ST how different do you think a Lucas ST would've been?

I could see one of the skywalker children turning to the dark side under Lucas. If there was more than 1 child obviously.

Luke probably wouldn't have had a kid though.

 

Lucas said that Star Wars is the story of the Father the Children and the Grand Children and he said that in plural
So Han and Leia would probably have had more than one Child

 

Darth Maul and Darth Talon were the main villains in Lucas’ sequel trilogy so I’d say vastly different.

 

We know for a fact that the son of Leia and Han was to join Talon on the dark side in EpVIII. At least that's where they were at when George left the project.
I don't know if it's been publicly stated by anyone in the know that they also had a daughter, but I've always assumed so.

A climactic duel between siblings would've been a powerful way to end the saga.

 

What if Lucas made his Sequels but Darth Maul would be removed in his final version? most casual fans didnt know that Maul was still alive and im sure they dont wanted to watch all the TCW show to understand Lucas Sequels

 

Well to a point alot of Star Wars now days is made with the idea that you seen Clone Wars. So i ain't sure it would be much different with Lucas.

 

Maul could’ve easily remained the main villain. All they’d have to do is show his mechanical legs. That’s all they did for TCW. His specific character development wouldn’t need to be covered, especially since he always continued to act like a Sith Lord. We just saw more depth to him than the silent assassin from Episode I.

 

I suspect Maul wasn't gonna be the main villain for all of Lucas's movies tbh. If he was training his own apprentice and one of the solos turns, then one has to go.

 

It’s possible, but I don’t get the impression that they would’ve switched the main villain the way the sequels did. And what’s more, despite one of Anakin’s grandchildren being seduced by the dark side for a time, I also don’t interpret from what little information we have that it would’ve been a successful temptation.

 

There probably wouldnt have been 3 dark sider focuses. There is the whole rule of 2 thing and the idea that dark siders just end up backstabbing each other when there are too many. So maul or his apprentice peobably had to go to make room for a solo child.

 

I agree with that. But I don’t think Skyler would’ve been successfully turned to the dark side. Like I said, I don’t get the impression that Lucas would’ve gone down the dark route of making him fully turn. And to be fair, the scraps of info we have don’t necessarily tell us much more beyond that he is tempted, no? It’s been a while since I looked at them.

Edit: I looked it up and you’re right. Skyler falling to the dark side would’ve been part of the story. But, again, that’s all we know. It doesn’t mean he would’ve become an apprentice or that he wouldn’t be redeemed. So it doesn’t necessarily imply one of the Sith Lords has to die before the end of the trilogy.

 

That would be assuming that Maul would be a 'Sith' in Lucas' treatments... and I think him and Talon would have been something else. Also, obviously due to TCWC, Rebels and Solo, it's already established canon that Maul was about when the Emperor and Vader were ruling the galaxy... so darksiders can co-exist in some form... but to the wider point of the Solo child, I agree that 'if' Solo Jnr had joined with Maul it probably would have resulted in the death of Talon.

 

It doesnt matter whether he gets the sith treatment. The rule of 2 is pretty much a rule created for dark siders who just happen to be under the name "sith". The competion, the hatred and desire for power makes it so that dark siders don't get along. You can even see some of that with the inquisitors in Kenobi.

 

But it’s specifically related to the Sith Order. It’s how they preserve themselves in the long term. And a being must be powerful enough to warrant having that rule applied to them. Being on the dark side does not automatically put one in a Sith Lord’s kill list, even if you’re certainly in their watchlist. And more likely they’ll try to make an ally of you, as we saw in TCW. Sidious only commanded that Tyranus kill Ventress when she had become too powerful.

 

What’s specific to the Sith is that the masters choose to only train one apprentice. What Daxon means is that the selfish nature that leads to infighting and the need for the Rule of Two manifests in other dark side organizations

 

But there are multiple examples of that not always being the case. And in all those examples, how powerful these people are seems to be crucial to whether they can operate in a hierarchy of more than two people or not.

In the current canon, the main example is the Inquisitors. I don't deny that they have conflict, they are pitted against one another and are competitive. But they don't outright destroy themselves, and they serve the Sith until they're all gone. There's always a clear distinction between the Inquisitors and the Sith Lords. If any Inquisitor became powerful enough to be a threat to one of the Sith, then there would be a duel to the death. But their training is limited, and so they can never truly become as powerful as the Sith.

And this is prefigured by The Clone Wars. Darth Tyranus is allowed to train Asajj Ventress in the dark side for a significant period of time. But once Darth Sidious senses that her power may lead her to becoming a threat to him (in alliance with Tyranus), he orders her executed. She survives, but in any case her training ceases and she no longer has a way of obtaining the power of the Sith.

My point here is that there's a difference between being a Sith Lord and being a dark-sider. The Sith have very specific training that makes them more powerful. And they can withhold the full extent of that training in order to have dark-side enforcers who serve them without becoming a threat.

The one person who makes things a bit more interesting for the Sith is Darth Maul. He is already trained as a Sith apprentice when he falls to Obi-Wan's blade. Even if he is officially cast out of the order, he retains knowledge no other dark-sider has. In TCW, we see him try to set up a rival Sith Order, though Sidious defeats them too once they come close to obtaining too much power. Then in the comic book Son of Dathomir, based on unmade arcs from TCW, we see Sidious use Maul as bait to make Mother Talzin come out of hiding so that he can kill her. He then says Maul is no longer a threat to him, and that he was only a threat because of her power. Maul then returns to Mandalore but is seemingly no longer a threat to Sidious, and that's the last we hear of him in Lucas's canon.

So if we're looking only at Lucas canon, we are left with the interesting question of whether Maul would be able to become a Sith Lord again after the Emperor's death. The fact that Sidious and Vader were now dead would mean that he could now pursue that path without endangering himself. We don't know whether he necessarily would have, but we do know that he trained an apprentice and was actually living in Coruscant, so it's not impossible that he could've raided Palpatine's artifacts to continue pursuing his path to power.

So if Maul did indeed retake the mantle of the Sith and trained Talon as his apprentice, then yes, if they trained someone and he became strong enough in the Force, then he would become a threat, and one of the three would need to be killed or stopped in some other way. But we don't really know that Skyler would've become a full Sith Lord. His fall could simply lead to him becoming an acolyte for at least a portion of the trilogy, although I do agree that it is likely that a conflict between the Sith would eventually arise.

 

The 'Rule of Two' is a doctrine created by, and used solely for, the Sith. So it does matter i.e. they can bring as many darksiders into a story as they deem fit, without breaking existing cannon... as they have already done in TCWC, Rebels and Solo... and more recently Obi-Wan Kenobi. If your wider point is that darksiders would be naturally antagonistic towards each other... sure... and that can be developed/built into the story can't it? I.e. a darkside user power grab to fill the vacuum left by Palpatine etc. I actually think that would be quite interesting and certainly something we've not seen in a Star Wars film to date.

 

I think the only source that claims this is Pablo. Everything from Arndt and Abrams was that this is an independent development in that the Jedi Killer character that split Han/Leia/Luke became the son of Han/Leia and then Ben Solo.

 

That’s not true. There is concept art of Talon seducing the son character.

 

The Sequel trilogy from lucas exists already... It's called expanded universe star wars...

 

Not a trilogy or from George Lucas

 

He did say Dark Empire was the closet thing to his thoughts on a Sequel Trilogy.

 

He also said that "Luke falls to the Dark Side" and "The Emperor comes back to life" weren't at all what he would have done with Star Wars, later - referencing Dark Empire.

Lucas's opinion of things tends to vary over time.

 

true but i heard that he gave autorisation and refusal about some expanded universe stories.
And Lucas was involved in the old EU. He set down some rules. Apparently he made some rules to never reveal yoda species or when a major character was killed off...

Fair, I would like to think that he would have uses many idea developped in the legends for the sequel trilogy.

 

A few names, places and characters, he might have used. Like he did with Coruscant, Aayla Secura and Quinlan Vos (He also approved maaany Legends ideas for TCW).
He was going to use Darth Talon, a character from Legends stories set more than a century after the Saga, because he liked her design.

Possibly, the Organa/Solo kid's turn to the dark side would've been partially inspired by Darth Caedus. Possibly.