously flawed one. Plenty of other stories have proven it to be false.
"And I guess my argument would be why do you need all the old characters to continue that story. A storyline can be bigger than just the characters set in them. Again I genuinely do not see this happening, but your main argument is a seriously flawed one. Plenty of other stories have proven it to be false."
You don't need them to continue the story, you need them to make billions upon billions of dollars.
1. That was not the argument being made in this thread.
2. PT despite whether or not people enjoyed it did just fine without all of those same characters that are apparently are a MUST for this next trilogy.
I've yet to hear 1 story that proves this to be false?
Again, it just makes no sense, for the WHOLE part of 6 part saga to have Anakin be the one to bring balance to the force, and it be about Anakins jouney. And then in Chapter 7, you never hear from him or anyone that was on the journey?
Its a horrible way to tell a story. And my point is just that if this is 7-9, then it has to continue the story of Anakin. Otherwise, it should just be another Trilogy...
I like that the thread title has the word "must" in ALL CAPS.
Lucas: Ms. Kennedy it's too late for me. I MUST feature the old cast and obey Lucasfilm.
Its for effect...get more views...its a marketing tool
Ah you think economics is your ally? You merely adopted the econ. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't become an English major until I was already a man but it was nothing to me but writing smartly.
And... then... after the new film is not nearly as incompetently crafted as the ideas in this thread... then, this thread has my permission to die.
*Sigh* I've already given examples. I'm not going to start repeating myself. Not my fault you aren't familiar with the stories that prove your point wrong. As a side note the story would be a continuation of the Skywalker line at this point. Anakin is dead. The story is no longer just about Anakin. This trilogy can no longer be just about Anakins journey. It has to go beyond that. Will they most likely use old characters? Yeah. Are they required to tell a good story that cn still relate to what we have seen thus far? I would say no. At this point we are just going around in circles. I've said my piece and made my points. You are welcome to ignore, agree, or disagree with them. I will also reiterate again that I personally want the big three to return. I think it would be loads of fun to see them in this trilogy. However, Saying they "MUST" be in it makes even less sense than them not actually being in it in my opinion.
Yes. Sorry, incorrect phrasing on my end.
Hooray for the semantics argument!
"Main characters." The few seconds that baby Luke was on screen at the end of ROTS doesn't make him a PT main character.
I agree that I'd rather see it, but strictly speaking it's not necessary.
Well, let's see. In terms of movies, "Things to Come" (1936), "The Red Violin" (1998), and "Cloud Atlas" (2012) come to mind, to take examples from three different time periods. In terms of books, take Asimov's "Foundation" series, Herbert's "Dune" series, or the holy book of the religion of your choice.
Anakin is dead so one way or another it will not be directly about Anakin journey unless you resurrect him (Something I think none of us want) At that point it becomes the Skywalker journey. You could easily have a jump if you want to if that is the case. As for examples of stories, both Dune and the Foundation series have been mentioned to do timeline jumping, and still work pretty well.
The PT's main characters were Obi-Wan, Vader, Obi-Wan's Master, and Luke's mother not a bunch of randoms from 100 years earlier. And yes, parts of his argument may be flawed, but he is still right in that the sequels will very likely feature the OT characters in decent-sized parts.
Vader barely counts. If anything it tarnished Vader in the eyes of a lot of people. Obi-Wan's master was a new character not an old one. Same goes with Lukes mother. Really the only full blown returning characters were Yoda, R2 D2, C-3po, and Obi-wan. None of these characters were main characters in the OT unless you count Anakin, which again is really only half seeing as they are practically two different characters. Much of this discussion has referred to the big names we are all familiar with. people like Han, Luke, and Leia. My point was the main characters in the Prequel trilogy were brand new, and it still was financially successful. The point you seemed to be making was these same old characters that were not in the PT as well as the OT (Including half the characters you just listed) needed to be in the ST in order for it to be financially successful. All that being said I reiterate my first point which is the financial side to this is not the point to the original topic. The argument is whether or not the OT characters are a MUST in order for the story to work well for this trilogy.
I see your point on the finances. I genuinely do. It's why people keep think character will come back to life in this trilogy in order to bring people to the theater to buy tickets. I just believe these are not a necessity to get the same results. Until expecting differently we will just get more of the same I think.
Edit: I posted this reply after you edited your post. I get what you are saying with your edit. However, that is not what the original poster is saying. He is saying that the ST MUST have returning characters in order to work. Is it likely? Sure. I would be foolish not to expect it. Is it necessary? Again that is where we will disagree, and where I believe his argument is flawed. Expectation is one thing. Demanding and insisting are entirely another.
I realize that Qui-Gon and Padme were new characters. But they had very close relationships to preexisiting characters, not their great great grandparents. And whether or not a character is tarnished is irrelevant. The PT was still mainly about how Anakin became Vader, who was the main villain of the OT.
Could they release a Star Wars film set 200 ABY? Yes. Would it make a lot of money? Probably. But would it make as much as movie with Luke, Leia, et al? I highly doubt it.
"I am Lucasfilm. I am here to fulfill George Lucas's destiny!"
I've thought a lot about this and I genuinely think that Disney/Kennedy/powers that be will realize that there is more value to a believable story than the resurrection of an old character. Until this franchise is on the downhill slide (which I personally do not think it is) there will be no need to jump the shark.
Disney brought Lucas Film to make money ! if they want to make money THEN THEY WILL HAVE THE BIG 3 BACK if the big 3 don't come back & it's some crap timeline of 100+ yrs after ROTJ then NO-ONE OR NO-FAN on earth would except it & EP7 would fail & Disney would have brought Lucas film for nothing so this is NOT going to happen so let stop talking about the 100years + timeline & get real the timeline will be 30-45 years after ROTJ & feature the big 3 in some capaticy .
I would accept it. A lot of people would still see it and accept it. Believe it or not, the name Star Wars means more than a set of characters who were only in half of the movies anyway. The droids would return no matter what, so you'd have that connective tissue. Force ghosts are always a possibility as well, so even some of the main characters from previous movies could still make an appearance. There are plenty of ways that the movies could pick up further in the future, while still being a continuation of the story and being directly related to the previous events in the story. Will older fans go to see the OT characters again? Of course, but I guarantee many of them will hate seeing those characters in their old age anyway (mark my words on this one and prepare for the backlash). But Star Wars has never been made for older fans. The point is always to get children to see the movies and create a new generation of fans, and very few children will care about seeing some old geezers in their flashy space adventure. I (as does pretty much everyone here) essentially agree with your assessment of when these movies will take place. I made a thread where I suggested that it could be further out (which I'm guessing is what started this whole mess), but I'm not expecting that to be the case any more than you are. I'm only agreeing with the others here who are saying the same thing I did, which is only that it would be perfectly possible to make the story work if they decided to take it in that direction. Again though, literally NO ONE here is saying that they believe that will be the case, so please chill out.
"If this is Episode Seven, where is the old cast?!?" - Vader