Rob Cushing wrote: "Will there be a third trilogy down the road? Will there be a SW 7-9? GL has said that he may or may not do it, but he did mention he may do it someday. So what do you think? Perhaps in another 10-15 years GL (or maybe Rick McCallum will take over the SW franchise ala Star Trek's Gene Roddenbury to Rick Berman)may have a different trilogy set up, with Hamill, Ford, and Fisher all around their 60's. Perhaps Luke may be training his and Han & Leia's kids, Leia is running the New Republic, and Solo is still running around in an aging Falcon? Some new threat to the galaxy? Or an old one? "

ACastel865 wrote: "George Lucas and Rick MCallum have stated that they would do Episodes 7, 8 & 9 if the prequels turn out to be (very) successful. I don't believe that would be the real problem as to whether the sequel triglogy would be made. The REAL problem would be the main cast from Episodes 4, 5 & 6. Harrison Ford has stated that he has no interest in EVER portraying Han Solo again (too bad, because he is the one & only Han Solo). Rumor has it that Mark Hamill, also known as the voice of the 'Joker', does not even acknowledge the character of Luke Skywalker (even though Hamill stated that once during the filming of the original trilogy, George Lucas had spoken to him about portraying Luke Skywalker as an Obi-Wan Kenobi-like in a possible sequel to the original trilogy). Carrie Fisher is now a 'script doctor' (rumored to be helping George Lucas on the female characters of the Prequels), which leads me to believe that she is now finished with the on-screen part of her Hollywood career. As for the rest of the cast, I have been hearing that when they have been approached by George Lucas' people for 'potentially' being apart of the Prequels, they begin to demand ridiculous amounts of money. (Example: The rumor of David Prowse reprising the role of Darth Vader towards the end of Episode 3). Personally, would honored to be involved in such a grand epic as Stars Wars. I hope that when the time comes these people change their collective minds. But if all else fails, I propose that George & Rick just go with an all new cast for the main characters. For those of you who feel it wouldn't be the same, think about it this way. So far each trilogy has different actors for the main characters (for obvious reasons), so why do the same thing with the third trilogy. 
Now as for the storyline of the third trilogy, this could still be the continuation of Anakin Skywalker's story. Only the protaganist would be Han & Leia's youngest child, Anakin Solo. This would be his time on the edge of good & evil, much like Anakin Skywalker in the prequels and Luke Skywalker in the original trilogy."

'Deepthroat' wrote: "I have always believed that there would be a third trilogy, but the new ending of Jedi and some of GL's recent comments have made that seem less likely.  I think for it to work without seeming tacked on, it would have to be set in the distant future, it couldn't be just a new set of adventures for our old heros, and it would have to have a real dramatic purpose that is thematically connected to the first six episodes.  One idea--if the first six are all Anakin's story, then perhaps the third trilogy could link to him--perhaps it has to.  I recall that one of Lucas' restrictions on the novelists was that they couldn't resurrect or clone Darth Vader.  Perhaps his role in the third trilogy would be like Ben's through most of the the second (i.e. eps. 4-6)--trying to set right something that he has done wrong (Vader would certainly have a lot to make up for) or preventing the past from repeating itself."

Dustin Booher wrote: "Lucas has hinted at a third trilogy but has also said that it isn't "neccessary" to the story.  Where the prequels are needed to explain how things came to be as they are at the beginning of ANH, the end of ROTJ pretty much wraps things up.  If there is a third trilogy, Lucas, or whoever writes it, will have to come up with a story and characters almost from scratch.  Mark Hamill was told by Lucas that if he ever did the third trilogy he'd want Luke back in more of an Obi-Wan type role "passing the torch" to a new generation of Jedi.  In the novels set after ROTJ Han & Leia have at least 3 kids that I know of; This next generation would most likely be the focus of the stories rather than the geriatric heroes of the current trilogy.  Also Harrison Ford has stated that he never wants to play Han Solo agian.  If they got somebody else to do it it would just seem cheesy.  Finally, no real villians were left.  The prequels will set up the characters of Vader and the Emperror but the current trilogy leaves no real threats to the galaxy.  Many new villains have emerged from the novels but, I don't know if any of those who survived would be able to carry a story well enough to appeal to the masses, not just the people who read those books.  I supposeonly Lucas and his people can make those decisions though so we'll just have to wait and see what happens."

Joe wrote: "Originally there were 12 Episodes. Now there will probably only be 6. He states that anything after Ep. 6 would just be a sequel; not part of the actual story. One rumor I have heard is that there will be a villain in the prequels (perhaps "Darth Maul" or "Darth Sidious"?) will get frozen in Carbonite and be thawed in Ep. 7. He would lure Luke and Han's children to the darkside and be successful. The storyline would be turning them back. Tha Man Himself stated that Star Wars is the story of Anakin Skywalker. I thought maybe Anakin's spirit could guide Luke, kind of like Obi-wan. It is too bad that Sebestian (Anakin Skywalker) Shaw passed away not too long ago. Well with Lucas's technology, it probably would be possible anyways. Another problem- Harrison Ford has stated he will not appear in any more Star Wars films. He wants to move on from it. So no Han (or at least no Harrison) in Ep. 7-9. I don't think Lucas will make Ep. 7-9 because there is too much 'canon' in the novels, games, etc., that he would have to follow. Don't get me wrong- I certainly hope there will be yet another trilogy! I just don't think it will happen. And besides he thawed character in Ep. 7-9, who could the villain(s) be? The Emperor is dead (I don't consider the cloning)! ...But...imagine how many people would try to replace him...."

Eric Amber wrote: "I read an interesting passage from the book "Empire Building, The Real Life Story Of Starwars" which may shed some light on the third trilogy. Apparently several ideas were thrown around about the plotline of Return of the Jedi shortly after the release of Empire.  Producer for Empire, Gary Kurtz, suggested Lucas stick to his original story for episode six, in which "Leia is crowned queen of her people" and " Darth Vader is defeated."  Kurtz went on to explain that Lucas was under such pressure to complete his saga that he decided to bring in the Emperor as the main bad guy and essentially have the rebels defeat the Empire entirely in episode six. 
   
This information led me to speculate on what I think might be happenning with the third trilogy.  Apperently Leia was to be crowned Queen (maybe of Naboo) bringing a new center to the rebellion.  Later in episodes 7-9, Luke would train Jedi who would eventually defeat the Emperor.  This storyline would have allowed for a cohesivness throughout the entire 9 part saga. 
  
This leads to the main concern with what would 7-9 be about now that Jedi was done differently.  How can a cohesive storyline be maintained.  Perhaps Leia would still be crowned queen in this new trilogy.  That would provide a fitting ending to episode 9, parralleling it with the coronation in episode 1.  Perhaps the main enemies would be the dark jedi who were in hiding during the rein of the empire.  Maybe there are characters in episodes 1-3 that show up again in the last trilogy to tie it all together.  It would be nice to see the full resoration of the republic and the jedi in the end of episode 9.  In Jedi this is only implied with Luke's defeat of the Emperor. 
  
Any comments would be appreciated."

EZ9D9 (formerly HanSolo206) wrote: "When and if GL decides to make to make a sequile trilogy, why not make it 30 years after ANH?  That way it puts Anakin Solo as a 20 y/o Jedi, with the plot revolving aroung him and Jaina and Jacen, Mark Hamil cast as Luke in an Obi-Wansque roll.  I'm sure Carrie Fisher wouldn't turn down a chance to reprise her roll as Leia.  Now for an idea that is really disturbing, if Harrison Ford doesn't want to be Han anymore insted of casting someone else, and this is the disturbing part, have his past catch up to him and write him off.  As for the baddies in there like someone else said maybe there were Dark Jedi or Sith Knights that went into hiding when Palpatine came to power, or maybe some of Luke's students turn to the Dark Side because of jealousy towards Anakin?? I't just a thought, and feedback would be cool."

Zeke Perez wrote: "I do remember reading somewhere that there are certain rules and guidelines one must follow when writing a novel, comic, video game, or anything relating to Star Wars. One of the rules states the timeline that the books and the comics must follow. If I remember right, no one can write about events that happen (I think) 30 years up and to A New Hope and past 25 years from Return of the Jedi.  So, there is a certain time frame you can write in, which is up until the prequels start, and immediatly following ROTJ until 25 years from the end of ROTJ.  I always assumed this is "hollowed ground" - space reserved for the possiblility of Lucas making new films.  So, if this is the case, you can expect the next trilogy to take place 25 years after Jedi. 
  
I also heard that you can't write about certain things, like the Clone Wars, the childhood of all the main characters, how Han and Chewie met, and any SERIOUS love relationship (like marriage) between Luke and anyone. Despite having some being covered in the prequels, perhaps the rest will outline a new trilogy if one should ever be made."

ACastel865 wrote: "I think that EZ9D9 has a great idea about the non-appearence of Han Solo in the sequel trilogy, and it would work. Since it is very, very (ah, forget about it...it's definetely) unlikely that Harrison Ford would ever portray Han Solo again, the sequel trilogy could still be made. Here is why... at the end f the Boba Fett tale in the book, Tales of The Bounty Hunters, Han Solo & Boba Fett are engaged in what sounds like potentially fatal hand-to-hand combat. Han Solo tells Boba Fett something like, "If we don't stop one of us is going to die". Boba Fett responds with something like, "Then let us continue this contest, like when we were young...". Since this tale should be somewhat canon... why not have Boba Fett end up killing Han Solo, making him, even more so, the most deadliest and feared bounty hunter in the universe. The only problems that could possibly destroy this potential storyline is that fact that I don't know  exactly when this part of the Boba Fett tale takes place in the SW Universe Timeline and how old Han & Leia's children are at the time of the tale."

Anthony Renaud wrote: "What would be the point for Lucas?  I mean really. By creating the prequels, he's set up the series to be a story of Anakin Skywalker, which completes itself in ROTJ.  End of story. Good bye.  The idea of nine movies usually implies that there is one overall story to be told.   Sure there was basically one overall story in part 4-6, and there will be one overall story in parts 1-3, BUT together they make one bigger overall story, that of Anakin Skywalker's rise, fall, and redemption.  To add parts 7-9 implies that there would be one huge overall story spanning 1-9.   The villian of the first six movies (the Emperor) has been defeated.  To introduce another villian for the last three would be creating a whole different story, just involving the some of the same characters - nothing to really tie it together to the rest of the overall story. I couldn't see why Lucas would do that. 

Unless of course, this is really the story of R2-D2."

That is a very good way to explain how and why Han is absent from a Sequil Trilogy but as you did have your doubts about where it fits in the timeline, they are right. Tales of the Bounty Hunters happens a little after the Thrawn Trilogy which happened 19 years after ANH.  The twins are only about 11 and Anakin is only 9, and there are books that take place afterwards.  So Han suvives the fight."

Joe wrote: "To ACastel865: No way! I really don't mean to offend you or anything, but that story is completely impossible. For all the fans who don't read the books, this would make no sense. Potential Dialogue from the 3rd trilogy if this happens: 

Luke: "Where's Han?" 
Leia: "Oh he was killed by Boba Fett a few years back." 
Luke: "I thought he died in the Sarlacc!" 
Leia: "Nope. He got out. George Lucas's vision was for him to die, but some author made him come back and kill Han, contradicting Lucas's story." 
(Boba Fett walks on) 
Boba: "Yep. Here I am." 
Luke: "Oh...alright..." 

See? It just doesn't work. 

P.S. to EZ9D9: The Thrawn Trilogy isn't quite 19 years after ANH, more like 10 or so. 

Again: I really don't want to criticize what you guys are saying.

TexasFett wrote: "Anthony may be right in saying, "Unless of course, this is really the story of R2-D2."  R2 plays a big part in the current movies and is rumored to do the same in the Prequels, why couldn't it all be about him, or at least a second main theme? 

I think that if for some reason Rick MCallum has to take over Star Wars and does do a final sequel it will be about Han and Leia's kids with Luke as their mentor.  Using his Jedi powers he should be able to extend his life past the other characters other than the droids and Chewie so that can explain why Han isn't back.  But I think if Lucas does the sequel the only character we will know is Luke (I don't think he will go with the books).  And Luke will probably die to protect his trainees or the Republic.  The main reason I think the results will be different are because supposedly only Lucas knows the story, even if it is written down somewhere it is probably only parts and very vague. 

I also agree that Star Wars (for now) seems to be about Anakin, and that adding another whole story to the end wouldn't seem right.  But there are several ways of doing it: cloning Vader, his ghost haunting or helping a new young Jedi, a story of Anakin Solo, or all three."

Valynis wrote: "Ok, Here's what I think will be in the Sequels. 

First, the overall story. 2 theories: 

1- Luke finally fall in the dark side and his nephews / niece will take him back to the light side. It's a possibility. In ROTJ, Luke really used his anger to defeat Darth Vader. Lets face it: he crossed the line.  He retreated right after, but maybe it was too late. Luke had tasted the dark side. Some events early in the sequels might push him to use his anger and his agressiveness, falling for good in the dark side. While it may be logic, this theory has a big fail: repetitive. That would be the same plot than SW 4-6. Of course, there may be a new way to exploite this, new details that will change the "decor". But the basic story would be the same. 
  
2- The Solo kids are the one to be strongly tempted by the dark side of the force and Uncle Luke will fight to get him, her or them back to the light side. This theory is very popular and seems to be believed as the most probable one. It is in fact the theory that gives the most opportunities to surprise. Which kid will turn to the dark side? What will turn him, her or them? While this possibility may look like a repetition of the upcoming prequels (the pupil who turns to the dark side), there is more a feeling of change compared to the first theory. 

I think theory 2 is better, like most of you all I believe. It offers more variation of stories and looks more interesting. I wouldn't dismiss theory 1 that fast, though, because of this "Luke crossed the line" thing. It doesn't annihilate theory 2, but it gives a big hint to theory 1. 

Now, the characters: 

Luke. He will be there, no doubt. And Mark Hamill, if available, will do him. I remember reading in various places that Hamill was really interested to come back in Luke's skin. And I believe that Luke is the main character of the entire Star Wars story. I know a lot of people think that the main character is Anakin Skywalker. I think it's Luke. I know he's not in the prequels but here's how I see it. The first trilogy tells the events conducting to his birth, the middle trilogy tells his  eginning in life as a hero and Jedi and the last trilogy tells his last fight and death. I don't remember the entire title of the Journal of the Whills, but I think it says "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker etc...". Anyway, the novelization overtitle the entire trilogy "The Adventure of Luke Skywalker". I think it's a big clue on to who's the main character. And the fact that Lucas decided to began with ANH goes in that direction. 
  
Does Luke have to die? I firmly believe that yes, he will have to die in the end. It's dramatically almost an obligation, in order to close the loop. 

Han Solo. He'll be there too I think. But he will die early. It's entirely speculation from me, but here's how I see it. Forget about Solo dying before the sequels. It would be too frustrating and too cheap in terms of storytelling. Don't forget, Solo is the third character in importance in the middle trilogy (the first being Luke and the second being Vader). You can't erase him like that. So, he will be there, even if Harrison Ford refuses to do it. So, better be prepared to see another Solo portrayal. I know it's not funny. I know it will be hard. But you better prepare your mind to it. After all, I prefer to see another Solo face than to never see him again or, worst, to never see any sequel at all. 

Why would Solo die early? First, it could be a good incentive to Ford to change his mind (after all, the character has changed enough to be interesting and the little screen time would make this work a smaller involvement (You can't kill hope in someone's mind!)). Second, and foremost, it would be the step 1 to the kid(s) to give in to anger. I see it that way: Solo does something heroic against the Bad Guy, but the Baddie has the last word, under the very eyes of the victim's son(s)/daughter. SW 7 seems to be the better place for Han Solo's death. It would mirror Ben's death in ANH. 

Leia. That's the character I figure the least. I think she will be there in the beginning of the sequels for the same reasons that Han will be too. But will she die early too? What will be her place in the  story? In the post-ROTJ sories, Leia becomes Chief of State after Mon Mothma. I believe she will still be the Head of the New Republic in the sequels. We can notice that the NR seems to never get those stable bases to build on in the novels. I think it's made on purpose. The NR in the sequels will still have problems and it will be resolved there. Leia, being the Chief, will have a major role in that part of the plot. In the Jedi-part of the plot, she could represent the step 2 for the fall of the kid(s).How? Maybe she will refuse to use her political position for vengence of her husband's death and that will piss the kid(s) off. It may be something else, too. Like I said, Leia is the character I'm less sure about. 

I have the feeling that Carrie Fisher would caome back as Leia Organna Solo. Just the fact that she was there at the premiere of the Special Edition and that we saw her in some SW-related events make me believe that. 

The Solo kids. For those who don't read the novels, they're inexistant. So I will introduce them a bit: 

Han and Leia has three kids: Jacen, Jaina and Anakin Solo. Jacen, a boy, and Jaina, a girl, are twins and Anakin, another boy, is about one or two years (I don't remember clearly) younger. They are potentially strong in the force. Luke is the one responsible for their training. 

I'm sure the kids will be in the sequels. I know they originate from the novels and George Lucas has the right to send them to the void. But the fact that these characters exist is too big a detail to be neglicted. I have the feeling that Lucas is the man responsible for the presence of the kids in the novels. And the fact that we witness the birth of two of them in the first trilogy of novels (Zahn's one) is a good indicator. 

Now, the big question: which one will turn to the dark side? Your guess is as good as mine. Many think that it will be Anakin. It's not a bad choice except that some think it will be him because of his name. That is not a good reason for me. This choice of name could be a trap to precisely make you think that way. Personnally, I would prefer one of the twins. Why? Because of this twin side of them. It would add tension between the protagonist and the antagonist if they were twins. It would be like father and son in the middle trilogy, only even stronger. Imagine a Jacen / Jaina duel in the end of one of the movies... That would be powerful! So, which one will turn bad? I'd love to see a bad Jedi girl. That would make a change. But, let's face it, SW is kinda family-oriented. I know that what I'm about to say is sexist, and I agree, but in order to stay politically correct, Jacen is more likely to be the one who turns bad. In the current movies, there is not a single woman in the imperial side (then again, there's not a lot of women at all). So the sequels may follow this line. Now, I don't say that Jacen would make a less interesting evil character than Jaina. The Solo kids, as we know them now, are not developped enough to make a good guess about that. So it's guess time. Mine would be Jacen, with reserves for Jaina. What's yours? 

The Evil Bad Guy. Of course, there will be a bad guy. He will be the one who seduce (I should say induce) the young Solo into the dark side of the force. Who will he be? Surely not the Emperor. Forget Palpatine: he's dead. Forget the clone: it's bad crap (in my opinion). So, who? I think it will be a character introduced in the prequels. Let's call him Darth Sidious. Now, this is pure speculation from me, I'm warning you. Ok. DS is a goddam badass dark Jedi. Ultimate evil, ok? Now, Palpatine beats him in the prequels, or maybe Darth Vader does. Palp fight him because he don't want any force-user stronger than him around. He gets rid of DS, but this one does not die! He comes back in the sequels. 

Or maybe Darth Sidious is Palpy's master all along. There could be millions of reasons why we never see him in the middle trilogy. Or maybe we see him but we don't know it. Could he be... Lando!;) (just a joke! just a joke!) 

I think that's the best way to establish a good villain for the prequels. 

The droids. Of course they will be there. SW wouldn't be the same without them! 

Other characters: 

Chewie: I really don't know about him. He's too important to be erased in between the two trilogies. But what will be his place? I don't have a single clue. Your ideas are welcome. 
  
Boba Fett: I know how popular Boba Fett is among us. But let's face it: Boba Fett is dead. I'm pretty sure of that. Now, before you begin to send me hate messages over the net, listen to me first. In a fantasy world, a character is not dead until you don't see him die right in  front of your eyes. That's a rule. I was one of those who believed that Boba Fett could have escape the Sarlacc. It was fun to believe that. It made Boba Fett a kinda invincible man. But I was influenced by the  unbelievable popularity Fett was getting at this time. Before that, I knew Fett was dead. 

My doubts about Fett's death faded away the day I saw ROTJ Special Edition. When I saw the beek catch the bounty hunter, I knew in my guts that he was finished. I think that Lucas wanted to set this straight and that's why he added the beek. No die-hard Fett fan would never admit it, but I'm pretty sure everyone who saw it felt the same way I did. Lucas is aware of Boba Fett's popularity. That's why he added him in ANH and also some new shots in ESB and ROTJ. But, he was aware also of the "resurrection" of Fett. So he added the beek shot. Now, remember the rule I mentionned above? Boba Fett's death doesn't satisfy entirely this rule. It's delibarate. It gives a small hope to BF fans who couldn't take his death. To quote Darth Vader, after seeing the Sarlacc sequence of the Special Edition, "search your feelings, you know it to be true". 

So, forget about Boba Fett in the sequels. He won't be there. 

You have ideas on who else might be in the sequels? What they will do there? I want to hear that! 

Wow, I just wrote a bigger text than I expected at first. And I have the feeling I didn't say everything I had in mind then! I'll surely be back for more!"

James wrote: "First off, I am almost entirely positive that there will be no third trilogy, and I hope they never make it. Why? you may ask. I believe this because by the end of ROTJ the entire story has come full circle. Anakin has redeamed himself and passed on, Luke has come to grips with his father and his family line, Han has become a good person, and Leia doesn't act high and mighty anymore. Where can the story go on from there? The Solo kids? I don't think so, thats a lame plot device used to sell books. The way I see it, as soon as Anakin is out of the picture the entire 6 movie series is over. Some people say that Luke is really the main character, and to that I have to just ask, have you ever paid attention to what purpose Luke really serves in the current trilogy? The only purpose that Luke has in the saga of Anakin Skywalker is to show Anakin the error of his ways and bring him from darkness, besides that Luke really didn't do anything, and is thus not much of a major character in the overall saga. You probably question me on that, but I say to you, what did he do besides that, that affects the rest of the story? nothing, he blew up the death star, and what was the overall purpose did that serve, I don't think the death star served any purpose besides to show how crazed with power Anakin had become. That is why I believe the overall story is the story of Anakin Skywalker, not Luke, or Obi-wan, or Han, or Leia, or Qui-Gon, or Yoda, or Han and Leia's made up kids."

1:To Joe 

When i said the "Thrawn Trilogy" i used a bad choice of words.  what i ment by it was Specter of the past, Specter or Thrawn, and Vision of the Future, the 2 books by Zahn and the Dark Horse series.  I should have more correctly said the Hand of Thrawn Trilogy. 

2: To Valynis 

About Boba Fett surviving the Sarlacc pit.  One thing everyone seems to forget, when Jabba "sentances Luke, Han, and Chewie to the Pit of Carkoon, Threepio says something on the lines of "where you'll be digested over a thousand years".  With all the weapons he has why couldn't he manage to get out beek or not.   I'm not that big of a Fett fan but that is a reasonable excuse why he shows up later on.  

and 3: To Anthony Renaud 

To say there can't be an other Trilogy because it would mean that there is a bigger story then just episodes 1-6, (I remember reading this somewhere) then how do u explain GL  wanting to publish The Journal of the Whrils (the spelling is most likely wrong).  Thats suposed to be the "big picture" that Lucas had in mind about StarWars."

Valynis wrote: "Luke does it all in the current trilogy! All three movies are on his shoulders! If you compare the importance of Luke vs Vader in the story, you realize quickly that it's Luke we're talking about. Compare the screen time. When we see Vader, it's only for a minute or two (at best), in a transitionnal scene, to explain what's going on on the evil side. When we see Luke, one or two minutes is the minimum. And we go deeper in his soul. What happens to Luke is at the heart of the story. We see the movies by Luke's eyes. That's a big indication that Luke is the main character of the saga. 

Lucas himself said that he wrote SW 4 - 6 first. Then he wrote the backstory. The upcoming prequels are just filler to the current films. Now, I'm sure the prequels will be done nicely to look more than just filler. But their reason to exist is to complete, to precise, to explain the current movies. 

After we see Episode 4-6, we don't really know who is Anakin/Vader. We don't really understand his motives. We virtually know nothing on him. That's the point of Vader. He's mysterious. That's why he can't be considered as the protagonist. 

And you say that Luke do nothing in SW - ESB - ROTJ? Your argument on his destruction of the Death Star seems weak. Or maybe I didn't understand completely what you wanted to say. The Death Star was the symbol of the evil in the empire. Two wings of starfighters tried to reach the exaust port and they failed. Luke succeeded. That's an accomplishment. Without Luke, the rebels were dead. He was the last chance. But his better accomplishment, he did in the second Death Star. He succeeded in turning his father back from the dark side! He did what Ben and Yoda kept saying as something impossible. 

Now Luke is no Rambo or Schartzenegger (not until the sail barge scene that is!). He try to do his best and sometimes he fails. But we witness it in first hand. We are shown all that happens to him. We see the story according to his point of view. That's why he's the main character. And the end of his story is not told yet. That's why there is another trilogy ahead. Now, will it be told? I sure hope so! 

To EZ9D9: 
 I confess that what you think is as good as what I think. What actually is going on IN the Sarlacc, we don't know. All we have is the Threepio's line that you quote. All I said is that, because of the ADDED beek, I had the impression that Lucas wanted to give us a message. Ok, it's a cool effect, but I think it's more than that. But, hey!, that's what I'M thinking. The lack of information on what happens after is there to give hope to all Boba Fett fans. And maybe they're right."

EZ9D9 wrote: "to James: 

The Death Star was not for Vader, it was Tarkin's brainchild.  Vader didn't have much faith in "the technological terror" that was the first Death Star. It was also a product of how vast the Empire's resorces had become.  When you say Luke didn't play that big of a roll in the first trilogy I have to say your wrong there.  Besides the fact that the movies are about Anakin, his fall to the dark side/redemption, there is also the subplot, the rise/ fall of the Old Republic/Empire/Rebellion.  In episodes 1,2,3 Anakin plays a part in the fall of the Old Republic which in turn brings the rise to power of the Empire. In episodes 4-6 Luke is the one that has a big part in the rise of the Rebellion, he is the one that "starts the ball rolling" so to speek (w/ a little help from Han) when he destroys the DS1 in ANH.  Then the final blow comes when he confronts Vader  in Palpatine's chamber/throne room on DS2, and it is at the moment of seeing his son being "killed" that the redemption takes place and Anakin hurls the Emperor down the shaft, punctuating the fall of the Empire.  To say that there can't and won't be a third trilogy is not impossible because there already is a good plot line to fallow, the rise and fall senerio.  Who or what it will be about (either Luke or the Solo kids, moreso Anakin)  is up in the air.  Yes the story of Anakin Skywalker is over but his legacy or the story of Luke Skywalker isn't, and the Story of Anakin Solo hasn't even started yet, and i must mention the Journals again because that is supposed to be the whole story."

Anthony Renaud wrote: "Just a quick question about Jesse Alora's comments. 

Where did you hear that George said that that the story is not about Anakin Skywalker but about a Family?  That actually raises a good point.  People throw around quotes by George or Rick McCallum left and right, with no reference to the interview or source material.  This means that such quote are no better than heresay.  Now guilty of this myself, so I'm not pointing fingers or anything.  I'm just suggesting that maybe we should keep the supposed quotes to minimum UNLESS we can come up with a direct reference to the interview or occurence where this quote took place so that anyone can look it up if he or she chooses to question the validity of the quote."

SNS22 wrote: "Okay, let's clear some things up...there's a big debate on what of The Post-Jedi novels is cannon and what is not...everything has to be approved by Lucasflm and isn't supposed to contradict anything else. New Characters are created and minor ones expanded on (The Wedge Antillies saga)....All of this is just making The Star Wars Universe a lot bigger. We're getting to know more than just the Skywalker's family and friends. But Lucas has said that if anything is done after ROTJ it will be of his creation. The Journal of The Whills indicated that Saga would last 55 years. If Episode IV is about 20 years after Episode 3, and Episode Three about 10 years after Episode One...that would make Episode Nine about 25 years after Episode Four...We don't know what the spand for Seven-Nine would be...could be the same as IV- VI, could be the same as I-III, or a completly different span. Point is...Luke would most likely not be the same age as Ben in ANH. Might be near the age of Quinn-Jinn is Episode One, though. 

My ideas are that if Lucas chooses to do something completly of his own creation, it will not envolve the Solo children which were the creation of the post-cannon authors. Lucas has forbidden them to write about Luke's relationships. This tells me something. Lucas has something in mind for Luke. And he did talk about it as the saga as "The Sons Of Skywalker"....If it involves any one's children, it would probably be Luke's. And I don't see the pattern repeating itself. Luke having to be saved by his son, would be a boring repetion. The whole idea of a "Cloned" Emperor was a fabrication by a Post-Cannon author. (And a pretty lame one, I must add)...Reminds me of Nightmare on Elm Street..Oh, you can keep chopping the Emperor down, but he'll keep coming back.  

The Emperor's death was final and powerful..With him died Darth Vader. Anakin Skywalker lived his final moments as himself again. The Darkness was gone, and his son had helped bring him back into the light. To repeat this process with Luke would be pointless. Same if Luke had to bring his son back from The Dark Side. The Idea of an All out Sith v. Jedi war in Episode Nine, seems realistic...Even though Yoda said "The Last Of The Jedi, are you"...it wasn't completly true...Leia was a Jedi....And if Luke had any children they certainly would be Jedi as well...So there must have been more Jedi scattered throughout the galaxy. Just none with the power or the BLOOD, to bring down The Emperor. Because of The Prophecies..Now whether Lucas keeps The Prophecy part in The Prequels remains to be seen. 

The Last part of the Saga will still be family oriented, but may have a much broader scale...The Empire Arose, The Empire Fell....What's next? The END of The Force? Must all things come to an end? Perhaps only The Dark Side will be destroyed...Perhaps the Force is more than The overall them here..maybe IT plays a role as well. In The First Trilogy we see The Dark Side used to take over the Galaxy In The Middle Trilogy, we see The Light bring down The Empire. Perhaps in the last triology we'll see a final Light V. Dark Side Conflict, WITHOUT Political involvement. The Skywalkers will somehow destroy the Dark Side For Good, and that would be something worth watching.....not a repetition of what happened in the middle Trilogy"

Now, As for Leia (If she would be involved in this at all...The Third Trilogy could be without Luke and Leia..As the first one was except for their birth), If she is Leader Of The Republic, perhaps her role would be in trying to keep the Republic from once again falling into the clutches of Evil.  

Han, would definitely be out. He was NEVER the main character in the trilogy, as it was about The Skywalkers. Harrison Ford, did an EXCELLENT job of Bringing Solo to life. Obviously much more than Lucas ever intended him to be. It's quite possible that Lucas back in 1975, prior to Filming A New Hope, only intended for him to play the "minor" role that he did in that film, and not appear again. That is witnessed by his arrival over an hour into the film. Luke came to him, that's how we were introduced to him. There wasn't anything earlier in the film that even mentioned him. IF he were intended to be a main character, their definitely would have been earlir scenes with him. As there were with Vader. The Same with Tarkin...we are introduced to Tarkin when Vader meets up with him on The Death Star.  

But due to Ford's fantastic portrayal, Lucas suddenly found new found possibilities for the Character and expanding the role to eventually become the love of Leia's life. We probably will never know. But The fact remains, The Star Wars Saga is no more about Han Solo than it is about Boba Fett. Han Solo was definitely a bigger and brighter  haracter  n the triology, but he was only there as a supporting character. This Whole Epic is about The Skywalkers and Their Family and Friends (Which Solo became a part of). And I for one would NOT WASTE my Money on seeing someone else play Han Solo. Cause Nobody Could Do it Like Harrison Ford. NO ONE."

My friend also told me he had heard that the two droids would be the only characters in all three trilogies.  If this is to be believed, that kills all the speculation on Vader in a supporting role.  It could also be feasibly believed (if the above is believed) that Luke and Leia won't be in the third trilogy, that is if their are born at the end of episode 3.  Personally, I have always believed that most of the books weren't really that consequential to the main SW storyline (Thank heavans). 

This theory makes sense to me because it is told from the droids point of view, but I dunno, what do the rest of you think?"

• FEB 19

• FEB 23

• FEB 25

• FEB 27

• FEB 28

"It wasn't long after I began writing Star Wars that I realized the story was more than a single film could hold.  As the saga of the Skywalkers and Jedi Knights unfolded, I began to see it as a tale that could take at least nine films to tell-three trilogies-and I realized, in making my way through the back story and after story, that I was really setting out to make the middle story."  

After I read this I always assumed that there was going to be a third trilogy, however many years down the line.  But the more I think about it, the more I believe this saga is about Anakin Skywalker. To have another trilogy will definitely seemed tacked on. 
  
Okay everybody, take out your Special Edition videos and lay them face up, side by side, in order ANH-ESB-ROTJ. You might notice that the covers make a larger picture with all of the characters in a circular shape.  Is it a coincidence that Vader is smack-dab in the middle?  I think not.  I believe this is alluding to the idea that Vader/Anakin is the central character of the Star Wars saga.  I believe that "Return of the Jedi" is the return of Anakin, not Luke. 

I don't know when GL wrote the above quote, before he completed the trilogy, or after, but if we were to assume that if there are three trilogies, each would represent the three acts that make up a dramatic story, as quoted from GL in the original SW vids. 

Act 01/Trilogy 01- Introduce the characters. (Obi-Wan, Anakin Skywalker) 
Act 02/Trilogy 02- Put the characters in a position so bad, it looks like they will never get out. (Anakin becomes Vader, Empire rules the galaxy) 
Act 03/Trilogy 03- Characters get out. (Vader turns back, Empire is overthrown). 
 
  

So it seemed GL always planned a third trilogy, but after the prequel trilogy is completed, all of these elements will have been resolved. There will be no reason to have a third trilogy since Vader already turns back, and the Empire is overthrown. Anakin dies.  The Emperor dies.  What is left? 

If there is any loose threads to the story, what it would be?   What happens to the Jedi?  Does Luke listen to Yoda and "pass on what he learns?"  The only thing I see for a third trilogy would be a 900 year old Luke ressurrecting the Jedi. If he's a Yoda like character, rather than a Ben like char. you don't have to bother with HF and CF returning to play Leia and Solo. (this is assuming that all Jedi can live as long as Yoda) Other than this remote possibilty for trilogy 3, I don't expect to see a third trilogy at all."