ST Offspring of Obi-Wan Kenobi?

She said they wouldn't carry characters from the standalones into the saga episodes, that much is true. However, this is what Jay Rasulo said, CFO of Disney.

“You know obviously when we bought Marvel, and now I think everything I say about Marvel you can take a couple of years down the road and substitute the word Marvel for Lucasfilm. But we really wanted to take this treasure trove of content and deliver it throughout the Disney ecosystem. That was our strategy. Buy this great content, use the existing ecosystem to deliver it all over the world in everything that we do. So of course we started with films.
We wanted to build up to Avengers, have a big hit with Avengers, and then draft off of that and then start the same thing with other groups of characters. So that’s what we were doing on the studio side. You all know that that strategy has been incredibly successful. But then we started to look at television.”
Rasulo explained how they started first with own networks, developing content for both Disney XD and ABC. Then, he continued, “And we started to think more broadly, how can we continue to expand the value of this content in the ecosystem? And an original content deal with Netflix seemed incredibly consistent with their own strategy and very consistent with our strategy. We were ready to look outside of our own networks into a different form of distribution. So we did this deal with Netflix. I think it’s going to lead to great results. It’s a little bit like the Avengers strategy. It does origin series on four different characters who ultimately may well assemble.”
He also said:
“You can substitute the word Marvel for LucasFilm."

So while they want carry characters from standalones into the saga episodes, everything else seems to be fair game. Even carrying characters from the saga into standalones.

 

If you want to go completely "off the rails" and introduce something like a love child; then you have to introduce that in a spinoff film. To ham fist it in episode 7(when you have a finite amount of time to establish characters)seems like terrible storytelling.

 

That quote is very informative of Disney's overall business strategy for their newly acquired IP, yes. In that it will basically be identical to what they've already done with Marvel, i.e. squeezing out content across multiple platforms like DisneyXD, ABC, Netflix, Theme Parks, etc.. But nowhere in that statement does it say anything about using the same creative strategy that Marvel has employed (standalone films all building up and leading to an interconnected team-up film), which is what Kathleen's statement is talking about very specifically. So if I'm understanding her correctly, she is saying they will not be interconnecting the Saga episodes and the standalones in that manner. Sounds pretty definitive about it to me. The Rasulo quote in no way contradicts Kennedy's in my mind.

 

Most people forget that Jedi are allowed to have sex, just not to form attachments, so there's nothing to say that Obi and Mace went to lower levels of Coruscant from time to time... if you catch my drift.

Also, this could explain what went on in the escape pod after the season 4 finale of The Clone Wars.

 

That is not Kennedy's decision to make.

 

I for one don't think it's a bad idea at all to have an offspring of Obi-Wan. It would be a little weird to have that person of another ethnicity, but it certainly doesn't bother me.

If Obi-Wan somehow had a child before ANH (say 15 years before), that would make his child 5 years younger than Luke and Leia. If the person in question is a grandchild, it would work perfectly. It would mean that Obi-Wan's child would be in his/ her 50's and his/her child could be in early to mid 20's easily.

As for the spin-off, things change. We all know that. If an Obi-Wan offspring holds a secret, they could explore that. An older Ewan McGregor would be perfect for a spin off since he's be older than he was in ROTS but younger than ANH.

 

If you mean in the manner of carrying spinoff derived characters into saga episodes, no. But all the other "manners" are allowed.

 

I'd actually be okay with Obi-Wan having a long-forgotten kid.
Truth be told, I'd find it a lot more interesting than the oh-so-predictable scenario of Luke having a kid.

Obi-Wan was on his own for 20 years. 20 YEARS. Do we seriously imagine that during those 20 years, he just sat in his little hovel waiting for the right time to teach Luke about the force? I could easily imagine him getting involved with a woman during that time. Maybe it wasn't something he went out looking for, but he was undoubtedly in a pretty bad state of mind in the years after ROTS. If a woman came along who offered him some sense of comfort, then why not? There was no Jedi order anymore, he didn't need to abide by any of their old rules.

And, it's quite possible he never knew about his kid. If the woman knew Obi-Wan was a Jedi, she would know that there's a bounty on his head. Fearing for safety of her unborn child, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that she ran away without ever telling him about her pregnancy. Or, maybe Obi-Wan learned that she was pregnant, and told her to leave because HE feared for the child's safety. There are several scenarios in which it would make sense that Obi-Wan wouldn't have had any kind of relationship with his kid.

As others have said, though, whether or not it works in Episode 7 would all depend on how it's executed. I definitely think it has the premise to be an interesting storyline, but, handled poorly, it could just feel like an gratuitous link to the past.

 

Well by all means Serpico Jones, please do explain how the decision making for this franchise now works. And here I thought Kathleen Kennedy's job and title still counted for something. So you're saying that she, as Head of Lucasfilm, is no longer in a position to officially decide on and/or officially make statements about Lucasfilm and it's projects?

My point has nothing to do with anything being allowed. It is that she definitively stated that they will not be following characters/plotlines in and out of the standalones and Saga films. As in, they won't introduce a character in the ST that will then have a backstory and/or post-ST adventure in the standalones. I take her to mean that they will be keeping them separate. You don't believe her either?

 

Actually a great story in the making and could work very well. This could give Luke a reason to revisit Tatooine as well.

 

In my opinion, this is about as silly and contrived as Cucumberbatch's character in STID suddenly being KHAAN!, (which means something, apparenly, if you've seen all the old films), which is also completely bonkers.
I think it's a really bad idea, but I also have a feeling there is some truth to it. Hrmmpf!

 

Please read her statement again.

"Characters from standalone movies in and out of the saga." and not the other way round. She didn't say anything about saga characters not appearing in the standalones.

What this actually means is that we won't see any non-saga only standalone characters being brought into (and out of) the saga episodes.

 

She answers to the Disney board. The men in suits will decide the future of the franchise.

 

Having a child or grand child doesn't mean he was romantically involved with someone. It means he had sex with someone.

And maybe his child doesn't know how he is or that she may be able to use hte force?

 

No, but the woman who Obi-wan knocked boots with probably would.

 

I dunno about you guys, but Obi-Wan all of a sudden having an offspring sounds like a really awful retcon.

 

There...is....an...otha....Ken...obi...........

 

I did read it, I'm the one who quoted it. We just seem to be interpreting her meaning differently. I believe her statement to be implying it both ways, in that they will not be interconnecting the Saga and standalones in or from either direction. Seems like a pretty definitive line she's drawn between the two. You don't seem to want to believe her and seem to be only looking at her statement from one direction only or maybe you just don't like conceding points. I do believe her though, so for me, when KK says "There is no attempt being made to carry characters in and out of the saga episodes.", I take her as saying there will be no inter-connectivity between the Saga and standalones. Therefore I don't think this character who is rumored to be a potential descendant of Kenobi will have a mysterious backstory that will be explained in some future Obi-Wan/Other standalone. Think we'll just have to agree to disagree until more is known about all this.

So just to be clear, you're saying she did not have permission to make that public statement about Lucasfilm's plans for the franchise? You don't think it's possible that the decision was already made and that is why she made a public statement concerning said decision?

 

What you omit is that she precisely stated that "characters of standalone movies" would not be carried in and out of the saga. That's all she is saying. She doesn't even mention whether or not saga invented characters would go into the spinoffs.

Common sense however suggests they would. Boba Fett and Obi-Wan are too juicy protagonists to pass up, as is Vader as villain.

I do believe her, she just didn't say or even imply what you claim she said.

 

And you seem to be omitting the "in and out of saga episodes" part. Which seem to me to say not just that they won't be carrying (standalone) characters into Saga episodes but that they also won't be carrying characters out of said Saga episodes either. Sure, the big ones, like Vader, Boba and so forth, I can see happening as long as their spin-off stories are truly standalone and don't interconnect with or depend on/lead into the Saga proper. But as far as these new ST characters, I take her statement to clearly be stating that there will be no ST character that gets a backstory expanded out into the spin-off films. Your idea in this case about them "following the Marvel model" in a creative sense, is simply not true. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Yes, they won't have standalone-created movie characters go in the saga episodes and out of it too. They won't have these standalone invented characters jump back and forth between standalones and saga episodes.

But saga characters are sort of free to appear everywhere.

Oh, so now you are simply going back on what you just said.

When KK says saga episodes, I don't think she only means the new ones. Why would she?

I don't believe KK is a fool. What if a saga character turns out as popular as Wolverine? Would she then forbid a spinoff?

What you claim doesn't make any sense to me. Especially since we already have a Disney representative saying that Marvel and SW are pretty much the same.

 

I think she was specifically stating that they are NOT following the Marvel model as your quote seems to imply you believe they will.

This is exactly what I read her statement as saying will not be/is not how they will be handling the spin-off/Saga divide. I don't feel the idea of the big characters I mentioned getting standalone films supports this idea in your quote either. To me she's basically saying, "No, do not expect a Marvel thing between the Saga proper and the spin-off/standalones. They will be separate."

We both seem to be reading it in an exactly opposite manner though. Seems her statement is going to need some further clarification before we can ever come to an agreement.

I don't believe her to be a fool either. But she wasn't talking "further down the road" when she spoke about this, she was speaking about the "right here and now" direction and arrangement they have in place and are proceeding from. And I still don't feel the Rasulo quote concerning Disney's overall business strategy contradicts her statement in the slightest.

 

No.