Star Wars: Episode 7, 8... and BEYOND!

Geostigma

Pro Adventurer
AKA
gabe
Would be nice if something like you described happens, @X-SOLDIER . Namely, nice n' deep referencing of the whole series, but I think it'll be something far more superficial :mon:.

Who knows. These sequels have had some really on point references to legends stuff that they keep sneaking into the movies.
Like Luke having a Revanchist amulet in TLJ (a KotoR reference) , or Kylo Ren's lightsaber sorta confirming parts of KoToR are canon in the universe as it directly references the basically Sith planet Malachor V and is based on the Malachor Jedi Knights

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...of_jedi.png/revision/latest?cb=20180613001601

IIRC the game of thrones writers who are making a Star Wars thing are basing it on the KoToR era, which does feature some very interesting plot points regarding resurrection, immortality, and transference of ones being into another body/host through use of the Force in the mmorpg ToR.

I think X is onto something here imo.
 
Last edited:

Gary Caelum

Pro Adventurer
AKA
Gary Caelum
@Gary Caelum – Endor is actually planet orbited by 9 different moons (one of which is the Forest Moon where the Ewoks live and where parts of RotJ take place). That's a total of 10 different locations that'd've had varying levels of fallout from the second Death Star's destruction. Just because that piece of it isn't on the Forest Moon doesn't mean that it isn't on one of the 10 spacial bodies that could be considered "Endor"

(I rather doubt that he disliked the death of Snoke, since J.J. Abrams was one of the biggest people praising Rian Johnson's script for Episode VIII).
The moon is generally referred to as Endor as well though. All of the main wikis call the moon Endor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endor_(Star_Wars) Most of the articles that have been written on this trailer seem to think that scene IS on Endor too. I didn't think it was because it's mentioned at some points in the lore than Endor is entirely covered in forest (something like that). So I didn't think it would have any large ocean type place.

Also, I don't take Abrams comments on that very seriously. He's very professional. He's never going to say "I can't believe Rian ruined all of the story arcs I started, what a dick."

My prediction is that Palpatine won't be actually reborn like in the Dark Empire books. It will be that he figured out how to become a force ghost and he's been advising Kylo Ren in that capacity.
 
Last edited:

X-SOLDIER

Harbinger O Great Justice
AKA
X
Right... I was just pointing out that there are 9 other locations that we've never seen in any Star Wars film that would qualify as still being "Endor" which means that even if it's not in the California Redwoods, for the shot at the end of the teaser, there's no implication that the pieces of the second Death Star have ended up on any planet/moon other than Endor (which is what you'd asked).

How did a part of the Death Star end up on any planet/moon other than Endor?

Also – ...why exactly you don't take J.J. Abrams' comments about The Last Jedi seriously...? They're very clear and also specific.
  1. He didn't actually need to say anything about the film at all – so those comments have nothing to do with him being very professional. This is especially obvious in this case, because those comments made by him were published on Dec 22, 2015 – which is only 4 days after The Force Awakens had premiered (and was still 3 months before The Last Jedi had even filmed its very first shot). There wasn't any reason for him to be excitedly talking about anything OTHER than The Force Awakens at that point. Regardless, he went out of his way to praise Rian Johnson's script to his best friend (who plays Snap Wexley) who is the one quoted in the article.
  2. The specific type of praise that JJ gave with his comment is described by JJ Abrams' own best friend (who doesn't even appear in that episode 8 script, but is in the JJ-directed Episode 7 & 9, btw). So it's not even JJ Abrams going out of his way to make sure that the public hears his personal thoughts about the next film. The direct quote given is, "He read it and said something he never, ever says, ‘It’s so good, I wish I were making it.’" which additionally provides context that this particular comment is WELL BEYOND anything that JJ would regularly say politely about someone else's work to be professional, let alone something that he actually likes.
  3. On top of all of that that, JJ Abrams also voluntarily stayed aboard the creative team on The Last Jedi as an executive producer, which he didn't have any need or obligation to do – and clearly wouldn't've done if he disliked or was even less than significantly pleased by the film's script – let alone if he thought that the movie ruined everything that he carefully set up. Especially since he wasn't even originally going to come back to direct Episode IX at all, he didn't have any reason to be attached to a film trilogy that he didn't think was going to have a continued success based on his own initial vision.
The reason that I detailed all of that is I'm curious what it is about that surrounding context for the comment still makes you think that his endorsement of The Last Jedi actually isn't meant to be taken seriously, and would just qualify as something that's just being professional but not at all genuine.

It's especially important when you encounter something that doesn't agree with your inherent feelings towards something, that you should make sure that the details of the contextual evidence matches why you'd want be dismissive of it. If it doesn't, that means that it's most likely solid evidence against your currently held position, and that it should change what you think to some degree – but especially when it's something projected like what you assume someone else's thoughts on a particular topic are. If you think that JJ Abrams actually disliked the direction that The Last Jedi took things after The Force Awakens, you should have evidence that is at least as substantial in favour of that opposing position. (I'm a really big proponent that everyone's opinions should be backed by a sound argument for why they think what they do).

(Likewise – You may want to refer to my earlier comment about Sith being fundamentally unable to become Force Ghosts, or link some other context that I've missed on the topic).




X:neo:
 

Gary Caelum

Pro Adventurer
AKA
Gary Caelum
The reason that I detailed all of that is I'm curious what it is about that surrounding context for the comment still makes you think that his endorsement of The Last Jedi actually isn't meant to be taken seriously, and would just qualify as something that's just being professional but not at all genuine.
Well I don't think any of the details there really affected it. J.J.Abrams is just not the kinda guy who openly criticizes things like that in public. He tries very hard to maintain a certain kind of positive public persona. His friend obviously knows that, and in the context of promoting the franchise isn't going to just report anything negative. This isn't James Cameron we're talking about.

But also, in 2015 Abrams didn't know he'd be directing/writing Ep9. He thought he was done with it. It obviously makes sense that he'd just decide to give a positive endorsement of whatever happened next.
I really don't see how he could possibly have a positive response to something like the "Knights of Ren" being completely dropped. That's just so clumsy and careless for a trilogy.
 

Lulcielid

Media Thinker
AKA
Lucis Caelum
I really don't see how he could possibly have a positive response to something like the "Knights of Ren" being completely dropped. That's just so clumsy and careless for a trilogy.
I still don't get this criticism, where do people get that the second movie of a trillogy not adressing something from the first movie means it's been dropped? It would only be dropped if by the third movie it was not adressed.
 

Gary Caelum

Pro Adventurer
AKA
Gary Caelum
I still don't get this criticism, where do people get that the second movie of a trillogy not adressing something from the first movie means it's been dropped? It would only be dropped if by the third movie it was not adressed.
I guess it could be brought back in the third, but I mostly meant it was dropped by Rian Johnson (who was never writing/directing the third movie)
I think "dropped" is a fair description given how much he abandoned the things that were set up by the first movie (Rey's parents/Snoke/Luke's Lightsaber/ Knights of Ren/Maz being a supposedly import character)
Abrams even admitted in a recent interview that he thinks Rian Johnson took things in a "different direction":
https://screenrant.com/star-wars-last-jedi-rian-johnson-jj-abrams-differences/
 

The Twilight Mexican

Ex-SeeD-ingly good
AKA
TresDias
Well I don't think any of the details there really affected it. J.J.Abrams is just not the kinda guy who openly criticizes things like that in public. He tries very hard to maintain a certain kind of positive public persona. His friend obviously knows that, and in the context of promoting the franchise isn't going to just report anything negative. This isn't James Cameron we're talking about.

But also, in 2015 Abrams didn't know he'd be directing/writing Ep9. He thought he was done with it. It obviously makes sense that he'd just decide to give a positive endorsement of whatever happened next.
As X pointed out, Abrams didn't have to say anything publicly. And he didn't in this instance we're speaking of; his friend did. And his friend certainly didn't have to say anything. And especially -- if he's just lying/making this up on the spot -- something as over the top as

"He read it and said something he never, ever says. He said: 'It's so good, I wish I were making it.' He may have said something one time on 'Lost,' but I never hear him express regret like that."

You have to wholesale conjure evidence yourself to arrive at the conclusion Abrams wasn't at least alright with TLJ ...
 

Gary Caelum

Pro Adventurer
AKA
Gary Caelum
As X pointed out, Abrams didn't have to say anything publicly. And he didn'tin this instance we're speaking of; his friend did. And his friend certainly didn't have to say anything. And especially -- if he's just lying/making this up on the spot -- something as over the top as
Of course he had to say something. He would have been asked about it constantly. He can't just say "no comment" every time. Sooner or later that's gonna get caught on camera and people are gonna read negative things into it.

They're obviously under pressure to keep a certain kind of positivity. Mark Hamill did clearly get in trouble for just being honest he didn't like TLJ. They want positivity to help generate excitement for the film.

And like I said, Abrams in 2015 was obviously gonna be different than Abrams in 2018, because he wasn't doing Ep9 at that point. So he wasn't the one who had to clear up the mess. Look at that recent interview. He clearly presents it as TLJ made episode 9 more of a challenge. Which seems obvious. How could it not, given that it prematurely killed the main villain for no particular reason?
 

Lulcielid

Media Thinker
AKA
Lucis Caelum
I guess it could be brought back in the third, but I mostly meant it was dropped by Rian Johnson (who was never writing/directing the third movie)
I think "dropped" is a fair description given how much he abandoned the things that were set up by the first movie (Rey's parents/Snoke/Luke's Lightsaber/ Knights of Ren/Maz being a supposedly import character)
Abrams even admitted in a recent interview that he thinks Rian Johnson took things in a "different direction":
https://screenrant.com/star-wars-last-jedi-rian-johnson-jj-abrams-differences/
Again, how something not being adressed on the second act of a story (trillogy) equals to being dropped from the whole story (the trillogy) instead of, say, just being left for the third act to adress?

Also related to that criticism, where do people get the idea that the second act of the story has to adress everything set up on the first act (this the impression I get whenever someone mentions this criticism)?
 

Gary Caelum

Pro Adventurer
AKA
Gary Caelum
Also related to that criticism, where do people get the idea that the second act of the story has to adress everything set up on the first act (this the impression I get whenever someone mentions this criticism)?
It doesn't have to address everything. But it does have to keep the main plot threads going so you have some kind of larger story arc going rather than just constantly changing direction.

That's what Star Wars was always like, a continuous story. They even do a good job of making Ep4->Ep5 feel quite continuous, which obviously wasn't planned ahead of time because they thought the original movie was just a standalone at the time.
 

The Twilight Mexican

Ex-SeeD-ingly good
AKA
TresDias
Gary, if you're just going to say that it isn't possible for the feelings of the people you're talking about to be any other way than how you feel they should feel -- no matter what they say -- it's not going to be possible to have so much as a rational discussion here, much less a constructive one. Come on, brother.

Of course he had to say something. He would have been asked about it constantly. He can't just say "no comment" every time. Sooner or later that's gonna get caught on camera and people are gonna read negative things into it.
Grunberg didn't have to say anything on that occasion. Journalists weren't going to be doggedly pursuing him rather than Abrams himself for Abram's opinion. Even if -- for whatever bizarre reason -- that was going to happen, no one would have faulted him for saying on the very first occasion he was asked, "Well, I don't want to speak for J.J. on that one or leave out anything he might be thinking, so I'll just leave answering that to him."

Or hell, if that wasn't good enough, even just "It made quite the impression on him. You should really ask him about that" would have sufficed.

Once more, Grunberg certainly didn't have to say anything as over the top as what he did say if he was lying/just making it up.

Gary said:
They're obviously under pressure to keep a certain kind of positivity. Mark Hamill did clearly get in trouble for just being honest he didn't like TLJ.
Hamill never said that, though. He said the direction taken with his character wasn't what he foresaw, sure, and even that he "pretty much fundamentally disagreed" with it, but he never said he disliked the film.

In fact, Hamill called it an "all-time great" movie, and -- even before the film was released; even before the "He's not my Luke Skywalker" comment was heard -- said "I’ve had trouble accepting what he saw for Luke, but again, I mean, I have to say, having seen the movie, I was wrong" and "I think being pushed out of your comfort zone is a good thing because if I was just another benevolent Jedi training young padawans, we’ve seen it."

Look at the date of that video. It was two days before the "He's not my Luke Skywalker" video. It wasn't PR damage control or anything like that for a comment the public hadn't even heard yet.

For that matter, even when he said the "He's not my Luke Skywalker" comment, he followed it up a few seconds later with "It serves the story well"; "It's only a movie, I hope people like it"; and "I came to really believe that Rian was the exact man they needed for this job."

Should we conclude that Hamill hated "The Force Awakens" just because he couldn't convince J.J. Abrams to let Han and Luke reunite?

People have creative differences in filmmaking every day. Just because something isn't made the way someone would have preferred at the time, however, doesn't mean they're unable to respect it or see artistic merit in it.

Gary said:
And like I said, Abrams in 2015 was obviously gonna be different than Abrams in 2018, because he wasn't doing Ep9 at that point. So he wasn't the one who had to clear up the mess. Look at that recent interview. He clearly presents it as TLJ made episode 9 more of a challenge.
So Abrams is a storyteller who doesn't enjoy a challenge? Or one who doesn't appreciate others' work if it compels him to challenge himself?

That not only sounds kind of insulting to him as a filmmaker, but seems more than a tad out of place -- as in "You're in the wrong line of work, kid" -- for a prolific TV series producer, in light of how collaborative that process gets creatively. Especially when we're talking about shows like "LOST," "Fringe" and "Alias," which Abrams created or co-created.

Gary said:
Which seems obvious. How could it not, given that it prematurely killed the main villain for no particular reason?
Have you considered that Snoke may not be the main villain any more than Gestahl, President Shinra or Iedolas Aldercapt?
 

Gary Caelum

Pro Adventurer
AKA
Gary Caelum
Gary, if you're just going to say that it isn't possible for the feelings of the people you're talking about to be any other way than how you feel they should feel -- no matter what they say -- it's not going to be possible to have so much as a rational discussion here, much less a constructive one. Come on, brother.
When did I say that? Obviously we have no way of knowing what he actually thinks. I'm just making plausibility arguments here based on the evidence we have.


In fact, Hamill called it an "all-time great" movie, and -- even before the film was released; even before the "He's not my Luke Skywalker" comment was heard -- said "I’ve had trouble accepting what he saw for Luke, but again, I mean, I have to say, having seen the movie, I was wrong" and "I think being pushed out of your comfort zone is a good thing because if I was just another benevolent Jedi training young padawans, we’ve seen it."
He's since contradicted that:
https://screenrant.com/last-jedi-luke-mark-hamill-rian-johnson/

Have you considered that Snoke may not be the main villain any more than Gestahl, President Shinra or Iedolas Aldercapt?
But they've openly admitted that each individual movie was written independently without any agreement on the over-arching plot. So this can't be true, except by accident.
 

The Twilight Mexican

Ex-SeeD-ingly good
AKA
TresDias
When did I say that? Obviously we have no way of knowing what he actually thinks. I'm just making plausibility arguments here based on the evidence we have.
Yet you won't recognize anything positive that Abrams or Hamill have said as plausible evidence of how they feel.

Gary said:
But they've openly admitted that each individual movie was written independently without any agreement on the over-arching plot. So this can't be true, except by accident.
Making that the basis of argument, it would have never been established that Snoke would be the main villain anyway since the overarching plot had not yet been determined.

Now you're just making things up. Yet another brief comment about not understanding why Luke would make the choice to go into exile for so long (a sentiment he had already made clear) doesn't amount to walking back anything he said in the quotes from my previous post.

And it definitely doesnt amount to your original claim that he doesn't like the movie.

I think we'll just have to be done here, because I'm done wasting time on bullshit. :monster:
 
@Clement Rage
What stands out to you? Seeing as TLJ wasn't exactly your favorite, I'm intrigued to hear that you haven't entirely run out of all the fucks to give. :monster:
Given my history with this thread, perhaps I'd better PM you. @X-SOLDIER, you want in?

Re the current discussion, guys, we'll find out what happened and who said what behind the scenes in thirty years when the tell all memoirs get published. Until then, there's no way to know.
 
Last edited:

Gary Caelum

Pro Adventurer
AKA
Gary Caelum
Yet you won't recognize anything positive that Abrams or Hamill have said as plausible evidence of how they feel.
Well like I said, when they have a culture of extreme positivity around whatever they're currently working on (for the sake of generating hype for the franchise), you should definitely take the positive claims with a much bigger pinch of salt than the negative ones.

We have pretty clear evidence from the last 40 years of recorded interviews that they tend to give these kinds of positive answers for pretty much every single movie in existence, while it's still trying to make money. 5-10 years later, you maybe get more honesty.

I'd completely accept though that movies are so complicated and decentralized in how they're made, that it's entirely possible that most of the actors/directors at any given time are completely sincere in feeling positive about it. After all, what they see and experience is different from what the audience sees. Many of us probably watch the actual finished movie more times than any of the actors do. Quite a few actors don't like to watch their own finished movies at all.


Now you're just making things up. Yet another brief comment about not understanding why Luke would make the choice to go into exile for so long (a sentiment he had already made clear) doesn't amount to walking back anything he said in the quotes from my previous post.
It seems to contradict the specific claim you pasted where he says:
"I’ve had trouble accepting what he saw for Luke, but again, I mean, I have to say, having seen the movie, I was wrong"

How could he realize he was wrong about it, if he still doesn't understand why Luke acted that way? Maybe he meant something different by this. Like maybe he's saying he still thinks he's right about Luke, but that the movie as a whole still worked well despite that. I dunno. But that's just how I interpreted it.
 

trash panda

---m(O.O)gle---
AKA
Howl
So I looked a theory online of "Skywalker" becoming the new term to refer to Jedi/Force users, it doesnt have a lot basis but it sounds cool.
This just reminded me...IIRC, in Thrawn: Alliances,
Thrawn refers to force sensitive pilots as "Skywalkers" while speaking to Vader. Sort of dropping a hint that he knows who Vader really is.
I'll wait to see if @X-SOLDIER can confirm this detail. I may have IIRC'd incorrectly and I feel like he probably knows. :lol:

Anyhow, the term exists in canon, so maybe....maybe they'll go somewhere with it?
 

X-SOLDIER

Harbinger O Great Justice
AKA
X
Things on assessing information: If you're treating positive and negative statements on something with inherently different weights – you're just fueling your own bias. Period. Despite the Internet's love for it, cynicism isn't at all a more accurate way to look at the world, nor is optimism a more naïve way to look at things – nor is the reverse true for either. Cynicism and optimism are just lenses by which you choose to temper your expectations of news, typically based on historical precedent.

The weights of statements on any matter HAVE to be determined solely by the contextual and/or factual information that they represent. One can't be more or less JUST based on its correlation to being in support of one particular direction vs. another. This goes for everything from climate change to vaccinations to game reviews to political parties. It's important to understand how to dissect the specific wording, context, reliability, and source of those things.

For anything that's said about a film, tv show, book, or whatever – you have to look at who said it, at what time, in what context, and that person's history of statements similar and different. Those are the things that tell you how much weight any comment deserves. Things said at an official marketing press junket carry less weight than what's said behind closed doors – because in the former, you're aware that what you say impacts the marketing of the film. Additionally, disagreements about the direction something took doesn't necessarily mean that they disagree with why it was taken or what the end result was. (That's also literally the whole reason that fan fiction exists). Just because someone had a really good experience working on a project and really believes in everyone involved doesn't mean that they'll think that the end result really pulled everything together.


Things on Luke & character changes: You also have to remember that The Force Awakens fundamentally set the stage for all of those things. Even if The Last Jedi doesn't immediately unpack Episode 7's mystery boxes (or chooses to twist some of them on their heads), everything that film does is a result of context set up by the film that precedes it. J.J. Abrams is the one who put Luke in a new movie with literally no lines & also killed Han thus preventing ever having the three of them be reunited with one another in the sequel trilogy. Doing that fundamentally necessitated that Luke be different from the person who felt his friends being in danger from across the galaxy and rushed in to save them in TESB. This is because that film to follow a new cast, rather than having Luke take a front-and-center role as the main optimistic hero, but rather have him become something very different. In case you're wondering where that came from: The George Lucas-approved "Col. Kurtz" version of Luke Skywalker was already outlined in concept art that was done all the way back in 2013.


Mark Hamill having fundamental disagreements with that version of Luke is totally fine, especially because he really loves the optimistic hero he played in the OT, and he really, deeply loves that character, the same way Billy Dee loves Lando. They've been carrying those characters OT legacy in their heads for decades, and have them as those versions in their minds, because they aren't looking at them from a storytelling perspective. The opinions they have about those characters, what they mean to them personally, and the opportunities that they'd wanted to've had with them is VERY different from looking at the story or media that's produced and the role that they play within it, and their opinions on what that means.

Depending on the time of the story being told, Yoda will go from from a being shown only as a seemingly senile, wizened-old marsh muppet sage who moonlights as a backpack, to being shown as an acrobatic, lightsaber-wielding, force-lightning-catching badass who goes about commanding troops with clear vision and authority. Obi-Wan goes from being the most trustworthy person in the prequels, to having the audacity to tell Luke that uncle Owen was being dishonest about what Anakin's role was during the Clone Wars... and then upon clarifying that Anakin was actually a Jedi, Obi-Wan just Luke a totally different lie, rather than actually revealing the truth. Instead of emotionally preparing Luke for facing the eventual truth when he had to come up against Vader, he just primed Luke for having an existential crisis about everything he was doing. Han goes from the lovable scoundrel skeptic with a secret heart of gold, to being the emotionally burned, and begrudgingly re-involved full-believer. The merciless subordinate-choking, child-slaughtering Darth Vader used to be innocent lil' slave orphan Ani Force Jesus. Having any beloved character fall away from the absolute ideal of what they could have become is tough, but just because it falls short of their ultimate potential doesn't mean that they failed their destiny or that someone ruined them by having them change (and George Lucas even signed off on all of the aforementioned changes to those characters he made).


Things on Episode IX: @trash panda Thanks for mentioning that & @The Twilight Mexican nailed the source of that reference. Additionally some other interesting points about seeing references, in the panel for Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order, they mentioned that the drew on the Inquisitors from Rebels, but that their new Inquisitor character, Second Sister had actually been seeded in the Vader comics for them, to help establish her before the game came out. It's worth noting that her first appearance is in issue #19 which is the first issue of the Fortress Vader story arc – the same arc that contains Anakin's visions seemingly showing how Palpatine was involved in his creation in issue #25 which is the final issue. So we do know that story group was directly involved in seeding hints for other properties in that particular comic arc. That Fortress on Mustafar is also the location for Vader Immortal (which started planning 3 years ago), and they also mentioned that there are seeds planted in there as well. Not to mention that the location of the castle itself was seeded in Rogue One, especially since it's supposed to be about the origins around the history of the castle itself on Mustafar – much like the comic does.

On top of that, I forgot to call out before. While Ian Abercrombie, Tim Curry, or Sam Witwer have all frequently provided the voice of Palpatine in various episodes throughout Clone Wars, Battlefront II, etc. While Sam Witwer provided the voice for Palpatine in Rebels in season 2 – in the three finale episode of Rebels, they very specifically got Ian McDiarmid back to record those parts for Palpatine himself. To really ground in how significant that is – those three episodes of Rebels are literally the ONLY time he's ever portrayed Palpatine outside of Episodes I, II, & III (and now Episode IX). Those are also the episodes that involve attempting to seize the power over that Force conduit that transcends time, and that he'd been working to do that on his own as well.

On that note, we also have all the information about the Jedi Temple on coruscant being built over the top of an ancient Sith Temple, where Ahsoka would've indirectly encountered Palpatine through the door in the unfinished episodes, so I'm keeping eyes out for the Clone Wars panel tomorrow to see if there's a possibility that any little hints about Palpatine might still make it in to the final season there as well.

Lastly, some warm feelings for today: (I'm sure that there'll be more on the Episode I panel on Monday, too)





X:neo:
 

X-SOLDIER

Harbinger O Great Justice
AKA
X
Top Bottom