Sure they are intended to refer to the immediate political situation, but I find them to be somewhat timeless statements as well. One can apply to the democracy applause statement to the end of the Roman Republic (though substituting democracy for republic of course).
Could work. Different protagonists, different parts of the galaxy, different aims. The whole of the first Thrawn trilogy doesn’t take that long in-universe.
Errm, did you miss all that “What Is Thy Bidding, My Master” groveling he did before that? And the way he deferred to Tarkin? Oh, he took shit, all right.
Yeah, in the original movie, Vader was a minion - important but secondary to Tarkin, and having no especial relationship with the emperor.
And then they realized that he was much too great of a villain to be a minion, and so they retconned him into being more important than they originally planned.
They should have edited out all the bowing and scraping in ESB and RotJ, then…he remained a minion, right up to turfing the prune into the pit.
Re: The Thrawn triology, I wonder if the idea of having a series of well-regarded books to fall back on would sound attractive to Disney execs after what is widely considered a big fail on the larger story arc for 7-9. Early versus late Game of Thrones is also an example of how much better it is when you have good books as a building block.
From the above comments, I gather a Thrawn film series is doable and I also understand that Thrawn himself is considered one of the great Star Wars characters which is a massive bonus. If there is one difference between the OT and the later films it is the dearth of truly memorable characters. So many from the OT who have become pop-culture icons, whereas afterwards Kylo Ren is the only one I would consider even moderately memorable.
A year or so ago, I quoted a Starlog interview with Gary Kurtz PRIOR to Empire Strikes back, and you are right - they didn’t plan it as a 9 part series.
I was supposed to be 12.
Now how much of the story arc they had plannned, whether any 1-3 or 7-9 characters were even gleams in their eyes, I can’t say. I can’t even prove that in 1977 that statement was true.
But it was definitely true in 1980.
As for the sequel trilogy, this talk of the “new three” characters makes sense. And it makes me realize, I have no idea what Poe was supposed to be. He was a hot mess of a character, bumbling his way through, making messes wherever he goes. Was he supposed to be someone we cared about? Because I didn’t. He was about as important as General Veers, or
the ice cream maker guy from Empire.
Speaking of the multiple death stars, a story I’ve heard (don’t know if it’s true) is that in one version of the original Star Wars, the plan was to have only one Death Star destruction - the one at the end of “RotJ” (picture it - “Star Wars” is about the rescue of Leia and the recovery of the Death Star plans, “Empire” is pretty much the same, but Jedi gets the destruction of the one and only Death Star) - but since Lucas didn’t expect to have the opportunity to make three movies, he put the destruction of the death star in Star Wars - which left him with a certain story pacing problem.
Well, except for the part about starring young Luke, Leia and Han.
You should try to get your hands on The Star Wars.
I get that fans of the former extended universe think Thrawn is just the greatest, but as a casual fan only, I am just too exhausted with Star Wars at this point. Not because they made too many movies. Because they made too many bad movies. It’s to the point where even if they made a good movie, I’d be loathe to see it. I mean, I hear The Mandalorian is supposed to be pretty good. But I have likewise made no effort to see it.
Point being, I can see how fans of the EU might be hyped to see a Thrawn trilogy, but I question just how motivated the casual movie-going public could be to see it since they squandered all the hype on the New Trilogy.
Good question.
VI, V, Mandalorian, IV, Rogue One…III, VIII, II…, IX, I
Solo would probably be in with III, VIII, and so forth.
I liked the sequel trilogy, consider my fandom more than casual, and yet have less than zero interest in anything with Thrawn. He is absolutely of no interest to me just as a character, and as a starring character, negatively so. Am so completely over affable/genius evil May Sues. Why they brought him back for Rebels, I have no fucking idea.
Considering the name drop in The Mandalorian, I think Thrawn is likely to show up in the Ahsoka series that’s coming. And if so, they may spin forth an adapted version of his novel stories.
Or they could be recast in almost two seconds. Sebastian Stan could be Luke and Alden Ehrenreich could be Han. Finding someone for Leia would take the longest.
Do you think they should make movies for people who won’t see them even if they are good?
I really enjoy the genius evil bad guys and the biggest problem with the prequels and sequels is they don’t have a good antagonist. Kyle was an emo baby and Palpatine was interesting but due to working behind the scenes had a minimal role.
The character of General Hux in the sequels is a clear problem here as well. It isn’t clear whether he is supposed to be a proto-Hitler villain, or the whiny inept comic relief who gets to be the butt of “prank phone call” jokes. How’d he manage to get promoted to the rank of general at age 33 anyway?
Do you think they would make movies if people won’t see them no matter how good they are? Movies that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and need to garner a billion dollars, give or take, in ticket sales to be profitable?
Right, and as you said you will never be in those billions so they need to make a movie that other people will enjoy. I was in a similar place to you after the sequels but the Mandolorian showed me that and engaging Star Wars story can be made. They should aim the next movie squarely at the fans of the Mandalorian.
Sure. If they do the market research that I have no doubt monster corporations like Disney do, and they see that there is a substantial profit to be had in a Mandalorion or Thrawn or whatever movie, given how much they will have to spend to produce and market it, based on how many people are likely to see it, then by all means they should (or at least might as well) make the movie. Especially if they can’t come up with some more profitable venture.
I just wish they would come up with some “more profitable venture” that isn’t yet another tired remake, reboot, or reimagining.