Rogue One trailer

[Tonguez]

Greyhawk: The story you tell while following a Paladin's group will be much different from the story you tell in The Hold of the Sea Princes, but it's still Greyhawk. I'm looking forward to seeing a little of the universe's dark underbelly.

didn't we already see that in Jabba the Hutts Palace?
plus theres the Rebels cartoon (is that canon?)

Why not set it in the Star Wars universe? Ain't the Star Wars universe great? Does it need Luke, the force, the Death Star, etc, to be great?

I suppose its now confirmed that ET is part of the Star Wars universe - so I suppose thats an argument in favour of 'other stories'

but really if it doesn't at the very least feature the Force then what exists to differentiate the Franchise from 'Firefly' or any other Sci-Fi setting?

EDIT: (lol just did some googling and apparently a couple of Star Wars ships including an Imperial Shuttle and a Starlight Intruder appear in Firefly. Firefly also references Aliens, Starship Troopers and Brisco County Jr.
Apparently Star Wars also shares a universe with Indiana Jones)

 

[Hussar]

The universe ain't gonna change, but you could have story that has nothin to do with the Rebels, the Empire, their TFA carboncopies, the force, Jedis, Siths and all the cast of characters that are really old now. Like a Guardians of the Galaxy movie, but in the Star Wars universe.

Umm, I'm sure I'm not the only one to see the irony in calling Guardians of the Galaxy a "new" movie. Considering it's pretty much follows the Avengers formula to a T, how do you consider it a "new" movie?

If there's no Rebels, Jedi, or Empire at all - they are completely removed from the story, what makes this a Star Wars movie? Tropes are important. Strip out all those tropes and you have... generic SF universe? Maybe? And note, none of the cast from the other movies apparently appears in this one. No Luke or Leia, no Han or anything like that.

We might have a Darth Vader, but, meh, nothing wrong with a shot of what Vader was like between the prequels and the originals.

 

[MarkB]

Why not set it in the Star Wars universe? Ain't the Star Wars universe great?

What makes it great? Once you strip out all the iconic elements that have been used in the existing movies, what's left that makes it identifiably Star Wars, and not just generic-sci-fi-setting?

 

[Ryujin]

didn't we already see that in Jabba the Hutts Palace?
plus theres the Rebels cartoon (is that canon?)

Are dipping your toes in the water and diving in, head first, the same thing?

 

[Umbran]

If the Star Wars universe needs Luke and the force to have an identity, then it will never have original stories after the original trilogy. They will all look like the TFA and be pretty bad.

Dude, we already know that Luke is not appearing in Rogue One. We don't have any clear statement that the Force is a major player, either. Maybe Vader as the BBEG, but that could be just as a looming presence they have to outrun.

You are, of course, free to have your own opinion on what makes a movie good or bad. But I'm going to guess that most of the rest of us will have a good time at the movies.

 

[trappedslider]

if you take out everything that makes it star wars then you might as well call it star bores,since it wouldn't be star wars

 

[delericho]

What makes it great? Once you strip out all the iconic elements that have been used in the existing movies, what's left that makes it identifiably Star Wars, and not just generic-sci-fi-setting?

Maybe what they should do is take out only some of the iconic elements while still using some others to ground the story in the setting. That way you get a recognisably new story that's also recognisably a Star Wars story.

Of course, that pretty much describes what they are doing. Funny, that.

 

[Elodan]

didn't we already see that in Jabba the Hutts Palace?
plus theres the Rebels cartoon (is that canon?)

Star Wars: Rebels is canon.
http://www.starwars.com/news/the-legendary-star-wars-expanded-universe-turns-a-new-page

 

[Kramodlog]

Umm, I'm sure I'm not the only one to see the irony in calling Guardians of the Galaxy a "new" movie. Considering it's pretty much follows the Avengers formula to a T, how do you consider it a "new" movie?

I didn't call it a new movie. You just did.

If there's no Rebels, Jedi, or Empire at all - they are completely removed from the story, what makes this a Star Wars movie?

That it is set in a galaxy far far away. After that, writers should use their imagination.

 

[Kramodlog]

I suppose its now confirmed that ET is part of the Star Wars universe - so I suppose thats an argument in favour of 'other stories'

E.T. 2: The Revenge.

[uoqte]but really if it doesn't at the very least feature the Force then what exists to differentiate the Franchise from 'Firefly' or any other Sci-Fi setting?[/quote]Is Star Wars really that undistinguishable from Star Trek, the Alien universe, Doctor Who Cares, Firefly and Guardians of the Galaxy?