Malibu139

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
The Skywalker Saga started getting added on, with the announcement of The Rise of Skywalker, and probably also to help differentiate other Lucasfilm produced projects. Particularly if there is another film series.
That last part there. A big IF. No movies in sight, let alone a potential film series. Lots of rumors of high profile producers and directors attached just to keep SW in the headlines.

Which brings us to the current KK discussion that keep popping up.
 

Solo4114

Master Member
Boggles my mind how it would be hard to fit Luke Skywalker into the first movie of the final Skywalker trilogy.
I think it makes perfect sense for two reasons.

1. It's only the "Skywalker Saga" because of marketing. I don't remember when it started being bandied about, but I seem to recall that when Rogue One was announced, the folks at LFL said that this wasn't going to be a "Saga" movie, it was a "Star Wars Story." The theory being that watching it didn't require having watched the previous films or something (which we know was nonsense, but, hey, marketing, what ya gonna do?). Still, they were differentiating "Saga" from "Stories" at that point. That may have been when they also started talking about the films as the "Skywalker saga" but I can't remember. Still, it's only ever been a marketing term. Before that, it was the "Star Wars saga." And before that it was just, you know, "Star Wars movies." All of which is a long way to say "It's not really the Skywalker Saga, so don't get hung up on the marketing jargon."

2. Even assuming it's the marketed Skywalker Saga, narratively speaking, it doesn't make a ton of sense to have Luke take front and center, nor does it make sense from a filmmaking perspective. Mark Hamill is in his 70s. And, let's be honest, he's not in the kind of shape that, say, Sly Stallone is, who can still kinda sorta convey that he's an action hero. Mark Hamill isn't that guy (and doesn't need to be, frankly). So, having Luke run around and kick ass would be visually jarring and probably not especially convincing. I mean, let's not forget that Carrie Fisher died while these new movies were being made. These folks ain't spring chickens. Narratively, it also doesn't make sense to have your main character get overshadowed by Luke. What the hell do you need the main character for if Luke's just gonna save the day? And if he's not saving the day, then, oh, well, I guess he's #notmyluke or whatever. That's, at least, how a bunch of fans would have reacted, undoubtedly.

The bottom line is that the movies the fans say they wanted to see...will never be made. That ship sailed around 1995 or so, the last point where it would've made sense to center the stories around Luke, Han, Leia, and Chewie as the main characters. And frankly, if the mid-90s EU novels are any guide to go by, I'm damn glad they didn't get made because they would've been the same myopic reiterations of the stories we've already seen. Fans say they want X, but I gotta be honest with you, from listening to fans for years I think fans actually have no idea what they really want. They say they want X but they'd rip X to shreds if it was made, or at least feel like "But....but not like that exactly..."
Exactly right. But it's the ultimate outcome, the "20/20 hindsight" results that many of us here take issue with. I've said it before...these modern SW films are NOT made for us RPFers. In many ways, they are targeted at the middle of the road and non SW public. Trying to get the broadest appeal, hence the broadest $$$$ base, across all demographics.
Absolutely true. The RPF is like the hardest of the hardest of the hardcore fans. We know crap here that the vast, vast majority of the population has NO IDEA about. I was on Reddit the other day and people were talking about how the stormtrooper laser rifles (actual terminology used -- not "E-11 blasters") were made from British submachineguns from around WWII. And this was treated as some kind of mindblowing revelation (even if it was technically wrong, because the Sterling didn't really see major service until the early '50s). These people would never notice the difference between the windshield wiper blades with notches and rivets from ESB vs. the straight wiper blades from ANH, let alone the glass eye vs. 2nd red button differences.

Friends of mine, who are themselves pretty serious fans, do not notice the differences between editions of the films beyond the "Han shot first" thing. Like, the rocks they put in front of R2D2 or the changing colors of the lightsabres or the different sound edits like the "magnum" blasters in one sound edit and the more "pew pew" blasters of another. They don't recognize or really care about any of it. And to them, modernizing the films and making the F/X look more consistent with the PT-era F/X? That was fine for them. Mind you, they love Star Wars, but they love their experience of Star Wars, which is a far less engaged experience than mine or than anyone else's here. They want an entertaining film set in a familiar universe, with maybe a few recognizable characters. That's it.
We obsess over these issues BECAUSE the original trilogy was so solid and its own sustained narrative. We are different than 95% of people who enjoy the SW universe... like the difference between someone who enjoys a good beer with the game, versus someone who has a climate controlled wine cellar in their basement. I'm not trying to be elitist here (and I am sure I probably sound like I am) but many of us here enjoy and experience SW on a MUCH deeper level of scrutiny than your average Disney+ or movie going fan.
This is exactly it. And even within that 5% of fandom where this crew exists, there's still differences of opinion. I've thoroughly enjoyed the various Disney+ series. I also tend to binge them, which I think helps smooth out (and smooth over) the uneven aspects because I spend less time poring over the individual bits of an episode, and consider the story as a larger whole. I've also gotten to a point where I don't go in with expectations at all. I'm just here for the ride, man. If it's entertaining, cool. I'm in. There were some bits of Kenobi that I thought were a bit off, given some of the ANH dialogue, but on the whole, I enjoyed it and I think they mostly made it fit. I don't get the hate that was levied against Reva. I don't get the hate for the Book of Boba Fett, other than it wasn't non-stop Boba ass kickin'. But I was ok with that. I didn't love the vespa gang, though. I'll say that. But also, because I binged it, for my experience, they were barely in it, so who cares? They're kinda blah, yeah, but whatever.
So, when creative decisions are made to story that don't "click" with our level of involvement, we feel personally offended by the decision, whether it be KK, JJ, Lucas, Favreau, Filoni or Rian.


P.S. Does anyone remember the episode of Friends sitcom, when Jon Favreau played rich guy Pete Becker? Chandler asked Pete if he had one of the "Don Post" life-sized stormtrooper statues. When Pete said that he actually has TWO of them, Chandler asked if he and Joey could come over, put on the suits and play SW?

star wars dancing GIF
I don't remember that, but that also well illustrates the level of engagement. People here would scoff at wearing Don Post armor, because they know better. And if they actually said the words "Don Post," I guarantee you that 99.999% of the Friends audience was like "Who's Don Post? Is that some kind of in-joke?"
Not saying I necessarily agree or disagree, but this is what Michael Arndt had to say.

"Early on I tried to write versions of the story where [Rey] is at home, her home is destroyed, and then she goes on the road and meets Luke. And then she goes and kicks the bad guy’s ass. It just never worked and I struggled with this. This was back in 2012. It just felt like every time Luke came in and entered the movie, he just took it over. Suddenly you didn’t care about your main character anymore because, ‘Oh f–k, Luke Skywalker’s here. I want to see what he’s going to do."
Yeah, see, this makes sense to me. I can see how it would easily happen, anyway. Luke shows up and instantly pulls focus because It's Luke Skywalker!!! And then anything where he's in it but isn't ass-kickin' Luke is going to piss off the fans because they wanted Heir to the Empire and we're 30 years too late for that.
From what's been reported, George Lucas' treatment for the sequel trilogy would have focused on Leia, as the first two trilogies followed Luke and Anakin. This was the treatment before Disney tossed it.
Which is another reason why we maybe shouldn't be pining for that Lucas-penned version, either. Lucas was...not infallible. I love the guy and a lot of what he did, but he makes mistakes and he enjoys things differently from me, and he wrote baby Anakin saying "Yipee!" and such. Like, the guy is not perfect, ok? He makes mistakes. Sometimes he even makes mistakes by thinking he made a mistake and trying to correct the mistake he thinks he made, when he didn't originally make a mistake at all!

Centering the new trilogy around Leia would've also been a mistake because, well, Carrie Fisher was old and died during production. Frankly, from the day the sequel trilogy was announced, I was very much against the idea of bringing back the OT heroes at all. You ask me, they should've set the story far in the future, long after the OT heroes have become one with the Force or whatever, maybe in the era of their great, great grandchildren. Bringing the OT heroes was a marketing ploy and all it did was make the storytelling a hell of a lot harder.
It was marketed as the Star Wars Saga, then later The Complete Saga. The Skywalker Saga started getting added on, with the announcement of The Rise of Skywalker, and probably also to help differentiate other Lucasfilm produced projects. Particularly if there is another film series. Back then, the then to be 6 films was the only Lucasfilm produced Star Wars content. There was no need to have a distinction.

You know Luke's absence is a pretty big thing in TFA. And they kinda set him to be big hero that's going to save the day. But he ends up being kinda of a red herring. As it turns out it's Leia, the other Skywalker, that trains Rey and reaches Ben. Not Luke. And that was intentional. They wanted to try and make good on that "there is another." Did they? Eh, they did the best they could considering the tragic circumstances.
Yeah, again, this is marketing jargon. It's not worth getting wrapped around the axle here.

As for Leia saving the day through training and such, that might've been interesting, but again...Carrie died. So we never really got to see that.
 

Joek3rr

Master Member
"The Skywalker Saga"

Or as I like to refer to the first six movies: The Star Wars Saga.
This is so true. Sometimes people get hung up what's Canon, or what isn't. Heck even I do. When at the end of the day. The 6 Star Wars films are it. The end. They are Star Wars. Everything else consists of parallel continuities that exists next the films with varying degrees of involvement from George.
 

Joek3rr

Master Member
That last part there. A big IF. No movies in sight, let alone a potential film series. Lots of rumors of high profile producers and directors attached just to keep SW in the headlines.

Which brings us to the current KK discussion that keep popping up.
After TROS everything went sideways. First COVID hit. Then the Disney overlords needed a Star Wars show to launch their new streaming platform. And boy did Disney play us fans. They knew we would gladly buy a subscription to watch the new nostalgia crammed show. And fans ate it up, and still are. Hook, line and sinker, as the old adage goes. Disney played us like a fiddle then snapped our strings.
 

Malibu139

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I think it makes perfect sense for two reasons.

1. It's only the "Skywalker Saga" because of marketing.
I know I know ha, just wanted some Luke in my Star Wars one last time.
2. Even assuming it's the marketed Skywalker Saga, narratively speaking, it doesn't make a ton of sense to have Luke take front and center, nor does it make sense from a filmmaking perspective. Mark Hamill is in his 70s. And, let's be honest, he's not in the kind of shape that, say, Sly Stallone is, who can still kinda sorta convey that he's an action hero. Mark Hamill isn't that guy (and doesn't need to be, frankly). So, having Luke run around and kick ass would be visually jarring and probably not especially convincing.
If they had been able to fit him into episode 7, I didn’t necessarily want him to kick a&&$ all the time and overshadow new characters but there is a lot of wiggle room between “notmyluke” and saving the day I think.

Also your point that I/we/fans may have had a problem with any Luke portrayed in episode 7 is valid and not lost on me.
 

Solo4114

Master Member
I mean, you personally might be fine with Luke strictly as a competent mentor who is occasionally consulted for guidance. A lot of the stuff I saw online generally seemed to basically want a 40-something Luke in his prime, kicking ass.

And I'm sorry, but just because Harrison Ford seems willing to, at 80 years old for chrissakes, go out and try to convince us he's still an ass-kickin' archaeologist doesn't mean that (A) it's believable, or (B) it's a good idea to do.

Personally, I really appreciated Luke's "ass kicking" in TLJ, precisely because it was all a mind game in the end anyway. I wish that the subsequent film could've paid it off better, though.
 

CB2001

Master Member
Which is another reason why we maybe shouldn't be pining for that Lucas-penned version, either. Lucas was...not infallible. I love the guy and a lot of what he did, but he makes mistakes and he enjoys things differently from me, and he wrote baby Anakin saying "Yipee!" and such. Like, the guy is not perfect, ok? He makes mistakes. Sometimes he even makes mistakes by thinking he made a mistake and trying to correct the mistake he thinks he made, when he didn't originally make a mistake at all!

Centering the new trilogy around Leia would've also been a mistake because, well, Carrie Fisher was old and died during production. Frankly, from the day the sequel trilogy was announced, I was very much against the idea of bringing back the OT heroes at all. You ask me, they should've set the story far in the future, long after the OT heroes have become one with the Force or whatever, maybe in the era of their great, great grandchildren. Bringing the OT heroes was a marketing ploy and all it did was make the storytelling a hell of a lot harder.

I never said he was infallible, nor did I say it was a good idea. I was providing some trivia info in the context to the person I was replying to that tied into what they were talking about.
 
Last edited:

Sluis Van Shipyards

Legendary Member
Absolutely true. The RPF is like the hardest of the hardest of the hardcore fans. We know crap here that the vast, vast majority of the population has NO IDEA about. I was on Reddit the other day and people were talking about how the stormtrooper laser rifles (actual terminology used -- not "E-11 blasters") were made from British submachineguns from around WWII. And this was treated as some kind of mindblowing revelation (even if it was technically wrong, because the Sterling didn't really see major service until the early '50s). These people would never notice the difference between the windshield wiper blades with notches and rivets from ESB vs. the straight wiper blades from ANH, let alone the glass eye vs. 2nd red button differences.

I had someone on Youtube "school" me on how the OT used real guns when I mentioned the Andor AK blaster sucked. In my head I was like:
smack.gif
 

Psab keel

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I had someone on Youtube "school" me on how the OT used real guns when I mentioned the Andor AK blaster sucked. In my head I was like: View attachment 1608588

I'd guess that person has been a Star Wars fan since Mando season 1. :lol: I bet they learned you good! It's astounding how little some people know about the very thing they claim to love. The Rebel Legion still thinks Luke's shirt in ANH was a Karate Gi, and these are supposed to be experts on the nuances of these costumes. So, it just goes to show that the vast majority of people, even ones who are considered hardcore fans, are often mistaken about their own fandoms.
 

batguy

Sr Member
I mean, you personally might be fine with Luke strictly as a competent mentor who is occasionally consulted for guidance. A lot of the stuff I saw online generally seemed to basically want a 40-something Luke in his prime, kicking ass.

Fans always want too much of characters that wouldn't hold up for a whole movie. Bluto in 'Animal House'. Han Solo in the OT. Ryan Reynolds in anything. Etc.


And I'm sorry, but just because Harrison Ford seems willing to, at 80 years old for chrissakes, go out and try to convince us he's still an ass-kickin' archaeologist doesn't mean that (A) it's believable, or (B) it's a good idea to do.

After 'Last Crusade' in 1989 the fictional Indy was a good 10 years younger than Harrison Ford IRL. So now Indy is only 70 years old for chrissakes.


Personally, I really appreciated Luke's "ass kicking" in TLJ, precisely because it was all a mind game in the end anyway. I wish that the subsequent film could've paid it off better, though.

Agreed. For all that the movie did wrong, Luke's last battle was quite fitting for a Jedi and for him.
 

HeartBlade

Sr Member
As nice as it would be to see a kickass Luke, I dont think fans would have minded a wise Luke similar to Yoda either.

Its also crazy how strong marketing is. The sequel trilogy was never marketed as part of the Skywalker saga. If anything, they initially tried to mythologize the OT trio likely with the focus on having Rey and Finn fill their shoes as the new heroes. The "sequel will conclude the Skywalker saga" only came into being with the reveal of the title for episode 9.

In regard to Kennedy's competence or malice question, I lean more toward incompetence mainly due to the fact that she seems to know nothing about Star Wars. Her comments on the movies being hard because there are no "comic books or 800-page novels" is disappointing. Her focus on video games as a source for the stories is silly given that any gamer can tell you that video game stories are mediocre at best and are full of plot holes and retcons (see Red Dead Redemption and the Last of Us for examples of games with "good" story).

 

CB2001

Master Member
If anything, this just prove my point even more: lack of originality in the sequel trilogy. Not to mention, we get a good excuse as to why Yoda was acting like he was in ESB (as the prequels does set up a bit of Yoda being on the lamb from the Empire and being alone makes you a bit off anyway).

Luke has no excuse. He’s in a self-imposed exile. No one was looking for him (not even the First Order) until Rey started to towards the end of TFA. And there’s no reason for him to be acting how he is. We’re talking about Luke, a guy who apparently tried to kill his nephew for just sensing that he had a little bit of the Dark Side in him and didn’t bother to try to help him and just tried to straight up kill him, whom according to LucasFilms is the same Luke who spent almost all of Return of the Jedi trying to save his father, who was considered the most evil MFer in the entire universe, because he sense a small bit of the light side still in him and succeeded in pulling him from the dark side almost at the cost of his own life. And without a reason given for why he went from how he was in RotJ to TLJ. And even if the excuse of “his nephew falling to the Dark Side is the reason why he is the way he is”, then it just shows even more the lack of an explanation of him going from the Luke in RotJ to the Luke who tries to kill his nephew without even bothering to try to help him first.

Again, the lack of consistency in addition to a lack of creativity. Even for it’s faults, you can’t say that Lucas didn’t at least try to present something new for each of the first two trilogies, cutting down on as much of repeats as possible. But that’s just me.
 
Last edited:

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top