Say Lucas had handed over his company to Kathleen Kennedy, but without selling it to Disney. Would things still have played out roughly the same? Are Disney basically just funding them (and forcing to release Solo in May)? Or would there actually be a significant difference? Maybe the sequel trilogy but no spinoffs?
From what I understand Solo was being developed by Lawrence Kasdan even before the Disney buyout, and Lucas had at one point planned to write/direct Episode VII himself. So it’s possible that in terms of the kinds of films we’re seeing (sequels, spin-offs) things would be the same, but other things would be quite different I’m sure (who’s making the films, when they’re being released, etc.).
I’m pretty sure that Lucas was also brainstorming ideas for the Death Star plans backstory before he sold to Disney, which was the premise for Rogue One.
He already did that with ATOC.
None of this speculation makes any sense. Kennedy wouldn’t have taken over LFL if she wasn’t allowed to make films. >By the time Lucas dies, she’ll probably be retiring herself. Not to mention, Lucas was planning on gearing up >production on more SW films before he sold the franchise, so there’s no reason they’d have to wait until after his >death (what?). Plus, the sequels have, in fact, used many elements of Lucas’s treatments.
Lucas changed his mind while writing the new scripts. He said, “If I’d held onto the company I could have done it, and then it would have been done. Of course a lot of fans would have hated it, just like they did Phantom Menace and everything but at least the whole story from beginning to end would be told.”
The key word for me is could. At some point, he decided it wasn’t a good idea. In retrospect he might be annoyed that Disney changed a significant portion of the saga, but if Disney hadn’t created a sequel trilogy I imagine he would let the saga stay at a clearly defined rise and fall of Anakin. But once Disney came along he knew the ST was inevitable and gave the discarded scripts anyway.