Representing the light side of the Force. Too bad he's not appearing in this next installment. Or maybe he is. And sworn to secrecy with his family held below the Magic Kingdom to ensure his silence... *Darth Sidious cackle*
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker - Teaser Trailer
- Thread starter MacLeod
- Start date
Representing the light side of the Force. Too bad he's not appearing in this next installment. Or maybe he is. And sworn to secrecy with his family held below the Magic Kingdom to ensure his silence... *Darth Sidious cackle*
Well Yoda's appearance in the TLJ was certainly a nice surprise.
Alternatively, that laugh is not Palpatine, but evil Luke Force ghost who rises wanting to kill everybody, and Skywalker in the title has nothing to do with Rey. If Force ghost Yoda can set books on fire, I'm sure Luke can set people on fire.
Or maybe Force ghost Luke teams up with Force ghost Palpatine, then they team up with the good guys to stop Thanos.The Joker joins Suicide Squad.
Oops, wrong Disney franchise.
True. The biggest hooks in this teaser were not the new characters, but Lando and Leia.
You just know most of the conversation until the next trailer will be how will Leia be used in E9, if she dies, etc. (or will Disney shamelessly play on longtime fans' emotions regarding Fisher's death)., which takes all of the attention away from the new characters.
Word
Love how it has to have 'Skywalker' in its title surely the movie should be hanging on its new heroes cred.
While I'm ambivalent on the notion of Palpatine returning, I have to admit that it does fit into George Lucas's idea that Darth Vader was never the villain of the entire saga, he was the protagonist of the entire saga the rise, fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. Palpatine was the villain. From beginning to end. His pulling the strings in the sequel trilogy would fit into that notion.
I'm going with both. Perfect Star Wars.
I'm going with both. Perfect Star Wars.
Last edited:
I wish Lucas didn't add the whiny part of Anakin alive by Vader saying No... NOOO!!! Before throwing Palpatine down a shaft, I thought it was better when Vader just watched Luke in agony begging for his father to help him and then doing the right deed.
Originally, Obi-Wan came back from the "nether world" to support Luke. When the Emperor used Force lightning Yoda would appear to block it.
I could not disagree with this more. Lando was a nice Easter Egg but that was not what stood out to me in the trailer. And give what I have seen around the Internet I'm not alone, given the focuses I've seen on Rey, and Kylo in particular.
Word
Love how it has to have 'Skywalker' in its title surely the movie should be hanging on its new heroes cred.
Good point. Disney Star Wars has done a terrible job, across the board in developing its new heroes, so there's not much cred for them to hang anything on. After 'humanizing' the Big Three, they still remain beloved, whereas the sequel heroes barely have had that kind of affect even after two films (Compare that to how much we knew and cared about the Big Three by this point in the original trilogy). .
Disney has done better character work on Rebels, and also the anthology films have done a better job of creating likable (or likable enough) and/or well-developed protagonists. I think putting "Skywalker" in the subtitle was a plea to fans that Episode 9 would be more respectful to, and of, the franchise's history.
Last edited:
Hmm...this works too.
I think they've demonstrated respect thus far. Just not reverence.
I don't agree with you. And Disney seems to have no problem revering things like the trappings of OT Star Wars, but have not done well in respecting the characters which made the trappings so special. To me, Disney thought it could get rid of the people, retain the trappings, and the brand alone would sell what they were putting out. While that brand is still strong, it's not the juggernaut it once was. That Lando and even the Emperor are returning tells me that Disney has failed to make the new heroes and villains pop in the same way that the original characters did, and so now Lando and Palpatine have been brought back to salvage what they can of the sequel trilogy.
Even the once reviled prequels gave us characters that were more memorable (and often better developed) than the sequels thus far, and yes that includes Jar-Jar Binks (as much as I hate to say that). But when I think of the prequels, Darth Maul, Mace Windu, Qui-Gon Jinn, Padme Amidala, Count Dooku, Jango Fett, Bail Organa, even General Grievous either left better impressions or were better utilized than many of the sequel characters.
I have to ask, why is reverence for the OT characters a bad thing? It was those characters that made Star Wars the juggernaut it is, and that have allowed Disney to rake in billions with substandard films (IMO) due to a lot of patience and love for the older films. If Disney had treated the OT characters more respectfully and let them pass the torch with more dignity I think it would've squelched a good deal of the fan angst over the sequels.
Last edited:
I do not agree at all.
ETA: Not that I expect to persuade anyone but I think Disney is working to balance out both sides of the equation, trying to have both the old and the new. No, I don't think they are falling back on the nostalgia of Lando and Palpatine (not yet at least-judgement reserved for post-release). I think that Rey, Finn and Poe are being built up as characters in their own rights, capable of success and failure in their own ways.
Secondly, Luke in TLJ was based upon Lucas' own ideas, as well as his comments regarding what happened with Mara Jade. Lucas stated he would not have taken Luke that way and that there was no marriage.
Finally, this part of mythology, and it's classic in its approach. The idea of heroes getting "happily ever after" is more of a newer concept in human history than heroes slowly succumbing to either hubris or age, allowing for (wait for it) a new generation to rise up. Beowulf is the classic example of this.
I get that people don't like how Disney isn't handling Star Wars perfectly and that I would agree with. But, the fact that they are doing things differently doesn't mean run back to nostalgia.
Last edited:
What were the comments about Mara Jade? And what exactly was Lucas's own ideas about Luke and who said that? Did it come directly from Lucas? (If so, I'm not discounting that he's just not being nice or wanting to trash Disney for erring with Luke).
The idea that Ian McDiarmid being the surprise (?) guest at the end of the teaser isn't an example of Disney trading in nostalgia? Or the return of Lando, or just like in the other films, Luke, Han, or Leia, along with the droids and Chewbacca, or even the Millennium Falcon? Or the anthology films that went right back to the OT era? Or the First Order that for some reason unexplained on film mimics the look and feel of the Empire. Or that the Resistance members started calling themselves Rebels before TLJ was done. A lot of this is about nostalgia, and has been since TFA. If Disney had wanted to break clean from the past, they could've set the sequels 100 or more years into the future, or even went deep into the past. Disney could've easily bypassed the Skywalker Saga (and any feelings of being constricted or limited by said saga) by not simply including any of them. They could've designed totally new ships, etc. But no, they fell back on the familiar, in part because it was safe and because it has sold and was selling, at least until Disney.
I do agree with you that there is a balancing act here, between old and new, though not a balancing act with nostalgia, because the Disney films thus far are steeped in it. I can imagine that one of the reasons they've treated the OT characters so poorly is it's a sleight-of-hand move to disguise how less different or less fresh the sequel trilogy is to the Star Wars that's come before.
I do think the sequel heroes are being built up, though it doesn't appear that there's much of an overall plan in mind for them, after two films, and things were just done of the fly, but there's little consistency (couldn't think of a better word here) in the character arcs, except for Ben Solo.
The idea that Ian McDiarmid being the surprise (?) guest at the end of the teaser isn't an example of Disney trading in nostalgia? Or the return of Lando, or just like in the other films, Luke, Han, or Leia, along with the droids and Chewbacca, or even the Millennium Falcon? Or the anthology films that went right back to the OT era? Or the First Order that for some reason unexplained on film mimics the look and feel of the Empire. Or that the Resistance members started calling themselves Rebels before TLJ was done. A lot of this is about nostalgia, and has been since TFA. If Disney had wanted to break clean from the past, they could've set the sequels 100 or more years into the future, or even went deep into the past. Disney could've easily bypassed the Skywalker Saga (and any feelings of being constricted or limited by said saga) by not simply including any of them. They could've designed totally new ships, etc. But no, they fell back on the familiar, in part because it was safe and because it has sold and was selling, at least until Disney.
I do agree with you that there is a balancing act here, between old and new, though not a balancing act with nostalgia, because the Disney films thus far are steeped in it. I can imagine that one of the reasons they've treated the OT characters so poorly is it's a sleight-of-hand move to disguise how less different or less fresh the sequel trilogy is to the Star Wars that's come before.
I do think the sequel heroes are being built up, though it doesn't appear that there's much of an overall plan in mind for them, after two films, and things were just done of the fly, but there's little consistency (couldn't think of a better word here) in the character arcs, except for Ben Solo.
Last edited:
"The Star Wars story is really the tragedy of Darth Vader. That is the story. Once Vader dies, he doesn't come back to life, the Emperor doesn't get cloned and Luke doesn't get married..."
―George Lucas on his thoughts about the wedding and other EU elements. Total Film magazine, May 2008
Disney didn't want to break free of the past. That's the point. It is a balance, and they have tried to scale back the nostalgia, only to be told contradictory messages from the audience (Rogue One is awesome because it is so familiar but with different characters! TLJ is bad because it is so different!)
Regardless, I don't see the original characters being treated poorly. Certainly not as poor as the EU ended up treating them.
As for the ST heroes, I'll admit my bias. I like all of them. I'm invested in all of them. To me, they are presented at the forefront of this new trailer and their adventure is building up, while allowing the OT characters to have their story wrapped up. As Gandalf said: "One stage of your journey is over, another begins."
―George Lucas on his thoughts about the wedding and other EU elements. Total Film magazine, May 2008
Disney didn't want to break free of the past. That's the point. It is a balance, and they have tried to scale back the nostalgia, only to be told contradictory messages from the audience (Rogue One is awesome because it is so familiar but with different characters! TLJ is bad because it is so different!)
Regardless, I don't see the original characters being treated poorly. Certainly not as poor as the EU ended up treating them.
As for the ST heroes, I'll admit my bias. I like all of them. I'm invested in all of them. To me, they are presented at the forefront of this new trailer and their adventure is building up, while allowing the OT characters to have their story wrapped up. As Gandalf said: "One stage of your journey is over, another begins."
Lightsaber. And she's had it since TFA...... It's the lightsaber that she found at Maz's cantina. It was ripped apart during TLJ and she appereantly fixed.
Which is probably going to upset some people and claiming she could never rebuild a lightsaber and is to powerfull. Unlike Luke. Who, you know, build one. Without a teacher.....
Both Luke Skywalker and George Lucas refer to it as a laser sword, so surely it's an acceptable alternate name. George says it a lot, and Luke calls it a laser sword exactly fifty percent of the times he's ever referred to one by name in the movies.
I still think it's silly that the inventor of the term lightsaber calls it differently behind the scenes, and Luke called it lasersword exactly once in the whole of the Star Wars movies. Every other time it's named on screen, it's called a lightsaber. I think fans only really started to use the term lasersword was since Luke called it one in the TLJ, and I still can't help but shake the feeling that the Rian put that one in there as a sneaky to non-fans calling it laserswords.
That's right. And he calls it a lightsaber exactly once in the whole of the Star Wars movies.
...Anakin also calls it a laser sword once and a lightsaber once.
Similar threads
