Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * SPOILER THREAD * — Page 22

I thought it was already claimed they'd be a focus in VII, and reduced to far lesser roles thereafter.

Rumor has it that it's the opposite... the main three were supposed to have smaller roles, but Abrams wanted them have to larger roles, so their roles were expanded... at least in Episode VII.

unamochilla2 said:

Abrams wanted them have to larger roles, so their roles were expanded

In that case, thank you Abrams! Star Wars is Luke and Vader, not these random "new" characters who episodes 7-9 plan to introduce.

It's all rumor of course.  Rumor also says that Arndt is no longer part of the film since his script focused too much on the new characters and not enough on the original cast, which is not what Abrams wanted.  Only time will tell for sure.

skyjedi2005 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

unamochilla2 said:

New Mark Hamill interview: http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-28475959

Guess he's going to have that Alec Guinness look for the film. :)

 Lizo did well to keep from geeking-out right there, I like that guy. Wow, wow, wow Mark's words were music to me ears "It's really about the new generation of characters... we're just there to lend our support". So hopefully EpVII will just be a little baton pass to a whole new cast of young heroes!

I am hoping Hamill is just saying that to be kind otherwise i will see VII and not the other 2 films.  It seams like a way to trick original fans into thinking the movies will star the original cast in new adventures only to pull the rug out from under them.

The roles for the big 3 but especially for Hamill and Ford better be substantial not walk on cameos like Nimoy Spock.

Exactly how I feel, SkyJedi.

darklordoftech said:

unamochilla2 said:

Abrams wanted them have to larger roles, so their roles were expanded

In that case, thank you Abrams! Star Wars is Luke and Vader, not these random "new" characters who episodes 7-9 plan to introduce.

In Star Wars, Luke didn't show up until the 15 minute mark, and Vader had 11 minutes of screen time. 

NeverarGreat said:

darklordoftech said:

unamochilla2 said:

Abrams wanted them have to larger roles, so their roles were expanded

In that case, thank you Abrams! Star Wars is Luke and Vader, not these random "new" characters who episodes 7-9 plan to introduce.

Well now that Vader is dead, I guess Star Wars for you is just Luke then?

I'll say this much: KOTOR isn't Star Wars.

The question of "Is it Star Wars without Darth Vader or Luke" is a great one when it comes to the Episodic movies.  The first six movies have in some way been about Vader.  That may be Lucas retconning (it was always about Vader) but the truth is the Skywalker and Vader characters have always been a part of those movies.

If we watch all six films together, it sort of makes sense that its the rise and fall of Darth Vader because that's how Lucas structured them in the end.  The OT by itself is about Luke and Vader with the others as side characters.  With ep. 7, where does the series go?  Isn't the main character (according to Lucas) now gone?  Why even have an ep. 7 if the story is done? Both of the main bad guys are done.  If you're supposed to watch all the episodes together, won't 7-9 seemed tacked on without one of the villains from ep. 1-6 showing up?

The one thing I think that's missing from Ep. 1 is Vader.  I like that film but there is a definite absence there that I think caused people to not think of it as a Star Wars film and I don't think it has to do with Han or Luke missing either.  In ep. 2 Vader starts to show up in subtle ways and then in ep. 3 makes his full appearance.  I believe the reason people liked ep. 3 the most out of the prequels (meaning casual audiences) is because of Vader.  He's that huge of a character.  Think of it this way.  You can make a good Star Wars story without Vader (KOTR, some EU) but they will always pale to the ones that have Vader in them since he is so crucial to Star Wars itself.

ratpack1961 said:

You can make a good Star Wars story without Vader (KOTR)

How is KOTOR a Star Wars story? Not a single character from any the movies appears and the story doesn't affect the movies in any way.

ratpack1961 said:

The question of "Is it Star Wars without Darth Vader or Luke" is a great one when it comes to the Episodic movies.  The first six movies have in some way been about Vader.  That may be Lucas retconning (it was always about Vader) but the truth is the Skywalker and Vader characters have always been a part of those movies.

If we watch all six films together, it sort of makes sense that its the rise and fall of Darth Vader because that's how Lucas structured them in the end.  The OT by itself is about Luke and Vader with the others as side characters.  With ep. 7, where does the series go?  Isn't the main character (according to Lucas) now gone?  Why even have an ep. 7 if the story is done? Both of the main bad guys are done.  If you're supposed to watch all the episodes together, won't 7-9 seemed tacked on without one of the villains from ep. 1-6 showing up?

The one thing I think that's missing from Ep. 1 is Vader.  I like that film but there is a definite absence there that I think caused people to not think of it as a Star Wars film and I don't think it has to do with Han or Luke missing either.  In ep. 2 Vader starts to show up in subtle ways and then in ep. 3 makes his full appearance.  I believe the reason people liked ep. 3 the most out of the prequels (meaning casual audiences) is because of Vader.  He's that huge of a character.  Think of it this way.  You can make a good Star Wars story without Vader (KOTR, some EU) but they will always pale to the ones that have Vader in them since he is so crucial to Star Wars itself.

 Well I'd hope they'll tie it together with the next generation of Skywalker,...the OT did have a subtitle back then of 'From the adventures of Luke Skywalker'

Each trilogy will have a Skywalker to bridge the next hopefully

The things missing from 'The adventures of Anakin Skywalker' were interesting normal characters (no Han Solo or Lando Calrissian type characters), an interesting story (trade blockades are pretty dull), a blossoming romance (well for characters we cared about) and of course The Millennium Falcon

J

Star Wars is all things to all people.

That's my take, anyway.

Tyrphanax said:

ratpack1961 said:

The question of "Is it Star Wars without Darth Vader or Luke" is a great one when it comes to the Episodic movies.  The first six movies have in some way been about Vader.  That may be Lucas retconning (it was always about Vader) but the truth is the Skywalker and Vader characters have always been a part of those movies.

If we watch all six films together, it sort of makes sense that its the rise and fall of Darth Vader because that's how Lucas structured them in the end.  The OT by itself is about Luke and Vader with the others as side characters.  With ep. 7, where does the series go?  Isn't the main character (according to Lucas) now gone?  Why even have an ep. 7 if the story is done? Both of the main bad guys are done.  If you're supposed to watch all the episodes together, won't 7-9 seemed tacked on without one of the villains from ep. 1-6 showing up?

The one thing I think that's missing from Ep. 1 is Vader.  I like that film but there is a definite absence there that I think caused people to not think of it as a Star Wars film and I don't think it has to do with Han or Luke missing either.  In ep. 2 Vader starts to show up in subtle ways and then in ep. 3 makes his full appearance.  I believe the reason people liked ep. 3 the most out of the prequels (meaning casual audiences) is because of Vader.  He's that huge of a character.  Think of it this way.  You can make a good Star Wars story without Vader (KOTR, some EU) but they will always pale to the ones that have Vader in them since he is so crucial to Star Wars itself.

And with this post, the thread goes full TFN.

What do you mean?

AntcuFaalb said:

JediZombie said:

It's a giant universe with endless stories to tell. Why shrink it down to just this one?

Because many of the "endless stories" that have already been told (e.g., EU, PT, and TCW) aren't as appealing as the one (OT).

The PT isn't a "hero's journey", doesn't feel like "the old west in space", and lacks the "used universe" aesthetic. I gather that most OT fans expect one or all of these qualities when looking for more Star Wars. I know I do.

Correct, plus nobody besides hardcore fans knows or cares about characters like Boba and Revan.

Tyrphanax said:

darklordoftech said:

Tyrphanax said:

ratpack1961 said:

The question of "Is it Star Wars without Darth Vader or Luke" is a great one when it comes to the Episodic movies.  The first six movies have in some way been about Vader.  That may be Lucas retconning (it was always about Vader) but the truth is the Skywalker and Vader characters have always been a part of those movies.

If we watch all six films together, it sort of makes sense that its the rise and fall of Darth Vader because that's how Lucas structured them in the end.  The OT by itself is about Luke and Vader with the others as side characters.  With ep. 7, where does the series go?  Isn't the main character (according to Lucas) now gone?  Why even have an ep. 7 if the story is done? Both of the main bad guys are done.  If you're supposed to watch all the episodes together, won't 7-9 seemed tacked on without one of the villains from ep. 1-6 showing up?

The one thing I think that's missing from Ep. 1 is Vader.  I like that film but there is a definite absence there that I think caused people to not think of it as a Star Wars film and I don't think it has to do with Han or Luke missing either.  In ep. 2 Vader starts to show up in subtle ways and then in ep. 3 makes his full appearance.  I believe the reason people liked ep. 3 the most out of the prequels (meaning casual audiences) is because of Vader.  He's that huge of a character.  Think of it this way.  You can make a good Star Wars story without Vader (KOTR, some EU) but they will always pale to the ones that have Vader in them since he is so crucial to Star Wars itself.

And with this post, the thread goes full TFN.

What do you mean?

I mean that, come on, are people on on OT.com really considering the infamous TFN stance that without some Darth Vader connection, Star Wars isn't Star Wars? That just because the new trilogy may not fit with Lucas' "Tragedy of Darth Vader" retcon, it's not worthwhile?

Maybe the new film is about trying to live with the shadow of Vader's legacy hanging over them. Maybe Luke is a hermit now, ostracized because of his connection to Vader and the thought that if Jedi can go bad and do what Vader did, the galaxy would be better off without them.

darklordoftech said:

Correct, plus nobody besides hardcore fans knows or cares about characters like Boba and Revan.

At least the former is untrue. I would argue that Boba Fett has become almost as recognizable and popular as Darth Vader is, to the detriment of his character.

Aside from that, I know plenty of Star Wars fans who I wouldn't classify as "hardcore" who know plenty about Boba and Revan.

I agree with you that Star Wars is as much about Luke as it is about Vader, but nobody in my entire family has a clue who Boba is.

darklordoftech said:

Tyrphanax said:

darklordoftech said:

Tyrphanax said:

ratpack1961 said:

The question of "Is it Star Wars without Darth Vader or Luke" is a great one when it comes to the Episodic movies.  The first six movies have in some way been about Vader.  That may be Lucas retconning (it was always about Vader) but the truth is the Skywalker and Vader characters have always been a part of those movies.

If we watch all six films together, it sort of makes sense that its the rise and fall of Darth Vader because that's how Lucas structured them in the end.  The OT by itself is about Luke and Vader with the others as side characters.  With ep. 7, where does the series go?  Isn't the main character (according to Lucas) now gone?  Why even have an ep. 7 if the story is done? Both of the main bad guys are done.  If you're supposed to watch all the episodes together, won't 7-9 seemed tacked on without one of the villains from ep. 1-6 showing up?

The one thing I think that's missing from Ep. 1 is Vader.  I like that film but there is a definite absence there that I think caused people to not think of it as a Star Wars film and I don't think it has to do with Han or Luke missing either.  In ep. 2 Vader starts to show up in subtle ways and then in ep. 3 makes his full appearance.  I believe the reason people liked ep. 3 the most out of the prequels (meaning casual audiences) is because of Vader.  He's that huge of a character.  Think of it this way.  You can make a good Star Wars story without Vader (KOTR, some EU) but they will always pale to the ones that have Vader in them since he is so crucial to Star Wars itself.

And with this post, the thread goes full TFN.

What do you mean?

I mean that, come on, are people on on OT.com really considering the infamous TFN stance that without some Darth Vader connection, Star Wars isn't Star Wars? That just because the new trilogy may not fit with Lucas' "Tragedy of Darth Vader" retcon, it's not worthwhile?

Maybe the new film is about trying to live with the shadow of Vader's legacy hanging over them. Maybe Luke is a hermit now, ostracized because of his connection to Vader and the thought that if Jedi can go bad and do what Vader did, the galaxy would be better off without them.

darklordoftech said:

Correct, plus nobody besides hardcore fans knows or cares about characters like Boba and Revan.

At least the former is untrue. I would argue that Boba Fett has become almost as recognizable and popular as Darth Vader is, to the detriment of his character.

Aside from that, I know plenty of Star Wars fans who I wouldn't classify as "hardcore" who know plenty about Boba and Revan.

I agree with you that Star Wars is as much about Luke as it is about Vader, but nobody in my entire family has a clue who Boba is.

 Maybe your family should get out of the house once in a while.  I know plenty of non-SW people who know Boba Fett, or at least have heard of him.

darklordoftech said:

unamochilla2 said:

Abrams wanted them have to larger roles, so their roles were expanded

In that case, thank you Abrams! Star Wars is Luke and Vader, not these random "new" characters who episodes 7-9 plan to introduce.

 But you haven't even met them yet.  After Ep 4, you could have said SW is Luke and Vader, not random characters like Yoda or Lando who Ep 5 plans to introduce.

DominicCobb said:

darklordoftech said:

unamochilla2 said:

Abrams wanted them have to larger roles, so their roles were expanded

In that case, thank you Abrams! Star Wars is Luke and Vader, not these random "new" characters who episodes 7-9 plan to introduce.

In Star Wars, Luke didn't show up until the 15 minute mark, and Vader had 11 minutes of screen time. 

 This is a great point.

TV's Frink said:

darklordoftech said:

unamochilla2 said:

Abrams wanted them have to larger roles, so their roles were expanded

In that case, thank you Abrams! Star Wars is Luke and Vader, not these random "new" characters who episodes 7-9 plan to introduce.

 But you haven't even met them yet.  After Ep 4, you could have said SW is Luke and Vader, not random characters like Yoda or Lando who Ep 5 plans to introduce.

I'll give you that (assuming that it's not at the expense of the OOT characters).