Discussion in 'Star Wars' started by Qonundrum, Apr 28, 2019.
Still don't see the issues with it. Or how it is disrespectful or something.
The Emperor wasn’t even called Palpatine in the OT. I just don’t know why it matters what he’s called. Luke could have called him Former Senator Sheev for all I care and it would have been fine. Weird. But fine.
Star Wars is always going to be popular, well always may not be the right term. But for a crap load of time, right. But that popularity does have little crests and falls in its wave.
People start to take Star Wars too seriously, then are reminded its just a fun adventure romp that was never meant to inspire religions or serious world-building, etc, and we get dissapointed and take a step back and then a few years pass and we're ready to repeat the cycle.
Disney's big sin was trying to MCU-ize Star Wars and have a movie every year, a crap load of tv shows, etc. It has to be an event, or its not special. It's becomes the next Disney Direct to Video "Pocahontas IV: Surviving Pox in London" Some people will buy it, sure. But Disney doesn't always hit homers, and when it runs out of ideas in the new idea bag, it just keeps recycling. I'll try and look for this reply when Live Action Brave Little Toaster makes it to my local theater.
MCU can make the occasional movie that alters the mold or pops out of it enough to make their big money maker fresh enough to pile on move movies without showing much fatigue. Star Wars doesn't have that kind of wiggle room, or if it does, they haven't found the formula yet. Maybe Rogue One, but I think that's a one-off miracle.
In the specific context of generations of Jedi/Sith history, it makes sense to call Palpatine "Darth Sidious."
Star Wars doesn't have this wiggle room because it doesn't have the history like Marvel does.
I think the "A Star Wars Story" movies were definitely made for the more enthusiastic fans of the franchise. Did anyone go see those with somebody who wasn't too familiar with Star Wars? They had no idea what was going on!
I can see your point on that, though with all the EU, two mmo's, the comics (especially Legacy) etc, it had a pretty big world to draw from. And in fairness they do pick bits from the EU. Luke's one-man standoff in TLJ (one of my favorite parts in a movie that I will admit, disappointed me) was pure Ganner from the Vong War series.
I agree they have a lot but I don't know how much Kennedy wants to integrate in to the new lore, since Lucas didn't regard it as part of his storytelling. There might be some reticence to just straight adapt it.
Bringing in Thrawn showed they're not afraid to pick from the orchard. A good thing. there's a lot of stuff in the EU that had its moment, and well, its moment is gone. If we never see the Killiks or Waru again, that's fine with me.
And the Vong for me as well.
But, if you are cherry picking that means a bit more work to put it in to the story that is wanted going forward. Thrawn is great in Rebels, but they still had to take the concept and work him in to the storyline they are wanting to tell.
I think they might be making it more complicated that necessary, but I still think that's the attitude.
I saw it as a mashup of two things from Dark Empire: Luke facing down a single AT-AT in the beginning and deflecting its fire ( while actually being there ) and his later use of the Force projection/doppelganger technique where they think he's on the Falcon with them but really he's still on Byss.
But yeah, they've taken a lot from the EU. Han and Leia having a son on the dark side is an obvious one. And Solo's explanation of the Kessel Run, despite some jiggery-pokery, is basically right out of the Anderson books.
Weren't they planning on bring the Vong into either The Clone Wars or Rebels at one point
*goes to Wookieepedia*
Yes they were, sad to say. And now Clone Wars might continue that
Separate names with a comma.