Future and potential Star Wars films - news and speculation

johnny_ultimate

Just to preface this by saying The Mandalorian is pretty good, reliable fun, and I’m sure some of the newly announced shows / films will be too.

But by god yesterday’s avalanche of announcements about Star Wars - and beyond that, with Marvel and a dizzying bunch of other reboots (‘Night at the Museum... but animated!’... ‘Cheaper by the Dozen reboot’... ‘a film based on the human who inspired the Buzz Lightyear toy!’) - is really depressing. Just a company sucking every bit of life out of their ‘IPs’ (shudder), with a total disregard for original ideas or fresh thinking. Everything wrong with modern Hollywood captured in one absurdly lengthy evening of announcements.

pixelburp

The Noah Hawley Alien series was the only announcement that got a properly "oooh, interesting" reaction from me; the rest looks like some horrible manifestation of Ready Player One in real life. I finally "get" the 'memberberries gag from South Park ...

OU812

Mr Crispy wrote: »

Patty Jenkins is to direct a Rogue Squadron movie;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bLkTjn6Y_s

This is interesting.

There could be a series of one off “Rogue” movies.

Markitron

I don't know why everyone thinks this is an overload, Disney always announce a tonne of stuff at once. These will be spaced out over the next 5 years or so. Also, half of them are limited series that will only have a handful of episodes.

Tbh I'm a little disappointed that they only announced 1 movie - even if it is a movie I have always wanted.

pixelburp

Markitron wrote: »

I don't know why everyone thinks this is an overload, Disney always announce a tonne of stuff at once. These will be spaced out over the next 5 years or so. Also, half of them are limited series that will only have a handful of episodes.

Tbh I'm a little disappointed that they only announced 1 movie - even if it is a movie I have always wanted.

Given the historical poverty of Star Wars on the big and small screen across its lifespan, the sudden glut of content - from a studio that seems to have really ramped up its nostalgia fracking - just starts to feel exhausting. The Mandalorian was a lovely surprise of tight, stripped back storytelling and infinitely better than Last Skywalker, but I'm not sure if I wanna go back to that universe 10 more times over.

Basically. I think I'm a bit over Star Wars. 10 / 15 years ago, I know I'd have been over the moon at all this live action SW material. Now, with Disney owning so much American pop culture, the shine has worn off a little. It doesn't feel special anymore to have some Star Wars in our lives, if that sounds a bit daft.

Falthyron

So much new content. All of it tethered to the age of the films. What a waste of potential. It will be a batch of content that spends most of it's time fawning over content seen in other Star Wars films and The Mandalorian. Not an ounce of creativity left in LucasFilm/Disney by the looks of things.

homerun_homer

It certainly was all quiet on a Trilogy front. Is that the final nail in Rian's Star Wars coffin?

Markitron

homerun_homer wrote: »

It certainly was all quiet on a Trilogy front. Is that the final nail in Rian's Star Wars coffin?

I would have said yes, but they only announced one film and referenced another, so I still think its possible.

Foxtrol

pixelburp wrote: »

Given the historical poverty of Star Wars on the big and small screen across its lifespan, the sudden glut of content - from a studio that seems to have really ramped up its nostalgia fracking - just starts to feel exhausting. The Mandalorian was a lovely surprise of tight, stripped back storytelling and infinitely better than Last Skywalker, but I'm not sure if I wanna go back to that universe 10 more times over.

Basically. I think I'm a bit over Star Wars. 10 / 15 years ago, I know I'd have been over the moon at all this live action SW material. Now, with Disney owning so much American pop culture, the shine has worn off a little. It doesn't feel special anymore to have some Star Wars in our lives, if that sounds a bit daft.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion but I just don't get this at all. I see similar 'exhausted' comments from posters after every Marvel release of upcoming movies and can't get my head around it.

To me it is like people complaining that they are exhausted by seeing their soccer fixture list that won't be actually happening months (or even years) from now. I'd get it if it was just before or just after but not when it is so far away. If you're feeling this way then maybe this sport, or in this case Star Wars/Marvel/whatever IP maybe it just isn't for you.

Using terms like 'exhausted' seems to try to shift the 'blame' to the studio for a person not being interested in something, due the frequency of releases, rather than accepting that maybe their tastes have changed or they never really liked it that much in the first place.

Foxtrol

Falthyron wrote: »

So much new content. All of it tethered to the age of the films. What a waste of potential. It will be a batch of content that spends most of it's time fawning over content seen in other Star Wars films and The Mandalorian. Not an ounce of creativity left in LucasFilm/Disney by the looks of things.

Is there really that much potential?

There is minimal Star Wars material that would interest people that doesn't have some link to the Jedi or references that the audience isn't already aware of, otherwise you might as well not have the IP and make a random space movie.

With that limited mix of potential routes to take, in live action we're getting:
- Rogue Squadron that looks to be a fighter pilot focused movie
- Ahsoka which will likely delve into Thrawn, which people have wanted for years
- The Acolyte which goes way back in time, somewhere that hasn't been explored and will hopefully open a door to more shows and movies in this time
- Obi-Wan Kenobi a beloved character and likely the last piece of the Skywalker saga
- Rangers of the New Republic, Lando, Andor are not too appealing to me at this point but appear to offer routes to other 'non-jedi' stories and worlds
- Taika Waititi movie who usually comes up with interesting content

As you can see I've mixed feelings about what is coming out but I don't see much evidence that they aren't pushing things in different directions. I'm interested in hearing what your expectations are that they could push things further.

baron von something

And still no announcement for an R-rated Darth Bane series. I live in hope

salmocab

I posted ages ago about this but what I’d really like to see is a game of thrones type Star Wars series. 7/8 different stories meandering to a conclusion. Could be set before phantom. Plenty of fighting and politics played out with plenty of time to build characters.

Markitron

salmocab wrote: »

I posted ages ago about this but what I’d really like to see is a game of thrones type Star Wars series. 7/8 different stories meandering to a conclusion. Could be set before phantom. Plenty of fighting and politics played out with plenty of time to build characters.

The Acolyte could be exactly this by the sounds of it.

FunLover18

Foxtrol wrote: »

Is there really that much potential?

There is minimal Star Wars material that would interest people that doesn't have some link to the Jedi or references that the audience isn't already aware of, otherwise you might as well not have the IP and make a random space movie.

With that limited mix of potential routes to take, in live action we're getting:
- Rogue Squadron that looks to be a fighter pilot focused movie
- Ahsoka which will likely delve into Thrawn, which people have wanted for years
- The Acolyte which goes way back in time, somewhere that hasn't been explored and will hopefully open a door to more shows and movies in this time
- Obi-Wan Kenobi a beloved character and likely the last piece of the Skywalker saga
- Rangers of the New Republic, Lando, Andor are not too appealing to me at this point but appear to offer routes to other 'non-jedi' stories and worlds
- Taika Waititi movie who usually comes up with interesting content

As you can see I've mixed feelings about what is coming out but I don't see much evidence that they aren't pushing things in different directions. I'm interested in hearing what your expectations are that they could push things further.

Aside from The Acolyte though all the others series take place within a much larger story to which we already know the ending. It's like they've forgotten that SW is set in a galaxy far away, not just two generations of one family.

There is unquestionably far more story potential in continuing on from RoS but there's a far bigger chance of failure as there are fewer 'member berries to pick.

Tony EH

FunLover18 wrote: »

Aside from The Acolyte though all the others series take place within a much larger story to which we already know the ending. It's like they've forgotten that SW is set in a galaxy far away, not just two generations of one family.

FunLover18 wrote: »

There is unquestionably far more story potential in continuing on from RoS but there's a far bigger chance of failure as there are fewer 'member berries to pick.

I think they know that that period of Star Wars is absolute shite. So, they're loathe to announce anything new to do with it. They screwed things up royally with their ST, so it's back to the period (the one that made a bit of sense) they know they can bank on.

Dades

I've very happy to see anything around the Rogue One era. Recently rewatched this and confirmed it (for me) the 4th best of any SW movie.

Rogue Squadron, Andor and of course Obi-Wan Kenobi - YES!

As long as there are some hits among the misses I'll be happy.

Markitron

Dades wrote: »

I've very happy to see anything around the Rogue One era. Recently rewatched this and confirmed it (for me) the 4th best of any SW movie.

Rogue Squadron, Andor and of course Obi-Wan Kenobi - YES!

As long as there are some hits among the misses I'll be happy.

The Rogue Squadron movie is set AFTER The Rise of Skywalker

Tony EH wrote: »

I think they know that that period of Star Wars is absolute shite. So, they're loathe to announce anything new to do with it. They screwed things up royally with their ST, so it's back to the period (the one that made a bit of sense) they know they can bank on.

The only movie they announced is in the ST era. 3 of their TV shows are set between the OT and ST, another one is set in the PT era and you have one set in the High Republic era hundreds of years in the past. We don't know when the Lando show is set but it is likely to be ST era too.

Look its fine to hate on that era but the misinformation in this thread is shocking.

Dades

Markitron wrote: »

The Rogue Squadron movie is set AFTER The Rise of Skywalker

Oh crap.

Sounds like a similar setting to the Mandalorian.
Power vacuum in the galaxy.

Markitron

Dades wrote: »

Oh crap.

Sounds like a similar setting to the Mandalorian.
Power vacuum in the galaxy.

IMO that is a good thing, its got room to grow and breath without the events of any of the main chapters hanging over its head. That is why I am quite looking forward to the Acolyte and the Old Republic era when it eventually arrives.

pixelburp

Rise of Skywalker, among its many other sins, threw up a weird cognitive dissonance with the Jedi, especially while watching The Mandalorian; the show maintains that mythological element, while

the Jedi we do meet had that older sense of the order as a monkish, unknowable quality. Something of the Samurai/Ronin.

. Rise of Skywalker blew all that out of the water with its bevvy of superpowers and hyperbolic "it's all connected!" plotting.

Markitron

Tony EH wrote: »

We don't know this for sure.

From Starwars.com:

'The story will introduce a new generation of starfighter pilots as they earn their wings and risk their lives in a boundary-pushing, high-speed thrill ride, and move the saga into the future era of the galaxy'

This doesn't exactly leave a lot open to interpretation does it?

Tony EH wrote: »

You're shocked easily.

Adults lacking basic reading comprehension should always be shocking.

Tony EH

Markitron wrote: »

The Rogue Squadron movie is set AFTER The Rise of Skywalker

We don't know this for sure.

And, in fact, Jenkins walks toward a civil war era X Wing in the teaser and not a New Republic one.

Markitron wrote: »

Look its fine to hate on that era but the misinformation in this thread is shocking.

You're shocked easily.

Tony EH

Markitron wrote: »

From Starwars.com:

'The story will introduce a new generation of starfighter pilots as they earn their wings and risk their lives in a boundary-pushing, high-speed thrill ride, and move the saga into the future era of the galaxy'

This doesn't exactly leave a lot open to interpretation does it?

It's not explicit.

Markitron wrote: »

Adults lacking basic reading comprehension should always be shocking.

You're losing your shit over Star Wars sonny. :pac:

FunLover18

Markitron wrote: »

From Starwars.com:

'The story will introduce a new generation of starfighter pilots as they earn their wings and risk their lives in a boundary-pushing, high-speed thrill ride, and move the saga into the future era of the galaxy'

This doesn't exactly leave a lot open to interpretation does it?

Well given the Rogue Squadron was established by Luke after the events of ANH I think you can see why people assumed. It's also not very clear, a new generation just means new younger characters in Hollywood speak and the future era doesn't necessarily mean future to the audience, it could mean the new era after the destruction of the Death Star. I hope you're right though.

Tony EH

FunLover18 wrote: »

Well given the Rogue Squadron was established by Luke after the events of ANH I think you can see why people assumed. It's also not very clear, a new generation just means new younger characters in Hollywood speak and the future era doesn't necessarily mean future to the audience, it could mean the new era after the destruction of the Death Star. I hope you're right though.

What story is there to tell after 'The Rise of Skywalker' that would involve the military in any scale? Another knockoff Imperial pretender to the throne trying to take over the galaxy again?

I couldn't imagine anything more tiresome than that, TBH.

pixelburp

If the empire truly are no more for Rogue Squadron ... ... sounds like it's the Yuuzhan Vong's time to shine :pac:

Tony EH

pixelburp wrote: »

If the empire truly are no more for Rogue Squadron ... ... sounds like it's the Yuuzhan Vong's time to shine :pac:

Oh dear...

FunLover18

Tony EH wrote: »

What story is there to tell after 'The Rise of Skywalker' that would involve the military in any scale? Another knockoff Imperial pretender to the throne trying to take over the galaxy again?

I couldn't imagine anything more tiresome than that, TBH.

More tiresome than a movie about some minor and inconsequential battle? But hey we might get a cameo from a de-aged Han Solo.

They're not tied to a imperial style villain post ST, they are if they set it within the existing time period.

Tony EH

FunLover18 wrote: »

More tiresome than a movie about some minor and inconsequential battle?

What "minor and inconsequential battle"?

FunLover18 wrote: »

But hey we might get a cameo from a de-aged Han Solo.

Ugh.

FunLover18

Tony EH wrote: »

What "minor and inconsequential battle"?

Presumably they'll make one up as well as a reason as to why it was somehow significant in the grander scheme. What other story options are there in the OT/ST timeline?

Foxtrol

FunLover18 wrote: »

Aside from The Acolyte though all the others series take place within a much larger story to which we already know the ending. It's like they've forgotten that SW is set in a galaxy far away, not just two generations of one family.

There is unquestionably far more story potential in continuing on from RoS but there's a far bigger chance of failure as there are fewer 'member berries to pick.

I don't get this logic. The rise and fall of the Empire and the Death Stars are some of the biggest, if not biggest, events in the galaxy. Even though they revolve around one family there is so much we can dig into.

Comparing it to massive historical events on earth, to me your logic comes across like saying World War 2 is centered around Hitler so there are no valid stories that can be told from other perspectives about before/during/after the war. Just because we 'know how it ends', it doesn't mean we know how each stories end.

Again it really seems like Star Wars fans are being a fickle bunch. There were many complaints that the new trilogy never really explained how the First Order came to power and now we're getting complaints that we're getting some shows during that period, where we'll likely get much of this background.

FunLover18

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't get this logic. The rise and fall of the Empire and the Death Stars are some of the biggest, if not biggest, events in the galaxy. Even though they revolve around one family there is so much we can dig into.

Comparing it to massive historical events on earth, to me your logic comes across like saying World War 2 is centered around Hitler so there are no valid stories that can be told from other perspectives about before/during/after the war. Just because we 'know how it ends', it doesn't mean we know how each stories end.

Again it really seems like Star Wars fans are being a fickle bunch. There were many complaints that the new trilogy never really explained how the First Order came to power and now we're getting complaints that we're getting some shows during that period, where we'll likely get much of this background.

First of all I should clarify that I'm not a Star Wars fan, I could take or leave the whole franchise so I'm approaching this from the outside and saying what could draw me in. Personally I'm fed up of the Skywalker's and their saga. It's time to move on.

I don't think your WW2 comparison works, WW2 is real event and we have actual points of reference like real life places, people and battles that you can weave a story through, it's far more relatable because it happened and we know the impact it had in history. SW is complete fiction and as you mentioned the points of reference are the movies so any spinoff as to works itself in knots trying to tie it to that story which makes the Galaxy seem so much smaller.

Of course there are stories to tell in that time frame, I'm not saying there aren't I'm just saying there are far more stories to tell outside of it but it won't have the nostalgia value. You wouldn't tell Hollywood to focus on WW2 movies because there's so much we can dig into, what are you going to focus on afterwards, the cold war? The impact of the war? The political power struggles in the power vacuum? Boring!

You have an entire Galaxy to play with and an infinite timeline but nah let's focus on one 100 year period.

mikhail

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again it really seems like Star Wars fans are being a fickle bunch. There were many complaints that the new trilogy never really explained how the First Order came to power and now we're getting complaints that we're getting some shows during that period, where we'll likely get much of this background.

That was a complaint about poor storytelling, not a request for an appendix.

Dades

FunLover18 wrote: »

You have an entire Galaxy to play with and an infinite timeline but nah let's focus on one 100 year period.

Well, as alluded to earlier, Rogue One is a movie based on previously anonymous characters who completed a mission crucial to the denouement of ANH. And it was fantastic.

There's always room for this type of side-drama if it's done well.

I, for one, want to know the story about those brave Bothans.

Foxtrol

mikhail wrote: »

That was a complaint about poor storytelling, not a request for an appendix.

Agreed on the poor storytelling for giving no background but no matter what they said it was never going to go into the stories that are possible during that window.

For example, they weren't going to cover what is happening in the Mandelorian.

These aren't an appendix, they are stories in a period we have little insight to so far.

Foxtrol

FunLover18 wrote: »

First of all I should clarify that I'm not a Star Wars fan, I could take or leave the whole franchise so I'm approaching this from the outside and saying what could draw me in. Personally I'm fed up of the Skywalker's and their saga. It's time to move on.

I don't think your WW2 comparison works, WW2 is real event and we have actual points of reference like real life places, people and battles that you can weave a story through, it's far more relatable because it happened and we know the impact it had in history. SW is complete fiction and as you mentioned the points of reference are the movies so any spinoff as to works itself in knots trying to tie it to that story which makes the Galaxy seem so much smaller.

Of course there are stories to tell in that time frame, I'm not saying there aren't I'm just saying there are far more stories to tell outside of it but it won't have the nostalgia value. You wouldn't tell Hollywood to focus on WW2 movies because there's so much we can dig into, what are you going to focus on afterwards, the cold war? The impact of the war? The political power struggles in the power vacuum? Boring!

You have an entire Galaxy to play with and an infinite timeline but nah let's focus on one 100 year period.

The period of the trilogies is the general audience's only point of reference though, they are the 'only places, people and battles' they know. Given the far more detailed real world history writers and directors have to play with, a huge majority are set in 'one 100 year period', the last one. This doesn't make our universe small, which is a comment I see a lot, it just makes stories easier to be told.

Simply, what is the point of Star Wars content without the Force, Jedi, or something else we've been grounded on already? As I said in my original post, if your idea is to go to the far side of the galaxy in a far different time that has absolutely no connection to what we've seen before then you might as well start watching other sci-fi content, it is a complete waste of the Star Wars universe.

Having said all that, The Acolyte is the show I'm probably most excited about, aside from likely seeing Thrawn in Ashoka. If it goes well it should allow for jumping off points for other shows and expand in that period (we don't know when Waititi's movie is set yet).

FunLover18

Foxtrol wrote: »

The period of the trilogies is the general audience's only point of reference though, they are the 'only places, people and battles' they know. Given the far more detailed real world history writers and directors have to play with, a huge majority are set in 'one 100 year period', the last one. This doesn't make our universe small, which is a comment I see a lot, it just makes stories easier to be told.

Simply, what is the point of Star Wars content without the Force, Jedi, or something else we've been grounded on already? As I said in my original post, if your idea is to go to the far side of the galaxy in a far different time that has absolutely no connection to what we've seen before then you might as well start watching other sci-fi content, it is a complete waste of the Star Wars universe.

Having said all that, The Acolyte is the show I'm probably most excited about, aside from likely seeing Thrawn in Ashoka. If it goes well it should allow for jumping off points for other shows and expand in that period (we don't know when Waititi's movie is set yet).

For me it does make the universe small if in every story we see we get a cameo from someome we've seen before in a different story, that's just my opinion so we'll have to agree to disagree.

There's a very large space to negotiate between going to the far side of the galaxy and having not connection to what we've seen before and staying within a 100 year period.

My original point was that there's more story potential outside the Skywalker Saga than there is inside it.

Foxtrol

FunLover18 wrote: »

For me it does make the universe small if in every story we see we get a cameo from someome we've seen before in a different story, that's just my opinion so we'll have to agree to disagree.

There's a very large space to negotiate between going to the far side of the galaxy and having not connection to what we've seen before and staying within a 100 year period.

My original point was that there's more story potential outside the Skywalker Saga than there is inside it.

Again, 100 year period isn't seen as 'small' when it comes to all the real world movies or basically every other franchise, sci-fi or not, so I don't understand the sudden different standard and demands for Star Wars.

I'm fine we agreeing to disagree but it becomes frustrating when posters make hollow claims like the universe being too small and it is hurting the content while not being able to back up the statement. They usually either ignore the content in the works (spread across the timeline of original 3 trilogies and then at least one set a hundred years earlier) or can't explain how it would allow for better story telling in the Star Wars universe.

For example, the core of the Mandelorian story could be set 50 years after TRoS but I see no benefit to doing so aside from some token newness or world building that some people with your mindset might feel. Both the period between the original and new trilogies and the period after the new trilogies are equally unexplored so I simply don't get the complaints or demands to go with the latter.

Falthyron

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, 100 year period isn't seen as 'small' when it comes to all the real world movies or basically every other franchise, sci-fi or not, so I don't understand the sudden different standard and demands for Star Wars.

I'm fine we agreeing to disagree but it becomes frustrating when posters make hollow claims like the universe being too small and it is hurting the content while not being able to back up the statement. They usually either ignore the content in the works (spread across the timeline of original 3 trilogies and then at least one set a hundred years earlier) or can't explain how it would allow for better story telling in the Star Wars universe.

For example, the core of the Mandelorian story could be set 50 years after TRoS but I see no benefit to doing so aside from some token newness or world building that some people with your mindset might feel. Both the period between the original and new trilogies and the period after the new trilogies are equally unexplored so I simply don't get the complaints or demands to go with the latter.

Amazon is making their Lord of the Rings TV Show set in the Second Age, far removed from the events of the Lord of Rings films. Not only that, they have cast many new actors and unknowns to play characters that have no connection to the Jackson films.

That's how you take an IP and expand on it with some creativity. Fair enough, they have some of Tolkien's material to work with, but it's all risky because very few people actually read into the Second Age stuff (hence why the films were based on the much-loved Trilogy of books). There is an abundance of material available to Disney set hundreds and thousands of years either side of the Skywalker Saga, but they are playing it safe and in the end, they are churning out 'fine' stuff. Nothing iconic or 'must-watch', just 'fine'.

For me, that's a big 'meh'. I'd much rather take a risk on some other show trying to do something different, even if it doesn't necessarily work out.

Tony EH

^
They, literally, have a galaxy to play with in Star Wars, yet producers constantly choose to whack the memberberries onto everything. Even 'The Mandalorian' has brought back fecking Boba Fett and shoved Ahsoka into the blender, in a show they never belonged in in the first place...and the show wasn't doing that bad. Now we're back to everyone-knows-everybody-else territory that plagues Star Wars incessantly and, yes, makes it all feel so small.

'Rogue One' showed that you can set Star Wars stories in the same galaxy and still have a different story to tell and unlike the ST which was just the OT 30 years later and in a much, much, poorer form, the 2016 film was successful in its attempts to expand, while still using familiar territory.

Something doesn't have to be catapulted 300 years into the past or future to continue a story. Especially when it's just the same story as the OT with rubbish "characters", a la Rey, Finn et al.

There's many stories to tell in the Star Wars galaxy, there just needs to be a decent writer to put the words down and tell it...and without the need to hook everything on cheap nostalgia.

Foxtrol

Falthyron wrote: »

Amazon is making their Lord of the Rings TV Show set in the Second Age, far removed from the events of the Lord of Rings films. Not only that, they have cast many new actors and unknowns to play characters that have no connection to the Jackson films.

That's how you take an IP and expand on it with some creativity. Fair enough, they have some of Tolkien's material to work with, but it's all risky because very few people actually read into the Second Age stuff (hence why the films were based on the much-loved Trilogy of books). There is an abundance of material available to Disney set hundreds and thousands of years either side of the Skywalker Saga, but they are playing it safe and in the end, they are churning out 'fine' stuff. Nothing iconic or 'must-watch', just 'fine'.

For me, that's a big 'meh'. I'd much rather take a risk on some other show trying to do something different, even if it doesn't necessarily work out.

I don't get how you see such a wide difference between the two.

The 2nd age is a few hundred years before the LOTR movies and we have a Star Wars show coming out set 100 years before the original trilogy.

If you think the 2nd age show won't hit on any of the characters we know from the LOTR series, even going as far as cameos, or retread locations we've seen already I think you're in for a disappointment.

Even if you believe everything will be new, already the Mandalorian has practically no characters we'd met before in live action content before and is set in a period where we have no insight. To me a throwing in a few hundred years difference when you're dealing with most characters that don't age like humans do is window dressing of being something wildly new.

Yes, Disney are releasing content based on old characters but they are also doing stuff that aligns close to exactly what you seem to want.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

^
They, literally, have a galaxy to play with in Star Wars, yet producers constantly choose to whack the memberberries onto everything. Even 'The Mandalorian' has brought back fecking Boba Fett and shoved Ahsoka into the blender, in a show they never belonged in in the first place...and the show wasn't doing that bad. Now we're back to everyone-knows-everybody-else territory that plagues Star Wars incessantly and, yes, makes it all feel so small.

'Rogue One' showed that you can set Star Wars stories in the same galaxy and still have a different story to tell and unlike the ST which was just the OT 30 years later and in a much, much, poorer form, the 2016 film was successful in its attempts to expand, while still using familiar territory.

Something doesn't have to be catapulted 300 years into the past or future to continue a story. Especially when it's just the same story as the OT with rubbish "characters", a la Rey, Finn et al.

There's many stories to tell in the Star Wars galaxy, there just needs to be a decent writer to put the words down and tell it...and without the need to hook everything on cheap nostalgia.

They literally don't because if you take away the Force, Jedi, or the history they've shown you might as well just release random sci-fi space content. If you want that then go watch another show because you're never going to be happy.

Star Wars has definitely been guilty of 'memberberries' at times, I'm looking at you J.J., but some posters have completely lost the run of themselves with that term and use it as a crutch for a reason to moan. At this stage to some it appears that basically everything that has ever been seen in a Star Wars in the past is now 'memberberries' and a reason to moan, from people, places, races, machinery, events etc etc.

Falthyron

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't get how you see such a wide difference between the two.

The 2nd age is a few hundred years before the LOTR movies and we have a Star Wars show coming out set 100 years before the original trilogy.

If you think the 2nd age show won't hit on any of the characters we know from the LOTR series, even going as far as cameos, or retread locations we've seen already I think you're in for a disappointment.

Even if you believe everything will be new, already the Mandalorian has practically no characters we'd met before in live action content before and is set in a period where we have no insight. To me a throwing in a few hundred years difference when you're dealing with most characters that don't age like humans do is window dressing of being something wildly new.

Yes, Disney are releasing content based on old characters but they are also doing stuff that aligns close to exactly what you seem to want.

No, they really are not. Everything they have brought out or planning to bring out is based within a 60 year period. It's as if in this massive galaxy spanning millenia, the only interesting stuff happened during this era.

One perfect example, in the Phantom Menace when Qui Gon Jinn tells the Jedi Council that he believed the attacker to be a Sith, the council rejects this idea because the Sith haven't existed for a millenium. Why not make a film or a trilogy or a TV series in an age when the Sith were ubiquitous and plentiful. What killed them off? What led the Jedi to believe they truly destroyed them? What happened? How did they grow to a large presence 1,000 years ago? Maybe they were a political party? Maybe they were a race? Maybe their teachings have been misinterpreted? Maybe the modern Sith (Palaptine, etc.) has twisted their views to his own ends and misrepresents what it meant to be Sith.

It really isn't that hard to come up with some interesting stories and events that happen outside of the Skywalker era! Anyone who wants to sit here and defend regurgitating places, people, moments from the Skywalker Trilogy is clearly lacking in imagination. We don't need these fleeting 'Oh yeah, I remember that!' or 'Look! It's Tatooine!' moments to be interested in a Star Wars show or film. A film or trilogy can have Jedi, Sith, politics, intrigue, war, genocide, etc., and be called Star Wars without mentioning Skywalker/Palpatine, the Empire and the Rebel Alliance.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

They literally don't because if you take away the Force, Jedi, or the history they've shown you might as well just release random sci-fi space content. If you want that then go watch another show because you're never going to be happy.

They are just a couple of things in the sandbox though and they don't have to be included in everything Star Wars. That's like saying you can't do LotR without orcs. The "history", though, is what makes Star Wars Star Wars. You can't just eliminate that, the same way you can't do it in other stories' universes.

There IS a bigger picture however. It's just that producers are terrified to look at it, because it might not make as much money.

I've said it before, most fans just want to see different stories with different characters in the familiar setting of a galaxy far far away...and that's more than possible to do. It's the producers of this stuff that keep boomeranging everything back to that same old, same old.

Foxtrol

Falthyron wrote: »

No, they really are not. Everything they have brought out or planning to bring out is based within a 60 year period. It's as if in this massive galaxy spanning millenia, the only interesting stuff happened during this era.

One perfect example, in the Phantom Menace when Qui Gon Jinn tells the Jedi Council that he believed the attacker to be a Sith, the council rejects this idea because the Sith haven't existed for a millenium. Why not make a film or a trilogy or a TV series in an age when the Sith were ubiquitous and plentiful. What killed them off? What led the Jedi to believe they truly destroyed them? What happened? How did they grow to a large presence 1,000 years ago? Maybe they were a political party? Maybe they were a race? Maybe their teachings have been misinterpreted? Maybe the modern Sith (Palaptine, etc.) has twisted their views to his own ends and misrepresents what it meant to be Sith.

It really isn't that hard to come up with some interesting stories and events that happen outside of the Skywalker era! Anyone who wants to sit here and defend regurgitating places, people, moments from the Skywalker Trilogy is clearly lacking in imagination. We don't need these fleeting 'Oh yeah, I remember that!' or 'Look! It's Tatooine!' moments to be interested in a Star Wars show or film. A film or trilogy can have Jedi, Sith, politics, intrigue, war, genocide, etc., and be called Star Wars without mentioning Skywalker/Palpatine, the Empire and the Rebel Alliance.

I obviously got confused based on what appears to be your complete double standards by praising Amazon's LOTR show when everything is pointing to it doing exactly what you're complaining about Star Wars doing.

That show has already come out that at minimum

Sauron, Elrond, and Galadriel

will appear in it and will nearly definitely take place in some locations we've already seen (in addition to it being filmed in NZ giving it little room to change).

The Mandalorian has so far visited far far more new worlds and people yet people like you act like everything is Tatooine and Fett.

I love your idea of the 1,000 year in the past show/movie but you're showing no consistency in your complaints if you're praising LOTR.

Falthyron

Foxtrol wrote: »

I obviously got confused based on what appears to be your complete double standards by praising Amazon's LOTR show when everything is pointing to it doing exactly what you're complaining about Star Wars doing.

That show has already come out that at minimum

Sauron, Elrond, and Galadriel

will appear in it and will nearly definitely take place in some locations we've already seen (in addition to it being filmed in NZ giving it little room to change).

The Mandalorian has so far visited far far more new worlds and people yet people like you act like everything is Tatooine and Fett.

I love your idea of the 1,000 year in the past show/movie but you're showing no consistency in your complaints if you're praising LOTR.

Amazon's LOTR is at the very least trying to distance itself from the events in The Third Age. A comparable example to how you a spinning my example would be: Amazon doing a show based on the Elves leaving Middle Earth, or young Boromir and Faramir. Even you can see there is some effort being made to get away from Gollum et al in the Amazon show. But maybe you are right. Maybe Amazon will ensure every episode has at least 3 Jackson references per episode to keep our connection well and truly focused on what we know rather than what might be. However, so far things look good with Amazon's show from the setting and period and what they have said. However, all the preamble about the new Star Wars stuff is clearly linked to the Skywalker era.

Foxtrol

Falthyron wrote: »

Amazon's LOTR is at the very least trying to distance itself from the events in The Third Age. A comparable example to how you a spinning my example would be: Amazon doing a show based on the Elves leaving Middle Earth, or young Boromir and Faramir. Even you can see there is some effort being made to get away from Gollum et al in the Amazon show. But maybe you are right. Maybe Amazon will ensure every episode has at least 3 Jackson references per episode to keep our connection well and truly focused on what we know rather than what might be. However, so far things look good with Amazon's show from the setting and period and what they have said. However, all the preamble about the new Star Wars stuff is clearly linked to the Skywalker era.

Are you saying this is what we've seen in the only show they've produced so far in the Mandalorian? What are deeming to be 'references'?

To be honest it seems like them saying it is a different age has completely blinded you, to me that is just window dressing if they're going to still have the same characters, races, locations etc.

Falthyron

Foxtrol wrote: »

Are you saying this is what we've seen in the only show they've produced so far in the Mandalorian? What are deeming to be 'references'?

To be honest it seems like them saying it is a different age has completely blinded you, to me that is just window dressing if they're going to still have the same characters, races, locations etc.

Each and every episode of The Mandalorian contains references/easter eggs/nods/winks/memberberries to the Star Wars galaxy (I use galaxy loosely, because 'the galaxy' according to Disney is only the Skywalker era). I'm not talking about the big references like, Stormtroopers, the Force, etc., I mean the more subtle stuff like the Cantina from A New Hope, the Seismic Charges from Attack of the Clones, etc., etc. Unnecessary shoe-horning of things into the show for reasons none other than nostalgia. Would the episode with the Cantina have been negatively affected if it didn't contain THAT Cantina? Did Slave 1 have to have seismic charges to be used at that precise moment? Of course not. But 'the fans' will love those nostalgia hits and as long as we keep getting them, the show becomes more about how can they connect x with y, and how will they include references about The First Order, than about expanding on what currently exists. Disney thinks it has to answer questions nobody is asking, like where did Han Solo come from? How did he meet Chewbacca? Did Boba Fett really die? Who's running the Cantina in Mos Eisley these days? Can Seismic Charges be effective outside of asteroid fields?

I can't wait for the limited series about the band that plays in Jabba's Palace. I'd love to learn more about music production in the era of the Empire... :rolleyes: And let's not forget the inevitable Bothan heist film we can expect in 2028 - because many Bothans died and we need to know what happened there to somehow bring more gravitas to Return of the Jedi...

Nothing has blinded me. I have allocated enough skepticism for the possibility that Amazon do go down the nostalgia approach to their Second Age TV Show. I hope they don't, but I know there is a lot of great material about the Second Age to give us some substance other than what we have already seen in the Third Age films.

You can choose to ignore the highly conservative approach Disney is taking with the Star Wars franchise all you like, but it is there and it's completely unnecessary for a franchise that has so much material far removed from the Skywalker era. If you are happy with Disney churning out the same memberberry Skywalker bland stuff, more power to you, but I want to be blown away by a world and period like how I was when I saw that Star Destroyer flying over head chasing down the Tantive IV. Star Wars post-Lucas has brought absolutely nothing new, fresh, daring, or creative to the table and for a franchise that opened up the possibility of what could be out there, it's a damn shame that it spends it's time reminding us of what it did rather than trying to push things forward.

Foxtrol

Tony EH wrote: »

They are just a couple of things in the sandbox though and they don't have to be included in everything Star Wars. That's like saying you can't do LotR without orcs. The "history", though, is what makes Star Wars Star Wars. You can't just eliminate that, the same way you can't do it in other stories' universes.

There IS a bigger picture however. It's just that producers are terrified to look at it, because it might not make as much money.

I've said it before, most fans just want to see different stories with different characters in the familiar setting of a galaxy far far away...and that's more than possible to do. It's the producers of this stuff that keep boomeranging everything back to that same old, same old.

I don't see them as being the same at all. That is removing one creature from a huge mix of them so they can be easily replaced. Taking the Jedi/Force out of Star Wars is like trying to make an MCU movie about a new hero with no powers.

Tony EH

Foxtrol wrote: »

I don't see them as being the same at all. That is removing one creature from a huge mix of them so they can be easily replaced. Taking the Jedi/Force out of Star Wars is like trying to make an MCU movie about a new hero with no powers.

Like 'Ironman'.

Seriously though, the Force and Jedi don't have to be the centre of the story. They're just things in the Star Wars galaxy. 'Rogue One' gave only a passing mention to the Jedi and the Forcey stuff was limited. It's story had nothing to do with it really. In fact, the original 'Star Wars' had little to do with the Jedi and Force too. They were just parts of a greater whole.

It's certainly possible to make Star Wars stuff and not have it be entirely about those things. In fact, the Andor series and the Rogue Squadron film may contain even less references to the Force and the Jedi than 'Rogue One' did.

It's not impossible. It just takes a bit of balls on behalf of whoever's making it to not have to constantly hit the same notes.

TBH, I much prefer Star Wars when it isn't about Jedi's and the Force, which is probably why the OT suits me the best.